페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

Congress will still be here, won't it?

Secretary Dulles. Yes, sir.

Senator Kehr. You were speaking here of what you regard as the necessity for a 5-year extension?

Secretary Dulles. Yes, sir.

Senator Kerr. Actually from your statement it seems to me that it would be a minimum of 3 years before the negotiations you refer to as a future necessity will even start?

Secretary Dulles. Yes, sir.

Senator Kerr. So that if Congress saw fit to renew this act for 2 years and then had the matter before it, it would still be a year from that time before we can even, as you say, under the best of circumstances, begin to negotiate with the European Economic Community, would it not?

Secretary Dulles. Yes, sir.

Senator Kerr. I have a concern as you do and as you have expressed it very eloquently here, as to the uneasiness that might be developed in the minds of our friends. You think that is important, don't you?

Secretary Dulles. I do.

Senator Kerr. Do you regard the mental attitude of the American people with equal regard?

Secretary Dulles. Yes, sir.

Senator Kerr. Is it not just as necessary for us to operate this program, to develop it and to maintain it on a basis that will reinforce the confidence of the American people as it is that we operate it on the basis so as not to impair, but on the other hand, reinforce the confidence of our friends?

Secretary Dulles. Yes, sir.

Senator Kerr. You make the statement that—

for one reason or another people abroad have acquired the impression that trade restrictionist sentiment is growing in the United States.

And then you give as an evidence that that is an incorrect impression, the recent action of the House.

Are you not aware that there is a growing or increasing amount of restrictionist sentiment in the United States on this matter?

Secretary Dulles. No, sir. I do not think that there is. I am told that this year for the first time the witnesses before the House committee in favor of this renewal were many more than those who opposed it, and represented far more extensive than those who opposed it.

I think that theie is no question, Senator, but what the overwhelming view of the American people is that the interests of the United States are going to be served by this extension.

Senator Kerr. Do you think that the men in the Congress had an equal opportunity with you to know what the sentiment of the American people is?

Secretary Dulles. Yes, sir.

Senator Kerr. Well, I do not pretend to be an expert on that, nor do I pretend to have much knowledge about it beyond the borders of the State of Oklahoma; but I say this to you quite frankly, that there is more sentiment against this program in Oklahoma today than there has ever been, and I would be quite surprised if that originated in and terminated at the geographical boundaries of the State of Oklahoma.

Secretary Dulles. Certainly I would not set myself up to contes with you the public opinion in Oklahoma.

Senator Kerr. I am not going to pretend to put myself up agains you in gaging the sentiment of the United States because in the las two national elections you and your boys demonstrated that you ha* it more accurately gaged than I did, but I would be quite surprised i what I see so much of in Oklahoma would not find its counterpar across the Nation.

The thing I say that for is this: I think it is just as important tha this program be operated so as to win and keep the support and th confidence of the people of the United States as it is to operate it s as to win and keep the confidence of the people in the friendly coun tries with whom we are seeking to develop closer and more worth; relationships.

Secretary Dulles. Let me say, Senator, on that point, that th policies reflected by this act are supported by the Department of State not because of the fact that they give pleasure to others; they ar supported because we believe that they serve the best interests o the United States.

Senator Kerr. I am convinced you mean that.

Secretary Dulles. We try to run our foreign policy, Senator, fo one purpose alone, and that is to promote the interests and welfare o the American people.

Now obviously, I think, those interests and welfare cannot bi promoted if you disregard our relations with others. So——

Senator Kerr. Did you ever hear of the general who got so fai ahead of his troops when he was ready to win his victory he did no have anything to win it with?

Secretary Dulles. Yes, sir.

Senator Kkkr. I mean you have got to maneuver from the positior of the support of your own people, haven't you?

Secretary Dulles. Yes, sir, and you have also got to give

Senator Kkrr. You boys who get these jobs appointively do noi have as keen an awareness of that as we who get them electively.

Secretary Dulles. I am quite aware of that, but I am also aware of the fact that our constitutional processes put upon the President who does get his job electively and did get it as you pointed oxit by pretty big vote

Senator Kerr. Yes.

