[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 18 (Wednesday, February 27, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H625-H632]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     AMERICAN STEEL INDUSTRY CRISIS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kirk). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) is recognized for 
60 minutes.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, America is at a critical moment. The 
domestic steel in its industry and the current workforce retirees and 
their dependents are clearly at a vital crossroad. Without strong 
relief under the section 201 action that this administration has called 
forth utilizing that section of our trade laws, the future of the 
industry is clearly grim. Thousands of steelworkers already have lost 
their jobs, and thousands more jobs are at stake. Beyond that, pension 
and health care benefits are in jeopardy for hundreds of thousands of 
retirees. Now is the time to provide relief for this beleaguered 
domestic industry.
  The Bush administration took the vital first step by initiating the 
201 investigation, and now the results are in. The investigation 
demonstrated what the industry and its workers have known all along, 
the rest of the world is not playing by the same set of rules. Meaning, 
the steel score sheet has long been skewed to provide foreign 
competitors with an unfair handicap, making it unnecessarily difficult 
for U.S. producers to compete. That has to stop.
  Mr. Speaker, this may be hard for people to see up here, but let me 
assure you that the subsidies our domestic

[[Page H626]]

steel companies have received since 1980 are dwarfed by the subsidies 
that foreign steel makers receive.
  Looking at this graphic, this minuscule yellow bar down here 
represents the U.S. government subsidies, while this tower next to it 
represent the $90 billion in subsidies our leading competitors have 
received since 1980 in the steel sector. The amount of subsidies to 
foreign producers have outnumbered and outshone by those in the U.S. by 
a factor of more than 8 to 1. Substantial relief under section 201 is a 
move toward eliminating that handicap as well as others, putting the 
U.S. on a level playing field and staving off a permanent liquidation 
of this strategic industry.
  Inaction or weak action would silence many steel plants, while 
destroying the livelihood, the good-paying jobs of the workers, their 
families and communities, and dealing a blow to our national economy 
and to our national security.
  I applaud the Bush administration for stepping up to the plate for 
the American steel industry and its workers, something that previous 
administrations had been reluctant to do.
  With that, I urge the Bush administration in the next week in making 
a decision on this steel 201 to knock the ball out of the park by 
imposing credible tariffs over the next 4 years.
  There will be a number of speakers joining me tonight. The first of 
these is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), and I yield to him.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), for his work on this and for his work 
for his constituents in Pennsylvania.
  We have would not be here if the President had not invoked section 
201; and we would not be here if the ITC, the International Trade 
Commission, had not found in essence in our favor that there has been 
some illegal dumping.
  We hear a lot on trade, and a lot of the debate stems around free and 
fair trade. I think it is pretty clearly evident that when trade is not 
fair then we need to do just what we did in this case so far. What we 
have done so far is asked for a section 201 hearing that has been found 
in our favor, and now the administration has to finish the deal. They 
have a deadline of March 6 in which they are going to recommend the 
type of penalties that this country would like to see to get our steel 
industry back on sound footing; and, as with every other issue, there 
is always a debate of what those penalties should be.
  Well, the Steel Caucus, which the gentleman chairs and which we have 
many members of, have tried to weigh in on this. We have sent a letter 
to President Bush asking for a minimum of 40 percent tariff to be 
implemented over 4 years on all imported steel products. That is what 
we can do now, and I am glad to have signed that letter and sent that.
  But I also had a chance to personally speak with Secretary Evans on 
this issue and reiterate the importance of some strong, strong 
penalties, not only to help our domestic steel industry, but it sends a 
signal to the rest of the countries that we want to trade and do 
business with. We can compete with them. We cannot compete with them if 
they have subsidized their production, and that is what they do by a 
term called dumping, which means foreign countries are selling steel to 
us at below-market prices, usually subsidized by their own government.
  The International Trade Commission's ruling, they said that we in our 
domestic steel industry suffered serious injury due to the surge in 
imports. So that is why we need a substantial tariff for a maximum 
length of time, because the majority of steel that is making its way to 
America from off shore is being heavily subsidized.
  The imposition of tariffs over a 4-year period will demonstrate to 
foreign producers and governments that this administration is serious 
about addressing the problem of foreign excess steel capacity. And it 
is kind of ironic that our European allies, from what I understand, are 
not supportive of our heavy tariffs because they fear that if we are 
successful then they will be the target for the illegal dumping of 
steel and then they will have to deal with this issue.
  So we need to make sure that our allies and friends understand that 
steel is also a national security issue and it is important for us to 
have that domestic capability.
  The administration must take this lead in developing a plan to 
address the critical legacy costs which are preventing the industry 
from restructuring. The progress of the President's comprehensive steel 
strategy demonstrates once again his strong, decisive leadership on 
behalf of America, American workers and American families. It is now 
time to take the next step and implement a remedy that would be 
advantageous to the U.S. steel industry. I am confident that this 
Congress working with this President will provide help for those who 
have lost their jobs and benefits as a result of the bankruptcy of the 
steel industry.
  The 40 percent tariff that we suggest would bring the domestic steel 
industry back to a level playing field with foreign competitors and 
hopefully bring an end to the steel crisis in our country, not only for 
the factory itself, but for the workers, and not just for the current 
day workers but for the retirees.
  I appreciate all the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) has 
done on this behalf since the day he arrived here. We have made great 
inroads in working it together across the party lines and the caucus. 
And I am really proud of what the President has done with this issue. 
Now we want to him finish the job and get the work done.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, and I want 
to thank him for his personal involvement, for his work with the 
administration, for helping to bring there issue to the fore, at a 
very, very critical time when we can still save our domestic steel 
industry. I thank him for being involved in the Steel Caucus.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to another gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Phelps), 
who is also a member of the Steel Caucus.
  Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
English).
  I first want to commend the gentleman on his firm leadership in 
bringing this issue to the forefront of the American people. Those who 
are not associated with the steel industry may not be aware just how 
serious this situation is, and I want to associate my remarks with my 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). We are 
fighting the same battle.
  Let me state, Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the crisis the steel 
industry faces. The American steel industry and the steelworkers are in 
the midst of possibly the worst crisis ever due to the continued 
illegal dumping into this country of foreign-made steel.
  Thousands of steelworkers have lost their jobs, and countless more 
are in jeopardy. In my congressional district in Central and Southern 
Illinois the effects have been devastating. Yesterday, I attended a 
steel rally in Greenwich City, Illinois, and was able to hear firsthand 
the effects this has had on the local economy.

  Now is the time to institute the highest tariff levels of at least 40 
percent if the steel industry is to recover.
  Last year, the President directed the International Trade Commission 
to undertake one of the most extensive and complex investigations into 
the section 201 history. I applaud the President for this leadership, 
very much needed assistance for an ailing industry. The International 
Trade Commission ruled unanimously that nearly 80 percent of the 
product lines of the American steel industry have been seriously 
damaged by surges of low-priced foreign imports. The most severe 
violations of U.S. trade laws have taken place since 1998.
  The devastating impact that low-priced steel imports have had on 
American steel companies is amply evident; and, as a result of foreign 
dumped steel since 1998, 31 steel companies have filed for bankruptcy 
nationwide. Of these, four are located in my home State, Illinois, 
which has caused over 5,000 Illinois steelworkers to lose their jobs.
  The International Trade Commission has recommended the President 
impose tariffs of up to 40 percent on a broad variety of steel products 
over a 4-year period. I strongly urge the President to impose the 
highest tariff rate for 4 years on all subject steel categories as the 
first step in saving our American steel industry and the jobs and the 
health insurance of Illinois steel makers and over 50,000 retirees in 
Illinois.
  The domestic steel industry has invested billions of dollars in 
upgrading

[[Page H627]]

and modernizing its facilities and, as a result, is among the most 
productive makers of high-quality steel in the world. No industry, no 
matter how productive, however, can compete against the onslaught of 
low-priced and often unfairly traded steel imports. It is imperative we 
send the strongest possible message to deter our trading partners from 
further illegal dumping and to give the domestic steel industry the 
time it needs to recover from its injury. Anything less would be a 
disservice to those working men and women who are counting on 
government to stand up for them.
  In this body last year we have deliberated several trades issues and 
even this year. Some are disagreed upon and some have total agreement, 
and it is not even by party lines. Unfortunately, it is by 
geographical, cultural differences, many times, rather than party line.
  And we have a healthy debate. One was such as permanent normal trade 
relations with China. The reason I resisted that proposition and 
opposed it is that in my 19th District in Illinois we are exporting 
jobs because of trade policies such as free trade and the P.N.T.R. 
motion that we looked at and debated on this floor.

