State Department will propose this again at the next session. I hope the Congress will reject it again and reaffirm the superiority of section 22 which now says in subsection (f) (as amended in 1951):

"(f) No trade agreement or other international agreement heretofore or hereafter entered into by the United States shall be applied in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of this section."

BACKGROUND AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SUBSECTION (F)

We have previously discussed the broadening and strengthening amendments to section 22 contained in the Agricultural Act of 1948. Those amendments were made upon the recommendation of the President and the Secretary of Agriculture. An additional amendment, subsection (f), was added at the request of the State Department. As then enacted (before Congress repealed and reversed the policy in 1951, as quoted above) it read as follows:

"(f) No proclamation under this section shall be enforced in contravention of any treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is or hereafter becomes a party."

This subsection (f) which was added to section 22 in 1948 had not been recommended by the President or by the Secretary of Agriculture, which recommendations were mentioned in the House committee report quoted above. It was inserted, late in the bill's consideration, at the request of the State Department. The significance of this subsection (f) apparently was not realized at the time of its proposal. Not even the argricultural organizations recognized the real meaning and intent of this subsection (f) amendment until after the Agricultural Act of 1948 had been enacted into law. This new subsection (f) did not even receive any prominent mention or discussion in the House or Senate debates. It seems that nobody but the State Department was aware of its true significance during the debates of the Act-and the State Department did not make the real intent known until after it was enacted.

However, soon after passage of the Agricultural Act of 1948, the State Department began to argue that section 22 import quotas could not be imposed because they would violate Article XI of GATT which was proclaimed effective by the President as of January 1, 1948. The State Department contended that, in the light of subsection (f), the trade-agreement provision prohibiting the imposition of import quotas or other import restrictions was paramount and that section 22 and all of our agricultural programs were subservient to such trade agreements, past or future. (See State Department letters of April 10, 1950, and June 27, 1950, to the White House and Tariff Commission in connection with section 22 investigation No. 4, at pages 78-80 of Senate hearings on H. R. 1612 in 1951). In other words, the State Department suddenly asserted authority to overrule or modify any farm program by merely agreeing to do so in an international agreement.

This immediately aroused the indignation of many agricultural groups in the United States and their representatives in the Congress. Immediate steps were taken towards repealing said subsection (f) and toward a congressional mandate that the exact reverse must be true; that is, that section 22 and the agricultural programs shall be paramount and any trade agreement heretofore or hereafter entered into must be amended and made subservient to section 22 and the agricultural programs. At the very next opportunity, in the Agricultural Act of 1949, the Senate inserted a section (sec. 415 of H. R. 5345) completely reversing the language, intent and legislative policy of subparagraph (f) to read as follows:

"(f) No international agreement hereafter shall be entered into by the United States, or renewed, extended or allowed to extend beyond its permissible termination date in contravention of this section."

This amendment was adopted by an overwhelming vote in the Senate; however, it was dropped in conference with the House.

The Congress did not accept this defeat. The Senate renewed its effort to reverse the State Department policy embodied in subsection (f) and to further strengthen the administration of Section 22 at the next session of Congress. In 1950, the Commodity Credit Corporation-borrowing power-Act (H. R. 6567, P. L. 579) again contained a comparable amendment approved unanimously by the Senate Agriculture Committee. The Senate Agriculture Committee commented as follows (S. Rept. No. 1375, March 30, 1950):

"The committee amendment to the bill is a complete substitute for section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, relative to import fees and quotas

on agricultural commodities. Under the authority of section 22, the President may impose fees or quotas on agricultural imports if it is found that such imports are rendering ineffective or materially interfering with any price-support program or any other program undertaken by the Department of Agriculture with respect to any agricultural commodity or product thereof. Section 22 presently provides that the United States Tariff Commission will investigate the facts of such interference and report to the President; the committee amendment would transfer this function to the Department of Agriculture.

"Section 22 also provides that no proclamation made under it shall be enforced in contravention of any treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is or hereafter becomes a party. The committee amendment to section 22 would provide that no international agreement could be entered into by the United States, or renewed, extended, or allowed to extend beyond its termination date in contravention of section 22. Your committee believes that such protection must be given the farm price support program in this country if it is to accomplish its purpose. Therefore, the amendment is recommended for enactment."

