Service, the Commodity Stabilization Service, the Foreign Agricultural Service, and other interested agencies, with the representative of Foreign Agricultural Service as coordinator. These representatives are commodity experts, trade specialists, and personnel engaged in the operation of the program concerned.

A concerted effort is made to obtain and develop, from industry as well as governmental services, data and other information relevant to the investigation. The departmental regulations with respect to section 22 authorize the Administrator to provide for such public hearings as he deems necessary to obtain supplementary information not otherwise available.

Upon completion of the investigation the Administrator makes a report to the Secretary summarizing the information disclosed by the investigation and recommending the action to be taken. This report is submitted to other agencies in the Department whose activities would be affected for comment. If the Secretary has reason to believe, upon the basis of information available to him, that import quotas or fees should be imposed under the provisions of section 22 to protect departmental programs, he notifies the President of his belief and recommends that the Tariff Commission be directed to conduct an investigation.

In investigations under section 22 or by the Tariff Commission under section 7 dealing with perishable agricultural commodities, the report of the Administrator indicates whether or not emergency treatment is necessary. If emergency treatment is recommended, the report discusses the condition which requires emergency treatment. The determination of the need for emergency treatment in a section 7 action is undertaken by the Department only upon request and is not acted upon until a section 7 application has been properly filed with the Tariff Commission.

The Department is represented at Tariff Commission hearings by persons designated by the Administrator and by a representative of the Office of General Counsel. That is, under the section 22 investigations. These persons present information relative to the investigation, including data and other information on the domestic supply and market situation, the comparable or related foreign situation, and prospective developments. They explain the program affected, its objectives, and the methods used for their attainment; likewise, they discuss the manner whereby imports are or are practically certain to materially interfere with or render the program ineffective; and, finally, they recommend the remedial action which should be taken. The representatives of the Department are subject to questioning and, in turn, have the right of examining other witnesses.

Quotas and fees which may be proclaimed under section 22 are administered by the Bureau of Customs. In the case of dairy products, where country allocations and licensing are required, the Secretary has been given the responsibility for making allocations and issuing licenses in accordance with the provisions of the Presidential proclamation.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. If the committee has any questions I will try to answer them or furnish the information desired.

Mr. HARRISON. Thank you very much, Doctor. The members of the staff would like to ask you a few questions. Mr. Martin?

Mr. E. MARTIN. Dr. Burmeister, when an applicant that is an agricultural industry which is subject to one of your programs files an application for an investigation under section 22 you have outlined the procedures of intradepartmental nature. Do you keep the applicant informed of the status of his case?

Mr. BURMEISTER. Yes, sir; we usually are in close contact with him most of the time.

Mr. E. MARTIN. So when a step is taken within the Department an applicant knows approximately where he stands; that is, if an unfavorable report is made by this committee you referred to the applicant would know of it?

Mr. BURMEISTER. In the case of an unfavorable report-that is, where we decide there is no reason for action—the applicant is notified usually by letter from the Secretary.

Mr. E. MARTIN. My question was a little short of that. It involved the intradepartmental proceedings. If the committee to which you have referred should recommend against action would the applicant be informed of the status of the case? You said you were in pretty close contact with him, as I suppose you would be, administering the program.

Mr. BURMEISTER. Yes, sir. He would know pretty much how the investigation was going.

Mr. E. MARTIN. He knows how the wind is blowing within the Department?

Mr. BURMEISTER. Yes; in a general way.

Mr. E. MARTIN. Do you publish notice of the receipt of applications under section 22?

Mr. BURMEISTER. No, sir; we do not publish the notice of receipt of any application. The reason for that would be that applications come in in various ways. Some of them are more formal applications; some of them are just letters; and many of these investigations the Department initiates itself without anybody from the outside coming in on it. Mr. E. MARTIN. That was one thing I wanted to inquire about. Has the Department ever recommended to the President an investigation under section 22 without an application being filed? Is there any specific case where that was done?

Mr. BURMEISTER. I do not recall any, but I assure you that we have initiated investigations long before we received any outside applications. In most cases the same forces that are operating on the Department are operating on the people who are operating the program or who are interested in the program. Naturally this thing comes along concurrently.

Mr. E. MARTIN. You are not aware of any case that went to the President without an application from the interested industry?

Mr. BURMEISTER. Mr. DeFelice says that the dairy case was one. Mr. E. MARTIN. The case where the law was up for reconsideration and in the absence of plugging for renewal of the law consideration was given to handling the case under section 22?

Mr. BURMEISTER. The Department initiated the section 22 action. Mr. E. MARTIN. Even though you do not give any notice of the pendency of the application, the applicants might let the cat out of the bag. Suppose the applicants give out word that the case is pending?

Mr. BURMEISTER. Many of them do.

Mr. E. MARTIN. Would the Department make the application available for inspection by interested parties?

Mr. BURMEISTER. Yes; we would.

Mr. E. MARTIN. Would they give interested parties upon request a copy of the application subject, of course, to the fact that if there is any cost there should be reimbursement for the cost?

Mr. BURMEISTER. In most cases we have not had to do that because the applicant himself has mimeographed the application and spread it out pretty widely.

Mr. E. MARTIN. But if a member of the public requests the application, you would give him a copy?

Mr. BURMEISTER. I would think so. It depends on the nature of the application and how it is worded and one thing and another.

Mr. E. MARTIN. How is that?

Mr. BURMEISTER. We have problems of reproducing them and one thing and another.

Mr. E. MARTIN. I mentioned the reproduction problem. I would suppose a person wanting the thing that costs something to reproduce would pay for reproducing it.

Mr. BURMEISTER. I think in that case he would be permitted to see it and have a copy. I do not recall of any particular request along that line.

Mr. E. MARTIN. Perhaps this hearing will provoke such.

Do you have any procedure for getting the views of interested public or interested businessmen other than the applicant, before you make your decision to recommend an investigation?

Mr. BURMEISTER. We have procedures for a public hearing; yes, sir. Mr. E. MARTIN. Have you ever had one?

Mr. BURMEISTER. We had one in connection with the peanuts. I suppose it was not a formal public hearing, but we did discuss it with all interested parties when the case of peanuts was up recently.

Mr. E. MARTIN. Was that a public hearing, on peanuts?

Mr. BURMEISTER. It was public. All the interested parties were in session in the Department and the whole question was discussed. Mr. E. MARTIN. That was a question not of imposing a quota but of meeting an emergency situation.

Mr. BURMEISTER. That is right.

Mr. E. MARTIN. Where due to drought there were not enough peanuts at least, so the consumers thought.

Mr. BURMEISTER. That is correct. We are available at all times to discuss these matters with anyone who desires to discuss them.

Mr. E. MARTIN. Of course, if an interested businessman cannot get a copy of the application he does not have much basis for discussion; does her?

Mr. BURMEISTER. I would not say he could not get a copy of it. He can get a copy of it if he is interested.

Mr. E. MARTIN. When the Department makes its recommendation for the President to have an investigation and after the President orders the investigation, the Department appears at the Tariff Commission to advocate import restrictions.

Mr. BURMEISTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. E. MARTIN. That is invariably the case, is it not, where the decision has been made to have an investigation?

Mr. BURMEISTER. That is right. I do not believe we would bother the President if we were not interested in getting some kind of a decision.

Mr. E. MARTIN. So that when the decision is made to have an investigation the Department undoubtedly becomes an advocate of import restrictions?

Mr. BURMEISTER. Naturally. We would never recommend it if we

were not.

Mr. E. MARTIN. But you have no published regulations establishing a procedure whereby you can get the views of interested people before you reach that point?

Mr. BURMEISTER. Yes, sir; I think we have.

Mr. E. MARTIN. Could we have them for the record at this point? Mr. DeFelice, are these regulations whereby the Department seeks the views of interested public or interested businessmen other than the applicant before it decides there should be an investigation?

Mr. DEFELICE. I think that is embodied in the regulations which we have submitted to the committee.

Mr. E. MARTIN. When were they submitted, sir?

Mr. DEFELICE. They were brought in Friday morning, I believe; some 20 or 25 copies.

Mr. E. MARTIN. Are these public regulations?

Mr. DEFELICE. Yes. They are printed in the code and Federal Register.

Mr. E. MARTIN. When?

Mr. DEFELICE. I believe the first publication was back in 1951, if my memory serves me correctly. You will find it in Part 6, Import Quotas and Fees, subpart-General Provisions. I think it is chapter 7.

Mr. E. MARTIN. I have some general questions about trade agreements, Dr. Burmeister.

Do you think the escape-clause legislation as presently worded is appropriate?

Mr. BURMEISTER. Well, I think so. We do not have a departmental position on it, but I think it is all right, personally.

Mr. E. MARTIN. Would it be feasible to reduce the time within which the President must act following Tariff Commission action in escape-clause proceedings from 60 to 30 days?

Mr. BURMEISTER. I do not know that I am qualified to answer that. I think that is a problem for the executive officers.

Mr. E. MARTIN. Are you a member of the Trade Agreements Committee?

Mr. BURMEISTER. No, sir. Mr. DeFelice is.

Mr. E. MARTIN. Would it be too much to ask Mr. DeFelice to take up that question with the Trade Agreements Committee?

Mr. BURMEISTER. No, sir.

Mr. E. MARTIN. That is the agency which advises the President on trade-agreement policy, is it not?

Mr. BURMEISTER. It carries on certain functions with respect to the trade agreements; yes, sir.

Mr. E. MARTIN. May we have the answer before the 15th, so that we can get it in our record?

Mr. BURMEISTER. We would be glad to submit that.

(The information is as follows:)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Hon. HALE BOGGS,

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE,
Washington, D. C., October 12, 1956.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Customs, Tariffs,

and Reciprocal Trade Agreements, House of Representatives.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN BOGGS: This letter is with reference to the request made by the counsel of your Subcommittee on Customs, Tariffs, and Reciprocal Trade Agreements that this Department present to the Trade Agreements Committee the question as to whether it is feasible to reduce the period for presidential consideration of Tariff Commission escape-clause proceedings from 60 to 30 days.

In accordance with this request, this Department has presented to the Trade Agreements Committee the question regarding the time required by the President for consideration of escape-clause proceedings.

I am advised that the Trade Agreements Committee is not in a position to make any recommendations except to or through the President. Moreover, in its capacity as an advisory body to the President, the Committee has not dealt with questions of the sort raised by your subcommittee with regard to the escape clause.

I believe this meets the request of the subcommittee for supplemental information to be furnished by the Department of Agriculture.

Sincerely yours,

GUSTAVE BURMEISTER,
Assistant Administrator.

Mr. E. MARTIN. As we understand it, the President under the present law exercises authority to review the Tariff Commission finding of injury. Do you think he should have that authority? I am not asking whether he is applying the law right; I am asking your view on what the law should be.

Mr. BURMEISTER. Are you asking whether he should have the final say in the matter of action?

Mr. E. MARTIN. Not quite. I am asking specifically whether you think it proper for the President to have authority to review the Tariff Commission finding of injury.

Mr. BURMEISTER. I am not certain. I always judged that the Commission was a pretty efficient body and as a matter of finding of injury it seems to me like the Commission could make that finding.

Mr. E. MARTIN. Then I take it you think that finding should not be reviewed by the President?

Mr. BURMEISTER. Well

Mr. E. MARTIN. In other words, there is no question as to what the law is.

Mr. BURMEISTER. I guess I have not quite thought about the matter in that way.

Mr. HARRISON. Would you prefer to have these questions submitted for the record and your answers filed later as the Department's answer and recommendation?

Mr. BURMEISTER. No, we will try to answer them this morning, but if that is not satisfactory we will submit additional answers.

Mr. HARRISON. Then where you do not have a departmental recommendation to make we request that that be filed for the record prior to the 15th of October.

Mr. BURMEISTER. It seems to me it is a rather difficult problem to narrow down; for the President to narrow this down to just a decision on whether there is injury or not in making his decision. I do not know that the President ever does, on review or making a decision, limit it just to injury.