would have on domestic industry. Notices would be given that negotiations were to be made, but nothing, said as to what they were to be; only the names of the countries and the general tariff classifications of items were mentioned. The names of the countries meant nothing under the most-favored-nation policy where any concessions made were equally applicable to other countries, even though they might not have been in the original negotiation. The general tariff classifications were too broad to make intelligent action possibly by industry. Worst of all, there was no information supplied as to what the exact changes were to be, nor what concessions were being given the United States by other countries, in exchange.

This star chamber proceeding was out of character with the American way of handling such affairs. It was to be expected that industries chosen for the sacrifice would fight for their existence. That had been done before with greater or less success, considering the various tariff schedules adopted in this country since the Civil War. But at least the industries had previously had a chance to wage their fight against known conditions. Under the original reciprocal-trade agreement procedure, that opportunity was actually denied them, in spite of the mockery of a State Department hearing.

It was with that experience in mind that this federation, on behalf of its members, urged before your committee, on May 11, 1945, that if the policy of international trade bargaining were to be continued, it should be subject to administrative procedure which would mean open investigation, and open consideration of what bargains were being entered upon. We recommended strongly the former practice of having the United States Tariff Commission conduct non-partisan studies to determine the relative merits of the case, and that, finally, any bargaining agreement be subject to review by Congress, the only legal negotiators of treaties under the Constitution, and the body specifically named in section 8 of the Constitution to fix duties and regulate commerce with foreign nations. We were, therefore, very encouraged last year to see that Congress had voted to give the Tariff Commission a clearer, more authoritative status in respect to future agreements; but we are now equally discouraged to find that Congress is being asked, in H. R. 1211, to reverse its position and not only repeal the Trade Agreements Act of 1948, but also to eliminate even the slight consideration given in the original 1934 act that "before concluding such agreement the President shall seek information and advice with respect thereto from the United States Tariff Commission, from the Departments of State, Agriculture, and Commerce, from the National Military Establishment, and from such other sources as he may deem appropriate."

From this proposal we infer that the President now desires to eliminate from fact-finding those agencies, except the State Department, most experienced in presenting facts. It is the State Department which has acted as the President's agent in all of these negotiations. It is the State Department, primarily experienced in questions of political expediency and not economic considerations, which assumes the role of leader in all negotiations.

The Tariff Commission, on the other hand, has demonstrated many times its ability to gather detailed data and analyze it impartially. It is only since the Tariff Commission has made public its studies of various industries of the United States and their history in world trade that we have had available to us data which would even serve as a basis for discussion. In our own industry, the Commission's trade-agreement digests, published in 1946, on both rayon and silk, were an immeasurable help in reviewing industry conditions, even though the Commission has itself been hampered by lack of information on foreign costs of production in postwar years. The Summary of Tariff Information series, published this year, still further adds to the enlightenment of those who wish to know what facts are being considered in negotiating trade treaties.

We believe that the President, his advisers, Congress, and all others participating in what is a relatively new international experience for the United States, the trade-agreement negotiation, cannot in good faith permit the representatives of this country to sit down with the more experienced negotiators of other countries with no provision for the preparation of adequate information as to the economic effects of such proposals; nor permit the actual negotiation to go into effect without even the relatively light rein over the results which Congress gave itself in providing that the Tariff Commission's advice must be heeded, as stipulated in the present Public Law 792. We also believe that Congress will find that other countries, despite their extensive experience in such matters, do not presume to effect such negotiations without the active advice and attendance of adequately

informed industry representatives. Such countries know full well that trade agreements are primarily economic in their impact on the nationals of their respective countries, and the economic effect is studied and considered.

Perhaps the very complexity of the foreign system of quota controls, currency controls, special intracountry taxes, etc., is evidence that a truly well thought out trade agreement is not a simple matter of cutting periodic slices of 50 percent from a single rate of duty as seems to be the present system of our negotiating representatives.

We earnestly ask for deeper consideration by the members of your committee of the far-reaching effects of such a change as that now proposed in H. R. 1211. On the eve of the returning industrial efficiency of such long-time chief competitors as Germany and Japan in the international textile picture, and the daily accounts of purchases of the latest type of textile equipment by other countries, much of it from the United States, there is more vital need than ever before to take no backward steps in providing for the widest possible fact-finding and open consideration of all matters affecting international trade in textiles. The United States Tariff Commission, a Government body of nonpartisan character, as appointed by Congress, should be the chief agency for such fact-finding in foreigntrade negotiations. If Congress wishes to delegate to others the power to change its trade treaties, then that delegation should be given only to those whose public duty it is to factually consider the effect of such proposals on the American industries involved.

We, therefore, respectfully urge that H. R. 1211 be revised as follows:
Section 2: This should be changed to read:

"The Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1948 (Public Law 792, 80th Cong.) is hereby extended for a further period of 2 years from June 12, 1949." Section 3: This section should be eliminated.

Section 5: This section should be eliminated.
Respectfully submitted.

