State, Defense, and Treasury having some reservations about the tariff approach, and then the Secretaries of the Interior and of Commerce opposing the tariff approach.

Mr. BURTON. Are you saying, then, the Secretaries of State and Defense, among others, favor continuation of the present program? Secretary NEHMER. No, I would not say that, but I believe that very clearly the statement is made, for example, by the Secretary of State. I really should not be speaking on his behalf and I am not intending to, you understand this is something the State Department should

comment on.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Would the gentleman from California yield? I think the gentleman will find on page 132 of the task force report, the Secretary of Defense is as qualified and as conditioned in his endorsement of the majority recommendations as is possible for an individual to be and still be associated with it.

Actually, the effort of this committee has been to secure from the newly created Policy Committee, which the President has established, the most authoritative exponents of the two major points of view that are presented in this report, and for that reason we asked Secretary Laird and we asked General Lincoln, as participants in the new Policy Committee, and as people who participated in the task force report, to present their view on this question. And we have followed the testimony of the Departments of Commerce and Interior as presenting a different approach than that which had been advocated by the majority on the task force.

But I do believe that the committee has made a conscientious effort to get a presentation that represents both points of view before the committee, limiting the people who have been called as participants in the new Policy Committee created by the President, at this point. And trying also to be at least reasonable in the demands upon the Executive.

There is hardly any reason to call for every member of the task force to come up and testify, if we get good representation of each point of view before us.

Mr. BURTON. Lest my comments be misunderstood, our subcommittee chairman has consistently throughout his career in the Congress proceeded in a fair and objective manner. I hope nothing I said could be possibly construed to reflect adversely in that regard. Because that would be contrary to my own conviction on that particular point. Mr. EDMONDSON. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. BURTON. The point I am trying to clarify in my own mind is that the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense joined with the majority in support of some change in the current program. Am I correct in that regard?

Secretary NEHMER. I believe that is correct, Mr. Burton, but I really feel that you should

Mr. BURTON. Excuse me, if you don't mind

Secretary NEHMER. If you let me finish, I was going to suggest you might want to ask those Departments

Mr. BURTON. Would you please let me proceed, sir, or I won't waste my valuable time and your valuable time asking you questions. Secretary NEHMER. Go ahead, Mr. Burton.

Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the Dire tor of the Office of Emergency Preparedness, all concured, with some qualifications, by three of the members I mentioned, to the report of the task force. On the other hand, the other two members of ta-h force, the Secretaries of the Interior and of Commerce did not concur in the report of the task force and that is why they prepared and filed this separate report.

Mr. BURTON. The chairman had asked earlier about your experience. You indicated that you had been in Government 5 years.

Secretary NEHMER. No, I have been in Government 24 years.
Mr. BURTON. Twenty-four years?

Secretary NEHMER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, could I just make one observation I think the observation of Mr. Burton from California is correct. He wants to get in his own mind exactly the difference as far as the approaches are concerned. It so happened, am I not correct, that those in charge of this Nation's natural resources as far as the Government is concerned, furnished a minority report and those who are in charge of the uses and the other activities of the Government, they were the ones who furnished the majority report?

Secretary NHMER. Well, insofar as three agencies who filed a separate report--we have not used the phrase "minority report," as you can understand the three who filed the separate report hap pened to be the three Departments of the Government which are very closely engaged in the question of natural resources involving energy. In the Department of Commerce we have a little different responsibility than the other two. We are concerned about adequate sup plies of fuels for the consumer and for industry.

Mr. BURTON, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURTON. The premise upon which the import program is based is a national security premise. Yet the agencies with primary respons sibility for concern for our national security have taken the position that would lead me to believe they tend to assign a little less value to that premise than I gather the Interior and Commerce do.

Secretary NEHMER. I would not read——

Mr. BURTON. Well, it is State and Defense, and those of us who served with Secretary Laird, whether or not we agree with his judg ment on some matters, could never have any question in our mind that he would place the national security highest on the scale of values, particularly given his own responsibility. State and Defense apparently believe that national security would not be impaired by phasing into a tariff as distinguished from the current quota system. Secretary NEHMER. Mr. Burton, I do not read the supplement ev statements of the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense as meaning that they do not have concerns about what the impact of the tariff approach would be. I think you might look at the seven people who filed this report, as two at one extreme, two at the other extreme, and three in the middle.

Mr. BUEIN. Who are the others?

Secretary NEHMER. The two being the Secretary of Labor and the

*, I-fense, and Treasury having some reservations about the tariff h, and then the Secretaries of the Interior and of Commerce the tariff approach.

t on.

Mr. BURION. Are you saying, then, the Secretaries of State and , among others, favor continuation of the present program? Setary NEHMER. No, I would not say that, but I believe that very at the statement is made, for example, by the Secretary of State. y should not be speaking on his behalf and I am not intending understand this is something the State Department should M: EDMONDSON. Would the gentleman from California yield? I te gentleman will find on page 132 of the task force report, retary of Defense is as qualified and as conditioned in his enent of the majority recommendations as is possible for an ial to be and still be associated with it. Aaily, the effort of this committee has been to secure from the created Policy Committee, which the President has established,

t authoritative exponents of the two major points of view re presented in this report, and for that reason we asked Secre. Laid and we asked General Lincoln, as participants in the new Committee, and as people who participated in the task force to present their view on this question. And we have followed mony of the Departments of Commerce and Interior as prea different approach than that which had been advocated by ority on the task force.

I do believe that the committee has made a conscientious effort a presentation that represents both points of view before the tree, limiting the people who have been called as participants new Policy Committee created by the President, at this point. trying also to be at least reasonable in the demands upon the

er is hardly any reason to call for every member of the ta-k to come up and testify, if we get good representation of each of view before us.

M- ERION, Lest my comments be misunderstood, our subcommitaran has consistently throughout his career in the Congress

in a fair and objective manner. I hope nothing I said could by construed to reflect adversely in that regard. Because that Contrary to my own conviction on that particular point. Mr. EDMONDSON. I thank the gentleman. M-BRION. The point I am trying to clarify in my own mind

the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense joined with afority in support of some change in the current program. Am t.n that regard?

Stary NEHMER. I believe that is correct, Mr. Burton, but I really at you should———

M- BURTON. Excuse me, if you don't mind————

Sotary NEHMER. If you let me finish, I was going to suggest you tant to ask those Departments

Mr. BETON. Would you please let me proceed, sir, or I won't waste able time and your valuable time asking you questions. ATY NEHMER. Go ahead, Mr. Burton.

However, the Secretaries of State and Defense conditioned or qualified their support of the majority report. Is that correct? Secretary NEHMER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURTON. So I have got that much fairly clear in my mind. That leads me to the conclusion that those who, although all of us have concern, interest, and responsibility for the national security of the country, the two agenices that it is most commonly understood that have a more primary responsibility than others apparently do not believe the current ways of doing things are the best way and an imperative way to protect the national security of the country. Because if they did, I do think they would have joined in the majority report that suggests we move in a somewhat different direction.

And putting it as it emerges to me, the two agencies primarily responsible, the national security agencies have a position of variance with the client agencies of Interior and Commerce, who have a somewhat different order of primary responsibility than do State and Defense.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Would the gentleman yield at this point?
Mr. BURTON. Yes.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I think in fairness to Commerce and Interior, it should be emphasized they are recommending changes in the present program, too. They are not defenders of the status quo. I think the alternative plans they have endorsed involve a number of substantive changes in the present program.

Secretary NEHMER. In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, all agencies of the Government, notwithstanding their particular responsibilities, are guided by the same statute enacted by the Congress, in this case the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and the national security provisions thereof. And whether we are concerned with the foreign relations of the United States or the promotion of business and economic development of the United States, we are all guided in our consideration, and by assignment of the President, in our consideration of the national security requirements of this program.

Mr. BURTON. I hope you did not mishear me. I don't believe I said anything contrary to that.

Secretary NEHMER. I did not suggest that, Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. I know you did not suggest it, but my question is, I hope you did not hear anything which is contrary to that which you just uttered.

Secretary NEHMER. No; I did not.

Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Is the gentleman from California completed?
Mr. BURTON. If I have any time, I will reserve it.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I think we are all being generous with time here, and I think we are approaching the lunch hour here at this moment. Would you yield to the gentleman from New York?

Mr. CAREY. Just this, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, I am more interested now on those items that seem to be in agreement between the authors of the separate views. I think those are embodied in the summary of alternative plan, 14 points,

Would I be correct, there is a unanimity of opinion among all of the separate views stated, as to the advisability of the adoption of the points of the separate plan? In other words, does your Department fall four-square behind all of the points and summary of the separate plans?

Secretary NEHMER. The three signatories are.

Mr. CAREY. Well, I am going to be interested in finding out how, in its zealous regard for the territorial considerations and those affecting residents of our territories, one of the signatories, the Interior Department, favors rejection of future arrangements favoring individual companies established in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. I can understand rejecting arrangements favoring individual companies, I would be certainly in favor of that, but I want to hear from the Governors of those areas as to what effect any ironclad objection to the arrangements for the development of those areas would have on the people who are residents in these underdeveloped areas of our country.

And I would hope some exploration of that blanket proposal for rejection of special arrangements for the benefits of the territories' industrial expansion could be defended by the Interior Department when it comes before us.

I know this is not in your shop, but you did comment on the possible beneficial effect upon the environment of restriction on imports, at least as far as use of seaborne carriers was concerned and the possibility of tanker spills. That is in your shop. You have a Maritime Administration over there. And, in your viewpoint, whether or not we import oil from foreign sources, either crude or finished products, could you state is there to be any reduction in the use of jumbo tankers in the transport of oil, even between the domestic refineries and using areas?

You are not going to indicate to us that if we had less imports, tanker volume costwise would drop? Every indication I have seen is that pipeline construction could not begin overnight, and that the economy still favors transport by sea, so we would not see any sizable benefit to the oil spillage practice or reduction of oil spillage by the elimination of imports?

Secretary NEHMER. Well, Mr. Carey, nobody is talking, of course, about the limitation of imports and we are suggesting an increase in imports in our separate report. It is the degree that we are talking about here, the volume of increased imports that would come about under the tariff approach of the task force report, or under the continuation of the quota approach of the separate report.

We do suggest in one of our comments on the tariff approach that the increased imports that would result under that approach would to a very large extent result in increased use of foreign flag tankers and that comes about by virtue of the fact that reduction in domestic production in the United States would result in increased investment abroad for finding of oil.

Mr. CAREY. Would you agree in this observation, that the more oil and finished product that we process abroad, the less likelihood it