                              {time}  1945

  I know that many people have stock in the fact that this will help 
us, our country; but I say right now, in the 19th district, that is 
just the opposite case.
  We had 10 years of China breaking their word, violating their 
contracts with this country on items that left us $82 billion in trade 
deficit. Now, the reason I mention that is in this context. One blow 
after another to the American worker is adding to a serious situation 
not only of our economy but the quality of products that we produce 
even for our defense system; and that borders on compromising our 
national security.
  I yield back to the gentleman and thank him for his courtesy.
  Mr. ENGLISH. I thank the gentleman, and I will resume making some of 
the points I had been making; and then, in a few minutes, I will 
recognize another member of the steel caucus, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown), who has been a leading advocate of this cause.
  Summarizing the last two speakers, it is clear that the International 
Trade Commission has given the Bush administration the tool that it 
needs to get action. Tariffs in the range of 40 percent are clearly 
needed if the industry is to recover. But, Mr. Speaker, we recognize 
the March 6 decision is only the first inning; 201 action must be 
followed by a concrete commitment from our trading partners to reduce 
inefficient global overcapacity.
  Again, I have to congratulate the President for his understanding of 
the issue and his foresight in initiating the OECD talks. Beyond that, 
we must look at ways to address the industry's legacy costs, clearing 
the way for a domestic steel renaissance. Continued cooperation between 
Congress and the Bush administration is the only way of ensuring the 
viability of the domestic steel industry.
  Let us think a minute about the fundamental causes of this crisis. In 
my view, one of the underlying causes is a massive foreign inefficient 
overcapacity. Looking at this graphic, as my colleagues can see, from 
1998 to 2000 the United States consumed 131 million metric tons of 
steel, while the former Soviet Union, which is NIS on that graphic, 
alone produced 114 million metric tons. The entire foreign excess raw 
steelmaking capacity averaged 268 metric tons, which is more than twice 
the level of average U.S. steel consumption. Massive foreign steel 
overcapacity, created and sustained by abusive government subsidies, 
protected markets and anticompetitive practices, resulting in a 
diversion of excess steel products into the U.S. market.
  Going to the next graphic, it is obvious that raw steelmaking 
capacity has greatly exceeded steel consumption in many areas of the 
world during the last 3 years. Again, the former Soviet Union is 
producing more than 120 million metric tons of steel than it needs. 
Even Brazil is producing almost 20 million more metric tons of steel 
than it needs for domestic consumption. And make no mistake, the excess 
production is being dumped in our domestic market. And they say it is 
our fault.
  Mr. Speaker, a key point to understand is that American steel 
companies and their workers have already done their part to create a 
world-class competitive industry during recent years. They have 
invested more than $60 billion in steel plant modernization since 1980 
to become among the most productive steel producers in the world with 
as few as 1\1/2\ man hours needed per ton of steel produced. To achieve 
these advances in productivity, the U.S. steel industry reduced 
capacity by more than 23 million tons, closed numerous inefficient 
mills, and significantly cut jobs. The workers have endured their fair 
share of economic pain and sacrifice as the workforce was reduced by 
hundreds of thousands of workers in an effort to become the most 
efficient producers of steel.
  As this graphic reflects, U.S. productivity measured as output-per-
worker has nearly tripled since 1980, according to the U.S. Commerce 
Department. These are the official statistics. The industry average has 
gone from using 10 man-hours to produce a ton of steel to just 4, all 
the while the net shipments of steel have grown from just over 90 
million tons to 110 million tons. That is extraordinary. But when 
competing with the unfair trading practices of our foreign competitors, 
it is simply not enough. Much of the world's major steel markets have 
formal steel import barriers to foreign steel or are subject to 
international market-sharing arrangements by foreign steel exporters. 
These cartels are aimed at us.
  Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the steel industry is the victim of predatory 
trade practices, and we desperately need strong relief under section 
201 of the U.S. trade laws. This is allowable under the WTO rules. In 
this case, the International Trade Commission determined damage has 
occurred and made recommendations for tariffs to the President. The 
March 6 deadline for the Bush administration to make a decision is fast 
approaching. I call upon the President to recognize the needs of our 
domestic industry. Significant relief is necessary in order to return 
steel prices to their normal precrisis levels and allow American steel 
companies to make the necessary investments to remain viable and 
competitive in the future while providing good paying jobs.
  Tariff rates must be substantial in order to ensure that import 
prices return to market-based levels. The section 201 remedy must be 
enforced for at least 4 years to allow the domestic steel industry to 
make the necessary adjustments to be competitive. A shorter duration, I 
feel, will simply be ineffective.
  Section 201 relief must not replace existing orders under the 
antidumping and countervailing duty laws. If these orders are set 
aside, hard won as they are, any remedy will be perversely rewarding 
those foreign producers that engage in unfair trade. That is something 
that I would think we all would agree we do not want.
  To further these remarks, I would like to yield to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown), a member of our caucus, a gentleman who has been very 
involved in the steel issue from the get-go.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me and for his leadership on steel issues as American workers and 
corporations try to fight back against this terrible situation that we 
have seen coming for the last 3 or 4 years.
  The U.S., as we know, has become the world's steel dumping ground, 
costing U.S. jobs, hurting U.S. families, and damaging the U.S. 
economy. During the 1998 steel crisis, the trade deficit in steel was 
almost $12 billion, accounting for nearly 7 percent of our overall 
trade imbalance. We have known from other Special Orders in this body 
and from other debates in this body that legislation like NAFTA, GATT, 
which formed the World Trade Organization, PNTR, giving special trading 
privileges to China, and Fast Track legislation, which passed this body 
by one vote last year, that this body of trade law that this Congress 
in my mind has wrongly passed, has damaged this country and that has 
put us in this situation where we have these huge trade deficits. And 
our steel deficit is one of the major parts of that.
  That means that we are buying a lot more steel in this country than 
we are exporting, $11.7 billion worth. The bulk

[[Page H628]]

of these imports in steel were subsidized by foreign governments and 
illegally dumped below market prices in the United States. Under 
Federal trade law, and international trade law too, it is illegal to 
subsidize a product through a variety of different means that 
governments do and then sell it under cost into another country, 
thereby undercutting that domestic industry's products.
  Today, we import 39 million tons of steel, more than double the 
amount we imported in 1991, and steel prices are below 1998 levels. The 
surge in illegally dumped steel has obviously been incredibly damaging 
to the domestic steel industry. Since 1998, 26 steel companies have 
filed for bankruptcy, 17 in the last year. That includes three in my 
State, including LTV in Cleveland, including RTI in Lorain, where there 
is a major plant in Lorain and the community which I call home.
  Steelworkers from LTV and RTI are learning firsthand how unfair 
competition is destroying America's ability to make steel. The White 
House and the Congress must respond. Congress must pass H.R. 808, the 
Steel Revitalization Act. It has bipartisan cosponsors, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Phelps), who was here earlier, and 200-plus Members of this body who 
have cosponsored that bill.
  The Republican leadership, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and 
others, have refused to schedule it for a floor vote. It would make all 
the difference in the world in revitalizing this Nation's steel 
industry. Because this Congress has failed to act, because the 
Republican leadership in this Congress has not given the means to even 
allow us to have a vote on these very crucial issues to protect 
American steel, it is up to the President.
  On March 6, the President will announce his decision on the 
recommendation of the International Trade Commission for tariffs on 
illegally dumped steel. We need a strong response. As the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Phelps) and others have said, we need a 40 percent 
tariff, which is what the ITC has recommended, if the President goes 
along.
  A year and a half ago we heard Vice President Cheney, while in 
Weirton, West Virginia, say we will never lie to you. If our trading 
partners violate trade laws, he told steelworkers, we will respond 
swiftly and firmly. We need the administration's swift response; we 
need their firm response on steel dumping now more than ever.
  If they are sincere about helping steel, and I take them at their 
word, although there has been a pretty big delay in the President 
acting, he was originally supposed to act in mid-February, and every 
day the President fails to act, every day of delay causes more duress 
to the American steel industry, more layoffs, more bankruptcies, and 
more likely failed steel companies; but taking the President at his 
word, we call for him to do the 40 percent tariffs for 4 years. 
Anything less simply will not cut it.
  It does not mean 40 percent with hundreds of exceptions, as 
steelworker president Mr. Leo Gerard told the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English) and me and some others this afternoon. We 
must protect the 700,000 hard-working families who rely on this 
industry for their salary, for their pensions, for their health 
benefits, and all of us who rely on this industry for our national 
security.
  The steelworkers at Weirton Steel, where then Vice Presidential 
candidate Cheney made, I hope, a genuine promise, and to the workers at 
RTI in Lorain, in Canton, in Madison, Ohio, the workers at LTV in 
Cleveland, and all over this country, are absolutely counting on the 
President to do the right thing to stop these unfair trade practices. 
Since this President took office, we have lost a million industrial 
jobs in this country. I wonder how many workers must file for 
unemployment before President Bush and Vice President Cheney honor 
their campaign pledge, not to do this half-baked, but to do the full 40 
percent. More and more Americans are joining the ranks calling for 
Washington to assist this industry.
  Again, we ask for Republican leadership here to move on H.R. 808. It 
clearly will pass this Congress. It has plenty of cosponsors. We ask 
the President to move on section 201 on implementing it and calling in 
these tariffs.
  Now, in addition, it is important that this Congress do something 
about so-called legacy costs. Legacy costs are what is left for those 
workers who are retired; who, when these companies go out of business, 
lose at least 20 percent, sometimes as much as 40 or 50 percent of 
their pensions, and who lose all of their health care benefits. In 
virtually every other steel producing country in the world, especially 
Western Europe, we are seeing companies, as President Leo Gerard told 
us today, we are seeing more and more companies joining together in 
larger companies; and we are seeing government help with these legacy 
costs, with social costs, with health care benefits, with retirement. 
And we have to compete with those companies.
  The only way for Congress to do that is for us to deal with these 
legacy costs for these workers who simply do not have anywhere to turn 
at the age of 58 or 62 or 64, or even before they are eligible for 
Medicare. And there are hundreds of thousands of American steelworkers 
whose companies have gone bankrupt, who are about to lose their medical 
care, who are about to lose up to half, at least a quarter, a fifth or 
a quarter of their pensions.
  It is important the President do the right thing on or before March 
6. We need the 40 percent tariff. We need that tariff in effect for 4 
years until this industry gets back on its feet and American steel can 
have a level playing field from which to compete. It is important that 
Congress move on section H.R. 808 and override the Republican 
leadership to stop it. It is important that Congress stop passing 
legislation like Fast Track and NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, 
the way it was created, and PNTR for China, and all the trade 
agreements that have put us behind the 8-ball.
  It is important that this Congress and this President finally do the 
right thing for American workers. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania 
for his good work and I yield back to him.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman for his great 
advocacy for the cause of steel.
  Mr. Speaker, this administration has done more than the last 
administration did so far; and that is very, very encouraging. Also, a 
bill like H.R. 808 was brought up by this House Republican leadership, 
passed the House overwhelmingly, and was killed in the Senate. This is 
not so much a partisan issue. The importance is that we need to move 
now the strong remedies necessary to put this critical, strategic 
industry back on an even keel.
  We also know an effective remedy is the only way to stimulate foreign 
governments and steel producers to make the difficult decisions that 
U.S. producers have already made to modernize, eliminate inefficient 
capacity and rationalize, bringing stability and balance to the global 
steel market.
  Looking at this next graphic, we know that a 40 percent tariff would 
provide more than $1.4 billion of operating revenue for our domestic 
producers. A substantial tariff-based remedy is the only way to prevent 
the loss of thousands of additional steel-related jobs and will send a 
clear message to foreign producers that the United States is not a 
dumping ground for excess steel product.
  Going to the next graphic, even with the 40 percent tariff, people 
need to understand prices would still be well below the 20-year average 
on hot-rolled, cold-rolled, hot-dipped galvanized steel and coil 
plated.
  Even with the 40 percent tariff, prices would still be below the 20-
year average. So much for the dramatic price increase as a result of 
tariffs that some opponents of relief for the domestic industry have 
been arguing; and comparing the pricing trends of steel to other 
industries, going to the next graphic, according to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, the price of construction machinery and equipment has 
increased about 60 percent during the last 20 years. I realize that 
this graphic is confusing and looks like something that Washington 
would conceive of, but if Members look at the actual details, if 
Members know that the price of products such as motor vehicles have 
risen by about 45 percent since 1981, paper has risen 55 percent, food 
has risen 40 percent, steel prices during

[[Page H629]]

that same time have increased less than 5 percent. That shows that 
steel has managed to maintain a relatively low cost and has actually 
declined as a cost in relative terms. Anything that we do as part of 
this remedy is not going to create a problem with the relative price of 
steel.
  Tariff-based remedies will not harm U.S. consumers. Increases in 
steel prices have minimal effect on the price of end products because 
steel constitutes only a small share of the total cost of most products 
that contain steel. Think about it. For a typical family car, the 
increase caused by the imposition of a 40 percent tariff would be about 
$60, $60 on the cost of an automobile. For a refrigerator, the increase 
would be a cost of about $3. That is not enough to affect consumer 
decisions.
  On this graphic, as measured by the Department of Commerce, steel's 
share of total costs is 0.8 percent for construction, 3.4 percent for 
motor vehicles and parts, 5.4 percent for other transport equipment, 
6.8 percent for household appliances, 4.6 percent for electrical 
industrial apparatus, and for the highest of Commerce's categories, 
fabricated metal products, steel's share of total cost is less than 16 
percent.
  That clearly indicates that by seeking this remedy, we are not going 
to create a problem for the domestic economy. Since 1995, the price of 
finished goods has risen 11 percent while the cost of steel mill 
products has declined 16 percent. The steel-consuming industries have 
been running around Washington suggesting that relief under section 201 
will not return profitability to the domestic steel industry by raising 
prices while at the same time arguing that relief will raise consumer 
prices to prohibitive levels.
  According to a study by Professor Jerry Hausman, an economist at the 
prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, the tariffs 
would actually have a minimal effect on prices, costing the average 
consumer $2 a year, and having no negative effect on the U.S. economy.
  We can reach out and successfully impose 40 percent tariffs, and it 
will have a minimum impact on consumer prices. Hausman said the 
assumptions from the consuming industry's trade action coalition are 
fundamentally flawed. Using the same model, but with accurate 
assumptions that truly reflect the current steel market, the studies 
show that the section 201 remedies would provide a net benefit of about 
$9 billion to the U.S. economy. The same consuming industries that are 
saying that they will be placed at a severe disadvantage because of 
these tariffs on steel have not had to endure the same stagnated prices 
on their products during the last 20 years. My previous graphic, those 
steel-intensive industries such as construction machinery, equipment 
and motor vehicles, have seen the price of their product increase 60 
and 40 percent respectively since 1981. I will say it again: steel 
prices have increased less than 5 percent.
  Entire American communities have been devastated by this import 
crisis, and I would like my colleagues to consider that regions already 
experiencing hardship as a result of the current recession are being 
dealt a devastating blow by the massive levels of low-priced imports. 
The loss of good-paying steel industry jobs directly impacts thousands 
of workers in other sectors that depend on the steel industry.
  The U.S. manufacturing sector, including the steel industry, has one 
of the highest multiplier effects. For every $1 of a manufactured 
product sold to an end user, an additional $1.19 of intermediate 
activity is generated. The steel industry is a major consumer of 
computers and other high-tech equipment. It is also a major user of 
transportation industries such as rail, trucking, and shipping.
  Steel-generated demand for key raw materials, coal, coke, iron ore 
and limestone provides employment in a number of regions where, 
frankly, other jobs are scarce. The steel industry is also a major 
contributor to the U.S. tax base, including the tax base of State and 
local governments.

