Nation-Wide Committee on Import-Export Policy, letter of O. R. Strack- Page 155 Norton, E. M., secretary, National Milk Producers Federation, letter to 165 O'Brien, Gerald, executive vice president, American Importers Association, 172 Overton, J. Allen Jr., executive vice president, American Mining Congress, 162 Sharp, James R., brief submitted for Elof Hansson, Inc., Pan Pacific 172 Smith, Hon. Fred B., General Counsel, Department of the Treasury, 181 Strackbein, O. R., chairman, Nation-Wide Committee on Import-Export 155 Tanners' Council of America, letter submitted by William F. Marx, of 170 Thomas, Victor H., fifth general vice president, United Cement, Lime & 156 171 United Cement, Lime & Gypsum Workers' International Union, AFL-CIO, 156 162 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Retaliation Feared-British Board of Trade Cautious on Dumping-- U.S. Position on French Rules___. Committee on Finance press release announcing hearings on the Inter- Memorandum of Hon. Bruce E. Clubb, Commissioner, U.S. Tariff Com- mission, re Antidumping Act-Division of responsibility between the INTERNATIONAL ANTIDUMPING CODE THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1968 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room 2221, New Senate Office Building, Senator Russell B. Long (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Long (presiding), Smathers, Anderson, Hartke, and Williams. The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. The purpose of this hearing is to take testimony on the question of whether the International Antidumping Code agreed to at Geneva during the Kennedy round of tariff negotiations is consistent with the Antidumping Act of 1921, and thus can be placed into effect by this country without enabling legislation, or whether it is inconsistent with the domestic law, in which case it should not be implemented without specific authorizing legislation. The Antidumping Act is one feature of a body of unfair trade laws that this Nation has provided to prevent foreign merchandise and foreign merchants from victimizing American industry. It is designed to protect against the rankest kind of commercial injustice-price discrimination by foreign competitors who are immune to prosecution under the laws of this country. The Antidumping Act operates directly against the offending goods as they come into this country, since we are unable to act against the offender himself. It calls for a special levy against those goods in an amount sufficient to offset the price differentials caused by the dumping. In 1962 when Congress enacted the Trade Expansion Act, it delegated certain specified authority to the President. However, there were certain laws he was not enpowered to modify by negotiation. One of them was this antidumping Act. The 1962 report of the Finance Committee, in discussing the relationship of the Trade Expansion Act to other U.S. laws, stated unequivocally, and I quote: Other laws not intended to be affected include the Antidumping Act and section 303 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which relates to countervailing duties. That will be found on page 19 of the committee report. Having so expressed its intent, the committee was surprised in 1966 when it became known that the Anti-dumping Act was being made the subject of a trade agreement at Geneva. The committee voiced its concern in a resolution expressing the sense that no agreement which would necessitate the modification of any duty or other import restriction should be entered into except in accordance with legislative authority delegated in advance by the Congress. In the report accompanying this resolution the committee stated, and I quote: The Committee on Finance has been disturbed over reports that the current Kennedy round of tariff negotiations may be broadened to include U.S. offers of concessions with respect to matters for which there is no existing delegated authority. In the committee's view, this would violate the principles which have made our reciprocal trade program so successful for more than 3 decades. Further quoting: Another area may involve the treatment of "dumped" goods by the country in which the dumping occurs. This problem concerns unfair trade practices in a domestic economy and it is difficult for us to understand why Congress should be bypassed at the crucial policymaking stages, and permitted to participate only after policy has been frozen in an international trade agreement. Despite the judgement of the Senate that the Antidumping Act should be preserved from international concessions and commitments, our trade negotiators agreed to the terms and conditions of the International Antidumping Code in June of last year. It is to become effective July 1 of this year. The question before the Congress today is whether the code is consistent with the domestic law or whether it conflicts with our law. The Tariff Commission advises that there are a number of features of the code which appear to be in conflict with the law. They advise that if the code had been in effect, they would have been unable to find injury in four out of five recent cases in which they did find injury under the existing law. The Kennedy round produced the most far-reaching trade agreement we have ever undertaken. Under it we cut our tariffs in half and exposed our industries to more foreign competition than they have ever had to face. That was authorized by Congress and business must adjust itself to more difficult and hotter competition. But it is a different matter indeed to negotiate away those laws and procedures which provide a defense against unfair foreign price discrimination. Our purpose is to determine whether the negotiation culminating in the International Antidumping Code has compromised our unfair trade laws. I would like to insert at this point in the record, our committee press release announcing these hearings, and Senate Concurrent Resolution 100, with the accompanying committee report, which was favorably acted upon by the Senate in the 89th Congress. I would also like to insert Senate Concurrent Resolution 38 of this Congress which questions the validity of the International Antidumping Code. In addition, we will print the Tariff Commission report on Senate Concurrent Resolution 38,1 and various papers related to this hearing, such as the Antidumping Act, 1921, International Antidumping Code, the executive branch analysis of the code in relation to the act, etc.2 (The material referred to follows:) [Press release] FINANCE COMMITTEE TO HOLD HEARINGS ON INTERNATIONAL ANTIDUMPING CODE Senator Russell B. Long (D. La.), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee today announced that on Thursday, June 27, 1968, beginning at 10:00 a.m., the Committee will hold a one-day public hearing on the International Dumping Code agreed to at Geneva, Switzerland, during the Kennedy Round of trade negotiations. Article 13 of the Code calls for its provisions to become effective on July 1, 1968, "for each party which has accepted it by that date". The Treasury Department has published amendments to its regulations under the Anti-dumping Act, 1921, intended to conform those regulations to the requirements of the Code. The Chairman reported that questions had been raised as to whether this international agreement was sufficiently consistent with the provisions of the Anti-dumping Act, 1921, that it could be implemented by the United States without enabling legislation. He referred to the unusually comprehensive report regarding the Code submitted to the Committee on March 8, 1968, by the United States Tariff Commission describing and discussing features of the international agreement which appear to conflict with the U.S. law. He noted that numerous industry groups had also questioned the consistency of the agreement with the law. He stated that the purpose of the hearing was to enable the Committee to explore into these questions. Senator Long stated that the following witnesses would present oral testimony to the Committee at this hearing: Ambassador William M. Roth, Special Representative for Trade Negotiations (Accompanied by John B. Rehm, his General Counsel) John C. Mundt, Senior Vice President, Marketing and Public Affairs, Lone Star Cement Corporation (Accompanied by Donald Hiss, Partner, Covington and Burling) John P. Roche, President, American Iron and Steel Institute. Honorable Bruce Clubb, Commissioner, U.S. Tariff Commission The Chairman also extended an invitation to other interested persons who desire to do so to submit written comments with respect to this International Anti-dumping Code to the Committee so that their views can be made part of the record of the hearings and be considered by the Committee. He said these written views should be addressed to Tom Vail, Chief Counsel, Committee on Finance, 2227 New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., and should be submitted not later than Thursday, June 27. 1 App. B of this hearing, see p. 321. 2 App. A of this hearing, p. 225, consists of: Antidumping Act, 1921, as amended: New dumping regulations of Treasury Department; Present dumping regulations of Treasury Department; Dumping regulations of Tariff Commission; International Antidumping Code; Article VI (relating to dumping) of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; and Executive branch analysis of International Antidumping Code in relation to Anti 89TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION Calendar No. 1311 S. CON. RES. 100 [Report No. 1341] IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES JUNE 28, 1966 Mr. LONG of Louisiana, from the Committee on Finance, reported the following concurrent resolution; which was ordered to be placed on the calendar CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Whereas, since 1934, Congress has delegated to the President authority to reduce tariffs for the purpose of expanding international trade but has reserved to itself the establishment of limitations within which such reductions must be made; and Whereas the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 provides broad authority for multilateral reciprocal tariff reductions on a mostfavored-nation basis; and Whereas the Committee on Finance has directed the United States Tariff Commission to make a comprehensive investigation of the method of valuation used by the United States and its principal trading partners and to report its conclusions and recommendations not later than Febraury 28, 1967: Now, therefore, be it 1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that, in V |