opinion holding the California Buy American Act (Gov. Code, §§ 4300-4305) unconstitutional as an undue interference with the federal government’s conduct of foreign relations. I desire to add a few supplementary observations.

Juxtaposition of the text of the California Buy American Act alongside those of GATT and the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C.A. § 1351) as amended and extended,1 not only makes manifest the seriousness of the potential, if not presently actual, interference by California with the federal government’s power to conduct its foreign affairs,2 but lays bare California’s unconstitutional intrusion into the congressional power “ [t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” (U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 3.)

The .power to regulate commerce with foreign nations is an express grant by the people to the federal government. (Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 187-189 [6 L.Ed. 23, 68].) “It is an essential attribute of the power that it is exclusive and plenary. As an exclusive power, its exercise may not be limited, qualified or impeded to any extent by state action. [Citations.] The power is buttressed by the express provision of the Constitution denying to the States authority to lay imposts or duties on imports or exports without the consent of the Congress. Art. 1, § 10, ][ 2. [j[] The Congress may determine what articles may be imported into this country and the terms upon which importation is permitted.” (University of Illinois v. United States (1932) 289 U.S. 48, 56-57 [77 L.Ed. 1025,1028 ; 53 S.Ct. 509, 510].)

*231“ [T]o regulate' commerce is to prescribe . . . the conditions upon which it shall be conducted; to determine how far it shall be free and untrammeled, how far it shall be burdened by duties and imposts, and how far it shall be prohibited.” Welton v. Missouri (1875) 91 U.S. 275, 279-280 [23 L.Ed. 347, 349] .)

“The power which insures uniformity of commercial regulation must cover the property which is transported as an article of commerce from hostile or interfering legislation, until it has mingled with and become a part of the general property of the country, and subjected like it to similar protection, and to no greater burdens. If, at any time before it has thus" become incorporated into the mass of property of the State or nation, it can be subjected to any restrictions by state legislation, the object of investing the control in Congress may be entirely defeated.” (Welton v. Missouri, supra, 91 U.S. 275, 281 [23 L.Ed. 347, 349] ; see also Guy v. Baltimore (1879) 100 U.S. 434, 443 [25 L.Ed. 743,746].)

Since ‘' commerce with foreign countries ... is of national importance, and admits and requires uniformity of regulation,” no state even in the absence of congressional legislation may intrude into this domain. (Welton v. Missouri, supra, 91 U.S. at p. 280 [23 L.Ed. at p. 349]; Scandinavian Airlines System, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1961) 56 Cal.2d. 11, 23 [14 Cal.Rptr. 25, 363 P.2d 25], cert, denied, 368 U.S. 899 [7 L.Ed.2d 94, 82 S.Ct. 175].) Absence of congressional enactments may be deemed ‘ ‘ equivalent to a declaration that [the] commerce shall be free and untrammeled.” (Welton v. Missouri, supra, 91 U.S. at p. 282 [23 L.Ed. at p. 350] .)

Thus state encroachments upon this exclusive and plenary federal power whether in the guise of a licensing requirement (Welton v. Missouri (1875) supra, 91 U.S. 275 [23 L.Ed. 347] ; Brown v. Maryland (1827) 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 419 [6 L.Ed. 678]), a grant of exclusive privileges or a. franchise (Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) supra, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 [6 L.Ed. 23]), or of inspection and fees therefor (Hale v. Bimco Trading, Inc. (1938) 306 U.S. 375 [83 L.Ed. 771, 59 S.Ct. 526]) have been stricken down. Worthy of particular note is that in Hale, the Trade Agreements Act ([June 12, 1934] 48 Stat. 943, ch. 474, § 1; 19 U.S.C.A. § 1351) and the real purpose of the Florida act, being the exclusion of foreign cement because of its unfavorable competitive effect upon domes*232tically produced cement on the Florida market, were brought to the attention of the court. The California Buy American Act is a statute .'which is no less '‘ clearly designed than [the Florida statute] to circumvent what the. Commerce Clause forbids” (Hale v. Bimco Trading, Inc. (1938) 306 U.S. 375, 380-381 [83 L.Ed. 771, 776, 59 S.Ct. 526, 528]).

Reppy, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court-was denied November 12, 1969. Mosk, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

The first of these two consolidated eases was filed November 14, 1966, by Triangle Steel & Supply Company (Triangle) and Bethlehem to enjoin the Department from performing a contract with Ducommun, Incorporated (Ducommun) for the purchase of structural steel beams t> be used by the Department in enlarging the Owens Biver-Los Angeles Aqueduct. The contract had been awarded after competitive bidding in which seven firms, including both Triangle and Ducommun, had offered to supply the steel. The bid submitted by plaintiff Triangle was the lowest responsive bid based on supplying steel to be manufactured in the United States. The bid sub*223mitted by Ducomnmn was slightly below the Triangle bid, but was predicated on supplying steel to be manufactured in Japan.

The second consolidated case was filed December 7, 1966, by Bethlehem to enjoin the Department from awarding a contract to any of several bidders proposing to use foreign steel in the construction of suspension towers required by the Department for a portion of an electrical transmission line from Celilo, near The Dalles, Oregon, to Sylmar, California. Bethlehem was the only responsive bidder proposing to construct the towers from steel manufactured in. the United States. The low bid, submitted by respondent Marubeni-Iida (America) Inc. (Marubeni), proposed to use steel manufactured in Japan.

Bethlehem sought preliminary injunctions in both eases to prevent performance of the contracts unless they were modified to comply with the California Buy American Act. After a consolidated hearing on the two applications, preliminary injunctions were denied. Following this, Bethlehem filed amended complaints to add claims for damages, and for a declaration that the Department must comply with the California Buy American Act in awarding future public works contracts. Triangle withdrew as a plaintiff in the first suit, leaving Bethlehem as the sole plaintiff, and Bethlehem dismissed without prejudice all the bidders which were originally named as defendants in the second suit, except Marubeni, to whom the contract had been awarded.

Without answering the amended complaints, defendants in both suits moved the trial court for summary judgments, asserting that the California Buy American Act violated eer- • tain international agreements of the United States, and was unconstitutional as a burden on foreign commerce and a denial of due process and equal protection of the law. The Department also contended that the act did not apply to it because Los Angeles is a chartered city and because application of the act would result in a gift of public funds. Summary judgments were entered in both cases against Bethlehem and in favor of defendants.

The California Buy American Act (Gov. Code §§4300-4305) requires that contracts for the construction of public works or the purchase of materials for public use be awarded only to persons who will agree to use or supply materials, *224which have been, manufactured in the United States, substantially all from materials produced in the United States.1

The crucial and determinative issue presented by these appeals is whether this act, as applied to certain purchases of steel products manufactured abroad, violates the United States Constitution. We have concluded that the California Buy American Act is an unconstitutional encroachment upon the federal government’s exclusive power over foreign affairs, and constitutes an undue interference with the United States ’ conduct of foreign relations.

The United States Constitution itself does not, in so many words, vest in the national government the power to conduct external relations. Instead, it parcels out certain aspects of the foreign affairs power among the political departments. As one writer has pointed out, 1 ‘ the organic provisions delegating such specific powers fall far short of covering comprehensively the whole field of foreign affairs. ’ ’2

Whether we must conclude from this that the nation does not possess foreign affairs powers other than those specifically enumerated is answered in an unqualified negative: “As a sovereign power possessed by the nation, the power over foreign affairs is inherent, exclusive, and plenary. It is inherent, since ... it does not depend for its existence upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. It is exclusive in the Federal Government, both because of express prohibitions on the states in this field and because only the Union is vested with the attributes of external sovereignty. For national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power. [Footnotes omitted.]”3

*225As stated in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 315-316 [81 L.Ed. 255, 260-261, 57 S.Ct. 216] : “The broad statement that the Federal government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs.” (See also Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U.S. 378, 396 [77 L.Ed. 844, 852, 53 S.Ct. 457, 86 A.L.R. 747].) The powers of external sovereignty do not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution, but are vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of nationality.4

The exclusivity of the federal government’s power in this sphere is predicated upon the “irrefutable postulate that though the states were several, their people in respect of foreign affairs were one.” (United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., supra, at p. 317 [81 L.Ed. at p. 261].)5 The several states are bereft of power in this field since “in respect of our foreign relations generally, state lines disappear.” (United States v. Belmont, supra, at p. 331 [81 L.Ed. at p. 1139]; see also Chae Chan, Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581, 606 [32 L.Ed. 1068, 1075, 9 S.Ct. 623].) Hence, the external power of the United States is exercisable “without regard to state laws or policies” and “is not and cannot be subject to any curtailment or interference on the part of the several states.” (Ibid.)6

