Eisenhower Library, Eisenhower papers, Whitman file
Minutes of a Cabinet Meeting, Held at the White House, 10:05 a.m., March 19, 19541
- The following were present:
- President Eisenhower
- Vice President Nixon
- Under Sec. W. B. Smith (for Sec. Dulles)
- Sec. Wilson
- Sec. Humphrey
- Mr. Brownell
- Mr. Summerfield
- Sec. McKay, and Asst. Sec. Wormser
- Under Sec. True D. Morse (for Sec. Benson)
- Sec. Mitchell
- Sec. Hobby
- Director Dodge
- Mr. Flemming, and Mr. Charles Kendall
- Gov. Stassen
- Chairman Young
- Amb. Lodge
- Hon. Clarence Randall
- Dr. Arthur Burns
- Gen. Persons
- Mr. Rabb
- Mr. Harlow
- Mr. Morgan
Foreign Economic Policy Message—The President indicated that Mr. Randall had prepared a fine message to go to Congress on this subject but that some differences of opinion still remained for settlement. Mr. Randall then reviewed the coordination and stated the objective of the message as an attempt by the President to keep strictly in line with the report rather than take a far-advanced position which would endanger support already gained from somewhat reluctant groups.
A memorandum of State Department recommendations for revision2 was presented and discussed. With respect to State’s request [Page 64] for a sentence indicating the possible need of exceptional treatment for Japan, the President commented that Congress ought be given advance warning rather than have State later introduce the need unexpectedly. The Vice President commented that such a reference would not create problems on the Hill. Mr. Randall agreed to develop a suitable reference with General Smith.
On the suggestion that the proposal for three annual 5% tariff reductions be consolidated to 15% over three years so that full effect of the authorized reductions would not be lost by protracted negotiations during the first year, Mr. Randall stressed the prior extensive debate within the Commission and the heavy opposition which would be aroused by any change from the report. The President suggested that negotiations might be hastened and that in any event the legislation was designed to establish a pattern for policy throughout subsequent years when the State Department might make up any losses. It was agreed that the message would not be changed in this respect.
The third proposed change, providing for the elimination of the 50–50 shipping clause, was rebutted by Secretary Weeks who reviewed the pertinent sections of the Commission’s report. The President suggested that individual opinions might be given during testimony. Gov. Stassen recalled intense Congressional interest in this subject, and predicted the impossibility of change until a new subsidy plan is developed. Gen. Smith agreed.
The fourth State Department recommendation for a positive statement concerning stimulation of domestic mineral production required for security purposes by other means than tariff increases or through import restrictions, received the President’s approval along with general Cabinet agreement.
It was agreed also to accept Secretary Humphrey’s suggestion for eliminating a sentence concerning mineral policy which appeared to be contradicted by subsequent statements. Mr. Humphrey also commented on the problem of the relationship between importation of minerals and domestic production. Gen. Smith and Mr. Randall emphasized that the section in question pertained only to stimulation of domestic production.
The Attorney General strongly recommended against the provision for reducing the 5% differential connected with the Buy American Act, and he suggested that in default of legislation to this effect the Buy American Act should be applied on a case-by-case basis. He felt that Executive action would be regarded as an invasion of Congressional prerogatives, to which Mr. Flemming agreed. After Mr. Randall indicated that he had no strong feeling, the President upheld the Attorney General’s view and favored substitution [Page 65] of a clause calling for determination on the basis of a reasonable percentage depending on the circumstances of each case.
Mr. Flemming cited a possible conflict between the message and the forthcoming recommendation of the Subcommittee on Minerals Policy,3 but Mr. Randall made it clear that the report and the message did not preclude use of tariffs to support domestic mineral production for reasons of the national economy; rather it ruled out only use of tariffs as a means of subsidizing defense industries. Mr. Randall responded to another query by Mr. Flemming to the effect that the Commission had carefully considered and decided against a recommendation to have the Tariff Commission in its proceedings take into account broad factors of foreign policy, etc.
[Here follows discussion of other matters.]
- Prepared by L. Arthur Minnich, Jr., Assistant Staff Secretary, White House.↩
- A copy of the reference memorandum, which is undated and bears no drafting information, is filed with the source text. It contains four recommendations, similar to those made in the memorandum by Deputy Assistant Secretary Kalijarvi, supra, concerning special treatment for Japan, increased tariff reductions, elimination of 50–50 shipping provisions, and the stimulation of domestic mineral production by means other than tariff increases and import restrictions.↩
- Apparent reference to the Cabinet Committee on Minerals Policy. See also the editorial notes, pp. 1116 and 1257.↩