any of the propositions in the report, and until such vote is taken the report rests solely upon the authority of the committee presenting it. To the Board of Directors: The Foreign Commerce Department Committee, as a result of its meeting on March 17, submits to the Board of Directors the following resolution, with the request that it be transmitted to the Thirty-first Annual Meeting for action. TRADE AGREEMENTS ACT "Resolved, That the policy of the Trade Agreements Act should be continued under which the Government would have adequate authority to negotiate and make effective agreements for the reciprocal and selective adjustment of tariffs and other barriers to trade, including quota restrictions, with adequate safeguards such as legislative provisions for ample public notice and open hearings, and clauses in the agreements providing for, in case of unforeseen developments, the modification or withdrawal of concessions in order to prevent serious injury to domestic producers. Negotiations in a program of reciprocal trade agreements should take into consideration the effects of customs duties, quotas, and exchange restrictions, and all other obstacles to the reasonable flow of goods and services. Our Government's traditional policy of insisting upon equality of treatment with other nations in foreign countries should be maintained. A well-balanced and enterprising international commerce, conducted on a fair and nondiscriminatory basis, will increase the purchasing power and improve the standard of living of all parties concerned, and so will help to create the sound economic foundation indispensable for enduring peace." PREVIOUS CHAMBER ACTION The membership of the Chamber of Commerce of the U. S. A. has twice approved, in principle, of the trade-agreements policy; at its 21st Annual Meeting in 1933 prior to the enactment of the law and at its 26th Annual Meeting in 1938. PRESENT ACT The Trade Agreements Act, under which the President was granted authority to negotiate trade agreements with other countries, expires June 12, 1943. That Act permits the President to modify tariff rates either upwards or downwards within limits of fifty percent, such agreements to be entered into for a base period of three years with no change to be made in the free list. In exercising this authority under Section 350 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the President must find as a fact that the existing duties or other restrictions are "unduly burdening and restricting the foreign trade of the United States." The purpose of the Trade Agreements Act is stated to be for "expanding foreign markets for the products of the United States." The Trade Agreements Act has been twice renewed, the first time on March 1, 1937, and again on April 12, 1940, each time for a three-year period. AGREEMENTS UNDER ACT Since its enactment into law on June 12, 1934, agreements have been concluded with twenty-five countries, nine in Europe and sixteen in the Western Hemisphere. Except for the agreement with Czechoslovakia, suspended April 22, 1939, and the first agreement with Canada, superseded by its revision of November 17, 1938, all of the original accords are now in effect, some with modifications and supplements. The twenty-four countries with which agreements are now in force are: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Peru, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela. In addition, three accords are now in process of negotiation; hearings have been held and written and oral views presented. Negotiations are in process with Bolivia, Iceland, and Iran. The countries with which trade agreements may be negotiated have been greatly narrowed, although possibilities such as Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand are still open. FAIRER TREATMENT OF COMMERCE In the opinion of your Committee the trade-agreements policy has been beneficial to the United States and has come to be regarded, throughout the world, as the symbol of the desire on the part of our Nation to build a world economy based on fairer treatment of commerce and thus to help eliminate economic causes that might disturb international relations. Your Committee therefore urges extension of the trade agreements authority in order that the United States may have available, during the war and after its conclusion, effective means to support a more reasonable and less restricted international commercial policy. FOREIGN COMMERCE DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE, CLARK H. MINOR, Chairman. MARCH 17, 1943. NOTE--Dr. Elvin H. Killheffer does not concur in the report of the committee in view of the fact that he favors an alternate proposal. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Robertson. Mr. ROBERTSON. It should be needless for me to tell you that the endorsement given here today by this great organization of businessmen from every State, I believe, in the Union-is that not true? Mr. MINOR. You are right. Mr. ROBERTSON (continuing). Pleases and gratifies me very much, because at times I have been put in the category of the economists and the women's clubs and some of the other organizations that, according to the opposition, mean well but do not know what it is all about. Is it not true that in your organization you have more members .in New York and in Pennsylvania than in any other two States? Mr. MINOR. I cannot tell you how it is divided. We have some 1,800 organizations scattered all over the country, and our votes are taken on the basis of the distribution of our membership, not from any one locality. Our board of directors are selected very largely on a geographical basis, and our committee that is concerned with