[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 18 (Tuesday, February 2, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H276-H277]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1245
                        THE STEEL IMPORT CRISIS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.

[[Page H277]]

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the continued threat 
that the surge of low priced steel imports is having on our domestic 
steel industry and on the jobs of steel workers, their families and the 
communities in which they live.
  According to the President's steel report released on January 7, we 
have already lost 10,000 steel worker jobs in the United States.
  This import crisis is having a dramatic effect on the families that 
are directly affected by these job losses, but the story does not end 
there. Many more jobs are being lost as suppliers cut back and 
businesses in the affected communities must cut back on employment 
because demand for their products and services is no longer there.
  We are told by the administration, and I quote from the January 7 
report: ``Free and fair rules-based trade is essential for both global 
economic recovery and for U.S. prosperity.'' I emphasize ``fair rule-
based trade.''
  But what have we seen since July 1997 when the Asian financial crisis 
began and the Russian economic crisis flared up has certainly not been 
``fair rules-based trade.'' At that time we already had worldwide over-
capacity in steel production because many nations had subsidized the 
building of new steel plants that had no economic basis. Then demand in 
these nations collapsed as their currencies and the economy collapsed.
  In order to obtain hard currency, foreign companies began shipping to 
the world's most open market, the United States. The oversupply of 
steel products on the world market flowed into the United States, often 
at prices that had no relation to actual production costs.
  For example, steel mill imports into the United States jumped almost 
33 percent in 1998 over imports in 1997, and it should be noted that 
1997 was already a record year for imports.
  Steel mill product from Japan surged 163 percent in 1998 over 1997, 
with hot rolled steel products from Japan increasing an astronomical 
386 percent in 1998 over 1997. Steel mill product imports from Russia 
were up 58 percent and on and on.
  These figures do not paint a picture of ``fair rules-based trade,'' 
as the President called it, with regard to steel imports.
  It is time that the administration truly enforce fair trade in this 
Nation with regard to steel imports. It is also time that we examine 
our overall trade policy.
  As we provide nations in financial and economic turmoil with 
international monetary fund aid, should these nations be allowed to 
export their way out of their troubles, thereby threatening a basic 
industry in the United States? Why should an industry, such as the 
steel industry, which has modernized and downsized to become world 
competitive, now be put at risk because of outside factors over which 
it has no control?
  Do we want to become a nation without any basic manufacturing 
capability, totally dependent on foreign supply of things such as 
steel? These are questions that we must address and which have been 
brought to the forefront by the steel import crisis.
  I continue to urge the administration to take immediate action under 
existing authority. I refer to Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, which 
allows the President to respond to injurious import surges. He now has 
the authority to impose tariffs or quotas if the International Trade 
Commission finds injury.
  Section 201 is the appropriate current law remedy accepted under our 
international obligations to stop import surges that injure.
  One problem that exists with Section 201 is that the injury standard 
is high, higher than required by the World Trade Organization rules. 
Because the injury standard under current law is so high, Section 201 
has not been the remedy of choice.
  I have proposed legislation that would lower the injury standard that 
now exists in Section 201 to bring it into compliance with World Trade 
Organization rules. This would restore the effectiveness of Section 201 
and make it a viable remedy against import surges.
  With this change to Section 201, the administration could join with 
the Congress, industry and labor to rekindle the partnership that was 
so effective during the 1980's in rebuilding this vital industry, and 
come up with a solution to stop up fair imports.
  Such a solution to the import crisis could be agreed to by all 
parties under a U.S. law that is in accordance with our international 
obligations. We could work together to ensure that no more jobs are 
lost and that we maintain a vital and strong domestic steel industry 
here in the United States.

                          ____________________