[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 1199-1200]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             INTRODUCTION OF THE TRADE FAIRNESS ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. RALPH REGULA

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 19, 1999

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, steel imports continues to 
pour into the United States at very low prices and are threatening 
steel worker jobs and the health of the U.S. steel industry.
  As was acknowledged in the President's recent steel report, this is a 
severe crisis that has resulted in a 30 percent surge in steel imports 
during the first 10 months of 1998 and has resulted in the loss of 
10,000 steel worker jobs.
  Surprisingly, the President's steel report does not contain any 
significant measures that will provide immediate relief to the industry 
and protect steel worker jobs.
  The report only rehashes discussions he and administration officials 
have had with offending country officials asking them to cut back on 
their steel exports to the U.S., and revises measures that have been 
taken to expedite recent trade cases.
  The only new proposals in the President's report are $300 million in 
tax relief for steel companies allowing them to carry back losses for 5 
years, and a high level administration coordinator to assist 
communities once they have already suffered job losses.
  Since the administration does not appear ready to take decisive and 
immediate action to solve the steel import crisis, it is up to the 
Congress to look at various options.
  I am introducing today the Trade Fairness Act of 1999 which is but 
one option in trying to solve the steel import crisis. It may not be 
the most expeditious option, but the bill contains two provisions that 
would significantly improve current law to better respond to import 
surges.
  The bill lowers the threshold for establishing injury in safeguard 
actions under section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act to bring the standard 
in line with World Trade Organization rules. Section 201 allows the 
President to provide appropriate relief, including duties and quotas, 
when an industry is injured by import surges. The injury standard in 
this type of action should not remain unjustifiably high, thereby 
precluding the use of section 201 to respond to import surges.

  Second, the bill establishes a steel import permit and monitoring 
program, similar to programs in Canada and Mexico. This monitoring 
program will provide the Administration and industry with timely import 
data to determine more quickly if the marketplace is being disrupted by 
unfair imports.
  This bill represents only one option. You will see other bills 
introduced in the near future responding to the steel import crisis, 
including a bill I am drafting to require the President to negotiate 
Voluntary Restraint Agreements with offending nations. This program was 
extremely effective in the 1980's in allowing the industry to 
restructure and become world competitive.
  But, even the most competitive industry cannot compete against unfair 
imports. We must look for an effective solution to stop these unfair 
steel imports. Below is a more detailed explanation of the Trade 
Fairness Act of 1999.


[[Page 1200]]

             Explanation of the Trade Fairness Act of 1999


                (Introduced by Congressman Ralph Regula)

       The Emergency Steel Relief Act of 1999 is one option to 
     enhance U.S. law to better respond to surges of foreign 
     imports that injure U.S. industries and their workers. This 
     legislation makes prospective changes in U.S. trade laws to 
     bring these laws in line with World Trade Organization (WTO) 
     rules and establishes an import monitoring program for steel.
       The Trade Fairness Act of 1999 consists of the following 
     two sections: first, the legislation lowers the threshold for 
     establishing injury in safeguard actions under Section 201 of 
     the 1974 Trade Act; and second, it establishes an import 
     monitoring program to monitor the amount of foreign steel 
     coming into the U.S. on a more timely basis.
       1. Safeguard Actions: The legislation amends Section 201 of 
     the 1974 Trade Act, which allows the President to provide 
     appropriate relief to a U.S. industry if the International 
     Trade Commission (ITC) finds that the industry has been 
     seriously injured and that injury has been substantially 
     caused by imports.
       Current law requires that imports are a substantial cause 
     of injury to U.S. industry. Our WTO obligation requires only 
     that imports be a cause of injury (i.e. it need not be a 
     `substantial' cause). The bill deletes the term `substantial' 
     from the causation standard.
       Current law requires that imports are ``not less than any 
     other cause'' of injury. This is an unnecessarily high 
     standard. The bill clarifies that in order to gain relief 
     there only needs to be a causal link between imports and the 
     injury.
       The bill also includes in U.S. law the factors to be 
     considered by the ITC, as established by the WTO, to 
     determine whether the U.S. industry has suffered serious 
     injury. These factors include: the rate and amount of the 
     increase in imports of the product concerned in absolute and 
     relative terms; the share of the domestic market taken by 
     increased imports; changes in the levels of sales; 
     production; productivity; capacity utilization; profits and 
     losses; and, employment.
       2. Steel Import Monitoring Program: The bill establishes a 
     steel import permit and monitoring program. In order to gain 
     relief under U.S. trade laws, domestic industries must 
     demonstrate that unfairly traded imports have caused injury. 
     This requires complex factual and economic analysis of import 
     data. Currently, such data has not been available on a timely 
     basis. This data has become public several months after the 
     imports have arrived in the U.S., thus allowing unfairly 
     traded imports to cause significant damage in many cases 
     before the data is available for even a preliminary analysis.
       The steel import permit and monitoring system, which is 
     modeled on similar systems currently in use in Canada and 
     Mexico, would allow the U.S. government to receive and 
     analyze critical import data in a more timely manner and 
     allow industry to determine more quickly whether unfair 
     imports are disrupting the market.

     

                          ____________________