Date: 1982-07-01
Speaker: H EINZ (republican)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I do not case brought under the Tariff Act of have faith in rational economic man to 1930. as amended. make rational economic policies in sit- These provisions. Mr. President. will unations where the politics of unem- make clear that we are committed to ployment impinge upon policymakers. the operation of free market princiA more probable scenario is that the plcs in this country and that we leaders of the parliamentary democra- oppose the continued use of export ficles with which we compete will con- nancing subsidies to gain artificial and elude that export credit subsidies have unfair advantages. Since new mass a valuable payoff in terms of jobs. and. transit legislation should be considhence. electoral popularity. ered by the Congress this year. we The way to deter our trade competi- have an opportunity to act on this tors from using subsidized export cred- issue shortly. and I will be working to its is not by standing aside and allow- that end.* ing them to win contractseither at home or abroadthrough the use of By Mr. SARBANES: such credits. Only when our trade S. 2712 A bill to amend title 5. competitors perceive that export United States Code. to providd that a credit subsidy will not be rewarded reduction in force may not be conductwith success will they sit down to the ed until certain alternative measures negotiating table to conclude an agree- have been exhausted. to Insure the ment to end such competition. costeffectiveness of those alternative I would hope that my colleagues will measures and of any measures taken join with me to focus on the reality of in conducting a reduction in force. to the international marketplace as it is safeguard against unnecessary disrupin the 1980s. With the tremendous tion. productivity loss. and harm to growth in international trade and labormanagement relations due to a commerce. it is more important than reduction in force. and for other purever that we have a fair and enforce- poses. to the Committee on Governable set of international rules to pre. mental Affairs. serve the market system. To preserve FAIR REDUCTIONINFOnCE PRACTICES ACT OF those rules we must be willing to 1982 defend our domestic companies 0 Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President. I against unfair. subsidized foreign com- rise to introduce the Fair Reductionpetition. We have been telling our inForce Practices Act of 1982. Reduccompetitors for years that their poll- tions in force (RIFs). the procedures cles are shortsighted. but those words used by the Federal Government to alone have induced no progress. dismiss its employees. have transThose are the issues I see at stake in formed one of the most highly skilled the New York City subway competi- and dedicated work forces in the world tion. The issue is not simply whether into a corps of jobseekers. Thousands we should take advantage of a Canadi- of Federal employees have been fired an Government subsidy. Rather. the at the end of this very cumbersome challenge is whether we are able to see and often mystifying RIF process. A the real costs of the Canadian "gift." far greater number of employees have in terms of lost tax revenue. rewarding been directly affected by the uncerthe inefficient. and the threat to the tainty. disruption. and poor working principles upon which a fair and equi- environment that have arisen at table international trading system is almost every agency where RIFs have based. We cannot afford to leave our- been implemented or even proposed. selves vulnerable to unfair trade prac- There can be little doubt that today tices of our trade competitors. insecurity pervades the Federal EstabThe bill I am introducing today will lishment. As employees scramble for a provide an additional means of convey- shrinking number of Federal jobs. eming that message to domestic parties ployee effort deflected away from inclined to accept subsidy offers as agency work at hand undoubtedly well as our trading partners seeking to costs the Federal Government huge penetrate our markets. My legislation sums in lost productivity and cost would deny capital assistance under overruns. the Urban Mass Transportation Act of The Fair RIP Practices Act. which I 1964 to recipients who purchase. con- am introducing today. would enable tract to purchase. take delivery of. or agencies to reduce the size of their make payment on articles or materials work forces in an orderly manner conthat are subsidized. within the mean- sistent with sound management pracing of the GATT Subsidies Code. tices. Drawing upon recent experience The bill further states that such a in labormanagement relations In priviolation is presumed to exist if: First. vate industry. the bill I am Introducthe Secretary of the Treasury has ing requires a dialog between labor found a subsidy. pursuant to section and management. It requires agencies 1912 of the ExportImport Bank Act. to carefully explore costeffective alas I discussed earlier. second. the U.S. ternatives to RIPs and to negotiate Trade Representative has made an af- with employee representatives confirmative determination in an unfair cerning the use of such alternatives. trade practice case pursuant to section These negotiations would focus upon 302(b)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974. or Ways to eliminate waste and inefficienthird. the Secretary of Commerce has cy in order to achieve a level of savings made an affirmative preliminary de- that would preclude the need for a termination in a countervailing duty RIP. For the first time. we can harnesi in a cooperative effort both employees desire to stay on the job and managements desire to improve productivity. Agencieswould be required to report on the course of their negotiationc to both OPM and GAO. Such reports would Include employee comments. costbenefit analyses of the alternatives tested. and other information needed to insure that the requirements of the act had been met. OPM and GAO could then certify the RIP and a 30day specific notice could be issued to employees affected. The bill would not bring a halt to reductions in force. but would. however. reduce the number of employees separated from their agencies. Under the bill. those employees would be eligible for Governmentwide placement in vacancies on the basis of occupational category. Employees would be placed in positions that would not force them to relocate or undergo major career changes. In short. negotiations geared toward improving agency function together with extensive Governmentwide job placement opportunities would enable employees to c niicentrate their full attention on providing quality services to the public. The individual employees. the agencies. and the public would all benefit. clear and compelling reasons to support this legislation.* By Mr. TSONGAS: