An argument constantly heard is that tariff reductions will cause unemplo ment. We do not have the choice between employment and unemployment. Th question is where that unemployment is to occur, in export industries which 27more productive, paying the highest wages to American workers and willing and able to compete with goods from all over the world, or in protected industries which, contrary to the basic philosophy of American free enterprise, are demand ing that the Government protect them against competition at the expense et that free choice between products-the right of the consumer. During the postwar period, our surplus of exports has been paid for by foreign aid to the extent of approximately $5 billion a year. With the tapering off of foreign aid, it is clear that exports must be reduced to the extent that we do nỐC permit recipients of aid to earn more dollars in our market. Thus, something must give. Tariffs place a penalty on imports, but in doing so, they also penalize exports. Either we must take more imports or exports will be cut. The basic question at stake then is: Shall our policy be based on the interests of a few industries or on a concept of the national interest? The administratio has called for the extension of the Trade Agreements Act without crippling amendments. It seems to me that President Eisenhower's recommendatie should be accepted. It seems to me that as leaders of the free world, this is where both our interests and our obligations lie.-JOHN S. COLEMAN. Hon. DANIEL A. REED, TOLEDO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Toledo 4, Ohio, May 11, 1953. Member of Congress, House Office Building, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR MR. REED: On the recommendation of our world trade committee, the executive committee of the board of trustees of the Toledo Chamber of Commerce. meeting on May 7, 1953, unanimously recommends support of the 1-year exte sion of the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951 without change as requested by President Eisenhower. The prompt passage of a bill meeting the above requirement would, we are sure, have a powerful psychological effect on the free nations of the world as i practical demonstration of this country's intention to promote internations economic cooperation. We further urge that the following points, concerning the Reciprocal Trade Act, be given consideration in the proposed study of the entire foreign economi program: I. Indefinite extension of the act: Indefinite extension of the act is recom mended because the necessity of constantly having to reenact the legislation renders the program unstable. Long-range planning for operations in and ou side the American market by businessmen both at home and abroad is difficit if not impossible under the present policy of renewing the act every few years, II. Amendment of escape clause: Section 6A, the escape clause provision of the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951, provides that "no reduction in any rate or duty *** shall be permitted to continue in effect when the product on which the concession has been granted is, as a result in whole or in part, of the day or other customs treatment reflecting such concession, being imported into the United States in such increased quantities, either actual or relative, as to cause or threaten serious injury to the domestic industry producing like or directy competitive products." The only criterion or yardstick which this clause permits the Tariff Commission to use is whether the industry is suffering or threatened with serious injury. We believe it is necessary to broaden the interpretation of this clause to include the following points for consideration by the Tariff Commission in its efforts to determine serious injury to the domestic industry. A. The magnitude of the problem. How many workers and how much capital are involved? What percentage of the Nation's labor force is affected? B. The technological position of the industry. Has it lagged or been negligent in the improvement of product or production methods? C. The adaptability of the industry. Can it shift production to less competi tive products? Does the affected community offer alternative employment? In addition to broadening the serious injury interpretation, the following factors should also be considered in any investigation by the Tariff Commission. 1. The probable effect of the proposed action upon our international relations. Will the country whose products are involved be forced to trade with Communist ountries as a result of exclusion from the American market? What is the anger of retaliatory action against United States exports? 2. The probable effect of the proposed action on other American industries. How will industries which produce for export be affected as to the unit cost of heir product and employment if their markets are curtailed as a result of retaliaory action and the inability of the foreign country to earn dollars with which O buy United States products? 3. The probable effect of the proposed action on the economic support of our ational defense. Is the product of the industry involved so vital that domestic roduction should be maintained for reasons of self-sufficiency regardless of cost? What are the alternative sources of supply? Would it be better to consider a irect subsidy rather than impose further tariff restrictions? 4. The probable effect of the proposed action on the United States consumer. What will be the impact on the cost of living? The Toledo Chamber of Commerce respectfully requests that this statement e included in the official record of these hearings. Very truly yours, WAYNE E. KAKELA, Executive Manager. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF GREATER PHILADELPHIA, Hon. DANIEL A. REED, DEAR CONGRESSMAN REED: The Chamber of Commerce of Greater Philadelphia desires to be placed on record as strongly endorsing the President's request that he Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act be extended for a 1-year period without change, and that during this period a comprehensive reexamination of our for→ign trade and economic policies be undertaken. Since the inception of this legislation, our organization has consistently supported extension of the enabling act in a liberal form and with a full measure of discretionary power for the President to enter into trade agreements. It is conceded that American exporters to date may not have benefited under The actual operation of our trade-agreements program to the extent they should and that improved and more realistic legislation in this field is needed. It is for this reason we advocate the study recommended by the President and believe that such legislation cannot properly be effected, lacking such a study. It is our opinion that H. R. 4294, the so-called Simpson bill, does not represent improved legislation in this field; that it is extremely unrealistic, and if enacted, would represent a definite setback in efforts to build a strong foreign economic policy. This organization, therefore, voices its objection to the Simpson bill in particular and any other bills, including H. R. 2577, which would extend the Trade Agreements Act but with amendments further reducing the President's authority under the act and establishing import controls. It is our request that this communication be incorporated in the official record of the hearings on H. R. 4294. Very truly yours, J. HARRY LABRUM, President. SEATTLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SEATTLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE The Seattle Chamber of Commerce opposes the enactment of H. R. 4294 by the 83d Congress as not being in accord with the request of President Eisenhower as contained in his special message to Congress on April 7, 1953, in which he recommended extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act for 1 year pending completion of a thorough and comprehensive reexamination of the foreign policy of the United States. PHIL A. STRACK, President. EXPLANATORY MATERIAL DEVELOPED BY THE WORLD TRADE DIVISION (By Roy H. Carlson, chairman) The World Trade Division recommends to the board of trustees that the Seart! Chamber of Commerce go on record opposing H. R. 4294. On March 19, 1953, the Seattle Chamber of Commerce passed a resoluti: supporting the extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act as was stated H. R. 2577. This House resolution was given support because of its adherence? policy which had been indicated by the new administration. However, H. R. 4294, which is now coming before a hearing of the Commite on Ways and Means under Daniel A. Reed of New York, chairman, April 22, des not reflect the intent of the President's policy. This bill is known as the prote tionist Simpson bill and is objectionable because of the manner in which it wi completely restrict the President in actively administering the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. Therefore, it is of the utmost urgency that this chamber record its oppositiva to H. R. 4294, thus reaffirming its original stand on the previous legislativa H. R. 2577, which is in accord with Presidential recommendations. Hon. DANIEL REED, BARNES MANUFACTURING CO., Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, New House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. REED: It is my understanding that you are now conducting hearts on H. R. 4294 which I understand concerns our national policy in regard t tariffs. May I urge with all possible force the retention of the present reciprocal trad legislation for a period of at least 1 year to permit thorough study before af changes are made. As a manufacturer whose business could be seriously harr by foreign competition, I still want to go on record as favoring as near a fre trade situation in our country and foreign countries as possible. It is my fir conviction that only by achieving free trade can we achieve world stability with world peace being the result. It is my understanding that various special interests are trying to have tarif placed on imports of their particular commodity. In my opinion one of the most indefensible and completely selfish groups is the oil industry. No industry in the United States has had more Government handouts and protection that this industry with very special profits. To give them additional protecți : afforded by tariff in my opinion would simply be placing an additional load of the users of petroleum products in the United States. If possible, I would appreciate having my letter included in the record of the hearings of your committee. Yours sincerely, M. H. PRYOR, President. Hon. DAN REED, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, MARSHALL FIELD & Co., Chicago, May 12, 1953. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN REED: It would be appreciated if your committee might include the following opinion in its current consideration of H. R. 4294, the bill to extend the authority of the President to enter into foreign trade agreements under section 350 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and to accomplish other purposes. Marshall Field & Co. is engaged in retail sales of consumer goods to customers in the 48 States, and abroad, and in certain domestic manufacturing and whole saling operations. We buy from foreign and domestic manufacturers. We se to customers who represent nearly all walks of life. Our imports amount to less than 5 percent of our total business. The firm consistently has held to the civic concept that what is good for the community is good for business. I assure you that in these comments we have no selfish motive. Your committee will hear much from various special interests engaged in he production of one thing or another. Unfortunately, the great body of your constituents—the consumers are not so well organized to make their voices heard. In support of the many consumers who make our business possible, it s fitting for a retailer to point out that the reduction of import tariffis would estore justice to millions of consumers by reducing both the prices and the axes they have to pay. It is our opinion that the consequent temporary inconenience for a relatively few inflexible (but vocal) producers could well be considered the long overdue correction of an earlier injustice; and that, conversely, subsidy of certain industries by means of governmental barriers to onest foreign competition is but a manifestation of the creeping socialism your Congress is so commendably trying to wipe out. Accordingly, we are in favor of section 2 or H. R. 4294, extending for a further eriod of 1 year from June 12, 1953, the President's authorization to enter into 'oreign trade agreements. However, the subsequent sections of H. R. 4294 all seek to impose further estrictions than currently exist on our imports, and we are not in favor of hese subsequent sections. We hold that the extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act should be put through by itself, exclusive of any steps which would otherwise modify the present status. Any changes in our foreign economic policy should be more thoroughly studied and legislated separately from the extension of the reciprocal trade agreements egislation. We believe the President's current plan to appoint a commission to study the ntire subject of foreign economic policy is an excellent one, which will guide our thinking on this important subject and serve to keep us from getting into leeper trouble than we as a nation already find ourselves. Please be assured, Mr. Chairman, of the sincere desire on our part to see egislation enacted which will be of the greatest ultimate benefit to the greatest umber of individuals in this greatest country. Sincerely yours, H. M. McBAIN. FOREIGN TRADE ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Los Angeles 14, Calif., May 13, 1953. Jon. DANIEL A. REED, Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means, House Office Building, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN REED: Upon the direction of the board of directors of the Foreign Trade Association of Southern California, I have the honor to address you to advise that at a regular meeting of our board held in Los Angeles, Calif., on May 12, 1953, it received and considered reports, information, and proposals submitted to it by Dodge Crockett, of Wilbur-Ellis Co., chairman of the import committee of the association, and Philip Stein, customs attorney, chairman of the legislation committee of the association, relating to the proposed extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, which expires on June 12, 1953, and particularly to H. R. 4294, introduced by Representative Simpson, of Pennsylwania, on which your committee is now holding hearings. After careful consideration and study of considerable data, including arguments pro and con, received by it in connection with the aforesaid proposed bill, H. R. 4294, the board of directors of our association has passed the following resolution, which it is respectfully requested be considered by your committee and be included in the official record of its hearings on said bill: "Resolved, That the Foreign Trade Association of Southern California, comprising in its membership manufacturers, merchants, exporters, importers, rail, sea, and air transportation interests, bankers, insurance underwriters, and others in southern California concerned in the promotion and expansion of world trade, approves of, endorses and recommends, consistent with the request of President Eisenhower, that the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, which is due to expire on June 12, 1953, be extended without change for a period of 1 year, thus giving to Congress and the administration an opportunity to study our foreign-trade policy carefully and thoroughly in the light of our changing times. "That our association is accordingly opposed to the changes in the existing Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act proposed in H. R. 4294, and respectfully requests that your committee recommend to the Congress that the said act be extended for 1 year without change. "That this resolution, signed by the president of this association and attested to by its manager, be sent to Hon. Daniel A. Reed, chairman of the Committee Ways and Means, for consideration by said committee, with the request that the communication be included in the official record of the hearings of the committe on H. R. 4294." Respectfully submitted. FOREIGN TRADE ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, By ROBERT D. PARRISH, President. Approved and adopted the 12th day of May 1953, by the board of directors of the Foreign Trade Association of Southern California. Attest: [SEAL] ROBERT O. VERNON, Manager. HAMPTON ROADS FOREIGN COMMERCE CLUB, Hon. DANIEL A. REED, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. REED: The Hampton Roads Foreign Commerce Club, of Norfo Va., believes that the so-called Simpson bill now pending in Congress, would c serious damage to the ports of Hampton Roads as well as to the cause of ward trade, upon which our economic stability probably depends today more the at any time in the history of our country. We believe that the tariff increases proposed in the so-called Simpson b are inimical to the best interests of our own people and, as whatever affects 2 adversely, affects the entire free world, we believe they are inimical to the be interests of free people everywhere. The people of the great ports of Hampton Roads are deeply concerned, in fact definitely alarmed at the consequences they believe would result from the ↑ creased tariffs proposed. We therefore, respectfully urge you, Mr. Reed and your committee, to work for another year's extension of the present Reciprocal Trade Agreements Ac unhampered by any increase of tariffs as proposed by the Simpson bill. Respectfully yours, E. R. BUNCH, President, Hampton Roads Foreign Commerce Club MAY 19, 1973 MEMORANDUM TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED STATES Cov GRESS RELATIVE TO H. R. 4294 With particular reference to baler twine (par. 16221), binder twine (p 1622 1), cordage (par. 1005 (a)'), wrapping twine (par. 1005 (b)') PRODUCTS INVOLVED AND TARIFF DUTIES Binder twine, used by the farmers in the harvest of small grains, has been on the free list since 1894. Baler twine, a new product and used by the farmer in the harvest of hay, straw and other fodder and bedding crops only since 1945 (not in use at the time of the passage of the Tariff Act of 1930), was placed on the free list in 1951 (Publ Law 219, ch. 587, 81st Cong., 2d sess.). Cordage (rope) is on the dutiable list. The rate of duty, 2 cents per pound, established by the Tariff Act of 1930, the larger sizes of manila rope (constituting the largest volume of rope col sumption in the United States) has been unchanged. The rates on smaller sizes of manila rope (approximately 20 percent of total manila rope sales) have beer changed slightly from 2 cents per pound and 15 percent ad valorem to 2 cells per pound and 10 percent ad valorem. The rates of duty on sisal and henequen rope have been decreased 50 percest or 2 cents per pound and 15 percent ad valorem to 1 cent per pound and 711⁄2 per 1 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. |