that these trade agreements have injured us practically in every one of them where they have touched the farmer interest.

There seems to have been a theory that in order to secure foreign business it is necessary for us to reduce tariffs on things that we produce and let in, in competition with those things that we produce in many instances to excess, other cheaper produced products of the same character.

Whether we are mistaken about that or not, I think is somewhat beside the question because there is a well-fixed opinion in the minds of the farmers of the country that this trade-agreement business has been injurious to them.

You asked me if I was opposed to the trade-agreement authority. I said that I was. I will qualify that by saying that a properly administered trade-agreement program I think would be beneficial to this country. But it has not been so administered in the past, at least, insofar as the farmer is concerned, and the farmer is objecting to it.

I believe that the thing you ought to do or that you ought to consider doing in the extension of this trade-agreement authority is to amend it materially. I think that amendment should include a provision that all of these trade agreements must be ratified by Congress, either by one or both Houses. I am not particular about that. I rather believe, if I were taking my choice, I would return to the constitutional method of making treaties, and that is by the advice and consent of the United States Senate.

Let me say to you gentlemen that I haven't any faith in your putting any provision in an extension of the trade-agreement authority that will direct those who have the administering of that authority what to do. I think you have already directed them what you thought was the right thing for them to do and they have failed to do it.

I want to cite for your consideration one incident that stands out high above everything else in the history of this trade-agreement authority, and that is the negotiation of the Argentine agreement. The Argentine agreement was first approached in 1939. At that time many Members of Congress came before the Committee on Reciprocity Information and, I think, succeeded in getting over to them your directive as to what you thought we ought to do, at least, in the Argentine agreement, and probably what you thought they ought to do in all farm agreements. That directive was listened to for the time being, and when the trade-agreement authority came up in 1940 for renewal the question of whether or not the Argentine agreement would be renegotiated was hashed over time and time again before this committee, and assurance was given to you that it would not renegotiated, and that it was not in contemplation.

Yet the ink had hardly dried upon the extension of the reciprocal trade-agreement authority until notice was given that the Argentine agreement was under consideration. A date was set for hearing; the proposals were practically the same or, I might say, exactly the same I think they were, as I recollect them, exactly the same-and in 1940, after having heeded the directive of some 90 or 100 Members of Congress who appeared against the Argentine trade agreement in 1939, they disregarded the directive of those who had appeared, along with the appearance of many more, and went ahead and negotiated the Argentine trade agreement.

In addition to that, if you put a directive in there I don't believe it has any binding effect. I don't believe there is anything that you could do about it if it were disregarded. If you provided that trade agreements should only be made along certain lines and that no trade agreement should be entered into which had in its provisions those things that might compete with like materials or like products of the United States, if that were disregarded I don't think there is a thing in the world you could do about it, and I think it would be disregarded, from the history of the past. And I hope that you won't make the serious mistake of amending this by directing the kind of trade agreements that you think ought to be made and then leaving the present unknown quantities, whose names you have never yet been able to arrive at, with the same power to negotiate trade agreements that they have now, because I think it is a dangerous thing to do.

I think there is another thing to consider, gentlemen, in connection with this. I haven't submitted any facts and figures. I do not think it is worth while to submit facts and figures. The fact remains that you have not been able to sell the trade-agreement authority to the American people, and I do not believe you ought to push something over on to the American people that they are opposed to when 10 years of demonstration still leaves them opposed to it. I do not think that that ought to be done.

I think another thing. You have had a directive, in my opinion, to Congress to reclaim some of the authority that it has unwholesomely delegated to those who are not responsible to the American people. I do not believe that an extension of this trade-agreement authority, with some kind of amendment attached that has no real meaning or no real effect, will be understood by the American people, and it will certainly not be understood by the American farmer. We are tired of this thing as it is. We are disgusted with it in its present condition, and if you hand us something back that is just a modification of a smelly program that we already have, I am satisfied that the American farmer is going to resent it and he is going to resent it as he resented it just a few months ago, and he will take the same remedy for it.

I think one of the things that has contributed as much as anything else to the unrest among farmers is this unwholesome delegation of authority to bureaucrats over whom you have no control and who owe no duty to the voters. The thing that the voters are after and the thing that the farmers are after is those who are responsible to them assuming some of the authority that the Constitution delegated to them. That is all we are asking you to do here. There isn't any use of presenting a lengthy argument. I will leave the further discussion of it to the brief. But I do say that I think I can speak with authority for the farmers of this country. We are not going to be satisfied with an extension of this authority as it is. It will have to be modified. I don't believe that the farmers of the United States will be satisfied with an extension of this sort, which says that you can make this kind of treaty or that or cover this commodity or that, or stay away from this commodity or that, in other words, a directive to the now acting authority that is negotiating these treaties.

