[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 17, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1342-H1349]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 975, REDUCING VOLUME OF STEEL
IMPORTS AND ESTABLISHING STEEL IMPORT NOTIFICATION AND MONITORING
PROGRAM
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 114 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 114
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 975) to provide for a
reduction in the volume of steel imports, and to establish a
steel import notification and monitoring program. The bill
shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) ninety minutes
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from South Boston, MA (Mr.
Moakley) who obviously is on a roll here and is wearing a much greener
tie than any of us, showing his great, great celebration of St.
Patrick's Day. Pending that, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time that I
will be yielding will be for debate purposes only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 114 is a closed rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 975, a bill to reduce the volume of steel imports
and establishing a steel import notification and monitoring program.
This rule was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Rules yesterday
afternoon.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill. The rule further provides 90 minutes of debate in the House
equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on
[[Page H1343]]
Ways and Means. It is the understanding, Mr. Speaker, of the Committee
on Rules that both the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee
on Ways and Means intend to yield this debate time in a fair manner.
This will ensure that Members on both sides of the aisle who are on
different sides of this very important issue are provided the
opportunity to have their voices heard.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for one motion to recommit,
with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, the United States of America has the strongest, most
prosperous economy on the face of the earth. There are many reasons for
that. We have the world's most skilled workers. We have entrepreneurial
investors and inventors in unmatched numbers. We have the largest
single market anywhere. And, we are riding on that great wave of the
information revolution.
Mr. Speaker, these are all keys to our prosperity and growth, but
they are not enough. Right at the heart of our prosperity is the
openness and dynamism of our economy. We accept the reality of change
and adapt to it better than anyone else. Western Europe and Japan are
big and rich with millions of skilled workers, but they suffer from
slow growth and massive unemployment. Why? They are not as open and
dynamic as we are. They fear inevitable change. And what happens? Their
people lose because of that fear of change.
Now, there is no question that an open, dynamic economy offers as
many challenges as it does opportunities. International commerce is
increasingly a fact of life in our economy. It means new markets and it
means very stiff, tough competition. But no question, no question about
it at all, Mr. Speaker, we as a Nation are succeeding. U.S. jobs have
increased by 6 million in the years since the North American Free Trade
Agreement and the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade were passed. Trade now accounts for 30 percent of our gross
domestic product and 25 percent of jobs in this country. We would not
enjoy our job and wealth boom if we did not have open trade and
competition.
Given our leading role in the global economy, turmoil such as the
financial crisis that swept through many developing countries in the
past 18 months has a major impact right here at home. Today, we are
going to consider legislation that specially selects the U.S. steel
industry for special protection to assist them in dealing with the
challenges posed by that foreign financial situation. It is clear to me
that a majority of Members of this House want to have this debate. It
is my hope that as we delve into this issue, the House rejects this
special interest legislation.
Mr. Speaker, let us take my State of California. Our State, I am very
proud to say, is on the cutting edge of our Nation's 21st century
economy. Almost half of every dollar in the largest State of the union
of economic activity is connected to trade, a 50 percent greater share
than the Nation as a whole. The neighboring ports of Long Beach and Los
Angeles combine to be the second largest seaport in the world, second
only to Singapore. More than 15 percent of southern California's small
businesses export products and services to other countries, many to
Asia. This is five times the national rate.
Given our State's stake in exports to Asia and Latin America,
California has been challenged more than most by this global economic
turmoil. Shipments to Asia account for half of the State's merchandise
exports. Asian problems represent a real threat to our State's economy.
In California, millions of working families depend on producing
computers, electronic components, industrial machinery, communications
equipment, aircraft, semiconductors, textiles, apparel, automobiles,
glassware, engineering and management services, and a whole range of
agriculture interests that have been challenged by the impact of
currency devaluations and financial turmoil. They are fighting to meet
the challenge by becoming more efficient and diversifying their
markets.
The steel industry should do the same. The fact is 40 times more
American workers are employed in U.S. industries that use steel than in
the industries that actually make steel. When we use protectionism to
shield one industry, 40 times more Americans are injured. Remarkably,
today, U.S. steel production and demand are at record levels. Let me
underscore that again. U.S. steel production and demand are at record
levels. Revenue per ton of steel was stable in 1998, not declining.
Yes, there were fewer steel jobs at the end of 1998 than at the
beginning, but that is a reality of the industry as it modernizes.
Since 1993, jobs have fallen by 9,000 per year while production of
steel has actually increased.
Mr. Speaker, protectionism is not the answer to the pain caused by
economic turmoil overseas. Special interest protectionism will kill the
goose that laid the golden egg that is our growing economy. The
sponsors of H.R. 975 are asking us to start down a well-worn path to
economic despair. Protectionism is fool's gold.
Mr. Speaker, I advocate passage of this rule. We need to engage in a
very serious debate to talk about this issue, and then I hope that this
House will reject this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very dear friend from California
who has agreed to wear a green tie for sake of harmony today for
yielding me the customary half-hour, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the United States economy is booming. Economic growth is
strong, job creation is at an all-time high, but not every American is
sharing in the good times. At the same time the stock market is
flirting with the 10,000 mark, 10,000 American steelworkers lost their
jobs last year, 10,000 hardworking American families lost their
paychecks, and 10,000 steel families face a very uncertain future.
Mr. Speaker, there is only one reason for this. It is the flood of
cheap foreign steel being dumped into our markets in violation of the
international trade laws, and it is drowning our steel industry.
Mr. Speaker, back in the 1970s, the American steel industry faced
another crisis, a crisis of competitiveness. The American steel
industry invested $50 billion to modernize plants and equipment. They
also downsized, giving up about 200,000 good jobs. They innovated.
American steelworkers made themselves more efficient. American
steelworkers made themselves more productive. As a consequence, Mr.
Speaker, America now produces the highest quality steel at the lowest
cost per ton. Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker. American steelworkers produce
the highest quality, lowest cost steel in the entire world. But even
the most productive workers cannot compete with countries that do not
play by the rules. The surge of unfair dumping of cheap foreign steel
imports is costing America jobs and costing America money, and it is
time that we take some very tough action.
Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has recently taken steps in the right
direction. The administration found that Russia, Japan and Brazil had
been dumping steel and issued rulings against these countries. The
President has virtually stopped imports of hot-rolled steel from Russia
and Japan, imports from Brazil are down by 76 percent, but at the same
time cheap imports from China, South Africa and Indonesia have
skyrocketed.
Mr. Speaker, even though the administration has taken some very good
steps, there is much more to be done. This bill directs the President
to take the steps to roll back the level of imported steel to the pre-
July 1997 crisis levels. This bill leaves it to the President whether
these steps involve quotas or tariff surcharges or restraint agreements
or any other measures.
This bill also establishes a steel import monitoring program to make
sure other countries comply with antidumping laws and provides
information to help industry, labor and government respond to surges in
imports.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and the other sponsors of this
bill for their efforts. And I want to thank my dear friend from
California who has granted this rule despite his objections to the
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for action. American steel is much too
important and American steelworkers deserve better. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
[[Page H1344]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from St. Clairsville, OH (Mr. Ney).
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for the fact that
we have this on the floor today. Although we would differ in opinion,
the process is going to work by having us here.
Mr. Speaker, as a coauthor of the Visclosky-Regula steel legislation,
I am committed to standing up for steel. This legislation brings back
the integrity of our antidumping provisions of the Trade and Tariff Act
of 1930.
But this bill is not about free trade versus fair trade versus
protectionism. It is about illegal dumping. And that is a big
difference. This bill is pro-worker and it is pro-American.
Eleven thousand steelworkers, as we noted before, have lost their
jobs. Eleven thousand steelworkers are trying to decide today, and one
more per hour, how they feed their families, how they help their
communities, how they survive.
{time} 1100
Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the President had lack of
courage. In a combined effort with my colleagues we introduced
legislation to freeze steel imports at pre-July 1997 levels. This
legislation would do what President Clinton has not done, and that is
to stand up for steelworkers and put America's interests first for a
change. In October we had 344 Members on a bipartisan basis in October
that urged the end of this. Yes, the administration is now starting to
do some things 11,000 steelworkers later, and I cannot trust that if we
do not push through this legislation and pass it, that it will not go
back to the way it was.
So, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is absolutely critical.
There is a solution; it is a simple one. We must enforce our trade
laws. That is it. The U.S. steel industry is not asking for special
protection, and, quite frankly, they do not need it. Our working men
and women can compete with anyone on this planet. They can and will
compete against any steel in the world. But we cannot go against
illegally-dumped steel.
But let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, and tell my colleagues why we are
here today, how we got to this point.
We are here today because we are going to stand up for Main Street
today, not Wall Street. That is why this bill is here. It is here
because of leaders like Mark Glyptis, and George Becker, and Chip
Antonacci, and Larry Mallas and John Sanders and Dave Gossett stood up
and spoke out, and we are here because thousands of steelworkers and
citizens would not let this issue go, would not let this issue die.
Thousands rallied back home in a multi-state area, and they came here
to the streets of Washington, D.C., 7,000 strong. They brought their
children. People came here from all walks of life, Republican,
Democrat, Independent, the wealthy, the poor, the unemployed, the
workers, the students. Students made phone calls. People protested.
They stood up for their rights.
That is why we are here today, Mr. Speaker, because people spoke out.
The steelworkers, and the citizens, and the students and the people of
our communities have said to their government: Stand up for us for a
change.
It is very simple in my mind. We are today going to support Japan or
we are going to support Weirton, West Virginia. We today are going to
support Brazil or we are going to support Steubenville, Ohio. This is a
bill about the fact that America today speaks out. The people speak out
on the floor, the people win and America wins.
Support the rule and the bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and
the underlying bill, H.R. 975.
Mr. Speaker, we are here because of policies which have failed to
protect the American steel industry and workers from unfair
competition. The administration could have prevented this bill from
coming to the floor by initiating its own restrictions on the surge of
cheap imported steel, but the administration would not go to such
lengths to protect the steel industry. But they have gone the distance
and more to protect the banana industry.
Mr. Speaker, does the banana industry employ 160,00 American workers?
No. Are foreign bananas crowding out the American banana business? No.
This has not stopped the administration from making every effort to
protect the banana industry.
Bananas did not build America. Steel did. Steel helped build our
automotive industry. Steel helped build our defense. We cannot build a
tank with a banana, we cannot build a plane with a banana, we cannot
build ships with a banana. We did not build cars with bananas. We did
not build bridges with bananas. We did not build America with bananas.
We built America with steel. But the administration has ignored the
steel industry that employs 160,000 Americans that have suffered the
loss of 10,000 jobs since the import crisis began and that has endured
the undercutting of its American market. The administration cares more
about bananas than about steel. Such a trade policy is, in a word,
bananas.
Our approach is different from the administration's. H.R. 975 is the
only action that will directly confront the major cause of layoffs in
the steel industry. Our bill is America's best hope of averting an
economic crisis of our own.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule, and I urge support for H.R.
975.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Madison Village, Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for not only
giving me the time, but also for bringing this rule to the floor, and,
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of both the rule and also the bill today
before us. I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky),
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and everyone else who had a hand in bringing
this bill before us today.
I do want to express some concerns about the manner in which H.R. 975
addresses the steel dumping issue. There is no doubt many speakers will
talk about the fact that 10,000 steelworkers have lost their jobs as a
result of steel dumping, but for every one steelworker in this country
there are 40 downstream employees in the metal forming and metal
stamping business, and I want to chat about them for just a minute in
this 3 minutes.
The U.S. steel industry, even when it is going full guns, is never
able to meet all of our steel demands in this country. At current
levels the estimates are maybe 75 percent, which leaves us with a
shortage of 17 to 24 million tons each and every year. There are some
contracts and applications that call for nondumped, but foreign, steel.
There is a metal foreman in my district that has a contract that calls
for Dutch steel, for instance, and he says that if we put in
restrictive quotas in certain situations, well then that company will
just have the goods stamped over in the Netherlands, and we will have
imported into this country a finished product. If steel is unavailable
or a specific kind of steel is unavailable for a given application, our
downstream manufacturers will lose contracts, and imports will come
into this country on a finished basis.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a brief
colloquy with the chief sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and I would ask the gentleman:
Given the concerns of a short supply, why is it that he looked at in
H.R. 975 the quotas, tariffs and other remedies to control the amount
of steel coming into this country rather than focusing on dumping
margins which are contained in Section 201 of the 1974 trade act?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's concern.
The reason we looked at a quantitative and global approach is
because, if we look at a product, if we look at a specific country
based on a price, we are not going to resolve the crisis.
I would point out, for example, on a country basis steel exports from
India suddenly increased to 70 percent in
[[Page H1345]]
January of 1990 compared to just December of 1998. Exports from
Australia increased 31 percent in that last month. Exports from Korea
increased by 25 percent.
So we are going to have to look at shifting within countries of
various product lines as well as in people following behind if we do
achieve success with one country coming in with new quantities of steel
and again would remind the gentleman we are giving the administration
60 days to fashion their initiative, and they have great flexibility as
to the design of that final plan.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his
answer, and I also thank the gentleman very much for his courage in
bringing this bill forward.
I would ask as a further courtesy, as this bill proceeds, if we
discover that the quotas in place by H.R. 975 have an adverse effect
and cause a short supply for our end users in this country, that we be
willing across the aisle to work and address that issue, and I am
certain that we can do that.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Absolutely.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman from Indiana very much.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
(Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for the
time, and I rise in support of this rule and also in support of this
resolution. In the last 12 months 10,000 American steelworkers have
found out firsthand that fair trade is not fair and free trade is not
free. The cost of those 10,000 American workers was more than their
jobs. It was the loss of a lifestyle, a loss of the retirement savings,
a loss of a promising future, and for some the cost was a lose of their
home and even their family.
