Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Commission acted on a purely factual basis, getting the cost of production here and abroad as best it could, and following out section 336 of the law.

But as to what the motives were that entered into inaugurating that investigation and all of that, I have no information.

Mr. WOODRUFF. That answer is satisfactory.

I want to say that Mr. Morgan, Secretary of the Commission, testified before the Appropriations Committee of the House that while there were 1,050 items in the British agreement, the Tariff Commission could not possibly have investigated more than 50 of them, all of which would tend to show that the statement that the negotiating parties under the act are getting their advice, and basing their action on that advice, from the Tariff Commission on all of the items in these various agreements must be rather wide of the truth, because we are all familiar with the time it took to investigate those things under the flexible provisions of the Tariff Act.

I think the claim that these negotiating individuals around here depend upon the Tariff Commission is a lot of hooey, myself.

Mr. EDMINSTER. Congressman, I am sorry to take issue with you on that. I think that that is an erroneous conclusion.

Mr. WOODRUFF. I beg your pardon? Mr. EDMINSTER. I say, I think that is a highly erroneous conclusion. I happen to know that, so far as getting information from the Tariff Commission is concerned in connection with the trace agreement negotiating process

Mr. WOODRUFF. Let me ask you right there, Would you tell the committee that you can get conclusive information from the Tariff Commission on every item that is incorporated in any one of these agreements? You may have some idea of what it is, but you do not have any definite information, do you?

Mr. EDMINSTER. Congressman, if you mean by conclusive findings information in advance as to the difference in cost of production here and abroad, as you yourself have stated, that would be utterly impossible.

Mr. WOODRUFF. That is exactly the point I am making; and for that reason I say the statement that the negotiating individuals operating under this act are dependent upon the Tariff Commission to give them information that will keep the tariffs at a rate where competitive conditions will exist is simply a lot of hooey. There is nothing to it.

Mr. EDMINSTER. May I just add a word there? I do not think that is correct.

Mr. WOODRUFF. You may not think it is correct, but I am satisfied it is correct. I would not expect you to agree that it is correct.

Mr. EDMINSTER. May I, for the sake of the record, give the reasons for my statement? There are many things to be taken into account, the nature of the industry, the nature of the imported article. There are many factors that enter into the problem of the competitive relationship of imports and domestic production and what the impact of increased imports resulting from a duty reduction would be, if any, upon the domestic industry concerned. The Tariff Commission has published several volumes of digests containing information pertaining to the various products on which this country granted concessions in the agreement with the United Kingdom. So that it remains a fact that highly valuable information can be given and is given by the Tariff Commission experts to the trade agreements organization--information that throws light on the possible effects of a duty cut upon the domestic industry.

Mr. WOODRUFF. And I do not question that. You say that possibly it will. It is all a matter of opinion and is not based on definite information in any one case as a result of an investigation, and it is not according to the idea that I gathered from the statement of the gentleman yesterday, that they depended upon the Tariff Commission to arrive at figures which would bring about competitive conditions. Those are not his words, but that is the impression I received. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Edminster, let me ask you one question in connection with the inquiry about the sugar matter. The trade-agreement reduction in duty on sugar was coupled with {the absolute quota-import quota-under the Jones-Costigan Act and later on the Sugar Act of 1937, was it not?

Mr. EDMINSTER. That is correct.

Mr. COOPER. And the original reduction on sugar under section 336 was proclaimed 34 days before the Trade Agreement Act was passed and before the bill had even passed the Senate; is that not correct?

Mr. EDMINSTER. Yes.

Mr. COOPER. The reduction under section 336 was proclaimed 30 days before it went into effect.

Mr. EDMINSTER. Correct.

Mr. COOPER. And it went into effect 4 days before the Trade Agreement Act was approved by the President? Mr. EDMINSTER. That is correct.

Mr. COOPER. Therefore it was proclaimed 30 days before that, and that would be before the Trade Agreement Act even passed the Senate?

Mr. EDMINSTER. That is correct.

Mr. COOPER. At this point I would like to insert for the record a table showing the chronology of trade-agreements bill and reduction in duty on sugar in 1934.

(The table referred to follows:)

Chronology of trade-agreements bill and reduction in duty on sugar in 1934

TRADE AGREEMENTS BILL (H. R. 8687)

Introduced in the House and referred to Committee on Ways and
Means 1

Mar. 16, 1934 Report of Committee on Ways and Means received in the House.. Mar. 17, 1934 Passed House...

