we look the water out ot our
DIETHYLHYDRQXYt AMINE. Now it can be used in water-sensi tive chemical systems. A good per oxide and free-radical scavenger for monomers. And a quick-stopper for runaway polymerization in non aqueous systems. Pennwalt anhydrous diethylhydroxylamine. Now available in pilot quantities. For data sheet and free sample, fill out the coupon below, attach it to your company letterhead, and send it to Product Development Department, Indchem Division, Pennwalt Corpora tion, Three Parkway, Philadelphia, Pa. 19102. P.S. We still make an 85% aque ous grade.
SPENMALT INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS Π Please send data sheet on anhydrous DEHA. Π Please send free sample of anhydrous DEHA. NAMEPOSITIONCOMPANYADDRESSCITY STATE28 C&EN SEPT. 28, 1970
-ZIP-
FEDERAL AFFAIRS
By Louis A. Agnello, Assistant Managing Editor
Disunity hurts chemical industry Forecasts for the September board meetings of the Manufacturing Chemists Association and the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufac turers Association were for threatening skies with the probability of violent storms. That the forecasters were right on the money is no remarkable achievement when one considers that the closed-door ses sions were to provide for the first face-to-face confrontation between loyalists and "defectors" since the chemical industry broke ranks on the trade bill now pending before Congress (C&EN, Aug. 24, page 22). And except for the extreme bitterness of the intramural trade fight, the fact that the chemical industry once again is being racked by civil war over governmental policies is not all that noteworthy. The seemingly constant feuding among the industry's leaders over policy issue emanating from the Government is one big reason why the industry has considerably less real influence in Washington than its importance to the nation's economic well-being would indicate. Ironically, trade policy—specifically opposition to Congressional approval of the agreement to eliminate the American Selling Price system of customs valuation of benzenoid chemical imports—has been one of the few issues in recent times on which the entire industry has seen eye to eye. It spoke with one voice in telling Congress that this agreement was a bad deal for the industry, its workers, and the nation. The combination of unified companies, trade associations, and labor unions on the ASP issue proved to be a potent force and resulted in the House Ways and Means Committee's defeating not only the White House position on ASP but, even, overriding the Democratic and Repub lican leadership on the committee. But when it came to playing the game of politics, the chemical industry was pitted against an all-pro in the White House. Out went the White House publicists to soften the interference by flooding the nation's press with horror stories of the "severe economic consequences" of the committee's action. Then came an intense political rush on the committee to try to get it to fumble the ball on ASP. To strip away the industrial interference, the White House put pressure on customers of the chemical industry and on major chemical companies themselves. Promises of "goodies" were dangled tantalizingly before chemical industrial leaders to get them to break away from the unified position. Threats of unfavorable White House decisions on other items of importance to some companies were hinted at. It was an old but proven strategy: Get your opponents to fight among them selves. And it has worked to perfection. Before the summer was over, chemical company representatives were passing one another in the halls of Congress—each carrying a different message as to what was best for his company and the indus try. Even those Congressmen who were anxious to find an equitable solution to the industry's problems were tempted to throw up their hands in dismay over the disarray within the industry's own house. Trade bill focus now shifts to the Senate. Yet the chemical indus try seems as badly divided as ever. MCA seems to have gone back into hiding since the chemical front crumbled. SOCMA, which led the House fight on ASP, apparently intends to carry the fight to the Senate—even though success there would seriously jeopardize the entire trade bill and the interests of some of its members who desperately want textile and fiber quotas and other provisions of the bill. It seems inconceivable that the chemical industry cannot come up with a unified position on trade policy. Admittedly, it will take some hard compromise—some retreating from entrenched positions. But surely, the industry's leaders must realize that their political strength lies in unity of purpose and strength of numbers. Or do they?
