Letter to the Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means, on the Escape Clause Provisions of the Trade Agreements Bill.

[Released June 10, 1958. Dated May 19, 1958 ]

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Your letter of May twenty-second asks me two questions concerning the Trade Agreements legislation which has just been reported by the Committee on Ways and Means: (I) whether an amendment reserving to the Congress the right, acting by concurrent resolution, either by majority vote of those present or by majority vote of the entire membership, to overrule the President in escape clause cases and to put into effect the findings and recommendations of the Tariff Commission, would clearly be regarded by the Executive Branch as unconstitutional, and (2) whether I regard it as essential in escape clause cases that the findings and recommendations of the Tariff Commission be subject to the approval of the President.

At the outset, I want to congratulate the Ways and Means Committee for the trade agreements legislation which it has reported. This legislation will give the American people the kind of trade program I believe they want. Enactment of the legislation can contribute greatly to jobmaking, prosperity and well-being in American agriculture, industry and labor, and its enactment will help preserve the strength and unity of the free world.

As to your first question, I have been advised informally by the Attorney General that the inclusion in the Trade Agreements legislation of a provision stating in effect that the findings and recommendations of the Tariff Commission would go into effect, notwithstanding their disapproval by the President, whenever the Congress, by concurrent resolution adopted either by a simple majority or by a constitutional majority of both Houses, approved such findings and recommendations, would clearly be unconstitutional. The Attorney General has further advised me that should the legislation retain the provision requiring a two-thirds vote of both Houses, the vote in each to be by the yeas and nays, such a provision could be regarded as a valid substitute for the two-thirds vote necessary to override a Presidential veto.

As to your second question, it seems to me imperative that the Tariff Commission's findings and recommendations be subject to the President's approval. In the world of today the tariff policy of the United States can have profound effects not only on our foreign relations generally but upon the security of the entire free world. Some nations of the free world must either export or die, because they must import to live. Their very existence, as well as their defensive strength as free world partners, depends upon trade. for the United States to close its doors, either by high tariffs or import quotas, upon exports from these nations could force them into economic dependence on the Communists and to that extent weaken the strength of the free world.

Moreover, escape clause actions frequently involve questions affecting the national interest, such as the requirements of the domestic economy and the effect of the findings and recommendations of the Tariff Commission on other producers and consumers in the United States, including their effect upon the jobs of those producing for export. The President-who serves the interests of the whole nation--is uniquely qualified to make a reasoned judgment as to whether the findings and recommendations of the Commission in such cases are in the national interest. The Tariff Commission, on the other hand, was not appointed to make judgments in such matters, involving, as they do, evaluations of the impact of escape clause actions on the whole range of the American economy. These problems, and the effect that one course of action or another would have upon the best interests of the United States, are peculiarly within the knowledge of the President. In fact dealing with such problems constitutes a major Constitutional responsibility of the President, both as President and Commander-in-Chief. The Tariff Commission, on the other hand, has only a limited responsibility--to find whether or not in its opinion there is injury to a domestic industry as a result of imports and to make recommendations to the President based upon such findings. It is essential that the President have authority to weigh those findings and recommendations along with all of the information the President has in both the domestic and the foreign field, and to arrive at a decision which will be in the best interests of the United States.

To withdraw from the President his power to make decisions in escape clause cases and to grant finality to the Tariff Commission's findings and recommendations would in my opinion be a tragic blunder which could seriously jeopardize the national interest, the foreign relations, as well as the security of the United States.

Sincerely,

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER