up because of shortage. The last time we had a shortage was in the winter of 1947 and 1948 and then the shortage was only about 10 percent, but the price of residual oil went up over a dollar a barrel. If we were now cut on our current annual consumption of 60 million barrels by quota restriction and the price were to go up no more than $1 a barrel as we experienced before, the annual fuel bill of New England would be increased by $60 million.

According to the report of the United States Bureau of Mines, New England uses 60 million barrels of residual oil annually, and it is estimated that we depend upon our foreign sources for 40 million barrels. Under the Simpson bill there would be 3 million barrels for New England from foreign sources. Assuming we could get our 20 million barrels of domestically produced residual oil, we would then have 23 million barrels or 38 percent of the New England demand. The assumption is very likely faulty because it seems extremely doubtful whether there would be that amount of replaceable oil from domestic sources.

It is an economic certainty that with a loss of 62 percent in the New England demand, a drastic rise in price would result. Responsible witnesses at the hearings told our committee that the cost to New England industry would be from sixty to ninety million dollars.

Thirty percent of the residual oil used in New England is used by public utilities. Applying any reasonable estimate of increased cost it is obvious that light and power rates would be increased if the quota restrictions in this bill are applied, and thus a costly damage will be felt in business, industry, and nearly every home.

While New England is particularly interested as a consumer of oil to see that these proposed quotas are defeated since we use about one-third of all the residual fuel imported into this country, all our people from all sections of the country are interested as a seller. Ninety-seven percent of all the imports of residual oil into the United States comes from Venezuela and Venezuela gets 90 percent of its dollar exchange from these oil exports to this country. Venezuela buys about half a billion dollars worth of goods from the United States every year. If her oil exports to this country are reduced, she. will be very severely hurt in the number of dollars available to her to purchase our goods. Important as is the reduction in the ability of Venezuela to purchase our goods, still more important is the effect it would have on her willingness to buy American goods. Certainly the Venezuelans could not be blamed if they regard the Simpson bill as an economic slap at them. To pass this bill would be a serious breach of our good-neighbor policy. It is certainly in the national interest to maintain friendly relations with this sister of ours to the south, this friendly nation which has never come to the United States seeking a handout.

The American merchant marine would be handicapped by this restriction on the imports of fuel oil. The National Federation of American Shipping states that for the first quarter of 1953 this

restriction would, in effect, have reduced the importation of residual fuel oil from about 454,000 barrels to 86,000 barrels a day; that for the last 2 years shipping has used 10 percent of the total of the residual fuel oil consumed and that for the same period imports have supplied 21 percent of the domestic consumption. It seems clear that if diminished supplies of residual fuel oil imported from abroad result in increased prices for ships' bunkers, as most certainly would be the result, it will mean a still further inresult, it will mean a still further increase in the cost of ship operation which already is far in excess of the cost of such operation by our foreign competitors. There will be no benefit to the coal industry from applying this proposed restriction to American shipping because American ships cannot burn coal.

The argument is made that the decline in coal consumption since 1947 has been due principally to the importation of foreign oil and, therefore, that it is necessary in order to save the domestic coal industry to drastically restrict importations of foreign oil, but it was made quite clear at the hearings that there are other causes for the decline in coal consumption and production since the peak coal year of 1947 and that the importation of residual fuel oil is really a negligible factor.

First, there has been a tremendous decrease in the use of coal by the railroads. In January 1947 there were about 4,500 diesel units in railroad operation. In January 1952 there were about 17,500 diesel units in operation and the diesel locomotives cannot use residual fuel oil. The dieselization of the railroads, therefore, is the chief reason for the declining trend in consumption of coal on the railroads.

Another declining trend in the use of coal is in household consumption of coal. American home owners have indicated a preference for oil and gas burners as opposed to coal burners. In New England and along the Atlantic seaboard there has been a very general conversion from coal to oil brought about by shortage and high prices. The figures indicate a tremendous decline in the potential household market for coal and imported residual fuel oil cannot be used in home oil burners.

It should be noted also that there has been a decline in coal exports. In 1947 68.8 million tons were exported while last year in 1952 there were 49.3 million tons exported, a loss of 19.5 million tons.

Another factor in the decline in coal consumption is the steel strike of 1952 where the loss of coal consumption by steel works and coke ovens between 1947 and 1952 was 10.9 million tons. tainly this particular decline in coal consumption cannot be blamed on the importation of residual fuel oil.

Cer

The above factors account for a total loss of 150.8 million tons in the decline in coal consumption between 1947 and 1952.

My amendment would strike from this bill so much of section 11 as imposes quota restrictions on petroleum produtcs and fuel oil. New England and the Atlantic seaboard are vitally interested be

cause these drastic restrictions if imposed will be damaging, if not disastrous to this area.

Residual fuel oil is being used more and more by New England industries and large building owners. We have no oil wells and, therefore, have to get all our petroleum from outside our own borders. The 10 percent quota might not be too important to us in the first instance of its application, but in the long run would be bound to be damaging since it is obvious that any restriction on imports of oil would be adversely felt in time since all of it has to be brought in from outside. But a restricted quota on residual fuel oil would be immediately disastrous from New England industry and New England institutions.

It is estimated that the imports of residual oil throughout the country would be cut by about 100 million barrels and that the imports for New England would probably be cut about 75 percent.

The Bureau of Mines has computed the consumption of residual oil in New England at 60,575,000 barrels from all sources for 1951. Sources apparently reliable report that about 64 percent of this oil was of foreign origin. When this percentage is applied to the 60 million barrels consumed in New England, it would appear that we received about 40 million barrels of foreign residual oil in 1951. This was about onethird of the entire amount of foreign residual oil imported into the United States in that year, and considerably more than the 27 million barrels of foreign residual oil which would be imported for the entire country if the Simpson bill becomes law without the elimination of my amendment.

Assuming that we should get in New England the same proportion of all the this bill is enacted in its present form, country's imports allowed to come in if or one-third, we would receive one-third of 27 million barrels or 9 million barrels and this would be only about 23 percent of the estimated 40 million barrels of foreign residual oil received in New England in 1951 and so would represent a cut of about 75 percent in New England's foreign residual oil imports.

It is obvious, therefore, that there would be a tremendous deficiency of rebut throughout the country which would sidual fuel oil not only in New England have to be made up from some source, and it is scarcely believed that domestic producers could make up this deficiency except at an increase in price which would be practically prohibitive. It is not at all likely that domestic producers would be willing to sell crude oil, with the potentiality for producing high-priced petroleum products therefrom and put it on the market as residual without the assurance of a large increase in the price paid for domestic residual oil.

The conclusion, therefore, seems inevitable that a serious shortage will follow the curtailment of foreign oil imports.

It is estimated that for every cert of increase in the price per barrel of residual fuel oil delivered in New England,

the aggregate fuel bill of our section will be increased by about $600,000.

Those who are sponsoring this legislation will, in the opinion of disinterested observers, be doomed to disappointment if they believe those who have been using residual oil in New England will convert to other fuel. We went through conversion once when coal was priced out of the market and we know the tremendous inconvenience and cost involved.

Those who are promoting this legislation are apparently proceeding upon the theory that if imports of residual fuel oil can be drastically cut, the coal industry can be put on its feet again. I am satisfied that the fact is that if the coal people could get the benefit 100 percent of all the provisions of the Simpson bill and keep foreign residual oil out of this country completely, there would be only a minor alleviation of the ills of this ailing industry. The difficulties in the coal industry began when they forced coal users to convert to other fuels through artificial shortage and unreasonably high prices and when John L. Lewis came into the picture as the best oil salesman the country had ever known. I hope this House will not permit this oil quota restriction to remain in this bill when the evidence is far from convincing that the coal people will receive any substantial benefit therefrom and that the doubtful experiment will not be permitted to be tried by legislation when it will be damaging to New England and the eastern seaboard to the extent of possibly $90 million a year.

I assume that every Member has received from the Department of State an analysis of this bill pointing out the serious adverse effects the legislation would have on United States foreign United States foreign policy and expressing the opinion that the restrictive features of the legisla

tion would be detrimental to the American economy. I invite attention to the closing sentence in the third paragraph on page 3 of this analysis which I quote: Quotas under these conditions on imports

of these products

Referring to petroleum quotaswould be a violation of existing trade-agreement commitments and would seriously affect our security interests in Western Hemisphere oil.

I assume also that every Member has noted that President Eisenhower in his press conference of yesterday is reported to have stated, in effect, that he is opposed to the provisions in section 11 which my amendment seeks to strike.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. HESELTON] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on behalf of the consumer of residual fuel oil on the eastern seaboard. Since this bill provides for limitations on the importation of petroleum with a 5-percent limit on heavy residual fuel oil, it would appear XCIX-609

that testimony taken before the House Ways and Means Committee as to how the consumer would be affected if these restrictions were imposed has been imposed has been ignored.

There has been conducted recently by the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of this House, a hearing on the increase of the price of crude and petroleum products. There is one thing I want to bring to your attention, and that is, that you do not know what increases in the price of petroleum products are until you pass such legislation which will restrict imports of crude and residual fuel oil. All products will increase in price, and the price of residual fuel oil on the east coast will probably go from $2.25 a barrel to as high as $3.50 a barrel. This means that the consumer and many manufacturing plants who are struggling for their survival will be forced to close their doors. If they continue in business, they will be forced to increase their prices on articles they manufacture. The apartment houses and rented dwellings will be forced to increase their rents. In other words, such legislation clearly imperils the administration program to keep down inflation.

It has been pointed out that if there are restrictions placed on the importation of residual fuel oil as proposed by this bill, it would cost the New England industry between $62 million and $70 million additional annually. million additional annually. Not only the price of fuel oil would go up, but we know from past experience that the coal industry will increase the price of coal to the highest possible level. This increased cost in the price of coal would run in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be far cheaper to find some way to subsidize the coal industry, but such thoughts must be as abhorrent to others as they are to me.

Under the provisions of this bill the amount of crude petroleum imports would be limited to 10 percent of the quantity which was imported during the quarter of the previous year, and on top of that, residual fuel oil would be limited to 5 percent during any quarter. Most of this residual fuel oil comes from Venezuelan sources.

Venezuela has been a very good friend of the United States both in time of war and peace, and I hope that Venezuela will always consider the United States a friend of hers. But if this legislation is passed calling for restriction of petroleum products the relations between these two countries will change.

Venezuela has not asked this country for one single dollar. On the other hand, it has been clearly demonstrated that Venezuela buys more from the United States than she sells. It has been reported that the exports from the United States to Venezuela aggregates over $500 million per annum. These exports of commodities from the United States to Venezuela originate in every State to Venezuela originate in every State of the Union. On the other hand, the amount of imports from Venezuela is only $300 million annually. Most of this is oil from Venezuela and comes to the United States where it is badly needed for the industry here. Failure to re

ceive residual fuel oil from Venezuela will cause the price of this product to increase at least 50 percent. This assumes that the United States industry could produce adequate quantities of residual fuel oil on the eastern seaboard, and I have been advised that this possibility is seriously doubted. The coal industry thinks that they will take up the difference in the energy requirements, but this will not be the case, because it has already been demonstrated that both the oil and coal industries have more to fear from natural gas as a fuel than of each other. The market the coal industry lost is gone forever.

Turning again to Venezuela, it was demonstrated during the last war that Venezuela's oil production was given freely to the Allied cause and most of this oil was fuel oil which was used to power the mighty fleets of the Allies. The restriction on the production of residual fuel oil which is now shipped to the United States, would mean that in case of another conflict, this fuel oil may not be available to meet aggression.

As I stated when I spoke on the rule, this bill would have very serious consequences to the eastern seaboard because of their dependence on residual fuel oil; it would injure our whole national economy and our security; it has been and is clearly opposed by the administration. Why not give the administration the opportunity it wants to examine this whole field with a view toward developing a sound program? Why shackle the administration with this sort of a bill at this time?

I urge the defeat of the bill.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. BATTLE).

Mr. BATTLE. Mr. Chairman, earlier in the day I supported the rule to bring

the Simpson bill on the floor for debate although the vote was rather close.

Surely our people are entitled to the right of full debate on this very important issue. Coming from a coal-producing district, naturally, I am very much interested in this legislation. I am especially interested in the provision of this omnibus bill which limits the imports to the United States of residual oil to 5 percent. It is a well-known fact that many of our miners are out of work and many of our mines are still closing down at an alarming rate. The coal industry is vital to Alabama and the industrial Southeast. Many of our coal operators, union leaders, miners, and those interested in allied industries feel that large

importations of this residual oil will have a harmful effect on their jobs.

Mr. Chairman, as near as I can tell at this time the House is about evenly divided on this issue with possibly a majority being against this restriction since the Administration and its leadership are opposed to this provision as being contradictory to the extension of the reciprocal trade legislation which President Eisenhower recently requested. However, I am most hopeful that those with both points of view will be reasonable on this matter and finally agree upon provisions which will give our coal

industry the necessary protection without crippling the reciprocal trade agreements and without hampering trade which in the long run is to our country's benefit. I understand, of course, that these countries, especially those in South America, must sell something to us in order to get the money to pay for the things they buy from the United States. In my Birmingham industrial area we are becoming more and more interested in the rich iron ore deposits in Venezuela.

Mr. Chairman, we must not be too narrow in our point of view on this important matter but at the same time we certainly cannot afford to go so far in free trade that we run our industries out of business and hamper our industrial development which is so necessary for the defense of our country. I am hopeful that we can reach an agreement before the day is over to give this legislative protection without contradicting the fundamental principle of reciprocal trade which in the long run and from an overall point of view is beneficial to the United States and to the countries involved in the trade. Reasonable, intelligent men can find this answer in my opinion so I hope the membership will keep this in mind when we make the decision which will so vitally affect our great industries that are necessary in peace and war.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MORGAN].

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, on February 12, 1953, I introduced H. R. 2966 to establish quota limitations on imports of foreign residual fuel oil. These provisions are now contained in H. R. 5894, the Simpson bill.

Mr. Chairman, there exists today one of the most deadly threats which the coal industry has faced in years. It not only affects the coal industry, but also the Nation's transportation system and the jobs of tens of thousands of mine and railroad employees. Up to now there has not been any limitation placed on the importation of foreign residual fuel oils. During 1952 total imports of such residual oils approximated 128 million barrels which is equivalent to about 32 million tons of coal. This amounts to an average rate of almost 351,000 barrels per day.

Most of the coal industry is operating on a restricted basis. Some mines are running only 2 or 3 days a week. Since last October at least 89 mines with an annual output of nearly 11 million tons, have been closed completely. The actual figure is undoubtedly much higher.

Soft-coal production this year is about 16 million tons under 1952, when the coal business was worse than at any time since the 1930's. The National Coal Association estimates production in this calendar year at 435 million tons, compared to 465 million last year and a record production of 630 million in 1947. Mr. Moses, head of the Bituminous Coal Association, estimates the industry has lost almost 150 million tons of demand in 2 major markets-railroads and home heating-which have turned to oil.

The price at which these foreign residual oils are dumped in our markets are

ruinous to our coal industry. It is not possible for the coal industry to compete with this competition. It is therefore, vitally important that a quota limitation be imposed on the importation of foreign fuel oil. It must be done in order to protect our coal mines, our glassworkers, the railroaders, the farmers, and those employed in other industries. I hope that the House today will give its overwhelming support to H. R. 5894.

Let me quote from a few of those conclusions:

In Britain: Imports of most goods are limited by quotas. Licenses are required on imports. Dollars needed to buy in United States are rationed. Goods from the Empire get special tariffs.

In West Germany: Quotas keep out finished goods, limit raw materials. Licensing is used to enforce import quotas. Dollars released only for licensed goods.

In France: Quotas admit only essentials. Some tariffs have been raised. Colonies are

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentle-induced to favor French goods. man from Texas [Mr. FISHER).

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Simpson bill. It removes confusion from existing laws, strengthens the law with respect to countervailing duties, makes the perilpoint provision more workable, and contains other provisions designed to protect American industries against unfair foreign competition. By unfair competition I mean practices which circumvent our tariff laws by the use of export subsidies, multiple exchange manipulations, excessive dumping of certain goods tions, excessive dumping of certain goods that depress our domestic markets.

The issue here today has nothing to do with whether one is for or against international trade. I assume everyone favors a high level of foreign trade. I know I do. But I think foreign trade should be treated as a two-way street. And in order to make it work that way the Simpson bill should be enacted, or at least most of its provisions should be enacted.

It has been argued here, facetiously I suppose, that to enact this legislation would be to scuttle the reciprocal-trade program. It is hard to believe any person would seriously make that statement. That sort of argument sounds good but it is ridiculous. Let us look at what is going on in other countries, countries with which we trade in a supposedly reciprocal manner. The fact is that our total import trade is burdened less heavily by tariffs than are the imports of any other of the leading trading nations of the world. For the fiscal year 1951, ending at various dates, the ratios of duties in various countries to all of their imports, according to data of the American Tariff League, were: United States, 4.9 percent; Canada, 7.4 percent; France, 10.5 percent; Western Germany, 5.8 percent; Ireland, 13.2 percent; Italy, 8.6 percent; Switzerland, 8.1 percent; Turkey, 12.5 percent; United Kingdom, 25.6 percent; Belgium, 2.9 percent.

The average for 15 countries of free Europe was 13.1 percent. This compares with the American figure of 4.9 percent. Yet I have not heard anyone contend that because of those high tariffs that are imposed in those countries with which we trade, the reciprocal trade program has been scuttled.

Mr. Chairman, there is a very revealing article in a recent issue of the U. S. News & World Report entitled "How Other Countries Block Goods From United States." It is very revealing. The contents of the story are summarized under the heading "Why It Is Hard To Sell United States Goods Abroad."

In Japan: Imports are controlled through quotas. Permits are required to get dollars. High tariffs make United States goods costly. Customs rules tie up imports for months.

In Mexico: Most imports must be covered by permits. Quotas are not publicly announced. Heavier tariffs are being levied on things like sewing machines, wines, handbags, tobacco.

In Brazil: Licenses are required to import. License holders must wait long for dollars. Nonessentials are made costly by exchange

rules.

While I am on this article dealing with the practices of controlling international trade by other countries, let me quote from the reference that is made to Britain. It is brief, and here it is:

In Britain, the United States merchant cannot sell autos, radios, or TV sets. He can sell only token amounts of washing machines, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, dresses, cosmetics and other nonessentials. His customers are bound by quotas and licenses, which tell how much can be brought from the United States and by whom. They need permits for dollars to pay.

Britain, the United States businessman discovers, treats other countries better. Germans can sell autos in Britain. Imports from points in Britain's sterling area are liberal. Imports from colonies and dominions claim a lower tariff rate than those from the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I cite these things not for the purpose of criticizing the various nations for their trade policies. Most

of them impose quota limitations upon all imports that are not needed to supplement their own production. That is their business. But I get tired of listening to people complain here that if we dare speak of imposing a quota limitation upon an imported commodity from any country that means that a bold and evil attempt is being made to scuttle the reciprocal trade program.

Actually, the Simpson bill is mild compared with similar laws in most all of the other major trading countries of the world. If the Simpson bill would destroy our reciprocal trade program, then by the same token the reciprocal trade program was scuttled long ago by Britain, by France, by Italy, by Japan, by Mexico, by Brazil, and by scores of other countries that have imposed quotas and various forms of so-called trade restrictions for years.

Those countries do not hesitate to go to the relief of their own industries that ports. That is their business to do that. are being threatened by excessive imSo what is there so wrong about a gesture such as this bill amounts to? After all, it does not attempt to restrict trade that is necessary to the maintenance of a strong and prosperous America. It only deals with excesses, with dumping,

with abuses, with policies that adversely affect our own people.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY].

Mr. KELLEY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I remind you that conditions in the coal mining districts-which were shown to be highly critical in testimony before the Ways and Means Committee 2 months ago-have become even more grave in recent weeks. I shall at this time, however, omit further statistics on the disastrous impact of foreign residual oil on the economy of the coal States, because I want to say to you that this problem is one of major proportions nationally, and that it cannot be looked upon as one that is confined to particular localities.

Members of this Congress who represent oil-producing districts of the South, Southwest, Middle West, and Far West realize the significance of too much foreign oil. It is affecting some of those districts in much the same way that it is bringing havoc to the coal areas of our country. Testimony at those hearings by the Ways and Means Committee included this statement from the president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America:

The general leveling off of all activity in the domestic oil-producing industry, in the face of higher imports, is conclusive evidence that the domestic producer is suffering great injury. If the present import rate continues, or increases, drilling in this country will be even further curtailed. In that event, the industry would be unable to supply the increasing volume of petroleum necessary to our expanding economy and defense program.

Oil availability in sufficient quantities can mean the difference between our preservation or destruction. In the event of war, our petroleum supplies must be available from sources within our defense perimeter.

Insofar as we who represent coal States and those Members close to domestic oil activity are concerned, I feel that there is unanimity of opinion regarding the need for legislation to curb oil imports. And I have talked with many Members from other sections-North, South, East, and West-who are sympathetic to our position and are especially alarmed at our growing dependence upon a foreign fuel that would not be available in time of war.

But importing oil companies have been conducting with marked success a campaign to convince New Englanders that heavy quantities of foreign oil are good for that section of the country. Do not be fooled by those oily promoters. Their present activity is no more than a fly-bynight operation. If the world becomes involved in another all-out war-and I remind you that Secretary of State Dulles told the Senate Appropriations Committee less than 2 weeks ago that there is no clear evidence that the threat to our national security has basically diminished or that it will diminish in the foreseeable future-there will be no more shipments of residual oil from foreign refineries to New England or anywhere else in the country.

I ask residents of New England to think back to a decade ago when this country was at war and ships in our own

coastwise traffic were being sent to the bottom of the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico by enemy submarine action. I ask that the RECORD include the following headlines that appeared in New England newspapers in 1943:

Stillwater Worsted Mill Closed by Oil Shortage.

Exodus of Labor Threatens Mills in Fuel Oil Crisis.

New England Told Not To Expect Oil. Two Thousand Five Hundred Rhode Island Textile Workers Idle, Four Schools Shut, in Oil Crisis.

There you have a reminder of what was taking place 10 years ago. I could read other news items calling attention to cold homes, closed churches, and messages from the President and other Government officials warning fuel users to convert to coal wherever possible. I ask how we could be expected to get oil supplies from foreign countries in a snorkelsubmarine and jet-aircraft war if we could not get tankers through tidewater lanes in the past war?

Placing reliance upon a foreign source is dangerous to the people of New England, just as it is dangerous to the rest of the Nation. We must recognize that a vigorous coal industry is necessary to preclude fuel shortages in emergency conditions, and that it cannot remain in a ready condition if the prevailing oildumping policy is tolerated.

This is a national issue. It merits national support. I urge full support for H. R. 5894.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 mintues to the gentleman from Tennesee [Mr. EVINS].

Mr. EVINS. Mr. Chairman, after listening to the debate thus far here today it is obvious that when individual districts are concerned, concerned, statesmanship sometimes goes out the window.

Mr. Chairman, situated on a hillside a few miles distant from a little town of Byrdstown, in Pickett County, Tenn., in the upper Cumberland region of the district which I have the honor to represent, is located a little log and frame housethe birthplace of Cordell Hull.

It was from this place, now a hallowed shrine, that there came to the Congress a young Representative who had a vision of statesmanship. It is well known that Judge Cordell Hull was the father of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. Judge Hull recognized that trade and commerce is a two-way street-that in order for our own domestic manufacturers and our own agricultural interests to thrive and prosper, that it was necessary that we be able to sell our surplus manufactured and agricultural products abroad. In order that the people of other countries be able to purchase our products, it is essentially important that we as a Nation buy and purchase the products of other countries. The nations of other lands will not have the dollars to purchase our products unless we in turn carry on some trade and commerce with them.

The reciprocal trade agreements program implements this policy. During the several years of its successful operation our country has enjoyed the peak of domestic prosperity. The Democratic

Party is traditionally the low-tariff party. The Republican Party is the party of the high wall of protective tariff, the end conclusion of which is domestic isolation from the other countries and the people of the world.

At the time the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act was passed by the House earlier this year, I made a statement strongly urging that there be no amendments adopted to the bill which would be crippling and nullifying in nature. The effect of the pending bill-H. R. 5894-will amend, cripple, and impair the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. In other words, we are being presented with two versions of bills to extend the reciprocal-trade program: The first, although not identical with the original bill, is in line with the substance of its policy, and the second version, the present bill, representing in effect a repeal of many portions of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act.

Mr. Chairman, I have had an opportunity to do some research on the effects of restrictions on petroleum imports, as is proposed under the terms of the pending bill,

It was only a few years ago that the Congress through various committees investigated the shortage of petroleum in the United States. This was in the winter of 1947-48, as I recall it, when various sections of our country were threatened with a petroleum shortage. As the investigations were carried on, the oil companies were requested to do everything possible to increase the availability of petroleum which included increased imports. There was an oil-fuel shortage, as I recall, in New England and on the east coast and there was a great demand for fuel oil to provide heat for cold and suffering people. The oil companies met the challenge but increased imports were necessary.

During 1950 there has developed a great agitation on the part of certain oil producers in the United States and the various coal interests to restrict imports of petroleum. This agitation died down with the outbreak of the Korean war when all petroleum produced domestically and abroad was needed. We can all be thankful that such agitation, at the time, for the restriction on imports of petroleum was not favorably acted upon-for no doubt such action would have hindered the defense effort of our country.

Now once again we have the same agitation from identical sources-the coal interests and others opposing the restriction of petroleum imports with very drastic curtailment of residual fuel imports. Residual fuel oil imports represent about 50 percent of the total east coast demand. The largest percentage of these imports are made during the winter season with imports falling off during the summer months. Should the pending bill be adopted, it is very likely that we would again hear complaints of suffering in the eastern seaboard of our country; and, certainly it is possible, in the long run, that the general economy of our country would be adversely affected.

Residual fuel oil is distributed principally by independent distributors who are the small-business men of our communities.

In testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee on the restrictions on the importation of fuel oil, it was pointed out that 90 percent of this oil was distributed by independent marketers. If our independent marketers are denied access to oil, it would mean economic ruin to another section of American small-business men. Independent distributors are not going into the coal business because they already have their money invested in oil-distribution service-and most of their customers are not in a position to convert from oil to coal. The consumer and the distributor would, therefore, be damaged by the passage of this legislation.

In addition, there are many international complications which might develop should we adopt this legislation designed to cripple the reciprocal trade program and discriminate against the freer flow of petroleum into our own country.

Considerations of domestic and national security demand that we not adopt a high-tariff policy for our country that the principle of the reciprocal trade program not be scuttled, but that we continue to promote domestic prosperity and the program of trade and commerce designed to promote world peace.

Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all Members who desire to do so may extend their remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to that section of this bill which would reduce the imports of oil into this country. Such a provision would be disastrous to the economic life of New England, either by creating a shortage of fuel or by an increase in fuel costs, or both.

At the present time, approximately 40 million barrels of residual oil, or twothirds of the New England consumption, represents foreign imports. In this part of the country we have no natural deposits of coal or oil in the ground, nor do we have TVA projects to decrease the costs of our utilities. Any change in the fuel-oil situation to our detriment would mean not only a higher cost for heating and manufacturing, but would also reflect a higher price for the goods which we must sell.

The oil industry of the United States has but a small interest in producing residual oil, and because of the higher prices for lighter petroleum, the yield of residual oil has decreased from 28 percent per barrel of crude oil in 1945 to 19 percent at the present time.

It has been said that the passage of this proposal would help the coal industry. The damage to that industry has been largely attributable to increases in natural gas consumption and the use of diesels on the railroad. In 1952, the steel

strike also had a serious effect on coal consumption. It has not been heavy fuel imports which have caused the decline in domestic coal consumption.

The House recently voted that a Commission be established to study the entire tariff problem. It is my conviction that we should defer any further action on this matter until the Congress has had the benefit of this study.

Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Chairman, on February 19 I introduced H. R. 3317 which was a bill to establish quota limitations on imports of foreign residual fuel oil. Section 11 (a) (2) of H. R. 5894 provides for substantially the same action as does my bill.

It is my considered judgment that the enactment of this legislation will remedy a situation that is vitally affecting the economic life of my congressional district and other coal-producing areas of this Nation.

The bituminous coal industry is one of America's vital industries. It has made tremendous contributions to America's strength-both in war and in peace. This great industry provides employment for thousands of miners, transportation employees, and other services incident thereto.

The coal industry has been called upon in time of national stress and emergency to meet production schedules far beyond its normal capacity. This it has always done.

The American coal industry has never received Government subsidies-it has never asked for them, and I do not believe that it ever will.

This industry does not seek any spe

cial favors now. It is asking only for the opportunity to compete on a fair basis-a position it does not enjoy with the importation of foreign residual fuel oil. And the unfair competition of this oil is creating an economic crisis not only for the coal industry, but for entire mining areas and for the States in which those mining areas lie.

My own congressional district is an example of the crisis.

In 1951 and 1952 Virginia ranked sixth in the total coal production of the United States. The State produced 21,410,000 tons in 1951, and 20,400,000 tons in 1952. In 1951, 17,683 miners were employed in Virginia, and in 1952 that figure had dropped to 16,400 employed miners. All of these, with the exception of 183 in Montgomery County, were employed in the coal mines of my congressional district.

These figures represent a drop of 1,100,000 in tonnage of coal produced in Virginia from 1951 to 1952, and a total of 1,283 miners laid off. That toll is mounting weekly. As of July 10, 1953, 4,500 miners in Virginia are unemployed and each week finds more mines closing operations. As a result, employment generally in my congressional district is running 25 percent off this year.

The only time a similar situation ex-. isted there was during the depression years. There is unfavorable reaction in virtually every phase of our economy.

After studying the problems creating After studying the problems creating these conditions, it is my opinion that

one of the major factors contributing to this depressing influence on the coal industry is the unfair competition that has come to the coal market in the form of foreign residual fuel oil, a product for which we have absolutely no need at the present time and on which we certainly would not wish to rely in the future.

This oil is used under boilers in large utilities and industrial plants; it is competitive with coal for the generation of electric power for industrial uses; it has no practical value for heating the homes of the Nation, powering railroads, or fueling essential war machines.

Yet it is being imported in ever-increasing quantities to impair capital investment of the coal industry, retard domestic exploration of new oil fields, and imperil national security. amount of such oil imported into the east coast last year was sufficient to inflict a

31-million-ton loss on coal markets.

The

Not only do the coal operators, the coal miners and the railroaders suffer from these importations, but the nonrelated business concerns feel the financial stress as well. This is the situation that has been created in my congressional district, and it is setting up a chain reaction to travel throughout the State of Virginia. So true is this, that even shipping interests on Virginia's east coast are aware of the crisis in the coal fields.

As long as the coal mines of America contain enough mineable ore to last more than 1,000 years, and in the mincountry, there is no need for us to turn ing to create an economically sound to foreign refineries for our industrial fuels. It is our own economic

strength that has placed us in a position to aid the economies of other nations.

Among the 393,000 constituents that I have the honor and responsibility to represent in Congress are the Virginia miners and their families. These people are honest, hard-working, God-fearing citizens. Among them are a number of my kinsmen.

Earlier in this session of Congress I voted to extend the reciprocal trade agreements for 1 year. I did so because I believed that these trade agreements for the most part have been beneficial.

But when any foreign trade agreements begin to destroy any basic American industry then I am against any such policy.

I believe that my congressional district has been as hard hit as any in the Nation by the unregulated importation of foreign residual fuel oil. The facts indicate that the mass unemployment of coal miners is mounting daily. I have received hundreds of communications from constituents representing all walks of life attesting to the seriousness of the situation in the coal fields of my congressional district.

It has been said in some quarters that residual fuel oil imports are not a major cause of market difficulties for the coal mining industry. It is further contended that these diffculties seems to have resulted primarily from the dieselization of the railroads and from the decline in retail deliveries of coal.