But the contrast is that we go in and give our money away, give our markets away. Great Britain never did that. Senator ANDERSON. I would just like to remind the Senator from Nevada we did have a limit of 20 minutes. Senator MALONE. Give me about 5 minutes more and I would appreciate it. I think this is one of the most important witnesses you are going to have, Mr. Chairman, and I think the women of this Nation are entitled to know the few things that you and I have discussed this morning, and I am sure you are going to let them know. Would it interest you to know that the Constitution of the United States and I know you know this, if you would just rememberpointedly separates the regulation of the national economy from the fixing of foreign policy. You do know that. It puts the first in the Congress, the legislative branch, in article I, section 8, and the second in the Executive, in article II, section 2. It says specifically that the Congress shallit does not say "maybe"-lay and collect the duties, imposts, and excises, what we call tariffs, and regulate the foreign trade-that means the national economy. But in 1934 the Congress of the United States transferred that constitutional authority by the 1934 Trade Agreements Act. To make it palatable to the American people they named it "reciprocal trade," because nearly everybody is for reciprocity. But there is none in this. And now it would be just as legal to pass an act in Congress tomorrow to transfer the fixing of foreign policy to the legislative branch as to transfer article I, section 8, from the legislative branch to the Executive; would you not think so? Mrs. LAVES. I do not know the constitutional provisions for making such changes, but I would think this power which was given the Executive to negotiate the trade agreements was a deliberate and voluntary delegation of power, was it not, by Congress? Senator MALONE. I do not think so. Mrs. LAVES. This is why this comes up for renewal at intervals. Senator MALONE. If you will look up the record of Congress in 1934, I do not think there was very much voluntary on the part of the Congress. They just scared the hell out of them, is what they did. Mrs. LAVES. They are trying to keep them scared. Senator MALONE. Well, some are not so scared now, but they will be more so soon with the scary information coming from the folks. I just want to ask you this Mrs. LAVES. Yes. Senator MALONE. We have three branches of Government. George Washington said if the distribution of powers were found to be in any way wrong, and I will quote exactly for the record, that it should be corrected in a way set down in the Constitution by amendment to the Constitution and not to be evaded because in some instances it might be for the immediate good because that is a customary method by which free governments are destroyed. Do you remember him saying that? Have you ever seen it? Would you not agree that that would be the best thing: to amend the Constitution of the United States if we really believed that the President should have this power? Mrs. LAVES. I think if the Congress wishes to delegate by legislation any authority it has, it has the right to do so, and there might be circumstances under which this would be a better way than amending the Constitution. Senator MALONE. Well, it is probably the only way, because if someone ever introduced an amendment to the Constitution to give the President these powers, they would probably shoot him. You know, Lincoln said something which there has been a quotation about a number of times. He said if this Government is ever destroyed, it will not be from without but it will be from within, and we are on a grandiose international Socialist program now. So I will not take any more time of the committee, but I would like to sum up what we have said for the record so that when it is printed-and I know you would want to be accurate in the reports you send out-I would like to make a part of the record here that we have, they say, 41⁄2 million employed on foreign trade. You have heard that. Mrs. LAVES. Yes, I have heard that figure. Senator MALONE. There is a table in the record when I questioned Mr. Dulles which shows that, when you subtract all the subsidies and all the gifts, we are exporting a less percentage of our exportable goods today than we did in 1934 when we passed the act, and we are remaking the industrial map of the United States in the process. I ask that there be included in the record at this point an editorial from the Reno Evening Gazette entitled, "Another Free-Trade Victim," which goes on to say that the last tungsten is being mined in Nevada. They had 139 of them that went out of business. And the crockery is gone, they have gone out of business. The glass is going. Textiles are hurting terribly. But without going into detail, we know-let us assume the whole 4%1⁄2 million were unemployed if we did not extend this, and they would not because we would retain the profitable trade, which is all we want, in my opinion. But there are nearly 6 million boys on the streets today, by virtue of this act, and more are coming by election time and by next spring, if we renew it. I will just predict that to you. (The article referred to follows:) [Reno Evening Gazette, June 19, 1958] ANOTHER FREE-TRADE VICTIM Victim of the free-trade policy fastened on this country by the New Deal and continued by the present administration, one of Nevada's largest industrial operations is ending. The Nevada-Massachusetts Co., oldest and one of the largest producers of tungesten in the United States, is closing down its mining and milling operations on June 30. As recently as 2 years ago, there were 139 tungsten-producing properties in Nevada. Nevada-Massachusetts is the only one left, and it has only a few days' life remaining. And Nevada, once the largest producer of tungsten in the United States, will not have a single mine or mill left. The death of the Nevada tungsten industry was not out of the mines or of a lessening demand for the metal. the most important elements for industrial use, and in one of the most strategic and critical materials of all. caused by the petering Tungsten is still one of time of war it ranks as The American market is loaded with tungsten, but it does not come from the mines and mills of this country. It is produced abroad, by low-paid labor, and, in many cases, by foreign industry that has been subsidized by loans and gifts from the United States Government. Not only tungsten, but many other American metals, have been deprived of their rightful market. The United States mineral industry is in sorry state, thanks to a Government policy that puts foreign nations ahead of the United States, and imposes a heavy burden on American taxpayers to continue a global giveaway. Senator MALONE. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, just this: Mrs. Laves, I appreciate your appearing here this morning on behalf of the 100,000 members of the League of Women Voters. You have a very fine unit in Kansas, a very fine organization. I know the officers and members, and it has been a pleasure to work with them, and I am glad you came in and expressed their views so forcibly and ably this morning. Mrs. LAVES. Thank you very much. Senator LONG. Thank you very much, Mrs. Laves. The next witness is Miss Ann Meikle, speaking for the American Association of University Women. STATEMENT OF ANN MEIKLE, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, PENNSYLVANIA DIVISION, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN, ACCOMPANIED BY DOROTHY B. ROBINS, ASSOCIATE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN Miss MEIKLE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Ann Meikle, of Harrisburg, Pa. I serve as the legislative chairman for the Pennsylvania division of the American Association of University Women. Senator LONG. Excuse me, if I might interrupt for just a moment. I want to check on the other witnesses. Is Mrs. Genevieve Oslund here in this room? Of the General Federation of Women's Clubs. Not yet. Is Mr. Roy Blough, of the National Council of Churches, here? Mr. BLOUGH. Yes, sir. Senator LONG. Do you have a prepared statement? Mr. BLOUGH. Yes, sir. Senator LONG. Is Mr. Reuben Johnson here? Do you have copies of your statement? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. Copies have been turned over to the clerk. Senator LONG. Thank you very much. Will you proceed, Miss Meikle? Miss MEIKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The American Association of University Women wishes to express its appreciation for the opportunity to appear before this committee. I am Miss Ann Meikle, of Harrisburg, Pa., and serve as the American Association of University Women legislative chairman for the State of Pennsylvania. Our organization is composed of approximately 1,400 branches in the 48 States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Alaska, and Guam. Our membership numbers some 145,000 women. The AAUW, which came into being almost 76 years ago, in 1882, found its interest in foreign affairs crystallized by World War I when its study groups in international relations first were formed. Throughout the subsequent 40 years, the purpose of these study groups has remained development of informed public opinion as a contribution toward building a healthy foreign policy for the United States. Since 1934, when Secretary of State Cordell Hull first proposed reciprocal trade arrangements, the association has studied and endorsed this important concept of American foreign policy. It has as part of its legislative program consistently favored the renewal of the agreements. We are here today to support H. R. 12591 under the following AAUW legislative program item unanimously voted at the AAUW biennial convention in June of last year in Boston. This item reads: Support of a constructive foreign policy implemented by existing constitutional provisions and designed to develop conditions favorable to democracy, economic well-being, security, and peace throughout the world by working for such objectives as liberalizing world trade. * * * Government witnesses have already appeared before this committee to give testimony about the technical functioning of the reciprocal trade program. As an education, consumer, and citizen association, we wish to emphasize the importance of the reciprocal trade agreement as an instrument of American foreign policy. The phenomenal growth of the United States to a position of dominating economic as well as political and military power has thrust upon us the leadership of the free world. We believe that along with this leadership goes a major responsibility for the economic stabilization of the free world. We are impressed by the figures, provided by the First National Bank of Boston, which report on the United States as the world's greatest trading nation. The bank reports that the value of our exports totaled $12 billion. Nearly 42 million American families depend for their income directly upon world trade. With our remarkably high standard of livingthe United States according to United Nations statistical studies for 1952 to 1954 shows a per capita national product of $1,870 for the United States by comparison with Britain at $780 and India at $60we find ourselves simultaneously in a position of privilege and obligation. We agree with the view that the decisions we make about United States economic policies serve in fact as decisions about the economic future and well-being of the rest of the world. As this Committee knows even better than we do, the Communists are well aware of the value of using economic policies to accomplish their larger political and diplomatic purposes. Recent news and reports warn us that they are moving increasingly into the foreign aid and economic development field, distorting that fundamentally American concept personified by the Marshall plan in order to bind selected areas into the economic web of the Soviet orbit. Further, they have increased their trade with the less developed areas of the world to $1.4 billion in 1956, an increase of 27 percent over 1954. Khrushchev, as you well know, has openly declared economic war upon the United States, giving dramatic reemphasis to the words of Lenin pronounced more than 40 years ago. As long as capitalism and socialism exist, we cannot live in peace; in the end, one or the other will triumph-a funeral dirge will be sung over the Soviet Republic or world capitalism. Having lost the propaganda victory of launching the first earthcircling satellite, we cannot and must not lose to the Russians the very crucial leadership in the economic field through lack of trade policy continuity or because of the pressure of special-interest groups. In light of these circumstances of world politics, we hope the Senate will take action on the reciprocal trade agreements in the perspective of the United States as a world leader. The AAUW believes, therefore, that: One. It is imperative for the President and his executive departments, who have access to intimate information on foreign affairs, to continue to have the power to administer the trade treaty arrangements. The establishment of the President's Trade Policy Committee enables the Secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Defense, Interior, Agriculture, and Labor to confer together so that the recommendations made to the President reflect the information and experience of their agencies closely concerned with United States trade policies. We believe also that it is essential for the Congress to approve extension of the Reciprocal Trade Act for the 5-year period requested in the bill. Our industrial allies in Europe as well as our economically less developed friends in Asia, Africa, and Latin America are moving rapidly with their economic policies to meet the challenge of changing world patterns. The next 5 years will prove of critical significance for the new Common Market of Western Europe. In order to conduct necessary negotiations with this new trade unit, both the United States and the European Economic Community must have the assurance of consistency in American policy for this minimal period. Such continuity will also provide the atmosphere in which trade agreements can be readily reached to the mutual advantage of both parties. The budding Latin American common market poses a similar situation. The 5-year extension, we believe, is wise because it parallels the long-term development loan programs which the United States is now endorsing to assist the economic growth of our neighbors in the southern half of the Western Hemisphere, the new nations of Asia and Africa and the still relatively untouched areas south of the Sahara. The AAUW recognizes that certain industries, in attempts to protect themselves against serious foreign competition, have called for amendments to raise tariff barriers or for the rejection of the reciprocal trade agreements. It is our belief that such action would not mitigate our domestic economic difficulties and could seriously damage the leadership of the United States in the free world. Rather, we believe that some form of trade-adjustment legislation could provide the means for assisting workers, industries, or communities which are in fact injured by imports into this country. In reviewing reports from our membership all over the country and the comments of the AAUW State presidents who have just concluded a meeting this past weekend here in Washington, we are of the opinion that the House vote of 317 to 98 in support of the bill on June 11 is an accurate index of public opinion favoring extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. |