Mrs. BALDWIN. No; we vote as delegates, and there was no protest to this program commitment from the Pennsylvania League. Senator GUFFEY. Thank you very much. (The statements submitted by Mrs. Baldwin are as follows:) STATEMENT OF DR. CAROLINE F. WARE, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN In urging the extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, the American Association of University Women represents the interest of the American consumer. The act establishes a method of regulating foreign trade which allows some chance for considering the interests of Americans as consumers, in contrast to the old method of tariff making in response to the combined pressures of the more articulate producer interests. The American Association of University Women is an association of more than 65,000 members who are graduates of colleges and universities of high standing, organized in 860 local branches in all the States and Territories and in China, Japan, and the Philippines. This organization carries on a Nation-wide study program in consumer problems. Programs in nearly 300 branches are addressed to this subject. At its last biennial convention in June 1939 the association passed a resolution to support legislation in the interest of consumers. It also voted, specifically, to support extension of the reciprocal trade-agreements program. It is on the basis of this authorization from the association that the following statement is presented. This association has joined with the American Home Economics Association, numbering 15,000 professional members and another 70,000 in student groups, and with the General Federation of Women's Clubs of over two million members, in forming, with representatives of retailer organizations, the National Consumer-Retailer Council. These three organizations appeared recently before a subcommittee of the Interstate Commerce Committee of the House in support of legislation for the development of standards for consumer goods. This joint activity on behalf of the consumer interest indicates that we are not alone in our concern with the interest of Americans as consumers, nor that such interest is purely academic, but that organizations with membership running into the millions are actively engaged in measures to promote that interest. The reciprocal trade-agreements program constitutes the first sustained effort on the part of the Government to consider the needs of consumers as well as the desires of producers in the formulation of national tariff policies. Although consumers are the largest economic interest in the population, for we are all consumers, they have not been heard in the process of tariff making in the past. Even in the discussion of the reciprocal trade agreements themselves, major stress has still been placed on markets for American producers abroad rather than goods for American consumers at home. It is not strange that the interests of Americans as consumers have received so little consideration in tariff making in the past. Not in foreign trade alone, but in domestic affairs as well, we have gone on the assumption that the interests of the community are identical with the interests of producers and sellers. We have taken for granted that if the producer and seller were protected, the public interest would be adequately served. We have often forgotten that the reason why we produce is in order to consume that the farmer grows wheat because people want to eat bread, not that we eat bread in order to give the farmer something to do. This attention to producers alone is well reflected in the activities of the Federal Trade Commission. Until last year, the Commission had authority to protect only business competitors and was without direct authority to protect consumers. It could not put a stop to injurious fraud against the buying public if the particular fraud was commonly practiced in the trade and competitors were not injured by the practice. In view of this long-standing preoccupation with the interests of producers in public policy and legislation, it is not surprising that tariff making has been a producer-centered process. Mr. Dooley epitomized the process in his famous remark about how the tariff in 1909 raised the standard of living of the American workingman by placing on the free list such "necessities of life" as nux vomica and canary seed. When flexible provisions were introduced in 1930, the mandate of the Tariff Commission was to recommend revision in the light of foreign and domestic costs-not in the light of domestic needs. The tariff on blankets could be raised or lowered in line with conditions in the industry, but not with the need for warm blankets at low prices for the comfort and health of the American people. The vetoed tariff bill of 1932 provided for a consumers' counsel to the Tariff Commission. To be sure, the House minority report characterized the proposed consumers' counsel as an unnecessary and expensive office which would only interfere with the work of the Commission, but the majority recognized that the consumer interest had not had adequate representation in the past. The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act does not represent a radical departure and the reorientation of tariff making from the interests of producer groups to the interests of consumers. Based as it is upon the act of 1930, it remains subject, in a measure, to the same limitations. But it does take a definite step toward a more satisfactory procedure for adjusting foreign trade. In the old system of tariff making, the mere right of the consumers to be heard on specific items in the schedule was no adequate protection or representation of interest, for consumers have neither the necessary technical knowledge nor, in most cases, a sufficiently intense interest in a specific product to make them able to present their case effectively. The interests of consumers stand a much better chance to be considered under the trade-agreements procedure where the whole body of trade between this and other countries is taken into consideration, not just single commodities one by one. Under the procedure for placing in the hands of experts responsibility for giving weight to all the relevant factors, consumers are assured of expert representation throughout. The stake of American consumers in a satisfactory tariff-making procedure is very real. The exact burden of existing tariffs upon consumers is not easy to determine, for domestic as well as foreign trade factors enter into the prices of goods on the American market, and it is impossible to appraise the burden growing out of the virtual or complete exclusion of certain products from the American market. Estimates have been made as to what the tariff burden would have been if prices to American consumers had been raised by the exact amount of the tariff. According to these estimates, something like 10 percent of the average expenditures for food on the part of New York City wege earners and clerical workers in 1935 would have been attributable to the tariff, while the cost of the tariff to the average farm family in that year would have been $108-$81 for goods used in family living on the ferm and $27 for goods used in farm production. Neither the accuracy of these estimates, nor the fact that prices to domestic consumers were not, in fact, raised by the exact amount of the tariff, is important to the point made here. They are mentioned only to indicate that the stake of American consumers, both urban and rural, in this matter is greet, and to underline the need for a tariff-making procedure which allows this interest adequate representation and consideration. The interest of Americans as consumers is in the import aspects of the reciprocal trade-agreements program. We would stress the word "reciprocal." It is selfevident that foreign, like domestic, trade is an exchange, not a one-way street, and that increases in imports and exports must go hand in hend. As consumers, our interest in American exports is primarily because they are the means by which we as a nation are able to secure things from abroad which we need in our daily lives. Curiously enough, the traditional attitude toward foreign trade stresses the effort to expand exports and minimize imports-to give more than we get in exchange. If there is any advantage in an unbalance in our foreign trade, it would appear to be on the other side-in the form of more goods for the enjoyment of the American people rather than more gold to drop into a hole in Kentucky. But it is only war, or the threat of war, that makes nations think of trade in terms of the advantages of acquiring actual goods. For our part, we are not looking for a one-sided advantage, but for a basis for exchange which will make the most of mutual advantages. As consumers, we tend to favor a program which minimizes barriers to trade, because we want to acquire the goods which we need on the most favorable terms. By expanding markets abroad for the things which can be best made at home and buying therewith things which we cannot well produce or in which our advantage for production is less, we gain the full advantage of our best skills. Where the effect of trade barriers has been artificially to keep up the prices of goods to American consumers, whether those goods are produced at home or abroad, we welcome a program which affords reductions in the prices of such goods. Such a program contributes directly to raising the standard of living of American people by freeing that part of consumer incomes which would have to go to the maintenance of artificially high prices for expenditure on other goods. The result or any measures which make for an increase in the real purchasing power of consumer incomes is to enlarge the market for domestic goods, and to stimulate production, employment, and the creation of more consumer income at home. Where barriers to trade are in the public interest, and we recognize that there are situations in which they may be, we urge a procedure which will operate in terms of the broadest benefits to the people as a whole rather than to separate economic groups. The trade agreements which rest on a careful survey by experts provide such a procedure. A large proportion of the American people are interested in foreign trade only in their capacity as consumers. Even those whose interest as producers is at stake share also in the common interest of all as consumers. For workers in service industries, in construction, and in trade and transportation, the impact of tariffs falls upon them wholly in their capacities as consumers. These workers amount to nearly half of the gainfully employed population of the country. When to these are added those branches of agriculture, mining, and manufacturing which virtually are untouched by the flow of foreign trade in either direction-for example, coal mining, printing and publishing, bread making, subsistence farming the proportion rises still higher. Insofar as all these are affected by the flow of foreign trade, it is in their capacity of consumers alone. For the rest, the interest as consumers of those engaged in export and in import industries may reinforce or balance their interest as producers, and in any case it is basic to a policy shaped in the public interest. The editors of the Electrical Workers Journal have estimated that nine-tenths of the workers of the country are in the same position as the electrical workers, either unaffected in their capacity as producers by "protective" tariffs, or adversely affected by reason of their employment in export industries. On the first day of the hearings before the House Ways and Means Committee on extension of the Trade Agreements Act, a member of the committee objected to the Secretary of State's support of the trade-agreement program on the ground that whereas the Secretary was in a position to consider the interests of the Nation as a whole, the Representative was responsible for representing the interests of his congressional district. In making that statement, the Representative must have been thinking of the factories of his district, not of the homes of his district. It is not the interests of one district versus the interests of the country as a whole. It is the question of whether the interest which all of us have as consumers is being adequately represented, and whether those of us whose only interest in foreign trade is as consumers are to be represented at all. By means of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, American consumers have begun to secure consideration in the development of tariff policies. We do not want to go back. We urge the extension of the act in order that we may retain this small gain, at least until such time as the paramount interest of Americans as consumers receives wider recognition in all aspects of our national life, and production and trade are seen as means to an end, not as ends in themselves. We urge that in voting on this measure you think not only of factories, but of homes. SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT ON THE POSITION OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION (1) The promotion of legislation in the interest of the consumer, and (2) The development of an immediate and long-range foreign policy for the United States based on international cooperation for peace. The aspects of the trade-agreement program which affect consumer interests have been discussed in the statement submitted on behalf of the association by Dr. Caroline F. Ware. It is important to point out in addition the usefulness of the trade-agreements program in laying a foundation for peace through international cooperation. Even if we put aside every other consideration we must recognize the value of the reciprocal trade-agreements program as a means of helping the world toward a real peace, after the armed hostilities are over. In the past 20 years there have been constant warnings that acute economic nationalism would bring war nearer; and, as we know, those warnings have proved to be true. Any program that leads away from economic nationalism and attempts to lower trade barriers contributes to peace. Besides this general effect, there is also a more definite way in which the continuation of the trade-agreements program will help bring about the peace of justice and sanity that the world so sorely needs. While the war is still going on, we can do something with this program to help preserve what freedom of trade still exists. We can keep alive the principle of free exchange of goods, which has been denied everywhere by totalitarian governments. The idea of autarchy-that is, national self-sufficiency-is first and foremost based on the idea of the nation as an armed camp and peace as merely the interval between wars. Even the most so-called self-sufficient nations have to import some articles, and what foreign trade they have is carried on under barter arrangements that put the trade of other countries also into a strait jacket. With the reciprocal trade-agreements program we can help lessen the strait jackets by making these other countries less dependent on the totalitarian states for their markets. When the wars now raging in various parts of the world are over, we will find that autarchy has already been so firmly established in many regions that it will be impossible to lower trade barriers everywhere immediately without causing tremendous hardships. Here is where the slow, careful, thorough method of the reciprocal trade program comes in. Step by step, commodity by commodity, country by country, restrictions can be given up, excessive tariffs lowered, new markets developed, and the internal economies of the nations rearranged on the basis of a sane, free, constructive exchange of goods among free people. Over and over again the President and Secretary of State have declared that the United States is ready to contribute to the establishment of a sound international economic system as a foundation of enduring peace. The reciprocal tradeagreements program will be our best contribution to this end. GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, 1938-41 To the Senate Finance Committee: The Reciprocal Trade Agreements program was endorsed in principle by the General Federation of Women's Clubs at its triennial convention held in Kansas City, Mo., May 1938. The adoption of the resolution followed several years of study. Resolutions adopted by the federation are considered active and continue to control the policies of our organization for 6 years. Notwithstanding this fact, and because of changed conditions under which international trade and commerce must be carried on in a world at war, it was thought advisable to clarify further our position. Consequently, the attached statement, "Reasons why the reciprocal tradeagreements program should be continued in its present form" was presented to the board of directors of our organization at its annual meeting in January. The statement was unanimously endorsed in a motion which called upon our State organizations to give it the widest possible publicity so that intelligent and widespread support might be givne to our resolution taken in 1938. Carrying out the purpose of this motion, the statement is being disseminated to our 15,000 clubs by publication in our national magazine and various State organs. The General Federation of Women's Clubs is not a pressure group. We seek to place before our membership unassailable facts so that sound opinions may be formed. Our membership of more than 2,000,000 women constitutes the largest consumers' group of the country. A cross section would reveal the widest possible scope of interests. In our own various capacities we represent the interests of industry, agriculture, labor, and business. In our ranks are to be found the wives of miners, farmers, laborers, industrialists, white-collar workers, educators, bankers, and businessmen. Our organization is peculiarly able therefore to place the good of the entire country above the special interest of sections or groups. We consider the flexibility of the present method to be of absolutely vital importance in dealing with other nations whose totalitarian policies are apt to change from day to day. We do not agree that tariff is a purely domestic matter. It affects our relations with every nation with whom we trade. It carries political implications of which only the executive branch of the Government may be aware. Negotiation of tariff agreements by the executive branch of the Government but within the broad principles laid down by the Congress is entirely in accord with constitutional provisions. We believe that the reciprocal trade-agreements program, as put into effect by Secretary Hull, has been largely successful and that it is an honest and sin cere attempt to determine tariff negotiations which are designed to promote the welfare of the entire country in a scientific and democratic way. Respectfully submitted. (Attachment.) Mrs. FREDERIC BEGGS, Chairman, Department of International Relations, REASONS WHY THE RECIPROCAL TRADE-AGREEMENTS PROGRAM SHOULD BE CONTINUED IN ITS PRESENT FORM Endorsed by the General Federation of Women's Clubs in May 1938, the act authorizing the negotiation and conclusion of trade agreements based on the principle of reciprocal nondiscriminatory treatment will lapse in June. The following statement prepared by Mrs. Frederic Beggs, chairman of international relations, was endorsed unanimously by the board of directors, at its annual meeting, January 19, 1940. 1. The reciprocal trade-agreements program should not be a partisan issue as it puts into effect a tariff policy advoeated by both parties. The reciprocal principle in tariff making was first tried by President McKinley. The mostfavored-nation clause was first declared to be the policy of the United States by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes when he was Secretary of State in the Harding administration. Included in the Republican Party platform the following year, it was carried through until 1932. 2. The reciprocal trade agreements program provides a scientific and democratic method of determining tariff regulations which are designed to promote the welfare of the entire country. 3. The rules and restrictions under which our trade and commerce are carried on must be adaptable to the constantly changing conditions of a world at war. This is why it is not desirable to confer upon the trade agreements the dignity of "treaties," which depend upon the slow and uncertain processes of legislative action. 4. The abrogation of the reciprocal trade agreements program would be interpreted by other nations as a major reversal of our foreign policy. 5. If the act authorizing the reciprocal trade agreements program is allowed to lapse, it will damage the efforts of the Pan-American nations to achieve continental solidarity and stability, thus jeopardizing the economic and political reconstruction which will have to be undertaken on a world-wide scale when the present tragic war is over. 6. If we abandon the Hull reciprocal trade program, it will mean that we must try to become more economically self-sufficient. This will involve a greater amount of Government control of business, industry and agriculture thus imperiling our democratic institutions. This is especially true of agriculture. 7. The reciprocal trade agreements program was designed to expand the home market, and increase the purchasing power of the American consumer by loosening the restrictions on foreign trade and opening world markets for the surplus products of both our agriculture and industry. That it has been largely successful, is borne out by statistics available at the United States Department of Commerce. Abandonment of the program would create a period of great uncertainty and would not contribute to national prosperity. THE NATIONAL BOARD OF THE YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN Hon. PAT HARRISON, Senate Finance Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: For 15 years the Young Women's Christian Association has worked intensively in the cause of peace. Because of the nature of our membership comprising as it does many thousands of young women working either in business or industry, we have long been aware of acute economic distress among many of their number. We have studied the causes of this distress and worked for its alleviation to the extent of our ability. We know that many of our fellow citizens, including some of the members of our own organization, have lost their jobs because of trade barriers which have stifled international trade. We watched, for example, the loss of $80,000,000 |