I found that the average wage paid to a farm hand in Mexico is 2 pesos for a day's work. I found that under a special treaty between the United States and Mexico that this Mexican farm hand on crossing the Rio Grande River into Texas is guaranteed $2.40 for 8 hours. In other words, this Mexican farm hand gets as much for 1 day in Texas as he gets for 6 days in Mexico. Then I found that under Mr. Hull's special trade agreement with Mexico that the farm product produced in Mexico with this 40-cents-a-day labor can be brought across the river into the United States where it competes with the product f the American farmer who pays $2.40 a day.

If Mexico was the only country involved, these facts would not be especially significant; but the thing that spells doom for the American farmer and ultimately for America as a whole in these trade treaties is the fact that the same principles that apply to our dealings with Mexico also apply to Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, and many other countries of the world and islands of the sea.

Now, as to the origin of the tariff as protection. The tariff laws of this country were called protective tariffs, but in their operation this became a misnomer. These tariffs did protect industry, but instead of spelling protection for agriculture they have spelled spoilation for those who till the soil.

Originally the great profits of protective tariffs were reaped by the owners and operators of the great industrial plants of New England and the East. The protection of American industry against competition from England, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and other countries made it possible for American industry to demand and receive fabulous prices for their products while the export of raw cotton from America to these industrial countries brought in a flow of gold which made possible the building of transcontinental railroads, skyscrapers, and the development of the great industrial and business. world which we have enjoyed for several generations.

The high prices of American industrial products made the cost of producing cotton so high in this country that when the growing of cotton was successfully developed in other countries the American farmer lost his world markets for raw cotton.

The introduction into the United States of cheap agricultural products from fertile countries with cheap labor, if continued, will lose the American farmer his home market also-not only for cotton, but for his wheat, his corn, his meat, and every other farm crop and product.

Gentlemen of this committee, is not the result obvious? The farmer of South America can undersell the Southern cotton grower in the markets of Europe and Canada and Great Britain. With equal ease, the cotton grower of Brazil can undersell the Southern cotton grower right here in the United States, if we but let him do it.

If the Brazilian farmer can undersell the American farmer here in the United States as to cotton, he can also undersell the wheat grower, the corn grower, the meat producer, and the farmer of all other crops. It is impossible to raise the living standards of the people of the world so long as all the profits from machinery and labor-saving devices go into the pockets of a comparatively few people.

Eighty years ago, hundreds of thousands of Northern and Western farmers fought the bloodiest war in history, with the men carrying the rifles and bayonets believing they were fighting to liberate slaves. Is

it possible that we are now ready to enslave all farmers, black and white, in this country at the behest of a bunch of unpatriotic internationalists?

As the American manufacturer waxed rich behind the protection of tariff walls the laborers who labored in these factories gradually began to awaken to the pitiful conditions under which they labored. This gave rise to labor unions which later came to be known as organized labor. In the early 1900's the movement to organize industrial labor became so aggressive that the owners of industry in this country went to Congress and secured the passage of a law which can be found beginning on page 1213, volume 32, part 1, of United States Statutes at Large of the Fifty-Seventh Congress of the United States. The purpose of this law was to bring into the United States unlimited cheap labor from Italy, Austria, Hungary, and other countries of middle Europe. The purpose, of course, being to create a surplus of labor in the United States and thereby hold down the price of all labor.

The purpose of this act of 1903 was identical with the purpose of these special trade agreements. These special trade agreements have the effect, the way they are applied by the Secretary of State, of flooding the United States with cheap agricultural products and other cheap raw products. They, thereby, cause cheap agricultural and raw products in this country. They likewise force low wages for those engaged in producing agricultural and other raw products.

The same selfish greed that prompted high protective tariffs, and the same selfish greed that prompted the enactment of the act of 1903 to flood this country with cheap labor, is the same selfish greed that prompted the legislation of 1933 for these special trade agreements. It is the same selfish greed and unlimited internationalism that is now seeking the power to extend these special trade agreements.

Let's see how the Immigration Act of 1903 resulted in bringing cheap foreign labor into this country. Immediately after the passage of the Immigration Act of 1903 a drive was put on to bring these immigrants into this country. Down in my own State of Georgia an act was passed by the legislature making the commissioner of agriculture, by virtue of his office, the commissioner of immigration. On State funds a commission was sent to Italy and some other European countries to hold out inducements to prospective immigrants, and I presume the same thing was done in other States.

From 1903 to 1914 there were about 12,000,000 immigrants entering the United States-to be exact, 11,791,856. The influx of this tremendous tide of cheap foreign labor held down the price of industrial labor in this country. The influx of this great number of immigrants also greatly increased the demand for agricultural products. The tide of 12,000,000 new people held down the price of industrial labor. They increased production at low cost of industrial products which the farmer bought. They increased consumption at fair prices of food and fiber that the farmer sold. These two factors taken together brought about a few years of substantial equality between the farm and industry. It was because of this equality between the farm and industry that the period of 1909-14 was chosen as the parity period. The outbreak of World War No. 1 brought about such a demand for both industrial and farm products, as well as manpower, that from 1914 to 1918 there was wild demand for everything that both factory and farm could produce.

After the armistice of November 11, 1918, both factory and farm were kept busy for a few years to feed the hungry people of Europe and to replace the terrific economic destruction of that great world conflict.

As business became more normal in the 1920's and it became apparent that all the industrial labor was not needed, the leaders of organized labor hit upon the plan of reducing the hours in a day's work to such an extent that there would be jobs enough to go around, not only to native Americans, but to this great influx of imported labor from the Old World. It was but natural that as these unions of labor became stronger, as they realized their strength, that they should demand more and more from their employers.

It was but natural that the employers, when forced to accede to the demands of organized labor, should pass these added costs on to the general consuming public. It was but natural that the increased cost of industrial goods should force the farmer to demand more and more for the crops which he produced.

It is but a natural outgrowth of all this that both industrial ownership and organized labor should begin to look with desiring eyes on the cheap agricultural products of other lands which have not been industrialized and which have not suffered under our protective system. It is but natural that organized labor itself should look to lands which have no organized labor as a source of food and clothes. It is but natural, and it is now the case, that industry and organized labor should now lay plans to eliminate the American farmer from the picture entirely.

This desire to bring into this country cheap agricultural and other raw materials from foreign countries fits in nicely with the desire of our internationalists to equalize all races of peoples of all lands.

We have seen the effect of the Immigration Act of 1903 in bringing foreign immigrants into this country. Let us see how these special trade agreements attempt to flood this country with cheap agricultural products and other cheap raw products. You can search these trade agreements from cover to cover and you cannot find where they provide for lowering the tariff on any industrial products that the farmer buys. They are devoted entirely to shipping agricultural products in to compete with the American farmer. Raw materials for industrial plants and agricultural products are the only items covered. No finished product for use of the farmer is included. You can look over the hundreds and hundreds of items specified in these treaties and every item they cover are agricultural products.

Typical of the products brought into this country under these special trade agreements are cotton, cottonseed oil, flaxseed oil, linseed oil, olive oil, palm kernel oil, palm oil, peanut oil, soybean oil, sunflower oil, tung oil, and vegetables of many kinds; buttermilk, skimmed milk, whole milk, cream, dried buttermilk, malted milk, oleomargarine, and other butter substitutes; cheese, baby chicks, geese, guineas, pigeons, turkeys, barley, buckwheat, wheat, corn meal, grits, flour, oats, rice, rye, bran shorts, skimmings, soybean meal, tankage, apples, apricots, berries, cherries, citrus fruits, pineapples, plums, jellies, jams, marmalades, cow peas, cabbage, and many other vegetables, fruits, and farm products. Horse and mule meat for human consumption from Mexico are also included.

Most significant is the special trade agreement with Great Britain. Great Britain, next to America, is the greatest industrial country on earth. England produces industrial products to sell in world markets in great quantities. Great Britain also controls many of the rich farming countries of the world. Our special trade agreement with Great Britain provides for the importation into the United States of many agricultural products, strangely enough it does not provide for the importation of any of Great Britain's industrial products, not a single item.

Some time ago I told you of the over-all plan for a great industrial empire to be matched with a raw materials empire of nonindustrial countries, with cheap prices on all agricultural and other raw products. If you will refer to the Congressional Record of February 8, 1943, Appendix, page A-486, you will see where Congressman James H. Morrison, of Louisiana, put these same facts in the Congressional Record.

