professions which support the operations of the Nation's and the world's leading business community.

We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on behalf of the New York Chamber of Commerce and Industry on the Trade Reform Act of 1973.

As the leading spokesman for New York business, the chamber since its inception has been a staunch supporter of all measures which promote the freer flow of investment funds and merchandise across international borders. At the same time it has vigorously opposed protectionist drives to restrict international trade and investment. This traditional policy of wider nondiscriminatory trade based onthe most-favored-nation principle has worked to the economic wellbeing of America in the past and the continuance of this policy will enable America to meet the challenges and prosper from the opportunities that an everincreasing volume of international trade will present to the United States in the years ahead.

Continuing in this enlightened policy vein, the New York Chamber of Commerce and Industry wholeheartedly endorses the objectives and provisions of the Trade Reform Act of 1973. As the leading industrial nation of the world, the United States has the most to gain from expanding trade and should lead the way to broaden and increase the trade opportunities for both the industrial nations and for the emerging economies. This act is the proper vehicle to accomplish this goal, and the New York Chamber of Commerce and Industry supports the bill, with reservations on some specific provisions as follows:

NEGOTIATING AND OTHER AUTHORITIES

Although the chamber supports the basic authority for the President to enter into multilateral trade agreements aimed at reducing tariffs and removing nontariff barriers, we feel that the section 102(c) (1) concept that a "principal U.S. negotiating objective" shall be to obtain "with respect to each product sector" competitive opportunities for U.S. exports equivalent to the competitive opportunities afforded in U.S. markets, should be modified to make this objective one of the general U.S. negotiating objectives, but not to the exclusion of the others.

Therefore, section 102 (c) (2) should be modified. Presently section 102(c) (2) states that "to the maximum extent appropriate to the achievement" of the product sector equivalent competitive opportunities objectives of section 102 (c) (1), trade agreements should be negotiated on the basis of each product sector of manufacturing and on the basis of the agricultural sector. We believe section 102(c) (2) should require negotiating trade agreements to achieve objectives set forth in section 2 of the bill-stimulating economic growth of the United States, maintaining and enlarging foreign markets for U.S. products, and strengthening economic relations with foreign countries through the development of fair and equitable market opportunities and through open and nondiscriminatory world trade primarily, and only thereafter for the purposes of achieving product sector equivalent competitive opportunities.

ACCESS TO SUPPLIES

The chamber approves and endorses, as an objective of this legislation, the incorporation of the concept proposed by Senator Mondale to make access to supplies of raw materials one of the major goals of U.S. negotiations. We recognize that in an interdependent world reducing the barriers to access to supplies is extremely important, and we need to develop a worldwide framework to assure such access.

On the other hand, we feel that the President needs broad discretion in these areas and should not be required by legislation automatically to react in a specified manner. We feel the directive to include this problem in the trade negotiations is appropriate, but only as a general objective of the negotiations without requiring a specific response.

IMPORT RELIEF

The present statute which provides relief to domestic industries and firms and workers will be liberalized by revising the criteria from those provided by the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, in which the increased imports of an article were a major cause of actual or threatened injury.

The chamber restates its position with respect to the standard of cause of serious injury. We feel that standard should be major cause —greater than all others combined-rather than as originally proposed by the House of Representatives primary cause-largest single cause or as H.R. 10710 was finally adopted, substantial causeimportant and not less than any other cause-for purposes of import relief under chapter I. We also feel that the test for the threat of serious injury and actual serious injury should be the same.

We oppose quantitative import restrictions, orderly marketing agreements as unnecessary and counterproductive. Surveys have shown that suspension of 806.30 and 807.00 under which U.S. manufactured parts are sent abroad for assembly or further processing would result in some companies purchasing their materials from foreign sources instead of from the United States. Others indicate they would move some of their production facilities abroad.

The evidence indicates that these tariff items add significantly to this country's exports and provide a significant number of jobs here which otherwise would be lost. For these reasons, the New York Chamber of Commerce and Industry opposes authority for the suspension of items 806.30 and 807.00.

ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

For the purposes of adjustment assistance, we feel the standard should be more liberal. In other words, we propose a strict standard for import relief in that the cause of injury for import relief should be a major cause, but for adjustment assistance we agree to the substantial cause criteria.

The New York Chamber of Commerce and Industry has long agreed to the need for liberalization of the criteria for determining eligibility under the adjustment assistance provisions of the 1962 act.

The current eligibility requirements are too stringent as evidenced by the fact that since 1962 only 23,000 workers have requested assistance and have qualified for adjustment assistance.

As in the case of workers, the criteria for firms qualifying for adjustment assistance is much too stringent in the current law and hence few firms have been able to take advantage of the financial aid and technical assistance provided. Indeed, there is now more than ever in our opinion a need for adjustment assistance for firms, if the proposed adjustment assistance program for workers is to work effectively. Aid to firms might very well restore the competitiveness of the firm to foreign imports or help the firm to adjust to a new line of endeavor. In either case the ability of assistance to the firm to maintain that firm in business on a competitive basis can maintain and expand the job opportunities available in the specific firm. At the same time it is our view that in assisting those firms injured by import competition a vigorous surveillance must be carried out to guard against the inherent danger of indiscriminate use of this form of relief in a manner which could prolong the adjustment process, encourage inefficient industries or uneconomic production.

In addition to making firms eligible for adjustment assistance, the New York Chamber of Commerce and Industry believes that the Trade Reform Act of 1973 should also make provisions for an adjustment assistance program for communities. If workers and the firms who employ those workers suffer severe dislocations as a result of increased imports, it stands to reason that there is a good possibility that the communities in which they are located will also experience economic problems.

The degree of the problem will of course vary, depending upon the economic impact of the affected industry on the communities total economy. A similar community aid program has been operated successfully by the Office of Economic Adjustment in the Department of Defense. Since 1961 this office has helped over 160 communities whose economy had been dependent upon large defense expenditures, adjust to changes in defense spending which cut or eliminated the communities income. An adjustment assistance for communities could establish the community as the catalytic agent in combining the labor, business and community in developing and/or attracting new industries to take up the business slack resulting from import injury. The New York Chamber of Commerce and Industry strongly urges the insertion of an adjustment assistance program for communities into the current trade legislation.

RELIEF FROM UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

Under this title are two sections requiring consideration from the viewpoint of the U.S. import community.

In section 321, the bill would amend the Antidumping Act by adding provisions to achieve the following: (a) Prescribe time limits. for the conclusion of fair value determinations; (b) hearings in fair value determinations; (c) require the deduction of export taxes in determining purchase price; (d) make the statute applicable to goods

which are changed by processing or manufacture after importation. but prior to resale; and (e) equalize tax treatment as between the purchase price method and the exporter's sales price method, and as between the Antidumping Act and the Countervailing Duty law. We recommend that:

1. Amendments to the Antidumping Act should not be considered as part of the Trade Reform Act of 1973.

2. The investigative phase of the fair value determination should be separated from the hearing or adjudicatory phase.

3. The investigative phase of the fair value procedure should not be subjected to rigid time limitations. Neither domestic nor importing interests desire or benefit from delay.

4. The adjudicatory phase of the fair value procedure should be completed in a specified time. Sixty days is adequate. The statute should provide a mechanism for handling confidential materials in fair value and injury proceedings which is consistent with due process. 5. Taxes applicable to goods sold in domestic commerce in the country of manufacture should be treated in the same way as taxes applicable to exported goods.

6. The "injury" test should be changed to require "material injury." 7. Treatment of "different circumstances of sale" should be codified. 8. The President should have authority to waive the imposition of antidumping duties when the national interest requires.

Section 330, the bill would amend the Countervailing Duty Law by adding provisions to achieve the following: (a) Application of the law to duty-free merchandise; (b) prescribe a 1-year time limit for the conclusion of a countervailing duty proceeding; and (c) vest the Secretary of the Treasury with authority to waive the imposition of countervailing duties where economic circumstances or the existence of quantitative quotas so warrant.

We recommend that:

1. Amendments to the Countervailing Duty Law should not be considered as part of the Trade Reform Act of 1973.

2. The President should retain authority to waive the imposition of countervailing duties when the national interest requires.

3. The test of "material injury" should apply in all cases, not only in connection with duty-free merchandise.

4. A hearing should be afforded.

5. There should be no arbitrary time limits.

EMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS

Concerning title IV, we object to section 402. We do not believe a trade reform act is the appropriate place to resolve political problems. This comment would be applicable to emigration problems or other problems of nations with which this country trades. Therefore, we feel the requirement that the President should not grant "nondiscriminatory treatment"-most-favored-nation treatment-to any country which denies its citizens the right or opportunity to emigrate is inappropriate. We would suggest this requirement be omitted. We would suggest that the President be authorized to grant most

favored-nation treatment to any country where, even if there is some emigration restriction, he believes the country is making bona fide efforts to improve the situation, subject to the same congressional veto procedure on the granting of most-favored-nation treatment that exists with respect to the other areas involved in trade agreements in this bill.

The New York Chamber of Commerce and Industry considers the infringement of human rights as most deplorable. However, we feel that by negotiations, and with the development of further commercial relations, much more will be accomplished than by the inclusion of this amendment in the act.

ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING NATIONS

The longstanding and farsighted policy of the United States in providing economic assistance to developing nations has been beneficial to those nations and to the United States. For a great many years the United States has assumed the major burden of economic assistance to developing nations. The seed of our direct grant program has developed to the stage where the fruition of these investments must have access to world markets. Until the economies of the developing nations are able to compete fully in international markets it is the obligation and duty of the industrialized nations to provide a preferential market for their export products.

Title V of the Trade Reform Act of 1973 provides the authority for the United States to continue its longstanding policy of aiding developing nations to expand the economies while at the same time protecting competitive U.S. industries.

However, we do consider important, the provision which provides that preferential tariff treatment would not be granted to countries that grant reverse preferences to other industrialized countries unless these reversed preferences were eliminated.

Senator MONDALE. Mr. Ingersoll?

Statement of James H. Ingersoll

Mr. INGERSOLL. Good morning, Mr. Senator.

I am James Ingersoll, representing the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry as vice president for World Trade. I am also a vice president of Borg-Warner Corp.

I am accompanied by Robert Abboud, vice chairman of First Chicago Corp., who is chairman of the World Trade Policy Committee of the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry.

Our association represents some 5,000 business and professional organizations in the Chicago area, with a gross annual product of $65.5 billion or roughly 5 percent of this Nation's gross national product. Within a 400-mile radius of Chicago, more than 30 percent of the Nation's exports originate; and three companies within this area-General Motors, Caterpillar, and Cargill-are the top three exporters in the country.

I would like to speak on several aspects of the pending trade legislation: First, the need for a well-coordinated national trade policy. Mr.

30-229-74-pt. 4- 36