Plant-Closing Measure Clears House, 286-136
Defying another presidential veto threat, the House voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to require employers to provide 60 days’ notice of plant closings or major layoffs and then adopted a separate comprehensive trade bill that the Reagan Administration wants.
The politically popular plant-closing bill sailed through on a vote of 286 to 136, or four more votes than the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto. The Senate passed an identical bill by a veto-proof margin of 72 to 23 last week and it now goes to the President.
$1 Billion for Retraining
On the sweeping trade bill--one of the most significant legislative initiatives of this congressional session--the House voted 376 to 45 for a measure that would provide for government retaliation against unfair marketing practices by foreign competitors and authorize $1 billion for retraining workers who lose jobs because of imports. The bill was stripped of provisions that Reagan opposed.
The congressional action sets up another potential showdown with Reagan, who would like to sign a trade bill that would aid Republican candidates in their election appeals to blue-collar workers but objects to the plant-closing measure as unfair to business.
Potent Issue Foreseen
The government’s posture in defending American workers and industry against foreign competition is expected to be a potent issue in the fall campaign.
In a parliamentary squeeze play against the White House, Senate Democratic leaders plan to delay the Senate’s final action on the trade bill to see whether President Reagan vetoes the plant-closing bill. If Congress fails to override Reagan’s expected veto on that measure, the Senate could then add it to the trade bill, forcing the President to make a painful choice between all or nothing on the issue.
Earlier this year, Reagan vetoed a trade bill that contained a plant-closing provision.
GOP spokesmen accused the Democratic leadership of playing politics with the plant-closing legislation by hoping that Reagan would veto it during the Democratic National Convention next week in Atlanta to give them an issue rather than a law.
Democrats and their Republican allies responded that the bill’s passage is a simple matter of fairness to workers faced with unexpected loss of their jobs.
“It’s a bad bill, conceived only in politics,” Rep. Steve Bartlett (R-Tex.) said.
“Vote ‘no’ and we’ll take it to the American people this fall,” Rep. David E. Bonior (D-Mich.) shouted in an emotional outburst.
Bill Backed by Labor
Fifty-four Republicans broke ranks with the White House to join 232 Democrats in favor of the controversial labor-backed bill, and 120 GOP lawmakers and 16 Democrats voted against it.
House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.) warned in debate that he expects Reagan to veto the bill but House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) called on the President to sign it or let it become law without his signature.
The second-time-around trade legislation would give the next President the broad authority Reagan requested to negotiate a new set of international trade rules through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade until May 31, 1993.
In addition, the measure would repeal the so-called windfall profits tax levied against oil producers. The bill would make it slightly easier for American firms to get temporary protection against foreign competitors--including tariffs or import quotas--from the International Trade Commission.
Relief for Eight Years
Under the legislation, the commission would be authorized to grant temporary relief for eight years, instead of a maximum five years under present law.
The bill requires mandatory retaliation through tariffs against “unjustifiable” foreign trade practices that violate existing trade agreements. This would deprive the President of much of his discretionary power to waive retaliation, except on national security grounds or exceptional cases of economic impact.
In a provision aimed primarily at Japan, the bill would require the U.S. trade representative to take quicker action to decide if foreign companies are engaging in “unfair” practices, of which some Japanese industries have been accused.
A new federal retraining program for U.S. workers who lose their jobs because of import competition would be paid for in part by a new 0.15% duty on all imports. Its initial cost was estimated at $400 million but officials say it could exceed $1 billion.
Premature Closings Feared
During the latest stormy debate over the plant-closing bill, opponents charged that it would force more companies to shut prematurely. Defenders of the measure said it would only set a minimum standard of decency for workers losing their jobs and noted that it provides exceptions for firms faced with unforeseeable circumstances.
The plant-closing legislation would apply to firms with more than 100 workers. It would require at least 60 days’ notice of a company shutdown or a layoff of 50 workers or more during any 30-day period. The same notification would be required in the event of layoffs lasting six months or more if the layoff affected one-third of the work force at any site.
Exemptions would be provided for firms where layoffs are caused by natural disasters, such as floods or the recent drought, or where owners were trying to raise additional capital to avoid a shutdown and had a good-faith belief that notice would doom the efforts to failure.
If employees knew in advance of hiring that their employment would be temporary, the notice requirement would not apply.
Workers who did not receive the required notice would be authorized to sue their employer in federal court for back pay and related benefits. Employers also could be forced to pay damages to a community affected by layoffs of up to $500 a day for 60 days, or a maximum of $30,000.
