Act of 1984, several Foreign Trade Zone amendments, and
legislation for the Harbor Maintenance Fee and Trust Fund.
Friedmann now heads FBB Federal Relations, the govern-ment-relations arm of Portland, Ore.-based law firm
Lindsay Hart Neil + Weigler. In that capacity, he represents
the interests of individual companies, local governments,
port authorities, and transportation- and trade-focused
associations like the Coalition of New England Companies
for Trade (CONECT).
Friedmann recently spoke with DC VELOCITY Managing
Editor Toby Gooley about the issues currently on the table
in Washington, why trade policy is an inherently touchy
subject, and an unusual event he staged to help his clients
get their message across to an elected official.
QWhich organizations do you represent, and what responsibilities do you carry out on their behalf?
AWe represent many exporters and importers, both as individual companies and as
members of some of the coalitions
we’ve created. CONECT is one of them.
Another is the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, which is very active in
the ocean shipping arena. Then there
are other association clients that are
quite active in international trade, such
as the Pacific Coast Council of Customs
Brokers and Freight Forwarders and the
Northern Border Customs Brokers
Association. We also represent Indian
tribes. And we help port authorities,
transit agencies, state and local governments, and Indian tribes get funding for
infrastructure ranging from wastewater
plants to ferry boats and roads.
We become the vehicle to communicate their interests to members of Congress. We organize visits like the upcoming CONECT mission to Washington …
and we help them draft their comments to make sure they’re
heard. We provide advice on developments we believe are
coming long before they hit the pages of the press. So we provide a crystal ball and a “heads up” alert.
QWhy is it important for companies engaged in inter- national trade to know what’s happening in
Washington?
ASo many issues that the federal government deals with can have a direct impact on the livelihoods of individuals and the businesses for which they work. It’s often hard
to keep track of what Congress and the executive branch are
doing and when agencies like Customs promulgate new
rules. Some rules are obscure, while others find their way
onto the front page of The Wall Street Journal or The New
York Times.
How Congress and the executive branch act on those
issues directly affects many companies. They want to know
about potential threats to their businesses as early as possible. For example, if Congress or the International Trade
Commission imposes retaliatory and punitive duties on
certain products from China, it could put an importer out
of business. The sooner that importer knows what’s being
considered, the sooner it can plan for that possibility, such
as adjusting sourcing. It can also get engaged by trying to
impact, through lobbying, the decisions that Congress and
federal agencies make.
QCongress and the White House have been preoccupied with the economy, various financial crises, and wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Is anyone in Washington paying attention to international trade right now, and if so, what are their
top priorities?
AI think there’s a recognition by the White House and by many in
Congress that the way out of this recession
is through exports. The president
announced an export initiative whose goal
is to double the volume of U.S. exports
within five years. That’s what he says;
whether he is in fact pursuing policies that
will make that happen is still unclear. But
the early signs are encouraging.
The president is making an effort to
push passage of a U.S.-South Korea free
trade agreement. Many members of
Congress, including most of his own
party, may oppose it due to alliances
with organized labor. But with the president taking a principled stand in favor
of it and if he’s willing to invest the kind of political capital
that [former president] Clinton invested to get NAFTA
through, that agreement would lead to a huge expansion of
U.S. exports. We’re talking $11 billion of U.S. exports. If we
do sign the agreement, we’ll gain an opportunity not only
to expand exports but also to keep pace with the European
Union, South America, and everyone else who wants to
trade with South Korea. Conversely, if all of them are signing FTAs and we do not, we not only lose new opportunities for exports but also risk losing our current sales to
South Korea to the EU and South America.
People are also paying attention to China’s currency. As
long as China maintains its currency below what the free
market suggests it should be, China’s exports will be cheaper relative to U.S.-made products. That’s good for U.S. consumers of imports from China but bad for our agricultural
