Charlotte Lane to the ITC

August, 2002: Publius

By Greg Rushford

Published in the Rushford Report

Charlotte Lane to the ITC

            Consider an all-too-typical Washington morality tale:

            Scene One: Sen. Jay Rockefeller speaks on the Senate floor of his “grave concern” that President Bush has nominated an obviously unqualified woman to the International Trade Commission. The president’s nominee, Rockefeller declares, “unfortunately, does not have the experience, the knowledge, or the temperament necessary to make these judgments.”

            The process for selecting ITC commissioners should be defined by “fairness and objectivity,” Rockefeller reminds his colleagues. It is very important “to emphasize that the nature of the Commission’s work requires someone with judicial temperament and objectivity, and someone with a good working knowledge of both economics and U.S. trade law.” The antidumping laws have “very detailed and very technical” standards and applications that require highly “competent” ITC commissioners to interpret, the senator states. The president should not be a party to the “lowering of standards” that would impair the independence of this little independent agency, Rockefeller stresses.

            “What we have in this case, simply put, is an unqualified nominee,” Rockefeller concludes. “The President is asking us over and over again to accept people who may have good Republican credentials, who have been laboring in the political vineyards for years — and all that is fine - but who clearly do not have the background or the experience to perform the important positions to which they are being nominated.”

            The preceding earnest words were uttered on November 20, 1991 . The “unqualified” woman who had been tapped by President George H. W. Bush to serve on the ITC was Carol Crawford. Although Rockefeller and Democrats Thomas Daschle (SD) Paul Sarbanes (MD), Robert Byrd (W.VA), Fritz Hollings (SC), and Al Gore (TN) tried hard to kill her nomination, Crawford was confirmed by a vote of 59-33.

            What did the senators see in Crawford’s background that convinced them she was unqualified to hold an important federal international trade position. What on her resume was so bad, that they held up her confirmation for 21 months?

            Certainly not Crawford’s law degree from American University , magna cum laude. Certainly not her eight years of Hill experience as an aide to Sen. Robert Packwood (R-OR), a lawmaker whose knowledge of trade was second to none. Could it have been Crawford’s work in the Office of Management and Budget in the mid-1980s, when as associate director for economics and government she was responsible for some $100 billion of federal spending? That was certainly important work. How about when Crawford moved to Justice in 1989, where she was  assistant attorney general for legislative affairs? Impressive credentials, so far.

            Could it have been Crawford’s work at the Federal Trade Commission, where she acquired expertise in antitrust matters? Now, we are getting to the nub of the matter.

            In 1983, Crawford became the director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection in the Federal Trade Commission. To Rockefeller, this had to leap off the nominee’s resume. This was the smoking gun.

            Antidumping advocates like Rockefeller fear antitrust lawyers (with the senator, this is an inherited family tradition). The reason is simple: Antitrust law is respectable economics; antidumping theory is regarded with derision in respectable economics circles. Antitrust laws are aimed at protecting consumer welfare; antidumping laws expressly forbid that. Antitrust laws punish predatory conduct that distorts competition. Antidumping laws penalize foreigners for engaging in the same healthy price competition that Americans are free to practice inside our borders.   

            That’s why Crawford — who went on to serve at the ITC with distinction — was trouble. She was too well educated.

            Scene two: Fast forward to June 27, 2002 . That’s when the Senate Finance Committee held the confirmation hearing of Charlotte Lane , a Republican from West Virginia who has been tapped for the ITC by President George W. Bush. In Lane, Bush has found a Republican who is worthy of Jay Rockefeller’s enthusiastic support. (Why the president would want to do that is another matter).

            Rockefeller was so enthusiastic about getting Charlotte Lane — a longtime friend, he said — on the ITC, that he held her confirmation hearing only 20 days after the White House had sent the nomination to the Hill. Rockefeller, the only senator to show up at the hearing, praised Lane as “somebody who has a wealth of experience.”

            That experience includes practicing law in Charleston after receiving a degree in 1972 from West Virginia University College of Law. Lane was a member of the West Virginia House of Delegates from 1978-80, and again in 1990-92. She is on the board of directors of the Charleston Chamber of Commerce and the Rotary, is a member of the Sacred Heart Co-Cathedral Catholic Church, and has served on the executive council of the West Virginia Bar Association. From 1985-89, Lane served on the Public Service Commission. She began a second term on the commission in 1997, and is now its chairman.

            However admirable, Lane’s qualifications to hold an important federal international trade position are not obvious.

            But Lane’s response to two basic questions from Rockefeller reveals why she is such an attractive nominee to advocates of the U.S. steel lobby.

            Rockefeller stated that he thought it was wrong that the antidumping laws require “that an industry show actual losses before any relief can be provided.” He then asked Lane “whether you agree that relief must be provided when an industry is being materially affected by imports, regardless of whether the industry is actually suffering losses?”

            “I think that you are exactly right,” Lane replied without hesitation.

            A few minutes later, Rockefeller drove home his point.

            “In my view, the law not only allows, but requires that relief be provided if an industry’s performance is being materially harmed — that’s the standard — even if the industry is, at the time of the investigation, profitable and enjoying strong demand because what happens shortly thereafter could be very different,” the senator stated. “Do you agree?”

            Surely most Americans would not. They would likely find astounding the proposition that profitable U.S. industries should win dumping cases against their foreign competitors, just because those profits would be higher without high tariffs slapped on the foreigners. But Lane didn’t hesitate to tell the senator what he wanted to hear.

            “Yes, sir. I agree,” Lane responded. “Profitability and strong demands do not preclude an affirmative determination.”

            Like Carol Crawford, perhaps Charlotte Lane will go on to serve with distinction.

            But since she has basically pledged her vote on the ITC to the Democratic senator from West Virginia , it is difficult to see how.

TOP