Can you, for example, explain why in the case of textiles you might have thought it wise to have some sort of restraint on imports, but with General Electric your attitude might be different?

Mr. DENT. With respect to the textile matter, this is an industry that goes back to the early part of man's history in this world, and it is spread wholly around the globe. It is one of the first industrial developments in any country.

We find producers right now, under the long-term cotton textile arrangement, there are 31 signatories, I believe, giving some feeling for the breadth. That is just cotton textiles. Manmade fibers and wool extend beyond that.

This is the industry in the United States which gives more employment than any other. This employment is located in the rural South, where as it's been opened up to minorities, helps reduce the outmigration to the cities.

And on the other hand, we have the apparel industry, which is largely centered in a good many of the cities. I know some years ago, the apparel payroll by itself in the city of New York was just about equal to the welfare budget, which, as you know, is sizable, making a significant contribution there.

Furthermore, the European countries had rigid quotas against the oriental exports, or imports into those countries, so that the oriental goods were being unnaturally forced to the Unites States, to the serious detriment of employees, and whole communities and States.

And in this instance, the industry held together, and they elected to try to influence the Government of the United States in what was equitable, rather than electing to go offshore and receive tax subsidies and other things which might have been beneficial.

And I think it's to their everlasting and eternal credit that they have defended American business and industry, and I might add that there are many circles in the United States which look down upon it for having defended the Nation's interests.

Now in the other case, of course, I am a vote of one on a large corporation which has a great deal of momentum, which has many other involvements.

I do recall, some years ago, the General Electric Co. appealed to the public and the Congress with respect to the purchase by the TVA, as I recall, of an offshore generator. And being a publicly held corporation, public reaction to that was such that they felt that perhaps it was better to go along with what appeared to be national policy.

This was long before my day. I am reciting history, not facts. But they are one of the largest employers in the United States. They do perhaps more research than anyone else.

Each year they file more patents than anybody else, and their contribution to this economy and the strength of the Nation is very significant.

Senator HART. I had in mind perhaps some comment from you as to the factors that persuaded General Electric to export capital, establish production facilities overseas, offshore, and why, if it is the case, you believe that is not adverse to American interests.

Mr. DENT. I really do not believe that I should testify before this committee on behalf of the General Electric Co., and its actions.

Senator HART. No. I would not interpret your answer to that question as either as an advocate or defender of General Electric. I had

hoped that you might explain, based on that experience, why export of capital for the creation of production was not adverse to American economic interests.

Mr. DENT. Senator, I think there is a point that I can make for you. The last radio manufacturing facility in this country was General Electric. The only reason they went offshore was to maintain a toehold in this market. It was strictly competitive conditions which caused them to elect finally to be the last one in the radio business here.

So we run into this whole question that I discussed with Senator Hartke that it is absolutely essential that we must be competitive as far as the burdens which any business must bear with respect to its competition.

Senator HART. Well, do you think it would have been in America's best interest to have established either a quota or a tariff so high as to prevent the import of radios and televisions, permitting General Electric and all the others to stay here rather than go offshore?

Mr. DENT. I would much prefer to study the record and give you a considered judgment. This is, as you can appreciate, a vastly complex problem. From an emotional standpoint, I would much prefer to buy a radio made in Schenectady, or made in Indiana, but that is an emotional reaction rather than the reasoned answer that you deserve.

Senator HART. Senator Baker expressed his concern that the efforts to improve the economy of certain chronically depressed areas in this country go forward and you indicated in your answer that you shared that concern and desire.

All the news I get-and it's 92d hand, I must confess-is sort of depressing. Since the November elections, there have been announcements of cutbacks, some complete cutoffs, of several programs that Congress has established to assist rural areas, areas of chronic unemployment and low incomes.

There is one program that will be in your jurisdiction. The Economic Development Administration. The rumors with respect to plans for that are all bad, too.

Have you had an opportunity to discuss with the appointing authority the prospects for EDA?

Mr. DENT. I know that EDA, along with many similar types of programs, is under scrutiny as far as the 1973 budget is concerned. They are carrying out all commitments made to date. I believe that they are, during this period of reexamination, withholding any new commitments.

This is the extent of my knowledge. Senator, I do think, however, that apropos of your comment about all bad news, that the American public school be gratified that here is an effort to bring about a considered analysis of our expenditures in order to avoid the necessity of a tax increasse.

I am familiar with the fact that people in our plants certainly would not want to see their "deducts," as they are called, go up in order to sustain larger Government operations than we presently have.

And I think that this is a bit of good news which, in order to successfully achieve this, each one of us may have to reexamine priorities and undoubtedly some of the things that I am interested in are going to suffer.

91-674-73- -8

Senator HART. Well, we can play that both ways. I am not sure everybody would be happy all deductions were eliminated if the consequences were disastrous.

Mr. DENT. No, sir; I said no increases. I didn't mean to reduce them at all.

Senator HART. Well, specifically, the authorization for EDA expires in a very few months-the end of June. Before I ask you the question, in case you don't know. I probably should in fairness say that the President vetoed the bill extending this.

Now, do you think EDA should be extended? Do you think we should extend it?

Mr. DENT. I would want to go over all of the expenditures that are involved and see, evaluate the programs that are being accomplished by this organization, and come up with a considered judgment at a later date.

Senator HART. There are some of us who have regional economic development organization in our States. The Upper Great Lakes Regional Development Commission is one with which I am familiar. I think if some of those textile workers could see the benefits that have accrued to the Upper Great Lakes Basin as a result of the development programs through EDA, that they would not resist continuing to participate in the funding.

There are a lot of people in the northern regions of those three States that are enabled now to buy textile products that they couldn't buy before.

I am glad that you are going to look hard to identify what I think you will find are benefits from these regional programs.

You went south to a region that had been burdened with chronic unemployment, and seemingly rather limited opportunities. And I am sure you agree that prayer and good work alone doesn't reverse that pattern. Like it or not, money is required and at the moment the best devise that Congress has figured out are these regional development agencies.

If you come up with something better, fine. But until you do, don't withdraw the hope that they provide in about a half dozen depressed

areas.

Mr. DENT. Senator, might I comment?

We did go south 25 years ago. I well recall that we were the first postwar yankees in town. Another couple came and we were always invited out together so there'd be someone to talk to us.

But contrary to the Federal expenditures, in our country the people have banded together and found that team work and dedication is their secret weapon.

And do you know that today, not only do we have a strong domestic industry, but we have 22 plants representing seven foreign nations that have invested $230 million in our country alone. And they employ 2,000 people.

And today, Dr. Helmut Schmidt, the Finance Minister of the West German Republic, is in our county because that county represents the greatest concentration of West German investment in the United States.

So I say that while we need Federal money occasionally, that people can ban together and have a great influence on this.

I have served, until resigning last month, as Chairman of our Planning and Development Commission. I claim no credit for this, other than perhaps a negative credit that if I hadn't appreciated the value of this foreign investment in the United States, we might have tended to stop it.

But we have the flags of seven nations flying over companies in our own county, which I think is a remarkable tribute to the people that have put this story together in a period of not over 10 or 12 years. Senator HART. And I am sure if Strom Thurmond had not had to leave, he would have cited certain Federal funds which went into South Carolina as critically important in a development of that

nature.

Mr. DENT. Well, I do know that industrial bonds underwritten by the county are involved in this, and I am sure that the Department of Commerce, with its invest in American program, has made a strong contribution.

But by the same token, when this one county has been able to garner more unto itself than most of the counties in this country, there is something more significant than those programs that are available nationwide.

Senator HART. One other concern that will be yours as the result of your assignment to the Commerce Department is merchant marine activities-let me make a preliminary comment, and I think I won't even wind up asking a question, but request that you examine the question.

For decades, I suppose, the emphasis was on foreign commerce, although the Merchant Marine Act has declared that the United States should have a merchant marine sufficient to carry its domestic com

merce.

But 10 years ago, one person was assigned in the Department to oversee the entire domestic fleet. Then in 1971, to the credit of your predecessor, there was established within the Maritime Administration a new office, an Office of Domestic Shipping, which had three divisions Inland Waterways, Domestic Ocean Shipping, and the Great Lakes.

Its objective was to develop adequate shipping capabilities to improve the operations in domestic waterborne trade.

Now that Office has done a study of insurance rates on the Great Lakes, as an example. Long-range programs have been reviewed and there appears to be a very genuine effort to promote all segments of the domestic shipping industry.

Under an act that Congress passed in the 91st Congress, a 3-year program is underway to demonstrate the practicability of extending the navigation season on the Great Lakes and you are named as a participant in that program. And as I said, the Maritime Administration has been active in it.

I think it's readily apparent the benefits to Congress and to all in the region—and we argue nationally, too-that would accrue if we could open up a shipping season-extend the shipping season.

Now with that background, I am disturbed that all the signals would suggest that the Maritime Administration is planning to curtail the activities of the Office of Domestic Shipping, which includes this Great Lakes Division.

The effort has just begun, really, to bear fruit. The Great Lakes operators are now getting greater response from the agency than they ever did before. And there is work actively underway in the areas of pollution, communications, navigation systems, and commodity data.

I would ask that you review the action-if the rumors I have heard are wrong, that's good-in the hope that it does not signal a return to the old notion that you should concentrate only on those operating in foreign commerce. Indeed, I would most of all hope that there is no intention to abandon the 3-year demonstration program on the seaway, nor the water quality arrangements that are in effect with Canada.

As I said, no answer is required, but a request is made.

And my last comment again is not a question. Last year, originating in this committee and going through the Congress, there were several bills that involved the regulation of the taking of fish and wildlife. I took the position that that activity was better performed by the Department of Interior than the Department of Commerce, even though the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, under the Department, had recently been created and was staffed with very able people.

I thought that the perfectly proper commercial orientation of the Commerce Department might fog up the environmental and wild life aspects.

The committee did not agree with me, nor the Congress. And I should acknowledge that NOAA has made a fine environmental impact so far.

I just want to express the hope that in your tenure as Secretary you will encourage them to continue.

Thank you. Senator Beall?

Senator BEALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I apologize for coming in late. But I had another commitment. And Senator Baker has asked me to apologize to you for having to leave early, for another commitment. It's good to be here for the termination of the hearing.

I won't ask many questions, because I don't like to be repetitive, and I gather from listening to some of the comments that a good many subjects have been covered about which I would have asked.

I would like, however, to clarify a matter. There was a discussion about economic development and EDA and about the regional approach to economic development.

I gather that although you think there ought to be a reexamination of programs and I am sure we all agree there should be a reexamination of programs-you do feel there is a major role to be played by the Department of Commerce in economic development around the country, do you not?

Mr. DENT. No question about that, sir.

Senator BEALL. I won't ask the question, because I think the administration has recommended something other than a regional approach from time to time, but I would ask you, as one who has had some experience with the regional approach in the Appalachian region. I think the Appalachian regional program is one of the best programs that has ever been developed and I happen to believe that it's the kind of program that is successful for many reasons, among which is the fact that we aren't treating the problems of an area as if they