ering the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951, as witnessed by the following statement in Report 299, dated April 27, 1951:

Testimony before the committee as to our perennial fruit crops has indicated difficulties encountered by exporters of those crops in regaining access to the importing countries in Europe which in the past furnished an integral and important part of our growers' markets. Your committee, therefore, feels justified in urging the appropriate agencies of this Government to take steps under presently available authority and procedures to bring about the restora tion of the foreign markets of these exporters.

The removal of these obstacles to foreign trade is primarily the function of the State Department. Without a fundamental change in the economic policy and attitude of the State Department toward the export of United States fruit, little or no progress can be made in reopening these essential export markets.

Unfortunately, the urging of the Senate Finance Committee was insufficient to impel the then executive branch of the Government into action. The Congress has frequently recognized the unique position of the perennial horticultural industry, but the urgings and directions of the Congress have not been implemented.

During these years when United States applegrowers have not had reasonable access to foreign markets we have been faced with increased imports of Canadian apples. During the last 5 seasons, more than 1,750,000 bushels have been imported annually from Canadaalmost entirely from British Columbia-whereas, prior to 1939, only 27,000 bushels were imported annually. There was a large national crop in the United States in 1950 and an extremely large one in the Northwest. The United States Department of Agriculture purchased apples for school-lunch programs under section 32. The purchases that season were 2,916,254 boxes. And they also provided an exportpayment program to help move the crop. Under that program, 2,343,500 boxes were exported. Despite this assistance, more than 1,500,000 boxes of apples grown, harvested, packed, and stored in Washington had to be hauled out into the sagebrush and dumped because there was no market. The growers received far below the cost of production for the apples that were sold. While this was going on, 2 million bushels of apples were shipped in from Canada.

Our duty on Canadian apples has been reduced to one-quarter cent per pound net weight. The Canadian duty on our applies is threeeighths cent per pound gross weight. The United States duty is 11 cents per box; the Canadian is 18% cents per box except during the period from May 20 to July 31 they permit free entry of apples from the United States. This allows entry of a very few apples at the end of the season and of early summer varieties of the new crop.

During the 1950 season, when the United States Department of Agriculture was buying apples under a section 32 school-lunch program and providing assistance to the export market, and the Canadians shipped almost 2 million bushels into the United States, the British Columbia grower had the advantage of the premium on the United States dollar over the Canadian, did not have to pay transportation tax on his shipments-which must be paid on United States shipments-and had a lower cost of production. The premium on our dollar and the saving on transportation more than offset the United States duty. The saving on transportation tax amounts to about $25 per car and is still in effect.

Also, the Washington grower, right across the border from British Columbia, was placed at a disadvantage by the marketing procedure in force in British Columbia. All British Columbia apples are sold by one sales organization. This monopolistic setup, which would not be tolerated in the United States, enables the British Columbia industry to undercut us in any United States market they see fit while preserving the Canadian market for themselves-for they can, and reportedly did, apply pressure on Canadian jobbers to make sure that they do not buy apples from United States sources.

In all fairness, I should add that since this statement was prepared, I have been informed that during the past season one of the large New York growers has been permitted access to the Canadian market. The Canadian jobber handling the British Columbia apples has also handled his fruit. Whether that is a temporary condition for this year or whether that evil has been remedied, time alone will tell. And now, to add to the discomfiture of the Washington grower, who in many instances is also a grower of soft fruits-apricots, peaches, prunes, and Bartlett pears-the Canadians enforce seasonal duties against these fruits which effectively close their markets to our Northwest growers. Is it any wonder that our growers question reciprocal trade? Isn't it reasonable that we should have the same safeguards during seasons of heavy production as our friends north of the border, or else we should have the same access to their markets that they have to ours.

For years we have worked to have section 22 strengthened. Secretary Benson, testifying before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on April 9 and before the House Agriculture Subcommittee on April 14, acknowledged that section 22 should be strengthened and that it had not been administered in the past in such a manner as to meet the problem. We concur with these statements, and with his suggestion authorizing "in an emergency, to impose the quotas or import fees within the limits specified by the section, on an interim basis pending decision by the Tariff Commission and action thereon by the President."

Although our experience with reciprocal trade to date has been unsatisfactory, we support the extension for 1 year as requested by the President with the following qualifications:

(1) Amendment of section 22 to provide the "interim authority" recommended by Secretary Benson. Senator Aiken has introduced a bill, S. 1680, which provides for emergency interim action under section 22.

(2) Adoption of section 9 (2) of H. R. 4294. This subsection would repeal the first sentence of 19 United States Code, section 1352 and would make section 336 of the Tariff Act, which authorizes equalization of production costs, applicable to commodities which are the subject of trade agreements. We believe it is entirely appropriate the production costs be taken into consideration.

We do not feel qualified to express an opinion on section 13 and express none on section 14.

However, I would like to add, in partial answer to a question raised by one of the members of your committee yesterday whether the passage of H. R. 4294 would be harmful to agriculture, that Venezuela has become an increasingly good customer for our apples, pears, and

other fruits within the last few years. The table shows the volume of increases. And I understand that Venezuela purchased approximately $500 million of products from the United States last season. Well, if the opportunity of Venezuela to earn dollars is minimized, it would be directly reflected in the purchases of United States products, including the fruits with which we are concerned.

We believe that the extension of the Trade Agreements Act for 1 year with the amendment to section 22 authorizing emergency action on an interim basis will place the administration in a position to act so that the discriminatory and unreciprocal actions which have too frequently been tolerated by our Government can be corrected, while adequate safeguards are provided for domestic producers. If the administration is unable or unwilling to properly administer section 22 and to obtain correction of such discriminatory and unreciprocal actions, the Congress can consider next year what stronger measures should be taken.

(The tables attached to Mr. Falk's statement follow :)

Apples: United States production, exports as percent of production, year beginning July 1

Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture. Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations.

Apples, fresh: Exports from the United States, by country of destination; average, 1925-38; annual, 1949-51

Pears: Exports from the United States, by country of destination (average,

1927-38; annual, 1949–51)

[Thousands of bushels]

4 Less than 500 bushels

3 Included in Republic of Panama prior to January 1938

Includes 11,000 bushels to Fronch Morocco

Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture. Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your statement. I assume that the California pear producers experience a great deal of competition from Chile. Is that not right? Central Chile? Mr. FALK. In the South American market, that is correct. as I know, the Chileans have not exported any to the United States.

So far

32604-53-53