lowered not to exceed 50 percent of existing tariff rates in exchange for similar treatment on the part of other nations for products of the United States. I realize, of course, that every State, and practically every congressional district, has some pet industry or some product in which it is particularly interested and for which it desires to have the protection of a tariff wall. I realize that to grant protection to each individual item which might be presented by the respective districts might result in no lowering of the tariffs, but in an actual increase of the whole schedule. At the same time there are certain considerations that relate to the Florida situation which I think entitle it to separate treatment. The State of Florida produces no cotton, corn, wheat, or other agricultural products usually referred to as "staple products." Our chief agricultural activity is devoted to the raising of citrus fruits and vegetables. Our crops are produced at a season of the year when no other producing section, except southern California and southern Texas, can compete. Our chief competitors in the eastern markets are Cuba and Mexico. Because of labor conditions in Cuba that country can produce vegetables and deliver them in the eastern markets for less than the actual cost of production in Florida. Practically the same climatic conditions exist in Florida as exist in Cuba. Our soil is just as fertile and our product is even superior to the Cuban product. We maintain in Florida, however, the high standard of living which is maintained throughout the United States and our farmers pay the cost of labor which usually prevails throughout the country. As the result of the high standard of living for our Florida farmers as compared with the low standard of living of the Cuban farmer, our cost of production is much greater than in Cuba. The Tariff Commission has recently concluded extensive hearings on this subject and prescribed a tariff upon various Cuban vegetables and fruits which would equalize the cost so that our Florida farmers might go into the eastern markets of the United States at least upon an equal footing with the Cuban producers. In spite of the tariff regulation prescribed by the Tariff Commission, however, Cuba is still able to ship into the United States enormous quantities of vegetables in direct competition with our Florida grown products. For the winter season of 1932-33, the combined shipments from Mexico and Cuba into the United States were as follows: Fresh tomatoes_ Green peppers- String beans.. Green peas Pounds 58, 747, 682 1, 334, 450 2, 127, 142 1,794, 221 4, 183, 592 10, 790, 416 The total figures for the 1933-34 season are not yet available for the reason that the season is not yet completed, but for comparative purposes I call the committee's attention to the importations for the month of December 1933 alone, as compared with the same month in 1932 on one item, to wit, fresh tomatoes; in December 1932 fresh tomatoes shipped from Cuba into the United States amounted to 1,809,601 pounds, while in December 1933 the shipments of fresh tomatoes from Cuba amounted to 2,516,581 pounds. It will be noted therefore that in spite of the present tariff on fresh tomatoes the shipments from Cuba into the United States for the month of December 1933 increased 700,000 pounds over the shipments for December 1932. The present tariff therefore is not so excessive as to prevent importations of fresh tomatoes and other vegetables from Cuba. If the tariff is completely removed or should be reduced 50 percent as would be authorized under this bill, it is very easy to visualize the complete destruction of the Florida grower which would be the direct result. I stated earlier that the Florida situation is entitled to separate consideration and separate treatment. My reason for making that statement is the following: If any reciprocal trade agreement is made with the Cuban Government, it can have only one thing in view and that is to admit Cuban products at a lowered tariff in exchange for the admission of manufactured articles into Cuba on the same basis. Cuba produces no manufactured articles and produces nothing except fresh vegetables, fruits, sugar, cigars, and rum. Therefore if a reciprocal agreement is made with Cuba it follows logically that the agreement must contemplate the reduction of the tariffs on fresh vegetables, fruits, sugar, cigars, and rum, because these are the only products that Cuba has to send into the United States. Florida does not legally produce rum at this time. It does, however, produce citrus fruits, tropical fruits, fresh vegetables, sugar, and cigars. Since these are the only products of the State of Florida, then any agreement which is made with Cuba, by the terms of which the tariff on their products is reduced, will result in the destruction of the market for Florida produced articles. We are not without proof of this statement. Some years ago South Florida enjoyed a very fine pineapple industry. By treaty agreement with Cuba the tariffs were reduced and this fact, combined with the action of the steamship and rail lines in giving unfair advantage to the Cuban products, completely destroyed the pineapple industry in south Florida, with the result that we do not now have any pineapple industry. Yet a few years ago it was a flourishing and highly paying industry in my district. Some years Another case in point is the avocado industry of south Florida. ago when this industry was inaugurated in south Florida our growers, in order to produce a market for the product, were forced to built up a public demand for avocados. This particular fruit, while one of the most nutritive of all tropical fruit, is not of such character as to sell itself to the public. Like olives, a taste