[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 17, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1349-H1370]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    REDUCING VOLUME OF STEEL IMPORTS AND ESTABLISHING STEEL IMPORT 
                  NOTIFICATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 114, I call up 
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, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of H.R. 975 is as follows:

                                H.R. 975

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN VOLUME OF STEEL IMPORTS.

       (a) Reduction.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     within 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the President shall take the necessary steps, by imposing 
     quotas, tariff surcharges, negotiated enforceable voluntary 
     export restraint agreements, or otherwise, to ensure that the 
     volume of steel products imported into the United States 
     during any month does not exceed the average volume of steel 
     products that was imported monthly into the United States 
     during the 36-month period preceding July 1997.
       (b) Enforcement Authority.--Within 60 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury, 
     through the United States Customs Service, and the Secretary 
     of Commerce shall implement a program for administering and 
     enforcing the restraints on imports under subsection (a). The 
     Customs Service is authorized to refuse entry into the 
     customs territory of the United States of any steel products 
     that exceed the allowable levels of imports of such products.
       (c) Applicability.--
       (1) Categories.--This section shall apply to the following 
     categories of steel products: semifinished, plates, sheets 
     and strips, wire rods, wire and wire products, rail type 
     products, bars, structural shapes and units, pipes and tubes, 
     iron ore, and coke products.
       (2) Volume.--Volume of steel products for purposes of this 
     section shall be determined on the basis of tonnage of such 
     products.
       (d) Expiration.--This section shall expire at the end of 
     the 3-year period beginning 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 2. STEEL IMPORT NOTIFICATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall 
     establish and implement a steel import notification and 
     monitoring program. The program shall include a requirement 
     that any person importing a product classified under chapter 
     72 or 73 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
     States obtain an import notification certificate before such 
     products are entered into the United States.
       (b) Steel Import Notification Certificates.--
       (1) In general.--In order to obtain a steel import 
     notification certificate, an importer shall submit to the 
     Secretary of Commerce an application containing--
       (A) the importer's name and address;
       (B) the name and address of the supplier of the goods to be 
     imported;
       (C) the name and address of the producer of the goods to be 
     imported;
       (D) the country of origin of the goods;
       (E) the country from which the goods are to be imported;
       (F) the United States Customs port of entry where the goods 
     will be entered;
       (G) the expected date of entry of the goods into the United 
     States;
       (H) a description of the goods, including the 
     classification of such goods under the Harmonized Tariff 
     Schedule of the United States;
       (I) the quantity (in kilograms and net tons) of the goods 
     to be imported;
       (J) the cost insurance freight (CIF) and free alongside 
     ship (FAS) values of the goods to be entered;
       (K) whether the goods are being entered for consumption or 
     for entry into a bonded warehouse or foreign trade zone;
       (L) a certification that the information furnished in the 
     certificate application is correct; and
       (M) any other information the Secretary of Commerce 
     determines to be necessary and appropriate.
       (2) Entry into customs territory.--In the case of 
     merchandise classified under chapter 72 or 73 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States that is 
     initially entered into a bonded warehouse or foreign trade 
     zone, a steel import notification certificate shall be 
     required before the merchandise is entered into the customs 
     territory of the United States.
       (3) Issuance of steel import notification certificate.--The 
     Secretary of Commerce shall issue a steel import notification 
     certificate to any person who files an application that meets 
     the requirements of this section. Such certificate shall be 
     valid for a period of 30 days from the date of issuance.
       (c) Statistical Information.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce shall compile 
     and publish on a weekly basis information described in 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Information described.--Information described in this 
     paragraph means information obtained from steel import 
     notification certificate applications concerning steel 
     imported into the United States and includes with respect to 
     such imports the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
     States classification (to the tenth digit), the country of 
     origin, the port of entry, quantity, value of steel imported, 
     and whether the imports are entered for consumption or are 
     entered into a bonded warehouse or foreign trade zone. Such 
     information shall also be compiled in aggregate form and made 
     publicly available by the Secretary of Commerce on a weekly 
     basis by public posting through an Internet website. The 
     information provided under this section shall be in addition 
     to any information otherwise required by law.
       (d) Fees.--The Secretary of Commerce may prescribe 
     reasonable fees and charges to defray the costs of carrying 
     out the provisions of this section, including a fee for 
     issuing a certificate under this section.
       (e) Single Producer and Exporter Countries.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     Commerce shall make publicly available all information 
     required to be released pursuant to subsection (c), including 
     information obtained regarding imports from a foreign 
     producer or exporter that is the only producer or exporter of 
     goods subject to this section from a foreign country.
       (f) Regulations.--The Secretary of Commerce may prescribe 
     such rules and regulations relating to the steel import 
     notification and monitoring program as may be necessary to 
     carry the provisions of this section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 114, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) each will control 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 975.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. ARCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 975 directs the President, in effect 
mandates the President, to establish quotas to limit steel imports into 
the U.S., and I urge its defeat. This is more than rhetoric, this is a 
serious matter, and what we do today will have considerable impact not 
only on our own economy and our leadership in the world, but on the 
rest of the world.

                              {time}  1145

  A Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday called the bill, and I 
quote, ``the

[[Page H1350]]

most radical American protectionist act since Smoot-Hawley.'' Need I 
remind the Members that Smoot-Hawley passed in the late 1920s, 
contributed mightily if did not cause the great worldwide depression. 
That is why I strongly oppose this legislation.
  I am pleased that the Clinton administration also opposes this bill. 
Mr. Podesta, White House Chief of Staff, wrote to me last week saying 
he would recommend that President Clinton veto this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record Mr. Podesta's letter, as 
follows:

                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, DC, Mar. 10, 1999.
     Hon. Bill Archer,
     Chairman, Ways and Means Committee,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Archer: I want to convey to you the 
     Administration's opposition to H.R. 975 and, in particular, 
     its mandate that the President take action to roll back steel 
     imports to the average monthly import levels preceding the 
     current import surge.
       The President is determined to maintain the U.S.' strong 
     manufacturing base and the good jobs it provides. The 
     President shares the co-sponsors' deep concern about the 
     impact on our steelworkers, communities and companies of the 
     surge in steel imports. He believes that the best way to 
     address the current steel crisis is by insisting that other 
     countries play by the international trade rules, just as the 
     United States will continue to abide by those rules. The 
     President's commitment to effective, vigorous and timely 
     enforcement of our trade laws is producing results. Imports 
     of carbon hot-rolled steel have fallen 70% between November 
     and January. Imports of these products also have virtually 
     ceased from Russia and Japan (down 98% and 96% respectively) 
     and declined 76% from Brazil. We are committed to sustained 
     implementation of this plan and the expeditious resolution of 
     pending cases.
       Quotas imposed outside of the World Trade Organization 
     (WTO) consistent processes contained in our trade laws 
     (section 201 safeguards law or the quota suspension agreement 
     provisions in our antidumping and countervailing duty laws) 
     violate our international trade obligations. These quotas 
     would not be based on a determination of whether the imports 
     are causing or threatening serious injury, or whether unfair 
     trade or subsidization is involved as required by WTO. 
     Moreover, our current trade laws already provide the means 
     for U.S. industry and workers to request an investigation 
     and, if a threat of injury is demonstrated, quotas or other 
     trade remedies can be imposed in a WTO consistent manner. In 
     addition, when the orderly and thorough procedures mandated 
     by our trade laws are followed, we can take into account the 
     full range of U.S. industry and worker concerns and fashion 
     remedies that do not result in additional market distortions, 
     import shortages, excessive price hikes or retaliation that 
     could harm U.S. export industries and customers.
       We believe that implementing H.R. 975 constitutes violation 
     of our international obligations under the WTO and is not be 
     in our nation's economic interest. Because of these concerns, 
     the President's senior advisors would recommend that the 
     President veto the bill.
       Nonetheless, the steel crisis has demonstrated that there 
     is room for improvements to our trade laws to ensure they 
     deliver strong, effective relief in an expeditious manner, 
     while maintaining their consistency with our international 
     WTO obligations. We believe the legislation proposed by 
     Congressman Levin constitutes a constructive approach, and we 
     stand ready to work with him and other members of Congress to 
     develop a bill that we could recommend the President sign.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John Podesta.

  Mr. Speaker, likewise, a majority of Members on the Committee on Ways 
and Means recommended that the House defeat this bill and the committee 
reported it on a voice vote adversely, unfavorably.
  As we will hear today, our steel industry is going through some tough 
times, and I am sympathetic to that. But the steel industry is not 
alone. I am from Texas. I know full well of the problems plaguing our 
oil industry, which has lost many, many more jobs than the steel 
industry. Likewise, our farmers and ranchers are still recovering from 
one of the worst periods in a long, long time. So we must be very 
sensitive to the steel industry's situation also. But there is a right 
way and a wrong way to address this problem. This bill is the wrong 
way.
  As usual, there is more to the story. There is a matter of steel 
users and manufacturers, both large and small. American workers in 
these steel-using industries, transportation equipment, industrial 
machinery, metal products, and construction, outnumber employment in 
steel producer companies by 40 to 1. In fact, I am deeply concerned, 
and I do not say this lightly, that this bill might threaten national 
security, because quotas will reduce steel products needed for military 
supply.
  While the policy behind this bill is fatally flawed, the specifics 
break down as well. There are absolutely no exceptions to the quotas in 
this bill, even if emergencies arise or if a product is simply not made 
in the United States. This will cripple many American companies and 
their workers, including, for example, one in my district, Quality 
Tubing Incorporated.
  Quality Tubing Incorporated is the first American company to 
manufacture steel coil tubing for the oil and gas industry. It buys 
roughly 70 percent of its hot-rolled steel from Japan. Why? Because 
U.S. industry simply does not manufacture the very specialized product 
that QTI needs. QTI pays a premium for the Japanese product because of 
its specialty nature.
  This bill would be a double whammy for QTI. First it tells QTI it 
cannot go expand its business because it cannot get more of this 
specialty product than it did in 1997. Second, it would raise operating 
costs because prices for this steel product will undoubtedly soar.
  Why should this company and its workers have to pay this heavy price? 
It should make absolutely no difference to the domestic producers 
whether or not QTI can get its product from overseas because U.S. 
producers do not make the product. This bill works like a sledgehammer, 
providing no exception for companies like QTI. We will hear more about 
many, many, many other companies if this legislation becomes law.
  Mr. Speaker, at the direction of Congress, President Clinton, Vice-
President Gore and their top economic and foreign policy advisors 
studied the steel situation very closely. After that thorough 
examination, the President chose not to set unilateral quotas which are 
in violation of the WTO rules. Yet, this bill mandates that the 
President do exactly that.
  The President's logic is clear. If the U.S. sets up trade barriers in 
violation of WTO rules to which we agreed to at a time of fragility in 
the world economy, we could have a much, much bigger problem on our 
hands that would affect thousands and thousands of American jobs and 
threaten our economy.
  In addition, we would set a terrible example for countries in real 
economic trouble, countries whose leaders are under tremendous pressure 
to retaliate against American made products. Brazil is a good example 
of this. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan shared these concerns 
when he testified before the Committee on Ways and Means in January.
  My colleagues, the danger of drifting or, in this case, racing 
towards protectionist policies are very real. As I mentioned, the 
Committee on Ways and Means on a voice vote reported this bill 
unfavorably, adversely. I urge Members to oppose this steel quota bill. 
There are better ways to address the problem within the WTO rules. This 
bill will not make anything better. In fact, it will make things much, 
much worse.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 975. I agree with the 
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) that there are problems with 
this bill. The administration has pointed that out.
  I myself would prefer that we be considering legislation today that 
is consistent with our international trade agreements and that would 
have more of a chance of being enacted into law. This is especially so 
if we expect other nations to live up to our obligations.
  However, it is abundantly clear that our steelworkers and companies 
have suffered immense harm, including as many as 10,000 jobs lost, 
severe production cutbacks, and several companies have gone into 
bankruptcy as a result of the import surge over the last year.
  We as a country should have responded more quickly and more 
effectively. The administration's response over the last few months has 
been commendable, applying our trade laws aggressively and effectively 
within the bounds of the international trade rules. But that response 
is really too late in coming, and so we have the enormous concern and 
the frustration that led to the introduction of this legislation that 
we are considering here today.

[[Page H1351]]

  We need to find a solution to the steel problem, and I hope we all 
agree on at least that much. However we vote on this bill today, let us 
try to work together in the coming weeks also to address in a 
systematic, sustainable fashion the underlying problems our steel firms 
and workers and other industries face.
  Where our trade provisions like section 201 need to be strengthened 
and fine-tuned so that we can respond more effectively going forward in 
this problem and the next time around, let us fix them quickly.
  Where our ability to protect and predict this kind of import surge 
can be improved, we should do that, too.
  In short, we should look beyond the vote today to a long-term 
sustainable effective solution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Trade, 
and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to yield time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 41\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 22\1/2\ minutes of my time to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and I ask unanimous consent 
that he be permitted to allocate time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here under somewhat unusual procedure, but it is 
important that we talk about the substance. First of all, I want to 
emphasize the facts are clear that there was a surge of steel imports. 
This first chart shows the imports of hot-rolled steel from all 
countries. If my colleagues look at 1996 and 1997 and 1998, it becomes 
clear there was this surge, this is of hot-rolled steel a dramatic 
increase in imports.
  Secondly, this chart shows the import of all steel products. Once 
again, I think it is very clear from this chart there was a very 
substantial overall increase; indeed, a surge. It was most dramatic 
with hot-rolled steel, but overall, the same was true.
  Also it should be clear that there was a serious impact from this 
surge. Ten thousand workers lost their jobs. Three companies went into 
bankruptcy. So we are talking about American businesses, American 
workers who suffer because of this surge after the steel industry and 
its workers together had taken unusual steps to improve the industry, 
to downsize it, to make it more effective, indeed to make it the most 
productive in the world.
  It is also clear that the government reacted slowly. One reason it 
did is because our antisurge laws are weak, and I will come back to 
that.
  In September of last year, petitions, antidumping petitions were 
filed. The administration at that point whipped into quick action, and 
they invoked a provision of the law, a critical circumstances 
provision, that has rarely been used. As a result, the whole effort to 
determine whether or not there was dumping of steel, that whole effort 
was very much accelerated. The result was, in a short order of time, 
preliminary antidumping margins were announced.
  I want to show everybody what happened. I will turn it this way so we 
see it on all sides of the aisle. This is when the surge hit its peak 
right here, November. We can see the spike up. Red is Russia, Green is 
Japan, and blue is Brazil. We can see this spike upward.
  When the antidumping margins became evident, we see the tremendous 
downturn in imports from those three countries. So our antidumping laws 
began to work.
  I want to emphasize to my colleagues that what happened with the 
surge was not globalization. That is here to stay. But it was 
manipulation of the market by those countries selling below their cost. 
It was not competition. It was distortion.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and the industry and the 
steelworkers and others here have done a real service to spotlight what 
the problem is. But here is the problem, and that is what is proposed 
by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) in this bill is not a 
viable solution.

                              {time}  1200

  Under WTO, the executive cannot, and we as the Congress cannot, 
invoke a quota by fiat. We simply cannot do that. Under WTO rules, 
safeguard measures can be put in place and, as a result of those 
safeguard procedures, if they are followed, action can be taken, 
including, in some circumstances, quotas. But it is very clear under 
our WTO obligations that this cannot be done simply by a bill of this 
nature or by the executive acting on his own.
  Now, the bill of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) does 
focus on the problem that the dumping laws can be circumvented. 
Countries that are subject to them can substitute other products, or 
other countries can come into the gap. And so what we need, and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) said it, we need to do something 
better, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) said the same 
thing.
  There is something we can do that is better within the WTO. We need 
to reform our anti-surge provisions so that they are faster and they 
are more effective. That option is available to us, and I hope very 
much, as a result of this debate today, that we will take everybody at 
their word and move on to see if we can find and implement a solution 
that is within our WTO obligations. I am convinced that there is.
  Indeed, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and I have been in 
dialogue with the administration for over a week now. And yesterday, 
the gentleman from New York, a Republican, and I introduced legislation 
that would reform our anti-surge laws so that if there is a major 
circumvention, a major circumvention, of our dumping laws by other 
countries, or the countries that are subject to them, there will be 
something that we can utilize and implement quickly. And it will also 
take care of the issue of other products in addition to steel if a 
surge occurs.
  Look, the steel surge shows that there is a serious problem, and 
there remains that. A serious problem needs a viable answer, one within 
the rule of law governing the trade between nations.
  I want to close with a personal comment. I have been working with 
others in this body over these years to try to craft trade laws that 
are responsive to international rules and responsive to American needs. 
It goes back many years, in fact more than a decade, when we were able 
to pass the 1988 trade bill that strengthened our laws.
  I think that the international rules have to be opened up so that 
they take into account new problems, problems that are happening 
because of our evolving trade with these evolving economies. The laws 
have to and the rules of competition have to take into account the 
competition from countries with very different capital and labor and 
environmental structures. I am dedicated to continuing that effort.
  We need to carry on that battle, and we need to have within our laws 
a response available to surges like we have seen in steel for the good 
of this country, its workers and its businesses. But if we move in a 
way that clearly violates our obligations under WTO, and that is the 
basis of the administration letter indicating that a veto would be 
coming, we are going to, I think, undermine these efforts to improve 
our laws.
  In a word, because of the way this has evolved, because of the 
spotlight that has been turned on our anti-surge laws, we now have an 
ability in this next few weeks, I hope, if not a few weeks no more than 
a month or two, to put together a bill that will respond to this 
problem.
  So I echo what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) said; and I 
echo in a sense what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) said at the 
Ways and Means markup: Let us take this moment, and whatever happens 
today, and dedicate ourselves in the days ahead to making sure that we 
have the laws, within the international rules that respond to this kind 
of a surge problem. I am going to dedicate every moment I have to 
helping that come about.

