from imposing severe restrictions upon the importation of American products, particularly farm products.

Mr. BRINKLEY. Yes, sir; that is right.

Senator DOUGLAS. I had long discussions on these very topics with the economic authorities of Western Germany, France, Belgium, England, and the Common Market last fall, and they had a reply which they made, "You have restrictions yourself on farm products."

And I guess it is true, isn't it, that we have restrictions on the importation of wheat, Canadian wheat?

Mr. BRINKLEY. Yes, there are a few restrictions under section 22 of the Agricultural Marketing Act which have been used very sparingly and only a handful of commodities have been affected.

Senator DOUGLAS. What in effect they were saying is, "You are another and you do not come before GATT with clean hands."

What I would like to ask is this: If we were able to get the Europeans to open their market in much larger measure to American products would you be in favor of a similar reduction in restrictions which we have on the importation of farm product in this country?

Mr. BRINKLEY. Well, I made the point, Senator, that I think it is an extremely dangerous situation, where we visualize pitting agricultural commodity against agricultural commodity.

Senator DOUGLAS. I understand.

Mr. BRINKLEY. If we are talking about multilateral trade we ought to mean multilateral trade, and I think that when we begin to separate out categories and negotiate on tariffs and tariffs alone without including these other things we are in a very dangerous position.

Senator DOUGLAS. I understand.

But what in effect the European countries are saying is that, "If you ask us to open our markets more broadly to American wheat, feed grains, soybean oil, powdered milk, frozen chickens, tobacco, and so forth, you cannot, at the same time, yourself impose restrictions on the farm products of Canada, Australia, and the like which you impose."

Mr. BRINKLEY. Well, I think perhaps one answer to that might very well be that overall, without respect to particular commodities we would be quite happy if they reduced their restrictions to the level to which we have reduced ours.

We have led the rest of the world, perhaps to the regret of a great many people, in light of the lack of reciprocity that we have experienced with respect to some commodities and some countries.

So I have no apologies whatever to make with respect to these restrictions that we do impose under section 22 of the Agricultural Marketing Act.

I think it is done basically, of course, in order to protect the operation of Government programs with respect to these commodities. I would go a step further and say that it is not an economic operation when we import quantities of agricultural commodities, when we al ready have ample production in our own countries, if it is economic production and efficiently produced and properly priced, and we don't take the position at all, that we are opposed to foreign countries doing whatever they reasonably can if their production is efficient, to provide their needs of food and fiber.

But when they establish restrictions and barriers which result in protection of uneconomic production, inefficient production, production at a higher price, and their people can be better supplied by imports from us, for example, or some other country, then the question becomes whether they really are doing their own people a service or a very serious disservice over a period of time.

Senator DOUGLAS. When I was in Australia several years ago, the Australians and New Zealanders complained that they were the most efficient wool producers in the world, and yet we protected a much more inefficient wool industry in this country, and they wanted us to admit a much larger proportion of Australian and New Zealand wool. And similarly, isn't it true that Canada feels her hard wheat is not admitted?

The Argentinans complain we keep out Argentinan beef under unreasonable hoof-and-mouth disease requirements.

So while I can see very clearly the defects in the European system, and I join with you in this, they also see very sharply the protection practices of our agriculture.

What I am trying to get at is this: You represent one of the largest farm groups. In getting a reduction of European tariffs and import practices on our farm products, would you favor a reduction in the tariffs and import practices which we use to restrict foreign farm commodities coming into this country?

Mr. BRINKLEY. Well, we are already importing very large quantities of agricultural commodities from foreign countries.

Senator DOUGLAS. I know. But still it is true that if you impose the market test on wool, for example, I think there is no doubt that Australian and New Zealand wool can come in and undersell American wool.

Mr. BRINKLEY. Yes.

Well, I think these things are all the subject of hard bargaining and sharp negotiations. I think this is what we are concerned with here, to set the stage and provide the machinery and the opportunity to extend world trade generally on a somewhat freer basis. I believe free trade would create far more problems than it could ever solve, but I think a great deal can be done over the years in hard reciprocal trade bargaining, the kind that I have tried to describe.

