|
08 March 2002 Text: Rep. Brown Says 3-Year, 30 Percent Steel Tariff Not Enough (Brown criticizes "loopholes" in Bush tariff enactments) President Bush's decision to levy tariffs of up to 30 percent for three years on steel imports is "a step forward," but the President should have followed recommendations from the steel industry to impose a 40 percent tariff for four years, according to Representative Sherrod Brown (Democrat of Ohio). In a March 7 speech to the House of Representatives, Brown noted that the International Trade Commission had found that foreign steel companies, "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." Brown, a member of the Congressional Steel Caucus, helped lead opposition to the bill that established permanent normal trade relations with China, clashing with then-President Clinton. The Ohio Democrat said he was disappointed with President Bush's decision on foreign steel imports because it opened up "several loopholes." According to Brown, steel exporters from China, Korea, Japan, and other countries can sell their steel in Mexico "at very low or nonexistent tariff rates." Mexico can then sell that steel into the United States "at a zero tariff because of the North American Free Trade Agreement," he continued. Following is the text of the March 7 speech of Representative Sherrod Brown from the
Congressional Record: PRESIDENTIAL DECISION ON STEEL IMPORTS 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. (end text)
|