EQUAL VALUE FOR EQUAL VALUE QUID PRO QUO BASIS

This would mean, then, Mr. Chairman, foreign trade on a quid pro quo basis, foreign exchange on a world-market basis, equal value for equal value.

WHY DIVIDE OUR INDUSTRIES?

Why does the President want to retain this power to divide American industries with foreign nations? How much of each industry does he want to give the foreign nations? Is he going to give 10 percent of the bicycle industry, 15 percent of the crockery industry, 50 percent of the mineral industry?

How is the President going to judge how much of each industry to give Europe and Asia and how can anyone be a judge, Mr. Chairman? You cannot be a judge because the human mind cannot encompass all of the details and factors affecting an economic structure such as

ours.

Will you say we will lower the tariff on bicycles 10 percent or 5. percent. It may mean giving all of the industry away? It certainly means giving it all away unless the producers can lower their wages and write off their investment to meet the competition.

The reason Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Truman could handle this situation, in lowering the tariffs and giving away certain industries and allow increased imports like butter from Denmark and Sweden, and wheat and potatoes from Canada and many other imports is because they paid subsidies out of taxpayers' money to keep the American producer in business.

We said, Mr. Chairman, that we were going to lower taxes. You cannot lower taxes and pay subsidies to every industry that you injure through such manipulation-thus keeping them in business on our wage standard of living.

You have to make a choice, whether or not we are going to lower taxes, or are we going to keep high taxes and pay subsidies to business when we give their markets to Europe. They are suggesting that we set up schools to train workers that are out of work for another job, because free trade eliminated or cut down their industry. What other jobs, Mr. Chairman? There is no industry in the United States of America that you cannot take our machinery and lower-paid European and Asiatic labor and import the products at a lower cost than you can manufacture them here on our wage standard of living.

All of this talk about our knowledge and our machinery and that we are more efficient than they are is so much hogwash. I was in South Africa, Mr. Chairman, in 1947. I traveled in a plane over the deposits of manganese and chromite. You could see them from the plane. I could have obtained a concession to mine chromite and manganese. If I had been 20 years younger and not in the United States Senate, I probably would have stayed. I have been in the engineering business for 30 years. What kind of machinery would I put in there, Mr. Chairman? I will tell you. It would be a better plant than we would have in the United States because I would have all of those plants as a pattern and new machinery and methods.

Then I would take a few shifters and superintendents out of the mining area and work that 40-cent-a-day African labor. It might take 3 or 4 of those laborers to produce as much as a $10-a-day worker in this country, but you can use 5 or 6 of them and still have $7 left.

EQUAL EXCHANGE OF MAN-HOURS IS THE GOAL

So I say to you, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see why any President would want to take the responsibility in trying to lower taxes and cut off subsidies and then decide how much each one of these industries he is going to give the foreign nations-no President can survive that job.

Mr. Chairman, we must put foreign trade on a basis of equal exchange of man-hours. Let me just leave this thought with you. If we mean what we say in trying to help foreign nations and still insist upon bringing in more man-hours than we export from any nation, soon that nation must slow down its purchases from us or we must give them money to buy our stuff, as we have been doing since World War II.

Mr. Chairman, through free trade, so-called reciprocal trade-the phrase was invented to sell free trade to the American people--the two words do not occur in the act itself.

It was never intended to be reciprocal and that is not the effect of its application-it is a division of the wealth, world socialist action. Through free trade we are encouraging the foreign nations to hold down their standard of living, since they profit by the difference between the sweatshop labor production in their country and what the market will bear here. Whereas, if we make up that difference by adjusting the duty or tariff, so that they pay that difference of the cost of production into the United States Treasury, Mr. Chairman, they will not pay that tariff very long.

They will go back and raise their wage standard of living. They will let it raise in the colonial areas including Africa, the Malayan States, and Indochina and create a market of their own goods.

THE WAGE-STANDARD OF LIVING

That is what we have done in this country over a period of 75 or 100 years continually raised our wage-standard of living and created a market.

