Chesterton Tribune

 

 

Visclosky testifies on Chinese steel today

Back To Front Page

 

U.S. Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-1st, testified this morning at the International Trade Commission’s hearing on stainless steel sheet and strip from China.

Excerpts from Visclosky’s testimony:

“(I)n 2016, Congress approved the second of two laws enacted in the 114th Congress that strengthen our trade remedy statutes. I am hopeful that these actions will provide meaningful long-term relief to American steel companies and steelworkers in my district in Northwest Indiana and throughout the nation.

“However, even today at the beginning of a new year, a new presidential administration, and a new Congress, we are dealing with the same violations of our trade laws from the same actors. That is why it is imperative that we remain vigilant in 2017. We should begin by carefully considering the case before us today.

“It is no secret that China has continually and blatantly violated our trade laws. Last year, I testified before you in three different steel cases involving Chinese imports, one of which resulted in duties upwards of 250 percent. The product we are discussing today, stainless steel sheet and strip, is a critical product utilized by numerous industries in the United States. This product is used by the automotive industry, the pipe and tube industry, and the chemical industry, as well as by construction professionals and appliance and industrial equipment manufacturers.

“The Department of Commerce has already indicated in its preliminary determinations just how egregious China’s actions are in this case by proposing dumping margins of up to 75 percent and subsidy rates of up to 193 percent. Further, Commerce’s decision to impose retroactive duties based on critical circumstances shows us that these companies have a long history of disregarding our trade laws. American steel companies and steelworkers producing stainless steel sheet and strip should not have to compete on an unfair playing field. That is why I strongly urge an affirmative determination in this case.”

 

Posted 1/31/2017

 

 
 
 
 

 

 

Search This Site:

Custom Search