SENATE - Govinfo.gov

14854 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 yoke. These colonial regimes will be guided in their resistance to Communist penetration by the success of Ghana and other independent nations in obtaining needed, effective aid from the United States and the rest of the Free World.

The Free World has an edge over the Communist nations, inasmuch as African nations express an overwhelming preference for democratic concepts. We cannot, however, afford to take an attitude of nonresponsibility with respect to their economic needs, for, as drowning nations, they would have no

SENATE THURSDAY, JULY 24, 1958

<Legislative day of Wednesday, July 23, 1958)

The Senate met at 10:30 a. m., on the expiration of the recess.

The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown Harris, D. D., offered the following prayer:

Almighty God, in knowledge of whom standeth our life, we turn from the tu.:. mult of an angry world, not that we may escape from it, but that we may face the perplexing maze of its tragic problems with strong spirits and quiet minds.

God the all-merciful, earth hath forsaken meekness and mercy and slighted Thy word. Let not Thy wrath in its terrors awaken. Give to us peace in our time, 0 Lord.

God the all-righteous, man hath defied Thee. Yet to eternity standeth Thy word; falsehood and wrong shall not tarry beside Thee ; give to us peace in our time, 0 Lord.

We ask it in the name of that One whose is the kingdom and the power and the glory. Amen.

THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. MANSFIELD, and by

unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Wednesday, July 23, 1958, was dispensed with.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre

sentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill <H. R. 7153) giving the consent of Congress to a compact between the State of Oregon and the State of Washington establishing a boundary between those States.

COMMITTEE MEETING DURING SESSION. OF THE SENATE

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, at the request of the acting majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that· the Com-

alternative but to grasp eagerly even the straw which communism would offer them.

In my visit to Africa last year to attend Ghana's independence celebration, I was keenly impressed by the evident confidence and belief in the dignity of man I witnessed, the dignity which comes only when man is truly free. Most assuredly, those people have no intention of trading their European masters for totalitarian rulers. As Vice President NIXON pointed out last year after his visit to Africa, it is not enough that we talk democracy, we must

mittee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate today.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

ORDER FOR TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent tha~ there may be the usual morning hour for the transaction of routine business, and that statements in connection therewith be limited to 3 minutes.


EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the following letters, which were referred as indicated: PLANS FOR WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT IN CER

TAIN STATES A letter from the Acting Director, Bureau

of the Budget, Executive Office of the President, transmitting, pursuant to law, plans for works of improvement on Adobe Creek, Buena Vista Creek, Central Sonoma, Calif., upper Nanticoke River, Del., Donaldson Creek, Ky., Mud Creek, Nebr., Peavine Mountain, Nev .• Indian Creek, Tenn., and Miss., and Coon Creek, Wis. (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. AMENDMENT OF ACT RELATING TO PLACING OF

CHILDREN IN F(\MILY HOMES A letter from the President, Board of Com

missioners, District of Columbia, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to amend the act entitled "An act to regulate the placing of children in family homes, and for other purposes," approved April 22, 1944, as amended (with an accompanying paper); to the Committee on the District of Columbia. REPORT PRIOR TO RESTORATION OF BALANCES,

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE A letter from the Administrative Assistant

Attorney General, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report prior to restoration of balances, in that Department, as of June 30, 1958 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Government Operations.

SUMMARY REPORT ON EXAMINATION OF ARMY CONTRACTS WITH BmDSBORO ARMORCAST, INC. A letter from the Comptroller General of

the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a summary report on examination of Department of the Army contracts and subcontracts with Birdsboro Armorcast, Inc., Birdsboro, Pa., dated July 1958 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Government Operations.

practice it in our domestic affairs and in our relations with other nations. Any assistance we give to other free nations must not be offered in an air of superiority or paternalism. There must be no question that we value and respect their friendship. And true friendship is a horizontal relationship. It does not follow vertical paths. You do not look down on friends; you look across at them.

In this spirit and cognizance, I join with the rest of the citizens of this country in extending a most cordial welcome to Prime Minister Nkrumah.

REPORT ON REVIEW OF PROCUREMENT OF CERTAIN AIRCRAFT PARTS, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE A letter from the Comptroller General of

the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on review of requirements determinations and related procurement for spare parts for aircraft and aircraft accessories, Oklahoma City Air Materiel Area, Department of the Air Force, dated July 1958 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Government Operations. REPORT ON TORT CLAIMS PAID BY DEPARTMENT

OF' AGRICULTURE A letter from the Administrative Assistant

Secretary of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on tort claims paid by that Department, for the period July 1, 1957, to June 30, 1958 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on the Judiciary.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS Petitions, etc., were laid before the

Senate, or presented, and referred as indicated:

By the PRESIDENT pro tempore: A letter in the nature of a petition from

the Good Citizens Club of Metropolitan Detroit, Mich., signed by Selma Rice, secretary, endorsing certain suggestions with respect to the omnibus housing bill (with an accompanying paper); to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

The petition of George W. E. Spratt, of Ramsey, N. J., praying for a redress of grievances in regard to tariff increases granted by the Interstate Commerce Commission; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

The petition of T. H. Sutherland, M. D., secretary-treasurer, the Aero Medical Association, of Marion, Ohio, praying for the enactment of legislation providing for the establishment of a medical department in the Civil Aeronautics Administration; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following reports of committees

were submitted: By Mr. MAGNUSON, from the Committee

on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, without amendment:

H. R. 9196. An act to authorize the construction of a nuclear-powered icebreaking vessel for operation by the United States Coast Guard, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 1931).

By Mr. HAYDEN, from the Committee on Rules and Administration, without amendment:

S. 4174. A bill to authorize the distribution Of COpies of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD to former Members of Congress requesting such copies (Rept. No. 1933);

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14855 S. Con. Res. 102. Concurrent resolution ac

cepting the statue of Dr. Florence Rena Sabin, to be placed in the Statuary Hall col .. lection (Rept. No. 1934);

S. Con. Res. 103. Concurrent resolution to place temporarily in the rotunda of the Capitol a statue of the late Dr. Florence Rena Sabin and authorizing ceremonies on such occasion (Rept. No. 1936);

S. Con. Res. 104. Concurrent resolution to print the proceedings in connection with the acceptance of the statue of Dr. Florence Rena Sabin;

S. Res. 329. Resolution increasing the limit of expenditures for investigation of problems · of American small and independent business (Rept. No. 1938);

S. Res. 330. Resolution authorizing a study of United States relations with the Ameri-can Republics (Rept. No. 1939); ·

S. Res. 335. Resolution to continue study on the problems of world disarmament (Rept. No. 1940);

S. Res. 336. Resolution to authorize a study of United States foreign policy (Rept. No. 1941) ; and

S. Res. 339. Resolution authorizing additional funds for the Select Committee . on Improper Activities in Labor or Management Field (Rept. No. 1942).

By Mr. GREEN, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, without amendment:

S. 3112. A bill to provide for the appointment of an assistant to the Secretary of State to be known as the Assistant for International Cultural Relations (Rept. No. 1932).

By Mr. EASTLAND, from the Committee on the Judiciary, without amendment:

S. 2001. A bill for the relief of AlaLu Duncan Dillard (Rept. No. 1943);

S. 3972. A bill for the relief of Knud· Erik Didriksen (Rept. No. 1945);

H. R. 1331. An act for the relief of Sadie Lobe (Rept. No. 1946);

H. R. 5219. An act to provide tax relief to the Heavy and General Laborers' Local Unions 472 and 172 of New Jersey pension fund and the contributors thereto (Rept. No. 1947);

H. R. 7267. An act for the relief of Charles J. Jennings (Rept. No. 1948);

H. R. 7944. An act for the relief of the Spera Construction Co. (Rept. No. 1949);

H. R. 8015. An act for the relief of the Harmo Tire & Rubber Corp. (Rept. No. 1950);

H. R . 8147. An act for the relief of Kenneth W. Lenghart (Rept. No. 1951);

H. R. 8252. An act to amend section 3237 of ·- title 18 of the United States Code to define the place at which certain offenses against the income tax laws take place (Rept. No. 1952);

H. R. 8875. An act for the relief of Mr. and Mrs. George Holden (Rept. No. 1953) ;

H. R. 9397. An act for the relief of William T. Manning Co., Inc., of Fall River, Mass. (Rept. No. 1954); and

S. Res. 83. Resolution to refer to the Court of Claims the bill (S. 819) for the relief of Mary A. Ford (Rept. No. 1955).

By Mr. EASTLAND, from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an amendment:

S. 571. A bill for the relief of George P. E. Caesar, Jr. (Rept. No. 1956); and

H. R. 1827. A bill for the relief of Annunziata Gambini and Tomazo Gambini (Rept. No. 1957).

By Mr. EASTLAND, from the Committee on the Judiciary, with amendments:

H. R. 7941. An act for the relief of Mrs. Harry B: Kesler (Rept. No. 1958).

By Mr. O'MAHONEY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, without amendment:

H. R. 7684. An act to provide that the Secretary of the Navy shall transfer to David J. Carlson and Gerald J. Geyer certain interests of the United States in an invention (Rept. No. 1959).

By Mr. O'MAHONEY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an amendment:

H. R. 8826. An act to amend the act entitled "An act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used 1n commerce, to carry out the provisions of internationa~ conventions, and for other purposes," approved July 5, 19.46, with respect to proceedings in the Patent Office (Rept. No. 1960).

By Mr. CHAVEZ, from the Committee on Appropriations, with amendments:

H. R. 12738. An act making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1959, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 1937).

