Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

(By direction of the chairman, the following letters and statements are made a part of the printed record :)

Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG,

Chairman, Finance Committee,

New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

U.S. SENATE,

Washington, D.C., June 26, 1968.

DEAR RUSSELL: As one of the 41 consponsors of S. 1726, I am delighted that you have scheduled a hearing on June 27th relating to the proposed international Anti-dumping Code. I hope that as a result of these hearings, the Finance Committee will order the Administration to delay this Code from becoming effective on July 1st as scheduled.

As you undoubtedly know, there are many conflicts between the proposed International Dumping Code and the U.S. Anti-dumping Act which has been in effect since 1921. In cosponsoring S. 1726 which, incidentally, was cosponsored by 8 other members of the Finance Committee, I indicated that I believe the U.S. Anti-dumping Act needs further amendment to protect domestic producers and manufacturers from the harmful effect of foreign imports which are being dumped in increasing amounts on our American markets. I am sure that you have received correspondence from businessmen in your own state as well as an urgent appeal from the American Mining Congress to delay the implementation of the proposed International Anti-dumping Code until such time as the Congress has had an adequate opportunity to consider the conflicts between the proposed code and existing U.S. law. I also think the proposed code should be delayed until the Finance Committee has had time to consider S. 1726 which, as you know, proposes very constructive and material changes to be made in the existing U.S. Anti-dumping Act.

In my own State of Utah, many industries have been affected by the increasing rise in foreign imports which have dumped substantial amounts of both manufactured goods and raw materials on the American market. These foreign imports have resulted in a decline in production and unemployment in industries in my own state and particularly the iron, steel, coal, lamb, wool and mink industries have been adversely effected. The present Anti-dumping Act and adverse decisions by the Tariff Commission have been ineffective in providing the assistance needed by these industries.

I am sure that I do not need to go into detail in this letter. You and other members of the Committee are acutely aware of the problem which exists in the United States because of the rise of foreign imports and the decline of our exports, both of which have added to our balance of payments problem. As Chairman of the Finance Committee, I hope you will support the cosponsors of S. 1726 in voting for a postponement of the effective date of the proposed International Anti-dumping Code.

With kindest personal regards.

Sincerely,

WALLACE F. BENNETT.

THE NATION-WIDE COMMITTEE ON IMPORT-EXPORT POLICY,

Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG,

Chairman, Senate Finance Committee,
New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Washington, D.C., June 25, 1968.

DEAR MR. LONG: This is in reply to the notice of hearing on the International Anti-Dumping Code announced in your Press Release of June 21, 1968.

The Treasury Department gave notice on October 28, 1967 of its proposal to amend the Customs Regulations providing procedures under the Anti-Dumping Act of 1921. Interested persons were given an opportunity to submit relevant data, views, or arguments in writing regarding the proposed amendments.

No public hearings were held.

Now that Department has issued the new regulations to become effective July

The notice states that consideration has been given to all comments, views and other data received. Changes were made in certain enumerated paragraphs of the Regulations in response to the comments or for editorial purposes.

These modifications, however, do not meet the objections that the code proposed and the changes in our Regulations materially modify the provisions of the AntiDumping Act of 1921. This view was supported by the Tariff Commission in its report of March 8, 1968.

An extremely important issue is at stake.

The President's Special Representative for Trade Negotiations proceeded with the negotiating of the International Code despite a number of protests to the effect that the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 did not empower him to carry out such negotiation. The Special Representative's reply was to the effect that no authority was needed from Congress since no law was being changed by the proposed Code. The United States would have to do no more than amend the Treasury regulations: and this it could do on its own authority without submission to Congress. Such a course represents a high-handled disregard of the division of powers in the Government. If the Executive has the power to negotiate an executive agreement modifying existing law and is then free to promulgate the agreement binding the United States, a massive shift of power will have occurred.

The Executive branch may then on its own reconnaissance enter into international agreements and upon challenge simply allege that no infringement of existing law is involved; and may then proclaim the agreement. The burden of undoing the action would then shift to those opposed. The Executive branch would be difficult to dislodge from its position on the ground that the other countries, parties to the agreement entered into the negotiations in good faith. The United States by setting aside the agreement would be in the position of dishonoring its international commitments.

It may be appreciated that the action proposed by the Treasury Department in this instance has far-reaching implications for the future, going far beyond the present proposal.

So much is at stake that the Senate Finance Committee would be fully justified even at this late date to do all that lies in its power to seek a postponement of the International Anti-Dumping Code. Such postponement should be for such time as Congress may need to inform itself sufficiently of all the implications of the proposal to arrive at a mature judgment.

It may be noted that Canada has postponed its adherence to the Code.
Sincerely,

O. R. STRACKBEIN,

Chairman.

STATEMENT SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED CEMENT, LIME & GYPSUM WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, BY VICTOR H. THOMAS, FIFTH GENERAL VICE PRESIDENT

This statement is submitted to the Senate Finance Committee on behalf of the United Cement, Lime & Gypsum Workers' International Union, AFL-CIO. We wish to express our views on the proposed International Antidumping Code because we feel that dumping is a problem of real concern to American labor in general and to our Union in particular.

It is our position that the International Antidumping Code would severely weaken the sanctions and legal remedies available to American labor or American industry for combatting foreign dumping. The Code would, in effect, repeal the enforcement provisions of the Antidumping Act of 1921 and replace them with new procedures and standards. This would be a most unwise and unjustified step. Moreover, the Code attempts to do this without Congressional authorization or approval.

We therefore urge this Committee to adopt Senate Concurrent Resolution 38, which would express the sense of Congress that the International Antidumping Code must not become effective without specific Congressional approval, to take immediate action to postpone the July 1 effective date for the Code, and to consider legislation which would strengthen, rather than weaken, our domestic antidumping laws.

Dumping is an unfair trade practice under which some foreign manufacturers "dump" their excess production in the United States at prices greatly reduced below their own home market prices. Dumping is condemned by our domestic unfair trade laws, most importantly by the Antidumping Act of 1921. Yet, during the last ten years, workers in the domestic cement industry have continually been seriously affected by the dumping of foreign cement in the United States. This unfair and illegal situation can hardly be said to result from a lack of effort or due diligence on the part of the domestic cement industry or domestic cement workers to attempt to protect their rights. During the ten-year period, representatives of the cement industry have engaged in extended and continued legal proceedings in an atempt to stop such dumping and to keep the industry free of such unfair trade practices. If our domestic legislation were adequate, these efforts would have been effective and the legitimate interests of American workers in not losing jobs as the result of the unfair competitive practices of foreign companies would have been protected. The record makes it apparent, however, that such efforts were not effective, and both domestic industry and labor continue to suffer serious injury. This situation would surely be greatly exacerbated if the much less effective provisions of the International Antidumping Code were substituted for the already too limited enforcement provisions of the 1921 Act.

On several previous occasions we have sought to bring tis serious and unfair situation to the attention of those concerned here in the Congress. The first time was during the August, 1961 hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor, General Subcommittee on Labor, on the impact of imports and exports on employment (Statement of Victor H. Thomas). The second time was during the September and October, 1966 hearings of that same Subcommittee on the impact of imports and exports on American labor (Statement and Testimony of Victor H. Thomas). We have also just filed a statement and presented testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee in their recent hearings on tariff and trade proposals (Statement and Testimony of Victor H. Thomas, June 25, 1968). On each of these occasions we presented an analysis dealing at some length with recurring instances of dumped imports of foreign cement and with the substantial amount of unemployment and underemployment caused thereby to American workers and to members of our Union. We would like to incorporate by reference our 1961, 1966 and 1968 submissions to these House Committees for consideration now by this Committee.

For the convenience of the Committee we have also attached to this statement a series of five tables from our 1968 submission to the House Ways and Means Committee. The tables reflect the most recent import statistics of the Department of Commerce, Bureau of International Commerce, U.S. Trade Section, and bring home the seriousness of the dumping problem for members of our Union.

Table I is a list of the antidumping proceedings filed by the domestic cement industry against imports from no less than 15 foreign countries during the years 1958-1967. Table II records the amount of foreign cement imported from these "dumpers" during the same period. Table III shows how much this unfair competition has hurt our critical balance of payments position. These figures were computed by adding to the F.O.B. value of the imports (as recorded by the Commerce Department from U.S. Customs duty valuation certificates) an additional factor of 10% to cover freight and insurance, which is also uniformly purchased from overseas firms. Addition of the 10% factor for these items is in accordance with the report of the U.S. Tariff Commission, "C.I.F. Value of U.S. Imports", February 7, 1967. Using the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics figures on productivity in the domestic cement industry (5.97 barrels per man hour in 1966 and 6.27 barrels per man hour in 1967), Table IV translates these unfairly lost sales into man hours lost for domestic workers. Finally, using average domestic cement industry wage rates ($3.97 per hour in 1966 and $4.27 per hour in 1967), Table V shows the amounts of wages by which

American labor has been unfairly deprived as a result of the dumped and tainted imports.

We would like to call the Committee's attention particularly to the figures in Tables IV and V. These tables show that American labor has lost well over 7 million man hours during the 1958-1967 period, an average of more than 700,000 man hours per year. Similarly, the equivalent wages lost have amounted to over $24,000,000, an average of almost $2.5 million a year. Surely American labor should not have to sustain such drastic injury from an importing practice that has been condemned as an unfair method of competition not only by the United States Congress but also by Article VI of GATT.

For these reasons our Union strongly urges that the relief from dumping practices now available under the Antidumping Act of 1921, limited as it is, surely should not be further restricted by implementation of the International Antidumping Code and by the new implementing regulations issued by the Treasury Department to become effective on July 1. Our Union feels that the new Code procedures for combatting such dumping would inevitably and substantially increase the exposure of American workers in general, and our members in particular, to lost jobs and underemployment resulting from dumping. This would be particularly true in the cement industry, which under the new Code provisions could hardly ever expect to qualify as a regional industry, therefore exposing our members working along the Gulf Coast, the East Coast, and the Great Lakes to complete loss of jobs without ever satisfying the new, very difficult Code standards for finding injury to a domestic industry. We also particularly object to the fact that the new provisions do away with any effective interim relief while an investigation of injury takes place. Our experience has been that such investigations take any where from 6 to 18 months, a period of time during which domestic workers can well be, and often have been, entirely thrown out of work, even though the eventual result of the legal jousting is to find that injurious dumping has been taking place. Once again, this is a highly unfair and intolerably vulnerable position in which to place American workers. The unrealistic standards and mixed procedures for determining injury under the provisions of the International Antidumping Code are unhappily similar to the provisions for determining injury now contained in the adjustment assistance sections of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. As the Committee knows, no American workers have ever successfully petitioned for relief under those provisions. In his message of May 28, 1968, the President recommended that these sections be amended and that relief be susbtantially broadened so that it would be available to American workers whenever increased imports are a substantial cause of injury. It is difficult for our Union to understand why we should allow the standards for relief under the antidumping laws to become more limited and less available at the same time that we are trying to liberalize these adjustment assistance provisions.

If such a change in our domestic antidumping laws is to be considered, it is perfectly clear that this should be done in accordance with the normal legislative

procedures of the Congress. Our Kennedy Round trade negotiators at Geneva did not have prior authorization from Congress, or any lawful authority whatsoever, to negotiate the International Antidumping Code or implement it without such Congressional approval. The illegality of Code in this respect is fully set forth and documented in the statement being submitted today by the Cement Industry Antidumping Committee, and we fully endorse and support their position.

For these reasons our Union strongly urges this Committee to seek enactment of S. Con. Res. 38 and to take all other appropriate steps to prevent the weakening of our domestic antidumping laws through implementation of the International Antidumping Code on July 1.

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »