March 28, 1979
Page 6542
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my good friend from Connecticut, the floor manager of this bill.
Mr. President, I have been watching with some interest recent developments as we seek to conclude the multilateral trade agreement.
I supported the effort we made in the 1974 Trade Act, to give the President the flexibility he needs to negotiate trading agreements with other nations. But I also supported the effort the Senate made in that legislation, which seeks to protect the essential interests of American industries.
The countervailing duty provisions of that legislation were carefully drawn to give the Treasury Department flexibility to respond positively to other governments, when they chose to reduce export subsidies. But these provisions were not intended to strip all protection from domestic industries. The Congress never indicated any willingness to forego the basic principles embodied in the countervailing duty language: To protect domestic industry against unfair subsidized competition from abroad.
I am, therefore, concerned about the manner in which the waiver authority has been utilized in recent periods.
The recent action by the Treasury Department, to waive countervailing duties on Canadian fish imports, was reached on the basis of a relatively minor adjustment in a direct subsidy payment the Canadian Government makes on fish exports.
The reduction in the direct subsidy is welcome.
But alone, it does nothing to eliminate the competitive advantage that the deep Canadian subsidy of the Canadian fishing industry gives that industry.
I have a particular interest in it in connection with the New England fishing industry.
The New England fishing industry has suffered substantial and continuing damage from that subsidized competition. I hope the recent agreement reached with the Canadian Government on fisheries will help reintroduce a more equitable and more orderly market share relationship in the fishing industry on both sides of the border.
But in the meantime, the continuation of the deep subsidy the Canadian industry enjoys is doing serious damage to our domestic fisheries.
Today, Maine fishermen sending their catch to the Boston markets are placed in the position of knowing that if a Canadian truckload of fish is on the way, their catch will not be sold. This is intolerable.
I am concerned that the Treasury Department has made little effort to respond positively to this position.
I am disturbed by the use made of this waiver authority in the case of the fishing industry.
And I believe Congress should reiterate its position: That the basic principles on which the creation of the countervailing duty language was developed, are not principles that can be disregarded as we move nearer to considering a multilateral trade agreement.
I share the concerns expressed by my colleague from Maine regarding this legislation. The argument advanced by proponents of this bill that we must enact it to permit conclusion of the multilateral trade negotiations is not particularly persuasive when I consider the likely impact of those negotiations on industry in my State and my region.
I will, therefore, vote against passage of H.R. 1147, the extension of the countervailing duties waiver authority.
I thank my good friend from Connecticut for giving me the time to make the statement.