페이지 이미지

However, the State presidents who know about the intensive educational campaign which has been carried on among the membership, actually since reciprocal trade idea was first put forth, knew about the fact of the testimony today and lent their good wishes and congratulations to this action.

Senator Malone. All of this testimony would be available to the State presidents, and they were supposed to go out and sell this program regardless of what they think about it, are they?

Miss Meikle. No, sir.

Senator Malone. They are not?

Miss Meikle. I beg your pardon.

Senator Malone. They are supposed to go out and sell this program to their States, regardless of what they personally think about it?"

Senator Long. I believe we had better let Senator Carlson have his turn as he has only asked a few questions this morning.

Senator Malone. That is right. I think I ought to have an answer.

Miss Meikle. Shall I answer the question?

Senator Long. Answer the question and then we will turn the floor over to Senator Carlson.

Miss Meikle. Of course, it is an AAUW sponsored program in that we advocate all of our branches, study and take action on this particular item. However, we do not expect any person who is personally opposed, to advocate something that she is personally opposed to.

I think that would be very difficult for anyone to do.

Senator Long. Senator Carlson.

Senator Carlson. In view of the questions just asked by the Senator from Nevada, I would say, knowing the heads and many members of the university women, I don't think anyone could convince them they should go out and advocate anything against their ideas.

Miss Meikle. I think so.

Senator Carlson. They are a splendid group of outstanding women and in many of our State schools and doing a splendid job and you have been a very able representative here this morning and I shall report your work.

Miss Meikle. Thank you.

Senator Long. Senator Douglas.

Senator Douglas. I have no questions except to say I want to thank the witness and those who are also going to testify today for coming here, they have nothing to gain individually by their testimony, and they represent a group which normally is not heard before committees, namely consumers and citizens who are simply generally interested as distinguished with specific interest and I want to express my appreciation for the trouble they have taken in preparing their statement, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Long. I would like to ask one question relating to an assertion I have heard about your organization and about the League of Women Voters. To what extent is the opposing point of view debated in your meetings?

On the Senate Finance Committee there are some members who are in favor of expanded foreign trade, like Senator Douglas, and Senator Gore, we have some who, like Senator Malone, feel the present program is injuring a number of American industries. I do not think that Senator Malone's vigor is exceeded by any Member of the Senate in opposing the way the program is being administered at the pres time.

I would appreciate your answering this question. To what ext do you have vigorous dissenters to the present trade program wit your own organization?

Do you have some who have studied the matter thoroughly « debate vigorously against the prevailing view of your organizatiot the Association of University Women?

Miss Meikle. I think we undoubtedly have some persons an think I can speak from my experience in Pennsylvania primarily from any other State. We had a number of branches in Pennsylva where I know the international relations study group did study matter of reciprocal trade and mutual security very thoroughly s I would assume certainly there were persons who dissented beca there are naturally persons who have individual interests who going to be opposed to this program and those points of view w expressed.

Nevertheless, many of our study groups take action in rerc mending to their members that they support the extension of reciprocal trade agreements.

Senator Long. May I suggest that, if any of your organizatii are looking for information to buttress the case, they can get infori tion from the office of Senator Malone.

Senator Malone. Just to keep the record straight, all of us for expanding free trade. It is a question of whether you think sacrificing an industry in the interest of foreign policy.

The question is whether it is worth it to do that or just to h«v principle laid down that the Tariff Commission, an agent of Congri be so set up that they shall alwavs have that flexible duty, impost tariff, whatever you want to call it, to equal the difference betw< the wages and cost of doing business here and in the chief compel] nation—and to lower that tariff as the living standards of that nat might increase. When their living standard increased to equal o there would be automatic free trade.

We are all for free trade. It is a matter of how we reach it.

Miss Meikle. Of course, we said, as I said in the prepared stn ment, if industries are damaged by the trade program that Congr could provide other methods of taking care of it.

Senator Malone. That is what some of us are trying to do. W other method would you have for taking care of it?

Miss Meikle. Well, I cannot speak authoritatively about proposals, the trade-adjustment proposals. I think that such thii would be better worked out by people much more familiar with th matters than we are.

