efficient American producers. The United States should by all means avoid repetition of the fiasco of the 1920's when it demanded repayment of the World War I debts of foreign nations to this country and at the same time raised American tariff rates to levels which made such repayment impossible.

The reduction in American tariff rates which the United States and the world economic situation requires can be made without serious danger to any American industry at the present time when there is an extraordinary demand, both domestically and internationally, for the products of American industry and 'agriculture. And should time bring a changed situation or should conditions suddenly develop which threaten injury to any American industry on whose product a tariff concession has been granted under the trade agreements concluded by the United States with the 22 nations at Geneva or those that may be negotiated under a renewed Trade Agreements Act, such concession may be modified or withdrawn entirely under escape clauses contained in these agreements.

As regards the immediate future, the trade agreements which the United States now has or may negotiate under renewed authority of the Trade Agreements Act, will be of chief advantage to the other countries participating in these agreements. Because of the need for reconstruction from the ravages of war and for economic development in many countries participating in the reciprocal trade program, there will be for a considerable period a potential market in these countries for all the products essential to their economic rehabilitation which this country can produce in excess of its own requirements.

But after the present transition period during which countries participating in these agreements and in the foreign aid programs of the United States are helped back to a condition of economic health, foreign demand for the excess production of the United States, particularly its capital goods, may be expected to decline. When that time arrives the United States will have need for every device which may be useful in enabling this country to hold and enlarge its foreign markets. The reciprocal trade agreements should then be very useful in helping the United States not only to retain as much as possible of its foreign markets for capital goods but to develop and expand outlets abroad for other American products, both of industry and agriculture.

The National Foreign Trade Council, therefor, strongly urges the renewal of the Trade Agreements Act substantially in its present form for a further period of 3 years.

Respectfully submitted.

EUGENE P. THOMAS, President, National Foreign Trade Council, Inc.

STATEMENT OF PAST CHAIRMAN OF NATIONAL FOREIGN TRADE COUNCIL ON RENEWAL OF TRADE AGREEMENTS ACT

My name is John Abbink, and I am submitting this statement on behalf of the National Foreign Trade Council, of which I am past chairman. The National Foreign Trade Council has filed a brief with this subcommittee endorsing a renewal of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act.

Since 1914 the National Foreign Trade Council has supported a policy of reciprocal lowering of all barriers to trade, including tariffs. Its position has been endorsed since at repeated annual National Foreign Trade conventions, most recently in St. Louis last October, when 1,500 registered delegates were in attendance representing manufacturers, merchants, exporters and importers, rail, sea and air transportation interests, bankers, insurance underwriters and others concerned in the promotion and expansion of the Nation's foreign com

merce.

It is regrettable that this subcommittee has decided to close its hearings. because I am convinced that widespread support for a renewal of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act would have been forthcoming at open hearings. Few congressional policies have been so heartily approved by adherents of all political parties in this country.

While I think it unnecessary to remind this group of the fact, I should like to emphasize that this is a critical time in world economic affairs. Attendance at the meetings in Geneva last year and in Habana during the past winter, held to establish an International Trade Organization, convinced me that other nations are waiting only for a signal from the United States to embark on na

tionalistic programs which would make trade barriers of the thirties seem inconsequential.

Failure to renew the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, or hampering its effectiveness by amendment which, nullified administrative operation, would be taken as such a signal.

Moreover, failure to renew the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act at this time, or a renewal with restrictive amendment, could only be construed abroad as a negation of the purposes sought under the Economic Cooperation Administration. Such action would almost certainly have the effect of making other countries less enthusiastic in giving whole-hearted support to the fundamental objectives of the Economic Cooperation Act.

Soon after the 1946 congressional elections, I pointed out in a public address that the majority party in the present Congress would have an unparalleled opportunity to study trade barriers, including tariffs, in a new approach which should be factual, rather than emotional; and that such a study would erase the stigma of isolationism and prejudice from its record.

I still hope such a study can be made and publicized and that meanwhile the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act will be renewed for years, without amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Alger Hiss, please.

STATEMENT OF ALGER HISS, CHAIRMAN, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE CITIZENS' COMMITTEE FOR RECIPROCAL WORLD TRADE

Mr. Hiss. My name is Alger Hiss. I am chairman of the executive committee of the Citizens' Committee for Reciprocal World Trade and represent that committee before this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a hand in all these form letters and telegrams that you are sending out asking people to in turn send them in to Congress?

Mr. Hiss. Senator, I was very interested to hear your reference to form letters because I was wondering who had sent out form letters. My committee has not sent out any form letters whatsoever.

The CHAIRMAN. I am very glad that that is correct. Before the hearing is over, I believe I will introduce a file. Everybody in the country is sending me form letters and form telegrams and suggestions as to what should be included. Are you in the latter category? Mr. Hiss. We have sent out to our own members

The CHAIRMAN. You have a right to do it, mind you. I am not challenging your right.

Mr. HISS. We have sent out to our own members and others information about the developments with respect to the renewal of the Trade Agreements Act.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a very laudable purpose.

Mr. Hiss. And have frequently and on many occasions urged the citizens with whom we were in contact to send their own views to Members of Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. That, too, is laudable; but you have not suggested what they should send, you have not given them any idea what should be incorporated in the telegram or letter, have you?

Mr. Hiss. We certainly have not sent out any form letters. That is a very ineffective manner.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you done what I just mentioned?

Mr. Hiss. We have set forth our own views and opinions. We have set forth information and we have let them draw the conclusions from that, I would say, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you say that you have not suggested what should be in the letters or telegrams?

Mr. Hiss. As far as specific details are concerned, Senator-
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no.

Mr. Hiss. Or as to those that agree with us

The CHAIRMAN. Not the specific details. You have already said you did not do that. I am asking you whether you gave them an intimation, let us say, as to the general contents of the letters or wire.

Mr. HISS. We have certainly, Senator, urged those who agree with us that the act should be renewed without change for 3 years to say that. The CHAIRMAN. Have you suggested the contents of the letters or the wire?

Mr. HISS. To the extent that I just stated, we certainly have. We have said those who agree with us that the act should be renewed for a further period of 3 years without change, should say so.

The CHAIRMAN. And you did not give them any guidance as to how they should say it?

Mr. HISS. Perhaps what I have just said is its guidance.

The CHAIRMAN. But did you give them any further guidance?

Mr. Hiss. In what respect do you have in mind, sir?

The CHAIRMAN. In respect to what they should put in the wire or telegram or the letter.

Mr. Hiss. Wouldn't it be guidance to say

The CHAIRMAN. It would be entirely proper.
Mr. Hiss. Wouldn't it be guidance, Senator?

The CHAIRMAN. Never mind asking me the questions. I am asking you the question. In addition to saying wire in your views, did you tell them or intimate or suggest what should be in the wires or letters?

Mr. Hiss. Senator, I have already said, we said those who agree with us that the bill should be renewed for a further period of 3 years without amendment should so state. That seems to me very definitely to suggest to like-minded people what to say.

The CHAIRMAN. The answer is yes?

Mr. Hiss. I would like to stand on the answer as I gave it, Senator. If your interpretation of that is a qualified yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Then I will assume your answer is no.

Mr. Hiss I would rather assume the answer is what I have given. The CHAIRMAN. Then you have not answered and I will ask you again.

Mr. Hiss. I will try again, Senator. I think

The CHAIRMAN. Give it another try.

Mr. Hiss. I think it is difficult to answer that particular question with a flat yes or no, as sometimes happens.

The CKAIRMAN. All right. Give us one that is in between or give us one of these two-handed opinions.

Mr. Hiss. I am repeating, we have frequently urged those who share our view that the act should be renewed for a further 3-year period without modification so to state to members of Congress. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, and nothing further?

Mr. Hiss. According to my recollection, that is an adequate answer, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, go ahead.

Mr. Hiss. To identify the committee for the record, the former Secretary of State, Cordell Rull, is the honorary chairman of the com

mittee.

The CHAIRMAN. I must examine my files and see where these form letters and things came from, because somebody is putting up a lot of dough to have perfectly asinine letters and telegrams suggested, and I would not want your organization to be squandering its money that way, you see.

Mr. Hiss. Certainly asinine letters would be a great waste of money, Senator; I quite agree.

The CHAIRMAN. That reminds me we used to have a rather boisterous bar in the early days of Colorado, and up at Gunnison one time the court opened up its session and a bunch of lawyers that had been out all night came boiling into the courtroom and one of them was singing. The judge called him up and fined him for contempt. In doing so, he said, "I am not fining you because you were singing, but because you were singing off key.

Do you get the point?

Mr. Hiss. I do, Senator. It is a good point.

The other officers are Gerard Swope, chairman; Charles P. Taft and Thomas J. Watson, vice chairmen; and W. Randolph Burgess, treasurer.

I would like in addition to my oral statement, permission to submit for the record a written statement from our chairman, Mr. Swope, who is unable to be present to testify orally. May I turn that over? The CHAIRMAN. We may put that in the record. I wish Mr. Swope had been here. He rendered a great service to this committee as one-time member of an advisory counsel on social security. He was well known here and highly respected.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Swope follows:)

STATEMENT OF GERARD SWOPE, CHAIRMAN, CITIZENS' COMMITTEE FOR RECIPROCAL WORLD TRADE, NEW YORK, N. Y.

