and indifferent that we will not obey the prompting of our own conscience, and the true wishes of the vast majority of our fellow compatriots? Or, are we going to be courageous enough to answer the call and take action on this vital legislation?

Mr. Speaker, I fervently pray that we can muster enough brave souls to support the rule and proceed with the debate of this vital question of aid to our own American industries.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. VURSELL].

Mr. VURSELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I think it is vital that the Congress have an opportunity to discuss and consider this legislation. Mr. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. DAWSON].

Mr. DAWSON of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at some of the argu

ments which have been made here today

in opposition to this rule. The gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER] read a statement from the State Department, and, as I remember his remarks, he said he was surprised at the leadership in permitting this measure to reach the floor.

It has always been my impression that we were sent here to represent the people and to make the laws for the State Department. If the gentleman from New York is correct, then every time the State Department sends a directive down here we must crawl into our shell and remain silent.

Mr. Speaker, my first concern is to my people in the State of Utah and the thousands of unemployed miners there and I don't intend to stand idly by and not protect their interests. The State Department is interested in foreigners throughout the world but as for me, I am going to vote for this rule to give some protection to my home folks and I hope the rest of you will do likewise.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mentioned the wrong gentleman from New York.

Mr. DAWSON of Utah. No, I mentioned the right gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLAR], who referred to the directive from the State Department. But I might also add that the gentleman from New York [Mr. JAVITS] seems to share his views.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. REGAN].

Mr. REGAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and hope that as a matter of fairness the House will adopt the rule and give us an opportunity to describe the provisions of the bill and its merits. As I stated yesterday in expressing my opposition to the tremendous appropriations for foreign aid, we have with our taxpayers' dollars been building up a strong competitive system in foreign countries that is beginning to show its effect in creating unemployment throughout our land that if not curtailed through the passage of this bill H. R. 5894 and kindred legislation in protection of our national economy, we are bringing upon our people a most

serious calamity and era of great unemployment.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the passage of this rule. In all fairness to the Members of this House and the working people of this country, even those who oppose the legislation, should vote for the rule which will give this House the opportunity to distill the issues in the transparent flask of public debate.

My remarks are directed, particularly and specifically, at section 11 (a) of the bill with respect to part I, title III of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, new section 322 (a) (2). That new section provides that the total quantity of residual fuel oil which may be imported into the United States in any 3 months shall not exceed 5 percent of the total domestic demand for residual fuel oil in the United States for the corresponding 3 months of the previous year. Paragraph (b) (2) of this new section provides an escape clause which allows the President to modify or suspend the 5-percent limitation whenever he finds that the total supply of both residual fuel oil and coal is inadequate to meet the needs of the Nation. Frankly, I do not feel qualified to discuss the merits and demerits of the other phases of the legislation.

It should be made plain at the outset that this residual fuel oil, to which I am confining my remarks, is not the fuel commonly used in home heating plants. Rather, it is a thick, greasy substance which results as the end product of the refining process and which is usable as a fuel only by large utilities and industrial plants.

The critical nature of the situation is best reflected in a few cold figures, the authenticity of which cannot be challenged. Since the year 1946, the annual imports of residual oil have increased from 45 million barrels to 159 million barrels. This latter figure is the equivalent of approximately 31 million tons of coal, and current import figures indicate that about 53 million tons of coal will be displaced during the year 1953 unless something is done to restrict these imports.

The total displacement of coal since 1946 has resulted in a loss of coal revenue of approximately $673 million, about half of which would have gone as wages into the homes of miners. During the same period, the railroads which carry this coal have sustained a freight revenue loss of $360 million, of which $181 million would have gone as wages into the homes of railroad workers.

In my Sixth Congressional District, this unfair foreign competition has already been keenly felt. ready been keenly felt. The principal traffic of the three Pocahontas railtraffic of the three Pocahontas railroads-the Norfolk & Western, Virginian, roads the Norfolk & Western, Virginian, and Chesapeake & Ohio-is bituminous coal, and the revenues of these carriers have already declined markedly due to the reduction in coal traffic occasioned by the dumping of foreign residual oil

along our coast. This decline in revenue is of serious concern to my constituents, for the economy of my district is inseparably interrelated with the financial health of the Pocahontas railroads.

The Norfolk & Western's general offices are located at Roanoke, as are the shops at which the railroad's motive power and many of its freight cars are fabricated. The Chesapeake & Ohio has extensive facilities, including yards and shops, at Clifton Forge, and the Virginian has a large yard at Roanoke.

All together, these railroads employ 10,957 persons within the Sixth district alone; and out of a population of about 338,000 in that district, it is estimated that approximately 36,000 persons are directly supported by railroad wages. This is over 10 percent of our population, and it is impossible to calculate how many other businesses and how many other workers depend upon these railroad people as patrons and consumers. In short, railroading is the principal heavy industry of my district, and any decline in coal traffic is directly felt not only by railroad employees but by our farmers, grocery men, barbers, theater owners, retailers and wholesalers, and those who depend upon them for their jobs.

It is extremely regrettable that the issue of administration loyalty should be interjected here. I am willing to place my record of loyalty to the administration alongside that of any Member of the House, and I intend to continue that loyalty so long as it is consistent with my personal convictions. Indeed, the President has always made it plain that he does not expect or desire that degree of loyalty which compromises personal principle. Accordingly, whenever I am compelled to make a choice between fidelity to the administration on the one hand and what I conceive to be the welfare of the people whom I was elected to represent on the other hand, I intend to make the latter choice.

I realize that the international freetraders in our country call everyone who talks about tariffs or quotas economic isolationists, but I am not too disturbed by the epithet. Neither am I overly impressed by the argument that import restrictions curtail American dollar exports, and that this injures our foreign policy program. I do not conceive it to be the burden of industry and the industrial worker to finance, by submitting to unfair competition from abroad, the foreign policy of the United States. This country, in all its economic might and Christian beneficence, cannot hope always to be throughout the world its brother's keeper. We must, for the sake of self-preservation, draw the line somewhere. And here in this bill before us is one of the places to draw the line, because whatever might be said in the overall picture in favor of American purchase of cheap foreign products, the dollars in this case are going into the pockets of wealthy foreign oilmen and they are coming out of the pocket of American coal miners and railroad workers.

The economic strength and the military security of this Nation depends to a great extent on its national resources

and on its ability to transport these resources from point of production to point of consumption. Each must be guarded against unreasonable economic assault from without. I urge this committee to restore a fair and proper balance of competition between domestic and foreign industry in this vital area of our national defense.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time on this side to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. RAYBURN], our minority leader.

Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, there is no one in this House who could be more in sympathy with distressed industry than I am. It appears to me, however, as wise a committee as we have in Ways and Means, that it could bring forth legislation here of some kind that might give relief to these distressed industries and not rip up the whole reciprocal-trade program practically by the roots.

The gentleman from New York [Mr. REED] spoke about people being employed in this country. These people are not going to remain employed unless we trade with the remainder of the world. Everyone who has ever studied the economics of this situation knows that money does not cross the ocean to balance trade between country and country. It is goods for goods. And if we raise barriers against the trade and commerce of other countries we thereby raise barriers against trade and commerce of this country.

The thing I really wanted to say is this: I find myself again in the peculiar position as the leader of the minority, the opposition party, in support of your Treasury Department, in support of your State Department and in support of your President, because each and every one of them has thought this bill so destructive to the people of the United States that each and every one of them has announced that he is opposed to the bill.

Where, oh where, is the leadership on the Republican side? Not one of them has risen in his place to say that he is supporting the President of the United States and this Republican administration. The gentleman from New York [Mr. REED], of course, is chairman of the great Committee on Ways and Means. But he is not supporting the President on this matter.

I was just wondering if I could not tease somebody on the majority side who stands in a place of leadership to get up here and say whether or not on this rule and on this bill he is supporting his own President.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. VAN ZANDT].

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Speaker, the question at this time is whether the House of Representatives will be given an opportunity to discuss H. R. 5894 on the floor of this House under the traditional procedure of this legislative body.

We merely ask for that opportunity to debate the issue and to show justification for the legislation we seek.

Anyone who wishes to oppose the bill will still be able to vote to delete any

or all of the provisions of which he objects.

Many of you are familiar with past efforts to protect the coal industry from excessive imports of residual oil.

Several years ago, when the shipments of foreign residual oil into this countrywere but a trickle-as compared with today's deluge, our efforts to establish a quota limitation were defeated by a small margin.

Today the need for restrictions is many times greater, as United States Bureau of Mines figures will confirm.

Imports of residual oil rose from 442 million barrels in 1946 to 742 million barrels in 1949 to 129 million barrels in 1952. Translated into coal equivalent, the figures were 102 million tons, 18 million tons, and 31 million tons.

These imports have so usurped coal's industrial markets on the east coast as to have critical repercussions in the Nation's leading coal-producing districts. Thousands of miners are unemployed, and many thousands more are working only 1 or 2 days a week.

Ghost towns are arising in this period of otherwise vigorous industrial activity.

Railroad workers who depend upon coal traffic for their livelihood have been relegated to the ranks of the unemployed, and the impact is reflected in affiliated industries and in local business houses.

Yes, foreign residual oil has brought unemployment and destitution to thousands of American citizens.

I call your attention to further serious consequences that are of vital consideration to the Nation as a whole, especially in this time of uncertainty and crisis in international affairs.

Mr. Speaker, excessive imports of of residual oil are placing the security of this Nation in great jeopardy.

I submit that it is extremely hazardous to place reliance upon a fuel that would not be available in a national emergency.

During World Wars I and II, a considerable number of ships were lost in attempting to transport petroleum products from the gulf coast to ports along the Atlantic seaboard.

Under no circumstances would it be rational to attempt to utilize tanker space and convoy service to the shipping of a low-grade fuel such as residual oil in time of hostility.

As in the last war, coal would again be expected to carry an increasing part of the energy load in order that other fuels could be devoted to the powering of the war machine.

But if coal mines continue to close, to become flooded and otherwise deteriorate, and if miners are forced to migrate away from coal communities in search of employment, as a result of the unfair competition imported from foreign lands, the necessary acceleration of coal production, to satisfy demands of an allout war, would not be possible.

As I said in the beginning, all we are asking for is the privilege of discussing asking for is the privilege of discussing the provisions of H. R. 5894. Therefore, I hope that all of you will support this rule.

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

Mr. VAN ZANDT. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. PERKINS. I wish to take this opportunity to compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. VAN ZANDT] for his splendid work in behalf of the coal industry. His statement translating the imports of residual oil from the year 1946 to 1952 in terms of coal tonnage certainly should be convincing evidence to the membership of this House for the necessity in adopting this rule. The loss of 101⁄2 million tons back in 1946 was not too much of a worry, but the importation of more than three times as much residual oil today from the Caribbean area as was imported in 1946 certainly deserves the consideration of this House. I am hopeful that the rule will be adopted.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has expired. Mr. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. JENKINS).

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, in this discussion on whether this rule should be adopted it is a strange fact that not one of the Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means has said one single word against this rule. The only opposition to this rule on the Democratic side is from the minority whip, and my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCORMACK] and the minority leader, another distinguished Member and a thorough gentleman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. RAYBURN]. Now, I do not have time to answer these two distinguished gentlemen except to say this

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

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

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, with all kindness I do not yield. I said that no Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means has spoken against this rule today. That is à fact, is it not? Why do you want to take up my time? Is that not a fact? Of course it is the fact and that is what I want to make clear. Not a one of you on the Committee on Ways and Means has said a word about this rule. And listen, I want to compliment you. I want to compliment these gentlemen for having performed as they did, because they sat in on all the hearings leading up to the action of the committee when it voted out the bill and prepared for asking for the rule. They knew everything that any of us knew when we were asking for the rule. We have done one thing in connection with this rule that has seldom been done before, so far as I know. Heretofore it is an almost unbroken custom for the Ways and Means Committee to ask for a closed rule. Frequently many Members would complain and say, "Why does the Committee on Ways and Means always get a closed rule?" We have heard that complaint many times. And this complaint has not been without justification. But now this is an open rule and it would seem to me that this rule should be adopted.

Staggers

Stauffer Steed

Tollefson
Trimble
Tuck
Utt

Van Pelt

Stringfellow Taber

Van Zandt

Talle Thompson, Mich.

Velde

Vursell

Wampler Warburton

NAYS-183

Mr. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of the time to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HALLECK]. { Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions I have been interrogated as to my position on this bill, and Thompson, Tex. Weichel the position of the President and the administration. I have constantly said that the administration is against this bill and I have said that I am against it. That is still their position; that is still my position. I do not think it avails anything to go into any further discussion about it at this time, but I want to make that statement for the RECORD at this time.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution.

Mr. RAYBURN and Mr. KEAN demanded the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were-yeas 219, nays 183, not voting 29, as follows:

Adair
Addonizio
Alexander

Andrews
Ashmore

Ayres
Barden

Becker

Bennett, Fla.

Wickersham
Wier

Williams, Miss.
Williams, N. Y.
Willis

Wilson, Calif.
Wilson, Tex.
Withrow

Wolcott

Wolverton

Young

Nicholson

Norblad
O'Brien, Ill.

O'Brien, N. Y.

Passman Patman Patterson

Abernethy

Goodwin Gordon

Grant

Gubser

Gwinn

O'Hara, Ill.

Halleck

Hardy

Harrison, Va.

Hart

Pelly

Until further notice:

Mr. McCulloch with Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Oakman with Mr. Dingell.
Mr. Schenck with Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. Dolliver with Mr. Fogarty.

Messrs. FORD, O'NEILL, and CROSSER changed their vote from "yea" to “nay.”

Messrs. DONOHUE and PHILBIN changed their vote from "nay" to "yea." The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

DISBURSING OFFICER OF THE
MILITARY DEPARTMENT

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (S. 2078) to provide for the orderly transaction of the public business in the event of the death, incapacity, or separation from office of a disbursing officer of the military department.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That in case of the death, incapacity, or separation from office of a disbursing officer of any of the military departments the accounts of such disbursing officer may be continued and payments made in his name by his deputy disbursing officer for a period of time not to extend beyond the last day of the second month following the month in which such death, incapacity, or separation shall occur. Such accounts and payments shall be allowed, audited, and settled in the manner prescribed by law; and the checks signed in the name of the former disbursing officer shall be honored by the Treasurer of the United States, in the same manner as if the former disbursing officer had continued in office. The former disbursing officer, his estate, or the surety on his official bond, shall not be subject to any legal liability or penalty for the official acts and defaults of the deputy disbursing officer acting in the name or in the place of the former disbursing officer under this act, but the deputy disbursing officer and his surety, shall be responsible therefor under his bond. The bond of the deputy disbursing officer shall be an amount at least equal to the minimum amount of the bond required of the disbursing officer. The Secretary of the military department concerned may, from time to time, require the deputy disbursing officer to renew and increase his bond to the United States.

The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

A similar House bill was laid on the table.

COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN TACTICS IN TAKING OVER CAPTIVE NATIONS

Mr. KERSTEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection.

Eighth. With respect to certain lead and zinc articles, the bill provides additional duties on a sliding-scale basis whenever the domestic market price of lead or zinc falls below a specified base level.

Ninth. Finally, the bill requires the President to invoke the escape clause of the trade agreement with Switzerland in order to put into effect the recommendation previously made by the Tariff Commission with respect to watch movements.

The bill makes it clear that "substantial injury to workers, farmers, and miners”—and not only injury to the financial position of companies-is to be considered in escape clause and similar actions brought before the Tariff Commission. Companies can often ward off injury for a time by laying off their employees or shortening the work week; but this does not prevent injury to the employees whose pay is cut off or sharply reduced.

The President has said repeatedly that he stands for a higher volume of trade but not at the expense of our workmen, our farmers and our industry. He has always, in every official utterance, made that proviso. And that is all that this bill proposes to do. It seeks to safeguard our workers, farmers, miners, and producers against substantial injury where the tariff has been cut too far and imports threaten or actually cause unemployment, reduction in wages, curtailment of the work week, or financial loss to the operators of industry.

What could be more fair than this? Can anyone ask that we expose our industries to ruin from imports?

Well, some free traders go that far. They want us to reduce our tariff and keep on reducing it even if we destroy industries and branches of agriculture or mining enterprises in the process. Then they would try to transfer the unemployed into other industries, retrain them or put them on unemployment compensation. It is hardly conceivable to me that anyone, least of all any American, could advance such a proposal seriously.

In order to make their proposal appear reasonable and feasible the free traders try to show that only a very small part of our industry and agriculture would be affected. I say to you that a very essential and important part of

economy would be affected. I listened for 3 weeks to the witnesses of industry after industry, representatives of labor organizations, spokesmen for farmers and growers and mining interests.

I can tell you that it is not merely a small part of our economy that is vulnerable to import competition. Millions of workers in our factories, in our mines, in our fisheries, and on our farms are exposed to a kind of competition from abroad that they cannot hope to meet especially when our own production catches up with demand and surpluses begin to appear. As everyone knows, this has already happened in a number of industries and it has happened to our agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, many of these groups representing American industry and

Many of the groups which testified have had direct experience with the trade agreements program and with the administration of the escape clause remedies. It was their experience, gained over the past 20 years and particularly since 1951, that helped to shape the present bill, H. R. 5894. It does not contain all that they asked but it is a bill that is designed to adjust the administration of our tariff and trade policies to the realties of foreign competition.

To disregard the testimony and the judgment of these people would be to cast doubt not only upon their integrity and honesty but to question their intelligence and good sense. Having sat through their testimony and listened to their answers to numerous questions, I am unable to subscribe to such an indictment. They were good honest Americans speaking for our working citizens in all parts of the country. I take their words seriously. I do not think they were joking.

Now let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that H. R. 5894 is not in any sense a highthat H. R. 5894 is not in any sense a hightariff bill. It looks to the sensible safeguarding of the standards of our workers, growers, and producers throughout this country, not against fair foreign competition, but against the competition that finds its advantage in our market through low wages and low living standards in other parts of the world.

If you want to keep this country strong economically as well as strong in military defense you will vote for this bill. Other countries find their best market here when our own economy is strong and healthy; not when it is weak and beset by unemployment and demoralized by broken market conditions. Let import competition undermine the many domestic industries that are faced with imports and we will find our whole economy menaced.

Instead of stifling or reducing foreign trade by prudent self-defense, as represented in the provisions of the present bill, we will actually help to preserve it at a high level if we pass it.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, vital issues are at stake in the pending bill. We are now at a crossroads in our foreign economic policy. It is probable that there is no aspect of American policy which will be more important than the course which Congress chooses to adopt in our economic relations with the free nations of the world. The economic stability and, therefore, the political stability of these nations are at stake, and will be greatly influenced by the action which the Congress takes on this bill.

There is nothing that is more important to the unity, stability, and portant to the unity, stability, and strength of the free world than the foreign economic and trade policies of the United States. We are the center of the economic system of the free world. The pending bill would make fundamental changes, not only in the policy of the reciprocal trade agreements program, but also in its administration. It pro

petroleum products, lead, and zinc. Enactment of the bill would be a complete and outright reversal of United States trade policy as we have known it since the inception of the reciprocal trade agreements program in 1934. Enactment of the bill would also bring about a complete contradiction between our foreign economic policy and our attempts to unify and strengthen the free nations of the world under such programs as NATO, the mutual security program, and so on.

No study has been made of the bill looking toward its possible implications on our overall, long-range economic interests at home or abroad. Its sponsors are admittedly protectionists, and their only interest is in protection.

The bill has been brought to the House despite the opposition of six different governmental departments and agencies, and despite the opposition of the President himself. The President asked for a 1-year extension of the present trade agreements program without amendment, pending a comprehensive study of our foreign economic policy.

Secretary of State Dulles, in his appearance before the committee in opposition to a similar bill, stated that the present Trade Agreements Act should be extended 1 year without amendments, pending the study recommended by the President. He opposed the bill on which hearings were then being held and stated that it would not only enact special regulations on imports of petroleum, lead, and zinc, but it would basically alter the operation of the present trade agreements program.

I might say that I asked Secretary Dulles while he was before the committee the specific question whether he thought it would be better for the Trade Agreements Act to expire than to enact the Simpson bill, and he said "Yes."

Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations, Hon. Thruston Morton, in referring to the earlier similar bill and the hearings which were scheduled to be held thereon, stated:

The hearings will be held on a bill which would tear the vitals out of the present Trade Agreements Act. Adoption of such a bill would create consternation among countries of the free world and would lend credence to the Communist theme that the United States wants to sell but it does not want to buy.

Secretary of the Treasury Humphrey stated:

I would recommend against any action at this time to remove the stimulus to foreign exports which has been granted by the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. I do not believe that the United States should fall back at a time when we need the cooperation of all of the free world. What this moment requires is a measure to hold the situation open until the whole problem can be looked at. Extension of the act in its present form is, I believe, the measure required.

I doubt if anyone can seriously deny that there is a greater need today for a continuation of the reciprocal trade agreements program, unhampered and unrestrained by crippling amendments such as proposed in the pending bill, than ever before. In our own case, defense spending is soon to reach its peak;