[[Page H1352]]

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
control the time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  (Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I want to start out by saying that we all, I 
think, share the feelings of those who have lost jobs in the steel 
industry and those businesses that have suffered setbacks.
  I cannot personally, though my grandfather grew up near the district 
of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and worked for the steel 
mills on the south side of Chicago, but my wife's grandfather worked in 
Gary, Indiana Mills in the gentleman's district. So we in the Chicago 
area, especially on the south side where I grew up, have a special 
feeling about the steel industry.
  For all of that, though, I think this effort that we are undertaking 
or considering today is misguided. And I say it is misguided because we 
have the laws on the books and we have exercised them in a way that has 
had a very positive effect. Some of that our colleague from Michigan 
already showed in graphic form.
  The fact is, if we take hot rolled steel imports from the three 
largest exporters that were guilty of dumping in this country, namely 
Russia, Japan and Brazil, those are now down, from their peak level at 
the tail end of last year, 96 percent. Ninety-six percent. And if we 
take the reduction of the hot rolled imports from all countries, and 
this includes even those that are not subject to investigation, those 
have dropped since last November by 70 percent. Seventy percent. And 
that includes countries, as I say, that have never been charged or 
accused of any irregularity here.
  I think that we have the capability of dealing with this sort of a 
problem, and it is one that we have to recognize. There was a surge, 
and that surge was in violation of our guidelines and our regulations, 
but we did address it in a positive way. And so that concern of what 
happened in the steel industry is basically history at this moment.
  The fact is we are on a road to recovery already. If we look frankly 
at our steel production, the industry recorded last year its second 
highest level of production in the past 20 years. Second highest in the 
last 20 years was our steel production. Eleven of the thirteen biggest 
companies showed profits last year, notwithstanding that surge that 
occurred at the end of the year.
  We must show a concern, an appropriate concern, and I think we all 
do, for the loss of 10,000 jobs. But we have to recognize how that 
contrasts with, say, the oil and gas industry and the projected losses 
that have amounted this past year to almost 50,000. But keep in mind 
that we are at full employment, and we have now increased the number of 
jobs nationwide last year by 2.5 million, 2.5 million new jobs, and we 
are at full employment.
  I think it is important to recognize, too, that this can have an 
impact on those people who are consumers of steel products. I am 
thinking especially of the people who purchase steel; defense contracts 
and machinery, cars, construction equipment. They employ 40 times as 
many U.S. workers as the integrated steel mills do. We will be 
potentially putting their jobs at risk.
  I think also it is important for all of us to recognize the cost. The 
Congressional Budget Office, as this chart indicates, estimates that 
this bill will result in higher steel prices that will cost the private 
sector nearly $1 billion, $1 billion, over the next 3 years.
  I have a letter that I will refer to later in closing, but it is from 
Caterpillar, one of our largest manufacturers and consumers in the 
State of Illinois, and exporters. It is an insightful letter talking 
about what the damage, the overwhelming damage, could be to 
Caterpillar's ability to produce and to export in the world markets if 
we, sad to say, went along with this well-intentioned but misguided 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who has been at the forefront of this effort.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we would not be here debating this bill if 
we would just enforce our trade laws according to the law. The European 
Union does, Japan does, why cannot the United States?
  Foreign mills are dumping steel on the American market for $200 to 
$400 a ton less than it costs to produce. Dumping. That is what it is. 
It is illegal. And if the administration will not stop it, then the 
Congress must.
  America's steel producers and steelworkers played by the rules. They 
made hard sacrifices in the 1980s to make this the most competitive, 
efficient and unsubsidized steel industry in the world. It is only 
because of illegal and unfair trading practices that our industry is 
being undercut here at home.
  The need for action is clear, compelling and convincing. The bill 
before us, H.R. 975, is common sense and bipartisan. It will reduce 
steel imports to 25 percent of the U.S. market. That is the level that 
played in 1997, before the dumping began. It authorizes the U.S. 
Customs Service to refuse entry to any steel product that exceeds 
allowable levels.
  It also includes Mr. Regula's language to establish a steel 
monitoring system, so that we can avert this situation in the future. 
This is good legislation and an appropriate response to this crisis.
  Finally, I would note that because of the import flux produced by 
dumping and other illegal trade practices, 11,000 American steel 
workers have lost their jobs. I would also note that several steel 
companies have filed for bankruptcy, and more are teetering on the 
brink.
  We must not stand by the wayside and watch the American steel 
industry exported out of business. This country was built with American 
steel and this country needs American steel.
  We need a global solution to this crisis. H.R. 975 provides that 
global remedy. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the 
Bipartisan Steel Recovery Act.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), who, again, has been vigorous in this 
effort from day one.
  (Mr. MOLLOHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, first let me compliment the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the distinguished member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, for his real leadership in fighting for America's 
steelworkers and for our American steel industry. What a commendable 
job he has done.
  Mr. Speaker, the steelworkers of the Ohio valley are frustrated. They 
are fed up and they are just about to lose faith in their government's 
promise to uphold its basic trade laws. Our trading partners have shown 
a shocking disregard of those laws, and that has created a genuine 
crisis in this country.
  Those of us from steel districts have been working for months to put 
this issue on the agenda of the administration and the Congress of the 
United States. We have done so because this is not just a local issue, 
this is not just a regional issue, this is, in every sense, a national 
issue.
  The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means alluded 
to this legislation as presenting trade barriers. I have high esteem 
for him, however, I disagree. This legislation is not about setting up 
trade barriers, it is about fighting unfair trade practices. It is 
about trying to prevent our trading partners from cheating; about 
preventing our trading partners from dumping, dumping thousands of tons 
of steel on our domestic market.

                              {time}  1215

  Preventing dumping, Mr. Speaker, the selling of foreign steel in this 
country at a cost below the cost of producing that steel in the foreign 
country.
  This legislation is about creating a level playing field. We 
recognize that we are operating in an international economy. We welcome 
it. We also recognize that, for that international

[[Page H1353]]

economy to work for us, our foreign partners must play fair. They are 
not. We have lost, by conservative estimates, 8,000 steelworker jobs 
last year and that trend continues because of dumping.
  If we do not act, Mr. Speaker, we risk losing our domestic steel 
industry. And so, I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  First, let me compliment Mr. Visclosky, a distinguished member of the 
Appropriations Committee, for his real leadership in fighting for 
America's steel workers and for America's steel industry.
  Mr. Speaker, the steelworkers of the Ohio Valley are frustrated. 
They're fed up. And they've just about lost faith in their Government's 
promise to uphold its basic trade laws.
  Our trading partners have shown a shocking disregard for those laws. 
And that has created a genuine crisis.
  Those of us from steel districts have been working for months to put 
this issue on the agenda of the administration and the Congress.
  We've done so because this is not just a local issue. This is not 
just a regional issue. This is, in every sense, a national issue.
  This is not about setting up ``trade barriers'', it's about fighting 
unfair ``trade practices.''
  It's about trying to prevent our trading partners from cheating--
about preventing our trading partners from dumping, dumping thousands 
of tons of steel in our domestic market.
  It's about preventing dumping--the selling of foreign steel in this 
country, at a cost below the cost of producing that steel in that 
foreign country.
  This legislation is about creating a level playing field.
  We recognize that we are operating in an international economy. We 
also recognize that for that international economy to work for us, our 
foreign partners must play fair. They are not. We have lost, by 
conservative estimates, 8,000 steel worker jobs last year, and the 
trend continues because of dumping.
  If we don't act, we risk letting foreign nations run American steel 
out of business. And that would put our Nation in an extremely 
vulnerable position--economically vulnerable--with massive loss of jobs 
and widespread bankruptcies--undermining an industry--the steel 
industry, the health of which is essential to our national security.
  So I would say to my colleagues that even if you don't have a single 
steelworker in your district, it's vitally important that you support 
this bill.
  I would like to compliment Mr. Regula and Mr. Visclosky for 
sponsoring this legislation. And I urge my colleagues to do what's 
fair, to do what's right, and vote for this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) has 10 minutes remaining, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky) has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Crane) has 33 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) who is a 
member of our Committee on Ways and Means, who on this special day just 
reminded me that he is Irish notwithstanding his surname, which is 
``English.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Today we are all Irish.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding the time.
  I rise today to applaud the House leadership's decision to bring this 
bill to the full House of Representatives. I believe that the crisis 
facing the U.S. steel industry and the lack of an effective response by 
the Clinton-Gore administration has forced Congress today to take 
action.
  I very much regret that circumstances have brought us to the point 
that Congressional action was necessary. I believe, and I think that 
many of the parties agree, that it would not be necessary for us to 
even consider this legislation today if the administration had used all 
of the tools available to it under current law and consistent with all 
of our international obligations.
  I support this legislation. I urge its passage by the full House of 
Representatives, and I call on my colleagues to stand up for steel.
  I have come to the conclusion that we need firm legislative action. 
Passage of H.R. 975 meets the test of addressing the current crisis in 
the short term and the import monitoring language that would help the 
U.S. steel industry and its workers discern future import surges while 
there is still time to prevent unnecessary damage to our economy. I 
believe that there is additional room for further legislative action in 
the future. This is a good starting point.
  Let us be clear on something, Mr. Speaker. This legislation is not 
protectionism and its opponents are not here truly advocating free 
trade. The steel market is the most distorted on earth, with our 
competitors using a welter of preferences and subsidies to wall out 
their domestic steel producers from competition.
  America has the most efficient steel sector on earth. But in the 
current trade climate, our steel producers are at risk because of the 
predatory trade practices of our competitors. In the face of naked 
mercantilism, American steel needs help.
  I find it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that at this late date the 
administration and its representatives are actually threatening a veto 
of this bill and arguing that we should consider other legislative 
approaches to deal with this pressing issue.
  I was a primary cosponsor of the Trade Fairness Act, which was 
recently introduced, and we would have been more than pleased to have 
had the administration's support while we were advocating this 
legislation and recruiting cosponsors. This approach is entirely WTO 
compliant and could not be colored as sending any sort of protectionist 
signal to our trading partners. Yet the administration was silent on 
our proposal and declined numerous opportunities to support it or work 
with Members from both the Republican and Democratic sides of the aisle 
to offer constructive criticism to strengthen and advance the 
legislation.
  What has happened to cause this renewed focus by the administration 
on the steel crisis? We have put together a bipartisan coalition of 
over 200 members who are forcing this issue and that is why we are 
seeing action today.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me say first of all happy 
St. Patrick's Day to all of us. And let me thank the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for his leadership on this very important 
issue.
  We would not have been as strong as we were in World War II had it 
not been for strength of this nation in oil and steel. And so, I truly 
sympathize with the plight of the steel industry because we are 
currently seeing similar layoffs in the oil patch. I know how painful 
it can be, not only for the people who work in plants and mills but 
also for small businesses.
  I am for trade. I am for fair trade. I am for American workers. We 
have been between 8,000 and 11,000 layoffs. And I would simply say that 
this is an anti-dumping piece of legislation. H.R. 975 does not violate 
the WTO because it specifically allows us to prevent any contracting 
party from taking any action which it considers necessary for the 
protection of essential security interests.
  Let us work together in a bipartisan manner to make our nation strong 
in oil, in steel, in other industries so that he we can face the world 
fairly, not to eliminate opportunities for trade but to ensure that 
this nation engages in fair trade and that we protect American workers 
and American industries.
  Today I rise to speak on behalf of this bill, which would enact 
various measures to support our steel industry--an industry that has 
been hard-hit in the wake of the global financial crisis.
  My decision to support this bill was an incredibly difficult one. I 
fully understand why some of my esteemed colleagues, and the 
Administration, are opposed to this bill. Their arguments are reasoned, 
and take into account many important issues that I feel should always 
be a part of the calculus used to determine our policy on trade issues. 
Those issues include compliance with international law, and potential 
trade backlash by our neighbors.
  However, there is one number that persuaded me to vote in favor of 
this bill. Since the beginning of this crisis, over 11,000 jobs have 
been lost in the steel industry. That number of lost jobs can decimate 
a community, and turn a local economy into an economic wasteland. I can 
truly sympathize with the plight of the steel industry, because we are 
currently seeing similar layoffs in the ``Oil Patch''--of which Houston 
is a part.
  I have seen firsthand, because of my experiences with the struggling 
energy industry

[[Page H1354]]

where we have had thousands upon thousands of layoffs, how mass layoffs 
can affect the psyche of a community. I know how painful it can be, not 
only for the people who work in the plants and mills, but also for the 
small business owners around them who depend on these workers for their 
livelihood.
  For those of my colleagues that still doubt the seriousness of this 
issue, let me bring to light some more, cold, hard numbers. The steel 
industry lost $23 million last year in the fourth quarter alone. As a 
result, they had to lay off workers in order to keep a semblance of an 
industry. The 11,000 layoffs have resulted in over a $16 million loss 
to steel towns across America. And that number does not include the 
cost to our Federal Government that will be spent on worker retraining 
programs and unemployment benefits. We must support this resolution, we 
simply cannot afford not to.
  Furthermore, I believe that H.R. 975 is, contrary to the arguments by 
the opponents of the bill, not a violation of our World Trade 
Organization (WTO) agreements. Article 21 of GATT specifically states 
that ``Nothing in this agreement shall be construed . . . to prevent 
any contracting party from taking any action which it considers 
necessary for the protection of its essential security interests . . . 
and to such traffic in goods and materials as is carried on directly or 
indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment.'' 
That means that any industry, which is strongly relied upon by the 
military establishment, can be protected by trade regulations in the 
interest of national security! I believe that is the case here today.
  For those of you that do not realize how much the steel industry is 
relied upon by our military, here are some figures. During the War in 
the Persian Gulf, we deployed 95,000 tons of American steel in the form 
of battleships, aircraft carriers, tanks, aircraft, and artillery. We 
could not have been as successful as we were without the benefit of a 
robust steel industry here in the United States. We could not apply 
further pressure against Iraq, without the constant and ready supply of 
steel here in the United States. If we are to lose more mills, we run 
the risk of losing our ability to replenish our military resources, and 
therefore, diminish our level of national security.
  I hope that all of you will agree with me that something must be 
done, and urge all of you to vote yes on H.R. 975.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Mascara) who has been a leader in enabling us to get 
H.R. 975 on the floor.
  (Mr. MASCARA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Speaker, it takes longer than a few minutes to 
express my outrage for the loss of steelworker jobs in southwestern 
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and around the country. We have 
lost, as many have said, over 10,000 jobs. I was there in the 1970s and 
1980s when over 250,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in southwestern 
Pennsylvania.
  I come from an area that out produced the world in coal and steel 
that helped win two world wars. But this steel dumping problem is just 
the tip of the iceberg. Wait until other industries, including farming, 
feel the wrath of the unbridled world economy, an economy led by the 
World Trade Organization.
  The WTO either cannot or will not intervene in cases of subsidized 
industries and the dumping of products of steel. The WTO is a poor 
excuse for an international arbiter. Let us face it, we have the most 
efficient steel industry in the world. Our steelworkers are the most 
productive in the world. All that needs to be done is to enforce our 
trade laws.
  We do not need protection. We need fairness. Our foreign trading 
partners cannot compete with American workers so they resort to illegal 
means like subsidizing and dumping.
  Stand up, America. Are you not tired of being dumped on? Vote for 
H.R. 975.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay) our distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  I understand why some Members are in support of this bill. But, Mr. 
Speaker, I respectfully rise today to voice my opposition to this steel 
quota bill. The choice facing us is clear. Either we want protectionism 
or we want free markets. Protectionism not only stunts this country's 
growth but also hurts the very industries it tries to protect. Steel is 
no exception to that rule.
  America's steel industry leads the world in productivity and quality 
today because of competition, not protection. Since 1982, the amount of 
man-hours it takes to produce a ton of steel in America has dropped 
from over 10 hours to less than 4 hours. America's steel companies 
still supply nearly three-quarters of the steel consumed in America. 
Even if they produce steel at full capacity, we would still have to 
import steel in order to meet America's needs.
  Will America really be better off by meddling with this market? The 
United States is the world's largest exporter. We are inescapably 
linked to markets all around this globe, and most American industries 
depend on some imported materials.
  It is doubtful that the capacity of some American industries could be 
sustained by American suppliers alone. Setting tariffs on steel only 
comes at the cost of other sectors of the U.S. economy. There is also a 
great danger to slapping tariffs on goods when the world economy is 
already unstable. All nations and all consumers are losers in trade 
wars.
  If we close our markets, the markets of the world are then closed to 
us. No doubt such anti-trade developments are the real threat to our 
economy and to thousands of American jobs. Protectionism hurts American 
workers.
  When we limit the ability of our trade partners to access our market, 
we destroy the very framework that is the foundation of vibrant, 
dynamic trade and cooperation. Tariffs and quotas only tie the hands of 
American businesses by limiting our business partners and destroying 
markets for American products.
  Mr. Speaker, we should have no barriers to American ingenuity and no 
obstacles to American prosperity. Simply put, protectionism is an 
obstacle to our freedom. We cannot close ourselves off from the world. 
Trade is not a four-letter word. It is a fact of life.
  Mr. Speaker, no nation was ever ruined by free trade, but many 
nations have collapsed because of failing trade. I urge my colleagues 
to vote against this anti-trade bill.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) another distinguished colleague from the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, while one could say that 
the administration did not respond promptly enough nor aggressively 
enough, the administration has taken some tough actions with some 
impressive results, as my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane) clearly outlined.
  It is also true that the industry could have been more aggressive. 
They could have brought a 201 safeguard action. They are spending a 
million dollars a month on legal fees and they could have done more to 
help themselves. But this, my colleagues, what we consider here today, 
is truly madness.
  I fought hard for voluntary restraint agreements for machine tools. I 
have worked hard on anti-dumping law. I was there when we passed the 
301 capability. But this is madness. We pass this and the very next day 
a steel company in my district closes. Two hundred sixty high-paying 
UAW jobs will be gone in spite of the fact that this company invested 
$50 million in the recent past to modernize their equipment because 
they are dependent on a single source of raw carbon and alloy steel in 
Europe.
  They had even given money to American steel companies to try to get 
the same quality steel produced in America. They have not succeeded. 
They have one source. It is foreign.
  This bill makes no allowance for the importation of steel for which 
there is no source in America. How am I to explain to those employees 
that they are losing their jobs because they need steel from abroad 
that is not made in America? We are going to close them down, and we 
have no understanding, and the proponents of this bill cannot tell us, 
how many other companies there are in America like mine that are 
significantly dependent on foreign imports because the steel is not 
made in America.
  And furthermore, they cannot tell me how many jobs will go under 
within 2 weeks after my shop closes because they cannot get the product 
my shop makes.

                              {time}  1230

  This is irrational. Furthermore, this is not about a bill that does 
not allow

[[Page H1355]]

any exception for no American supply and no exception for short supply, 
that is, American capacity that maybe is 20 percent of what our demand 
is. This bill makes no exception for those companies and those jobs 
will go out in a quick nanominute. Not only that but it will, over 
time, very rapidly reduce the amount of imports allowed, because it 
does not allow the same imports that were allowed in those years, part 
of 1994, 1995, 1996 and part of 1997. It cuts those imports. It says no 
more than the average. Well, that average, Mr. Speaker, was the average 
between low imports and high imports. If your new ``high imports'' is 
now the average, your new average import is going to be somewhere 
between low and average. That is going to cut the supply of steel to 
American companies so rapidly, you will not know what hit you, and you 
have no estimates of the job impact of that cut in imports.
  This is irresponsible. We are going to undermine American 
manufacturing with this bill more aggressively than we have with any 
other action this floor has ever taken.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), our colleague on the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.) Coast Guard
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from Indiana for 
bringing up this issue. It is an important one, we have to get at it, 
we have got to do something about it.
  The issue is not over the hurt. The issue is how to cure the hurt. It 
seems to me from my experience that this bill has a heart but it does 
not have a head. What do I mean by that? First of all, it is not going 
to go anyplace. Even if it did, it is WTO illegal. Furthermore, the 
most important thing is we have sort of a reverse golden rule. We are 
doing unto others what we do not want others to do unto us. An example 
of that, of course, is the banana issue.
  I have been in this situation personally. I have been in a company 
which almost went on its knees because of unfair trading practices, and 
I relate to that. There are two issues here, though. There is the 
antidumping issue, and there is the threatening of an industry issue. 
It is not just antidumping. This is an industry, the steel industry, 
which is threatened by its very existence, and this is a different part 
of the trade law and we have got to get at this. But this is not the 
way to do it, because it is not going to go anyplace. It is not going 
to be legal. It is going to hurt us long-term.
  There is another alternative, and I really point to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Levin) who has been extraordinarily helpful in this. 
There is a bill coming up within the next couple of weeks called H.R. 
1120. It gets at the issue, it is legal, it is bipartisan, and I think 
it has the support of the administration. I think the important thing 
to know is that there is a mine field out there in international trade. 
It is not exactly clear, and you have to sort of muddle your way 
through it but you have to do it in consideration of the rest of the 
world and also our trading partners.
  The bill that will be coming up that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) and I are sponsoring does several things. First of all it 
shortens the time. If you have a 201 case, many times you will say, 
``Why should I apply this, why should I file, because I can't afford 
it. It takes too long. It's very, very expensive.'' We are going to fix 
that.
  Also, it creates an early warning system which is very, very 
important and anticipates these surges. The most important thing it 
does, and I think the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) indicated 
this earlier, if people work the laws on the books as they are now, 
then we would not have this problem. The administration for years and 
years and years has not done that. The last person out of the oval 
office is usually one of the top secretaries, the Secretary of the 
Treasury, the Secretary of State and they are talking about the macro 
issues. In the meantime, the individual industries go under. This tends 
to put the onus on the President, on the administration to abide by and 
enact and do the things which are necessary under the laws.
  I would encourage people not to vote for H.R. 975 but to wait for a 
couple of weeks because we have a good bill coming up.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong 
support of this bipartisan resolution.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  (Mr. BROWN of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 975 
and for America's steelworkers.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 975 and in support of 
the thousands of American workers who have lost their jobs because of 
our obsession with free trade.
  Since the United States joined NAFTA and the WTO, over 200,000 
Americans have seen their jobs exported abroad. These jobs have not 
become obsolete because of some advance in technology, but because we 
have deliberately pursued a trade policy that sacrifices productive 
American jobs for cheap foreign imports.
  Last year the U.S. trade deficit was a whopping $168 billion, the 
highest in our history. Nineteen ninety-nine promises us an even larger 
trade imbalance, especially if we are foolish enough to give China 
membership in the World Trade Organization or inflict NAFTA-like trade 
provisions on Sub-Saharan Africa.
  Yet the opponents of H.R. 975 are telling us the trade deficit 
doesn't matter. Just look around, we're told. Our economy is the envy 
of the world. Wall Street is booming. The stock market topped the 
10,000 mark yesterday. And those cheap foreign imports, including hot 
rolled steel, are sending American shoppers into a buying frenzy.
  Well, an unemployed steel or textile worker will tell you the trade 
deficit does matter. The booming economy is bypassing the American 
worker. These Americans don't have enough money to put food on the 
table, much less enough to invest in stocks and bonds.
  While H.R. 975 is a good bill and should provide import relief to the 
steel industry, it does nothing to address the glaring need to regulate 
the global economy before the next major American industry has to close 
its doors to unfair competition.
  We need trade agreements that act as if people mattered, and have an 
obligation to put the needs of American workers before corporate 
profit. We can start today by passing H.R. 975. Then we must reject 
every trade initiative unless it includes meaningful labor and 
environmental protection standards. This is the only way we can prevent 
higher trade deficits and protect American workers from the corporate 
trade agenda. Support H.R. 975, support a trade bill for Africa that 
benefits American and African workers, and reject Chinese membership in 
the WTO.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this is a very curious bill brought out 
by the Committee on Ways and Means with a recommendation that it do not 
pass. Now, very seldom does that happen, unless it is a very political 
bill. And this is nothing but politics. The President has already said 
he is going to repeal it, and he really does it for several very good 
reasons.
  H.R. 975 would impose quotas on steel imports outside our U.S. trade 
remedy laws and our U.S. obligations in the World Trade Organization. 
We would simply be running straight into the world trading rules 
headfirst, knowing it, and knowing that we are out of bounds. Now, that 
does not make any sense.
  We heard from Members on the other side, the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and others, about the problems created by an 
absolute quota without knowing anything about what the impacts of that 
are on those people who use the raw product for finished products.
  When we built the trade center in Seattle, we needed a piece of steel 
to span the freeway to rest the building on. There was no place to buy 
that steel except Korea. That is where we bought it. Now, if you want 
to say to whatever construction project or whatever is going on in this 
country, if they do not make it in the United States, you cannot do it, 
this is the bill to support. Because you are not taking into account,

[[Page H1356]]

and one of the real problems with this debate is, there are lots of 
questions, none of which are being answered, but what do you do with 
the supplier or the producer who needs the raw material that is only 
obtained in another country?
  Now, there is an additional problem and that one is a much more 
philosophic problem. We live in a world trading market. If we start 
this business of trade wars and we put up our barrier against somebody 
else and they put theirs up against us, we will soon see what Smoot-
Hawley did back in the 1920s. We do not want to go back to that. Vote 
against this bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink). He has been very, very active on this issue.
  (Mr. KLINK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) has been a pleasure to 
work with on this issue as we have people in our district that are 
really suffering.
  I just want to point out something. I saw this chart which I found 
quite curious. It is the fact that we now have seen a dramatic drop in 
the amount of imports that we are receiving from Russia, Japan and 
Brazil. This is all correct. But at the same time, imports from China 
have increased 552 percent, and imports from Indonesia have increased 
by 1310 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a shell game. We are kidding ourselves. I come 
from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. We used to be the steel city. We are 
still bleeding from the loss of jobs in the 1970s and the 1980s. It is 
now an insult that we are not going to stand up against trade that is 
in fact illegal.
  If I can go to the next chart, what I want to show my colleagues is 
that the trade we are talking about right now, the steel dumping that 
is occurring here is illegal trade. They are bringing steel over here, 
hot-rolled steel, cold-rolled steel, they are bringing over specialty 
steel and they are selling it below cost. They are putting thousands of 
workers out of jobs. I know some of the hundreds of thousands of 
workers who were displaced in the late 1970s and 1980s. It has caused a 
displacement in the communities, in the families, an increase in the 
level of violence. We are talking about a life-and-death situation. If 
we had a situation where these were our constituents and someone was 
breaking in their house and raping and robbing and pillaging them, we 
would want to send in a policeman to do something. In this instance, 
they are just coming in and taking their future, they are taking their 
jobs, they are taking all of their dreams away. There are people 
standing up saying, ``We're not going to stand up for these workers.''
  We must pass H.R. 975. It is not only the 170,000 people who work in 
steel but the people who mine iron ore, who mine coal, who make coke, 
who work in transportation of steel products. We must stand up for the 
people of this Nation. We must stand up with a force of steel and with 
a backbone of steel.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula).
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say thanks to the 
Committee on Ways and Means and to the leadership for giving us this 
opportunity to debate this issue. I know that it was not something that 
the Committee on Ways and Means was supportive as evident by their 
recommendation, even our leadership, but they said in fairness--in 
fairness--people should have an opportunity to debate this issue and 
vote on it. For that, I express my appreciation.
  We are here because we have a crisis in this Nation. We have a crisis 
of unfair trading practices. The issue is not protectionism. That word 
gets bandied around so easily. The real issue is fairness. We want our 
steelworkers and our steel industry and all the ancillary jobs and 
suppliers to be treated fairly. It is difficult to compete when the 
steel products coming into the United States are being sold at less 
than cost. Our steelworkers are the most efficient, the most 
competitive, the best quality in the world today. But all of those 
things do not mean a lot if the competition from overseas is saying, we 
will sell it for almost any price we can get, simply to earn hard 
currency.
  We have heard speeches that say the sky is falling. The sky is not 
going to fall if we adopt this bill. It is going to give the President 
discretion to ensure that there will be fairness in the marketplace, 
that our steelworkers and the suppliers and the literally tens of 
thousands of jobs that are dependent on this industry will have an 
opportunity to compete on a level playing field. I think this bill just 
simply represents an opportunity for our industry to compete. It does 
have a 3-year time frame.
  Let me just say, lastly, I think we need to take a look at our whole 
trading policy. We are in a different world when many of these laws 
were put on the books and we need to say prospectively we want fairness 
for American products.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. 
Speaker, I rise today as the son of a Pittsburgh steelworker and in 
strong support of American steelworkers, the American steel industry 
and the Bipartisan Steel Recovery Act. The case is clear. The American 
steel industry and our steelworkers are in crisis and Congress must 
act.
  Already, 10,000 steelworkers and iron ore miners have been laid off 
or have lost their jobs. Thousands more have had their workdays and 
paychecks cut. Several steel companies have been forced into 
bankruptcy. Our failure to approve this legislation and to end this 
crisis now risks the disappearance of the American steel industry 
altogether. We allow this to happen at tremendous cost to our economy 
and our national security.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Speaker, our obligation ultimately is to the thousands and 
thousands of hard-working American families who have served their 
country mining and producing this critical product, put bread on the 
table by the sweat of their brow, raised families, contributed to their 
communities and who now risk losing everything because of the current 
steel dumping crisis.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I 
urge President Clinton to be loyal to the hard-working American men and 
women who have been loyal to him and sign this legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. First, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for really making this possible for us to have 
a vote today on this very important bill. I would also like to 
congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for his work on this 
area. I say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) I like this 
bill, but it deals with a prospective problem. We need to deal with the 
current situation. We need to pass this bill and the bill that he 
mentioned.
  Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to express my appreciation to the 
steelworkers at Sparrows Point in Maryland for their persistence in 
being here to demonstrate exactly what effect this illegal surge of 
imported steel has had on our work force. There is no question that 
this activity has been illegal. The imports are wrong, and there is no 
question of the harm that it has caused. Ten thousand jobs have been 
lost.
  Mr. Speaker, Bethlehem Steel's fourth quarter financial reports show 
that this is certainly a very serious situation. It is not Bethlehem 
Steel's fault. They made the investments in the 1980's and early 
1990's. They can compete with steel produced anywhere in the world as 
long as it is on a fair and level playing field. That is not the case.
  The bill before us is an appropriate remedy, so for the sake of our 
U.S. steelworkers, for the sake of basic fairness, let us pass this 
legislation.
  I will vote in favor of this anti-steel dumping bill. But before I 
do, I want to personally thank

[[Page H1357]]

Representative Visclosky for his leadership on this issue. And I want 
to recognize the hard work of the steel industry in the last year. I 
want to congratulate union and management for their tenacity. They 
refused to let us forget what this dumping was doing to their lives.
  If you looked up the definition of the word persistence in Webster's 
Dictionary you ought to find a picture of some of the steelworkers and 
managers from Bethlehem Steel's Sparrows Point division in Baltimore. 
Sometimes it felt like they were living in my front office during the 
last few months.
  But they have made it clear to all of us that this problem is real. 
That they are frightened for themselves and their families. 10,000 jobs 
have been lost due to unfair dumping. We're told more will come if 
something isn't done soon. There are already slowdowns at Bethlehem 
Steel. The company's fourth quarter financial reports were anything but 
rosy.
  These workers were not only frightened, they were furious. Furious at 
our inaction. Furious at our handwringing. Well, today we have the 
opportunity to act and get their industry back to producing quality 
steel on a level playing field.
  It is hard to argue with their fury. Consider the numbers and the 
facts. U.S. imports of steel from Japan jumped nearly 162-percent from 
1997 to 1998. 162-percent! I had a Beth Steel manager in my office last 
week who said that just as the levels for Russian steel imports began 
to decrease, the levels of Chinese dumped steel took its place. It's 
like that boardwalk game ``Whack-A-Mole'': you hit one, and another 
pops up.
  The U.S. steel industry is an industry that has already taken its 
whacks--whacks it well deserved--and managed to reemerge stronger and 
more profitable because of it. I began my career here in Congress just 
as this revitalized industry returned to the fore in 1987.

  But I also remember the darkness before the dawn. As Speaker of the 
House in the Maryland General Assembly at the time, I remember that 
painful process for Beth Steel and the steel industry as a whole. 
Between 1977 and 1987, 45 million tons of steelmaking capacity was lost 
due to bankruptcies, plant closures, and partial closures. Employment 
dropped 57 percent. Almost 300,000 steelworkers lost their jobs. The 
wages and benefits of those workers who survived were substantially cut 
as well.
  I cite these figures to stress that these were fair blows the 
industry had to withstand. The industry had let itself lag behind other 
countries. It had failed to adopt new techniques and practices until 
these practices themselves were out of date. The industry needed to be 
shaken awake. A reinvigorated international steel industry did just 
that.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. steel industry can't blame itself for the 
problems it faces today. And one month declines in the levels of steel 
imports are nice but I fear them to be a false dawn.
  The blows this industry is being asked to absorb here are not fair 
ones. The United States has the only true open market in the world. But 
it is being forced to compete against countries whose steel producers 
are heavily subsidized or which work in cartels.
  I support the Visclosky bill because it returns the field to the even 
level that the whole industry played on before July 1998. I appreciate 
the complexity of the global financial crisis which prompted this glut 
of imports. I appreciate the distress of steel workers all over Asia, 
South America, and Russia. But quite frankly it's my job to look after 
the distressed steelworkers at Beth Steel. They are my primary 
responsibility. They are our primary responsibility. We have to do more 
for them.
  The steel industry has been sending SOS signals to the U.S. Congress 
for months now. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 975 
and show these workers we hear their call and help is on the way.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague and neighbor, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, this bill, if it is passed, could have the 
law of unintended consequences. Let me explain. Kelly Springfield has a 
radial tire manufacturing facility in my district, and I would really 
appreciate if the House could listen very closely to this:
  Mr. Speaker, steel wire rod for tire cord which goes into radial 
tires is not manufactured in the United States. It has to be outsourced 
from foreign countries. Kelly Springfield has a radial tire 
manufacturing facility in the district that I represent. Because this 
bill is so broad, it would slap import quotas on steel wire rod for 
tire cords and there have the possibility of laying off workers at 
American plants that make tires, that make radial tires. This is not 
the type of bill that we need.
  In a neighboring county, McHenry County, Brake Parts was having 
rotors from China dumped in the United States. We encouraged Brake 
Parts to file a complaint with the International Trade Commission, got 
a retroactive order and stopped that practice. But we have to do 
something else. We have to pass the Regula bill so that any tariffs 
that are collected as a result of illegal dumping in this country not 
go to the coffers or to the Treasury of the United States, but go to 
the companies hurt and to the workers hurt thereby.
  So the bill is imperfect in its form. It would actually hurt 
manufacturers, it would hurt employees in this country. Second of all, 
we need to work towards enactment of the Regula bill so that any 
benefit that comes as a result of sanctions against people who are 
dumping here go directly to the employees.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) who has been a leader on steel issues 
throughout his career here.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding this time to me, and I want to commend the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for the very strong leadership, determined 
effort and excellent grasp of the ramifications of steel dumping in 
this country has meant for our American worker and our American 
economy. Obviously I rise in support, Mr. Speaker, of this resolution 
and feel very strongly that it is vital in order to protect our 
American workers.
  Steel producers, as we all know and has been said, in other countries 
such as Japan, Brazil and Russia are heavily subsidized by their 
government and thus are able to take advantage of America's open 
markets by dumping excess steel here resulting in closed bankrupt steel 
plants and throwing thousands of our steelworkers out of their jobs, 
unable to sustain their families and their quality of life. But aside 
from the closure of our steel mills and unemployed workers is the 
impact that this could have on the future stability of the U.S. and how 
it could inhibit our national security.
  As has been said by others, we cannot sustain our Nation's armed 
forces, their equipment and weapons using Styrofoam and plastic. We 
have to have steel, particularly and preferably steel that comes from 
our own industry and our own workers, a known product, not from steel 
produced in foreign lands and dumped on our shores.
  The bill before us today directs the President to take the necessary 
steps including imposing quotas, tariff surcharges or negotiated 
enforceable voluntary export restraints that cap steel imports. The 
bill also requires the administration to establish a steel import 
notification and a monitoring program.
  Mr. Speaker, I am neither a protectionist nor a free trader. I 
believe in protecting our own labor force and our own industry, and 
H.R. 975 will do that.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for steel, vote for this bill and 
create a level playing field for Americans for a change instead of our 
foreign trading partners whose governments subsidize them while 
breaking our laws. I thank the gentleman again for yielding time to me 
and commend him for his excellent leadership.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending my good friend 
next door to me in Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for his hard work and 
leadership on this very important issue.
  First of all, what this issue is not about: It is not about American 
protectionism, it is about American principle. This is not about 
unfettered free trade, it is about enforcing our fair trade agreements. 
And this is not about corporate downsizing, it is about illegal 
dumping.
  When the Clinton administration finally agreed and the Commerce 
Department to look into this matter, they found, and I quote from their 
news release in the Commerce Department, that the Commerce Department 
will instruct Customs to require importers of these products to post a 
bond or cash deposit of all imports entered during the 90 days 
preliminary to the determination. Unprecedented 25 days ahead of time 
the Commerce Department found that Japan and Brazil were engaged in 
this illegal dumping.
  So I encourage in a bipartisan way our colleagues to stand up for 
this

[[Page H1358]]

American principle of enforcing our trade agreements.


