fact remains that many barriers to the import of United States agricultural products still exist in many forms even by countries which do not produce such products or produce them in very limited amounts. Any extension of the trade agreements authority should, we believe, place a high priority upon the removal of these barriers to agricultural markets. Although agricultural exports last year were at a record level of about $4.7 billion dollars and with the bulk going to countries with which we have trade agreements, the fact remains that about 42 percent of such exports moved under direct Government programs such as gifts, barter, Public Law 480, etc. If commodities which move with the assistance of subsidies are included, the figure would approximate 70 percent. Thus, it would seem evident that agriculture is in rather a precarious situation as far as foreign agricultural markets are concerned. It is our judgment that there are many measures available to promote mutually profitable bilateral and multilateral trade more effectively and with less danger of disruption and dislocation of our own economy, than by relying almost entirely upon simple and direct reduction in tariffs. This belief again prompts reference to Grange programs which would give farmers greater opportunities to increase foreign markets. At the 91st annual session of the National Grange, the delegate body adopted the following statement on foreign trade policy:

"It is the recommendation of the committee that the National Grange in conformity with existing policy, should continue its support of efforts to expand international trade on a mutually benefiting basis, as was originally contemplated under our trade-agreements program.

"In the consideration or development of programs having as their objective the expansion or implementation of international trade, the committee believes that considerable care should be exercised so as to minimize the impact of such programs on domestic agriculture and industry and to avoid any weakening of our internal economy. In this connection the committee believes it desirable for the National Grange to reemphasize the importance of, and the need for, the maintenance, effective administration, and strengthening, if necessary, of the provisions of section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, to protect agriculture against excessive imports, and of section 32 of Public Law 320, 74th Congress, to expand markets for, and increase the consumption of, United States agricultural products. This reaffirmance is believed necessary because of the efforts which have apparently been made to weaken the effectiveness of these basic agricultural laws.

"Similarly, the committee also recognizes that appropriate procedures are also necessary to provide effective relief for products not covered by section 22, against excessive import competition. The procedures which are presently available should be reexamined to determine their adequacy and they should be strengthened where necessary to prevent undue injury.

"In view of the changing purposes and objectives of our trade-agreements program which have taken place in recent years, with ever-increasing emphasis being placed on the granting of trade and tariff concessions as a means of strengthening the economies of other nations of the world as a part of our fight against communism, the committee believes that careful review and some changes are needed in our trade-agreements policy so that no segment of American agriculture or industry shall be called upon to bear the entire burden of increased imports resulting from such policy. If tariff or trade concessions are made to further our foreign policy in the interests of our Nation as a whole, then the burden of such a policy should be borne insofar as possible by the Nation as a whole. It is the belief of the committee that better guidelines and controls need to be established by the Congress to assure fairness and equity to domestic producers in the carrying out of policies to expand international trade and it recommends that the National Grange should endeavor to develop and support policies toward that end."

The delegate body deemed it necessary to again emphasize the importance of section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the need for it being given full effect to protect agriculture against excessive imports. This reaffirmance is believed necessary becouse of action taken under the Trade Agreements Act which impairs the effectiveness of the Agricultural Adjustment Act which was enacted in 1933 by the Congress as a basic protection to agriculture. Briefly, section 22 authorizes and directs the imposition by our Government under certain specified factual situations of import quotas or import fees to protect agricultural programs. In the administration of the Trade Agreements Act, representatives of the executive branch of our Government entered into

the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, generally known as GATT, whereby our Government in 1947 and again in 1955 pledged that no quota would be instituted or maintained on the importation of any product of any other contracting party. At the time this pledge was originally made, quotas under section 22 were in effect and subsequently others have had to be put into effect. As a result, this Nation was subjected to criticism and charged with violation of the terms of our pledge. To ameliorate the situation, representatives of our Government asked for a waiver of the pledge which had been given. A waiver was obtained, but only on condition that the United States would consult with other nations before taking further action under section 22, and would remove existing quotas on all farm products as soon as circumstances permitted. A progress report must be made once a year as to any quotas which are in effect and explanation must be given of the reasons therefor. In addition, the countries signatory to GATT have declared that the decision to grant the waiver does not preclude the right of affected contracting parties to have recourse under another article of GATT. This article provides that if no satisfactory solution is arrived at, the question of adjustment must be referred to the 35 members signatory to GATT for decision. In our judgment, this agreement by representatives of our Government committing the United States to a course of action contrary to existing specific provisions of law has seriously impaired the effectiveness of section 22 and the resultant criticism has not been conducive to the promotion of expanded trade. In 1951, section 22 was amended to provide that "No trade agreement or other international agreement heretofore or hereafter entered into by the United States shall be applied in a manner inconsistent with this section." It would, therefore, appear to be clear that any extension of the Trade Agreements Act at this time should reemphasize this prohibition against any agreement in derogation of section 22.

