Mrs. LAVES. We can testify on it, I think, on the basis of other figures. I think the fact that I believe is established as based uponSenator JENNER. These are the facts established.

What percent of our total productivity, goes into export trade? You don't know?

Mrs. LAVES. I do not know the precise figures.

Senator JENNER. What percent of our total export trade goes to Canada?

Mrs. LAVES. Certainly a larger percent than goes to any other country. Canada is our best customer.

Senator JENNER. You do not know what percent it is?

Mrs. LAVES. I do not know.

Senator JENNER. Who do you get these other facts from-but you cannot find out these facts. Could you furnish these facts to the committee?

Mrs. LAVES. All right.

Senator JENNER. Find out also what percent if you don't know, what percent goes to Latin America and South America. Do you know that?

Mrs. LAVES. I do not.

Senator JENNER. Also find out what percent of our total export trade goes to Europe, and Asia, and South Africa.

Mrs. LAVES. Yes.

(The information is as follows:)

United States merchandise exports in relation to gross national product, 1957

Gross national product...

1

[Value in millions of dollars]

Exports including reexports
Exports as percentage of gross national product__

$433, 900 20, 800 4. 8

Shipments to foreign countries of United States domestic merchandise and reexports, as recorded by the Bureau of the Census. The data include, besides commercial goods, shipments of military equipment and supplies and other aid and relief shipments whether financed by Government or private agencies.

United States exports by areas and continents (total, 1957, $20,809.7)

Value in millions of dollars; export data by areas include all special category items; data by continents excludes special category items as indicated in explanatory note]

Security restrictions prevent publication of detailed statistics for certain commodities included in this Category. These include military equipment, special machine tools, some radio and other electrical apparatus, etc.

Senator JENNER. When you find these facts out, I think you will find that somebody is giving you a lot of bad information.

For example, let's assume and I think it is a fact, that Canada takes 25 percent of our total export trade, and your Government has adopted the policy, and set up $3 billion to take surplus grain, grown in our economy, and given it away to the rest of the world.

Now when we do that, we destroy the economy of Canada, our biggest export trader, and our most substantial friend, because Canada primarily is an exporter of wheat.

Mrs. LAVES. Right.

Senator JENNER. When you destroy Canada's export wheat business, you are wrecking their economy, destroying our best customer. Now you seem in this statement of yours to be greatly concerned about Russia's economic warfare.

Mrs. LAVES. Yes, sir.

Senator JENNER. Do you know how much money Russia has spent in her total economic warfare as you have called it, throughout the world in the last 50 years or 25 years?

Mrs. LAVES. Fifty years?

Senator JENNER. The last 5 years; the last 2 years.

Mrs. LAVES. No.

Senator JENNER. Do you know of any figure, what she has spent? Mrs. LAVES. I do not know the figures, no.

Senator JENNER. Do you know what your country has spent in foreign aid and so forth, in the last few years?

Mrs. LAVES. I have a pretty good idea.

Senator JENNER. Will you tell the committee?

Mrs. LAVES. I am sorry; I do not have the exact figures.
Senator JENNER. Who prepared this statement for you?

Mrs. LAVES. I prepared it in collaboration with other members of the League of Women Voters Board and staff.

Senator JENNER. Well, would it be important to change your testimony if I told you that all of the economic aid that has even been tentatively promised by Russia to all the world put together only amounts to a little over a billion and a half dollars and that we have already spent $67 billion?

Mrs. LAVES. And you regard this as inconsequential?

Senator JENNER. We spent $67 billion, and you are worried about Russia's economic warfare, and she spent a billion and a half. What do you think about it?

Mrs. LAVES. I think that our proportion, that the amount that we have spent has been justified. I think that our position is at this point stronger than that of the Soviet bloc.

The only thing I am concerned about, Senator

Senator JENNER. You think it is stronger than the Soviet bloc? Mrs. LAVES. I think it is stronger.

Senator JENNER. Let's stop and analyze that statement.

Let's do not think, let's talk about facts.

Mrs. LAVES. Yes.

Senator JENNER. Why do you say it is stronger when at the end of World War II there were about 175 million Russians, not Communists, in the whole world but today after they have spent a billion and a half in economic aid and we have spent a total of $67 billion she today controls over a third of the world, and over about a billion people?

Do you think we are in better shape than she is?

Mrs. LAVES. I think you misinterpreted what I said.

What I meant to say was that I think as of this moment our position, with the uncommitted world, is stronger than that of the Russians, because

Senator JENNER. Who is the uncommitted world?

Let's get these facts out. This committee has got to act on facts. Who is the uncommitted world?

Mrs. LAVES. By the uncommitted world, I mean such nations as the underdeveloped countries of Asia, of Africa, of the Middle East.

Now I realize that in each case

Senator JENNER. Let's see, is India uncommitted?

Mrs. LAVES. I would say that India comes closer to being committed to us than to the Russians, the Communist bloc. Senator JENNER. Let's see, is Poland uncommitted?

Mrs. LAVES. No; Poland is committed.

Senator JENNER. Is Yugoslvaia uncommitted?

Mrs. LAVES. That is an interesting question as of the moment. Senator JENNER. Well, have you got an answer for it?

Mrs. LAVES. May I say, Senator, that I think that this line of questioning, I am delighted to cooperate, but I would like to say that it seems to me that the questions you are raising illustrate precisely the point I was trying to make, that we cannot consider our trade legislation in a vacuum as a single piece of legislation. That what I think we need at this point is a development of a consistent overall program based on much better information than any of us have including, I think, the Congress and the administration.

Senator JENNER. Certainly you need more information than what you have presented because you have demonstrated clearly to me you presented a statement here to this committee and you do not even know the essential facts.

