or the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, or section 32, Public Law No. 320, 74th Congress, approved August 24, 1935, as amended, or any loan, purchase or other program or operation undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, or any agency operating under its direction, with respect to any agricultural commodity or product thereof, or to reduce substantially the amount of any product processed in the United States from any agricultural commodity or product thereof, with respect to which any such program or operation is being undertaken, the President shall cause an immediate investigation to be made by the United States Tariff Commission, which shall give precedence to investigations under section 22 to determine such facts. Such investigations shall be made after notice and opportunity for hearing to interested parties, and shall be conducted subject to such regulations as the President shall specify. "In lieu of the existing provisions of subsection (a) of section 22 which provide that the President shall cause an immediate investigation to be made after he has reason to believe that any article or articles are being or practically certain to be imported which will affect the above-mentioned programs, the conference amendment places upon the Secretary of Agriculture the responsibility of notifying the President whenever the Secretary of Agriculture believes or has reason to believe that any article or articles are being or practically certain to be imported into the country so as to render, or tend to render, ineffective or materially interfere with the above-mentioned programs. The conference amendment further provides that, if the President agrees that there is reason for such belief on the part of the Secretary of Agriculture, the President shall cause an immediate investigation to be made by the United States Tariff Commission which under existing law is authorized to make such investigation.

"The second change relates to subsection (f) of section 22 which now provides that no proclamation under section 22 shall be enforced in contravention of any treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is or hereafter becomes a party. In lieu of this provision the conference amendment would provide that no proclamation under section 22 shall be enforced in contravention of any treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is or hereafter becomes a party; but no international agreement or amendment to an existing international agreement shall hereafter be entered into which does not permit the enforcement of such section with respect to the articles and countries to which such agreement on tariffs and trade, as heretofore entered into by the United States, permits such enforcement with respect to the articles and countries to which such general agreement is applicable. Prescription of a lower rate of duty for any article than that prescribed by the general agreement on tariffs and trade shall not, if subject to the escape provisions of such general agreement, be deemed a violation of this subsection. The effect of the conference amendment with respect to such subsection (f) is to make sure that future international agreements or amendments to existing international agreements give effect to the provisions of section 22 within the framework of the general agreement on tariffs and trade."

Thus, while the conferees did not accept all of the Senate amendment to section 22, they did recognize the need for further improving the procedure of section 22 and of preventing any further nullification or restriction of section 22 by any future trade agreements.

The amendment as approved by the conferees and finally enacted into law specified that the Secretary of Agriculture shall have responsibility for making prompt preliminary investigations to determine when imports might threaten the effective operation of any agricultural program and that he report the same to the President with the view of the President's ordering an immediate and prompt investigation by the Tariff Commission. Such preliminary investigations by the Secretary of Agriculture were already provided for by a Presidential Executive order, but the Congress felt it necessary to implement the administration of section 22 by making such preliminary investigations and reports to the President by the Secretary of Agriculture mandatory in the law. The conferees and the Congress also recognized, that subsection (f), as it was enacted in 1948, might be construed to authorize the State Department and the President to negotiate future trade agreements that might even further modify and circumscribe the effective operation of section 22 than was the case in GATT. Consequently, they amended subsection (f) to make it clear that no future international agreement could be negotiated with provisions any more restrictive on the effective operation of section 22 than these contained in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, as then written.

To illustrate the extreme dissatisfaction in the Senate with this conference modification of the Senate amendment to section 22, Senator Magnuson of Wash

ington offered a motion on the Senate floor to reject the conference report and require that the Senate conferees insist upon House agreement to the amendment as originally adopted by the Senate. This motion-to reject the conference report was lost by a tie vote, which was broken in favor of accepting the conference report by the Vice President.

It was thus made apparent that, in spite of the failure of the House conferees to concur fully with the Senate amendment, there was a tremendous sentiment for completely repealing and reversing the policy of said subsection (f) and placing the administration of section 22 entirely in the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture beyond the reach of the State Department.

Had it not been for firm assurances from the State Department that the above amendment approved by the conferees would fully assure the effective operation of section 22 to protect our domestic agricultural programs, the Senate would not have agreed thereto. For example, the following is quoted from Senator Ellender's statement on the floor of the Senate concerning the intent of the conferees and of the Congress in connection with paragraph (f) and its relation to GATT (Congressional Record of June 26, 1950, p. 9305):

"Mr. ELLENDER. I think I have made that very plain in the debate heretofore, but in order to make it doubly certain, I requested the office of the Secretary of State to submit their views on this matter.

"This is as was said in a letter addressed to me by the Department's deputy legal adviser, Jack B. Tate: "JUNE 26, 1950.

"Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, Sr.,

United States Senate.

“DEAR SENATOR ELLENDER: You have asked the opinion of the Department as to what type of measure would be considered sufficient to justify an import quota under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, referred to in the conference report on the proposed amendment to section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

"In the opinion of the State Department, the basic question is one of fact. Import quotas would be permitted under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in any case where there is an effective limitation on domestic marketing or production.'

"That is the point I emphasized previously and on many occasions, particularly last Friday and also here today. The letter continues:

"A farm marketing quota, if not set so high as to exceed what the farmers would ordinarily market, would, for example, constitute an effective restriction within the meaning of the agreement. Marketing agreements and orders and farm-acreage allotments are other devices which might also constitute effective restrictions.

"Sincerely yours,

"JACK B. TATE, "Deputy Legal Adviser.'

"In other words, there is no doubt that it is the understanding of the conferees on the part of the Senate that farm-marketing quotas constitute effective restrictions on production or marketing. It is also understood that marketing agreements and orders and farm-acreage allotments may also constitute effective restrictions on marketing or production, and that the judgment of the Secretary of Agriculture will be accepted as the authoritative judgment with respect to whether a marketing agreement and order or farm-acreage allotments are effective restrictions. ***

"I am saying that with this language and with this interpretation of the language which I have just quoted, the conference report makes it as effective with respect to all of the basic crops and other crops with which it is possible to have effective marketing controls or acreage allotments, as would be the case under the Magnuson-Morse amendment to section 22." [Emphasis supplied.]

From this statement of Senator Ellender, upon which the Senate primarily relied in adopting the conference modified amendment to paragraph (f), it is quite clear that the Senate and the Congress felt that the conference version would protect section 22 as fully as would have the Magnuson amendment, which was originally adopted by the Senate and discussed above. It was made quite apparent that Congress intended that conference version of subsection (f), in conjunction with GATT, should constitute no restriction whatsoever on the use of import quotas under the provisions of section 22 to fully protect marketing agreement and other agricultural programs. It is also significant that Senator 8397956-pt. 3--24

Ellender advised the Senate that it was his understanding, and that the Senate could rely thereon, that:

"The judgment of the Secretary of Agriculture will be accepted as the authoritative judgment with respect to whether a marketing agreement and order are effective restrictions."

However, in spite of all of these assurances on the part of the State Department, the executive branch of Government continued to delay and to refuse to effectively administer section 22 (see letters of State Department to White House and Tariff Commission cited above).

As a result of this continued evasion on the part of the State Department, and some other administration officials, the Congress became thoroughly dissatisfied and finally concluded, after 3 years' experience with the State Department under their version of subsection (f), that the State Department could not be trusted and that Congress would have to repeal subsection (f) and completely reverse the language, intent, and policy thereof so that it would be completely clear and mandatory that section 22 and our agricultural programs should be paramount and controlling over any international agreement that might be contrary or inconsistent therewith in any way.

Consequently, section 8 (b) of the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951, amended said subsection (f) so as to completely reverse its language, intent, and congressional policy, to read as follows (which is the language as it exists in sec. 22 today):

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

This 1951 amendment to section 22 (f) was approved unanimously by the Senate Finance Committee, over the objection of the State Department, was adopted without objection on the Senate floor, agreed to in the conference committee between the two Houses, and finally adopted the law. This amendment is abundantly clear and mandatory in its mandate to the President (and other executive branches) that section 22 shall be paramount and that no trade agreement, heretofore of hereafter entered into, shall be permitted to interfere in any way with the full and effective operation of all its provisions. Since the State Department still avoids and circumvents this very clear congressional directive, a somewhat detailed review of the legislative history and intent behind the adoption of this subsection (f) amendment in 1951 is in order. In view of such legislative history and the quite clear and overwhelming sentiment on the part of the Congress that section 22 shall and must be made to prevail over any trade agreement, it is almost beyond comprehension that the State Department has continued to ignore it and continues to operate on the assumption that GATT is superior to section 22-that the United States must go to GATT and plead for a waiver from two-thirds of the 35 members of GATT in order to secure temporary permission to conditionally continue the import limitations now in effect under section 22. The position and continued hostile attitude of the State Department and the President toward section 22 should be carefully analyzed in light of the legislative history and intent disclosed by this 1951 amendment.

This amendment of subsection (f) was sponsored by Senator Magnuson along with several cosponsors, and was initiated by a Senate Finance Committee amendment to the House bill (H. R. 1612). The Senate committee's report (Rept. No. 299, 82d Cong., 1st sess.) contained the following comment at page 7:

"Your committee adopted an amendment designed to protect the full operation of section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. If a case should arise where required action under section 22 would conflict with any trade agreement, then the action under section 22 shall prevail."

The bill was reported by the Senate committee on April 27, 1951. It was debated thereafter on May 21-23 and on the latter date passed the Senate.

In his opening statement, Senator George, chairman of the Finance Committee, first referred to the section 22 amendment as follows:

"Another amendment of great importance was the amendment suggested by the Senator from Washington [Mr. Magnuson] which, as the Senate knows, had already twice been adopted by the Senate in connection with other legislation. This amendment is designed to protect the full operation of section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act which now, in subsection (f), contains certain limitations upon the full scope of its use by reason of the provisions of our trade agreements.

"Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, I was discussing section 22, and I will restate a part of what I said because it is most important. Subsection (f) of section 22 contains certain limitations upon the full scope of its use by reason of the provisions of our trade agreements. That is, that was the way the matter stood before the amendment was recommended by the committee. The amendment recommended by the committee reverses this situation, and provides that if a 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 sections 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 agree 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 orig

inally 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 in 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 Congressional Record 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.