age adjustment program or a subsidization of consumption, our Government could invoke this escape, as I understand it.

Senator BREWSTER. You make the statement, on your page 3 that we must

develop the foreign trade on a sound basis, wherein the goods that we can produce advantageously are exchanged for the things which this Nation needs which can be produced advantageously by other nations.

Now, what do you mean by "advantageously"?

Mr. OGG. Well, where they are equipped to produce efficiently, or have some product that they are skilled especially in producing, that we need and could usefully consume or utilize. That was the general idea.

Senator BREWSTER. Well, I wonder when you say "advantageously," if you mean rather "economically."

Mr. OGG. That would be another aspect of it; yes, sir.

Senator BREWSTER. In other words, if some other country could produce more cheaply than we, we should then allow them to do it? Mr. OGG. Yes; if we can use it here without wrecking our market, it would be of great advantage to us to do that.

Senator BREWSTER. Well, if you use the word in the same sense, then if they can produce something more cheaply than we could produce it, they should be allowed to bring it in.

Mr. OGG. If you notice, I said in my statement, "which this Nation needs."

of.

Senator BREWSTER. That means quota, anything which we are short

Mr. OGG. In other words, we have this great movement of goods going out of this country now, helping to maintain our employment, and we are filling the gap now with appropriations, in the ECA program, which we are for. But what is going to happen when that ends! If they do not attain the earning capacity abroad to earn dollars by selling us goods or services, one or the other, are we not going to suffer a very heavy loss in our exports when we stop making loans and grants?

Senator BREWSTER. Well, you recognize the very abnormal conditions today, when we are advancing from 5,000,000,000 to 10,000,000,000 a year to foreign governments in order for them to purchase our goods.

Mr. OGG. It is abnormal.

Senator BREWSTER. You do not expect any such disparity is going to continue.

Mr. OGG. Not at those peak levels; no, sir.

Senator BREWSTER. We have got up now to 7,000,000,000 of imports, which is considerably above anything we had ever known before. And I guess our peak has been about 10 percent of our production that has been involved in our foreign trade."

Mr. OGG. Well, yes. But I call your attention to Chart 1, which shows that the volume of imports since about 1938, and particularly since 1941, has been relatively far below the volume of industrial production.

Senator BREWSTER. I do not suppose you would take the period from 1940 to 1945 as in any measure having any application whatsoever to anything, would you?

Mr. OGG. No, but it has been true since 1945. When you take any long period, normally your imports go up and down with industrial production.

Senator BREWSTER. I throught the whole theory was that we were spending $20,000,000,000 in Europe because they were not able to produce. So I don't think you can take the recent records of this thing. In fact, those for the last 20 years are very questionable.

Mr. OGG. The only purpose in calling attention to that is that the total volume of our imports now is relatively smaller, in relation to the total volume of industrial production, than normally.

Senator MILLIKIN. If I might interject there: I think the witness has testified that he would not permit any importations which would seriously injure domestic industry. I am correct in that; am I not?

Mr. OGG. Well, I think I made a statement along that line: That we would not want to wreck our own markets. Now, on the other hand, we recognize that if we want to have a profitable market here in America for the goods of the farm and the goods of industry, we must be willing to import more goods to maintain the purchasing power abroad, or at least to make it possible not only for us to have a market, but a good market, here.

In other words, unless we buy, we can't sell; and if we don't sell, we are going to take a terrific licking in agriculture.

Senator MILLIKIN. I suggest the whole question is: Are you willing, under those circumstances, to injure domestic industry in the process?

Mr. OGG. Oh, no; we are not in favor of wrecking our industries at all.

The CHAIRMAN. We have a couple of witnesses we would like to hear before we adjourn. Senator Brewster, do you have much more?

Senator BREWSTER. I am sorry I am taking so much time, but I think as to this farm organization representing such a considerable segment of our industry, their position is very important. I represent both agricultural and industrial production on a fairly major scale; and I think we have to go along together.

