The CHAIRMAN. Are you asking to have your statement inserted in the record?

Mr. MOLLIN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF F. E. MOLLIN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AMERICAN NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, DENVER, COLO.

My name is F. E. Mollin. I am and have been, for more than 24 years, executive secretary of the American National Cattlemen's Association, with headquarters in Denever, Colo. Our membership is largely in the 17 Western States and in the Southern States of Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas. This is the principal area in the United States where beef cattle are grown with grass as the principal feed. In addition, we have a considerable scattered membership among feeders in the irrigated valleys of the West and in various of the Corn Belt and Eastern States.

Our association has long maintained a policy relative to international trade favoring a reasonable degree of protection for American industry, labor, and agriculture. Our latest declaration of policy on this subject was resolution No. 2 adopted at our Kansas City convention on January 7, 1953, which I quote below:

"RESOLUTION No. 2. WORLD TRADE

"Resolved, That the promotion of world trade should be on the basis of fair and equitable competition and must be done within the principle, long maintained, that foreign products produced by underpaid foreign labor shall not be admitted to our country on terms which endanger the living standards of the American workingman or the American farmer or stockman, or threaten serious financial injury to a domestic industry."

We are in accord with most of the provisions of H. R. 4294. We think the extension of the Reciprocal Trade Act, which expires June 12, should be limited to 1 year. There are such rapidly changing conditions in the world today that it is impossible to foresee important developments that may arise at any time. We think it of the utmost importance that the provisions of the extension act for the protection of American industries, labor, and agriculture should be strengthened. We have no sympathy for those who advocate free trade, either as a manifestation of good will toward all, at the expense of Uncle Sam, or for the selfish purpose of encouraging greater imports of foreign products, either industrial or agricultural, in order that we may export more surplus products from this country. I see no gain to the United States in robbing Peter to pay Paul. Any legitimate increase in foreign trade on products that are not highly competitive should, of course, be encouraged. These free traders, however, who advocate acceptance of imported manufactured products, even to the extent of closing up domestic plants and putting thousands of laborers out of work and then suggest that every effort should be made to find them new jobs, are, in my opinion, not even entitled to be considered true Americans.

We favor the changes suggested in section 3, concerning the nature and extent of the injury to be considered by the Tariff Commission, in making its perilpoint findings.

We strongly favor the provision in section 4, making it mandatory for the President to follow the peril-point recommendations of the Tariff Commis sion. It seems rather futile that the United States Tariff Commission should be asked to go to the trouble of determining the peril-point on every item being considered for concessions in the making of trade agreements, and then giving the Executive the power to completely ignore the recommendations of the Tariff Commission. Congress having surrendered its authority as the tariff maker for our Government, it seems to me that it is of the highest importance that its authority be delegated to an independent agency, such as the United States Tariff Commission, which would be free of political or other bias than to surrender it to the Chief Executive, who is constantly importuned by its own State Department to make concessions that may be in the interest of improving diplomatic relations, but totally without regard to the effect of such concession upon domestic industries, labor, or agriculture.

The same argument applies to the change in section 6; it makes it mandatory for the President to follow the escape clause recommendations of the Tariff Commission. We also favor the reduction of 6 months in the time given the Tariff Commission to complete its study on any application made under the escape clause. In the administration of the reciprocal trade agreements it has seemed to us that the foreign party in the transaction has, in most cases, been given the favored treatment. As an example, we received, recently, a foreign agricultural circular, in which reference is made to the restoration of the quotas on imports of Canadian cattle into this country. These quotas have been in suspension since the beginning of World War II, until President Eisenhower proclaimed their restoration on March 2. The circular stated that the quota on cattle, weighing under 200 pounds, at the reduced rate of duty, was 200,000 head. The second Canadian trade agreement established this quota at 100,000 head. On inquiry as to when the 200,000 quota was established, I am advised that the "general agreement" on tariff and trade, signed at Geneva, October 30, 1947, and commonly referred to as GATT, replaced the 1939 agreement with Canada. The quota on cattle weighing more than 700 pounds is 400,000 head. These quotas are established on a basis that practically insures the movement into this country at the reduced tariff rates of all the cattle which Canada wishes to export. I see no occasion whatsoever for the increase in the quota of the cattle weighing less than 200 pounds from 100,000 head to 200,000 head. So far as I know, we have never received 100,000 head in any 1 year but our State Department is always willing to accommodate a foreign country which thinks that sometime in the future it might desire a larger quota. Under the present conditions these quotas are entirely meaningless.