This section was adopted by the Senate without objection. It will be noted from the above comment of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and the unanimous action of the Senate, that the Senate had become so dissatisfied with the manner in which section 22 was being administered and the manner in which the State Department was trying to modify and largely nullify it, that it voted to transfer the administration of section 22 from the President and the Tariff Commission entirely to the Secretary of Agriculture, making it completely mandatory. The Senate did this in order to remove or minimize the influence that the State Department could have over the administration of section 22. Also, this amendment adopted by the Senate, again completely reversed the language, intent, and legislative policy of subsection (f), making it read as follows:

"(f) No international agreement hereafter shall be entered into by the United States, or renewed, extended, or allowed to extend beyond its permissible termination date in contravention of this section."

However, the House conferees again refused to go all the way with the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment was modified in conference in accordance with the following statement from the Conference Report (H. Rept. No. 2269, June 15, 1950, to accompany H. R. 6567):

"The Senate amendment proposed a new section 3 to the House bill which would amend section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act in several respects. The committee of conference recommended that the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amend-ment.

"The Senate amendment made no change in the House bill with respect to increasing the borrowing power of the Commodity Credit Corporation from $4,750,000,000 to $6,750,000,000. The Senate amendment proposed several changes to section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. There was no similar provision in the House bill. The conference amendment would amend section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act in two respects, and the differences between the existing provisions of such section 22 and the conference amendment are indicated below.

"The first change relates to subsection (2) of section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act which provides that whenever the President has reason to believe that any article or articles are being or are practically certain to be imported into the United States under such conditions and in such quantities as to render or tend to render ineffective, or materially interfere with, any program or operation undertaken under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended, or the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, or section 32, Public Law No. 320, 74th Congress, approved August 24, 1935, as amended, or any loan, purchase, or other program or operation undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, or any agency operating under its direction, with respect to any agricultural commodity or product thereof, or to reduce substantially the amount of any product processed in the United States from any agricultural commodity or product thereof, with respect to which any such program or operation is being undertaken, the President shall cause an immediate investigation to be made by the United States Tariff Commission, which shall give precedence to investigations under section 22 to determine such facts. Such investigations shall be made after notice and opportunity for hearing to interested parties, and shall be conducted subject to such regulations as the President shall specify.

"In lieu of the existing provisions of subsection (a) of section 22 which provide that the President shall cause an immediate investigation to be made after he has reason to believe that any article or articles are being or practically certain to be imported which will affect the above mentioned programs, the conference amendment places upon the Secretary of Agriculture the responsibility of notifying the President whenever the Secretary of Agriculture believes or has reason to believe that any article or articles are being or practically certain to be imported into the country so as to render, or tend to render, ineffective or materially interfere with the above-mentioned programs. The conference amendment further provides that, if the President agrees that there is reason for such belief on the part of the Secretary of Agriculture, the President shall cause an immediate investigation to be made by the United States Tariff Commission which under existing law is authorized to make such investigation. "The second change relates to subsection (f) of section 22 which now provides that no proclamation under section 22 shall be enforced in contravention of any treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is or hereafter becomes a party. In lieu of this provision the conference amendment would provide that no proclamation under section 22 shall be enforced in contravention of any treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is or hereafter becomes a party; but no international agreement or amendment to an existing international agreement shall hereafter be entered into which does not permit the enforcement of such section with respect to the articles and countries to which such agreements on tariffs and trade, as heretofore entered into by the United States, permits such enforcement with respect to the articles and countries to which such general agreement is applicable. Prescription of a lower rate of duty for any article than that prescribed by the general agreement on tariffs and trade shall not, if subject to the escape provisions of such general agreement, be deemed a violation of this subsection. The effect of the conference amendment with respect to such subsection (f) is to make sure that future international agreements or amendments to existing international agreements give effect to the provisions of section 22 within the framework of the general agreement on tariffs and trade."

Thus, while the conferees did not accept all of the Senate amendment to section 22, they did recognize the need for further improving the procedure of section 22 and of preventing any further nulification or restriction of Section 22 by any future trade agreements.

The amendment as approved by the conferees and finally enacted into law specified that the Secretary of Agriculture shall have responsibility for making prompt preliminary investigations to determine when imports might threaten the effective operation of any agricultural program and that he report the same to the President with the view of the President's ordering an immediate and prompt investigation by the Tariff Commission. Such preliminary investigations by the Secretary of Agriculture were already provided for by a Presidential Executive Order, but the Congress felt it necessary to implement the administration of section 22 by making such preliminary investigations and reports to the President by the Secretary of Agriculture mandatory in the law. The conferees and the Congress also recognized, that subsection (f), as it was enacted in 1948, might be construed to authorize the State Department and the President to negotiate future trade agreements that might even further modify and circumscribe the effective operation of section 22 than was the case in GATT. Consequently, they amended subsection (f) to make it clear that no future international agreement could be negotiated with provisions any more restrictive on the effective operation of section 22 than those contained in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, as then written.

To illustrate the extreme dissatisfaction in the Senate with this conference modification of the Senate amendment to section 22, Senator Magnuson of Washington offered a motion on the Senate floor to reject the conference report and require that the Senate conferees insist upon House agreement to the amendment as originally adopted by the Senate. This motion-to reject the conference report--was lost by a tie vote, which was broken in favor of accepting the conference report by the Vice President.

It was thus made apparent that, in spite of the failure of the House conferees to concur fully with the Senate amendment, there was a tremendous sentiment for completely repealing and reversing the policy of said subsection (f) and placing the administration of section 22 entirely in the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture beyond the reach of the State Department.

Had it not been for firm assurances from the State Department that the above amendment approved by the conferees would fully assure the effective operation of section 22 to protect our domestic agricultural programs, the Senate would not have agreed thereto. For example, the following is quoted from Senator Ellender's statement on the floor of the Senate concerning the intent of the conferees and of the Congress in connection with paragraph (f) and its relation to GATT (Congressional Record of June 26, 1950, p. 9305):

"Mr. ELLENDER. I think I have made that very plain in the debate heretofore, but in order to make it doubly certain, I requested the Office of the Secretary of the State to submit their views on this matter.

"This is as was said in a letter addressed to me by the Department's deputy legal adviser, Jack B. Tate:

""The Honorable ALLEN J. ELLENDER, Sr.,

"United States Senate.

"'JUNE 26, 1950.

"DEAR SENATOR ELLENDER: You have asked the opinion of the Department as to what type of measure would be considered sufficient to justify an import quota under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, referred to in the conference report on the proposed amendment to section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

"In the opinion of the State Department, the basic question is one of fact. Import quotas would be permitted under the general agreement on tariffs and trade in any case where there is an effective limitation on domestic marketing or production.'

"That is the point I emphasized previously and on many occasions, particularly last Friday and also here today. The letter continues:

"A farm marketing quota, if not set so high as to exceed what the farmers would ordinarily market, would, for example, constitute an effective restriction within the meaning of the agreement. Marketing agreements and orders and farm-acreage allotments are other devices which might also constitute effective restrictions.

""Sincerely yours,

"JACK B. TATE, "Deputy Legal Adviser'

"In other words, there is no doubt that it is the understanding of the conferees on the part of the Senate that farm-marketing quotas constitute effective restrictions on production or marketing. It is also understood that marketing agreements and orders and farm-acreage allotments may also constitute effective restrictions on marketing or production, and that the judgment of the Secretary of Agriculture will be accepted as the authoritative judgment with respect to whether a marketing agreement and order or farm-acreage allotments are effective restrictions. * * *

"I am saying that with this language and with this interpretation of the language which I have just quoted, the conference report makes it as effective with respect to all of the basic crops and other crops with which it is possible to have effective marketing controls or acreage allotments, as would be the case under the Magnuson-Morse amendment to section 22." [Emphasis supplied.] From this statement of Senator Ellender, upon which the Senate primarily relied in adopting the conference modified amendment to paragraph (f), it is quite clear that the Senate and the Congress felt that the conference version would protect section 22 as fully as would have the Magnuson amendment which was originally adopted by the Senate and discussed above. It was made quite apparent that Congress intended that conference version of subsection (f), in conjunction with GATT, should constitute no restriction whatsoever on the use of import quotas under the provisions of section 22 to fully protect marketing agreement and other agricultural programs. It is also significant that Senator Ellender advised the Senate that it was his understanding, and that the Senate could rely thereon, that:

"The judgment of the Secretary of Agriculture will be accepted as the authoritative judgment with respect to whether a marketing agreement and order are effective restrictions."

However, in spite of all of these assurances on the part of the State Department, the executive branch of Government continued to delay and to refuse to effectively administer section 22 (see letters of State Department to White House and Tariff Commission cited above).

As a result of this continued evasion on the part of the State Department, and some other administration officials, the Congress became thoroughly dissatisfied and finally concluded, after 3 years experience with the State Department under their version of subsection (f), that the State Department could not be trusted and that Congress would have to repeal subsection (f) and completely reverse the language, intent and policy thereof so that it would be completely clear and mandatory that section 22 and our agricultural programs should be paramount and controlling over any international agreement that might be contrary or inconsistent therewith in any way.

Consequently, section 8 (b) of the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951, amended said subsection (f) so as to completely reverse its language, intent and Congressional policy, to read as follows (which is the language as it exists in section 22 today):

"(f) No trade agreement or other international agreement heretofore or hereafter entered into by the United States shall be applied in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of this section."

This 1951 amendment to section 22 (f) was approved unanimously by the Senate Finance Committee, over the objection of the State Department, was adopted without objection on the Senate floor, agreed to in the conference committee between the two Houses and finally adopted into law. This amendment is abundantly clear and mandatory in its mandate to the President (and other executive branches) that section 22 shall be paramount and that no trade agreement, heretofore or hereafter entered into, shall be permitted to interfere in any way with the full and effective operation of all its provisions. Since the State Department still avoids and circumvents this very clear congressional directive, a somewhat detailed review of the legislative history and intent behind the adoption of this subsection (f) amendment in 1951 is in order. In view of such legislative history and the quite clear and overwhelming sentiment on the part of the Congress that section 22 shall and must be made to prevail over any trade agreement, it is almost beyond comprehension that the State Department has continued to ignore it and continues to operate on the assumption that GATT is superior to section 22-that the United States must go to GATT and plead for a waiver from two-thirds of the 35 members of GATT in order to secure temporary permission to conditionally continue the import limitations now in effect under section 22. The position and continued hostile attitude of the State Department and the President toward section 22 should be carefully analyzed in light of the legislative history and intent disclosed by this 1951 amendment.

This amendment of subsection (f) was sponsored by Senator Magnuson along with several cosponsors, and was initiated by a Senate Finance Committee amendment to the House bill (H. R. 1612). The Senate committee's report (Rept. No. 299, 82d Cong., 1st sess.) contained the following comment at page 7:

protect the full operaIf a case should arise with any trade agree

"Your committee adopted an amendment designed to tion of section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. where required action under section 22 would conflict ment, then the action under section 22 shall prevail." The bill was reported by the Senate committee on April 27, 1951. It was debated thereafter on May 21-23 and on the latter date passed the Senate. In his opening statement, Senator George, chairman of the Finance Committee, first referred to the section 22 amendment as follows:

"Another amendment of great importance was the amendment suggested by the Senator from Washington [Mr. Magnuson] which, as the Senate knows, had already twice been adopted by the Senate in connection with other legislation. This amendment is designed to protect the full operation of section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act which now, in subsection (f), contains certain limitations upon the full scope of its use by reason of the provisions of our trade agreements.

"Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, I was discussing section 22, and I will restate a part of what I said because it is most important. Subsection (f) of section 22 contains certain limitations upon the full scope of its use by reason of the provisions of our trade agreements. That is, that was the way the matter stood before the amendment was recommended by the committee. The amendment recommended by the committee reverses this situation, and provides that if a