had something in their mind, for instance that they are going to create an agency or reach in there and get some money and to further usurp the powers that the Congress should have in this respect. I appreciate what the gentleman has said and I want to compliment the committee, especially our chairman, for the promptness in which he took hold of this thing and brought about this relief, but I still want to say I certainly am not pleased with the attitude of the Department in wanting to put this indefinite, broad language in there which would permit the use of that fund that this Congress does not contemplate would be used and which I feel Sure the Congress would vote against being used even for this worthy purpose. I shall vote for the conference report, of course, but I cannot resist the opportunity to say that the Congress is making a mistake in adopting a precedent by including this broad language in the bill.

Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

it is hardly within the realm of reason to believe that a new farmer would go into a drought area and begin farming operations, if that is what the gentleman has in mind.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. I agree with the gentleman on that; it is not what I have in mind. What I have in mind is simply this: That although there has not been much said about it on the floor, this drought disaster is not only affecting the farmers and the ranchers, it is affecting the little business people all over that section of the country. Many of them are leaving those areas and are hunting for employment. Some of them cannot find employment, and many of them will have to turn to farming in order to feed their wives and children, and the thing I want to do is to see that those people, whether they be veterans or whether they be citizens, who have come from farms and work in filling stations, for instance, who will return to the farms, will not be discriminated against insofar as being able to maintain

Mr. TRIMBLE. I have received a communication from a constituent as to whether or not he comes under the provisions of this so that he may keep his own cattle and buy feed, and if he would be allowed to purchase his neighbor's disaster cattle under this loan?

Mr. HOPE. I do not believe it is contemplated that under this legislation loans will be made for a man to expand in the cattle business unless it were deemed by the local committee that this would enable him to carry on his existing operations in a more effective or efficient way. I can see that there might be some situation where a local committee which is administering the program might decide that was the case; but certainly it is not contemplated in general that this program will be used to finance someone who is going into the cattle business more extensively than he is at the present time.

Mr. TRIMBLE. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOPE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. I do want to clarify one point in reference to subsection (b) that we were speaking about a moment ago. When this bill left the House there were two conditions precedent to a man's eligibility to participate in this fund. One was that he had lived in an area that had been declared a major disaster area under Public Law 875, 81st Congress. The other was that The other was that the Secretary found that he was suffering from an economic disaster also. Now am I correct in that understanding? Mr. HOPE. Yes; that is correct. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Now then, the conference report places one more condition precedent, making it three, the third condition precedent being that he must be an established farmer or rancher in order to participate.

Mr. HOPE. I think that was implied originally. It is in there now in specific language. Of course, it seems to me that

try is concerned. That is my interest. Mr. HOPE. I would not want to say that a person in the situation described by the gentleman from Texas would be eligible for a loan under this provision. I think he might be eligible for a loan under the regular Farmers Home Administration program, but I do not think this legislation was designed to encourage nonfarmers to go into the farming business in a drought area. I would very much question any program which did have that in mind.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. I certainly would not subscribe to a policy of trying to send people into a drought area, because they could not possibly survive, but it is the people who have been on the farms and gone to town and worked, the people who have been born on the farm, taken into service and returned; many of those boys will come back into the domestic economy of this country in the next year, and they have in the past two years, and those boys will have to have some place to turn, and I simply do not want to put a bulwark against them, because I think they are entitled to the same rights as others.

the emergency and then advancing this legislation with the minimum of delay.

Mr. HOPE. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the conference report.

The previous question was ordered. The conference report was agreed to, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

CUSTOMS SIMPLIFICATION ACT OF 1953

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 327 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 5877) to amend certain administrative provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 and related laws, and for other purposes, and all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and shall continue not to exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be considered as

having been read for amendment. No

amendment shall be in order to said bill except amendments offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Amendments offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means may be offered to any section of the bill at the conclusion of the. general debate, but said amendments shall not be subject to amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion, except one motion to recommit.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. COLMER] and yield myself 15 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is known as the customs simplification bill. I rise to urge the adoption by the House of House Resolution 327, making in order the consideration of the bill H. R. 5877, to amend

Mr. HOPE. I appreciate the gentle- certain administrative provisions of the man's comments.

Tariff Act of 1930 and related laws, and

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. I thank the for other purposes. gentleman.

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Speaker, I asked the chairman, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. HoPE], to yield to me for the purpose of expressing my gratitude for his promptness in preparing and pushing this much-needed legislation through the Congress. The bill was considered in committee only a week ago today, and it appears that it will be on the President's desk tomorrow. There are some provisions that are not entirely satisfactory, but in the main the measure is, in my opinion, a good one. It will give the Secretary of Agriculture authority to expand the loan program in the disaster area and will provide for sale of feed for livestock at prices in keeping with the emergency that exists. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. HOPE] has been most zealous and cooperative in recognizing

This resolution provides for a closed rule, waiving points of order against the bill. Amendments may be offered at the direction of the Committee on Ways and Means, and 2 hours of general debate have been scheduled.

The bill H. R. 5877 proposes to modernize the existing customs laws by applying sound and well-tried business methods to the administration of these laws. In addition to simplifying the entire customs procedures-and this is a very technical bill-this bill is designed to reduce expenses to the Government and to the public, and to cut down on the delay and minor irritations that are now part of the normal customs experience of the average citizen.

The bill has had the benefit of the combined suggestions of the Department of the Treasury and the Bureau of the

Budget, and is the result of extensive and intensive hearings on the part of the Committee on Ways and Means. President Eisenhower in his state of the Union message mentioned that one of the aims of his administration was to simplify the customs regulations, and this bill does just that.

The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed to answer to their

Abbitt Addonizio Bailey

Barden

Barrett

Chatham Chudoff

I do wish to correct one possible mis- Becker apprehension which arises from the fact Betts that the statement was unintentionally Bray made during the hearings before the Rules Committee that there is nothing controversial in the bill. While that is quite true as to the bill in its present form under this resolution, several Members have asked that I call attention to the fact that there is a controversial committee amendment which will be offered in due course.

Mr. Speaker, I know of no one who opposes the rule itself. I hope the House will adopt House Resolution 327 so that the House Membership will have the opportunity to consider this bill on the merits.

As to the controversial measure, I understand that this particular measure refers to countervailing duties, where if there are in some other country two or

Coudert

Cretella

Davis, Tenn. Dingell

Dollinger Dolliver

Donohue

Donovan

Mack, III.

Durham

Miller, Calif.

Evins

Miller, N. Y.

Westland

Morano

Wheeler

Morgan

Moulder

Multer

Mumma Nelson

Fine

Fino
Fogarty

Granahan
Green
Hand

Widnall Wigglesworth Wolcott Young

The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 333

countervailing duty which will offset the amount of the grant or subsidy given by this foreign country to the particular item that is being imported into this country. Under the amendment as proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. EBERHARTER] the Treasury will not be required to impose a countervailing duty but shall impose a countervailing duty only when some industry complains and then proves that there is an injury as the result of the importation of this commodity on which a foreign subsidy has been paid.

There is no test as to what shall be considered injury, how material the injury shall have to be, or anything else, so that if we adopt this amendment it will be entirely discretionary with the Treasury Department as to whether a countervailing duty shall be imposed.

Let me make it clear that although the Treasury Department does favor the amendment that is to be offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, yet it is not, on the other hand, insisting upon it.

There is also a very serious question as to whether the amendment should be considered as part of a simplification bill. In my judgment it would be well for the that we can maintain the customs sim

a quorum.

By unanimous consent, further proceedings under the call were dispensed with.

plification bill as a simplification bill.

I have taken so much of the gentleman's time only because of the fact we will not have time for a general discus

While asking for the adoption of the rule, I reserve, as far as I am concerned, the right to oppose the committee amendment on that score.

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SCOTT. I yield.

1953

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, when the point of no quorum was made, I had reached the point of indicating that I knew of no one who opposed the rule, and I hoped that the House would adopt

Mr. House Resolution 327 so that the mem

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. I think it is unfortunate that both in the Ways and Means Committee and also in the appearances before the Rules Committee there was some misunderstanding as to the status of this amendment that will be offered as a committee amendment. We were told in the committee, for instance, that those who had originally been opposed to this amendment had withdrawn their opposition. Acting upon this assurance, the Ways and Means Committee adopted the amendment. I should add that it was not adopted in the committee by any unanimous vote, as I think the author of the amendment and its proponents in the committee will agree.

It also is my understanding that before the Rules Committee it was suggested that there was no opposition to this amendment. There is very strong opposition to this amendment.

CALL OF THE HOUSE

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. Obviously a quorum is not present.

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I move Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House.

A call of the House was ordered.

bership would have an opportunity to consider the bill on its merits, and I had just raised the point that I had been informed that there was one controversial committee amendment, on which there is considerable difference of opinion, having to do with certain countervailing duties, and I now yield to the gentlemen from Wisconsin [Mr. BYRNES].

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, as I suggested previously, there was in the committee, and I think there was before the Committee on Rules, a misunderstanding with respect to one particular amendment that was offered in the Committe on Ways and Means by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. EBERHARTER). The impression was left in the Committee on Ways and Means, and I believe also before the Committee on Rules, that there was no particular objection to this amendment. That is not a fact. There is considerable objection. This amendment is objected to, and quite vigorously, in some quarters, It relates to the matter of countervailing duties and the obligation of the Treasury Department to impose countervailing duties in those cases where a country grants a subsidy or a bounty or a grant of some kind in connection with the exportation of some item into this country. Under the present law it is mandatory under section 303 of the Tariff Act of 1930 that the Treasury Department shall impose a

have received a great many telegrams and letters and telephone calls regarding this provision of the bill, and an increasing number are coming in, a great many protests. I do hope this provision Will be eliminated from the bill. It is Very dangerous, I think. Messages have

come from boot and shoe industries and from labor in various industries. The

following is one of the telegrams I have received from northern industries.

BOSTON, MASS., July 13, 1953. Hon. EDITH NOURSE ROGERS,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.: Understand H. R. 5877, Customs Simplification Act, will be voted today. Urge you vote against adoption of countervailing and reimport duty amendments sponsored by Eberhart and know which would be a serious blow to New England textile mills and employment in textile centers.

WILLIAM F. SULLIVAN, President, Northern Textile Association. Mr. EBERHARTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. EBERHARTER. I just want to advise the House membership that the Treasury Department recommends the inclusion of this provision in the bill, and I quote this language appearing on the letterhead of the Treasury Depart

ment, Washington, D. C., signed by an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury:

For the present the Treasury Department believes that the one addition to H. R. 5106 which it would now recommend is an amend ment to section 303 of the tariff act providing that countervailing duties should be imposed only where injury exists or is threatened to a domestic industry. The Department suggests consideration of the enclosed

draft amendment to section 303 of the tariff act which would accomplish this purpose.

We have the positive recommendation of the Secretary of the Treasury. It is the exact language also, I may say, which

the Treasury Department submitted in this instance. I may also say that this very provision was contained in the bill which passed this House in October 1951. There was no objection whatsoever to it

at that time. I see no reason whatsoever for any objection to it at this time.

No representations since we passed that measure in October 1951 have been made contained in a law. May I add that the same provision is contained in the Antidumping Act. If the people in industry in this country want to operate under the theory of tariff, this is exactly what this

in objection to the provision's being

Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PHILLIPS. In order to make

this brief, may I associate myself with the gentleman from Wisconsin in his statements and say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. EBERHARTER) that he is in error that this has always

been non-controversial. There was objection to in the past. We in agriculture have always felt that this could be damaging. The commodity groups asked for hearings on it before the committee that these points might be points might be brought out. We have felt so not only in agriculture in regard to the basic commodities but with finished products. This could, in effect, and if I had the time I could develop this thought, completely destroy the textile industry. In other words, it is a serious enough matter to make me feel, as the gentleman from Wisconsin does, that we should not adopt it as we are proposing to do today with the thought that it is noncontroversial because it is highly controversial and could be destructive.

Mr. SCOTT. In further reference to what the gentleman has said, there is no objection to the rule or to the bill as it is before us now so far as any of us have heard, but there is objection on the part of some Members to the committee amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. SCUDDER].

Mr. SCUDDER. As far as the rule is concerned, I believe there should be some objection to it because the only source of amendment would be from the committee itself. According to the inAccording to the information we have, the committee has an amendment which would be very detrimental to American industry. few years ago, it was reported that one of the Mediterranean countries shipped enough subsidized nuts into this country

A

to wreck the nut industry throughout the entire United States. If we are going to permit them to subsidize crops with ECA money to bring such crops into this country and undersell American produced crops, we will have nothing but chaos ahead of us.

Mr. SCOTT. Of course, I can say to the gentleman that some people think we have been subsidizing nuts for 20 years.

That is to prevent just such matters as this from being offered. If it were an open rule, then everybody, including myself, would have some amendment they wanted to offer that would give relief to or assist some industry in their particular area. So we have to have a closed rule. But here we have a modified closed rule, giving the Ways and Means Committee an opportunity to offer these particular amendments that are sponsored

ested in these nuts. Mr. SCUDDER. But, we are inter- by the committee. Under those circum

Mr. SCOTT. But I do not think the

gentleman is correct in saying that we have to oppose the rule. I think the rule should be adopted, and if Members do not like the committee amendment, they can vote it down. they can vote it down.

stances I think it would be unwise for the House to follow that up by adopting

such an amendment which is highly controversial.

When the matter was considered be

fore the Rules Committee. I did not know the import or the implications of this

I yield to the gentleman from North particular amendment that was to be Carolina [Mr. JONAS].

Mr. SCOTT. I thank the gentleman. The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

offered here. I only learned of it this morning. This amendment, as I understand, really would be implementing a bill which the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. EBERHARTER] had previously introduced, sometime last month. It would be very far-reaching in its effect. I think, for the benefit of the House, I might call attention to it so the Members will understand it. The substance of that amendment, as I understand itand if the gentleman from Pennsyl

vania [Mr. EBERHARTER] does not agree, I should like to know it is to amend section 303 which is, in effect, a form of an antidumping act. The language is as

myself 10 minutes. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield follows:

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOTT], I believe, stated that this is a closed rule, with the exception that the committee may offer certain amendments. This is not an unusual procedure, except in the matter, I believe, of the excess-profits tax rule. We did not follow that. The rule, as was explained, makes in order a bill for the simplification of the customs law. It is a very technical and a very complicated bill, and has to do mostly with administrative matters. However, as has already been pointed out, the testimony before the Committee on Rules was largely to the effect that this being a simplification of the collection of customs type of legislation, that there was no controversy about it; but it has deno controversy about it; but it has developed that there is considerable controversy, at least about one of the amendments which is proposed to be offered under the procedure provided by the rule. That particular amendment, as has been observed, is the amendment which I understand is being sponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. EBERHARTER). I think this amendment poses a very serious question. It is a matter which statements here show was not thoroughly considered by the Committee on Ways and Means. In fact, I understand from one member of the committee, and a very influential member, that possibly it was not thoroughly understood at the time. I think it would be very unwise when we get into the consideration of this legislation, and that amendment is offered, to adopt the amendment under these peculiar circumstances, these extraordinary circumstances. Of course, on a matter of this sort, you have to have a closed rule.

Such countervailing duties shall be imposed only after the Secretary of the Treasury shall determine, after such investigation as he deems necessary, that an industry in the United States is being or is likely to be injured or is prevented or retarded from being established by reason of importations into the United States of articles of merchandise of the class or kind in respect of which the bounty or grant is paid or bestowed.

At first glance I did not understand that it included agricultural products.

Mr. EBERHARTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. COLMER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. EBERHARTER. I may say to the gentleman from Mississippi that I am only the front man for this amendment. This is an amendment suggested and recommended by the Treasury Department, by the Secretary of the Treasury; so that while I am officially the sponsor of this amendment, I want it understood by the membership on both sides that it represents the recommendation of and is the amendment as drawn exactly by the Treasury Department.

