[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Page 28516]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      WTO RULING ON STEEL TARIFFS

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, yesterday, the World Trade Organization 
upheld its earlier ruling that the steel tariffs imposed in March of 
last year are illegal and in violation of global trade rules. As a 
result of this ruling, the European Union threatened to impose trade 
sanctions on American imports sold in Europe, ranging from footwear to 
fruits and vegetables. The EU has said that it will impose duties of 
13, 15, 30 percent on these imports as soon as December 6 or at the 
latest December 15, if the steel tariffs continue to remain in place. 
The EU trade sanctions alone would amount to about $2.2 billion.
  Unfortunately though, the EU is not alone. Japan has announced that 
it will join the EU in retaliatory trade sanctions against the U.S. 
China, Norway and Switzerland have also notified the WTO that they will 
possibly impose trade sanctions against the U.S. if the steel tariffs 
are not removed.
  There is plenty of evidence that if the steel tariffs are allowed to 
continue they will do more harm than good. On September 19, the 
International Trade Commission released its report on the effects of 
the steel tariffs on steel consuming industries. Here is what they 
found.
  One-half of the steel-consuming firms that were surveyed reported 
they had difficulty in obtaining steel in the qualities and quantities 
they needed.
  Almost one-third of these firms relocated or shifted production to 
foreign plants or facilities after the implementation of the tariff.
  One-quarter reported that their customers had shifted to purchasing 
finished parts or assemblies overseas as a result of the steel tariff.
  Almost one-third of these firms also reported their contracts they 
had in place to purchase steel were broken or modified after the tariff 
was imposed and reported a loss in profits due to these problems of 
approximately $190 million.
  One-third of these firms reported longer lead and delivery times.
  In addition, the report further highlighted the particular impact the 
steel tariff has had on auto-parts suppliers. Tennessee is home to over 
950 auto-parts suppliers and they make up about one-third of all our 
State's manufacturing jobs.
  Eighty-five percent of the auto-parts suppliers surveyed said that 
their steel prices in the US were higher than global prices.
  Thirty-one percent reported that customers had shifted purchases to 
buying finished parts or assemblies overseas as a result of the tariff.
  Seventy-four percent reported changes in contract prices for steel 
and 55 percent reported that steel tariff was the only important factor 
in these changes in steel prices.
  Seventy-nine percent reported an inability to pass on steel price 
increased to customers.
  All of these burdens have meant extra costs to steel consuming firms. 
Extra costs that have affected steel-consuming jobs all across America. 
The steel tariff may have saved some steel-producing jobs but is has 
already destroyed a lot more steel-consuming jobs.
  The American economy is beginning to recover and I strongly believe 
that this recovery is a direct result of the President's jobs and 
economic growth plan. The last thing we need now is any new cost such 
as the steel tariff on a major manufacturing sector that slows down 
economic growth. I fear that if the steel tariff remains that we will 
see more plant closings during 2004 in Tennessee and across America.
  I believe the President has made an honest good faith effort to save 
steel jobs, but that it has backfired by destroying automotive and 
other steel consuming jobs. I hope that he decides that the best 
decision that can make for the American worker is to end the steel 
tariff.

                          ____________________