This is an excerpt of a Los Angeles Times editorial that was published yesterday:

LAST month, Washington determined that Japan, Brazil and Russia were selling steel in the United States at less than fair value and causing injury to the domestic industry. The Clinton administration slapped prohibitive duties on Japanese and Brazilian steel and forced Russia to restrict its exports -- a tough but fair response. But it was not enough for the steel industry or for the House, which recklessly voted to limit all steel imports.

The industry cited last year's one-third rise in imports and a loss of 10,000 jobs -- though independent estimates put the number at closer to 3,000 -- as it mounted a vigorous campaign for protection from overseas producers.

Are things as bad as the industry claims? For those who lose their jobs, things can be very bad. But as Los Angeles Times staff writer Donald W. Nauss reported this week, the industry overall is doing quite well in both sales and earnings. In common with other businesses, steel companies have steadily cut their labor forces while investing heavily in more efficient processes. The result has been a whopping increase in productivity.

The protectionism sought by the House would put the United States in violation of world trade rules while inviting retaliation against U.S. products in overseas markets, jeopardizing jobs at home.

Domestically, protectionism would add momentum to the steel price increases -- raising cost of cars, household appliances and some other products.

President Clinton says he will veto the steel import cap, should the Senate go along with the House. That would be the right response to a patently unwise action.

Pub Date: 3/25/99