  There is another dimension that I would encourage my colleagues to 
think about, and that is a healthy domestic steel industry is a 
cornerstone of our national defense. Steel is an indispensable 
component of many weapons and weapon systems, as well as the ships, 
tanks and other vehicles that carry these systems and our dedicated 
troops. In my district, Erie Forge and Steel is the sole producer of 
propeller shafts that are used in Navy ships, and they are just coming 
out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy with a new buyer.
  The President and many other U.S. government leaders recognize that 
steel and national security go hand in hand. At a time when we are 
trying to enhance our national security and we are thinking anew about 
the need to have a strong defense, defending the steel industry should 
be a top priority. It is vital to U.S. national economic security and 
to our homeland security that America does not become dangerously 
dependent on offshore sources of supply for, among other things, the 
steel that goes into our transportation security infrastructure such as 
highways, bridges, railroads and airports; the steel, that goes into 
our health and public safety infrastructure, such as waste and sewage 
treatment facilities and the public water supply; the steel that goes 
into our commercial, industrial and institutional complexes such as 
schools, hospitals, retail stores, hotels, churches and government 
buildings. We must maintain a viable domestic steel industry if our 
country and our economy is truly to be secure.
  The gentleman from Ohio brought up the issue of legacy costs, and we 
need to recognize that 2 decades of downsizing have created a domestic 
steel industry that is highly efficient with modern facilities; but the 
downsizing that has occurred to achieve this goal has placed an 
enormous burden on the industry, and that burden is these legacy costs: 
health and pension liabilities for steelworkers who lost their jobs as 
a result of the massive industry downsizing which occurred especially 
during the period of the 1980s through the present as a result of 
injurious, unfair trade.
  Legacy costs have put the industry overall at a significant 
competitive disadvantage versus foreign competitors whose governments 
have assumed these same costs. Congress, the administration, and the 
industry must continue to work together to address these costs that 
serve as a critical barrier to industry consolidation. While this is a 
time of enormous crisis for the industry, we need to recognize it is 
also a time of unique opportunity. This is a chance to facilitate an 
important, long-term restructuring to allow for significant capacity 
reduction and help create an industry poised to compete over the long 
run with any competitor in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, we have reached a pivotal point in stabilizing the 
American steel industry and ensuring good-paying jobs for its workers. 
The Bush administration took a monumental first step. I encourage the 
administration to follow through by enacting tough tariffs that will 
truly provide relief for a besieged industry and its struggling 
employees.
  Many of our manufacturers face growing and cumulative competitive 
disadvantages in the international market. While the European Union may 
loudly voice their objections to strong tariffs as not necessary to fix 
America's problem, the percentage of steel dumped into their market is 
significantly lower than that dumped on our shores, and I would like to 
demonstrate that with another graphic.
  As Members can see, not since 1960 have we been on a relatively even 
keel with the Europeans when it comes to receiving excess foreign 
steel. The foreign excess steel dumped in the United States has 
steadily grown since then, topping off at 30 percent while the EU 
hovers at 15 percent. The EU's argument simply does not hold water.
  Mr. Speaker, the plight of the steel industry is grim, but both 
Congress and the administration are working hard to give employers the 
tools that they need to be competitive in the global market. Nothing 
will solve today's steel crisis in this sense: the damage is already 
done. Instead, we must seek to apply the lessons learned in today's 
crisis, put reforms into place so nothing like this will happen again.
  We need to have substantial tariffs to begin this process. We must do 
this in order to provide some security for the 62,000 American 
steelworkers as well as 600,000 retirees and their dependents. Without 
this action, the future of our domestic steel industry as well as our 
economy and our national security will remain very much in question.

[[Page H630]]

                              {time}  2015

  With that, I would like to yield to another of my colleagues, a great 
member of the Steel Caucus, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentleman for his leadership in this area 
and for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of America's steel industry, 
steelworkers and steel communities.
  Just 7 days remain for the President to issue his decision on the 
future of our domestic steel industry. To his credit, the President 
requested that the International Trade Commission conduct a section 201 
investigation to determine if steel imports injured the domestic steel 
industry. Last year, the ITC held a lengthy hearing process in which it 
heard testimony about, and concluded that, serious injury had been 
caused to the steel industry by imports. The ITC ruled that sharp 
increases in 16 product categories have injured, or could seriously 
injure, U.S. steel companies. Various tariff levels were recommended by 
the ITC. Now we await the President's response and the President's 
action.
  For 4 years now, our domestic steel industry has been engaged in a 
brutal fight for survival. Foreign steelmakers have flooded our markets 
with their products, much of it illegally subsidized. These imports 
have pushed 31 of our steelmakers into bankruptcy and forced our 
workers into the unemployment lines. We desperately need relief that 
restores prices to reasonable levels. This decision that we await from 
the President is our domestic steel industry's last chance for 
survival.
  As my colleagues know, the overwhelming majority of commissioners at 
the ITC recognized that substantial tariffs of 20 to 40 percent must be 
imposed in order to address the steel import problem and return prices 
to their normal, pre-crisis levels. In this market environment, 
however, 20 percent tariffs simply will not be enough. I join my 
colleagues in asking the President to impose the highest level of 
tariffs, 40 percent, because it is the only way to ensure the future of 
our steel industry. And, further, any section 201 remedy must be 
enforced for at least 4 years to demonstrate the seriousness of the 
administration in addressing excess capacity.
  Lastly, a tariff-based remedy must be applied across all flat 
products, including slab. If the remedy is different for different 
products, the imports will just shift to the product with the lowest 
tariff, and the remedy will be gutted.
  I would like to take a moment to address one particular problem, 
tinplate. The district that I serve is home to Weirton Steel and 
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel. Both have a significant stake in tinplate 
production. In fact, probably no district in the Nation has a higher 
concentration of tin mill production than the First District of West 
Virginia. Unfortunately, it is one of the many segments that has been 
staggered by rising imports and falling prices.
  Imports of tin mill products have increased by 200,000 tons. Prices 
have fallen by $65 per ton. Imported tin mill products jumped 50 
percent from December, 2001, to January, 2002, a monthly record.
  The ITC's vote on tin mill products was a three-to-three tie. Of the 
three who voted that the domestic industry was injured by imported tin 
mill products, two voted for tariffs of 40 percent, 38 percent, 36 
percent and 31 percent; and one voted for tariffs of 20 percent, 17 
percent, 14 percent and 11 percent. Because of the tie, the law states 
that no remedy recommendation can be made to the President.
  However, even without a tin mill products recommendation, the 
President can still enact a remedy if he so chooses. If the President 
provides tariff relief on other products but not on tin mill products, 
other nations will likely offset their losses and flood the U.S. tin 
mill products market. This is called product shifting. I urge the 
President, in the strongest terms, to include tariff remedies for tin 
mill products in his remedy decision.
  We are truly at a crossroads in the steel industry. The cause of our 
steel crisis is, simply put, massive foreign overcapacity. The ITC's 
section 201 investigation provided overwhelming evidence that the 
industry is seriously injured. Six commissioners unanimously agreed 
that the increase in imports was a substantial cause of serious injury. 
In fact, last Tuesday, the U.S. Bureau of Census released preliminary 
data showing that all steel imports rose from 2 million net tons in 
December to 2.5 million tons in January. So even in the face of 
possible tariffs, foreign countries continue to dump steel in our 
market.
  More than 325,000 American jobs are at risk if serious, swift and 
decisive action is not taken. According to calculations based on 
measurements by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Department of 
Labor and independent economic analysts, every job in the basic steel 
industry supports at least three other jobs in other industries.

  Without significant tariff remedies, our steel industry, our 
steelworkers, and our steel communities will be decimated. I join my 
colleagues in asking the President to issue strong tariff remedies for 
our steel industry.
  Mr. ENGLISH. I want to thank the gentleman for his involvement in our 
Steel Caucus. One of the things that has made being chairman of the 
Steel Caucus such an extraordinary pleasure is the involvement of 
people like him and like you, Madam Speaker, both of you from West 
Virginia, and also from our last, final speaker of the evening, the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), to whom I will yield.
  Ms. HART. I thank the chairman of the Steel Caucus, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), for his great leadership on this issue 
and for actually having this administration be so well educated to 
actually file the 201 investigation and really to have gotten us to the 
point where we are today.
  It is an honor for me to speak here on behalf of those in my district 
and throughout this Nation who have made the steel industry what it was 
and what it should be today, very strong and a very highly mechanized, 
very technical and very much improved industry over the last many 
years.
  Unfortunately, we have not been reaping the benefits that that 
industry has earned over the last several years. As I know has been 
discussed by several other Members earlier this evening, we have not 
reaped the benefits because of foreign nations subsidizing their steel 
and dumping it at below market costs here in this country.
  I had the opportunity to speak with the President, as I know many of 
my colleagues have, about this issue. We were instrumental in making 
the decision to file that 201 investigation. I am pleased that once the 
ITC had the opportunity to review the issue that they did agree with us 
that foreign steel dumping, in a 6-0 decision, in fact, that those 
products being imported into the United States are being imported below 
cost and also in increased quantities, that they are the substantial 
cause of the injury to the United States steel industry, not the lack 
of mechanization and modernization of our industry.
  I want to say, I represent a part of western Pennsylvania that has 
been known for being very strong in the steel industry. Unfortunately, 
we have lost many, many jobs over the last several years. Not only did 
we have a very difficult time in the 1970s and 1980s, but once again, 
since 1986, for example, we have lost over 20,000 steelworker jobs and 
five major plants in Beaver County alone, Babcock & Wilcox, Crucible, 
LTV, Armco and American Bridge.
  The problems, though, did not get better once the industry did 
modernize and consolidate. It has gotten worse. Allegheny County, where 
I live, Butler County, Fayette County, Washington County in western 
Pennsylvania and Westmoreland County where I represent have all lost 
jobs, not again because of their lack of technology but because of 
steel dumping. It is the unfair trade that has caused these problems.
  I would urge everyone involved who has the opportunity to have some 
input now with the administration to encourage them to stand along with 
my colleagues in the Steel Caucus and our chairman, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), and push for a very effective remedy. It 
appears that that will happen next week. We have the opportunity to 
actually help our steel industry survive. We need to have a serious and 
effective remedy. What we are asking for, what the industry

[[Page H631]]

has been asking for, is a strong remedy, 40 percent tariffs, something 
along that line, for a period of time that will allow our industry to 
recover, something that they have earned because of the good faith they 
have shown in modernizing and moving the industry forward.
  Unfortunately, for too long, the administrations that ran this 
country did not pay attention to the steel industry. It was completely 
ignored, in fact, under the previous administration. I must credit 
President Bush, I must credit his trade ambassador and some of the 
folks who work with him who have listened to us, who have discussed 
with us the issue and I believe understand that it is important for us 
to take this step now so that we will continue to have a steel industry 
in this country at all. Because otherwise I think we are in jeopardy of 
losing it completely.
  Between 1997 and 2000, steel imports from China increased by 212 
percent. From the former Soviet Union area, they increased by 167 
percent. That is mostly from the Ukraine. From Taiwan, by 558 percent. 
I do not think anybody could say with a straight face that the quality 
of the steel or the process that they used was that much better than 
ours, and in fact it probably was not better at all.
  So I stand here along with my colleagues and I ask that we together, 
and I ask the administration, to work with us together to make sure 
that our steel industry and those who have worked in it and built it 
and built a large part of this Nation be rewarded for their hard work, 
be given the opportunity to continue to be a strong industry, that they 
can rebuild themselves, that they only ask that they be given a level 
playing field with other countries that are steel producers, and that 
we make sure that given this opportunity now, that the ITC has given us 
a decision showing that they have been injured by dumping, that they 
get the opportunity again to get back on their feet.
  Because not only is it important to my region, the regions that many 
of my colleagues represent, it is important to our entire Nation that 
we have a strong steel industry, not only for the automobile industry, 
not only for the appliance industry, but for the defense industry, for 
the defense of this Nation, and for our future.
  I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership.
  Mr. ENGLISH. I thank the gentlewoman. I congratulate her particularly 
on serving within the Steel Caucus, already as a member of the 
executive committee and one of the effective leadership, helping us 
shape the strategy to bring this issue to the point where it has 
arrived today, where there is an opportunity for the President, through 
his action, to put this steel industry on a much more level playing 
field.
  It is worth noting, since he initiated the 201, already it has had a 
substantial effect on imports and already it is having some effect on 
steel prices, forcing foreign competitors to rethink their strategies 
and rethink their dumping.
  I also want to congratulate the steelworkers unions, the United 
Steelworkers Union, the Independent Steelworkers Union, and the 
industry which is so diverse yet has come together behind the notion 
that this 201, coupled with a 40 percent tariff through the President's 
initiative, is ultimately going to lead to a strong, competitive, 
world-class American steel industry for the future.
  Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, the health of the domestic steel industry 
is vital to our nation, and it is the lifeblood of my district of 
northern Michigan. Without meaningful comprehensive relief, 40% tariffs 
over 4 years for all segments of the steel industry, including slab 
steel we will not recover from the current crisis.
  Only the strongest of remedies can offer any hope for our nation's 
steel and iron ore industries to survive. Over 30 steel companies are 
in bankruptcy, including the LTV Corporation, a part owner and customer 
of the Empire Mine in northern Michigan. Michigan's iron ore mines have 
felt the impact of these bankruptcies as the steel companies that have 
been their customers go out of business one by one. Most recently as a 
result of LTV's bankruptcy, the Empire Mine has been shut down, and 
over 800 employees are currently out of work.
  With the Empire Mine shut down, Michigan has only one remaining iron 
ore mine, the Tilden Mine which is located in Marquette County. The 
Empire and the Tilden Mines have been a vital part of the economies of 
the Upper Peninsula and the state of Michigan. In addition to the 2,000 
employees of these mines, our citizens have been employed in the 
transportation of ore from the mines, to the ports, to the steel mills 
along the Great Lakes, as well as in the power plants that supply these 
mines, and many other related industries.
  I was very pleased by the unanimous finding of injury by the U.S. 
International Trade Commission. However, I was troubled by the relief 
recommended by a majority of the board in the form of a tariff-rate 
quota on slabs, beginning in the first year with a 20% tariff on slab 
imports over 7 million tons. This will be insufficient relief to the 
iron ore industry and to the steel companies whose blast furnance 
operations must compete with the cheap slab steel that is flooding our 
country.
  Rather, the relief for semi-finished steel slab must be equivalent to 
that recommended for the other covered industry products: there must be 
a tariff on each and every ton that enters this country. We need 
tariffs of at least 40% on steel slabs. Without such a tariff, millions 
of tons of slab steel will continue to enter the U.S. market at 
artificially low prices, and will continue to harm our domestic 
industry.
  Now is the time to act to save the steel industry. Our national 
security, our manufacturing base, our workers, our communities depend 
upon a strong domestic steel industry. Now is the time to stand up for 
steel!
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Representatives Visclosky 
and English for organizing tonight's special order on the crisis facing 
the hardworking men and women in the U.S. steel industry, and for their 
dedication and leadership on this crucial issue.
  Since the late 1990's, the steady increase in imported steel into our 
country has put the U.S. steel industry and the future of U.S. 
steelworkers and their families in serious jeopardy. To date, 28,000 
steelworkers across the country have lost their jobs.
  These losses have ripple effects throughout their communities. When 
steel mills close, businesses around them close, people leave their 
towns and neighborhoods. Bonds and traditions built over years are 
broken.
  We must take action immediately. Now, more than ever, we must unite 
in defense of meaningful protection. It is time to stand firm against 
illegal dumping by foreign competitors.
  In December, the International Trade Commission called on the 
President to impose tariffs on foreign steel--to protect American 
families. Since then, three steel companies have collapsed, leaving 
hundreds of steelworkers without jobs--men and women who have dedicated 
years to making the highest quality steel available.
  By March 6th--just a week away--the deadline arrives for the 
President to act. He will have to decide whether to protect 
steelworkers and their families or to protect foreign interests. I 
strongly urge him to do the right thing and stand with our nation's 
steelworkers.
  I am proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the men and women who 
are coming to the Capitol tomorrow to rally for meaningful relief, for 
their jobs, for the highest quality steel in the world, for a safe 
future for their families.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, the crisis facing the American steel 
industry not only jeopardizes thousands of jobs in Michigan and the 
industrial Midwest, but also threatens the long-term stability and 
strength of the American economy. We must commit ourselves as Americans 
to making sure our trade laws have teeth and our country never becomes 
dependent on foreign steel.
  The events of the last few months should also remind us that the 
steel crisis also jeopardizes our national defense capabilities. If we 
no longer have the mills and workers to produce steel, the strength of 
our armed forces--which today are the world's most powerful--will be 
dependent upon our ability to import foreign steel. This is an 
unnecessary gamble and a grave concern. During World War II it was our 
ability to out-produce our foes in the factory that led to our victory 
on the battlefield.
  Twenty steel makers have filed chapter 11 bankruptcy protection since 
1998. Steel prices are at their lowest point in 20 years. Some 20,000 
steelworkers have lost their jobs since 1998. Since 1980, the number of 
American steelworkers has fallen from 460,000 to 140,000. Statistics 
have not measured the job and economic losses that have been absorbed 
by those whose work is tied to the steel industry.
  Great Lakes Steel once operated with nearly 12,000 employees; today 
they employ less than a third that number. During the second quarter of 
2001 alone, their parent company lost over $110 million. Rouge Steel is 
also struggling to survive; Rouge finished 1999 and 2000 with net 
losses.
  These plants, like many across the nation, have been periodically hit 
by hard times and have survived. The industry has always gritted its 
teeth and survived by relying on what