foreign trade is selected from all parts of the country. Mr. ROBERTSON. Just looking hurriedly through your pamphlet entitled "Organization Members of 1942," I am of the impression that in New York and in Pennsylvania you have more members than in any other two States in the Union, and, of course, they are both great industrial States and great trading States. New York probably is now the financial center of the world. London used to be, but New York now is, I imagine. I was also interested in your list of members to see from my district the following chambers of commerce: Front Royal, Harrisonburg, Lexington-which is my home town-Luray, Staunton, and Waynesboro. I know nearly all the members of the organization from those places. While, of course, we have a few big plants and they belong, most of the members of those chambers of commerce are small businessmen, as that term is usually used. It is true, is it not, that your organization speaks for the small businessman as well as the big businessman? Mr. MINOR. I think that is absolutely correct. Mr. ROBERTSON. And you do not formulate any national policy that ignores the rights and interests of the small businessman? Mr. MINOR. No, sir. Mr. ROBERTSON. In endorsing this trade-agreement program, you endorse it with the view of the general welfare of all types of business, of the people, and also with respect to our international relations? Mr. MINOR. I believe that is a correct statement. Mr. ROBERTSON. I was also pleased to see you endorse the policy which was first clearly and definitely enunciated by President Harding's great Secretary of State, Mr. Hughes, known as the unconditional most-favored-nation policy, and I see that you have said in your last endorsement, adopted this year, I believe it was Mr. MINOR. That is what we will submit next week to the membership of the chamber for their vote. Mr. ROBERTSON. You say: "Our Government's traditional policy of insisting upon equality of treatment with other nations in foreign countries should be maintained." If we are going to deal with a nation, they must give us as good treatment as they give anybody else? Mr. MINOR. Yes, sir. Mr. ROBERTSON. And in return for that, we give them the same kind of treatment. As I say, that was not enunciated as a Democratic principle or a New Deal principle or any other kind of partisan principle. It was just a sound principle that was put into effect by that great statesman, and jurist, Charles Evans Hughes. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Knutson. Mr. KNUTSON. I am very glad to hear my distinguished colleague have a good word to say for the United States Chamber of Commerce, being one of the counselors. I notice his organization is gradually taking over all of our idols and all of our organizations. I am speaking of those who have been on the other side. It was not long ago that they adopted George Washington as a great Democrat. I suppose Alexander Hamilton will be next. I would like to call attention to page 3 of your statement, the resolution. You favor adequate safeguards such as legislative provisions for ample public notice and open hearings. Mr. MINOR. Yes. Mr. KNUTSON. That would indicate that they have not been advertising their meetings as extensively, perhaps, as American interests are entitled to; that they have been conducting star chamber sessions in negotiating treaties. That was a general complaint, was it not, some time back? Mr. MINOR. I have personally never heard of such a complaint. I think that all members of the chamber of commerce get ample notice of the hearings on every negotiation of a trade agreement. They get an indication of the types of materials or commodities that are to come up for consideration. Now, I do not think they send the women's clubs advance information that they are going to reduce the price of whisky or the tariff on whisky or some other alcohol. I should think it would be against the public interest to publish for everybody outside the hearing room the items that are coming up for negotiation on a reciprocal basis. Mr. KNUTSON. Are you in the export business? Mr. MINOR. Yes, sir. I have lived abroad 35 out of all my years. I have seen tariff walls, trade restrictions, and I have seen the adoption of this reciprocal trade agreement in 1934; and, as a Republican, I believe it is one of the greatest steps forward and one of the most intelligent methods that have been adopted-and I say this without reference to any party or anything else the best method that has yet been adopted for handling our tariff problems. Mr. KNUTSON. Do you believe in importing commodities of which we have an exportable surplus? Mr. MINOR. I believe you have to strike a balance in your international trade. You cannot sell unless you will buy. I do not believe in importing into this country goods of which we have a surplus. That is what we have specified in here. Provision should be made in this legislation, in the way it is carried out, that in case of abuse our concessions can be withdrawn. Mr. KNUTSON. You are in favor of an amendment providing for court review by some competent body? Mr. MINOR. The present act, I believe, in its administration, provides that. Mr. KNUTSON. I beg you pardon? Mr. MINOR. I believe in the trade agreement that was recently signed with Mexico that was spelled out. Mr. KNUTSON. I am informed by our expert that the Mexican treaty does not provide for court review. Mr. MINOR. Well, he may be correct. I think there should be provision for the withdrawal of the concession in the operation of these agreements if it brings about an undue hardship. Mr. KNUTSON. We should write such a provision into this law as will protect the interests of the domestic producer? Mr. MINOR. That is what our resolution specifies In case of unforeseen developments, the modification or withdrawal of concessions in order to prevent serious injury to domestic producers. That should be in the operation of our reciprocal trade agreements. Mr. KNUTSON. You want to write that into the law? Mr. MINOR. I do not care where it is. It should be in the practice. Mr. KNUTSON. I take it, then, that you want the act amended. Have you got a copy of the dissenting statement by Dr. Elvin H. Killheffer? Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have incorporated in the record at this point, a letter and dissenting statement by Dr. Elvin H. Killheffer, a member of the foreign commerce committee of the United States Chamber of Commerce. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, your request is granted, Mr. Knutson. (The statement above referred to is as follows:) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, DELAWARE, DELEGATES ANNUAL MEETING, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES The foreign commerce department of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States has submitted a report, "Trade Agreements Act." Dr. Elvin H. Killheffer of the legal department, du Pont Co., a member of the committee, did not concur in the report. He makes an alternate proposal. A copy of this proposal is attached. These reports will be before the annual meeting and I am submitting these views for your attention. Very truly yours, GERRISH GASSAWAY, Manager. The foreign commerce committee of the United States Chamber proposed the following: "TRADE AGREEMENTS ACT "Resolved, That the policy of the Trade Agreements Act should be continued, under which the Government would have adequate authority to negotiate agreements for the reciprocal and selective reduction of tariffs, and other barriers to trade, with adequate safeguards such as legislative provisions for public notice and open hearings, and clauses in the agreements permitting, in case of unforeseen developments, the modification or withdrawal of concessions in order to prevent serious injury to domestic producers. Negotiations in a program of reciprocal trade agreements should take into consideration the effects of custom. duties, exchange restrictions, and other obstacles to the reasonable flow of goods and services. Our Government's traditional policy of insisting upon equality of treatment with other nations in foreign countries should be maintained. A well-balanced and enterprising international commerce, conducted on a fair and nondiscriminatory basis, will increase the purchasing and power, improve the standard of living of all parties concerned, and so help to create the sound economic foundation indispensable for enduring peace." My dissent from majority opinion of the committee is based on the following considerations: 1. The fundamental issue involved in turning over to the executive branch a legislative function. Expediency thus comes into violent conflict with principle. 2. In the resolution of the majority, clauses permitting modification or withdrawal of concessions are mentioned as adequate safeguards. I submit that a mandatory clause could be referred to as a safeguard. That is hardly true of a permissive clause. The record would seem to speak for itself. Again in the resolution of the majority certain factors are named which they say should be taken into consideration in negotiation of trade agreements. I submit that some of the most important factors are omitted entirely. How can tariff or other barriers to trade be intelligently changed in the absence of currency and exchange stability? What consideration is given to the impact of debt, taxes, and labor and security laws on the post-war cost of everything produced in the United States? 3. The act does permit modification of rates either up or down and it does contain a provision that the President must make a finding of fact that restrictions are "unduly burdening and restricting the foreign trade of the United States." Is it not a fact that all modifications have been downward? And was not the so-called-findings of fact a determination already arrived at before the act was passed so that subsequent recitals are mere formalities? If there have been actual findings of fact in the case of each trade agreement, what agency makes the finding and through what procedure? 4. To repeat the purpose of the Trade Agreements Act for "expanding markets for the products of the United States" and at the same time ignore the problem involved, is in my opinion a mistake. Over a period of 25 years, United States exports have exceeded imports in an amount averaging $1,000,000,000 per year. Or during a later period, 1922-40, the same average excess is maintained. During this later period the United States imported gold and silver (in excess of exports) in the amount of $18,000,000,000. And we paid a fancy price of our own making. Presumably there will not be much difficulty after this war in expanding markets for our goods for some considerable time, judging by the world's needs. Irrespective of what proportion we decide shall be gifts toward helping the world reconstruct, there will still remain to be repaid amounts of such magnitude as to pose a most difficult problem if we attempt to handle it through current trade exchanges. 5. I submit that it is a misleading statement to say that trade agreements under the act are now in force with Belgium, Finland, France, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and United Kingdom. They are certainly not in normal operation with any of those countries and not in operation at all with most of them. |