Mr. COOPER. Then next to the last paragraph on the same page:

Under these conditions I feel sure it would be unwise and premature to take any action to modify the present legislation.

That was your view at the time you made your recommendation to the President, and still is the position that you take?

Secretary WEEKS. That is correct.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Secretary, I would like to invite your attention to an address by Samuel W. Anderson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Affairs, before the Export Managers Club, New York, March 17, 1953. I quote this statement which appears about the middle of page 5:

The integration of the Western World, the whole movement toward closer and closer economic, commercial, and political ties in the western part of the world, the whole trend of development in this country and abroad, especially in those countries which are far behind the United States in their economic and commercial development, suggests that there is sound reason why the interests of our own people and, indeed, the Western World as a whole, will be far better served by a rather wide expansion of international trade.

Do you agree with that statement?

Secretary WEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I will answer the question in this manner: that I believe in trade. I want to see more trade. Trade is historically the medium of converse between the nations, and trade is good. That is what I am supposed to be in Washington for, to promote foreign trade and domestic production.

All I can say is that I hope we can export more goods and increase the general level of trade in and out of this country.

Mr. COOPER. Then you think that is a sound statement made by Secretary Anderson?

Secretary WEEKS. This is the first time, Mr. Congressman, that I have seen the statement. I should want to read it, carefully. As I listened to you and as I look at it here, I do not take issue with it. Mr. COOPER. All right, thank you.

Mr. Secretary, I invite your attention also to an address by the Honorable Samuel W. Anderson, Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, United States Department of Commerce, at the annual meeting of the American Cotton Spinners Association, in the Peabody Hotel, Memphis, Tenn., Friday, May 1, 1953, 11 a. m. On page 3, the second paragraph of that speech:

We hear much today about "trade, not aid." Perhaps a more accurate way to put it would be "Balanced trade and more investment instead of aid." If we are, as the President has said, resolved to reduce progressively, and ultimately largely to eliminate, unrequited American assistance, it seems to me obvious that we must choose between balancing our international trading position at a relatively high or at a relatively low level. If we prefer not to permit our friends abroad to sell larger quantities to us or if they are unable to do so on a truly competitive basis in the absence of high protection, then we must face a lowering of our exports.

If, on the other hand, we consider it to be more in our national interest to adopt a trade policy which will permit a fairly high level of exports of agricultural crops, of crop surpluses, and of products of our factories, then we must certainly face the necessity of doing what we properly may to widen the opportunity for the sale of materials and goods in this market from abroad.

Are you in agreement with that statement by Secretary Anderson! Secretary WEEKS. In a general way.

Mr. COOPER. Then, Mr. Secretary, on page 5 of that same speech, at the bottom of that page, I read to you as follows:

As the so-called Bell Report so clearly brought out, we have now reached the stage in our history where we must be mature enough to construct our economic policies in the interest of the Nation as a whole and abandon, however painful it may appear to be in certain cases, the writing of such policies on the basis of interests of individual sectors of our economy.

Are you in agreement with that statement of Secretary Anderson? Secretary WEEKS. Not entirely; no.

Mr. COOPER. You do not agree with that?

Secretary WEEKS. Not entirely.

Mr. COOPER. Are you familiar with the Bell Report?

Secretary WEEKS. No; I am not.

Mr. COOPER. You would not care to comment on that, then?
Secretary WEEKS. No.

Mr. COOPER. Then, Mr. Secretary, this final question, if I may, please, sir: Of course, as Secretary of Commerce, you are the responsible official of the Government interested in the welfare of business throughout the country.

Secretary WEEKS. That, I believe, is what I am here for, sir.

Mr. COOPER. Then, is it your best judgment that the extension of the present Trade Agreements Act for 1 year as recommended by the President is in the best interests of the business of this country?

Secretary WEEKS. It is, if we go ahead with this very careful, thoughtful study that is proposed. I certainly agree that we ought to go ahead and make the study and carry on with the status quo for 1 year.

