TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE NATHAN DEAL
TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 8, 2001
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for allowing me to testify here today. I appreciate the significance of this proceeding and the fact the U.S. steel industry is experiencing a very painful period. If this commission can address the problem that faces the industry and bring about a positive adjustment to import competition, then I urge it to do so.
My concern is the sheer complexity and scope of this case makes it difficult to distinguish between proper points of action and decisions that may actually harm a large number of businesses involved in producing, importing, and consuming steel. Many of these businesses are small, but competitive enterprises. They support jobs and serve other enterprises that are no less important, and often more important, to the health of the local communities than some of the firms here seeking import relief. Because they are small, however, it is easy for them to get lost in the shuffle of this massive proceeding. One of these companies, CAB Inc., is in my rural Congressional district. CAB has been active over the course of this entire investigation and is present today to answer any of your questions. I strongly encourage the Commission to read CAB's submissions.
CAB is concerned that a broad brushed remedy in this case would unnecessarily impair a business which they have labored to build over the past two decades. They sell both imported flanges and flanges made by their related manufacturing operations in Texas. Their history is one of entrepreneurship and hard work. They found a discreet market and they serve it well, where others have chosen not to do so. Its customers rely on this supply.
What I understand from CAB is their situation is highly relevant to this investigation. Allowing CAB to continue its business unimpaired by import restraints will have no effect on the broader U.S. steel flange industry. Import packages that are intended for relief and placed upon CAB and companies like it will only harm their interests and the interests of their customers, with no resulting benefits. Such an outcome would be an inappropriate remedy, both for CAB and the steel consumers CAB serves.
CAB is one company, but there are many others like them that may be facing a similar situation. It is important that a trade remedy not sweep these companies up without a very good cause. The Commission has performed an incredible task getting to this point of the process and no doubt has considerable work ahead. I am confident its final remedy recommendation will be reasoned and tailored to fit the problem at hand.
Thank you again for granting me the time to testify before you today.