Mr. Speaker, it has not stopped yet. Thousands of more jobs will be
lost if we do not act now. Ten thousand, and still counting,
steelworkers have lost their jobs, not because of fair competition, but
because of unfair competition. Employers and employees worked and
sacrificed together to modernize the American steel industry, making it
once again the most efficient steel industry in the world. They are
willing to compete fairly, but they do not have a chance unless their
government once again makes the playing field level. Foreign countries
facing recessions and owing interest on American loans have targeted
America as a place to raise hard cash. Countries where it takes $400 to
make a ton of steel are dumping it here in record amounts for $200 a
ton. Stopping that is not protectionism. It is ending an illegal
business practice, one we would not allow one American company to do to
another.
Mr. Speaker, if this administration will not show the same compassion
for American workers as they do for the economies of Japan, Korea and
Russia, they would stop this dumping now. They already have that power.
I am troubled that we need to legislate an end to the dumping because
legislation takes time, and time is something the American steel
industry and its workers are running out of. The world tried this once
before, and the greatest free trader of all, Ronald Reagan, put a stop
to it. Now they are trying it again, and because this administration is
more concerned about the world's economy, it is letting them do it.
Mr. Speaker, this administration will not stop this, so it is up to
us. Let us act quickly.
This Administration cannot continue to hide behind ``overall'' rosy
economic statistics while dismissing certain sectors of the economy as
having troubles. Not when it already has the power to help those
certain sectors--like the steel industry.
Yes, people are being hired in record numbers. But, for what kind of
jobs? Too often, people are being hired at a Wal-Mart so then they have
the money to eat at McDonald's--who in turn hire people to serve those
Wal-Mart employees--allowing these new McDonald workers to take their
salary and spend it at Wal-Mart--who can then hire more low wage
employees.
We should not even talk about the low wage jobs being created at Wal-
Mart and McDonalds, but we should speak loudly and forcefully about the
good high paying, benefit rich jobs these people had before they were
laid off.
A 20-dollar an hour jobs with benefits at a steel mill cannot be
replaced by a 6-dollar job at Wal-Mart. But that's what's happening.
And don't tell me about the average income of an American worker,
when included in that average is a 100 million dollar severance pay to
a Hollywood insider, a 20 million dollar bonus for a corporate
executive who's rewarded for chopping down his workforce, and a 70
million dollar contract to a professional athlete.
Ten thousand, and still counting, steel workers have lost their jobs,
not because of fair competition but because of unfair competition.
Employers and employees worked and sacrificed together to modernize
the American steel industry--making it once again the most efficient
steel industry in the world.
They are willing to compete fairly but they do not have a chance
unless their Government once again makes the playing field level.
Foreign countries facings recessions and owning interest on American
loans have targeted America as a place to raise hard cash.
Countries where it takes 400 dollars to make a ton of steel are
dumping it here in record amounts for 200 dollars a ton.
Stopping that isn't protectionism--it's ending an illegal business
practice--one we wouldn't allow one American company to do to another.
If this Administration would show the same compassion for American
steelworkers as they do for the economies of Japan, Korea, and Russia,
they would stop this dumping now.
They already have the power.
I'm troubled that we need to legislate an end to this dumping because
legislation takes time, and time is something the American steel
industry and its workers are running out of.
The world tried this once before, and the greatest free trader of
all--Ronald Reagan--took his eyes off the balance sheets and focused
them on the American families and he said that's wrong and put a stop
to it.
Now, they're trying it again and because this Administration is more
concerned about the world's economy, it's letting them do it.
But what if that's not enough? If they're willing to let the steel
industry be undercut by foreign competitors acting illegally, what
other industries will they allow the same thing to be done to?
The Administration won't stop this--so it is up to us.
Let's do it quickly.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mapleton, Utah (Mr. Cannon).
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of our
steel industry. The administration, Mr. Speaker, is compromising our
national security by failing to enforce our trade laws. Our steel
industry is critical to our national security. American steel companies
across the Nation are going bust. Yet without American steel companies
to supply our Armed Forces, our national defense is useless.
Let me cite some statistics. In the Gulf War the U.S. Army relied on
the steel in 5,000 tanks, Bradleys and other armored personnel
carriers. At the peak of the conflict in the Persian Gulf, the U.S.
Navy deployed 120 ships made almost exclusively of American steel.
