trade, decrease it, or make no difference. Two-thirds answered correctly that high tariffs tend to decrease foreign trade. (An earlier question in the same survey had indicated that many people do not have a clear understanding of what a tariff is.)

It is significant that people who, even when the term "tariff" has been explained to them, do not understand that high tariffs operate to decrease foreign trade are much more likely than others to be undecided about tariff reduction.

Among those who understand that high tariffs decrease trade, only 19 percent are undecided about general tariff reduction. Among the uninformed, 51 percent are undecided. Among the informed, 80 percent approve reciprocal reduction; among the uninformed, 61 percent approve it. (And more than three times as many of the uninformed are undecided.)

This is the exact comparison, on the two questions combined:

However, when only persons with definite opinions are compared, 88 percent of the informed and 89 percent of the uninformed favor reciprocal reductions in United States tariffs. In other words, while understanding of how tariffs work provides a basis for definite opinion on the issue of their reduction, it does not make people with opinions any more likely to approve reduction.

GROUP DIFFERENCES

Although only 36 percent of Democrats and 33 percent of Republicans—no more than 43 percent of any population group studied-favor tariff reduction when the reciprocal feature is not mentioned, the NORC questions find a clear majority in every group supporting the principle of reciprocal reduction of tariffs. Even the best-informed groups, registering the smallest "undecided" vote on the general question, shift their position when the reciprocal argument is introduced. Furthermore, the comments of those who change their minds often show clearly that it is the idea of reciprocity, which is responsible for their shift in opinion. For example: "If it were a 50-50 deal." "That would be all right if other countries would do it, too." "If it could be worked out mutually."

IN COMMENT

Those who say that general reduction of the United States tariffs would be a good thing comment chiefly in terms of the advantages of a larger world trade (often implying that the reductions should be reciprocal), and of the larger volume of foreign goods which would help relieve shortages in this country. Representative of the range of comments are the following: "It would make for more trade." "As a part of a broad program for foreign trade." "Everybody should get rid of tariffs." "It would induce other countries to do the same with us." "It would induce other countries to send us their goods." "We could use foreign merchandise now."

Comments of those opposed to tariffs reductions usually reflect a fear of "cheap foreign goods flooding the market." For example: "If we reduce tariffs, we get a lot of junk from Japar and Czechoslovakia and our own industry suffers." "Other countries can manufacture so much cheaper it would ruin our business here." "Our country would be flooded with foreign goods." "It would throw our people out of work."

This scientific survey by the National Opinion Research Center sampled a typical miniature of the population of the United States with the proper proportion-in each geographical section-of rich and poor, young and old, men and women, various minority groups, and residents of urban, town, and rural areas.

The National Opinion Research Center is an opinion-finding organization. As such, it simply reports the results of national surveys made by its personally trained staff of over 200 interviewers throughout the United States. NORC is an academic institution working under grants from the Field Foundation and the University of Denver.

The survey upon which this press release is based included 2,504 confidential interviews. Well-established laws of probable error due to size of sample prove that this number of cases will be within 3 percent of true opinion in 997 surveys out of any 1,000 conducted under comparable conditions. In other words, the mathematical probability is 332 to 1 that another identically stratified sample of the same size would come within 3 percent of finding the same results.

(Brief submitted by Representative Gifford, of Massachusetts, in behalf of the New England Shoe and Leather Association:)

ASSOCIATION BRIEF FILED TO OPPOSE REDUCTION IN LEATHER and Shoe TarIFF
RATES

NEW ENGLAND SHOE AND LEATHER ASSOCIATION,
Boston 11, Mass., December 20, 1946.

The COMMITTEE FOR RECIPROCITY INFORMATION,

Washington 25, D. C.

Gentlemen: Acting under the authorization of our board of directors, the New England Shoe and Leather Association, representing over 450 shoe, leather, and allied companies located in New England, respectfully recommends that the following action be taken by your committee with respect to negotiations of new trade agreements involving hides, leathers, and footwear, other than rubber:

First, our association favors the elimination of existing import duties on calf and kip skins, now amounting to 5 percent. If these rates cannot be eliminated, then we recommend a reduction by 50 percent in this rate, the maximum allowed by law.

Our country does not produce enough skins in these classifications to meet our industry's needs, and there is no justification, therefore, for any higher duty than permitted by law.

Second, our association is opposed to any reduction in existing import duties on leathers, in all classifications.

The American tanning industry produces the finest leathers in the world. Its war record proved outstanding, as both Army and Navy officers attested. Its entire output in the next several years will be needed to meet the demands of the domestic shoe industry.