I do not believe that that will be understood. It would not be understood by me. I could not understand it at all, because I do not believe that a directive of that kind has any legal effect whatever, and I think,

if it were disregarded, there would not be a thing you could do about it, nor would there be anything that the farmers could do about it, except to take the injury that had been foisted on them by those who are not accountable to them.

I think the farmers have asked you to take back the delegated authority that the Constitution gave to you to see that these reciprocal trade agreements are made in the interest of the farmer, and that is all we ask of you.

(The following letter was subsequently received and submitted for the record by Mr. Carlson:)

Hon. FRANK CARLSON,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

WASHINGTON, D. C., April 24, 1943.

MY DEAR FRANK: Owing to the lateness of the hour, which resulted in an apparent unrest of the members of the Ways and Means Committee, I did not make the extended comment which I had intended to make before the committee yesterday on the extension of the reciprocal-trade agreement authority.

I have recently been engaged in representing the vegetable growers before the Office of Price Administration in ceiling price hearings both in and out of Washington, and have had an opportunity to get the reaction of farmers in general to the history of the administration of reciprocal trade treaties. I have also recently returned from a trip to the Middle West, at which time I took occasion to interview as many as possible of the farmers in that section on this subject.

I think I can say to you that the farmers are completely disgusted with the past history of administration of reciprocal-trade agreements. It is their general, practically unanimous, opinion that every trade agreement that has been negotiated since 1934 in which farm products have received attention, that the farmer has been seriously injured by every one of them. It seems to have been the policy of this administration to court friendship with foreign nations by reducing tariff rates on farm products. Whether the amount of imports be large or small, the effect of opening the market to this additional agricultural produce upon a basis which permitted the foreign farmer to sell for less, has always had a depressing effect upon the agricultural product involved in the American market.

I believe that the extension of the reciprocal-trade agreement authority upon any basis will be misunderstood by the American farmer, no matter how pure the motive for such extension may be. The American farmer does not know that there could be a good trade agreement when farm products are involved. He has never seen a demonstration of such an agreement. Therefore the general impression of the farmer is that the extension of the trade-agreement authority on any basis will be injurious to him and his interests.

I am mindful of the argument which has been presented by the administration that the failure to extend this authority would be misunderstood by our allies. I must say in frankness to you that there is some political value in this argument. There is no merit to the contention that the extension or the failure to extend this authority should concern our allies in the least. I consider that a matter of internal policy of the American Nation which is none of their business. The American Nation has always had a constitutional provision for the negotiation of treaties between nations. That constitutional provision was in force and effect before the reciprocal-trade agreement authority was ever conceived in the mind of a New Dealer. It will be there long after the reciprocal-trade program has moldered away and joined its kindred dust. If our allies are interested in the extension of the reciprocal-trade agreement authority, it can only be upon the basis that the executive department, by use of this authority, might override the will of the people and the expressed directive of Congress for their benefit. I cannot see where the extension or failure to extend this authority could concern them otherwise.

I am certain of this. The American farmer will conclude that the extension of this authority for this last stated reason is simply a subterfuge to help somebody else to the detriment of the American farmer.

It may be politically expeditious and entirely proper under the circumstances to extend this authority and amend it drastically. I do not believe that it can ever be explained to the American farmer unless there is an amendment attached to and made a part of the resolution of extension which will provide that no reciprocal trade agreement negotiated under the provisions of the act involved shall

86405-43-63

be negotiated or signed by the executive department unless and until it has been approved by Congress. In my humble opinion, that would be the only kind of extension and amendment that could be explained to the American farmer as being in his interest. You note I have said by the approval of Congress. By that I mean the approval of both Houses, and may I digress here to say that I do not believe that there is any constitutional authority for congressional approval, but there is certainly as much constitutional authority for congressional approval of trade agreements as there is for negotiation of trade agreements without Senate approval. The Constitution provides the one method for making treaties, and a trade agreement is nothing but a trade treaty pure and simple. Therefore, any other method of making a treaty other than the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, in my opinion as a lawyer, is absolutely unconstitu tional. There is nothing to the argument that a trade agreement is a contract and that contracts between nations may be made by the executive authorities thereof. I will grant that that is true as a proposition of international law, but the Constitution of the United States did not see fit to follow international law on this subject and lodged the contract-making power with the Executive and Senate jointly.

A contract between nations is a treaty, and, conversely, a treaty between nations is a contract. There is no differentiation between the two. The fact that the treaty may involve national relationships or trade relationships does not make a difference between the two subjects. The only method that nations have of dealing with one another is by treaties which are agreements, and agreements are contracts.

The

Now getting back to congressional ratification of trade agreements. reason I have suggested this is that the farmer feels closer to members of the House of Representatives than he does to the members of the United States Senate. He feels the Members of the House are chosen from his district. He knows them personally and will feel that there is no possibility of executive log rolling in the consummation of these trade agreements; if the House has a part in approving them.

