[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15449-15450]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           TEMPORARY TRADE RELIEF FOR THE U.S. LAMB INDUSTRY

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge, and I very much 
appreciate, the action taken last week by the President in response to 
the recommendations of the International Trade Commission--otherwise 
known as the ITC--on relief for the American lamb industry. As you 
know, the industry has gone through very difficult times these last few 
years. Imports have surged dramatically and lamb prices have dropped 
precipitously. The package of trade relief and adjustment assistance 
announced by the President will help the industry adjust. It will allow 
our producers and feeders to keep their businesses and prosper in the 
future.
  I am very grateful to the President and the staff of many agencies 
for their work on behalf of the American lamb industry and the American 
workers in that industry.
  This was an important decision. Why? For several reasons. First, of 
course, it provides significant relief to the lamb industry, which is 
very important in my home State, as well as elsewhere in the Nation. 
Second, however, it demonstrates that section 201 of U.S. trade law can 
work. This is the so-called ``safeguard provision.'' It is designed to 
prevent serious disruption to the domestic industry whenever there is 
an import surge.
  Third, the decision was important because I hope it shows a renewed 
commitment by the Clinton administration to assist American industries. 
This includes the agriculture sector that faces unprecedented 
challenges in the U.S. market for reasons not of their own making.
  Section 201 has been little used in recent years. Both Democratic and 
Republican administrations have been reluctant to agressively apply its 
provisions. For example, in the mid-1980s President Reagan would not 
follow an ITC recommendation for trade relief for the American footwear 
industry.
  That failure was a major contributor to the introduction of many 
legislative proposals that could have significantly closed the American 
market to foreign products. American industries and workers--whether in 
manufacturing, agriculture, or services--must think the Federal 
Government will use all available tools to help them when they are 
challenged suddenly by surges in imports. This is especially important 
today, when global financial disruption can change competitive 
positions of countries overnight.
  In the case of lamb, we see an industry that has been severely 
damaged by imports. Without relief, the injury to the industry would 
have continued to worsen. The number of sheep being raised is at an 
all-time low. Prices have dropped precipitously. Lending institutions 
are increasingly unwilling to extend credit.
  The industry did what it was supposed to do. It used the domestic 
legal process authorized by the WTO. That process is enforced through 
section 201 of the U.S. trade law. This is how the process should work 
and, in this case, is working.
  I believe the reluctance of the executive branch over the past 15 
years to take action under section 201 has been a serious mistake. The 
most recent example of this is the late action that was taken by the 
administration to deal with the surge of steel imports. The volume of 
steel imports now seems to be under control. But we are still faced 
with a dilemma. How can we ensure that the next time the steel sector, 
or any other sector, is threatened by a precipitous spike in imports, 
strong and rapid measures will be taken to provide relief to those 
industries?
  Earlier this session, I introduced the Import Surge Relief Act. It 
would improve and expedite the way our Government deals with import 
surges. It would ease the standard that must be met to demonstrate that 
there is a causal link between imports and injury to an American 
industry. It would speed up the process for addressing import surges. 
It would provide for an early warning about import surges so action can 
be taken before the American industry is irreversibly damaged. All this 
is perfectly legal under the WTO.
  Let me address a few remarks to the principal exporters of lamb to 
the United States--Australia and New Zealand. There has been a lot of 
misinformation coming from the industry and governments in those two 
countries.
  This is not an attack on the lamb industry in Australia or New 
Zealand. Rather, it is a measure taken under U.S. trade law to provide 
temporary--and I underline the word ``temporary''--relief to a 
devastated American industry. The actions announced

[[Page 15450]]

by the President are compatible with the WTO. Australia and New Zealand 
will continue to ship large quantities of lamb to the United States. 
Their exports would be able to grow each year.
  The only difference is that the American lamb industry will stay in 
business and American workers will keep their jobs. Australia and New 
Zealand have the right to appeal to WTO. I am sure they will do that, 
and I am confident that the appeal will not be successful. Everyone 
should understand that this action was necessary to provide temporary 
relief to an industry that was hurting.
  Let me conclude by again thanking the President and the 
administration officials who made possible this important action to 
provide remedies to the devastated lamb industry in the United States.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________