The Republican., 1955-02-24

HE hEi u blAlCA "
of 1880, as amended and for other
purposes.
In a simple summarization this
bill would give the President an
extension of trade-agreement au-
thority for three years, from June
12, 1855 through June 3O 1858 It
would also give three alternative
ways of reducing tariffs They are:
l. Authority to negotiate tariff
reductions of up to So each year of
the three-year period
?. Authority to reduce tariffs by
500 Of the rate prevailing on Jan
uary / 1945, either unilaterally or
by negotiated agreement on those
articles which are not being i'm
ported or are being imported in
negligible quantities
! g. Authority to negotiate reduc-
tions in those rates which are high
er than So, of the value of an inn
port to a rate equal to 5Oe6
The bill proposes no change in
the escape clause and peril point
provisions of the law and all duty
reductions would remain subject
to these provisions.
Now to get down to cases
Proponents of the bill argue that
it must be passed to keep the free
world economically strong 1t is SO
moderate no one will be hurt. 1t
is consistent with free enterprise
and free competition and it would
work toward gradual and reciprocal
elimination of world trade bar
riers.
The hackers also point out that
/ by increasing United States i'm
ports through tariff reduction for
eign free-world countries will feel
less compulsion to sell to the Soviet
Bloc with consequent advantages
for the military and political Sc
curity of the free world.
On the question of unemploy-
ment the proponents claim than an
analysis shows that $4,000 to 100000
workers are employed in industries
which will suffer from imports.
This compares, they say, with to-
| tai labor force of 81 million people
And these figures may ovcrstate
the possible unemployment be
cause they do not take into account
probable increases in American
consumption after the tariff reduc-
ton, the development of new
products and production tech
niqucs, and the ability of affected
firms to shift to other lines of pro-
duction
On the other hand, opponents of
the legislation argue that there is
no guaranty that the act would
actually promote exports. And in
aiming at the substitution of trade
imports for aid the freer trader
/ forgcts that this would reduce the
resources available to friendly
countries, which Wcakens their
ability to carry on defense eXpendi-
lures because some Of the factors
of production in those countries
now producing for their home mar
kets will have to produce for eX-
port
The authority is too broad. OPP
ponents say. Congress should set
tariffs on an item-by-item basis,
not delegate authority to the Exc
cutive branch
Also. the damage to essential in
dusties cannot be rcckoncd as in
furious TO those industries only but
to the millions depending on them.
And in rebuttal to the proponents
claim of relatively small unemploy-
mcnt the opponents assert that a
reduction in tariffs may lead to
serious unemployment in specific
industries as imports come into the
United States. AS an example, they
point out that residual fuel oil i'm
ports caused, in part, the decline of
! employment and production in the
coal industry since the early post
war period, and in turn the decline
in coal production has adversely
affected the coal-carrying railroads.
They say approximately 25 percent
of the United States labor force is