do not want the glass to fall and cut their feet. That is a change, is it not?

Mr. STRACKBEIN. But, Senator, the point I am making is that in all the different classifications of our imports there are many, many classifications where quantities are not stated.

Senator KERR. That being true, let me ask you this, Mr. Strackbein. Let's say that is true; if I have been in a business for 50 years, and I knew that the imports were a million dollars' worth

Mr. STRACKBEIN. Yes.

Senator KERR. I believe I could have a pretty fair mental picture of the quantity; wouldn't you?

Mr. STRACKBEIN. I would think so, and I think they probably the glass industry could supply it. I still question how meaningful it is, for the very reason you mentioned.

Senator KERR. Let's say it is not meaningful at all, sir, but here are a bunch of friends on the committee that want it.

Would you supply it to them or not?

Mr. STRACKBEIN. I would certainly do my dead-level best.
Senator KERR. I certainly would, too.

If I had a bunch of fellows trying to help me I would try to give them what they ask for, if I could.

Mr. STRACKBEIN. I am sure I would, too.

Senator MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement?

I appreciate fully the difficulty in getting the numbers because of the different types and different classes and different prices, but it does seem to me that you can give us, a man like yourself, with the access to the different organizations, both the manufacturers and the workers, that you could give us a pretty definite estimate of the number of pieces, I think you will be amazed at the number of the piecesI want to say I am most appreciative of the attitude of the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma and the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, I do not know whether you folks have any glass industry down in your country or not.

Senator KERR. It just happens we do in Oklahoma and we have got a glass factory shut down.

Senator MARTIN. I was not sure whether you did or not.

But I from personal experience know what the importations have done in my hometown where we had a hand-blown factory in existence for 75 years put clear out of business by reason of importations, but it would be awfully hard to just give a definite number of pieces that this Duncan Miller Glass Co. would produce each year but I do believe you could give us a pretty good estimate on it which I believe will be very helpful when we are making up our conclusions. Mr. STRACKBEIN. I am sure that the industry will do that, endeavor their best to give you their best judgment on the information that they can get.

Senator ANDERSON. Here is the difficulty: It may not be meaningful to anybody else, but we all have our own habits by which we work. We have our own yardsticks by which we calculate these things. Mr. STRACKBEIN. That is true.

Senator ANDERSON. I happen to have a little casualty-insurance company, and I know that not every time a man breaks his leg is the

cost the same.

One time it is $30, the next time it is $600, and the next time it is $20. But we put them all in our statistical accounts by numbers even though they do not cost the same.

Mr. STRACKBEIN. But, Senator, the ideal statistic is where you have the quantity and the value and you have

Senator ANDERSON. Yes; but in the absence of that, people who have been in the business a long time can make a much more intelligent guess as to what the numbers mean in dozens than those of us who are on the committee and just look at the dollars.

Mr. STRACKBEIN. That is quite so.

Senator ANDERSON. The last witness supplied us, and I have gotten them to supply this much, that domestic production was 2,419,000 dozen. It has gone down to as low as 1,782,000 dozen, and up again to about 2 million dozen. That is a significant drop in numbers.

Then he gives us dollars in the importation, and it does not mean a thing unless you relate that to numbers somehow, to know that they are taking your market.

Mr. STRACKBEIN. You are right; there should be a dollar value on these, on the American production.

Senator ANDERSON. Yes.

Mr. STRACKBEIN. Then at least you would have a dollar compari

son.

Senator ANDERSON. Then we would have the same things to compare. That is right, and that is all I am trying to say.

Mr. STRACKBEIN. I am sure they will get that to you, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you. If they can do that it will be helpful to us. This is one industry that has been hurt and I think it is too bad it has been hurt and many of us would like to help them. Senator BENNETT. Senator, may I make an observation.

Senator KERR. Yes.

Senator BENNETT. If foreign importations of hand-blown glass are really replacing domestic production, the price per thousand dozen must be somewhere related or there would be no replacement. Senator KERR. The Senator is right.

(Off the record.)

Senator KERR. Thank you, Mr. Strackbein.

Mr. Stein?

STATEMENT OF MELVILLE STEIN, PRESIDENT, LEEDS &
NORTHRUP CO., PRESENTED BY GEORGE E. BEGGS

Mr. BEGGS. Gentlemen, in Mr. Stein's absence due to illness he has asked me to speak for him.

My name is George E. Beggs. I am assistant to the president of the Leeds & Northrup Co.

Senator KERR. Then you are an assistant to Mr. Stein?

Mr. BEGGS. Yes, sir. Of 4901 Stenton Avenue, Philadelphia, Pa. Mr. Stein greatly regrets he cannot be here but he has requested that I present his statement.

Senator KERR. Go right ahead.

Mr. STEIN. Our company manufactures scientific instruments for industrial-measurement and automatic-control applications and also for research, teaching, and testing applications.

Neither I nor our company desires to take any extreme position in the age-old argument of protective tariff versus free trade. Admittedly, this subject is in need of sound and unbiased study to bring about real clarification, but I know that this is not the purpose of the present hearings, which I understand to be limited to the single question of whether or not the so-called Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act should be continued or discontinued, and if so, for how long and with what amendments.

Neither I nor our company desires to take the position that our company has been hurt in recent years by the reductions in tariff under the so-called Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, although I recognize fully that some important companies in our vital industry have been seriously hurt by such tariff reductions.

I do wish to take the position, however, that our company has been handicapped in carrying on its business in foreign countries through the restrictions that have been imposed by many foreign countries through import licenses and other restrictive measures quite apart from tariff rates.

Specifically, I wish to express as strongly as I can the feeling that the purpose of the Trade Agreements Act has been misrepresented to the public by its proponents.

