October 12, 1978
Page 35975
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. HEINZ. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, as I stated a moment ago, I am deeply concerned about the part of this bill which would grant to the President an authority he does not now have. That is the section of the bill that would extend the President's authority to waive a countervailing duty after January 1, 1979.
Mr. President, I do not believe, since there are many Senators here who want to talk about the Sugar Act, that it should be a part of this bill. I think the issue of whether or not the President should have any extension of his authority to waive countervailing duties should be decided at some other time, in some other way. I hope that the chairman of the Finance Committee would accept an amendment simply to strike that title from the bill, because otherwise I, for one, would be very reluctant to let this bill pass. I would do everything, I think, I possibly could and know how to do, to prevent its passage if the provision in the bill extending the President's countervailing duty waiver authority is included in it.
I do not wish to hold up the debate on the Sugar Act. There are many, many Senators who have amendments, who have ideas about the Sugar Act, and I think those ideas should be debated on their merits. I know how important it is to the Senators from Louisiana and how important it is to many Senators from agricultural States that this legislation involving the Sugar Act be taken up.
But it is equally important to my State and to a number of other States that the laws of this country against unfair trading practices be enforced. We have had a situation in industry after industry where the President of the United States has said, "I am going to enforce the Antidumping Act of 1921," or "I am going to enforce the countervailing duties section of the Tariff Act of 1930," but in fact, in all the cases that have come before the President — and there have been many — the President has in almost every instance waived the imposition of countervailing duties.
What are countervailing duties? Countervailing duties are those duties imposed when it has been determined that a foreign government is subsidizing a product exported from the foreign country and imported into the United States. It is one of the most fundamental laws against unfair trade. It has been on the books for quite some time.
It was the intent of Congress when we adopted the Trade Act of 1974 that the President's waiver authority not be extended past January 3 of next year. There is no justification for further extension of that authority, and I would hope, in order that we might proceed with discussion on the Sugar Act, that the chairman of the Finance Committee could agree simply to drop that provision.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HEINZ. I yield without losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HUDDLESTON). Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I share the Senator's concern over the provisions that have been added to this bill. They have been added to the bill as a sweetener, I take it, to avoid a possible Presidential veto of the sugar bill. It is strange that a sugar bill should need additional sweeteners, but that, as I understand, is the purpose.
The President would like an extension of his waiver authority over countervailing duties, but it seems to me that is an issue that ought to be handled separately from the sugar bill. And there is legislation that has been introduced. The administration has asked that it be added to this bill, and we ought to have an opportunity to fully understand the implications of an extension of the waiver of the President's authority over countervailing duties.
For example, I understand there are eight countervailing duty cases pending with respect to the textile industry which are being considered on their merits. They are expected to be decided in November.
If this waiver provision were not in the law, and if these cases are decided favorably to the complainants in November, the waivers would terminate in January 1979, under the present law. But if the extension sought by this bill were written into law, the relief could not be granted until September 1, 1979.
With implications of that kind, it seems to me that this proposed waiver extension ought to be given considerable hearings and we ought to understand the implications for American industry.
Countervailing duties are applied when an American industry, as I understand it, has been injured by government subsidized foreign imports. That is unfair competition by any standard in my judgment. Subsidies are applied by foreign governments in the interest of stimulating trade in their products. It seems to me that the countervailing duty is a protection which was written into law to protect American industry against that kind of unfair competition. We ought not to extend authority to waive that kind of protection casually and as a rider to a bill of this kind simply as a sweetener to make it more difficult for the President to veto the bill.
I share the Senator's concern about that provision and I wanted to state it at this point in the Senator's discussion of the issue. I ask the Senator whether or not his understanding of the issue is the same as mine.
Mr. HEINZ. I thank the Senator for his statement.
Yes, my understanding and what the Senator says are exactly the same. The Senator is entirely correct. The Senator correctly identifies the purpose of countervailing duties as being Government subsidies of exports into this country as imports. The fact is they injure American workers and industries. They make it impossible for our industries to modernize. It puts workers on unemployment because they lose their jobs. I know that in virtually every State we have had injury upon injury because of subsidized foreign imports into this country. I commend the Senator from Maine on his statement. I could not agree with him more.
This is not the time to bring up such a complex issue in the closing days of the Senate. This is why I insisted on making sure that Senators had the opportunity to see the report. I think if they even saw the report on this they would understand this is a complex issue, not one which can be dealt with at the same time as the Sugar Act, which in itself is very complex. It is not this Senator's desire to hold up discussion on the Sugar Act. I hope we will find a way to dispose of title IV of H.R. 7108, which is really the text we are dealing with.
Mr. DOLE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HEINZ. I yield without losing my right to the floor or a second speech rule being applied.
Mr. DOLE. I agree with the Senator from Maine. There is no doubt about it, that it was added to this bill as a sweetener or to give a little more leverage. There was a great deal of pressure from the administration for the extension of countervailing duty waiver authority, probably more interest in that than in the sugar bill itself.
It seemed to some of us from the sugar beet and cane producing areas a pretty good vehicle for the waiver authority if there was going to be one, that it would be in the sugar legislation.
I see my distinguished colleague, who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Trade, who probably can discuss it in greater length, standing up now.
But that was the purpose. I do not think there was any secret about it. It has clearly been identified by the Senator from Maine.
Some of us who supported that have the same reservations because we have the same problem in rural areas that we are having in industrial areas in Pittsburgh, in the steel industry. We have the same problems with reference to some agricultural commodities.
Finally, I would hope we would be able to resolve it because the legislation is important by itself. Both the sugar legislation and the waiver authority legislation are important. I would hope, as one who has great interest in both pieces of legislation, that we might be able to separate the two to deal with the sugar legislation and may be at some appropriate time deal with the waiver authority.