Because the administration has failed to do its job in implementing
import controls, Congress has to step in today to legislate trade
policy and safeguard our defense.
A vote in support of this legislation today is a vote to uphold our
national security and stop illegal foreign dumping. This will allow our
steel industry to rebuild and our workers to go back to work and save
our families. I urge a yes vote.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley) for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying
Visclosky legislation, H.R. 975. It is necessary for this Congress to
act to bring fairness to the steel industry, fairness in our trade
policies.
I support open trade markets, but only fair trade, not free trade.
In the 1980's the steel industry came under heavy assault by
countries dumping their steel here in the United States. The United
States did nothing. We almost lost our steel industry. In my district,
we mine iron ore, and we make iron ore pellets. To make the steel, Mr.
Speaker, we need the iron ore pellets. Without our iron mines, there is
no steel industry in the United States.
In the 1980's, prior to the illegal dumping, there were over 4500
miners in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
[[Page H1346]]
Today our mines employ less than 2,200 miners. We cannot absorb any
more losses.
That is why Sunday I joined approximately 2,000 of my friends in
Negaunee, Michigan, to stand up for steel. I want to see this and other
anti-steel dumping legislation come to the floor of this House for a
vote.
Now I have heard some Members say that they are reluctant to vote for
this bill because they do not want to be perceived as anti-free trade.
The question is not about free trade, it is about fair trade.
I say it is time to stand up for fair trade. Join us and stand up for
our miners and steelworkers so they can rebuild the financial security
they are fighting hard to achieve. Stand up for the steel companies who
have worked to be the best steel producers in the world. Stand up for
the workers and industries across a broad segment of our economy who
need to see us get tough with foreign countries who have betrayed our
good-faith efforts to promote open and fair trade.
{time} 1115
It is time to stand up for our constituents, stand up for our
communities, stand up for the Iron Range, stand up for steel and stand
up for America. Vote yes on H.R. 975.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is
remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) has 16 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley) has 20\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the closed rule and in
support of the legislation before us. Once again, we are here pleading
for some action by the Congress and the administration to step in and
take care of a problem that has been hurting the hard-working
steelworkers of the First Congressional District of Arkansas and across
this country for far too long.
We are here today because the legislation we are debating will
directly address the surge of unfairly traded imports. We must pass
this legislation, and the administration must support it.
I cannot even count how many times we have stood here asking for the
same thing, enforce our trade laws, stop illegal foreign dumping of
steel in the United States. The administration has stood by for months
now with their hands in their pockets doing nothing for the thousands
of steelworkers in the First Congressional District of Arkansas and
across this country who have lost their jobs, people who have families
to feed.
We have been promised action time and time again but have seen
nothing. I urge support of this legislation.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Indiana (Ms. Carson).
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on the
bipartisan Steel Recovery Act. Over the last several months, we have
waged a battle on the issue of illegal dumping of foreign steel on
American markets. I firmly believe that no American steelworker should
have to sacrifice their job or their livelihood because of a foreign
importer that breaks American trade laws. I urge my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to stand firm in support of U.S. steel, U.S.
steelworkers and their families as the steel industry confronts an
onslaught of unfairly traded steel imports.
Collapse of demand in Asia, Russia and Brazil have resulted in
historic global overcapacity. Foreign producers choking on a global
steel oversupply are desperate to sell steel and are willing to dump it
at whatever price possible, to whatever market is open to them; in
other words, the United States. Last year alone, imports from Japan,
Korea and Russia soared by nearly 170 percent, 137 percent and 70
percent respectively.
Mr. Speaker, I urge full support of the rule and for the bill.
As a result, the U.S. steel industry is in a fight for its life.
Steelworkers in Utah, Pennsylvania, and Alabama have been the hardest
hit with each State losing several thousand workers. In Indiana, the
Nation's largest steel producer, providing 23 percent of the raw steel
made in the United States, up to 3,000 of its 30,000 steel workers--10
percent--have had to accept shortened work weeks, lower-paying job
assignments, or early retirement. The Department of Commerce recently
reported that 11,000 steel workers have already been laid off. That's
11,000 x's the American families who now face uncertain futures because
we did not take action when we could have.
We must take all measures necessary to halt the flood of unfairly
traded steel into the United States. Congress and the Administration
must work together to enact stronger trade laws to prevent surges of
dumped and subsidized foreign steel from devastating our workers and
companies again. And, most immediately, Congress must act to slow these
imports now before our steel industry is too seriously injured to
recover.
