Wyden Statement on Senate Floor in Support of Robert Lighthizer for U.S. Trade Representative
As Prepared for Delivery
The Senate is currently debating the nomination of Robert Lighthizer to be the next U.S. Trade Representative, and I will take a few minutes today to discuss why Mr. Lighthizer will have my support. But first I want to begin with a hard look at the scattershot approach this administration has taken to trade in its first few months.
So far, this administration’s trade strategy amounts to a muddle of 140-character tweets, mixed messages, and overhyped announcements that are backed by little substance. It has long been my view that we ought to grow and make things in this country, add value to them in this country, and ship them around the world, but accomplishing that depends on having a coherent strategy to promote our exports and fight back against trade cheats. That’s not what we have witnessed from this administration.
At points during this administration, it has seemed as though one hand doesn’t know what the other is doing, and it creates problems that have real-world consequences.
You could easily suffer whiplash from the reports about what’s happening with various trade deals. Late at night it’s reported that the president is about to pull the U.S. out of NAFTA, then suddenly there’s another report saying he’s changed his mind after a conversation with the Canadians. Next, at a moment of extreme tension on the Korean peninsula, it’s reported the president is threatening to pull out of the U.S.-Korea trade agreement. Then suddenly that threat is walked back.
It’s clear that different factions in the administration have opposing agendas on these issues, and amid the chaos, it’s tough to determine who is in charge or what their priorities actually are.
The president has made some big statements with respect to trade deals on the books today, but he has yet to describe with any specificity how he’d like to see these trade agreements changed. To be clear, you can count me in for getting better trade deals, but it is neither credible nor responsible for the president to threaten to rip agreements up when he can’t articulate what about them he doesn’t like. And it sounds like little more than posturing when some of the president’s closest advisors are reportedly telling foreign governments not to expect much in the way of serious action when renegotiations begin.
If you’re trying to run a business in Oregon or around the U.S. that exports to foreign markets, it’d be hard to avoid feeling rattled and confused by the president’s statements and tweets about trade. You might even make the decision NOT to invest, NOT to hire those additional workers. So the president may see stoking uncertainty and confusion as a negotiating tactic, but it is not a recipe for creating red-white-and-blue jobs. One would think that Mr. Trump, as a businessman, knows the economic value in strategy, certainty and predictability. In this case, it’s not clear he does. That’s where I hope Robert Lighthizer will be a positive force in this administration.
So far, the trade advisors in the White House appear to confuse movement with progress. Fortunately, in my judgement, Robert Lighthizer knows the difference.
Under the law, it is the United States Trade Representative that leads our country in trade negotiations. It’s not the commerce secretary or a West-Wing advisor. The bulk of the expertise with respect to trade resides within the office of the Trade Representative. Right now, because there isn’t a confirmed USTR, this expertise is sidelined.
In my discussions with Mr. Lighthizer, and through a substantive confirmation hearing that covered a vast array of issues, it is clear that Mr. Lighthizer not only understands how the global trading system works, but also how it sometimes breaks down. He understands the U.S. role in the world, and he understands the challenges that trade cheats pose for American workers and businesses.
Whoever fills the position of USTR best serves the country when they’re able to take on all parts of the job vigorously, and I want to be clear about what that means. It’s not enough for an administration to focus on big new pronouncements, only to give short shrift to enforcing the trade rules on the books and breaking down foreign trade barriers.
It’s important to recognize that the United States may be the world’s largest economy, but it represents only four percent of the world’s consumers. American jobs depend on our ability to sell to the other 96 percent. The number of middle-class households around the world will double over the next decade, and that represents a lot of potential buying power for the American brand. Seizing that opportunity is never easy. It takes a lot of hard work smashing through barriers that block American-made goods and fighting back against trade cheats.