By Mr. ANDERSON, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, without amendment:

S. 4166. A bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Rept. No. 1944).

ROSE C. FISKE, THOMAS P. ROBINSON, AND JAMES J. ROBINSON Mr. HAYDEN, from the Committee on

Rules and Administration, reported an original resolution <S. Res. 343) to pay a gratuity to Rose C. Fiske, Thomas P. Robinson, and James J. Robinson, which was placed on the calendar, as follows:

Resolved, rhat the Secretary of the Senate hereby is authorized and directed to pay, from the contingent fund of the Senate, to Rose C. Fiske, sister of Mary Louise Robinson, and Thomas P. Robinson and James J. Robinson, brothers of Mary Louise Robinson, an employee of the Senate at the time of her death, a sum to each equal to 3% months' compensation at the rate she was receiving by law at the time of her death, said sum to be considered inclusive of funeral expenses and all other allowances.

LENOIR CITY -ALCOA BUS LINESREFERENCE OF BILL S. 2394 TO COURT OF CLAIMS Mr. KEFAUVER, from the Committee

on the Judiciary, reported an original resolution <S. Res. 344) referring the bill S. 2394 to the Court of Claims, and submitted a report <No. 1935) thereon; which resolution was placed on the calendar, as follows:

Resolved, That the bill (S. 2394) entitled "A bill for the relief of R. M. Clark, an individual doing business as Lenoir City-Alcoa Bus Lines", now pending in the Senate, together with all the accompanying papers, is hereby referred to the Court of Claims; and the court shall proceed with the same in accordance with the provisions of sections 1492 and 2509 of title 28 of the United States Code and report to the Senate, at the earliest practicable date, giving such findings of fact and conclusions thereon as shall be sufficient to inform the Congress of the nature and character of the demand as a claim, legal, or equitable, against the United States and the amount, if any, legally, or equitably due from the United States to the claimant.

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES Mr. BUSH. Mr. President, from the

Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably a total of 1,387 nominations for appointment and promotion in the Regular Army, in the grade of lieuten~nt colonel and below.

These names have already appeared in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, SO to save the expense of printing on the Executive

Calendar, I ask unanimous consent that they be ordered to lie on the Vice President's desk for the information of any Senator.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the nominations will lie on the desk, as reque.3ted by the Senator from Connecticut.

The nominations ordered to lie on the desk are as follows:

William H. Anderson, and sundry other officers and persons, for app0intment and promotion in the Regular Army of the United States.

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION INTRODUCED

Bills and a joint resolution were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows:

By Mr. HUMPHREY: S. 4181. A bill to establish a people's pro

gram for peace, to provide for investments in peace through the United Nations, to permit deductions from personal income taxes for payments made thereto, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

(See the remarks of Mr. HuMPHREY when he introduced the above bill, which appear under a separate heading.)

By Mr. DOUGLAS: S. 4182. A bill for the relief of Safija Laica;

to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. BIBLE (for himself, Mr.

MORSE, and Mr. BEALL) : S. 4183. A bill to reduce the number of

trustees on the board of trustees of Group Hospitalization, Inc.; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

By Mrs. SMITH of Maine: S. 4184. A bill for the relief of certain em

ployees of the Department of the Navy; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. ALLOTT (for himself and Mr. CARROLL):

S. 4185. A bill to authorize the coinage of silver dollar pieces in commemoration of the lOOth anniversary of the settlement of the State of Colorado and the establishment in Colorado of the United States Air Force Academy; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

By Mr. MARTI"N of Iowa: S. <!186. A bill to prohibit the imposition

by any State of migratory waterfowl hunting restrictions which discriminate unduly against citizens of other States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. DIRKSEN (for himself and Mr. COOPER):

S. J. Res. 192. Joint resolution providing for a joint session of Congress for commemorating the !50th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

RESOLUTIONS The following resolutions were re

ported or submitted, and referred, or placed on the calendar:

Mr. HAYDEN, from the Committee on Rules and Administration, reported an original resolution <S. Res. 343) to pay a gratuity to Rose C. Fiske, Thomas P. Robinson, and James J. Robinson, which was placed on the calendar.

(See the above resolution printed in full, which appears under the heading "Reports of Committees.")

14856 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 24 Mr. KEFAUVER, from the Committee

on the Judiciary, reported an original resolution <S. Res. 344) referring the bill S. 2394 to the Court of Claims, which was placed on the calendar.

<See the above resolution printed in full, which appears under the heading "Reports of Committees.")

UNITED NATIONS INVESTMENTS IN PEACE ACT OF 1958

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill which will allow taxpayers to claim tax credits amounting to 2 percent of their Federal income tax for contributions made to a special U. N. fund, "U. N. Investment for Peace," which would support programs of technical assistance and economic development.

I have long been advocating an increase in economic and technical assistance to those nations needing it, under the auspices and direction of the United Nations. I have also urged incentives to encourage channeling of more of our private capital into such investments for peace. ·Clearly, it is to the advantage of our private industries to do so. With the current economic interdependence of the nations of the world, it is obvious that a strong world economy is of tremendous importance in strengthening and bolstering our own.