What percent of our trade goes to export trade, goes to North America and South America and those are essential facts if we are talking about an overall trade policy and I don't want any lectures from you about an overall trade policy when you do not know the facts.

Mrs. LAVES. No. You see, the testimony I am presenting is simply in favor of the renewal of the act that we now have that makes it possible to negotiate trade agreements with other countries. We are saying simply we regard this as essential.

Senator JENNER. Where does the responsibility for an overall trade act lie, with the executive or with the Congress?

Mrs. LAVES. I would say it is a joint responsibility; wouldn't you? Senator JENNER. What does the Constitution say about it; do you know?

Mrs. LAVES. My impression is that it is the joint responsibility. Senator JENNER. That is all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. Senator ANDERSON. Senator Long?

Senator LONG. I did not hear the presentation of your written. statement, but did you go into the question of the relative cost of production of an American producer as against a foreign producer? Mrs. LAVES. No; I did not go into that.

Senator ANDERSON. Mrs. Laves was speaking for the League of Women Voters mainly, urging the continuation of the act for 5 years, expressing their doubt as to the desirability of going to the 1934 instead of the 1945 and also questioning the effectiveness of the escape clause. Mrs. LAVES. Yes.

Senator LONG. I am concerned with the way in which our technical and economic aid makes it possible for foreign nations to produce goods more cheaply than producers in the United States.

This is a problem in the textile industry at the present time and could become a problem in other industries.

The Japanese are very able people, and, if you show them how to do something, they can do it as well as you can.

Many other people in the world resemble the Japanese in this respect. We helped them rebuild their economy, and gave them loans. Men in our textile industry showed them how to use our machinery, and we enabled the Japanese to have the same equipment as we have through loans or by direct purchases by or for them. Mrs. LAVES. Yes.

Senator LONG. Their labor is almost as efficient as ours, yet costs much less than ours. They use the same techniques that we do and receive cotton at a lower price than our manufacturers because of our section 480. We further subsidize them through loans and gifts. Thus, the Japanese can produce cotton goods more inexpensively than we can in America.

A similar situation could arise in other industries if we continue our present policy.

What is your opinion of a situation that allows a foreign producer to produce goods at a lower cost than an American producer partly because of our policies?

I do not regard the situation as serious when true of one industry, but I wonder about it when true of many.

Mrs. LAVES. If I may say so, I think this is an illustration of a situation in which you have to look at the overall interests of the United States in contrast with simply the interest of the one producing industry that is involved, and I think that the illustration of Japan is an extremely good one because I think no country is more important to the overall welfare of the United States than Japan.

I think that Japan, occupying, as it does, a key position in our whole strategic setup, occupying the important position it does in relation to the Asiatic countries, that we hope to hold to the free world, is of extraordinarily great importance to our welfare as a whole.

So that it might be, we would conclude that we could take a loss in the price level of the products with which they are competing, in which they are competing, in the interests of the overall welfare of the United States strategically, economically, and politically.

Now, this raises a serious question, as you point out, and the question, I think, is who bears the cost of this thing that we have to buy at the expense of one industry, and I think that this is one of the questions that is now taking a great amount of thought on the part of many people.

I think illustrations of it are several bills that are pending before your committee for measures to assist in the readjustment of industries where the competition becomes heavy and where the results bear unfairly upon one industry as over against the total United States

economy.

I think the only point we want to make clear is that we insist that the whole welfare of the United States must be considered in each of these cases rather than simply the effect upon the industry, and I would like to point out also that it is not only we of the general public

who will suffer if we lost Japan to the free world but the textile peoples themselves are going to suffer because their sons are going to be involved in a war just as much as those of people who are not affected directly.

Senator LONG. But you do see my point.

Mrs. LAVES. Yes, I do see it.

Senator LONG. It is one thing for us to help friends abroad so that they completely displace American produce in the world market and cause us to lose our export trade in a particular commodity.

It is another thing to subject an American businessman to the prospect of the failure of his business or industry as a result of the foreign policy which is supported by his taxes.

When a foreign producer is able to undersell him, he may be able to protect his investments by certain changes in his operations. But. he may be driven out of business if he is given no protection.

Japan has voluntarily limited its exports to this country, but it is not compelled to do so. For this reason, many Americans would like the Congress to make a study every few years of the effect of the importation of Japanese goods upon our industries. I assume that you favor some protection for an American industry that cannot compete with low-cost foreign imports, at least for a period of timesufficient for this industry to close down.

Mrs. LAVES. I think we would favor efforts to make possible as easy an adjustment as could be managed.

Now, I think there is one other factor I would like to add to my answer to this question and that is that I think we also must take into consideration the people who will be helped in this country, the industries that will be helped by the development of a greater purchasing power within Japan and greater ability of the Japaneseeconomy to absorb imports from the United States.

I think we must put this also into balance, don't you?
Senator LONG. Yes, I certainly think it should be considered.
Thank you very much.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Martin?

Senator MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of questioning this distinguished witness and I want to say we appreciate greatly having people like this who are interested enough in our Government to come down here and testify, and I have no questions.

Mrs. LAVES. Thank you, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. Šenator Williams?

Senator WILLIAMS. I have no questions.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Malone?

Senator MALONE. I just had a copy of your statement.

Senator ANDERSON. Would you rather have Senator Carlson go ahead while you have a chance to read it?

Senator MALONE. You are the director of the League of Women Voters?

Mrs. LAVES. I am only one director.

Senator MALONE. How many do they have?

Mrs. LAVES. Fourteen-officers and directors.

Senator MALONE. How are they chosen, by region?

Mrs. LAVES. No; not by region. Some of them are elected and others are appointed.