order that this phase of our overseas work be made as effective as possible. The selection, training and activities of these officers should be under the direction of the Department of Commerce. It is felt also that the Bureau should develop a program through which businessmen could meet with foreign service officers of the Bureau when they return to this country. These officials would have much valuable information accumulated at their posts which would be very helpful in getting a complete and current picture of trade prospects in the areas involved. Possibly a program of periodic trade conferences at the bureau's field offices would serve such purposes. SAN FRANCISCO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Hon. DANIEL A. REED, The House of Representatives, Washington 25, D. C. May 8, 1953. MY DEAR MR. REED: We have just learned that your committee has commenced hearings on the renewal of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. We wish to take this opportunity to make our views known to your committee. The world trade association of this chamber of commerce concurs in the views expressed herein. The subject of reciprocity in trade originated in this chamber of commerce in 1932. Since that time we have consistently supported a liberal trade policy and a continuation of the reciprocal trade agreements program as we have felt that this is a proper procedure to secure the reduction of excessive tariffs and help in the removal of trade barriers including quotas, exchange and other controls. We are confident that the reciprocal trade agreements program has achieved these objectives and must be maintained on as liberal a basis as possible. Since January 1, the chamber's world trade committee and world trade association have given extensive study to a revision of our chamber's policy statement of 1944 and this revision has just been completed and approved by our directors. In its present mimeographed form the document is too lengthy to submit to your committee for its consideration, but we are attaching a summary of the various subjects covered in our current declaration as compared with that issued in 1944. We have taken from our current declaration the full statement with regard to reciprocal trade agreements and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In this statement it will be observed that we recommend a continuation of the trade agreements program for at least a 4-year period, preferably without expiration date and in its present form. We feel this is necessary in order to maintain a continuity in our international trade policy to assure the European countries in particular that our trade policy is long range and not subject to short-term changes motivated perhaps by political expediency which result in lack of confidence on their part. We are aware that President Eisenhower has requested an extension of the Trade Agreements Act in its present form for 1 year to permit full and complete study of all phases of the program, its objectives and operations. We are in accord with the President's desire. We also recommend that the escape-clause and peril-point provisions, which have been operating as a means of curtailing prompt action under the trade agreements policy, be reviewed with a view to simplifying procedures and the avoidance of delays in administration of the act. This will be accomplished in the study proposed. Present legislation before you appears to add additional amendments which in effect may make the trade agreements program less effective. Without going into detail on these we urge that your committee endeavor to keep in mind the efficient administration of the act and the reaction abroad to additional amendments that may make the principle of reciprocity ineffective and the administration of the act more cumbersome. Many proposed revisions require mandatory actions on the part of the President, thus limiting the freedom of the executive branch to act in matters which have an overall bearing or influence on our foreign policy as a whole. It appears these new restrictive amendments are designed to defeat the purpose of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. The President has already expressed his opposition to the several mandatory provisions. The provision to establish quotas on imports of petroleum appears unnecessary especially on the Pacific coast where current production and stocks of crude are at a minimum and such imports have been necessary for some time. Furthermore, such restrictions of imports may seriously affect the economies of such countries as Venezuela and Indonesia by restricting their ability to earn dollars needed to pay for essential equipment and supplies purchased in the United States. Attached please find editorial and cartoons on this subject, which appeared in the San Francisco News (Scripps-Howard) of April 29 and 30, and an editorial from the San Francisco Chronicle, which we would like to have made a part of the record. We shall appreciate your consideration and that of the committee regarding these recommendations. Very truly yours, J. W. MAILLIARD, III, President. NORTHWEST WORLD TRADE CLUB [Copy of January 19, 1955, telegram] CLERK, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, New House Office Building, Washington 25, D. C.: We wish to file the statement below as representative of the views of the membership of the Northwest World Trade Club of Minneapolis on H. R. 1. The Northwest World Trade Club of Minneapolis with a membership of about 200 and representative of the exporting and importing firms of this area is on record as overwhelmingly in favor of passage of H. R. 1, Cooper bill, which embodies the proposals to extend and enlarge the trade agreement authority of the President, as outlined in his January 10 message to Congress. We are convinced that H. R. 1, is thoroughly in the interest of the United States and that it will help to maintain and promote a high level of two-way trade. It is axiomatic that we must buy if we are to sell. Export selling is important to jobs and business in Minnesota as well as other States. This fact is well illustrated by a University of Minnesota, School of Business, survey study published November 1953, subject; Minnesota Manufacturers Export to the World. The following information is from that report. "Nearly 250 Minnesota firms reported exports in 1952. Exporting was not restricted to the large firms. Approximately 55 percent of the reporting firms in the Twin Cities and the rest of the State have fewer than 50 employees. Twenty percent of the exporting firms have fewer than 8 employees. One-fourth of the Twin Cities firms and 16 percent of the firms in the rest of the State have more than 250 employees each." "Manufactured exports reported in the survey exceeded $42 million. Food products constituted nearly 40 percent of the State's reported exports. The second largest group, nonelectrical machinery constituted 26 percent.' "The above-cited survey does not purport to be all-inclusive. Not all Minnesota firms reported. It is apparent, however, that almost every industry in the State does some exporting. "The cited survey covers exports of manufactured products alone. If farm products were included, Minnesota exports would bulk much larger. However, the pressing importance of export markets for Minnesota corn, oats, wheat, soybeans, flaxseed, barley, hogs, dairy products, and eggs is plainly evident." ARTHUR L. CADIEUX, Secretary. STATEMENT OF VIEWS OF THE AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR TRADE WITH ITALY, INC. This chamber an American organization incorporated under the laws of the State of New York-comprises most leading importers of commodities from Italy together with firms engaged in exports to that country. The membership also includes other concerns interested in foreign trade, such as banks and insurance companies, air and shipping lines, international freight-forwarders, etc. Therefore, our association's stand on the matters discussed herewith can be considered the viewpoint of a representative group of American enterprises deriving their livelihood from activities related not only to trade with Italy, but to worldwide exchanges in general. We believe that: (1) The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act should be renewed, subject to certain changes in its present form, for a period of at least 3 years. With respect to the length of the act's renewal, we feel very strongly that instead of a 3-year period, as proposed in H. R. 1, the act should be extended for 5 or, even better, for 10 years. Such a policy is badly needed to avoid constant uncertainties, that in recent years have created in the United States and abroad an increasing atmosphere of disappointment and frustration, most harmful to the interest of American and foreign traders alike. An extended renewal would, on the other hand, allow the adoption of long-range production plans on the part of many industries here and in all countries doing business with us. Apart from this important contribution to economic stability the world over, we would also be offering proof positive that the United States has adopted and at last is pursuing a consistent course that will not be revised and perhaps, reversed after 12 short months. (2) The proposed authority of the President to reduce duties by no more than 15 percent of the rate existing on July 1, 1955, but not more than one-third of this reduction to be applied in any 12-month period, should be granted. (3) The proposal that the President be empowered to reduce by not more than 50 percent the duty existing on January 1, 1945, on articles not imported into the United States, or imported in negligible quantities, though by not more than one-third of this total reduction in any 12-month period, should also be adopted. (4) Similarly, the proposal that the President be allowed to reduce to 50 percent ad valorem the duty on articles now subject to duty exceeding 50 percent of the value, though by not more than one-third of this total reduction in any 12-month period, is a step in the right direction and should be enacted. (5) Though H. R. 1 does not recommend that the following two provisions of the act in its present form be modified, we believe they should be revised for the reasons we suggest herewith: (a) The peril-point provision should be amended to avoid the danger of allowing inefficiently managed marginal industries to invoke protection which may result in hardships to the American consumer far in excess of the damage possibly suffered by said industries; (b) The escape-clause procedure should be modified so as to discourage the numerous and often petty applications for relief which are being filed under the present setup. It is also very important that a definition of the concept of "serious injury" based on strictly defined economic criteria be sought and applied consistently in the future. In addition to urging that all of the above points be given earnest consideration, this chamber suggests that every member of your committee, who will undoubtedly be subjected to a barrage of special interest testimony urging protectionistic amendments to H. R. 1, keep in mind the following two propositions that in our belief are not only true, but worthy of being remembered at all times: (1) It may be correct to argue that in a few special cases, the lowering of certain duties and trade barriers might result in local, temporary industrial hardships and labor dislocations. On the other hand, the fact is also true and has by far wider economic implications—that United States industries directly engaged in import-export activities, plus other concerns (such as railroad, shipping, and air lines, freight forwarders, stevedoring firms, etc.) also dependent on such trade, employ workers in numbers so great that the welfare of millions of Americans is vitally linked with the development of international exchanges. (2) In the final analysis, the national interest must be the factor governing all our decisions. And it cannot be denied that the establishment and consolidation of strong reciprocal economic ties among free peoples the world over, constitutes the best answer to our quest for international stability and peace and at the same time assures that American industry and commerce will share fully the prosperity we are striving to maintain in our country and develop elsewhere. Our chamber extends very sincere thanks for having been offered this opportunity to express its viewpoint on subjects that rate a very high priority on the agenda of the 84th Congress. Hon. JERE COOPER, PERUVIAN-AMERICAN ASSOCIATION, INC., Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The Peruvian-American Association supports enthusiastically the request of the President to extend the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act for 3 years with certain modifications looking toward further gradual reductions in tariffs. The association has, in fact, strongly endorsed the reciprocal trade-agreements program for many years. It continues to feel that the program should become a permanent policy of the United States and that it should be a cornerstone in economic cooperation among the American Republics and the other free world nations. Our organization has carefully studied the bill introduced by you and the President's message to Congress of January 10 in which the outlined proposals for a foreign economic policy. Our attention was particularly drawn to that part of the President's message in which he stated: "No nation can be economically self-sufficient. Nations must buy from other nations, and in order to pay for what they buy they must sell." In our view, this is an excellent, forthright statement of the issue facing us today. As you know, Peru is an important customer of the United States. In 1953, 55 percent of her total imports came from the United States. She buys a wide range of goods from the United States including electrical, industrial, and construction machinery, automobiles and parts, foodstuffs, iron and steel mill products, textiles, synthetic fibers, and many others. In return, the United States finds Peru an important source of strategic materials such as lead, zinc, and copper. As a further indication of Peru's trade importance to the United States, it should be emphasized that during the 5-year period from 1949 to 1953, Peru bought on the average nearly twice as much in goods from the United States as the United States purchased from her. Additionally, Peru has long followed the private enterprise system and a policy of welcoming foreign private investments. She has a free exchange market and for a number of years has kept her foreign trade almost completely free of restrictions. Economic and political relations between the United States and Peru traditionally have been very friendly and cooperative. The Peruvian-American Association, therefore, firmly believes that extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act is essential to continuation of the mutually beneficial trade relations between the two countries. Sincerely yours, JAMES H. STEBBINS, President. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Houston, Tex., January 18, 1955. Hon. JERE COOPER, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, HONORABLE CONGRESSMAN: The executive committee of the Houston Chamber of Commerce at its meeting on January 18 approved the attached statement concerning H. R. 1. I respectfully call this statement to your attention as you consider this bill. Yours very truly, BEN C. BELT, President. STATEMENT TO BE FILED WITH THE COMMITTFE ON WAYS AND MEANS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AT WASHINGTON, D. C., RELATIVE TO H. R. 1 (COOPER BILL), THE EXTENSION OF THE RECIPROCAL TRADE AGREEMENTS Аст The Houston Chamber of Commerce again reaffirms its support of the reciprocal trade agreements program and urges that the President's recommendations be followed in the renewal bill, H. R. 1. Many United States industries are now dependent upon exports for a substantial portion of their income and consequently for the employment of their personnel, the payment of wages, and the maintenance of the mass-purchasing power of the consuming public in the United States. It is vital that this export phase of our economy be kept at a healthy level and the ability of foreign nations to earn dollars through trade with us in the logical way for these dollar earnings to be cbtained. The only other way to maintain our high export level is to loan or grant moneys to foreign nations. By granting or loaning funds on a continuing program, we are financing our exports by means of taxation of United States citizens, inflating our currency by increasing money supply without increasing real goc ds, and consequently we curtail our standard of living. The increase in standards of living abroad, engendered by an increasing trade will in itself increase the demand abroad for all types of products and will be to the benefit of the United States. The increase in dollar availability abroad in nations where dollar goods are discriminated against because of hard currency shortages, will again open these areas to American exports. We believe that foreign markets are necessary to the continued prosperity of American farms, mines, and factories, presently producing at high levels, and that above any consideration of beneits to cther nations of the free world, it is necessary to recognize the benefit to our own Nation. Exceptions to the maintenance and development of this increasing movement of goods are necessitated by world political conditions and industries essential to the national defense of the United States must be protected by tariffs, subsidies or quotas whenever necessary, but the need and essentiality of such industries should be clearly demonstrable. In the matter of customs simplification, there are two principal items to be corrected. First: The basis for valuation of imported commodities should be clearly stated so that both the importer and the customs authority will have a solid, fixed figure with which to deal. Second: The customs authorities should be derprived immediately of the power to reclassify merchandise after it has been released into commerce. It is in the belief that legislation to implement the President's policy on the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act is in the national interest that this statement is respectfully submitted for your consideration in studying the extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act implementing the President's foreign-trade policy. FOR YOUR INFORMATION FROM THE NORFOLK PORT AUTHORity, Norfolk, Va. After a long period, during which the foreign trade of the United States showed alarmingly large excesses of exports over imports, covered in one form or another from the public purse, we appear to be approaching a near balance. Increases of imports, on the one hand, and decrease of exports, on the other, has resulted in the present excess of exports which is more than offset by indirect imports (such as direct expenditures, remittances abroad, et cetera) and United States Government expenditures in foreign countries. Thus, while we have yet to achieve a true trade balance, we have achieved a balance of payments, which has already resulted in the removal of many restrictions, on the part of several foreign countries, in the free movement of dollars transferred in payment for American exports. Some two-thirds of our imports consist of raw materials coming into this country duty free. The movement of this type of imports is dependent upon the industrial demands of our economy and generally they are bought rather than sold. Dutiable imports, however, have to be sold and the efforts of foreign exporters to successfully adapt production and styling to the United States market as well as merchandising in the United States involve a considerable business risk and expenditure. Many a manufacturer abroad is willing to take such a business risk, but is deterred by the uncertainties of the United States foreign economic policy. The desirability of a substantial increase of manufactured imports into this country is demonstrated by the following: About 20 percent of gainfully employed Americans are production workers. The remaining 80 percent work in transportation, merchandising, marketing, advertising, banking, and many other service industries, who are employed in the handling of imported merchandise in the same way as in the movement of equivalent domestic products. Therefore, any displacement of employees would only occur on the manufacturing level and at most would represent a loss of 1 job out of a total of 5. If preservation of that 1 job is accomplished by the scaling down of exports to the import level, 5 jobs will be lost; this because the export industry employs both production and service workers-5 out of 5. If, however, a balance of trade is achieved as a foundation, an increase in manufactured imports will put in circulation dollars which, directly or multilaterally, will come back to the United States in the form of exports. The world markets for American products are limited only by the ability of the foreign buyers to pay in hard money. Such an expansion on both sides of the trade balance will displace 1 American worker on the production line, by reason of imports, will create 4 new service |