Senator MALONE. Would you say that again?

Mr. TRIGGS. I was not speaking just of agricultural products. Senator MALONE. We have given away $70 billion since World War II. The Export-Import Bank loans money to these nations to buy these.

Mr. TRIGGS. I get the point you are making, that this imbalance is possible because we keep giving other countries money.

This is correct, of course. This imbalance could not continue forever unless we did this.

Senator MALONE. Suppose we put that back on profitable trade. According to all estimates of the amount, you would export less under the present situation, export less percentage than you were exporting in 1934. I see all these estimates or statements from the White House and from Paul Hoffman or from the one world government exponents.

Why, 42 million people are employed in these exports. There is no question about that. But how many were employed in 1934? The greater percentage of the exportable goods were going into profitable trade and would not go at all in profitable trade if you subtracted the things you are giving in subsidy.

You say you have these exports. You are paying for every one of them.

Now, Secretary Benson testified, one of the finest men I know, he has told us privately and I am sure he has testified officially that he is making enemies all over the world by dropping these farm products in there below the world price, which is about half of what it costs us. But forget that. He is making enemies all over the world. Canada just said the other day, in this morning's paper, that we are taking their markets, which of course we are. The only thing is that Canada has more sense than we had.

In 1948 I was making a talk up there and they were waiting then for us to give them the money under the Marshall plan to enable England to buy their agricultural products with cash. They also gave their prospectors a seven-and-a-half-dollar bonus per ounce. Nevertheless, that is what is happening to us. That is the reason that the Canadian dollar is worth more than the American dollar.

You also notice that they manipulate, they value the money in terms of the dollar without regard to the value on the international exchange at all. France is one of them.

Suppose that we just had a policy, cold turkey, that if we wanted to sell anything, we sell wheat to France, they pay for the wheat in francs, international exchange value, 400 to the dollar instead of 350, whatever it is. That money then would be received in our United States Treasury and used to buy whatever we want to buy from France and her possessions. Would there be anything wrong with that?

Mr. TRIGGS. No, as I understand your question. That is the basis of trade now.

Senator MALONE. But it is not. The basis of trade now is that we pay the difference between the world price and the American cost. Mr. TRIGGS. Yes, under this special legislation.

Senator MALONE. It has nothing to do with world trade at all. It is not trade. We just give it to them. You agree with that?

Mr. TRIGGS. Yes. The statement you made is a statement of the normal trade situation.

27255-58-pt. 2—14

Senator MALONE. Yes. Of course we have not had anything normal for 24 years. We have just got the dust kicked up.

You see, it would not be giving anybody anything. That is the reason these economic one-worlders do not like it. If you want to sell your wheat to France, to Turkey or someone else, let them give you their money in terms of their money on the world stock exchange and then let our Government take that money and, if it is Turkey, let them buy chromite with it.

The only way we can win or lose would be to change the value on the international exchanges between France and us, is that not about it?

Mr. TRIGGS. Yes.

Senator MALONE. Would that not suit you?

Mr. TRIGGS. I think this is desirable. We are not the only ones that can make this determination. Other countries participate. Senator MALONE. Are we not? You mean we have to have them agree they will not cheat you?

Mr. TRIGGS. I guess I am not following you, Senator.

Senator MALONE. Let us go over it again. I think you are following me all right.

In other words, we have to have someone agree with us that they will not cheat us in a transaction, otherwise we are bound to be cheated; is that it?

Mr. TRIGGS. No. If we have Turkish exchange, we have the right to expend that Turkish exchange within such limit as the Turks seek to place on it. I guess they have that sovereign power and there is nothing we can do about it.

Senator MALONE. The English have always used that.

In 1947 I was in Italy. A banker there cried on my shoulder for a couple of hours. He said he thought he was doing pretty well. He had an exchange balance in pounds and now they had he did not call it frozen-they would not allow him to spend a pound. They froze it on the exchange and would not allow him to expend his pounds, so he was broke.

Of course, Turkey could do that, but when they did that, you would know then just how crooked it was and maybe that would be all you could use, you would not take any more of it. So they are buying chromite from Turkey. They can buy it with the Turkish money, can they not, taking the world exchange value for your wheat? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes.

Senator MALONE. I am just trying to a bring this home to you, that what we are doing now, what you have been testifying to, is that you are for the overproduction of farm products in this Nation beyond the American market, way beyond the American market, and you are for drying up other industries in order that the cheaper stuff may come in to give them a few more dollars so that the State Department will not lose quite so much when it sells the wheat and material that is under the support price.

Now, have I not stated it right?

Mr. TRIGGS. We do not think we are doing all that.

Senator MALONE. It is the effect of what you are doing; is it not? Mr. TRIGGS. We think we are promoting a policy that is in the interest of American farmers and in the interest of the general public

as well. We could be wrong, but that is the viewpoint that our people have of their policy. I suppose people can reach all conclusions as to what is right, but I assure you this is a sincere conclusion. Senator MALONE. If we will give the Secretary the money to continue to sell your grain throughout the world at a reduced price, the world price, below what our support price is, you think it is advantageous to the farmers and to the people of the United States to trade the minerals industry, the machine tool industry, the textile industry and 5,000 other industries, if necessary, to keep that up?

Mr. TRIGGS. If that export business is on a sound economic basis. Now, you will immediately counter and you will say, "I just told you why it is not economic sound basis." All I can answer to that is that we wish it were on a more sound economic basis and we are struggling to go in that direction.

Senator MALONE. In the meantime, you want to sacrifice the other industries in that interest?

Mr. TRIGGS. We do not figure we will sacrifice.

Senator MALONE. You do not know that the copper industry has closed entirely, do you?

Mr. TRIGGS. We, of course, are not the only interests that benefit from a high level of trade by any means.

Senator MALONE. You are testifying for the farm industry, and I am trying to understand how you can do it, how you can be for the sacrifice of other industrise in your interest.

Mr. TRIGGS. We do not reach any such conclusion. We also recognize that there are some industries in agriculture that have difficulty in competing against imports. This is no reason to undertake a program to protect an industry whose costs are higher here than they are in some other country under any and all circumstances.

Senator MALONE. Now I think you have hit the nail on the head. The only thing you want to single out is your own to put up the taxpayers' money to make the difference between the world price and your support price?

Mr. TRIGGS. I could not follow you.

Senator MALONE. You want the American Congress, the Congress of the United States, to continue to give them money to buy those products and to continue to give the Department of Agriculture money so that you can sell at the world price and keep the support price for you, but you are not for that for any other industry?

Mr. TRIGGS. If I am following you, we are hopeful that Public Law 480 will not be permanent legislation. We have recommended that the amount appropriated for this purpose be reduced somewhat. Our policy looks forward, we hope

Senator MALONE. Is that the amount of money that is appropriated to take care of the difference in world price and support price of agricultural products?

Mr. TRIGGS. It comes out of the Commodity Credit Corporation. Senator MALONE. What is 480?

Mr. TRIGGS. 480 is the law which authorizes the exchange of United States farm products for foreign currency.

Senator MALONE. You do not want to sell it for foreign currency at all?

Mr. TRIGGS. Yes.

Senator MALONE. Then you would want an increase, would you not? Mr. TRIGGS. We know that to some extent the use of Public Law 480 is a subsidized program and we know that in the long run agriculture will be better off with less subsidy rather than more.

Senator MALONE. Why do they not quit?

Mr. TRIGGS. We are trying to little by little, but we cannot get there.

Senator MALONE. You are for part of Mr. Benson's program?
Mr. TRIGGS. I am for part of it.

Senator MALONE. What part are you for?

Mr. TRIGGS. To give you an illustration, Mr. Benson has recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture have authority to fix the level at which prices of farm products shall be supported between 60 and 90 percent parity, I guess zero to 90.

We propose that the Congress determine the level at which prices should be supported and that the formula be, at least for certain commodities that we have made these recommendations in respect to, that the formula be 90 percent of the 3-year average market price. Senator MALONE. That makes a pretty good market for you, does it not?

Mr. TRIGGS. That is a lower price support.

Senator MALONE. Would you go for that for minerals?
Mr. TRIGGS. I do not think minerals could live on that.
Senator MALONE. Would you go for it?

Mr. TRIGGS. You are asking me a personal question, Senator Malone, that I have no authority to answer on behalf of the American Farm Bureau.

Senator MALONE. We will just leave the American Farm Bureau out for a minute.

What would you think about it with respect to machine tools and other commodities manufactured in the United States? Just give the other fellow a break.

Mr. TRIGGS. You are suggesting a price support program for minerals at 90 percent with the 3-year average market price?

Senator MALONE. I am asking you if you favor it.

Mr. TRIGGS. No.

Senator MALONE. You think only agriculture should have that advantage?

Mr. TRIGGS. Senator, we are trying to get away from excessive intervention of Government in agriculture. This is a matter to get away from it. We hope that the minerals industry does not want itself to become involved in Government intervention of the scope that they lose their independence as an industry.

Senator MALONE. Lose their what?

Mr. TRIGGS. Their independence. They have lost their industry, to say nothing of independence. So is the machine tool industry losing its industry. So is the textiles industry.

It is not a question of losing any more; it is a question of survival. Senator MALONE. Do you think it would be all right for these other industries to revert to the 1930 Tariff Act and give them a chance to compete on the American market on an even basis with foreign nations?

Mr. TRIGGS. The way you say that, it is all right, but you are asking a question I have no right to testify to as the American Farm Bureau. Senator MALONE. You have been around a long time. You look pretty broad between the eyes.

Mr. TRIGGS. To say what my personal policy is, I would have to study this proposal in quite a bit of detail.

Senator MALONE. You have just about run the string out on this kind of testimony, the advantage of one industry over another, trading one for another internationally and through the White House and through Geneva. I imagine that by the end of this year quite a few people will find that out because Congress will be going home about the 1st to 15th of August.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BIBLE. Thank you, Mr. Triggs.

We will now hear from Congressman A. S. J. Carnahan, of Missouri.

STATEMENT OF A. S. J. CARNAHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity afforded me to appear before you in support of the objectives of S. 3892, the bill to stabilize production of copper, lead, zinc, acid-grade fluorspar, and tungsten from domestic mines by providing for stabilization payments to producers of ores or concentrates of these commodities.

It is my privilege to represent in Missouri the greatest lead-mining district in the United States. This industry has supported five important communities in Missouri over the years.

Some 4,330 people in the Eighth Congressional District of Missouri are employed in mining, not to mention the collateral employment opportunities. Of this number, about 3,350 persons are engaged in the extraction of metals and some 980 persons are engaged in the extration of nonmetals such as sand, stone, and gravel.

Last year the value of Missouri's lead production was over $40 million, an indication of the wealth this operation adds to the Nation. Certainly such an important resources which has demonstrated its ability to supply about a third of the domestic production warrants the attention of Congress when it experiences any threat to its survival. Four years ago the United States Tariff Commission indicated the necessity of Government action in an exhaustive report, made pursuant to a resolution of the Ways and Means Committee. Again this year the United States Tariff Commission submitted recommendations to the President for higher tariffs and quotas to protect the domestic lead and zinc producers, following an investigation of many months. The lead mines in my district in March of this year underwent a 3-week shutdown. The salaried workers sustained a 10 percent reduction in salaries effective this past June 1, and the workers are most fearful now that the next step will be a reduced workweek or a drastic reduction in force.