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The Chair would remind Members 
of both sides of the aisle to try to adhere to the time limits. We are 
extending the debate by not doing so.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).
  (Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter from the CEO and 
Chairman of Caterpillar that I referred to earlier. I also have letters 
from other manufacturing companies in my general area around Chicago 
that I will include as a part of the Record.


                                             Caterpillar Inc.,

                                       Peoria, IL, March 10, 1999.
     Hon. Philip M. Crane,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Crane: As one of America's largest 
     exporters and biggest consumers of US-made steel, Caterpillar 
     urges you to vote against the Visclosky-Quinn Quota Bill 
     (H.R. 975). The company strongly opposes the legislation 
     because it not only would hurt our competitiveness in 
     overseas markets, but would lead to direct retaliation 
     against Cat exports. It also would establish a system that 
     rewards countries that engage in unfair trade practices, 
     undermines the international trading system and jeopardizes 
     the global economic recovery.
       By imposing mandatory controls on steel imports from all 
     countries--including fairly traded imports--the Visclosky-
     Quinn Quota Bill would severely restrict the availability of 
     steel to U.S. manufacturers. When this type of protectionist 
     scheme was attempted during the 1980s, it created an 
     artificially restrictive steel market resulting in steel 
     shortages and higher prices. At times Caterpillar had to fly-
     in steel from overseas just to keep our production lines 
     running. On one occasion, we come perilously close to 
     shutting down our largest plant while we waited for 
     permission to import a type of steel that wasn't even made in 
     the United States.
       What's equally troubling is the impact the Quota Bill could 
     have on Caterpillar exports. Because this legislation 
     blatantly violates U.S. international obligations, our 
     trading partners would feel justified in retaliating against 
     American exports. Likely targets would be U.S. 
     manufacturers--like Caterpillar--that export steel-intensive 
     products. Since Caterpillar buys more than 90 percent of its 
     steel from U.S. steel producers, such retaliation would 
     further harm the American steel industry while severely 
     damaging Cat's export markets.
       Regrettably, the Quota Bill is structured in a way that 
     could actually reward countries that engage in unfair trade 
     practices. Unlike trade remedy laws that attempt to 
     neutralize the effects of dumping or subsides, this 
     legislation would reward countries with a guaranteed share of 
     a restricted U.S. market. As a result, much of the quota 
     ``rent'' generated by higher prices would go to foreign steel 
     producers.
       Finally, this legislation could have a catastrophic impact 
     on the international economy. Today the U.S. economy is at 
     full employment. Inflation is nonexistent. The Dow Jones 
     average is near 10,000. Enactment of the Quota Bill would 
     mandate the United States radically change the direction of 
     its trade and economic policies. At a time when the U.S. is 
     pressuring countries that are in far worse shape to keep 
     markets open and free, the Visclosky-Quinn Bill would likely 
     trigger a retreat into protectionism.
       Representative Crane, we know the lure of quick-fix 
     solutions can be appealing. But protectionism isn't the 
     answer. By now, it's clear that U.S. unfair trade laws are 
     working. By almost all measures the crisis in the steel 
     industry has passed. Rather than focusing on protectionist 
     measures like the Visclosky-Quinn Bill, we urge you to 
     support initiatives aimed at improving the competitiveness of 
     the U.S. steel industry. That way, the steel industry, 
     American manufacturers, and U.S. workers and consumers all 
     win.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Glen Barton,
     Chairman and CEO.
                                  ____

                                  Complex Tooling & Molding, Inc.,


                                     Krasberg Metals Division,

                               Des Plaines, IL, November 30, 1998.
     Philip M. Crane,
     Palatine, IL.
       Dear Representative Philip M. Crane: In the interest of 
     Complex Tooling & Molding, Inc.-Krasberg Metals Division a 
     producer of metal stampings and assemblies for over 50 years, 
     and over 50 employees in the suburban Chicago area. We are 
     also a member of the Precision Metalforming Association 
     (PMA), the trade association that represents many users and 
     consumers of steel and steel products.
       The protectionist pressures currently being exerted by the 
     ``Stand Up for Steel'' coalition give us great concern 
     because they are aimed at restricting our ability to get the 
     best steel available for a competitive price. We know that 
     trade restrictions such as those advocated by protectionist 
     interests will result in a net loss of U.S. jobs. We support 
     you in your efforts to improve, not undermine the U.S. 
     economy.
       We need adequate and dependable sources of steel to 
     maintain and expand our operations in the United States--
     sometimes that means that we must rely on foreign steel. At 
     best, the U.S. steel producers are capable of meeting only 
     70-75 percent of U.S. demand. Actions that curtail imports of 
     steel will seriously injure our industry and the economy as a 
     whole through higher prices, fewer choices and job migration 
     offshore.
       We all agree that it is important to maintain U.S. jobs and 
     job growth. Steel is no less important than other sectors. 
     However, you should remember that the major U.S. steel using 
     industries (stamped or fabricated metal products and others) 
     employ some 8.3 million-production workers, nearly fifty 
     times the number employed by U.S. steel producers. These jobs 
     depend on maintaining competitive market conditions in this 
     country. If steel imports are restricted, imports of steel 
     products will certainly increase, and more jobs will be 
     destroyed in this country.
       In determining what is fair for steel producers, we ask you 
     to remember that short-term benefits for the steel industry 
     may have a long-term negative effect on U.S. jobs and the 
     economy as a whole.
       Thank you for your support.
           Sincerely,
     Dan Berg.
                                  ____



                                                 Tru-Die Inc.,

                           Franklin Park, Il, December 21st, 1998.
     Philip Crane,
     Palatine, IL.
       Dear Congressman Crane: Our company Tru-Die Inc., is a 
     metal stamping facility, that was started in 1964. We have 
     approximately 75 employees that are concerned about their job 
     security. We are also a member of the Precision Metalforming 
     Association (PMA), the trade association that represents many 
     users and consumers of steel and steel products.
       The protectionist pressures currently being exerted by the 
     ``Stand Up for Steel'' coalition give us great concern, 
     because they are aimed at restricting our ability to get the 
     best steel available for a competitive price. We know that 
     trade restrictions such as those advocated by protectionist 
     interests will result in a net loss of U.S. jobs. We support 
     you in your efforts to improve, not undermine the U.S. 
     economy.
       We need adequate and dependable sources of steel to 
     maintain and expand our operations in the United States--
     sometimes that means that we must rely on foreign steel. At 
     best, the U.S. steel producers are capable of meeting only 
     70-75 percent of U.S. demand. Actions that curtail imports of 
     steel will seriously injure our industry and the economy as a 
     whole through higher prices, fewer choices and job migration 
     offshore.
       We all agree that it is important to maintain U.S. jobs and 
     job growth. Steel is no less important than other sectors. 
     However, you should remember that the major U.S. steel using 
     industries (stamped or fabricated metal products and others) 
     employ some 8.3 million production workers, mearly fifty 
     times the number employed by U.S. steel producers. These jobs 
     depend on maintaining competitive market conditions in this 
     country. If steel imports are restricted, imports of steel 
     products will certainly increase, and more jobs will be 
     destroyed in this country.
       In determining what is fair for steel producers, we ask you 
     to remember that short-term benefits for the steel industry 
     may have a long-term negative effect on U.S. jobs and the 
     economy as a whole.
       Thank you for your support.
     Don Brown.
                                  ____



                                    Olson International, Ltd.,

                                    Lombard, IL, December 1, 1998.
     Congressman Philip Crane,
     Illinois 8th District, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Crane, our company, Olson International 
     Ltd., is a precision metal stamping company that employs 
     approximately two hundred twenty people in our Lombard, IL, 
     facility. We have been in business for over sixty years and 
     we are a QS9000 registered company.
       We supply high quality metal parts to the automotive, 
     appliance and electronics industry.
       This letter is written to inform you that we are not in 
     favor of protectionist measures that would attempt to 
     restrict the import of flat roll steel products.
       We are also a member of the Precision Metal Forming 
     Association (PMA), the trade association that represents many 
     users and consumers of steel and steel products. In addition, 
     I am a Certified Purchasing Manager and a director of the 
     National Association of Purchasing Management, Chicago 
     chapter. (NAPM-Chicago). Also, I chair our local metal 
     buyer's committee and can loudly state that a curb in imports 
     of flat roll steel products would negatively impact 
     fabricators in the Midwest.
       The protectionist pressures currently being exerted by the 
     ``Stand Up for Steel'' coalition gives us great concern, 
     because they are aimed at restricting our ability to get the 
     best steel available for a competitive price. We know that 
     trade restrictions such as those advocated by protectionist 
     interests will result in a net loss of U.S. jobs. We support 
     you in your efforts to improve, not undermine the U.S. 
     economy.
       We need adequate and dependable sources of steel to 
     maintain and expand our operations in the United States--
     sometimes that

[[Page H1359]]

     means that we must rely on foreign steel. At best, U.S. steel 
     producers are capable of meeting only 70-75 percent of U.S. 
     demand. Actions that curtail imports of steel will seriously 
     injure our industry and the economy as a whole through higher 
     prices, fewer choices and job migration offshore.
       We all agree that it is important to maintain U.S. jobs and 
     job growth. Steel is no less important than other sectors. 
     However, you should remember that the major U.S. steel using 
     industries (stamped or fabricated metal products and others) 
     employ some 8.3 million production workers, nearly fifty 
     times the number employed by U.S. steel producers. These jobs 
     depend on maintaining competitive market conditions in this 
     country. If steel imports are restricted, imports of steel 
     products will certainly increase, and more jobs will be 
     destroyed in this country.
       In determining what is fair for steel producers, we ask you 
     to remember that short-term benefits for the steel industry 
     may have a long-term negative effect on U.S. jobs and the 
     economy as a whole.
       Thank you for your support.
           Sincerely,
                                          Edward C. Farrer C.P.M.,
                                            Manager of Purchasing.

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, on February 25 I testified before the 
Subcommittee on Trade panel of the Committee on Ways and Means 
regarding the crisis of the United States steel industry caused by the 
flood of illegal imports. At the hearing I stated that imposing quotas 
legislatively was a measure of last resort utilized when it is clear 
that other options will not suffice to enforce our trade laws. 
Unfortunately it has become all too clear that the Clinton 
administration has no intention of aggressively enforcing our trade 
laws. I would far prefer that the administration use the tools that 
Congress has given to enforce our laws. The administration could take 
unilateral action to address the illegally dumped steel coming into the 
United States, but they have not done so. Although I have misgivings 
about the potential for retaliation that the legislation may engender, 
Congress simply cannot tolerate the dithering by the administration 
while the United States steel industry continues to bleed.
  American steelworkers are the most productive in the world. 
Investments in new technology in the 1980s and the training to reduced 
the hours of labor to make one ton of steel from 9.3 hours in 1980 to 
just 2 hours in 1999. The industry and its workers are the most 
efficient and productive in the world, and I ask my colleagues to 
support the Visclosky-Regula bill.


                                            Ispat Inland, Inc,

                                  East Chicago IN, March 12, 1999.
     Hon. Stephen Buyer,
     Members of Congress,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Representative Buyer, I wish to thank you again for 
     inviting us and other steel manufacturing companies to meet 
     with you last Friday, March 5, 1999. It was a welcome 
     opportunity to be able to personally share with you our views 
     on the current steel import crisis and its impact on steel 
     industry jobs and markets in the United States. Thank you 
     also for inviting me to again share those views with you in 
     this letter.
       There is an important historical perspective to the current 
     issue. In the early and mid-1980's, the domestic steel 
     industry was similarly faced with the spectre of massive 
     imports of dumped and unfairly subsidized foreign steel 
     products. At that time the industry was generally ill 
     prepared to effectively respond to that challenge. As a 
     result, the Congress and the Administration granted temporary 
     relief in the form of stringent quotas placed on imported 
     steel products. In effect, the domestic steel industry was 
     granted sufficient time to re-make itself into a competitive 
     player in the world market.
       Years of painful, but necessary, restructuring ensued and 
     today the steel industry has emerged as a highly competitive 
     producer of world class products. For example, labor 
     productivity has increased 5.5% annually since 1980, energy 
     consumption has decreased by 45% in roughly the same time 
     period, and environmental and safety performance far exceeds 
     that of the steel industry elsewhere in the world. We can 
     compete with anyone so long as the playing field is level. 
     However, the dynamics of world economics are such that the 
     playing field has been rendered unlevel today.
       There has been a massive new wave of unfairly traded 
     imports and a quick and decisive governmental response has 
     not been forthcoming. In recent months, the industry has 
     asked the Administration to help us prosecute a Section 201 
     case and to assure us that the President will impose a global 
     remedy if we are successful. The Administration has refused 
     this request.
       In fact, in the case of the proposed Russian Suspension 
     Agreement, the Administration has taken steps, over our 
     objections, to limit our rights under existing trade laws. 
     While we were successful in obtaining effective dumping 
     margins against Russian steel imports, the Administration 
     proposes suspension of that case while permitting Russia 
     significant access to our markets. The resultant product flow 
     into this country will be illegal under current trade law. I 
     recognize that foreign policy issues are at stake, but the 
     damage to our industry will be egregious.
       The domestic industry's position is that we will continue 
     to litigate against dumped and subsidized foreign steel, that 
     we are in immediate need of a global solution, and that we 
     would prefer a solution consistent with our international 
     obligations with the World Trade Organization. We fully 
     support free trade. If, however, the Administration continues 
     to refuse to offer adequate solutions and to deny us the 
     ability to enforce existing trade laws, we will have to 
     reconsider our position and seek the most viable alternative 
     solution to remedy this crisis.
       Than you again for your continued interest on this issue.
           Sincerely
                                                  Dale E. Wiersbe,

                            President and Chief Operating Officer.

  The steel industry is crucial for our national security. Our planes, 
our tanks, our ships, our weapons, utilize steel. We have a 
responsibility to the protection of our citizens to ensure a viable 
steel manufacturing industry in the United States. It is impossible for 
the United States to retain its status as the world's sole superpower 
without steel.
  I urge the House to adopt H.R. 975.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).
  (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
this measure, and I also take some exception to the criticism of the 
administration and their lack of action against the issue of the 
increased imports of steel.
  As my colleagues know, if we really look at the facts, we have seen 
since the administration has taken action that hot rolled steel has 
fallen almost 70 percent between November of last year to January of 
this year. When we look at two of the countries that have been 
identified as problems, Russia and Japan, we see that their imports 
have dropped 98 and 96 percent, and in fact when we look at the U.S. 
imports of hot rolled steel from all countries, we find that our 
January 1999 imports are at the same level, in fact lower than July of 
1997.
  The real concern though of this legislation is the precedent that it 
would set. We are endorsing the establishment, the legislative 
establishment of quotas that go beyond the agreements that we have 
negotiated that come under the authority of the WTO. Passing this 
legislation sends a green light to countries throughout the world that 
they can put in place quotas that can work to the detriment of U.S. 
economic interests.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
protect American workers. Opponents of this bill focus on protectionism 
for the steel industry. Let us remember our duties to the American 
people. So protectionism is key. We must protect our home, American 
jobs and families from the irreparable harm caused by unprecedented and 
unfair levels of steel imports.
  The American steel industry is a $70 billion industry that employs 
170,000 people nationwide. Moreover, the industry is critically 
interwoven into the fabric of our society. Steel is utilized in 
automobiles, medical equipment, homes and military systems. We must act 
now to provide the appropriate safeguards to prevent risk to these 
industries. Let us protect American families. Let us stop illegal 
dumping by voting in favor of this measure.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, this is one heck of a corrosive proposal, and 
I rise in steely opposition to it. The notion that we are victims of 
predatory and illegal dumping is a corrosive idea. We are told that the 
only way that this practice is going to cease is if we limit

[[Page H1360]]

or ban imports to some kind of an arbitrary level set in 1994, and that 
is very rusty logic for a number of reasons. So let me focus on a 
couple of facts.
  Fact one: U.S. law provides clear trade remedies for industries that 
are harmed by dumping. In fact, the steel industry has already filed 
and won anti-dumping cases against Japan and Brazil, and it has 
negotiated a voluntary restraint agreement with Russia. The results of 
that are dramatically shown in this chart which shows imports from 
those three countries subject to investigations have dropped for hot 
rolled steel products. This drop over the last three months has been 98 
percent, 97 percent in the case of Brazil and about 60 percent in the 
case of Japan, or more than that. So it has been almost cut to nothing.