It is important that this industry, therefore, shall not be handicapped by any additional reductions in existing tariff rates on leathers. Especially so when it is realized that costs of manufacture have risen sharply in this country-hourly wage rates alone have virtually doubled from 1939 to date-as compared with poor quality leathers at substantially lower costs-but not prices-available in South America and in other countries.

Special consideration should also be given by the committee to the discriminatory preferential tariff system of the British Empire, which has resulted in goatskins from Nigeria and India, and calfskins from New Zealand, being allocated to the United Kingdom, with a much smaller than the prewar quota levels remaining for our country.

Finally, a fact of utmost importance is that United States duties on leathers are already lower than the comparative rates of any other important leatherproducing or consuming country, and no justification, therefore, exists for any reduction in existing tariff rates on leathers.

Third, our association is opposed to any reductions in the United States tariff rates on footwear, as listed in paragraph 1530 (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930.

Imports of shoes during the war period were necessarily low, consisting mainly of special types not produced in volume in our country. However, normally the bulk in value of shoes imported into America are regular types which compete directly with American-made shoes, such as men's welt shoes from England and women's low-priced McKay or cemented shoes from Europe, particularly Czechoslovakia.

This type of competition has proven serious in the past, primarily because lower manufacturing costs, particularly for labor, have enabled the foreign producer to ship his shoes at a net landed cost in New York City lower than our shoe manufacturer's costs of producing similar shoes at their own plants, whether located in

the New England or St. Louis shoe centers. Both the Tariff Commission and your committee recognized these facts in investigations, conducted first in 1932, which led to an increase on McKay shoes in the tariff rates by the maximum of 50 percent permitted. The second investigation, authorized by a Senate resolution, during 1937-38 resulted in the maintenance of the 20-percent duty on cemented shoes, with our country reserving the right to increase this tariff rate in the event total imports exceeded a fixed total of 4,796,147 pairs-per annum. We state these facts as evidence that it is of vital importance that no concessions of any nature be made with respect to the current rate of duty on "other leather footwear except welt and turn shoes" at 20 percent ad valorem. Particularly so today, when it is known that the former Bata factories in Czechoslovakia have been nationalized, and the Government therefore can at any time subsidize shipments of Bata-made shoes to our country when it is in its best interests to so do.

In conclusion, our association proposes the maximum reduction permitted by law in the tariff rates on calf and kip skins and the maintenance at current rates of duty, if these rates cannot, as we understand it, be increased to the maximum levels in effect under the Tariff Act of 1930, on all leathers and footwear other than rubber.

Representatives of our association plan to attend the public hearings scheduled for next month, and we shall, therefore, appreciate your advising us as to when and where the hearings on our industry's products will be held, so that we may plan to be present.

Respectfully submitted.

NEW ENGLAND SHOE AND LEATHER ASSOCIATION,
MAXWELL FIELD, Executive Vice President.

ARGENTINE GOVERNMENT TAKES CONTROL OVER ALL EXPORTS OF HIDES, SKINS, AND QUEBRACHO

The Argentine Government announced last week that in the future export permits will be required for the exportation of bovine hides and skins, sheep and hog skins, as well as to quebracho. These permits will be issued solely to a government bureau-the Argentine Institute for Foreign Trade Promotion.

This action is equivalent to a government monopoly on these exports and was undoubtedly ordered to achieve effective controls over foreign exchange, protection of domestic consumption, and direct political controls of this industry.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McFadden will be the first witness. Will you give your name and the capacity in which you appear?

STATEMENT OF C. P. MCFADDEN, REPRESENTING THE RUBBER FOOTWEAR DIVISION OF THE RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK CITY

Mr. MCFADDEN. My name is C. P. McFadden, and I am the executive secretary of the rubber-footwear division of the Rubber Manufacturers Association.

This statement is made in behalf of the 13 American manufacturers who produce over 99 percent of the waterproof rubber footwear made in this country. These manufacturers have filed briefs and have appeared before the Committee on Reciprocity Information to express their opposition to any downward revision of tariffs relating to rubber footwear.

They submitted testimony and data showing that any lowering of tariffs would have a serious effect on the domestic rubber-footwear industry. This record is available to your committee and, therefore, need not be elaborated on here.

The purpose of these presentations was to establish the fact before. the Committee on Reciprocity Information that the American rubberfootwear industry is an essential industry, and that the public welfare and national security demand assurances of continuing supplies of

rubber footwear, which assurances, only a healthy domestic industry can give.

These American manufacturers believe in the soundness of the arguments they have presented, and are satisfied with the reasonableness of their opposition to tariff reductions on rubber footwear. They interpret recent statements of various governmental officials as giving support to their position.

Spokesmen for the administration have offered repeated assurances that no tariff concession will be made that might seriously injure an American industry. Leaders of the majority party in the Congress are on record as expressing similar views.

