(30 percent); South (8 percent). Synthetic fibers and manufactures, 10, 100, 000 South (64 percent); Middle Atlantic (17.8 perincluding piece goods. cent); New England (15.8 percent). 1 pervenu); New York (13.8 percent): Pennsylvania (9.7 percent): New Jersey (6.5 percent); Virginia (16 percent); South Carolina (13 percent); Pennsylvania Middle Atlantic (23.5 percent); South (22 per- North Central (38 percent); Middle Atlantic Oregon (18.9 percent); Washington (10.6 percent); California (8.8 New York (10.5 percent); California (7.5 percent); Illinois (7.5 per- New York (10.2 percent); Wisconsin (8.6 percent); Michigan (7.8 Pennsylvania (17.3 percent); Californio (12.5 percent); Texas (6.9 per- Pennsylvania (19 3 percent); Ohio (15.3 percent); West Virginia 3, 000, 000 North Centrel (45 percent); South (22.5 percent); Ohio (21 percent); Pennsylvani (14 percent); Missouri (11 percent); See footnotes at end of table. Northeast (45 percent); North Central (40 percent); South and West (15 percent). United States exports in 1951 to Venezuela, by commodity groups and principal commodities, showing distribution of production of such products by geographic region and principal States-Continued East North Central (75 percent); West North East North Central (55 percent); West North East North Central (80 percent); Middle At- Pacific (56 percent); South (20 percent); North- Northeast (60 percent); North Central (30 percent); South and West (10 percent). East North Central (40 percent); Middle At- East North Central (35 percent); Middle At- North Central (45 percent); Middle Atlantic Illinois (50 percent); Wisconsin (20 percent); Iowa (10 percent). California (50 percent); Connecticut (10 percent); New York (10 New York (15 percent); California (15 percent); New Jersey (12 per- New Jersey (45 percent); New York (15 percent); Indiana (10 per- New York (20 percent); Indiana (15 percent); Illinois (10 percent); Illinois (15 percent); New Jersey (15 percent); California (10 percent); New Jersey (20 percent); Illinois (10 percent); Indiana (10 percent); New York (10 percent); Ohio (10 percent); Massachusetts (5 percent); Pennsylvania (5 percent). Chemicals and related products.. 1 Data based upon 1947 Census of Manufactures, Bureau of Census. Percentages show ratio of value of production in region or State to value of total United States production. Domestic production data cover canned and preserved vegetables, fruits, juices, relishes, and sauces, which comprise the bulk of exports to Venezuela. The 1947 Census of Manufactures data do not of course fully reflect the gain made since that time by the South, and to some extent the West, in the manufacture of woolen This figure understates United States exports since many shipments are not included in the statistics. United States exports to Venezuela in 1952 totaled approximately $502,000,000 on the basis of preliminary figures. Source: Department of State. Mr. CowGER. Looking now to other aspects and implications of this legislation, when this committee acts I beseech you to bear in mind the chaotic and troubled situation in which the world finds itself today. I refer, of course, to the continuing conflict in Korea and the possibility of the occurrence of similar conflicts. Our country has rightly assumed a position of leadership in the world. To the end that our country shall not find itself walking alone, this Congress should take action which will tend to persuade and induce other nations to follow our leadership. It seems to us highly important that more and more friendly nations should be added to our following and that only in extreme circumstances should any action be taken to alienate those whom we presently class as friendly. Action by ou Congress cannot be taken as though in a vacuum. The and ears of the peoples of the world look to this group and closely scrutinize the action which it takes. Any legislation which serves to bore holes in the foundation of the concept we have come to refer to as hem spheric solidarity will have its toll among other nations which we by right, should have as friends. eves In behalf of the Foreign Trade Club of Louisville I urge you gettlemen to follow the course of action recommended by the President. extend the present Reciprocal Trade Agreement's legislation for period of 1 year and thereby give the administration the opportunity which it deserves to consider fully the entire problem and to recom mend the type of amending legislation which should be adopted. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Does that conclude your statement? Mr. CowGER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate the information you have given the committee. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. G. S. Goetz. Will you give your full name to the reporter, please, and then proceed with your statement? STATEMENT OF GEORGE Z. GOETZ, JR., CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENTAI COMMITTEE, READING FOREIGN TRADERS, READING, PA. Mr. GOETZ. My name is George Z. Goetz, Jr., representing the Reading Foreign Traders, Reading, Pa. I desire to present to you for the record a resolution adopted by the Reading Foreign Traders on May 13, 1953. The Reading Foreign Traders, a group representing a cross-section of the industries in and surrounding Reading, Pa., has unanimously adopted a resolution for presentation to the House Ways and Means Committee in connection with H. R. 4294. The Reading Foreign Traders have resolved that they go on record with the House Ways and Means Committee as favoring the Presi dent's request for a 1-year extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agre ments Act in its present form pending further study. Further, we favor the following: 1. Elimination of crippling amendments such as the peril-poin clause and the escape clause. 2. Retention of the President's discretionary power to reject or act contrary to the recommendations of the United States Tariff Commission. 3. A broadening of the President's power of unilateral action in accordance with principles and limitations laid down by Congress and in accordance with the board economic aims of the United States, both domestic and foreign. 4. Repeal of the Buy American Act. 5. A general reduction in tariffs so as to encourage a freer flow of trade among all nations. 6. Simplification of customs procedures. We believe that at its best, H. R. 4294 is a measure to promote inflationary pressure at home. Measures of retaliation abroad would also greatly aggravate inflationary spirals both here and abroad. At this time a great deal of foresight and a little hindsight would be most appropriate. H. R. 4294 leads us in two directions-down and out. It can readily be termed as a "slider," giving us free access to the chaotic era of the early 1930's, the era of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act. An analysis of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act clearly indicates it to be one of the greatest factors contributing to the depression of the 1930's. Within 1 year after its passage, 45 countries raised their tariff rates in retaliation. Our foreign markets practically disappeared overnight, thus leading to widespread unemployment and suffering both at home and abroad. The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act of 1930 was the straw needed to turn a recession into a depression. At this time, we can find guidance and comfort in the statement made by the late Henry Ford when he opposed the Hawley-Smoot tariff bill in May 1930: You say it is the contention of those who are backing it that it will revive industry and cure unemployment. I say it will have precisely the reverse effect. It will stultify business and industry and increase unemployment. When you prevent your customers from purchasing your goods, you are absolutely throwing them out of work. Instead of building up barriers to hinder the free flow of world trade, we should be seeking to tear existing barriers down. People cannot keep on buying from us unless we buy from them, and unless international trade can go on, our business will stagnate here at home. We see no valid reasons for the protectionist tendencies of H. R. 4294 which can only result in high protective tariffs. We know of no valid reasons for writing off the billions of dollars invested abroad by both the United States Government and private enterprise. Further, the sponsors of H. R. 4294 do not have a sound explanation for choosing this time to obligate the rest of the free world to seek new foreign markets-markets that might readily be found in Communistdominated countries. Therefore, we ask that H. R. 4294 be given no further consideration. In lieu of H. R. 4294, we request that Congress carefully consider legislation based on national interest rather than the interest of particular industries or groups, and in instances where the national interest must take precedence over hardship to an industry, we favor aid to that industry other than by means of protective tariffs and import quotas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity of appearing. |