« 이전계속 »
Unmanufactured zinc: United States production, imports, consumption, and ratios of production and of imports to consumption, 1950 to 1957
(Quantity in 1,000 short tons]
NOTE.-Primarily because of changes in Government stockpiles and in private stocks, as well as small amounts exported, the ratios of production and of imports to consumption do not, of course, necessarily add to 100 percent. In most recent years, the aggregate of domestic production and imports is for thes reasons considerably in excess of reported consumption.
I Mine output plus zinc recovered from all types of old and new scrap.
2 Reflects heavy withdrawals from bonded customs warehouses during latter part of year in anticipation of possible duty increase as a result of Government action. This was the reverse of the situation in 1951, when imports were postponed in anticipation of duty suspension.
3 Duty on all imports was suspended from Feb. 12, 1952, to July 23, 1952, inclusive (Public Law 258, 824 Cong.).
Slab zinc consumed, the zinc content of ores consumed directly in the manufacture of zinc pigments and chemicals, and the recoverable zinc in all forms of old and new zinc bearing scrap (minus the zinc content of redistilled and remelted zinc to eliminate duplication) as reported to the Bureau of Mines.
Source: Basic data from Bureau of the Census and Bureau of Mines: 1950-56 as reported by the Tariff Commission in "Lead and Zinc" report to the President on Escape Clause Investigation No. 65. April 1958. Prepared in the Department of Commerce by International Economic Analysis Division, Bureau of Foreign Commerce, June 1958.
Petroieum and products: Continental United States production, imports, domestic demand and ratios of production and of imports to domestic demand, 1950 to 1957
(Quantity in million barrels)
1 Crude petroleum production plus production of natural-gas liquids.
2 Imports are for continental area of the United States, and unlike the regular foreign trade statistics compiled by the Bureau of the Census, do not include receipts into United States territories from foreign countries.
NOTE.-Primarily because of exports and changes in stocks the ratios of production and of imports to domestic demand do not, of course, add to 100 percent.
Source: Basic data Bureau of Mines and Bureau of the Census; 1950-55 as reported in petroleum chapter of Minerals Yearbook. Prepared in the Department of Commerce by International Economic Analysis Division, Bureau of Foreign Commerce, June 1958.
Senator KERR. Let's go to page 14 there.
I thought that you gave some very pertinent information there. I got from what you said there that you were uneasy that we could not preserve the progress made unless we had a more liberal program in the future than we have had in the past.
Secretary WEEKS. You mean liberal by ability to grant further reductions,
Senator KERR. Yes.
Secretary WEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I think that we have to have or should have
Senator KERR. You said if we do not demonstrate to the world that we support the continuing reduction of obstacles to free world trade and I take it that that means tariff barriers. Secretary WEEKS. Tariff or other barriers, yes, sir. Senator KERR (reading): If our failure to take action weakens our friends to the point where they will fall into economic independence on the Soviet bloc, we will have lost the crucial battle in the epochal struggle of our time.
Now we have had this program in effect for 24 years. Secretary WEEKS. Yes, sir. Senator KERR. And we have made some very considerable concessions.
Is it your opinion that the ones that we have made would prove ineffectual unless we not only continue them but increase them?
Secretary WEEKS. I think this world is changing pretty fast. This common market development is not uniquely applicable to the six Continental countries-England, the Scandinavian countries are moving closer together and other trading sections of the world show evidence of going in the same direction. This extension, if granted by the Congress, with the ability to make some further reductions which on the overall picture are inconsequential-our average rate overall on those items that pay a duty is down to slightly under 12 percent today, so that in any event you are not going to greatly reduce the overall average. But, for example, we want to make new trades and grant and receive new concessions, and we should have some flexibility in my judgment.
Senator KERR. Mr. Secretary, you are filibustering. I just asked you a simple question.
Secretary WEEKS. Well, I think we have to have
Senator KERR. I just asked you if you thought that after 24 years of this program that we were neither going to be able to sustain the posture that we had achieved, the environment that we have developed nor improve it unless we give more concessions in the future than we have in the past.
Secretary WEEKS. To the extent of the permission we have asked for, yes, I think we should.
Senator KERR. That is more, isn't it? Secretary WEEKS. Yes, sir. Senator KERR. Now if you just carry that on into the future, how long is it going to be until we will have given it all.
Secretary WEEKS. I cannot forecast what would happen beyond the 5-year period.
Senator KERR. Can you forecast what will happen in the 5-year period? Secretary WEEKS. I do not think you will see a great
Senator KERR. I want you to tell me confidentially the Democratic nominee for President. Secretary WEEKS. I am no prophet, my friend.
Senator KERR. It looks like a bleak outlook to me, if we were compelled to take the position that the only way we can hold the progress we have made is to continue to increase the concessions to Europe. That looks to me like we are heading to the point of diminishing returns pretty fast.
Secretary WEEKS. I do not think when you look at that chart of the way our export trade has grown and the way our import trade has not grown
Senator KERR. You have got to interpret that in the light of this first chart.
Secretary WEEKS. No; it has no relationship.
Senator KERR. Because while the import of one thing may not have grown, it evidently has grown disproportionately to others because there is still a balance.
There is still just as much of the imports as there is of the exports according to that.
Secretary WEEKS. Where is that?
Senator KERR. I know, but the relationship between the two is remaining the same, is it not?
Secretary WEEKS. Yes, sir.
Senator KERR. So that there are some commodities with reference to which we are being paid less, then there has to be more that are being paid more.
Secretary WEEKS. Every dollar of product we make in a mill or a factory that goes into that export line is good for this country, isn't it?
Senator KERR. I do not know. I am against any combine I “ain't in on.” I'm against any trade program that Oklahoma is not in on.
Secretary WEEKS. Yes, sir.
Senator KERR. So I do not know how good it is for you boys up there, but I know how good it "ain't” for Oklahoma. That is what I'm worried about. And you will excuse me if I am a little provincial in my approach, won't you?
Secretary WEEKS. Yes, sir.
Senator KERR. But there is a balance there between expenditures and receipts, isn't there?
Secretary WEEKS. Yes, on the left-hand chart.
Senator KERR. Well, the one we are looking at there, the one that you just put up there.
He is holding it in his left hand.
Senator KERR. Take that next one, the right-handed one. Isn't there a balance there?
Secretary WEEKS. Yes, sir.
Senator KERR. And a good deal of that increase is made possible by the Government aid, the United States military purchases, the United States private investment and loans, and United States purchases of services.
How much do they total there?
Secretapts, isn': But their
Senator KERR. About $14 billion out of the $26 billion or $27 billion, isn't it? Over 50 percent? Secretary WEEKS. Over 50 is what? I didn't understand the first part of your statement. Senator KERR. Of the total. The money they spent came from these sources.
Secretary WEEKS. The money they spent for our goods and services
Senator KERR. Over half of it came from sources other than exports.
Secretary WEEKS. No, about a third of it. Over half came from what?
Senator KERR. Over half of what they spent came from sources other than what we paid them for what we bought from them.
Secretary WEEKS. No, that is not correct, sir. We bought from them $18 billion, and we sold them $26 billion, and the balance was made up by the $9 billion at the top in those 3 top blocks.
Senator KERR. They have to get the money from somewhere, do they not, Mr. Secretary? Secretary WEEKS. Certainly. Senator KERR. And they have to get it from us.
So if we do not buy something from them, we have either got to loan it to them or give it to them for them to have it, haven't we?
Secretary. WEEKS. Yes, sir. Senator KERR. Now let's talk about the term of this for a little while.
Secretary WEEKS. The what, sir?
You said you had to have a 5-year extension in connection with this European Economic—what-do-you-call-it-Community? Secretary WEEKS. European Common Market. Senator KERR. European Common Market.
You do not have to have it at all for that for 3 years, do you, Mr. Secretary? Secretary WEEKS. Yes, I think we do.
Senator KERR. You and the Secretary of State both told us that you would not even start negotiating with them for 3 years.
Secretary WEEKS. But I would refer you to what I said on page 12: Why do we need authority? Senator KERR. Let's go to page 12: Because it will take the European Economic Community the next 18 months or more to work out its proposed tariff rates.
They are not going to start negotiating with you until they work that out, are they? Secretary WEEKS. That is right, sir. Senator KERR (reading): When these rates are known, we in this country will have to work on our list of possible concessions to insure that we screen out any which might threaten mterests of the United States.
This will bring us well into 1961.
It looks to me, according to this statement, that insofar as that agreement is concerned, you are just getting information from now until 1961.
Secretary WEEKS. Yes; but this whole process is moving along, and we ought to take cards in this game and stay in it until the conclusions are reached.
Senator KERR. You do not even know whether it is table stakes or penny ante there.
Secretary WEEKS. That is why I want to keep a team on the field, until the game is over.
Senator KERR. I thought the team maybe was Congress. They are still going to be here.
Secretary WEEKS. Yes; but
Senator KERR. And under the Constitution they are charged with the responsibility of regulation of foreign trade and commerce, aren't they?
Secretary WEEKS. If we are going to continue
Senator KERR. Don't you think that Congress in 1960 could look at what is going to be needed in connection with negotiations in 1962 or 1961 just as well as the Congress in 1958 can?
Secretary WEEKS. The Congress in 1958 or 1960 under the tradeagreement procedure will not itself make and negotiate the agreements.
We have established procedures.
Secretary WEEKS. Delegated to the executive branch by the Congress.
Senator KERR. Who delegates it?
Senator KERR. Are you uneasy that the Congress in 1960 won't delegate?
Secretary WEEKS. No. I think this procedure will go along, but I think it will be a great mistake if you are going to continue reciprocal trade agreements not to continue
Senator KERR. How many 5-year extensions have we had?
Senator KERR. Now is the Eisenhower administration that much less able to cope with reality than any of these others?
You have told of what a marvelous success we have had here for 24 years, and they have never had a 5-year extension, have they?
Secretary WEEKS. That is correct.
Senator KERR. Then I think maybe you would get along with a 6month extension.
I think you are pretty good, too. I think you are pretty good, but I do not know why you would need a tool to work with that you never had before and nobody else ever had before, considering how much progress you have made.
Secretary WEEKS. In view of the developments in the world, and particularly in this common market area, and in view of the extreme