[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.
____________________