Congressional Committee Reverses Decision on Arab Boycott Issue

In a practically unprecedented move in Congressional history, the majority of the Banking and Currency Committee of the House of Representatives disassociated them selves from the Committee’s earlier majority report on the bill against the Arab boycott and signed, instead, a separate report urging the full House to adopt a firm mandatory version of the bill.

Such a mandatory version was defeated last week in the same committee by a vote of 14 against 11. Instead, the Committee approved a declaratory statement clearly expressing opposition to the Arab boycott, but leaving it to Presidential discretion whether regulations should be promulgated to implement the general statement.

When the reports on the Committee action on the bill were filed with the Clerk of the House today, it was established that at least 17 out of the 33 members of the Banking and Currency Committee signed the supplementary report. It is understood that this unprecedented development is largely the result of the efforts of Representatives Abraham Multer, New York Democrat, and Seymour Hal pern, New York Republican who have continued their campaign to explain to their colleagues on the Committee the issues involved in the legislation.

The supplementary report, the signing of which by the majority of the members of the Committee raises the parliamentary question whether as a result, the original majority report is indeed such or has become a minority report, is believed to improve the chances of the final adoption of a firm language in the bill by Congress.

The supplementary report declares its satisfaction over the adoption of the declaratory statement by the Committee expressing unequivocal opposition to the boycott but states that “unfortunately, the bill as reported out does not go far enough” because it does not provide for the implementation of that declaration of policy. The report notes that testimony by Administration witnesses brought out that very little was done in dealing with the Arab boycott on a case-by-case basis, which the Administration recommends and that, if the declaratory language alone were to be adopted, the Administration would not change its present practice. “This would be flying in the face of the intention of the Congress,” the supplementary report notes.

The majority of the Committee members, in their supplementary report, denounced as “double standard” the fact that when a large bank or company appeals to the State Department against the Arab boycott, representations are made on their behalf to the Arab governments, but when a small firm turns to the State Department in the same matter “they get a lot of double-talk” and are told either to comply with the Arab requirements or lose their right to do business there.

Noting that Administration witnesses before the Committee also voiced certain technical points objectionable in the original language of the firm and mandatory version of the bill, the supplementary report declares that it will propose a new wording which takes into account those technical points. The wording that will be offered on the floor, on behalf of the majority of the Banking and Currency Committee members will therefore be brief and simple requiring only that the Administration issue “such rules and regulations (that) shall prohibit the furnishing of information or signing of agreements inconsistent with Section 2 (4) hereof.” Section 2 (4) is the declaratory paragraph of the bill expressing opposition to the boycott.