[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 24 (Thursday, March 7, 2002)]
[House]
[Page H771]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PRESIDENTIAL DECISION ON STEEL IMPORTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on President Bush's 
decision to levy up to a 30 percent tariff on steel imports coming into 
the United States. I am glad the President took a step forward, 
something that we hoped he would do, but he did much less than we 
asked. Steel companies, steelworkers, elected officials representing 
steel States, asked the President to levy 40 percent tariffs for 4 
years, something to level the playing field for imported steel in the 
United States.
  The International Trade Commission had found that steel companies in 
foreign lands, especially in Russia, Brazil, Korea, and China had 
violated international trade laws by subsidizing and selling into our 
market illegally priced steel, so-called dumping. The President had the 
option of levying tariffs up to 40 percent for 4 years. That is clearly 
what we needed for LTV in Cleveland, for RTI in Lorain, for CSC in 
Warren, Ohio, and steel companies all over this great country from 
Alabama to Ohio to Michigan, to Indiana, wherever steel is made in the 
United States.
  Unfortunately, the President's decision to do up to 30 percent, 
understanding that it was not 30 percent in every case but up to 30 
percent for only 3 years, fell short on that mark. It also fell short 
because the 30 percent is phased out during those 3 years.
  The second thing that the President neglected to do was deal with the 
issue of legacy costs. That is those costs of health care and pensions 
that companies have promised to steelworkers that in many cases the 
commitment will not be met.
  So on the one hand steelworkers with their health care are left out 
in the cold, those people who are retired. Second, those companies that 
absorbed legacy costs are in a competitive disadvantage with the rest 
of the world because most countries have universal health coverage 
provided by a government program, while in the United States in our 
employment-employer based health care system, the steel companies and 
other companies pay for the cost of the health care. So that puts us at 
a competitive disadvantage there.
  It also is an argument for universal coverage because all American 
companies are at a competitive disadvantage when the government 
provides the health care in a Medicare-type system that most countries 
around the world have. Yet, in America, employers must pick up those 
health care costs.
  The third problem with the President's decision on steel and where he 
fell short and the reason for my disappointment is that the President 
opened up several loopholes in his tariff proposals, in his tariff 
enactments. For instance, there is a Mexico exception which allows 
companies in China, Korea, Japan and other places to sell their steel 
into Mexico at very low or nonexistent tariff rates. Then Mexico will 
sell that steel into the United States at a zero tariff because of the 
North American Free Trade Agreement.
  So that Mexico exception allows those companies which have illegally 
priced their steel according to the International Trade Commission to 
back-door their steel through Mexico into the United States at no 
tariff. All Mexico has to do, if even that, is a Mexican company needs 
to do a little value added to the steel, stamp Made in Mexico, and send 
it into the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, that could be a difficult thing to do, except that we do 
not police our borders well enough. We do not have tariff and customs 
inspectors in as nearly a comprehensive way as we ought to have.
  Those are the problems with the Bush tariff plan. One, it is not 40 
percent over 4 years. It falls woefully short. Second, it does not deal 
with the legacy costs which is unfair to those retirees. LTV workers 
lose their health care March 31. Other retirees have already lost 
theirs. It does not deal with the legacy costs for those companies that 
are continuing to produce steel. And, third, it creates the Mexico 
exception. That will hurt our steel industry. It is a question of 
national security. That will hurt our steelworkers. It is a question of 
our communities.

                          ____________________