America's hard-working families are looking to us to be their voice.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to stand up for them and vote for H.R. 975. I
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and in favor of the
bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member on the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, support for the Steel Recovery Act is not protectionism;
it is a vote for fair trade in steel, fair trade in the U.S. and
international marketplace. 1999, for the steel industry in America is
what Yogi Berra once called deja vu all over again. We are seeing 1980
being repeated in 1999.
In 1980, we had produced 120 million tons of steel, the highest steel
production in the history of this country. Imports devastated the steel
industry down to 80 million tons; 350,000 steelworkers lost their jobs.
10,000 people in my district, 10,000 workers in the iron ore mines of
Minnesota, lost their jobs permanently. We went from a $450 million
payroll down to less than $100 million in 18 months. We are not going
to stand for that again.
Look at what is happening just this year in the iron ore mining
company: Eveleth Tachonite Company forced to have layoffs because
foreign steel is taking away the market in the domestic United States,
subsidized foreign steel.
We have spent $50 billion in the steel industry in this country
modernizing America's steel mills. We have the highest productivity,
the highest quality steel, the lowest cost per man unit of steel
produced in America in the whole world, and yet Russia, Brazil, Japan,
Korea, other countries, are dumping steel in this country at $250 a ton
less than we produce it right here at home. They are subsidizing and
exporting their unemployment, dumping it on our shores. When it hits at
home and when it hits your friends and your neighbors, then you have
got to stand up for fairness in steel.
We have invested over $2 billion in modernizing the iron ore mining
and processing plants on the Mesabi iron range of northern Minnesota,
as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) said about his State. We
should not stand for having that investment, that modernization of our
industry wiped out by having foreign countries dump their unemployment
on our shores, wiping out our American jobs.
Steel is the most important building material in an industrial
society. We cannot engage a war, we cannot build our highways, we
cannot construct our airports without steel. We are not going to have
American bridges, American ports, American airports built with foreign
steel subsidized to take away jobs from American workers when we have
made the investments to modernize with private venture capital this
greatest steel industry in the whole world and this finest iron ore
mining industry in this whole world. Vote for the Steel Recovery Act.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I express my appreciation to the members of
the Committee on Rules, the Committee on Ways and Means, to the
leadership and to the Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hastert), for their fair treatment on this issue. I know that the
substance of the Visclosky steel bill may be of concern to some of
these
[[Page H1347]]
Members so I am gratified to see this bill brought to the floor for
consideration.
The subject of foreign steel dumping in the American market is simply
too important, with an impact on too many areas of this country, for it
not to receive consideration by the full membership of this House. This
is the kind of bipartisan cooperation we need to see to solve the
problems affecting American families, and I was especially gratified
that the members of the Committee on Rules accepted our request for
more debate time on this bill, as well as a closed rule.
On the substance of the bill, let me just say at this point that the
Commerce Department has already issued its determination that illegal
dumping and foreign government subsidies have occurred in Japan, Brazil
and Russia. This constitutes the best, most informed judgment so far by
the U.S. Government that illegal dumping is, in fact, occurring. We are
playing by the rules but we are losing jobs to those who are not.
Support fair trade. Vote for the rule and vote for final passage of
H.R. 975.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and underlying
legislation H.R. 975 which has been brought to us by our diligent
colleagues, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). I wanted to thank our good friend the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) also for helping move this
through the Committee on Rules. It is time to put steel back into the
spine of America. 10,000 American steelworkers losing their jobs is
beyond belief. The administration's delay to enforce dumping laws in
this country, unforgivable. Since 1997, a glut of dumped imports on our
shores, Indonesia up 612 percent, Japan 157 percent, Australia 156
percent, South Africa, 107 percent and Korea 105 percent; most of those
countries are not covered by the administration's agreement.
If we in this Congress cannot stand up for our own when they are
being unfairly dumped on, it is fair to ask, when do we stand up for
anyone? Support the rule. Support H.R. 975.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I
ask that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) join me in a brief
colloquy.
Mr. Speaker, I want Members to know that this is a good bill and I
support the bill but I do have some concerns about its impact on the
steel producer in my district who has told me about problems in
obtaining the types and quantity of steel that they need from domestic
producers. In the past, the government has been able to make very
specific case-by-case exceptions to the import restrictions to allow
manufacturers with legitimate short supply problems to continue
producing their products and employing their workforce at full
strength.
I believe there are conditions which may warrant further examination
along these lines in the bill before us today and I would appreciate
the assistance of the gentleman in working to rectify these problems.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky)
for his response.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, first of all, the support
of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) for the legislation, as
well as his expression of concern.
