CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
December 10, 1969
Page 38255
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Hampshire yield some time to me in which to ask a question of the Senator from New York?
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am delighted to hear a speech made about supporting the President. I went around here trying to get everybody to support the President for the last 3 months. I think we are making real progress now.
The distinguished Senator from Illinois and the distinguished Senator from New York harken to the memory of the former Senator from Illinois, Paul Douglas, whom I never really had the pleasure of knowing intimately. However, since we are talking about liberalism and free trade, I would like to ask the Senator from Illinois if it is not a fact that the Kennedy Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Kennedy round itself for expanding trade and removing tariffs and liberalizing free trade was attributed to President John F. Kennedy because of his leadership in this regard.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I think that all Presidents who have had the opportunity to look at the total picture have had this position. Every single President from Franklin Delano Roosevelt has been consistent in national trade policy. By this amendment, we are attempting to junk totally everything that we have learned during the past 35 years.
I had conversations with former President Kennedy on this very subject. He was considerably enlightened. He recognized that world trade could be advanced by the freedom of U.S. trade policies from restrictions and the removal of barriers erected for that purpose. He dedicated himself to that position.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator also appreciates the fact that President John F. Kennedy used the same authority as enunciated in the Cotton amendment in order to obtain the long-term arrangement between 34 countries on cotton textiles.
Mr. PERCY. If he used authority which he possessed, and if the President of the United States still possesses such authority, and if that authority is adequate for the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, I cannot see why we should delay passage of this tax reform bill by imposing the very same kind of authority which the distinguished Senator says the President already has. Is this not redundant?
Mr. HOLLINGS. It is redundant in that context, but not according to the Executive; because, while we tell him he has the authority, he keeps running over asking us to put this in, which is substantially what we threatened at his request with the visit of Prime Minister Sato just 2 weeks ago.
Now we put into an amendment what the President, himself, requested by way of a letter to be used in his conferences with Prime Minister Sato, and it is now called unconscionable and redundant. Of course, we are trying to carry through a policy of consistent free trade, and I will exchange comments with the Senator from New York about the language and the wording and how unconscionable and how un-understandable this thing is.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield.
Mr. PERCY. Does the Senator think that if the late President Kennedy were alive today, he would be asking today, under these circumstances, for this authority, or would he be taking exactly the same position President Nixon has taken?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I believe that President Kennedy would be acting under the present authority, and I have said that time and again when I could not get President Johnson to do it, when I could not get President Nixon to do it. They both talked about it, but they did not act, and I am trying to motivate the President into action. That is the purpose of this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield.
SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS DURING SENATE SESSION
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights, of the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
TAX REFORM ACT OF 1969 The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill (H.R. 13270), the Tax Reform Act of 1969.
Mr. JAVITS. I yield myself 1 minute, to learn whether the proponent of the amendment proposes to use any time now. If not, I will proceed.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 30 seconds?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. I want to say, in regard to the statement that President Johnson would not act in time of crisis, that I never found that to be a fact. I found that when there was a real crisis and action was warranted, President Johnson did not hesitate to take action.
Mr. JAVITS. Does the Senator from New Hampshire desire to use any time? If not, I will proceed.
Mr. COTTON. I will say to the distinguished Senator that this matter was well debated last night. It is at his desire that we have 2 hours this morning. The Senator from Illinois has just talked about how sad it is to delay this bill by discussing the benighted amendment offered by the less intelligent Members of the body. I certainly do not want to delay. The only speech I intend to make this morning is: Let us vote.
So the Senator can go ahead and use his time. I hope I will not have to use mine, because I cannot see that it helps anybody.
Mr. JAVITS. That is fine. I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. President, I feel that the Senate and the country were well served last night. I do not know what the result will be today, but I think that what I did last night was essential to our national health and security and future. I hope I have other such times in the Senate. I thoroughly believe that a very important issue is at stake here and that it is my duty and that of every other Senator who is similarly motivated to lay it before the Senate.
The issue, I repeat, is what I tried to put before the Senate last night. It has three elements:
One, this amendment is completely irrelevant to this bill, absolutely so, and should be tested on that ground; and I will propose in due course to do so.
Two, this amendment endeavors to change, in an amendment on the Senate floor which is irrelevant to the pending bill, not only the existing carefully considered and drafted legislation of the United States in the trade field, but also, it aborts -- and I say this to my fellow Republicans -- the President's own intention. I will demonstrate that completely in a moment, from his message delivered to us on November 18.
Three, it is unworthy of the Senate to adopt an amendment which will signal to all mankind the fact that the Senate of the United States is going protectionist at the very moment when there is the gravest danger of a trade war in the world.
Therefore, the Senate's views are essentially dictated by a very local and sectional interest, which I do not in any way depreciate, and on which I make no findings as to the general interest in the country. If Senators feel that they have a particular sectional interest which should prevail in a given case, it is their duty to fight for it. But it is also the duty of other Senators who see the total of the national interest to fight at least as hard in order to prevent what could be a disaster for the country, and that is the purpose of my undertaking the opposition to this amendment.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York has 25 minutes remaining.
Mr. JAVITS. Taking these arguments, in turn, I said that this endeavor to reverse existing law and this question have been challenged.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me now, or would he prefer to do so later?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield to the distinguish Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from New York on what I think is one of the most remarkable performances I have seen in the 12 years I have been in the Senate.
I was in the Chamber last night when the Senator from New Hampshire called up his amendment. I have great respect for the Senator from New Hampshire. I think NORRIS COTTON is a man of great ability, and, of course, I respect him as the ranking minority member of the Committee on Commerce and a man who has demonstrated again and again his ability in this area and his great concern and knowledge.
However, what the Senator from New York did last night is unusual, because the Senate was sweeping along with an amendment which has great popular appeal and, on the face of it, great merit.
I should like to ask the distinguished Senator from New York whether, to his knowledge, there were any hearings in the Ways and Means Committee or in the Finance Committee on this very far-reaching amendment which is before the Senate, which I understand the Senator from New York has told the Senate would give up, in his view, control over tariff policy to the President of the United States, would surrender it.
Mr. JAVITS. I know of none whatever. I am grateful to the Senator from Wisconsin for his gracious statement about me. I should like to point out to him that the President has asked for a new test altogether different from the one that is in the Trade Act now, and different from the one contained in Senator COTTON's amendment.
The President says in his message:
I recommend the liberalization of the escape clause to provide, for industries adversely affected by import competition, a test that will be simple and clear: Relief should be available whenever increased imports are the primary cause of actual or potential serious injury.
I shall read that again
Relief should be available whenever increased imports of a primary cause of actual or potential serious injury.
Now I should like to read what Senator COTTON's amendment says:
(2) the foreign country producing such commodity is imposing restrictions (by means of quotas. import licenses. tariffs, taxes, or otherwise) against the importation into such foreign country of articles produced in the United States,
The key comparison is on page 1 in lines 7 through 10 of the Cotton amendment which states:
(1) the importation of any commodity from a foreign country is at such levels so as to disrupt the domestic market or is causing injury to industries, firms, or workers in the United States, and
I cannot see the remotest relationship or comparison, except for the use of the one word "injury," between this definition and the President's requested definition, or the definition of the Trade Adjustment Act which reads:
The President may proclaim such increase in or the imposition of any duty or other import restriction on the article causing or threatening to cause serious injury
Mr. President, I wish to repeat those words: "causing or threatening to cause serious injury to such industry as he determines to be necessary to prevent o remedy serious injury to such industry" The counts have a stack of cases and the Tariff Commission has a great many cases interpreting "serious injury." There is always a major argument about whether or not the serious injury is attributable to imports or how the President wants to clarify that.
I challenge anyone to find the word "disrupt" anywhere or to bring in a definition which will be credible to the Senate in passing any such operative statute which is based on an undefinable concept or one so broad a concept that the President could do anything he pleases.
If one uses the word "disrupt" literally, everyone disrupts. A tariff disrupts, any regulation disrupts. The United States, under section 22 of the Agriculture Adjustment Act is disrupting in all commodities in which it imposes quotas. I can read the list.
In addition I do not understand this situation. Our farmers now have $2.6 billion worth of exports a year. We are complaining against the Common Market and say they are messing up the world because they want to turn protectionist. Here we give them an open invitation. I do not understand it. The farm bloc is supposed to understand the farmer. I do not understand anything like this.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, with respect to what I said about President Johnson taking action when there was a crisis and action was needed, we had a case of Common Market countries undertaking to submerge our dairy market in the United States and President Johnson, under existing law, took action and established quotas which really saved the American dairy industry from disaster. That is in the law now.
Mr. JAVITS. I am grateful to the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. AIKEN. I want to give President Johnson all the credit I can because he did not take all my advice.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont.
Mr. President, I wish to read this language to the Senate:
Pursuant to authority important restrictions are presently applied in the United States against imports in certain specified dairy products and also on cotton, wheat, and peanuts.
So right now we are disrupting.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 5 additional minutes.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I wish to ask the Senator from New York if it is not true that if some Senator took the message and extracted from it the legislative proposals and introduced them as amendments on this bill there would be a tremendous protest on the floor of the Senate because we would have short-circuited the hearing process, there would have been no legislative hearings, and no one could have appeared and testified for or against it.
Mr. President, I submit that the Senator from New Hampshire, who is a great man and a man with vast experience, in a sense is doing this.
Let us assume–
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me on my time?
Mr. JAVITS. I have the floor. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I yield myself one-half minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. COTTON. How many hearings did they hold on the social security amendments? How many hearings were held on all of the many amendments that have been tacked on to this bill? It is a little ridiculous to wail and wring one's hands on the floor of the Senate that the committee did not hold hearings. We have in the tax bill so many matters on which the committee had no hearings that one can hardly count them. This is ridiculous.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I wish to say to my good friend from New Hampshire it is true that no hearings were held on some matters involved in the tax bill and that is regrettable. However, extensive hearings were held on most provisions that have been offered and agreed to; although not all of them.
In this case we have a completely different kind of consideration. The Senator from New York has made the point. This amendment is not relevant. This is a trade matter and the amendment goes very far. Here, above all, we should have hearings.
When the Reciprocal Trade Act was passed, and it is not as far reaching as this, there were extensive hearings which took many weeks and months. Under these circumstances, where we have something that is not relevant to a tax bill and something that is very far reaching and something which runs counter to the proposal of the President, we should have a record and we should know what we are doing.
Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from New York for his outstanding service in calling this matter to the attention of the Senate so ably.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, now to proceed to a few other points with respect to the amendment, I promised yesterday I would call to the attention of the Senate what is being jecpardized here, and what we are dealing with, especially in terms of money and jobs. The foreign trade of the United States, export and import, is estimated to provide jobs for 4.5 million Americans. Mr. President. I repeat that figure: 4.5 million Americans. The trade amounts to in excess of $70 million a year.
While it is easy to fix our attention on shoes and textiles, what about fixing our attention on agriculture, which I referred to before, where our agriculture exports, on the whole, run to something in the neighborhood of $3 billion a year every 6 months, according to the record
of 1968, and $2.632 billion for the period January to June of 1969.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I would like to inquire if the figure which the Senator referred to includes the Public Law 480 funds we send and do not get cash for but merely a credit.
Mr. JAVITS. I will find out.
Mr. THURMOND. I understand the figures the Senator has referred to do include that amount. If that is the case it would hardly be a fair figure to use because the farmers in our country do not actually see that money.
Mr. JAVITS. I will check to determine that information. But even with it, it is a fair figure because it represents money in the pockets of the American farmer, whether he gets it from other taxpayers of the United States or in foreign dollars.
Mr. THURMOND. But it comes from the Treasury of the United States.
Mr. JAVITS. I know, but he gets it from other taxpayers who are not farmers and I feel that is a legitimate source of income to him.
Mr. THURMOND. Do we not now have millions of dollars known as counterpart funds in other countries that we will probably never use growing out of this?
Mr. JAVITS. All the Senator is making is a foreign aid argument. I say the farmer gets the money out of other taxpayers of the United States, but he gets it. I will check on the figures and the amount of Public Law 480 funds in it, but I do not think it is relevant to the $2.632 billion for 6 months in 1969.
Those Senators who have automobile factories, computer factories, agriculture machinery factories, engines, turbines, parts, electronic power equipment and telecommunications industries had better take a good look at the figures before they decide what is in their interest because it appears that automobiles, automotive parts, and so forth exported by the United States run in the neighborhood of $2.5 billion a year. Senators who have airplane factories in their States had better consider the fact that $1.8 billion in airplanes and airplane parts go out of the United States.
In short, what is completely omitted -- and a sudden strange silence pervades the Chamber when this kind of protectionist approach -- and that is what it is -- is asked from the Senate, when trade is certainly a two-way street -- is that other countries, and labor, will be disposed, as we ought to know by now, to be very happy to retaliate against us, once we start the idea that we are ready for a trade war. That is what the Senate would be signaling.
I do not agree that the best way to negotiate with nations which are just as proud as we are is by making threats. I do not agree with that. I do not agree that the best way to get a voluntary agreement on textiles, or anything else, is by threatening another power.
If we had threatened Mr. Sato, it would have made his position untenable, and he would not be running for re-election if he had yielded to the United States.
Yet, thoughtlessly, that is exactly what the Senate, in my judgment, will be lending itself to if it adopts the pending amendment.
Another point is that New England has changed. It has changed because its textile mills did not have to worry about competition from abroad. They all moved into the South, and New England was practically a whole area of deserted villages. Until what happened? Until miscellaneous industries, such as electronic equipment manufacturers, and other industries which needed highly skilled workers, came to New England and took up the slack.
Now New England is flourishing again. One of the critically important aspects of the economy of New England, the traditional home of protectionism, is its ability now to trade throughout the world in terms of the highest levels of American technology.
It seems to me that that is a very critical and important point in respect to what is happening in this country, even by section.
Mr. President, the interest of the consumer is at stake.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time the Senator from New York allotted to himself has now expired.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER The Senator from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JAVITS. In addition, Mr. President, before we signal to the world that the Senate is lined up on the protectionist side, whatever the President may say, if we are going to run it our way, without giving considered judgment to the recommendations in his presidential message which he sent us only a few weeks ago, we had better think about the interests of the consumer which are involved as well, because producers are also consumers.
The consumers of the United States -- and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. PERCY) never said a truer word -- had better ask themselves the question "What is happening to us?" Two things are happening having to do with putting American industry on its toes because of the competitive factor. First is the proposal of the United Kingdom to get into the European Common Market, which is critically important to health as well as to the prosperity and the keenness in change, and so forth, of British business.
One of the really strong reasons why the British want to get into the European Common Market is their sensitivity on that particular point.
So far as our own producers are concerned, they need the competition, especially in soft goods, the very goods being discussed here, such as shoes and textiles, in order to keep American business competitive. After all, if things get too expensive and too high in costs of production, our economy will get completely out of line.
Point 2, which puzzles me about the conservative point of view on this trade quota and trade restriction picture, is the issue of labor. That is a very interesting point.
On the one hand, there are claims that American labor knows no limitations in terms of wages, fringe benefits, and in terms of continually shortening the hours of work; that they are just running roughshod over the American economy without any real understanding of the competitive demands.upon the economy. On the other hand, the very same people, almost to a man, when we seek to furnish competition for that in terms of the export-import policy of the United States, try to dam up instead of promote and accelerate that kind of healthy competition.
It seems to me that just as we want to keep American business on its toes in terms of giving it some competitive standards that it must meet and deal with, we should want to keep American labor on its toes for precisely the same reason.
Yet, as I say, we have this very strange dichotomy on the part of the very same people who, on the one hand, want to keep American labor competitive and, on the other, will kill off, or endeavor to kill off, any measure designed toward that end.
Mr. President, I should like to sum up our side of the debate regarding the proposed amendment as follows.
First, it is irrelevant to the bill. That is irrefutable.
Second, it represents a signal to the world that the Senate, without waiting for any deliberate consideration even of the President's message, is committing itself definitely to a protectionist and retaliatory course, the effect of which will do only the United States considerable harm; because, as we all know, they have retaliated and they will retaliate because many of the forces within these other countries will be very glad of the opportunity.
Third, the amendment itself, in its terms, represents the kind of law which is so loose in its application and so indefinite as, in effect, to transfer the authority of Congress to the executive.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time which the Senator from New York allotted to himself has now expired.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 2 additional minutes.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, as to transferring the whole authority of Congress to the Executive, that is something which I can hardly expect, although it may well be that the Senate should consider the fact that this amendment is being offered to an alleged tax reform bill without the deliberation and consideration which even such a move should require.
Again, I have defined and compared precisely the words of the amendment with the words of the Trade Adjustment Act itself and with the words and the definitions that are recommended by the President. It is my deep conviction that the words used in the amendment are the most indefinite, hardest to define, and broadest in terms of a completely blanket grant of authority that we could possibly use in transferring authority to the President of the United States.
For all these reasons, I very much hope that at the appropriate time the Senate will reject the amendment.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator from New York yield briefly?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. TALMADGE in the chair). The time yielded to himself by the Senator from New York has expired.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 additional minutes. I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the Senator from New York has made a strong and convincing case, but I think he has understated his economic argument so far as jobs are concerned. It is true that our exports and imports are in balance. But over the years, we have had a favorable -- I repeat favorable -- balance of trade. We have had it until recently. I do not know of any economist who does not think we will have a favorable balance in the future. This means that there have been and will be more jobs in the export industries than in industries adversely affected by exports. And this means that to the extent this amendment restricts trade -- and it certainly will -- it will abolish jobs, not protect them.
The Senator from New York is fighting restrictive legislation. He is fighting to preserve an opportunity for American workers to produce goods for export throughout the world. He has also made a devastating argument for trade providing effective competition at home, so that our prices can remain reasonably stable. We need all the weapons we can get to combat inflation and world trade is a potent weapon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to himself by the Senator from New York has expired.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 additional minute.
I am grateful to the Senator from Wisconsin for pointing out the export surplus proposition. In 1966 we had an export surplus of $3.786 billion; in 1967, $4.083 billion; in 1968, $1.1 billion; for 1969, the indications are that, notwithstanding the disagreement which we have had, we will have an export surplus of $889 million. As a matter of fact, it is expected that we will again resume the export surplus status which has essentially sustained the economic policy of the United States throughout the years.
To the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. THURMOND), I should like to say that the Department of Commerce statistics which I read -- and they have just been checked out -- do include Public Law 480 funds in the total of $1.4 billion, and they should be added to the figures.
I point out that the figures which I gave would indicate a rate of export of agricultural products of, roughly, $5.2 billion for 1969, assuming the record of 1968 is sustained. Of that amount, 20 percent, or $1.2 billion, is Public Law 480 funds. From the economic point of view, I think that properly represents income. In other words, if it is never paid for or set off by counterpart funds,
it is income to the farmers of the Nation from other taxpayers.
Mr. THURMOND. The figures do include Public Law 480?
Mr. JAVITS. They do; that is exactly right.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
Mr. COTTON. If we have a quorum call at this time, it has to be taken out of some Senator's time. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, and under the precedents, the Senator from New York does not have sufficient time to complete a quorum call. He has only 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. JAVITS. I yield myself 1 minute. In view of the fact that the Senator from New Hampshire obviously does not intend to use any time, I do believe that Members of the Senate ought to be advised that this matter is coming to a vote by a quorum call.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Hampshire yield time for it? Under the precedents of the Senate, the 4 minutes remaining of the time of the Senator from New York is insufficient for a quorum call.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute to say to the Chair that the Senator from New Hampshire may have to yield some time, and the Senator from New York demanded this time for debate in the Senate this morning. He has used almost all of his time, and I must object to a quorum call being taken out of my time at this point until I know whether I have to use it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state to the Senator from New York that he has a constitutional right to suggest the absence of a quorum, but not until all time has been yielded back or has expired.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry, still on my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. JAVITS. May I move to table this amendment when my time has expired? Do I have a right to do that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may move to table when all time has expired or has been yielded back.
Mr. JAVITS. And I will be recognized for that purpose?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be recognized.
Who yields time?
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. COTTON. I gave my word last night to the distinguished majority leader that if he acceded to the demand of the Senator from New York for 1 hour on each side, I would try my best in view of the extent of the debate we had last evening to use only a minimum of time. I do not, however, want to gag any of my good friends.
The distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUsKIE) did not have an opportunity last night to engage in debate. Therefore, I yield the Senator from Maine 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I have listened with great interest this morning to the remarks by the Senator from New York. The implication from what he has said is that the question is one of whether we have unlimited free trade or no trade at all with other countries around the globe.
I suggest that the amendment of the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire is not addressed to either of those very unrealistic objectives.
Every Senator, I think, recognizes the part that international trade plays in the role of the United States around the globe, in the growth of the American economy, and in the interest of our consumers.
The question really is whether, under any conceivable circumstances, the Senate or the Congress of the United States ought to be concerned with the kind of competition which American industry faces in our own markets: whether, under any conceivable circumstances, the American people ought to be concerned as to whether or not unfair competition from imported goods in our own markets threatens the existence and the survival of American interests and American industry.
In my part of the country we have special concern about the imports of textiles and shoes, and, indeed, increasingly about imports of electronic equipment. In all of these three areas competition from abroad in our own markets has grown steadily and at a rate which I think is of concern to all of us.
Using the shoe industry alone as an example, in 1954 imports of shoes from abroad were insignificant, almost at the zero point. Today imports of foreign shoes into our own markets exceed 30 percent of domestic consumption, and in recent years the rate of increase has been steeper than is suggested by those two figures.
The shoe industry, Mr. President, is a very mobile industry. It does not take a great deal of capital to set up a shoe plant and it does not involve much loss to move it, or even to close it, on the part of the entrepreneurs who have invested in it.
There is a disposition in the shoe industry in this country, which can be accelerated very quickly if the present trend in shoe imports continues, to move their operations abroad. This would, in effect, be the movement of American jobs abroad.
What the Senator from New Hampshire is frustrated by is that, in the name of free trade, we are asked to defend the importation of shoes, and other commodities, into this country from countries which themselves impose restrictions on the same commodities.
Consider, for example, Japan. Japan resists, with all the vigor of which she is capable, any import quotas on shoes into the United States; but Japan herself imposes quotas upon the importation of shoes from the United States into Japan. Japan concedes this inconsistency. Japan defends this inconsistency as her right, unilaterally, to protect the Japanese shoe industry.
I agree with the distinguished Senator from New York that trade is a two-way street. But other countries, including Japan -- which is possibly the greatest trading nation on the face of the earth -- impose restrictions upon the importation of commodities from elsewhere. I think it has been said, and accurately, that Japan at one and the same time may be the world's greatest trading nation and also the world's greatest protectionist trading nation. But Japan recognizes that until the time when we reach the millennium where there can be absolute unrestricted movement of goods and people across international borders, she has a national interest to protect Japanese industry against the disruptive effect of import competition.
Japan promotes that kind of policy. Many of our European trading partners promote similar policies. The European Common Market promotes that kind of policy. All the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire is saying is that until we reach the millennium, there are circumstances–
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. COTTON. I yield the Senator from Maine 3 more minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Circumstances in which American policy also ought to be concerned with import competition in our own markets, when that competition promotes disruptive conditions which are destructive to the health and survival of American industry.
The vote this morning, Mr. President, is on an amendment which I expect will not be written into law, but the vote this morning gives those of us who are concerned about disruptive import competition in our markets an opportunity to express our concern.
There are negotiations underway in Geneva at the present time, in the field of textiles, involving some of our trading partners. I think it would be in our national interest for them to know, on the basis of this vote in the Senate, that we are concerned. We want to move back the barriers to trade. We want eventually to eliminate the barriers to trade. But when we do so, we must take into consideration the legitimate interests of American industry and American jobs.
I repeat, Mr. President, this is not a question of whether we have no trade abroad. This is not a question, at this point in time, since we have not reached the millennium, of unlimited free trade around the globe. No nation on the face of the earth practices a free trade policy today, and none is likely to next week or next month. We are talking about a policy which will enable American industry to adjust to import competition in our own markets when that competition is disruptive, when that competition takes place under conditions in which foreign imports are given a better break, in our own market, than our own goods.
That is what the Senator's amendment is about. That is the concern it expresses, and because it expresses that concern, I support it.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Hampshire yield me 2 or 3 minutes?
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, first I yield myself one-half minute. I shall be delighted to yield to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island; I merely wish to repeat what I have said before, that I promised the majority leader that we would hold down the debate.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I shall not require 5 minutes. I have already said on the floor of the Senate dozens of times what I am repeating now. I have worked with the Senator from New Hampshire, the Senator from South Carolina, the Senator from Maine, and the Senator from Georgia in what has been, actually, an operation of frustration from beginning to end.
I shall never forget the years when John F. Kennedy was a Member of the Senate. He would be sending me telegrams, asking, "Will you cooperate with me to do something about saving the textile industry in New England?"
We would send letters and telegrams down to President Eisenhower, and nothing ever happened.
Then John Kennedy became the President of the United States, and, as I think the Senator from New Hampshire has brought this out, we all marched down there saying to ourselves, "Now we have a friend in court. Maybe John Kennedy, who used to send all those telegrams, will do something about the situation."
But what his response? The response was, "Oh, now that I am President of the United States, I have to worry about Okinawa; I have to worry about Matsu and Quemoy, I have to worry about Pakistan; I have to worry about India," until I began to wonder, who is going to worry about the American worker?
Nothing ever happened. We started in 1958. The historic resolution on the decline of the textile industry was introduced by the Senator from New Hampshire. We held hearings all along the Atlantic seaboard. We had labor leaders come in, we had businessmen come in, we had everybody come in and all established that the textile industry was deteriorating.
Realize, Mr. President, that today our exports of textiles are absolutely nil. Nil, and here we are, with one country alone in this world exporting to us 50 percent of the American consumption in certain articles of textiles.
True, Mr. President, we have Vietnam on our hands today. We are pumping $30 billion into Vietnam now. That is giving an artificial boost to our economy; and I certainly hope that kind of artificial boost comes to an end tomorrow. But when it does, where are we going to find the mills that we used to have? Where are we going to find the jobs that we used to have?
We are busy now manufacturing bombs and bullets, and maintaining defense bases everywhere while the people whom we are defending are making refrigerators and televisions, and sending them over here to the American market. I say the time has come when America must look at itself in the mirror, to see what is happening to us.
Here we have this distressing problem of Appalachia, the poor section of the country. That is where our textile mills could do us much good. Yet here we are, pumping more money, seeking to train and retrain people whose jobs have deserted them.
It is a generous act to take a poor fellow who has worked in a textile mill from the age of 20 to the age of 50 and try to retrain him, after his textile job has disappeared. But when he gets to be 50 years old, what are you going to train him for? To run an elevator? Where is he going to get that job running an elevator, if there is no elevator to run? That is our problem.
All we are saying is this: We do not want to be unfair. All of us have voted to extend the Trade Expansion Act. We voted for it time and time again. We were told that this matter would be adjusted. Not too long ago, I had some distinguished parliamentarians from Japan come into my office. I was told, in a very subtle way, that maybe they could reduce textile exports if we gave back Okinawa. That is how ridiculous this is getting to be. What is the connection? What is the connection between Okinawa and the plight of the textile industry in the United States of America?
Here we are. A tremendously prospering Japan today is relying, for its security, on the umbrella of American protection. Europe is doing the same thing; and I am being told here that the Common Market is exporting more than we are. Why not? We cannot go to them because they have restrictions against us, and they can unload on us because we have no restrictions against them.
That is all we are trying to correct here. We are just saying, here today, "Tit for tat." That is all we are asking: reciprocity.
All we are asking here is that, in the case of any nation that has restrictions against us, the President ought to have the right to impose restrictions against them, until and unless they remove theirs. Then we will have a 2-way street. We do not have it today, and that is our problem and our peril.
I do not want to take any more time. I have made this speech a dozen times on the floor of the Senate. I hope that today, Mr. President, our voices will be heard, and that the pending amendment will be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I yield myself one-half minute. I thank the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island and the distinguished Senator from Maine.