trader, at least in thinking, as any person coming from my area of the country. But during the last several years, when I have seen what has happened because of the investment of American money in foreign businesses and foreign industries and when I have noted the action which has been taken to protect those investments even to the detriment of some of our own domestic businesses and industries, I have my questions about this whole program.

It is nice to appear and be with you. I appreciate it very, very much. Mr. KING. The committee appreciates having you, Mr. Aspinall. You, as usual, give a very clear and concise picture of the problems of the industries in your statement.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Mason?

Mr. MASON. Congressman, summarizing your statement, if I may make bold to do so, you say that the lead and zinc people have been injured, that they have appeared before the Tariff Commission, that they have presented their case before the Tariff Commission, that the Tariff Commission admitted that they had a good case for relief under the escape clause or the peril point, but no action was taken to give them relief because the powers that be would not follow out the action of the Tariff Commission.

Is that not about the case that you have presented?

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Mason, that is the case I have presented. It is the truth of the situation.

I do not object to the action taken except that I object to the result that it has had upon our industries.

The President of the United States is in a better position to determine the national security of our country than I am but, personally, I do not believe it is right to sacrifice our own industries in order to build up foreign importation.

Mr. MASON. All I want to say is this. What has happened to your industry, lead and zinc, has happened to several other industries that have appeared before the Tariff Commission, have made their case, but that no action has been taken.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KING. Are there any questions? Mr. Knox?

Mr. Knox. I want to commend the gentleman from the great State of Colorado for presenting his views on the legislation which is before us.

I want to assure you, Mr. Aspinall, you do not stand alone on the views which you have expressed. I have expressed myself on numerous occasions through the interrogation of witnesses before the committee, on the very same philosophy which you set forth. It is not just in the mining industry but it also goes to the lumber industry, which is severely injured at this time and practically is dormant. Lumber Unless something is done to assist the lumber industry, that is es the domestic lumber industry, I can see where we are going to lose pro a terrific amount of our natural resources because of the maturity of the timber that is not going to be harvested. I refer to the plywood industry, which also has had the same effect from imports as does the mining industry.

Plywood today, over 50 percent of our domestic market, is supplied by foreign imports. We have had to close plants throughout the Nation because of the fact that they were unable to compete with the imports from foreign countries.

One thing I really do appreciate, Mr. Aspinall, is the fact that you bring forth at least some recommendations in the form of amendments that the committee may consider.

I have not had an opportunity to study them to determine whether they would be sufficient in order to bring relief that I think should be brought to the U.S. industry, plus the fact that the delegation of power-I do not believe that the Congress can constitutionally-or justify in any other manner-delegate the power that is vested in the Congress as representative of the people to the administrative arm of Government.

You also mentioned the fact that there was no judicial review. I agree and I think there should be judicial review of any legislation which the Congress may enact.

I ask you if you have any further comment to make on my observations of your testimony?

Mr. ASPINALL. May I say to the gentleman from Michigan that I think he will find the philosophy, which I have suggested here, prevailing throughout most of the activities-at least that I have occasion to take care of here in Congress. I do not believe that the natu ral-resource-producing activities of our economy should be sacrified to the fabricators and processors; neither do I believe that they should be sacrified to the extent of imperiling the security of our Nation.

The gentleman from Michigan knows that I believe wholeheartedly in the three departmental division of powers within our form of gov ernment. I have always contended that Congress, as far as our form of government is concerned, is the most important branch of government and that we should be very zealous not only of our prerogatives but also of our responsibilities.

Mr. KNOX. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KING. Mr. Utt will inquire.

Mr. UTT. Mr. Chairman, I should like to join my colleague from Michigan in complimenting the gentleman from Colorado on a very clear statement and the very fact that he made some definite recommendations. But going into another field, and I might say I agree with the gentleman from Colorado, I know how much mining there is in his area, but is there another threat to the mining industry in America brought on by the program of exchanging a massive amount of surplus wheat in exchange for lead and zinc which is also surplus? Are we not just moving one surplus commodity into another bin and also threatening the lead and zinc industry?

Mr. ASPINALL. May I reply to my good friend from California, who used to honor my committee with his membership, by pointing out that he refers to the decision made in Mexico City over a year ago. In some respects the implication which he makes is perfectly true; on the other hand, we are giving perishables for imperishables or staples and we are putting them in a stockpile which cannot be disposed of without the consent of Congress.

In this respect, I think perhaps there is some justification for the exchange.

But in any event, this has an effect on the world market and upon the domestic market of those minerals concerned, and I looked with suspicion upon that agreement when it was made in Mexico; I still look upon it with suspicion. I hope that the results of the present mission are not the same.

Mr. UTT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. KING. Mr. Herlong?

Mr. HERLONG. I want to compliment the gentleman on his statement, too. I think ho made a very fine statement.

On page 5 of your statement, you comment on your disagreement with the finality that the bill, as drafted, would bestow upon all determinations made by the Chief Executive. You suggest the possibility of judicial review, or in your next paragraph, congressional review, of the decisions made by the Executive in rejecting Tariff Commission recommendations.

Do you have any specific recommendations in that field as to how we might set up machinery for judicial review of a decision of the Executive rejecting a recommendation of the Tariff Commission?

Mr. ASPINALL. Of course, here again I am not an expert in this particular field, but I understand that in most instances decisions of the Executive, the administrative department, or even decisions of any of its agencies, can be made subject to appeal and review by the judicial department. All I have in mind here is to see to it that there is a place of last resort for an individual, who is hurt because the intent of the law or the letter of the law was not followed, to go in order to see whether or not there is a finality to the decision of the Executive. Mr. HERLONG. I am one who agrees that the Congress should not give up its powers unless there is some compelling reason to the contrary. You, yourself, stated that the President of the United States knew more about the need for this type of things, and why he made his decision, than anyone else could possibly know about it. The Constitution reserves to the President the handling of our international affairs.

I am just wondering, if we take this power away from the President are we not depriving him of the constitutional power that he has to conduct our international affairs?

Mr. ASPINALL. Of course, my friend from Florida has placed his finger on a very delicate situation and you will notice that I have made just the suggestion, I have not been able to offer any amendments in this respect. It is something that will require great care and attention.

But I would contend again that the freedoms of the people of the United States repose in the legislative branch of Government and not in the Chief Executive.

Mr. HERLONG. Thank you.

Mr. KING. Are there further questions?

Mr. BETTS. I want to join the compliments which are being paid you, Mr. Aspinall.

I have just one comment in respect to judicial review. I assume that you would accept the provision in the bill which would permit the entering into agreements. I think you would want some sort of review by the Tariff Commission on the escape clause, plus Presidential review, plus the judicial review of that. Is that correct?

Mr. ASPINALL. That is correct.

Mr. BETTS. Just to throw out a suggestion, it would seem to me the President has been in the picture in entering into agreements and if there is judicial review it might be well to substitute it for presidential review after action by the Tariff Commission.

Mr. ASPINALL. I doubt if under our constitutional procedure we should try to displace the President, at least from his final responsibility.

Here again I have not had time to study this through but it just seems to me that the people who are hurt, and the executive branch of Government finds that they are hurt, should have someplace to go to see whether or not the decision made by a branch, by an agency of the executive Government itself, should be maintained or whether the Chief Executive should be able to override the equitable and studied decision of his own agency.

Mr. BETTS. That is a good subject for speculation.

It just occurs to me that the President has been in the picture in entering into the agreements and it is going to prolong the agony if you are allowed to go from the Tariff Commission to the President to judicial review.

Mr. KING. Are there further questions?

Mr. ALGIER. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KING. Mr. Alger.

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Aspinall, on page 2 you mention the bill should be amended to contain such safeguards as will be necessary to assure the survival of domestic mining and minerals industries. Then you turn to another subject.

In this statement, do you have suggestions as to what such safeguards should be?

Mr. ASPINALL. The provision of my bill, 9965.

Mr. ALGER. Your bill contains those safeguards?

Mr. ASPINALL. For lead and zinc, and other industries could follow like provisions when they are in this danger and where the national security as well as the welfare of our economy are concerned. Mr. ALGER. Thank you. I will check that bill.

Mr. KING. If there are no further questions, the committee wishes to thank you again, Mr. Aspinall.

Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much.

Mr. KING. Mr. Strackbein, the committee is pleased to see you again before it. You are not an unfamiliar person in this committee's deliberations.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF 0. R. STRACKBEIN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONWIDE COMMITTEE ON IMPORT-EXPORT POLICY

Mr. STRACKBEIN. Mr. Chairman, I may say that I, myself, am happy to have the opportunity once more in the course of the consideration of this legislation to appear before this committee.

I have a written statement which, because of its length, I will have to cut down. It will be very difficult for anyone looking at the statement to follow me because deletions occur here and there. So I just hope that it will not inconvenience you too much.

Mr. KING. Do you wish to have your entire statement in the record? Mr. STRACKBEIN. If I may, yes.

Mr. KING. Without objection.

Mr. STRACKBEIN. The present trade proposal as embodied in H.R. 9900 represents a sharp departure from the tariff legislation since the first Trade Agreements Act was passed in 1934.

It is very important, therefore, to mark the principal departures so that they may be considered on their merits.

Before embarking on that path, however, it seems in order to consider the general background and philosophy that led to the shift in direction and to the desertion of principles previously so strongly asserted and advanced as specific virtues of the existing program. The unceremonious abandonment of certain principles that were previously so highly regarded and seized upon as keystones of justification for the trade program should have some justification of their own other than a mere desire for change or a plea that times have changed. Time and change are not generally considered as damaging the validity of, say, the Ten Commandments. Principles remain even when circumstances change.

What is advanced as justification seems to be the demands of the present-day world as it presumably shudders under the "Democlean sword," as represented by nuclear weapons. This could conceivably justify a qualitative change in policy; but we were confronted with the same nuclear challenge in two previous administrations, and they did not see the need of so sharp a departure.

In

Three explanations might then logically be suggested. One would be that the present group of officials charged with the conduct of foreign affairs is considerably brighter than its predecessors. other words the principles previously adhered to were wrong right. along, but no one was bright enough to detect their fallacies.

The second would be that the previous principles themselves were no more than pawns put into play for the purpose of gaining support for the free-trade philosophy; and having advanced 80 percent of the way and come to a virtual impasse, a new device is now needed in order to go forward.

This would represent a species of statecraft that shifts position or direction when the Congress has found the range of the accustomed position; or that prepares new promises when old ones have been so shattered by noncompliance that they are beyond repair.

The third possibility could lie in the unsoundness of the new suggestions themselves. This is a possibility that needs close scrutiny. Those of us who have been in close contact with the trade program are keenly aware of the numerous solemn statements made by Presidents, Secretaries of State, and other Cabinet officials, from Messrs. Roosevelt and Hull on through 25 years, asserting that it was not the intention of the grade program to injure or jeopardize domestic industry. A great virtue was made of the care and caution by which the tariff would be reduced. The approach was to be one item at a time. If errors were made, and this was conceivable because it was even then foreseen that the State Department was not infallible, or if unforeseen developments should result in injury, there was a remedy in the escape clause. Mr. William L. Clayton, former Under Secretary