Moreover, the recent calamitous developments in the Middle East situation serve to underscore many times the need for positive action in these un~erdeveloped countries, not through mere stopgap measures in hours of crisis, but in long term plans which would be in effect every day of the year. Such programs would be a positive force in meeting the revolution of rising expectations-before the revolution takes a dangerous and literal sense in even more countries than Lebanon and Iraq.

This bill would, if enacted, enable us to put private capital to work for this very purpose, by providing an income tax credit as incentive for contributions. The help would come under the best possible auspices-under the jurisdiction of the United Nations, providing the additional advantage of the capital and know-how of other member nations. It is estimated that, if everyone contributed, $700 million would be collected in the United States alone. It would, of course, be hoped that the people of the other member nations also assist with their time, effort, and money in this investment for peace.

Mr. President, I strongly urge passage of this bill as an important, positive step in the direction of world peace and prosperity.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be received and appropriately referred.

The bill (S. 4181) to establish a people's program for peace, to provide for investments in peace through the United Nations, to permit deductions from personal income taxes for payments made thereto, and for other purposes, introduced by Mr. HUMPHREY, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Finance.

ADDRESSES, EDITORIALS, ARTICLES, ETC., PRINTED IN THE RECORD On request, and by unanimous con

sent, addresses, editorials, articles, etc., were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

By Mr. DIRKSEN: Statement on the death of Archbishop

Michael, the head of the Greek Orthodox Diocese in North and South America.

NOTICE OF HEARING ON NOMINATION OF I. JACK MARTIN TO BE ASSOCIATE JUDGE, UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, on

behalf of the Committee on- the Judiciary, I desire to give notice that a public hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, July 31, 1958, at 10:30 a . m., in room 424 Senate Office Building, upon the following:

I. Jack Martin, of Maryland, to be associate judge, United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, vice William P. Cole, Jr., deceased.

At the indicated time and place persons interested in the above nomination may make such representations as may be pertinent. The subcommittee consists of the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JoHNSTON], the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. WILEY], and myself, as chairman.

THE BLESSINGS AND PERILS OF OIL

Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. President, in the continuation of. my remarks on the Middle East situation, I wish to address myself to the two items in my concurrent resolution of July 18 which relate to oil. That resolution contains these two whereases:

Whereas the access of the nations of Western Europe to the oil resources of that area is thereby threatened; a.nd

Whereas cutting them off from that supply would cause distress, lower their standard of living and put their future under bond to Communist domination.

It is fashionable for sentimental liberals to take the position that any action or attitude favorable to the Western petroleum interests in the Middle East is by definition deplorable. Nothing that the great oil companies have done, are doing, or could do will in their eyes deserve support. I am asking that this Middle East crisis, so far as it relates to oil, be considered in the light both of the well-being of the Arab peoples and of the needs of Western Europe. Benefits to both are at present being rendered by the oil companies and no satisfactory substitute for their services has as yet been proposed.

The Middle East area around the shores of the Persian Gulf and the Mesopotamian Basin has been blessed with the most abundant proved oil reserves to be found in the world. The other great supply on the Eurasian Continent lies within the territory ruled by the Soviet Government. It serves the purposes of

that Government to gain control over the supply around the Persian Gulf as well; and all of its activities in the Middle East are directed toward that end. The end is largely concealed, but the. direction of movement, political and economic, is unmistakable.

The equities of the Arab nations must continue to be recognized. The oil lies beneath their lands; but it lies there dormant until it is developed by modern engineering and business ability. With the flow of oil unimpeded from the subterranean strata to the Western users, a corresponding reverse flow of funds to the Arab world, on an equitable basis, can be applied to enhance the well-being of the Arab population. Depending on the internal policies of the Arab governments, that well-being is already being enhanced to a greater or lesser degree.

The need of Western Europe for an oil supply cannot be questioned. The modern world depends on oil for its transportation. Whether by automobiles, trucks and buses over the highways, through the air by cargo and passenger planes, or over the railways by diesel locomotives, everything depends on the internal combustion engine, and the internal combustion engine burns one or another of the derivatives of petroleum.

Furthermore, the great chemical industries which are an essential part of modern living find a principal source of basic materials in petroleum. Finally, the convenience and transportability of oil and its efficiency as a fuel have led to its widespread use in power stations generating electricity. These items of chemical sources and power-station fuel are of great importance to the economy of the Western nations. The need for petroleum derivatives in land, sea and air transportation is critical.

The point which needs to be made is that the flow of oil to Western Europe is not merely a matter of prosperity and profit to oil companies and great industries. Basically, it is a source of the material elements of the good life for the Arabs from whom it comes, and for the citizens of Western Europe, to whom it goes. By the increasing use of petroleum, their standard of living has been and is being raised. If that supply is to be cut off and thereby made difficult to attain and high in cost, the standard of living of the people on both continents will be lowered.

Should the Soviet Government obtain control of the production of oil in the Middle East, or even of its channels of distribution, it might well permit the continued flow to Western Europe, but it would have to be on Soviet terms. That great area of the Free World would be living under bond to a Communist government, which would be able to bring heavy pressure to bear on the people and their governments by the very fact that the production or transport of oil was in Communist control. In other words, that control would be an effective step in bringing the Free World of Western Europe under the power of the Soviet Government. As to material benefits for the Arab world, there are no flickering indications in the crystal ball.

1958 ·CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 14857 It may be asked, Mr. President, what

concern that is of ours. When the isolationist is faced with this question, he does not find a satisfactory answer. We all know that if Western Europe goes, the rest of the world will go, too. With our Latin American friends placed under such pressure that they can scarcely exist, this will leave only Canada ~nd the United States as beleaguered Citadels of freedom surrounded by a totalitarian world.

This possibility we cannot face with equanimity. We must not face it at all. We must be prepared to prevent it. We have been trying to prevent it, but in such a bungling and, in many respects, immoral set of attitudes and actions that we can scarcely expect to succeed in preserving the world of freedom.

Time goes relentlessly onward. Opportunity after opportunity is mishandled and lost. The time is coming when it will be too late to remedy our mistakes. But that time has not yet been reached. There is still a chance that we may regain some of the lost ground and reestablish our position as a strong point, from whose shelter the Free World may be protected, increased, and provided with a constructive program for maintaining the freedom of the world.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum ca.ll be rescinded.


STANDING COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICS AND SPACE SCIENCES Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi

dent, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 1960, Senate Resolution 327.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolution will be stated by title for the information of the Senate.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A resolution (S. Res. 327) to create a Standing Committee on Aeronautics and Space Sciences.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Texas.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution, which had been reported from the Committe on Rules and Administration with amendments on page 1, line 10, after the word "activities", to insert ''as that term is defined in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958,"; on page 2, line 4, after the word "of", to insert "such"; on page 3, line 1, after th·e word "activities", to strike out the parentheses and the period and insert "of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration".", and, on page 4, line 3, after the letter "(b)", to strike out "Effective': and insert "Unless otherwise

determined, effective"; so as to make the resolution read:

Resolved, That (a) paragraph 1 of rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate (relating to standing committees) is amended by inserting therein, immediately after part (o) thereof, the following new part:

"(p) (1) Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, to consist of 15 Senators, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating primarily to the following subjects:

"(A) Aeronautical and space activities, as that term is defined in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, except those

. which are peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems or military operations.

"(B) Matters relating generally to the scientific aspects of such aeronautical and space activities, except those which are peculiar to or primarily associated with the developments of weapons systems or military operations.

"(C) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

"(2) Such committee also shall have jurisdiction to survey and review, and to prepare studies and reports upon, aeronautical and space activities of all agencies of the United States, including such activities which are peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems or military operations."

(b) Part (c) of paragraph 1 of rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate (relating to the Committee on Armed Services) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subpart:

"13. Aeronautical and space activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems or military operations."

(c) Part (j) of paragraph 1 of rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate (relating to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce) is amended by inserting in subpart 4, immediately preceding the period at the end thereof, a comma and the following: "except aeronautical and space activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration."

(d) Paragraph 6 (a) of rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate (relating to the designation of ex officio members of the Committee on Appropriations) is amended by adding at the end of the tabulation contained therein the following new item: "Committee on Aer-

onautical and Space Sciences

For aeronautical and space activities and matters relating to the scientific as-pects thereof, except those peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems or military · operations."

SEc. 2. (a) Effective for the remainder of the 85th Congress, paragraph 4 of rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended to read as follows:

"4. (a) Each Senator shall serve on 2 standing committees and no more; except that not to exceed 24 Senators of the majority party, and not to exceed 12 Senators of the minority party, who are members of the Committee on the District of Columbia, the Committee on Government Operati<;ms, the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, or the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences may serve on 3 standing committees and no more.

"(b) In the event that during the 85th Congress members of 1 party in the Sen-

ate are replaced by members of the other party, the 36 third-committee assignments shall be distributed in accordance with the following table:

"Senate seats Third-committee assign-ments

Majority Minority Majority Minority

48 48 26 10 49 47 24 12 50 46 22 14 51 45 20 16"

(b) Unless otherwise determined, effective at the beginning of the 85th Congress, paragraph 4 of rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended to read as follows:

"4. Each Senator shall serve on 2 standing committees and no more; except that not to exceed 22 Senators of the majority party, and not to exceed 10 Senators of the minority party, who are members of the Committee on the District of Columbia, the Committee on Government Operations, the Committee on Post Ofiice and Civil Service, or the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences may serve on 3 standing committees and no more."

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I ask that the committee amendments be agreed to en bloc.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the committee amendments are agreed to en bloc.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, the resolution creates a Standing Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, similar to the House committee. The resolution was unanimously approved yesterday by the Committee on Rules and Administration.

The resolution now before the Senate for consideration represents a needed form of legislative organization to meet the challenge of a new universe which is opening before us with startling rapidity.

In the short space of a year, our whole concept of our position in the universe has changed completely. We have discovered that we are no longer bound irrevocably to the earth.

The magnitude of the changes that are before us is evident from the mere fact that it is possible for us to set up this new committee without any significant reduction in the jurisdiction of existing committees of the Congress. We are dealing with a new dimension which brings new and previously unknown responsibilities.

The new committee would have jurisdiction over the newly created National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Its responsibilities would cover aeronautic and space sciences.

It will not, however, have legislative jurisdiction over defense aeronautical and space activities, nor will it have jurisdiction over civil aviation matters except those included in the research aeronautical and space activity which is the responsibility of the new Aeronautics and Space Administration.

The committee would be composed of 15 members. Membership on it would be regarded as a · third committee assignment.

Exploration of space will require a cooperative undertaking unmatched in

14858 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24

all previous history. It calls for the mobilizing of tremendous resourcesmaterials, manpower, and brain power.

Congress has done many things to launch this venture. We have appropriated money for research. We have appropriated money for development. We have created a new agency to direct and guide the effort.

One more step remains to be taken in this session. It is to provide the mechanism through which Congress itself can play its proper role.

It is urgent that Congress place itself in such a position. We are dealing with a dimension which will occupy the minds and dominate the lives of men for centuries to come. I hope that this resolution will be approved speedily by the Senate.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the resolution, as amended.

The resolution <S. Res. 327) as amended, was agreed to.

Mr. MANSFIElD. Mr. President, I move that the vote by which Senate Resolution 327 was agreed to be reconsidered.

Mr. joHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

PRINTING OF ADDITIONAL COPIES OF HEARINGS ON INQUIRY INTO SATELLITE AND MISSILE PROGRAMS Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi

dent, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 1968, Senate Concurrent Resolution 107.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The concurrent resolution will be stated by title for the information of the Senate.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A concurrent resolution <S. Con. Res. 107) to print additional copies of hearings on Inquiry Into Satellite and Missile Programs.


The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the concurrent resolution.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. "M:r. President, the concurrent resolution provides for the printing of additional copies of hearings on the Inquiry Into Satellite and Missile Programs. The additional copies are very much needed.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the concurrent resolution.

The concurrent resolution <S. Con. Res. 107) was agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I move that the vote by which Senate Concurrent Resoluticn 107 was agreed to be reconsidered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.


PRINTING OF ADDITIONAL COPIES OF REPORT ENTITLED "WATER DEVELOPMENTS AND POTENTIALITIES" Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi

den, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar 1958, Senate Resolution 328.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolution will be stated by title for the information of the Senate.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A resolution (S. Res. 328) to print with additional copies the joint report entitled "Water Developments and Potentialities."


The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution, which had been reported by the Committee on Rules and Administration with amendments at the beginning of line 5, to insert "with illustrations", and, in line 6, after the word "printed", to strike out "five" and insert "two", so as to make the resolution read:

Resolved, That the joint report entitled "Water Developments and Potentialities", prepared by the Texaf'l Board of Water Engineers, the Corps of Engineers, the Soil Conservation Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation, shall be printed with illustrations as a Senate document.

SEc. 2. There shall be printed 2,000 additional copies of such Senate document for use of the Members of the Senate.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, the resolution simply provides for the printing of additional copies of a very much needed report, which is in great demand, on the subject of water development potentialities in Texas.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendments.

The amendments were agreed to. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The

question is on agreeing to the resolution as amended.

The resolution (S. Res. 328), as amended, was agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I move that the vote by which Senate Resolution 328 was agreed to be reconsidered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.


TELEVISION PROGRAM, NBC'S COMMENT, SUNDAY, JULY 20, 1958

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, last Sunday, July 20, 1958, from 5:30 to 6 o'clock p. m., the National Broadcasting Co.'s television network presented a program entitled "NBC's Comment.'' The panelists, who discussed the crisis in the Middle East, were Merrill Mueller, Hanson W. Baldwin, Harry Ellis, Joseph C. Harsch, and John Chancellor.

In my opinion, the program was one of the best expositions of the picture or story in the Middle East. I ask unanimous consent that the synopsis of the program be printed at this point in the REcORD. I hope the Senate will give most

careful and serious consideration to what these outstanding correspondents and commentators had to say.

There being no objection, the synopsis was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

COMMENT, SUNDAY, JULY 20, 1958 The ANNOUNCER. NBC News brings you

Comment, qualified correspondents, and news analysts commenting on important topics in the news.

Today on the Crisis in the Middle East, Comment brings you five top correspondents. Merrill Mueller, NBC News.

Mr. MUELLER. The ultimate danger will grow, if Western leaders believe that any policy of expediency is the right policy for servants of the people.

The ANNOUNCER. Hanson W. Baldwin, of the New York Times.

Mr. BALDWIN. You can do everything with bayonets, except sit on them.

The ANNOUNCER. Harry Ellis, the Christian Science Monitor.

Mr. ELLIS. What will happen to King Hussein and to President Chamoun if Western troops now leave the Middle East?

The ANNOUNCER. Also to be heard on Comment today by film report and direct shortwave conversation with our correspondents in the studio will be Joseph C. Harsh, NBC senior news correspondent from London, and John Chancellor, NBC News, Beirut.

During the past week, NBC News correspondent Merrill Mueller has become a familiar figure to television viewers as he reported the actions of the Security Council directly from the United Nations.

He comments now on the course ahead for the u. N.

Mr. MUELLER. The question of the hour: Will there be a summit conference bypassing the United Nations in an effort to solve the Middle East crisis without World War III? This afternoon the answer seems to be "Yes," but with this important modification. The West can accept a summit meeting which physically takes place within the United Nations.

With your permission I propose to be extremely blunt and brief because in my humble opinion the question of who gets credit for avoiding World War III, the West or Russia, is irrelevant. All that is important now is the fact that there are six different actions under way this afternoon, all looking toward peaceful solutions to the crisis of these grave days, and all showing remarkable degrees of common ground. At the same time I must warn that in recent days of covering the United Nations debates, I have been repeatedly alerted by the highest American and British sources that Western moves in the Middle East are designed to make it unmistakably clear that we have thrown up a stop sign for any further sacrifice of smaller nations by subversion or aggression.

Western actions are no longer passive. Of the actions under way now that I mentioned, the most important is that of the urgent need for replies to Khrushchev's letters suggesting a summit meeting in Geneva on Tuesday. India has officially accepted, providing such a meeting takes place. France wants to accept.

Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold of the United Nations cannot accept because even though Khrushchev would have the summit meeting report back to the U. N. Security Council, Hammarskjold's appearance would be tantamount to admittance that the U. N. cannot handle the crisis at this time.

That leaves only the United States and Britain. Secretary Dulles and Foreign Minister Lloyd have reached what Lloyd calls

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14859 substantial agreements on a reply to Khrushchev. Note it is substantial, not complete -agreement.

Lloyd conferred here with Dag Hammarskjold and then returned to London where the Foreign Office has already leaked several clues to what to expect. The United States and Britain will reply to Khrushchev that they cannot meet with him in Geneva on Tuesday. That sounds negative, but it is not a rejection. The West will suggest another date and slightly different conditions. To put Khrushchev on the spot of honoring his own offer to meet anywhere convenient and report back to the U. N.

The Anglo-American replies are likely to suggest a summit meeting be held as early as possible under the following timetable: (1) That the Japanese compromise resolution before the United Nations be studied and if acceptable, approved by the Security Council tomorrow-more on this in a moment; (2) that all parties can carry out commitments under the Japanese resolution to clear the way for an urgent meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, regardless; (3) that the urgent General Assembly be convened in Geneva or New York, but Geneva is more likely to be acceptable, to be attended by the presidents and prime ministers of the member nations.

Thus Khrushchev's summit call to hear a full report from the United Nations observer group in the Middle East becomes a summit in the U. N. Assembly. The whole purpose of this plan is to prevent the weakening of the total U.N. in.~uence in settling any world problem and to reemphasize the West's position that it sent troops into the Middle East only until such time as the U.N. was strong enough to handle the situation.

The first key to this plan now becomes the Japanese resolution before the Security Council tomorrow. It is believed no country will object to enlarging the UN observer group in Lebanon, possibly expanding its work to Jordan, provided it is coupled with simultaneous withdrawal of Anglo-American forces, but Russia will object to giving Dag Hammarskjold unlimited powers to deal with the situation.

Many amendments may appear to the J apanese resolution.

The next key to the Assembly summit plan involves the Government of Switzerland who stated officially this afternoon it will do everything possible to be ready for a major conference as earily as Tuesday of this week. Finally other forces at work:

The neutral nations like India and the smaller powers like Yugoslavia, are pressing on the outside for an urgent General Assembly to be called by 41 member nations despite the Security Council or major power activity.

President Tito h as written a number of nations after Yugoslavia announced it would press for such an assembly. The Indian Ambassador at the U.N. while serving as the runner for the Japanese resolution is also busy on the idea of having the General Assembly call itself into session.

Two other late developments: Egypt's President Nasser surprisingly conferred in Damascus with Prince Abdullah Subah, the head of the richest oil state in the world, Kuwait, on the Persian Gulf. If Kuwait joins Nasser's Pan-Arab movement there need not be another military crisis but it will constitute another severe blow to Britain's waning prestige in Arabia as well as our own.

And finally, President Eisenhower called Vice President Nixon, Secretary Dulles, Defense Secretary McElroy, Assistant Secretary Herter, and Joint Chief Chairman General Twining into the White House this afternoon to draft a formal reply to Khrushchev. The White House said Khrushchev will get more consideration, but nothing will be done that would conflict with U. N. activities.

Later in our program we will get to the military issues and to the rights of small countries that are threatened, as well as a roundtable discussion with my colleagues here and in Beirut and London. All I would like to say before we go on is this: World war III is no closer this week, though the ultimate danger will grow if Western leaders ignore the most unusual conciliatory tone of Nikita Khrushchev's latest note, and if Western leaders believe that any policy of expediency is that right policy for servants of the people.

