Imágenes de páginas

visions of this charter than there would be for the Senate to approve a treaty made by the President or his representatives? There have been many treaties that the Senate has refused at the time to approve. Secretary BRANNAN. Mr. Chairman, I just don't know whether I am equipped to answer that kind of a question or not, sir.

Mr. FULTON. I do not understand the meaning of the question. May I ask what you mean by it?

Chairman KEE. I am asking whether or not there is any more of a moral obligation on the members of the Senate to approve a treaty negotiated by the Executive than there would be for them to approve an agreement negotiated under the ITO charter, when and if it is approved by the United States. I certainly don't think there is any moral obligation on the part of the Senate to approve a treaty. Members of the Senate can decline to approve it or approve it, just as they see fit. It is their prerogative; but would there be any moral obligation to approve an agreement made under the charter?"

Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, certainly the founding fathers, when they set up the Constitution, didn't say each branch of the Government must accept without question the action of the other branches of the Government. Each of them can certainly take its own action. Chairman KEE. That is near to but not quite the point I am trying to make.

Mr. JUDD. There is a little difference here, because a treaty is negotiated de novo. They have a new instrument to accept or reject.

But if we adopt ITO, we have gone into an organization where there has been a preliminary agreement by the Congress. Is there a greater moral obligation for the Congress to accept the individual agreement that is negotiated under that general agreement which we have legally approved, than there is in the case of a treaty, which comes without any prior adherence to an organization?

I think the chairman's question is eminently important. Mr. CARNAHAN. I say we haven't gone into ITO and certainly we will not go into it until we are authorized by the Congress.

Mr. JUDD. But the point is once we are in it and then they come back with an agreement negotiated under it, are we under greater moral obligation to accept that agreement than we are in the case of a treaty where there is no preliminary, general organization to which we have adhered?

Mr. CARNAHAN. Certainly we are not in it now. That is what we are discussing now.

Mr. JUDD. We are talking about going into it.

Mrs. BOLTON. I am talking about the whole thing.

Mr. EATON. Is it the gentleman's point of view that the Senate has one set of moral obligations and the House another?

Mr. FULTON. There is the question first of whether there is a binding obligation that has bound Congress through Executive action, through prior authorization, for subsequent ratification. That is the first part of the chairman's question.

The second part of the chairman's question is, is it more or less moral to take action by Congress, once there has been an agreement made by the Executive on behalf of the United States?

There are those two points in his question.

Under the reciprocal trade program already existing, there is a prior authorization under which the tariff teams work, and work out

the General Agreements on Tariff and Trade at Geneva. Then those agreements stand, if they are good agreements. But there still is the escape clause under the reciprocal trade agreements.

Chairman KEE. There is one under this charter, too.

Mr. FULTON. Our tariff agreements at present can be changed under the escape clause.

The same principles exist here. Under the ITO there is an advance authorization based on general principles. The same kind of agreements under the ITO will be negotiated, even with the escape clause, just the way the chairman points out. So there is no difference on that basis, from the present set-up under the reciprocal trade agreements. If that is the case, when we have been operating successfully under the reciprocal trade agreements procedures on commodities, there is no reason why we cannot operate just as successfully under the ITO agreement. The same basic principles apply, the same prior authorizations, the same requirement of subsequent approval, and also the same escape clauses will be in the agreements to protect the American farmer or the American producers of industrial or agricultural products.

Does the Secretary agree generally with that statement, not specifically?

Secretary BRANNAN. I do not want to duck the question but I have some difficulty with the word "moral." It seems to me that the constitutional arrangement for checks and balances between the executive and legislative branch of the Government, if there is any morality involved in it, really it is the moral obligation for each to do its very best to get the best possible agreement. The mere fact that the executive branch has found the agreement satisfactory does not in my opinion relieve the Congress of the obligation to check it very carefully. I think that is what the Constitution intended.

