terms of benefits that will be derived in guiding decisions affecting the course of the economy. As with the Census Bureau, the four programs proposed are expansions or extensions of current series, and two of them would result in more frequent and more timely data.

Many of our members consider the national income account data as the backbone of essential information for business and economic planning, and especially the quarterly estimates of GNP. Because of this great interest, we held a full day meeting in March of last year in which staff members of OBE discussed the sources and methods used in preparing these quarterly estimates. Although the subject matter was quite technical, 132 persons registered for the meeting. The discussions not only assisted in providing a better understanding of the estimates, but pointed up some of the weaknesses and the need for improvement.

Estimates of quarterly GNP are now published about 15 to 18 days after the close of a quarter. OBE proposes to provide monthly estimates of GNP by major market groupings and income types, and of other selected elements of the accounts. Under the new program the public would begin to have information about GNP developments in a given quarter about 40 days earlier. Although we favor having GNP information on a more timely basis, our Board members expressed greater interest in the proposed program from the standpoint of contributing to improvement in the quarterly series. An added feature of the program is that it will fill a gap in our information on monthly measures of production because the monthly Federal Reserve index of industrial production covers only about 35 percent of total production.

Approval of the proposal to expand the existing plant and equipment survey to include industries not now covered and to provide separate information on expenditures for plant and expenditures for equipment is long overdue. It is considered of such importance that OBE has included it in its budget requests for the past several years, although Congress has not provided for its funding. The program is also one of the ten items proposed for improvement in the 1968 Economic Report of the President. The current curvey is not complete in that it accounts for only about 80 percent of the total amount of investment. The expanded survey would provide for the first time complete data on current and prospective investment outlays by the rapidly growing service industries. Separate data for plant and equipment are especially valuable to have because such investments differ in the timing and magnitude of their fluctuations and in their rates of long-term growth. They also respond differently to fiscal and monetary policies. Investment in plant and equipment is an important business indicator which, if strengthened, will enhance our ability to analyze and evaluate an important area of economic activity.

CONCLUSION

In our opinion, the programs proposed by the Census Bureau and OBE represent necessary steps in an evolutionary process of improving and strengthening the coverage and quality of current statistical programs. They will fill voids in our store of knowledge; they will help us in measuring and better understanding the course of the economy and in making judgments about the future direction it may take. We appreciate the opportunity to present the views of the Conference on the programs of these two agencies.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR TRADE

NEGOTIATIONS

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. SCOTT, MASTER OF THE
NATIONAL GRANGE

Senator MCCLELLAN. The Chair will include in the record at this point the statement of John W. Scott, Master of the National Grange, in support of full funding in fiscal 1971 for the Office of Special Representative for Trade Negotiations.

(The statement follows:)

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I am John W. Scott, Master of the National Grange, with head

quarters at 1616 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.

The Grange is a national organization representing a cross-sectio of rural-urban people who have a vital interest in government, its activities and its administration, not only as it applies to agriculture and its related functions, but to every phase of Federal activity that touches and affects human endeavor.

Therefore, we are, quite naturally, interested in matters affecting foreign trade and have displayed such interest by appearing before numerous committees of Congress in our effort to make known the position of the National Grange regarding international trade it affects agriculture as well as the consumer interest of our membersnip.

-- as

We were joined in

In December of 1969, we sent a telegram to conterees on the
Fiscal 1970 Appropriations for the Office of Special Trade Represen-
tative in the Executive Office of the President.
that telegram by eight other national farm organizations or national
commodity groups. In it we stated in part:

"We strongly urge that the conferees recognize that, as
stated by Mr. Gilbert, the budget as cut by the House
will not be adequate to fund the post of Assistant
Special Representative for Agricultural and Commodity
Affairs. This post has not been filled. We do not
believe that the Office of the Special Representative
can perform adequately unless it is filled and filled by
a person who has experience in and understands agricul-
tural trade problems.

"We therefore urge the conferees to retain the $77,000
added to the budget by the Senate for a total of $559,000
for the Office of Special Representative for Trade Nego-
tiations, a small sum considering the tremendous job ahead."
This still is the position of these organizations today, as the
office still has not been properly funded and the job ahead becomes

46-370 O 70 - 61

more difficult each day. Only with proper funding, to assure adequate staffing to conduct the research, study and negotiating that the trade problems demand, will we start toward a positive trade policy. It is not only in the interest of agriculture; however, this is the trade area that will be most affected by the problems that confront American foreign trade, but also in the area of commerce and industry. Legislative History

Each year when the appropriation bill for S.T.R. (Special Trade Representative) comes before Congress, we hear the same story, that it is really not needed and the duties of the office can and are being carried out by agencies in other departments. Please permit me to place into the hearing record some of the legislative history that, in our judgment, shows that it was the intent of Congress to have the STR office a continuing office and have the responsibility for trade negotiations.

Excerpts from the Legislative History of .R. 11970,
87th Congress, Trade Expansion Act of 1962, P.L. 87-794

Mills explained that the interagency framework, as well as
the position of Special Representative, was established by
Congress ("the interdepartmental agency that we set up
within the Executive Department to advise the President on
trade matters, including the initial negotiation of trade
agreements." p. 1969)

On the State Department role in the past, and the future
intentions of Congress, Mills said: "These new responsi-
bilities stress the fact that Congress intends that the
negotiations be prepared for and carried out differently
than in the past. The special representative should have
at his direct disposal sufficient staff to assist him in
his capacities as chief negotiator and chairman of an
interagency trade organization. ...However, the Department
of State, which did the negotiating previously and which
chaired the Trade Agreements Committee is the only ele-
ment now within the Government that is set up to devote
a major portion of its resources and time to the negotia-
tions. It was not our intention that this group would
continue its past dominant role. Rather we intend by this
legislation to place the responsibility for developing
the technical information required for the negotiations in

the hands of the special representative. He should have
line authority over the development of information with-
in the executive branch, calling on the relevant depart-
ments for support as needed." "Obviously the special
representative will require a staff which spends its
entire time on preparations for the negotiations and for
the negotiations themselves." etc. pp. 1969-1970

On the general scope of authority of the special repre-
sentative, Mills said: "The other body receded on their
amendment which would have required the special repre-
sentative to represent the United States only at general
multilateral negotiations. While it is not contemplated
that the special representative will be required to conduct
personally relatively minor negotiations, your conferees
insisted that it was the intention of the House that he
be responsible for all negotiations conducted under title
II of the bill."
P. 1973

On this same point, of the scope of authority, Senator
Byrd explained that: "Amendment No. 22 provided that the
Special Representative for Trade Negotiations established
in the bill shall be the chief representative of the
United States for each general multilateral negotiation,
allowing others to handle the minor negotiations. The
Senate receded, but won its point--that is, that the Spe-
cial Representative need not personally conduct every
relatively minor negotiation, although he will be respon-
sible for the conduct of every negotiation regardless of
size." p. 2020

On the roles of the existing departments, Senator Byrd
said: "The Senate and its conferees thought there should
not be included a definite mandate to the President that
a member of the Cabinet be appointed, because these members
may have some special interests." p. 2020

The office of the Special Representative for Trade came into being to meet a definite need. It is a creature of the Congress, established because of the widespread dissatisfaction throughout the Congress and agriculture concerning the way in which our foreign economic trade policy was being handled.

To remedy this, the Congress directed the establishment in the Executive Office of the President the Office of Special Representative for Trade Negotiations. It also directed that the Special Representative for Trade Negotiations be Chairman of the Interagency Organization (consisting of certain Cabinet officers) for trade policy

which was also established by the Trade Policy which was also established by the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

The legislative history of that Act makes clear the dissatisfaction of the Congress with the manner in which trade policy and trade negotiations had been handled in the past. The establishment of the Office of Special Representative for Trade in the Executive Office of the President was deemed to be the best means of making certain that the interests of agriculture, industry, labor and the consumer would be adequately and properly represented. Experience had demonstrated the necessity for making certain our foreign economic trade policy and negotiations would not be dominated by the views or policies of any particular Cabinet post.

The establishment of the Office of Special Representative for Trade had strong bi-partisan support. The Congress rejected the proposal of the Administration which would have permitted the President to appoint the Secretary of Commerce to serve as Special Representative for Trade and as Chairman of the Interagency Organization, thereby clearly emphasizing that the post was to be independent of, and not subservient to, any department of government.

I am convinced that the sentiment and views of the Congress in this regard have not changed. If anything, they are stronger.

In addition to the legislative history, which we believe establishes the permanency of the S.T.R. office, we would like to place into the hearing record, as part of our statement, an exchange of letters between the General Counsel of the Office of the Special Representative for Trade Negotiations and the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, of the Department of Justice.