202. Memorandum From the Deputy Special Representative for Trade Negotiations (Pearce) to the Members of the Council on International Economic Policy1
- Trade Bill: Issues for Senate Consideration
With the important exception of the Title IV—Jackson/Vanik language, the House of Representatives has passed what is on the whole, a very good trade bill.2 There are many issues that we sought to have resolved differently, but the general policy and tone of the bill is in line with the bill that we proposed.
We are planning our presentation of the trade bill to the Senate Finance Committee to support, at least at the outset, the House bill to the fullest extent possible. It is important to do this for a number of reasons. The Administration may not be present in the conference and we must rely on those members of Congress that have been working towards the same policy objectives that we favor. Moreover, the House bill is the result of a number of compromises in which we modified our original requests in order to avoid seriously detrimental Committee amendments. To seek reversal of some of these decisions in the Senate Finance Committee could lead to results in conference opposite to those desired. Another concern is that opening many issues in the Senate Finance Committee may encourage wholesale changes in the House version of the bill which could be very damaging. It could also delay the bill. While generally supporting the House bill, we will of course be receptive to constructive suggestions from the Senate.
For the reasons stated above, the changes that we consider must be made in the House bill should be kept to a strict minimum as listed [Page 730] in Tab A. A second list of issues (Tab B) contains those matters which should be raised, but not pressed if indications are that such effort would be counterproductive.3 This list includes issues which were not fully aired in Ways and Means. In addition to the items on these two lists, there are a number of changes of a technical nature (including modest substantive improvements) which can be raised in technical work with the Ways and Means Committee staff. Examples would include some time-limit problems and some clarifying provisions to resolve ambiguities.
The lists attached hereto are the result of interagency discussions held by the trade bill working group (those working in support of the trade bill effort on the hill), after consultation by members of that group with their departments.
For your information, Tab C contains a detailed analysis of the differences between H.R. 6767 (the trade bill as sent to Congress in April) and H.R. 10710 (the bill as adopted by the House).4 A brief review of the major differences is at the beginning of this tab.
Action Recommended: Approve the general approach to efforts to achieve Senate approval of the trade bill, with changes to be sought as outlined in Tabs A and B.
- Source: National Archives, RG 429, Records of the Council on International Economic Policy, 1971–1977, Box 251, Records of Executive Committee Meetings, 1973–1974, 53179 PMF Executive Committee Meeting of CIEP on December 21, 1973 in Roosevelt Rm 12/13/73. Limited Official Use. Drafted by Jackson, who initialed the memorandum on Pearce’s behalf. It was sent under cover of a December 13 memorandum from Flanigan to the Secretaries of State, the Treasury, Agriculture, and Commerce, the OMB Director, the CEA Chairman, the Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, and the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs, outlining the agenda for a December 21 meeting of the CIEP Executive Committee.↩
- The House of Representatives passed the trade bill on December 11.↩
- Attached but not printed at Tab B is a December 14 memorandum proposing changes to the provisions on “Non-MFN application of NTB agreements,” “Non-MFN BOP surcharge,” “Worker assistance,” “Firm Adjustment Assistance,” “Anti-dumping,” “Compensation authority,” “Import Relief,” “Countervailing duties,” and “Patent provisions amending section 337.”↩
- Tab C is attached but not printed.↩
- Representative Joseph Karth (D–Minnesota).↩