markets as "dumped" or "subsidized" products at prices with which we cannot compete, because we have an entirely different type of relationship, both by law and by custom, with our skilled American workers than do some nations which have a different ideology and relationship to their workers.

In the past 20 years our industry has been involved in at least five dumping investigations. The last two involved shipments from Poland. Whatever relief, if any, we have obtained has been, to put it bluntly, "too little, too late". We are convinced that the Treasury and the Bureau of Customs both have taken an inordinate and totally unjustified length of time to provide relief, if indeed it is provided at all.

We spent years of effort to obtain a ruling that foreign cast iron pipe and fittings must be marked with the country of origin. Why shouldn't ALL products be so marked so as to prevent commingling of foreign with domestic products with the result that American purchasers are unable to make a choice between domestic and foreign-made products? For years foreign-made cast iron soil pipe and fittings were not marked in this respect simply because the Treasury erroneously included them in an excepted category in which they should not have been included. What reason is there for us to believe that if Treasury is given the discretion it now seeks it will exercise better judgment than it has in the past? We do not believe that it will.

Now, let me tell you of our most recent unhappy experience with Treasury. Since June 23, 1969, four years and nine months ago, we have had pending a petition for the imposition of countervailing duties for cast iron soil pipe and fittings imported from India. No relief is yet in sight although we have furnished positive evidence of subsidization by the government of India. So, you can easily understand our industry's deep concern with respect to Title III of the pending

bill.

An article dealing with our petition appeared in the press following testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee in 1973. This article was published in the August 14, 1973 issue of American Metal Market. A copy is attached as Exhibit 1. It gives an objective and fair resume of the events which have transpired since our petition was first filed in 1969. I request that a copy of it be received into the record. I also submit for the record a copy of one of the documents which we presented to Treasury and which makes it abundantly clear that India does, in fact, make a substantial subsidy available to exporters of Indian-made cast iron soil pipe and fittings to the American markets. See Exhibit 2.

When we pursued this matter, Treasury officials stated that a matter of "policy" was involved but they never told us what that policy was. Members of the House Ways and Means Committee inquired as to why the Secretary of the Treasury had not acted but they were not given a meaningful answer either. See Exhibits 3 and 4 attached. Upon pursuing the matter further, top ranking administration officials advisd us that they hoped to gain such wide latitude in discretionary areas under the pending bill that they did not propose to take any action under the law as it now stands.

The law currently provides for the mandatory levy of countervailing duties once the Secretary of the Treasury has announced that the country of origin has provided a subsidy. Unfortunately for us, however, the law does not set any time limit within which Treasury must complete its investigation as to whether or not there was payment of such subsidy. This permits Treasury to avoid the levy by not making the announcement. In our case there is really no need for any substantial investigation-certainly not one of almost five years duration because Treasury could have confirmed the information which we provided on this subject within a matter of a few days.

We believe that the Executive Branch of the Government is not going to make such findings but, on the contrary, will keep the investigation on the "back burner" until it is granted the discretionary power which it is seeking and that when this is done the discretion will be exercised to the detriment of American manufacturers.

The House, in its consideration of the bill, decided to delete the provision for the exercise of this discretionary power but still permitted a suspension of the countervailing duty requirements for a period of four years during negotiations ander the provisions of this bill.

Even so, we are greatly concerned that the Administration will attempt to interpret this suspension as granting it authority to exercise its own discrenon as to whether, if at all, and in what situations, if any, the imposition of

30-229-74-pt. 4———7

countervailing duties will be undertaken. That appears to be what it actually is doing now rather than enforcing the mandatory provisions of the law.

Now I would like to speak specifically to several amendments which we be lieve to be required to protect American industry from what may be a serious curtailment of the protection which Congress obviously intends for it to have. Section 303 (a) (1) provides that "the Secretary of the Treasury shall determine within twelve months after the date on which the question is presented to him, whether any bounty or grant is being paid or bestowed". This section should be amended so as to require the determination to be made within six months instead of twelve. There is no reason why the time element should be so long and there are many why it should be as short as possible to minimize the disruption of the American market.

We are much more deeply concerned, however, with Section 303 (a) (4) which provides that "whenever . . . the Secretary concludes from information presented to him . . . that a formal investigation is warranted he shall forthwith publish notice of the initiation of such investigation in the Federal Register". Please note that there is no time limitation whatever as to when, if ever, the petition must be presented to the Secretary for consideration. Publication as to the initiation of the investigation should be required within some statutory period of time. We suggest that such publication in fairness to all parties, take place within 30 da s after an industry files a petition for the levy of a duty. We are driven to the inescapable conclusion that Treasury wants to have complete freedom to take whatever action it wants to, wherever it wants to, or to take no action whatsoever! It must not be permitted to so thwart the will of Congress.

We also believe that Section 321 likewise be amended so as to require publication of notice of the initiation of an investigation within 30 days following the filing of a petition. The Tariff Commission already has a statutory limitation of only three months to investigate and to decide the question of injury in those cases in which the Treasury has found that dumping exists. Business judgments must be made expeditiously. Why can't the Treasury accomplish its task within seven months?

We also believe that Section 321 (b) should be amended by omitting the words "or in more complicated investigations within nine months". I do not know exactly what the term "more complicated investigations" is intended to mean. I suspect that it may be interpreted to mean that the Treasury shou ́d be granted a substantially longer period of time to investigate complaints involving exports from Socialist countries. From our experience with dumping cases involving Polish exports, we see no justification whatever for granting this additional period of time. The present law does not differentiate between nations and there should not be any special circumstances (such as unwillingness to furnish information) which can be interpreted as involving "more complicated investigations". The grant of power to substantially extend the period of time for the completion of investigations which are loosely characterized as "more complicated" simply creates a fertile field for granting extensions of time for little or no reason at all. The American businessman has to meet many deadlines in dealing with the Executive Branch. Why should not it be required to meet a few deadlines itself when deciding whether to grant relief or not to do so?

Mr. Chairman, this brings me to one final point. Our experience in the Polish cases has demonstrated the fact that, in dealing with certain nations, no one knows the values of their currencies or their actual production or distribution costs: nor how they compute their sales prices either for domestic consumption or for export. All foreign trade is conducted through state trading companies which are government owned and controlled. As we understand it, Treasury contends that it cannot readily obtain information necessary to properly investigate dumping or subsidy charges. This is a sad commentary. If foreign exporters who send their merchandise to this country for sale in competition with American-made products will not tell the American government whether their products are being "dumped" or being "subsidized", as the case may be, then there is a very simple answer. Their products should be denied entry until they provide such information. We, the American businessmen, realize that we must compete in our own markets with foreign-made products but aren't we entitled to start out on a somewhat equal basis?

Our only hope for relief is with the Congress. The members of Congress are the elected representatives of some two hundred-ten million people, each of which has a right to come to you when he believes he has been ill-treated by the Executive Branch or any other agency of the Federal Government and to seek your aid. That is why I am here, as the representative of my industry. We have full confidence that you will give careful thought and attention to our problem. We also hope that you will find some way to convince the Executive Branch (particularly Treasury) that when you, the Congress, enact a law providing that the assessment of countervailing duties are mandatory, after payment of a subsidy by the exporting country is established, you mean exactly what you said when you enacted the law and that Treasury has no alternative but to follow that law.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, March 27, 1974.]

TRADE REFORM ACT OF 1973

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 1974

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 2221, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Russell B. Long presiding. Present: Senators Long, Hartke, Ribicoff, Byrd, Jr., of Virginia, Nelson, Bentsen, Bennett, Dole, Packwood, and Roth.

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing will come to order. Other Senators will be along in a few moments. In fact, we expect rather full attendance this morning.

Meanwhile, I believe we should commence this hearing. This morning we are honored to hear from a great leader of the American labor movement, Mr. George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO, accompanied by Mr. Andy Biemiller and Mr. Nat Goldfinger, representing the largest of our labor organizations in America.

All witnesses have been instructed to confiine their remarks to a summary of principal points in their written brief. The 5-minute rule for Senators will be in effect during the first round of interrogation.

Senators who wish to interrogate the witness for a longer period of time may utilize the executive room, after the witness has been interrogated by other members of the committee.

Mr. Meany, it is always a pleasure to have you with us, and I would suggest that you identify your assistants in somewhat fuller manner. Mr. MEANY. Mr. Andrew Biemiller is the director of legislation in our legislation department. And Mr. Goldfinger is head of our economic department.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very pleased to have you here, Mr. Meany, also Mr. Biemiller and Mr. Goldfinger. We will be pleased to hear your statement.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE MEANY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR & CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, ACCOMPANIED BY ANDREW BIEMILLER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATION, AND NAT GOLDFINGER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF RESEARCH

Mr. MEANY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The AFL-CIO welcomes the opportunity to appear before this committee to discuss the need for new trade legislation to meet America's problems in the rapidly changing world of the seventies.

Perhaps no period of history in this century, outside global war, has brought the avalanche of international changes which has occurred in this past year.