President Truman in his speech on the reciprocal trade program delivered March 6, 1947, at Baylor University, said:

There is no intention to sacrifice one group to benefit another group.

The presentations made by the rubber footwear manufacturers to the Committee on Reciprocity Information show conclusively that a reduction in import duties on rubber footwear would critically injure this domestic industry. The rubber footwear industry is asking no concessions abroad. Therefore, any concession on the American tariff on rubber footwear under the reciprocal trade program would be sacrificing one group to benefit another.

The American rubber footwear manufacturers have cooperated fully with the Committee on Reciprocity Information. They have presented detailed information for the Committee's consideration. They have appeared before the Committee at open hearing and have held themselves in readiness to answer any further questions. They feel their protest against tariff reductions on rubber footwear is justified and their arguments convincing, yet no assurances have been forthcoming from the Committee on Reciprocity Information that concessions on rubber footwear will be refused at the Trade Agreements Conference in Geneva.

This is disheartening and distressing to members of this industry. The position of the American rubber footwear manufacturers is particularly difficult because they are now manufacturing waterproof rubber footwear that will be sold to consumers in the next fall and winter season.

Your committee can see the disaster that threatens this industry if tariff concessions on rubber footwear are made this spring, causing a flow of foreign products into the United States which would demoralize the domestic market.

This industry feels that your committee should take cognizance of this situation and it would welcome any assistance you can offer to enable it to continue to operate its business in an orderly manner.

The companies involved are Bata Shoe Co., Inc., Belcamp, Md.; Bristol Manufacturing Co., Bristol, R. I.; Cambridge Rubber Co., Cambridge, Mass.; Converse Rubber Corp., Malden, Mass.; Endicott Johnson Corp., Endicott, N. Y.; Goodyear Rubber Co., Middletown, Conn.; Goodyear Footwear Corp., Providence, R. I.; Hood Rubber Co., Watertown, Mass.; LaCrosse Rubber Mills Co., LaCrosse, Wis.; Servus Rubber Co., Rock Island, Ill.; Tingley-Reliance Rubber Corp., Rahway, N. J.; Tyer Rubber Co., Andover, Mass.; and, United States Rubber Co., New York, N. Y.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the American rubber footwear industry export any considerable amount of their products?

Mr. MCFADDEN. Very little.

The CHAIRMAN. About what percentage?

Mr. MCFADDEN. Over the last 10 years it would average less than 1 percent of production.

The CHAIRMAN. What percentage of the production cost is labor in your industry?

Mr. MCFADDEN. Incidentally, I have turned over two copies of these briefs, which is all that I have, and in these briefs it is 46 percent of our costs that are sales costs or labor.

The CHAIRMAN. How many are employed?
Mr. MCFADDEN. Twenty thousand.

The CHAIRMAN. That is in the entire industry?
Mr. MCFADDEN. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Did not the President issue a proclamation some time back relating to rubber footwear?

Mr. MCFADDEN. In 1933 rubber footwear was under a Presidential proclamation. Imports of rubber footwear were dutiable on the American selling price of a like or similar article. That was the benefit we received under that proclamation.

The CHAIRMAN. Did not that serve as additional protection to you?
Mr. MCFADDEN. It did. It was necessary at that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Are you satisfied with the existing rates?

Mr. MCFADDEN. We are, with this reservation: If labor and material costs continue to go up in this country, that margin of protection shrinks; but at this time, we are not asking for any additional protection.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, as long as you have American production costs as the base, increase of labor would not make much difference. Mr. MCFADDEN. It would tend to shrink the margin of protection that we have, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you had any intimation that the Committee on Reciprocity Information is going to take adverse action?

Mr. MCFADDEN. We have had no intimation of what they intend to do, Mr. Chairman. That is the reason we have made this appeal here.

The CHAIRMAN. In dollar value, what is the total value of your production annually in this country?

Mr. MCFADDEN. It fluctuates.

The CHAIRMAN. I say on an average, over the years?

Mr. MCFADDEN. Well, I will give you a figure for 1946. In 1946 the total sales at the manufacturers' level amounted to about $95,000,000 on waterproof rubber footwear. It will fluctuate depending on conditions, and the sales volume will fluctuate more seriously. In this production in 1946, it was 531⁄2 million dollars. It has in the past gone down to $33,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you anticipate further increases in production costs?

Mr. MCFADDEN. We do. In the last few months, there has been increase in material costs; and as you probably know, the rubber workers have been given an increase in wages. While all of our companies were not directly involved, some of them were. Of course, we have to follow the lead of the major industries to a certain degree, and even up to this point, at least one of our companies has had to grant an additional wage increase. Others are in the process of negotiation. We do see increased costs in this year over last year.