saying, "all of these things have been done and, Mr. House of Representatives, you pick up the responsibility and see to it that the American people help to carry the cost of this new program, this new arrangement that has been made, presumably, as the report says, to help the people of Latin America and, especially, of course, the coffee-producing governments."

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. I certainly agree with my friend from Ohio; this will stabilize coffee prices at the expense of the American consumers. It stabilizes them up, it puts a floor under coffee prices.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Yes.

Mr. GROSS. Does not the gentleman agree the only way this bill could possibly be made acceptable is to put a ceiling on coffee prices?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. As I read the legislation, and understand it, it does provide for a floor under coffee prices at the 1962 level, but does not place any ceiling upon the price that coffee may be

sold for in the United States.

It is sort of a cartel arrangement. You remember the cartels that existed under Hitler and under some of the dictatorships of other nations a few years ago that we complained about a great deal. Now we are in a cartel of our own, presumably to help our friends south of the border. I thought we arranged to give them $20 billion, or something like that, not long ago, at the expense of all American taxpayers, not just the people who use coffee.

Mr. GROSS. Can the gentleman give me any possible explanation why the Brazilians are selling coffee to Russia at $38.68 per 120-pound bag, while the price to U.S. purchasers is $41.50?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. If that is correct, and I assume the gentleman is correct because he is always correct in his statements, it indicates the Russians are just a little bit sharper traders than the American people. Or at least those who speak for the Russian Government may be a little more clever than some of the representatives of this Government in dealing with some of these foreign nations, and in the handling of foreign products. But that is neither here nor there. The question is, What are you going to do now about this particular rule?

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. MATSUNAGA].

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to establish legislative history for the record so that the International Coffee Agreement now before us for implementation will not include restrictions on the export of coffee from the State of Hawaii to any foreign nation.

Mr. Speaker, Hawaii is the only State in the Union which grows coffee. Hawaii's famous Kona coffee is known the world over for its flavor and aroma. Much of it is exported to European countries. While Kona coffee has commanded premium prices above those of the high quality coffee of the Central

American countries, its price is necessarily controlled by the price levels on the world market. The implementation of the International Coffee Agreement will mean that the coffee industry of the world will be stabilized by international coordination of production and marketcoordination of production and marketing policies. It should, therefore, be of benefit to the Kona coffee growers in my benefit to the Kona coffee growers in my State of Hawaii.

Earlier this year I studied the International Coffee Agreement and together with Senator DANIEL K. INOUYE and the gentleman from Hawaii, Congressman GILL, both of the State of Hawaii, held a conference with the State Department to determine what effect this would have on the export of coffee from Hawaii to foreign countries. At that time we asked for a legal memorandum, which was received and inserted in full into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on May 20, 1963, at page 9030, by Senator INOUYE during the Senate debate on the agreement now before us. This legal memorandum submitted by the Department of State and dated April 8, 1963, states that the agreement will not impose restrictions on the export of coffee from Hawaii, for the reason that the export quotas established in the treaty are applicable only to exporting members, and the United States is named only as an importing member.

Mr. Speaker, I make this statement for the purpose of establishing legislative history which cannot in any way be misinterpreted. I urge the enactment of this implementing legislation for the International Coffee Agreement on the basis of this understanding: that Hawaii's coffee industry, including its exports, will in no way or manner be affected or burdened by this legislation.

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. the previous question.

The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution.

The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 8864) to carry out obligations of the United States under the International Coffee Agreement, 1962, signed at New York on September 28, 1962, and for other purposes.

The motion was agreed to. Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H.R. 8864, with Mr. FLYNT in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first reading of the bill was dispensed with.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. MILLS] will be recognized for 1 hour, and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. BAKER] will be recognized for 1 hour.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. MILLS].

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, contrary to the usual legislation emanating from the Committee on Ways and Means, we bring to you today a rather simple bill-not technical in any respect-and not amending provisions of law that are voluminous and also very technical. We have brought the bill to you under an open rule which provides for 2 hours of general debate and then an opportunity for any Member who desires to do so to offer amendments.

Why, Mr. Chairman, is this so different from the usual run of legislation from the Committee on Ways and Means? We are faced here with a very simple proposition, as I see it, and as I think the members of the Committee on Ways and Means saw it when we had this matter before the Ways and Means Committee.

As has been stated by others during the consideration of the rule, this country saw fit to join other countries of the world in the establishment of an Inter

national Coffee Agreement which is a treaty requiring ratification by the other body. The matter was submitted to the other body for its approval earlier this year. In May of this year the Senate did ratify this agreement in the form of a treaty. We, therefore, Mr. Chairman, are not primarily responsible to any degree or extent for the terms of the treaty itself. We are not in a position to change the terms of that treaty. The membership of the Ways and Means Committee treated the matter on the basis of having no jurisdiction whatsoever over the treaty itself and faced up to the question of whether or not this agreement, being in effect, and the treaty being in force, we would pass legislation out of that committee and recommend to you acceptance of legislation that would permit those in the executive branch of the Government to have the tools necessary to perform the obligations that are required of the United States under this treaty.

Now let us understand, however, before we talk in terms of what the particular bill does just what it is that we are committing ourselves to under that treaty.

Though we do not have jurisdiction over the matter, we are thoroughly justified in looking to see what our commitments are under the treaty. In the first place, the United States is the largest coffee-consuming nation in the world, consuming about 50 percent of the coffee consumed by the importing nations of the world. The United States along with other nations constituting about 90 percent or more of the consumption of coffee, joined with the nations of the world that produced coffee-about 97 percent of the total production of coffee in the world is in these nations-in this agreement.

Now, what did we say we would do under the agreement? We never said that we would only buy so much coffee. We never said we would buy just so much coffee from any nation of the world producing it. What we said is that we would under this agreement trade primarily with those countries of the world which are members of the agreement. Therefore, we will limit our purchases of coffee

under this agreement from the countries of the world that may be producing the other 3 or 4 percent of the coffee which is produced in countries that are not members of this agreement. That does not harm us in any way. The coffeeproducing countries which are a party to this agreement have said that they would impose quotas upon themselves-the amount of coffee that they would ship in world trade or that they would export. Brazil, for instance, commits itself to a basic quota under this agreement of 18 million bags of coffee per year. The other countries have lesser amounts. And the notable thing about it all, Mr. Chairman, is this: The total of the coffee that can be exported will be in keeping with the total of the coffee that the importing nations of the world say they proposed to import. So that there is really no restriction whatsoever or no cutback anywhere here in the amount of coffee that can come into the United States. We can buy all of our needs from Latin American countries. We can buy all of our needs from Colombia and Brazil, say, if we want to buy our coffee from them, or we can buy our coffee from all of the countries that are a party to this agreement on some percentage basis if we want to do it. The Government is not placing any restriction whatsoever upon any importer of coffee in the United States except that we want our importers of coffee to limit their coffee purchases from countries which are not a party to this agreement. Now, those are the terms of the treaty. What are the safeguards within that treaty?

The quotas cannot be changed by this council unless we and one other consuming nation, a party to the agreement, agree to such a change.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, on that last point, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MILLS. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. I notice in the report a letter signed "John Kennedy." I assume this is John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Mr. MILLS. Yes. That letter was asked for by the committee because we wanted to know exactly whether or not the things that had been said to us by some of the people in the State Department also represented the thinking of the President of the United States.

Mr. GROSS. So this John Kennedy is the President of the United States? Mr. MILLS. That is my understanding of it.

Mr. GROSS. There is no "John F." here, so I just wanted to make sure that this is the President of the United States speaking.

Mr. MILLS. That is my understanding.

Mr. GROSS. And he says in the letter:

Probably the most important safeguard in the agreement is that our votes, plus those of any other single consuming country, are sufficient to insure that export quotas will not be set below the level of estimated demand.

Mr. MILLS. That is right.

Mr. GROSS. My question to you is: What single country, other than the United States, has 101 votes?

Mr. MILLS. That is not necessary.

gentleman misunderstands the

The gentleman whole operation.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLS. Yes, if the gentleman

Mr. GROSS. This is what the Pres- has another question. ident of the United States says.

Mr. MILLS. No. You misunderstand it. If you will let me explain it to you, I will be glad to do it, but the gentleman misunderstands how it operates. The President is exactly right. The treaty itself is in exact conformity with what the President has said there. We consume 50 percent of the coffee in the world.

We have 40 percent of the votes within this Council. England can join us; any other consuming country can join us. We have a controlling vote within the Council in determining whether or not these quotas will be fixed or whether adjustments should be made within them. That is the fact. That is the way it works. So that the gentleman may be completely assured that there is no intention with respect to this-in my opinion, there is no possibility under this, with the safeguards in it; it only goes for 2 years, remember, is applicable to the 1963-64 crop year and the 1964-65 crop year-that prices to consumers are going to get out of line. There is no justification whatsoever for feeling that there is anything within this agreement that is not going to make it possible for the roasters of coffee in the United States to get all of the coffee that is necessary for their use here in the United States, just because of this agreement. It is entirely possible without this agreement or with this agreement that prices of coffee could go up. I do not deny that. They could go up for many reasons.

First of all, you could have the complete elimination of a crop in Latin America; and this Hurricane Flora almost took out the crop in the Caribbean very recently. You could have frost; you could have drought; you could have any other natural event to occur in these countries that would eliminate a year's production of coffee, let us say. If that is the case then we have got to fall back on the reserves of coffee. Are there reserves of coffee? I will say to my friend from Iowa, the country of Brazil has in its warehouses millions of bags of coffee in storage.

Mr. GROSS. Surely, they do.

Mr. MILLS. They have 22 million bags of coffee from previous crops, of the kind of coffee that we buy and consume here in the United States. If they had the complete loss of a crop-our consumtion is around 22 to 23 million bags of coffee a year-they have in storage enough of our kind of coffee for us to get what we want.

The gentleman said something about Russia getting coffee for $36 when we pay $41. It is not that they are smarter traders than we are. It is just what my friend from Iowa would suspect. We have just a little bit richer appetitie for coffee in the United States. We do not We do not import the kind of coffee that Brazil sold to Russia. We could get it for $35 or $36. But our people do not want that kind of coffee. That is what they want in Russia. It is an inferior grade, just as their system is inferior to our system here.

Mr. GROSS. The gentleman was not responsive in his answer to my previous question.

Mr. MILLS. I was responsive; but perhaps I did not make myself clear. Mr. GROSS. But will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLS. Yes, I yield.

Mr. GROSS. Five hundred and one constitutes a majority, does it not? The President says, according to the committee report, that the United States with any other one country has the majority

Mr. MILLS. That is right.

Mr. GROSS. I ask the gentleman to name the one country that has 101 votes which might join with the United States to make a majority of the total of 1,000 votes?

Mr. MILLS. I told the gentleman that that was right; it could be any other country that is an importer, that is a party to the agreement. All the countries of the world that consume coffee except for perhaps less than 10 percent of total consumption, or 7 percent, or something like that, of total consumption, are not parties to it. They may be by next year; I do not know. I gave the gentleman an example. If the gentleman would listen to my explanation of what the treaty provides-and nobody is going to contradict it, because that is what we were told in the Committee on Ways and Means, our country and one other country-you name it, any country

Mr. GROSS. Well, you name it. You tell me the name of the single country that has 101 votes which, with the 400 votes of the United States, would make a majority.

have 101 votes. That is where the genMr. MILLS. They do not have to tleman is off base. I tried to get the gentleman straight on it but the gentleman will not let me explain it. It is not 101 votes. We have 40 percent of the votes ourselves.

Mr. GROSS. Four hundred votes we have?

Mr. MILLS. I am not talking about votes. We have the votes which we need. We have 400 votes; the gentleman is right.

Mr. GROSS. All right.

Mr. MILLS. Now we can veto any quota arrangement, if we want to. Mr. GROSS. Yes.

Mr. MILLS. We can do that. Mr. GROSS. How do we do that? Mr. MILLS. The agreement provides, the agreement itself, that we must have one other country voting with us. It does not matter how many votes that country has. That is where the gentleman is missing the point. If one other country joins us, that is all that is necessary.

On the other hand, let me point out to the gentleman that we have more than one-third of the votes. In order to impose any quota at all it takes twothirds of the total vote.

If the gentleman will listen to me I want to make this point clear.

Mr. GROSS. I am listening.

Mr. MILLS. It takes two-thirds of the total vote to impose or adjust export quotas. As the United States has over one-third of the total votes, we have enough votes ourselves to veto any imposition of a quota that we want to. It is only necessary that one other country vote with us. That is the point. There is nothing in this bill to disturb the gentleman from Iowa. I drink about as much coffee as anyone does. I do not have to pay any more for it. But I do think we are justified in this instance in going along with an existing treaty. I do not want to be a party to a repudiation of a firm commitment made by the United States and approved and confirmed by the other body under the Constitution and then say, because we may have some artificial, drummedup fear about something that cannot be substantiated, but just something that we imagine, that we ourselves, acting here, will repudiate a firm commitment made by the United States, and I do not care what administration is in power.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arkansas has expired. Mr. MILLS. I yield myself 2 additional minutes, Mr. Chairman.

A commitment is a commitment, and if we have any respect in the world for our commitments, we will see to it that

the commitments made by the United States are carried out. We will not follow the same path of some countries for whom we do not have such respect and for whose word we have very little confidence. But, Mr. Chairman, all in the

world we are suggesting here is that we permit the President and those in the executive department to have the machinery to carry out the treaty. That is what it is-requiring an import certificate so that we have a statistical control to see whether or not the coffee comes from a country which is a party to this agreement. That is all we are asking for. This information, in turn, is sent to the Council, and other countries that belong-these other countries send in the same information into the Council. There we can see whether or not the other countries are living up to their part of the agreement.

Mr. Chairman, I have previously said that this is only for 2 crop years. We have a right to get out of it at any time within that period of time. If it does not work as I am telling you it is intended to work and as I think it will work, you know good and well this Congress is not going to go forward with it beyond this 2-year period.

After the agreement was negotiated in 1962, coffee prices continued to decline, and during the first 9 months of 1963,

Let me get the benefit of the gentleman's own response to that question, if I may.

Mr. BAKER. Well, my thought on the subject is that that is the most effective safeguard of all. If prices got very much out of line, the United Sttaes could, by giving 90 days' notice, withdraw from the treaty. A withdrawal of the United States from the treaty would mean the end of the treaty. Am I correct in that statement?

Mr. MILLS. Absolutely; because there cannot be any treaty without the United States being a member.

BAKER], who has always been very helpThe gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. ful, is aware of the fact that there has been some increase in recent months, not attributable in one iota to this arrangement-but there has been some increase in average import prices and in retail prices after a decline in these prices in coffee in the early part of the year.

So

that the price level is back to approximately what it was before prices went down.

Now, Mr. Chairman, our Government

is proceeding next week to go to the Council meeting in London to make such suggestions to the Council that will have the effect of checking any more advances in these prices in the future.

Our representative at this conference will ask for an increase of around a million bags of coffee in the quotas of some of these countries that can be made available. There is no doubt the Council will agree to it because this price advance cannot go forward. We can prevent it from becoming a permanent operation. The coffee agreement was to stabilize prices and not to cause a precipitous increase in prices. We placed a 2year limit on this legislation.

In this connection I will insert here a price table:

United States: Average annual retail and import prices 1953-62 [U.S. cents per pound]

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLS. I shall be glad to yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. BAKER. The gentleman was approaching the very point which I would like for him to further elaborate upon and that is with reference to the safeguard, the provision which is article 68, which provides that any member may withdraw on 90 days' notice.

Would the chairman enlarge upon that and state what effect that would have on the sale of coffee?

29.6

into the 33-cent range from its 1962 average level of 34 cents. As a result, wholesale prices in the U.S. market were reduced early in 1963. However, in the past few months, a combination of natural disasters has severely affected coffee crops in Latin America. Brazil has suffered especially severe frost, sustained drought, and extensive fire. At the same time, Hurricane Flora has caused extensive damage to coffee plantations in the Caribbean. As might be expected, the market has reacted to these reports. Prices for Brazilian coffee, which were exceedingly weak until the middle of September of this year, firmed and are now quoted at 3734 cents a pound. Howstocks on which she can draw to meet ever, Brazil has sufficient marketable

the demand.

largely for making instant coffees, has The price for African coffee, used also been rising as a result of strong demand, political disturbances in the Congo and Angola, late crops in a few ing by African producers. African countries, and a shift in market

Mr. GILL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLS. I yield to the gentleman

from Hawaii.

Mr. MILLS. The gentleman is completely correct because the United States is a member of this agreement not as an exporting nation of coffee, but as an importing nation. While the exporting nations have agreed to place restrictions upon their exports, we, being an importing nation, have not agreed to place any restrictions on the export of coffee from the great State of Hawaii. The more I hear about the gentleman's State, the more diversified I find it to be.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to direct the Committee's attention to a provision which the Committee on Ways and Means included in this part of the bill. You will note that section 6 contains a limitation with respect to the amount of the contributions of the United States to the International Coffee Organization. This limitation provides that the amount of the contributions of the United States to administer the agreement for any period shall not exceed 20 percent of the total contributions assessed for the period to administer the treaty.

Mr. OSTERTAG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. OSTERTAG. I have followed the

Labor.

2 U.S. Department of Commerce.

very interesting. I believe the gentleman

we deal with tariffs and duties in the committee.

Mr. BAKER. And quotas.

Mr. MILLS.

Yes.

I will say this, though, in line with the statements of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BROWN] in discussing this matter. Apparently, the basic thing in this agreement is to stabilize this part of the economy of the coffee-producing nations. For many of those nations coffee is just about the only cash crop. As has been said in the report, there are 12 million persons whose livelihood depends upon it. It is lots better to do it that way, if we can do it in that way and still protect the consuming public in the United States. I hope we can do it that way rather than do it by economic aid Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentle- or by doles or gifts or something else, or by doles or gifts or something else, because it is of tremendous importance that we have unity in the Western Hemisphere. sphere. Coffee is to the people of Brazil, Colombia, and other nations what tobacco or cotton is to some parts of the bacco or cotton is to some parts of the United States as a cash crop.

Mr. BELCHER. Here is the point, I agree that the United States should back up its commitments or agreements whatever administration may be in power, but at the same time do I understand that what this bill does is to stabilize the price of coffee by preventing excessive imports into the United States?

Mr. MILLS. No, sir. Would the gentleman from Tennessee yield so that I may answer the gentleman?

man.

Mr. MILLS. Let me make it very clear, as my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee understands, under this agreement the United States is making no commitment at all that it will purchase only so much coffee. There is nothing binding the United States one iota as to what we could import into the United States so long as we import it from countries that are signatory to this agreement. This has to do with the exportation of coffee from coffee-producing countries. They are binding themselves.

Mr. BELCHER. Then what is the purpose of the legislation?

Mr. MILLS. The purpose of the legislation, I think, was pretty well stated by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BROWN] initially. This legislation is merely to implement a treaty, the purpose of which is to bring a degree of stability to the price of coffee that has not previously existed in the hope of bringing a stability to the economies of the Latin American countries and other countries that produce coffee, which of course is very important to us and in which we manifest a great interest by the appropriation of vast sums of money every year for this purpose.

Mr. BELCHER. I agree that the stabilization of the price of coffee which affects the economy of the countries of South America is important to this country. But I do not think it is a bit more important than the importation of beef into this country, which we do produce, and at the present time 68 percent of the processed beef that is used in the United States is now being imported into the United States and is not being processed in this country. I do not know why the Committee on Ways and Means or the President of the United States would not have the authority to look into that matter. But while we are worrying about the economy of South America, I think it might be well if we worried about the beef producers of the United States to see if we cannot make up some kind of treaty and to see if we cannot work out some kind of agreement whereby the Committee on Ways and Means might implement such an agreement or treaty to give the President of the United States the power to stabilize beef prices in this country.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I would say this. I have certain misgivings about this bill. I am certainly not a believer in cartels. There is a difference between beef and coffee. We produce quality beef in the United States, but we do not produce any coffee, except for Hawaii.

Mr. Chairman, I conclude with this statement. This treaty is an experiment. There is no question about that. ment. There is no question about that. It may or may not be successful. We in the Ways and Means Committee only present the mechanics of the treaty which is an accomplished fact. The United States is a party to this treaty by Presidential action and by constitutional ratification by the Senate. We feel in the committee that the procedural aspects, the mechanics, the tools we have presented to you are the best that we could devise, and on that basis we present could devise, and on that basis we present the legislation. the legislation. This agreement is for 2 years and, as I said in my earlier col2 years and, as I said in my earlier colloquy with the chairman of the committee, I think that the most effective provision we have in here to protect consumers in the United States is that we can give 90 days notice and withdraw. can give 90 days notice and withdraw. That ends the whole thing. The treaty would no longer have any effect.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has expired. Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CURTIS].

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count. Seventy-two Members are present, not a quorum.

The Clerk will call the roll.

lowing Members failed to answer to their The Clerk called the roll, and the fol

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. FLYNT, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill, H.R. 8864, and finding itself without a quorum, he had directed the roll to be called, when 318 Members responded to their names, a quorum, and he submitted herewith the names of the absentees to be spread upon the Journal.

The Committee resumed its sitting.

The CHAIRMAN. When the point of order of no quorum was made, the Chair had recognized the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CURTIS).

The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CURTIS] is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. MILLS), has adequately and very correctly stated the situation that confronts us. We are in a situation where a treaty has been enacted and the Committee on Ways and Means is being asked, and our report to the House is, to implement this treaty. In other words, those of us who may feel that there is an economic crime of violence involved here are confronted with the fact that that policy to go ahead and commit this act of violence, that is economic violence, has already been agreed upon and we are merely being asked to aid and abet it. I do think it is proper for the House to consider the full aspects of this matter.

One question that I think we can properly ask ourselves is, Why did the executive use the technique of a treaty to implement what is really a matter in the field of trade and economics which more traditionally we have handled through agreements which require a majority approval of both the House and the Senate? Of course, that is true of the Sugar Act. Both the House and the Senate act upon the Sugar Act. I think it is quite important that in matters of economics and trade, the Congress being closer to representing the people be fully a part of the decision process. And in the Constitution it spells out that the Congress has control over foreign and interstate commerce, and this matter is really in the area of foreign commerce-I think that is the reason why, in the judgment of our constitutional forefathers, this authority was vested in us. I feel this way at any rate, and I think if we reason it out, it is because trade matters and matters of economics deal with the daily actions of individuals and individual groups and are not the kind of high policy which requires diplomacy which we expect to be present in treaties. Of course, treaties sometimes do and frequently do relate to economic factors. They sometimes relate to economic factors, but it is only