                              {time}  1300

  Even as we debate, there are antidumping cases proceeding against 
France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Korea, Macedonia. More than a third of 
the 300 antidumping and countervailing duty orders address steel.
  So here we can see in three months' time the reduction of hot-rolled 
steel products from all countries, from a total of 1.4 million tons per 
month in November of 1998 to 437,000 tons today.
  Fact two, the remedies designed to deal with the sudden import surge, 
Section 201, wasn't even utilized by the industry. They did not even 
bother to file a case. Instead, the big steel bosses spent an unknown 
amount of money lobbying Congress for special protection.
  Fact three, dumping is not inherently wrong. A product that is dumped 
is sold in the United States for less than it is sold in the home 
market or less than the cost of production. This means that foreign 
producers are selling steel to the United States at a great price, and 
that helps users of steel in this country. That is not inherently evil, 
but in order to protect certain industries dumping is not allowed under 
our trade laws.
  Our solution is not a punitive one. The foreign producer is not 
thrown in jail, prohibited from selling in the market. Instead, the 
company is required to pay a duty equal to the amount of the discount. 
In effect, they are forced to raise the price of their product to more 
closely approximate the cost of our domestic producers.
  By the way, U.S. steel companies dump steel abroad all the time. In 
fact, there are duties in place against 10 U.S. steel companies for 
dumping overseas. Believe me, foreign steel companies are watching this 
vote today. If this bill passes, if it became law, they are really 
going to ask their governments very quickly for Visclosky-type bans on 
U.S. steel.
  Which brings me to fact four. This is not a free vote! A 1995 study 
found that U.S. antidumping and countervailing duties affected only 1.8 
percent of U.S. merchandise imports. Yet, the cost to our economy? 
$1.59 billion dollars! The Congressional Budget Office estimates the 
Visclosky ban will cost one billion dollars over the next three years!
  An aye vote today is a vote for a billion dollar tax on the American 
consumer. Every member that votes for this bill will have to explain to 
steel-users why they have to pay a billion dollar ``steel tax'' before 
they can buy the product.
  And every member that votes for this bill will have to explain to 
farmers and exporters why they voted for a bill which puts their 
livelihood at risk by subjecting them to retaliation against U.S. 
products.
  This is one of the most misguided and dangerous pieces of legislation 
I have ever seen.
  The Visclosky quota sought today goes beyond ``fair'' trade. It 
applies to all steel imports, even those that are not dumped. And it 
creates billion dollar casualties along the way.
  Where the damage stops, nobody knows. I urge my colleagues to vote no 
on this bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), who has been a leader on H.R. 975.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of facts today about the 
steel import crisis, but there is one fact that I would like to stress 
above all: 12,000 Americans have lost their jobs to foreign competitors 
who have cheated.
  This is not the first steel crisis. I remember the real suffering in 
the 1970s and the 1980s, in towns like McKeesport, Duquesne, Braddock, 
Clairton and many other communities in the Mon-Valley section of 
Pittsburgh. Those were desperate times.
  I know hard working men and women, who never took a dime from the 
government, that were forced to go on welfare. I saw good families 
break up from the stress of not being able to support themselves.
  Since that time, steel and our steel towns have recovered somewhat. 
We have done everything we have been asked. Labor productivity has 
improved tremendously, for one thing. Steel plants in my area have come 
back with probably one-fourth the number of workers they had, and the 
large percent of people that were let go many had to find work in the 
service sector or whatever other under employment jobs they could do, 
and no one shed a tear for them.
  Steelworkers did everything they were asked to do because we were 
told we had to make U.S. steel competitive again. They had to work 
harder for longer hours, for less pay, and no one came to their aid, 
but steel came back. They got lean and mean and American steelworkers 
are now the most efficient producers of steel in the world.
  We have played by the rules, only to have our jobs stolen by foreign 
companies who are breaking our laws and that is an incontrovertible 
fact proven by our Commerce Department's own findings.
  Today we draw a line in the sand. We will not tolerate a steel policy 
that let us 12,000 Americans lose their jobs to competitors that are 
cheating, and if this administration is not going to take decisive 
action then we will.
  As I stand in the well of this House on Saint Patrick's Day, I think 
about my grandfather, Mike Doyle, who came to this country from Ireland 
in the early 1900s and found work in Pittsburgh in the steel mills. He 
worked 43 years at the Carrie Furnace and along with his wife Beatrice 
raised three sons. His middle son, Mike Doyle, my father, followed him 
into the steel mills and worked almost 30 years at the Edgar Thompson 
Steel Works.
  Aside from two summers when I was in college, I am the first Mike 
Doyle in my family not to work in a steel mill, but I remember vividly 
the sacrifices made by thousands of families who worked in the mills to 
build this country and keep it strong.
  My father and grandfather are not here anymore. They are up there 
celebrating with Saint Patrick today, but I know they are watching and 
I know their Irish is up.
  In their memory, and on behalf of thousands of American steelworkers 
and their families, I dedicate every ounce of strength I have to the 
passage of H.R. 975.
  Mr. Speaker, it is up to us. We need to send a message. Stop this 
cheating. Stand up for steel. Support H.R. 975.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ney).
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for this debate today. 
Although we are disagreeing on the issue he is letting the debate 
occur, and I appreciate that and thank him for it.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier today I mentioned union officials and some 
steelworkers that have fought for this issue. I also want to mention 
Dick Redier, Greg Warren and Paul Bucha, who are just three of the many 
individuals from the company's end of it that have fought to get this 
bill to the floor today.
  I think today is about Main Street America. The steelworkers got 
trampled on. We tried to respond in October. They got trampled on by 
foreign countries and, by the way, when the illegal dumping came in, 
Europe responded to support its mayors and its communities to protect 
them, but our steelworkers got trampled on and they fought back.
  There are laws on the books. They talk about the laws on the books. 
The President of the United States ignored them. We would not be here 
today if he had followed those laws, but the steelworkers in our 
communities fought back.
  We would like to talk about our children's future. We are responsible 
for our children's future and today is about our children's future and 
our communities back home.

[[Page H1361]]

  We can be responsible to help our communities to stand up against 
illegal, again, illegal dumping. We can be responsible by standing up 
for steel, which is standing up for our communities. It is restoring 
faith. It is restoring America's path. By voting yes today, we are 
going to say to every worker in the United States that when foreign 
countries try to take an illegal path, we are going to stop it.
  We are going to say, they do not have to beg their government anymore 
for help. We are going to prove it today on the floor of the House.
  So this is an issue not about free trade. It is not about 
protectionism. This is truly an issue about illegal dumping. I am just 
sorry we have to be here today because the President should have 
enforced the laws in October, just like Ronald Reagan did when he was 
President of the United States. It is okay to have a give and take on 
the debate of trade.
  If we stand by and let this continue, believe me these countries 
would have continued to dump, illegally dump, and we would lose 
thousands and thousands more of workers' jobs.
  Our heroes today are those 11,000 people who have struggled through 
unemployment trying to feed their families, and our heroes today are 
the steelworkers and the companies and the people back home that forced 
this debate to the floor. I urge a yes vote.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), for bringing forth 
this piece of legislation and for allowing us this debate today.
  Mr. Speaker, from looking over the different letters from different 
and various Members of Congress, I am not surprised to see claims that 
imports have dropped, claims that have been offered in an effort to 
convince all of us that the crisis in this country with steel dumping 
is over.
  Let me be very clear on three points. First, when finally faced with 
a trade petition like the one filed in September of 1998, foreign 
countries which dump steel on the U.S. market simply switch from one 
category to another. All the while they are laughing at the slowness 
and the expense of our trade enforcement process.
  Second, I appreciate the hard work of the Commerce Department but 
when we hear about an expedited trade process we must realize that this 
is merely shaving off 20 to 30 days off a 9- to 12-month process.
  Third, by allowing dumping we are deliberately sacrificing 
productive, nonobsolete but productive United States jobs.
  I would just ask my colleagues today, as they are looking over this 
piece of legislation, to look at it very closely before voting. Get a 
complete look at the issue of steel and the steel imports that have 
come into this country, and I think when my colleagues see an accurate 
picture of this they will be led to support this bill. I just ask for 
support today on H.R. 975.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Archer) has 9\1/2\ minutes, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) 6 
minutes, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) 7 minutes.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky), good job. We passed an unbinding ban resolution in October 
and the imports dropped, but not enough.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a debate today about protectionism; it is 
about illegal trade. These countries have ripped us off. I do not 
understand the philosophical differences here, unless the Republicans 
are trying to set us up, get the President to veto this after he 
promised every worker in America he would put his foot down on illegal 
trade.
  He also promised every worker in America he would pass a scab labor 
bill. He did not, either.
  I want to give credit today to Ronald Reagan. I can remember him 
coming to my district telling our steelworkers that he would, in fact, 
reinvest in industry, and he passed the investment tax credit program, 
and he would provide money for training. He did that, and they did not 
support him.
  As a Democrat, the White House, they are not called slick over there 
for nothing, Mr. Speaker. They may just go ahead and sign this because 
if they do not, unless they are trying to veto Al Gore's presidency, I 
do not know what is going on here today.
  I want to make this point. I did not make a pledge in the World Trade 
Organization. I pledged an oath to the Constitution of the United 
States.
  What bothers me the most is our unemployed workers, their taxes 
coming from their unemployment check are being used to bail out Russia, 
South Korea, Asia, Japan, and recently Brazil.
  What is it with us? Are we nuts? This is illegal trade.
  Quite frankly, I wanted to add a little amendment that would have 
banned it for 24 hours, just to let the world know that the Congress of 
the United States knows they are ripping us off and we are not going to 
take it any longer.
  We cannot get anybody to take a look at the trade issue. Our 
companies are going overseas. Our jobs are going to Mexico, and I hear 
everybody talking about new jobs. Brassiere cup molder cutters, gizzard 
skin removers, pantyhose crotch closers, corncob pipe assemblers, 
cowboys, ashtray cleaners, yes, we have a lot of jobs. They are in that 
service industry and our good jobs are leaving hand over fist.
  This is the right thing to do. I am going to make a statement on 
behalf of the steelworkers and all working people in America. This 
president made promises. Hold his feet to the fire, and if he vetoes 
this bill, by God, take it right out on Al Gore.
  It is time they get a message from the Democrats in Congress. At 
least Ronald Reagan kept his promise. He never promised this type of 
legislation but he gave us the investment tax credit program and he 
retrained some of our workers and he reinvested in steel and made it 
profitable. We are allowing it to be decimated.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the chairman, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Archer), that he should rethink the whole trade problem. I 
understand the gentleman is leaving. He has been a great Member. Before 
he leaves, this negative balance of payments is the greatest national 
security threat we have.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I include for the record an op-ed piece 
which I published in the Birmingham News and the Tuscaloosa paper.
  Mr. Speaker, in this article the first thing I said is that this 
crisis is not a crisis brought on by our steelworkers or our steel 
communities. This is a crisis brought on by their government. It is not 
of their own doing.
  Tragically, their government has failed to do two things. First of 
all, it has subsidized and spent billions of their money and our 
taxpayer dollars, much of that paid in by steelworkers, into the IMF. 
The IMF has sent billions of those dollars to prop up the foreign 
competition, which is now dumping steel on our steel industry.
  Secondly, our government has contributed to this crisis and caused 
it, by not taking action under our own trade laws to stop these 
illegal, unlawful dumping of foreign steel.

                              {time}  1315

  It is against the law. Can that not sink in? It is against the law. 
How do we ask our steelworkers, our law-abiding steelworkers in steel 
communities who are law-abiding, how do we ask them to follow the law 
when we turned a blind eye to that law and allowed their jobs to be 
taken from them?
  Second of all, it is a matter of sovereignty. We must send a message 
to the world, and that message is, we will not allow our trade laws to 
be broken, to be trampled. What is happening is illegal. It cannot be 
tolerated.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not about fair trade; many people have said 
that. It is not about fair trade; it is about fairness. Our 
steelworkers are the latest victims, but they will not be our last.

[[Page H1362]]

  Finally, it is a matter of national security. We cannot rely on 
foreign countries for the materials to build our ships, our aircrafts 
and our tanks. If the President will not take action, we must.
  President Clinton's State of the Union address focused heavily on 
ways to spend every penny of the current budget surplus and all 
anticipated surpluses for the next 15 years. In 77 minutes, he proposed 
79 spending programs totaling hundreds and hundreds of billions of 
dollars. But he said only three sentences about one account where we 
have a deficit--the U.S. trade account--and the threat it poses to all 
of us, and specifically our steelworkers.
  Last year, the U.S. trade deficit reached $300 billion. A large 
portion of the trade deficit results from the flood of illegally dumped 
foreign steel into our country. Steel imports have reached record 
levels, surging by 480 percent in the last year. The President's own 
economic advisors say this deluge of artificially-priced imports is 
responsible for 10,000 layoffs and bankruptcies at some domestic steel 
companies. Thousands of our steelworkers have seen their work hours and 
their paychecks cut--including those in Alabama. With the steel crisis 
deepening every day, it is only a matter of time before steel mills 
across the nation begin closing their doors, perhaps forever.
  This crisis did not come about because American steelworkers are not 
productive. American steelworkers produce the highest quality steel in 
the world at the lowest cost per ton. This crisis did not come about 
because the U.S. steel industry has failed to seek foreign market 
opportunities. Our steel companies work hard to penetrate foreign 
markets. What success they have achieved has come despite the best 
efforts of some countries to erect unfair trade barriers to American-
made steel.
  Clearly, the crisis facing our steelworkers, our domestic steel 
industry and our steel communities is not of their doing. Tragically, 
much of this crisis is their own government's doing--the same 
government they support with their tax dollars.
  How? First, by providing the International Monetary Fund billions of 
new dollars to bail out foreign nations and second, by not taking 
decisive action available under our trade laws to stop the dumping of 
foreign steel.
  First, a little history. In 1984, foreign steel producers began 
dumping heavily into the U.S. and grabbed more than 26 percent of the 
U.S. steel market. President Reagan was not willing to see the U.S. 
steel industry die. He immediately imposed restraints that rolled steel 
imports back to 18 percent. This gave the U.S. steel industry the 
opportunity and the time to upgrade its operations. U.S. steel 
producers invested $50 billion to modernize their plants to make 
them more competitive. Steel management and steel union members worked 
together, and the U.S. steel industry came roaring back to recapture 
more than 80 percent of the U.S. market.

  Then, the Asian financial crisis came, a crisis perpetuated by 
misguided IMF policies supported by the present administration. To bail 
out Japanese, Korean and Indonesian investors, the IMF sent billions of 
U.S. tax dollars into Asia and imposed austerity measures. Nations in 
austerity cannot buy their own steel, and countries in debt to the IMF 
need money to pay that debt off. The IMF solution? These nations must 
``export their way out'' of debt by dumping products--at prices lower 
than it costs to make them--into the huge U.S. market. That way, these 
nations can quickly raise the money needed to pay back the IMF. The IMF 
also urged these nations to devalue their currencies. By devaluing a 
currency, a nation actually cuts the price of its products in American 
dollars. For example, if a nation devalues its currency by 40 percent, 
the price of its products sold here will be reduced 40 percent. While 
such a price war is welcome news to consumers, it is devastating to 
domestic producers and can literally drive them out of business 
overnight.
  Congress recently approved the Clinton administration's request for 
$18 billion for the IMF. I was one of only about a dozen Republican and 
Democratic members who voiced strong opposition. We sincerely believe 
it is a horrible injustice to send the tax dollars from these 
steelworkers to the IMF, which in turn prompts nations to break both 
U.S. and international trade laws and dump their steel here. In his 
State of the Union address, President Clinton proclaimed he had 
``informed the government of Japan that if that nation's sudden surge 
of steel imports into our country is not reversed, America will 
respond.''
  Japan has not been impressed by this threat, and even if carried out 
it will likely bring little relief to our steelworkers, and the 
President knows it. That's because most of the steel imports are coming 
from South Korea, Russia, Brazil and Indonesia, all of which are the 
beneficiaries of an IMF bailout provided by U.S. taxpayers. The Clinton 
administration's strategy of bailouts via the IMF has failed on a 
massive scale, and the biggest losers of this strategy are American 
steelworkers.
  To bipartisan applause, the President also said in the State of the 
Union, ``We must enforce our trade laws when imports unlawfully flood 
our nation.'' Yet, the White House has decided against taking firm and 
immediate action to do so despite pleas from the steel industry and 
Congress. Last year, the House and Senate passed resolutions calling on 
the President to enforce our existing laws against illegal imports and 
to take ``all necessary measures'' to respond to the increase in 
foreign steel. The House asked for a one-year ban on the import of all 
steel products from any country that violates international trade 
agreements with the U.S. Still, the White House refuses to enforce our 
trade laws and continues to stand by and do nothing.
  If the President won't act, Congress must. Those of us in the 
Congressional Steel Caucus have proposed legislation that will freeze 
steel imports at the level they were in July 1997, before the flood of 
illegal imports began. By taking dramatic action as President Reagan 
did 15 years ago, we can roll back imports to pre-crisis levels and 
restore fair competition between American and foreign steel producers. 
The United States, as a matter of sovereignty, must send a message to 
the world that we will not allow our trade laws to be broken. What is 
happening is illegal and cannot be tolerated.
  This is not about ``free trade.'' It is about fairness. If American 
steelworkers are allowed to compete on a level playing field, they will 
win. If we do not restore fair play and stop the flood of illegal steel 
imports, our steelworkers will be the latest innocent victims of 
misguided government polices. But they will by no means be the last 
victims. The security of the United States will be at risk. At its most 
basic level, this debate is a matter of national security, for if we 
allow the steel industry in this country to disappear we will be forced 
to rely on foreign countries for the material we use to build our 
ships, aircraft and tanks.
  President Reagan showed the world that America would take strong 
action to protect its own in tough times. It's time to do so again and 
put an end to the steel crisis.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for yielding me this time. I also 
want to congratulate the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Let me just start by saying that the stock market hit 10,000 
yesterday, and many people in America think that everything is okay, 
everything is well. Well, it is not. From the foundries of the 
Monongahela Valley to the mills in Gary, Indiana to the mills in 
downriver Detroit, River Rouge and other communities that we represent, 
thousands of steelworkers are losing their jobs and they are the 
victims of illegal dumping.
  Three U.S. steel companies filed for bankruptcy last year. Six of 10 
flat-roll producers posted losses during the fourth quarter of 1998, 
and more than 11,000 American steelworkers have lost their jobs in the 
past year. These are not just figures. These are human beings with 
families, with real needs, with real hopes, with real dreams.
  They are people like Andrew Kamarec. He is 42 years old; he has a 
child with a brain tumor. He works at Weirton Steel in West Virginia, 
not far from here, and subsidized foreign steel has cost him his job. 
He has a friend who works there named Keven Tasey, 39, a coworker of 
Andrew's. He was laid off just before Thanksgiving. His wife is 
pregnant. Rob and Tammy Elliott, husband and wife, also worked at 
Weirton. Foreign dumping forced them out of work as well. They have two 
school-aged children.
  The story goes on and on and on. There are 11,000 of these stories 
out there, and there is a lot in the making, and there is a lot of 
potential devastation for families across America if we do nothing. 
This steel crisis has devastated families all across this country, 
eliminating good-paying jobs in our communities.
  So, we have to stand up to this issue. It is not too late to stand 
up.
  Some might argue, well, the crisis has passed. They will say that the 
import numbers are dropping, the worst is over. Well, that is not 
entirely true. There is cheap imported steel piled up on our docks 
ensuring that this glut will continue for months, and while imports 
from Japan and Russia may be down, other countries are dumping more and 
more. When contracts that

