On the recordMay 1, 2002
I would like to elaborate on what the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) just mentioned. We talked earlier about the need for this legislation to prohibit the stark choice between moving activities overseas and being able to continue in this country. I had mentioned a specific example that is relevant to my district. Less than a mile from where I live, there is a unionized factory, Freight Liner, owned by Chrysler Daimler-Benz which has used this program to export heavy, high-value trucks to Chile, sales that would not have occurred otherwise. Now, Daimler-Benz is involved with not just owning a subsidiary that produces these huge, high-end, very expensive trucks, it also is involved with luxury automobiles. Now if we were to adopt the gentleman's amendment that requires that all activities be treated exactly the same, we could be in an ominous situation where there might be layoffs that were warranted because there has been a reduction in the luxury car business that might result in a rational business decision, but we would not necessarily want to be holding to the same standard a requirement that there be reductions in the heavy truck manufacturing. They are two entirely different product lines subjected to different market forces, and they are located in different parts of the world. Mr. Chairman, I think that attempts to micromanage this can have some very serious unintended consequences.
Source
govinfo.gov




