Mr. BARGER. I cannot reconcile the apparent conflict between the provision you have read and the other provisions that I have read, namely, the provision that any action done by the ITO, plus any advisory opinions that are given it by the International Court, are binding on all the members. I cannot see how that would prevent the making of agreements that would not have to be submitted to Congress for approval under the other provisions. I think the provisions are irreconcilable. Mr. FULTON. Here is how we can do that so that we satisfy both of us: In the report which is prepared by this committee as to the meaning of the obligations the United States is undertaking, we can specifically, in giving effect to what you say, point out and make sure that the obligation has inherently and without contradiction, the limitation that every agreement Mr. BARGER (interposing). And every action of the ITO Mr. FULTON (continuing). Entered into on behalf of the United States under the ITO charter, shall have the approval of the Congress of the United States. Mr. BARGER. I am afraid you have not got that provision in it yet. Mr. FULTON, But if we put it in, suppose we put it in our report. Then that makes the intent of our acceptance limited to that. Mr. BARGER. My answer to that would be, then, you might face this proposition of construction: The rule of construction is that where the language of the act, or the instrument, being construed is fair and clear on its face, recourse may not be had even to the reports of committees to determine its meaning. Mr. FULTON. But even you say the charter is contradictory on its face; and, therefore, recourse must be had. Mr. BARGER. Then, certainly, the conflict should be ironed out, whatever the committee says in its report. Mr. FULTON. Thank you very much. I think that is very productive. Mr. BARGER. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Mr. FULTON. I want to thank you for your positions, and I believe the discussion has been very productive to some of us on the committee. Mr. BARGER. Thank you, sir. Mr. GORDON (presiding). Just to get our record straight, I wish you would state the functions, purposes, and membership of the National Economic Council. Mr. BARGER. The membership of the National Economic Council is Nation-wide. It is representative of a cross section of the people throughout the country. The organization is supported by the sale of some of its literature in part, in part by membership fees, and in part by contributions. Mr. GORDON. You are also representing Mr. Hart? Mr. BARGER. I am the Washington representative of the council here. Mr. GORDON. What is your position in that council? Mr. BARGER. I am just the Washington representative. Mr. GORDON. That is all. Mr. BURLESON. May I say this: I am familiar with Mr. Hart's writing, and I read the letter he puts out weekly. I do not believe there is anyone who would subscribe to the principle any more than I, that Government interference in business is bad. I think the less we can have, the better off we are. However, I take exception to parts of the statement which you present here in generalities, just as we have all been, probably, at some time or other, guilty of doing. Mr. BARGER. I thought I had been rather specific. Mr. BURLESON. Here you are saying, in substance, that the State Department is shot full of Socialists, but you are careful in saying, "at least, if not being outright Communists, are considered so," or to that effect. You know that is the thing that destroys confidence in Government and in elected officials. You say that in 1946 the charter rose out of the activities of the United States Department of State which promoted the London Conference in 1946. Who was Secretary of State in 1946? Mr. BARGER. I think Secretary Hull was in then, was he not? Mr. BARGER. I am not sure. Mr. BURLESON. Now, you are not going to call General Marshall a Socialist, are you? Mr. FULTON. I think it was Secretary Byrnes. Mr. BURLESON. One example is as good as another. Mr. BARGER. I would not want to say the Secretary of State knows everything that goes on in his Department though, theoretically, he is responsible for it. I do think some of the fellows in the State Department have largely forsaken the ancient principles and doctrines of diplomacy and have gotten into world politics and other affairs that I do not believe they ought to be in. Mr. BURLESON. I agree with that to a certain extent. I certainly am not sold on many policies of the present administration. As long back as I can remember I could find something wrong. Mr. FULTON. Thank you for your agreement on that. Mr. BURLESON. But when you make accusations of this general nature, I just cannot see why men who hold a great deal of confidence of the people in this country, as perhaps your organization does, must indulge in innuendos. It is happening right now over in the Senate and other places. When we get down to cases, that is one thing; but general accusations and innuendos are something else. I think it is unfortunate, I really do. I think it is a sad commentary on our citizenship. Mr. BARGER. I agree that the investigation in the Senate is probably being dragged out instead of getting down to the nub of the situations, so to speak. Mr. BURLESON. Regardless of its merits, the merits have nothing to do with it, but the method is shameful. Mr. BARGER. I think you have been in Congress long enough to realize that investigations and the conduct of committees have undergone marked changes in the last decade or so. They do not conduct them like they used to. Mr. BURLESON. Yes; they have gotten to be forums-many of them- but that is no excuse to condemn and indite by innuendo. Mr. BARGER. It is too bad, but that happens to be true. Mr. GORDON (presiding). Thank you very much, Mr. Barrer, for your appearance and giving your statement. Mr. BARGER. Thank you for your attention. Mr. FULTON. May