tain substantial textile and garment industries to assure new methods of production, designs, products, garments and commercial and manufacturing techniques. The older textile and garment centers should be encouraged immediately to reorganize their industrial structures, modernize their equipment, update their products and organize research agencies to be better able to cope with competitive pressures from the newer developing countries. As for the latter proposal, considerable progress is being made in most nations to realize this end.

Assuming that there should be restraints on the degree of open international competition in the textile and garment industries, in part also because it is built so substantially on differences in national labor rates and benefits, the question is what level of production should be safeguarded and what international conditions should be exacted for such exemptions from the overall desire for reducing tariff barriers? First, it is suggested that there be a minimum level of textile and garment self-sufficiency which should be allowed each major nation or community of nations. It may be defined in terms of an historical level of production. Second, nations should be permitted a period for the modernization and reorganization of their industries to become more competitive.

Third, the pace at which imports should be permitted to expand should be related to the resilience of the affected national economies and their abilities to provide alternative employments and uses for capital. Textile and garment industries located in underdeveloped sectors of advanced economies will have to be safeguarded for longer periods of time than those situated in areas of full employment. Similarly industries situated in non-urban areas where alternative employments are not easily available and from which migration of the labor force would be difficult to arrange, would similarly be protected for longer periods. Concurrently, of course, there must be a commitment by the respective nations to improve the level of national economic activity and provide programs for economic redevelopment of the affected communities and to institute practices and organize facilities for retraining and transfer which would ease the total problem of adjustment.

The volume of imports into an older textile and garment

center should therefore not be of such magnitude, given programs for maintenance of high employment and labor mobility, and adjustment, as would prove unduly disruptive of the industry and create great masses of unabsorbed displaced textile and garment workers either because of imports or other internal trends.

For the garment industry it is necessary to institute controls over contracting practices to eliminate destructive bidding procedures and irresponsible shifting of work among nations.

The developing nations, which would under such a system of understanding, enjoy a rising volume of world textile and garment trade, should make a concurrent commitment, particularly as their primary comparative advantage lies in the field of labor costs, to promote higher labor standards for textile and garment workers. International labor standards should be specifically considered for textile and garment industries.

An orderly system of adjustment of the volume of world trade in textiles could maximize the interests of the established producers and the developing nations, and prevent unfettered competition producing the destructive results on the international level which have inspired protectionist sentiments in the older centers, embitterment in the newer ones and tremendous waste of people and capital in all nations.

The international study group recommended in the above text could constructively contribute through advice, counsel and information toward the attainment of these ends. With a proper balance of interests of the different economies of world and local interests, labor and capital, technical and management groups, there is a distinct possibility of promoting a smoother adjustment to the potentially far-reaching changes in the location of the world textile and garment industries.12

Since the original presentation of the above paper, sixteen_nations_ have, at the initiative of the United States, negotiated an agreement effective for one year starting October 1, 1961, permitting importing nations to request countries to limit exports to the level of imports obtaining in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, if such imports, "cause or threaten disruption of an importing country's markets." A long-term agreement to take effect after the conclusion of this interim understanding is being currently negotiated.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mora, will you please identify yourself for our record by giving us your name, address, and capacity in which you

appear.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL M. MORA, IN BEHALF OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES AND NORTH ATLANTIC PORTS ASSOCIATION

Mr. MORA. I am Michael Mora, general manager of the Norfolk Port and Industrial Authority and appear also as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Commerce, American Association of Port Authorities and chairman of the Special Committee on National Foreign Trade Policy, North Atlantic Ports Association.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mora, will it be possible for you to conclude your statement in the time that you have been allotted, sir? Mr. MORA. I believe so.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. You are recognized.

Mr. MORA. Mr. Chairman, I have requested permission to appear before this committee in a multiple capacity which I have already stated.

Thus, I am the spokesman for local, regional, and national port interests, whose stakes in the trade bill H.R. 9900 are identical.

The President has convincingly outlined the national needs, prompting his request for the enactment of this legislation.

I

approve and support this bill in behalf of all three bodies represented by me, without attempting to urge its verbatim adoption.

Experienced legislators, who will debate this bill, may well find it possible to improve it as to some details without diminishing the Presidential authority sought under its provisions.

We all know that our present trade balance is some $5 billion in our favor, while our balance of payments shows an adverse figure of over $2.5 billion.

Our national objective is to eliminate this latter deficit, which has been due in some measure to the export of our capital abroad.

Ability to negotiate trade treaties, which would increase and facilitate our exports, would remove, at least in part, the desirability of such foreign investments, by making access to foreign markets available to our export industry without the need of locating manufacturing facilities behind the tariff walls of other nations. The European Common Market may serve as the most outstanding, if not the only, example.

I should like to deal with the alternative to the economic foreign policy as proposed in H.R. 9900, namely, resort to protectionism, whose proponents try to make a case based on the differences in the cost of labor here at home and abroad, and the need to protect the high wages of American labor and earnings of American industry by reserving our domestic market to ourselves behind a wall of tariffs and quotas.

No one is naive enough to believe that such policies will not be followed by retaliatory measures in other parts of the trading world.

This can only result in the contraction of the total volume of both our exports and imports.

Permit me to analyze the effects of such concentration. Of the total employment in the United States, only some 20 percent is represented by workers in production industries. The other 80 percent are engaged in transportation, financing, marketing, advertising, and all other business activities.

I submit to you that manufactured imports move through the same channels as domestic products in the process of reaching the ultimate consumers, therefore, they contribute equally to employment in the 80percent segment. Their impact can be felt only among the 20 percent, here conceivably a corresponding displacement can take place.

Our exports employ a proportionate number of people both in the 20 and the 80 percent groups.

To reduce this to a simple formula, a given unit of manufactured imports will employ four Americans and displace one. A similar unit of exports will employ five Americans.

Reduction of our trade by one such unit on both sides of the ledger will save the job of one person but will displace nine. On the other hand, an increase by one such unit on both sides will displace one person and create new employment for nine.

Does it take an Einstein to figure where the national interest lies? Since, however, the impact of manufactured imports (totaling only 1 percent of our gross national product) is not evenly distributed, it is only fair to approach the problem of the basis of individual justice. Businesses and employees, where the impact is serious, should be assisted by those who are benefited by the overall increase-namely, the entire Nation.

Therefore, I am heartily in accord with such measures as the Government and Congress will find workable and practical to give national assistance to injured industries and employees. Not being expert in the business of relocation, retraining or rehabilitation, I hesitate to comment on the methods proposed under the bill. One thought occurs to me: the Small Business Administration could be strongly brought into the picture, as the adverse impact is not likely to be felt in the large industries who, even if fractionally affected in some lines, are also likely to be benefited by a larger volume of two-way trade in other ways.

If our present total foreign trade, estimated to be about $35 billion per annum and employing about 4,600,000 people, were to increase by 20 percent, a net gain of over 900,000 jobs would result, with corresponding increase in Government receipts and business and individual taxes and direct reduction of the unfavorable balance of payments by $1 billion. Surely that is the way to a better economy, creating in the process the means to ease the impact on the injured few.

Care must be exercised, however, both in the method of rendering assistance and evaluating the legitimate need for it in the light of normal business mortality.

The oxygen tent of Federal benevolence should not be spread over sick industries under the pretext that imports are the cause of their ailments, unless each case can offer positive proof of such a causative factor. In such cases other measures, contemporated to cope with the general problems of unemployment, should be brought to bear.

We of the port industry, being an integral and important element in the general structure of our international economy, are directly con

cerned with its expansion. We are satisfied that U.S. exports have not and never will reach a ceiling in an expanding world market, unless we are politically barred from its doors.

Reciprocal trade liberalization will take care of such a condition, but as a matter of practical reality, demonstrated by our experience since 1934-the beginning of our reciprocal trade treaties policy-the President must have broad, long-range authority to negotiate effectively. The old formula of product-by-product concessions, which rendered yeoman service in the past, must be expanded to meet the present-day conditions, such as the European Common Market poses by its policies of across-the-board reductions by commodity groups. Therefore, in behalf of the port interests represented by me, I urge and bespeak your favorable action in the matter of the bill under discussion.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Mora.

Are there any questions of Mr. Mora?

The CHAIRMAN. Apparently there are none.
Mr. MORA. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Amoss, we understand you are the director of commissioners of the port of New Orleans. Mr. Boggs called me the other day to tell me of his regret that he could not be here this morning to introduce you to the committee, and to welcome you to the committee. He had to be in New Orleans today, and he asked me to extend to you a very cordial welcome to the committee. You are recognized, sir.

STATEMENT OF W. J. AMOSS, DIRECTOR, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PORT OF NEW ORLEANS

Mr. Aмoss. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you be able to complete your statement in the 5 minutes we have allotted to you, sir?

Mr. Aмoss. I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. If you omit any parts of the statement, do it with the understanding that the entire statement will appear in the record. Mr. Aмoss. I didn't prepare a formal statement, Mr. Chairman, because what I had to say is sufficiently brief, I believe.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, you are recognized, sir.

Mr. Aмoss. My name is Walter J. Amoss, and I am director of the port of New Orleans, and I appear before you representing the board of commissioners of the port of New Orleans, an autonomous agency of the State of Louisiana.

The board I represent provides the public port facilities at New Orleans and is charged with the responsibility to maintain and develop the commerce and traffic through that port in the best interests of the people of Louisiana, and the vast mid-American area which our port serves. New Orleans is a general cargo port, second in value of its cargo annually only to New York, and handles in a normal year very close to $2 billion worth of cargo. We do, however, occupy a unique position in that we are the largest point of export of agricultural products.

Last year, for example, we exported 202 million bushels of grain and soybeans and over 1.6 billion bales of cotton produced in mid