I am sure that you do not intend, as representing agricultural interests, to indicate, as Senator Millikin pointed out, any intention to sacrifice industry to agriculture. We all have to protect America today.

Mr. OGG. No, sir; in fact, we have appeared, Senator, in several hearings to oppose some proposed concessions.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?

Thank you, Mr. Ogg.

Mr. OGG. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Russell Smith, representing the National Farmers Union, was scheduled to be heard today. However, the chairman has been advised that Mr. Smith is unable to be here.

The next witness is Mrs. Oscar Ruebhausen, representing the League of Women Voters.

Mrs. Ruebhausen, will you come around, please? Do you have a statement to make, here, for this record?

STATEMENT OF MRS. OSCAR RUEBHAUSEN, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed as you wish.

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. The League of Women Voters of the United States, representing 630 leagues in 34 States, urges this committee to report favorably H. R. 1211. The league hopes to see the Trade Agreements Act renewed for at least a 3-year period, in the form which was in effect prior to June 12, 1948.

The League of Women Voters has been concerned with tariffs and trade since 1924, when these subjects first appeared on our program for study and consideration. Since 1936, the league has supported the reciprocal trade agrements program as a sound trade policy for the United States. League support for these principles has continued since that time, and was reaffirmed most recently at our biennial national convention in Grand Rapids in April 1948.

The league has for many years put particular emphasis on building sound economic foundations for peace. The lowering of trade barriers and the increase in commerce between nations is in our opinion one of the keystones of a healthy world economy. Because of the leading position of the United States, the willingness of our Government to reduce its trade barriers is of vital importance to the future of world trade.

The United States must prepare to accept more imports if we are to continue to export on a large scale. Our domestic economy is geared increasingly to world markets. The nations of Europe that we are helping through the European recovery program will not be able to pay their own way unless they can earn dollars to buy the goods they need from us. They can earn these dollars only if the United States imports.

The Trade Agreements Act, in the judgment of the League of Women Voters, has proved itself over a 14-year period to be an effective instrument of United States policy. Its renewal is necessary if the United States is to play its vital part in increasing world tråde.

The League of Women Voters believes that the act should be renewed for a 3-year period. Since negotiations must be prepared for and carried out over many months, authorization for more than 1 year is clearly needed. The league also objected to the form in which the act was renewed last spring. By separating the Tariff Commission from the Interdepartmental Trade Agreements Committee and assigning it a new role with added responsibilities, the act gives, in our judgment, increased weight to protectionist interests. The league believes that our national welfare will be better served by returning the Tariff Commission to its previous position so that the interest of particular segments of American industry and agriculture will be weighed together with the over-all interests of the American public in deciding on tariff reductions to be offered.

We respectfully request your favorable action on H. R. 1211. And I wish to say that the Women's Action Committee for Lasting Peace has indicated that they endorse the statement and would like to have their name added to this statement in favor of H. R. 1211, The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Do you have any questions, Senator?

Senator MILLIKIN. I would like to ask one or two questions.

I notice you are asking for a 3-year extension. The principal part of world trade has already been covered by the Geneva agreements, and the others preceding it. Negotiations have been invited for 11 additional countries. A representative of the State Department_testified yesterday that those will commence, I think, April 1, and he expects them to be concluded within 3 or 4 months. What particular reason do you see for a 3-year extension?

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. I think a 3-year extension gives more permanency to the program. I think it is less upsetting to other people. I think it is a terrible nuisance to have to come back every year and go through this process of hearings, when you haven't really had time enough to determine what your preceding program meant.

It would be just as difficult as if you had to stand every year for election for the Senate. I don't think that is a long enough time to determine whether your program has been effective or not.

Senator MILLIKIN. First, let me say that I would not like to stand for the Senate every year. There we are in complete agreement.

You understand that this is a congressional responsibility, primarily, and that whatever power the President has is delegated to him by the Congress.

