The present measure changes only the final date upon which agreement may be reached so that paragraph 1 of the act of March 4, 1925 (43 Stat. L. 1268), as amended, will read: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That consent of Congress is hereby given to the States of Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and Montana to negotiate and enter into a compact or agreement not later than January 1, 1935 [December 31, 1930], providing for an equitable division and apportionment among said States of the water supply of the Columbia River and of the streams tributary thereto, upon condition that two suitable persons, who shall be appointed by the President of the United States, one from the Department of the Interior and one from the War Department, shall participate in said negotiations as the representatives of the United States and shall make report to Congress of the proceedings and of any compact or agreement entered into: Provided, That any such compact or agreement shall not be binding or obligatory upon any of the parties thereto unless and until the same shall have been approved by the legislature of each of said States and by the Congress of the United States. The Secretary of the Interior believes the execution of a compact necessary and approves the present measure as indicated by the following favorable report: Hon. ROBERT S. HALL, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Chairman Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to your request of December 21, for a report on H. R. 5649, which would extend the life of "An act to permit a compact or agreement between the States of Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and Montana respecting the disposition and apportionment of the waters of the Columbia River and its tributaries, and for other purposes," there is transmitted herewith a memorandum on the subject that has been submitted by the Commissioner of Reclamation. After a review of the proposed measure, I agree with the commissioner. RAY LYMAN WILBUR, Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Memorandum for the Secretary. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, The attached letter of December 21 from Hon. Robert S. Hall, chairman Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, House of Representatives, requests report on H. R. 5649, "A bill to extend the life of An act to permit a compact or agreement between the States of Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and Montana respecting the disposition and apportionment of the waters of the Columbia River and its tributaries, and for other purposes.' The bill provides for the extension to January 1, 1935, of the time within which to formulate and execute compacts among the States mentioned in the title. The bill refers to the act approved March 4, 1925. This act was amended by the act of April 13, 1926 (44 Stat. 247). The latter act extended the time from January 1, 1927, to December 1, 1927, and authorized an appropriation of $25,000 for completing certain investigations concerning the watershed of the Columbia River. The act of March 4, 1925 was further amended by an act approved March 3, 1927 (44 Stat. 1403), which extended the provisions of former acts to December 31, 1930. No reference is made in the present bill to these acts. Perhaps this is not necessary, but it will be noted that in the amendment of March 3, 1927 reference was made both to the original act of March 4, 1925 and to the amendment of April 13, 1926. The formulation and execution of a suitable compact among the States mentioned seems desirable, and the further extension of time for this purpose is necessary. I accordingly recommend favorable consideration of the bill. ELWOOD MEAD, Commissioner. ADJUSTMENT OF DUTIES, CONSUMERS' COUNSEL, INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE JANUARY 7, 1932.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. COLLIER, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 6662] The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 6662) to amend the tariff act of 1930, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report it back to the House with sundry amendments, and as amended recommend that the bill do pass. The committee amendments are as follows: On page 1, line 6, after the word "Upon" insert "the request of the President of the United States, or upon" On page 2, line 1, after the word "production" insert ", when efficiently and economically produced," On page 5, line 9, before the word "In" insert “(A)” On page 6, line 15, after the word "of" strike out "$12,000" and insert "$10,000" On page 6, line 19, after the word "of" insert "and represent" On page 6, line 20, after the word "commission" insert a period and strike out the balance of the sentence. On page 7, line 19, after the word "of" strike out the word "such" On page 8, line 9, after the word "conference" insert a period and strike out the balance of the section. GENERAL DISCUSSION The country is now in the midst of the greatest depression in the history of the American Republic. Both our exports and our imports have alarmingly decreased, Goverment bonds are selling below par, factories are closed, millions of men are out of employment, warehouses are overflowing with manufactured articles for which there is no market, agriculture is depressed, and agricultural products are selling below the cost of production. That this widespread depression has been aggravated by the high and, in many instances, prohibitive rates of the tariff act of 1930 can not be successfully denied. The foreign and domestic trade data furnished by the Statistical Division of the Department of Commerce, on January 7, 1932, recites that for 17 months prior to July 1, 1930, our exports were, $6,829,000,000; for the same period, our imports were $5,766,000,000; our total exports and imports were $12,595,000,000. The tariff act of 1930 was approved June 17, 1930. For 17 months since July 1, 1930, our exports have decreased from $6,829,000,000 to $4,007,000,000. During the same period, our imports have decreased from $5,766,000,000 to $3,262,000,000 and our total exports and imports have decreased from $12,595,000,000 to $7,269,000,000, making a total decrease of exports and imports for 17 months after the passage of the tariff act of June 17, 1930, of $5,326,000,000. This has resulted in the accumulation of huge surpluses of both manufactured articles and agricultural commodities for which there is no market. FLEXIBLE TARIFF PROVISIONS In order to prevent many of the exorbitant rates of the tariff act from becoming entirely prohibitive, the flexible clause, as set forth in section 336 of the act, was enacted. There were many who believed that if this section were wisely administered its provisions would, to a large extent, so equalize the differences in the cost of production of both the domestic and foreign articles of commerce and commodities of agriculture that many of the evils now due to the unscientific and exorbitant rates which were placed in the tariff act of 1930 would be avoided. Unfortunately, these hopes were not realized, and section 336 has proved to be ineffectual and in many instances has resulted in more harm than good to the American people. In order to carry out what we believe should be the purpose as set forth in section 336 of the tariff act of 1930, H. R. 6662 has been adopted by the Ways and Means Committee. Subsection (a) of section 1 provides that upon request of the President of the United States or upon its own motion or upon the application of any interested party showing good and sufficient reason, the commission shall, so far as possible, ascertain the differences in the cost of production of any domestic article and any like or similar foreign article. After these differences have been ascertained, the commission shall then report its recommendations to the President and to the Congress. Under existing law, the commission did not report to the Congress but made its report to the President, who by proclamation could approve the rates of duty and changes in classification and basis of value specified in any report of the commission if in his judgment such rates of duty and changes were shown by such investigation of the commission to be necessary to equalize the differences in the costs of production. Beginning 30 days after the date of any presidential proclamation of approval, the increases or decreases in rates or changes in classification or in basis of value specified in the report of the commission went into effect. H. R. 6662 repeals the authority in existing law providing that the President shall by proclamation approve the report of the commis sion, and provides that the President, upon receipt of the report of the commission, shall promptly transmit the report to the Congress with his recommendations, if any, with respect to the increase or decrease in duties proposed by the commission. The report of the commission shall state such increase or decrease in the duty upon the foreign article as the commission finds to be necessary to equalize the differences in the cost of production. The bill repeals subsection (g) of section 336 of the tariff act of 1930, which provides for a prohibition against the transfer of an item. from the free list to the dutiable list or from the dutiable list to the free list, and permits the commission to make such recommendations if it finds it proper and equitable to so do. The report of the commission shall be accompanied by a statement setting forth the findings of the commission with respect to the differences in the cost of production, the elements of cost in the cost of production of the respective articles as ascertained by the commission, and any other matter which the commission deems to be pertinent. Subsection (b) provides that no report shall be made by the commission under this section unless the determination in respect thereto has been reached after the commission has held hearings and given reasonable notice of such hearings and reasonable opportunity for all interested parties to come before the commission and present their views. Subsection (c) provides the methods to be used by the commission in ascertaining the differences in costs of production, and sets these methods out in detail. Subdivision (5) of this subsection is new matter, and provides that if the differences in the cost of production can not be ascertained, then the wholesale prices of the domestic article in the principal markets of the United States, in so far as such prices are indicative of the cost of production, shall be taken into consideration in ascertaining these differences. Section 2 provides that all uncompleted investigations instituted prior to the approval of this act under section 336 of the tariff act of 1930, and all investigations on which the President has not proclaimed changes in classification or in basis of value or increases or decreases in duty, shall be dismissed without prejudice; but all information and evidence secured by the commission may be used in the consideration of any future investigations instituted under the provisions of this bill. CONSUMERS' COUNSEL In section 3 of the bill, there is created an office to be known as the office of the consumers' counsel of the United States Tariff Commission. This office is independent of the commission. It neither depends for appointment, nor tenure, upon the commission. The counsel is to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, at a salary of $10,000 per year. He shall give his entire time to the representation of the general public before the commission. Under the present law, the persons appearing before the commission seeking either increase or decrease of tariff rates are, obviously, those who have a monetary interest in the matter presented to the commission. They have a direct financial interest in the action to be taken by the commission. Parties who usually and generally appear are either the producers of finished articles or raw materials, or importers of commodities into this country. Generally, the producer appearing before the commission is interested in an increase of duties for his own personal gain. The importer desires a reduction in duty for a like purpose. Undoubtedly, no criticism can be offered in the presentation of their cause to the commission. However, while they are furthering their own financial interests, the general public has no advocate in the case. The individual consumer, generally speaking, has such small personal interest involved that he can not afford to have counsel ever present to care for his interest. The consumer is not a participant in the trial of the case which involves his rights. For the most part, his voice is never heard before the commission. Even though he may appear and state his views to the commisssion, or even before the committees of Congress, he is in the same category as a litigant in court who has those same privileges, but who does not have counsel to advise him in respect of his rights. Like a litigant, his experience in any given case is merely casual. Under the present law, he may be heard before the commission, but his rights are very limited in that respect. If given the right to examine a witness, it is a matter of grace. He is not a direct party in interest, and does not have the standing of either the manufacturer, the producer of the raw material, or the importer. However, his own interests are directly affected by the findings in the case. It is the duty of the counsel herein authorized to represent the interest of the consuming public in any proceeding before the commission. He is the representative of the general public in the investigations carried on by the commission. He appears and speaks for one whose voice has heretofore been inarticulate the ultimate con sumer. The counsel is given authority to offer testimony, to examine witnesses, and to present argument. He may receive from the commission information which the commission may have in respect of the matters involved before him. In addition thereto he is granted the right to initiate a proceeding before the commission whenever he deems it to be in the interest of the public so to do, or upon request by him the commission shall promptly conduct investigations and place the results thereof at his disposal, which information may be used to good result. He is given the right to have compulsory process to carry out the purposes set forth in this legislation. Generally speaking, the consumer is interested in reasonable rates. The people's counsel-herein designated as the consumers' counselshall not be primarily concerned in the increase or decrease of rates upon commodities, except in so far as they affect the general interest. It was suggested to the committee that many, if not all, of the producers were likewise consumers. That is eminently correct. The function of the consumers' counsel will be to represent the consuming public, ever having their best interest as his goal. Under the tariff act of 1922, there were some 603 applications to the commission for investigations. These applications covered approximately 375 separate commodities. Tariff increases were requested for 200 commodities. Decreases were requested for 125 commodities. Both increases and decreases were requested for 25 commodities. Adjustments for rates of duty were requested for 25 commodities. |