However, personally, I would not object to requiring senatorial approval on the basis fixed in the Constitution. That is a two-thirds majority. I would oppose, and farmers of this country are opposed, to ratification by the Senate by a bare majority, if it is to be left to them alone. If left to the Senate, we prefer that the constitutional requirement be followed out. I also desire to call to your attention another example of the "inequity of the most-favored-nation construction" of the State Department. In 1934 a treaty was negotiated with Cuba which reduced the tariff on tomatoes to 1.8 cents per pound during the months of December, January, and February of each year. The excuse of the State Department for this drastic reduction below the difference in the cost of production was that during these months of the year the American vegetable producer was not in production, and that therefore no American interest was injured. This was not true, but it constituted a good alibi: because the hothouse vegetable industry, producing millions of pounds of tomatoes during that portion of the year, was severely injured by this provision. Certain field growers in southern Texas and extreme southern Florida were also seriously injured. However, the State Department got by with the alibi.

Just last year the Mexican trade agreement was negotiated, again, attacking many farm products and livestock interests, and also reducing the tariff on fresh tomatoes to 1.5 cent per pound. The statistics furnished by the United States Tariff Commission show that the Cuban and Mexican vegetable farmer can deliver fresh tomatoes on the New York and Chicago markets at a cost of 3 cents less per pound than the American grower can deliver to the same market. The alibi for this last reduction was that we needed the fresh vegetables during the war. However, you know that once you get these tariff trade-agreement reductions in effect that they remain permanent insofar as this administration is concerned. We discovered to our chagrin, that Cuban tomatoes are now entering the United States all the year around at a tariff rate of 1.2 cents per pound, under the most-favored-nation construction of the State Department. That is to say, Mexico now being entitled under its trade agreement to a duty rate of 1.5 cents per pound all the year around, that Cuba must now be entitled to this rate of duty plus a 20-percent reduction under a statute passed in 1901 which allows Cuba a 20-percent reduction as against any other nation. This 20 percent off of 1.5 cent, permits a duty rate of 1.2 cents for Cuba, and it is now effective all year around. This permits the Cuban grower to compete with our field-tomato grower throughout the entire year.

The vegetable farmers of the United States are mad as thunder about this thing, but there doesn't seem to be anything that they can do about it but

swear.

I give you these reactions for such use as you may care to make of them, and let me say in closing that I believe that the extension of the reciprocal trade agreement authority, even though amended in one of the methods which I have suggested, will require every man that votes for it to explain the situation to the farmer and will require him to convince the farmer that there is a possibility of good trade agreements that will help him and not injure him. I think every man that votes for this extension, even though amended as above, and which, in my opinion, would thoroughly protect every farmer in the United States, will be on the defensive. I am not at all certain that this thing could be explained to the satisfaction of all the farmers or any considerable number of them. The result remains in the future, and I am not willing to predict whether or not they could be satisfied with such an explanation. I know that you and other members of the committee have the sincere interest of the farmer at heart. I know you are the farmer's friend, and the farmer knows you are his friend, and that goes for most of the brethren on your side of the House. I hope this matter can be worked out so that complete protection is accorded to the farmer and at the same time the farmer is satisfied with the action which Congress takes. With kindest personal regards to you, I am,

Sincerely yours,

JOHN H. CONNAUGHTON.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much for your appearance and the information you have given the committee.

The next witness is Mr. Walter W. Cenerazzo. Please state your name to the reporter, and your address and the organization for which you are appearing.

Mr. CENERAZZo. My name is Walter W. Cenerazzo, of Waltham, Mass., representing the Waltham Watch Workers Union, No. 72, affiliated with the International Jewelry Workers, A. F. L.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think you will need 20 minutes?

Mr. CENERAzzo. I would like to have that. I think I should have it. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

STATEMENT OF WALTER W. CENERAZZO, PRESIDENT, WALTHAM WATCH WORKERS UNION, NO. 72, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR

Mr. CENERAZZO. I represent an organization composed of 2,300 men and women who work on the production of jeweled watches, 2,300 men and women who are now working 100 percent on war work making vital parts and time mechanisms without which this war could not be won; 2,300 men and women who are dependent upon this industry for their livelihood, Americans whose skill for manufacturing precision instruments is unsurpassed.

The attitude I here express has the support of the workers in the Elgin and Hamilton companies, many of which are members of our international union.

Our organization unanimously voted to send me here to Washington to present the views of our organization concerning the extension of reciprocal trade treaties. We are not against reciprocal trade treaties. We are for them with the qualifications that those authorized to negotiate these trade treaties be limited to what they can negotiate insofar as allowing any competitive commodity, whether of farm or industry, to be imported into this country at not less than the cost for which it can be produced here.