ommendation for relief under an escape-clause action, in our opinion, is of little or no practical value in restoring to Congress the determination of relief under an escape-clause action. While it is true that no such provision appears in the current legislation, and while it is also true that this amendment would direct Congress' attention to those escape-clause actions disapproved by the President, from a practical point of view, we cannot visualize an industry seeking relief being able to muster sufficient strength within the Congress to achieve the required two-thirds concurrent vote.

6. We feel that the proposal set forth in the national-security amendment is another sound improvement in the current legislation. There are certain features in the present bill that we cannot support. 1. We can see no justification for extending to the President the authority to negotiate trade agreements and to reduce rates over a 5-year period. The main reason for this excessive length of time is claimed to give the President the means to negotiate trade agreements in light of the prospective developments in foreign countries, particularly as it applies to the progress of the European Common Market which is being formed by 6 countries in Western Europe and the proposed establishment of a free-trade area, including Great Britain and some other countries, together with those 6 members of the Common Market.

It is our belief that, with the rapid population growth particularly in this country and with the dynamic and rapid socialogical, economic, and technological changes that are taking place here, in Western Europe, and throughout the entire world, it would be far more prudent to limit the authority granted the President under the Trade Agreements Act to a 2-year period, thereby giving Congress an opportunity to modify or change the legislation in the light of these dynamic changes that are taking place in this country and throughout the world. We strongly urge, therefore, that the authority granted to the President be reduced from 5 to 2 years.

2. H. R. 12591 grants to the President the authority to decrease rates of duty in effect July 1, 1958 by

(a) not more than 25 percent;

(b) not more than 2 percentage points; or

(c) in the case of existing duties which are higher than 50 percent ad valorem to not less than 50 percent ad valorem.

The base date on which reductions are permitted is changed from January 1, 1951, to July 1, 1958. Furthermore, the present bill contains no provision limiting the reduction in duty to the end of the renewal period, providing only that an agreement be concluded before the end of the renewal period. Therefore, it is possible for an agreement to be made in the fifth year, providing for reduction over a further 5-year period. This means that the President would be authorized to negotiate reductions which might not be completed for a total of 10 years, which is far too long a period in view of the rapidly changing conditions. We recommend that the authority to decrease rates of duty in effect July 1, 1958, be limited

(a) by not more than 10 percent or

(b) in the case of existing rates which are higher than 50 percent ad valorem to not less than 50 percent ad valorem which is now provided in the law.

We see no justification for the provision permitting a reduction by not more than 2 percentage points. Such a reduction on low rates could amount to considerably more than the present request of 25 percent and, of course, more than our recommendation for limiting the authority to 10 percent. We further recommend that no reductions in duty go into effect after the end of the renewal period as is now provided by law. In addition, we recommend that the 10 percent limitation be confined to 5 percent a year during the 2-year renewal period.

3. We recommend two further amendments to the escape-clause provision :

(a) A provision that injury shall be presumed to exist whenever, as a result of a concession, domestic production significantly decreases since the concession and imports significantly increase since the concession. It is not our intention that this provision in any way be restrictive to the findings of injury, but as an additional criterion which to us seem manifestly fair.

(b) We recommend that the findings of the Tariff Commission be conclusive as to the fact of injury. At the present time after a finding of the Tariff Commission, the President submits that finding to the various executive branches of the Government and obtains from them further information on the case. There have been a number of instances where the President has turned down a recommendation of the Tariff Commission based on facts that he has obtained as to the injury in question. The various branches of the Government in most cases do not give these facts to the Tariff Commission but rather withhold them and give them to the President after the Tariff Commission's findings. There is no opportunity for industry to contest this information. If this amendment were added, it would force all branches of the Government to supply their information to the Tariff Commission along with all other interested parties. This then would permit the Tariff Commission to make its findings based on all relevant information. The Tariff Commission is the factfinding body and it is our belief that they should have all pertinent information in making an escape-clause finding. This, we think, is a very important recommendation and one that is fair to all concerned.

4. In order to restore more properly to Congress a share in the determination of relief under the escape clause, we recommend that the Tariff Commission's recommendations prevail, unless the majority of both Houses of Congress, at the request of the President direct otherwise. We know there has been considerable discussion on this point and we know the administration is dead set against it. If, however, it would be more palatable to all concerned, we believe it would be satisfactory if this were modified so that the Tariff Commission's recommendations would prevail unless a majority of the House Ways and Means Committee and a majority of the Senate Finance Committee, at the President's request, direct otherwise. Either of these two variations would, in our opinion, be highly desirable.

When the Tariff Commission, as a result of an escape-clause investigation, finds as a fact that relief is required by an injured industry, there is no reason why its recommendations should not automatically be put into effect unless the President's finding, to the

contrary, based on the needs of national defense; national security, general welfare or other overriding reasons, are approved by a majority of Congress or by a majority of the interested congressional committees. Otherwise, there can be no assurance that the will of Congress in writing the escape-clause procedure into law will be followed by the Executive.

Thank you.

Senator CARLSON. Thank you, Mr. Richmond.

The meeting is recessed until next Monday at 10 o'clock.

(By direction of the chairman, the following is made a part of the record :)

Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER,

AMERICAN TUNG OIL ASSOCIATION A. A. L.,
Poplarville, Miss., June 19, 1958.

United States Senator from Louisiana,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR ELLENDER: We have been amazed by the overwhelming vote by which the House passed the administration's Trade Extension Act last week. We frankly cannot understand the attitude of many Congressmen on this score, in view of the terrific amount of harm that the imports of foreign commodities and manufactured products are doing to many industries in this country. We understand and appreciate, of course, the fact that our country must do a certain amount of foreign trade in order that foreigners may earn dollars with which to buy the products and commodities produced by various industries in the United States. We do feel, however, that there must be some satisfactory middle ground on which policies may be formulated to continue the necessary amount of export business which this country must do with foreign nations to maintain healthy trade balances between the United States and other foreign nations, while at the same time protecting those industries in the United States whose very lives depend upon a proper and adequate control of unreasonable amounts of imports of cheap foreign commodities and products that compete directly with the commodities and products which these industries produce.

It would seem to us that if the present trend toward all-out foreign trade is permitted to continue unrestrained that many of our industries, including certain segments of agriculture, are going to the wall, with a resultant loss not only of investments to the owners, but of countless numbers of jobs to the workers, who are employed by these industries to carry on their production. We trust, therefore, that the Senate will take a much more sober look at the administration's proposed Trade Extension Act as passed by the House, and seek to make the necessary and reasonable modifications in the act that prudent judgment would seem to indicate.

We trust that we may have your attention and the benefit of your good and sound judgment on this matter when it comes up for consideration in the Senate. In the meantime, with kindest personal regards and every good wish, I am, Sincerely,

MARSHALL BALLARD, Jr.

RESOLUTION OF CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF NILES, MICH.

Whereas today's world conditions reflect rapidly changing patterns of world trade, and a shift in economic and defense predominance to the United States;

and

Whereas an extraordinary growth has occurred in the economic self-determinism of a great number of nations abroad, often aided by United States donations and know-how.

Whereas our country's tariffs have been reduced by approximately 75 percent, so as to cause the United States to have the least restrictive trade policy of any major trading nation of the world; and

Whereas over the past 20 years this country's procedures governing the administration of tariff and trade matters, have become a hopeless jumble, so as to make necessary an entirely fresh appraisal; and

Whereas the impressing of our present tariff and trade policies, to the detriment of the economic well-being of our country, has wrought great harm to thousands of United States employers, and to many thousands of their employees; and

Whereas a strong United States is essential to all our foreign policy considerations, which strength should not be sacrificed for the short-range interests of others; since it is upon that very strength that almost the entire defense competence of the free world rests: Now, therefore be it

Resolved, That the Chamber of Commerce of Niles, Mich., declare itself to be emphatically opposed to the proposals the United States Congress is about to consider on this subject, which proposals provide for a 5-year extension of the Trade Agreements Act and the further reduction of tariff duty levels by 5 percent each year, or a 25-percent reduction over the 5-year period; and be it further

Resolved, That the said chamber of commerce make the following specific recommendation to the United States Congress :

1. That the Trade Agreements Act be extended for 1 year only.

2. That no reduction of tariff duty levels be permitted during such period. 3. That it take immediate steps to restore to itself its constitutional obligation to regulate foreign trade and assume final approval or disapproval of decisions of the United States Tariff Commission.

4. That the United States Tariff Commission be ordered to prepare a complete revision of our tariff and foreign-trade regulatory structure to prevent American employers and employees from destruction by inequality of trading opportunities.

5. That the Antidumping Act of 1921 be amended to the extent necessary to enable it to be enforced with the effectiveness intended; and be it finally Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the Governor of the State of Michigan, to each Member of the United States Senate and House of Representatives from the State of Michigan, and to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and to the chairman of the House Rules Committee, in Washington, D. C.

Dated this 9th day of May 1958 at Niles, Mich.
Attest:

JACK C. SCHICK,
President.
FRANCIS J. COLE,
Executive Secretary.

Hon. HARRY F. BYRD,

BICYCLE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,

Chairman, Senate Finance Committee,

New York, N. Y., June 24, 1958.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR BYRD: The American bicycle industry is opposed to H. R. 12591, in its present form, as being harmful to the best interests of our country, as well as of American business and labor.

We strongly urge, therefore, that the Senate Finance Committee favorably consider amending the measure to include more appropriate safeguards for domestic industries threatened by excessive imports. We urge adoption of the following changes:

1. Limit the extension of the Trade Agreements Act to not more than 2 years.

2. Modify the provision which permits overriding the President's action by a two-thirds majority of each House to a simple majority of both Houses.

Aware of the pressures on your committee's time, our industry has decided to waive its right to present its argument in person before your committee. Instead, we enclose 15 copies of a statement we presented to the House Ways and Means Committee on March 12.

This statement, which we hope will be read by your committee, reviews some significant aspects of our industry's problems arising out of the trade policies pursued by our country in recent years. Those policies brought our industry close to the brink of disaster as imports threatened our very survival.

Our industry's problem may be best illustrated, perhaps, by the fact that in the 8-year period from 1950 to 1957, we suffered a loss of 5,195,000 bicycle sales

to low-priced import competition. This is more than the equivalent of 2 years' business for the American industry. It seems manifestly unfair-indeed, dangerous—to ask one small industry to sacrifice that kind of production output and employment opportunity.

H. R. 12591 does not, in our opinion, give clear-cut and sufficient protection to American industries threatened by imports. We trust your committee will remedy that deficiency. As a minimum step, we strongly urge adoption of the two amendments outlined above.

Your consideration of this statement is deeply appreciated.
Sincerely,

Hon. HARRY F. BYRD,

JOHN AUERBACH,

Secretary, American Bike Tariff Committee.

Chairman, Committee on Finance,

HOYLAND STEEL CO., INC.
New York, N. Y., June 25, 1958.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR BYRD: We understand that the Senate Committee on Finance is now holding public hearings in connection with H. R. 12591, and we would like to take this occasion to go on record that we strongly urge extension of the Trade Agreements Act.

However, there is one provision in the Trade Agreements Act which we oppose, and that is the proposal calling for an increase in duties up to 50 percent above the rates in effect on July 1, 1934, in escape-clause cases.

We are also opposed to a provision requiring the Tariff Commission to start an escape-clause investigation simply upon application. It is our opinion that the Tariff Commission be permitted to start a formal investigation only if a preliminary investigation shows that such formal steps are called for.

We also feel that the escape clause should be clarified so as to show that its sole purpose is not simply the elimination of all import competition.

We fully support the 5-year extension of the Trade Agreements Act including the provision to reduce tariff rates by 25 percent over the rates existing on July 1, 1958, over a period of 3 to 5 years. We also support continuation of the President's authority to approve, modify, or reject Tariff Commission recommendations in escape-clause investigations.

A good many businesses and their workers depend upon exports, and it is our firm belief that we cannot have exports without substantial imports. Foreign trade, which is essential to this country, must be conducted both ways and it is our opinion that the extension of the Trade Agreements Act will work in this direction.

May we respectfully request your support in line with the above, and for your information we would like to tell you that a similar letter was submitted by our company in March to the Hon. Wilbur D. Mills, Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives.

Respectfully yours,

P. H. GARFUNKEL.

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE INDEPENDENT REFINERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

This statement is submitted on behalf of the Independent Refiners Association of America by Elmer E. Batzell, a member of the firm of Meyers & Batzell, counsel for IRAA. It has been prepared to call attention to what seems to be a serious oversight in the proposed legislation extending authority to enter into trade agreements.

We believe the act as it now stands contains no adequate standards and no adequate reference to administrative procedure so that, in authorizing persons to import amounts which are limited, the executive branch must assure that the rights of all persons who desire to import are taken into account in a fashion which will promote competition and opportunity for growth of the smaller elements of industry through importation of needed raw materials.

We have a long tradition in this country of competition. We are proud of this tradition. We advance it through the world as the distinguishing aspect of our economic democracy.

Important to the preservation of this ideal is equal opportunity for all who would engage in an enterprise. Nondiscriminatory activity by the Government