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. Yes; and since last June I don't think you have really had time enough to determine how effective the whole program that you adopted last year has been. Therefore, a year is not really time enough; because you have to start considering the renewal a good 3 or 4 months prior to the time the year expires.

Senator BREWSTER. If it has not been time enough to determine it, why are you so clear that the program is wrong?

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. I am clear on the principle of it.

Senator BREWSTER. But you said that the year had not been sufficient to determine whether or not it functioned effectively.

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. The year has not been sufficient, in my opinion. Senator BREWSTER. Then why are you so anxious to discard it? Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. We are, as we say, against the policy-making power that is now in the hands of the Tariff Commission. I do not think that the year has been long enough to determine whether they will make good peril points or bad peril points; they haven't even been determined yet. But I think the principle is all wrong, because it gives undue emphasis to one aspect of the problem. There are many facets to the problem of trade agreements; not just this one.

Senator MILLIKIN. I would be prepared at this time to suggest a 1-year extension. Maybe I shall offer such an amendment. But in view of the importance of this, as you have claimed in your statement, and since it is primarily a congressional responsibility, it certainly would do no harm to have an annual review of what has been going on. Now, I would like to make another point. You have heard the testimony this morning. It has already been developed that after this 1948 act came into effect, there was a rush of all these countries at Geneva to sign up. We have 22 out of 23 signed up. There was no hesitancy in going ahead with the other 11 countries to be taken in, which have a very inconsequential part of the world's trade, taken all together. But nevertheless the 1948 act has not stopped the operation of the reciprocal-trade program in any respect. And they will

have an opportunity to complete their 11-country agreement before this act expires, even under the present 1-year term.

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. Yes. Well, the trade-agreements program has gone on. But I think it gives more permanency to negotiation with other nations if they know that it is going on for 3 years rather than 1. If you make amendments every year and change your procedures every year, it is very upsetting.

Senator MILLIKIN. Well, the end point is that we were told last year that this is a very upsetting thing to do, that we were breaking the heart of the world, that everything was going to collapse, that foreign nations would lose confidence in us, that they would regard this as an abandonment of our foreign policy.

Now, the fact of the mater is that none of those things have happened, not a single one.

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. I still think that it is very difficult, though, to have a program voted on every year, a program of this nature. Because you don't have time, during the space of a year really to evaluate the effect of the changes that you made the last year.

Senator MILLIKIN. Well, a yearly review on an important subject of business is not a bad policy.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further questions?

Senator BREWSTER. Have you attended the hearings so far?

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. Just this morning.

Senator BREWSTER. Well, every witness who appeared here so far has proclaimed his devotion to the principle of protection. Do you share that? That seems to be one of the ten commandments.

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. Yes, I think witnesses in espousing the cause of protection, are often limited. I would like to make my espousal a very broad one. I think you should consider protection of all industries which are producing. And by that I don't mean just agriculture, or just shoe manufacturers, or just a particular interest. I mean exporters as well as importers.

Senator BREWSTER. And that might involve a determination of what was more important, an export industry or an import industry. Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. It might well involve that.

Senator BREWSTER. Where is your home?

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. New York City.

Senator BREWSTER. Well, there might be an industry in New York City which might have to give up some protection in order to help an industry, let us say, in California. That would be your procedure.

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. My criterion would be that you think of the national welfare ahead of any specific industry's welfare, or any specific named manufacturer's welfare. I think the good of the country comes first.

Senator BREWSTER. And how would you determine that good, taking a specific case? We have had here the glove case, for instance. There are some gloves from Japan involved. If it appeared to you that perhaps some thousand employees of the glove industry were going to be thrown out of work, what would you trade for that?

Mrs. RUEBHAUSEN. I would want to go into that very carefully, and I would want to see what we were exporting to Japan, whether we thought if we took these imports that it was actually in competition with our own glove manufacturers. The case you cited sounded to me as though they were so cheap they would not be in competition.