Tariff Committee of the National Federation of Textiles, Inc.:
(chairman) Paul Whitin, Paul Whitin Manufacturing Co., of
Northbridge, Mass., West Warwick, R. I., and Gilbertville, Mass.;
Gardiner Hawkins, United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc., of
Jewett City, Conn., Clearwater, S. C., Bath, S. C., Elberton, Ga.,
Fall River, Mass., Wilmington, Del., and Old Fort, N. C.; Alan B.
Sibley, Deering, Milliken & Co., Inc., of Abbeville, S. C., Green-
ville, S. C., Laurens, S. C., Spartanburg, S. C.; Irene Blunt, secre-
tary, 389 Fifth Avenue, New York 16, N. Y.; John J. Goldsmith,
Hess, Goldsmith & Co., Inc., of Kingston, Pa., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.,
Plymouth, Pa., and Pomona, Calif.; and H. D. Ruhm, Jr., Bates
Manufacturing Co., of Lewiston, Augusta, and Saco, Maine.

TWENTY-THIRD WOMEN'S PATRIOTIC CONFERENCE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE
WASHINGTON, D. C.

RESOLUTION NO. 10, ADOPTED JANUARY 29, 1949, OPPOSING RECIPROCAL TRADE
AGREEMENTS ACT

Whereas a healthy economy is necessary to a strong national defense; and Whereas high wages and full employment form the foundation of a healthy economy; and

Whereas the products of other countries made by workers paid much less than workers producing comparable goods in this country can only result in increasing unemployment, a weakening of our economy and our strength for national defense; and

Whereas the reciprocal trade-agreement program has removed protection from our high-paid workers against the unfair competition of the low-paid workers of other countries, thereby threatening jobs of workers in industries important to our national defense; and

Whereas as a result the reduction of tariffs incident to the adoption of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, grave injury already has been inflicted upon various industries in this country important to our national-defense program; and

Whereas imports into our country should be controlled by the imposition of proper tariffs by the exercise of our own sovereign right to serve as an equalizing

balance between the low wages of other countries and the high wages of the United States: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the Twenty-third Women's Patriotic Conference on National Defense urge upon Congress the repeal of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act as constituting an ever-present menace to our national defense and our economy and an unwarranted encroachment by the executive branch of the Government upon the legislative powers conferred upon the Congress by the Constitution of the United States.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES,
Washington 6, D. C., February 21, 1949.

Re Tariff Commission provisions of Reciprocal Trades Act
To Members of the United States Senate.

GENTLEMEN: Among the members of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives are marketing associations participating in the export of cotton, rice, wheat, corn, feed grains, soybeans, deciduous fruits, citrus fruits, dried fruits, small fruits, nuts, potatoes, various processed fruits and vegetables, eggs and poultry, dry beans and peas, dairy products, and others.

There are also farmer purchasing associations which participate directly or indirectly in the importation of petroleum and its products used for farm power and fuel, fertilizer materials, twine, fibers and burlap materials, farm machinery and equipment and other farm supplies.

Many of our member associations are highly interested in the competitive imports of berries, meat products, tree fruits, citrus fruits, nuts, poultry and dairy products, feed grains and processed products of these.

The interest of our members in foreign trade is not academic or philosophical, but it is concerned with the function of our farmers' cooperative business institutions to preserve a sound agriculture as the basis for a sound economy in the United States.

However, with all their divergent regional, economic, political and, at times, competitive business interests, our member associations representing a farmer membership of 3,800,000 have been able to agree on a general principle which they believe should be incorporated in the renewal of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act.

At the annual meeting of the member delegates held at Memphis, January 3 to 6, 1949, it was agreed that the council:

1. Believes that international trade in agricultural products, both exports and imports, should be encouraged, aided and stimulated by Government in every legitimate manner designed to serve the best interests of the Nation's agricultural industry and the consuming public.

2. Urges that the provisions of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1948 with regard to the functions of the Tariff Commission should be retained in the 1949 renewal of the act.

It is our conviction that the function of the Tariff Commission as an independent fact-finding body should be maintained and strengthened. Participation by the Tariff Commission in the negotiation of trade agreements makes it a party to the agreement, silences its members in any previous or subsequent fact-finding analysis of a proposed or approved tariff change, and thus destroys its function as a tariff research agency for the benefit of the public and for public agencies. We believe legislators, administrators and the general public all benefit from a knowledge of the complete facts on the effects of tariffs on domestic industries. Sincerely yours,

JOHN H. DAVIS, Executive Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish at this point to submit the following statements for the record. These associations were unable to appear in the open hearings, but would like to have their views included in the record. They are as follows:

1. United States Cuban Sugar Council, David M. Keiser, chairman, New York.

2. Wine Institute, Edward W. Wootton, Washington, D. C.

3. National Council of American Importers, Inc., Morris S. Rosenthal, president, New York.

4. Committee on Commercial Policy, United States Associates, International Chamber of Commerce, Inc.

5. American Glassware Association, H. L. Dillingham, secretary, New York,

6. The Tariff Committee of the National Federation of Textiles, Inc., New York. (This statement appears elsewhere in the record.) 7. Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association of the United States, S. Stewart Graff, secretary, New York.

8. Kaolin Clay Producers Association, Inc., W. B. S. Winans, president, New York.

9. United States Hop Growers Association, E. L. Markell, secretary, San Francisco, Calif.

10. The National Board of the Young Women's Christian Association of the United States of America, New York.

11. Toy Manufacturers of the United States of America, Inc., New York, Horatio D. Clark, secretary.

12. The Board of Christian Education of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, Philadelphia, Pa.

13. National Peace Conference, New York, N. Y.

14. American Cotton Manufacturers Association.

15. American Federation of Labor, Walter J. Mason, national legislative representative.

16. National Association of Wool Manufacturers, Arthur Besse, president.

17. National Wool Growers Association, J. M. Jones, secretary, Salt Lake City, Utah.

18. American National Retail Jewelers Association, Maurice Adelsheim, president, Minneapolis, Minn.

19. Cherry Growers & Industries Foundation, Robert E. Shinn, president, Corvallis, Oreg.

20. Northwest Horticultural Council, Frank W. Taylor, secretarymanager, Wenatchee, Wash.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT BY UNITED STATES CUBAN SUGAR COUNCIL, NEW YORK, N. Y.

To the Finance Committee, United States Senate:

EXTENSION OF RECIPROCAL TRADE AGREEMENTS ACT RECOMMENDED

Under the United States-Cuban trade agreement, first to be signed after the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act took effect in 1934, trade between the two countries has increased substantially to the benefit of both. Therefore, the United States Cuban Sugar Council strongly recommends to this committee its approval of H. R. 1211 already passed by the House of Representatives to extend the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act for 3 years from June 12, 1948.

The Council, one of whose primary objectives is to promote trade between the United States and Cuba, is composed of a group of companies owning or operating sugar properties in Cuba, the stockholders of which are predominantly United States citizens. Its member companies, listed at the end hereof, account for approximately one-half of Cuba's sugar output.

MUTUAL BENEFITS OF UNITED STATES-CUBAN TRADE AGREEMENT

In a statement submitted January 25, 1949, to the House Ways and Means Committee, copy attached, and in statements submitted last year to this com

mittee and the House Ways and Means Committee, the council has set forth in considerable detail the benefits that have accrued to both countries under the United States-Cuban trade agreement. These benefits are summarized briefly here:

1. Both United States exports to Cuba and United States imports from Cuba have approximately tripled since the two countries signed the original trade agreement in August 1934.

2. For many individual commodities included in this trade, the increase has been even greater.

3. The greater trade volume has tended to raise the standard of living in both countries.

EFFECT OF TRADE AGREEMENT ON LIVING STANDARDS

Secretary of Agriculture Charles F. Brannan, in expressing to this committee the interest of United States farmers in the trade-agreement program, has told how it tends to raise the standard of living in this country. In letters to the chairman of this committee, Senator Walter F. George, and to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Hon. Robert L. Doughton, the Secretary said:

"Agriculture is interested in the trade-agreements program, not only in connection with agricultural exports but also in connection with industrial exports.

* * *

"Sales abroad of products of the American factory result in greater employment and, consequently, greater domestic demand for products of the American farm. *

"But a high level of American industrial exports can be maintained

only when there is extensive interchange of goods and services between countries. The trade-agreements program is designed to facilitate such an interchange."

Observing that customers in other countries must obtain dollars in order to pay for United States farm products, the Secretary added:

"The most important continuing source of dollars for our foreign customers is their sale of goods to us-that is, our imports. Under the reciprocal tradeagreements program, we have developed a mechanism whereby we can reduce the barriers against imports into the United States in such a way as to increase those imporst without causing injury to established United States industry.

"The imports thus obtained tend to raise our living standards. The large block of our population represented by farm people is an important group of consumers. They know that the benefits of trade do not lie merely in getting rid of a maximum amount of goods. They want to get as much as possible in return. The trade-agreements program is designed to facilitate that."

Cuba's purchases from the United States have likewise contributed to raising the standard of living there. These purchases consist of such farm products as rice for which Cuba is this country's most important customer-wheat, flour, and lard, and such manufactured goods as machinery and vehicles, cotton manufactures, and many others.

CUBA BUYS BULK OF ITS IMPORTS FROM THE UNITED STATES

Since 1909, more than half Cuba's total imports have been bought from the United States, and in 1947, the latest year for which complete statistics are available, the proportion reached 84 percent.

These purchases by Cuba have been paid for either in cash or on a short-term credit basis-a fact that becomes especially significant in the light of the recent annual report to the President by the Secretary of Agriculture.

In this report the Secretary commented that, while the Marshall plan had given United States farmers a respite from postwar readjustment, eventually "the respite will be over and our farmers will depend on the buying power of individual consumers at home and abroad. ** * * It is not pessimism but prudence to remember the unusual and temporary character of a part of our present export market."

It should be noted that the latest semiannual report of the Foreign Credit Interchange Bureau gives Cuba top rating in credits and collections for the last half of 1948, substantiating its status as a preferred customer of the United States.