網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

Y 4. W 36:95-46
OVERSIGHT OF THE ANTIDUMPING ACT OF 1921

95-1

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE

OF THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON
THE ADEQUACY AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE

ANTIDUMPING ACT OF 1921

NOVEMBER 8, 1977

Serial 95–46

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means

1.109

CUMEN

DEPARIN

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1977

99-627

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

AL ULLMAN, Oregon, Chairman JAMES A. BURKE, Massachusetts

BARBER B. CONABLE, JR., New York DAN ROSTENKOWSKI, Illinois

JOHN J. DUNCAN, Tennessee CHARLES A. VANIK, Ohio

BILL ARCHER, Texas OMAR BURLESON, Texas

GUY VANDER JAGT, Michigan JAMES C. CORMAN, California

WILLIAM A. STEIGER, Wisconsin SAM M. GIBBONS, Florida

PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois JOE D. WAGGONNER, JR., Louisiana BILL FRENZEL, Minnesota OTIS G. PIKE, New York

JAMES G. MARTIN, North Carolina J. J. PICKLE, Texas

L. A. (SKIP) BAFALIS, Florida CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York

WILLIAM M. KETCHUM, California WILLIAM R. COTTER, Connecticut

RICHARD T. SCHULZE, Pennsylvania
FORTNEY H. (PETE) STARK, California BILL GRADISON, Ohio
JAMES R. JONES, Oklahoma
ANDY JACOBS, JR., Indiana
ABNER J. MIKVA, Illinois
MARTHA KEYS, Kansas
JOSEPH L. FISHER, Virginia
HAROLD FORD, Tennessee
KEN HOLLAND, South Carolina
WILLIAM M. BRODHEAD, Michigan
ED JENKINS, Georgia
RICHARD A. GEPHARDT, Missouri
JIM GUY TUCKER, Arkansas
RAYMOND F. LEDERER, Pennsylvania

JOHN M. MARTIN, Jr., Chief Counsel
J. P. BAKER, A88istant Chief Counsel
JOEN K. MEAGHRR, Minority Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE

CHARLES A. VANIK, Ohio, Chairman SAM M. GIBBONS, Florida

WILLIAM A. STEIGER, Wisconsin DAN ROSTENKOWSKI, Illinois

BILL ARCHER, Texas JAMES R. JONES, Oklahoma

GUY VANDER JAGT, Michigan
ABNER J. MIKVA, Illinois

BILL FRENZEL, Minnesota
JOSEPH L. FISHÉR, Virginia
OTIS G. PIKË, New.York,
KEN HOLLAND, South Carolina
ED JENKINS, Georgia

HAROLD T. LAMAR, Professional Staff

DAVID B. ROHR, Professional Staff
MARY JANE WIGNOT, Professional Staff
WILLIAM K. VAUGHAN, Professional Staff

(II)

CONTENTS

Page

2

6

XL3
53-005-00

09/97

OVERSIGHT OF THE ANTIDUMPING ACT OF 1921

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1977

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE,

Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 1301,
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Charles A. Vanik (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. VANIK. The subcommittee will be in order.

Today's hearing is the first of what will be a series of hearings continuing until next year on the administration of the Nation's unfair trade practices laws. We have scheduled all of our witnesses today contrary to our previous notice. There will be no hearing tomorrow.

The record will be open until November 21.

Also, there are a number of witnesses, so in order to have maximum time for questioning, oral statements will be limited to 5 minutes.

I believe that most observers would agree that in the past the antidumping laws have been extremely ineffective. Today's hearing will bring out just how ineffective the past. administration of the law has been.

As Congressmen Rostenkowski, Steiger, and myself wrote to Secretary Blumenthal on October 13, concerning the Zenith case, “it åppears to us that a burden of proof rests with the Treasury Department that its failure in the Zenith antidumping case—has resulted in a loss of domestic production facilities and jobs which should have never been lost."

This is an oversight hearing, not a legislative hearing. But, we are seeking ideas and suggestions from the general public about ways the operation of the laws could be more effective and cases can proceed more quickly. At the same time, the law must be fair to our trading partners, and it must be perceived as such. The due process safeguards must be preserved.

I am concerned that so-called aggressive enforcement of the antidumping laws will be misunderstood overseas as meaning that cases are already decided in favor of the domestic producers and that America is erecting a massive nontrade barrier, which in the case of steel, could result in an embargo of all foreign steel from the country. Pursuing antidumping aggressively, if carried out unfairly, or if others believe it is carried out unfairly, could result in trade retaliation.

« 上一頁繼續 »