ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

emigration policy. The proponents of this title tell us that it is a means to the realization of high humanitarian principles. The opponents tell us that it places world peace in jeopardy.

We do not know if these provisions will accomplish all that the proponents would wish or have all the consequences the opponents fear. We do know that there has been very little rational debate over this issue and the fate of the trade bill hangs in the balance.

The league's position on this issue can be stated in two parts: In accordance with our trade position we have, since 1965, favored the expansion of East-West trade, including nondiscriminatory tariff treatment. We have not abandoned this position, but neither have we been dogmatic in promoting it. In the House, we supported the trade bill as reported by House Ways and Means, including title IV. Similarly, in the Senate, our focus will be on the entire trade bill and we would oppose a veto of the bill.

We do, however, urge Congress and the administration to continue the dialog and to work toward a compromise which reflects the profound concerns of both sides.

In the past few months, we have all become aware of a new dimension of international trade policy-the problem of supply shortages and the need to assure fair access to supplies of food and raw materials. The recent oil embargo demonstrated that every nation is a potential have-not and that interdependence is, therefore, really a fact of life for all of us.

We must learn to conserve and manage our domestic resources better. We need to develop international rules to assure nondiscriminatory access to scarce raw materials. The trade bill should include provisions which address this problem in two ways: One, by making supply access one of the major goals of trade negotiations; and two, by directing the President to seek international agreement on new rules governing supply access.

More important than these specific proposals is the need to reevaluate our policies toward the less developed countries. The negotiation of international rules on supply access will be of limited value unless the producing countries, which are primarily LDC's have a stake in playing by those rules. The United States can help give them that stake by using its trade and aid policies to bridge the gap between rich and poor nations.

As a step in that direction, we support the provisions of title V which would give the President authority to extend duty-free treatment to imports from the less developed countries. In an interdependent world, it is in our national interest to fulfill this international obligation.

Mr. Chairman, we thank you very much for this opportunity to present our views.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for a very concise and logical statement, Ms. Benson.

Mrs. BENSON. Would it be possible to have our entire statement from which I gave oral extracts filed for the record?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, we will certainly do that.

Mrs. BENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Benson follows. Hearing continues on p. 1246.]

PREPARED STATEMENT BY LUCY WILSON BENSON, PRESIDENT, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES

SUMMARY

Foreign trade policy

The League of Women Voters continues to believe in a liberal U.S. trade policy. We are convinced that the political and economic interests of this country and of its citizens collectively and individually are best served by such a policy, which paves the way for political harmony with other nations, stimulates economic development at home and abroad, and expands consumer choice.

Trade Reform Act of 1973

The League favors granting the President negotiating authority to reduce trade barriers. We support the limitations on negotiating authority and the procedures for Congressional consultation, surveillance and veto.

The League welcomes the provisions relating to consumer interests in Titles I and II. We urge the committee to press for the implementation of these provisions. We also recommend an amendment to Title V requiring public hearings whenever tariff preferences are to be withdrawn.

The League is generally opposed to trade barriers, but recognizes the need for import relief under exceptional conditions. We recommend that the criteria for determining injury be drawn so that import relief is granted only in cases of severe injury.

The adjustment assistance provisions in the Trade Reform Act are an improvement over current law. We think that program benefits are still inadequate and recommend changes in provisions relating to training, job search and relocation allowances.

The League supports provisions authorizing retaliation against unfair foreign trade practices. We recommend deletion of the one-year discretionary period in the countervailing duty provisions.

The League factors measures to expand East-West trade, including the extension of nondiscriminatory tariff treatment. But our focus is on the entire bill and we would oppose a veto of the bill in its present form. We urge Congress and the Administration to continue the dialogue and work toward a compromise which reflects the profound concerns of both sides.

The League thinks that the trade bill should include provisions addressed to the problem of short supply. Specific measures should, however, be accompanied by a reevaluation of our policies toward developing countries and a willingness to use trade and aid policies to help those countries.

STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I represent the League of Women Voters of the United States, a volunteer citizens' organization of 1,350 Leagues with approximately 150,000 members in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. League members have recently reaffirmed their long-standing support for liberal trade policies after examining those policies in the context of current economic developments. I am pleased to have this opportunity to present the views of our members as they bear on major issues of trade policy now being considered by this committee.

There is a great deal of rhetoric these days about the dire problems we face and about the urgency of international cooperation. What appears in public statements, however, is not always translated into public policy. When the chips are down, many countries-including the United States-seems ready to turn inward and threaten to go it alone. The unilateral imposition of export controls last summer, the rise in protectionist sentiment, the refusal to contribute funds to a multilateral development association-these are all bricks in the wall we are building around ourselves. We realize that other countries are taking similar action but other countries are not the world's leading power.

There is no doubt that the U.S. is better equipped to be self-reliant than other countries. But for how long and at what price? The alternative to international cooperation is a world of trade wars, economic blackmail, and frantic hoarding of resources. I am here today in support of a trade bill which will permit the U.S. to negotiate with other countries, in a multilateral framework, for a more open and fairer system of international trade.

The League testified 10 months ago in general support of the Trade Reform Act. We also commented on some aspects of the bill which were of concern to League members and recommended changes in several provisions. On the whole, we were satisfied that the bill, H.R. 10710, which emerged from the Ways and Means Committee and was passed by the House incorporated many of our recommendations. We think it is a sound bill, far from obsolete, and even more necessary today than it was in April 1973 when it was introduced.

I would now like to point out some of the positive features of this bill and also comment on selected provisions which are still in need of revision.

TRADE NEGOTIATING AUTHORITY

The League supports the systematic reduction of tariff and nontariff barriers through multilateral negotiations. The Trade Reform Act would authorize the President to enter into trade negotiations for a period of 5 years and, pursuant to trade agreements, to increase or decrease tariffs. This grant of authority is extensive, but not unlimited.

The League thought that the original Administration request in H.R. 6767 was excessive. But we disagree with those who, in response to Watergate, want to deny this Administration the necessarily broad authority which the Executive must have in trade matters. The bill passed by the House, H.R. 10710, recognizes the need for broad authority to ensure negotiating flexibility. At the same time, it carefully checks Presidential actions by setting limits on the power to raise or lower tariffs.

The bill provides that, in international trade agreements the President can reduce tariffs by (a) 60% for tariffs between 5% and 25%; (b) 75% for tariffs over 25%; and (c) eliminate tariffs of 5% or less. The President can increase tariffs to a level 50% above the rate existing on July 1, 1934 or 20% ad valorem above the existing rate, whichever is higher. In response to the criticism that the latter provision is still excessive, we want to point out that the increases could be made only pursuant to trade agreements and could not be used to raise tariffs across-the-board.

More important checks on Presidential actions are the procedures in H.R. 10710 for Congressional consultation, surveillance and veto. For example, Section 102(f) subjects nontariff barrier agreements to a 90-day Congressional veto. Section 123(d) requires the President to notify Congress when he suspends import barriers in order to restrain inflation. Chapter 5 contains procedures for Congressional resolutions to disapprove a trade agreement. And Chapter 6 provides for Congressional delegations to negotiations. Our support for these provisions is consistent with our efforts to strengthen the role of Congress vis-a-vis the executive.

CONSUMER INTERESTS

The League is convinced that the public interest is best served by a trade policy which promotes the freest possible exchange of goods and ideas across national borders. A liberal trade policy brings benefits to consumers by increasing their choice of products and prices. To the extent that they are cheaper they stimulate the economy by increasing the disposable income consumers have to spend on other products. Imports also supply products not produced in the United States and supplement materials in short supply. Finally, import competition serves as an incentive to efficiency and productivity in domestic industry. As Congressman Charles W. Whalen, Jr. noted in a speech last December, "Trade barriers diminish the welfare of all the people. . . . Trade barriers are an anachronism in this Age of the Common Man."

The League is pleased to see numerous provisions in HR 10710 relating to consumer interests. The most important of these provisions is, or course, Section 123 which authorizes the suspension of import barriers to restrain inflation. The League's interest in international trade grew out of a consumer study League members undertook in the 1920's. Their conclusion-that import competition serves a valuable function in combatting inflation-was a factor in moving the League to speak out for liberal trade policies ever since. Now, when the consumer is strapped with high prices and a shortage of many products and materials, Section 123 is an appropriate addition to Presidential authority. Other provisions relating to consumer interest in Title I include:

Sec. 131(b)-Requires the Tariff Commission to advise the President as to the probable economic effect of modifications of duties on, inter alia, con

sumers.

30-229-74-pt. 4—14

Sec. 131 (c)-Requires the Tariff Commission to include in its report to the President its advice on the probable economic effects of modifications of NTBS on purchasers.

Sec. 131(d) (4)-Authorizes special studies to include descriptions of impacts of modifications of trade restrictions on consumers.

Sec. 135(b) (1)-Establishes an Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations which is to include individuals representing consumer interests.

Sec. 135 (i)-Requires the President to provide continuing opportunities for private organizations to give information and advice on trade negotiations. Perhaps not all of these provisions will be taken equally seriously. There are indications that at least one of them-Section 135 (b) (1)—may not be. Although there has already been extensive consultation with business on the proposed negotiations, there has been no attempt to seek information and advice from consumer interests or the general public. The vehicle for consumer consultation, the Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations, is thus far, a purely cosmetic feature of the trade bill. Meanwhile, consumers-the fictitious Jane and John Dee continue to be neglected. With few organizations to speak in their behalf, they are either stepped on or sidestepped. This is unfortunately the case in spite of the fact that the ultimate reason for trade, for all economic activity, is to bring benefits to people. We hope this committee will plead the case for the consumer and press the Administration to abandon the traditional policy of not-even-benign neglect.

In Title II, consumer interests are taken into account in two provisions :

Sec. 202 (c) (4)-Requires President, in determining whether to provide important relief, to take into account the effect of import relief on con

sumers.

Sec. 203 (g)-Requires President before providing import relief to notify persons potentially adversely affected and to hold public hearings.

In Title V, dealing with generalized tariff preferences, the President is given complete freedom to withdraw, suspend or limit the application of duty-free treatment with respect to any article or any country. To protect domestic producers and consumers, we recommend that a provision be included requiring the President to hold public hearings before he takes such action.

Import relief

ADJUSTMENT POLICIES

We recognize that a trade policy which benefits most people may injure some. As a result of a recent trade study, the League modified its long-standing opposition to the use of trade restrictions to protect industries adversely affected by import competition. We accept the need for temporary relief but we want to emphasize that import relief should be granted only under exceptional conditions. While the criteria for import relief in current law may be too rigid, we fear that the criteria in the Trade Reform Act may be too loose.

Under current law, the criterion for determining injury is the so-called "Double major." To qualify for relief, an industry must show that the major cause of increased imports is past tariff concessions and that the major cause of injury is an increase in imports. The Trade Reform Act proposes to revise these criteria by dropping the link between increased imports and trade agreement concessions; and by requiring that increased imports be a substantial cause of injury, a less severe test.

We are aware of the pressures which led to the liberalization of the escape clause, but we feel that the language of HR 10710 has gone too far in accommodating these pressures. Import relief to any industry in the form of tariffs, quotas, tariff-rate quotas and orderly marketing agreements imposes a great burden on the consumer. The test for import relief should be drawn so that this burden is imposed only in cases of severe injury. We think that adequate access to import relief would be assured with the elimination of the causal link between increased imports and tariff concessions and do not think there is a need to go beyond that.

Adjustment assistance

The most sensible and humane alternative to trade restrictions is a reasonable program of adjustment assistance for workers and firms. I know the word "reasonable" means different things to different people. The Administration's original proposal in HR 6767 was criticized for being inadequate by most groups testifying before the Ways and Means Committee. The program proposed in HR

10710 is considered unreasonable by the United Auto Workers-a union which has not yet abandoned efforts to improve the program as an alternative to protectionism. More extensive programs are considered unreasonable by those who fear the high cost.

The League urges the Senate Finance Committee, as it examines various proposals which have been or will be made, to make generosity the central concept in its definition of what is reasonable-not only because it is right, but because that is what will make the program work. We have been generous with cotton growers, sugar producers and oil companies in the hidden costs we have paid for trade restrictions. We can afford to be more generous with workers. The adjustment assistance program in HR 10710 is estimated to cost $350 million the first year-a small sum compared to what consumers now pay for tariffs and other restrictions each year.

The League supported the adjustment assistance provisions in HR 10710 because they were an improvement over current law. But I think we can do even better. The eligibility requirement to make access to benefits easier was an important change. We would prefer higher weekly allowances than the percentage established in the Trade Reform Act, but are aware of the political obstacles in a budget-minded Congress. We do think, however, that the committee could make some changes in the program benefits.

The provisions for training are still inadequate. There is no reason why allowances should not be paid for the entire period of training instead of an arbitrary cut-off of 26 weeks after the 52 week time limit. Supplemental assistance is provided to defray transportation and subsistance costs when training is provided in facilities not within commuting distance. The amounts provided$5/day and 10¢/mile-are identical to the amounts in the Trade Expansion Act enacted 12 years ago. In face of the rising cost of living and with gas costing more than 50¢ a gallon, surely this is an unreasonable proposal.

The relocation allowance is also inadequate. HR 10710 would grant 80% of the expenses of relocation plus a lump sum equivalent to three times the workers' average weekly wage up to a maximum of $500. In a mobile society such as ours, losing one's job and becoming uprooted is a painful process. We agree with the UAW that incentives for relocation must be increased and that providing reimbursement for "community prospecting" would contribute to the program's

success.

The relocation allowance provisions also specify that such allowance shall not be granted to more than one member of the family. The explanation for this provision is not logic but sexist. If husband and wife are both working-and two thirds of the women in the labor force work because they have to-then both pay a price when one of them is forced to relocate. And if both become unemployed because of import competition, if both have to relocate, both should be compensated. There is no rationale here for talking about family units rather than individuals.

RELIEF FROM UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

Title III provides for several changes in statutes to give U.S. industry relief from unfair foreign trade practices. Mainly, these involve strengthening the President's authority to retaliate against unjustifiable and unreasonable foreign restraints on U.S. trade, imposing time limits on investigations under antidumping and countervailing duty laws, and clarifying the definition of various terms and criteria in U.S. trade laws. In general, we support the notion of making our trade laws work more effectively and fairly and believe the changes recommended by the House are reasonable.

We are, however, concerned about an amendment to the countervailing duty law which would give the Secretary of the Treasury discretion to refrain from imposing countervailing duties for only one year from the date of enactment of the Trade Reform Act on imports subsidized by facilities owned or controlled by governments of developed countries. Limiting U.S. discretion to refrain from imposing countervailing duties unilaterally for only one year, while negotiations presumably were underway to work out an international agreement, is unwise and unnecessary. We recommend that the one-year provision be deleted and that the Secretary of the Treasury have the full four years in which to complete the negotiations.

The question in international trade no longer is whether it should be subsidized-all countries do, including the United States-but which subsidies should be permitted or prohibited under international rules. The League strongly sup

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »