greatly expanded foreign markets to dispose of their surplus products. On the other side of the two-way street, countries abroad can buy from us only if we make it possible by buying from them.

Many of our workers have discovered from personal experience that high tariffs do not mean high wages. They have found that, in general, wages in the so-called "protected" industries are far lower than those in the export industries.

Moreover, it needs to be remembered that the number of persons employed in the protected industries is much smaller than is generally supposed. An exact figure is not readily obtainable, but careful estimates indicate that only 5 percent of all-industrial workers in the United States are engaged in making products that compete directly with imports from abroad.

Even within this estimated 5 percent, however, we would not want to see serious hardship suffered, but we feel that the escape clause now included in every trade agreement negotiated is definite protection for this group. Under the escape clause, a concession which, as a result of unforeseen circumstances, causes serious injury to domestic producers, can be modified or withdrawn.

Another argument we still hear against trade agreements-even though outworn long ago-is that, if we lower tariffs our markets will be flooded with cheap goods from foreign countries, which will be a threat to the standard of living of our own workers. The fact is that the trade agreements program has been in effect for almost 13 years now, and during that time our workers have had a higher standard of living than those anywhere else in the world.

This is due to the fact that our industries do compete successfully with products made by cheap labor from foreign countries, because competition is not between wage rates but in the unit cost of production. And as long as American productive efficiency and the high skill of American workers remain what they are today, we are guaranteed against invasion by a flood of foreign goods.

On the contrary, labor as a whole has, in fact, benefitted from the program, as shown by facts and figures given in the testimony of various individuals when extension of the Trade Agreements Act was under consideration. For example, Dr. Isidor Lubin, then Commissioner of Labor Statistics, in 1940 cited figures to show that in a number of important industries the exports to countries which have made concessions on the products of the industry account for a far greater percentage increase of employment than the exports to other countries.

Labor employed in producing agricultural machinery and implements exported to countries granting concessions on such products increased 213 percent from 1934 to 1938, according to Dr. Lubin's testimony; whereas labor employed in producing exports to other countries increased 141 percent. Similarly, in the case of leather manufacturers, export to trade-agreement countries accounted for an increase in employment of 210 percent; to other countries 64 percent. Besides this enlightened self-interest, however, the National Women's Trade Union League is earnestly desirous, along with the great majority of persons in the world, of strengthening the foundations of peace by creating economic conditions under which it is possible to have peace.

The league firmly believes that the trade agreements now being negotiated in Geneva together with the proposed International Trade Organization, whose charter we support, are vital steps in getting the economic machinery of the world geared to peace.

Since the end of the war, there has been a noticeable trend in many countries toward more extensive controls of trade by government agencies and more actual trading operations by governments themselves. We in the United States believe in free enterprise and one of the primary objects of our postwar trade program, as Under Secretary of State Clayton has said—

is to create the conditions under which private American traders will have maximum opportunities to expand their trade abroad with a minimum of governmental interference.

Right now the United States is in a position of world economic leadership which we have not sought but which has been thrust

upon us.

I hope very much that the Congress will rise to the heights demanded by this position of responsible leadership, and to support the trade negotiations now going on in Geneva to the mutual advantage of our own and 18 other countries and the extension of this principle of reciprocity as outlined in the proposed charter of the International Trade Organization.

Mr. REED. Are there any questions? If not, we thank you for your contribution.

With unanimous consent, I would like to insert in the record a newspaper article which appeared in the Washington Times-Herald of December 23, 1946, entitled "Southerners Ask Tariff on Agriculture,” written by Walter Trohan, at this point.

(The newspaper article is as follows:)

[Washington Times-Herald, Dec. 23, 1946]

SOUTHERNERS ASK TARIFF ON AGRICULTURE-REVERSE TRADITION, HIT RECIPROCAL PACTS

(By Walter Trohan)

In a revolutionary reversal of the traditional southern doctrine of free trade, the Association of Southern Commissioners of Agriculture last night issued a militant plea for strong, protective tariffs for American agricultural products.

The appeal, coupled with a vigorous denunciation of the reciprocal-trade-treaty program and a call for ending the 18 treaties negotiated under the New Deal, was contained in a petition to President Truman and members of the Federal Trade Commission.

The appeal said:

BURN BRIDGES BEHIND THEM

11* * * These stalwart and democratic southern peoples, after long trials, and due to the kaleidoscopic changes attending the national economy of the United States in a more modern world, are with reluctance compelled to burn all bridges behind them and to make prayer to their chief executive that he now retain in behalf of their agricultural products the vestiges of tariff protection which still remain of the act of 1930.

"That he do so in order to keep the markets of these United States open to them for the sale of their American-produced crops of fats, foods, feeds and fibers without an overburden of competition from foreign producers of identical crops."

OPPOSE TRADE TREATIES

The petition was not confined to crops of the southland, chief of which is cotton, but constituted an appeal in behalf of all farmers. The petition asked

for protection for wheat and corn and their products of the Midwest, for livestock of the Southwest, potatoes from the Northeast and fruits and vetetables and other products of the North and Far West.

The commissioners declared themselves against trade treaties, a program pressed by former Secretary of State Hull of Tennessee with Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, France, India, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, Soviet Russia and the United Kingdom.

The call for the chief agricultural officers of the 11 States for ending the treaties constitutes a setback for internationalists who consider the reciprocal trade program as one of the foundations of their one-world schemes.

Mr. REED. The meeting stands adjourned until 10 o'clock Monday morning.

(Thereupon, a recess was taken at 12:40 p. m., to reconvene Monday morning, April 21, 1947, at 10 a. m.)

RECIPROCAL TRADE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM

MONDAY, APRIL 21, 1947

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, in the hearing room of the Committee on Ways and Means, New House Office Building, Hon. Harold Knutson (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. The first witness this morning is Walter W. Cenerazzo.

STATEMENT OF WALTER W. CENERAZZO, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN WATCH WORKERS UNION, OF BOSTON, MASS.

Mr. CENERAzzo. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Walter W. Cenerazzo. I am national president of the American Watch Workers Union of Boston, Mass.

The CHAIRMAN. How long a time will you take, Mr. Cenerazzo? Mr. CENERAZZO. About 30 minutes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, try to make it as brief as you can. You may proceed.

Mr. CENERAZZo. The American people believe that the reciprocal trade program is a two-way street. Whereas in reality the reciprocal trade program as it is being presently administered by Under Secretary of State in Charge of Economic Affairs, William L. Clayton, is in effect free trade. Nowhere and nohow in the administration of this program can any American industry, unless it first goes out of business, obtain relief.

The reciprocal trade program is a fraud that has been perpetuated upon the American people and the relief clauses of that act mean no more than does the Soviet Union Constitution which professes to give freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of press. In the administration of the Soviet Union Constitution those freedoms go out the window. So do the guarantees that no American industry will be hurt disappear in the administration of the Reciprocal Trade Act.

First, let me make it clear that I am opposed to the logrolling tactics which were utilized by many industries in prior years to hide behind tariff walls in order to maintain antiquated production methods. I believe that foreign goods should be allowed to compete in the American market but, mind you, I say compete and should not be to take unfair advantage of their American competitors.

But, as no American industry should be allowed to hide behind tariff walls unfairly, no American industry should be eliminated out of the American market because Under Secretary of State Clayton is afraid that if he recognizes the justice of one industry's case that

99616-47-pt. 2—17

543