[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1304-1305]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      WTO DECISION ON THE CDO ACT

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, earlier today, a WTO appeals panel 
``ruled'' that the United States violated our WTO obligations with the 
enactment of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset, CDO, Act, 
commonly known as the Byrd amendment. This continues a longstanding 
effort by the WTO to systematically undermine U.S. laws that assist our 
besieged manufacturing sector. The CDO ensures that the U.S. companies 
and their workers can compete against unfair imports from foreign 
companies who dump their products in the U.S. If a foreign company 
continues to dump its products in the U.S. after having been found 
guilty of that practice, the CDO allows that future penalty tariffs 
payments be made to the companies who are being injured. We would all 
prefer that companies halt their illegal dumping, but if a foreign 
competitor chooses to continue the predatory practices, then the 
tariffs assist the U.S. workers and industry to remain competitive.
  The CDO provides that antidumping tariffs benefit the companies 
injured from foreign dumping. Previously, this money went to the U.S. 
Treasury. Now the money assists the impacted companies to help them 
remain competitive.

[[Page 1305]]

invest in new technologies and keep jobs in the U.S. In 2001, less than 
$230 million was paid out to 900 companies. In September 2002, a WTO 
panel ruled that CDO placed the U.S. in violation of its obligations. 
Today, a WTO appellate upheld that decision. It is becoming obvious 
that the WTO is intruding on U.S. sovereignty and has acted beyond the 
scope of its mandate in this case. Even the Bush administration has 
recognized this trend nothing that the WTO ``. . . has created 
obligations that do not exist.''
  The WTO dispute resolution system is in need of serious overhaul. The 
WTO and its appellate body are creating new rights and obligations 
where none exist in the actual WTO agreement. U.S. trade laws designed 
to insure a level playing field for U.S. industries and their workers 
are being seriously eroded by the WTO. This must end.
  The CDO is good public policy. In a time of uncertainty, it benefits 
U.S. manufacturers and workers. It must be retained.

                          ____________________