From New York we have aluminum, optical instruments, bicycles, motorcycles, pottery, and glass.

From Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Virginia, Illinois, Iowa, Oklahoma, Alabama, Idaho, and Washington we have great coal-producing areas, and in these same States we have the bulk of the Nation's production of glass, pottery, clothespins, aluminum, porcelain products, tile, and clay products.

From Florida we have the citrus fruits, sponges, and vegetables. Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma are producers of heavy grade crude oil in direct competition with the type of oil being imported.

In Washington we find woodpulp and lumber. In California fruits, almonds, hops, fisheries.

In Utah, Nevada, Colorado, Montana, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Wyoming we find lead, zinc, and copper.

West Virginia is the Nation's largest producer of soft coal, which was so vital in winning World War II. Today the imports of residual fuel oil is fast destroying the market for coal in an area once a beehive of industry. It is fast becoming a scene of desolation, of ghost towns, where once stood thriving mining centers.

As of today in West Virginia a total of 198 mines have closed. Unemployed miners number 39,270. Of these idle men, 1 out of 3 have already drawn all of their unemployment compensation allowance. There is no other employment available in the area. In many mining towns as high as 75 percent of the families are on direct relief. Many of them own their own homes, only partially paid for, which they will lose if they do not find employment.

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BAILEY. I yield.

Mr. JENKINS. And is it not true that these men, literally thousands of them, travel by automobile, 4 and 5 to a car, from 75 to 100 miles a day to get a job?

Mr. BAILEY. That is true. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.

We

Coal is the basis of our economy in West Virginia. It involves 68 percent of our economy. We have lost on an annual basis 39,700,000 tons of coal production, which is 20 percent of the State's total production for 1952. Coal supplies one of the major sources of tax revenue for State and local governments. have a gross sales or production tax on coal. For 1953 this tax is $2 million less to the State alone. Due to the unemployment the State's consumer sales tax is off more than a million and a half dollars for this year. These lost tax returns will be sorely needed if my State is to feed these idle miners and their families estimated at more than 75,000 men, women, and children.

The loss of coal shipments affects our transportation industry. We have four major railroads, the Baltimore & Ohio, the Chesapeake & Ohio, the Norfolk & Western, and the Virginian, that cross our State from east to west. They haul West Virginia coal to tidewater at points such as Baltimore, Norfolk, Newport News, and Old Point Comfort.

In some instances the revenue from coal shipments on these roads is as high as 90 percent or better of their total revenues. If coal is not mined there is little need for coal trains and more than 9,000 need for coal trains and more than 9,000 railroad employees have been railroad employees have been furloughed. This added to our mine unemloughed. This added to our mine unemployment creates an alarming situation, a situation beyond the ability of my State-with reduced revenues-to meet more than a few weeks at most.

It is unthinkable that this Congress, after having been so generous in our gifts of wheat to Fakistan, and our Mutual Security Agency grants-in-aid to foreign countries can adjourn without doing something to meet this situation.

Relief committees have been set up in these stricken areas. Some Federal surplus foods are being rushed into the plus foods are being rushed into the State. I must remind you that our Governor is having to pay the freight charges on the shipments of wheat out of his emergency funds. We are paying the freight out of the United States Treasury on a million tons of wheat to Pakistan.

I am well aware of the strength and ruthlessness of the opposition we meet in this fight. The world oil cartel, of which three companies operating in Venezuela are a part, is well entrenched and its tentacles reach down through the industry to the local distributors, to farm bureaus, and other groups that are daily flooding the Congress with telegrams protesting the import quotas on residual oil.

fuel oil and crude oil products in order to protect the coal industry of France. Why then, may I ask, do we hear protests from the Members of this Congress that we, too, should impose quotas and increased import duties in order to protect our own coal industry?

Another instance of discrimination was brought to light in the newspaper only yesterday when the Attorney General on behalf of the Government filed suit against the Aluminum Co. of America to block their purchase of 1.2 billion pounds of aluminum in Canada. Is there anyone within the sound of my voice who is so naive as to think that this purchase is not being made with the intent to take advantage of cheap production costs in Canada, and import it into this country under the favorable conditions set up in the Trade Agreements Act with Canada? What about the hundreds of small aluminum producers in this country? Why does not the Aluminum Corp. of America produce this product in its own American plants?

The American shipbuilding industry is being adversely affected more and more each year by this type of imports which are being handled by ships in foreign registry. The loss of coal markets has reduced the demand for bunker ships and this has added to the plight of the shipyards. May I call attention to an announcement only yesterday by the head of Bethlehem Steel Shipbuilding Division that 11 of the company's ship

Mr. BAILEY. I yield.

Mr. ALBERT. Does the gentleman realize that most of the oil explorations in this country have been made by the independent operators and not by these large operators?

Mr. BAILEY. The gentleman from Oklahoma is exactly right.

I am also aware that this same world oil cartel has its friends in the Congress who are trying to justify allowing the Republic of Venezuela to dump millions of barrels of cheap residual fuel oil on the American market on the grounds that we owe it to the people of Venezuela.

They make a mockery of the term "reciprocal trade" by their restrictions on American imports. Within the past 30 days the Republic of Venezuela has increased its import duties on finished aluminum products by more than 650 percent. We permit this flagrant violation of our trade treaty with Venezuela and yet there are some who say we must continue to buy their friendship at the expense of destroying some of our basic industries in order to find them, and their American overlords, a market for what would be a waste product if they could not import it into this country.

Members of Congress are well aware that suit has been entered against this world oil cartel on the grounds that it is a monopoly controlling the distribution and price of crude oil and its derivatives.

There are other cases of discrimination against American products. The new Premier of France in order to protect the French economy has ordered increases in import duties on residual

closed unless new orders replacing this loss to tonnage can be found.

Going back once more to the question of coal, may I say that coal has always encountered strong competition within its own industry as well as with other competitive fuels. It has done this by many technological innovations and reduction in prices. Since 1948, the average price of bituminous coal at the mine has dropped from $4.99 per net ton to $4.88 per net ton in 1952. This occurred in the face of rising labor and supply costs. The result was the shrinkage in profit margins and in many cases turning profit margins into losses with the resultant closing of mines and laying off of mine employees. These things have permitted the coal industry to remain competitive and it will continue to remain competitive if given a fair opportunity to compete with other fuels.

The question might be asked, Is imported foreign residual oil fair competition? Is it fair competition when it is written into an industrial contract that heavy residual oil will be supplied at a cost below that for coal no matter what the price of coal may be? Is there any way that coal can overcome this type of competition other than the restrictions on imports?

Is it fair competition when prices on residual oil are cut to gain a given market area when this price is some two-thirds of the value of the crude from which it is derived? This difference, of course, is made up by increasing the price of the other derivatives of crude such as home heating oils, gasoline, and so forth. The result of this is that domestic consumers are burdened with the subsidy of an industrial industrial fuel-residual oil-supplied

from foreign sources. In every case, the answer to the above questions is "No." Coal has been able to compete and will continue to compete with domestic residual oil in all markets. It is only when excessive foreign imports of residual oil flood the market and force prices to unrealistic low levels that coal faces unfair competition. The only solution to this type of unfair competition is to impose equalizing import restrictions on residual oil as provided in the Simpson bill.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. DAVIS].

Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am interested in the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow] regarding a telegram received by him from Hon. William B. Hartsfield, of Atlanta, Ga., in the capacity of president of the American Municipal Association, which is the organization composed of the mayors of the cities throughout the Nation, and also in his capacity as mayor of the city of Atlanta.

I voted for the inclusion of these airport funds in the State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations bill, and like Mayor Hartsfield, I had hoped that Congress would see fit to add these funds to the bill.

I note from the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow] that he endeavored to reach Mayor Hartsfield by telephone but was unable to talk to him. He did talk to a representative of the American Municipal Association in the Washington office of that association.

Of course, I do not know what information the Washington representative of the American Municipal Association may have on the subject.

I am confident, however, that whatever representations Mayor Hartsfield made in the matter were based upon facts, and not hearsay. I know Mayor Hartsfield to be an active and vigorous advocate for whatever cause he espouses, and know also that he is not given to making unfounded or extravagant statements. I hope the gentleman from Ohio may have occasion to become better acquainted with Mayor Hartsfield. When he does, I am sure he will join me in the sentiments which I have expressed.

Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. BAKER].

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I favor the enactment of H. R. 5894. I am especially interested in the part of the bill which places quota limitation on import of residual fuel oil. The enactment of this legislation is in the national interest from the standpoint of security. Our Communist enemies have hundreds of fast, topnotch submarines under the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific. I doubt if a single tanker could escape the deadly torpedoes fired from these undersea vultures. So in case of outright war, which I pray God will not be visited upon us, the security of this Nation will depend on the production of coal and petroleum within the continental United States. Coal mines are closing by the hundreds. Many mines in the county where I live are not only closing, but they

are pulling the steel and letting the mines fill up with water. It takes from 4 months to a year to put an abandoned mine back in production, and when they fill up with water they can never be put fill up with water they can never be put back into production, in many instances. back into production, in many instances. Approximately 98 percent of this residual oil is imported from Venezuela and the Netherland Antilles. It is argued the Netherland Antilles. It is argued that passage of this bill would disturb our free relations with Venezuela. In 1952 free relations with Venezuela. In 1952 Venezuela exported $51 million worth of residual fuel oil. The 5-percent quota residual fuel oil. The 5-percent quota limitation would reduce this by approximately 78 percent, amounting to $40 million. There would be no effect on crude export from Venezuela to the United States. After the 10-percent quota limiStates. After the 10-percent quota limitation on all petroleum products controlled within the 5-percent quota limitation on residual fuel oil actually allows a small increase in crude and other products.

With a crude capable, by mild cracking, of yielding but 40 percent residual, what products has Venezuela been placing on the world markets and how do they compare with the demand?

While the free world increase in demand for petroleum products-1951 over mand for petroleum products-1951 over 1950-was 26 percent residual and 74 per1950-was 26 percent residual and 74 percent motor fuels, kerosene, and distillates, including diesel fuel, Venezuela and the Netherlands Antilles provided 74 the Netherlands Antilles provided 74 percent residual fuel oil and 26 percent motor fuel, kerosene, and so forth. Thus, while the world has been asking for one product, Venezuela has been profor one product, Venezuela has been producing another. If this trend continues, ducing another. If this trend continues, there is no limit as to the amount of this residual oil Venezuela can continue to produce and dump on our eastern seaboard.

The fact that the Venezuela and the Netherlands Antilles refinery products are badly out of balance with present-day oil demands, might have the problem of absorbing the reduction in United States imports to the oil companies by changing their refinery operations.

It has been said editorially: "Entirely too little attention has been paid to the havoc the restrictions would wreak in Venezuela." It would seem that just the reverse is true. The editorial fails to consider or devote even one sentence to the effect these foreign imports have on our domestic industries. The fact that these unrestricted imports are displacing these unrestricted imports are displacing coal, reducing revenues to the bituminous coal industry, reducing mine employment, miners' wages, traffic handled by the railroads, and wages of railroad employees, is not considered. To be sure, the importance of our foreign trade and relations with the South American countries must be considered, but so must the domestic coal and related industries of the United States.

Foreign residual oil has no place in the economic plan of this country. We do not need it and we shall never need it. Since the beginning of this flood of oil into the United States, our area in the Southeast from Charleston, S. C., down the eastern coast and all around, including Tampa, Fla., have lost 30 million tons of coal business to this type of competition.

Tennessee alone has 122 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves and that is

less than 2 percent of our national total. There is enough minable coal in this land of ours to last for more than 1,000 years and every fuel authority will tell you that a growing portion of our energy needs will have to come from these vast

reserves.

To permit the unnecessary debilitation of our coal industry at this time is not only imprudent policy, it is a dangerous policy. It is unfair to the people of every other State as well as to the people of Tennessee and other coal-producing districts.

I think that Congress should drastically curtail residual-oil imports and we must do it at once so that the coal industry can ready itself for the gigantic tasks that are on the horizon.

Some 6,000 miners are employed by the bituminous coal industry in the great State of Tennessee, Our coal belt extends from the north to the south borders over a width of about 60 miles, and the 17 counties in which coal is mined at the present time comprise almost half a million persons. Thus we have 25,000 men, women, and children in Tennessee obtaining their subsistence directly from coal, with the livelihood of many of the remaining residents of the coal area largely dependent upon this commodity. Tennessee is a TVA State in which hydro constitutes 46 percent of the total energy produced but coal still contributes 54 percent, and its share will be required annually to supply the steam plants in the TVA system. Since Tennessee is the home of Oak Ridge, it is also relevant to point out that projects under construction or planned by the Atomic Energy Commission during 1953 will use an annual total of about 23 million tons of coal, much of which will come from mines in Tennessee.

When these facts are brought to notice, coal's place in the overall energy perspective becomes quite apparent. No further evidence is needed to emphasize the necessity of keeping the coal industry in superior condition as it girds for the increasing service expected of it in future years.

This residual fuel oil is what remains from petroleum after the gasoline has been taken out of it and is a heavy black gummy substance. It is not used to heat homes or as fuel for locomotives or engines or small industrial uses. It is used to fire the huge boilers of very large utility plants, heavy industry, and ships. Ninety-eight percent of this residual fuel oil which is imported into the United States commercially comes from the Dutch Antilles and Venezuela, and yet Venezuela has very heavy tariffs on the importation of goods produced in the United States. One hundred and twenty-eight million barrels of residual fuel oil came into the United States in 1952, displacing the use of 31 million tons of American coal, resulting in a loss of coal revenue in excess of $150 million; the loss of coal miners' wages in excess of $75 million, the loss of railroad employee earnings at approximately $411⁄2 million; and the loss of approximately $86 million in railroad-freight revenues.

I have received hundreds of letters and telegrams from all over east Tennessee, eastern Kentucky, and numerous other

sections of the United States in support of quota limitation of residual fuel oil.

The United States Tariff Commission has said in a report on the residual fuel oil bill:

Any tendency of the restriction of imports of residual fuel oil to promote an increase in the price of that product would be limited by a possibility of important consumers of residual fuel oil shifting their consumption to coal and the probable effect of the proposed restriction of imports of residual fuel oil, therefore, would be to promote an increase in the use of coal.

Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, will Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BAKER. I yield to my colleague from Kentucky.

Mr. GOLDEN. I wish to compliment the gentleman from Tennessee who is now addressing us. I know that his committee had worked long and hard to bring this bill about. His district is very much like mine and I wish to emphasize the fact that in the discussion on the rule it was pointed out that approximately 8 million men were adversely af

fected by various imports of foreign

products. I know, as the gentleman who is now addressing the committee knows,

that more than 500,000 men work in and

around the coal mines and if you add to that approximately 200,000 men who work in the stores and commissaries and represent the companies, that nearly a million men are directly adversely affected in the coal industry alone by foreign imports. I believe that the gentleman will agree with me that more than 50 percent of the mines of America are now prostrate by reason of the importation of this foreign oil, and the rest of them are making little or no net profit.

Mr. BAKER. I thank the gentleman. It has been stated on the floor that labor organizations are against this bill. can certainly assure you that the United

Mine Workers of America are for it.

I

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has expired.

Mr. MACK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, in the past 7 years the American Congress has spent more than $30 billion of American taxpayers' money to carry on giveaway programs in foreign countries.

Even after the expenditure of this enormous sum of $30 billion on these giveaway programs there is still on hand, unspent, almost $15 billion which will be spent on further giveaway programs abroad during the next few years.

The 30 billions which these giveaway programs already have cost and the $15 billion already appropriated, which will be expended in the next few years to continue these giveaways become part of the national debt because we had to borrow money to carry on these giveaways. We are paying interest on that debt and the giveaway programs already financed are costing the American taxpayers almost a billion dollars a year in interest on that part of the debt which these giveaway programs cost.

Foreign aid, within limits, is a good thing but when we give away to foreign nations two score billion dollars we are going beyond reasonable limits even for a nation as rich as our own and are

imposing on the American economy, the American worker, and the American farmer unreasonably heavy burdens.

TOO MUCH FREE TRADE

Foreign trade is desirable and we should foster it. In doing so, however, we need not take down all barriers so as to permit the unrestricted flow into our country of goods from low-wage foreign countries. To do that is to imperil the American economy and the jobs of American workers.

The workers of Oregon and Washington are especially vulnerable to excessive imports from low-wage countries, and the Congress must, to preserve American jobs for American workers, place some

restrictions, either by tariffs or quota limits, on the influx of foreign goods produced by a low-wage foreign labor.

Because the Simpson bill, now under consideration, does place modest and reasonable barriers on too great a volume of imports from low-wage countries, I favor it.

Let us take a look at the plywood in

dustry which employs more than 35,000

workers on the Pacific coast. It is an

important industry to all who work in i or who supply it with goods or services. It is an important payroll industry in our Oregon-Washington economy. Without our plywood payrolls the entire economy of the Pacific Northwest would go into a slump.

In the first 3 months of this year, Japan, where plywood workers receive a wage of only 90 cents a day, shipped into the United States 14,531,760 square feet of plywood. Japan's plywood exports to the United States in that 3-month period were almost equal to the 17,343,330 feet of plywood which Japan shipped into the United States during all of last year. The volume of Japanese plywood exports to the United States for the first

3 months of this year, indicate Japan probably will ship almost 60,000,000 square feet of plywood into this country this year, or more than three times the amount she shipped into this country

last year.

The year 1954, in all probability, will see increased plywood imports for Japan is expanding her plywood industry. The United States is Japan's most profitable market. No reasonable man can believe that our Western plywood workers can or should be compelled to compete with the 90-cent-a-day-a day not an hourwage that prevails in Japan. Some barriers on plywood imports, either tariffs or quota limits, must be imposed to curb invasion of American the growing invasion markets by Japanese plywood. Unless such curbs are enacted, American plywood workers, eventually, will suffer unemployment.

THE FISHING INDUSTRY

Commercial fishing is the second largest industry in Oregon and Washington. It is being injured today by too heavy fish imports from low-wage foreign nations.

Nearly 1 can of tuna out of every 3 that is sold in the retail stores of America, today, carries a label saying it was packed in a foreign country. Before Pearl Harbor, Japan sold nearly 85 percent of all the canned tuna marketed in

the United States. Unless reasonable restrictions are imposed on fish imports, Japan's tuna exports to the United States again may equal 85 percent of the American consumption.

What becomes of our American canneries and American fishermen and canThe nery workers if that happens? plants will be out of business and the Many fishermen out of employment. American tuna fishermen have invested their life savings in boats and gear. They will lose all of this unless a larger share of the American market is preserved for them. They cannot compete with 90 cent-a-day foreign labor.

There are other fishing industries

which, also, are being effected adversely

by too much foreign low-wage competition-the bottom fishing industry and the oyster industry. The story with them is the same. They cannot compete with foreign low-wage wages and costs.

We should have a tariff on plywood, and fish products, that will compensate for the difference in labor costs abroad and at home or quota limits that will limit such imports to the historic pat

tern. We cannot afford to take all the

brakes off and let foreign low-wage competitors dump unlimited quantities of foreign goods on our market.

THE ALUMINUM INDUSTRY

The aluminum industry is an important one in Oregon and Washington for in these two States we, today, are manufacturing 40 percent of all the pig aluminum produced in this Nation.

The tariff on aluminum imported into this country from abroad, a few years ago, was 7 cents a pound. Today, through reciprocal-trade agreements and State Department directives, that tariff has been reduced to 12 cents a pound. Not satisfied with this great tariff reduction, freetraders, now, are moving to have this small remaining tariff removed and to place aluminum on the free list.

Foreign costs, for labor, supplies, and taxes, in Canada, Austria, and France, the countries which are heavy producers of aluminum, are much lower than in the United States. If we make it too easy for foreign aluminum to come into the United States, the future great expansion in aluminum making will occur in foreign countries not in the United

States.

will cause this new and growing industry to center in foreign nations.

We should encourage the development of this new industry in the United States because aluminum is vital to our security in war and important to our prosperity in peace.

I am very much interested, also, in seeing section 9, the section that pertains to clarifying and strengthening countervailing duties, remain in this bill. If efforts are made by amendment to take this section out of the bill, I hope such efforts will be defeated.

Under countervailing duties if a foreign nation subsidizes one of its industries, by cash or currency manipulation, to enable that industry to export its products to the United States and thereby circumvent our tariffs, then our Government, under existing law, may impose duties to remove the advantage such subsidies would give the foreign industry. This safeguard should be preserved.

Section 9 in this bill can be of great help to the American nut growing and dairying industries.

The bill we are now considering is not perfect. It has its defects, but it is a step in the right direction-the direction of protecting American markets from too much foreign imports and thereby preserving American jobs for American workers.

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

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

There was no objection.

RESIDUAL OIL IMPORTS

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, I shall vote for the Simpson bill, because its provisions offer protection to the people of my district engaged in coal mining, shipping, glass industries and agriculture. Industrial unemployment and agricultural difficulties resulting from oversupply of imported commodities that compete with home production have already become a matter of great importance to our workers.

The Simpson bill, by placing restrictions on importation of foreign residual fuel oil, and making it possible for domestic fuel producers to seek and receive prompt relief, when injury is proven as has been done by the sponsor of this bill, will do much to preserve a stable economy capable of absorbing our normal supply of labor and maintaining a proper balance between wages and commodity prices.

This bill has far-reaching effects. far-reaching effects. Upon the principle involved depends the security of the workingman of West Virginia in his job, the future of small business and the system of free enterprise.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Boggs].

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this legislation demonstrates better than any remarks that any of us can make the necessity for continuing a program of reciprocal trade agreements. If we are to pursue from here on out this approach to the problem of tariffs and import restrictions and

quotas, it means that inevitably each Member of this body, 435. Members of the House of Representatives, will sooner or later be called upon to write tariff legislation for every industry in the United States of America,

It has been said in the report filed by those of us in the minority that this bill is definitely a step backward. Certainly it is, because prior to the enactment of the Trade Agreements Act of 1934 the procedure employed then was exactly what is proposed here today. I recall in our studies of these problems reading the history of the enactment of the Smoot-Hawley Act, and a great Senator from Michigan, Senator Vandenberg, was one of the members of the committee which sat in on the framing of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. In the course of that legislation something like two or three thousand separate items were dealt with by committees of this body and the other body, and when they had concluded Senator Vandenberg made the statement that no Members of either body should ever be called on to sit down and write the tariff schedules of the United States of America.

This bill, No. 1, seeks to open that door again. No. 2, it goes a bit further. It is something more than the previous concept that we have held. It is more than a tariff. It is a recognition of the imposition of a quota system. Now there is quite a substantial difference.

Under a tariff, a tariff is set at a certain figure. Despite that tariff, goods can be imported, providing the tariff is paid. Under this concept, if adopted here today, it would be impossible to do so because definite import restrictions are applied. I do not believe we want to do this.

I find myself in the position of so many of my Democratic colleagues, of supporting the President of the United States. I think the President of the United States certainly in this instance is entitled to our support.

What has happened? He sent his Secretary of State, his Secretary of the Treasury, his Secretary of Defense, and his Secretary of Commerce before our committee. They said, "We have a great problem here. We do not pretend to know the answers." As a matter of fact, I presume there was some levity there in the cross-examination of these witnesses because they were reluctant to take positions. But the net effect of it was that the President of the United States said to us that if we would extend the Trade Agreement Act for a year and permit him to appoint a Commission made up of representative citizens of this country and of both bodies of this Congress, in the approaching 12 months we would take a new look at the entire subject of foreign trade and attempt to develop a program which would be mutually beneficial to the United States of America and our free allies throughout the world.

We are asked here today to adopt a program that is completely, totally, 100 percent contrary to what the President of the United States has requested.

What is the basis for the request? I heard my friend, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. BAILEY], a few min

utes ago make the statement that the principal people opposed to this bill were the oil cartel, whatever that is. It is a funny thing about legislation and political issues. One always tries to find a scarecrow. An evil influence.

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOGGS. Surely, I will yield. I mentioned the gentleman's name.

Mr. BAILEY. Is there any question about the Attorney General of the United States having filed a suit against five of our American oil companies, charging that they are world cartels controlling price and distribution abroad?

Mr. BOGGS. No; I do not think there is any question about it.

Mr. BAILEY. Does the gentleman insist that they are not mixed up in the matter of imports from Venezuela, when they are three of the large producing companies down there?

Mr. BOGGS. No; I would not say that. As a matter of fact, I would say that they are. But I would say to the gentleman from West Virginia that he is drawing a red herring across the trail. I am not speaking here for or against the oil companies. I think they have as much right to take a position as any other industry in the United States. And certainly trade with Venezuela is of great benefit to our own country.

The truth of the matter is, it seems to me, and I may be completely wrong about it, but I have tried to study this coal situation. I am sympathetic to the coal miners of our country. I certainly recognize the fact, as the gentleman from West Virginia pointed out, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. VAN ZANDT], that they are loyal, patriotic, hard-working Americans. I recognize the fact that there is distress in the mining areas of America. I happened to be in Pennsylvania a few weeks ago, and saw some of this distress. But it is in

comprehensible to me how you can reach the conclusion that this bill, even if passed, would solve your problem.

There is such a thing as technological advancement in the United States. When the homeowner converted from coal to oil and then to gas, first the coal miner lost and then the oil well, and now the gas producers benefit.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOGGS. I yield.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Does the gentleman contend then, or is it his opinion that there is no hope for the coal industry whatsoever and that it is, in effect, a dying industry because of the technological advancements he has mentioned? Are we powerless to do anything to help the coal industry?

Mr. BOGGS. On the contrary, I think that the coal industry, if it keeps up technologically, has a very bright future. I do not think this proposal in this bill is the answer to the problem. I do not think it would mean one bit of relief. Let me answer the gentleman further in this respect. Some of the people who came before our committee and asked us to pass this legislation were the railroads. It was a bit ironic, I thought, that the railroads should be requesting this legislation because, as a matter of

fact, as the gentleman knows, the railroads have constituted the greatest loss to the coal industry of any group in this country because they have converted from coal to diesel oil. I am not complaining about them doing that, but if the coal industry had kept up technologically, it may have been that it would have been just as economical for the railroads to continue to have some type of steam locomotion rather than diesel locomotion.

Mr. ELLIOTT.

When we have an industry that is prostrate as the coal industry is rapidly becoming or the moving-picture-theater business was shown to be just a few days ago, it seems to me entirely within the realm of good judgment that the Congress should come to its aid, particularly when we have lost 31 million tons of coal here on the eastern seaboard on account of the importation of residual oil.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOGGS. I yield.

Mr. NEAL. Do you realize the importation of residual oil-1 day's importation of residual oil means throwing out of employment 2,200 miners in this country?

Mr. BOGGS. The gentleman can get his time and make his talk. I suspect we could discuss this particular phase of this bill for the rest of the day. I am certain I am not going to change the mind of the gentleman from Alabama, and I would not expect to as he represents the coal miners, and I am delighted to see his very able representation of them.

Mr. Chairman, I have a very comprehensive analysis of this whole bill prepared by the Department of State, which was included in a letter addressed to me by Assistant Secretary of State Thruston B. Morton, and I will include it at this point in the RECORD:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, July 20, 1953.

The Honorable HALE BOGGS,

House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. BOGGS: The Department of State has prepared a general analysis of H. R. 5894 and of the sections which provide a sliding tariff rate on lead and zinc and import quotas on petroleum products. I am enclosing copies of these statements for your information.

The documents make clear, I believe, the seriously adverse effects the legislation would have on United States foreign policy. They also point out that the restrictive features of the legislation would be detrimental to the American economy.

Sincerely yours,

THRUSTON B. MORTON,
Assistant Secretary.

[For analysis of bill above referred to, see pp. 9637-9642 of House proceedings of today's RECORD.]

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion it seems to me the primary issue involved here is not that of coal or lead or zinc and the other items that have been sought to be included in the proposed legislation. The issue involved is whether or not we are going to completely change the policy of the Government of the United States insofar as foreign trade is concerned, particularly at a time when

we must seek alternatives for so-called foreign aid and so-called giveaway programs, and at a time when the Congress is creating a commission to study the whole problem at the request of the President. After all, if you are not going to permit people to trade with you, by necessity they are going to have to trade with someone else, and if you are not going to at least let them develop their economy as you develop your own economy, then I can certainly see no answer to the continuing problem of foreign aid and the continuing problem of trade deficits all over the world.

Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah [Mr. STRINGFELLOW].

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. STRINGFELLOW. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. JENKINS. I should like to take I should like to take just enough time to say that there were only four industries that appeared before the Ways and Means Committee to testify against this legislation. They were the four big oil companies in the country; Standard Oil of New Jersey, country; Standard Oil of New Jersey, Socony of New York, Gulf, and one other company. They were the only four companies that came in to say a word against this legislation.

Mr. STRINGFELLOW. Mr. Chairman, when the previous reciprocal-trade bill was before the House, it received my support not because I endorse the prinsupport not because I endorse the principle of complete free trade, but because I am sympathetic with the President's desire to have a look at the entire trade program through the eyes of the 17member Commission authorized in H. R. 5495. It is hoped that the Commission's findings and recommendations will remove many of the inequities which tend to encourage foreign trade at the expense of United States industries and the American taxpayers.

I noted with a great deal of interest the debate which occurred during the adoption of the rule. The distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. RAYBURN], said that he was teasing somebody on our side of the aisle to take a stand on the issue of supporting the President. I propose to take that stand now. I am getting sick and tired of having my position determined by the opposition on the question whether I will support or not support the President by virtue of my vote on controversial issues. I challenge the minority leader and his party to bring that debate into my district, which has been Democratic for the past 15 years, up until this year. In the past there has not been one Democratic Representative from that district willing to stand up and fight for domestic industry. No; on the contrary, they have sold their souls to the strong arm of autocratic centralized government and the internationalist policies which they pursue.

I had a talk with the President of the United States just recently, and he made it quite clear that he does not expect any Member of Congress to rubberstamp any proposal coming out of the White House. I am glad to realize one basic thing

which has been missing for so long in dealings between the White House and the Congress, and that is simply this: that each Member has certain legislative responsibilities to the people he represents. Accepting the challenge and the responsibility, I stand before you today to fight for domestic industry in the State of Utah.

A United States trade policy which has the necessary features to meet the emergencies of the time cannot be supplied from the unrealistic formulas of the past. It must be built from an appraisal of the realities which now confront us. World trade is entangled in a jungle of restrictions which impede the interchange of goods. This restrictive growth has developed despite the foreign-aid programs and other policies of trade liberalization pursued by the United States, and has been nurtured by our foreign neighbors actually junking reciprocal trade agreements in order to raise tariffs while benefiting from our tariff cuts.

The program of reciprocal tariff reductions begun prior to World War II and accelerated since 1946 has failed to fulfill its purpose of a freer and more flexible trade. As evidence, we only have to make an honest appraisal of the present situation. American imports have multiplied fourfold since the prewar period and have almost doubled since 1947. The dramatic upward sweep of imports has occurred while exports for a period of 5 years have actually sagged. Yet America's remarkable import performance has been subject to the most astonishing misrepresentation in foreign countries. Incessantly the popular refrain has been, "How can America expect to sell when she refuses to buy?"

Fearful that the American public is awakening to the fallacy of the dollar subsidy foreign-aid program, the slogan geniuses have rephrased the lyrics to the old tune, and we have the ditty, "Trade, not aid."

There is no change of concept-the purpose continuing to be nothing more than a leveling of the American tariff structure. During the past 20 years the United States has already reduced its tariffs more than any other major trading country. If the truth were to be known, it would reveal that the Europeans are trying to cover up the shortcomings of their own social and economic policy by protesting the level of American tariff.

Why then is it difficult to sell United States goods abroad? Nations such as Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Mexico, and Brazil are recoiling from the impenetrable mazes of their own selfimposed restrictions and are heaping false charges on the United States in the hope of abolishing all restrictions.

The following is a résumé of import restrictions now in effect:

IN BRITAIN

First. Imports of most goods are limited by quotas.

Second. Licenses are required on imports.

Third. Dollars needed to buy in United States are rationed.

Fourth. Goods from the Empire get special low tariffs.