Mind you, one of the sources of importation of hats has been Czechoslovakia, and that source of exports has been virtually eliminated. I assume it has been completely eliminated. Mr. SADLAK. Therefore, Mr. Strackbein, in your opinion, if there is a present injury to the hat industry, just taking the hat industry as one, and a mere extension of these agreements was voted, then that injury would continue for that year. Is that not so? Mr. STRACKBEIN. Oh, yes. Mr. SADLAK. Then let us carry it one step further, as I read now the new injury criteria provided in the Simpson bill. Would it then be your opinion that if we passed the Simpson bill, particularly that section dealing with the injury criteria, that would materially aid the problems of the employees in the watch, textile, hats, wood screws, and bicycles, among other industries, in my particular State? Mr. STRACKBEIN. Yes, I think it would. It is certainly designed with that end in view. Mr. SADLAK. I am glad to have that information from you. I was going to also ask you about section 322 of this bill, the import quotas for crude petroleum and residual fuel oil, because it seems that that is the particular part of this bill on which I am getting a good deal of mail. I thought in response to an inquiry made this morning that you would desire to leave that to some other witness, but if you want to comment on that, I would be very glad to hear your observation. Mr. STRACKBEIN. I think it would be desirable that I left that to the witnesses, those concerned, who will be called before this committee next week or the week after. I do not remember which. They have a full complement of witnesses. Mr. SADLAK. The other phase of the bill on which I have had a good deal of mail, indicating a great deal of concern from Connecticut, New England, and Northwest industries, has related to lead and zinc. However, I will leave those questions to those of that industry that will appear here. Thank you very much, Mr. Strackbein. Mr. JENKINS. Anything further? Has Mr. Graw come into the room? If not, the committee stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 3: 10 p. m., the hearing was adjourned, until 10 a. m., Tuesday, April 28, 1953.) TRADE AGREEMENTS EXTENSION ACT OF 1953 TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1953 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. The committee met, at 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 1102, House Office Building, Hon. Thomas A. Jenkins, presiding. Mr. JENKINS. The committee will be in order. Mr. Reed will be unavoidably detained at an important meeting for a few minutes. This morning we will continue to hear from the independent proponents of this legislation. The first witness on the list is Hon. T. Millet Hand, a Member of Congress from the State of New Jersey. Mr. Hand, will you please come forward and, for the purpose of the record, properly identify yourself? We are glad to have you here, Mr. Hand. STATEMENT OF HON. T. MILLET HAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Mr HAND. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, first, thank you Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Hand, will you just permit me to say that when we have groups of school children here, we usually say something nice about them and welcome them. Mr. MASON. I have already done that, Mr. Chairman. I went down there and introduced myself, and said how delighted I was to have those fine-looking young people here. Mr. JENKINS. Well, that is a pleasure, though, that you cannot have yourself alone, because we want to join with you in that respect, and especially we are glad to have these fine young people here. Mr. Mason having been a schoolteacher and I having been a schoolteacher, we, of course, know what that means. You are welcome to come again. All right, Mr. Hand. Mr. HAND. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of testifying briefly on this very important problem, and my testimony in connection with the Simpson bill might be called somewhat indirect. I have a bill pending, which has been pending for some time, which is H. R. 1027, at this session of the Congress. I took the liberty of discussing this bill with the gentleman from Pennsylvania a short time ago, and he felt that there was sufficient merit in it so that it might be heard in connection with his approach to the problem. This bill is a very brief one, and represents the approach that I have been able to make to the pending situation. What it provides—and I will read from the bill, because it is extremely short-is: That on and after the effective date of this act no executive agreement which contains any provision for reduction of tariff rates shall become effective until such agreements shall have been filed for a period of 90 days with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and with the Secretary of the Senate. If during such period of 90 days, the Congress shall, by joint resolution, disapprove the agreement, it shall not thereafter be executed and shall for all purposes be void. The approach that I have attempted to make, therefore, is somewhat in line with what we do with reorganization bills, when the President sends down a reorganization plan. It is a valid plan unless we take affirmative action to the contrary. Now, the reason for this, the reason for my thought in this connection, is that I do not want Congress to get back into the detailed methods of writing tariff legislation. I do not believe that any of us want that. But, on the other hand, I do want the Congress to reserve unto itself its constitutional right and duty to deal wih tariff questions when they come up and should be dealt with. Conceivably, we can see agreements coming before us, if this bill were adopted or something like it were adopted, which would be 80 or 90 percent good bills, but there might be something in there which is extremely dangerous to a large segment of our industry, and Congress, with respect to that something, ought to be able to have the right to act then and not to delegate its power to the Executive for a period of maybe 1, 2, or 3 years. Now, my interest generally is that I do not think that we want to go back to a high tariff wall or high barrier against trade. I think we want to encourage trade. But, at the same time, I have no sympathy with the position which is so often taken nowadays, that if some segment of the American industry, which is important certainly to itself and also important to the American economy, should find itself up against a situation where it could not survive, so often it is said, "All right. Let them go down. Let them not survive. Because in the broad interests we are seeking to achieve, for the benefit of the world economy, we will just have to let that industry go down." I cannot take any sympathy with that position. I have a special interest in this as well as a general interest, I think, and that is because my district is one of the larger glass-manufacturing industries in the country, and I have seven or eight thousand workers, a great many of whom are faced with a constant threat if the tariff is arranged so that import, for example, from Czechoslovakia can come in almost without limit. So I am interested in the problem generally and also with respect to that industry, and the textile industry as well. Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Hand, at what point would you have this matter referred to the Congress, after the agreement has been made, or prior to its making? Mr. HAND. It seems to me that it would be a preferable approach to have it referred prior to its execution. Mr. SIMPSON. Would you empower Congress to reject the agreement in part only, or in toto? Mr. HAND. I am glad you suggested that, because the way that my bill is written, it apparently does not contain that power. But I think it certainly should. I think that is one of the points that you and I discussed just the other day. As I say, I can conceive where an agreement might come down with 10, 12, or 15 provisions in it, and all of them might be entirely agreeable to the Congress except 1. We ought to have the right then with respect to that 1, which we consider dangerous, to exercise, so to speak, our power of veto over that 1 particular agreement. I might say further, Mr. Chairman, that the American Bar Association has been good enough to consider this approach that I make in H. R. 1027, and while they prefer a different approach, they are in favor, as I understand it, of the principle of the bill. They have passed a resolution which, in my judgment, favors the bill, except that it suggests that the approach be positive rather than negative. I think that is a dangerous situation. I do not think that we ought to be obliged to take affirmative action on every agreement that comes before us. The only thing that I am arguing for is to reserve the constitutional right of the House of Representatives to say: "Now, this agreement in this respect, at least, is, in our judgment, dangerous to the economy of this country, and we are not going to take it that way. We are going to insist that that part of the agreement be repealed." I do not feel that we ought to get back into a situation where we are writing the details of tariff legislation, but I do think we ought to reserve our right to protect the country and the industries of the country against harm. In addition to the very considerable interest that the workers in these industries have, there is also a national interest, in preserving in this country certain industries which we need, not only in times of peace but especially in times of war. I know very little about the watch industry, for example, but I do know that the skilled watchmaker, the precision watchmaker, becomes a very important man when his efforts are converted into wartime activities in the manufacture of precision tools. And the same is true with respect to glass. Glass, of course, does ont only make tumblers and the ordinary fixtures that we see. In my district, we make medicine containers, vials, and ampoules, by the millions, and the skill and the know-how to make those things must be kept in this country. We do not want to be put in a position whereby with respect to any vital materials we have to import from abroad. Mr. MASON. Will the gentleman yield, there? During the last 30 years, and specifically since these reciprocal trade agreements have been in effect, we have lost-we used to have 25 to 30 jewel-watch companies operating; now we have two-that means these precision workers that are neded so badly in times of war have been dissipated. Two out of some thirty-odd are remaining. Mr. HAND. The gentleman makes the point more clearly than I did. That is exactly what I had in mind, of course. The same thing is true with respect to glass and many other industries. Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Hand, some of the industries you have mentioned are relatively small; and, to listen to some of the opponents of this legislation, you would think they were relatively unimportant to the Nation. You do not need to enlarge upon that latter statement I made about the Nation; but, as important to the worker-your constitutent 1 and mine-it is a vital matter that the industry be continued, is it not? Mr. HAND. Well, it is entirely vital, I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The glass industry is perhaps a little bit unique in that respect. I mean, some of the more skilled workers have inherited their skills from their fathers and grandfathers. They are a craft, a highly skilled work, and they know no other work. They have been in the glass industry for a lifetime. And in my district and in many other areas of the country-West Virginia, Ohio, and many othersthese crafts are established, and they have developed a great knowhow. They paid excellent wages. They have excellent working conditions. And it is not an exaggeration to say that the time might come, without some reasonable protection for this industry, when that industry-employing, for example, 7,000 persons in my own districtmight disappear. Mr. SIMPSON. It would seem to be the height of folly to make economic casualties of these people and require that they move to Detroit or somewhere else to get work in heavy industry, for which they are not trained or skilled. Mr. HAND. For which they are not trained or skilled, and which they ought not to have to do in our type of economy. Mr. SIMPSON. And which, as American citizens, they do not want to do. Mr. HAND. Of course, they don't. And, again, I emphasize that it is not only important to them and to their families but it is important to the country that we have this reserve of skill and know-how in manufacturing plants for use in wartime. Their wartime use is very necessary and effective as in the case of the watch industry that Mr. Mason referred to and many others. Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Congressman, you have made a very effective statement which I consider vital in this bill, namely, the protection of the small-business enterprise and industry in the United States. Mr. HAND. I thank the gentleman. And, with the permission of the chairman and the committee, I would like to have inserted in the record the resolution of the committee of the American Bar Association. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. BARNES, RICHARDSON & COLBURN, New York, N. Y., March 30, 1953. Re H. R. 1027. Hon. T. MILLET HAND, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. HAND: Further regarding my letter to you of February 27, and your reply thereto of March 4, will say that I plan to be in Washington on April 15 and would like to see you sometime during the afternoon of that day, if possible. I hope to discuss with you the American Bar Association's resolution for an amendment to your bill (H. R. 1027), such suggested amendment being as follows: "Resolved, That the American Bar Association recommends to the House of Representatives that H. R. 1027 be amended by striking out lines 3 to 11, inclusive, and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "That on and after the effective date of this act no trade agreement which contains any provision for reduction of tariff rates shall become effective unless such agreement is filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and with |