exports is denied access to our markets, it soon exhausts the dollar reserves it requires to purchase United States machinery and equipment. And since our exports of these manufactured goods provide in the aggregate over 4,500,000 jobs in this country, it is obvious that reduced dollar income abroad jeopardizes a major segment of our economy at home. It is vitally important, therefore, that today's appeals to increase trade barriers, to scuttle the reciprocal trade movement, to substitute expedience for principle in the conduct of our foreign economic relations, should be understood and recognized for what they are the special pleading of vocal minorities. For these reasons, I strongly support a full-year extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act as embodied in House bill 12591, and will appreciate your courtesy in having these views recorded for consideration by the committee as a whole. Respectfully yours, ROBERT P. KOENIG. MILWAUKEE ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE, Senator HARRY F. BYRD, Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR BYRD: The Milwaukee Association of Commerce respectfully requests permission to present this statement in support of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. On March 6 the board of directors of this organization voted that strong representations be made to your committee favoring the legislation relating to the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1958. This action by our board of directors resulted from a recommendation of our international trade committee, composed of specialists in all phases of overseas commerce. Notwithstanding a few isolated cases of hardship, we feel that on the whole, Milwaukee and Wisconsin commerce, industry and agriculture have materially benefited over the past 24 years under this act. We also feel that extension of the proposed act for 5 years to June 30, 1963, is essential and vital to the establishment of a strong negotiating position with the 6 countries that formed the European Economic Commission (EEC) on January 1 of this year to develop a Common Market (CM) in 3 stages of about 4 years each. We are of the opinion that it is necessary for the United States to negotiate with substantial strength during the coming 4 years. A 5-year extension of the proposed act will materially contribute to this. It is for the reasons listed above that the board of directors of this association wholeheartedly supports H. R. 12591 without amendment, and urges that your committee take positive action favoring this bill. Sincerely, Senator HARRY F. BYRD, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. LESTER OLSEN. NEW YORK, N. Y., July 1, 1958. DEAR SENATOR BYRD: We desire to place ourselves on record with the Senate Finance Committee as being very strongly in favor of the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1958, H. R. 12591, as passed by the House, without any amendments whatsoever. This weekly magazine, established in 1919, has for almost 4 decades been recognized as spokesman for United States exporters, including both independent export organizations and the export executives of manufacturing industry. The industries represented by our readership have been recognized, both by the leaders of organized labor and by the United States Department of Labor, as paying higher wages and providing bettter working conditions than is true of those minority industries which claim the need for protection against import competition. While we recognize that the marginal or fringe units in some industries do suffer from import competition, it is manifest that the allegations of such industries are grossly exaggerated and in any event, we believe that any curtailment of the growth of United States exports, which could not fail to result from any further impediment to imports, would cause far more serious unemployment and more dislocation to the United State economy than has resulted or could conceivably result from import, competition, as regards the overall economy of the United States. We believe that those industries which have proven themselves able in foreign markets to sell their products, produced by the highest paid labor in the world, constitute the backbone of America's industrial economy, and that such industries are far more meritorious of governmental solicitude than are those other industries which, in most cases for a multiplicity of reasons based only in small part on import competition, have not proven the ability to make as productive use of the abilities of American workers. Since it is manifestly impossible through political action to give special privilege to one group without at least equally injuring some other group, we believe that the outcome of the indirect competition between different American business enterprises, which takes place through the transaction of two-way foreign trade, should be left to the normal functioning of economic forces and should not be distorted by governmental intervention through protective devices, except in cases where it is clearly demonstrable that such action is absolutely essential to the welfare of our entire population. Respectively submitted. REDINGTON FISKE, Editor. LINEN TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC., Hon. HARRY F. BYRD, Chairman, Committee on Finance, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR BYRD: Our association was organized in April 1891 and is the representative trade organization of United States importers of pure-linen fabrics, as well as household and decorative articles made of linen. We wish to go on record as strongly in favor of a 5-year extension of the Trade Agreements Act with new bargaining power. Specifically, we favor authorizing the President to reduce existing rates of duty by as much as 25 percent of such rates in appropriate cases. We wish to register our strong objection to any shorter extension of the act than the 5-year period proposed in the House-approved bill. We are vigorously opposed to the proposed amendment to the escape clause which would permit the President to proclaim increases in existing rates of duty up to rates that are 50 percent above the July 1, 1934, duty rates. On the type of fabrics and articles which the members of our association import this would mean the possibility of a 600-percent increase over present rates. In the escapeclause case involving certain linen toweling the duty rate was increased from 10 percent ad valorem to 40 percent ad valorem. This merely had the effect of destroying the tariff advantages which the United Kingdom and Belgium had for years on this commodity over the Iron Curtain countries of Poland and Czechoslovakia. The single domestic company that this increase was intended to favor manufactures only very coarse linen towelings, which are not comparable to the fine goods produced in Belgium and Northern Ireland. The result, therefore, of the escape-clause increase in this case has merely been to expose this domestic manufacturer to intensified competition from producers of coarse goods in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Will you please insert this letter in the record of the current hearings on H. R. 12591? Respectfully yours, Hon. HARRY FLOOD BYRD, Chairman, Committee on Finance, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. STEWART C. CARSE, President. CHUBB & SON, New York, N. Y., July 1, 1958. DEAR SENATOR BYRD: May I request that you include the following expression in the printed record of the hearings on H. R. 12591, Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1958: I strongly urge the committee to recommend approval of this bill as passed by the House and without further amendment. I believe that a full 5-year extension is the minimum period necessary for adequate stability and continuity in our trade policy, and that the 25-percent reducing authority is equally a minimum if we are to make reasonable progress in the reduction not only of our own trade barriers but those of other countries in the free world. In recent months our exports have declined from the unprecedented peaks of the early months of 1957; part of this decline is probably quite normal but another element in the decline can easily be attributed to uncertainty on the part of the foreign buyer as to the future of our trade policy. To restore confidence abroad and thus to insure that our exports do not suffer the kind of decline which would seriously affect our already slipping economy, it is essential that this bill be passed in adequate form. The committee has been told many times of the importance of our trade policy to our foreign policy and to our security policy. There is no question in my mind that these statements are true and that any failure on our part to continue a liberal trade policy could well be disastrous for us all. Sincerely yours, J. RUSSELL PARSONS. STATEMENT OF Ross CONNELLY, S. M. WOLFF Co., 60 HUDSON STREET, Hon. HARRY FLOOD BYRD, Chairman, Committee on Finance, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. S. M. WOLFF Co., New York, N. Y., July 1, 1958. SIR: I wish to record my support for H. R. 12591, Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1958. I urge the Commission on Finance to recommend to the Senate its approval as passed by the House, and without further amendment. We are a relatively small exporting and importing firm. Obviously, we are in favor of legislation that promotes a liberal trade policy on the part of the United States, a policy designed to encourage expansion of our foreign trade. That, of course, would benefit our particular business-but it would also benefit the entire economy. International competition is one of the major forces which press upon our domestic costs and, thereby, enable us to provide quality goods at the lowest possible price. We believe that this is in the interest, not only of our Nation's consumers, but in the interest of the entire Nation and contributes to the kind of expanding economy which we all seek and to the higher standards of living which we have come to expect. It is our feeling that this legislation is thus not particular legislation to benefit particular groups, such as importers, but rather legislation which is in the fundamental interest of the entire country. It is our belief, however, that the consumer's interest has not been sufficiently stressed in this debate on trade policy. As importers, our major business concern is to supply goods which will attract and satisfy the American consumer. When imports are limited, or when tariffs are high, the price for imported goods to consumers must be high. This limits their choice in the market. It restricts, by artificial means, a wide range of choice at reasonable prices, which any free American consumer is entitled to. Our real standards of living depend, of course, upon the prices we pay for the goods we buy. If there is real competition between these goods, it is clear that prices will be lower and our standards of living will increase. This, in its simplest form, is one of the major purposes of the reciprocal trade program. The committee has heard many times that a reduction in tariffs will endanger or injure American domestic industry. I think, there may be instances of this injury, in rare cases, but I would urge this committee to discount many of the complaints which it may hear. No businessman likes competition, if he can avoid it, and too many domestic industries seize the opportunity presented by these periodical renewals of the Trade Agreements Act to voice their objections in very strong terms to such competition. It is curious, but true, that they feel perfectly justified in attempting to prevent competition from abroad, while at the same time, calmly accepting domestic competition as inevitable. Also, many of them have no qualms when accepting export subsidies from our Government, which of course, are mainly on United States farm products. So far as benefits to the economy are concerned, there is essentially no difference between foreign competition and domestic competition. Every dollar the Nation spends for imports is reflected sooner or later in exports-exports which create jobs and income. The year 1958 is a critical year for the United States. The European Economic Community just formed presents us with the challenge of whether we will maintain our close relation with that area of the world by the mutual reduction of trade barriers, or whether we will stand by and watch Europeans reduce and eliminate trade barriers among themselves alone. Western Europe is a $5-billion export market for the United States, and we stand in danger of losing a substantial part of that market unless we extend this Trade Agreements Act. The Soviet economic defense presents another challenge. The committee must decide whether the United States is prepared to cooperate closely with the underdeveloped nations of the world and exchange our goods on a freer basis, to our mutual benefit or whether we are prepared to leave the field to the Russians. I strongly urge the committee to approve H. R. 12591 intact. Hon. HARRY F. BYRD, Chairman, Committee on Finance, Ross CONNELLY. WINTON LUMBER CO., Minneapolis, Minn., July 1, 1958. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. SIR: I wish to record my strong support for H. R. 12591, the trade agreements extension bill of 1958, as passed by the House of Representatives and now before your committee. The provisions of the bill calling for a 5-year period of duration, 25 percent tariff-reducing authority, and retention of full discretion in the hands of the President on escape-clause cases, are absolute minima if the needs of the United States are to be fulfilled in the field of trade legislation. We are all aware of the time schedule for the European Economic Community; we know that an extension of less than 5 years would not permit us to complete our proposed tariff negotiations with that community. We know, too, that the Soviets have launched a massive economic offensive, having as its purpose the progressive subversion of a large part of the free world. While this trade agreements extension bill is in no respect a complete response to this offensive, it is an essential element in our economic defense: and certainly none of the alternative proposals involving shorter period of time or lesser authority can possibly make an adequate contribution to this historic challenge. What the Congress does this year with this trade agreements extension will either establish the basis for expanding United States and world trade, with all the economic benefits that would bring, or it will create a climate leading to progressive contraction of trade. We can have no doubt of the seriousness of the effect of that course of our economic growth, on our free-world leadership, and our common security. May I again urge the committee to approve H. R. 12591 without amendment. Sincerely, D. J. WINTON. STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL BOARD OF THE YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN AssoCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN SUPPORT OF H. R. 12591, THE TRADE AGREEMENTS EXTENSION BILL, JULY 1, 1958 By Mrs. Paul M. Jones, Vice President, New York, N. Y. The national board of the Young Women's Christian Association of the United States of America has supported the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act since 1934. We believe that the issue of freer trade has never been of more critical concern than it is today. Our trade policies have a direct and continuous bearing on our relations with other nations. As one of the more prosperous members of the free world but also as a nation dependent on others for strategic raw materials, we believe that the United States should give leadership in liberalizing trade and placing it on a more secure and sound basis. It would be unthinkable to return to the state of chaotic conditions prior to 1934 when nations resorted to high tariffs, quotas, and embargoes, which in turn invited the reciprocal raising of trade barriers by other countries, so today it is urgent that we go beyond our policies of recent years during which we extended the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act for merely 2 or 3 years. We cannot afford to risk leaving the initiative in this area to the Communists whose system of grants, gifts, loans, trade, aid, and barter are all bent to a single purpose-the reinforcement of Communist power. We must meet this threat in all aspects of our foreign policy, of which one of the most important is trade. The minimum requirement to bolster the economies of the Western and uncommitted nations and to meet the Communist challenge is an extension of the Trade Agreements Act for at least 5 years, and the retention of the power of the President to negotiate with foreign countries through his authority to reduce tariffs. We oppose further strengthening of the peril point and escape clause provisions, believing that as they stand they afford adequate protection to our domestic industries. We hope that your committee will report favorably on H. R. 12591, and that you will oppose any attempts at attaching crippling amendments. STATEMENT FOR PRESENTATION TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE IN SUPPORT OF H. R. 12591 BY P. G. WINNETT, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, BULLOCK'S, INC. Gentlemen, deeply concerned with the importance of increased two-way trade to the growth of the American economy and with the need for American leadership in easing world tensions before it is too late, I should like to express my support for a 5-year extension of the Trade Agreements Act as proposed in H. R. 12591. Bullock's together with other leading retail institutions in the United States have exerted much effort in encouraging the importation of salable articles manufactured abroad, having done so not only with the idea of stimulating domestic business but also with the aim of encouraging reciprocal trade. The premise on which we base our support for a meaningful extension of the Trade Agreements Act without any further weakening amendments is made up of many things, including the following: Reciprocal trade is not only good business for the American economy; it is also the keystone of a foreign policy designed to foster a world climate in which the American people can best fulfill their aspirations for ever-rising standards of living. Expanding two-way trade is one of the main bases upon which we and our friends abroad can prosper without artificial Government supports which offer no enduring remedy to economic problems. A liberal trade policy on the part of the United States, while the basis for the steps that must be taken to reduce the barriers to trade and to economic progress in general, is also a symbol of the role the United States wishes to play in the free world. It symbolizes our national outlook on the desirability of effective cooperation and enduring unity in the society of free nations. It is also a symbol of the dynamic free enterprise system which we like to hold high as an emblem of American economic strength. The United States has an important stake in it own rapid economic growth as well as in the rapid economic growth of the other nations with which it is associated in the preservation of world peace. Failure to reduce further the barriers that impede trade between our country and the rest of the free world will hurt American industry, agriculture, and labor by increasing the obstacles to expansion of our country's export trade. An expanding economy needs expanding exports. The most important source of dollars for the rest of the world is sales to the American market. Our expanding economy needs and can easily absorb a greater volume of imports, which is also essential if we are to realize in dollars the earnings from the investment of American capital in foreign countries. The European Common Market is only one example of the many new developments now taking place in the world with which the United States must be in a position to deal, if our economic and political interests are to be preserved and enhanced. We need a foreign trade policy adequately tooled to enable us to take suitable action in the face of these new developments. H. R. 12591, while not in every detail as strong an extension as we would prefer, still in our judgment provides adequate machinery to permit the United States to move quickly and effectively in the field of foreign trade. |