We favor the provision in section 8 of the bill, to amend section 22, of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which makes the acceptance of recommendations of the Tariff Commission mandatory upon the President and also reduces, by 6 months, the time given for action.

We also favor section 14, which would add 1 member to the Commission and thus avoid the strong possibility of a tie vote in the action of a 6-man commission.

Our industry, as I am sure you all know, has taken a severe licking in prices during the past 6 months. It seems almost unbelievable that such a tremendous price decline could occur in a period of general prosperity and with practically full employment at the highest wages ever paid anywhere.

We were probably spared even greater price reductions by the fact that imports from both Mexico and Canada, during the past year, were far below normal due to the fact that foot-and-mouth disease existed in each country for part of the year 1952, and hence imports of cattle or beef products were banned for that period. When fully normal conditions are restored in both those coun. tries, we can expect a sharp increase in imports and very soon it may be necessary for our industry to appeal for restoration of tariff cuts previously made through application under the escape clause provisions of the act. Canada was responsible, last year, for the dumping into this country of approximately 60 million pounds of New Zealand beef. It came in largely in the month of August and the greater part of it was held in storage until our markets were already facing a demoralized condition due to heavy domestic slaughter. Then this New Zealand product was dumped, particularly, in certain cities in Ohio, to the great disadvantage of local producers, feeders, and slaughterers.

Despite the fact that imports of live cattle or dressed beef were barred from both Mexico and Canada during a large portion of the year 1952, the imports of dressed beef and various other classifications of beef products, as shown below, for the years 1951 and 1952 were quite substantial.

1 Boneless beef classification under "other meats" not included in first totals above.

98,000

3, 370,000 94, 145, 000 3.127.000 15,789, 000 3,552, 000 119,983,000

45, 820,000 13, 222, 000 1, 109, 000 268,000

60, 519,000

25%, 571,000 27,500,000

280, 071, 000

We are firmly convinced that the economy of this country will not stand any further major tariff reductions; instead the tendency should be, with bankruptcies and business failures on the increase, to give added protection to American industry, labor, and agriculture, and we solicit your earnest consideration in the final draft of this bill to that end.

Mr. MOLLIN. I am and have been for more than 24 years executive secretary of the American National Cattlemen's Association with headquarters in Denver, Colo.

I will not read my statement because of poor vision but I would like to comment briefly on some of the high points therein.

On the first page of the statement we show the resolution adopted by our convention at Kansas City in January of this year in regard to world trade. We have followed, as I think you know, Mr. Chairman, through all the years since the Reciprocal Trade Act was passed a consistent position in favor of giving a reasonable degree of protection to American industry and labor and agriculture. We have not asked much in the way of special favors for our industry, but we have followed what we think is a sound policy in regard to reciprocal trade, and the tariff generally.

We are generally in favor of the policies set forth in the bill H. R. 4294. I am particularly interested in the suggestion that the findings of the Tariff Commission should be mandatory. It seems to me just perfectly foolish for the Tariff Commission and its staff to spend as much as up to a year's time in studying a tariff on certain important items and then give the President the power to throw out those items with a wave of the hand. I just cannot see that is efficient.

3

Of course, originally the tariff-making power belonged to the Congress, and if the Congress is going to delegate that power, it seems to me it ought to delegate it to the Commission rather than to the Executive. I am not saying anything against the Executive. I just do not think it is the way to do things. I think the Commission, if it has the responsibility of making these extensive studies, that the results of those studies ought to go into effect.

There are two or three provisions of the bill that carry that mandatory provision, and the same argument applies to all of them.

Now, we are not in sympathy at all with this demand of the free traders to take another big whack at the tariffs. We have not felt it so much in our own industry in recent years because we have had relatively high prices, possibly too high for our own good. We are suffering now as a result of that situation. We have had a decline in price in the last year of about 40 percent, and if we have a much further decline, the imports that are coming in from abroad are going to do a great deal more damage to our industry. We feel very strongly about it also from the standpoint of the general economy of the country. Of course, we realize that we cannot sell beef to laborers who are out of work, because their jobs were taken away from them by lowering the tariff and permitting some foreign country to take that market.

