December 13, 1974
Page 39766
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I must vote against the cloture motion on H.R. 10710, the Trade Reform Act. The act may be the most far-reaching economic and foreign policy legislation to be considered by the 93d Congress. If enacted, it would give the President broad authority to negotiate world trade agreements, to trade with Communist countries, to give preferences to imports from less developed countries, and to manage this country's balance-of-payments deficits and surpluses. This is, indeed, a broad grant of authority and if enacted, this bill would give the President this authority for 5 years.
Yet there has been virtually no debate on this legislation on the floor of the Senate. And I feel that a measure which has such broad implications not only for specific industries which face severe import competition, but for the American economy as a whole, and for American foreign policy, should have the benefit of a full and fair Senate debate.
In failing to give a measure of this significance the attention it deserves in a last-minute rush to adjournment we run a very real risk of substituting the judgment of others for our own.
Yet this cloture petition was filed before the debate had really begun.
Accordingly, I do not feel that I can support a cloture petition at this time.
Mr. President, this legislation is 293 printed pages. The report of the Finance Committee is itself more than 300 pages.
Both represent an enormous amount of hard work and persistent effort on the part of the committee, and I think Senator Long and his committee deserve our commendation.
But not all of us have been as intimately involved in the committee process in considering legislation of this magnitude. We need to know:
First. How this legislation will affect sectors of the American economy which suffer from vigorous – and often unfair – import competition, or from international competition for our limited supply of raw materials.
Second. What kinds of safeguards for these industries are contained in the present bill; whether these safeguards need to be modified or strengthened; and whether we need to do more to counter the human costs which would result from the changed nature of international trade contemplated by this bill.
Third. What possibilities there are for international arrangements that would place meaningful restraints on imports over the next several years.
It would be easy for us to examine the printed words in this document, heft its weight, and say, yes, this is a fine piece of legislation.
But we must remind ourselves of the costs in human terms.
For example, Mr. President, the shoe industry, which has traditionally been the largest employer in my home State of Maine, is already crippled by an increasing flood of imports, and has been unable to obtain relief through existing laws and procedures.
Five years ago, net imports – imports less exports – of nonrubber footwear totaled 175 million pairs valued at $330 million. In 1970, net imports totaled 240 million pairs valued at $560 million. And by 1973, net imports had increased to 316 million pairs valued at close to $1 billion.
Even these statistics do not describe the costs to a family which has for generations given its labor to the local shoe shop, perhaps the town's only industry, which now faces extinction. When an industry like that dies, a town can die with it, and a family can break apart.
We must be conscious of the consequences of our action on this legislation. We must consider carefully all its costs. And we must do what we can to minimize those costs.
Yet we in the Senate are being asked today to go ahead with legislation that potentially increases the threat to many U.S. industries without our being able to consider fully whether remedial action is necessary.
I cannot support doing this. I believe this bill must be considered more fully than filing cloture today would permit. So I must vote "No."