December 13, 1974
Page 39815
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have listened with interest to the discussion of the McIntyre amendment by the distinguished Senator from Utah and the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, the manager of the bill and the chairman of the committee.
I have looked at the Kennedy amendment, and I would be pleased if the managers of the bill would accept that amendment. However, I would like to make an additional point.
We have been promised this kind of relief in international negotiations for all of the 16 years I have been in the Senate. We have always found the State Department and those in charge of our negotiations with other nations very reluctant about entering into orderly marketing discussions, and when involved in such discussions, less than the ardent advocates that we would have to have to persuade other countries that we mean business.
Language such as that of the Kennedy amendment, notwithstanding its intent, has always resulted in having nothing but a cosmetic effect in terms of its impact upon our own negotiators and the impression the negotiators of other countries have of the sense of urgency of our negotiators.
As a matter of fact, I say to the distinguished chairman and the Senator from Utah that the 1962 trade bill undertook to inject the same kind of element into our trade policy – that is, a prod to the President and the State Department – to open up orderly marketing negotiations with other countries to provide relief in these kinds of cases. The fact is that those have never once been triggered under the 1962 act, notwithstanding the solid evidence of increased import penetration of our market over that period of time.
The penetration in 1960 was 5 percent. It is now 40 percent. Yet, the shoe industry has been unable to trigger the relief provisions of the 1962 act. Those relief provisions presumably included not only the adjustment assistance provisions, which are nothing more than burial expenses in the case of shoe plants in little Maine towns, but also they have failed to trigger the very kind of negotiations that the Kennedy amendment envisions, may I say, with all respect to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.
We go through this exercise, we get these assurances, the law is passed, and then nothing happens.
(At this point, Mr. TUNNEY assumed the chair.)
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. LONG. The language of the 1962 act was such that it would not trigger protection for those people whom the Senator from Maine wishes to help. This bill is written with language that almost automatically would permit the kind of protection the Senator from Maine is seeking for those people.
Mr. MUSKIE. I ask the Senator this question: The curve since 1959 on the import penetration of our shoe market is clear and discernible. It is an acute curve upward – 5 percent to 40 percent. Is the Senator telling me that if that curve continues, under the provisions of this act, the continuance of that curve should trigger the kind of relief we are talking about? In other words, would a 5 percent to 40 percent increase or something like it over a shorter period of time trigger this kind of relief?
Mr. LONG. Yes, I think that certainly would be the case. It is our guess that if the shoe industry would seek relief under the terms of this act, chances are 90 out of 100 that it would get relief.
Mr. MUSKIE. I appreciate that assurance. It is helpful to this Senator.
I should like to take a moment or two, since I do not expect to speak on this bill again, to dramatize the kind of situation we find in these little towns. I know that the Senator from Louisiana has his little towns, as well, in rural Louisiana.
I am old enough to remember quite an evolution in these rural areas. I can remember the day when they used to process garden vegetable crops and build prosperous little communities around them. Then the big production areas of the Midwest came into the picture, and that industry dried up.
We also had little woodworking plants in Maine which were built around our forests. Maine is about 85 percent forest-covered today, and it has been for a long time. So little wood-turning plants developed in the towns, producing toothpicks, clothes pins, and a large variety of wooden products. Then the plastics industry came along, and foreign competition in plastics caused those little plants to dry up.
There were also towns at another time in history which produced textile products of one kind or another. But they dried up as a result of foreign imports and competition from the South.
So we have had two or three successive layers of economic development in these towns, and the shoe industry in many cases is the latest layer.
Now this layer is about to disappear. And if these plants die, what is to replace them?
I cannot envision a steel plant or an aluminum plant or a plant of ITT or a modern electronics plant of any kind moving into these little towns. They will have nothing. That is why I describe the economic adjustment provisions of the bill as nothing more than burial expenses. People get an additional 26 weeks of unemployment compensation. What do they do at the end of that time? If there is no one to borrow money to establish a new industry, what then?
Mr. LONG. In the first place, the old law, the 1962 law that authorized the Kennedy round provided that the injury had to be the result of the tariff concession. This bill says that if you can show injury as a result of increased imports, you are entitled to relief.
Furthermore, with reference to adjustment assistance, there are provisions which say that if an industry or plant closes – and the imports do not have to be the major cause; they need only be a substantial cause – if the increased imports are a substantial cause for the plant closing, workers are eligible for community assistance as well as adjustment assistance. A billion dollars in loan guarantees is authorized for community assistance.
So we have provided for a billion dollars to put little plants such as you describe back into operation, or to establish new production in the same community, hopefully in the same building or the same general plant where they had previously produced the commodity which was no longer being produced.
So there is a great deal in this measure to help with situations the Senator describes that was not in the 1962 Act.
I should think that many of the small communities in Maine or New England to which the Senator has made reference would be eligible for the community assistance.
Mr. MUSKIE. I appreciate the interest of the distinguished chairman in pointing out that difference.
With respect to the McIntyre amendment, part of it is designed to dramatize the kind of penetration or impact that has taken place as a result of an increasingly high level of imports in order to make the case for the kinds of assistance that are provided for in this act. For that reason, I compliment the distinguished Senator again.
Mr. McINTYRE. I would like to ask the Senator from Maine, Mr. President, does he know of any manufactured domestic article that suffers competition from foreign exports to the extent of 40 percent, presently, in this country?
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not. Now, I know of some articles that are no longer manufactured in this country, that once were, and which have disappeared from production because of the impact of imports. But I do not know of any now struggling.
Mr. McINTYRE. Those are the ones that have been buried.
Mr. MUSKIE. Those are the ones that have been buried already.
Mr. McINTYRE. Of course, there are a great many raw materials that come in here, but that affords many opportunities, and we are glad to have them.
I thank my colleague from Maine for his support on this amendment. I would like to ask the chairman of the Finance Committee, or the ranking Republican member, on page 99 of the report, the following statement is to be found, toward the top of the page:
It is expected that the President would exclude sensitive articles – those in which substantial duty reductions would likely injure domestic firms and workers – from significant duty reductions under title I or from preferential treatment under title V. The Committee intends that such sensitive articles could include those which are being injured as a result of dumping, and those which have been traditionally reserved from trade negotiations.
I would like to address the question to the floor managers: What assurance can they give to the Senator from New Hampshire, as they already have discussed in part with the Senator from Maine, about the committee's understanding that articles such as footwear would not be included under section 101 negotiations, and that the committee would give its attention to this problem as the bill is implemented?
Mr. LONG. We feel that the language makes it clear that where there is a sensitive article, where the type of situation exists that the Senator has just described for footwear, they should not negotiate further agreements that would bring in more imports. Remember that such an agreement would still have to be agreed to here in the Senate, when they did try to bring it back.
Mr. McINTYRE. I am sure that the distinguished Senator from Louisiana has had a great deal more experience than I have, but my years here indicate that when I have an opportunity to discuss this with Tariff Commission members, I get all involved with the shoe import question, that imports are coming in because they have a better price, or a better style, or other better retail attraction.
I do not feel that the shoe industry has been treated fairly, and I think the amendment I have offered is not restrictive in any way. It has an escape valve for the President, if he can prove that if imports increase, no additional harm will be done to the industry.
Under these circumstances, I feel constrained to ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, may I just say that the footwear industry has a lot more protection under this bill than under existing law. The committee has protected the footwear industry in this bill five different ways. We have already taken two amendments on the floor, and we are going to take the Kennedy amendment providing additional protection. The footwear industry will be in much better shape, and have much more help and protection available to them than under existing law. I think, having done all that, that is about as much as this committee or the Senate or Congress ought to be asked to do on that subject.
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. President, I am aware of the fact that the committee has worked to improve the existing law, but I am here to tell the rest of the Members of this body that it can take a lot more improvement. I hope none of the States here represented by distinguished Senators ever find themselves in a position where they are being invaded by up to 40 or 45 percent by a foreign manufactured article, and I hope they do not have the experience that we in New England have had when we went to the Tariff Commission. It made no difference whether it was a Democratic President, or a Republican President.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. McINTYRE. I yield.
Mr. RIBICOFF. I am very sympathetic to the position of the Senator from New Hampshire. I think it ought to be pointed out that the committee is deeply concerned with the lack of sympathy that had always been shown by the State Department, the executive branch, or the President.
There are provisions in this bill that any agreement that the President enters into must come back to the Congress of the United States for a vote of approval, which is not the case at the present time.
Furthermore, the U.S. International Trade Commission, which is the new name for the Tariff Commission, must make a finding on the impact of these agreements upon any American industry.
When they give this information to the President, if the President rejects the advice of the so-called Trade Commission, there is an opportunity for Congress, in overriding the position of the President, to adopt the position of the International Trade Commission. The International Trade Commission has been made much more completely independent of the President.
Furthermore, may I state to the Senator from New Hampshire that there is established an advisory group from Congress, five Senators and five Members of the House of Representatives, to act in an advisory capacity throughout these trade negotiations, to take into account the interests of the various sections of the country and the various problems in any of our respective States.
I would expect that the five Members from the Senate would be very sensitive to the problems of every region, including those of New England. It would be my hope that the chairman, in appointing the five Members to represent the Senate would take into account the various regions involved. I would hope that the chairman might consider me as one of the five, and believe me, if that were the case, I would be very sensitive to the problems of New England, the problems of New Hampshire, and the problems of Maine concerning the basic industries that we have involved in the foreign trade negotiations.
I have introduced heretofore an amendment which was accepted by the chairman which provides for regional impact, and I used specifically the example of shoes. If an agreement were made concerning shoes that might not have an overall impact upon the shoe industry in the United States, but would have a regional impact upon New England, then the International Trade Commission could take into account the regional impact on the New England shoe industry, even though there would not be an impact upon the shoe industry, for example, in Missouri.
So I think it should be kept in mind that the Finance Committee has written in safeguards throughout the bill which have not existed up to the present time.
On page 99, if the Senator will read the entire report concerning the International Trade Commission, he will see that we have expanded this protection. And may I suggest to the Senator from Maine that if the Senator will address himself to page 151 of the committee report, he will see that the committee has created a new program of assistance for communities suffering from the impact of trade such as those the Senator described in his colloquy with the Senator from New Hampshire.
As a matter of fact, we used as an example the displaced shoe worker of New England as the reason for assisting communities. It is unfortunate that there is such a lack of knowledge of the basic problems and the protections we have written into this bill, because many of the complaints about the trade bill refer to problems that have been in existence before this bill was written by the Finance Committee. This bill has been written in such a way as to reflect the deep concerns on both sides of the aisle of protecting American industry and American labor.
There is more protection in this bill than were ever in any trade bill to come before the Congress of the United States.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I strongly feel that the Senator from Connecticut should be one of the conferees and I will nominate him, in the event the bill passes and we have a conference. I hope the bill will pass and we will have a conference, and that the Senator will be a conferee.
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut for his soothing and hopefully helpful remarks.
When I go back to my State, I have to try to talk to a 57-year-old shoemaker who has been tossed out of his job in Newmarket, N.H. after working there for 28 years.
I tell him, "It is all right. We are going to retrain you. We are going to give you a lot of benefits and retrain you, and make a plumber out of you."
You should see the look on that man's face. The members of this body know very well that adjustment assistance can go only so far to make up for jobs lost to foreign competition.
Mr. President, I urge the adoption of my amendment.