We are very happy to see the inclusion of chapter VI, which deals with intergovernmental commodity arrangements. Agriculture has had bitter experience with widely fluctuating prices, with extreme hardships to producers unable to find alternative crops or who are unable to find employment in industry. Experience has taught us that some kind of an international arrangement to stabilize export outlets is essential.

We insist that the intergovernmental commodity arrangements be administered by persons sympathetic to the commodity agreement program. We should proceed at once to develop international commodity agreements in order to have them ready when surpluses appear. An attempt is now being made to do this for wheat. Only last week the executive committees of the National Grange, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives in joint resolution declared that we "look with favor" on the proposed international wheat agreement.

I am concerned about the little emphasis in the proposed charter that is placed upon using nongovernmental groups in an advisory capacity. The only place it is mentioned is in article 81, which states that the organization

may make suitable arrangements for consultation and cooperation with nongovernmental organization concerned with matters within its competence, and may invite them to undertake specific tasks.

Other agencies of government have found it extremely advantageous to use nongovernmental groups in an advisory capacity.

As president of the American Farm Bureau Federation I participated along with leaders of other nongovernmental organizations at the original meeting of the United Nations in San Francisco. We participated in meetings of the Food and Agriculture Organization, in meetings in Mexico, and in South America. We feel that this procedure has been mutually beneficial to all concerned.

The participation of nongovernmental organizations in the development of these programs is one of the best ways to keep them on a nonpolitical basis. When a subject is vital to the welfare of farmers as international trade is under discussion, as president of the largest farm organization in the United States, if not in the world, I cannot and will not sit idly by without my organization having a democratic voice in the development of these programs.

As I understand chapter V, section C, it is not mandatory that the members of the ITO also be members of the International Monetary Fund. I believe that unless joint membership in the two organizations is compulsory, extreme care will have to be exercised to see that nations who are not members of the Fund do not take advantage, through, currency and exchange manipulations, of those nations who are participating in both organizations. We farmers have experienced this type of manipulation in our foreign trade, and realize that it is a vicious handicap to the promotion of sound trade policies.

I am happy to see in chapter V, section F, article 34, provisions for emergency action on imports of particular products if, as a result of unforeseen developments, any product is being imported in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or to threaten serious injury to domestic producers. This provides a needed safeguard for our domestic economy and some assurance to our domestic producers that they are protected against injustices. This is

in line with the policy we have supported as prescribed in section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and also in H. R. 1825, which extends the principle of section 22 to other agricultural progra ns.

In conclusion, I would like to state that all who have given serious thought to our international relations realize that it is a tremendously complicated task. Likewise they realize that the stakes are very high. We, in this great United States, the citadel of de nocracy, who find ourselves in a position of world leadership, cannot shirk our responsibilities. While I am proud of our military accomplishments, I am much more proud to see our Nation take the leadership in developing what we hope is sound policy upon which to base world cooperation. I believe that this cooperation, especially that dealing with international trade and conmerce, can be mutually beneficial, not only to other nations but also to ourselves in maintaining a sound domestic economy and promoting international welfare.

(The statistical appendix is as follows:)

Comparison of industrial production and volume of United States foreign trade,

1919-45

[Index numbers, 1936-38=100]

1 Includes lend-lease shipments. The index numbers of volume of non-lend-lease exports (1936-38=100) are as follows: 1941, 135; 1942, 83; 1943, 63; 1944, 69; and 1945, 96.

Source: Industrial production index, Federal Reserve Board; Quantity of United States foreign trade, United States Department of Commerce, shifted to 1936-38 base. Non-lend-lease exports, Our World Trade During the War, 1939-45, Chamber of Commerce of the United States.

The volume of foreign trade, both imports and exports, is related to domestic and world prosperity. (American Farm Bureau Federation, Chicago, Ill., Feb. 20, 1947.)

Index of wholesale prices and percent average tariff duties were of the value of dutiable imports into the United States, 1910-44

Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1944-45 and 1946, U. S. Department of Commerce.

During periods of high prices tariffs are less restrictive than during periods of lower prices. (American Farm Bureau Federation, Chicago, Ill., February 20, 1947.)

175

150

125

100

Percent average tariff duties were of the value of dutiable imports into the United States, under specified tariff acts, 1910-44

The general price level has a significant effect upon tariffs. In 1920, a year of high prices, the value of the duties collected was only about 16 percent of the value of the dutiable imports, compared with 59 percent in 1932, a year of low prices. This change was due in part to a change in tariff rates and also to the fact that many import duties are based upon a given amount per unit, which does not change with fluctuating prices. Under the Payne-Aldrich law (effective August 1909), import duties collected were equivalent to 41 percent of the value of our dutiable imports. During the Underwood law (effective October 1913), duties averaged about 27 percent of the value of the dutiable imports, while under the Fordney-McCumber law (effective September 1922), duties averaging approximately 39 percent of the value of our dutiable imports were collected. With the Hawley-Smoot law (effective June 1930), tariffs have averaged about 39 percent of the value of our dutiable imports.

(American Farm Bureau Federation, Chicago, Ill., February 20, 1947.)

Average weekly wages of workers in certain industries protected by the tariff; in domestic industries and in industries exporting a sizable proportion of their production, 19391

The classification of industries was taken from Public Affairs Pamphlet No. 99, What Foreign Trade Means to You.

Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1942.

The protected industries are not among those paying the highest wages to workers.

(American Farm Bureau Federation, Chicago, Ill., April 27, 1945.)