Secretary DULLES. Yes, sir. Senator KERR. Mr. Secretary, I thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate your frankness and the clearness with which you have responded. Secretary DULLES. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Williams. Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Secretary, as I understand it you interpret the language of this bill to require the administration to use import quotas whenever necessary as regards the petroleum industry, is that correct? Secretary DULLES. Would the Senator repeat his question? Senator WILLIAMS. I was trying to reaffirm what you said. It is my understanding that the language of this bill more or less carries instructions to the administration to use import quotas on the petroleum industry or products if necessary, at any time, is that correct? Secretary DULLES. The legislation is not absolutely mandatory in that respect, but it certainly Senator WILLIAMS. It would place an obligation upon you to do that. Senator KERR. If necessary. Secretary DULLES. An obligation to do it if necessary, yes. Senator WILLIAMS. My next question is does that language restrict you to petroleum products only or is that applicable to all other products that are produced by American industry? Secretary DULLES. It is not limited to just petroleum products but other extractive goods. Senator WILLIAMS. And you would interpret that same language to cover any product produced in America irrespective of its connection with petroleum? Secretary DULLES. Yes, sir. Senator WILLIAMS. Or anything else? Senator WILLIAMS. No other questions. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Frear. Senator FREAR. Mr. Secretary, I well remember the few short months that we served together in the Senate several years ago, and since that time you have gone farther and higher and traveled many places around the world, and of course, we are still struggling along here. Secretary DULLES. Senator, can I say that I am not sure that there is anything that is much higher than being a Senator, and occasionally when some people call me Senator Dulles, I just swell with pride. Senator FREAR. You know that makes me feel mighty good. During the last few months I have had the feeling that I'd wake up some morning to find that the President had delegated the Secretary of State to take off from Cape Canaveral for a diplomatic mission to the moon. Seriously, I admire your fortitude, Mr. Secretary. Secretary DULLES. Thank you. Senator FREAR. In your statement a few moments ago you said, "We have used only a very small portion of the authority granted by Congress.' Why do you think then that you need additional authority? Secretary DULLES. The additional authority is required because of the fact that if we find an area where it is mutually advantageous to reduce, we may have to reduce more in that particular area than is now authorized by the law. Senator FREAR. You mean a greater percentage in a given period of time. Secretary DULLES. No, in respect to particular product. You see, Senator, we had, I think, for the last 3 years, did we not, 15 percent reduction. Senator FREAR. Yes. Secretary DULLES. Now it is not possible to have a 15-percent reduction across the board basically for two reasons. One is that we are stopped by peril points and the other is that we cannot get an adequate quid pro quo, so that the points where you can have a negotiating area are quite restricted. If you do find those areas, you may have to cut deeper in that particular area than would be authorized by the present authority. Senator FREAR. I think I understood what you said but I am not quite sure that there isn't in present authority that which you are seeking and that which you just said. However, I shall take your word for it if you say that you cannot. I was under the impression that with certain restrictions, however, you could act independently of one country, with one country or with one product to a greater degree than if it was 5 percent or a total of 25 percent. Secretary DULLES. No. As I understand it you cannot cut any one product below the stipulated percentage, and I should point out of course that the authority unless renewed expires on June 30. Senator FREAR. Yes, sir. Then of course that brings up the very simple question would you not approve of a simple extension rather than making it permanent? Secretary DULLES. A simple what? Senator FREAR. Extension. Secretary DULLES. A simple extension? Senator FREAR. Yes, extend it for 1, 2, or 3 years instead of the 5. Secretary DULLES. Í have given good reasons I think, Senator, why we think we do need an extension for more than 1 or 2 years. Senator FREAR. Yes, and that I gathered was for the permanency of the thinking of other countries, not too much on our own thinking, because I have always thought that you and the people around you were capable of doing the thinking for us and we do not have to have that long period to think. But is that really your basis, so that they can have a longer period on which to judge and say, "We are not going to back out on any agreement within the next 24 hours, or anything like that"? Secretary DULLES. There is a general reason which I gave and a particular reason. The general reason is that we feel that this broad policy has sufficiently demonstrated its worth over the past 24 years that it justifies a longer extension and not creating at such rapid intervals the period of doubt and uncertainty which leads other countries to wonder what we are going to do and perhaps to search for alternatives to trading with the United States, because the principal alternative to trading with the United States is trading with the Soviet Union. The second is the particular reason in relation to this so-called Common Market in Europe. Senator FREAR. And I interpret that to mean that the countries with whom we deal have lessened their confidence in the United States in their operations. Secretary DULLES. They do not have confidence in the trade policies of the United States unless the basis for that confidence is created by the Congress. Senator FREAR. Yes, and I am glad to hear you say that. Secretary DULLES. If the Congress creates lack of confidence, there is no way we can restore it. Senator FREAR. Of course I recognize the fact that the administrative branch carriers out the policies and principles and thinking of the legislative branch in this, but then I can say the same thing regarding the legislative branch. Do you think it would impair our position with the countries abroad if we extended this for a shorter period of time than 5 years? Secretary DULLES. Yes, sir. Senator FREAR. You do? Secretary DULLES. No doubt about it. Senator FREAR. Suppose the Congress expressed a different opinion. Would you be willing to abide by their decision? Secretary DULLES. Certainly. Senator FREAR. And how serious a handicap do you think it would be? Secretary DULLES. I think it would be serious. I cannot read the future, but I would certainly say it would be serious. Senator FREAR. You said in your prepared statement, and I quote: I believe that most people in this country look upon the program as continuing and permanent and it would in my mind be unthinkable to discontinue it. Are you saying, Mr. Secretary, that it is your proposal and that of the administration that this should be made permanent? Secretary DULLES. No, sir. We propose that it be renewed for 5 years. Senator FREAR. Yes, sir, but that does not just quite gibe with your statement. Secretary DULLES. One is a statement of my own views and my opinion. Senator FREAR. Yes, I recognize that. Secretary DULLES. Át the end of 5 years it will be renewed again. Senator FREAR. Then you and the President may not agree on this? Secretary DULLES. I think we do agree. Senator FREAR. Is it his opinion then? Does he believe the same as you do according to that statement? Secretary DULLES. The President believes, I think as strongly as I do and perhaps more strongly than I do that the policies represented by this act are sound and should be a permanent part of our foreigntrade structure. Senator FREAR. Then as far as this committee is concerned, you could have said it is the belief of the administration instead of making it personal? Secretary DULLES. I think so, yes, sir. Senator FREAR. Do you have any serious objections to the removal of section 6? Secretary DULLES. That was not in the bill which the administration originally sought. Senator FREAR. That is right. If it is removed would you have serious objection? Secretary DULLES. We have indicated now that it is acceptable to us, and I think that it would probably not be in the interests of the legislation to remove it. Senator FREAR. I am just trying to get the degree of seriousness from you, Mr. Secretary, that is all. I mean how formidable is this, expressing it in degrees of seriousness? Is it serious or not? Secretary DULLES. Is what serious? Senator FREAR. The removal of the section. How serious would you consider it to be if section 6 were removed? Secretary DULLES. I would not want to express an opinion about that because that requires a judgment about the legislative position in the House which I do not feel I am competent to render. Senator FREAR. I know, but we need your judgment here, sir. I do not want to press you too far, but I am doing my best to. Secretary DULLES. I am delighted to give my judgment about matters that I know about, but I am not an expert judge about the legislative climate here in the Congress. I have to work on other matters than that, and to ask me for an expert opinion as to what I think the impact would be upon the House of taking out a provision which they have overwhelmingly adopted and which the administration agreed to, that I have no expert opinion about. Senator FREAR. Do you want to just make a simple "Yes" or "No" statement as to whether you have any serious objection to the removal of section 6? Secretary DULLES. I would not want to make a "Yes" or "No" answer to that because that deals with a field as to which I do not feel competent or qualified to speak for the administration. I said on coming here that I came here primarily to speak about the foreign policy aspects of this legislation. You are going to have the Secretary of Commerce here this afternoon I guess and others who are more familiar than I am with the domestic aspects of it. Senator FREAR. That is true, Mr. Secretary, but you know these people have a lot of respect for what you say. Secretary DULLES. I think if they have respect for me it is because I try to take care of my own knitting and I do not get into things I do not know about. Senator FREAR. That is a wonderful policy, and I admire you for that. However, then do you want to venture to say that this section 6 is a good proposal? Secretary DULLES. I do not want to speak to that at all, Senator. You can get other people who are far more qualified than I am to speak to that. Senator FREAR. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. That is all, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, I was very much interested in the responses you made to Senator Kerr and Senator Williams as to the area of importations you would regard as dangerous to national defense. Secretary DULLES. Where is that? Senator KERR. Under section 7, I believe, of the act of 1955. The CHAIRMAN. An amendment relative to this subject was inserted by the Senate Finance Committee I think 3 years ago. Secretary DULLES. Three years ago the section read: * has reason to believe that any article is being imported into the United States in such quantities as to threaten to impair the national security. The CHAIRMAN. What I wanted to get from you is, what articles would be included in that definition? In other words, what importations would threaten the national security? Secretary DULLES. I think you are going to have other people more qualified than I am to testify on that particular point. There are a number of commodities, petroleum and petroleum products is certainly one, the other essential metals, lead, zinc, and the like, are those that come immediately to my mind. There are undoubtedly quite a mass of others, but the ODM would be able to advise you about that much better than I could. My advice would only be casual as things come to my attention. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment was adopted 3 years ago. Has there been any investigation as to importations that would impair national security? Secretary DULLES. Yes, several. The CHAIRMAN. Could you give a list of them, and explain why no action has been taken. Has any action been taken under this section except on a voluntary basis? Secretary DULLES. Action has been taken on what you might call a semivoluntary basis with respect to petroleum, for example. The CHAIRMAN. There has been no mandatory enforcement of reduction in these importations; has there? Secretary DULLES. You are speaking now about petroleum? The CHAIRMAN. I am speaking of anything under that section. I would like to know whether we have taken any action to reduce these imports? Secretary DULLES. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What were they? Secretary DULLES. Petroleum. The CHAIRMAN. That was voluntary; was it not? Secretary DULLES. The quotas were accepted voluntarily by the companies. The CHAIRMAN. Were those quotas carried out? Secretary DULLES. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. There has been complaint made to me that they were not carried out. Secretary DULLES. The quotas were designed to reduce the imports to a given percentage of out total production, and actually the imports as I understand it are even less than what was sought by those regulations. |