There are, of course, many products of the United States, both agricultural and nonagricultural, which do not receive protection under section 22 and which may suffer substantial injury from imports unless appropriate measures are adopted to give a measure of protection to domestic producers and at the same time do equity to the foreign country involved. For example, the "farmers of the sea," tuna fishermen in California, have suffered severely for the last several years because nothing has been done to reach a reasonable solution to the tuna import problem. In other instances, in which complaints have been made of severe injury from imports, such great delays have been encountered in the utilization of the remedies provided by the Congress as to aggravate the problem and to cause unwarranted injury. Admittedly problems of this kind are extremely difficult, but they cannot be swept under the rug. The longer effective solutions are delayed the greater the problem becomes. It is our belief that improved procedures need to be established to see that the safeguards in the Trade Agreements Act are applied promptly and in a reasonable manner. The achievement of this objective may well include a strengthening and a greater use of the United States Tariff Commission than has been made in the past in the administration of the trade agreements program.

It is our sincere judgment that the suggestions made herein by the Grange would strengthen the reciprocal trade program by creating greater confidence in those who feel that the administration of the program has been one-sided. As difficult as the assignment may be, we believe that we must constantly continue our efforts to expand trade with our friends abroad on a reciprocal and mutually benefiting basis. We must fight against economic warfare conducted through import restrictions but at the same time we must also protect ourselves against economic aggression which might result from the existence of excessive dispartity in the factors of production.

STATEMENT OF THE INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN POULTRY INDUSTRIES ON EXTENSION OF THE RECIPROCAL TRADE AGREEMENTS ACT, BY HAROLD WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT The Institute of American Poultry Industries is a nonprofit organization which was organized nearly 33 years ago. Its members include processors and distributors of poultry and eggs and their products and, in addition, producers, breeders, hatcherymen, and other allied interests.

The Institute of American Poultry Industries supports the extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act and its objective of expanding foreign trade

on a mutually benefiting basis through the elimination of unjust and unreasonable barriers to trade.

The importance of the poultry and egg industry in the United States is selfevident. Poultry and eggs are the third largest producer of cash farm income. Gross farm income from poultry and eggs is greater than the total income from corn and all other feed grains put together, including Government payments. It exceeds the income from wheat, or cotton, or tobacco, or from fruits and vegetables. The income produced by poultry and eggs is exceeded only by the income received from red meat animals and dairy products. The 4 million farmers involved in the production of poultry and eggs are located in almost every county in the United States. The farmers who produce poultry and eggs and those upon whom they rely to process and distribute their products are largely small-business men.

There has been little foreign trade in poultry products. Since the close of World War II, however, there has been a technological revolution in both the production and processing of poultry products. As a result of research, new breeds, new feeds, and new methods of processing have been developed. It is now possible to produce new meat-type chicken in 8 to 10 weeks, which, with new techniques in processing, are put in ready-to-cook form. This new-type high-quality product has resulted in virtually doubling per capita consumption. New markets are needed to provide additional outlets for our production.

American poultry products are produced under the full impact of the inexorable law of supply and demand. Production of poultry in the United States is subject to many factors which place domestic producers at a disadvantage with foreign producers. Most grains and other feed items going into domestic poultry and egg production are afforded price protection by some form of price support. This results in higher feed costs for American producers. On the other hand, the Government of the United States to a greater or lesser extent subsidizes grain for export, and to the extent that this lowers feed costs, foreign producers are given an advantage. Moreover, poultry production in the United States is subjected to rigid inspection requirements, which, while giving consumers added assurances of the wholesomeness of the product, nevertheless increase production costs. The high wage levels and employee benefits which are attendant with American production, and the high taxes which exist in the United States, also increase production costs. These facts all indicate that foreign producers need have no substantial fear of United States production. Notwithstanding the fact that United States poultry is competitive only at certain times during low-price cycles in the United States provided quality is taken into consideration, a substantial foreign market potential for American poultry nevertheless exists because of the great possibilities for an expansion in the consumption of poultry products. This will provide an enlarged market for all poultry products regardless of where produced. There is good reason to believe that export demand may be stimulated through adequate promotion and market development programs. In the last year or so Western Germany and Switzerland have commenced purchasing United States poultry products in commercial quantities for the first time in history. The product currently being exported from the United States is not displacing other production-it is the result of increased consumption and represents entirely new marketings. By providing foreign consumers with the high-quality meat-type ready-to-cook new product which has been developed in the United States and is not generally produced elsewhere, increased consumer acceptibility and expanded foreign markets are being created. Per capita poultry consumption in all other countries of the world, with the exception of Canada, is extremely low when compared with United States consumption. For example, the country which is currently the largest exporter of poultry in the world has a per capita consumption of only a little over 2 pounds as compared to a United States consumption of 31 pounds.

Increased markets for poultry not only serve to supply the growing needs and demands for foreign consumers for additional protein products, but also furnish outlets for substantial quantities of surplus feedstuffs.

Despite the low per capita consumption generally in the other countries of the world and the high level of cost attendant with United States production, almost all foreign countries maintain trade barriers in some form which restrict market opportunities for United States poultry. The attached table illustrates the extent and nature of these barriers.

It is obvious that in many instances restrictions are being unjustly applied against United States poultry, but not against poultry originating from other sources, by countries whose indigenous production is incapable of producing sufficient poultry products to supply consumer demand and an adequate protein diet. The Institute of American Poultry Industries in supporting an extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act recommends that in carrying out a renewed and extended trade agreements authority a high priority be placed on the elimination or modification of these restrictions.

DEAR SENATOR BYRD: Convinced of the importance of expanding foreign trade to the sustained vitality and growth of the American economy and to our national security in a troubled world, I wish to express my support for H. R. 12591, a bill to continue the Trade Agreements Act for another 5 years.

I support this bill-particularly the need for a 5-year renewal, the new tariffnegotiating authority for the President, and the retention in the Presidency of authority to dispose of Tariff Commission recommendations according to the dictates of the national interest-because its provisions, on the whole, will help the United States exert its influence in reducing the barriers to trade in the free world. Much more than a liberal trade policy is needed if we are to achieve our objectives of economic health and national security. But a policy of trade liberalization is an indispensable part of the effort we must make to further those objectives.

Expanded foreign trade, with its many constructive implications for our national economic well-being and our Nation's security, is important to me

as a citizen. It is also important to me as a business executive whose company depends on export sales for more than 10 percent of its total business. Our product, in its full-blown simplicity, is bubble gum. I harbor no pretensions and I make none that bubble gum is one of the essentials of a richer life in our own market or in the markets to which we export. It is, however, one of the huge numbers of nonessentials that go into making up the frosting on the cake of our standard of living. More and more luxury goods for more and more people who can afford to pay for them and who seek an everexpanding variety of goods from which to choose-this is the dynamic American economy at work.

I submit that, to the extent that foreign purchasing power and dollar reserves permit rising purchases of bubble gum from the United States, such increases will reflect increments in economic vitality and political stability of great value to us all.

An expanding volume of foreign trade, to which a policy of freer trade has contributed so much for the past quarter century, has been good business for the American economy. Increased foreign trade is good for the other nations of the world; it means business, jobs, and more and better goods—the luxury kind as well as the essentials-available to the consumer.

A sustained increase in the flow of nonessential consumer goods across national borders signifies and contributes to healthier economic conditions in the buying nations, and it means happier consumers. A happy consuming public is an indispensable ingredient to economic strength and political stability. Countries that enjoy both are the best kind of allies in an alliance confronted by the dangers of aggression and subversion. American-produced luxury goods are highly desired by consumers all over the world, but the ability of foreign nations to allocate dollars to pay for the quantities of luxury goods their importers wish to order is greatly restricted. The limitations that the realities of the foreign exchange situation have placed on currency convertibility have thus seriously restricted the convertibility of consumer desires into dollar purchases.

This already has impact on my company. At the present level of tariffs in foreign countries, where ever-increasing local production of lower priced competitive products is evident, we are attempting to sustain and increase our export sales purely on the basis of higher quality and better merchandising methods. The price of our product to the ultimate consumer abroad is rigidly confined to the specific coinage involved. Increased tariff costs abroad, therefore, could not be passed on to the consumer and we would be forced completely out of many foreign markets. There is a maximum acceptable price, even on quality products, if appreciable sales volume is to be maintained and increased.

In the recent past, it was only the active pursuance of the positive reciprocal trade agreements features, supported by the facilities offered by mutual agreements under GATT, that we, and other American manufacturers, were able to persuade a tariff commission in western Europe not to heed representations by local manufacturers of competitive products to have prohibitive tariffs levied against imported products of the type we make.

A foreign trade policy on the part of the United States that promotes United States import trade the major source of dollars available to the rest of the world-will foster an expansion of our export trade, which is so important to so many American industries. A steady improvement in the world's dollar position will lead to an increased flow of luxury goods from this country-the kinds desired by adults and the kinds desired by children. This is good business for our own producers, with good economic and political implications for the consuming countries. The result all around?-a spur to economic wellbeing and national security for all concerned.

When more foreign nations can afford to allocate more dollars to pay for more bubble gum from America, that will of course mean more business for my small company. Because it would mean much more is the principal reason for my addressing this statement to the Committee on Finance. It would mean closer ties between American people and the consuming public abroad. It would mean stronger, more dependable allies for the United States. It would signify rapidly rising standards of living, meaning enhanced market potential for American exports of all kinds.

Freer international trade tends to foster that kind of world. It is an indispensable force in reducing the import and exchange controls that in many parts