ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

H. R. 12591 provide the essentials for reasonable progress by the United States in the next 5 years.

It has been suggested that a commission be formed by the Congress to undertake a study, over the next 3 years, of United States trade policy and the position of United States trade in the world. We would heartily support this proposal as providing the opportunity for a major contribution to the national understanding of this issue and to the search for new methods and new ideas for expanding international trade. The world is moving rapidly and it is urgent that we explore thoroughly any possible improvements in our trade policy for the future. Under no circumstances, however, would we consider that such a commission or such studies as it might make could affect in any way the imperative reasons which demand a 5-year extension of the reciprocal trade program this year. As we have indicated, this is an essential with or without the proposed commission.

We have dwelt upon the challenge which faces us as a result of the newly formed European Economic Community. Quite aside from this development and quite aside from the obvious benefits to our own economic growth and wellbeing which the reciprocal trade agreements program has brought and will bring in the future, we are now facing one of the most ominous threats in our history. This is the Soviet economic offensive which has been so vastly intensified in the last year or 2. It represents a major challenge to our foreign trade policy and our foreign economic policy. Soviet offers of long-term contracts, technical aid and barter deals, designed to reorient the trade and economies of other countries toward the Soviet bloc, are appearing almost daily in the capitals of those countries. Under their populations' burning drive for economic growth and higher standards of living, governments cannot but entertain these offers unless they can have confidence that the United States is prepared to cooperate fully in their efforts toward satisfaction of their needs. A liberal trade policy on the part of the United States, a policy which offers stability and continuity, is one of the most important contributions we can make to that confidence. This kind of confidence is equally essential for the private businessman in the United States and abroad in his forward planning which is so necessary in free economies. It would be unthinkable for the United States, by its actions this year in the matter of trade policy, to desert this field and leave it, for all intents and purposes, to the Soviets and their system. Yet, that is precisely what a failure to pass this bill, or its passage in a restricted form, would mean.

Your committee has been told many times that H. R. 12591 does not provide proper protection for the American economy or for particular American industries. This is in spite of the fact that the bill encompasses all of the provisions affording particular protection which the legislation has ever had, and several more besides. The peril point, the escape clause, are retained intact, and the national security amendment has been strengthened in this bill before the committee. It has been our view that these provisions afford more than adequate protection for any industry which can establish the fact of injury resulting from increased imports if it is in the total national interest that relief be provided in the form of higher tariffs or other import barriers. That the national interest must necessarily be the controlling consideration of the imposition of these tariffs and import barriers there can be little doubt.

The best sources of labor statistics in the United States Government show that about 4.5 million American jobs are provided by our export and import trade at present levels of world trade. If there is need for protection in trade matters, it is certain that this large number of Americans should receive their fair share of protection, also. Admittedly, a trade program designed to serve the national interest may result in damage to the minority because of import competition. The Committee for a National Trade Policy has always supported proposals for a trade-adjustment program to aid the adjustment or ease the transition difficulties of companies, communities, and individuals who are injured by imports. Such an adjustment program is not a dole or a permanent crutch for the segments of our economy which are unable to maintain a competitive position. A trade-adjustment program is the small cost we should be willing to pay to those few who may suffer in order that the entire Nation may prosper. We urge that the Congress give due consideration to the several bills pending which offer proposals for such an adjustment program.

The Committee for a National Trade Policy calls attention to the fact that the Trade Act of 1934 was passed by the Congress partly as an instrument for

recovery from the depths of a worldwide depression. A trade program which helped to provide jobs for American workers and markets for American products in the thirties helped our national recovery. A long-term continuation of this program is certainly essential now, at a time of national recession. Ten percent of all the movable goods produced in the United States goes into our export trade. Any move now which could result in curtailing or crippling this trade program would certainly add a threatening new factor to our recession problems.

In conclusion may we reiterate our profound conviction that this bill, H. R. 12591, is in the interest of the United States, in the interest of its whole economy, in the interest of its security and of its general welfare. More than that, it is in the vital interest of the whole free world. We strongly urge the Senate Committee on Finance to recommend this bill favorably, without amendment. The Committee for a National Trade Policy is a bipartisan committee of businessmen created in 1953 to promote greater public understanding of the issues our country faces in its trade relations with the rest of the world, and of the importance of expanded two-way trade to the sustained, sound growth of the American economy.

The committee draws its support from all sections of the United States and all levels of American business. It enjoys the support of representatives of most sectors of American economic life, and it has worked in close cooperation with many national and local organizations representing business, agriculture, labor, the consumer, and civic interests. It officers and board of directors are Sidney A. Swensrud, chairman, Pittsburgh, Pa.

S. C. Allyn, chairman, the National Cash Register Co., Dayton Ohio
William L. Batt, secretary, Philadelphia, Pa.

S. D. Bechtel, president, Bechtel Corp., San Francisco, Calif.

George L. Bell, president, Committee for a National Trade Policy, Washington, D.C.

Barry, Bingham, editor in chief, Courier-Journal and Louisville Times, Louisville, Ky.

I. M. Bomba, vice president, Schieffelin & Co., New York, N. Y.

Harry A. Bullis, vice chairman, chairman, General Mills, Inc., Minneapolis, Minn.

Thomas D. Cabot, president, Godfrey L. Cabot, Inc., Boston, Mass.

Philip Cortney, president, Coty, Inc., New York, N. Y.

John F. Fennelly, Glore, Forgan & Co., Chicago, Ill.

Lamar Fleming, Jr., chairman, Anderson, Clayton & Co., Houston, Tex. Carl J. Gilbert, chairman, the Gillette Co., Boston, Mass.

J. Peter Grace, president, W. R. Grace & Co., New York, N. Y.

Charles D. Hilles, Jr., executive vice president, International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., New York, N. Y.

Edward Littlejohn, director of public relations, Burroughs Corp., Detroit, Mich.

John J. McCloy, chairman, the Chase Manhattan Bank, New York, N. Y. John A. McCone, president, Joshua Hendy Corp., Los Angeles, Calif. Allen W. Merrell, assistant to president, Ford Motor Co., Dearborn, Mich. Charles H. Percy, president, Bell & Howell Co., Chicago, Ill.

Elmer F. Pierson, chairman, the Vendo Co., Kansas City, Mo.

B. E. Richmond, executive vice president, Richmond-Chase Co., San Jose, Calif.

James S. Schramm, executive vice president, J. S. Schramm Co., Burlington, Iowa.

Russell G. Smith, executive vice president, Bank of America, San Francisco, Calif.

Ralph I. Straus, treasurer, director, R. H. Macy & Co., Inc., New York, N. Y.
Charles P. Taft, general counsel, Headley, Sibbald & Taft, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Thomas J. Watson, Jr., president, International Business Machines Corp.,
New York, N. Y.

W. H. Wheeler, Jr., president, Pitney-Bowes, Inc., Stamford, Conn.
Brayton Wilbur, president, Wilbur-Ellis Co., San Francisco, Calif.

Senator FREAR. Mr. Robert L. Trescher, Chamber of Commerce of Greater Philadelphia.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. TRESCHER, CHAIRMAN, TRADE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Mr. TRESCHER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Robert L. Trescher and I am testifying on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of Greater Philadelphia in support of the extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act.

I would like to offer in evidence a written statement which expresses the position of the chamber of commerce.

This statement was prepared by Mr. Myles Standish who is the executive director of the trade development council of the Chamber of Commerce of Greater Philadelphia.

I should like to make it plain that I am not testifying as an expert. I am here simply to tell you what the chamber of commerce is, who it represents, and what its position is in this matter of the extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act.

The Chamber of Commerce of Greater Philadelphia is probably the oldest in the United States. It was organized about 1800. It now consists of 1,700 members. Those members run the gamut of virtually all commercial interests from banking through candymaking, manufacturing, exporting, importing, food processing, virtually everything you can name.

The Chamber of Commerce of Greater Philadelphia is by no means limited to Philadelphia proper. It embraces part of Delaware, the focal point of which would be Wilmington.

It embraces the southeastern portion of Pennsylvania, the focal points of which would be Philadelphia and Chester.

It embraces part of southern New Jersey, the focal points of which would be Trenton and Camden.

Now the stake of that area in exports and imports, foreign trade generally, I think can perhaps best be highlighted by mentioning just 3 or 4 points.

First, the port of Philadelphia is second in the Nation in total foreign trade cargo movement and first in import cargo.

Second, over half the cargo moving through the port of Philadelphia is in foreign trade.

Third, the economic life and welfare of the city of Philadelphia and the entire Delaware Valley area is directly connected with the port.

Next, two-thirds of all industrial workers in this area are employed by companies which either buy materials or sell products abroad.

Finally, practically all of our retail merchants, large and small, sell products, either grown or manufactured abroad.

Now, against this backdrop, the chamber of commerce has authorized me to come down and testify that it, representing that large complex of commerce, is heartily in support of the extension of the reciprocal Trade Agreements Act.

Its trade development council, which is 1 of 6 councils that functions within the chamber, has given the act careful consideration and it unanimously adopted a resolution supporting the extension. Then the board of directors, which is a large organization very representative of all the industries in the port of Philadelphia area,

acted upon it and it too, unanimously adopted a resolution favoring the extension.

I think it appropriate to add that the city council of the city of Philadelphia also adopted a resolution urging support for the extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act.

The only other point I would like to make is that I am confident that our chamber of commerce, in urging support for the act, is not thinking solely in terms of Philadelphia.

I know that its members feel that it is a good thing for the Nation as a whole.

They do not fear competition. They are strongly confident that our genius, our business genius in this country, can meet foreign competition.

They favor the extension for the 5-year period.

Thank you very much, sir.

Senator FREAR. Senator Carlson?

Senator BENNETT. I suppose the witness will offer his full statement for the record.

Senator FREAR. It will be made a part of the record in full.

Senator Carlson?

Senator Bennett?

(No response.)

Thank you for that very fine statement, although brief.

Mr. TRESCHER. Thank you.

(The statement in full is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF GREATER PHILADELPHIA PRESENTED BY ROBERT L. TRESCHER, CHAIRMAN, TRADE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL Founded in 1801, the Chamber of Commerce of Greater Philadelphia has over 1,700 industrial, commercial, banking, transportation, and service companies as members. The membership is drawn primarily from the Philadelphia metropolitan area, which is composed of the eight industrial and commercial counties of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, and of Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester in New Jersey. In addition, several outstanding industrial and commercial companies of New Castle County in Delaware are chamber members.

The decision to support a 5-year liberal extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act was taken in accord with this chamber's bylaws. The matter was first studied and unanimously adopted by the board of governors of the trade development council of the chamber. This policy and action was then unanimously approved by the board of directors of the entire chamber. Resolution No. 275, passed on June 5, 1958, by the Council of the City of Philadelphia is attached to this statement to demonstrate that the Chamber of Commerce of Greater Philadelphia is not alone in supporting H. R. 12591. Religious groups, labor, and women's organizations from this area have also voiced their approval of this legislation to their Representatives in Congress.

"RESOLUTION No. 275

"RESOLUTION Memorializing the 85th Congress of the United States to enact H. R. 12591, a bill which would extend the authority of the President to enter into trade agreements under section 350 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and for other purposes

"Whereas the port of Philadelphia is second in the Nation in total foreignaid cargo movement, and first in import cargo; and

"Whereas over half the cargo moving through the port of Philadelphia is in foreign trade; and

"Whereas the economic life and welfare of the city of Philadelphia and the entire Delaware Valley area is directly connected with the port; and

"Whereas two-thirds of all industrial workers in this area are employed by companies which either buy materials or sell products abroad; and

"Whereas practically all of our retail merchants, large and small, sell products either grown or manufactured abroad; and

"Whereas the city of Philadelphia is historically and traditionally a leading center for international peace, and that peace is threatened by barriers to international trade, such as high tariffs, import quotas, and similar restrictions; and "Whereas the national leaders of both of our great political parties have urged all American citizens interested in our national welfare to support the bipartisan reciprocal-trade program, which for almost a quarter century has been the keystone of our foreign-trade policy: Therefore

"Resolved by the Council of the City of Philadelphia, That we hereby memorialize the Members of the 85th Congress of the United States to enact H. R. 12591, a bill which would extend the authority of the President to enter into trade agreements under section 350 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and for other purposes, which is now before the House of Representatives for consideration.

"Resolved, That certified copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the Members of Congress representing Philadelphia, and the United States Senators representing Pennsylvania.

"CERTIFICATION

"This is a true and correct copy of the original resolution passed by the Council of the City of Philadelphia on the 5th day of June 1958.

"Attest:

"JAMES H. J. TATE, "President of City Council.

"NATHAN WOLFMAN, "Chief Clerk of the Council.”

The port of Philadelphia officially includes the navigable portion of Delaware Bay and River from the Atlantic Ocean to Newbold Island. Along the shores of that waterway are the port facilities of Wilmington and other communities in Delaware; Chester, Philadelphia, Morrisville, and others in Pennsylvania; and Trenton, Camden, and others in New Jersey.

In 1957, just over 100 million tons of cargo moved in and out of this great port, making it second in the Nation in total cargo movement. Approximately one-half of that movement was in foreign trade, with inward cargo making this port the first in the United States for volume of imports. Two hundred and twenty regularly scheduled steamship lines, the largest railroad in the United States, and 2 other major lines, 350 regularly scheduled highway transport lines, and 9 national and international airlines reach out to connect this huge shipping district to all parts of the United States and the world.

In addition to its own immediate area, the port of Philadelphia serves the great steelmaking and industrial complex of western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, and northern West Virginia which has Pittsburgh as its capital. The highly industrial Central States and the agricultural Midwest to the Rocky Mountains also send their products through the port to all parts of the world. For example, the following table shows the volume of grains, coal, and manufactures which moved through the port in export in the postwar years 1946-57 for a grand total of 58,447,558 tons.

[blocks in formation]
« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »