STATE OF CONNECTICUT, Hartford, March 27, 1962. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE MILLS: I respectfully ask to be recorded as strongly in favor of the proposed Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Generally, I consider the President's program a realistic, forthright, and urgently needed approach to the important and vital problem of strengthening our position among free nations in a world of drastically changing economic relationships. Implied in the program is recognition of the fact that with the growing interdependence among the peoples of the world, nations can no longer live and flourish in economic isolationism any more than they can in political isolationism. As a highly industrialized seaboard State, Connecticut's interest in the Trade Expansion Act is substantial. The extent of our stake can be measured in part by the fact that, in 1960, Connecticut exported more than $385 million in manufactured goods and more than $11 million in agricultural products. I see in the Trade Expansion Act opportunities for Connecticut to increase its exports to help meet the growing demand for goods in other countries. Among those opportunities is that of removing the European Common Market as an economic threat not only to Connecticut but to our entire national economy and making the Market. an economic stimulant to our export trade. It is generally acknowledged that a broad trade expansion program of so many implications will necessitate adjustments. I have every confidence in the capacity of our Nation, with its high productivity, its invaluable manpower pool of many and diverse skills, and its industrial excellence and enterprise to meet any test required by these adjustments. Sincerely, DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLS: Although I am unable to testify in person for H.R. 9900, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, please record my position as urgently favoring the enactment of strong new legislation in support of President Kennedy's trade expansion program. Our country faces the necessity of finding greatly expanded new markets in order to maintain and accelerate the rate of our economic growth and make the benefits of American industry and culture available to the rest of the world. I am convinced that we can do this through the authority provided in the bill which you have introduced. Undoubtedly, the overriding interest of the Nation's economic and foreign policy must be served at some cost to individual firms which may find themselves unable to face strong import competition. As Governor of Delaware, I feel greatly concerned for such firms. I trust that strong expansion provisions will make it possible to assist these companies to move into more competitive positions. Cordially, ELBERT N. CARVEL, STATE OF INDIANA, STATEMENT BY Gov. MATTHEW E. WELSH, OF INDIANA, IN SUPPORT OF THE TRADE EXPANSION ACT OF 1962 The changing world around us produces economic as well as military dangers. It likewise opens opportunities for the growth of trade in the world, just as it presents the real possibility for a great expansion of the areas of freedom. But these opportunities are not open to those who fear the challenge of the future or who fail to read and to understand the significance of the economic changes sweeping free Europe and the revolution of rising aspirations that has enflamed the underdeveloped areas of the earth. We in America now have the economic as well as the political choice of riding the crest of the wave of history, or we can drift rudderless and be buffeted by the winds of change. Our political partners in freedom on the European Continent have learned well from us the lessons of mass production and the economics of free trade among neighboring states. We taught them and helped finance them. In doing this we created not only a stronger ally in the struggle for freedom but also a stronger competitor for developing markets of Europe and throughout the world. The reconstruction of the industrial potential of Europe was fertilized and nutured by the United States as a bulwark against the westward spread of the infection of communism. And this was successful, for the red plague has not moved a foot further westward in Europe since America threw its economic power and genius into the struggle on the continent. We encouraged the closed political alinement of Western European nations and the gradual removal of barriers to free trade among them. The phenomenal rate of growth of the European Common Market is a result of the accelerated lowering of the walls against the free movement of labor, goods, and capital among these nations. This seedling so carefully planted by the United States, and so zealously guarded and tended by our military and economic guarantees, is now reaching young maturity. It is soon to be joined by other European nations. And freedom is stronger as a result. We have done our work well. But we have helped create a new economic world that presents us with the need for new rules, new techniques, and new trade arrangements. President Kennedy has proposed to the Congress a means for meeting this challenge to our oversea markets. He has proposed a specific means whereby U.S. negotiators can seek, with hardheaded Yankee bargaining, the best possible trade terms for our products abroad. Without these favorable trading terms many of our exports will be unable to scale formidable tariff barriers around once rich markets for our oversea shipments. In essence the President proposes in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 that we equip our trade negotiators with the authority to obtain the most favorable terms for American goods entering world markets. He asks this change in our trade policy for two reasons: First, without the new authority to bargain effectively with the European Common Market, other developing regional trade groups, and individual nations, we can suffer a severe loss in overseas markets. And secondly, with this authority to secure for our country continued favorable entry into foreign markets, we can greatly expand our trade opportunities. There is no standing still in a world of change. We meet the challenge of the time and forge ahead, or we fail to meet it and lag behind. And the price of failure is more than a loss of markets, it is a weakening of the forces of freedom. The European Common Market is a fact the existence of which we must recognize. The question before our nation is how will be adapt to this new and rapidly developing condition. New markets, expanding old markets, and an accelerating growth of the American economy will result if Americans can have the opportunity to compete in the trading world unencumbered by artificial barriers and discriminatory tariffs. I have confidence that as the world's best farmers and the world's experts in mass production and mass marketing we can compete successfully and profitably. Or put somewhat differently, anything they can do, we can do better. At the same time, it is recognized that some firms may not be able to compete without readjustments in products, in production methods or in marketing practices. The President has proposed that these firms and their employees be protected during the time these readjustments can be made. In some instances these companies, unable to meet competition from overseas, are inefficient and hanging on to life only because of a subsidy in higher prices paid by the American consumer. In other instances, nearness to raw materials, the combination of wages, raw material costs, and production methods give foreign firms an advantage that cannot be overcome readily. The President's proposed trade bill includes specific aids for firms, workers, and even entire industries in the very rare instances in which this latter need would occur. For firms suffering difficulties from foreign competition the President has proposed technical assistance, various forms of financial aid, and tax relief in the form of special carryback of operating losses. For workers he has proposed readjustment allowances in the form of compensation for partial or complete unemployment, retraining for other types of employment, and relocation allowances to assist families in moving to areas where employment may be available. For the rare case in which an entire industry is hurt by competition from abroad, the President would be authorized to increase protective tariffs for a period of years to permit readjustment with a minimum of economic hardship. This then is President Kennedy's proposal for meeting the challenges of the new world of trade opening up to us, without creating economic hardship at home. As a practical matter our choice is whether we will enter this expanding world of trade as a leader confident of our ability to compete or as a follower being dragged kicking and moaning into the economic future. We stand now on the threshold of a new trading world, one with which the prosperity and growth of Indiana and the Nation are intimately connected. We can choose to step confidently over this threshold as the economic leader of the world. Or we can hold back fearful that we cannot measure up to tomorrow and its problems. I submit for the record as a part of this statement the study prepared by the United States Department of Commerce on Indiana's stake in foreign trade. As you will note, world markets are critically important to the economy of Indiana. We in Indiana know our business. Hoosiers are among the world's best farmers, most skilled industrial workers, and masters of production and marketing. We are tightfisted bargainers and traders and we know our way through the financial markets of the world. We know we can do better than hold our own. President Kennedy has pointed the way for America to compete successfully in this new trading world we face, a way we can compete equitably and fairly, without our path blocked by artificial barriers raised against us. Personally and as Governor of Indiana I strongly and enthusiastically endorse the President's program for expanding world trade. I respectfully urge the committee to report favorably on the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. (Attached and a part of this statement is the following report by the U.S. Department of Commerce.) EXPORT ORIGIN STUDY-STATE OF INDIANA U.S. Department of Commerce, 1962 THE STATE OF INDIANA AND FOREIGN TRADE SUMMARY HIGHLIGHTS Foreign trade has a direct impact on every community, its economy, its industries, its workers, its farmers-the life and livelihood of all of its people. Manufactured exports Exports of manufactured goods from Indiana amounted to $483.6 million in 1960; 312 Indiana establishments each exported more than $25,000 in 1960; 310,259 Indiana workers were employed in these establishments. (Total number of manufacturing workers in Indiana in 1958 was 544,723, according to the most recent Census Bureau Survey of Manufactures.) Indiana's major exporting industries are: Transportation equipment, nonelectrical machinery, electrical machinery, chemicals and allied products, food and kindred products, primary metals, and fabricated metal products. Indiana ranked 10th in the Nation in volume of manufactured exports. Agricultural exports Indiana's equivalent share of U.S. total exports of $4.9 billion of agricultural products was $149.3 million in the 1960-61 crop year. Included were $126 million for field crops, $21 million for livestock and livestock products, $1.2 million for vegetables, and $1.1 million fruits and nuts. About 15,700 Indiana farmworkers may be attributed to the production of farm products that were exported both in unprocessed and in processed form. This number represents 7.2 percent of the 219,000 total workers on farm. (Estimates by the Departments of Agriculture and Labor.) The following individual are companies are illustrative of those which contribute to the merchandise exports of Indiana. They have extended permission to be identified as companies participating in direct exports. Anderson Lynch Corp.-Glass-forming machinery. Auburn Rieke Metal Products Corp.-Metal stampings. Bloomington: Sarkes Tarzian Inc.-Television tuners and semiconductors. Bremen: Dorsett Marine, Textron Inc.-Boat building and repairing. Columbus: Vernco Corp.-Automotive parts and subassemblies. Connersville: Porcelain Steel Corp.-Porcelainized architectural metal components (subsidiary of H. H. Robertson Co.). Decatur: Central Soya Co., Inc.-Soybean oil and meal. East Chicago: Combustion Engineering, Inc.-Steam-generating units. Elkhart: Adams & Westlake Co.-Commercial monumental-type windows. Excel Corp.-Metal window and vent frames. Evansville: Bucyrus-Erie Co.-Power shovels, canes, and draglines. Fort Wayne: The Magnavox Co.-Radio, television, and communications equipment. Goshen Penn Controls, Inc.-Automatic temperature controls. Hammond: Champion Corp., subsidiary of U.S. Industries-Sewer cleaning equipments. Huntington: Utrad Corp., subsidiary of Litton Industries-Electronic components. Indianapolis: Eli Lilly & Co.-Pharmaceuticals. Ford Motor Co.-Automotive parts. Insley Manufacturing Corp.-Power cranes, shovels, and excavators. Aluminum Co. of America-Tube and extrusions, alloy ingot. Lebanon: Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.-Steel drums and pails. Madison: Randall Co., Textron Inc.-Metal stampings. Marion Anaconda Wire & Cable Co.-Copper and aluminum products. Mishawaka U.S. Rubber Co.-Coated fabrics, foam rubber, and heavy extrusion materials. Noblesville: Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.-Fabricated rubber products. North Manchester: Controls Co. of America-Clockwork-operated devices. Roby: American-Maize Products Co.-Corn sirup and starch. South Bend: Studebaker-Packard Corp.-Passenger cars and trucks. Terre Haute: Commercial Solvents Corp.-Chemicals and allied products. Tipton: Steel Parts Corp.-Precision metal stampings. Valparaiso: The Anderson Co.-Screw-machine products. Van Buren: Appliance Manufacturing Co., Inc.-Various types of switches. Whiting: American Smelting & Refining Co.-Fabricated nonferrous metal products. See end of report for additional firms that extended permission to be listed. |