|
June
27, 2000
Statement of Lewis
E. Leibowitz, Counsel to CITAC
Click Here to view his bio
"Challenges
in U.S. Trade Law: Process and Remedies"
Current U.S. trade
law emphasizes procedures and remedies to assist producers that have to
compete with import competition. In doing so, these laws ignore the legitimate
interests of the companies downstream from the petitioners. For example,
if textile makers obtain trade protection, the laws do not concern themselves
with the effect of that protection on makers of apparel, seat covers and
other downstream products. If steel producers are protected by antidumping
or countervailing duty remedies, what of steel users? If lumber imports
are restricted, what is the effect on home builders?
We have heard the
stories of a few downstream producers during this conference. The effect
downstream is always negative; usually the downstream harm is greater
than the economic gains to the petitioners. That is why protectionism
is harmful to the economy.
Our trade laws usually
deal with this inconvenient fact by simply ignoring the effects on downstream
users of the products that will be made more expensive and less available.
This blissful ignorance does not make good trade policy.
I would like to emphasize
the constructive role that improving procedures and remedies can play
in making trade policy more rational. I will talk about four modest reforms
that could ensure that consuming industries' interests are considered
in making trade policy decisions.
- Consuming industries
should have standing.
- Relief should be
tailored to do minimal damage to downstream industries. This is especially
true of Section 201 cases.
- The "public
interest" should be considered before relief is provided in trade
cases.
- Downstream industries
should not have to pay extraordinarily high duties or prices when the
products they need are not available in the United States.
We can improve the
situation by making procedural reforms as outlined above. These are only
first steps. Until we have awareness in Congress and the Administration
of the harm that can be done in their attempts to protect U.S. industries
from international competition, we must draw attention to the imbalance
that characterizes U.S. trade laws and policies.
|