Mr. COOPER. Then, as you have so well pointed out in your splendid statement presented to the committee, you think it is in the best interests of the business of this country to allow the status quo to continue for the 1 year while this study is being made so that action may then be taken based upon the benefits derived from that study? Secretary WEEKS. I do, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. COOPER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Just to keep the record straight-this is nothing in relation to your appearance here, Mr. Secretary-I have just learned that the message sent by the President to the Speaker and to the Vice President relative to this Commision to study the tariff situation and the trade situation, was referred to the Finance Committee on the Senate side. That would indicate that we have deliberately been bypassed as a committee on this side.

Mr. Jenkins will inquire.

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Secretary, I am glad that you two gentlemen agree on one proposition, anyhow: that you are both protectionists, and I want to join that fraternity. I think I am qualified.

I am not going to ask you any question, Mr. Secretary, but I am going to read a little advertisement that appeared in one of the leading weekly magazines of the Nation just yesterday. I clipped it out this morning. This is put out by a big manufacturing company, but I will not mention the name of that company because that would be some politics, maybe. Here is the heading of the article: "Ghost Towns Pay No Wages."

In the West are towns that used to be busy and bustling, now without a soul in them and with buildings falling apart. The companies that kept them busy

stopped making a profit. There were many reasons, some of which couldn't be helped, but the one fact common to all dead towns, dead companies, dead industries, is failure to make a profit; and no profits, on companies; no companies, no jobs. And not only do the miners and factory workers lose their jobs, but also the grocers, the hotel keepers, and even the sheriff.

It is everybody's worry that the factories, on which we all depend in the long run, continue to make a profit. There is no fun in a ghost town.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Simpson, do you wish to inquire?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Weeks, I put this bill in because at the moment I put it in there had been nothing come from downtown indicating the wishes of the administration other than a statement made earlier by the President, and I put it in at a time when, except for your Mr. Anderson, so far as I know, there had been little by way of public comments made by the administration spokesmen as to this question of renewing the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act.

The basis for my bill was the very statement of the President which you cite in support of your position. I well recollect being in the House on the day of the joint session when, as the record discloses, the President said:

I further recommend that the Congress take the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act under immediate study and extend it by appropriate legislation.

The record discloses there was applause at that point, in which I did not join.

The next sentence is:

This objective must not ignore legitimate safeguarding of domestic industries, agriculture, and labor standards.

And I did applaud.

Now we have before us administration spokesmen agreeing to the first part of the President's request at that time, and opposing all the rest. Why the change? Why do you disregard the second part of the President's request at that time?

Secretary WEEKS. Mr. Simpson, I do not think I have changed. I am simply suggesting, in view of all the ramifications of this whole picture, that we have a little time to have a good look at this picture. I am as anxious to do what the President suggested in the second part of that recommendation as you are.

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, I know that, and I believe it. So why do we not do it?

This commission, to which there has been considerable reference, will make a report to the President, to the public, and to this committee. I think we are in agreement that getting this legislation started after the end of the special commission's report depends upon action by this committee, does it not?

Secretary WEEKS. As to getting the commission started?

Mr. SIMPSON. Getting the final legislation, if they recommend legislation, getting that legislation depends upon this committee's activity. Secretary WEEKS. I would say so, if I understand the question correctly.

Mr. SIMPSON. Do you mean to say that this committee should accept. without reservation, the recommendations of the special commission? Secretary WEEKS. Not by any means. I think you would normally take the recommendations and bring your own final judgment to bear on what action you think ought to be taken.

Mr. SIMPSON. But we will not have the advantage of having the same testimony before us that the special commission will have had, unless we at that time decide to take an equal length of time to still further study the matter.

Secretary WEEKS. Would there not be representatives from both branches of Congress on that commission?

Mr. SIMPSON. There is no indication that anyone from this committee would be on the special commission. There is no indication. on that point whatever. The Foreign Affairs Committee will have jurisdiction of the resolution.

Secretary WEEKS. Who appoints the members of the commission? Mr. SIMPSON. I do not have the resolution before me. In fact, it has not been introduced as yet.

The CHAIRMAN. It is just a letter. It is not a resolution.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Weeks, what could this commission recommend; what possibilities are there for it on the tariff question? Either to raise the tariff or to lower it? What other possibility is there?

