With a scholar of Eastern religions, I waved for a cab during the rush hour in Moscow, and of course one pulled up right away, ignoring everyone else. "We can get cabs," he said. "It's a convenience." In Leningrad, Valery Panov, the dancer, put on a record of the music from "Coppelia" to confuse the bug as we talked. "And also," he said, grinning, "because it's so boring for the KGB to hear again my same old story." In Moscow, a banned painter, expelled from his union for "violation of the principles of socialist realism," echoed the words of a physicist in Kiev: "At last, there are some free people in the Soviet Union. We don't care any more."

Hundreds of these free people came to an all-day party for the writer Maksimov, sent abroad a few days after Solzhenitsyn. It was an honor roll of the blacklisted of Moscow. A well-known critic took me for a walk in the frosty weather. He spoke of an American friend who had once offered a gift of money. "I refused." he said. He was very embarrassed. "I was working. My wife had a good job. Now my books can't be published. My wife has no more job. Now please tell my friend we will accept the gift." We walked on, and this stalwart man of middle years, a grandfather, a member of the party since the war, was weeping with shame and rage. "Sometimes we have no money for eating!"

General Grigorenko and others are in insane asylums for speaking out about Soviet power lumbering against Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Israel, artists, thinkers. For meeting. For passing out statements. For signing petitions. To disagree with the regime is madness-the average Soviet psychiatrist will certify a man for defending human rights. PARTY AND PEOPLE ARE ONE, as the billboards say. A poet, recently returned deaf from Siberia, said to me: "Make no mistake about it. Soviet prisons are not nice soft ones like yours."

For the Jews, it is not the Germany of the death camps. It is more like the Germany of 1932-limitations on jobs, exclusions from schools, isolation from culture and tradition. The regime seems uncertain about whether to milk the Jews like cows or use them as scapegoats. Scapegoats are needed. The morose drunkenness visible every night speaks for a general repressed rage amid the triumphs of still another five-year plan. For those Jews who announce their desire to emigrate to Israel-and without the right of emigration, men are serfs-it is Germany, circa 1936. Joblessness, ostracism, police harassment, random frameups and abuse. Engineers and mathematicians work as "lift boys," to use the quaint English of one of them, because otherwise they can be charged with the crime of parasitism. I met a lift boy who has invitations to teach at Cambridge, Harvard and Berkeley. Another distinguished scientist was called in for questioning four months ago. After his visit to the police, he is still unable to sit down because of acid burns on his thighs and genitals.

MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR

All right, what does it have to do with us? We Americans have our own problems, don't we? Isn't it foolish for a people with stains on its own flag to meddle in the internal affairs of a great power that seeks to unfurl the banner of detente? The wise old cold warriors now want to do business together-our money and their natural gas, our industrial technique and their unexplored resources, our markets and their markets-and isn't commerce between peoples the way to peaceful coexistence?

The courageous physicist Andrei Sakharov warns that the matter isn't so simple. His argument is that selling the Soviet Union our computers and industrial skills in exchange for raw materials will doom any hope of easing the iron Soviet regime. The faceless bureaucrats will no longer need their own “effete snobs." They can buy the technical ingenuity abroad; they can crack down harder at home. The businessman's and banker's detente, he says, will snuff out the light still stubbornly glimmering among the immensely gifted, stiffed people of the Soviet Union.

And with this abandonment of hope for those who treasure freedom will come a practical danger for America, too. Who will caution Soviet power against the old power games? When our bankers put our money into loans for natural-gas installations in Siberia, who will protect the supply when Pravda discovers American iniquity some place in the world? If our little friend Saudi Arabia can cut off oil to punish us, why shouldn't our brand new big buddy, the U.S.S.R., act enthusiastically upon some other occasion to discipline us?

30-229-74-pt. 4- -37

I walked on Gorky Street in Moscow with a mathematician who presented me with some simple arithmetic. "You give two good and get one weak." "I don't understand."

"You give money for investment. Then you give tools, machinery, skills. In return, you get a promise of goods. Two strong, one weak."

He was suggesting that the bargain is not a smart one. Sakharov says something that touches more deeply: the bargain is a cruel one.

DEAD SOULS

"You have heard of brain drain?" a fired professor asked me in Kiev. We were standing in a desecrated, bulldozed Jewish cemetery not far from the pits of Babi Yar. There were smashed columns, gaping holes filled with brackish ice where coffins had been. My friend's daughter was weeping. Her greatgrandparents had been buried here. We tramped about in the slush and mud. There was no reason to destroy this relic of the ancient Jewish presence in Kiev, but nevertheless one night it had been done. "The problem here is not brain drain," my friend said. "That's not why there are so many troubles. The problem is soul drain."

Herbert Gold's most recent book is "My Last Two Thousand Years," published by Random House.

Senator MONDALE. Dr. Louis Krauthoff and Mrs. Doreen Brown.

STATEMENTS OF DOREEN L. BROWN, CHAIRMAN, CONSUMER EDUCATION COUNCIL ON WORLD TRADE AND LOUIS KRAUTHOFF, CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY COMMITTEE, CONSUMER EDUCATION COUNCIL ON WORLD TRADE

Statement of Doreen L. Brown

Mrs. BROWN. I am Doreen Brown, chairman of the Consumer Education Council on World Trade. Dr. Krauthoff is chairman of our advisory committee. He has a few words to say after my statement and mine will be very brief.

We are making this statement on behalf of a number of national organizations, participating members of the Consumer Education Council on World Trade, who are linked by a common interest in U.S. trade policy and the welfare of the consumer. The list of organizations joining in this statement is attached. I serve as chairwoman of this council on a volunteer basis, as do all of our officers and board members.

The Consumer Education Council on World Trade was established almost 2 years ago, through the efforts of 22 national public-interest and consumer-oriented organizations, who felt that the American consumer was neither adequately informed nor adequately represented on trade issues. There had never been sufficient debate on the implications for the consumer inherent in U.S. trade policy, and individual organizations who attempted to speak on behalf of the citizenry were being overshadowed by the very vocal vested interest groups.

Our member organizations are in unanimous agreement that every consumer in the U.S. has a major stake in international trade; that this is an issue that directly affects their economic well-being, as well as their freedom of choice in the marketplace; that protectionism is against their interest and that it therefore behooves the American consumers to become vigorous advocates of a freer trade policy.

We are particularly concerned because the low income consumers generally suffer most, since they are most sensitive to any increase in

prices, and since low-priced goods from abroad are normally the primary target of U.S. import restrictions. These concerns have increased considerably, both in intensity and in validity, since the inception of this council, as we all realize that the brunt of the consequences of an inflationary period in our economic history is borne by those least able to compensate.

Although we favor strongly the prompt passage of dependable and effective trade legislation and recognize the importance of such legislation to meaningful GATT negotiations, we are deeply troubled that the pending legislation does not address itself sufficiently to the specific interests of the consumers.

We presented a statement to the House Ways and Means Committee urging additional consideration for the consumer and we were gratified to see as part of the bill passed by the House of Representatives, the inclusion of consumer representatives on the Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations which will work with the special representative for trade negotiations. We do not feel, however, that this is sufficient to protect the consumer and would urge that this committee seriously consider the following recommendation:

That whenever there is a matter of adjudications, negotiations, determinations or interpretations, or the creation of advisory bodies to the President, the Tariff Commission, the White House Council on Economic Policy, the GATT negotiating authorities or any other entity concerned with the formulation and implementation of U.S. trade policy, there should be included on these bodies representatives of consumer interests. Such representatives would be responsible for voicing and protecting consumer interests only, as distinguished from the other self interests of any particular segment of the population.

We would also like to make an additional recommendation which has to do with the fact that in U.S. trade legislation, as in this particular bill, the President has always been historically obligated to consider the interests of various segments of the economy before taking any remedial or protective action-industry, the worker, agriculture, and we feel that there should be spelled out in the legislation that whenever he does take into consideration, before taking action, the welfare of industry, labor and agricultural, that he also be mandated to take into consideration the interests of the American consumer.

In this way consumer welfare will have been given equal priority with that of the other economic segments of the United States. We are all aware that all American citizens are American consumers, that the good of the American consumer is the good of the nation, both economically and socially, and we feel very strongly that their interests should be considered at all points and levels in the regulation of trade policy.

Dr. Krauthoff has a few bright thoughts to add.

Statement of Louis Krauthoff

Mr. KRAUTHOFF. I am not so sure. I want to talk with you more about some dialogue with some other witnesses than the things that are in my statement.

The reason I feel that I have something to say is that I have some background in committee trade hearings having served in the Special Office of Trade Negotiations and the Special Information Committee which held public hearings on the Kennedy Round and trade matters subsequent thereto.

At one of these hearings I had the privilege of listening to the testimony of Senator Fannin. The trade business then is not new to me. I guess the only thing I want to say about the bill is that there should be one, and if it is a minimum housekeeping bill, so be it. Perhaps that is disappointing, but I just don't think you ought to let yourself be thrown off the track by getting too much on the platter which is not susceptible of being subdivided. If you do get into that condition, then there is obviously going to be no bill because there are too many controversial things in it. You ought to have a fall back position. This country has been without trade legislation since August of 1967. We changed our trade policy in 1934 and there never was one day's lapse between 1934 and 1967 without trade authority.

You know in the Congress what happens when there is a vacuum: The executive branch does tend to fill the vacuum. They have done it. It has been awkward. It hasn't been easy for them to negotiate where it was sometime questionable if you had the authority, and what authority, and were you usurping perhaps Executive privileges, so I think that this committee should decide to take the parts that they agree upon out of the House bill and go ahead and at least give our negotiators some form of legitimacy which I think they lack. I think if they don't have it, the Congress is sort of copping out to some

extent.

As far as the marriage with business and government, I am glad that you thought of agriculture. I know you also thought of labor and I hope you think of the consumer.

Senator MONDALE. Yes, maybe we should add the consumers, too. Mr. KRAUTHOFF. Marriages of business and government are not as popular as they might have been at the turn of the century. It is a much bigger household than those two, and there are people who might want to sit down with the businessmen and government when they are changing their grand ideas for the perfect future because there are other people who have thoughts about it, in no way denigrating the expertise of the businessmen. I was in business for 15 years myself and headed a national trade association. Everybody has expertise to put into the negotiations. I think they should all be used. Senator TALMADGE. Thank you very much, both statements will appear in the record. I am most grateful to you for your statements. I will turn the chair over to Senator Fannin. I must leave. Senator FANNIN [presiding]. Thank you for your statements. They are helpful to us.

Certainly I agree consumers are important. One of the most serious problems facing this nation is what OPEC is going to do, the Organization of Petroleum Countries of the World. When the President decided that he was going to try to get consumer countries together, I happen to have been visiting the producing countries at that time and they were up in arms. They said let us not have a consumer

country organization that could be the same as a cartel. Of course, they have a cartel, so they want it all their way.

We are facing a very complex world as you well realize. We need to protect the consumer and the only way that I can see that we can protect the consumer is to think about the producer. We are in this country up against some very serious problems. of competing in world trade, and if we don't protect the jobs in the country, we are not going to have consumers because, as you very well brought out, the consumer includes the masses of our populations, the producerswell, they are all consumers. But with most of the consumers, somewhere along the line, there has to be a producer involved with that consumer or they are not going to consume very long. That is a good way to put it. It is just a fact of life.

I agree we need legislative protection in our trade and other areas. Other areas have pointed out we need protection for domestic producers who are injured by unfair foreign trade practice. For example, one of them told us we are being injured by the dumping of the Polish golfcarts. Don't you think our golf industry needs protection against dumping of foreign golfcarts, for instance?

Mr.KRAUTHOFF. Well, I certainly think they do if in fact dumping has been committed. I think the dumping law has to be followed very exactly. We also have to be careful to make sure that they are not just accused of dumping and they are not scared out of the market.

As a golfer, I know you would agree with me it is nice to have golfcarts. It is nice to have them at the lowest possible rental, and if we acted hastily against the Poles without giving them a fair shake according to our statutes, we might encourage Cushman and others to take advantage of our rather affluent industry.

Senator FANNIN. I happen to know a little bit about the industry. We have a highly competitive industry. We have had companies try to start up in my own State. They have not been able to compete.

Mr. KRAUTHOFF. Did Links ever go to Japan, you were worried? Senator FANNIN. That was not Links. It was another company in competition, Bing, B-i-n-g.

Mr. KRAUTHOFF. Same design?

Senator FANNIN. Some of the people that now make Link clubs were with the Bing industry. When they left they had a similar design. That is a long story because there are lawsuits galore in this respect. What I am trying to bring out is that we have serious problems with, for instance, the Japanese, or we can go to other countries, but specifically it is brought to my attention by the electronic industry in my State. They say, the Japanese are making 100,000 TV sets and it is costing them $50 a set, but the second 100,000 will just cost them $40 a set. You know what happens. They say we are selling them cheaper in the United States because we are selling them from that second 100,000.

To me that is absolutely wrong and unfair. We are digressing some, but what I am trying to bring out, is that if we are going to be able to continue our competitive position in world trade, we must protect the domestic industry to the point where they are not having unfair competition. I am not in favor of saying that the Poles can't ship a