HOW SOON ARE VOLUNTEERS NEEDED?

As soon as a project requiring an executive with your qualifications has been accepted, you will be called. In some cases, because of the specialized nature of the requests for assistance we receive, some time may elapse before your skills can be put to best use.

HOW DO LONG DO YOU SERVE?

Most projects last from 4 to 6 months. In some cases they may be longer; occasionally an assignment may be for only a month or two.

The term of a project may be extended with the consent of the executive under the agreement between IESC and the company, or the company may wish to make separate arrangements directly with the executive for an extension beyond the term of the IESC service.

WHAT PAYMENT DO YOU RECEIVE?

You serve as a volunteer. IESC pays all travel and living expenses, but no salary.

If you are mid-career, we expect your company to grant you a leave of absence for IESC service and continue to pay your salary and maintain your career benefits during your absence.

WHAT KIND OF ORIENTATION DO YOU RECEIVE?

Before you leave on assignment, you will be thoroughly briefed on your project: the company, the country, and what you will be expected to do.

WHAT HELP DO YOU GET ON THE JOB?

You will have the benefit of counsel from IESC area and country specialists. You will also enjoy the support of leaders from the local business community in the country where you are assigned.

MUST YOU KNOW A FOREIGN LANGUAGE?

Knowledge of a foreign language is not mandatory for most assignments, though familiarity with the local language and culture will greatly enhance your overall effectiveness.

CAN YOU TAKE YOUR WIFE?

On normal assignments, IESC will provide for travel and expenses for your wife so that she, too, can contribute to this uniquely rewarding experience.

to:

WHAT ARE THE AGE REQUIREMENTS?

Anyone who is energetic and in good health is the right age.

HOW DO YOU VOLUNTEER?

Additional information and a volunteer application can be obtained by writing

Many opportunities are available now with IESC. Projects are developing rapidly. Pending an assignment in which your know-how and experience can be best employed, we urge you to join the growing ranks of volunteers ready for service.

Mr. BROWN. Could I ask one other question for the record?

I would like to know with reference to the balance of payments if you can tell me what the relative increase is between foreign sales of domestic manufactured goods and the increase in foreign manufacturer of domestic firms. Do you know what I mean? How many something machines are we manufacturing in Cleveland and sending abroad

versus the number of something machines that Singer may be making in Japan for the Japanese market?

Mr. TROWBRIDGE. I might cite one figure. In 1964, of our total exports approximately 25 percent, or $6 billion, was identified as raw materials for component parts going from the United States to American affiliates or subsidiaries which then processed or manufactured those raw materials for parts into a final product for sale abroad. Mr. BROWN. What I would like to have is an index of the increase in foreign manufacture by domestic U.S. firms.

Mr. TROWBRIDGE. I will try to get that for you.

Dr. Shaw, do we have the comparison between that and the overseas sale of U.S. raw materials.

Mr. SHAW. We will have to submit that for the record.
Mr. TROWBRIDGE. I will supply what we can, Congressman.
Mr. SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The information requested follows:)

STATEMENT ON FOREIGN SALES OF DOMESTIC FIRMS COMPARED WITH SALES OF FOREIGN AFFILIATES

The Office of Business Economics has compiled data on exports from the United States and sales by direct foreign manufacturing affiliates of selected manufactured products for the years 1957 through 1964. Data for 1965 could not be prepared because in that year the Census Bureau changed the classification of exports, and it was no longer possible to compile comparable figures for exports and sales from foreign production of the same kinds of manufactured products. The OBE statistics show the following picture:

These figures show that sales by the foreign producing affiliates of U.S. firms expanded more rapidly than exports from the U.S. of the same kinds of goods. The increase between 1957 and 1964 was 113 percent for the former and 46 percent for the latter.

A detailed table showing increase in foreign manufacturing activity by U.S. firms was printed in the November 1966 Survey of Current Business, and a copy is attached. This table takes all sales of the foreign manufacturing affiliates of the U.S. firms into account and not just the selected manufacturers referred to in the preceding paragraph. It shows that these sales increased from $18.3 billion in 1957 to $42.4 billion in 1965, a jump of 131 percent.

1,685

188

23

193

195

75

133

99

665

116

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Adams.

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you again. I have questions in two areas. I don't know which gentleman you would like to have answer them. One deals with highway beautification. One deals with the Bureau of Public Roads. Whoever you might have I will take either one who is most convenient, first.

Mr. TROWBRIDGE. Unfortunately Mr. Bridwell who was here, Under Secretary of Transportation, had to go to another hearing at 11 o'clock.

Mr. ADAMS. I will ask the questions and you can submit the answers to the committee in writing.

Mr. TROWBRIDGE. Fine.

Mr. ADAMS. First I want to know what the status of your control agreements is with the specific States that have had more extensive highway beautification laws involving the police powers rather than the compensation features of the Highway Beautification Act. I would like a rundown of those. We had a problem at the time of the bill, in the debate on it, as to what would happen in the States and I would like to know their present status. I could give you at least three, which are Wisconsin, Hawaii, and Washington. I am sure there are others. (The information requested follows:)

STATEMENT ON STATE COMPLIANCE WITH HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION Act of 1965

The question as to whether States as a condition of complying with the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 must provide compensation for removal of signs lawfully in existence under State law on October 22, 1965, was submitted to the Attorney General and he answered the question in the affirmative. Attached is a copy of his opinion.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Washington, D.C., November 16, 1966.

The Honorable the SECRETARY OF COMMERCE.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: This is in response to your question for an opinion on two related questions arising out of section 131 of Title 23, United States Code, as amended by the Highway Beautification Act of 1965.1

Section 131(b) of Title 23 in general requires a reduction of 10% in the total of Federal-aid highway funds apportioned by the Secretary of Commerce to a State on or after January 1, 1968, if he determines that is has not made provision for "effective control" of outdoor advertising within 660 feet of interstate and primary highways. "Effective control" is defined in section 131(c) to mean that after January 1, 1968, outdoor advertising "shall, pursuant to this section, be limited to" signs, notices, displays and devices of specified kinds. Section 131(g) reads as follows, in pertinent part:

"(g) Just compensation shall be paid upon the removal of the following outdoor advertising signs, displays, and devices

"(1) those lawfully in existence on the date of enactment of this subsection,

"(2) those lawfully on any highway made a part of the interstate or primary system on or after the date of enactment of this subsection and before January 1, 1968, and

"(3) those lawfully erected on or after January 1, 1968. "The Federal share of such compensation shall be 75 per centum As noted in the memorandum of your General Counsel which you forwarded with your letter, some States have the authority under their own law to effect the removal of billboards and the like by an exercise of police power. Your first inquiry is whether section 131 is to be interpreted as requiring these States, along with the others, to provide just compensation for removals that fall within the ambit of subsection (g), or whether it may be read as granting to these States the

1 Public Law 89-285, 79 Stat. 1028.