Mr. Chairman, we had the instance of the grandson of one of the great men of this Nation saying that he was for free trade-Mr. Henry Ford II.

His grandfather probably rolled over in his grave. Henry Ford was the one who saw there were not enough wages being paid to enable the employees to buy the Fords that were being manufactured, so he woke up one morning and said $5 is the minimum wage from now on. About $2.75 or $2.50 had been the average wage before he made that announcement. Everybody thought he was crazy. But he said "they can buy my Fords on the new wages."

What is Mr. Henry Ford II doing now? That is, the third generation? He has his plants in England, in Canada, in France and in many other countries. He is paying $3 wage in England, and shipping the Fords back here. In Las Vegas, Nev., there is a flock of them for hire. If you land there in a plane and you want a car and do not specify what you want, you will get one of these English Fords. And they are products of good workmanship, too. No one could compete with them. The big business of this Nation grew big enough under protection, Mr. Chairman, to the point that now the world is their oys

ter-they can put their plants behind the sweatshop labor curtain and under the suggested free trade, furnish the American market.

That is the reason you find the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Manufacturers Association for free trade. I will debate that question with anybody any place, on the street corner or the Senate floor or here or anywhere else.

BLAME IS WITH CONGRESS-NOT THE INDUSTRIALISTS

I do not blame these people. I do not blame Mr. Ford, I do not blame Mr. Jim Rand, of the Remington-Rand Typewriter Co. I do not blame these automobile companies and the other industries for putting their plants behind the low-wage curtain and shipping their stuff back here.

I blame the Congress that passes the laws, that makes it necessary or profitable for them to do that, and by doing so whips the ears off of the workingmen and investors in this country.

It is a conspiracy to destroy American labor and the investor who is confined to the markets of this Nation. That is what it is. So I say to you again, Mr. Chairman, we are simply encouraging them through our free-trade policy, to hold their wages down since they profit by that difference between the sweatshop labor cost of production and what the market will bear here, whereas if we make up that difference by adjusting the duty or tariff, then they may as well pay the wages there.

We should take the profit out of the European sweatshop labor products in the American market. The fair-trade basis will do it.

EUROPEAN NATIONS DO NOT TRADE WITH EACH OTHER

I want to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that the countries of Europe do not trade freely with each other. You cannot sell an Italian orange in Belgium, or Belgium steel in Italy. They really build up the barriers. Their living standards are near enough alike so they could become powerful-they could have a United States of Europe like we have a United States of America if they would trade with each other. They will never do it as long as they can get the $6 billion or $8 billion or $10 billion a year from the United States-and as long as they can divide the American market among them.

Mr. Chairman, that brings us, of course, to where you have another hoax perpetrated-a dollar shortage.

THE DOLLAR SHORTAGE

Of course, there is no such thing as a dollar shortage except when a nation or a man spends more than he currently earns. That is what makes the dollar shortage. I have it periodically. I would not be surprised but even the chairman has a dollar shortage at times. Suppose we did not give them the $6 billion and simply said no to each of these nations. Let them buy whatever they need, within reason. Conduct our business like a bank, which keeps track of a man's credit. If I want to borrow a thousand dollars and the chairman wants to borrow a thousand dollars, one of us might have to put up more security than the other. The bankers know our earning power. We should

conduct business with the nations of the world in the same manner, and within reason take their money for what they purchase, and take it on the basis of its current value on the world stock exchange, not at the rate of exchange they say their money is worth at the fictitious value. Then when we buy goods from those nations take their money and pay them on the then current rate of exchange on the world market. There is nothing wrong with this plan, Mr. Chairman, except it would not be giving them the heart's blood of American taxpayers. That, of course, it would not be doing.

Mr. Chairman, take the sterling bloc. We buy gold from South Africa and chromite and manganese; we buy wool from Australia; we buy wheat from Canada. Simply pay for these products with the same pounds we took in payment for goods previously sold them.

Mr. Chairman, what is the reason that they do not want to take the pounds for the wheat from Canada, the wool from Australia, and the manganese from South Africa and all the rest of these materials that they can produce? They can pay us in their own money and accept it for their goods.

OVERBUILT EUROPEAN INDUSTRIES

It is the American workingman that is on the chopping block in exporting the jobs to foreign countries and taxing him to build up his own competition in European industrial plants.

Mr. Chairman, we overbuilt European industries. Everybody must know that. They are now 160 percent of prewar production. They are selling to our actual and potential enemies and have been doing that since the World War II.

Mr. Chairman, in 1949 I put into the Congressional Record 96 trade treaties that the 17 Marshall-plan countries had with Russia and Iron-Curtain countries, selling everything from tool steel, engines, and trucks, everything they needed to destroy us.

FAIR TRADE-QUID PRO QUO BASIS

The flexible duties and tariffs adjusted on the basis of fair and reasonable competition, credit being continually given for improved world wage-living standards, means that when such world standards approach our own, then free trade is the almost immediate and automatic result. It is up to them.

PEOPLE TAKE IT BECAUSE CONGRESS VOTES FOR IT

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that the amendments that we have periodically put into this Trade Agreements Act are not effective and makes no difference in the final result. One of the amendments was the peril-point clause. What is the peril point? The peril point is determined by the Tariff Commission. The State Department may or may not pay any attention to it. Let us say that the peril point is determined by the Tariff Commission-that it is correct at the moment on a particular industry, and they do use it in their trade agreement with a particular foreign nation. Then minutes after the trade agreement is signed, an adjustment can be made by the foreign country in the price of their money in terms of the dollar and nullify

the agreement overnight. They simply put the tariff on their money. They use quotas and trade permits exchange permits and the trade agreement-the peril point is simply a delusion. But mostly it is the price of money it can be changed immediately. And the whole agreement is thrown entirely out of gear.

It is a hoax on the American people because they think they are being protected. They do not see how the Senate and the Congress could vote for it if they did not believe it themselves.

The escape clause is a delusion-you know how that operates. The President can use it or he may not, at his option. But if he does use it the foreign countries party to the agreement are entitled to do so many thing that it is better never to have agreed in the first place.

58 PERCENT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS-NO SUBSIDY IF WE HAVE TARIFF

Mr. Chairman, 80 to 85 percent of the agricultural products of this Nation do not need a subsidy if we have a tariff on a basis of fair and reasonable competition. Let me remind you about the potato fiasco. We painted them blue and fed them to the hogs, and bought kerosene to burn the remainder. We filled the caves full of dried eggs that we brought in from China at about the same time. Then we gave them to the people of Europe.

Now we have the same storage space full of butter. We are still buying the butter at 90 percent parity, and half the families of America are eating oleomargarine.

The substitute for butter may be all right-but it is not butter. So when the Government pays subsidies, Mr. Chairman, the purchaser actually pays much more than is necessary. We destroyed the potatoes and dried eggs-now I suppose we will have to destroy the butter, since a lot of it is getting rancid.

EASY TO PAY SUBSIDIES—BUT EMBARASSING TO DISPOSE OF PRODUCT

It is easy enough, Mr. Chairman, to use the taxpayers' money, as long as it lasts, to buy up the products-it is easy enough to shoot a man, too, you know, but it is disposing of the body that gets everybody into trouble, and that is what is getting us into trouble with all of these stored commodities.

FAIR TRADE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS

Mr. Chairman, I am for fair trade with foreign nations. I am for allowing the Trade Agreements Act of 1934 to expire without passing any legislation whatever.

Of course, if you are going to extend the 1934 Trade Agreements Act, you have to amend it. The Simpson bill is the best I have seen, if you think you have to extend it.

But what got us into this rut? Why do we think we have to extend a 20-year-old act which was listed as an emergency to start with? For 75 years, Mr. Chairman, your party and mine, has been for protecting the workingman and the investor through a tariff or import fee adjusted on a fair-trade basis with foreign nations.

The Constitution of the United States calls them duties, excises, and imposts, and they are adjusted to make up that differential of the

32604-53-106