EXHIBIT 12 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Mr. C. D. GUSTAFSON, Agricultural Extension Service, University of California, San Diego, Calif. Dear Mr. GuSTAFSON: This will acknowledge your letter of December 29 in which you inquired about the discussion of Mexican imports at the MexicanAmerican Work Conference held in Guanajuato in the fall. You expressed a special interest in any discussion that might have been held regarding the export of avocados. There was very little discussion of this subject. The Mexican pest control officials did express an interest in shipping avocados to this country. They referred to a survey that had been made of the pests that occur in their principal avocadoproducing areas and that the pest of concern to us did not occur in some areas of the country. They, of course, recognize that we do have a special concern about the seed weevil which we do not have and about other pest occurrences. We did express an interest in the report of the survey and asked that a copy be furnished to us for our review. Following a review of that report, we will give consideration again to avocado imports. You appreciate, of course, that any consideration of a change in our regulations would be discussed beforehand with the States concerned and representatives of the avocado industry. No change is contemplated at this time. We fully appreciate your interest in this subject. Sincerely, D. R. SHEPHERD, Director. RESOLUTION OF THE CUSTOMS COMMITTEE OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION Whereas this Committee has caused its Subcommittee on the Trade Reform Act of 1973 to make a careful study and report of such Act to the Committee as a whole; Whereas said Trade Reform Act of 1973 is pending before the House of Representatives of the United States as H.R. 10710 and may shortly be passed by said House of Representatives; Whereas based upon the report of said Subcommittee and upon the independent study of its members, this Committee believes said Trade Reform Act of 1973 to be a carefully conceived and skillfully drafted piece of legislation which, if enacted, offers great hope for increasing the freedom, equity and benefits of trade between the United States and foreign countries, and the consequent improvement of the economic situation within the United States; Whereas the Committee further suggests two relatively minor improvements in the detailed provisions of the bill; now, therefore, be it Resolved, That this Committee recommends to the Congress of the United States that the Bill, variously known as the Trade Reform Act of 1973 and H.R. 10710, be enacted in its present form subject only to the two modifications hereinafter set forth: FIRST: That subsection (c) of Section 101 be altered to read as follows: Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2), no proclamation shall be made pursuant to subsection (a) (2) increasing any rate of duty to (or imposing) a rate above the higher of the following: (A) the rate existing on July 1, 1934, or (B) the rate which is 20 percent ad valorem above the rate existing on July 1, 1973. SECOND: That paragraph (1) of subsection (f) of Section 203 be revised to read as follows: No such partial suspension of item 806.30 or item 807.00 shall increase the applicable duty by more than 50 percent of the amount by which duty would be increased if the item were wholly suspended. EDWARD N. GLAD, Chairman. PORT OF NEW ORLEANS, Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. (Attention: Mr. Michael Stern). DEAR SENATOR LONG: I am writing in regard to the Senate Finance Committee's public hearings to be held in the near future on the Trade Reform Act of 1973 (H.R. 10710). In this regard I would like to call your attention to my letter of July 3, 1973 (copy enclosed) that I sent to you on earlier versions of this legislation. It is requested that you review this earlier correspondence and take it into consideration as the Port of New Orleans' position on this vital legislation. Sincerely, Enclosure. Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, Old Senate Office Building, EDWARD S. REED, Executive Port Director and General Manager. JULY 3, 1973. DEAR SENATOR LONG: As you are no doubt aware, the Committee on Ways and Means is presently in executive session for the purpose of formulating new trade legislation. Hardly anyone has a more vital stake in the outcome of these deliberations than the men and women who live in areas adjacent to U.S. ports. Their very livelihoods depend on the continued flow of international commerce and the adoption of restrictionist trade policies which would inhibit the trade would naturally mean fewer jobs, smaller pay checks and reduced income for these millions of Americans. The Port of New Orleans supports 60 percent of the New Orleans economy and is responsible for 50,000 people statewide employed in maritime related industries. The Port is the largest business in the State of Louisiana and has an annual impact on the economy of the State of $1.8 billions and accounts for $1,050 income per year per household. Anything that will adversely impact on the future viability of the Port of New Orleans will affect the overall economy and well being of the State of Louisiana. Throughout the U.S. it has been estimated that a total of 6,253,000 port area residents ultimately derive their livelihood from waterborne foreign commerce. On May 14 a spokesman for the AAPA testified before the Committee on Ways and Means to describe the stake of these millions of Americans in the trade policy of this nation. Specifically, the ports of the U.S. endorsed the objectives of the Trade Reform Act of 1973 (H.R. 6767) and urged favorable consideration by the Congress of most of its provisions. Conversely, American ports urged the rejection of proposals advocating the imposition of comprehensive import quotas and other severe restrictions on international trade such as embodied in the Burke-Hartke Bill (H.R. 62). In this regard, see our letter (enclosed) to you on February 23, 1973. Your attention is also invited to the fact that the Port of New Orleans has an approximate 11⁄2 to 1 favorable (exports vs. imports) balance of trade in its foreign trade dollar value. I respectfully recommend that you consider the vital importance of the continued movement of exports and imports across the piers and docks in port communities throughout the U.S. to the millions of Americans who owe their economic well being to this commerce as you yourself evolve your position on the appropriate future course for future U.S. trade policy. Sincerely, EDWARD S. REED. FEBRUARY 23, 1973. Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, U.S. Senate, Old Senate Office Building, DEAR SENATOR LONG: I am writing to inform you of the Port of New Orleans' opposition to the Hartke-Burke Bill and to ask your support in the Congress of this position. The Hartke-Burke Bill would in the long term stifle trade which is the lifeblood of the nation's ports. This would result from retaliatory actions by foreign nations to the provisions of the subject bill which include: calling for quotas on imports not already subject to limitations, restricting multi-national corporations, ending duty-free treatment on the value of U.S.-made portions of goods assembled abroad, and labeling of all goods containing foreign made components and other provisions. Ports of America are the national gateways of international trade. Through them flow the imports and exports of global commerce, bringing a better life to millions in the United States and around the world. People everywhere are dependent upon each other for the products they use every day, because no single country produces all the consumer goods and foods needed by its population. The world-wide interchange of goods is handled through the seaports, yet few realize that ports, in fulfilling this role, provide not only facilities for waterborne transport, but jobs for people and increased prosperity for all. The activities directly related to ports provide jobs for as many as 2.5 million people within harbor areas throughout the nation. Thus, millions of men and women across America have a personal stake in their ports, in a continuing flow of international commerce through these gateways to trade and prosperity. The Port of New Orleans is the largest business is the State of Louisiana and has an annual impact on the economy of the State of $1.8 billion and accounts for $1,050 income per year per household. I am sure that you will agree that any. thing that will adversely impact the future viability of the Port of New Orleans will affect the overall economy and well-being of the State of Louisiana. We, therefore, strongly recommend that you vote against the enactment of the Hartke-Burke Bill in the Congress. Staff Director, Committee on Finance, Dirksen Senate Office Building, DEAR MR. STERN: The following is a written position of the views of the brick manufacturers of Texas and I respectfully request that this letter and enclosure be submitted and included in the printed record of the hearings. 1. Mexican brick makers are dumping substandard brick in the U.S. through Texas at substandard prices. 2. Mexican brick meet no specification standards as outlined by building codes, American Standard of Testing Materials Specifications (ASTM), FHA or VA specifications. 3. Bills of lading are falsified at Texas ports of entry as to value of brick and numbers of brick. 4. The U.S. Treasury Department collects little or no duty as set forth in the U.S. Customs manual. 5. Government personnel differ in interpretation of the U.S. law governing brick imported from Mexico. 6. The Mexican brick industry is destroying the U.S. domestic brick industry. 7. The Mexican government does not permit U.S. brick in Mexico, yet there are NO restrictions on quantity or quality of Mexican brick shipped to this country. 8. The tariff on Canadian brick v.s. U.S. brick is unfair and should be equalized. Enclosed is a colored brochure to explain this National problem. We believ all of the above items should be corrected. Sincerely, DON HALSELL, President. |