General orders under rule VIII-Continued

Order Number and author of bill No.

Title

Mr. AIKEN. The Senator from Oregon has made an excellent suggestion that the calendar be printed at this point in the RECORD. This is my 23d session of the Congress. I have never known a session in which the work which has been presented to the Senate has been kept cleaned up as promptly as has been the case at the present session. As the Senator from Oregon has said, it is not the fault of the Senate that there are not more bills before it. I shall not go into that subject again today because I went into it yesterday.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. AIKEN. I yield.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, for some time I have desired to comment about our majority leader. I am of the belief that if it had not been for his guidance and his fairness of treatment of other Senators, with the controversial bills that have been pending this year, chaos would be dominant on the floor of the Senate.

It was only through this extraordinary leadership that the vigorous crosscurrents that were incident to those bills did

not go into violent operation, splitting

the Senate with hatreds and animosities. At least during the period that I have been in the Senate-7 years-there has not been a year in which so many important and controversial bills came before the Senate.

Some bills have not been passed. Complaint has been made that Senators have been dragging their feet. Do any of those who complain think of the fact that probably among those bills are proposals that ought not to be passed? Why should the presumption be indulged in that all the bills that have been introduced should have been passed? Many people throughout our country believe that if we had passed fewer of the bills that have been passed, the taxpayers would generally be better off. But in any event I give credit to the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD]. He has guided the Senate with extraordinary effectiveness. A different type of leadership might well lead to chaos in the Senate.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

RUSSIAN TRADE AND U.S. WHEAT Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr. President, I was greatly honored and pleased to have the editor of the Bismarck Tribune, published at Bismarck, N. Dak., Mr. John Hjelle, use a considerable part of one of my recent newsletters in his November 7 editorial entitled "Russian Trade and U.S. Wheat." Mr.

Reported by

or whether we want to let our allies reap sizable profits as the middleman. The United States is the only nation in the world which

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have another editorial by Mr. John Hjelle, appearing in the November 8 issue of the Bismarck Tribune and entitled "Agriculture's Budget Share" printed in the RECORD as a part of my remarks. In this editorial Mr. Hjelle again illustrates his knowledge and deep interest and concern for agriculture, which is by far the biggest industry in North Dakota.

There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Bismarck Tribune, Nov. 7, 1963]

RUSSIAN TRADE AND U.S. WHEAT

The fallacy in refusing to sell American wheat to Soviet Russia is pointed out by Senator MILTON YOUNG in his current newsletter, in which he also discusses wheat prices and recent wheat export history.

Says the Senator on the question of selling wheat to Russia:

"Our trade with Russia has been limited. However, it is interesting to note that during the past 11 years we bought $92 million more from Russia than they bought from us. Thus they have had 92 million extra dollars to help spread communism throughout the world. There is no magic to the Communist economic system. Their resources and the amount of money they can

spend on their war machine and for other purposes is limited. Even the gold they export to better their balance of payments with the rest of the world costs them about twice as much to mine as they can get it for on the world market. Russia would have less money to spend for war purposes if we trade some of our wheat for their limited supply of gold or dollars."

This is, or should be, fundamental even to the most ignorant of the self-styled experts who have condemned the sale of surplus American wheat to Russia on grounds that to sell them our wheat will aid the Red cause. Yet the opposition continues, to the detriment of America's best interests.

The North Dakota Senator also digs into another aspect of the wheat export question. He writes:

"Until Public Law 480 was passed in 1954 our normal yearly wheat exports were around 300 million bushels. Since then they have gone as high as 700 million bushels. Drought in European countries and elsewhere will increase these exports to 800 million bushels or more. Even without any Russian sales, exports could reach 900 million bushels.

"The truth is that if we did not sell to Russia, she and her satellites would obtain much of their wheat and flour requirements through the backdoor approach. In the past,

sizable amounts of our wheat-sold at bar

gain prices to our allies-have been transshipped as either flour or wheat to Communist countries. Actually, it boils down to a question of whether we want to sell directly

to Russia."

Russia, of course, would much prefer not to have to buy U.S. wheat. It is the market for our wheat only because it has been unable to produce what it needs at home. It would, obviously, rather be an exporter than an importer. This fact in itself is plain proof that to sell, for dollars or gold,

will be to U.S. advantage.

The proviso that the sale be for dollars or gold, with prompt payment, is, of course, the crux of the proposition. In this case we happen to be the able but not anxious seller, and Russia is the unwilling but anxious buyer, forced into this position, we are told, by climatic conditions beyond its control. If these are, indeed, the facts, it is hard to see how the sale could be anything but to the advantage of the United States, cold war or not.

