Date: 1987-07-10
Speaker: DAN ORTH (republican)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. 71 would like to express -my -appreciation to the large -number of people who have participated In putting .together this amendment. Especially I would like -to express my appreciation to the two leaders. Senator BYD and Senator DOLE. Senator BYRD has taken a very -deep personal interest in trade matters for some tige and especially over a long period -of time--weeks. perhaps. months. Senator BYRD and his staff .have taken a -very strong interest in the -development of an approach that the Senate could takewhich would be an alternative :to -what the -House -did with respect to those countries with which we have very serious tradeproblems. Senator -DOLE also has seen this as an -issue which is -very. very important to American :trade -policy. an issue -where we -should 7be -seeking some common ground. an issue which -we should .-ttempt towork out on a -bipartisan basis. :bridging -what has heretofore been -great philosophical !gaps on questions ofinternations- trade. These two leaders. -offering the leadership amendment. I think -have put. exactly the right vast on this amendmerit. This Is -not Just another trade amendment. It is very significant. It :is .very important. It is truly a milestone .in American -trade policy. and it is offered bySenator BYRD and by Senator florz :as -a leadership -amendment -underscoring its :importance. -underscorIng the bipartisan mature and the crossphilosophical -nature of the approach that is being .taken in this amendment. Whenwe -read the -list of rosponsors. so lar twe see -a long list of peopleand a very diverse list !of .people. Senators BYRD and DOLE. our Itwo leaders. Senator RiEGLi. -myself. .Senator BENTSEN. Senator STiavis. -Eenator CHILEs.:Senator ROTH. Senator SiMON. Senator HmImMs. Senator PROXMIRE. Senator METZENBAUM. Senator MuURKowsKI. and .Senator GRAssLEY. representing both parties. a wide geographical distribution. .Some of the people vho are supporting this amendment would. I think. .fairly be.categorized -as leaning toward the protedtionist -side -in trade -phloso:phy. -others -who .are supporting this amendment would be categorized as leaning toward -the free trade side of trade -philosophy. .Sorne references have been -made to the meetingsthat took place ladt night on this amendment. I had- the privilege -of being .party to thosemeetings -and -shuttling back and forth between .the two leader offices. What was interesting when I did thatwas to move trom one room to another room and to talk to people in -those two rooms who have very.fundamental differences on matters of iternational trade and to make.a common effort to work out something that was mutually acceptable to these two .diflerent groups .and different philosophies. One Senator .asked me a :short time .Ago: Well. If you reach a consensus like this and If everybody signs on and you -have such .a large list of cosponsors. doesnt that mean You -have -nothing? !Doesnt that mean that ithere is really -nothlnghere. that there isno substancehere..that you have come upwlth a Itypical .compromise -where there really is nothing accomplished? The answer to -that -question is. "No. that is not so:" This is a very meaningful provision. It is a real provision. I have no doubt in -my own mind that -if this ends up becoming law -it vill improve .our situation with respect -to internationaltrade. I think that it will Improve the number In international trade. I think that it will create greater .fairness and -it -will create a system for dealing with patterns -of unfair trade practices. So this -is a provision which has real content. It does something. It :is not a simple a cosmetic type of compromise. But the reason it does something. the reason it -has broad appeal :s that it adopts .a philosophy of international trade which is :neither protectionist nor what I .would call free trade to a fault. Itdoes not -land -on either side of -the classical. philosophical division in trade matters. It seeks adifferent kind -of approach altogether. And that approach has -been called reciprocity. Reciprocity is not a new concept. It is avery old concept. and -it hasbeen in a period of development certainly -in -recent years. And the trade -bill that -we -passed In 1984. when we adopted the national trade .estimates. -that was a move in the 4direction of reciprocity. This bill furthers that -move in the -direction of reciprocity. .What we are -saying by this concept. the reciprocity concept. is that we do not -want -to be protectionists in the United States. "We do not want to avoid competition. We do not want to erect. barriers. We -want to do -business in International markets. That is where the future -is. The -future -is 4n -doing business -in international -markets. but we insist. we Insist that that business be .done according to rules and that those rules Juy1.1987 -S9641 are applicable not only to protect our I would like to say to the Senate trading partners. but to protect our that if this were the Gephardt amendown people. as well. and that rules are ment. I would be standing here to negotiated within the General Agree- oppose it with everything Within me. I ment on Tariffs and Trade not for the am sure that some of the cosponsors purpose of being ignored by some par- of this amendment would rather have ties. but by being adhered to by all a Gephardt amendment. I not only parties. And. when they are not ad- would vote against a Gephardt amendhered to and when they are ignored. ment. if necessary. I would filibuster a being enforced. And if there is never Gephardt amendment. And. Mr. Presiany enforcement. if there is never any dent. I say that as a: Senator from.Misinsistence on the rules. then the rules souri. a Senator who represents the themselves wither and become mean- same constituents as DiCK GEPHAmiDT. Ingless and become empty and public and a person who. frankly. has a great support for those rules deteriorates. deal of regard for DICK GEPHARDT. but falls away. I do not agree with him in his amendThat is exactly what has happened. ment. Mr. President. Public support for the I think the Gephardt proposal is concept of international trade has wrong. I think that it is bad policy. I fallen away because so many people believe it is protectionist. He does not just do not believe in it any more. So agree with that. But I think the idea many people say. "There is no such of setting out numerical targets for rething as free trade." How many times duction of trade deficits must be prohave we heard that. each one of us? tectionist. that the effect of that is not They say. "There is no such thing as to open up international markets. but free trade." to close them. not to expand internaMajor blocks of constituents that I tional trade. but to contract internahave. blocks of people who heretofore tional trade. could be counted on to be bastions of Therefore. I say to the Senate. as free trade have turned against free clearly. even repetitiously. as I can say trade. it: I am against the Gephardt proposI speak to rural Missourians. farm al. I think the Gephardt proposal is groups. Farmers. historically. have wrong. I oppose the Gephardt proposbeen the free traders of all free trad- al and I have all along. And I have not ers. dependent on international mar- only here in Washington. but I have in kets. Farmers tell me they do not be- my own State. A lot of us do not like lieve in It any more. They all have to go back and do battle with our colhorror stories. some tale of some abuse leagues. whether they are in the other that they have heard about. We House or not. whether they are in the cannot maintain a constituency for other party or not. I do not do that as free trade if there are no rules. if a general matter. But I cannot avoid there is no enforcement. that in Missouri. Trade is a big issue in So what the idea of reciprocity has our State. Trade is a big issue with me. attempted to do is to restore credibil- I have spent a lot of time on it. and ity to the international trading it is a big issue with Dicx GEPHARDT. system. to recreate a system in which so I cannot avoid it. I go back to my people do have confidence. a system State and I say: I am against the Gepthat works. a system that works. for hardt amendment. I am opposed to it. the benefit of our people as well as I think it is bad policy. people in other parts of the world. So. Mr. President. if there was anyThis is a reciprocity provision. thing that could fairly be called the The majority leader and the minori- son of Gephardt amendment I would ty leader have both pointed out in. oppose it. I would oppose it with every their statements that this is not the ounce of energy I have. Gephardt amendment. My great fear This is not Gephardt. This is not an in the months that we have been effort to close markets. This is not a working on this proposal is that guise for closing markets. This is an people who really do not want to get opportunity to open up markets and to into this proposition. who do not want do so in a very. very systematic way. to read it. who do not want to look at Mr. President. anytime when we talk it. who do not want to listen to the about unfair trade practices. immedidebate. would take solace in labels. in ately somebody says: Well. it is really phrases. It is a wonderful substitute not such a big deal. The trade deficit is for knowing something to just find a about $170 billion. and most people label and paste that label on an idea. say only about 15 percent of the trade My fear always has been that labels deficit is due to unfair trade practices would take over. that somebody would and the rest has to do with the budget write an editorial which would call deficit or tax policy or our lack of getthis concept "the Gephardt Amend- upandgo. or something else. 15 perment" or "The Son of Gephardt cent. Amendment" and that. by that label- That is an arbitrary number. I do ing. literally months of effort would not happen to agree with it. incidengo for nothing. tally. I think even ifwe had the best And so Senator BYRD was exactly possible competition and even if we right when he disabused people of the had a budget deficit of zero. we would idea that this is the Gephardt amend- - still have serious problems in internament. And Senator DoLE did the same tional trade. But for the sake of disthing. cussion. let us take. this 15percent -figure. Let us just assume it. Let *us just assume the sort of old saw that exists that 15 percent of the trade deficit is caused by unfair trade practices. Fifteen percent of $170 billion is $25 billion-$25 billion of American business. $25 billion in sales. $25 billion of job opportunities is not small change. So. if we can develop a consistent plan for dealing with unfair trade practices. even under the modest view of the bffect of unfair trade on the total trade deficit picture. even with the most modest figures. still this is a significant issue. Mr. President. I think the Senator from Kansas pretty well spelled out how this amendment works. It is not a long amendment. It is. I think. seven pages long and I am sure that during the time we have already been debating it. staff has had the opportunity to read it five times over and to analyze it and the debate will go on for a little longer and people will have plenty of opportunity to look at it. But the notion is this: The notion of this amendment is to build on the national trade estimates. that listing of unfair trade barriers that was created by the 1984 act. to build on those specific items and other more generic. more sophisticated ways of keeping American exports from getting into other markets. to identify those countries that have been habitual in their ability to keep out what we make in the United States. to quantify the effect of the barriers of those countries and to make a special effort to negotiate with those countries that are particular problems and at the same timeif the negotiations do not get anywhereto pursue cases under section 301 of the Trade Act as amended by the Finance Committees bill. That Finance Committee amendment to section 301 was authorized by Senator PACKWOOD. So. if anything. this proposal should be called son of Packwood. Not son of Gephardt son of Packwood. Every effort has been made in drafting this bill to make sure that the. President of the United States is not put in a straightjacket. A double trak of negotiating away barriers and pursuit of 301 cases is followed. so negotiations can always supplant section 301. Where section 301 is used. all the waivers that are created in the bill that we have before us are available. The President can select those cases which he brings. We expect him to use it. We expect him to bring 301 cases where there are significant impediments to U.S. exports. Where he does not bring cases. where he does nothing. he faces the music. He makes an annual report to Congress. He tells us how he is doing. He attempts to quantify how he is doing. Mr. President. I would suggest that that is the soundest and most sensible .way. of holding the President of the United States to account. Not by filing lawsuits against him. but by setting up a standard which the Congress expects to have followed and then having to report back. in effect. how the President is doing. Then. If we are totally unsatisfied. then we provide that the Ways and Means Committee or the Finance Committee can initiate a 301 case itself. Not a specific 301 case. I do not think we want the Finance Committee in the business of fielding every complaint that anybody has on an unfair trade practice and initiating a specific 301 case. But I am talking about the more generic. the broad. the super 301 cases that are anticipated under this legislation. - That is. in essence. the bill. and I am sure we will be going into it in greater detail. But my point is that this is not an effort to put the President in a straitjacket but it is an effort to set standards and hold the President to account. It is an effort to transform a sporadic. unpredictable. occasional. ad hoc use of section 301 of the Trade Act into a systematic attempt to get at those situations which Senator BYRD has aptly described as being like peeling layers off of an onion. It is an effort aimed not at closing markets. but at opening markets. I just want to close by telling the Senate one experience that I had yesterday in my office. I was visited in my office by. among other people. a representative of the Chrysler Motor Co. Chrysler wants to sell vans in Japan. Chrysler proposes to put in a righthand drive car in order to sell vans In Japan. Chrysler feels that it is futile to attempt to do that because it is not possible now for an American auto company to buy into a distribution system in Japan. Chrysler wants this provision in the law for the express purpose of allowing it to have the leverage to get a distribution system to sell American vans in Japan. Mr. President. who could have imagined such a thing even a few months ago? Everybody has been singing the dirge for the American auto industry. Everybody has been complaining that Americans do not try hard enough. that we do not work hard enough. that we do not try to compete. Why. we have our steering wheels on the left hand of the car. not the right hand of the car. We do not try. Is it not amazing that the United States auto industryChryslernow says. "We want to go to Japan and we want to compete in Japan if we can get a distribution system?" Toyota has a distribution system In the United States. Nissan has a distribution system in the United States. Is it not only fair that Chrysler should be able to have a distribution system in Japan? Mr. President. this country is not on the slippery slide to oblivion. There is absolutely no reason why the United States of America cannot fight the battle of international trade and win it. There is no reason to crawl into the hold of protectionism. We can. as a country. compete in international markets. We can Win that competition. This amendment is about winning that competition. This amendment is about giving us the leverage to get into Japan and into Korea and into Taiwan on a fair basis so that we can again make things here that are the pride not only of America but of the world. Is not this the real option? Is this not the real alternative to the defeatism of the protectionist and the passivity of those who would turn our borders into a doormat? I compliment Senator RIEGLE. Senator BYRD. Senator DOLE. and so many others for what I believe to be truly a landmark opportunity to change American trade policy.