[[Page H632]]

makes it competitive in the world market: quality. It has continually 
improved productivity and product. In fact, the steel industry has 
invested nearly $35 billion in steel plant modernization since 1995. 
The productivity of the American steel industry has improved 180 
percent since 1980.
  For the last few decades, we have world economies becoming more 
interdependent. Some job losses in the industry could not be avoided, 
but American steel regrouped and made itself competitive on the world 
marketplace. All the industry and workers asked in return was for a 
level playing field with foreign competitors, and that trade laws be 
enforced.
  We all know this has not happened, particularly over the last five 
years. Subsidized foreign steel from Russia, China, Japan, and Brazil 
has been dumped into the United States at prices so low that there is 
no way the unsubsidized American steel industry can compete. Last year, 
steel import levels were 83 percent higher than the annual import 
average for the last eight years.
  Hopefully the playing field will soon be leveled, as it must be. On 
October 22, the International Trade Commission voted that imports have 
been a substantial cause of serious injury to the U.S. steel industry 
in affirmative decisions covering nearly 80 percent of total import 
tonnage. The decision was a significant step that set the stage to 
provide a temporary period of strong, effective steel import relief. 
Such relief would provide a period of time to allow U.S. steel 
producers to recover and to address long-term structural problems in 
the U.S. and global steel sector.
  It is now up to the President to determine what measures will be 
taken. The Congressional Steel Caucus, of which I am a proud member, 
has pressed the President to implement real, meaningful sanctions. On 
December 7, the ITC voted remedy recommendations; 5 of 6 Commissioners 
voted for four years of tariffs ranging from 20% to 40% on major 
categories of finished carbon and alloy steel imports. The President 
will make his decision March 6. Words alone will not suffice. I have 
already weighed in with the White House on this matter, and have sent 
the President--along with my colleagues in the steel caucus--three 
letters in the past week alone.
  High tariffs for four years--at or near the 40 percent advocated by 
the industry and proposed by two Republican ITC Commissioners--are 
essential if the industry is to recover. Experts have projected that 
the industry needs to invest $7-9 billion over the next four years to 
stay competitive and adjust to import competition. This can only happen 
with the near-term price relief and market stabilization that would 
come from significant tariffs. Substantial tariffs will do the 
following: have immediate but modest price effects; allow domestic 
producers to significantly increase sales quantities; provide certainty 
in the market; will distort trade less than quantitative measures; and, 
allow the industry to generate the revenue needed for investments.
  Inadequate tariffs, such as the 20 percent recommended by the ITC 
plurality, will likely be absorbed and will have little or no effect in 
the market. So-called ``tariff rate quotas,'' which apply an additional 
duty only after a certain volume of imports comes in at low or zero 
duty rates, will provide no benefits and might well be worse than 
nothing at all. Relief on slab is also critical. Without an effective 
remedy on slab, the pressure for domestic producers to shut down their 
hot-ends and stop making steel will be unstoppable.
  Regardless of the President's decision, Congress' job is not 
finished. We must examine other ways to assist the steel industry, 
including addressing the problem associated with legacy costs. If 
nothing is done, and the federal government does not intervene, 600,000 
retirees will lose their hard-earned health care benefits.
  I implore my colleagues to join me in urging the President to enforce 
our trade laws, follow the recommendations of the ITC, and stand up for 
American industry and American workers. Now is the time to level the 
playing field and end illegal foreign steel dumping, and save the 
American steel industry.

                          ____________________