Mar. 29, 1934 Referred to Committee on Finance

Apr. 2, 1934 Reported in Senate with amendments.

May 2, 1934 Passed Senate...,

June 4, 1934 House agreed to Senate amendments.

June 6, 1934 Presented to President..

June 7, 1934 Became law.

June 12, 1934 1 This bill was introduced after the hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means.

Chronology of trade-agreements bill and reduction in duty on sugar in 1934-Con.

SUGAR INVESTICATION

Investigation ordered.

Sept. 14, 1931 Report sent to President..

Feb. 8, 1934 President requested supplemental report on molasses and sugar sirups in view of pending tax bill on sugar.

Mar. 16, 1934 Report on molasses and sirups submitted to President

Apr. 20, 1934 Proclaimed by the President'.

May 9, 1934 Became effective.-

June 8, 1934 (NOTE.—On May 9, 1934, the President signed the Jones-Costigan Sugar Act which took effect June 8, 1934. This act provided for quotas on imports and domestic shipments of sugar. It also provided for a processing tax not in excess of the amount by which the duty on Cuban raw sugar was reduced.)

Mr. WOODRUFF. Mr. Chairman, will you yield?
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Woodruff, yes.

Mr. WOODRUFF. That first reduction in tariff took place on June 8, 1934, according to the documents I have in my hand. You will find it on page 70, right at the top of this document that I quoted from a moment ago, and this Trade Agreement Act was approved on June 12, 1934.

Mr. EDMINSTER. Yes.

Mr. WOODRUFF. So that reduction was made just 4 days before this act was approved; and, of course, one would know that the act would be approved at the time that reduction was made.

Mr. COOPER. But the fact still remains that it had been proclaimed 30 days before that.

Mr. EDMINSTER. Yes.

Mr. COOPER. Are there any further questions? If not, we thank you, Mr. Edminster, for your appearance. Mr. Mills. Mr. Chairman, before you take up the next witnessMr. COOPER. Do you want to ask him anything?

Mr. Mills. I desire unanimous consent to insert three items in the record, two of which were prepared by the State Department and one by the Department of Commerce, on benefits under the reciprocal trade agreements.

Mr. COOPER (presiding). If there is no objection, they may be inserted.

(The documents referred to, which were prepared by the State Department, are as follows:)

(The document prepared by the Department of Commerce will appear in the revised edition.)

CONCESSIONS OBTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES IN TRADE AGREEMENTS

The United States has obtained from foreign countries with which trade agreements had been concluded prior to January 1, 1943, concessions—including duty reductions, quota increases, and bindings of existing customs treatment-on articles which accounted for 54.3 percent of the total imports of those countries from the United States on the basis of 1937 figures. Concessions have been obtained on 73.5 percent of their imports of agricultural products from the United

States and on 47.7 percent of their nonagricultural imports from this country.
Further details are given in the following table:
Agreement countries' i imports from the United States of concession products as

percent of total imports from the United States; on basis of 1987 data

[blocks in formation]

1 Not including Czechoslovakia and Nicaragua for which the reciprocal concessions were terminted on Apr. 22, 1939, and Mar. 10, 1938, respectively. No data are included for trade with the colonies of France and of the Netherlands and for Newfoundland, British nonself-governing colonies and other British territories which are also included in the agreements

If all the concessions obtained from foreign countries up to January 1, 1943, had been in effect in 1937, 33.4 percent of our total exports, 48 percent of our exports of agricultural products, and 28.7 percent of our exports of nonagricultural products would have been affected in that year. As some of our largest agricultural exports such as cotton and grains, are subject to little or no duty in several of the agreement countries, the bindings of low-duty or duty-free treatment which we have obtained from such countries on agricultural products constitute a larger share of the total concessions obtained than the duty reductions we have obtained. The reverse is true for nonagricultural products on which concessions were obtained. This is shown by the following table: Percent of United States exports on which concessions have been obtained; on basis of

1937 data

[blocks in formation]

Value of trade-agreement countries' agricultural imports from the United States'

classified by types of concessions granted to the United States; on basis of 1937, data

[Thousands of dollars ']

Trade agreement country

Total agri-
cultural
imports
from the
United
States

Imports Imports Percent of total imports from the
from
from

United States
United United
States of States of
agricultural agricultural
products

products Reductions
subject to subject to

and Bindings

Total reductions bindings at

concessions and other existing

mitigations mitigations levels

530

Argentina

$2, 576

$147
$826

17.3 Belgium

32. 1

49.4 27, 843 6, 684 2,085

24. 0 Brazil.3

7.5

31.5 2, 369

212
868

9.0 Canada

36. 6

45.6 68, 015 22, 797 27, 981

33.5 Colombia

41. 1

74. 7 3, 056

595
198

19.4 Costa Rica ?

6. 5

25.9 918

95
666

10.3 Cuba..

72. 6

82.9 22, 028 12, 237

7, 293

55. 6 Ecuador ?

33. 1 759

88, 7 617

16 El Salvador ?

81.3
2.1

83. 4
82
209
15.5

39.4 Finland. 6, 917

54.9 1,048 France

4, 487
15. 2
64.8

80.0 61, 454 Guatemala

7, 295
1, 787
11.9
2.9

14.8 1, 149

45
647
3.9
56. 3

60. 2 1 Converted from foreign countries' currencies into United States dollars at annual average rates of ex® change.

. Based on United States export data.

3 Imports of agricultural products from the United States estimated as being of the same proportion to total imports from the United States as agricultural exports to that country are to total United States exports to that country.

Value of trade-agreement countries' agricultural imports from the United States,

classified by types of concessions granted the United States; on basis of 1937 data-Continued

(Thousands of dollars)

Trade agreement country

Imports Imports Percent of total imports from the
from
from

United States
Total agri- United United
cultural States of States of
imports agricultural agricultural
from the products products

Reductions
United subject to subject to

and

Total States

Bindings reductions bindings at

concessions and other existing

mitigations mitigations levels

Haiti

$1,069
$150

$26
14.1
2.4

16.5 Honduras

536
148
122
27.6
22.8

50. 4 Mexico)

6, 141
2, 179 1, 535

35.5
25.0

60.5 Netherlands.

30, 382
11, 888
11, 328

39. 1
37.3

76. 4 Peru...

1, 549

135
110
8.7
7.1

15.8 Sweden.

16,819

1, 985
10, 571

11.8
62.9

74. 7 Switzerland.. 7, 901 2, 219 3, 789

28. 1
47.9

76.0 Turkey.

1, 274 1,025

None United Kingdom.

80.5

80.5 254, 114 34, 265 198, 865

13. 5
78. 3

91.8 Uruguay ?

304
131

91
43.0
30.0

73.0 Venezuela ?.

3, 831 2,127

1, 159
55.5
30.3

85.8 Total, 23 countries... 521, 534 108, 406 274. 659

20.8
52.7

73.5 • Based on United States export data.

3 Imports of agricultural products from the United States estimated as being of the same proportion to total imports from the United States as agricultural exports to that country are to total United States exports to that country.

Source: Compilations from foreign countries' trade statistics and, where necessary, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, U. 8. Department of Commerce.

Value of trade-agreement countries' nonagricultural imports from the United States,

classified by types of concessions granted the United States; on basis of 1937 data

[Thousands of dollars 1]

[graphic]
[ocr errors]

2, 716
16.2

18.8 6, 439

503
928
7.8
14.4

22. 2 Haiti).

3, 767

99
539
2.6
14.3

16.9 Honduras

4, 956

55
854
1.1
17.2

18.3 Mexico 99, 620 12, 173 17, 833

12. 2
17.9

30.1 Netherlands. 44, 670 1, 418 8,811

3. 2
19.7

22.9 Peru

19, 300
5, 697 1,821

29.5
9.5

39.0 Sweden

58, 112
687 24, 929

1.2
42.9

44. 1 Switzerland

21, 043 9, 592

1, 589
45.6
7.5

53. 1 Turkey. 12, 584 4, 708 None

37.4

37.4 United Kingdom

310, 023 32, 379

61, 450

10.4
19.8

30. 2 Uruguay 12, 801 4,549 1,408 35.5

46.5 Venezuela

42, 398 2, 454

12, 652

5.8
29.8

35.6 Total 23 countries. 1, 506, 444 406, 901 311, 882 27.0 20.7

47.7 1 Converted from foreign countries' currencies into United States dollars at annual average rates of ex. change. 2 Based on United States export data.

3 Imports of nonagricultural products from the United States estimated as being of the same proportion to total imports from the United States as nonagricultural exports to that country are to total United States exports to that country.

Source: Compilations from foreign countries' trade statistics and, where necessary, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, U. S. Department of Commerce.

11.0

« AnteriorContinuar »