Mr. COLMER. If the gentleman will permit me, I should like to congratulate him as a member of the minority selected to sponsor an amendment by the ad

ministration.

Mr. EBERHARTER. I will admit that

the Treasury Department is absolutely right in this instance. Experience has taught us that one can be right as well

as wrong.

Mr. COLMER. I congratulate the gentleman, but even with all the love and respect I have for him, it does not

change the situation so far as I am concerned.

Mr. EBERHARTER. Will the gentleman yield to me once more?

gerous and should be defeated. I shall vote against it myself.

Mr. COLMER. It, of course, would affect the wool industry in his section,

Mr. EBERHARTER. Is the gentleman speaking on the rule or on the bill now? The gentleman wishes the rule to be adopted, does he not?

Mr. COLMER. I am speaking now because I realize from past experience that this perhaps will be the only opportunity I will have to speak on the amendment.

Mr. EBERHARTER. But the gentleman is speaking on the merits, the essentials of the bill?

Mr. COLMER. The merits of that particular matter.

Mr. EBERHARTER. And it has plenty of merit.

Mr. COLMER. So far as the rule is concerned I am for the rule; I think the rule ought to be adopted, but I do not think the amendment should be adopted. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COLMER. I yield.

Mr. McCORMACK. I feel pretty much the same way that the gentleman from Mississippi does on this amendment, that it would be unwise to adopt it. None of us know how far-reaching it is; there have been no hearings on it, and I was amazed and astonished when my good friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. EBERHARTER] read a portion of a letter received from the Treasury Department which recommended this amendment. It was hard for me to believe, because I remember during the past 20 years the Democratic Party fostered and nourished the wool business. Boston is the great wool center of the world, particularly of the United States, yet here we have the present administration recommending an amendment that would be harmful not only to the whole industry, but in particular to the wool industry in Boston.

I want the RECORD to show that during the last 20 years we Democrats gave proper protection to the wool industry. Most of the big financial supporters of the wool industry are members of the Republican Party, and I am astonished that one of the first things attempted by the Republican administration is to sponsor an amendment which would seriously impair the wool industry of Boston and New England.

Mr. COLMER. Permit me to say in reply to my friend from MassachusettsBoston-the great wool city, that this would not only affect wool but it would also affect every other commodity and every other article under similar circumstances.

I promised to yield to my friend from Texas [Mr. FISHER], who was first on his feet.

Mr. FISHER. I have listened with much interest to what the gentleman said about the amendment which the gentleman from Pennsylvania proposes to offer as a committee amendment. I think it has already been demonstrated by the expressions from both sides of the aisle that that amendment is dan

others.

Mr. FISHER. The gentleman is exactly correct; it will affect hundreds of industries all over the country. If the gentleman will permit, I should like to pursue this just a little further.

Reference was made a moment ago to these subsidies practiced by certain foreign countries. I have in mind two examples. I am particularly familiar with the situation in Uruguay and Argentina in this regard. Both of them, I think, have subsidized the export of wool and wool tops, wool tops being raw wool which has been processed to a certain point. That enabled those people to come in here and sell below the usual price they otherwise would sell for after paying the tariff. It put scores and scores of people in the wool-tops industry of this country out of business. Thousands and thousands of unemployed workers have been walking the streets for 3 years because their plants were forced to close. That has been going on for several years. It is a very serious thing. It has resulted in a severe hardship to American woolgrowers.

As I see it, this amendment would simply have the effect of legalizing what is made illegal under section 303 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

Mr. COLMER. And further encouraging such actions. We should not do it. Mr. FISHER. I agree with the gentleman; it would encourage them, and, even more, would appear to put the stamp of legality upon an act which has actually circumvented the laws of the United States. Now, it will help Peron, it will help Uruguay, it will help certain other people where they want American dollars and where they are willing to subsidize these industries to get them to dump their products in this country and sell below cost of production in order to get those American dollars and get certain advantages in international trade as a result. It is not fair competition. Fair competition is where all are treated alike; yet here you have foreign countries subsidizing their exporters to enable them to come in and impose a system of unfair competition on American industry.

Since 1949 there has been an increase in imports of wool tops to this country by more than 1,000 percent. This was due to the subsidy given to the exporters by their governments. Section 303, which the Eberharter amendment would virtually destroy, protects American industry against such unfair competition by requiring countervailing duties-in the amount of the export subsidy-to be imposed. So I think the gentleman is absolutely right and sound in his opposition to this amendment. I do not think it is very well understood, or it would not have been brought here. It seems very clear to me that it should not be the purpose of the Committee on Ways and Means or of this Congress to attempt to bail Mr. Peron and others out and legalize what the laws of the United

States say they cannot do; that is, to subsidize and thereby circumvent the laws as they apply to dutiable goods brought into this country.

Mr. COLMER. The gentleman has made a very valuable contribution to the possible defeat of this amendment when it comes up for consideration.

Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COLMER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. RILEY. I wish to commend the gentleman from Mississippi and the gentleman from Texas on the statements they have made. Any amendment that is as far reaching as this and has the results that this one will have should be given further study to see where we are going before we vote on it in the House. As a great deliberative body I do not think we should take anything at its face value without studying it and arriving at a conclusion as to what will be the effect of it. As I understand it, the President has considerable power in reference to this and he can use that authority; then the Congress can make a deliberate study and reach a conclusion in regard to the matter.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COLMER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SCOTT. I want to clarify one thing about the Treasury Department draft. As the gentleman will note, this controversial amendment is not in the bill at all. The reason it is not in the bill is because while the provision was contained in one of the Treasury drafts it was omitted from the bill by action of certain responsible members of the majority party. It was later reintroduced and carried by a 1 vote margin.

Mr. EBERHARTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCOTT. It is not in the bill. Let me finish my statement. I would like to finish my thought.

Mr. EBERHARTER. I do not think the gentleman means to give misinformation to the House.

Mr. SCOTT. I do not.

Mr. EBERHARTER. I have listened to quite a bit of misinformation in the last few minutes.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi has expired.

Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 additional minutes.

Mr. SCOTT. I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts but I wonder why he said he favors what he states is the policy on the part of his leadership and why in that case he seemed to be critical of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. EBERHARTER), who has my sympathies, in view of the statement made by the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. EBERHARTER. I do not know where the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOTT] got any idea this was passed by a close vote. Certainly I do not think he knows anything at all about what happened in the committee. My opinion is altogether different as to the narrowness of the vote and the difference between those opposing it and those

favoring it. We had hearings on this particular provision 2 years ago. It was recommended 2 years ago by the Treasury Department, it was accepted and a bill passed in this House without any votes against it. No representations have been made to the committee and as far as I know, it was recommended again this year in public hearings. It was adopted in the committee and is here as a committee amendment.

There have been some statements made that are altogether foreign to the subject. It was my intention, Mr. Speaker, to debate this issue in general debate. My theory is, and I think the theory that has always been accepted is, that the tariff, whether you are a high tariff advocate or a low tariff advocate, is asked for the purpose of protecting American industry. If you read this amendment which will be offered as a committee amendment it says that, as to every industry affected by subsidies in a foreign country which is injurious or likely to be injurious or retarded in its establishment, the Secretary mandatorially must impose a countervailing duty. What is the matter with that? Mr. DORN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COLMER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

That hap

Mr. DORN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the gentleman from Mississippi on bringing this matter to the attention of the House. A lot of us represent great textile and woolen industries sections. That happens to be the principal industry in my district and in the whole State of South Carolina, and I understand the same is true in some sections of Massachusetts. Our people have not been informed about this amendment. They do not know the repercussions and the implications at all. All they want is to be heard on this matter, and I regret that the amendment that comes up as a committee amendment, is here without a thorough airing of all sides of the question as to whom it will affect and how. I compliment, again, the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

and extended hearings so that the people can come in and show what its effect is and how disastrous its passage might be. Mr. NICHOLSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

turning back the menace which now confronts the free world. Not only must our leadership be able, discerning leadership, but above all it must be courageous. It must be a leadership of faith,

Mr. NICHOLSON. I understand that you could, under this new provision or proposed amendment, send cotton to a foreign country, raw cotton, on which there would be no duty, and they could make it into cloth and send it back to the United States, the only additional cost being labor on the product, which would drive out most of our cotton mills, not alone the woolen end of the business. I think that is pretty generally understood.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi has expired. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCORMACK].

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, it is not only a marked coincidence, but fortunate and important, that the Big Three Foreign Ministers, Secretary Dulles, of America; Lord Salisbury, of Dulles, of America; Lord Salisbury, of Great Britain; and Georges Bidault, of France, are meeting at the present time. For this meeting takes place while significant events are occurring in Communist-dominated satellite nations and even in the Soviet Union itself. Out of the meeting should come a marked reduction in any areas of differences that exist between nations opposed to communism and who want to be free from Communist domination or control. I assume there will be an evaluation of present conditions in the world, and particularly behind the Iron Curtain, and the establishment of unity and of affirmative policy and action to take advantage of the tensions in the ranks of communism. Above all, it is to evaluate properly the meaning of the incidents behind the Iron Curtain, the desire

Mr. FISHER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, I think, very frankly explained the situation here when he said he did not realize there was opposition when his amendment was offered in committee, and therefore there were no hearings on this particular issue. As a matter of fact, there was tremendous opposition as is evidenced here this afternoon. The American Wool Growers Association made a formal request for a full-dress hearing on this issue in the event it should be considered by the committee. They had no opportunity to be heard. This is not an amendment, actually, pertaining to customs simplification; it is an amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930, an entirely different subject. It goes to the root of a very vital issue, and it certainly seems to me, if it is going to be pursued and considered, it should go back to the committee and there it should be the subject of open

women, and the great moral origin that influences that desire and is the beginning of that desire.

I assume policies will be agreed upon consistent with the strong desires of the consistent with the strong desires of the people of Poland, Lithuania, Czechoslovakia, and other Communist-dominated nations to be free in accordance with the will of the people of those countries, through a free and secret ballot, as well as a free, united Germany. For it is my opinion that this is the time for America, Britain, France, and other free nations to present a united front based on strength and not on weakness; on faith, not despair; on confidence, not fear, to the Soviets so there will be no misunderstanding as to where the free world stands.

This is the time when the leaders of the free world must be far-seeing, constructive, and above all, courageous. The leaders of the free world must give such leadership if we are to succeed in

strength.

The policies of the past 5 years are now commencing to show their beneficial results. Our policies are based on a belief that countless millions behind the Iron Curtain want freedom, and in the Communist-dominated countries they want independence.

Merely kind words will not be enough. As a matter of fact, merely kind words might result in disappointment, disillusionment, and loss of hope for outside aid.

The position of the United States has been consistent. We have not recognized the absorption into the Soviet Union of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

Our consistent position is that the people of Poland should regain their independence and freedom and decide their own form of government through a free ballot. This same policy applies to other Communist-dominated countries, with a united Germany in which the people can express their will through a free ballot.

It is apparent that opportunity presents itself now. The eyes of the world are upon the conferences that are being engaged in to see whether or not the opportunity is grasped and the advantages that exist developed and exploited.

In my opinion, the best defense is an effective offense, whether in actual war, a so-called cold war, or in the war of the minds. This is the time for affirmative, not negative, policies and actions.

As the representative of our country sits in these conferences, I think I speak the mind and the heart and the sentiment and the voice of all of my colleagues, whether Democratic or Republican, when I say that in the policies they might establish that will bring about a peaceful world, that will drive back communism and bring liberation to peoples now dominated, both parties and the people of America will support them.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. JONAS].

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I take this minute for the purpose of inquiring from the gentleman from Pennsylvania if he can tell us whether there was a hearing relative to the merits or demerits of the Eberharter amend

ment, and if there were no hearings, certainly I for one would be opposed to supporting that amendment because it carries with it such far-reaching implications. What is the answer? Were there any hearings or any data considered or was nothing said about the amendment during the hearings?

Mr. SCOTT. It is my understanding, after consultation with a member of the committee, that there were no hearings nor was the question raised until the matter came up in executive session.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. Then this is an amendment of original impression here without any hearing whatsoever on its merits?