has to be cultivated for it. Our Florida producers of avocados spent many thousands of dollars in advertising, for the purpose of building up a public demand and a market for this particular product. As the result of years of effort and many thousands of dollars expended in advertising, there is now a considerable demand for the product. We find, however, that just as we have built up the public demand and established a definite market, our Florida growers are being cheated out of their just rewards by the importation, duty free, of wild avocados grown in Cuba and harvested by peon labor. Needless to say this Cuban product can be delivered in the eastern market at a fraction of the cost of production in Florida. This flooding of the market with the inferior product not only destroys the market for the finer grade produced in Florida, but is completely wrecking the whole market because the consumer purchasing the inferior Cuban product gains the impression that all avocados are of the same grade and entirely worthless. Not only must we not be interfered with in this particular instance, but a tariff must be added which will protect the Florida producer. If the tariff on fruits, vegetables, and sugar is removed, or is reduced to any material extent, and Florida growers are forced into direct competition with Cuban products produced by peon labor, then the same result will take place as to our fruit, vegetable, and sugar industry, which resulted in the pineapple industry. There is another fact which I think is sufficient to entitle the Florida situation to separate consideration. During the present Congress many measures have been enacted for the relief of agriculture. These measures were deliberately designed to force up the prices for cotton, corn, wheat, and livestock. They have been remarkably successful in accomplishing the desired result. The prices for each of these products have greatly advanced as the result of this legislation. I am most happy to note this favorable result. At the same time I cannot refrain from calling the committee's attention to the fact that the increase in prices for these basic articles have materially increased the cost of living. In my own congressional district there is not a lock of cotton, nor a sheaf of wheat, nor an ear of corn grown for the market. My district therefore benefits not at all by any of the relief measures passed by the present administration, but on the other hand my district has suffered as the result of these relief measures through the increased cost of living. What is true of the agricultural relief program is equally true of the industrial relief program. My district is not an industrial district and the increased costs which have resulted from the industrial program have therefore not benefited us, but have further added to our distress by increasing the cost of production of the manufactured articles which we buy. Now there is only one step needed to complete the distress of my people, and that is to remove the tariff protection which they now have for their fruits, vegetables, sugar, and cigars. I do not wish to be placed in the attitude of criticizing nor of undertaking to obstruct. I have cheerfully voted for every measure promulgated or sponsored by the present administration. I have not only voted for the measures themselves, but I have voted with the administration on every amendment and on every motion that has been made concerning any of these measures. I believe in our whole program and I am hopeful that prosperity in other sections of the country may enable people in those sections to buy our fruits and vegetables. But this cannot happen if all protection is removed and our products are forced into competition with those of Cuba and Mexico. I think that, in justice and fairness to my people, who have borne all of the burdens of the depression for 7 years longer than the remainder of the country and who have carried their burdens without complaint, this committee should make some provision in the present bill whereby reciprocal agreements shall not apply to food products in their natural state. I can easily understand how a reciprocal agreement could be made with France or Germany or any other nation by which both would secure advantages of value to each. No agreement can be made with the Republic of Cuba, however, that will not completely destroy all agricultural activity in the State of Florida, because any reciprocal agreement made with Cuba must give some advantage to Cuban products. I have no objection to a plan which gives an outlet to the manufactured articles of Massacusetts or Michigan or any of the other manufacturing States, but I submit it is grossly unfair to destroy Florida in doing so. Recent utterances of some of the department heads lead me to believe that if this bill is passed in its present form and without the safeguard already mentioned, a reciprocal agreement will be immediately entered into whereby Cuban fruits now on the free list will remain free and the tariffs on all other Cuban products will be immediately reduced by 50 percent. A tariff should be placed upon avocados and other Cuban fruits which are now on the free list and the present tariff on all others should at least not be reduced as otherwise the principal source of livelihood for a million people in Florida will be destroyed. I respectfully request, therefore, that this committee, before reporting this bill out, shall so amend it as to make it inapplicable to fresh fruits and vegetables and to food products in their natural state. (Whereupon the committee adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday March 12, 1934.) LETTER OF C. A. BARROWS, REPRESENTING THE MIDLAND FLOUR Co., THE MIDLAND FLOUR MILLING CO., Hon. ROBERT L. DOUGHTON, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. DOUGHTON: We have just read the proposed amendment of the Tariff Act of 1930. Under part 3, headed "Promotion of Foreign Trade", section 2, we find the following statement: "The third paragraph of section 311 of the Tariff Act of 1930 shall not apply to any agreement concluded pursuant to this act. The third paragraph of section 311 of the Tariff Act of 1930 reads as follows: "No flour, manufactured in a bonded manufacturing warehouse from wheat imported after 90 days after the date of the enactment of this act, shall be withdrawn from such warehouse for exportation without payment of a duty on such imported wheat equal to any reduction in duty which by treaty will apply in respect of such flour in the country to which it is to be exported. For 15 or 20 years prior to 1927 or 1928, a very profitable export flour business was enjoyed by the United States mills grinding wheat raised within the limits of the United States in various markets of the world. The Republic of Cuba was one of the best customers for flour milled in the United States from wheat grown in the United States. When Cuba made a revision of her tariffs and established a duty on flour imports, a preferential arrangement was granted to the United States on "the products of the soil or industry of the United States.' The wording of this Cuban treaty permitted the mills grinding Canadian wheat in bond for export to take advantage of this preferential duty, inasmuch as their flour could properly be classed as the product of an industry of the United States, although it was undoubtedly not the intention of the United States Government officials to provide that such an advantage should apply on products manufactured from raw material imported from a foreign country and sold in competition with similar products manufactured from raw materials produced within the United States. After this preferential arrangement had been completed with Cuba, it was found that it was impossible for millers grinding wheat produced in the United States to compete against the mills located principally at Buffalo, N.Y., and a few other points along the Canadian border, who were grinding Canadian wheat in bond, beacuse the cost of wheat in Canada was consistently materially below the levels prevailing in the United States. The real effect of the agreement, therefore, was the transfer of an outlet for their wheat products from the wheat growers of the United States to the Canadian farmers. To correct this situation, the third paragraph of section 311, which we have quoted above, was inserted in the Tariff Act of 1930, so that at the present time, inasmuch as the United States Government collects the difference between the regular and preferential Cuban duties on flour from the millers grinding Canadian wheat in bond on all flour exported by those mills to Cuba, in effect, the preferential Cuban duty applies only on flour milled from wheat produced in the United States. However, this ruling does not impose any disadvantage on the Buffalo millers or other millers grinding Canadian wheat in bond in comparison with the Canadian millers, inasmuch as they are in a position to buy the Canadian wheat on the same basis as that paid by the Canadian millers, ship it to Buffalo, N.Y., via the Great Lakes system, mill it under bond into flour, and reship via New York to Cuba without freight penalty or payment of any duties to the United States Government, excepting the difference in the Cuban regular and preferential duties. The sum of this difference in regular and preferential rates, assessed in Cuba, and the duty paid in Cuba on such shipments, of course, is no more than the Canadian mills will have to pay to the Cuban Government on their shipments. The third paragraph of section 311 of the Tariff Act of 1930 was not intended nor does it, in any way, impose disadvantages or restrictions on the practice of milling wheat in bond by millers in the United States in comparison with the millers in the foreign countries from which the bonded wheat is imported. The flour-milling industry of the United States is widely scattered. Almost every State in the Union has a number of flour mills. The larger portion of the industry is probably located in the States of Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, North and South Dakota and the States of the Pacific Northwest. There is also an important milling industry in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and throughout the Southern States. None of the mills in these other sections, even including those mills near the Canadian border in Minnesota, the Dakotas, and the Pacific Northwest, are able to take advantage of the milling-in-bond privilege because of the fact that the freight rates operate against these sections. The Buffalo mills alone, because of their position at the foot of the Great Lakes, are able to move wheat in cargo boats from Fort William and other Canadian grain shipping points to Buffalo, where they mill in bond and ship through the port of New York. If the sentence under part 3, section 2, of the proposed amendment is not eliminated from this amendment and becomes a portion of the law, the Canadian farmer and a very few mills located at Buffalo, N.Y., will be the only beneficiaries. It will be impossible for flour milled from wheat grown in the United States to compete in any foreign market against those Buffalo mills, as there will, undoubtedly, be a new treaty negotiated with Cuba in the near future, which, with the proposal, as written, will nullify the provisions of paragraph 3, section 311, of the act of 1930, even in Cuba, and the proposed amendment provides that paragraph 3 of section 311 of the act of 1930 shall not apply to any agreement concluded pursuant to the adoption of the amendment. This is not a sectional matter because it affects every bushel of wheat grown any place within the United States. We, therefore, urge that as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, you take action immediately to see that the sentence "The third paragraph of section 311 of the Tariff Act of 1930 shall not apply to any agreement concluded pursuant to this act", now appearing under part 3, section 2, of the proposed tariff amendment, is eliminated and that section 311 of the Tariff Act of 1930 be retained without change as a part of the tariff laws. We shall appreciate word from you that we may depend upon you for this support and that any effort which may be made at any time in the future to change this section of the tariff law, will be vigorously opposed on your part. Yours very truly, C. A. BARROWS, Export Sales Manager. LETTER OF J. J. MANN, REPRESENTING THE WICHITA BOARD OF TRADE, WICHITA, KANS. Representative ROBERT L. DOUGHTON, THE WICHITA BOARD OF Trade, Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. DOUGHTON: I am writing you in regard to the administration's new tariff bill which proposes to give the President power to enter into trade agreements with foreign governments which I understand will soon be before the committee of which you are chairman. The milling industry in Kansas as well as those engaged in producing and marketing wheat are very much interested in the proposed legislation, first in the support of the legislation to the extent that it permits the enlargement of export markets for American grown products and second, in opposition to the elimina tion of the third paragraph of section 311 of the act of 1930 which reads as follows: "No flour, manufactured in a bonded manufacturing warehouse from wheat imported after 90 days after the date of the enactment of this act, shall be withdrawn from such warehouse for exportation without payment of a duty on such imported wheat equal to any reduction in duty which by treaty will apply in respect to such flour in the country to which it is to be exported." This paragraph was enacted into the act of 1930 for the purpose of equalizing those millers who are unable to use the milling of Canadian produced wheat in bond with the millers who are able to use this privilege such as those located at Buffalo. The elimination of this paragraph of the act of 1930 from the new bill will recreate the situation that existed prior to the effective date of the act of 1930 which will again result in giving the miller located at Buffalo a distinct advantage in the export trade over not only the American miller grinding American produced wheat but also over the Canadian miller grinding wheat produced in Canada. Without paragraph 3 of section 311 of the act of 1930 Buffalo was not only able to secure the advantage of low priced Canadian wheat but was also able to secure the advantage of any reciprocal treaties made entirely for the purpose of helping the American producer and processor. As a rule Canadian wheat is from 20 to 25 cents per bushel lower in price than American wheat. Without anything to offset this difference it is obviously impossible for the American miller to compete in the export flour market when grinding American produced wheat. The reciprocal treaties now in existence, particularly that of Cuba, go quite a ways toward offsetting that difference and have permitted the American miller to export American grown wheat in the form of flour to Cuba. However, if the Buffalo millers are to be given the advantage of the reciprocal treaties in addition to the milling in bond privilege which permits them to grind Canadian wheat into flour for export without payment of the American tariff on imports the American miller grinding American produced wheat is put right back into the position he was in prior to the enactment of section 311 of the act of 1930. The Buffalo miller will have the advantage of the difference in price between Canadian wheat and American wheat which will permit him to undersell the miller grinding American wheat. He also will be able to undersell the Canadian miller grinding Canadian wheat due to the fact that the Canadian miller will have to pay the full import tariff, whatever it may be, of the country to which his products go. If this paragraph is not included in the new act the entire purpose of the act will be defeated insofar as wheat and wheat products are concerned inasmuch as the entire export business of the country will go to the Buffalo millers who in turn will handle this business by grinding cheap Canadian wheat. In other words, the proposed legislation will create a larger market for the products of the Canadian producer and curtail the markets for the American industries which is absolutely contrary to the intentions and purposes of the proposed legislation. At the time this legislation comes before your committee for hearing we certainly will appreciate your reading our views on this matter to the committee. Sincerely yours, J. J. MANN, Executive Secretary. LETTER OF E. H. HOGUELAND, REPRESENTING THE SOUTHWESTERN MILLERS LEAGUE, KANSAS CITY, Mo. Hon. ROBERT L. DOUGHTON, THE SOUTHWESTERN MILLERS' LEAGUE, Chairman Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. DOUGHTON: We wired you March 6 pointing out our objections to section 3 of your H.R. 8430 insofar as same provides that the third paragraph of section 311 of the Tariff Act of 1930 shall not apply to any agreement concluded pursuant to the new act. Prior to the time the third paragraph of section 311 of the Tariff Act of 1930 became effective mills located in Buffalo, N. Y., were buying Canadian wheat, milling same in bond at Buffalo, without the payment of any tariff duty what |