ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Nevertheless, in its haste to meet the emergency and because Mr. Roosevelt urged it to do so, Congress quickly delivered the NRA code-making job into the hands of the President.

In 1935, the Supreme Court nullified NRA as an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional power (Schechter v. United States, 295 U. S. 495).

The High Court's decision was unanimous. It stressed a basic principle of constitutional law, namely, Congress cannot delegate its own constitutional duties and responsibilities to anybody, and, as one Justice (Cardozo) described it, NRA was an example of such "delegation running riot."

Before this decision was rendered, Congress had passed the Trade Agreements Act of 1934

and now we are being asked by this legislation to extend it for 5 more years.

In 1934, in which the NRA formula of delegation was followed into the field of foreign commerce.

In other words, the NRA put in domestic business delegation of powers which Congress had the responsibility for, so now along comes this bill and extends it to foreign commerce, the same thing.

The new foreign trade law soon became known as the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act, although Congress did not call it that and reciprocity has certainly not been featured in the law's accomplishments.

We have had thousands and thousands of examples that there is no reciprocity about it.

Like NRA, the Trade Agreements Act was pressed upon Congress as "an emergency remedy for emergency conditions." Congress has exactly the same responsibility in the field of interstate commerce that it has in the area of our commerce with foreign nations.

A change by the President in the import duty on any article is applied not just to such items entering the United States from the country which is the other party to the agreement, but to all such items therafter imported from all countries. This kind of "reciprocal trade" thus mans that, by one agreement with a single country, the President can and does change the general United States tariff level, in spite of the fact that the Constitution expressly gives to Congress, and only to Congress, the "power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises." (Art. I, sec. 8, United States Constitution).

How we can sit here day after day in hearings after taking a solemn oath to defend that Constitution and deliberately pass and delegate thes rights away, I don't know.

I say this, Mr. Chairman, we are destroying this country, because we are departing from the basic fundamental laws that made us a great nation. I am leaving this body, but I am not going to leave until I have my say on these baise fundamental things. You can see how far afield we are going, because we have departed from the Constitution.

He further says:

But, this is by no means the full dimension of unconstitutional power now exercised by the Federal Executive as a result of this delegated congressional authority. Pursuant to the Constitution, treaties are negotiated by the President and ratified by the vote of two-thirds of the United States Senate. Since the passage of the Trade Agreements Act, our State Department may use and has used these new trade negotiations to modify or suspend a formal constitutional treaty that has been previously negotiated by the President and then ratified by two-thirds of the Senate (e. g., art. II, United States trade agreement with Columbia).

This diplomatic short circuit is called an "executive agreement." All of the trade pacts made pursuant to the 1934 act have been treated by the State Department as such executive agreements.

And there are thousands of them in existence, and not a Member of this Congress knows what they are.

Please remember that these are not submitted to the Senate for ratification, but, by the decisions of our courts, they are now none the less binding upon the country (U. S. v. Pink, 315 U. S. 203).

Between 1934 and 1947, all of these new trade pacts were bilateral; that is, each was negotiated between the United States and one other country. It is obvious from the early history of its administration that bilateral negotiations and bilateral agreements were all that was contemplated when the trade agreements law was passed.

Isn't that correct?

Senator MALONE. That is correct. Every word you say is correct. Senator JENNER. What has happened?

After World War II, however, it was a different story. By that time our internationalist diplomats had developed a fixation for multilateral international pacts, organizations and associations in which many nations were involved and which could be used as steppingstones to an ultimate international world government.

If you are going to erase and equalize all of these discriminations and if you are going to lift everybody up to our level or we are going to come down to their level, that is exactly the way you are going to have to proceed with a world government and if you iron out these difficulties you won't need subsidies and nobody will need protection in this country and the whole standard of the world will be on the same level and we will all be in the same boat.

But you can't have your cake, gentlemen, and eat it too.

In 1946, our State Department came forth with plans for a proposed "International Trade Organization”

and I have heard witnesses sit here in this hearing and deliberately say "We need it, we are for it." They do not know why. They don't know a thing about it, what it will do to their country or to their standard of living but they are pounding these cliches, these phrases that are being brainwashed, throughout this country and brainwashing the American people.

In 1946, our State Department came forth with plans for a proposed "International Trade Organization" with an essential underlying feature called a General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade. This so-called ITO languished when it was submitted to Congress, which properly refused to swallow this organization's supranational enforcement machinery.