As the basis for presenting our reasons for urging that H. R. 6556 be rewritten to provide for a simple 3-year extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act in its present form, we first submit the following information as to the origin and nature of the Citizens' Committee for Reciprocal World Trade.

It is a voluntary, nonprofit organization of citizens which has grown from a handful in the middle of last March to a present membership of 275 men and women from 67 cities in 32 States and the District of Columbia, who have joined together for the sole purpose of mobilizing public support for extension of the Act in the form and for the period which have become established national policy during the past 14 years. Our officers are shown at the top of this letterhead which lists on the reverse side the membership developed during the first few weeks of the committee's formation. The full roster is attached to this brief. Of the total membership, some 166 are prominently identified with the Nation's banking, business, and industrial interests; 11 are nationally known as labor leaders, 10 as farm leaders, 87 as leaders of veterans, church, educational, and public-affairs groups. Thus, our membership represents a truly national crosssection of the American public both geographically and functionally.

What we neither know nor care to know are the party affiliations of our individual members. The only political significance of our committee is that we have rallied together through a common conviction that the foreign economic policy of the United States is above party, sectional, and special interests; and we submit that this significance is impressive.

For that matter, the responsible leaders of both major parties and of the Socialist Party publicly support the reciprocal trade agreements principle.

The present difficulty arises, therefore, from profound differences in the methods with which various groups seek to implement that support. Examination of H. R. 6556 brings out these basic points:

1. Limitation of extension of the implementing legislation to 1 year makes the program unworkable in the immediate present and uncertain as to its future. Evn if other nations were disposed to negotiate on so tentative a basis, the time required to assemble essential information and then to develop such negotiations would preclude the conclusion of effective trade agreements within the life of the legislation. Furthermore, what American company would project a production and marketing program for export sales on such a brief and tenuous basis?

2. Singling out one agency-the United States Tariff Commission-and loading it with the duties and responsibilities specified in H. R. 6556 would have these inescapable results:

(a) The emphasis would be concentrated on protection of domestic production without setting up criteria as to what farm and factory components of domestic production-now established or to be established--merit protection at the expense of American taxpayers and consumers. This over-emphasis on protection would completely reverse and stultify the basic principle of RTA, which is the encouragement of tariff bargaining among the still free nations of the world in order to expand world trade and thus sustain production and employment.

(b) A fact-finding agency which has won the respect of the Nation for its objectivity in a highly specialized field would be distorted into a policy-making body dealing with problems entirely outside that field; for how else, under the conditions imposed by H. R. 6556, could questions of national defense be brought into the basic criteria of negotiating trade agreements with other nations?

(c) America's stake in export markets is completely ignored, for the forum is eliminated in which exporters have presented their case for adjustment with those of other elements of our economy in an over-all pattern of national interest. Basic legislation which thus penalizes our exporters would necessarily mean inadequate protection for our export trade. What such a policy would mean to farm values and factory pay rolls will be understood by those of us who lived through the dead-end economy following World War I.

(d) The greatly expanded role assigned the Tariff Commission by H. R. 6556 would necessitate an increase in personnel and costs estimated by the present chairman of that agency at from half to twice as much again as the budget now allowed it; yet no provision is made in the bill for meeting this expense. Whether deliberate or just careless, this failure in legislation purportedly to extend the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act will strangle that program.

3. Quite aside from this and other provisions in H. R. 6556, the conspiracy of silence in which it was written and then driven through the House makes this measure suspect; and this suspicion is now spreading through the Nation. The situation is too well known to your Committee to require restating here, but we submit that the great body of membership in both House and Senate, has been badly handicapped by the closed hearings, restriction of debate and failure to make available even such testimony as was developed in those limited hearings. Such repudiation of the democratic process can only elicit repudiation of the proceedings and their end result: H. R. 6556.

We consider as unworkable and abortive this attempt to "improve" a policy and procedures developed during the past 14 years and productive, notably in the general agreement on tariff and trade, of the broadest international cooperation on trade relations in the history of the civilized world. These procedures are thoroughly democratic in providing public hearings at which interested parties can present not only their facts but even their fears; in providing for a screening of such testimony and adjustment of conflicting interests by an interdepartmental committee bringing to bear on each prospective trade agreement the considerations of national defense, agriculture, commerce, labor, and foreign affairs as well as the factual data of the Federal Tariff Commission, and in making assurance doubly sure by providing an "escape clause" under which specific relief is mandatory, after Tariff Commission study and recommendation, for even the threat of injury to a bona fide domestic interest.

We believe that much of the present controversy is due to confusion between the machinery for the trade-agreements program and the operation of that machinery. Thanks to the action of five previous Congresses, this machinery has been designed and developed in the best tradition of American democracy. If