« 이전계속 »
ever, there are other compelling reasons which I would like to menti briefly.
The first is the probable creation, within the foreseeable future, of entity very similar to the European Common Market. I refer to Nordic Economic Cooperation Movement, commonly referred to the Nordic Union.
For the past several years, representatives of Denmark, Finlai Norway, and Sweden have been working closely together to form economic union of their countries. Most of the Details have (m worked out and it is quite possible that the projected econoi union will become a reality in the not too distant future.
I have read the report issued by the Nordic Economic Cooperat Committee in July 1957, and should the union become a fact, ii interesting to note the procedures which will be undertaken by tb four countries in future trade negotiations.
In the introduction of the report it is stated that the report discussed at the Nordic Council's meeting in August of 1954. Nordic Council made several proposals, and in paragraph 2 reco mends—
that, on the basis of the data submitted by the Joint Nordic Committee Economic Cooperation, the governments clarify the possibilities of appl. uniform tariff rates (or restrictions) vis-a-vis non-Nordic countries and init endeavors to abolish intra-Nordic customs duties and trade restrictions to extent and at the rate considered to be compatible with the special conditioi each country;
On page 110 of the report, under the heading "Cooperation in Co mercial Policy in a Nordic Market," appears the following:
The principal rule [in tariff negotiations] should be, however, that tariff negui tions with other countries are to be conducted jointly.
On page 112 of the report it is stated:
even if such far-reaching cooperation will not lie possible for the present, establishment of a Nordic market would immediately imply a more exti'ii cooperation in Nordic trade with outside countries in general'and in trade agr ments in particular.
Thus, the United States is undoubtedly going to be confirm shortly with more than one area entity with which it must deal future negotiations on trade agreements. As it is entirely poss?i that the Nordic Union will come into being sometime within die n year or two, we should be in a position to deal with the extensive n problems which the formation of this union will create. The 5-y extension of the act should therefore be preserved intact.
Another compelling reason for the retention of the 5-year extens of the act is that such an extension will provide a degree of Ion needed stability to the operations of United States importers, to vast number of consumers who depend upon imports, and to Unit States manufacturers and producers who process imported inateri or utilize imported materials in their own manufacture.
It has been difficult heretofore for such manufacturers and produce to make long-range plans to initiate sound manufacturing or s& programs or to stabilize their labor force. The uncertainty of f Government's position toward international trade has made ««• matters risky business for any concern which depends upon import
With our position firmly established on a 5-year basis, the America manufacturer employing imported products will be more reasons'" assured of a steady supply of materials and can devote himself to problems other than the constantly harassing one of our Government's position in foreign trade.
Air. Chairman, in considering important legislation such as you have before you, there is no place, in my opinion, for special or selfish interest. This is a time for statesmanship at its finest. As statesmen, it is your job to see to it that the interests of the Nation as a whole prevail.
For these reasons, I urge you to reject the efforts which will be made to emasculate the bill with crippling or clearly unconstitutional amendments following the pattern of the Simpson proposals. I urge you to report out H. R. 12591 with the 5-year extension provided therein and without any amendments imposing import quotas on individual commodities.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before you.
Senator Carlson. Mr. Sharp, we appreciate very much your statement.
I was interested in your comments that many of your clients are both exporters and importers. I can well remember in previous hearings at least, quite a division between these groups. And I have heard of people being ambidextrous, and I am not so sure but what you are doing very well.
Mr. Sharp. There are quite a number of firms who are now in what we call international trade as such rather than only on one side of it. And it is of interest that in the experience I have had in working with them in the last few years we have had specific instances whereas action taken in the United States (for instance by reason of the Dumping Act) which lias the tendency to restrict the flow of imports has had an immediate effect upon the amount of exports which the same firm which was affected by the stoppage of the flow of imports could sell to the country from which the imports come. And they were usually engaged—many of these concerns are usually engaged in a two-way flow between specific countries.
Senator Carlson. Again we thank you, Mr. Sharp.
Mr. Sharp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carlson. The next witness is Mr. William Barnhard, of the American Importers of Brass and Copper Mill Products, Inc.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. BARNHARD, OF CHAPMAN, WOLFSOHN & FRIEDMAN, COUNSEL, AMERICAN IMPORTERS OF BRASS & COPPER MILL PRODUCTS, INC.
Mr. Barnhard. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Mr. William J. Barnhard, Washington attorney with the firm of Chapman, Wolfsohn & Friedman.
Senator Carlson. If you want to file the statement and make an extemporaneous statement you may do so.
Mr. Barnhard. Since it is such a short statement I should like to read it and I have asked permission for my clients to file a supplemental written memorandum before the close of the hearings.
Senator Carlson. They will be placed in the record.
Mr. Barnhard. Thank you.
My professional activities are confined exclusively to problems international trade, including my present activities as counsel fd among others, the American Importers of Brass & Copper Mi) Products, Inc., and as secretary to the National Antidumping Cor mittee, Inc., and I therefore welcome this opportunity to appe briefly in support of H. R. 12591.
Because of the necessary shortness of time allotted to witnesses this hearing and because of the primary concern of this eommitt with the general problems of reciprocal trade extension, I shall confij my remarks to the general field of trade legislation, and request t privilege of filing for the record a written memorandum dealing wi the specific problem of copper and brass product imports as they t late to the pending legislation.
The 1958 extension of the Reciprocal Trade Act could have beenand should have been—a major stroke in the direction of natioa prosperity and international security.
It could have provided increased production and increased, emplo ment in America's manufacturing industries.
It could have provided higher wages and lower costs in Amend processing industries.
It could have provided new markets and increased sales for Am< ica's coal, textiles, farm products and many other articles.
It could have provided hope to the underdeveloped nations of t world, strength to our free world allies, and a substantial part of o answer to the increasingly menacing Soviet economic offensive.
But the bill before this committee does none of these things, will not encourage more American overseas business, either in buyii or in selling. It does not give our negotiators enough bargain!] strength to protect the interests of American workers, farmers, ai industrialists in the common market and other developing region markets. And it does not give us the power to combat the Coi munist trade drives.
Then why should we, who desire an expanding level of world trao support this measure? For three reasons only: First, because it the lesser of two evils, being much less destructive to American bin ness and American policy than the substitute measures; second, b cause this bill, however weak and circumscribed, has become a svmh of American economic policv whose defeat would produce drast and dangerous internationaf repercussions; and third, because provides at least a modicum of bargaining power to protect Amerua interests.
For these reasons, we appear here in support of H. R. 12591. Bd unlike many of ray colleagues, I do not believe that the best we a hope for from this committee is approval of the House-passed measur I hope and expect that this committee and the Senate itself may pr vide the Nation with a stronger trade bill that will promote mo American business, provide more and better job opportunities, crea new and bigger markets for the products of our farms, mines, ar factories.
My remarks will be devoted primarily to the economic needs i pur own people, rather than the needs of our friends abroad or tl issue of international solidarity. The economic health of our allii and our alliances is an intensely practical and selfish considerate which cannot be ignored, but others better qualified than I hm discussed or will discuss these aspects of the trade program. I suggest that perhaps there has been too much emphasis put on the foreign aspects of our trade program, the help it provides abroad, the alliances that it helps cement, and the world leadership it provides us.
These are vital, of course, but at least equally vital is the immediate selfish economic aspects of trade right here at home. Trade is not charity, it is not foreign aid, it is not in any sense a giveaway. Trade is business, it is buying and selling, which means it is jobs and profits and markets and sales. It seems to me that the Nation will obviously benefit from a trade bill that encourages such business more than does the measure now pending before this committee.
Expansion of American business is impeded by section 3 (a) (1) of this bill, which permits tariff rates to be increased by as much as 700 percent, to levels half again as high as the Smoot-Hawley rates of 1930. No American industrial consumer or distributor could feel safe in establishing a source of supply subject to such punitive taxes.
Expansion of American business is impeded by section 4 (b) of the bill, which authorizes long and expensive escape-clause investigations even where the competing domestic industry does not request them. If the domestic industry, which is directly affected and is in possession of the facts, does not complain, there seems to be no warrant for this additional roadblock.
Expansion of American business is impeded by section 5 (a) of the bill, which permits escape-clause investigations to be instituted by "any organization or group of employees," even where the competing industry does not complain of import competition. Here again, if the domestic industry does not complain, there seems little warrant for launching such an investigation.
Expansion of American business is impeded by section 5 (c) of the bill, which authorizes the imposition of prohibitive duties up to 50 percent on articles Congress has said shall be duty free. The obvious purpose of such an authorization is not to encourage more business, but to create new roadblocks in established channels of commerce.
Nor is expansion of American business helped by section 6 of the bill, which gives the Congress a veto over the Executive determination on tariff rates. This provides a new element of uncertainty to the flow of commerce to and from American factories.
While the pending bill, minus these listed sections, will not encourage any major expansion of United States overseas business, it would at least not discourage whatever business expansion may be possible.
On the other hand, a more restrictive bill would not help the American economy, but would seriously injure it.
Import restrictions on copper and copper products, for example, would not help our mining industry. The current temporary problems in copper are worldwide and their solution does not lie in national import restrictions. The plight of the American miner is further compounded by the sharp decline in United States industrial production, particularly in American exporting industries, and a further decline by the loss of export markets would hurt, not help, both the manufacturers and the miners who supply them.
Another effect of import restrictions is typified in a recent report from Buenos Aires, dealing with increasing Argentine purchases of coal. Argentine industrialists had been buying some Polish coal at S28 a ton and some German coal at $22.50. Currently they are buying Australian coal at $21.80 a ton. United States coal delivered Buenos Aires is about $16.50 a ton, and Argentina would like nothing better than to fill its requirements of over 1 million tons with United States coal, and here I quote the language of the report, but "shortages of United States currency makes it imperative to buy elsewhere."
There are many other specific examples of increased United States business and jobs that could be encouraged by a more liberal extension of the trade program, but in the interest of time I shall save these for the written memorandum.
For now, I should like only to urge that H. R. 12591 not be made any more restrictive and that if it is amended at all it should be in the direction of more trade, more business, for the American economy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carlson. Mr. Barnhard, at the beginning of your statement you asked permission to file a supplemental statement. I assume that will not be so lengthy that it will be a volume in itself, and that it would be confined to the subject under discussion?
Mr. Barnhard. Yes, sir; it would be. And I am sure it will not be more than 6 or 8 pages. I just want an opportunity to relate some of the specific problems of copper and brass imports to pending legislation.
Senator Carlson. The statement will be published in full in the record if received in adequate time.
Mr. Barnhard. Thank you, sir.
(Mr. Barnhard had not submitted a statement at the time the hearings were printed.)
Senator Carlson. Senator Malone?
Senator Malone. Mr. Barnhard, I notice you are from the law firm of Chapman, Wolfsohn & Friedman, counsel for the American Importers of Brass & Copper Mill Products. Where do you live?
Mr. Barnhard. Here in Washington.
Senator Malone. Where is the business located of these people?
Mr. Barnhard. The members of the association, sir, or the members of the law firm?
Senator Malone. Members of the association that hire you, where are they located?
Mr. Barnhard. The members of the association consist of 17 major importers of copper and brass mill products, located on both the east and the west coasts, sir; centered primarily in New York and Los Angeles.
Senator Malone. Would you mind submitting the names of these importers for the record?
Mr. Barnhard. I will be happy to submit that.
Senator Malone. Do you have them with you?
Mr. Barnhard. No, I don't have them with me.
(The information to be submitted is as follows:)
Members Op American Importers Op Brass & Copper Mill Products, Inc.
The Alcobra Co., Los Angeles, Calif.
Atlantic Aluminum & Metal Distributors, Inc., Springfield, Mass.
Camarge Trading Co., Inc., Philadelphia, Pa.
Pranconia Industries, Inc., New York, N. Y.
Fromson Orban Co., Inc., New York, N. Y.
A. W. Horton & Co., Los Angeles, Calif.
Lipman's, Brooklyn, N. Y.