Secretary Dulles. It gives him the primary responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy, and it is his judgment that this is impera tively required for the welfare of tho United States.

Senator Kerr. Where does that Constitution put the responsibility for the conduct of trade and commerce? And the regulation of trade and commerce?

Secretary Dulles. That puts it on the Congress and the President.

Senator Kerr. Well, now, would you read me the part of it that puts it on the President?

Just while we are sitting here in such a friendly mood.

Secretary Dulles. Would I point out to you——

Senator Kerr. Yes, Mr. Secretary.

Secretary Dulles. Yes, sir.

Senator Kerr. Where is it?

Do you happen to have it there?

Secretary Dulles. Yes, sir; because he has the power to veto congressional legislation.

Congress cannot act without regard to the President's influence upon its legislation.

Senator Kerr. Well, that is quite true, but the Constitution gives them the power to enact legislation and then pass it over his veto, does it not?

Secretary Dulles. Yes, sir. But that does not mean that his veto is a negligible factor.

Senator Kerr. No, it does not. But it is quite plain that it is not the determining factor.

Secretary Dulles. It often is. It depends upon the circumstances.

Senator Kerr. But under the Constitution it is not.

Secretary Dulles. It is not. Under the Constitution it can be overridden. It rarely is.

Senator Kerr. As a practical matter, it can deter, but he cannot, by the veto, inaugurate a program, can he?

Secretary Dulles. No, sir.

Senator Kerr. I know what it is, but I do not want to humiliate the Secretary by insisting again that he read it.

It is that very provision in the Constitution that leads me to ask you some questions about section 6 of this bill.

I wish you would just explain to me in simple language the purpose and the significance, as you see it, of section 6.

It is on page 9 of the bill.

If you look at the report, Mr. Secretary, on page 28 of the House Ways and Means Committee report, it attempts to summarize the significance, I think, and the purpose of section 6, but I am sure that just a glance at it will refresh your memory to where you will be able to tell us what it is for.

Secretary Dulles. Well, that is the section, I think, that you are referring to, which deals with the power of the Congress by a twothirds vote, to adopt in effect the findings of the Tariff Commission even though not approved by the President.

Senator Kerr. Do you think it is necessary for Congress to have this power?

Secretary Dulles. We did not think it was necessary because it was not in the original bill that was proposed. But it is acceptable to the administration that Congress should have that power.

Senator Kerr. You think it is necessary to have that section to safeguard the power of the Congress to accomplish the objective set forth in that section?

Secretary Dulles. It, I think, facilitates action by the Congress to a greater degree than if it was not there, yes.

Senator Kerr. In other words, you think Congress can pass a law which increases its own power under the Constitution?

Secretary Dulles. Are you raising the question of the constitutionality of this clause?

Senator Kerr. Oh, no; we are operating under the Constitution and I ask you if you thought that Congress could, by legislative enactment increase the powers that it has under the Constitution?

Secretary Dulles. Well, I believe the Attorney General has given an opinion that he thinks

Senator Kerr. You are a great lawyer yourself.

You do not need to hide behind the Attorney General. I am just little lawyer, I would not.

Secretary Dulles. I appreciate the compliment, of being a gre lawyer. I would put it in the past tense. I was a great lawyer b I have given up the practice of law.

Senator Kerr. I want to tell you, you are the first man I evi thought would intimate and you are the last man I would designs as a has-been.

Secretary Dulles. But I think you would admit, Senator, that I a not engaged in the practice of law at the present time, and I do these matters rely upon the opinion of the Attorney General.

Senator Kerr. Are you telling me you have no opinion or you < not want to give me the benefit of it?

Secretary Dulles. I would say to you, I have not made any ind pendent investigation of my own as to the constitutionality

Senator Kerr. At the time when you were a great lawyer [laughtei was it your opinion that Congress could by legislative enactment i •crease the power that it had under the Constitution?

Secretary Dulles. I do not think that Congress can by legislatic gain powers not vested in it by the Constitution, no.

Senator Kerr. Do you think on the other hand, that Congress ca by its legislative action, deprive itself of a power and a responsibilil placed upon it by the Constitution?

Secretary Dulles. No.

Senator Kerr. Then, as I understand section 6, it refers to p rodure in connection with matters investigated and reported upon t the Tariff Commission; is that correct?

Secretary Dulles. Yes, sir.

Senator Kerr. It says:

The action so found and reported by the Commission to l>o necessary shall tal effect (as provided in the first sentence, paragraph (1), or in paragraph (3), as tl case may bo)—

(A) if approved by the President—

I am readingnow from the bill.
Secretary Dulles. Yes.
Senator Kerr (reading):

or,

(B) if disapproved by the President in whole or in part, upon the adoption t both Houses of the Congress (within the sixty-day period following the date < which the report referred to in the second sentence of paragraph (1) is submitU to such committees), by the yeas and nays by a two-thirds vote of each House, < a concurrent resolution stating in effect that the Senate and House of Represent tives approve the action so found and reported by the Commission to be necessar

That is the Tariff Commission, is it not?

Secretary Dulles. Yes, sir.

Senator Kerr. If you entered into a trade agreement. M Secretary, do you think Congress could pass a law which voided it?

Secretary Dulles. Yes, sir. Assuming it was

Senator Kerr. If they passed that law and it was vetoed by tl President and they came back and passed it over his veto by a tw< thirds vote it would be just as effective as if he signed it?

Secretary Dulles. Yes, sir.

Senator Kerr. Well, isn't that all that section 6 provides?

Secretary Dulles. It gives, I would say, a privileged status to tha type of legislation; yes, sir.

Senator Kerr. You think that if Congress has it under the Constitution it needs section 6 to give it to it?

Secretary Dulles. I think that the procedures, the congressional procedures that are envisaged by

Senator Kerr. Aren't there congressional procedures now for the enactment of legislation?

Secretary Dulles. Yes; but they do not have this

Senator Kerr. Do you think that this section can impair them?

Secretary Dulles. No.

Senator Kerr. I do not either. I do not think it can enlarge upon them.

Secretary Dulles. It can, I think, Senator, give a privileged status to certain types of legislation.

Senator Kerr. Well, how do you mean now, Mr. Secretary?

It looks to me like it attempts to limit the procedural functioning of the Congress, because it says—

upon the adoption by both Houses of the Congress within the sixty-day period following the date on which the report referred to in the second sentence of paragraph (1) is submitted to these committees.

Secretary Dulles. Excuse me, Senator, I was interrupted.

Senator Kerr. I say it looks to me like, if it were effective, it might impair the functional operations of the Congress.

Secretary Dulles. This does not take away any power of the Congress to act in normal processes of passing legislation.

Senator Kerr. But for them to get relief under this section they would have to do it within 60 days?

Secretary Dulles. But they could do it after 60 days.

Senator Kerr. Without this?

Secretary Dulles. Yes, sir.

Senator Kerr. And they could do it within 60 days without this if they wanted to?

Secretary Dulles. Yes, sir; but there is a difference in the procedure.

Senator Kerr. What is the difference?

Secretary Dulles. Because if you act without this procedure, you would have to pass the legislation, it would go to the President. It would, let us assume, be vetoed by the President, and have to come back again and be repassed. This cuts short ■

Senator Kerr. This is an act already vetoed by the President.

Secretary Dulles. No, sir.

Senator Kerr. Oh, yes, he has disapproved the report of the congressional agencies.

Secretary Dulles. That is true, but he has not vetoed an act of Congress.

Senator Kerr. That is true, but you fix it here so that it would be as difficult for Congress to change the President's decision with reference to an action by the Tariff Commission as it is for Congress to implement its own legislation if vetoed by the President?

Secretary Dulles. This is not exclusive procedure, Senator. You can use any other procedures that you have.

Senator Kerr. Well

Secretary Dulles. If you do not find this an added advantage in giving this privileged status to your legislation you can do it another way.

« 이전계속 »