veloped in support of their position: How can we hope to restore effective multilateral trade without the Habana charter and the ITO? European and other countries can only hope to pay for the goods they need and that we want to sell them if multilateral trade is restored. This means an all-out campaign to limit and reduce the controls and barriers now hampering trade. And, this takes us back once more to the ITO. The ITO offers a practical, immediate means of attacking these barriers, and therefore restoring the triangular pattern of trade. The ITO offers practical hope that our huge insupportable export gap can be eliminated in a way that will benefit the taxpayer and the country.

In conclusion, I feel that the ITO should be approved by this Congress because it would help private enterprise and because it would provide a means to end foreign aid without draining the taxpayer and without endangering American security. It would be in the interests of both American principles and the taxpayer's pocketbook. The Charter is the best possible agreement that can be negotiated by trading nations large and small. It provides: Accepted procedures for an organized attack upon private and Government restrictions to private and profitable international trade; and an organization which can effectively carry out the procedures and also serve as a center of information, consultation and negotiation.

The principles of the charter are based upon the American concept of competitive nondiscriminatory multilateral trade; the organization and the procedures are based upon the American method of free discussion and compromise.

Mr. ZABLOCKI (presiding). Have you any questions, Dr. Judd? Mr. JUDD. Mr. Schramm, it is very nice to see you again after the very pleasant personal associations we have had in a good many years past, beginning in 1925, if I recall correctly.

You heard the discussion I had with Mr. Batt on the question, and you have referred to it indirectly, of how can we sell to the American people, the manufacturers and to the workers, this story. How get over to them the realization that if we expand international trade and allow more imports in order to carry on more exports, we inevitably hurt certain industries which cannot meet competition from abroad? If we do not do that, we put even more people out of work through the loss of exports. So it is not a question of people losing jobs or not losing jobs; it is a question of which group is to lose jobs and how many. Whatever you do, there will be people put out of work, either through decrease in exports or increase in imports.

The problem is first, how to achieve the goals with the minimum of shock, and second, how to explain it so people are willing to find means of dealing successfully with the difficulty, rather than just seeking to escape it. I think the whole thing boils down to that and I wonder if you have any suggestion to make.

Mr. SCHRAMM. I think I have nothing to contribute that has not already been said by Mr. Batt and will be contributed by others. I do believe that the vast majority of the employed people of the country, if a poll could be taken, would favor ratification of the ITO charter.

I am sure certain groups of workers are fearful of serious impact on their jobs. Those who have that fear, quite properly should oppose it in their own personal, immediate self-interest.

I believe it would not be difficult to explain to the public at large the advantages that will accrue to our total economy, and that thereby are bound to accrue to individuals.

Mr. JUDD. I hope you make a lot of headway on that. I grant that probably a general poll would favor, but it might be an uninformed poll. Sometimes the officers of an organization like a labor organization write us in favor of something, but the members of the local union write in and oppose our doing what the national officers say is in their best interests.

The greatest obstacle is lack of confidence that our representatives in ITO will administer it primarily in American interests. Every one of the six or eight proposals for economic recovery that have been before us since the end of the war and before, has been presented in the most glowing terms. However, each time we have had to put through a further program to support the program just before. The people have been oversold on such things. Inevitably there followed a reaction like that which is now widespread regarding the United Nations. It was going to be the cure of everything. I warned before its adoption that while it was not as bad as its opponents claimed, it was not as good as its advocates claimed. The overoptimism led to a general attitude of defeatism. That prevails strongly in Congress with respect to ITO. There is a feeling of cynicism:

“Mr. Schramm says it would help private enterprise, it would provide a means, it would be in our interests." But does he know?

They do not believe it, frankly.

They say, "Well, Mr. Schramm 'hopes' it will or 'believes' it will, but despite all the promises, we feel it is probably going to be like all the other programs before it which did not come up to predictions."

Mr. FULTON. I believe the witness is waiting to say "Yes" at some point, here.

Mr. JUDD. The fact remains that if we do not get all these objections out on the record in this committee, you will get defeat down on the floor. Do you want defeat down there?

Mr. FULTON. I am trying to help the witness.

Mr. JUDD. I am trying to help the bill. Mr. Schramm does not need any help. I am appealing for help from all the people who are the advocates and who have given it much time and thought that perhaps few Congressmen can give it and also attend to their other duties. Therefore, you people have to do not only the advocating but a lot of the devising of practical, sellable solutions to these hard difficulties, or you will not get it through.

Mr. SCHRAMM. I share with you, Dr. Judd, very heartily, some qualms about how things of this nature will be administered and whether or not our interests will truly be protected. However, as a subsidiary agency of the United Nations, if the pattern that has already been established by our representatives in other agencies of the United Nations is followed, I, personally, haven't any very serious fears.

On the matter of what the reaction of people is in the country, if I may speak to your first point, I have been very much interested as I have traveled around the State of Iowa during the last several months, talking to a good many groups of people about a good many different subjects; and these include labor leaders, farm leaders, and industrial

leaders; all of them I believe know of my interest in the Habana charter, and many of them I have spoken to about it.

I have run into only one person who strongly disagrees with my point of view and I have found very enthusiastic, hearty support for the Habana charter expressed by important members of organized labor, from all of the top farm leaders whom I know, and many of the farmers and great numbers of businessmen. I really believe that it has very substantial popular support, at least in my area.

Mr. JUDD. Of course, one of the great advantages of this program is that it does not require a large appropriation of money. It is not an operating agency in the sense of handling large quantities of commodities. Therefore, one of the most potent arguments is that at least it cannot do any harm, because it does not have very many teeth, as has been pointed out here previously.

Thank you very much for coming, Mr. Schramm and may we wish you a pleasant journey back to Burlington.

Mr. SCHRAMM. Thank you very much.

Mr. ZABLOCKI (presiding). Mr. Fulton, do you have any questions? Mr. FULTON. I wish to say I agree with Mr. Schramm's statement. I am glad to see the problem approached on such a broad basis.

The charter has been followed through on a bipartisan basis in its preparation. Mr. Javits of this committee and I have been delegates representing the United States under the leadership of Will Clayton at the time of the final preparation of the charter.

I want to comment in closing that I am pleased to see that from your interest in the charter, you have received favorable reports from the average person. I feel that it is favored generally as a possible means of avoiding the next war and all these cartels and government operations we have had in the past.

I might ask you if this might not be a suggestion: You must look at the purchaser in the United States who purchases goods in competition for less. That is the first approach. When he pays less for goods, he then has other money in his pocket which is unused purchasing power. Is that not correct?

Mr. SCHRAMM. Yes.

Mr. FULTON. So there are other goods of either a similar nature or different nature which may be purchased. Instead of one pair of shoes, he might buy two pairs of shoes, an American and a foreign pair of shoes, with the same money.

Secondly, if not used for shoes, for example, it might go into another line. So there is really, then, not the loss to the economy through good competition, if the goods are produced by democratic meansthat means by neither forced labor, slave labor, or under sweatshop conditions.

That is a good thing for the economy generally, do you not think? Mr. SCHRAMM. Yes; I do.

Mr. FULTON. After all, under a democracy the basis of the economy is a freedom of choice to choose whatever a person would like at the cheapest cost with the best value and then have money left to buy something else.

When you arbitrarily buy at farm price supports that are rigid and make us in the cities pay for storing dried eggs, we are throwing things away and you are thereby in a way defeating the best interests of the

whole country. Since you come from Iowa, I will not ask you to comment on that one.

Mr. SCHRAMM. Thank you.

Mr. JUDD. I am glad you gave him an opportunity to say "Yes" or "No."

Mr. FULTON. In closing, I might say I am a Republican representing South Pittsburgh and I want to compliment you on having a good bit the same ideas, coming from Iowa, because I think there is a new life and new hope in the Republican Party.

Thank you very much.

Mr. ZABLOCKI (presiding). Thank you very much, Mr. Schramm. Without objection, the committee will adjourn, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m. this afternoon.

(Whereupon, at 12:55 p. m. the committee adjourned to reconvene at 2:30 p. m.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The committee reconvened at 2:30 p. m., Hon. A. S. J. Carnahan presiding.

Mr. CARNAHAN. The committee will please come to order.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Chairman, I think in view of the fact that only three members are present and the most important and largest bill of the session is on the floor, we ought to have a quorum in the committee, and since we do not have quorum I move we adjourn. I do not think we can do justice to ourselves or the House or the witnesses by following this sort of procedure. We owe it to our constituents to be present in the House when that enormous appropriation bill is on the floor where the other 22 members of this committee are.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Is the gentleman making the point of order that a quorum is not present?

Mr. VORYS. Yes.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Evidently a quorum is not present; so the committee will stand adjourned until 10 a. m. tomorrow.

(Whereupon the committee adjourned until 10 a. m. on Wednesday, April 26, 1950.)