[From the Bismarck Tribune, Nov. 8, 1963] AGRICULTURE'S BUDGET SHARE

The Department of Agriculture, which is one of the biggest spending units of the Federal Government, is also one of those units most subject to criticism for its spending.

But according to Senator ALLEN ELLENDER, of Louisiana, the Democrat who heads the Senate Agriculture Committee, what the Department spends is not out-of-line with spending by other branches of the Govern

ment.

ELLENDER'S thoughts along these lines are

quoted in the newsletter of the National Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts. He says:

"The budget of the Department has increased from year to year, as has the budget of every other Government agency. But it should be remembered that the Department still requires only 5 or 6 percent of the Federal budget each year to operate all of its needed and desirable programs. These protion, disease and pest control, research and grams include such things as meat inspecextension work, the protection of our resources, and many others. Its budget represents only about one-twelfth of what we spend each year on national defense, and is almost exactly the yearly amount spent for research to send a man to the moon.

"On the basis of national population, the agriculture budget represents an expenditure of about $8 per person to insure the production, inspection, and marketing of the finest meats, vegetables, and other foods at the lowest cost to the consumer of any nation on earth. Also, this money helps to provide school lunches for our children, food for our needy, and aids in developing and maintaining our national resources for unborn generations yet to come.

"Agriculture is a primary source of new wealth in our country. It is the main provider of basic raw materials which support all segments of business and industry. Reliable estimates indicate that each dollar of wealth taken from the soil generates $7 of income throughout the rest of our economy.

"It can easily be seen that the Department fills a very great need in our national life. Though its programs and budget have increased greatly in the 100 years since it was created by President Lincoln, I have little regret about the money spent in this direction."

IMPACT OF WORLD TRADE ON NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mr. MCINTYRE. Mr. President, discussions now in progress will result in a foundation for the Kennedy round of tariff negotiations in 1964. The United Nations will convene a world conference on trade shortly before those negotiations begin. Today the countries of the European Common Market began a series of critical negotiations aimed toward the achievement of a common agricultural policy. I hope that the Congress will consider the means by which the public shall be kept informed of decisions made during these negotiations and the issues they pose for us all. Senator HUMPHREY has proposed a Joint Committee on Trade which could consider many of the broad problems posed to public policy by the rapid growth in world trade throughout this critical critical period. I should like to draw the attention of my colleagues to a thorough study of our foreign trade problems, with particular reference to my home State of New Hampshire, written by Mr. James D. Ewing, publisher of the Keene Evening Sentinel. The issues he raises deserve our continued attention. I shall shortly address the Senate on the particular needs of our vital woolen textile industry, which I have been studying for some time. Many other matters will merit our attention, from balance of payments problems to proposals for expanded trade between East and West. Mr. Ewing's Mr. Ewing's articles are thoughtful, comprehensive, and based on a wealth of interviews and firsthand information. I ask unanimous consent that the four articles be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

United States will have a $5 billion trade surplus in 1963.

GOVERNOR'S CONCLUSIONS

Gov. John W. King, in a statement prepared for this series of articles, summed up the Granite State situation this way.

"I believe," he said, "that the field of foreign trade presents a great opportunity and a great challenge to New Hampshire business. On the one hand, we have virtually

untapped opportunity to expand our markets through exports. On the other hand, some of our most important industries are seriously threatened by competition from lowpriced foreign imports."

King's two words "opportunity" and "challenge"-indicate the contradictions of foreign trade. For example:

Referring to imported textiles, George A. Dorr, Jr., president of Dorr Woolen Co. of Newport, said last month: "We have an inble competition. * * We have impossi

tolerable situation. *

*

At almost the same time, David F. Putnam, president of Markem Machine Co. of Keene, which received the E Export Award, told a reporter: "The world is our market. *** Our target is to get 50 percent of our orders from overseas."

SENATORS PROTEST

In August, New Hampshire's Senators COTTON and MCINTYRE joined 31 colleagues in a plea to the President to check "the avalanche of cheap (imported) shoes which are flooding the Nation, making the future "dark indeed for this important segment of our economy."

Meantime, Donald D. Davis, treasurer of Miniature Precision Bearings, Inc., with 700 employees in Keene and Lebanon, said: "The success of MPB's international division has demonstrated the desirability of developing foreign markets. We expect continued growth."

CHICKS BUSINESS IMPROVES

While poultry processors in the South have made an international issue of increased States, the same tariff increase has boosted sales to Europe of baby chicks and breeding stock for American breeders, including Hubbard Farms in Walpole.

tariffs on frozen chickens from the United

Governor King has supported efforts to halt the flow of shoe and textile imports; he has also just appointed a State Council on Foreign Trade to help promote the export of Granite State products.

In short, much is heard-understand

Nov. 5, 1963]

IN LONG RUN EVEN TEXTILE AND SHOE FIRMS BENEFIT BY FOREIGN TRADE

While two of New Hampshire's largest industries plead for curbs on competing imports a special E Award flag flies over a Keene plant with 300 employees, presented in behalf of the President for outstanding contribution to the Nation's export expansion program.

Here is the paradox of foreign trade as it affects the economy of the State: Jobs and profits threatened by imports; jobs and profits created by exports. And always there is the knowledge that to sell abroad a Nation must buy abroad.

The State's textile and shoe industries are being hurt by imports. There have been layoffs; there is talk of mill closings. Almost without exception imports are blamed. It's not surprising, therefore, that foreign trade has become virtually a dirty word in parts of the State.

But to focus on the undeniably serious problems of these two industries is to distort the trade picture as a whole. Even from the point of view of New Hampshire's economy, there is a bright side to the story. For the Nation as a whole, it's brighter still. The latest estimates are that the

Hampshire jobs, but very little is heard about the jobs which depend, directly or indirectly, on the export sales.

No nation on earth is completely selfsufficient. All must buy from other nations and sell to them. And no nation these days can have it all one way: if it wants to sell to others, it must buy from others.

The United States must import huge quantities of vital minerals-tin, zinc, aluminum ore and nickel. Without these imports our economy would be close to collapse.

SOME JOBS DEPEND ON EXPORTS

Though it may sound strange to a New Hampshire shoe or textile worker, whose very job may be threatened by imports, the truth

is that far more Americans benefit from imports than are hurt by them. Moreover, many more Americans hold jobs which depend on exports than are seriously threatened by imports.

Three out of every four newspapers are printed on imported paper. The coffee you drink in the morning is imported; so is the tea, if you prefer that. Half the sugar you put into your cup is imported.

Many of the appliances in your house probably contain components made abroad.

Some of your wife's clothing, and yours too, may be made of imported yarn or cloth. You and your kids probably use some imported sporting goods.

There are few factory parking lots which don't contain foreign cars. And anyone from Detroit will recall vividly the way those imported cars forced the huge auto industry to bring out the "compacts."

So even if you work in a shoe factory or textile mill, you're benefiting from imports. Perhaps it's a product we don't produce at all in America. Perhaps, as has often been the case, the imported products sell for less. As a consumer, you benefit in both cases.

Or, perhaps foreign competition has forced the American manufacturer to increase his efficiency and find other ways to lower his prices. Again, it's to your advantage as a

consumer.

American manufacturers also benefit from imports. They often buy needed raw materials abroad, and they use much foreignmade machinery.

Even the textile industry, so hard pressed these days, is using imported machines to improve efficiency, and more than half its wool comes from overseas.

BURLAP FROM INDIA

A large textile firm in the southwestern corner of the State, Troy Mills, has carried the process even further. One of its most profitable products is based entirely on burlap imported from India.

Thus, competing imports may be a dagger aimed at the heart of some of our textile and shoe companies, but other imports are providing substantial benefits to every New Hampshire citizen, including those in import-threatened industries.

THREE MILLION IN EXPORT JOBS

The export picture is different. The United States is the world's largest exporter. We

sell far more to other countries than we buy from them-by an estimated $5 billion this year. Roughly, we expect to export about $22 billion worth of products and to import about $17 billion worth.

In 1960, according to official estimates, more than 3 million American jobs were supported by exports. And, suprisingly perhaps, nearly another million were supported by imports. That would mean a total of about 4 million jobs dependent on foreign trade. Today the figure is undoubtedly higher, as both our imports and our exports have increased.

There are no reliable figures on the number of jobs which have been lost or are directly threatened by imports. But there's no doubt whatever that the number is far smaller than those dependent on exports.

Figures for New Hampshire are sketchy. It's no secret that a good many thousands of jobs are in the shoe and textile industries, some of which are threatened by imports.

But no figures are available on the number of jobs which depend on exports. John F. Rowe, Commissioner of Resources and Economic Development, has estimated the State's industries are directly exporting nearly $75 million worth of goods a year. But no one knows how many more millions of sales are indirectly related to exports.

A machine tool, for example, may be shipped to Detroit to help make cars, and Detroit exports millions of dollars worth of vehicles every year. A component for a guided missile, a plane, a typewriter, or a special machine may be made in New Hampshire, shipped to another State for assembly, and the end product may land in Germany or Japan. No one knows how many New Hampshire jobs or how many dollars are thus involved in foreign trade. But the figures would be impressive.

Governor King's statement said this about exports from New Hampshire: "There is opportunity of almost unlimited scope in the

It's going to be a little hard to tell the Italians, for example, that we want them to buy plenty of goods in the United States but we don't want them to sell their shoes and textiles here.

Those two products, which are now hurting two important New Hampshire industries, account for about 25 percent of Italy's

total sales to the United States.

And if Italy can't sell her products here, she won't have the money to buy from us, and that would hurt a good many other

American businesses.

Nov. 6, 1963]

STATE'S TEXTILE MEN FIGHTING IMPORTS, ARE ADOPTING NEW PRODUCTION METHODS

In mid-August a petition was sent to the White House, signed by more than 1,000 people from the Enfield area of New Hampshire. It "earnestly" asked the President to take immediate action to limit imported woolen fabrics.

The State's woolen industry "is threatened with destruction by foreign competition," Gov. John W. King said in a statement prepared for this series of articles.

A special subcommittee of the U.S. Senate, of which Senator NORRIS COTTON is a member, called upon the President in June to take unilateral action, if necessary, to check "the unrestrained flood of imports."

Representative JAMES C. CLEVELAND of the State's Second District has charged the Kennedy administration with "callous disregard for the plight of hardworking citizens" in the industry.

Meantime, similar pleas are being made in behalf of the shoe industry, the State's largest employer.

Like the textile industry, it is calling for quotas on imports by agreement with other countries if possible; by U.S. action alone if necessary.

Citing a 600-percent rise in imports and a 38-percent drop in exports since 1955, a group of Senators from shoe-manufacturing States, including Senators COTTON and McINTYRE of New Hampshire, issued a demand for quotas last summer.

"If this situation continues-and there is nothing to indicate that it will change," the statement said, "it is easy to see that the future is indeed dark for this important segment of our economy and the thousands of workers it employs."

COTTON and MCINTYRE said New Hamp

shire's shoe industry, which has 18,000 employees, "must be protected from the avalanche of cheap shoes which are flooding the Nation."

But serious though the situation is for the shoe industry, it's worse for textiles. Shoe imports amounted to about 9 percent of American production on 1962. Imports of woolen textiles last year equalled nearly 22 percent of domestic production.

From the statements quoted, and others like them issued frequently in recent months, the conclusion might be reached that New Hampshire's woolen and worsted industry, which employs some 10,000 people, was at death's door-and that imports alone had put it there.

The industry does have plenty of trouble, but it is not all due to imports, although George A. Dorr, Jr., president of Dorr Woolen Co. in Newport, said imports could be "the straw that breaks the camel's back" for some mills.

By this he meant that competing imports could take just enough of a New Hampshire

Finally, mills have closed and jobs have disappeared simply because domestic and foreign competition has forced a stepup in efficiency. New methods and new machinery much of it imported-have meant increased productivity per worker. In fact, productivity has nearly doubled in the industry since 1947.

For these reasons, although industry employment and number of mills in operation declined, total production actually increased and so did the total amount of woolens sold in this country-up 27 percent from 1958 to

1962.

But here's where the rub of imports was felt. A large shore of the increased market was captured by imports, which zoomed nearly 150 percent in the same period, and are still increasing. Today imports claim nearly 25 percent of the U.S. market.

The major reason for the spectacular rise in woolen and worsted imports is a simple one: price. Most of our toughest foreign competitors not only have highly efficient machinery, but their wage rates are far, far lower than ours.

Even after paying transportation, tariffs and other costs, they can undersell U.S. producers on many items. Under the cir

cumstances, it's a tribute to American companies that the situation isn't far worse than it is.

variety of steps to offset the low-wage adHow are they competing? By taking a vantage of foreign producers. They have invested boldly in better equipment. They

have adopted more aggressive selling and marketing methods. They have sought maxi

ter design and styling. They have shifted mum efficiency. They have emphasized betproduct lines, and some have diversified by manufacturing entirely new items only remotely related to wool.

ahead some years ago and saw not only Troy Mills, Inc. of Troy, N.H., looked rugged domestic competition but also import pressure. So it embarked on a program of diversification which required heavy financial outlays, plus courage and imagination.

Today, Troy's woven product lines are radically different from those of even 10 years ago. Perhaps more significant, it is also turning out things like industrial filters, automobile trunk linings and plastic automobile seat covering. In a woolen mill such products were unheard of a few years ago.

This kind of vision has paid off; it may even have saved the company and the town which depends upon it. For, in a declining industry, Troy Mills' employment is close to what is was a decade ago, although it has been forced to make some layoffs recently.

Two other examples: Homestead Woolen Co. in West Swanzey and Dorr Woolen Co. in Newport have also adjusted to the new realities of the industry. Again it has been a case of courage, capital and ingenuity. Where Troy Mills shifted much of its production to entirely new types of products,

But they have aggressively sought out products which a New Hampshire mill could produce and still compete. They have emphasized fabrics in which design and styling gave them an edge over the domestic giants and the foreign producers.

They sell hard; they take advantage of the best machinery they can obtain. They try to stay one jump ahead of the competition.

But the managements of these and other Granite State woolen companies are deeply concerned about the rising volume of imported fabrics.

Dorr, as chairman of the Northern Textile Association, has assumed a leading role in the woolen industry's battle to curtail imports. Paradoxically, he believes in free trade and opposes Government interference in business, as do many other woolen men. But he argues that unless some sort of restrictions are placed on imports (by agreement if possible, unilaterally if not), the casualty list in the industry will get pretty long. If it does, New Hampshire won't escape unscathed.

So he has joined the effort to pressure the Kennedy administration to seek a worldwide agreement for what are called "orderly marketing" arrangements. In reality this is a quota system, limiting imports into countries which cannot absorb them without seriously damaging domestic producers.

Although this is the very opposite of free trade, since it would curtail it instead of freeing it, such an agreement is already in effect for the cotton industry.

The woolen industry says it wants the same treatment. So does the shoe industry. And there are other industries, including even the giant steel industry, waiting to see how woolens make out.

Unlike any of the others, the woolen industry holds a sort of I OU from the administration. The President himself and various other administration officials have virtually promised to do for woolens what they did for cotton.

At the moment, however, they seem to be doing their best to forget their earlier statements. Though no one within the administration will say so for publication, in offthe-record conversation they indicate why they are unenthusiastic.

First, they argue that the whole concept of international quotas is contrary to the policy of free trade which every administration since Franklin Roosevelt has supported and which they (along with many businessmen) believe is the key to future growth of the American economy.

Second, they say that if woolens get such treatment, shoes will demand the same, and others will be standing in line at the door.

where, they ask, would this process stop? And if it didn't stop, we would soon have a shrinking instead of an expanding economy. Administration officials seem convinced that, at least for the present, steps to restrict woolen imports would be more dangerous to the economy as a whole than continued or even increased imports.

For New Hampshire and other States which rely heavily on the woolen industry this means a rough road ahead; perhaps some mill closings.

But significantly, most New Hampshire woolen men aren't rolling over and playing dead. The instinct for survival is powerful. And behind them they have the rugged experiences of the postwar, industrywide crises which they weathered successfully.

One of them, Saul Greenspan of Manchester's large Waumbec Mills, was quoted in late August as saying:

"The survivors are mainly the strong firms which have kept up with the times. They should be able to make good progress in the future."

MARKETS ABROAD

"The world is our market," the president of a Keene company said recently and his firm is acting accordingly.

Markem Machine Co., whose 300 employees produce machinery, type, and inks to mark and identify just about any product imaginable, has always been interested in selling abroad. But about 5 years ago, President David F. Putnam said an intensified program for increased foreign sales was launched.

At that time about 5 percent of the firm's orders came from outside the United States and Canada. This year the figure will be about 25 percent-and the target for the years just ahead is 50 percent.

The company has received a special Presidenial E Award for its contribution to the country's export expansion program. Only one other New Hampshire firm has received the award.

Markem has established a British company and another in Holland. They are responsible for sales and service in most of Western Europe. Markem distributors are responsible for merchandising in the rest of the world.

"Business abroad is not restricted to the giants," Putnam told a special congressional Committee on Small Business.

"In general," he said, "there is a vast market available to firms which will investigate the potential. *** In the final analysis, sales do develop and more sales are available if one accepts the challenge and is willing to take advantage of these many opportunities (overseas)."

BEARINGS PLANT LOOKS AHEAD

Another manufacturer looking abroad is Miniature Precision Bearings, with plants in Keene and Lebanon. About 3 years ago MPB created an international division, with its own vice president.

Starting almost from scratch, according to Treasurer Donald D. Davis, the company established offices in England and Holland and staffed them with sales and service personnel.

Selling MPB's line of bearings, plus related products of other American manufacturers, the company has watched overseas sales climb steadily. Foreign business, Davis said, has become a significant part of the company's gross sales and the company expects further growth.

CHICKS GO TO BELGIUM

Breeding chicks is not manufacturing, but the product can be exported. Hubbard Farms in Walpole, N.H., is now shipping about 25,000 day-old chicks a month to Belgium. Another 10,000 go to other points abroad.

A shipment of chicks hatched in Walpole on Wednesday will be on a Hubbard Europoultry farm outside Brussels early Friday afternoon.

Hubbard plans to push its export sales harder. Its officials, according to William Phipps who handles exports, are convinced there is a sizable untapped market abroad, and Hubbard intends to get its share. port is the most profitable part of our business," Phipps said.

"Ex

Not only are oversea sales adding to the company's profits, but last year increased foreign business helped the company weather a slump in domestic sales.

Ironically Hubbard has benefited from the recent transatlantic "chicken war." When the European Common Market boosted the tariff on frozen poultry meat which was being shipped there by processors in the South, the demand for chicks from the ECM promptly rose.

European farmers are now increasingly interested in raising broilers to take advantage

tariff.

Thus the South's loss has been Hubbard's

gain. It would be difficult to provide a better illustration of the strange ways in which

world trade tends to balance itself off. number of New Hampshire jobs which, directly or indirectly, depend on exports. John F. Rowe, commissioner of the department of resources and economic development, has estimated that direct exports from the Granite State amount to nearly $75 million a year.

There are no reliable statistics on the

But that figure does not reflect the volume of business which is indirectly dependent on the Nation's exports. It is known that many State firms manufacture components or production machinery for products which are assembled in other States and then shipped

abroad.

It is also probable that for some companies export business may be a small percentage of total sales, but may in fact represent the firm's profit margin.

ENCOURAGED TO SELL

U.S. Government officials, along with industry organizations, a number of States and even some municipalities, are mounting a nationwide campaign to convince American business that it can sell abroad in far larger volume than ever before.

The Federal Government, according to Paul G. Carney, director of the Commerce Department's Boston office, offers a wide range of free services to any business which wants to boost its oversea sales or enter foreign markets for the first time.

These services, Carney said, range from exhibit space in various trade centers, to detailed confidential market surveys. Moreover, the Government maintains commercial attachés in almost every country, whose primary job is to assist American business.

But, Carney added: "Our services are being used mostly by larger companies, which need them the least. Smaller companies tend to assume they cannot export, but very often they could, if they'd just try."

A Department of Commerce official in Washington echoed Carney's views. "When it comes to exporting," he said, "too many American manufacturers have a negative attitude. They think of the difficulties of langauge, tastes, transportation, and proce

dures.

"Time after time it's been proved that American products can compete, even against low-wage competition, because price isn't everything."

He said American products have a reputation for good quality and design, and often American productivity and know-how can more than match the advantages of a foreign manufacturer's lower wage costs.

This view is shared by Putnam and other Granite State manufacturers who have entered foreign markets.

American manufacturers who want to sell abroad, especially in Europe, have other factors helping them, and their European competitors are well aware of them.

First, the tradition of European craftsmanship is not as strong as it used to be. Younger workers have less pride in the quality of their work.

Second, with European living standards rising and with full employment almost everywhere, many employees are not working as hard as in the past.

Third, these trends are coupled with rising foreign wages and fringe benefits so that the gap between U.S. payroll costs and those abroad is steadily narrowing.

Finally, the prestige of American products is rising overseas. We have established a reputation for quality which often offsets a somewhat higher price tag.

Some New Hampshire manufacturers have entered world markets other than by shipping abroad directly from the Granite State.

Adopting the philosophy of joining 'em if you can't lick 'em, some firms have made licensing agreements with foreign manufacturers to produce and sell the American product, paying a royalty for the privilege. Royalties add to profits here.

OVERSEA SUBSIDIARIES

Other companies have established subsidiaries overseas. And still others have gone into joint ventures with foreigners. Hubbard Euro-Poultry, for example, is owned half by Hubbard Farms and half by Belgians. Under either arrangement, all or part of the profits can come back to New Hampshire.

It is undoubtedly true that not every Granite State product can be sold successfully abroad. But Gov. John W. King believes "there is almost nothing produced here in New Hampshire which does not have a potential market abroad."

To help stimulate efforts to exploit this potential, King has appointed a council on foreign trade. It is expected to get to work

soon.

One thing seems very clear. Governments of the free world, with the support of most (though not all) industry, are trying to unshackle world trade by reducing the protective tariffs and other restrictive devices of the past. This will intensify worldwide competition. It will also open up vast new markets for producers everywhere.

How the industries of the United States and of New Hampshire will respond is not yet clear, but American business has always prided itself on accepting tough challenges and seizing new opportunities. The future pattern of world trade is likely to give it a chance to do both.

[From the Keene (N.H.) Evening Citizen, Nov. 8, 1963]

TRADE ISSUE: EXPANSION VERSUS
PROTECTIONISM

Pleas for governmental protection against foreign competition are voiced by certain industries in Europe as well as in New Hampshire and other American States. They ask for high tariffs, import quotas or other devices designed to erect barriers against imported goods.

Often, but not always, these voices get a rather unsympathetic hearing. The basic reason is that Western Europe's industrial economy is, for the most part, geared to foreign trade.

"If an industry gets Government protection, it doesn't have to meet world competition, and often it doesn't try," a Danish pharmaceutical manufacturer, O. Hubner, told a reporter last month.

"The Dutch attitude is that if a company cannot compete, it might as well go out of business," according to Pierre Schloesser, a former member of the Dutch parliament who is now a high official of the European Common Market.

TARIFF POLICY

These and similar remarks indicating opposition to tariff barriers and other trade restrictions appear to reflect a general attitude. But like other generalizations, they can be misleading.

European countries do have tariffs and on some goods they are quite high. They have a variety of other restrictive devices as well. There are sharp variations in these devices from country to country, and commodity to commodity.

One of the objectives of the European Economic Community (the Common Market) is to agree on a single set of tariffs for the six member countries-France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg.

Meantime, however, the development of the Common Market has provided a clear lesson for many industries of how freer trade can stimulate growth by opening new markets and of how international trade competition can spur increased productivity and thus permit higher wage countries to compete successfully with lower wage countries.

TRADE OR FADE PHILOSOPHY

Some small nations, like Belgium, Holland, and Denmark, have always had to "trade or fade," to use one of President Kennedy's phrases. They have lacked the resources and the manpower to survive except by trading.

But France was at the opposite end of the scale. Before she joined the Common Market, France was not a major trading nation.

Her industries manufactured mostly for the French market and her farmers produced mostly for it. She had a history of protectionism, and when the Common Market began in 1958, her wage levels were generally the highest of the six member nations.

For these reasons, French industry was not enthusiastic about the Common Market plan of cutting internal tariffs. The program called for progressive tariff reductions within the ECM until they were abolished after 15

years.

ENTHUSIASM REPLACED SKEPTICISM

But within a couple of years, according to Andre Colombier, an official of the French Federation of Industries, business skepticism

changed to enthusiasm.

The reason is not hard to find. Between 1958 and 1962, French exports to her five ECM partners jumped 140 percent, and her imports from them rose 105 percent.

The figures for the other countries are not quite as spectacular as France's and Italy's, but all have shown tremendous increases despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that during the same 5 years tariffs were slashed by 50 percent. Today they are down 60 percent and will probably reach zero by 1970, 3 years ahead of schedule.

These trade gains were achieved because the reduction in trade barriers opened up vast new markets for manufacturers in all the ECM countries. Consumers benefitted through lower prices, a wider choice of products and better design.

Moreover, French industry found that, contrary to its expectations, it could compete with lower wage countries like Germany. The imperatives of competition spurred French manufacturers to sharpen up their methods, install new machinery and increase their efficiency.

PAYROLL COST GAP NARROWED

At the same time, the rapid improvement in business throughout the ECM, coupled with a manpower shortage, stimulated rises in wage levels in other countries. Today the gap between French payroll costs and German, for example, is much smaller than it was 5 years ago.

In the field of consumer goods, rising standards of living and increased purchasing power throughout the ECM also increased the total market for all manufacturers. There have been some casualties. In certain industries, notably the same two causing so much distress in New Hampshire-shoes and textiles-manufacturers in some countries have been hard pressed, especially by Italian competition.

But the overall picture is bright, and the Common Market is hungry for still more trade, especially with outside nations, including the United States.

The ECM hopes to come to the world trade bargaining table in Geneva next year with a unified program and to speak with one voice. This in itself would be no mean accomplishment, but Common Market officials in Brussels believe it can be done.

Europe knows the United States will be a tough bargainer, but the ECM appears willing to make reciprocal concessions, provided, as Colombier put it, there is true reciprocity of sacrifice.

European officials are aware of the powerful groups in the United States which view the prospect of freer trade with alarm and argue that there are a number of American tariff-cutting negotiations because they canindustries which must be exempted from not compete "with cheap foreign goods," or "low wage countries."

THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION ISSUE

But the Europeans argue that they could make a good case for treating some of their own industries as special exceptions, especially their agriculture.

Moreover, they are not unduly impressed by American pleas of inability to compete because of higher wage levels. They say the wage gap is narrowing steadily, and also that advanced American technology has given this country a method of overcoming its wage disadvantage.

They invite Americans to look at the record since the Common Market began in 1958. Imports from the United States have shot up nearly 60 percent. In 1962, America had a favorable trade balance with the ECM of a whopping $2 billion.

Some of the country-by-country figures are impressive. The ratio in favor of the United States in trade with Germany in 1962 was about 2 to 1; with France and Italy, slightly

less than 2 to 1; and nearly 3 to 1 with Holland.

One further example: Germany imports 60 percent more machinery from the United States than she exports to this country, according to Dr. Karl-Heinrich Rieker, chief economist of the Institute of German Industry. In fact, Dr. Rieker said, automobiles are the only major category of manufactured goods in which Germany sells more to the United States than she buys from us.

Meantime, progress is being made in preparation for next year's scheduled world trade negotiations in Geneva. They will be held under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), to which 53 nations subscribe. In trade jargon, they will be known as the "Kennedy round" of discussions.

PRECEDENT-SHATTERING EVENT

They will be precedent shattering so far as the United States is concerned. Apart from a handful of products exempted by law, President Kennedy has proposed that the entire list of American tariffs be laid on the table for negotiation of reductions of up to 50 percent of existing levels.

Before the final talks begin in Geneva, more products may be added to the list of exceptions. But the administration clearly intends to hold the list to a minimum.

This policy is being vigorously opposed by various American industries, including the hard pressed shoe and textile groups. They are arguing for more protection from import competition, not less.

But this far, the administration's position is stanchly in favor of freer trade. In this it has the support of major segments of American industry.

Washington appears convinced that the future growth of the American economy requires greater access to world markets; that substantially more businesses will prosper by trade expansion than will be hurt by it; and that American consumers I will benefit through lower prices and greater choice of goods as a result of international competition.

THE ADMINISTRATION POSITION

The administration is taking the position that American industry can, in fact, compete successfully with less protection than it now has, provided always that other countries lower their barriers to an equivalent extent

to give our products greater access to their markets.

For industries like textiles and shoes, so important to New Hampshire, the prospect of less protection is a nightmare.

Their determined efforts to see that the nightmare doesn't become a reality may be successful. It is too early to tell.

The choice facing the administration is this: If the United States wishes to get the tariffs of others lowered for our goods, we're going to be obliged to reciprocate-and some industries on both sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere in the world are going to be hurt.

DOUGLAS CREDIT CONTROL BILL

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the controversial truth-in-lending bill continues to misrepresent itself to the American public even though it has never cleared even the subcommittee to which it has been assigned.

The proposal was recently the subject of a press release by the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, an organization which "uses credit as a constructive force for essential volume."

These merchants, all of whom conduct their business in the State represented by the Senator who is principal backer of the misnamed truth-in-lending bill, have labeled the measure "the most mischievous current example of the effort for further Federal control" over the Nation's leading institutions.

In presenting a plaque and other liam G. Clark, the Merchants Association awards to Illinois Attorney General Wilscored the "mischievous control of credit by Federal agencies as contained in the Douglas credit control bill."

In that quotation, Mr. President, I suggest can be found a more appropriate title for a bill which is directly concerned with neither truth nor lending but which is directed primarily at Federal control of the credit which is so vital to American business.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the press release of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, dated November 6, 1963, be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the press release was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

DOUGLAS CREDIT CONTROL BILL

Top Chicagoland merchants who use credit as a constructive force for essential volume,

today noon-November 6-honored William G. Clark, attorney general of Illinois, for his success in setting up a Consumer Fraud Bureau, at a luncheon held at the MidAmerican Club, Chicago, under the auspices of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, a major legislative backer of the essential statute.

In presenting a plaque and other awards to the attorney general on behalf of the merchants, John Barr, chairman of the board of Montgomery Ward & Co., and chairman of the event, struck hard at the "mischievous control of credit by Federal agencies as contained in the Douglas credit control bill." His complete remarks are as follows: "I am happy to recognize and salute the young, energetic, imaginative and personable attorney general of the State of Illinois. Bill Clark is the type of public servant who deserves contemporary applause and recognition-and, Bill, we are happy to have an opportunity to extend our share of both.

We, at our shop over on Chicago Avenue, are convinced that sales volume diverted