Secretary WEEKS. To answer that question, which I cannot do directly, you go into the whole realm of all the angles to this whole picture, involving trade and aid, security, the agricultural picture. I do not think that there has been any real study of this whole situation yet, and I think it is time we gave it a good look at.

Mr. SIMPSON. Then a conclusion is to be reached by this special commission. What can that commission reach by way of conclusion so far as tariff is concerned, other than that our tariffs are too high and should be reduced, or that they are too low and should be increased? What other conclusion could they reach?

Secretary WEEKS. Oh, I suppose they would study the question of tariffs and study the question of whether or not the whole process be carried on as it presently is, by reciprocal trade agreements. They would study the question of countervailing duties-and, by the way you will have noticed the Treasury announced that one such would be made applicable shortly in respect of the Uruguayan wool-top situation. It would study the question of countervailing duties, the question of import restrictions, all in line with what the necessities from the standpoint of security and welfare are, as far as this country is concerned:

Mr. SIMPSON. Do you see a possibility that such a commission might recommend to this committee that certain areas of our economy should be abandoned?

Secretary WEEKS. I certainly would not think that that would be, you might say, one of their recommendations.

Mr. SIMPSON. No. But do you see a possibility that they might conclude that, in order to help certain foreign countries with their exports, in order to find a market for them, we should go out of the production here of textiles, for example, or of pottery, or of bicycle manufacture, or any one of a dozen others I can name

I refer to the very industries that today come before us and tell us that right now they are in serious financial status. Do you see a possibility that this committee might go along with the Bell report recommendations and urge that we get out of certain fields traditionally ours?

Secretary WEEKS. Of course, in a sense, even to comment would be to prejudge the work of the Commission, but as far as I personally

am concerned, I do not visualize the Commission as coming with recommendations that we just plain out-of-hand abandon an industry in this country.

Mr. SIMPSON. You will agree with me that the physical makeup of the Commission is of importance; that the personalities who are named to the Commission are of importance in determining the kind of report that is furnished?

Secretary WEEKS. It makes a substantial difference, of course, but in the final analysis, the Commission has no power. The power resides in your committee.

Mr. SIMPSON. That gets us back to the other end of the circle, namely, that it has to come to this committe, which is called upon to take final action.

Secretary WEEKS. That is correct.

Mr. SIMPSON. I note with respect to petroleum, lead, and zinc, you suggest that we should do nothing in behalf of those producers, for one reason, namely, that they have not exercised the rights for possible relief under the terms of existing law, and therefore they should not come to Congress for specific relief. That is right, is it not?

Secretary WEEKS. My suggestion has been that in view of what I consider the desirability of maintaining the status quo, they pursue the remedies offered in the statutes now on the books.

Mr. SIMPSON. I would like to explain that on the basis of the statements made by those industries or by people with whom I have been in consultation, their statement is that if they had the advantage and benefit of every possible relief available under existing law, there would still be such a spread for that, for example, the coal miners in Pennsylvania could not hope to go back to work, and so on. In other words, there is not enough relief available through the relief provisions of the trade-agreements law to materially benefit them.

Secondly, I am sure, as a manufacturer and businessman, you have known how woefully slow and long the people charged with the administration of the escape clause have been in the past, and how exceedingly difficult it has been to get any relief under the provisions of the Trade Agreements Act. Are you familiar with that at all! Have you ever had occasion to go to them for relief?

Secretary WEEKS. Not personally; no.

Mr. SIMPSON. You are fortunate. Many of your neighbors were not so fortunate, and they are in here complaining that on most legitimate claims, the administrators dragged their feet a full year, as permitted by law, and raised every obstacle to giving them relief.

I am not persuaded an iota from my belief that if we simply extend this act we are utterly disregarding the President's objective, which is to provide legitimate safeguarding of domestic industries, agriculture, and labor standards. We are giving time. We are playing a delaying action, during which time, if I were a foreign exporter, I would be very nervous, because they must know that eventually the matter has to come to this committee. Knowing the committee as I do, we are not given to snap judgments just because some committee or some individual tells us what we must do with respect to safeguarding American industry, which is our obligation as it is yours.

I think, with Mr. Reed, that anything we do to weaken this country, to throw our men out of work, is going to make us a laughingstock