Mr. GLASS. We have not the faintest inkling.

Mr. JENKINS. You do not know whether your presentation gets to the people who make the agreements, do you? You do not have any chance to follow through, do you?

Mr. GLASS. None whatsoever.

Mr. JENKINS. That is all.

Mr. REED. I would like to ask permission to put into the record a letter I have here from one of the witnesses on the calendar who has written a very nice letter, Mrs. Harvey W. Wiley, chairman of legislation, General Federation of Women's Clubs of Washington, D. C. She is ill and cannot be here, but she has submitted a statement in behalf of the General Federation of Women's Clubs, and I should like to have it inserted in the record following any other testimony that is presented here today; and I would like to ask the privilege of following that with certain information in regard to some imports.

I am rather disturbed this morning in noting that there are witnesses here from out of town, and we have some very important legislation coming up on the floor of the House. Therefore, it will be necessary to adjourn the hearing this morning at this time, and if there are no objections, the committee will meet at a quarter of 10 tomorrow morning.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF Mrs. Harvey W. WILEY, CHAIRMAN, Department of LegISLATION, GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, BEFORE THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Chairman, I have had the honor of appearing before your committee, representing the General Federation of Women's Clubs, a group of nearly 3,000,000 consumers, in a plea to retain the reciprocal trade agreements program, on two previous occasions, namely on April 22, 1943, and again on April 30, 1945. The two resolutions of the General Federation bearing on this subject read as follows:

RECIPROCAL TRADE AGREEMENTS

Whereas international trade is an essential element in the intercourse between nations, and satisfactory international economic ties are an important factor in promoting the well-being of peoples and friendly relations among nations; and Whereas to achieve these ends it is indispensable that artificial barriers to trade be reduced or eliminated, and that economic transactions be conducted with a proper regard for the interests of each party, as well as for the effect on the international community as a whole; and

Whereas the reciprocal trade agreements program of the United States is based on these principles and should contribute to the realization of these economic objectives in the period following the war; therefore be it

Resolved, That the General Federation of Women's Clubs in convention assembled April 1944

1. Recommends the continuance of the reciprocal trade agreements program by the Government of the United States.

2. Expresses the hope that other governments will adopt these same principles in their international economic relations not only with this country but with other nations of the world.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATIONS

Resolved, That the General Federation of Women's Clubs in convention assembled June 1946 reaffirms its endorsement of full participation by the United States in the United Nations and in special agencies for international cooperation in fields including education, science, health, relief, and trade, and further Resolved, That the General Federation urges prompt ratification by the United States of

1. Constitutions of such international organizations as may be established by the United States.

2. Adequate financial support for all such agencies.

3. Active participation in their work.

It can be seen from the two resolutions just quoted that the General Federation sincerely believes that the reciprocal reduction of trade barriers has been of benefit to the peoples involved during the past decade.

You will notice that the second of the two resolutions quoted above refers to the stand the General Federation has taken in support of special agencies for international cooperation in several fields, including trade. We believe that an international trade organization is needed to stimulate world trade, and that without cooperation in the economic field there can be no satisfactory political agreements and that the assurance of world peace would be more difficult.

The reciprocal trade agreements program is basic, we believe, to the realization of economic objectives set forth in the proposed charter for an international trade organization being discussed at Geneva. Furthermore the reciprocal trade program is needed to strengthen and complement the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Food and Agriculture Organization. All of these international agencies are intended to expand world trade and to increase prosperity both here and abroad.

It must not be thought that clubwomen are merely uninformed altruists, asking for reforms which do not concern them Altruism is the instinct which prompts action in behalf of others. All through life there is a constant strife between egotism and altruism. The result is evolution. Both instincts are probably needed-one to tone down the other. Existence always has been a struggle, but on the whole we are happier if we work not just for what we individually can get for ourselves today but for the ultimate benefit of all mankind today and tomorrow. We are at a solemn time, it seems to me, today. The world has just come through a terrible crisis. If we have learned anything from the war, we must make up our minds not to fail future generations by narrow, selfish decisions. We must try to consider the ultimate benefit of all people, for today and tomorrow.

But clubwomen are not only altruists. They are realists as well, on the subject of the reciprocal trade program. I note in the newspapers that not only clubwomen combine altruism with realism in regard to the subject of the International Trade Organization and the reciprocal trade agreements, but others agree with us along the same line. To recall a few I might mention the President of the United States; Senators Arthur H. Vandenberg and Eugene D. Millikin; the Under Secretary of State, William Clayton; Mr. Harry Hawkins, MinisterCounselor for Economic Affairs at our Embassy in London; the United States Chamber of Commerce, provided that no international organization shall interfere with our domestic policies; Mr. Eric Johnston, president of the Motion Picture Association; Mr. John A. Zellers, vice president of Remington Rand, Inc., and chairman, international section of the New York Board of Trade; and many many others.

WOMEN WANT PEACE

As a clubwoman, let me say, first, that women want peace. Not only are women citizens of the United States and hence want peace for the welfare and prosperity of their country, but, as women, they suffer as much from the effects of war, as the men who do the fighting. Except for a few women, there is no thrill and excitement in a uniform, martial music, foreign travel and experiences. Most women must stay at home and carry on with heavy hearts, care for the children, and help raise needed funds, if allotments are insufficient.

Moreover, women, who are the mothers of the race, do not wish to see the lives they have cherished destroyed. Therefore, women hate war. World trade is a part of the world program and will help create an atmosphere conducive to peace. Women's choice today is the dodging of responsibility, in the present controversy, or the assuming of it. Our obligation, we feel, is to stand for a better country and a better world. We believe the reciprocal trade agreements lead to both.

Secondly, women strive to reduce the cost of living. Women are famed for wanting bargains. This is not an ignoble motive, as humorists would lead one to believe, from the many jokes and cartoons on the subject. Women must make the allowances given them by the breadwinner of the family, or the joint income of the two spouses if both must earn, go as far as possible. Hence, women must secure the full value of all they buy, including food, clothing, and household equipment.

It follows, therefore, that women, who buy 90 percent of all retail goods sold in America, endorse the reciprocal trade agreements which seek to reduce import

tariffs on goods coming into the United States, in order to secure similar concessions on the sale of our products going into other countries. The consumingwoman public must get the best value she possibly can on the things she must buy for her home. Women are not advocating free trade but they are advocating the gradual lowering of tariffs on imports which may reduce prices. We wish to enlarge the market so that producers here can sell more of their products at lower prices and the consuming public can get the necessities of today-the luxuries of yesterday-at a lower price.

In the long run, the new techniques developed by war will permit a higher productivity per man and, hence, reduce the cost of labor as a factor in production. Labor can then legitimately claim a share of the saving and will find itself better off than it was before the war. The workers in America who get the best wages are in industries which do not want high tariffs. The poorest paid workers are in industries which want high tariffs.

No manufacturers in the world can match the productivity of the American manufacturers. The marvelous achievements of the American manufacturers during the war testify to what they can accomplish in times of peace.

Today the United States is at the peak of its economic life, with its great resources, manpower, factory capacity, and new techniques. It is almost inconceivable that such a country would want to hide behind high tariff protection at the expense of devastated, exhausted countries, with worn-out machinery, inadequate resources, and inadequate manpower.

The consumers in this country want certain things which are produced more favorably in other countries, such as sugar, flaxseed, and bauxite. They also want other things not produced here, such as coffee, silk, cocoa, and natural rubber, which enter the country duty-free. Tariffs on many products make them more difficult to get. There is usually no telling just how much an import tariff adds to the cost of the things we buy.

Therefore, to help maintain peace, to improve the standard of living, and to reduce its cost, women favor the continuation of the reciprocal trade agreements program which has been in existence for the past 14 years.

HIGH LEVELS OF EMPLOYMENT

We are interested also in expanding and maintaining high levels of employment and buying power in this country. For that reason we wish to see greater and more profitable foreign markets for the things produced by American factories, workers, and farmers. In that production American jobs and buying power are created. Better foreign markets for American products mean better markets here at home for things both from this country and from other countries.

The worn-out argument, that employment in the United States will be destroyed by floods of low-cost foreign products if tariff is reduced, is groundless. That has been proved by past experience with the trade-agreements program. Loss of export markets in the early 1930's did more to throw people out of jobs and into bread lines than imports did. If keeping out imports would sustain employment in the United States, why did unemployment in this country reach its peak in those same years when imports were at their lowest levels? If high tariffs protect farm income, why did farm income drop four and a quarter billion dollars within 2 years after the Hawley-Smoot high tariff bill was passed?

ESCAPE CLAUSE

If tariff concessions in trade agreements ever threaten serious injury to individual American enterprise, there will be ample and effective means of modifying the agreements and avoiding such injury. Under the new Executive order of the President, the Tariff Commission will be required to investigate and hold public hearings if any such injury is really threatening. If the Tariff Commission finds that a trade-agreement concession is responsible, the President is authorized to modify or withdraw the concession.

We are well aware that international trade relations are not the only forces which determine general relations between nations, but we are also aware that trade wars do not promote good political feeling among nations. Discriminations and agression in international commerce certainly tend to foster political ill feeling.

Economic distress, poverty, and lack of opportunity in any country tend toward political unrest and instability, and make its citizens more inclined to look with jealous and aggressive eyes at other countries that are better off.

The United States has taken a leading place in planning and building the vast structure of the United Nations, with its Security Council, its Court, its Economic and Social Council, and its other elements. We have also been leaders in developing special international organizations related to the United Nations-some of them already set up and some of them in process of organization. These include the Educational, Cultural, and Scientific Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Refugee Organization, and the World Health Organization.

But the structure will not be complete or lasting without means through which nations can cooperate in economic and trade matters to raise their standards of living. The United States, again, has had a leading part in setting up some such means. We have a great deal of money invested in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and in the International Monetary Fund. Neither one of these agencies will be successful unless the different peoples of the world are to be able to trade with each other on fair and nondiscriminatory terms. Under the proposed International Trade Organization they can do so, and, as I have said, the reciprocal trade agreements program is basic to the International Trade Organization.

Because the results of the trade agreements program have been beneficial to American producers and consumers, because the program is an essential part of the whole United Nations structure, and because it offers a means of international economic cooperation which will help to support lasting peace, we support the program.

(The following information was submitted by Mr. Reed of New York:)

POSSIBLE LOSS IN REVENUE RESULTING FROM TRADE AGREEMENT CHANGES IN RATES OF DUTY ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES SINCE 19301

In the period 1934-46,2 inclusive, the total amount of duty actually collected on alcoholic beverages including distilled spirits, wines, and malt beverages was $512,000,000. A theoretical calculation of the total amount of duty at the 1930 rates on the assumption of the same quantity of imports gives $924,000,000 or a theoretical excess over actual collections of $412,000,000. However, the actual loss in duty was probably less than this difference since it appears likely that the reduction in certain of these duties resulted in increased imports. Thus the theoretical calculation of duty collected at the 1930 rates probably should be on a smaller quantity of imports than that which entered at the reduced rates.

The most important item in the list of imported alcoholic beverages-whisky— is in a special category in this respect. Imports of whisky in the period 1934-46 have consisted principally of Scotch and Irish whiskies from the United Kingdom and Ireland and of whisky from Canada. There is reason to believe that imports of these whiskies would have been about as large under the 1930 rates. Probably all of the Scotch whisky available for this market would have come here under the higher rates. For several years after repeal of prohibition in the United States, stocks of aged whiskies were low and the markets here easily absorbed all of the available stocks of aged Canadian whiskies. Much of these stocks consisted of American types which had been distilled for United States markets and for which this country constituted the most profitable outlet. It seems likely that throughout this period about as much whisky would have been distilled in Canada and marketed in the United States whether the duty had remained at $5 or was reduced to $2.50.

In the period 1934-46, there was actually collected on imports of whisky total duties amounting to $331,000,000. Had the 1930 rates remained unchanged and had the same quantities of whisky been imported, the total amount of duty collected would have been $605,000,000-an excess over actual collections of $274,000,000.

1 All changes in rates of duty on alcoholic beverages since 1930 have been trade agreement changes except the reduction in duty on malt beverages from $1 to 50 cents per gallon under sec. 336. That reduction does not materially affect the estimates given.

2 Under prohibition from 1930 to December 1933, when the repeal of the prohibition became effective, imports of alcoholic beverages were made under license and were small. Beginning January 1934 detailed and comparable statistics are available.

It appears likely that the loss in duty resulting from the trade agreement reductions in duties on alcoholic beverages was between this calculated theoretical loss on whisky of $274,000,000 and the calculated theoretical loss on all imports of $412,000,000.3

The trade agreement program might be accurately called "the drunkards' delight." It is an amazing thing to have women of high standing who have heretofore been zealous advocates and crusaders in the cause of temperance now lend themselves to the foreign whisky ring.

The efforts of the Ways and Means Committee to prevent the United States from being flooded with foreign alcoholic liquors, especially whisky, have been frustrated by the adoption and extension of the Trade Agreements Act. Our committee, in its fight against the admission of excessive quantities of foreign whisky into the United States, has lost. The foreign whisky ring, together with the aid and pressure of women's organizations, have finally succeeded in breaking down the tariff rates on liquors. What is the result of the crusade of women's organizations to promote the liquor cause through the trade agreements? The Ways and Means Committee fixed the tariff rate on whisky at $5 per proof gallon. Under this rate the amount of whisky imported in 1934 was 5,624,000 proof gallons.

The trade agreements cut the rate of $5 per proof gallon on whisky to $2.50 per proof gallon, with the result that the import of whisky in 1946 amounted to 10,512,000 proof gallons. But the drunken program does not end with whisky imports. What about the flow of whisky, brandy, rum, and gin into this country under the trade agreements? It is a ghastly story, yet it has its ardent advocates among great women leaders who have heretofore won respect and renown as temperance leaders. These same leaders now favor a further cut in tariff rates, which is now being considered at Geneva, Switzerland.

Already, as the record of our trade agreement hearings show, a communication has been filed by Mrs. Harvey Wiley in support of the trade agreement program. I am inserting official tables showing the flood of whisky, brandy, rum, gin, and wines which have deluged this Nation since the Trade Agreements Act has been in operation.

The loss in revenue to our taxpayers under this wet program is estimated at $924,000,000.

It is difficult to understand the attitude of the Christian and the temperance organizations urging this wet program as revealed by the following official tables: Alcoholic beverages: United States imports for consumption, by specified kinds,

Imported alcoholic beverages, except malt beverages, are subject to internal revenue taxes as well as duties. To the extent that imports were greater under the lower trade agreement rates and to the extent that these increased imports did not take the place of domestic alcoholic beverages in United States consumption, the increase in internal revenue on the increased imports would be an offsetting factor to loss in duties.