quorum call:

is s

mr. specter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. specter: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: i have sought recognition today to introduce the unfair foreign competition act of 2010. this legislation provides a private right of action for domestic manufacturers injured by illegal subsidization and dumping of foreign products into u.s. markets. these anticompetitive predatory trade practices steal jobs from our workers, profits from our companies and growth from our economy. job creation and job retention in this country depend in large part on our ability to enforce existing trade laws. at a time when unemployment

remains at nearly 10% and our economic future is at stake, it becomes even more important that we focus on trade priorities which too long have been sacrificed for foreign policy and defense interests. the latest trade numbers demonstrate that the united states trade deficit with china in november 2009 was $20.2 billion, and over the year imports from china have exceeded our imports by a staggering $208.6 million. this is not evidence that american manufacturers cannot produce goods efficiently or compete with foreign markets. rather, it is evidence of unlawful behavior on the part of china. such behavior is tantamount to

international banditry, and it must not be tolerated. in the current environment, i believe it is necessary for an injured industry to have the opportunity to go into federal court and seek enforcement of our country's trade laws. my legislation addresses two specific types of illegal trade practices. dumping, which occurs when a foreign producer sells a product in the united states at a price that is below the sales price in its own market or at a price which is lower than its cost of production. and subsidizing, which occurs when a foreign government provides financial assistance to benefit the production, manufacture or exportation of a good. under current law, the international trade commission and the department of commerce conduct anti-dumping and contra veiling duty investigations and

five-year reviews under title 7 of the tariff act of 1930. u.s. industries may petition the i.t.c. and commerce for relief in dumped and subsidized imports. if commerce finds an imported product is dumped or subsidized and the i.t.c. finds the industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury, an anti-dumping duty order or countervailing duty order will be imposed to offset. because current administrative remedies have not been consistently and effectively enforced, i'm introducing a private right of action legislation to enforce the law. my legislation would allow petitioners to choose between the i.t.c. and their local u.s. district court for the industry

determination phase of their investigation. doing so gives injured domestic producers the opportunity as private plaintiffs to control the litigation and seeking enforcement of our trade laws. if injury is found, u.s. customs and border protection would then assist duties on future importation of the article in question. the legal standard for determining dumping margins established by the commerce department would remain unchanged. this legislation is similar to legislation which i have introduced as far back as 1982, when i originally sought injunctive relief, but this bill has been modified to comply with world trade organization rulings. in december of 2004, the united states took action to comply with w.t.o. rulings on the anti-dumping act of 1916 which

provided the private cause of action and criminal penalties for dumping by prospectively appealing the act. the united states also took action in february of 2006 to comply with w.t.o. rulings on the continued dumping and subsidy offset act, which requires the distribution of collected anti-dumping and countervailing duties to petitioners and interested parties in the underlying proceedings. in both cases, the w.t.o. panel found that u.s. law allowed an impermissible specific action against dumping and subsidization. the legislation i introduced today has been adapted to these changes in law and allows for a determination of injury in accordance with our international obligations. aggressive policy measures such as this legislation are

necessary to prevent foreign producers -- china, in particular -- from causing a major crisis for our domestic producers. in testimony before the i.t.c. earlier this year, i noted that we have a complicated relationship with china. i was one of 15 united states senators who opposed china's entrance into the w.t.o. in 2000. with china characterized by dubious trade practices, i believe chinese membership in the w.t.o. would present a likelihood of trade distortion and market disruption. that's why i voted against it in the year 2000. congress heeded some of the concerns which i and others expressed and inserted a china-specific safeguard provision under section 421 of

the trade act, but such a safeguard is only as effective as the president is willing to enforce it. seven petitions have been filed under section 421 since its inception. the i.t.c. has made affirmative determination of injury in five cases. yet, only one determination handed down in the most recent chinese tires case has been upheld by the president. despite overwhelming evidence to support the i.t.c. findings of injury, president bush rejected all four previous petitions for relief on the ground that providing import relief was not in the economic interest of the united states. since president bush's decision, countless jobs in my state and across the country have been lost and the trade deficit has widened. it is difficult to understand

