PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.

Steel Trade Enforcement Act of 1999

By Senator Roth from Committee on Finance filed written report. Report No. 106-155.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 21, 1999

Steel Trade Enforcement Act of 1999 - Title I: Comprehensive Strategy for the Elimination of Market-Distorting Practices Affecting the Global Steel Industry - Directs the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to: (1) initiate an investigation (unless Congress certifies that it would be detrimental to the U.S. economic interest) of market-distorting practices of foreign governments that have insulated foreign steel producers from competitive pressures and have contributed to the investment in, and development of, steel manufacturing capacity on terms inconsistent with competitive market conditions; and (2) identity the priority foreign market-distorting practices that have the greatest impact on the U.S. steel industry as targets for further trade relief action. Requires the USTR, as the result of such investigation, to develop, and report to the President, a comprehensive strategy for the elimination of the identified market-distorting practices.(Sec. 102) Requires the USTR to appoint one Deputy Trade Representative to serve as coordinator of the development and implementation of the comprehensive strategy. Requires the President to establish an interagency working group to assist the USTR in the development and implementation of such strategy.(Sec. 104) Directs the USTR to request the International Trade Commission (ITC) to investigate the administration and effects of the comprehensive strategy and request any economic necessary analyses and reports.Title II: Safeguard Amendments - Amends the Trade Act of 1974, with respect to presidential action to facilitate industry efforts to make a positive adjustment to particular import competition, to repeal the requirement that the cause or threat of serious injury to a domestic industry be substantial. Requires such cause to be important and contribute significantly to the serious injury to the domestic industry, but not necessarily be the most important cause.(Sec. 201) Revises certain factors the ITC must consider when investigating whether an article is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause or threat of serious injury to a domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article. Repeals the requirement that such injury be substantial.Directs the ITC, when an import competition adjustment petition filed by an industry (or a request by the President, USTR, a resolution of specified congressional committees, or on the ITC's own motion) alleges that critical circumstances exist, to make a serious injury (or threat) determination with respect to such competition not later than 45 days (currently, 60 days) after such petition or request is filed. Requires the President within 20 days (currently, 30 days) after receiving an affirmative determination to provide provisional relief to prevent or remedy such injury. Requires with respect to the implementation of such provisional relief that it will not have an adverse impact on the United States substantially out of proportion to its benefits.Requires provisional relief recommended by the ITC to take effect upon the enactment of a joint resolution of Congress within the 60 day (currently, 90 day) period beginning on the date that the President reports to Congress on what action, if any, is to be taken.Title III: Timely Release of Import Data - Amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to authorize an entity (including a trade association, firm, certified or recognized union, or group or workers which is representative of a domestic industry that produces an article like or directly competitive with an imported article) to file a request to monitor such imports, based on a petition that alleges that an article is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to cause serious injury (or threat) to the domestic industry. Requires the President to determine whether to monitor within 45 days after receiving a request.(Sec. 302) Authorizes the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in order to facilitate the early identification of potentially disruptive import surges, to grant an exception to the publication dates established for the release of data on U.S. international trade in goods and services in order to permit public access to preliminary international trade import data, if the Director notifies Congress of the early release of such data.(Sec. 303) Directs the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the ITC to establish a suffix to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States for merchandise that is subject to countervailing duty orders or antidumping duty orders.(Sec. 304) Directs the Secretary of Commerce to monitor, and report to Congress on, imports (including steel mill products and other import-sensitive products) on a monthly basis for import surges and potential unfair trade through 2000.Directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish a Steel Import Monitoring and Enforcement Center for the purpose of monitoring and investigating imports of steel mill products.Title IV: International Financial Institutions - Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct the U.S. Executive Director of each international financial institution to use the U.S. vote to: (1) oppose any disbursements of its funds to any recipient that would be used to provide financial assistance to the steel industry in a manner that would encourage the expansion of existing steelmaking capacity; (2) promote policies to encourage the privatization of steel mills that remain in state ownership; and (3) promote policies that encourage immediate growth and the resumption and increase in the domestic demand for steel.Title V: Suspension Agreements - Amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to revise the conditions for the exception to the prohibition against the administering authority's acceptance of a foreign country's agreement to eliminate or offset completely a countervailable subsidy or to cease exports to the United States of subject merchandise. Adds to current conditions for an exception to such prohibition that the domestic producers or workers who support the agreement account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by those expressing an opinion on the agreement.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Sen. Roth Jr., William V. [R-DE] · R–DE

Committees

  • Finance Committee
0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

    Actions

    A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

    1. By Senator Roth from Committee on Finance filed written report. Report No. 106-155.

    2. By Senator Roth from Committee on Finance filed written report. Report No. 106-155.

    3. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 163.

    4. Committee on Finance. Original measure reported to Senate by Senator Roth. Without written report.

    5. Committee on Finance. Original measure reported to Senate by Senator Roth. Without written report.

    6. Introduced in Senate

    7. Committee on Finance ordered to be reported an original measure.

    Bill text & related measures

    Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

    Related bills identified by Congress.gov

    No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

    Source last updated: Aug 20, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

    Explore the bill from different angles

    Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

    Neutral evidence review

    Objective

    Analyze S.1254 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

    View full prompt & sources
    Fairness and public impact

    Progressive lens

    Examine S.1254 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

    View full prompt & sources
    Institutions and government scope

    Conservative lens

    Examine S.1254 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

    View full prompt & sources
    Individual rights and government power

    Liberty lens

    Examine S.1254 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

    View full prompt & sources