However, GATT, the underlying organization, fared better because it was not and probably never will be submitted to congressional scrutiny. GATT was signed by our State Department's Director of International Trade on October 30, 1947: whereupon, President Truman proclaimed that then and thereafter the United States was and would be bound by all of GATT's unprecedented schemes for international planning and trade regulation.

At the same time, the President, for and in behalf of the United States, accepted all of the tariff concessions that were a part of GATT's original negotiation.

Mr. Chairman, I am still reading.

You will observe that this Presidential proclamation changed the whole range of our duties and imports which the Constitution empowers Congress, and only Congress, to change.

But, President Truman's GATT proclamation did much more than that. It handed jurisdiction over tariffs and other precious areas of our foreign and domestic commerce to the tender mercies of GATT, a foreign Socialist organization whose proceedings are conducted in secrecy and in which the United States has but 1 of the 37 possible votes.

You will never win that ball game either.

If the NRA, in which constitutional power went from Congress to the President, was unconstitutional "delegation running riot," then what can be said of constitutional power that is delegated by Congress to the President, and then redelegated by him to an association of foreign governments dedicated to the leveling of world living standards and a redistribution of the world's wealth? That is where you are going in this thing.

GATT contemplates that its decrees will ultimately be policed and enforced by an appropriately muscled international tribunal. Drawn to these specifications is the new Organization for Trade Cooperation, "OTC," which has already been advanced as President Eisenhower's climactic contribution to the international government of our foreign and domestic commerce which, before him, President Truman, with our adherence to GATT, so nobly advanced.

When GATT gets this enforcement machinery

and the way we are going they are going to get it just as sure as day follows night, because we are departing from our solemn oath when we said we would support and defend and protect the Constitution of the United States

the resulting impact upon our domestic affairs is certain to be loud and painful.

We won't be worrying about flatware, Japanese textiles, and little glass, but you will be worrying about the whole thing.

Aside from import duties and international shipments, GATT is designed to regulate many areas of our domestic economy, including such things as a price-control system, rates of domestic exchange for foreign currency, our fair share of the world's raw materials and the proportion of our domestic market that should be supplied by foreign producers.

There are at least 15 important Federal statutes that are in apparent conflict with GATT. These laws include the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Internal Revenue Code, and last but not least and most ironically, the Trade Agreements Act of 1934, as amended, which brought us to GATT in the first place.

Under persistent prompting and pushing by the President, Congress now proposed to extend this Trade Agreements Act which binds us to GATT, which, in turn, directly threatens the jurisdiction of the Trade Agreements Act and 14 other congressional statutes. Nobody in Washington proposes to repeal

those statutes.

For patriots and taxpayers it is dispiriting and depressing, if not demoralizing, to see so many of our honorable Congressmen and Senators chasing their own political coattails in such an obviously vicious circle of internationalist intrigue. If these plodding politicians would pause in their muddled milling, they might hear the reechoes of this good advice from one of their distinguished predecessors, Senator Daniel Webster:

[ocr errors]

"When the mariner has been tossed for many days in thick weather and on an unknown sea, he naturally avails himself of the first pause in the storm * the earliest glance of the sun *** to take his latitude and ascertain how far the elements have driven him from his true course. Let us imitate this prudence and, before we float further on the waves of this debate, refer to the point from which we departed, that we may at least be able to conjecture where we now are."

The point from which you departed, My dear Senators and Congressmen, is the Constitution of the United States. It is unnecessary for you to weigh the hypothetical benefits of free world trade against the established benefits of the American standard of life and living.

It is necessary merely for all of you to read the Constitution which you have sworn to support and from which you have departed. This is all you need to do in order to vote conscientiously to kill this misnamed "reciprocal trade" bill and its monstrous un-American Internationalist appendages.

This article says:

Tell your Senators and Congressmen that they are not expected to do everything that the President tells them to do. Tell them they are expected to do

what they have sworn to do; namely, support the Constitution of the Unied States.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think any better advice could be given to this committee, and I am just simply tired of people coming in here with self-serving statement and repeating cliches and brainwashing the American people, tying it up with our economy, tying it up with Congress, and tying it up with everything.

Now this gentleman here testifying, I am not here to abuse him or demean him but you have some figures here that intrigue me. You say on page 2:

In viewing the testimony thus far it would seem clear that the Congress has the simple choice of protecting the job security of 4 million Americans who live off of exports achieving this according to the proven formula of reciprocity or to step backward

It is a beautiful word, isn't it, "step backward"—

into a volatile system of regional distated tariffs to protect the job security of only 200,000 workers in injured industries.

Will you give me the industries where only 200,000 people have been injured?

Mr. DEWEY. Senator, I cannot cite the specific industries.

Senator JENNER. You cannot ?

Mr. Dewey, will you give me the specific industries where there are + million Americans who have got a job as a result of this reciprocal trade agreement and exports?

Mr. DEWEY. I am calling upon the study made by the Department of Commerce in citing these figures.

Senator JENNER. I would like this information brought before this committee in detail. For example, I pick up last evening riding in on a plane from Indiana an article from the U. S. News & World Report, further advocating the reciprocal trade agreement, going all over the country, every magazine, every article practically you read and they were even so detailed that they had exact amounts of money that each State gets from this great reciprocal trade program, and my State got $9 million.

Mr. Chairman, I think this information is essential to this committee before we can intelligently act and I want to know what industries in my State get $9 million out of the extension of the Reciprocal Trade Act, and I don't see why anyone is advocating that or any necessity for extending any kind of program for 5 years. Has anybody justified that, Mr. Chairman; who has been here as a witness?

The CHAIRMAN. Testimony has been given and I hesitate—
Senator JENNER. Has it been justified?

The CHAIRMAN. I dislike very much to interrupt the Senator, but the committee adopted a 20-minute rule for each Senator to question the witnesses, and the Senator has somewhat exceeded it.

I am wondering if he could not make a list of the information he wants or ask it of some other witness.

Senator JENNER. I was not here, Mr. Chairman, when we made that rule. I don't know why we have this rule because, Mr. Chairman, there is a bill that should be kept in this committee until the bells ring [laughter] because any man who is a Senator of the United States has taken an oath to live up to the Constitution, cannot in

good conscience sit here and deliberately destroy his country in violation of his oath.

The CHAIRMAN. I am anxious for the Senator to get all the information he can, and he desires and if he will make a list as to other questions I don't imagine this witness

Senator JENNER. I will list the information.

I want to know where they get these facts. Here is a man who sits here and testifies and I am supposed to sit here and listen to it. He says there are 4 million people in my country making a living out of the export-import business of this country. But there are only 200,000 injured by this business.

I want the facts and the proof. Where do they get it?
The CHAIRMAN. Well the witness-

Senator JENNER. By the way, where do your ships travel?
The CHAIRMAN. Will the witness furnish those facts?
Mr. DEWEY. I will, together with the particular source.
(The information is as follows:)

Hon. HARRY FLOOD BYRD,

PACIFIC AMERICAN STEAMSHIP ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D. C., July 2, 1958.

Chairman, Committee on Finance,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During the course of my testimony on H. R. 12591, Trade Agreement Extension Act of 1958, your committee requested that I furnish additional data. Following is the information requested:

Title VI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 authorizes the Federal Maritime Board to pay operating-differential payments for the "operation of a vessel or vessels, which are to be used in an essential service in the foreign commerce of the United States."

Section 606 (6) reads as follows: "that the contractor shall conduct his operations with respect to the vessel's services, routes, and lines covered by his contract in the most economical and efficient manner, but with due regard to the wage and manning scales and working conditions prescribed by the Commission as provided in title III;"

Section 606 (7) limiting purchases to the United States' products reads as follows: "that whenever practicable, the operator shall use only articles, materials, and supplies of the growth, production, and manufacture of the United States, as defined in section 505 (a) herein, except when it is necessary to purchase supplies and equipment outside the United States to enable such vessel to continue and complete her voyage, and the operator shall perform repairs to subsidized vessels within the continental limits of the United States, except in an emergency."

Section 607 (b) with respect to funds exempt from taxation, reads in part as follows:

"To insure the prompt payment of the contractor's obligations to the United States and the replacement of the contractor's subsidized vessels as may be required, the contractor shall create and maintain, out of gross earnings, during the life of such contract, a 'capital reserve fund,' in such depository or depositories as may be approved by the Commission. In this fund the contractor shall deposit annually or oftener, as the Commission may require, an amount equal to the annual depreciation charges on the contractor's vessels on which the operating differential is being paid."

Section 607 (c) on this same subject reads in part as follows:

"To attain the public objects for which the financial aid provided for in such contract is extended and to insure the continued maintenance and successful operation of the subsidized vessels, the contractor shall create and maintain, during the life of such contract, a 'special reserve fund' in such depository or depositories as the Commission shall approve."

From the above it is clear that only dry-cargo vessels engaged in the foreign trade of the United States serving essential trade routes of the United States are eligible for operating-differential payments. Also the excerpts from section 607 explain the limited use of funds which are exempt from taxation for the

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »