Wolff, Acting Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, accompanied by James Starkey, Senior Agricultural Adviser, Office of the Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, Executive Office of the President. The hearing record will be open until close of business today for receipt of written statements. Without objection, a copy of this statement and of the press release announcing this hearing will also be included in the printed record. Also, without objection, I would like to insert in the record at this point, a copy of H. Con. Res. 80 and a copy of the communication from President Ford, dated August 31, 1976, transmitting a report of his determination that the import relief recommended by the U.S. International Trade Commission for the U.S. industry engaged in the commercial production and extraction of honey is not in the national economic interest, pursuant to section 203 (b)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974. [The material follows:] 95TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 80 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JANUARY 24, 1977 Mr. PRESSLER submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 2 concurring), That the Congress does not approve the action 3 taken by, or the determination of, the President under section 4 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 transmitted to the Congress 5 on August 28, 1976. V A REPORT ON HIS DETERMINATION THAT THE IMPORT RELIEF RECOMMENDED BY THE U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION FOR THE U.S. INDUSTRY ENGAGED IN THE COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION AND EXTRACTION OF HONEY IS NOT IN THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC INTEREST, PURSUANT TO SECTION 203(b)(2) OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 AUGUST 31, 1976.-Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1976 THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, August 28, 1976. The Honorable the SPEAKER, U.S. House of Representatives, DEAR MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with Section 203(b)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, enclosed is a report to the Congress setting forth my determination that import relief for the U.S. industry engaged in the commercial production and extraction of honey is not in the national economic interest, and explaining the reasons for my decision. Sincerely, GERALD R. FORD. THE U.S. DUTY ON HONEY IMPORTS As required by Section 203 (b) (2) of the Trade Act of 1974, I am transmitting this report to the Congress setting forth my determination that import relief for commercial producers of honey is not in the national economic interest. Since I have determined that the tariff remedy recommended by the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) should not be implemented, I am setting forth the reasons for my decision and other action I am taking in response to the widespread interest expressed by U.S. agriculture in honeybee pollination of U.S. crops. In taking action which differs from the action recommended by the Commission, I am required by Sec. 203 (b) of the Trade Act of 1974 to report to Congress on the reasons underlying this action. This reportorial requirement is by itself of course appropriate. However, by Sec. 203 (c) of the Trade Act, Congress has also attempted to empower itself with the authority to disapprove of such Presidential action by force of a concurrent resolution. Such legislative "vetoes" are considered by the Executive to be violative of fundamental constitutional precepts and thus without effect. The question is currently at issue in litigation which is being actively pursued by the Department of Justice. U.S. honey production; valued at about $100 million in 1975, las varied from year to year but has historically fallen below domestic consumption requirements. Imports have also varied widely, with the volume tending to even out consumption needs. The Department of Agriculture recently released its initial forecast for 1976 honey production, which indicates that for the third year in a row, the crop will be short, due in large measure to adverse weather conditions: The anticipation of low domestic production (nearly 50 million pounds below 1973) and the desire to avoid higher duties in the event of escape clause relief probably explains a significant part of the increase in imports of 1976. (1) H.D. 596 2 The finding of threat of injury by three of the five Commissioners voting in this case covers only the commercial production and extraction of honey. It does not cover hobbyists and sideliners, i.e., producers with less than 300 colonies, and the Commission found unanimously that processors and packers were not injured or threatened with injury. With regard to the commercial producers, data reported by the Commission for 1971-75 show rising sales, no idling of productive facilities and an increase in employment. Commercial producers' employment totals an estimated 10,000 persons, whereas part-time beekeepers and hobbyists total 218,000. Producers' stocks since 1970 have been low as compared with the previous decade. Total stocks reported for 1975 were only slightly higher than in 1973 and were ten percent below the 1970 level. Prices received by producers for unprocessed bulk honey in 1975 were two and one half times the 1971 level and were not far below the all-time high reached in 1974. Profits in 1975 were 162 percent above 1971 and were higher than for any year except 1973, when yields, which have an important impact on profits, were 31 percent higher. Under the circumstances noted above, it is not anticipated that any substantial number of commercial producers or their employees are likely to seek adjustment assistance. However, any firms or workers who consider they can meet the statutory criteria can petition for such assistance under Title II, Chapters 2 and 3, respectively, of the Trade Act of 1974. Import restraints would expose U.S. industrial and agricultural trade to compensatory import concessions or retaliation against U.S. exports. An increase in protection would also weaken the bargaining position of the United States in bilateral consultations, and multilateral negotiations in which we are seeking improved access to foreign markets for our producers. The national economic interest requires continued emphasis on reducing the rate of inflation. A remedy threatening price increases would work at cross purposes with our stabilization goals. In considering the effect of import restraints on the international economic interests of the United States, as required by the Trade Act of 1974, I have concluded that such restraints, while affecting only a small share of our total imports, would be contrary to the U.S. policy of promoting the development of an open and fair world economic system. The goal of this policy is to expand domestic employment and living standards through increased economic efficiency. In the course of this investigation extensive material was received concerning the role played by honeybees in pollinating certain crops. While total honeybee colonies in the United States have declined over the past 25 years, the major causes are pesticides, decreased bee pasturage and changes in cropping patterns. Imports of honey were not a significant factor. While a considerable amount of research has been done on pollination, more information on certain aspects of the subject would be useful. I have, therefore, instructed the Secretary of Agriculture to initiate studies of the importance of pollination to U.S. agriculture and consumers, to identify possible problem areas and to recommend appropriate solutions, as needed. 84-544-77-2 H.D. 596 [Press release announcing hearing follows:] [Press release of Thursday, Feb. 3, 1977] CHAIRMAN CHARLES A. VANIK (D., OHIO) SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ANNOUNCES TIME AND PLACE OF HEARINGS ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1977, on H. CON. RES. 80, TO DISAPPROVE THE DETERMINATION OF THE PRESIDENT NOT TO PROVIDE IMPORT RELIEF TO THE DOMESTIC HONEY INDUSTRY UNDER SECTION 203 OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 Hon. Charles A. Vanik (D., Ohio), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, today announced that the Subcommittee on Trade will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, February 8 on H. Con. Res. 80, introduced by Honorable Larry Pressler, M.Č. (S. Dak.) on Jan. 24, 1977, to disapprove the determination by the President. under section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974, transmitted to the Congress on August 28, 1976, not to provide import relief for the United States industry engaged in the commercial production and extraction of honey. The hearing will be held between 12 noon and 2 p.m. in Room 1302 of the Longworth House Office Building. Section 203 (c) of the Trade Act provides that the action recommended by the International Trade Commission shall take effect if both Houses of Congress adopt a concurrent resolution disapproving a determination by the_President not to provide import relief within 90 legislative days following the President's report to the Congress of his determination. The International Trade Commission reported to the President on June 29, 1976 its determination that increased imports are a substantial cause of a threat of serious injury to the domestic commercial honey industry. The three Commissioners' finding in the affirmative recommended to the President a tariff-rate quota for five years as the form of import relief. The heavy agenda of the Full Committee on Ways and Means currently considering the tax proposals presented by the Administration and the expedited procedures for consideration of disapproval resolutions under the Trade Act severely limit the time available for this hearing since possible House Floor action might be in order after February 23. Witnesses will be allocated time for verbal presentations, the total time to be divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the resolution. All interested persons and organizations must designate one spokesman to represent them when they have the same general' interest. If at all possible, the witness should bring with him multiple copies of the prepared statement which he will present to the Subcommittee. If an interested party wishes to submit a written statement for the Subcommittee's consideration and for inclusion in the record of the hearing, these should be in the hands of the Committee by the close of business Tuesday, February 8. Given the short notice time for this hearing, requests to be heard must be made by telephone to John M. Martin, Jr., Chief Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means, telephone (202) 225-3625 by 5 P.M. on Monday, February 7. Mr. VANIK. If time permits before 2 p.m., the subcommittee will proceed directly to markup of the resolution. Otherwise, we will meet at 12 noon tomorrow for that purpose in room 334, Cannon Building. At this time, because Congressman Pressler is detained at another hearing, I would like to call up Mr. Alan Wolff, Acting Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, and Mr. James Starkey. You may proceed, gentlemen. STATEMENT OF ALAN W. WOLFF, ACTING SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR TRADE NEGOTIATIONS, ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES STARKEY, SENIOR AGRICULTURAL ADVISER Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, I am Alan Wolff. Mr. Starkey is here with me. Mr. VANIK. Thank you, Mr. Wolff. Mr. Alan Wolff is the Acting Special Representative for Trade Negotiations. |