18. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Waugh) to the Secretary of State1

SUBJECT

  • Waiver for United States actions under Section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended

At the recent meeting with the Canadian Ministers,2 Mr. Howe raised with you the question as to whether actions taken by the United States under Section 22 are not already justified under certain exceptions in GATT, and hence whether the United States really needs open-end waiver. On the basis of subsequent discussions with Canadian officials in Washington, it seems there was some misunderstanding on the part of Mr. Howe on this subject.

We have always recognized that some actions we need to take under Section 22 are consistent with the GATT. Import fees on products on which we have not undertaken to bind the import charges against increase are in that category. Quotas on products on which we have domestic restrictions on production or marketing are likewise permissible. The difficulty is that the requirements of Section 22 necessitate the use of quotas and fees in other cases as well, where their use is not consistent with GATT. Details as to which Section 22 situations are and which are not consistent with the GATT are in Tab A.

[Page 79]

The waiver we seek is only intended to cover the cases in which the requirements of Section 22 have necessitated or may necessitate imposition of fees or quotas that are inconsistent with the GATT.

Tab A

Section 22 requires that when the President finds that imports threaten to interfere materially with farm programs or threaten to render such programs ineffective he shall impose such fees or quotas (within specified limits as to their restrictiveness) as will in his judgment prevent the interference from imports. Some restrictions that the United States must impose under these criteria are consistent with GATT and some are not.

With regard to fees under Section 22, GATT prohibits such fees without exception when they are applied to items on which the United States has granted a concession. Consequently, without a waiver, fees we must impose constitute a violation when they apply to concession items. Our fee on filberts is a case in point.

Another part of the problem arises in the use of quotas. GATT Article XI contains a general prohibition against quantitative restrictions on imports except in certain specified situations. We need a waiver to permit the use of quotas under Section 22 to the extent that such quotas are inconsistent with GATT. The few situations in which such quotas are permitted by exceptions in GATT, which Mr. Howe may have had in mind, are as follows:

Quotas are permitted on imports of an agricultural product when necessary to the enforcement of governmental measures to restrict the quantity of the domestic products permitted to be marketed or produced. The United States quota on cotton, wheat, and peanuts are justified under this provision because production restrictions are in effect on these products. (But quotas on many items are not justified because we have no production or marketing restrictions on them.)

Article XI also permits import restrictions necessary to the removal of temporary surpluses if the surpluses are being made available to certain groups of domestic consumers free of charge or at prices below the current market (note this excludes foreign giveaway). To qualify, such a program must, however, provide an effective disposal of a temporary surplus. We have no effective programs for the disposal of surplus products in the United States within the terms of this provision. In addition, it would be difficult to get others to agree that our surpluses are temporary. They are the outgrowth of the incentive price support programs and are likely to [Page 80] continue indefinitely unless price supports are lowered or restrictions are imposed on domestic production.

GATT Article XX, II(c) permits import restrictions essential to the liquidation of temporary surpluses arising out of the exigencies of the war. It would be difficult to persuade other countries that burdensome surpluses which developed eight years after the end of hostilities are due to the exigencies of the war.

Our present Section 22 restrictions on dairy products, oats, rye, barley and filberts are not permitted under any provision of GATT. These restrictions, as well as future actions which we may have to take on agricultural products, would require a waiver under the GATT

  1. Source: Department of State, GATT Files: Lot 59 D 563, GATT: Memos, 1955. Official Use Only. Drafted by Margaret H. Potter and Joe A. Robinson of the Trade Agreements and Treaties Division.
  2. Presumably the meeting of January 6; see supra.