Mr. TROVATTEN. We are becoming more and more fellow-travelers in this country because of some of the ideologies that we have propounded here in this country, and we are becoming part of them.

Mr. EBERHARTER. I see. Is that your answer? Is that your answer as to how the trade-agreements program contributed to nazism in Germany?

Mr. TROVATTEN. That is the way I analyzed it, yes.

Mr. EBERHARTER. Can you tell me how the trade-agreements program contributed to fascism in Italy?

Mr. TROVATTEN. Practically the same way, I think.

Mr. EBERHARTER. How is that?

Mr. TROVATTEN. By producing sympathizers over in this country. Mr. EBERHARTER. By producing sympathizers in this country. That is how the trade-agreements program contributed to fascism in Italy? Is that your answer?

Mr. TROVATTEN. That is right.

Mr. EBERHARTER. Do you know that under the trade-agreements program it is impossible for the State Department or the President of the United States to take any item off the tariff list?

Mr. TROVATTEN. They can reduce about 50 percent, can they not? Mr. EBERHARTER. Is that your idea of what a trade-agreements program is?

Mr. TROVATTEN. They can reduce to that extent.

Mr. EBERHARTER. I am glad to know that is your answer.

In

your statement on page 4 you say this:

Under the operation of the Communist state, and America on a free-trade basis, Soviet Russia, by the process of dumping wheat and other products into the American market, could force a depression upon us and make us a fertile field for communism.

Mr. TROVATTEN. I think bankruptcy or insolvency is always a forerunner of communism.

Mr. EBERHARTER. Do you think that Russia is in a position to dump wheat in this country?

Mr. TROVATTEN. If you lower the tariff low enough, they can do it. Mr. EBERHARTER. Can they do it this year?

Mr. TROVATTEN. No, they cannot do it this year.

Mr. EBERHARTER. How about next year?

Mr. TROVATTEN. I cannot tell you about next year. I do not know how large their crop will be.

Mr. EBERHARTER. You gave a lot of consideration to this statement before you made it, did you not?

Mr. TROVATTEN. I certainly did.

Mr. EBERHARTER. Did you have in mind that they possibly could not do it this year and you have no idea when they might be able to do it?

Mr. TROVATTEN. They may do it this year if they have a good crop. Mr. EBERHARTER. Do you think it is possible? You are a commissioner of agriculture for a great State of this Nation. Do you think it is possible for Russia to have a very large crop of wheat this year? Mr. TROVATTEN. They have not produced their wheat crop yet. Mr. EBERHARTER. Do you think there is any likelihood or possibility of their getting a large crop of wheat this year?

Mr. TROVATTEN. I have been told some time ago that we have more goods from nations where people are starving, and it could happen from Russia.

Mr. EBERHARTER. You are afraid that Russia might dump a lot of wheat in this country this year?

Mr. TROVATTEN. It is possible that they can dump some.

Mr. EBERHARTER. Are you afraid of it?

Mr. TROVATTEN. Yes, I am, if you lower the tariff a little bit too far. Mr. EBERHARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. REED. In your presentation on the domestic price of butter versus the imported butter, what you are trying to emphasize is that certain commodities have a very sedative market value in their price and that all commodities cannot be handled on one general level of supply and demand, and that there are some commodities a very small percentage of which in weak hands can touch off a downward trend of prices of that commodity that is unique to a certain series of commodities?

Mr. TROVATTEN. That is right. It definitely happened 4 or 5 years prior to the war.

Mr. REED. Were you trying to emphasize in your testimony that economic isolation meant permission for the importing of goods below the cost of production?

Mr. TROVATTEN. That is what I am trying to put forward here. Mr. REED. If economic isolationism permits that, how can that be economic isolationism?

Mr. TROVATTEN. I cannot see that it is.

Mr. REED. The question came up in regard to potatoes. In 1939 we reduced the tariff, and in 1946 we imported 95,000,000 pounds of potatoes from Canada. A substantial portion of our 1946 crop was offered for export at 4 cents a hundred pounds, and we destroyed hundreds of those farmers. Do you recall that?

Mr. TROVATTEN. Yes.

(The following table was submitted by Congressman Reed of New York:)

Potatoes, white or Irish-United States production, exports, and imports, 1937-39 and 1943

1 Bushel of 60 pounds each.

the U. S. Department of Commerce.

Source: Production from U. S. Department of Agriculture; exports and imports from official statistics of

Mr. REED. If there are no more questions, we thank you for your appearance, Mr. Trovatten.

(The following matter was submitted by Congressman Lynch of New York:)

[For release 7 p. m., E. S. T., February 12, 1947 (as revised February 10, 1947] AUTHORIZED ADVANCE FOR ADDRESS OF HAROLD E. STASSEN, OF MINNESOTA, AT THE ANNUAL LINCOLN DAY DINNER OF THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CLUB OF NEW YORK. DELIVERED AT 10 P. M., E. S. T., FEBRUARY 12, 1947, And BroadcasT OVER THE MUTUAL BROADCASTING SYSTEM

Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests, fellow Republicans: I have a very vivid recollection of the first Lincoln Day dinner that I attended. As I recall, it was a quarter century ago on February 12, 1922. As a lad of 14, I had accompanied my father, who was a Republican leader of our home rural county of Minnesota. to this annual observation of the birthdate of the great humanitarian. The dinner was held in the capital city of St. Paul. At that time in the wake of World War I, a speaker eloquently discussed Abraham Lincoln's outlook toward the problems of reconstruction in the wake of war. He emphasized the sweep of Lincoln's vision, the depth and nobility of Lincoln's thinking, and the frankness and firmness of Lincoln's position. He referred to Lincoln's discussion of the controversy over his Emancipation Proclamation and the numerous conflicting proposals for the postwar policy, and quoted directly from Lincoln's humble but immovable statement, "If the people should, by whatever mode or means, make it an executive duty to reenslave such persons, another, and not I, must be their instrument to perform it."

To me this statement and the circumstances under which it was delivered, are representative in a superb degree, of much that I have always admired in Lincoln. In it he recognizes that the will of the people shall govern. But at the same time makes it clear that he will not yield his personal basic convictions to those of others and he indicates clearly that he places principle above public office.

We meet tonight to honor the memory of Lincoln. We meet at an hour of rising strength for our Republican Party. On last November 5, the people of our country named our Republican Party as once again, after 16 years, the majority party of these United States. They indicated that decision by their free ballots by electing a clear Republican majority in both the Senate and the House, and a Republican majority of the Governors, including the aple and outstanding chief executive of this State of New York, the Honorable Thomas E. Dewey. It is also worthy of particular note that an unusually large and able group of young veterans of World War II were elected as new Republican Members of the House and Senate. It is clear that the young veterans, moved by their experiences in the years of war, are entering political activity to an increased degree, even as more than a century ago the young veteran Lincoln returned from his service as a captain of a company of volunteers in the Blackhawk Indian Wars and promptly entered the campaign for the Illinois Legislature, supported by the men of his generation who served with him.

It is well that we do meet as Republicans tonight to honor Lincoln. For any student of history must agree that it is to his humanitarian policies, his forthright, humble, courageous leadership, that we owe a heavy measure of the remarkable success of our party in the 86 years since he led it to its first national victory.

It is my view that our Republican Party can best honor Lincoln today, and best serve the people, by facing in a very frank and forthright manner the great issues of our time. Chief among these is our world economic policy. This is not an easy policy to establish. It involves a very broad reappraisal of the facts of our position now in the world and a major adjustment of Republican policy to meet these new facts.

We have attained an amazing productive ability. Through the fundamentals of our free economy, with free labor, private capital, individual management, and independent agriculture, we have reached the point where one-sixteenth of the world's people within our borders are producing more than one-fourth of all the world's goods and services. By the grace of God, and the stalwart fighting of our armed forces and those of our allies, our homeland is untouched by war. We are now the great creditor nation of the world. But elsewhere

in the world large areas of the homelands of every other major nation have been ravaged by the scourge of war. Production has been destroyed and distribution systems disrupted. To countless millions of peoples scarcity is a tragic, cruel word. Hungry, they cry for more food, but there is no more food. Homeless, they seek better shelter, but there is no better shelter. Shivering they reach for warmer clothing and for coal, but it is not to be had. Every other continent seethes with social and political unrest. We review these facts with humility, as we seek to think through what this means in terms of policies which we must follow. We seek for answers on the basis of these truths.

I do not claim to have the answers. But I do have a deep conviction that we must find the answers on the moral basis of Lincoln's depth of humanitarian vision and the nobility of his compassion as in the closing days of his life he faced the reconstruction of this Nation, its people, and its battle fields in our only parallel of national experience with the devastation of war. And I do recall to you the tragedy and the hatreds and the economic loss within our country by other policies after his sudden death.

I do further believe that men of good will within our party and without can find answers on such a moral basis which will in fact prove to also be the best answers economically and politically. I seek not to impose details of position, but rather to stimulate the search for answers by exposing precise views.

We do desire for the future a continued high standard of living, with jobs to be had for all who wish to work, with abundant production and wide distribution of goods and services, with ample profits, and with an excellent parity income for agriculture, all with the maintenance of individual freedom for our citizens in a world at peace.

We wish to see the peoples in other lands emerge from the ruins of tragic battle and progress toward higher standards of living, with more and better food and clothing and, shelter, with an increased measure of individual freedom, and to share with us in a world at peace.

Can these high objectives be met? Without minimizing the obstacles, I am optimistic that they can be met to a remarkable degree if we have faith in our fundamentals and intelligence and determination in following through. How can we have the best hope of attaining these high objectives? It is my view frankly that we have the best hope of attaining these objectives if our Republican Party, after careful thought and study, definitely leaves behind all remnants of a policy of economic isolation and moves forward in the leadership of America in a new policy of world-wide economic participation. In plain language this means that we directly say that our Republican Party recognizes that a high tariff policy no longer suits America and that we believe in the increased flow of goods and materials and services and travel around the globe.

Obviously this requires a considerable readjustment in our thinking, and happily it is a readjustment required by our own attainment of great productive strength and strong credit position rather than by the sudden treacherous blow of an enemy as at Pearl Harbor. But the need of readjusted economic thinking is just as great as the need of readjusted military and political thinking that arose at the time of Pearl Harbor.

Let me make my position very clear. I do not open up the question of Republican tariff policy in former years. I do not begin a debate of SmootHawley or any other tariff. I do not raise an issue of any previous votes on trade policy.

But I do directly open up for searching study, frank discussion, and ultimate party decision, what I consider to be one of the overshadowing issues of our time. In the light of the new facts now in the wake of World War II what shall be the Republican position on America's world economic and trade policy?

I open it squarely and welcome others in our party joining thoughtfully in the study and frankly in the discussion because the facts have changed and it will take time to search through. Meanwhile the world economic situation will not stand still. In fact even the silence of our party, in view of its earlier policy, would in and of itself have an adverse effect upon the thinking and the trend of policies in the other nations of the world.

Let us examine in some specific detail what such a new world economic policy will entail and why it is so needed. I recognize full well that there are a substantial number of people in our party who still follow the old party position and

who still applaud the old slogans, which by changed conditions have become half-truths, such as, "We cannot compete with coolie labor,” “American markets for America," "Protect our own," and others of that kind.

But I am convinced that if we begin now to frankly think this through, to face the facts, to talk it over, by the time we reach the 1948 platform, our Republican Party will take a new position for vigorous American participation and increased trade throughout the world.

There are four important factors that make this position essential to the future welfare of the people of America.

First of these is the tremendous increase in our productivity. With the skill of our workmen, the ability of our management, and the vigor of our private capital, we have reached the stage that clearly and definitely in the years ahead, in many lines, we must produce for world markets rather than only American markets, or we will find our economy snubbed in, first glutted and then withering with unemployment and deflation.

Second, we have developed tremendous capital resources and have become the great creditor nation of the world, so that we need high investment of capital at home and world-wide sources of investment as well, else our capital becomes stagnant and idle and reflects in turn in idle men and economic turmoil.

Third, with the extensive drains on our natural resources through war and peace, we are becoming increasingly dependent on raw material sources elsewhere in the world for the sound long-term future of our economy.

Fourth, and above all, it is crystal clear to all of us that in this modern one world, we can enjoy that precious peace with justice only in a world at peace. And this world cannot remain at peace unless there be that slow but steady improvement of standards of living of other peoples everywhere. This can only come in turn through an increased flow of trade and higher world production and increased individual rights and freedoms, which will never develop if America turns back to economic isolation.

Among those of our products for which we need world markets in the years ahead are wheat and cotton and dried fruits and machinery and automobiles and machine tools. Among the raw materials for which we need to look to the world in the years ahead are not only tin and crude rubber, but also lead and copper and zinc.

By reason of this combination of circumstances, the United States of America has attained a position of preeminent world economic leadership. We must either broadly, intelligently, and fairly administer that leadership, or by narrow, blind, repressive action, abdicate that leadership. The result of abdication would be chaotic conditions in world economy, a withering domestic economy, with unemployment and bankruptcies, and less chance of lasting peace for all.

During this interim period, while the discussions of our future trade policies proceeds within the Republican Party, leading to a decision in the platform of 1948, it is of grave importance that we do not obstruct the existing trade program, while we share the responsibility of our national administration, with Republican majorities in the Senate and the House, and an opposition party President and executive branch.

A Republican Secretary of State, the Honorable James G. Blaine, under Presidents Garfield and Harrison, first initiated with substantial support the reciprocal trade principle. Currently and realistically, when our national administration is divided between legislative and executive branches, Republican and Democrat, it is the only program under which our world economic policy can be advanced. It is not a perfect program. Improvements in the methods of negotiating the agreements should be developed as Senators Vandenberg and Millikin have ably pointed out. But the alternative is either to go forward now with the reciprocal trade agreements, or to slide backward in economic isolation. I consider it to be of tremendous importance, therefore, that our Republican Party follow through with interim support of the reciprocal trade program. The impending negotiations between 18 nations at Geneva to open in April should be held, and extensive agreements should be negotiated. Representatives of American industry and American labor and American agriculture and of our Republican Party should be present as observers during these negotiations.

Recognizing the difficulties in world trade presented by state-dominated trading agencies and bilaterialism and discrimination, we should make it clear that while we intend to move forward on a world trade program, we will at the same time not be blind to discriminating obstruction of world trade by others. We will maintain saving causes to prevent the dumping of goods. We will be interested, not only in the reciprocal relationships of other nations toward us, but in