Furthermore, the trading system at times falls short of what Americans need and expect. In some ways, the trade rules are out of date and do not fit our evolving values. This is true particularly on areas like the promotion of labor rights and combatting human trafficking, and cracking down on trade in illegally taken wildlife and endangered species. The trading system has not caught up to the fact that the economy is increasingly digital and that small businesses now have international reach. Finally, the trading system doesn’t respond quickly enough to countries that break the rules or unfairly overproduce basic commodities such as steel and aluminum. This is persistently true with respect to China.
As policymakers, we must continue to take an honest look at the trade rules and fix what doesn’t work so that American workers aren’t left behind. It is long past time to invest more resources in monitoring, litigating, and enforcing our trading partners’ obligations, including China’s. The United States must respond more aggressively and more rapidly to threats to U.S. workers and businesses.
There was a recent example of how this is done right when the Commerce Department said “enough” to Canada’s unfairly traded softwood lumber. The steps the Commerce Department took were undeniably warranted after mill towns in Oregon and many other states have been clobbered over the last few decades. My first preference is a long-term agreement with Canada, but if they’re not going to come to the table, I’ll keep fighting for our mills and mill jobs, and I will insist the administration do the same.
The U.S. needs to carry that same steadfast approach across the board -- getting trade enforcement right is not just a lumber issue. That means more resources for boots on the ground: investigators and enforcers. Not just at the office of the USTR but also at Customs and Border Protection and the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Labor, State, and Interior, where investigators are tasked with stopping trade in illegally taken wildlife. Bottom line, trade enforcement requires all hands on deck. If you boost trade enforcers at one agency only to wipe out the trade enforcers at another, you will fail to protect American workers from unfair or illegal imports.
So I will be looking closely at the budget that the president submits to determine whether he is serious about delivering real results on trade enforcement or whether the campaign rhetoric and dramatic tweets are just a bunch of hot air.
In recognition of the need for a new approach on trade enforcement, Congress recently passed new laws that give the president better tools to respond when trading partners don’t follow the rules. It also passed legislation to strengthen domestic laws that enable the U.S. to unilaterally respond when American jobs are under threat, and it provided new direction should the president wish to negotiate new trade agreements or renegotiate past ones. In the coming months, I expect that those tools will not just sit and gather dust while the administration talks tough with respect to trade.
It takes consistency, strategy and a lot of hard work to get trade done right. I have confidence that Robert Lighthizer will work to pursue a trade agenda that is coherent, constructive, and will deliver for American workers, and I will support his nomination.
However, I want to express reservation on one issue pertaining to this nominee. During his confirmation hearing, Senator Stabenow asked Mr. Lighthizer how he would deal with situations in which he was conducting trade negotiations with a country in which the president has business interests. Senator Stabenow wanted to make sure that the president’s personal financial interests wouldn’t take precedence over the public interest. Mr. Lighthizer seemed surprised by the question, saying, quote, “the idea that this President would do anything untoward is … far out of the realm of possibility.”
I would like to put Mr. Lighthizer on notice. This is a legitimate issue, and I share Senator Stabenow’s concern. Never before has this country faces a circumstance in which our trade representative will be negotiating trade agreements with countries in which the president or his family have active business interests, whether it’s trademarks, golf courses, or construction deals. I have introduced a bill requiring the president, when initiating trade negotiations, to disclose whether he has business interests in the country that we will be negotiating with. I intend to press this issue as trade negotiations move forward. Trade should be about fighting on behalf of American workers and businesses. It’s not about the president’s bottom line.
Finally, on an issue that’s been closely related to this nomination, I want to commend several of my colleagues for working together to provide relief to retired mineworkers regarding their health care costs. Senator Manchin has been a crusader on behalf of the mineworkers. Hardly a week went by over the last several months when I didn’t hear from Joe Manchin about how important it was to get the mineworkers the health care benefits they’ve earned. And he’s worked hand-in-hand with Senators Brown, Casey, and Warner, all of whom serve on the Finance Committee. Chairman Hatch deserves thanks for working with us to get this across the finish line as well.
###
Next Article Previous Article