The special trade agreement between Great Britain and the United States provides for a competitive market on agricultural products only. It does not provide for any competition between industrial products. This is most illuminating and needs no further proof that these trade agreements are intended to pauperize the American farmer and reduce him to the level of the farmers of South America and the islands of the sea.

The fact that these trade agreements were provided for by Congress in 1933 takes away from them every vestige of claim that they are a war measure. They were enacted by the same Congress that provided for crop control and certainly no sane man would claim that crop control was a war measure. Anything that is necessary to be done as a war measure can be done under existing laws and should expire with the cessation of hostilities.

If any further proof is needed that these special trade agreements were intended to flood this country with cheap agricultural and other raw products, we have but to look to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 for this further proof. The triple A was created in 1933 to limit production of crops in the United States. Those who sponsored the triple A program were not deceived about the facts. They knew we had no overproduction of food but the shortage fitted into their over-all plan to destroy American agriculture. Congress was fooled and acted on the misinformation furnished them. Congress was laboring under the terribly mistaken idea that we had overproduction of agricultural products.

Congress was asked to create the triple A to limit farm production in this country. The same Congress was asked to pass and did pass the law providing for special trade agreements. These special trade agreements were passed to permit the importing into this country of farm products which the American farmers are not allowed to produce in sufficient quantity for our needs. Both acts were passed in

1933.

It is hard to understand why Congress would have been so gullible. To pass the Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1933 to reduce and limit the American farm production was bad enough. For the same Congress the same year to flood this country with like agricultural products from all over the world is astounding.

During the years from 1931 to 1940 there was a lot of talk about surplus crops. We have never had any surplus crops in this country. We have had under-consumption when millions of people were unemployed and when other millions with jobs were forced to substandard living.

According to the Year Book of the United States Department of Agriculture, from 1910 to 1919 we averaged 2,635,000,000 bushels of corn per year. From 1920 to 1929 we averaged 2,695,000,000 bushels of corn per year. From 1930 to 1939 we averaged only 2,307,000,000 bushels of corn per year, and during 1940 and 1941 we averaged 2,653,000,000 bushels of corn per year. You can see from these figures that our annual production of corn during the last 30 years has decreased instead of increased. How could we have a great surplus of corn when we did not produce the corn?

In the over-all picture of the United States as a whole, the production of meat is limited by the production of corn. It is true that in some localities such as south Georgia-we grew some peanuts and potatoes for hog feed, and some sections feed some cottonseed meal or cake to cattle, but in the over-all picture of the entire country the amount of peanuts, potatoes, and so forth, that are used for hog or cattle feed represent a very small percent of the feed that goes into meat production. It is still true that the production of meat and meat products is very largely controlled by the production of corn. It is a general rule among livestock men and hog growers that 1 bushel of corn produced 10 pounds of meat on the hoof. How could we have a surplus of hogs and cattle when we didn't produce the corn to feed them?

Also, according to the figures of the United States Department of Agriculture, from 1910 to 1919 we averaged a total of 27,687,000,000 pounds of hogs and beef combined. From 1920 to 1929 we averaged 28,146,000,000 pounds of hogs and beef combined. From 1930 to 1939 we averaged 28,607,000,000 pounds of hogs and beef combined. From the above it is clear that during the 30-year period of 1909 to 1939 our average production of meat increased less than 4 percent.

During the same 30-year period our population increased from 91,000,000 to 131,000,000. Our population increased 44 percent, while our meat production increased only 4 percent during the same 30-year period.

The great World War came on and ships were no longer available to bring these imports from foreign countries into the United States. Immediately it became obvious that we were not producing enough food for our own consumption. Before our entry into this war millions of Americans who had the money were wasting lots of food. Other millions of Americans were living on short rations. Many of them were hungry. When war jobs and a rationing system caused a more equitable distribution of food supplies among all the people, we all realized we had a food shortage.

Remember the facts. Meat production increased 4 percent in 30 years. The population increased 44 percent in 30 years. No wonder we have a terrible meat shortage since imports were cut off.

Press releases from Washington tell us the ceiling price on corn has been raised 5 cents per bushel. This notwithstanding the administration's determined stand against any increase in the price of farm commodities. The same press releases tell us arrangements are