By repeated emphasis on the reciprocal features of the act the public has been led to believe that in return for our Government reducing tariff restrictions on imports of foreign countries into the United States, producers in the United States producers to those countries. Actually, it has not worked out that way and quite apart from tariff restrictions many foreign countries bar United States goods by the use of import licenses and other restrictive measures, apart from tariffs, so that our products are not allowed to enter notwithstanding that United States tariff concessions have been made to those countries.

In other words, the United States public has been badly deceived on the manner in which the reciprocal feature of the Trade Agreements Act actually works.

I know that this is not a new question and that it was discussed at some length in the hearings held in January and February 1955, before the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives in connection with H. R. 1 of the 84th Congress.

In those hearings Secretary of State John Foster Dulles presented a comparison of United States import restrictions with those of other countries, and this showed that most other countries require import licenses whereas the United States, in addition to its tariff restrictions, has only some quota restrictions limited to agricultural products. With reference to such licensing and other nontariff restrictions, Secretary of State Dulles stated:

These and similar practices, unless checked, could vitiate the tariff concessions by reducing the increase of American exports bargained for and expected as a result of securing decreases in foreign tariffs.

Also, Secretary Dulles stated:

"However, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the articles of agreement of the international monetary fund have committed member governments to use trade and exchange restrictions

only if they are in balance of payments difficulties or in other specific limited situations."

Apparently this general commitment, not to use such restrictions except in special cases, is ineffective, probably because it is always easy for foreign governments to take the position that they have a "dollar shortage."

It should like to make it clear that I am not adversely criticizing these other governments for imposing licensing restrictions. I think they have the right and duty to take steps that are in the best interests of their own counties provided these do not actually violate agreements with other countries.

It seems clear that the commitments under the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade are not adequate to protect the interests of the United States in its granting of tariff concessions.

I feel that the remedy is to make lower United States tariffs available to all countries when those other countries wish to apply for them and actually qualify by removing all restrictions which would otherwise vitiate the reciprocal effect of such concessions as are received from the United States.

This approach has another and very important feature that it leaves the decision up to the other countries as to whether or not they wish to take advantage of the United States concessions and avoids the unfriendliness that results from our attempting to apply retaliatory measures when any nonreciprocal restrictive treatment is applied to the United States.

Hon. Samuel C. Waugh, Assistant Secretary of State, in a letter of October 20, 1954, addressed to Hon. John D. Dingell, of the House of Representatives, stated as follows:

The reciprocal trade agreements program which the United States has followed is based upon experience in attempting to obtain tariff reductions. This experience has proved that retaliatory measures to bring pressure upon a country for tariff concessions are more apt to lead to increasing restrictions upon trade than to tariff reductions and trade liberalization.

I heartily subscribe to this statement.

While on the subject of friendly relations with other countries, I believe that very much can be done by improving the procedures relating to admission of foreign-made products to our country.

After reasonable tariff and other control measures have been established to permit the entry of certain foreign made products, I feel that when these products arrive at our shores we should, in effect, "roll out the red carpet" just as we do when officials from those countries visit our shores, and we should avoid awkward procedures which introduce delays and unpleasantness in admitting the goods to our country.

The Congress and the Treasury Department are to be highly commended for their efforts in this direction through the sponsoring of legislation included in the Customs Simplification Act.

There is one specific provision in the proposed trade agreements extension bill, H. R. 12591, to which I should like to voice very strong objection, and that is the provision that when the President of the United States has vetoed a recommendation of the Tariff Commission, a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress is required to overrule such veto.

This provision seems to be at variance with the basic law of our land giving the Congress control of foreign trade. As a practical matter, neither the Congress nor the President should be burdened with details of individual tariffs.

As a matter of practical fact, some appointed group must deal with the details and present proper recommendations regardless of whether the President or the Congress takes final action. The Tariff Commission is charged with such responsibility.

I am quite sympathetic with the idea that the President should be given the power to approve or veto the recommendations of the Tariff Commission in order to give the President a freer hand in working out relations with other governments, aimed at creating a more friendly and peaceful world.

But when the recommendations of the Tariff Commission are vetoed, then the final decision should go back to the basic authority on foreign-trade control; namely, the Congress, and this final provision should not be made unworkable by requiring a two-thirds majority in each House.

Only an ordinary majority should be required. The requirement of a two-thirds majority, in effect, would really prevent Congress from having final authority in the matter.

I am keenly aware of the disturbance to our foreign relations that might be caused by not renewing the Trade Agreements Act. Accordingly, I am in favor of renewing it for 1 or 2 years, during which interval the whole matter should be given further study in order to eliminate the defects in the present proposal and still retain the real virtues of the act.

In the 1 or 2 year interval in which the act should be given further study, the public should be kept fully informed of the real meaning of the provisions of the act.

I have great confidence in the views of our citizens when they are fully informed; and I think it is contrary to the best interests of our country for the public to be misled or misinformed on important legislation.

In saying, this, I hasten to add that I am not one of those who believe that our Government must always operate in a goldfish bowl. I think that in security matters we must have confidence in those who have been elected or appointed to defend our country, and we should not ask them to carry on all of their operations in public.

With this single exception I believe that the public should be kept fully and correctly informed.

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement.
Senator KERR. Thank you, sir.

Are there questions?

Senator MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask just one question?
Mr. BEGGS. Yes, Senator Martin.

Senator MARTIN. You make the statement there that you think it is contrary to the best interests of our country to be misled or misinformed. Who do you figure is misinforming or misleading the public? Mr. BEGGS. I think Mr. Stein's intent, sir, in that statement was that in stating that the act is a reciprocal act, many of of the public do not realize that there are quota and import license restrictions applied by foreign countries which vitiate the reciprocal part of the actual customs percentages involved.