페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

rocenator 20,000, think 20 years calli

Mr. Ogg. No, but it has been true since 1945. When you take any long period, normally your imports go up and down with industrial production.

Senator BREWSTER. I throught the whole theory was that we were spending $20,000,000,000 in Europe because they were not able to produce. So I don't think you can take the recent records of this thing. In fact, those for the last 20 years are very questionable.

Mr. OGG. The only purpose in calling attention to that is that the total volume of our imports now is relatively smaller, in relation to the total volume of industrial production, than normally.

Senator MILLIKIN. If I might interject there: I think the witness has testified that he would not permit any importations which would seriously injure domestic industry. I am correct in that; am I not?

Mr. OGG. Well, I think I made a statement along that line: That we would not want to wreck our own markets. Now, on the other hand, we recognize that if we want to have a profitable market here in America for the goods of the farm and the goods of industry, we must be willing to import more goods to maintain the purchasing power abroad, or at least to make it possible not only for us to have a market, but a good market, here.

In other words, unless we buy, we can't sell; and if we don't sell, we are going to take a terrific licking in agriculture.

Senator MILLIKIN. I suggest the whole question is: Are you willing, under those circumstances, to injure domestic industry in the process ?

Mr. Ogg. Oh, no; we are not in favor of wrecking our industries at

all.

The CHAIRMAN. We have a couple of witnesses we would like to hear before we adjourn. Senator Brewster, do you have much more?

Senator BREWSTER. I am sorry I am taking so much time, but I think as to this farm organization representing such a considerable segment of our industry, their position is very important. I represent both agricultural and industrial production on a fairly major scale; and I think we have to go along together.

I am sure that you do not intend, as representing agricultural interests, to indicate, as Senator Millikin pointed out, any intention to sacrifice industry to agriculture. We all have to protect America today.

Mr. Ogg. No, sir; in fact, we have appeared, Senator, in several hearings to oppose some proposed concessions.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?
Thank you, Mr. Ogg.
Mr. OgG. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Russell Smith, representing the National Farmers Union, was scheduled to be heard today. However, the chairman has been advised that Mr. Smith is unable to be here.

The next witness is Mrs. Oscar Ruebhausen, representing the League of Women Voters.

Mrs. Ruebhausen, will you come around, please? Do you have a statement to make, here, for this record ?

STATEMENT OF MRS. OSCAR RUEBHAUSEN, LEAGUE OF WOMEN

VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed as you wish. Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. The League of Women Voters of the United States, representing 630 leagues in 34 States, urges this committee to report favorably H. R. 1211. The league hopes to see the Trade Agreements Act renewed for at least a 3-year period, in the form which was in effect prior to June 12, 1948.

The League of Women Voters has been concerned with tariffs and trade since 1924, when these subjects first appeared on our program for study and consideration. Since 1936, the league has supported the reciprocal trade agrements program as a sound trade policy for the United States. League support for these principles has continued since that time, and was reaffirmed most recently at our biennial national convention in Grand Rapids in April 1948.

The league has for many years put particular emphasis on building sound economic foundations for peace. The lowering of trade barriers and the increase in commerce between nations is in our opinion one of the keystones of a healthy world economy. Because of the leading position of the United States, the willingness of our Government to reduce its trade barriers is of vital importance to the future of world trade.

The United States must prepare to accept more imports if we are to continue to export on a large scale. Our domestic economy is geared increasingly to world markets. The nations of Europe that we are helping through the European recovery program will not be able to pay their own way unless they can earn dollars to buy the goods they need from us. They can earn these dollars only if the United States imports.

The Trade Agreements Act, in the judgment of the League of Women Voters, has proved itself over a 14-year period to be an effective instrument of United States policy. Its renewal is necessary if the United States is to play its vital part in increasing world trade.

The League of Women Voters believes that the act should be renewed for a 3-year period. Since negotiations must be prepared for and carried out over many months, authorization for more than 1 year is clearly needed. The league also objected to the form in which the act was renewed last spring. By separating the Tariff Commission from the Interdepartmental Trade Agreements Committee and assigning it a new role with added responsibilities, the act gives, in our judgment, increased weight to protectionist interests. The league believes that our national welfare will be better served by returning the Tariff Commission to its previous position so that the interest of particular segments of American industry and agriculture will be weighed together with the over-all interests of the American public in deciding on tariff reductions to be offered.

We respectfully request your favorable action on H. R. 1211.

And I wish to say that the Women's Action Committee for Lasting Peace has indicated that they endorse the statement and would like to have their name added to this statement in favor of H. R. 1211,

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Do you have any questions, Senator?

Senator MILLIRIN. I would like to ask one or two questions.

I notice you are asking for a 3-year extension. The principal part of world trade has already been covered by the Geneva agreements, and the others preceding it. Negotiations have been invited for 11 additional countries. A representative of the State Department testified yesterday that those will commence, I think, April 1, and he expects them to be concluded within 3 or 4 months. What particular reason do you see for a 3-year extension?

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. I think a 3-year extension gives more permanency to the program. I think it is less upsetting to other people. I think it is a terrible nuisance to have to come back every year and go through this process of hearings, when you haven't really had time enough to determine what your preceding program meant.

It would be just as difficult as if you had to stand every year for election for the Senate. I don't think that is a long enough time to determine whether your program has been effective or not.

Senator MILLIKIN. First, let me say that I would not like to stand for the Senate every year. There we are in complete agreement.

You understand that this is a congressional responsibility, primarily, and that whatever power the President has is delegated to him by the Congress.

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. Yes; and since last June I don't think you have really had time enough to determine how effective the whole program that you adopted last year has been. Therefore, a year is not really time enough; because you have to start considering the renewal a good 3 or 4 months prior to the time the year expires.

Senator BREWSTER. If it has not been time enough to determine it, why are you so clear that the program is wrong?

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. I am clear on the principle of it.

Senator BREWSTER. But you said that the year had not been sufficient to determine whether or not it functioned effectively.

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. The year has not been sufficient, in my opinion. Senator BREWSTER. Then why are you so anxious to discard it?

Mrs. RCEBIAUSEN. We are, as we say, against the policy-making power that is now in the hands of the Tariff Commission. I do not think that the year has been long enough to determine whether they will make good peril points or bad peril points; they haven't even been determined yet. But I think the principle is all wrong, because it gives undue emphasis to one aspect of the problem. There are many facets to the problem of trade agreements; not just this one.

Senator MILLIKIN. I would be prepared at this time to suggest a 1-year extension. Maybe I shall offer such an amendment. But in view of the importance of this, as you have claimed in your statement, and since it is primarily a congressional responsibility, it certainly would do no harm to have an annual review of what has been going on.

Now, I would like to make another point. You have heard the testimony this morning. It has already been developed that after this 1948 act came into effect, there was a rush of all these countries at Geneva to sign up. We have 22 out of 23 signed up. There was no hesitancy in going ahead with the other 11 countries to be taken in, which have a very inconsequential part of the world's trade, taken all together. But nevertheless the 1948 act has not stopped the operation of the reciprocal-trade program in any respect. And they will

have an opportunity to complete their 11-country agreement before this act expires, even under the present 1-year term.

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. Yes. Well, the trade-agreements program has gone on. But I think it gives more permanency to negotiation with other nations if they know that it is going on for 3 years rather than 1. If you make amendments every year and change your procedures every year, it is very upsetting.

Senator MILLIKIN. Well, the end point is that we were told last year that this is a very upsetting thing to do, that we were breaking the heart of the world, that everything was going to collapse, that foreign nations would lose confidence in us, that they would regard this as an abandonment of our foreign policy.

Now, the fact of the mater is that none of those things have happened, not a single one.

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. I still think that it is very difficult, though, to have a program voted on every year, a program of this nature. Because you don't have time, during the space of a year really to evaluate the effect of the changes that you made the last year.

Senator MILLIKIN. Well, a yearly review on an important subject of business is not a bad policy.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further questions?
Senator BREWSTER. Have you attended the hearings so far?
Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. Just this morning.

Senator BREWSTER. Well, every witness who appeared here so far has proclaimed his devotion to the principle of protection. Do you share that? That seems to be one of the ten commandments.

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. Yes, I think witnesses in espousing the cause of protection, are often limited. I would like to make my espousal a very broad one. I think you should consider protection of all industries which are producing. And by that I don't mean just agriculture, or just shoe manufacturers, or just a particular interest. I mean exporters as well as importers.

Senator BREWSTER. And that might involve a determination of what was more important, an export industry or an import industry. Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. It might well involve that. Senator BREWSTER. Where is your home? Mrs. RUEBHAUŞEN. New York City.

Senator BREWSTER. Well, there might be an industry in New York City which might have to give up some protection in order to help an industry, let us say, in California. That would be your procedure.

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. My criterion would be that you think of the national welfare ahead of any specific industry's welfare, or any specific named manufacturer's welfare. I think the good of the country comes first.

Senator BREWSTER. And how would you determine that good, taking a specific case? We have had here the glove case, for instance. There are some gloves from Japan involved. If it appeared to you that perhaps some thousand employees of the glove industry were going to be thrown out of work, what would you trade for that?

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. I would want to go into that very carefully, and I would want to see what we were exporting to Japan, whether we thought if we took these imports that it was actually in competition with our own glove manufacturers. The case you cited sounded to me as though they were so cheap they would not be in competition. Senator BREWSTER. You would not want to wear them, probably. Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. Maybe I wouldn't

Senator BREWSTER. But they still evidently would have a market for someone who was less fortunate.

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. They might have a market for people who had never been able to have gloves before. So they might not be in direct competition with people who were buying gloves already. Maybe it would be people who had never worn gloves. You would want to determine exactly what that was.

Senator BREWSTER. And I think you are the first one who has very definitely stated that you might have a lack of protection which would adversely affect a given American industry. There might be cases in which you would permit that?

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. Yes. By protection, I mean protection of all industries. I don't mean a specific industry.

Senator BREWSTER. Well, you take a more comprehensive and cosmopolitan view. I suppose that is what you meant by objecting to this present act because it gave increased weight to protectionists' interests. That sounds a little sinister.

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. No; I think that while the reason that this program comes before this committee is because it is a revenue producer, I don't think that you should look at it solely in terms of revenue producing; nor do I think you should look at it solely in terms of your domestic producers who are in competition with things which might be imported.

I think you have to look at it from the over-all point of view, which is our national defense, our exporting, our importing, even the consumer. I think all of those things have to be brought into play. Therefore, I think it gives a very peculiar emphasis just to single out one thing and say, “This is all we are interested in.” Because to me the program has much broader aspects.

Senator BREWSTER. You understand that is precisely what the act does not say. We should say that there should be a scientific determination; and the League of Women Voters, historically, as I know full well, were the earliest exponents of the scientific approach, as against the log-rolling approach.

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. That is correct.
Senator BREWSTER. So let us stick to the scientific principle.

Now, we ask that there be a scientific determination of the peril point. That, however, by no means concludes the matter, as I am sure you are aware. You understand the President has full power to disregard that absolutely. The only thing he has to give is his reasons on which he bases it. Would you consider that an undemocratic procedura?

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. I still think it gives an emphasis to one aspect, where what you want is the broad emphasis. Particularly in the minds of the public who read that peril points have been established, I think you don't educate them to understand that there are these other aspects, which are important and should also be considered.

Senator BREWSTER. I think the act very carefully recognizes that national and other considerations may well enter in, and international considerations. All of those are within the purview, necessarily, of the President, and his very competent advisers in the State Department, the Agriculture Department, and so on. But whether

« 이전계속 »