Senator Malone. Yes. I thought maybe you had a reference a bill that the State Department has generally supported over years, to appropriate money so that when men are put out of w through cheap imports they would be trained for other work * transportation provided to take them to other areas, and also compensation to a certain extent stockholders of industries that I been hurt.

I thought maybe you had reference to that.

Miss Meikle. Yes, sir; we have been familiar with those proposl

Senator Malone. That is the way they do it in Russia, only ^ don't need a congressional act.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. I place in the record at this point the statement of the General Federation of Women's Clubs, 1734 N Street NW., Washington, D. C, submitted by the president, Miss Chloe Gifford, in lieu of personal appearance.

(The statement referred to follows:)

Statement On Reciprocal Trade Agreements Presented By Miss Chloe Gifford, President, General Federation Of Women's Clubs, WashingTon, D. C.

The General Federation of Women's Clubs is an international organization of 12 million members, including our associates. We have clubs in every State and in our Territories, and in 60 countries throughout the world. We were chartered by Coneress in 1901.

The principles of the reciprocal trade agreements, as passed by the Congress in 1934, were considered by our State conventions and endorsed by national convention in 1938. By resolution at national convention the General Federation has supported legislation which would extend the life of the agreements every time such legislation was necessary. At our last convention in Detroit, June 1958, GFWC delegates amended the resolution passed in 1948 in order to support the proposed extension for 5 years.

The women of the General Federation take an intelligent approach to economic problems—they are wives of prominent business and professional men of this country. Many are themselves engaged in the business, industrial, and professional fields. They study and think about what is good for the security and defenses of the United States. They believe the foreign policy of the United States, as expressed in the reciprocal trade agreements program, is wise and forward looking which would not only aid friendly nations but would be of great economic benefit to the United States.

Our members believe in the free enterprise system. They do not wish to injure domestic enterprise—they have confidence in the ingenuity of the American people. They believe that in a rapidly changing world where distances have been so drastically reduced by transportation and communication we must extend our ideals of free enterprise. It would be short sighted to think we can sell free enterprise if the principle is to be confined to industry within our own borders.

We feel certain that American industry will be challenged to develop new and better merchandise for Americans as well as for export in competition. We have confidence in American business and industry. Russia has challenged the free enterprise system—we do not want them to prove it cannot compete with foreign trade.

We know the law will have certain safeguards, that whoever is President of the United States will use good judgment in using those safeguards, if and when it is necessary.

It seems to the General Federation that a stronger sense of security for our Nation would evolve and a greater sense of confidence in the United States would develop among our foreign friends if we extended the Trade Agreements Act for 5 years at this time. It would surely show that the United States planned from strength. We do not dare, in these challenging times, to let it appear we are controlled by fear.

As a strong, progressive nation let us courageously act in the way that will •create confidence in the United States. We urge you and the full Senate to support the proposal for a 5-year extension of the reciprocal trade agreements.

Senator Long. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Mr. Blough representing the National Council of Churches. Mr. Blough, I have a copy of your statement here and I believe it is available to the other members of the committee.

I have asked that it be distributed and inasmuch as we have a number of other witnesses we hope to hear today, rather than ask them to come back on into the night, I would hope that you could follow the Reorganization Act where we would print the statement and then proceed to examine the witness with regard to it.

I believe you have had some experience here up on the Hill in Government, have you not, Mr. Blough?

Mr. Blough. That is correct.

Senator Long. Would you tell us your experience prior to your present post?


Mr. Blough. That is correct. My principal experience in Government was as Director of Tax Research for the Treasury Department from 1938 to 1946, and Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury from 1944 to 1946, and later as a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers from 1950 to 1952.

At the present time, I am professor of International business in the Graduate School of Business at Columbia University.

However, I am appearing here on behalf of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States, and what I would like to do, if it pleases the committee, is to have the statement printed in the record.

Senator Long. Yes.

Mr. Blough. But to have leave to read a few parts of the statement for the purpose of getting the ideas a little more clearly before the committee than might be the case if we had no preliminary statement at all.

I think this might take 5 minutes.

Senator Long. Yes; if vou can confine yourself to 5 minutes, go right ahead. I have noted what I thought were the highlights of your statement about which to ask questions.

Senator Carlson?

Senator Carlson. Mr. Chairman, before we proceed I had the privilege of being on the House Ways and Means Committee and had Roy Blough before the committee on many occasions and T think for the record it should show he served as economist and adviser to at least four Treasury officials in charge of tax-policy matters—Undersecretaries Magill and Hanes, Assistant Secretary Sullivan, and General Counsel Paul—and then I believe he was himself acting in that capacity directly under the Secretary for 2 years or so.

Mr. Blough. Thank you, Senator.

First, Mr. Chairman, I think I should say how the National Council of Churches arrives at its statement in view

Senator Long. I would like you to know I have already read your statement.

Mr. Blough. Yes; but it does not make quite clear what happens.

Senator Long. Yes.

(The statement in full is as follows:)

Testimony On Behalf Of The National Council Of The Churches Of Christ In The U. S. A., By Roy Blough

My name is Roy Blough. Through your courtesy, I am pleased to testify here on behalf of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States on the basis of its official policies and by authorization of its appropriate officers. I am a member of the general committee of the department of the church and economic life of the National Council of Churches and I am appearing here through the cooperation of that department with the department of international affairs.

The National Council of Churches has as its constituent bodies 33 Protestant id Eastern Orthodox communions, which have a total membership of approxi»tely 38 million persons. While of course I do not presume to speak for these I million individual church members, the views which I am presenting where lopted after careful study, discussion, and deliberation by the official reprenutives of the constituent communions.



The National Council of Churches believes it has a responsibility to adopt and •it known a position on international trade policy. The achievement or failure >«rhieve the great Christian goals of dignity and worth of the individual, the nherhood of man, and world peace is dependent not only on the behavior of Ih of us as individuals but also on group action, including governmental policy, kith is therefore a matter of Christian concern.

Bovernmental policy towards international trade has an important bearing on It rclntions of people and of nations. What happens to people and nations and "community because of the economic facts of life are matters of concern faith and values. In such matters the churches have a particular and competence.

arriving at its position the National Council of Churches has brought to bear of special elements of competence. First, the churches through their •wide stationing of workers in mission and service enterprises have access to md knowledge of the effects of international trade policy on people in many

, in the worldwide cooperative work among different church communions, through the World Council of Churches and its Commission of the 'hes on International Affairs, Christian groups in more than 50 countries

Etn periodic international conferences, and carry on continuing contacts in b views are exchanged with respect to the mutual impact of the foreign pomic policies of nations.

Third, the National Council of Churches has special departments devoted to loaomic life and international affairs. In these departments outstanding Chrisfe hymen who are qualified in various related fields of specialization are regufr brought together to consider important current issues and to develop policy "Rente which represent both the general concerns of the churches and the informed judgment of laymen who are particularly competent in the matters consideration.

churches through the national council have consistently taken the position promoting the economic health of the world will help to create the conditions , and that to promote economic health in the world, trade policies should lined and dependable, should aid economic stability and progress in each should be mutually advantageous through increasing international exof goods and services, and should lead to the elimination of excessive trade


(following are statements on international trade and trade policy made by |Xitional Council of Churches in recent years: U951 the following statement was officially voted:

among nations and trade among nations are interrelated, for the first 'and the other aids economic stability and progress in each nation. As a of unique economic strength, the United States should adopt on the 1 level, and support on the international level, policies which will be llr advantageous through an increasing exchange of goods and devices (The National Council of Churches Views Its Task in Christian Life and • "approved" for publication May 1951.)

same year, with regard to Japan in particular, at the time of urging i of the- tmitv, the National Council of Churches spoke as follows on of trade for Japan:

• our bope that the provisions therein contained will promote the economic sag of Japan. The limitations of the sovereignty of that country to the N**» home islands po*- for its 83 million people an exceptionally difficult M insuperable problem * * *. Since the Japanese people cannot subsist their own very limited agricultural resources, Japan must be helped to a "~i where she can support herself by trade abroad. If we would build consty for peace in the Far East, Japan must be allowed access to raw mate

« 이전계속 »