[[Page H1363]]

prohibit lay-off expire this summer, and that will happen, we will have 
nearly 100,000 jobs at risk.
  Now, we have been calling for action since last year. I joined the 
Stand Up for Steel march in Detroit and downriver Detroit last October. 
We had thousands of steelworkers and community members who marched for 
justice with us. We rallied at the Rouge plant, and management and 
labor stood side-by-side, and we called for an end to dumping, but it 
has not stopped. The steel industry is too important to America to let 
illegal dumping continue.
  Steel has a direct $70 billion impact on this economy in this 
country. A strong steel industry is critical to a strong manufacturing 
base, and that means cars and trucks and machinery and construction and 
all of the things that make America work and tick in all parts of this 
country. It is essential to our national defense as well.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say in conclusion that steel employs nearly 
163,000 Americans. Again, I say these are good jobs with good benefits, 
benefits like health insurance that are so critical to people like 
Andrew Kamarec whose child has brain cancer.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to remember him and to remember his 
colleagues and to remember all of the people who are out there looking 
to us today for hope in order for us to stop what has gone on for far 
too long. We are too strong of a country; we have too many good jobs in 
this country to throw it away.
  The time for talk is over. I urge my colleagues to vote for this very 
good legislation by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, we do not fight illegal trade by passing 
illegal penalties.
  I rise in strong opposition to this illegal steel quota bill. Free 
trade is vitally important to the health of our economy, and we are in 
a position to lead and define a policy of free trade on a global level. 
We should not backtrack by erecting harmful barriers which will only 
increase the cost of goods and block economic development and growth.
  I understand the concerns of my colleagues who have witnessed the 
tremendous influx of steel imports during the last three years, but our 
trade laws are working, and this legislation is not necessary. 
According to the Census Bureau, from November of 1998 to January of 
1999, steel imports have declined 93 percent in Russia, 49 percent in 
Japan, and 8 percent in Korea. In fact, not only is this legislation 
not necessary, but incredibly harmful to our consumers and our workers. 
CBO estimates this bill will increase prices to steel purchasers by 
nearly $1 billion.
  The bottom line is, the American steel industry leads the world in 
productivity because of competition, not protection. In my judgment, 
this bill will raise prices on consumers, adversely affect our 
businesses, harm our workers that use steel, and threaten the growth of 
our economy.
  I might end, Mr. Speaker, by saying this fabulous growth that our 
Nation has experienced over the last 10 years is due, in large measure, 
to one man, Ronald Reagan, and his economic policies. He welcomed free 
trade. He welcomed trade without any artificial barriers, because he 
knew the United States could compete and compete effectively with 
anyone, and that ultimately, all Americans benefit from competition.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) has 2 minutes; the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) 
has 4 minutes; and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) has the 
right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) has 
the right to close.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I want to thank the Steelworkers of 
America; I want to thank Jack Parten and every last member of District 
7 Steelworkers of America for their invaluable help on this issue.
  A number of people during the debate today tried to define or 
mentioned what they thought the issue of the day is. I would like to do 
so also.
  The issue is people. Whether we use the most conservative estimates 
established by the Congressional Research Service, which would tell us 
13 people a day have lost their jobs since July 1, 1997; or some of the 
more larger numbers that we have heard on this floor, where up to 1 
steel worker every hour, about 3 steelworkers today since this debate 
started have lost and continue to lose their jobs. That is the issue. 
Those people, their jobs, their families.
  We have heard a lot today about the global economy, world trade, 
globalization of the Nation. I am worried about the globe too. I am 
worried about a place on the globe called Alabama. I am worried about a 
place on the globe called Arkansas. I am worried about a river valley 
on that globe, the Mon-Valley in the State of Pennsylvania, and I am 
worried about a place on that globe, Gary, Indiana, because they have 
all suffered, not through any fault of their own, but the failure of 
this government to enforce the law of the land against illegally-traded 
steel.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) mentioned names, and I think 
it is important that we not use statistics, but real people. Because 
Sherry Ferguson from the State of Illinois is unemployed today because 
of illegally-traded steel. She has six children in her household. Tell 
her the crisis is over.
  Joey Bishop from Alabama has a 7-year-old daughter at home. Let us 
tell Joey Bishop's daughter that the crisis is over. We are here today 
because the President has not acted in a sufficient fashion. He has 
arrived at the game late, and he has certainly not carried the day.
  Others suggest that the crisis is now resolved. One speaker indicated 
that steel traded from Japan is down 96 percent in the last 3 months, 
and I would not argue that point. Here is how bad the problem was and 
still is. From July 1997 to January 1999, six weeks ago, Japanese steel 
imports are still up 74 percent. Someone indicated that steel exports 
from Korea are down. I would point out that from July 1997 until 
January 1999, six weeks ago, Korean imports are still up 77 percent, 
and for the same period of time, imports from Indonesia are up 890 
percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues, is that because they are playing by 
every last rule of international law and not violating our trade laws? 
I would suggest that is not true. Why are we here to take a global 
approach to put all of the countries and all of the products on the 
table? Because while some steel exports to the United States from some 
countries and for some product lines have declined, interestingly 
enough, just from December of last year to January of this year, 
suddenly, Chinese exports to the United States increased 24.2 percent, 
and exports from India increased by 70.8 percent in a 30-day period of 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  The issue are the people we are sworn to represent. We cannot move 
them somewhere else on the globe. They are in places like Ohio and 
Pennsylvania and Arkansas. That is the President's responsibility, that 
is our responsibility. He has not met it. We today, in a broad-based 
bipartisan fashion, want to make him recognize his obligation so that 
when Keven Tasey's daughter or son is born, the gentleman mentioned by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), her or his father will have 
their job back.
  I ask all of my colleagues to please support this legislation, the 
bipartisan Steel Recovery Act.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Quinn).
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means for yielding time to all of us, 
particularly since we are not on the same side of this issue. It has 
been a great debate and one that is necessary.

[[Page H1364]]

  Mr. Speaker, this has been a thoughtful discussion, and one of the 
things I would point out as I have watched speakers today is that we 
are not dealing with Members of the House that one might consider 
reactionary or folks that we look at as sometimes being troublemakers 
here in the well in the House.

                              {time}  1330

  These are thoughtful legislators who have been attending the rallies 
that most of us have been at these last 6 or 8 months. We have been 
involved in petition drives, we have been involved in hearings and town 
meetings, meetings on the Hill, and working with the United 
Steelworkers.
  We find ourselves in a position that, of all the other solutions that 
might be out there, none are taking place. There are other solutions 
besides this bill today, H.R. 975. We have asked for some of those 
other solutions to be done. Each time we ask in a thoughtful way to 
have them done, we get no reaction. In the meantime, good paying jobs 
are lost day in and day out.
  So I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that as we see Members come to 
the well, when we look at some of those 200-plus Members who are on 
this bipartisan bill, I have to point out to my colleagues that they 
are thoughtful Members who are trying to make a difference, not 
reactionaries, not the troublemakers that are finding an opportunity 
now to get a bill on the floor, one that comes here under very unique 
circumstances, we would agree. But, Mr. Speaker, we have not been given 
any other choice.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) has taken the lead. Both 
of us in the Steel Caucus have had talks back and forth. We have 
changed. We have compromised. The gentleman from Indiana has bended 
when he had to. But we cannot wait any longer, Mr. Speaker. We have 
thoughtful Members here who want to make a difference. This is not 
about us saying there is something we have to have on this floor voted 
today. We tried to get the changes done month after month after month.
  I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, more than the 
200-plus that have cosponsored the bill, to vote this afternoon to save 
jobs in a country, our country. It is not about doing the right thing 
or the wrong thing necessarily, Mr. Speaker. I think it is about us 
finally wanting to help ourselves.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for 
the purpose of closing.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us have sympathy for companies that have been 
hurt through illegal trade practices and for employees who have lost 
their jobs. As I mentioned earlier, I have great sympathy, because I 
have seen the thousands of workers in the oil industry who have been 
displaced within the last 6 months.
  But we must live by the rules that we agree to or others will also 
distort those rules against us, and the tidal wave of damage will sweep 
across this country in ways that will make us regret that we have 
violated the rules. This bill violates the rules.
  Dumping that is wrong should be interdicted, but it must be 
interdicted within the rules and by the penalties that are authorized. 
It has been said that nothing has happened. Yet, the Commerce 
Department has already provisionally put in place tariffs which are the 
important, legitimate way to get at dumping. They have had an impact in 
reducing the amount of imports. That is in place today.
  But quotas are limited to use under 201. No one has filed a claim 
under 201. The steel industry has not pursued 201, which addresses 
immediate surges that are injurious to this country.
  Yes, it is about people, Mr. Speaker. It is about all of the workers 
in the United States and what can happen to them when we violate the 
rules. Because we cannot expect the WTO to enforce the rules on others 
if we are violators.
  I would not be here today to defend this bill if the penalty was 
appropriate under the rules for dumping. Quotas could have been put in 
place when the surge occurred by simply invoking 201. The steel 
industry decided not to do that.
  Now, after the appropriate penalties of tariffs have been put in 
place, at least provisionally, until there is a complete determination, 
we are asked to endorse and put in place on a mandatory basis quotas 
which will limit the importation of steel into this country for 3 years 
without any waiver or chance of change regardless of the circumstances 
that are based on what happened 2 and 3 years ago.
  We risked triggering again justification on the part of others in the 
world to violate the rules against us. This is not the right way to go, 
Mr. Speaker. There is a right way to address illegal trade activities, 
and I stand prepared to do it. But I will not violate the rules that we 
agreed to by establishing illegal penalties.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of the House to vote against this 
resolution.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 975, I rise in 
support of this legislation and urge its adoption.
  Today, there will be a great deal of debate regarding the question of 
free trade versus fair trade. As someone who concerned about how to 
promote international trade and at the same time make sure that trade 
is fair, I want to register my opinions on this important issue.
  I have long been a supporter of free and open trade. However, my 
support of free trade is based on the understanding that our trading 
partners will not engage in unfair and illegal trading practices such 
as dumping. When our nation is confronted by unfair trading practices, 
I believe it is entirely appropriate to seek remedies that protect 
American companies and workers, whether by invoking provisions in our 
own trade laws or by other means of redress. While I am hesitant to 
take action that may further weaken already fragile foreign economies, 
I believe this legislation provides an appropriate response to reduce 
the flood of foreign steel imports, much of which has been illegally 
dumped into the U.S. market at prices below domestic costs, and in 
clear violation of antidumping trade laws.
  Since July 1997 we have seen the collapse of numerous economies 
around the world. Foreign corporations from Japan, Korea, Russia, and 
other countries have been selling steel at as much as $100 a ton less 
than it costs to produce it. In one example, steel producers from 
Russia were allowed to dump 47 percent more steel on our market than 
was shipped in 1997. Due to massive steel imports from Japan, our trade 
deficit has climbed 33.4 percent to nearly $55.8 billion, while imports 
of all Japanese steel products in 1998 jumped almost 170 percent, 
accounting for 41 percent of the total increase in steel imports to the 
United States.
  U.S. steel manufacturers are faced with a real crisis, one that 
threatens to undermine a key sector of our economy. This crisis has 
claimed more than 10,000 jobs in basic steel, iron ore mining coke 
production, and thousands have seen their work hours and paychecks cut. 
Several thousand more workers and their communities are jeopardized as 
steel companies are forced to either reduce operations or resort to 
bankruptcy. If the dumping practices of these foreign companies remains 
unchecked, this crisis will continue to claim the jobs of thousands of 
men and women employed in the U.S. steel industry. We simply cannot 
allow this to continue.
  In the last 25 years, the U.S. steel industry has become among the 
most productive, most efficient, most innovative and cleanest in the 
world. America's steel companies and steel workers are the best in the 
world. Unfortunately, world trade in steel is more distorted by 
government intervention than in any other manufacturing sector. Foreign 
steel is being subsidized by foreign governments. Closed foreign 
markets mean that foreign overproduction surges into the U.S. market--
the only truly open market in the world. Congress and the 
Administration must take action on this issue.
  It is imperative for the United States to adhere to its trade laws 
and to implement them where and when the circumstances require it. To 
fail to do so will have consequences, both for American workers, 
industry and for the principle of free trade. If our domestic steel 
industry continues to suffer, we will see a political backlash against 
free trade, just at the time when we should be entering into free trade 
agreements with some of these very regions--Asia, Pacific Rim, and 
South America. This will only serve to set us back further from being 
the dominant player on the global marketplace in the next century.
  For over a century, the steel industry has stood tall and served as a 
foundation of the American economy. The U.S. steel industry and the 
226,000 Americans employed by it deserve nothing less than the full 
support of their country. I urge my colleagues to support passage of 
this important legislation.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 975, legislation 
to limit and monitor foreign steel imports. H.R. 975 would impose 
quotas on foreign steel imports equal to

[[Page H1365]]

their July 1997 import levels. Imposing quotas is a dramatic step. 
However, it is a step that must be taken.
  Over the past 2 years, our Nation's steel industry has been decimated 
by the flood of cheap foreign imports. Between 1996 and 1998, steel 
imports increased from 26.4 million tons to more than 37 million tons--
an increase of 42 percent. As a result of the surge, steel prices 
plummeted from $512 per ton to $40 per ton.
  As a result of the price drop the domestic steel industry has been 
put into a state of crisis. Since the surge of foreign steel imports 
began 2 years ago, more than 10,000 steelworkers have been laid off 
from their jobs and more than 20,000 steelworkers have worked shorter 
hours.
  Even more disturbing, three steel mills have been forced into 
bankruptcy. Even if steel prices return to their previous levels, those 
mills may never open again. The jobs in the steel industry are high-
skill, high-paying jobs. When a steel plant closes down, a community 
struggles for years, even decades. Congress cannot idly stand by and 
watch thousand of quality jobs and our nation's communities vanish.
  The crisis in the steel industry was caused by the global economic 
slowdown. In an effort to prop up their flagging economies, steel-
producing nations such as Japan, Korea, and Russia exported an 
unprecedented amount of steel to the United States. Unfortunately, our 
Nation's trade laws did nothing to stem the tide of steel imports until 
it was too late. Mr. speaker, I have opposed many of our nation's 
recent trade agreements because of the potential for problems just like 
the one we now have in the steel industry. Congress cannot stand by and 
watch foreign nations take advantage of our weak and often ineffective 
trade laws.
  Despite the pleas for action by the steel industry, its workers, and 
many in Congress since the summer of 1998, it was not until February 
1999 that the administration announced it would begin imposing duties 
on steel imports in order to address the matter. Those months of delay 
and inaction cost thousands of steelworkers their jobs.
  This bill takes the decisive steps to save our domestic steel 
industry from extinction. However, one point needs to be made clear. 
H.R. 975 is not designed to protect an outdated and inefficient 
industry. Over the past twenty years, the domestic steel industry has 
invested over $50 billion in modern plants and equipment. The American 
steel industry and its workers have produced the highest quality, 
lowest cost per ton steel in the world.
  H.R. 975 simply levels the playing field. It does not ban all steel 
imports into the United States. Quite the contrary. H.R. 975 simply 
limits foreign steel imports to their July 1997 levels. In the years 
leading up to the crisis, the volume of steel imported into the U.S. 
averaged slightly more than 25 million tons per year. However, in 1998 
more than 37 million tons of foreign steel entered the United States.
  It is clear that the surge in imports had a dramatic effect on the 
production of the American steel industry. For example, the production 
capacity of the American mills was 90 percent--nearly full capacity--
before the surge of imports. By November 1998, the production capacity 
of the mills had dropped to 74 percent. No wonder that three mills 
filed for bankruptcy, 10,000 workers were laid off, and thousands more 
were idled or had to take a pay cut.
  H.R. 975 realizes that imported steel is good for the American 
economy. Many American businesses import steel products because similar 
products are not made domestically. Furthermore, the competition makes 
the American industry more productive and efficient. However, a flood 
of imports at prices below which the market demands is not healthy for 
anyone, and it must be stopped.
  H.R. 975 also establishes an import monitoring program to ensure the 
government and the domestic steel industry are better able to track the 
volume and price of steel imports. Furthermore, the information gained 
through this program will be made available in a timely manner so all 
parties will be better able to respond to future problems in the steel 
industry.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 975 and call upon the Senate 
to pass companion legislation so all steel products will be given fair 
treatment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Steel Recovery 
Act, H.R. 975, which I've cosponsored. This legislation, I believe, 
takes the necessary steps to prevent unfair foreign trade from 
continuing to undermine our steel industry and displace American steel 
workers.
  Two decades ago, the steel industry faced a crisis. Thousands of 
workers lost their jobs and hundreds of companies went bankrupt. Out of 
this crisis came a major transformation within American steel mills. 
Capital investments were made, innovative products were created, 
facilities were modernized and methods were streamlined. American steel 
mills and American steel workers became among the most efficient in the 
world. This new and improved American steel workforce and industry is 
ready to effectively compete against its foreign counterparts. And 
America should have to compete in the market, just as everyone else 
does. Unfortunately, unfair dumping of steel in the past 18 months, 
subsidized by foreign countries, is creating an uneven global playing 
field; these sales are being made at below the cost of steel 
production.
  The Clinton administration has attempted to stem the tide of foreign 
steel flooding the American market without causing disruption and 
dislocation in the global trading regime. However, while import figures 
may be improving for some nations and products, they are not improving 
across the board. Although imports from Russia, Japan, and Brazil 
decreased in January 1999, other markets shifted and acted to fill the 
void--imported steel products from South Korea, China, India, and 
Indonesia increased during this period. Stop-gap policy agreement is 
simply not enough to resolve this trade phenomena. The U.S. government 
must do more to prevent the loss of yet more steel jobs and lessen the 
threat of bankruptcy for our steel mills. America can not afford to 
allow this important modern and efficient industry and work force to 
collapse completely, forcing us to become reliant upon foreign 
countries for all of our steel needs in spite of the painful 
restructuring and competitive status that the American economy has 
successfully achieved in regards to steel workers and the industry.
  The Steel Recovery Act, H.R. 975, includes two important components 
to address the steel crisis. First, it would alleviate the current 
crisis by creating a quantitative standard for all nations who import 
steel into the United States. Second, it establishes a monitoring 
system which would allow a timely response to the fluctuation of 
imports in the future. By creating a trading system which is 
predictable and consistent, we are leveling the playing field so that 
all nations can compete on a fair basis. With the overcapacity in steel 
production globally, the extraordinary currency fluctuations in value 
and economic boom and bust cycles that have been spilling over the 
borders of the Pacific rim nations, the United States has an obligation 
to respond. Other steel consuming nations within the European Union 
have held their steel imports level. Beyond that, they continue to 
invest in their own capacity, often with outmoded technology and 
environmental standards, seemingly oblivious to the economic 
consequence. The United States of America can not be the dumping ground 
for careless decision making and volatile economic swings. Our economic 
and trade policy must not follow the lowest denominator. Good economics 
and common sense dictate that we act, not sacrifice our efficient 
business or good American workers on the altar to a false demigod of 
unrestrained and unthinking trade.
  American workers and industry deserve a sound, fair and comprehensive 
plan to ensure that their jobs are no longer at the mercy of creative 
circumvention of trade laws, merely transparent schemes by foreign 
steel companies and countries. I encourage my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this important legislation. Let's set a new policy, a fair 
path for steel and trade.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong 
support of H.R. 975 to protect American jobs from unfair trade and 
ensure that the U.S. steel industry remains strong.
  I would like to thank the Congressional Steel Caucus, the 
Steelworkers union, and leaders of the steel industry for the hard work 
they have done to bring this bill to the House floor for a vote.
  The U.S. steel industry, which underwent a painful restructuring and 
reinvestment process in the 1980s to reemerge as a world leader, has 
been severely harmed by unfairly dumped steel. During the first 10 
months of 1998, United States imports of steel grew to record levels as 
the global financial crisis led Japan, Russia, Brazil and other 
countries to dump their steel on the United States market.
  As a result of the flood of imports, three U.S. steel companies flied 
for bankruptcy, and nearly 10,000 steelworkers lost their jobs. In my 
district, USS POSCO has lost millions of dollars in revenue and has 
imposed a hiring freeze. In December, USS POSCO was forced to furlough 
its employees for one week because of the import surge. Steelworkers 
and steel companies are suffering not because they can't compete, but 
because of unfair foreign trade tactics.
  H.R. 975, the Steel Import Reduction Act, is an important step to 
ensure that American workers and companies do not continue to bear the 
brunt of unfair trade practices. The bill directs the president to take 
the necessary steps, including imposing quotas, to cap steel imports at 
precrisis levels. The bill also requires the administration to 
establish a steel import notification and monitoring program, so that 
we can quickly respond to any dumping in the future.

[[Page H1366]]

  The administration has begun to take some small steps in the right 
direction, but more needs to be done. The Commerce Department recently 
issued trade case rulings against Japan, Brazil, and Russia and found 
that all three had dumped steel. Steel imports have now slowed, but not 
nearly enough. We need a global, comprehensive approach to end the 
crisis, one that addresses all nations and all steel product lines. The 
administration's piecemeal, one-nation-at-a-time approach forces us to 
spend our time putting out one fire after another and simply will not 
work.
  For these reasons I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in 
voting for this bill and challenge the administration to protect U.S. 
steelworkers and support H.R. 975.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, the American steel industry is on the 
ropes, and the flood of steel imports from Brazil, Japan, Korea, 
Russia, and other countries has gone unchecked in recent months.
  Last year, steel producers from Russia were allowed to dump 47 
percent more steel on our markets than in 1997. Foreign corporations 
are selling steel at $100 per ton below their production costs.
  While U.S. and international trade laws are being grossly violated by 
these foreign corporations, the President and his administration stand 
idly by, allowing thousands upon thousands of hardworking steelworkers 
to lose their jobs and their livelihood.
  Last month, after watching the families of steel workers in my 
district suffer as a result of job losses, reduced hours and reduced 
production at the plant, I decided that I could no longer be a 
bystander to foreign steel dumping. Steel workers in Illinois work hard 
every day, every week, every year, and earn their living. They don't 
deserve to lose their jobs as a result of illegal trade practices.
  Typically, I am hesitant to support trade and import restrictions 
which could disrupt the flow of commerce in our global economy.
  However, because of the administration's inaction, and the gravity of 
the steel crisis before us, I decided to stand up for steel, and became 
a sponsor of H.R. 975, legislation to freeze steel imports at their 
1997 levels and establish a steel import notification and monitoring 
program.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe in the American steel industry, and that our 
steel industry is the most competitive and efficient in the world. 
Right now, the administration is turning its head while foreign 
competition is violating international trade laws to gain an unfair 
advantage.
  That is why I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 975. On a fair 
playing field, American steel can win.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Bipartisan 
Steel Recovery Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the surge in foreign steel imports last year seriously 
damaged the U.S. steel industry and put thousands of American steel 
workers out of work.
  There is no doubt now of what many of us were saying last year--that 
foreign steel was being dumped in the United States at less than the 
cost of production. The International Trade Commission determined last 
November that the steel industry in the United States was threatened by 
steel imports from Brazil, Japan, and Russia, and the Commerce 
Department recently determined that dumping had, in fact, occurred. 
Commerce subsequently imposed duties on Japanese and Brazilian steel 
imports.
  Unfortunately, the dumping surge has taken its toll. The damage that 
has been done will, in some cases, be hard to undo. Ten thousand 
American steelworkers have lost their jobs, and not all of them will 
get those jobs back. I think that that is a tragedy and a disgrace.
  I have worked actively as a member of the House Steel Caucus since 
last summer to push for action against foreign steel dumping. I was an 
original cosponsor of H.R. 506, legislation introduced by 
Representative Visclosky which would have directed the Administration 
to limit the volume of steel imports to pre-surge levels. This 
legislation forms the foundation of H.R. 975, the bill we are 
considering today. The monitoring provisions drafted by Mr. Regula make 
this bill even stronger than the original Visclosky bill. As an 
original cosponsor of both H.R. 506 and H.R. 975, I am very pleased 
that we have managed to bring this bipartisan compromise bill to the 
House floor today.
  This legislation strengthens U.S. trade policy against the dumping of 
foreign steel. It is much needed and long overdue. I urge my colleagues 
to support this important anti-dumping legislation.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives is 
considering a bill to establish import quotas on certain raw steel 
products coming into the United States. Presumably, this bill would 
help ``save'' the steel industry from foreign raw material being 
``dumped'' on the domestic market at below market prices. Although I 
sympathize with the workers who are being affected by this situation, 
there are other remedies that can be utilized to combat this problem 
that will avoid the unintended consequences this bill brings about. 
Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration has been slow to act to use 
the tools at its disposal under the Trade Act and we now have before us 
a measure that violates the premise of free trade under which this 
country has flourished.
  Let me provide you with one example of how this bill will negatively 
impact the economy in Washington State. In 1995, BHP Coated Steel 
Corporation invested $221 million in a facility located in Kalama, 
Washington to take advantage of increasing demand for coated sheet 
steel on the West Coast. The plant contains a galvanizing line, a coil 
coating line, and a pickling/cold rolling line and is widely recognized 
as the most modern and cost effective facility of its kind in the U.S. 
It provides 235 good, family-wage jobs in Kalama and has become an 
important part of the community.
  Because of the requirements of their manufacturing process, BHP needs 
large coils of hot bank steel that meet certain specifications. 
Although they source some of this product from domestic suppliers, much 
of the raw material that fits their manufacturing specifications comes 
from Australia. H.R. 975 would seriously jeopardize their ability to 
access this material and threaten the ability of the Kalama facility to 
expand--something the company would like to do--or even continue to 
exist. The bill institutes import quotas based on the average amount of 
steel imported into the U.S. between July 1994 and July 1997. 
Unfortunately, the Kalama facility did not go ``on-line'' until 
November 1997, meaning those import levels do not reflect the demand 
created by the facility. With no domestic supply sufficient to operate 
its plant, BHP will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to 
survive.
  There are a number of reasons to oppose this bill, but I believe it 
is important to provide Members of Congress with real examples of the 
negative impact of its implementation. I urge my colleagues to join the 
White House in opposing this effort, which clearly violates our 
obligations under the World Trade Organization to maintain an import 
regime consistent with our existing trade laws.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand up for 
steel and support H.R. 975. This important legislation will provide for 
a reduction in the volume of steel imports and establish a steel import 
notification and monitoring program. This legislation is the result of 
a consensus reached by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and 
representative from the steel industry and unions. It is a welcome 
example of the way our system of government was designed to work. In 
addition, H.R. 975 identifies a clear path of resolving the steel 
import crisis that has burdened our country for more than a year. I 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
bipartisan legislation and support U.S. industry, U.S. workers, and 
U.S. steel.
  There are close to 1,500 steelworkers in my district in Missouri, and 
one plant has announced that it will begin cutting back hours on March 
28th. This plant employs 1,000 workers. In addition to steelworkers, I 
have been contacted by quarry workers who are threatened by the steel 
crisis because lime is used to purify the steel in the production 
process. All across the country, workers are living in fear that today 
will be the day the layoffs affect them. We must show that we support 
these workers and stand up for the U.S. steel today.
  The United States steel industry is the most efficient and most 
environmentally conscious in the world. Since the 1980s, the U.S. steel 
industry has increased efficiency to the point where it now takes only 
two man hours to produce a ton of steel, as compared to the ten hours 
needed to produce a ton of steel before the industry transformed 
itself. This transformation cost the industry much--tens of billions of 
dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs. We must recognize these 
sacrifices and show that this initiative was a good investment. We 
should value progress in such an economically vital industry.
  The United States steel industry has also made great strides in its 
environmental policy. Recently, a group of 20 environmental 
organizations, including Wildlife Land Trust and Friends of the Earth, 
wrote to President Clinton in support of the U.S. steel industry. In 
that letter, the groups stated that U.S. steel companies are ``among 
the very cleanest, if not the cleanest, in the world.'' Further, they 
concluded, ``if you want to reduce global emissions from steel making, 
make more steel in America.'' Moreover, the U.S. steel mills are the 
cleanest in the world, steel mills in many other countries use outdated 
practices that are nothing short of an environmental disaster. Many 
mills still use ``blast furnace'' technology that is not only outdated, 
but is also a high pollution process.
  A vote for H.R. 975 will not only support the American steel mills, 
it will support our global environmental goals.

[[Page H1367]]

  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support and as a 
cosponsor of H.R. 975, the Bipartisan Steel Recovery Act.
  The United States has built a steel industry that has one of the 
highest productivity levels and lowest costs in the world. 
Unfortunately, our commitment to new technology and increased labor 
productivity is of little worth in a global marketplace that favors 
illegal trade. Our domestic markets are being flooded with cheap 
imports from Asia, Russia and Brazil who continue to defy international 
trade policies in order to prop up their own markets. We can ill afford 
to be the world's dumping ground for unfairly-traded steel. While I am 
concerned by the financial disasters in Asia, Russia and elsewhere, 
these countries should not be allowed to export their problems here. We 
must find other means to help our trading partners deal with their 
economic challenges; allowing unfairly-traded steel to flood our 
markets creates an imbalance that helps no one.
  As a member of the Congressional Steel Caucus, I have worked 
diligently with my colleagues to urge the Administration to take a 
strong stand against illegally-dumped steel. The proposed agreement 
with Russia to reduce Russian imports of steel products by almost 70 
percent is a good first step. However, it must be followed by continued 
pressure on other nations to reduce their dumping of illegally-
subsidized steel. I am pleased the Administration has responded to 
those of us in Congress who continue to make steel a high-profile 
issue. The U.S. must continue to be vigilant in providing relief to our 
steel industry and its workers, after they have suffered from an unfair 
flood of foreign imports. However, let me be clear about this: the 
Administration's efforts to date are not enough. We must do more and we 
must do more immediately.
  In my own district in Southwestern Illinois, steelworkers and their 
families and communities have stood up strongly for steel. Workers at 
Laclede Steel in Alton and National Steel in Granite City have faced 
difficult times since the surge in steel imports flooded our markets. 
Laclede is facing bankruptcy and efforts are underway just to keep the 
plant open. Orders have been down and prices have fallen at both 
plants. Unfortunately, these steel companies, like others across the 
nation, have been unable to avoid layoffs. Mr. Speaker, I represent 
approximately 4,000 USWA union members in my district. I cannot in good 
conscience report to them that we have done enough here.
  Today, I have high hopes that I will be able to return to my district 
and announce that we in Washington are also standing up for steel. The 
Bipartisan Steel Recovery Act will stop foreign corporations from 
breaking our trade laws. It will save American jobs and save U.S. steel 
companies from bankruptcy. Passage of H.R. 975 will also ensure our 
national security. It is American-made steel that goes into Navy ships, 
aircraft, tanks, trucks and weaponry used by our military. We cannot 
afford to allow our steel industry to disappear and to then 
become reliant upon foreign countries for our steel needs.

  U.S. steel companies and steelworkers are the best in the world. 
American steel mills are the most productive, the most efficient, the 
most innovative and the cleanest in the world. Given a level playing 
field, there is no foreign company that can compete with them. Foreign 
steel is being subsidized by foreign governments. Closed foreign 
markets mean that foreign overproductions surges into our market--
against our trade laws.
  The U.S. steel industry, steel workers and their families, and 
American consumers of steel products and its derivatives deserve a fair 
market for U.S. steel. Foreign dumped steel not only has immediate 
negative consequences on the steel industry, over time the impact on 
the U.S. economy in terms of lost production, high-wage jobs, and 
investment is irretrievable.
  I hope this Congress and the Administration will take immediate 
action to end illegal foreign imports of steel. I urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 975.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, regardless of how strongly some will argue 
to the contrary, there is a crisis occurring in the U.S. steel 
industry. As a result of continued and persistent ``dumping'' of 
foreign steel into the U.S.--specifically by Japan, Korea, Russia, and 
Brazil--domestic steel producers have been forced to decrease 
production or lay-off workers or even file for bankruptcy.
  Already, due to the continuation of illegal dumping, the steel 
industry has laid off 10,000 steelworkers across the country and three 
companies have filed for bankruptcy. Indeed, Mr. Speaker in my state of 
Alabama, Gulf State Steel has had to intermittently shut down its hot-
strip mill and had laid off hundreds of workers.
  Mr. Speaker this is a crisis that we can no longer allow to fester.
  Unfortunately, while American workers have lost their jobs and 
American companies have been forced to file for bankruptcy, the 
Administration has waffled on its commitment to the steel industry and 
has only offered tepid, ineffective regulatory remedies. In pursuit of 
abstract geopolitical goals, the Administration has refused to 
aggressively enforce our nation's trade laws.
  The time for Congress to act is now. Today's steel industry is not 
the inefficient, noncompetitive, and unproductive industry of the past. 
Since the steel crisis in the 1970's, the steel industry has 
painstakingly reinvented itself, with over $60 billion of capital 
investments. Today, the American steel industry is among the most 
productive, the most efficient, the most innovative, and the cleanest 
in the world. In contrast, the foreign companies who are illegally 
dumping their steel in our market and threatening the continued 
vitality of our domestic steel industry, rely upon outdated, 
inefficient and environmentally unsafe technology.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 975 is simple, straightforward, and fair. It 
protects American jobs, saves American steel companies from bankruptcy, 
and ensures a domestic source of steel necessary to maintain our 
military hardware.
  I urge my colleagues to take a stand today to enforce our trade laws 
and to protect American jobs. I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 975.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 975, The 
Bipartisan Steel Recovery Act. While this legislation is not a perfect 
solution to solving the crisis faced by the steel industry, I am a 
cosponsor of H.R. 975 because to date the Clinton administration has 
failed to step up and enforce existing U.S. trade laws against illegal 
foreign steel dumping.
  As you know Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I on the Congressional 
Steel Caucus have been begging the White House to take meaningful 
action to stem the flow of these below the price of production steel 
products for over a year. It was not until this Congress took action 
late in the last session before the White House and the Commerce 
Department would even acknowledge that we had a steel crisis.
  Since Congress forced the Clinton administration to issue a report on 
the steel dumping problem, the Administration has only offered unwanted 
tax credits to the steel industry, more bureaucratic delays in 
resolving steel dumping cases, veto threats of any congressional action 
and not one new solution to save the jobs of the thousands of 
steelworkers who stand to lose their jobs if the crisis continues.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 975 is a bipartisan compromise bill combining the 
elements of Representative Regula's bill H.R. 412 and Representative 
Visclosky's bill H.R. 506. I am an original cosponsor of Mr. Regula's 
bill H.R. 412, which I believe is the best long-term solution to the 
steel industry's problems and a solution to update section 201 of our 
trade laws to help American industry compete in a fair market as we 
enter the 21st century. I am especially pleased that the steel 
monitoring program and real time steel import data program contained in 
H.R. 412 have been included in H.R. 975.
  While H.R. 975 would provide for some very tough medicine that most 
in Congress including myself would rather not have to administer, it is 
clear that the steel industry is at a crossroads. In just the last year 
over 10,000 steelworkers have lost their jobs. That's 10,000 families 
who have lost their livelihood, not to mention the impact these job 
losses have had on local steel communities.
  In the 11th District of Illinois I have over 20 firms that produce 
steel products. Some are big firms like Birmingham Steel in Joliet, 
while others are small family owned operations like Bellson Scrap & 
Steel in Bourbonnais. I also have hundreds of steelworkers in my 
district who travel to the LTV plant in Hennepin, IL, and steel plants 
in Chicago and across the border in Indiana.
  The steel crisis has had a real impact in my district. Small firms 
like Bellson Scrap and Steel have had to cut their workforce by 10 
percent, while, big producers in my district like Birmingham have cut 
back to 32-hour work weeks, mandatory vacation periods, and are now 
only operating at 80 percent of precrisis production. Close to home 
Acme Steel of Chicago has filed for bankruptcy placing thousands of 
more jobs in the Chicagoland region in jeopardy in addition to the 
1,000 Illinois steel jobs that have already been lost.
  Mr. Speaker, the steel crisis is alive and worse than ever for 
thousands of steel families. Even by the numbers of the 
administration's own Commerce Department steel imports for January 1999 
are up over 96 percent from Japan, 140 percent from China, 155 percent 
from Korea and 705 percent from Indonesia over the precrisis period. 
Just in the 1 month period between December 1998 and January 1999, 
steel imports are up another 6 percent and the administration hails 
these numbers as great progress. Ask Mark Pozan at Bellson if he thinks 
a 6 percent increase over already record levels of steel imports is 
progress.
  Mr. Speaker I agree that H.R. 975 may not be the best remedy to solve 
the steel crisis,

[[Page H1368]]

but, this Congress can not stand by and watch our trade laws be 
continually violated and our industries continually weakened while, 
good paying jobs are destroyed.
  The steel industry has rebounded from the financial difficulties of 
the 1980's that cost our country over 325,000 jobs. The American steel 
industry once in decline, now produces the lowest cost, highest quality 
and most environmentally sound steel on the planet. If we fail to 
ensure that American steel plays on a level playing field with the rest 
of the world, than we place American steel companies and American 
workers including the 400 at Birmingham Steel in great harm. I urge my 
colleagues to send the Clinton administration a message and pass H.R. 
975.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support 
today for H.R. 975, the Bipartisan Steel Recovery Act of 1999.
  As a Member of Congress, I am well aware that the American steel 
industry has been facing a crisis. With the full knowledge of the White 
House, foreign corporations from Korea, Japan, Brazil, and Russia have 
been illegally dumping underpriced steel in the United States market 
for the past 20 months. Already, over 10,000 steelworkers nationwide 
have been laid off or lost their jobs. In addition, the thousands of 
hard-working Americans in the steel industry that have endured the 
crisis have seen their work hours and paychecks slashed. Mr. Speaker, I 
feel it is time for Congress to act by enforcing existing trade laws--
the same trade laws that the administration is reluctant to enforce.
  With the reluctency of the administration to do anything, I see H.R. 
975 as a viable solution to the current crisis. In addition to 
returning our steel imports to the precrisis levels of 1997, H.R. 975 
also establishes a monitoring system that requires all steel importers 
to obtain a ``Steel Import Notification Certificate.'' This measure 
will effectively arm us with a mechanism to assist in monitoring the 
illegal dumping of steel and ensure that our current trade laws are not 
being violated. Moreover, H.R. 975 will return steel imports to 
precrisis levels, help us curtail illegal dumping and avoid a crisis 
situation in the future.
  In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of the 
Bipartian Steel Recovery Act and the American steel worker. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 975 and support America.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my serious concerns about 
this legislation before us.
  I strongly believe that free and open trade between nations improves 
the world economy, creates high-paying jobs, and lowers prices for 
consumers.
  I certainly understand the seriousness of foreign countries and 
companies illegally selling goods below the price of production in our 
country. The United States must fight these dumping violations and must 
hold countries accountable for these activities.
  However, H.R. 975 isn't the answer. This illegal, quota bill won't 
help American industry and will harm American workers. We've lived 
through failed, protectionist economic eras.
  I also oppose this legislation and the hasty retaliatory measures 
within it because it violates our World Trade Organization (WTO) 
obligations by creating quotas to limit the importation of steel. If 
the U.S. expects to maintain a viable economy free from retaliatory 
protectionism, we cannot break trade laws ourselves. A full scale trade 
war is in no one's interest.
  This legislation would have real negative consequences for American 
consumers, manufacturers and the economy as a whole.
  Mr. Speaker, while I believe every Member of the House is concerned 
about dumping and is willing to support strong actions against such 
occurrences, two wrongs don't make a right, and to retaliate with this 
illegal, protectionist measure is counterproductive to American workers 
and consumers.
  At a time when we are fighting the Europeans for their flagrant 
violation of international trade law, we cannot thoughtlessly toss 
aside our own commitments to follow the rule of law. And we must make 
sure that we do not put in place measures that will hurt American 
workers and consumers.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this protectionist bill before 
us today.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 975, a bill which 
will control the amount of foreign steel imports entering the United 
States.
  The U.S. steel industry is the foundation of many of the economic 
development engines across the country. While our economy is buzzing, 
we are in a position to get back in the steel business after the steel 
industry's downturn in the 1980's. People all over the world want 
quality steel ``made-in-the-USA.'' This bill is our attempt to 
revitalize the steel industry and provide a level playing field for our 
steel producers.
  The steel industries in other countries get subsidies for their 
products. In doing so, several countries have taken advantage of the 
NAFTA rules to wreck havoc on our steel market. As a supporter and 
advocate of NAFTA, let me say as clearly as I can: free trade does not 
mean cheating. Free trade means fair trade. We are the world leader on 
economic and trade issues, and therefore must speak up when there is an 
injustice. Flooding a market with underpriced materials is unjust.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I want to remind the 
House that steel is the base product that we use in our war-fighting 
equipment, as well as a host of our domestic transportation system 
needs. It is the steel industry that has made the United States what we 
are today, and it is the basis for much of the prosperity we currently 
enjoy.
  In my South Texas district, there is one steel plant currently 
operating, providing economic development in the area. There is a 
prospective plant in the works in another part of my district, so the 
need for a quality product is out there, but Congress must support 
those who are in the business of making steel.
  When other countries break the rules for fair trade policies, it is 
our job, our right, and our responsibility to speak up and demand that 
the rule-breaking end. NAFTA, the hot economy and smart economic policy 
enacted in 1993, have brought the United States to the front of the 
class when it comes to matters of trade. If we do not act to highlight 
these illegal practices and reverse them, we will see others get the 
impression they can get away with similar practices.
  Free trade does not mean cheating. The United States and the House of 
Representatives will not allow it. Please join me in supporting H.R. 
975.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today there are hundreds of men and women in 
the 17th District of Illinois who are without work because we have 
failed to protect them from illegally dumped steel.
  Last year, when the European Union felt the steel crisis blowing 
their way, they quickly sealed their borders to protect their industry 
and its employees. Yet, American steelworkers were left to twist in the 
wind as the administration dragged its feet on enforcing our 
antidumping laws and taking an aggressive approach to conquer the 
crisis.
  As the months have passed, the crisis has steadily worsened. If we 
don't stand up for the working men and women of our steel industry, who 
will?
  Today, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the answer to the 
steel problem. By imposing quotas, and establishing a monitoring system 
to uphold our trade laws, H.R. 975 accomplishes what should have been 
done long ago--protection for out steelworkers, our steel industry and 
requiring that other nations share the burden of the steel crisis.
  I would also like to remind my colleagues of what caused this crisis: 
the International Monetary Fund's harsh austerity measures that cause 
developing countries to export cheap steel. Until we stop funding, 
promoting and enabling the IMF to wreak havoc on financially strapped 
nations with their ``bad economic medicine'', we will continue to watch 
our trade deficit skyrocket and Americans go without work.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Bipartisan Steel Recovery 
Act.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise is support of the 
steelworkers. I am a proud member of organized labor. Organized labor 
enabled me to finance my house, and to educate myself and my children. 
I live in America. I am an American Congressman. The people who sent me 
here live in America and I want the people of America to be able to 
have the same opportunity I had and my family had. Lets keep the steel 
workers of America working. And when and if the time comes when our 
American workers are all employed, then we can look abroad for their 
assistance. Lets take care of our home First!
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 975, The 
Steel Recovery Act. As a Representative from the State of Michigan and 
a member of the Steel Caucus, I am well aware of the impact that the 
flood of cheap steel has had on thousands of families across this 
country. 10,000 steelworkers have lost their jobs. The ironic aspect of 
this situation is that it has occurred as the U.S. Steel industry has 
remade itself into the worldwide leader. It is efficient, it produces a 
clean, high-quality product, and pumps $70 billion annually into the 
U.S. economy. Moreover, steel is a vital element of our national 
security. All the industry wants and needs is the ability to compete 
with the rest of the world on a level playing field. This is hard to 
accomplish when steel imports from Japan rise 170% in a single year.
  Free trade does not mean that the United States becomes the dumping 
ground for inferior products sold at below the cost of production. We 
must stringently enforce the antidumping and countervailing duty laws 
to make sure that such practices do not continue to put American 
workers at risk. The trick of future trade policy is to ensure the 
viability of core

[[Page H1369]]

U.S. industries and the jobs associated with them while slowly 
penetrating markets that are in many cases overwhelmingly closed to us. 
I believe that trade and exposure to American products will help break 
down these barriers, but I also do not believe it is unreasonable to 
insist that current law be enforced as intended.
  Mr. Speaker, standing up for the principles of fair trade will do 
more to promote a freer global trading environment than allowing our 
industries to bear the brunt of dumped products. This is the trade 
environment I will continue to push for, and this is the one we are 
voting on today. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 
975.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 975, the 
Steel Import Reduction Act, because the need to protect the vital 
domestic steel industry is clear. Since the start of the Asian 
financial crisis two and a half years ago, imports of steel into the 
United States has risen dramatically--over 24% in 1997 and 30% in 1998. 
Nationally, at least 10,000 U.S. steel jobs have been lost in the past 
year. Furthermore, three American steel companies have filed for 
bankruptcy over the last year, and thousands more jobs are threatened 
because a steel oversupply remains on the docks from abroad.
  Import surges have occurred from nations like Japan, Korea, Brazil 
and Russia, and this is not surprising when one considers that their 
normal Asian markets are now dry. The steel industries in these 
countries need a market, and the United States continues to have the 
strongest economy in the world. Therefore, these nations must, in 
effect, ``dump'' their steel on our thriving economy to the detriment 
of our domestic industry.
  Mr. Speaker, the American steel industry is second to none in the 
world. Gone are the days when U.S. steel was non-competitive with other 
nations--the necessary infrastructure investments and facility 
improvements occurred over a decade ago. Were it not for the current 
global economic situation, I would not be standing today on the floor 
of the House urging passage of H.R. 975.
  At the same time, I have real concerns with the legality of the 
measure vis-a-vis the World Trade Organization, or WTO. My support for 
free trade remains uncontested. However, I have always stated that 
along with free trade principles, fair trade practices must be 
enforced. This is not occurring as a result of the struggling economies 
in Asia, Russia, and Brazil. It is my hope that as this bill moves 
forward in the legislative process, a solution can be developed which 
will effectively shield American steel while keeping the U.S. out of 
the WTO dispute settlement system.
  Finally, I want to express my concerns that imports of specialty 
steel will not be effected by passage of this bill. Industries in my 
district in the East Bay of California, for instance, have been 
importing high strength steel from Japan for many years. This steel is 
used for the under bodies of passenger vehicles, and it is processed in 
a way which is not readily available on the domestic market. It is my 
understanding that these imports would not be effected by the import 
reductions called for in this legislation, and I appreciate that.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank you for working toward a solution to this 
problem of great magnitude to a vital U.S. industry.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
thousands of hard working men, women and their families who have lost 
their jobs due to a practice some refer to as ``steel dumping'' and 
their families.
  Mr. Speaker, America's steel companies and America's steel workers 
are the best in the world. Given a level playing field, there is no 
foreign company that can compete with them.
  In the past year, three steel mills have filed for bankruptcy and 
over 10,000 workers have been laid off. Mr. Speaker, this is 10,000 too 
many.
  If these imports continue, what does that mean for the families of 
these workers? What does that mean for the tens of thousands of jobs of 
those employed by the steel industry? We cannot--and we must not--turn 
our backs on American steel companies, American Steel workers and the 
communities they support.
  The American steel industry and its workers are in a severe crisis, 
and as representatives of these workers, I urge my colleagues to vote 
yes on HR 975 and reduce the importing of steel.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
protect American workers.
  The American steel industry is a $70 billion industry that employs 
170,000 people nationwide. Steel is also at the heart of Maryland's 
industrial base and thousands of Maryland jobs depend upon the steel 
industry. Over the past 15 years, the U.S. Steel Industry has worked 
aggressively to streamline its operations, improve productivity and cut 
costs. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, which has long operated a plant at 
Sparrows Point in Baltimore, has been at the forefront of these 
efforts. Bethlehem Steel is also among twelve companies and the United 
Steelworkers of America who, in response to this crisis, have filed 
unfair trade cases. Workers at Sparrows Point, and many plants like it, 
are already feeling the dramatic effects of allowing this massive 
influx of foreign steel.
  Ultimately, this matter expands beyond the steel industry. Steel is 
critically interwoven into the fabric of our society. It is utilized in 
automobiles, medical equipment, homes, and military systems. Thus, we 
must act now to provide the appropriate safeguards to prevent risk to 
these industries.
  Opponents of H.R. 975, the ``Steel Import Reduction Act,'' have 
focused on protectionism for our steel industry. Let us remember, our 
duty is to the American people. So, protectionism is key. We must 
``protect'' our home, American jobs, and families from the irreparable 
harm caused by unprecedented and unfair levels of steel imports.
  Join me in protecting American workers and families. Let's stop 
illegal ``dumping'' by voting in favor of H.R. 975.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 975. 
When I was running for Congress last year, not one of my constituents 
asked me to vote to raise the prices of the goods they buy. I doubt 
that any of my colleagues' constituents did either. Yet that is exactly 
what we are asked to do today with H.R. 975. Quotas have only one 
effect--higher prices for consumers, our constituents.
  What does H.R. 975 do, Mr. Chairman? Nominally, it imposes quotas on 
steel imports. But in truth, it does so much more.
  H.R. 975 solves a crisis that does not exist. Imports are down, way 
down. In January, steel imports fell to about 2.6 million tons, below 
the monthly average of imported steel from the last ``pre-crisis'' 
quarter of April to June 1997. Our anti-dumping laws have worked.
  H.R. 975 violates our international obligations under the World Trade 
Organization. Violations by the strongest proponent of the WTO will 
only lead to quid pro quo protectionism.
  H.R. 975 benefits a few, at the expense of many. There are 266,000 
steel workers in America who might be helped by this bill. There are 
8.3 million workers in steel consuming industries, such as the 
automobile industry and the construction industry, that will be hurt by 
this bill. And when our foreign trading partners retaliate with quotas 
of their own, all of our workers suffer.
  Mr. Speaker, our steel industry is not failing. In fact, it is the 
most efficient steel industry in the world. U.S. steel mills shipped 
102 million tons in 1998, the second highest annual total ever, while 
increasing their share of global production from 12.3 percent to 12.6 
percent.
  What is not well known is that U.S. steel producers--the very ones 
who are laying off steel workers and asking for quotas--are themselves 
purchasing imported steel. On average, our domestic steel producers 
purchase 20 to 25 percent of all steel imports to satisfy their own 
accounts. Our own steel industry benefits from the lower prices brought 
on by imports.
  Mr. Speaker, free trade is indispensable to our prosperity. We cannot 
allow ourselves to be turned from the path that has led to our 
remarkable economic success. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no 
on H.R. 975.
  Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for H.R. 975, the Steel Import Reduction bill, of which I am proud to 
be a co-sponsor. This legislation requires the President to take action 
to reduce steel imports into this country to pre-1997 levels and 
directs the administration to establish a steel import notification and 
monitoring program.
  Mr. Speaker, our steel industry is in crisis. Last year, 10,000 
steelworkers found themselves out of work in this country, and more are 
losing their jobs each day. Steel companies are filing for bankruptcy, 
laying off employees and shutting their doors. In short, American 
businesses and workers are paying the price of illegal dumping of steel 
products by Japan, Brazil, Russia and other nations which are not being 
forced to comply with our trade laws.
  I appreciate the attention which President Clinton and his 
administration have begun to give this issue and the steps which they 
have taken to address it. Sadly, their efforts will not be enough to 
end this crisis. Instead, we need to adopt the comprehensive, global 
approach embodied in H.R. 975 to ensure that our steel industry can 
compete in the global economy on a level playing field.
  The steel industry is critical to our national security and to our 
economy. If we do not address this crisis now, the implications will 
only grow in severity. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this important legislation. It is time to send a signal that 
we will not tolerate violations of our trade laws, especially when they 
place the security of our workforce, our economy and our nation in 
jeopardy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The bill is considered read for amendment.

[[Page H1370]]

  Pursuant to House Resolution 114, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and the third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________