The issue of short supply is an issue that we have considered from
the inception of the original legislation and do believe that it is
covered under the bill itself. The fact is, the administration,
following enactment of H.R. 975, will have 60 days in which to fashion
a comprehensive program that will still allow one out of every four
tons of steel sold in the United States to be exported from another
country.
Additionally, the reason we wanted to give the administration that
flexibility and to put all of the countries and all of the products on
one table is to make sure that companies such as the gentleman's in the
State of Washington, earlier we had a gentleman on the other side, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), indicate he had a problem as far
as possible short supply, that those can be addressed.
The reason we have looked at quantitative restrictions is, again, to
make sure that we do not have people who are trading illegally under
our trade laws following in behind someone else who is now obeying the
law. That would be the responsibility of the administration, and I do
appreciate very much the concerns the gentleman raised.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consideration of the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) on that. I appreciate, again,
his hard work on this bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), who is the perfecter of the amendment that
will be heard on the floor.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley) for the recognition.
Mr. Speaker, I would want to use this time not only to express my
support for the rule but to make a number of thank you's in all
sincerity. I think the coming together of Members in this case in a
very bipartisan fashion, to work together selflessly over a period of
nearly 8 months, to engender the support again in a bipartisan fashion
of this House, can lead the way to the legislative calendar for the
next 2 years and simply want to again thank the Speaker of the House,
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Armey) particularly for their consideration. I know they have
reservations about this legislation.
I want to make sure that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is
thanked and particularly the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt),
the minority leader, for their inestimable help in this matter, and
finally the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Crane) who I again know have very serious reservations
about the legislation, as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
I would finally want to thank the steelworkers everywhere who have
worked diligently throughout this crisis to make sure that the voice of
workers in this country is heard, and those who have participated in
the steel working group.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader of the
House.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 975, a
bill which is designed to reduce the flood of steel imports coming into
the United States, and I would like to commend the work of especially
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for all the hard work that
he has done in bringing this measure to the floor today.
{time} 1130
Today, the House has the opportunity to send a strong message of
support for American steel company workers and steel communities across
this country.
Mr. Speaker, more than 10,000 high-wage and high-skill Americans in
the steel industry have lost their jobs since the onslaught of foreign
imported steel began about 2 years ago. H.R. 975 will grant real
tangible relief for this industry that is vital to our industrial base
and indeed, our national security. It will also aid the efforts of
steel workers and companies to bring about stronger action to help the
United States steel industry.
Mr. Speaker, an economic collapse has swept the globe, first striking
in Asia, but now impacting Latin America and other developing countries
as well. During the debate over IMF emergency funding to stabilize
these economies, I warned that import surges would result from the
Asian economic crisis and that a plan would be needed to combat the
unfair imports. Unfortunately, no such plan has been forthcoming.
Between 1997 and 1998, steel imports have risen nearly 100 percent
from key countries like Japan and Korea. Thus far, 10,000 jobs have
been lost, but thousands more jobs are threatened as an
[[Page H1348]]
oversupply of foreign-made steel sits on our docks. Our steel industry
is the most productive industry in the world. The U.S. should not be
forced to unilaterally take in a massive global import surge.
While the Clinton administration has taken some much-needed steps by
expediting relief to the steel industry via traditional U.S. trade
laws, I am concerned that the administration has not done enough to
promote a global solution to this problem. I believe this bill can help
us find that solution.
The bill we are debating today simply limits imports to pre-crisis
levels. It promotes a fair and level trading system for the United
States steel industry by putting an end to the practice of foreign
producers flooding our market with cheap steel that puts our industry
and its workers in jeopardy.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing our ongoing efforts with
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the Steel Caucus, the
Clinton administration, and all interested parties to develop a strong
and realistic global solution to this crisis. Today's floor debate
reminds us of the magnitude of the crisis in the steel country, and the
passage of this bill will hopefully bring about the action which is
needed to help reverse this economic calamity for thousands of workers
and their families.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rush).
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend my friend the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for all of his outstanding work that he
has done on behalf of this particular bill and on behalf of the steel
industry.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 975, the bipartisan Steel
Recovery Act. This much-needed legislation will protect the U.S. Steel
industry from unfair dumping of foreign steel into the United States
market.
Since 1997, I and other Americans have watched Asian, Russian and
Latin American countries dump their steel into this Nation. From 1997
to the present, U.S. Steel imports rose to 66 million tons, and it
started out at 20 million tons. Over the past year, East Asia, Russia,
and Brazil have illegally imported steel into this country at very low
prices. Due in principal part to a lingering financial crisis which has
devalued their currencies, these countries, East Asia, Russia, Brazil
and others, have been getting away with murder.
Today, these unfair acts must come to an end because our Nation's
citizens are the losers. In the State of Illinois, Acme Metals has
filed for Chapter XI bankruptcy because it could not compete with the
surge in steel imports. In my district, many steel companies have
slowed down production. Some companies have even laid off workers or
shortened their hours. We cannot sit idly by, Mr. Speaker, and let
these countries destroy our steel mills. I support H.R. 975.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Wise).
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, this chart I think tells the story well. It
begins in 1996 and finishes in January of 1999, and it is steel
imports. Look at this line and how it suddenly shoots up.
Well, let me tell my colleagues what that line right there means, Mr.
Speaker. That line does not tell us about the almost 1,000 Weirton
Steel workers that are laid off, and they did exactly what our country
asked them to do. They downsized, they invested, they became an ESOP,
they played fair and they asked for a level playing field, and now
there are 1,000 of them laid off because this government has not kept
by its bargain and fought illegal imports.
It is not just Weirton, it is Wheeling Pit, it will be workers in
Shinnston and Follansbee, and later it will be in Ravenswood at Century
Aluminum and on down the Ohio River.
So, Mr. Speaker, this Congress must act today. It must send a clear,
resolute message to this administration and to the world: We will not
tolerate this line going any higher. We want those workers back to
work, and the Congress will begin that process today.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the debate has begun, and we have had Members on both
sides of the aisle who wanted us to proceed with consideration of this
legislation, and so we have done that. We start during this rule, and I
am happy to say that in the rule we extended, as I said, by 50 percent
the amount of time that would normally be called for, an hour of
general debate, we have extended that to an hour and a half, and I
think that this discussion will continue. So I am going to urge strong
support of the rule.
As those who have been following this debate know, Mr. Speaker, most
of the discussion has been over the measure itself, and I have to say
that seeing the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, come on to the House
floor, it is nice to have him here, because it buoys me up in my very
strong opposition to this ill-conceived measure.
In fact, today the U.S. steel industry benefits from very vigorous
U.S. enforcement of our trade remedies. One-third of the 300
antidumping and countervailing duty orders administered by the Commerce
Department address steel products. In addition, we have seen a great
reduction in the last 4 months of imports from those countries in
question: Japan, Russia, and Brazil. We also have to recognize that
overall we have seen this reduction in steel imports, and that decline
is one which seems to be continuing, and the numbers are phenomenal. If
we go from November of 1998 to January of 1999, they have dropped by 93
percent from Russia, 49 percent from Japan, 30 percent from Brazil, and
8 percent from Korea.
Mr. Speaker, we also have to recognize that 1998 was a banner year
for the U.S. steel industry. In fact, 102 million tons of U.S. steel
were shipped. Guess what the demand was? It was for 141 million tons.
There is a demand out there that is greater than what is actually being
produced, and yet, in 1998, this country produced the second highest
amount of steel that we have ever produced in our Nation's history.
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that this country today is economically
strong because of our openness and our dynamism. We should not let fear
create the kinds of problems that it has throughout the rest of the
world.
Mr. Speaker, we look at the fact that there are many skilled workers
in Western Europe, and yet their economies are faced with very, very
great difficulties. Why? Because of the fear, because of the
protectionism that they have imposed, and they do not have the kind of
openness and dynamism that we have as a Nation.
Mr. Speaker, let us look at all of those downstream workers, 40 times
as many as there are in the actual steel manufacturing industry in this
country. The auto manufacturers, they also are in large part, as the
Wall Street Journal pointed out in an editorial yesterday, responsible
for this. The 54-day strike that took place with General Motors
obviously decreased that opportunity for production during last fall's
strike. So it seems to me that we need to recognize that consumers
would be devastated by going down this slippery slope.
We have other industries, the oil and gas industry. As I said, in our
State of California, our economy, because of the cuts in defense and
aerospace over the past several years, hinges on our involvement in the
international economy. Our State is the gateway to the Pacific Rim and
Latin America. If we were to pass, move ahead with this legislation, it
could be potentially devastating to the largest State in the Union, and
I believe to this entire country.
So let us stand with our Nation's openness, diversity and dynamism,
which has, in fact, given us the strongest economic growth that we have
seen in many, many years.
With that, I urge support of the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the
Committee on Rules, the gentleman at the microphone, for his fairness
in the presentation of this rule. He did extend the time, and he did
allow the bill to come to the floor, even though he personally is
opposed to it.
I also thank the gentleman for the timing, because as he knows, in 15
minutes the President of the United States
[[Page H1349]]
is going to join all Irishmen, Congressmen of Irish descent in the
Rayburn Room for a March 17th dinner. So I thank the gentleman for that
too, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________