we compliment you on your approach. While some of us might disagree with it, I think you have been very effective in your statement, and I think your appearance has been productive of further thinking by the committee. Mr. BARGER. Thank you, sir. Mr. GORDON. We stand adjourned and will meet tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 2: 23 p. m., the committee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a. m., Monday, May 1, 1950.) MEMBERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATION MONDAY, MAY 1, 1950 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. The committee met pursuant to adjournment at 10:20 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 for further consideration this morning, House Joint Resolution 236, providing for membership and participation of the United States in an International Trade Organization, and authorizing an appropriation therefor. I am pleased to announce that we have with us Mr. Charles F. Brannan, Secretary of Agriculture, who will testify in reference to this resolution. Mr. Secretary, we are very glad to have you with us this morning. You may proceed in any manner you wish. STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES F. BRANNAN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE Secretary BRANNAN. In appearing before you to discuss the proposed charter for an International Trade Organization, I should like to speak particularly of the relation of this charter to United States agriculture. Agriculture has a very real interest in this charter. American agriculture produces a good deal more of many important agricultural products than is consumed in the United States, including wheat, cotton, tobacco, lard, and many fruits and vegetables. In the crop year 1948-49 our agricultural exports were valued at over 32 billion dollars. We sent abroad about 40 percent of our wheat, 32 percent each of our cotton and our rice, 22 percent of our tobacco, almost 30 percent of our raisins and over 40 percent of our prunes, 30 percent of our peanuts, and 25 percent of our hops-to mention some of the more striking items. The level of our agricultural exports during recent years has been higher than normal because of emergency and post-war requirements. Much of this was implemented by the financial assistance this country has been giving the purchaser countries. With the progressive restoration of agricultural production abroad, we can expect an overall shrinkage of our agricultural exports from the high level reached during the emergency period. This return of our farm exports toward more normal levels will require adjustments in our agricultural production. Should our agricultural exports drop to the levels which prevailed in the late thirties, serious production curtailments could not be avoided. On the other hand, to the extent we succeed in maintaining our agricultural exports at their present levels, the domestic adjustment problem will be reduced. The history of the 1930's indicates that we cannot hope to maintain a high level of agricultural exports unless conditions favorable to multilateral nondiscriminatory trade are restored in the portion of the world economy with which we carry on the bulk of our trade. You will recall that the trade restrictions and exchange controls employed by foreign countries in the thirties hurt our agricultural exports considerably more than they did our industrial exports. This was because foreign countries turn to alternative sources of supply, such as stimulation of domestic production, for many of the agricultural products normally purchased from the United States more readily than they did for the products of our industry which they found more difficult to purchase elsewhere. Under the impact of the war and postwar emergency, foreign governments have greatly increased their intervention in trade by such means as embargoes and quotas, exchange controls and artificial exchange rates, state trading monopolies, and bilateral or regional trade and payment arrangements. Recourse to these restrictive and discriminatory measures has sometimes been justified by the difficulties encountered by many foreign countries in balancing their trade and payments with the United States and other so-called hard-currency countries. ECA assistance is helping many of those countries overcome their acute financial difficulties. But if the world is to obtain lasting benefits from the rebuilding of the war-torn economies, it is necessary that those abnormal trade restrictions and discriminations be discontinued as rapidly as improvements in international financial and trade conditions permit. To assure international cooperative progress toward this objective, and thus to provide for a revival of multilateral nondiscriminatory trade, is the principle objective of the ITO charter. Thus as has been pointed out by those who have already testified before this committee it would supplement our efforts through ECA. It would also supplement our trade-agreement program and the international monetary and financial arrangements of Bretton Woods. Furthermore, it would help achieve the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's objectives of improved nutrition and standards of rural living throughout the world. Signatory countries to this charter would undertake to work together to avoid the type of situation we had in the thirties. In addition to the interest of American farmers in the charter because of the need to export farm products, they have an overwhelming interest in the maintenance of other portions of the United States economy in an active healthy condition. It is my belief that the cooperation of nations in the establishment of the International Trade Organization provided for in the charter being considered by this committee will advance those interests. Other witnesses will elaborate on these aspects of the charter. I would like now to turn to the |