how providing import relief was not in our economic interest. president obama's decision to uphold the i.t.c. rulings in the chinese tires case last year is a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done to ensure that domestic laws enjoy the protection afforded to them -- that domestic industries enjoy the protection afforded to them by existing trade laws. while it is my hope that this administration and future administrations will evaluate trade remedies objectively in terms of economic consequences, this act will provide a valuable tool for domestic industry. and i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this legislation. the enforcement of trade laws should not be a partisan issue. to those who decry our enforcement mechanisms as

unabashedly protectionist, let me be clear. i believe in free trade. international trade and open markets are closer to the economic prosperity of this country. but the essence of free trade is selling goods at a price equal to the cost production at a reasonable profit. when one country engages in dumping or subsidization at the expense of other countries, it is the antithesis of free trade. let me remind those who criticize our domestic safeguards that president ronald reagan, a staunch advocate of open markets, signed into law agreements limiting the imports of autos and steel in 1985, which raised the value of the yen and made japanese imports more expensive. president reagan understood that free trade did not mean wholly unfettered, unregulated trade. free trade does not mean turning a blind eye to illegal and

unsavory practices committed by our trading partners. i have continued that enforcement of our trade laws is critical to ensuring that our domestic manufacturers have a fair opportunity at competing with foreign producers. but even the most stringent enforcement will be insufficient to fully counter the effects of substandard labor, trade, and environmental practices, particularly those practiced by china. the safeguards measures that the united states negotiated in advance of china's entry into the w.t.o. were designed to limit the destructive effects of surging chinese imports on domestic producers. as a result, china's succession to the w.t.o. accelerated the race to the bottom in wages and environmental quality. given these factors tphoeugs china's mixed record on

providing market access to the united states, its failure to provide protection of the u.s. intellectual property rights, i urge that the congress reexamine our trade agreements, and if necessary seek to withdraw permanent normal trade relations status from china. such a withdrawal would be a serious measure, but we must be willing to demonstrate that we are serious about holding china to its international commitments. when the united states granted most favored nation status to china in 2000, we lost our ability to demand that china play by the rules. we may have to regain this leverage if we are to maintain an equitable trading relationship with china and keep our domestic industry strong. as president obama noted in his remarks at the senate democratic

conference, the united states is home to some of the most innovative and skilled workers in the world. our producers cannot make up for the unfair advantage held by a country which engages in illegal practices. our industries can compete if the playing field is level, but if they are not held accountable and can freely dumping, this kph*eubg country's economic -- this country's economic future will be at risk. we must take a stand and we must do it now. with the absence of any other senator seeking recognition, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent that the order -- mr. burris: i ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be reunderstand is. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burris: i ask to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burris: thank you, madam president. my colleagues and i have spent much of last year debating the issue of health care reform. after nearly a century of false starts and broken promises, democrats came to congress determined to enact comprehensive reform. we felt confident that this time we would not fall short, as our predecessors have done. this time we would deliver the changes that the american people have been demanding for so many years, but over the course of the debate an unfortunate pattern emerged. a pattern of obstructionism and delay and scare tactics designed to derail our efforts to make a

difference. my democrat colleagues and i worked hard under president obama's leadership to craft sweeping legislation, but our republican friends were not interested in passing health care reform. they have no desire to take action and no plan of their own. instead, they found every opportunity to stall, to clog up the senate, and score political points by attacking those who supported our efforts. they spread misinformation about death panels and higher costs and rationing coverage. even though they knew that these things were not in our bill. but they kept repeating this bad information and repeating it and repeating it and repeating it until it finally started to take hold. the ordinary folk who heard

these distortions had no reason to believe their elected officials would try to misinform them, and so they have retained this bad information. and they did exactly what our republican friends wanted them to do: they got angry. they held rallies. they called their senators and representatives. they regurgitated the talking points written for them by obstructionists and the insurance lobby. as a result, our republican friends succeed in holding up our health reform bill. by misinforming the american people they stirred up opposition tailor made to create confusion and gridlock. no matter how hard some people tried to explain the truth because, madam president, the facts are these: no democratic health plan proposal has ever

included a so-called death panel. none of our legislation will result in rationing of any kind. and rather than driving costs up, as my republican friends have argued, nominate analysis consistently -- nonpartisan analysis consistently showed the senate bill would lower costs significantly. it would reduce the deficit by more than $130 billion in the first ten years and almost $1 interest in the decade after that. in addition, our bill would extend health care coverage to 31 million americans. it would prevent corporations from discriminating against their customers because of preexisting conditions. and it would reduce health premiums for individuals and families to the tune of $100 or even thousands of dollars per year, depending on income level. madam president, from the very beginning of this debate, i have called for a bill that fulfilled

the three goals of a public option: a bill that creates competition in the insurance market, a bill that gives us the tkaols to hold -- the tools to hold insurance companies accountable, and a bill that would provide cost savings to millions of americans. i believe our current proposal can establish all of these things. this legislation is not perfect, but it represents a major step in the right direction. so i would urge my republican friends to thoroughly examine legislation we have introduced, and i would ask that they fulfill the public trust that has been placed in them by being honest with the american people, by building the argument on facts and not misrepresentations, and offering constructive suggestions rather than partisan talking points. we all agree that our health care system is badly broken, and we owe it to everyone in this country to have a vigorous national debate about how to fix

it. madam president, in spite of the obstructionism and the delays that we have seen from the other side of the aisle over the last year, i remain confident that my colleagues and i can pass a comprehensive health reform bill in the coming weeks. and we have come further than any congress in history, so it's time to finish the job. and in light of the recent developments, i think it's more likely than ever that our efforts will be successful. just last week, as you know, president obama visited a group of republicans and democrats to join with him for an open conversation about health care reform. millions of americans watched on tv as leaders from the house and the senate and the executive branch laid out their respective ideas for reform. yes, we heard some partisan talking points from a few on the other side, but for the most

part both republicans and democrats seemed eager to engage in a real conversation. they challenged each other's ideas. they debunked some of the myths that have been taken over the past year. and in the end, i think we discovered that we have shared some common ground than many people ever thought. so, it's time to move forward, madam president. president obama has announced that he is open to four specific republican ideas that emerged from last week's health care summit. i share the president's support for these proposals, which include eliminating waste and fraud, funding demonstration grants, increasing medicaid doctor reimbursements and health savings accounts. i hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will give these ideas a hard look so that we can incorporate them into our existing legislation. and i hope that my republican friends will recognize that

while our current bill isn't perfect, it contains a number of things that they can strongly support, madam president. so let's end the obstructionism. let's end the delays. let's stop spreading misinformation and continue the conversation that emerged in the president's health care summit. and once again, we have a final bill that incorporates some of these suggestions. let us have an up-or-down vote on these suggestions. the american people are tired of hearing excuses. they're tired of watching some members in this chamber manipulate the rules and prevent us from taking action. that is not how the senate is supposed to work. whether our colleagues support the polls in final legislation, i hope they will let it come to vote rather than hiding behind the threat of a filibuster. this debate ha*g has been going on for a year. the american people have been calling for comprehensive reform for almost a century.

i think it's high time to move forward together. let's get this done. let's do it right. let's do it now. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding ofce the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask that the murray amendment that i offer on her behalf be the pending amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. the amendment is pending. mr. reid: i ask it be modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. it is so modified. mr. reid: mr. president, i'm

now going to call up amendment number 3417, with the understanding that senator isakson will be allowed to call up his amendment. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, for himself and others, proposes amendment number 3417 to amendment number 3336. at the end of title 6 -- mr. reid: i ask further reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. president? the presiding officer: you still have the floor. mr. reid: there will be no more votes today or tomorrow. we're in the process of working on this bill. we don't have it all worked out, but we think we can work it out so we will finish it with a couple of votes tuesday morning.