The California Buy American Act, in effectively placing an embargo on foreign products, amounts to a usurpation by this state of the power of the federal government to conduct foreign trade policy. That there are countervailing state policies which are served by the retention of such an act is “wholly irrelevant to judicial inquiry” (United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 233 [86 L.Ed. 796, 819, 62 S.Ct. 552]) since “ [i]t is inconceivable that any of them can be inter*226posed as an obstacle to the effective operation of a federal constitutional power.” (United States v. Belmont, supra, 301 U.S. 324, 332 [81 L.Ed. 1134, 1140].) Only the federal government can fix the rules of fair competition when such competition is on an international basis. Foreign trade is properly a subject of national concern, not state regulation. State regulation can only impede, not foster, national trade policies. The problems of trade expansion or non-expansion are national in scope, and properly should be national in scope in their resolution. The fact that international trade forms the basis of this country’s foreign relations is amply demonstrated by the following. At the present time the United States is a party to commercial treaties with 38 foreign nations. In addition, there are tax treaties presently in effect between the United States and 31 countries. The United States is a party to many other international treaties and agreements regulating, directly or indirectly, its commercial relations with the rest of the world. See, for example, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 61 Stat. Part 6 A2051 TIAS 1700 (1947); The United Nations Charter, 59 Stat. 1031 T.S. 993 (1945) ; The International Monetary Fund Agreement of 1945, 60 Stat. 1401, TIAS 1501 (1945); The Universal Copyright Convention, 6 U.S.T. & O.I.A. 2731, TIAS 3324 (1955); The Warsaw Convention, 49 Stat. 3000, T. S. 876 (1934); The International Finance Corporation, 7 U. S.T. & O.I.A. 2197, TIAS 3620 (1956,); The International Development Association, 11 U.S.T. & O.I.A. 2284, TIAS 4607 (1960) • The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 60 Stat. 1440, TIAS 1502 (1945); The International Civil Aviation Organization, 61 Stat. 1180, TEAS 1591, 15 U.N.T.S. 295 (Chicago, 1944); The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 12 U.S.T. & O.I.A. 1728, TIAS 4891 (1961); International Trade in Cotton Textiles, 12 U.S.T. & O.I.A. 1675, TIAS 4884 (1961), Long Term Agreement Regarding Such Trade, 471 U.N.T.S. 296, and Extension of Long Term Agreement, TIAS 6289 (May 1, 1967); The International Coffee Agreement, With Annexes, 14 U.S.T. & O.I.A. 1911, TIAS 5505, 469 U.N.T.S. 169 (1963). Certainly, such problems are beyond the purview of the State of California. As stated in United States v. Pink, supra, 315 U.S. 203,. 232 [86 L.Ed. 796, 818] : “These are delicate matters. If state action could defeat or alter our foreign policy,' serious conse*227quences might ensue. The nation as a whole would be held to answer if a state created difficulties with a foreign power.”7 The argument is nevertheless advanced that until such time as the federal government acts, either by conflicting legislation8 or international agreement,9 state legislation is unobjectionable. In Purdy & Fitzpatrick v. State of California, 71 Cal.2d 566, 577 [79 Cal.Rptr. 77, 456 P.2d 645], our Supreme Court stated: “We need not await an instance of actual conflict to strike down a state law which purports, to regulate a subject matter which the Congress simultaneously aims to control. The opportunity for potential conflict is too great to permit the operation of the state law. [Footnote *228

The California Buy American Act, like the Oregon escheat statute in Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429, 434-435 [19 L.Ed.2d 683, 688-689, 88 S.Ct. 664], “has more than ‘some incidental or indirect effect in foreign countries, ’ and its great potential for disruption or embarrassment makes us hesitate to place it in the category of a diplomatic bagatelle. ’'12 Such state legislation may bear a particular onus to foreign nations since it may appear to be the product of selfish provincialism, rather than an instrument of justifiable policy. It is a type of protectionism which invites retaliative restrictions on our own trade. While the present California statute is not as gross an intrusion in the federal domain as *229others might be,13 “it has a direct impact upon foreign relations, and may well adversely affect the power of the central government to deal with those problems.” (Zschernig v. Miller, supra, 389 U.S. 429, at page 441 [19 L.Ed.2d 683 at p. 692].)14

Our system of government is such that the interest of the cities, counties and states, no less than the interest of the people of the whole nation, “imperatively requires that federal power in the field affecting foreign relations be left entirely free from local interference.” (Hines v. Davidowitz, supra, 312 U.S. at page 63 [85 L.Ed. at p. 584].)15 Effectiveness in handling these delicate problems requires no less. (United States v. Pink, supra, 315 U. S. 203, 229-230 [8 L.Ed. 796, 817-818].) To permit state legislation to concurrently operate in this sphere would very certainly “imperil the amicable relations between governments and vex the peace of nations.” (Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 304 [62 L.Ed. 726, 732, 38 S.Ct. 309] ; see Ricaud v. American Metal Co., 246 U.S. 304, 308-310 [62 L.Ed. 733, 736-737, 38 S.Ct. 312].)

The present legislation is an impermissible attempt by the state to structure national foreign policy to conform to its own domestic policies. It illustrates the dangers which are involved if federal policy is to be qualified by the variant notions of the several states. We conclude that the California, Buy American Act is an unconstitutional intrusion into an exclusive federal domain.

The judgments are affirmed.

*230Reppy, J., concurred.