Read Online The Betrayal of the American Dream by Donald L. Barlett, James B. Steele - Free Book Online Page A

claimed, “This bill strengthens basic legislation and statutes designed to protect our industries from unfair or disruptive import competition.”
    The bill did nothing of the sort. Despite the new legislation, conditions worsened. The deficit in goods soared from $6 billion in 1974 to $34 billion in 1978, an increase of 467 percent. More industries came under intense pressure from imports, which threatened yet more jobs. That meant it was time for Congress to pass another trade bill. Lawmakers were scamming the American people once again.
    This time they called it the Trade Agreements Act of 1979. While the title was slightly different, the speeches coming out of the Capitol sounded a great deal like the speeches that had praised the 1974 trade bill.
    Democratic senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York described the 1979 legislation as the most momentous trade act in half a century: “It begins a new era . . . that has one specific purpose above all: to see that non-tariff barriers to trade come down.... [And] to stop that hemorrhage of American jobs and industries profits.”
    Republican congressman Frank Horton of New York said the act “recognizes formally for the first time that unfair subsidies are damaging to international trade. It gives us power to strike back if a foreign nation harms our industry.” Russell Long, who only five years earlier had given a ringing speech about the 1974 act’s tough provisions, made similar claims for the 1979 law: “It will permit the United States to attack foreign barriers to our exports and it will provide more efficient defenses to unfairly traded imports.”
    Once again, misleading speeches were intended to pacify working folks and make them think that Washington was looking out for their best interests. In fact, lawmakers were looking out for their own best interests. Five years later, in 1984—as the goods deficit topped $100 billion for the first time—Congress returned to the get-tough warpath. Lawmakers railed about the unfairness of our trading partners, and they proposed remedies that they maintained would open foreign markets to American goods. In the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984, lawmakers asserted that they were beefing up the law to aid companies harmed by foreign trade practices.
    In lauding the bill, Republican senator John Danforth of Missouri recited a script handed down from earlier debates. Danforth promised that the new law “significantly strengthens . . . that provision in the law which provides our government with the ability to retaliate against unfair practices against U.S. exports.” Democratic senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas praised the bill for setting the United States on a new course and scolded our trading partners: “The United States has taken the lead in building support for an open international trading system. The rest of the world, unfortunately, has not reciprocated. Our partners in trade have been quick to take advantage of our open markets while often managing to keep theirs closed or protected.”
    Three years later, the goods trade deficit soared to $160 billion, yet another record. Once more, sounding as though Congress was suffering from collective amnesia, lawmakers said that they were getting serious as they crafted the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. Republican representative Nancy Johnson of Connecticut called it a “tough trade law” providing real reform. “Its tough penalties include mandating retaliation when negotiated agreements are broken, compensation for parties that are injured by dumping,” she said. Her Republican colleague Don Sundquist of Tennessee said that the bill would allow the United States to “go to our trading partners . . . [as] a strong, unified front against unfair foreign trade practices.” Democratic representative William J. Coyne of Pennsylvania said that it gave the United States all the tools “we need to strengthen America’s hand against unfair trade practices and