Yesterday, I attended the public policy portion of the AISI conference in 
DC.   The meeting was very well attended, and it appeared that most of the 
attendees were executives.   The key takeaways were:

Senator Rockefeller's (D-WV) remarks:
He will do everything in his power to help domestic steel.
There is no "foaming desire" on behalf of the Administration to proceed with 
a 201.
The "best" 201 comes from the White House.
He urged the industry to get behind the 201 cause in a united fashion (a 
"united front is everything").
He has asked the Senate Finance committee to initiate a 201 
The Senator plans to introduce the "Save the American Steel Industry" bill 
this week.  The bill would:  (1) impose a 2% sales tax on steel sold in the 
US (both imports and exports); and (2) establish a $500 million fund to 
defray costs associated with mergers.  To be eligible for the merger fund, 
the company must retain 80% of the domestic blue collar work force and 
production capacity for 10 years after completion.

Flori Liser from USTR
The industry has long-term structural problems.
Why aren't US producers targeting other markets (ie, SE Asian markets) ?
Steel is a commodity (interesting statement coming from the USTR).
End-users (GM, Emerson Electric) have met with Trade (apparently on the 201 
issue), and have expressed concern about their competitive position.

A disturbing comment was made at the end of the conference.   One of the 
panelists, Roger Phillips of IPSCO, stated that foreign steel has a 
responsibility to know how their steel is being marketed in the US.   He 
stated further that we "should make steel traders responsible for what's 
going on", and that traders "should get financially hurt instead of someone 
else."  I am checking with outside counsel to find out exactly what was meant 
by this statement.

Please let me know if you have any questions.   

Lisa