[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 27 (Friday, March 11, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        JAPANESE TRADE PRACTICES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Maryland, Mrs. Bentley, is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BENTLEY. Mr. Speaker, in some instances it seems very 
appropriate--and most enjoyable, I admit, to say, I told you so. After 
almost 10 years of coming to this floor week after week hammering on 
the unfair trading practices of Japan, it is very gratifying to have so 
much evidence being presented by this Government that I was neither 
crying wolf, nor ``Jap bashing.''
  The recently completed joint study by the Japanese Ministry of 
International Trade and Industry [MITI] and the United States Commerce 
Department on auto imports by Japan documents my many contentions that 
United States automotive manufacturers face a host of non-tariff trade 
barriers when trying to sell into the Japanese market.
  Even though Japan boasts that it has anti-trust laws, it has not 
stopped the Japanese automobile industry not only from producing cars, 
but also controlling the sales and distribution of the products. Since 
the Nissan or Toyota-owned auto distributor is not going to sell and 
service his competitors' cars, then a U.S. distributor must set up new 
sales rooms and dealerships. In Japan, because of the shortage and 
expenses of land--especially in the urban areas where the markets are--
the additional start-up costs are prohibitive for United States entry 
into the market.
  Now, if a United States car is ordered directly from this country or, 
in order to secure a right hand drive--as is the custom in Japan--is 
ordered from Ford in England, the minute it comes off the ship, the 
Japanese demand that it be disassembled to check its safety. To the 
contrary, the United States allows the Japanese to self certify the 
safety of their cars, so that they roll straight from the ship into the 
distributors' hands into the hands of the American buyer.
  How sweet it is for the Japanese. How tough it is for the U.S. 
producer! And, how unfair! As if moving the car through the Japanese 
bureaucracy and having a service center, possibly, as for as 30 miles 
away were not enough of a deterrent to purchasing an American car; 
there are even other restrictions--some visited equally upon Japanese 
cars, such as certifying that one has a permanent parking space--which 
makes the purchase of a car in Japan a hassle without adding to the 
problem by buying a foreign automobile.
  The argument by militant free traders that it is the U.S. industry's 
fault, because ``it has never produced right-hand drive automobiles'' 
displays a shocking ignorance of Ford's prominence in the right-hand-
drive English market. But, facing all of the nontariff barriers in 
Japan, what difference does the steering position make?
  I congratulate the President and his Trade Representative, Mr. 
Kantor, on their tough stance with the Japanese. It's about time. In 
1971, there was a $1.3 billion deficit--yearly. By 1991, it has grown 
to $43 billion in 1993, $54 billion by November. Realize, that this 
figure represents the loss of real U.S. wealth that will never be 
recovered.
  What does this mean to each constituent in our district? The economic 
rule of thumb is that each billion of trade deficit represents a loss 
of 20,000 jobs. The Japanese trade deficit added to the deficits with 
all other foreign nations--we have a surplus with very few nations--has 
created the current jobs situation about which, Robert Reich, Secretary 
of Labor, states:

       In 1993--despite the recovery--both the extent of long-term 
     unemployment and the average length of a period of 
     joblessness hit their third-highest annual levels since the 
     end of World War II.
       Fewer than one-quarter of unemployed job losers in 1993 
     expected to be called back to their old jobs after a layoff. 
     For the rest, their jobs were gone for good--the highest 
     proportion of permanent job loss since 1967, when statistics 
     were first collected--emphasis mine.

  Professor Reich is a noted free trader so it is a puzzle to me that 
he seemingly does not connect this frightening employment situation 
with the equally frightening, growing trade deficit.
  I hope the President's position on the current Japanese debate is 
evidence that someone in the White House is studying cause and effect.

                          ____________________