Trade Agreements Act Extension

case should arise where required action under section 22 would conflict with any trade agreement, then the action under section 22 shall prevail. The committee, of course, assumes that where a choice of remedies under section 22 makes it possible, the President will probably choose a course not incompatible with our foreign commitments.

"The Committee believes that these two amendments will provide important safeguards for our agricultural producers and will provide them with all the protection they need, without incurring the marked disadvantages for American agriculture which would have been involved in the House-approved amendment." (97 Congressional Record 5621).

After discussing other amendments, Senator George made the following observation:

"I am happy to advise the Senate that the recommendations of the committee are unanimous. I believe that it is the first time in the history of the trade agreements program that a unanimous report has been rendered on renewal of the Trade Agreements Act by the Committee on Finance" (97 Congressional Record 5621).

Later in the debate, Senator George in answering questions of Senator Wherry as to why certain other provisions of the House bill had been struck out, made the following observations with reference to the amendment of section 22:

"The bill removes subsection (f) from section 22, and leaves section 22 in such a condition that it prevails over the agreement. * * *

"Under section 22 the President would be authorized to establish a quota on imports of an agricultural product. There is nothing to restrain him. It affords the broadest possible protection."

"We propose to repeal subsection (f). That repeal would assist the President in establishing quotas. Furthermore, under the escape clause any interested party can invoke the escape clause.

"With those provisions, it would seem that agricultural products the price of which we were supporting could very well be protected. I agre with the Senator that it is illogical to support the price of a farm commodity and at the same time so reduce the protection of that particular price as to permit its undercutting and undermining" (97 Congressional Record 5635).

"Mr. GEORGE. That is correct. However, when the Senator complained before about potatoes, the agreement at that time was outstanding, and the President could not act under section 22. No action could be taken under section 22 because of the agreement itself. We have removed that impediment or inhibition. Quotas can be imposed and complete protection can be given to a commodity which is supported by any one of our farm programs.

"Section 22 requires the President to act. I believe if the Senator will read section 22 he will see that the fullest power is there given, and that a direct and mandatory requirement is placed upon the President. At least that is my understanding of it" (97 Congressional Record 5636).

When consideration of the bill was resumed the next day, May 22, Senator George returned to the subject of section 22, saying:

"With reference to section 22, I wish to make clear precisely what can and cannot be done under it in view of the amendment striking out subsection (f) of section 22.

"If the fact of interference by imports with a program of price support is shown-in other words, it must first be shown-the President must act under section 22."

After quoting from section 22 and making some additional comments, the debate then proceeded as follows:

"[Senator GEORGE.] It was the opinion of the committee and I think that this is important, and I wish to make it clear-that if further strengthening of section 22 was desirable, it should be done by way of amendment to that section in the Agricultural Adjustment Act, or in the act in which section 22 was originally inserted. That would not be a proper function of the Finance Committee, and we did not feel that we should undertake to amend that act. We did feel justified in removing the inhibition against the full operation of section 22, notwithstanding there might be in existence a trade agreement which, under the law prior to the amendment removing subsection (f), would have prevented the action by the President.

"I think that is a sound position. Although I shall not put the testimony into the Record now, nevertheless in the record before the committee will be found the testimony of the Federal Farm Bureau's representatives and of representatives of the Cotton Council and of the Farmers Union. In other words, representatives of the farmers themselves appeared before the committee; and although they did not ask for section 8, which was a House amendment, and which was stricken, yet they agreed that it would be hard to administer, and that also the procedure might be more costly than if that amendment were stricken out.

"What they did request was the elimination of subsection (f) of section 22, so that the way would be open to obtain proper relief in the event any of the price support programs are being interfered with by the Trade Agreements Act. That is the status of the matter. Those are substantially the reasons why the committee struck out the provision, but not without first having eliminated the troublesome subsection (f) of section 22.

"With that statement and explanation, I hope the Senator can see at least the position taken by the committee.

"Mr. WHERRY. Yes. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his explanation of the committee's attitude regarding amendment 8, on page 11, which apparently was written in on the floor of the House, and which has to do with a provision which I think-at least, from first reading it; and I approach it in that light-is a meritorious one.

"I cannot help but feel that it is most illogical to permit the importation into the United States of agricultural products on concessions so low, while the support prices for the same commodities are so high, that farmers of another country get the benefit of the support prices. We have had situations where surpluses of those supported commodities have been dumped on the open market; and in the case of potatoes we even dumped them into the ocean. It seems to me that is an illogical result.

"Mr. GEORGE. The committee agreed substantially with the view just expressed by the Senator.

"Mr. WHERRY. Yes.

"Mr. GEORGE. However, the committee was of the opinion that the escapeclause provisions now to be inserted into the act, plus the treatment given to section 22, certainly make it entirely open to amend section 22 in any way that the proper Senate committee might wish to amend it.

"Mr. WHERRY. Yes. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for that observation.

"I say again, for the record, that I am in complete sympathy with the recommendation as to elimination of subsection (f) on page 13. I think its elimination goes a long way in helping the situation.

"Mr. GEORGE. Its elimination is absolutely necessary.

"Mr. WHERRY. Yes, but that does not completely clarify the situation although that provision will correct an abuse which has been practiced at least during the past 2 years by the State Department, by means of which the State Department has had authority even to override what Congress did with reference to the importation of agricultural products, under Section 22.

"Mr. GEORGE. But now, with the amendment strike out subsection (f), that would not be the case.

"Mr. WHERRY. That is true.

"Mr. GEORGE. While the President would not in the first instance be compelled to act, yet if he finds upon the reports made to him by the Tariff Commission that there is cause for action, he must act; and then he has full power to act. "Mr. WHERRY. Yes" (97 C. R. 5736–5737).

On May 23, Senator Butler, a member of the Finance Committee, discussed the bill. In referring to the amendment of section 22 he said:

"Section 8 (b) is particularly important since it unequivocally gives section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act a priority or a superior status to any provision which may be written or which may have been written into any trade agreement. Section 22 is the section which permits the Secretary of Agriculture to prevent imported farm products from destroying or injuring our domestic agricultural programs.

"Time after time in the past, we have found that farm imports have come into this country and flooded our markets at the very time when we were trying, through domestic measures, to maintain farm prices at a reasonable level. In an address to the Senate on September 9, 1949, I listed product after product in which this situation occurred."

27629-58-pt. 2- -34

"Whenever any attempt was made to correct this situation through section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, we were told that no quota or additional import fee could be imposed on such imports by the Secretary of Agriculture, because we had entered into trade agreements which prohibited us from protecting our domestic farm prices.

"This bill attempts to correct that situation. It states flatly that no trade agreement shall be applied in a manner inconsistent with section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. I do not think there can be any misunderstanding about the meaning of this provision. By this section Congress is serving clear notice that it wants our domestic agricultural price structure to be protected. “Mr. President, the trade-agreements program has already done serious harm to a number of domestic agricultural products. I hope it will be possible to repair this damage either through the escape-clause section or through the section 22 procedure under this bill" (97 C. R. 5803).

Senator Carlson, of Kansas, then asked a question saying: “*** I ask him if, in his opinion, the pending bill takes care of the competition which we receive from imported agricultural commodities."

The reply was:

"Mr. BUTLER of Nebraska. I will say to the distinguished Senator from Kansas that it is my feeling that, with the adoption of the provision with reference to making section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act the determining factor when such situations arise the bill would bring the relief which is needed to protect American agriculture." (97 C. R. 5803).

Near the conclusion of the Senate debate on the bill, Senator Magnuson questioned Senator George regarding the significance of the phrase "the requirements of" as used in the committee amendment. Senator Magnuson's statement in part and Senator George's reply were as follows:

"[Senator MAGNUSON]. What concerned some of the sponsors of the amendment and myself was the use of the additional words 'the requirements of.' I talked with the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Millikin) informally and he explained that he thought those words might strengthen the amendment. I was wondering whether the Senator from Georgia had the same opinion.

"Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, I have the same general view. I should like to add that the purpose of inserting this language is that if the President, when certain facts appear, can give an effective remedy without violating an agreement, but within the terms of an agreement, so to speak, he may have that opportunity; but if he cannot, this section will prevail. This section carries out the philosophy of the distinguished Senator from Washington in the two bills which have previously passed the Senate.

"Mr. MAGNUSON. In other words, it is the opinion of the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Colorado that this language adds an additional situation to the requirements of section 22. It might be that the remedy could be carried out within the terms of the agreement.

"Mr. GEORGE. It might be. But if there were an irreconcilable conflict, the President would be obliged to carry out the section 22 provision so as to grant relief.

"Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I shall not press my two amendments. "Mr. GEORGE. I thank the Senator very much." (97 C. R. 5856-5857). Senator Morse raised a similar question just before passage of the bill and he was answered by Senator Millikin (the ranking Republican member of the Finance Committee) in the following colloquy:

"Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I have a couple of questions which I desire to ask the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Millikin) with whom I discussed the subject matter of the questions.

"In my State, and also in the State of Washington, there is a situation in which the two Senators from Washington as well as the two Senators from Oregon have been much interested. The tree nut industry has been greatly concerned about the reciprocal trade problems which have developed over the years, resulting in many detrimental effects to that industry. We are seeking, in connection with the pending measure, the elimination from section 8, subsection (f), line 5, page 13, of the bill, the following three words: 'with the requirements.'

"It is desired to have the section read:

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

"I should like to ask my good friend from Colorado if I am correct in my understanding that the committee is not disposed to strike the words 'with the

requirements,' and if he would be so kind as to make a statement now, for the purpose of legislative history, as to why the committee is not disposed to strike those three words.

"Mr. MILLIKIN. In my opinion, the language was put into the bill deliberately to strengthen rather than to weaken that section. It is intended to make it clear that our domestic programs under section 22 shall prevail and shall override anything inconsistent found in international agreements. That is the purpose of the language, to make it very clear that the requirements or the provisions of section 22, shall prevail and shall override all other inconsistent things to be found in international agreements.

"Mr. MORSE. Am I correct in my understanding that it is the view of the Senator from Colorado, and, I believe, the view of the committee as a whole, that the striking of these particular three words would weaken the best possible protection of the interest of the nut industry rather than strengthen it?

"Mr. MILLIKIN. That is my opinion, and I believe it is the opinion of the other members of the committee. I should like to ask the distinguished chairman of the committee whether he concurs in my view of the matter?

"Mr. GEORGE. I concur in the Senator's statement" (97 C. R. 5864-5865).

In view of our experience and the reactions of Congress to the position taken by the State Department under the original subsection (f) enacted in 1948 and the complete reversal of that language and intent in this 1951 amendment of subsection (f); and in view of the very clear, mandatory and almost unanimous congressional intent, as expressed in the debates reviewed above, it is very mystifying to me, and I am sure to many others, how the State Department still maintains its position that the provisions of the GATT are still the law of the land and are controlling over section 22 to the extent that the State Department contends that we cannot continue to administer section 22 in the United States without seeking the permission of two-thirds of the 35 foreign countries who are contracting parties of GATT.

Since the adoption of this amendment in 1951, GATT has been renegotiated and we have passed the date when the provisions of GATT would expire or were subject to termination or modification; and yet the State Department has made no effort of any kind to renegotiate GATT to make it conform with the provisions of section 22 or to otherwise conform our international agreements to the congressional mandate of 1951 contained in the amended subsection (f).

For the State Department and the executive branch of Government to continue contending, as it does, that article XI of GATT has any authorization in law or any effectiveness in the United States seems to me to be completely untendable.

In addition to this complete reversal of subsection (f), the Congress, as part of the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951 (sec. 8 (a)), also further strengthened the procedural provisions of section 22 in order to assure its more expeditious and more effective administration and enforcement by the executive branch. Section 8 (a) provides as follows:

"SEC. 8. (a) In any case where the Secretary of Agriculture determines and reports to the President and to the Tariff Commission with regard to any agricultural commodity that due to the perishability of the commodity a condition exists requiring emergency treatment, the Tariff Commission shall make an immediate investigation under the provisions of section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended, or under the provisions of section 7 of this act to determine the facts and make recommendations to the President for such relief under those provisions as may be appropriate. The President may take immediate action, however, without awaiting the recommendations of the Tariff Commission if in his judgment the emergency requires such action. In any case the report and findings of the Tariff Commission and the decision of the President shall be made at the earliest possible date and in any event not more than 25 calendar days after the submission of the case to the Tariff Commission."

This 1951 amendment also was approved unanimously by the Senate Finance Committee, adopted on the Senate floor without objection, approved by the Conference Committee and enacted into law.

However, in spite of requests from several American producers of perishable agricultural commodities, the administration has failed to use this expediting procedure provided by Congress.

As a result of this continuing unwillingness of the executive branch of Government to promptly and effectively administer section 22 in accordance with the intent and mandate of Congress, steps were again taken in 1953 to further strengthen section 22. Senator Magnuson, along with several other cosponsors, introduced a bill in the Senate (S. 983) to further tie down the provisions of

section 22 and transfer its administration completely to the Department of Agriculture, and to make the Department of Agriculture's findings final and conclusive-well beyond the reach of the State Department or any international agreement. The provisions of this bill were later offered on the floor of the Senate as an amendment to the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1953 (H. R. 5495, Public Law 215). Also, early in 1953, the new Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra T. Benson, had appeared before both the Senate and House Committees on Agriculture and before the House Ways and Means Committee, pointing out that the administration of section 22 had been ineffective and that its procedure should be improved to provide more prompt imposition of import limitations under section 22. Portions of the Secretary's testimony are quoted earlier in this statement.

Secretary of Agriculture Benson promised the Congress that the new administration would more effectively and more promptly administer section 22, without regard to GATT or any international agreement. However, the Secretary said that he felt that further amendment was needed to authorize emergency action by the President in certain cases. Secretary Benson recommended that the following language be added to subsection (b) of section 22.

"In any case where the Secretary of Agriculture determines and reports to the President with regard to any article or articles that a condition exists requiring emergency treatment, the President may take immediate action under this section without awaiting the recommendations of the Tariff Commission, such action to continue in effect pending a report and recommendations of the Tariff Commission and action thereon by the President."

This was the amendment to section 22 which Secretary Benson referred to as being desirable in his testimony before the Ways and Means Committee which I have quoted earlier in this statement. The Secretary's recommended amendment had been introduced in the Senate as a bill by Senator Aiken of Vermont and Senator Holland of Florida (S. 1680).

Primarily because of Secretary Benson's assurances that section 22 would be more promptly and more effectively administered in the future, by the new administration, and as a result of the Secretary's statement that he did not feel it necessary to transfer the administration of section 22 from the President, State Department, and Tariff Commission to the Department of Agriculture, as was proposed in the Magnuson bill (S. 983), and relying on the assurances from Senators George and Millikin (the Democratic and Republican managers of the bill on the Senate floor) that, as amended in section 8 of the committee bill, section 22 would be as completely and promptly effective as if the Magnuson amendment should be adopted; Senator Magnuson and his cosponsors decided to withdraw their proposed amendment to the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1953 and to accept in lieu thereof the assurances of Secretary Benson and the so-called Cordon amendment which was the same as the amendment recommended by Secretary Benson, as quoted above. This assurance that the bill's section 8 amendments to section 22 would be just as effective as the amendment proposed by Senator Magnuson and his cosponsors, in S. 983, was contained in the following colloquy between Senators George and Magnuson near the conclusion of the Senate debate on H. R. 1:

"[Senator MAGNUSON] What concerned some of the sponsors of the amendment and myself was the use of the additional words 'the requirements of.' I talked with the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Millikin) informally and he explained that he thought those words might strengthen the amendment. I was wondering whether the Senator from Georgia had the same opinion.

"Mr. GEORGE. It might be. But if there were an irreconcilable conflict, the President would be obliged to carry out the section 22 provision so as to grant relief.

« 이전 계속 »

도서