In August 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 into law. The act is a successor to the bill mentioned in this editorial, which was vetoed by the president only two months before the act was signed into law. However, the provision involving plant closings and large-scale layoffs was removed from the trade law and passed separately.
It was three years in the making and cleared both the House and Senate, but the new federal trade bill will likely face a presidential veto.
Last week’s 63-36 vote in the Senate failed to muster the two-thirds majority vote needed to override a veto, and now Senate Democrats are scrambling for a substitute plan that would be favored by Reagan.
Unfortunately, the scrambling is unnecessary.
The bill empowers the president to halt any acquisition, merger or takeover of an American firm by a foreign company if that action would jeopardize national security.
These highlights would serve to give the president more power. Yet, Reagan is expected to veto the bill on the premise of one provision that would require all but the smallest business to give employees a 60-day notice of plant closings and large-scale layoffs.
Obviously, Reagan’s long years in office have left him either pompous or senseless — perhaps both.
Not only do employees deserve a 60-day notice of plant closings or large-scale layoffs, but the trade bill’s other provisions would toughen U.S. retaliation against unfair trading practices of other countries.
The bill, long in the making and long overdue, would cut deeply into America’s enormous trade deficit.
It would be fortunate if Reagan were capable of overlooking his personal differences with the 60-day provision and make a small concession on a bill that actually gives the president a lot of power.