Senator DOUGLAS. Every one is for expanding world trade by expanding their own exports.

Mr. BRINKLEY. Well, this is a good way to do it.

Senator DOUGLAS. But you can't expand your exports permanently unless you also increase your imports.

Mr. BRINKLEY. Really you don't expand world trade unless you do expand your exports.

Senator DOUGLAS. This is just where the trouble lies.

I would agree with you. I think it is highly desirable for Europe to take more of our farm products than she is likely to take. I favor giving the President the power, the increased power if necessary, to impose restrictions, if this is necessary as a weapon. But suppose they say, as they undoubtedly will, "What are you going to do on Australian wool, what are you going to do on Canadian wheat, what are you going to do on Argentine beef?

What would be your answer? Suppose you are appointed to the delegation?

Mr. BRINKLEY. Heaven forbid.

Senator DOUGLAS. To deal with these matters as you may very well be, what would you say.

Mr. BRINKLEY. I would say, first of all, "What are you willing to do for me."

Senator DOUGLAS. Pardon?

Mr. BRINKLEY. I would ask them what they would be willing to do for me.

Senator DOUGLAS. Yes.

Mr. BRINKLEY. And at the same time I would be asking what can we do for them.

Senator DOUGLAS. This is what every good bargainer does, starts out with feeling the other side out, but they will soon be feeling out your side.

Mr. BRINKLEY. Precisely.

Senator DOUGLAS. And sooner or later you will have to read each others' mind and start moving. I am trying to read your mind, I am trying to find out whether you are saying it is a good thing for the Europeans to make concessions to us, and I am trying to find out whether you are going to make concessions to them on farm products. Mr. BRINKLEY. I would make up my mind during the bargaining process.

Senator DOUGLAS. We have to write this legislation.

Mr. BRINKLEY. Yes, sir.

Senator DOUGLAS. Now, we don't operate in a void. We can operate only to the degree that public opinion permits us to do so. If there is determined opposition from the American farm organizations to any concessions on Hard wheat, Australian-New Zealand wool, Argentine beef, I guess dates and figs come in because California feels she is a very efficient producer of dates and figs, if farm groups say, "Well, don't touch them," our ability to bargain would be distinctly limited.

If, on the other hand, farm groups say, "We will be statesmen or. the matters which affect us as well as statesmen on matters which affect others," we would be greatly strengthened, and I wait for a word of reassurance from them.

Mr. BRINKLEY. I think that with respect to these commodities on which we might be asked for concessions, there would be a good many questions to ask.

For example, I would not like the job of trying to negotiate the entry of dairy products into New Zealand. I think it would be extremely difficult for many countries to show any reason why they should have an entry to a market that is already supplied adequately and efficiently.

Senator DOUGLAS. Take wool. Do you think our market is supplied adequately by American wool?

Mr. BRINKLEY. No, sir; we have legislation that provides for a considerable subsidy in order to increase the production of American wool.

Senator DOUGLAS. Do you approve of that?

Mr. BRINKLEY. Yes, sir; I approve of it. I think we need to be

Senator DOUGLAS. Then how can you condemn West Germany for wanting to have a larger share of the wheat which they consume grown at home?

Mr. BRINKLEY. Because it is extremely inefficient production. Senator DOUGLAS. Our production of wool is relatively ineffiicent compared with New Zealand.

Mr. BRINKLEY. I think it is. But I think there are some national defense problems involved.

Senator DOUGLAS. They say they have a national defense issue. That in time of war they don't want to be dependent on oversea wheat. Mr. BRIKLEY. Yes. Of course, this is a favorite reason and I say again

Senator DOUGLAS. You think it is real in our case but assumed in theirs?

Mr. BRINKLEY. No; I think it is quite real in both cases and I am saying it is a case of setting the stage through sound legislation that would enable sharp hard reciprocal trade bargaining on these particular commodities, whatever they may be, across the board.

Senator DOUGLAS. Then you would favor having us reduce our agricultural tariffis and other restrictions if in return for this we could get adequate concessions?

Mr. BRINKLEY. I would say that if they could make a case that would match the kind of criteria that are needed to protect American agriculture, yes, I think that this is a valid position to take.

Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Brinkley, you are a very nice fellow but you are adept at not answering questions.

Mr. BRINKLEY. I would not want to sell agriculture down the river. It is a hard question to answer, Senator, and I doubt if it can be answered out of hand because I really think

Senator DOUGLAS. You can, with your skilled dexterity, avoid answering these questions. We cannot avoid them. We have to answer them. And our answer depends in large part upon the attitude you take.

Mr. BRINKLEY. I am trying my best to be responsive to the question. But this is a question that I have said I cannot be responsive to because of the conditions surrounding the negotiations at a given time will be governing.

What we need is legislation that will permit us to engage in the same hard bargaining that other countries are able to do.

Senator DOUGLAS. Including reduction in agricultural tariffs and restrictions on the part of the United States?

Mr. BRINKLEY. Yes; if they are justified.

Senator DOUGLAS. Well, that is good. We have taken one step, one good step, and you have my congratulations.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. BRINKLEY. I want to be quite sure the words, "If they are justified," appear in the transcript. [Laughter.]

Senator DOUGLAS. That takes it all away. [Laughter.]

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Brinkley, a good negotiator who was going to protect the American position would not necessarily go over and open the discussions and say, "I am going to make these concessions and what are you going to do?"

He would ask the question first, would he not?

Mr. BRINKLEY. Yes.

Senator DOUGLAS. May I say in reply to my good friend from Delaware that the American negotiator, if he goes over there, is always subject to criticism from home. And he is always likely to attack not only on the floor of the Senate, but also, if we make concessions, from certain American producers who think they are hurt. So, it would be highly desirable for us at least to know how far we can go without being denounced as an enemy of American agriculture or business, if you do not want to testify publicly on this, come around to the back door and let us know.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Brinkley.

Mr. BRINKLEY. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Herschel D. Newsom of the National Grange.

Mr. Newsom, take a seat, sir.

Mr. NEWSOM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Alton Denslow, our associate legislative counsel, to come to the stand with me. The CHAIRMAN. That will be satisfactory.

STATEMENT OF HERSCHEL D. NEWSOM, MASTER, THE NATIONAL GRANGE; ACCOMPANIED BY ALTON DENSLOW, ASSOCIATE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL

Mr. NEWSOM. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I certainly appreciate the privilege of appearing before this committee and I think I should confess to you that I appreciate the privilege of appearing exactly at this time.

I find myself in very substantial, if not complete, accord with my friend, Homer Brinkley, the previous witness. I think we have tried very earnestly to take account of the points made by the witness who preceded him. Our testimony is rather short because we have elected to emphasize only a few points that are of major concern to us, and I should like to say, Mr. Chairman, that we are prepared if it is the pleasure of this committee that we do so, to suggst some amendments either now or, if you will permit, to be added, handed to you or your staff, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad indeed to have you present the amendments that you desire and we will insert them in the record. Mr. NEWSOM. Thank you, sir.

(The amendments referred to appear at the end of Mr. Newsom's testimony.)

Mr. NEWSOM. At the 95th annual session of the National Grange last November, our members adopted the following resolution relating to foreign trade policy:

In the field of foreign economic trade policy, the National Grange continues its support of trade policies designed to expand international trade on a reeiprocal and mutually benefiting basis * * *.

In reaffirming this policy, it is pointed out that we are increasingly disturbed by the continued maintenance by some countries of discriminatory import restrictions against U.S. agricultural products. These discriminations and restric tions, which were tolerated during the period of dollar shortages because other countries were not able to generate exports to acquire dollars, are no longer justified.