In support of the tariff levy, Bush issued a statement that was more to the point than the official statement prepared by his writers. According to the New York Times, Bush told reporters, "We're a free-trading country, and in order to continue free trade, we have to enforce the law. And that's what I've done. I believe that imports are seriously affecting ...... an important industry, so (we) provided temporary protective policies to allow that industry to reorganize itself." Hear that? As Lindsey says, President Clinton told the same industry in October 2000 that he would not consider protectionist action, and it may have been this oversight that cost Gore the support of West Virginia and put Bush in the presidency. Thus, this tariff action is just a small token of the President's appreciation. After the U.S. President announced the final relief program for the safeguard investigation of imported steel 201, the Chinese government issued a statement that the U.S. government's decision would have a serious impact on the normal exports of Chinese steel enterprises to the U.S. and cause the enterprises to suffer huge losses, and the Chinese government expressed its strong dissatisfaction; that the current problems faced by the U.S. steel industry could not be attributed to foreign imports, and that a small amount of Chinese steel products exported to the U.S. is more Not enough to constitute damage or threat of damage to the U.S. steel enterprises; the U.S. government's decision is inconsistent with WTO rules, the Chinese government will reserve the right to file a complaint with the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. [12]
The Chinese government, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the WTO safeguards, proposed to the WTO on March 14th to consult with the United States on the U.S. 201 steel safeguards case. At the same time, the Chinese government issued a statement pointing out that the United States, as one of the world's major trading powers, has a major responsibility for maintaining international trade order, and should fully take into account the significant damage caused by this move to the international trade order. In fact, the U.S. steel industry is currently facing problems can not be attributed to foreign imports, but rather its internal industrial structure caused by irrational. Protectionist measures will only hinder the benign adjustment of the industrial structure, but does not help solve the problem. Moreover, China's exports of steel products to the United States accounted for a small proportion of U.S. imports of similar products, has not caused serious damage to the U.S. steel industry, China asked the U.S. side should pay full attention to the specific situation in China, to properly resolve the issue. China and the United States are important trading partners of each other, the two economies have great complementarity. China hopes that the bilateral consultations will resolve China's concerns as soon as possible, so as to avoid damage to the economic and trade relations between China and the United States. [13]
November 19, the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation issued a notice: First, since November 20, 2002, on the hot-rolled sheet, cold-rolled sheet (strip), color-coated sheet, non-oriented silicon steel, cold-rolled stainless steel (strip) and other five categories of imported iron and steel products for the implementation of the final safeguard measures. Final safeguard measures to take "tariff quotas, first come, first served" approach. Imported products within the specified quantity will still be subject to the current applicable tariff rates, while imported products outside the specified quantity will be subject to additional tariffs (10.3-23.2%) on top of the current applicable tariff rates. The final safeguard measures will be gradually relaxed during the implementation period. II. The final safeguard measures will be implemented for a period of three years from May 24, 2002 to May 23, 2005 (including the implementation period of the provisional safeguard measures). III. The tariffs imposed on the products involved in the provisional safeguard measures that are not subject to the final safeguard measures during the period of implementation of the provisional safeguard measures will be refunded, and the relevant measures will be announced separately. Fourth, the share of imports does not exceed 3% of the total imports of such products originating in developing countries / regions do not apply the final safeguard measures, but the importer is required to provide proof of origin of products from countries / regions not subject to the final safeguard measures. V. During the implementation of the final safeguard measures, the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation may review the form and level of the final safeguard measures in accordance with the law, based on changes in relevant circumstances. [23] At this point, China formally adopted its first safeguard measure.
Appendix 1: Commentary in Le Figaro
By imposing heavy duties on a wide range of steel products, Bush is "starting a new world economic war", and his measure is causing serious damage to the normal conduct of international trade. From Beijing to Moscow, Brussels, are timely and strong reaction to this. The report pointed out that Bush's policy is "political, neither legal nor economic", he is actually using this policy, to appease the domestic steel industry, because there have been several U.S. steel companies filed for protection under the bankruptcy law, Bush hoped that this move will be made for the U.S. domestic legislative elections will be carried out in November this year, there are Reports speculate that Bush actually wants to pass this measure, in exchange for the adoption of a White House in the future of the World Trade Organization negotiations have the right to free determination of the authorization of the bill is currently in the Senate of the opposition Democratic majority of Congress met with great resistance. But steel producers in Europe and Asia point out that trade protectionism is a double-edged sword, and that as tariffs rise, steel prices will end up being victimized by domestic U.S. steel consumers, such as the automotive, machinery manufacturing, and aerospace industries, which will bear the costs.
GUY DOLLE, chairman of the world's No. 1 steel company, Europe's ARCELOR and EUROFER, said in an exclusive interview with the economic section of Le Figaro newspaper, the reason why the U.S. steel companies are in a difficult situation now, mainly because of their social burdens (mainly retired workers) is too heavy, in the U.S., some traditional steel companies, the social cost of each ton of steel In some traditional steel companies in the U.S., the social cost per ton of steel reaches $50, while in Europe it is only $27-29, as in the case of LTV plants, where one active worker has to bear the burden of seven retirees! Therefore, it is unfair to blame the current difficulties of U.S. steel companies facing bankruptcy only on the impact of foreign products, mainly because the traditional steel industry in the U.S. is no longer competitive. Last year, steel production in the United States has fallen by 20%. The introduction of that United States policy was unilateral and incompatible with WTO principles, especially since, since last year, several multilateral consultations had been held within the framework of OECD on the reduction of production capacity. In response to the United States because of how to reorganize its steel industry, GUY DOLLE said that the European Union had put forward proposals to the Bush administration, all steel sales in the United States of America to increase the 2% surtax, the revenue into the social welfare system, the European Union has taken similar measures to help the European Union's coal and iron and steel industries, and has been successful. Unfortunately, the US did not take the EU's advice and preferred protectionist measures.
He also argued that in fact only 2-3% of the steel products in the EU are affected by this U.S. measure, and because EU products are 20-25% cheaper than U.S. products, and because domestic steel prices in the U.S. are still rising, the EU's products can still cross the tariff barriers to enter the U.S. market, but the The real threat is that 12 million tons of steel produced in other countries, from now on can not enter the U.S. market will not turn to Europe. Europe's steel imports have increased year by year in recent years (last year's imports were 5 million tons higher than in 1999 and 13 million tons higher than in 1996). In the steel sector, the EU is already a pure importer (net imports of 5 million tons after offsetting imports and exports), while five years ago the EU was a net exporter of steel (net exports of 1 million tons). He suggested that safeguard measures must be taken immediately, such as the establishment of steel quotas so that imports do not exceed the 2001 level. Those restricted would be mainly Slovakia and Asian countries, as the EU already has agreements with Russia and Ukraine. Safeguard measures need to be taken immediately, because now is the lowest steel prices, will soon enter the peak season of steel consumption, the blast furnace of various steel mills will be turned on full production.
As the EU Commissioner responsible for trade affairs Lamy (LAMY) has issued several talks, his attitude undoubtedly represents the EU's current official position on this U.S. policy. He said the EU will coordinate the position with other victimized countries (such as Japan, China, South Korea, etc.), the EU's strategy is twofold, that is, on the one hand, to fight against U.S. unilateralism, on the other hand, the need to protect the EU's internal steel market is not affected by the impact. Europe will certainly file a lawsuit to the WTO, and the safeguard clause will be activated within the EU by means of tax increases and the implementation of a quota system, he claimed that the measures to be taken by the EU are in line with the WTO rules.
March 6, Europe's major steel companies stock sue down, but the decline is not large, the world's first ARCELOR fell 1.13%, the world's sixth THYSSENKRUPP fell 1.67%, and Japan's NIPPON STEEL fell 4.39% compared to the EU's business is considered lucky.
In the report of the Economic Echo, it focuses on the attitude of the French government to this incident, and also analyzes the supporters and critics within the United States. The report points out that the beneficiaries of this Bush policy will be mainly 800,000 steelworkers (200,000 on the job and 600,000 retired), including 300,000 in the US state of Florida alone. People who remember last year's U.S. presidential election should remember the tense situation of the final vote count in Florida, Bush's election that time is really like walking on thin ice. In order to change the situation in Florida in the last presidential election in which Democrat Al Gore had a narrow lead in the total number of votes in the congressional elections at the end of this year, Bush's policy can be said to be killing two birds with one stone. This is supported by the fact that the largest American Iron and Steel Workers Association has issued a statement congratulating Bush on a decision of historic significance. Democrats, who have traditionally dominated the labor force, have also acknowledged that Bush "scored a point," with Democratic leaders in Congress going so far as to say that tariffs should be raised to 40 percent to effectively block foreign steel products. Bush's *** and the party, some people are critical of this policy, that will harm the interests of other industries, especially small and medium-sized business owners who need to consume steel. The Bush administration for the defense of its policy, said "the United States is the most advocate of free trade, but free trade should be in line with the relevant laws, the United States steel industry has been seriously damaged, and need time for structural adjustment" clouds. Against the EU's accusations, U.S. Trade Representative Zoellick is a backhanded sneer: "in the steel industry, the EU's own hands are not clean, remember that the European Union is from the European Coal and Steel Pool only began to establish (meaning that the earliest in Europe in the coal and steel exclusivity of trade protection)".
Appendix II: The situation and problems faced by the U.S. steel industry (2002-06-27)
In the past 25 years, the U.S. steel industry has been facing a serious situation, production capacity had fallen from 150 million tons per year to about 100 million tons. In particular, the Asian financial crisis in late 1997, resulting in a large amount of steel to the United States, the impact of the U.S. steel market, the steel into the United States in 1998 reached a peak of 37.6 million t, than the occurrence of the crisis before the annual average amount of imported steel in the past few years increased by 10 million t. The subsequent two years of the United States of America's imported steel to remain at a high level of 35.7 to 37.9 million t, exacerbated the U.S. steel companies in a difficult situation. As Dr. Correnti, chairman of Birmingham Steel Company, pointed out, "The economic situation of the U.S. steel industry is the worst period in 25 years. Steel producers are under pressure from all sides, a large influx of imported steel, high inventories, falling sales prices, and rising energy prices to make the U.S. steel industry is even worse". According to statistics, from the end of 1998 to the beginning of 2001, the United States has nearly 20 companies bankrupt or apply for bankruptcy, including the United States ranked fourth, the largest domestic pipe company LTV Steel Joint Venture announced in late 2000 to apply for bankruptcy.
A year ago, imported steel hit the U.S. steel market, and the first half of 2000, the steel market is still very strong, but in the second half of the year, the situation has taken a sharp turn for the worse, the market is weak, the decline in the price of steel as well as the anti-import trade has led to a reduction in monthly imports. Steel imports at the beginning of this year were about 30% lower than the 2000 monthly average of 3.1 million tons.
According to the International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI) statistics, U.S. crude steel production in 2000 amounted to 101.5 million tons of steel 0.98 billion tons, reaching the highest level in recent years, but into January 2001, North America's steel production is the only world-wide and the same period compared to the decline in the region, of which the United States fell by 16%. By February, U.S. steel production continued to decline, but the second half of the year is expected to be slightly better than the first half.
In order to get out of the adversity, steel producers have used a lot of methods, for example, LTV accelerated the closure of the annual production capacity of 6.3 million tons of Hoyt Lakes mine, the tin-plating plant was sold to U.S. Steel, and a loan of 700 million U.S. dollars, in order to maintain the production of the company to maintain the company's credibility in the users, suppliers and creditors, etc.. However, LTV's long-term liabilities of as much as $1.1 billion, the company's liabilities for retired employees' medical bills and insurance premiums of more than $1.5 billion, and pension and other liabilities of another $1 billion, coupled with a net loss of more than $600 million over the last three years, put the company in a long term predicament, and it did not escape from filing for bankruptcy in the end in this general environment. In addition to LTV Steel, 13 companies, including Jeniva Steel, Gerhofstetz Steel, Acme Metals, Northwest Steel and Wire, short-process steel maker Trico (50% of which is owned by LTV) and the largest U.S. producer of engineered steel -*** and Technology International - entered into the 11th section of the federal bankruptcy code for protection.
The deteriorating market environment has forced some short-process steel producers to sell their products cheaply, causing their sales to plummet and even causing some of them to close, such as Auburn Steel in Illinois, which has an annual production capacity of 350,000t, which is threatened with closure, and Northwestern Steel and Wire, which filed for bankruptcy protection last December. Although before the bankruptcy, Northwestern Steel and Wire Rod Company has taken financial reorganization and cost reduction measures, and has been given a financial loan of 65 million U.S. dollars, but due to overproduction in the domestic special steel market and the impact of imported bar, finally insolvent, declared bankruptcy filing.
Bethlehem, the second largest United Steel Company in the United States, did not enter the protection of Article 11, but its situation is representative of the entire U.S. steel industry, which proved to be a bad trade environment by the impact of the situation. But Bethlehem has been expressed very confident, can tide over the current difficult situation, they try to find partners and joint venture opportunities. Although the 2000 loss of $118 million was slightly better than the 1999 loss of $183 million, the first quarter of this year will continue to show a loss. To minimize net assets, Bethlehem decided to sell a number of properties, including a 70 percent share of Hibbing Taconite, which produces pellets, a 5 percent stake in MBR, which produces iron ore in Brazil, and a stake in the South Buffalo Railroad in New York State. There have also been 2,000 job losses over the past two years and further redundancies will be cut.
U.S. Steel made a profit of $44 million in 1999, compared with a net loss of $21 million last year, as strip prices fell to a 20-year low.
In the imported steel and the corresponding low prices of the onslaught, but not all steel mills have been seriously injured, there are still some companies with vitality and good economic results, including short-process Nucor Steel, Dynamic Steel and production of flat special steel joint venture AK Corporation, etc.. Short-flow Oregon Steel doubled its deliveries in the first quarter of this year and made a good profit. They believe that according to this situation, the second half of the year will be better trading conditions. Nucor Steel, despite a 0.18 billion drop in revenues in the fourth quarter of last year compared with the same period a year earlier, posted sales of $4.6 billion and profits of $311 million in 2000, surpassing 1999 sales of $4 billion. Profits of $245 million were at an all-time high. As the fifth largest steel combine in the U.S., AK is committed to the development of high value-added products through equipment renovation and technological upgrading, producing 6.5 million tons of carbon steel last year and becoming the largest producer of stainless steel flat steel in the U.S., with an output of 0.9 million tons (1 million short tons). In addition, there are electroplating plate, electrical steel plate, etc., in 2000 sales amounted to 4.52 billion U.S. dollars, net profit amounted to 132.4 million U.S. dollars, which is twice as much as in 1999. The success of these companies in surviving the difficult market environment lies in their efforts to understand the market and to meet the needs of steel users, to develop products that users need, and thus to improve their processes and production technology.
In this situation, there are some U.S. steel companies are trying to make up for the loss of sales decline by raising prices, especially short process steel mills, they intend to raise prices of $ 40 per short ton of hot-rolled strip, cold-rolled sheet and galvanized sheet price increase of $ 30 / short tons. Nucor Steel and Dynamic Steel announced that the July 1 delivery price of hot-rolled and cold-rolled strip rose by $ 20 per short ton, while AK Steel, National Steel, Wheeling - Pittsburgh Steel Company and WCI Steel also correspondingly reduced supply to keep the above product price increases. Last winter's energy hikes, mainly in natural gas and electricity prices, added to the steel industry's woes in the first quarter of this year, with Bethlehem Steel announcing an $8-per-ton increase starting in February. Many domestic specialty steel producers have subsequently made similar decisions, but it remains to be seen whether these moves will be successful and how effective they will be.
Over the years, imported steel products from abroad has been the U.S. steel market "buffer" in the domestic steel production capacity is insufficient, imported products effectively to be supplemented, but the current U.S. market prices of different products are almost always higher than in other markets, directly attracting a large number of countries to the U.S. delivery of steel, according to AIIS According to AIIS statistics, the U.S. domestic steel products can only meet 75% of the demand. The U.S. steel industry itself is the largest user of imported steel, only the deep processing within the steel industry will need to import about 10 million tons per year, including 8.5 million tons of semi-finished products to make up for the lack of iron, the right price, quality, and the domestic does not have the special steel. Three-fourths of the current need for imported steel in the U.S. market is suggested by members of the Iron and Steel Institute.
Recently, in an effort to stop foreign steel products from entering the U.S. market, 14 senators from states where steel-producing plants are located recently sent a letter to President Bush asking him to use Section 201 to protect the U.S. steel industry. This is the second time the congressmen have asked the U.S. president to activate Section 201 since they sent a letter to President Clinton last October. They believe that foreign steel dumping surge in the United States, so that the U.S. steel industry into extreme difficulties, only to start the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 in the 201 provisions of the U.S. steel industry from the impact of imports to get a temporary relief, a strong, dynamic and competitive domestic steel industry is very critical to the U.S. economy. If the death of the U.S. steel industry can not be prevented, the future of the United States will have to rely on foreign steel imports. According to the analysis, President Bush is likely to consider the request of these senators to use Section 201. Once the U.S. decides to use Section 201 to launch an investigation, the actions that can be taken include import remedies, adjustment measures, quotas, orderly sales agreements, international negotiations, legislative proposals and many other actions. At that time, not only is the current dumping of steel producers, other steel export producers and distributors will inevitably be affected by the above actions, and this effect will last for 8 years.
In response to the U.S. steel companies to seek government protection, not enterprising, and the use of anti-dumping policy to implement trade protectionism caused by the world's steel producers dissatisfaction, the EU warned the U.S. imports of steel is not the cause of the U.S. steel industry problems. Do not implement restrictive policies on imported steel, otherwise it will trigger the European Union, Latin America, Asia and the CIS countries steel production problems, while the EU asked the United States to cut the bad capacity to compete with the EU on the same starting line.
In short, the current situation of the U.S. steel industry and the fact that a large number of companies filed for bankruptcy, we analyze the reasons are as follows: (1) nearly 30 years of trade protection, the U.S. government would rather take action to boycott imports of cheap commodities steel, but also do not want to take fundamental measures to solve the problem, resulting in the U.S. steel enterprises, the competitiveness of the serious decline; (2) U.S. steel companies compared to other industrially developed countries Steel companies in the United States relative to other industrially developed countries, small scale, low production. The largest U.S. steel company - U.S. Steel Union 2000 production of 10.68 million tons, accounting for only the world's ranking of the thirteenth, far behind the new Nippon Steel, POSCO, Yu Zinuoer, and even Baosteel, and now has gone bankrupt in the United States ranked fourth - annual output of only 7 million tons of LTV steel company, ranked in 2000 for the world's twenty-third; (3) the U.S. iron and steel industry, regardless of whether equipment or technology seriously aging, research, development and development of steel companies. (3) The U.S. steel industry, whether it is equipment or technology is seriously aging, poor research and development capabilities. Compared with the world's top few large companies, technology, equipment, scale is far behind, resulting in a single product variety, high costs; (4) a large number of imported steel impact on the U.S. steel market, the amount of imported steel in 2000 was equivalent to 37% of U.S. domestic crude steel production; (5) rising energy prices, resulting in increased cost of steel products; (6) the U.S. economy in recent years, a significant slowdown in growth, so that market demand has been somewhat impacted slowdown in recent years, so that market demand has been affected.
In view of the development of U.S. steel enterprises, industry analysts believe that free trade is the inevitable trend of market development, trade barriers will not be able to impede this development trend. U.S. steel companies do not strive to improve their own strength, strengthen the competitive ability to operate, only rely on government subsidies and trade protection, is bound to be further decline.
In the steel industry in the event of difficulties, but also is the steel enterprises mergers, restructuring of a good opportunity to seek extensive cooperation, development, research and development of new products, abandon the backward production processes and production capacity, *** with the procurement of scrap, energy, improve the financial situation, and to expand the scale of production, reduce costs, so that the scale of production is more rationalized. This is the only way out of the predicament of the steel companies. Losing this moment, the U.S. steel companies will have no way out. Thus, if the U.S. President to consider the views of the Senate, the use of Section 201, the implementation of the protection policy, may not be to save the steel industry's top policy, but also can not completely solve the problem of the U.S. steel industry.
Appendix III: What is the impact of steel tariffs on the United States? (2002-06-27)
In 1999, steel producers were hit by low steel prices. Steel industry unions organized "Rally for Steel," aimed at preserving jobs in the industry. At the time, wages in the steel industry were already 95 percent higher than the private sector average. The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to impose quotas on steel imports, but, happily, the bill was eventually defeated in the Senate.
By contrast, in the same year, oil prices were at historic lows, and tens of thousands of workers formerly employed by independent producers lost their jobs. But there were no "pro-oil" rallies anywhere, and there were no congressional bills planning to restrict oil imports.
Brinker of the Cato Institute. In his recent book on globalization, Against the Dead Hand, Lindsay cites one of the main reasons for the very different treatment of the two industries: consumers will soon feel the effects of higher oil prices at the pump and on their own heating bills. As a result, the government doesn't intervene, but instead tinkers with other products such as steel. For the average voter, the impact of higher prices on products like steel is far less obvious.
On March 5, President Bush announced a 30 percent tariff on certain types of imported steel (and slightly lower tariffs on other types of steel). The protective measure targets Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and China. 30% tariffs go into effect this week, and will be eliminated next year when they drop to 24%, and the year after that when they drop to 18%. Bush also said he would oversee the restructuring instituted in the industry, which the steel industry is thought to be completing under the umbrella of high prices from tariffs.
But as the Brookings Institute's Robert. Crandall noted in a study published in January, any restructuring in response to the tariffs may come as a surprise to the inexperienced. In Crandall's view, smaller, more efficient steel mills, such as Nucor, Quanex and Steel Dynamics, will be encouraged by higher prices to invest, further grabbing more market share from less efficient, integrated steel companies such as USX, Bethlehem and LTV. In fact, since Nucor claims to have a market capitalization larger than any of the major steel companies, the term "small steel mill" has partially lost its meaning. In addition to these possible outcomes, Crandall said in an interview last Thursday that one effect of higher tariffs would surely be to sacrifice global opportunities to cut redundant capacity. Now, the only question is whether other steel-producing countries will retaliate by raising their own import tariffs.
In Lindsay's view, redundant capacity within the United States exists in the form of completely idle companies such as LTV, Wheeling-Pitt, and Bethlehem, all of which are in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings under the (U.S.) Bankruptcy Code. As Gary of the Institute for International Economics. Huffbauer points out, 21 U.S. steel companies have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection since the 2000 presidential election. Lindsay says, "Most of these companies would be long gone today if not for government intervention." According to HuffPo, of the various trade disputes handled in Washington, the largest number of lawyers handle steel disputes.
Crandall emphasized overcapacity in particular. In his study, he noted that "the U.S. is not losing the steel industry; rather, it is rebuilding it, allowing smaller steel mills to replace less efficient integrated companies.
The idea that steel industry lobbyists want us to believe that "the fate of the entire domestic steel industry depends on a single shot" is meaningless. For example, in 2001, the year of the recession, the industry produced 10 million mills of finished steel, more than in any year between 1980 and 1995, and 60 percent more than in 1982, the year of the last recession. Small steel mills now account for more than 40 percent of domestic capacity, up from 10 percent in the 1970s. Crandall, who has published industry studies such as Up from the Ashes: The Rise of the Steel Minimill in the United States, told us last Thursday that he is convinced that small steel mills will gradually take control of the entire steel market, regardless of what protections the government will put in place.
While consumers feel the impact of oil tariff adjustments directly, steel tariffs directly affect steel-consuming companies, including General Electric, General Motors, and Ford, among others. But there are nearly 100,000 smaller steel-consuming companies that supply these giants with components such as brake parts, springs and fuel tanks.
These small companies will really feel the pain, as many of them will need to import some steel products they don't have domestically, which will expose them to price increases (30%) from tariffs. Or worse, they could find out that foreign suppliers have decided to pull out of the U.S. market altogether, and worse yet, no matter where they source their steel, these companies could lose out in the race for business to overseas competitors who suddenly gain a cost advantage due to the tariffs. These companies, which also make parts like brake components and gas tanks, don't have the pressure of steel tariffs on domestic U.S. companies. At least, for now, President Bush has not imposed a tariff on steel-containing imports, a tariff that applies only to imported steel.
Taken together, for all of these reasons and more, the tariffs are likely to bring more job losses to steel-consuming industries than to steel-producing industries. I say this not only because three independent studies, including one by Crandall, have concluded that this will almost certainly happen. Just consider that it does not take as many workers per ton of steel produced as it does to produce an equivalent amount of steel-containing products. As a result, there will be more job losses due to the loss of orders from the steel-consuming industry as a result of the tariffs than there will be jobs gained in the steel-making industry as a result of the tariff protection.
In support of the tariff levy, Bush issued a statement that was more to the point than the official statement prepared by his writers. According to the New York Times, Bush told reporters, "We're a free-trading country, and in order to continue free trade, we have to enforce the law. And that's what I've done. I believe that imports are seriously affecting ...... an important industry, so (we) provided temporary protective policies to allow that industry to reorganize itself." Hear that? As Lindsey says, President Clinton told the same industry in October 2000 that he would not consider protectionist action, and it may have been this oversight that cost Gore the support of West Virginia and put Bush in the presidency. So this tariff action is just a small token of the president's appreciation.