we may have to invoke cloture, but we'll make that determination. i think we'll probably file cloture on it today or tomorrow. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana is recognized. mr. baucus: i rise to talk about one of the most magnificent, the most inspiring places on earth: the flat head region of montana. the landscape in this area is so vast, so unique, it is hard to put into words. but let me feebley attempt to describe the aura of colors you see as the sun rises over the deep blue of lake mcdonald. words cannot capture the joyful screams of families shooting down the middle fork of the flathead through rapids with names like bone crusher and "could be trouble." words cannot do justice to the

awe that comes from almost touching montana's legendary big sky at the top of evan's peak. the flathead region, there's nothing like it. it is the crown of the continent. it's god's country. it's montana. and there is one particular area of this region that holds a special place in my heart. that's the the north fork of the flathead river. when i was a freshman member of the house of representatives, i took a hike with my friends jack stanford and rick howard to the top of mount harding. that is a little ways from the flathead river, but this hike captures the feelings that i have for the area. 35 years ago, i still remember that hike, and i'm not alone. like everyone who ventures into the flathead, every montanan, every american, every canadian, everyone who happens to be touched by the beauty of this

place could not help but leave stunned by the beauty of a place carved by glaciers a millennia ago and still untouched by modern development. that day the flathead, each of us knew we must do everything we could to protect this one of a kind landscape for our children and our children's children. and i must say, mr. president, at that time, 35 years arcs as a member of the house -- 35 years ago, as a member of the house, i proudly enacted the first multiyear environmental impact statement baseline study so that we could assess what future impacts might be in the area, whether it's federal, state, private or from the british columbia, whatever it might be. we knew what we had to do to protect the area. that promise has not always been easy to keep. back then, i was so, so determined to protect this area, i flew up to toronto, met with

roy sadler. he was president of sage creek. like a young lawyer armed with tons of questions, deposition. i kept asking him all these questions. what's your intention here? what's your intention there? this is such a special place. he looked at me and said why are you asking all these questions? i explained because this place is so special, i'm going to do everything within my power to protect it. the reason is because potential mining across the border was placed where all the water and pollution would flow south into the north fork of the flathead, and all the environmental -- all the environmental degradation would flow south but all the economic benefit would flow north. so for me i decided for myself i'm not going to let this happen. i'm going to protect this as much as i possibly can. for decades, the flathead, as i said, has been threatened by mining proposals in british

columbia. not so much in montana but in british columbia. over the years, coal mining, coal bed methane extraction, gold mining have all been successfully beaten back. it's a coordinated effort and i'm very proud to have been a part of it. in fact, to help protect the area, i have been working so hard, finally the premier british columbia -- premiere of british columbia made a historic decision. he persuaded the british columbia parliament on the eve of the olympics. mount whistler and that southern part of british colombia. he made that decision just before the olympics and i was just overjoyed. so i called him up. i said mr. premiere, i can't tell you how happy i am that you have done this.

it means so much to montanans. i tell you what, we're going to do our part, too. i told him my plans. my plans is this. the legislation that senator tester and i are introducing today that will ban future mining, oil and gas and methane coal development on the american side of the border. the national forest at the portion of the new york fork watershed which is over 90% federally owned. senator tester and i have also pledged to work to retire the existing leases in the u.s. portion of the flathead valley to protect this area once and for all. many folks know about a book written by norman mclean. norman mclean wrote that famous story about montana entitled "a river runs through it." although mclean's story focuses on another montana river, the black foot. the final line of his book

resonates here as well. this is what mclean wrote. "eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. the river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks for the basement of time. i am haunted by its waters." mr. president, i am very proud to be here today to introduce the north folk watershed protection act. i ask my colleagues to join me in preserving these waters and the land that surrounds them so that every generation across the country, across the world has the privilege of being so haunted by montana's waters. thank you, mr. president. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: