Congress Warned on Import Restrictions : Pro-Trade Coalition Prefers Measures to Increase U.S. Exports

After years of public pressure from businesses and labor unions suffering from the effects of floods of imported products, Congress heard another version of the story Monday from a cross-section of industries that depend on more trade, not less, for their economic health.

In a letter to all senators and representatives, an umbrella organization--calling itself the Pro-Trade Group and representing 50 industry groups, consumer groups, companies and trade unions--urged that any trade bill passed this year focus on expanding U.S. exports rather than shrinking foreign imports.

The group warned against restrictive measures included in a proposed House bill, saying that they could result in retaliation by other nations against U.S. exports, further harming American industry.

“We object to any specific import restrictions or quotas,” said William Kay Daines of the American Retail Federation, co-chairman of the Pro-Trade Group. “American consumers buy exactly what they want, and they know perfectly well why they want Japanese or West German products.”

The House Ways and Means Committee has been working on a trade package that is far less protectionist than one that stalled in the Republican-led Senate last year.

But the proposed legislation would still make easier the imposition of protectionist measures against nations judged guilty of unfair trade practices, and it is also the focus of efforts by House Democrats, such as Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), who are seeking to add more stringent protectionist features.

Rather than heed the appeals of industries that argue they need tariffs or import restrictions on foreign goods to remain competitive, the Pro-Trade group said Congress should press for opening more foreign markets through negotiation, easing export controls on high-technology products and developing international rules for safeguarding U.S. patents and copyrights.

William Lane, a representative of Caterpillar Inc., the 10th-largest U.S. industrial exporter, warned that his company’s ability to compete would be crippled if it were unable to import competitively priced materials and components for the machinery it sells overseas. “We are the largest exporter of steel products in the country,” Lane said. “We actually buy 90% of our steel in the United States, but the threat of our being able to go offshore to buy steel allows us to get it at a competitive price.”

James W. Miller, president of the National Assn. of Wheat Growers, noted that 38% of total U.S. wheat production was exported in the 1985-86 growing season, compared to 62% in 1981-82, and said foreign retaliation to any new U.S. import restrictions “could cause untold damage to the wheat industry.”

Bill Maxwell of the Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Assn. warned that protecting declining industries such as steel and textiles would come at the expense of a high-profile industry such as his, which depends on exports for about 40% of total revenue. Asked what he would advise industries that say they need protection, Maxwell said:

“I’d tell them to restructure, learn to compete, get your act together. That’s what we have to do: Sink or swim.”