Mr. FULTON. That is an excellent statement, because there you are separating the concept of morals from the concept of obligations, under the agreement. I, too, believe that you must eliminate the concept of morals when you are asking the question of whether Congress shall have the right either prior to or later, to approve the obligation entered into by the executive department. Could I finish by saying this: I think the Secretary today has made a very fine statement. As a Representative from Pennsylvania in the opposition, I want to compliment him. However, I do not in the least think that the acceptance of the ITO Charter makes us accept the Brannan plan to which I am opposed, nor do I think it makes us say that we must be for the price-support program, to which I am also opposed, as I have previously told the Secretary.

Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one more short question, if I may.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania says that the trade agreements program is working well. The negotiating mechanism is working well but the program is not working well.

I have supported it and believe it is a sound program, but it is not working well, and the ITO in effect is intended to overcome the obstacles which have been thrown in the way of the effective working of the trade agreements program.

That is the hard, blunt fact. The embargoes, quotas, exchange controls, artificial exchange rates, State trading monopolies, bilateral and

regional trading arrangements, are the road blocks that have been thrown in to prevent the effective operation of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act after we have successfully negotiated individual agreements under it.

If the ITO effectively overcomes them, I foresee a lot of other mechanisms that can be thrown in to prevent the effective operation of the ITO, after it corrects the road blocks thrown in to prevent the effective operation of the trade agreements program.

Secretary BRANNAN. I have full respect for the imagination of the human mind and to say that we can here prepare a document which would preclude all possibility of further difficulty, of course I do not intend, but I think this covers the ones that we do recognize and more importantly provides the mechanism for attacking the new ones as they arise.

Mr. JUDD. You will agree with my original statement, however, that the ITO has been made necessary because of the means that have been devised by various countries to evade what we in the United States had wanted and expected to develop under the trade agreements program?

Secretary BRANNAN. I think that is part of its functions, and of course some very positive purposes, too.

Mr. FULTON. The reciprocal trade agreements policy, which will become the ITO policy, is a good policy, and has worked well over the years.

In the administration of the policy there is room for a legitimate difference of opinion in the way different subagreements have affected various commodities. I do not say the policy has been 100 percent but it has been largely successful.

There is no doubt that Dr. Judd brings up a good point, that while the reciprocal trade agreement program is a smaller, more limited field, the ITO is necessary in order to accomplish on a multilateral basis, in a larger field, among the democratic nations, the positive steps and the policies that we feel should be carried out for good international trade in the post-Marshall plan era. I think you have a good point there.

Secretary BRANNAN. I think I find myself in agreement with that. Chairman KEE. Now, gentlemen, we want to have a brief executive session.

(Whereupon, at 12 m., the committee proceeded in executive ses



TUESDAY, MAY 2, 1950


Washington, D. C.

The committee met pursuant to adjournment at 10:45 a. m., in the Foreign Affairs Committee room, United States Capitol, Hon. John Kee (chairman) presiding.

Chairman KEE. The committee will come to order.

We have this morning continuance of our hearings on House Joint Resolution 236. Present, we have Mr. John C. Lynn, assistant legislative director of the American Farm Bureau Federation, who will testify in reference to the proposed legislation.

Mr. Lynn, we are glad to have you with us again. You may proceed with your statement in any manner you wish.


Mr. LYNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The American Farm Bureau Federation, representing a membership of 1,409,000 farm families in 45 States and Puerto Rico, favors ratification of the charter for the International Trade Organization as a means of promoting world peace and recovery.

On behalf of these farm families, I wish to express appreciation for the opportunity to appear before this committee today. Perhaps no other committees in the world have a more important function than the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Foreign Relations of the United States Congress in promoting trade, peace, and security.

The free nations of the world look to the United States for leadership in international affairs. This recognition of our country's greatness presupposes a willingness on our part to lead. Accordingly, the United States took the initiative in proposing the charter for ITOa document signed by 54 nations at Habana in March 1948. Now the world is looking expectantly to us for leadership in the ratification of the ITO charter.

At the thirty-first annual convention of the American Farm Bureau Federation in December 1949, the voting delegates reaffirmed the federation's position regarding the International Trade Organization as follows:

We favor the early ratification of the proposed International Trade Organization charter. While not a perfect instrument, it does represent a step forward. The American Farm Bureau Federation was active, in an advisory capacity, in framing the charter. Further modifications and improvements can be made in the light of experience. The United States, as the leading exponent of private

« AnteriorContinuar »