Last fall I read an article in Business Week, and I had quite a bit of correspondence with the editors about it, and they advanced the suggestion that if in the process of lowering these high tariffs that everybody talks about, if it became necessary to put some of our domestic industries out of business, then of course the United States should try to find jobs for the people who had lost their jobs so that some foreign country could sell that product in this country.

Is that not a remarkable philosophy, that we should deliberately set about to take jobs away from people and then say we will try to find them another job? People, in my opinion, just do not transplant very easily. When they get established in one place they like to stay there. They have their church ties and school ties and home ties, and I think it is ridiculous that we should even consider taking their jobs away from them in order to lower the tariffs.

I do not have any sympathy for that kind of a program at all. In the last page of the statement, I show the imports of beef, dressed beef, canned beef, and other beef products for the years 1951-52, and I think it is rather remarkable that with the Canadian and Mexican borders closed most of the time, during 1952, at least, and part of 1951, that our imports were still so substantial. We imported, as you will note, in the neighborhood of 300 million pounds of dressed beef and beef products in both years, a little more in the year 1951 and a little less than 300 pounds in the year 1952.

Now, with the foot-and-mouth disease conquered in both Canada and Mexico, there seems every reason to believe that we will have much larger imports. This does not include cattle. This is just beef. There has been a switch in the type of importation due to the war. In Canada they developed their packing industry during World War II considerably, so that from now on we will get more beef and less catle undoubtedly from Canada, and the same is pretty much true in Mexico. Their border into the United States was closed for several

years due to the foot-and-mouth disease, and they built these processing plants, or we built them, and they are finding it profitable to maintain their labor in the packing industry down there. We think also they are going to develop more feed, so that the future of the imports from Mexico are probably going to be more in the way of fat cattle and processed beef than in the past when it was mostly light stocker or feeder cattle.

I hope that this committee will give most serious consideration to this bill. In my opinion the economy of this country just simply will not stand any further wholesale tariff cuts. It is amazing that they still put out the propaganda as though this is one of the highest tariff countries in the world, when actually we are among the lowest in the rates of our tariffs.

I believe that is all I should like to say, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JENKINS (presiding). I should like to ask a question. I wish you had taken more time, although our time is limited, on the figures on the last page. They indicate to me that there is a terrific volume of imports.

Mr. MOLLIN. I think it is rather remarkable, particularly in 1952, when you consider the fact that the Canadian border was closed much of the time in 1952, due to the foot-and-mouth disease, and the Mexican border was closed up until September 1952. We are getting imports, as you will note, from a good many foreign countries that we never used to get imports from. I might mention New Zealand. Due to the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Canada, Canada arranged for approximately 60 million pounds of New Zealand beef to be brought into this country, and then Canada's surplus beef went to England, as a three-cornered swap to pay for this New Zealand beef that came into this country.

The sad part about it was that while the beef came in August largely of last year, it was held in storage until our own market was oversupplied, and then it was dumped, a lot of it in Ohio. There were numerous articles in the papers in the late winter showing sales of New Zealand beef in some of the biggest cities in Ohio. I think you probably recall that.

Mr. JENKINS. Yes. At the same time, about 3 or 4 months ago the price of cattle was very much depressed.

Mr. MOLLIN. It is still very much depressed. We have been thinking every week for the last 6 or 8 weeks that we are about over the big run, but the Government comes out and says on April 1, despite the tremendous run of fat cattle during the first quarter of the year, and said we still had more cattle on feed than a year ago. We cannot figure that out. But that is the Government figure. We are not out of the woods yet as far as the temporary oversupply of fed beef is concerned.

Mr. JENKINS. What is the relative condition between the small packers and the big packers? In other words, the big packers have their own business and have capital, but we have a lot of small packers, and we have a lot in my section and all over the country. What is their status now?

Mr. MOLLIN. I think the packing business is diversified more than it used to be. I have been connected with the cattle business for 47 years. When I started with a big firm of cattle feeders in Nebraska