contained in the House-passed bill, and would require congressional approval of a Presidential rejection of a Tariff Commission recommendation under the escape clause before it could take effect. We support the Thurmond amendment and urge its adoption. EAST LIVERPOOL, OHIO, July 1, 1958. EDWARDS & ANGELL, Providence, R. I., June 28, 1958. Re trade-agreements-extension bill Hon. HARRY F. BYRD, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR BYRD: I was much distressed by the passage by the House of Representatives of the administration's bill (H. R. 12591) extending the Trade Agreements Act for a further period of 5 years, and continuing the President's power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, including the imposition of tariffs, a legislative power expressly vested by the Constitution in the Congress (art. I, secs. 1 and 8). That the legislative power of Congress cannot be delegated, see United States v. Shreveport Grain & Elevator Co. (287 U. S. 77 (1932); Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (293 U. S. 388 (1934)). The apparent attempt to remedy this defect in the existing law by giving to Congress the power to veto the President's action by a two-thirds vote of each House does not, I submit. render the measure constitutional. Incidentally, the inclusion of this provision in the bill (with the full backing of the administration) is a clear admission that the power conferred upon the President is a legislative and not a mere administrative one. By the terms of the bill, the President is given the power either to approve or disapprove a report of the Tariff Commission of its investigation and hearings regarding alleged serious injury to a domestic industry. If the report is approved by the President, the action recommended by the Tariff Commission becomes effective, without any action at all by the Congress. If the report of the Commission is disapproved by the President, in whole or in part, such disapproval is final unless the action recommended by the Commission is approved by both Houses of Congress by a two-thirds vote. In the case where the President approves the report of the Tariff Commission. the Congress is deprived of all power whatsoever in the matter-a clear violation, I submit, of the rule forbidding the delegation of legislative power by the Congress. In the case where the President disapproves the report of the Commission, the power given by the bill to Congress to veto the President's action does not, I submit, render the delegation of power to the President lawful. The Constitution provides for the enactment of legislation by the Congress, with the right of the President to veto the legislation. It does not provide for the enactment of legislation by the President, with a right of Congress to exercise a veto power, which is what the bill under consideration does. This, I submit, is an important distinction. The President's veto power is one that should be sparingly exercised, and his action in many cases should be influenced by the action which Congress has already taken. If we have gotton to the point where the President is to enact the legislation subject to the approval of Congress (by a two-thirds vote of both Houses), we have, in effect, rewritten an important part of the Constitution, a procedure which I used to think was by way of amendment in accordance with the terms of article V. So much for the constitutional question. There is, in addition, the fact that the executive branch of the Government has exercised its powers under the act arbitrarily and in such manner as to inflict great injury upon certain of our industries, not the least of which is the textile industry. As a result, huge pecuniary losses have been suffered, and hundreds of thousands of employees have lost their jobs. I am sure that you must be throughly familiar with the facts which have been presented to the committees of Congress by numerous witnesses. I earnestly urge that the tariff power be returned to Congress, where, under the Constitution, it belongs. Let those who think the power should be vested in the President seek an amendment to the Constitution, but let's have an end to the unlawful exercise of legislaive power by the Executive. With kindest regards, I am, Very sincerely yours, ROBERT B. DRESSER. STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION, The National Wool Growers Association is the oldest national livestock organization in the United States, and for 92 years has been the recognized spokesman for the farmers and ranchers of the Nation who grow wool and lambs. This statement is also presented in behalf of the National Wool Marketing Corp., with headquarters in Boston, Mass. The National Wool Marketing Corp. is the largest grower cooperative wool-marketing organization in the United States and has some 85,000 woolgrowers in its membership. The domestic woolgrowing industry wholeheartedly endorses the amendment to H. R. 12591 introduced by Senator Strom Thurmond on June 24. We strongly favor the 2 features of this amendment to (1) restore to Congress some authority over Tariff Commission recommendations and (2) give Congress an opportunity to review this program in the light of conditions 2 years from now in lieu of freezing the trade-agreements extension for a 5-year period. We are sure this committee and the Congress are aware of the economic plight of the domestic woolgrowing industry during the last decade. Already hard hit by a squeeze between price ceilings and mounting costs during World War II, the industry faced almost certain extinction when in 1958 a 25-percent reduction in wood tariffs was negotiated under the Trade Agreements Act. Ineffective methods of obtaining relief under the act allowed the situation to get so bad from import competition that by 1954 the industry had lost almost 50 percent of its production. Congress, therefore, found it necessary to enact special legislation to prevent these imports from completely destroying American production. As a result of our experience we feel strongly that the welfare of the American producing economy, including industry, agriculture, and labor, depends on the resumption by Congress of its established authority to regulate tariff and trade policies. We are certain that the Senators and Representatives in Congress are much more responsive to and familiar with the needs of their States than is the executive branch of our Government. Senators and Representatives have a greater knowledge of the impact of injury on domestic industry and labor than do the tariff and trade policymakers for the administration. We feel that entirely too much of this trade policy is determined by the career members of the State Department, who are dealing in international affairs without full knowledge of, concern for, or responsibility to the American producers. Therefore, we are concerned with what we consider abandonment by Congress of these rights of the people to control foreign trade through their Senators and Representatives in Congress, as set forth in the Constitution, through delegation of final authority on these matters to the executive branch of the Government. It is true that Congress has set up safeguards in the Trade Agreements Act which have been established for the protection of domestic industry. However, in many instances, we feel the effectiveness of these intended safeguards has been nullified by the wide discretionary powers vested in the executive branch of the Government which permit the overruling of Tariff Commission recommendations. Administrative decisions have obviously been strongly influenced by considerations far removed from those intended by Congress when safeguard provisions of the statutes were enacted. Senator Thurmond's amendment would return to Congress some of its presently abandoned authority over tariff and trade negotiations. It would give added assurance that trade and tariff negotiations and safeguards in the Trade Agreements Act are administered both on the basis of our relations with other nations and also on the basis of consideration for the economy of American industry, agriculture, and labor. When the escape clause was made a part of the Trade Agreements Act, it was done with the express purpose of providing a means of protection for domestic industry suffering from import competition. However, the Congress which enacted the escape clause presently has no authority whatsoever in seeing that Tariff Commission recommendations under its provisions are made effective. Senator Thurmond's amendment would return to Congress some of its authority in escape-clause procedures and would provide an effective check on decisions of the administrative branch. We feel very strongly that this strengthening of the escape clause is vital to the future economic welfare of a great number of agricultural and industrial enterprises in the United States. One reason for our interest is the present threat to our lamb market from importations of frozen dressed lamb. More than 50 percent of the United States sheep producers' income is derived from the sale of lambs. New freezing processes for dressed meats in foreign countries, where labor and production costs are much lower than ours, have made it advantageous to ship frozen lamb to the United States, regarded as a most attractive market. During certain seasons of the year a small increase in the supply of dressed lamb can break our market. New Zealand shipped us 408,000 pounds of lamb and mutton in 1956 and more than 1.6 million pounds in 1957. Australia's shipments rose from 921,000 pounds in 1956 to 1.4 million pounds in 1957. Canada's shipments climbed from 19,000 pounds in 1956 to 463,000 pounds in 1957. With low production costs in New Zealand, for example, and a tariff of only 32 cents per pound, domestic lamb producers face serious trouble. We doubt that the present ineffective methods of seeking relief either through the escape clause or section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act can save the sheep industry from severe damage if this is not corrected. We also feel strongly that the provision in Senator Thurmond's amendment for a 2-year extension is most sound. In view of unsettled and rapidly changing conditions on the international scene, we feel that Congress should not bind itself to a 5-year program. Congress should have the opportunity to reexamine our trade picture and legislate accordingly in a much shorter space of time than 5 years. Therefore, in conclusion and in the interests of both a sound international policy and a sound domestic policy, we strongly urge the adoption by the Senate Finance Committee and the passage by Congress of Senator Thurmond's amendment to H. R. 12591. Hon. HARRY FLOOD BYRD, NATIONAL SHOE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The National Shoe Manufacturers Association, representing manufacturers producing over 80 percent of all footwear manufactured in the United State, respectfully urges that the Trade Agreements Extension Act be limited to a period of 3 years, with the additional provision that any increase negotiated shall not become initially effective after the expiration of the 3-year period. We believe that an extension beyond the 3-year period at a time of considerable uncertainty is not sound policy. A 5-year extension of the act would be the longest in the trade agreements' 24-year history. To move so far into the future with so many imponderables today both at home and abroad is wholly unnecessary. The record indicates that all authority granted by the 1955 Extension Act has not been used. Negotiations with the Common Market, furthermore, admittedly will not get underway until 1961. Furthermore, a 5-year extension ties the hands of future Congresses and a future administration. Changed conditions before the expiration of the 5-year period may well require a new approach to the problem. Even from a world psychological point of view a 3-year extension will serve the purpose quite as well as a 5-year extension. The use of any tariff-cutting authority, furthermore should be limited to the period covered by the act. Under the present 5-year extension, tariff cuts could extend over a period of 10 years. For example, the bill as passed by the House authorizes a maximum 25 percent reduction of a rate extended over a period of 5 years. If, however, a 25 percent reduction were to be arranged just prior to the expiration of the 5-year act but to become effective at the rate of 5 percent during the following 5 years, the effective life of the extension would in reality be 10 years. For these reasons it is urged that any approval of the act be limited to a period not to exceed 3 years, and that tariff-cutting authority be limited to the period covered by the act. The provision for escape-clause relief in the House-approved trade agreements bill requiring a two-thirds approval for each House if Presidential action is unworkable. We urge that consideration be given to a practical plan whereby the President report to Congress any recommendations differing from recommendations of the Tariff Commission. If Congress does not act on the President's proposals, the Tariff Commission's recommendations should then automatically go into effect. Under some such procedure congressional participation in any policy of deviation from Tariff Commission recommendations would seem sound and just. Respectfully submitted. MERRILL A. WATSON, Executive Vice President. (Whereupon, at 4: 15 p. m. the committee was adjourned, to reconvent at 10:05 a. m., Tuesday, July 1, 1958.) |