[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 64 (Friday, May 17, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4511-S4513]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            OUR STEELWORKERS

  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I stand in this Chamber as a strong 
supporter of the steel industry. In fact, I would match my record of 
support for the steel industry, for steelworkers,

[[Page S4512]]

and for steel retirees, with any person in this Chamber or in the other 
Chamber.
  We have had a long history in western Pennsylvania--from my days in 
the House and prior to that--in the steel industry. We have dealt with 
crises, one after another, in this industry. The most recent crisis has 
perhaps been the most crippling, costing lots of companies going into 
bankruptcies, costing lots of steel jobs, and, tragically, lots of 
steel retirees losing their health care benefits.
  In the last session of Congress, I worked with Senator Rockefeller to 
follow through with the U.S. steelworkers' No. 1 priority, which is to 
try to get a quota bill passed in the Senate. I worked very hard on my 
side of the aisle, and we got a majority of our Members to vote for a 
quota on steel imports.
  The other side of the aisle was not so generous. In fact, my 
recollection is, if we had gotten just half the Democrats, we would 
have been able to pass that, but we did not. So we failed in the No. 1 
request from the United Steelworkers Union.
  Last year, at the beginning of this session, management and labor got 
together, retirees got together, and they came up with their No. 1 
priority for this Congress. It was to file a section 201 action, to try 
to find comprehensive relief for the steel industry.
  So like I did the session before, I took on that challenge. I think I 
am very safe in saying I was the first Member of Congress--certainly 
the first Member of the Senate--to personally ask the President of the 
United States to file that action. I did so.
  I think in his first month in office he was in Beaver County, PA. I 
talked with him at length about the importance of this industry to 
Pennsylvania, to the country, the importance to our steelworkers' and 
to retirees.
  I continually worked with the President, the Secretary of Commerce, 
our Trade Representative, other Secretaries who were involved--
Secretary of Treasury--and pushed for the President to file the section 
201 case.
  After several months of exhorting them to do so, publicly and 
privately, the President followed through. He followed through and he 
filed the case. I testified, not once but twice, before the ITC in 
support of the section 201 case.
  When the decision came down, I again went back and worked with the 
administration on making sure there were adequate remedies. We met on a 
continual basis, daily basis toward the end, to make sure that there 
were adequate remedies. Why? Because the steelworkers, the retirees, 
and the companies understood the most important thing we could do is 
stop the hemorrhaging, stop the bankruptcies of steel companies, 
because these companies that were going into bankruptcy now, under the 
current climate of steel, were not going to go into bankruptcy to 
reorganize and come back out again. In most causes, they were going to 
liquidate. That means, when they liquidate, retirees lose their health 
care benefits, they lose their pension benefits. We lose jobs, too, 
because they liquidate. They sell off assets. Some are reused; some are 
not. The ones that are reused, they have new contracts.
  The jobs were not as ``lucrative'' as they are today. This is why it 
was the No. 1 priority, because it helped retirees; it helped workers, 
and it helped companies stay alive and pay benefits and have good-
paying jobs. I worked and worked and worked, and we got 201 relief that 
everyone in the steel industry feels very good about. It helped 
retirees. There are retirees receiving benefits today who would not be 
receiving them if the President had not enacted the remedies he did 
under section 201. That is a fact. There are companies in business 
today that would not be in business today if that had not happened. 
There are companies that did not file bankruptcy.
  Every steel company in America, maybe with the exception of a major 
steel company, maybe with the exception of Nucor, had said they were 
going to file bankruptcy if 201 remedies were not sufficient. To my 
knowledge, there have been no bankruptcies since 201. The fact is, we 
have done more for the steel industry, I have worked to do more for the 
steel industry, than anybody else.
  There was a second component about which the steelworkers and 
retirees and companies were concerned. That was legacy costs. What was 
the issue with legacy? Legacy was important because we wanted to help 
retirees have security. But the most important part of the legacy cost, 
picking up the cost, was to encourage the steel industry to 
consolidate, to become more efficient, to restructure. Why? So they 
would be stronger entities that would be able to carry those retiree 
costs in the future and carry those companies in the future.
  What we were going to do was to help the consolidation by picking up 
some retiree costs of some companies to encourage these companies to 
consolidate with stronger entities.
  A few months ago during the energy debate, I worked with Senator 
Stevens and others to try to craft a bill that would do just that. It 
would be a substantial benefit to enough retirees to encourage the 
steel industry to consolidate and become more efficient, become 
stronger in competition with foreign competitors.
  We had an amendment to the ANWR drilling bill. Why was it an 
amendment to the ANWR bill? Because ANWR produced billions upon 
billions of dollars in revenue to the Federal Government that we could 
use to help pay for retiree benefits. We could fully fund a program 
that would incentivize restructuring. The whole purpose of doing the 
retiree benefit was to incentivize restructuring so we could have a 
more stable industry to take care of retirees for the long term and 
provide better quality jobs for the long term.
  We offered a piece of legislation that did that. Let me be very 
clear. The steelworkers unions walked away. They walked away. Why? 
Because it was on a bill they were not in favor of. It was on a bill, 
ANWR, that they were not in favor of and that the majority leader was 
not in favor of, and many others from the other side. They walked away. 
Why? Politics. They walked away from a comprehensive restructuring of 
legacy costs. Why? Politics.
  Of the people who are offering this amendment on which cloture will 
be voted on Tuesday, of the seven sponsors of that amendment, six voted 
against a comprehensive legacy cost restructuring; six of the seven 
voted no on a much more comprehensive benefit that would have 
incentivized restructuring of the steel industry.
  What are we offering today? We are offering a very narrow 1-year 
benefit that will not only do nothing to encourage restructuring but, 
from the industry representatives I have talked to, will in fact do the 
opposite. It will discourage restructuring because of the way it is so 
limited in its application. It picks winners and losers.

  Yes, we will provide retirement benefits to retirees of companies 
that have gone bankrupt and stopped paying retiree benefits for health 
care. We will do that for 1 year. But the consequence of it is, we will 
not get the restructuring we need.
  I am opposed to this amendment, not because I am opposed to the 
Senate doing something to pick up restructuring costs for the industry, 
not because I am opposed to having something done in the Senate to help 
pick up retiree health care costs. This is the wrong step. It is 
politics. It is raw, blatant politics. What is this amendment attached 
to? It is attached to the bill to which virtually every one of the 
sponsors of the legislation is opposed. You have heard from many on my 
side of the aisle and a few on the other who have said if this 
amendment is included, they will vote against the trade bill. They will 
sink this bill.
  So what are we doing? We are playing a cruel hoax. It is a hoax. We 
are playing a hoax on retirees. We are playing a hoax on steelworkers. 
We are playing a hoax on the steel industry. The hoax is that this is 
somehow going to help retirees. In the long term it will not. It will 
not lead to the restructuring of the steel industry. What this will do 
is help sink the trade bill, which I know many who are supporting this 
amendment would love to see. But that is a hoax. To stand up and say 
you are for retirees when you are introducing a piece of legislation 
that is going to be counter to restructuring, which is the best thing 
we can do for retirees, is a hoax.

[[Page S4513]]

  Yes, I am opposed to this legislation. It doesn't solve the problem. 
It is politics in its rawest, in its most crass form. You are preying 
on retirees who desperately need health care. You are playing politics 
with their health. It is wrong. It is not the right course.
  We had a chance to do the right thing for the industry, for workers, 
and for retirees, and because of politics, under ANWR, the answer was 
no. Now we play politics again, and we play with people's lives. The 
answer should be no.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, as one of the Senators representing 
the steelworkers in the upper peninsula and throughout Michigan, I wish 
to indicate, contrary to my colleague who just spoke, that I can't 
think of a more appropriate place to talk about helping steel retirees 
who have lost their health insurance, those who have lost and will lose 
their jobs because of unfair competition, unfair steel dumping, unfair 
trade practices, than to debate it and attempt to fix it on a trade 
bill. I hope my colleagues will support standing up for our steel 
retirees on the trade bill.

                          ____________________