The ANNOUNCER. NBC News correspondent John Chancellor has been covering this latest fast-breaking crisis in the Middle East since it began.

He comments now by film from Beirut, Lebanon. •

Mr. CHANCELLOR. The main question in my mind concerning the presence of American troops in Lebanon is, who c!lshed the check? The United States had given Camille Chamoun, the President of Lebanon, as everyone knows, an I 0 U to be used if necessary for American invervention in the Lebanese rebellion.

Chamoun the other day cashed the check in a great hurry and he cashed it apparently because of a situation in Iraq and not because of any major change in the internal situation in Lebanon.

Therefore many people here feel that the United States Government, aroused by the trouble in Baghdad must have had a hand in the game and possibly we cashed our own check. On the other hand, we at least allowed Chamoun to cash it on our terms and at our timing.

Now that we are here in Lebanon with several thousand marines in battle d ress adding to the already colorful population in Beirut, we ought to consider what we have stepped into. Either because of the timing of events, or because of the internal d ifficulties of his own, it seems President Chamoun didn't tell anybody we were coming. The classic and bewildering example of this secrecy is b est shown in the well-documented case of Gen. Fuad Shehab, the commander in chief of the Lebanese Army. General Shehab was told apparently of the arrival of the Americans just 2 hours before the Marines hit the beach. Now he didn't want the Marines here and according to the peculiar powers given to Middle Eastern commanders in chief, he ordered his tanks stationed near the airport to swivel their turrets and their guns in the direction of the oncoming Americans. At that time General Shebab was ready to fight. Somebody talked him out o! it fortunately and therefore saved the United States from an almost unbelievably embarrassing battle. Now General Shebab has been criticized by many for his nonchalant conduct in the Lebanese trouble, but he remains as the Chief of the Army here and a considerable power in his own right. How long he will maintain his reluctant alliance with the United States, no one knows, but if he should defect, his army, already of uncertain quality, will break up into warring and shooting groups and then we will have to fight all kinds of people.

Another example of the curious silence of President Chamoun with his own people comes from Ah-dell 0-so-rahri, who is Speaker of the Lebanese Chamber of Deputies.

0-so-rahri says in Parliament that the Parliament was not told of the American arrival and he is calling, along with rebel leaders, for a special Parliament session designed to get the Americans out. If this is not completely unsettling news, there is more. The rebels in Tripoli are seeking a ceasefire with the army in Tripoli trying to build up a combined force that will fight the Americans. And rebel leaders in both Trip-

oil and Beirut are threatening to call in foreign volunteers to get the Americans out of the country.

They are joined in this anti-American activity by the forces of the Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party, an extreme right wing group with a rather high-muzzle velocity that has been outlawed by the government, but has been given arms incidentally by the government to fight the rebels. These people have been pro-Chamoun; because of the arrival of the Marines, they have turned on him.

There is one very unhappy result in this situation and that is the possibility exists here that the Lebanese population, because of grotesquely internal complications, may turn on the Americans, and the Americans would then be forced to defend themselves, fighting foreign nationals on foreign soil.

The comparison with the Russians in Hungary has already occurred, incidentally, in the neutral nations but if the volatile and trigger-happy Lebanese turn their limited firepower against the weapons of the Second Provisional Marine Force, the Marines will be forced to allow a lot of Lebanese to commit suicide and we will have a bloodbath. The alternative is withdrawal and international humiliation.

The middle ground is where we are now and our stability in that middle ground within Lebanon depends partly, at least, on Gen. Fuad Shehab, and President Amil Chamoun.

John Chancellor, NBC News, Beirut. The ANNOUNCER. The American action in

sending troops to the Middle East has raised important questions of a military nature and to answer them, Comment calls on the military editor of the New York Times, Hanson W. Baldwin.

Mr. BALDWIN. "You can do everything with bayonets except sit on them."

This paraphrase of an old quotation symbolizes the Anglo-American dilemma in the Middle East. We are trying to sit on bayonets and the seat is an uneasy one, indeed.

The American intervention in Lebanon and the British landing in Jordan represented a quiclt reactlon to the pro-Nasser coup in Iraq. The tide of Arab nationalism appeared to be rolling to the flood. It seemed clear that the only way to prevent the rather swift overthrow of the present Western oriented government in Lebanon and Jordan was to bolster them with United States and British troops.

The action we took was fully legal with many precedents in international law. It was in response to requests of the constitutional governments of the countries concerned. The military phases were conducted on the whole efficiently and rather rapidly, although the slow air movements verified what was already known, that the United States does not have enough immediately available military airlift to meet all the demands of a sudden emergency.

World tension has eased somewhat in the past 2 days. There is no evidence of mobilization or unusual civil defense measures in any country. Some eight thousand American troops are in Lebanon, more than enough to prevent any internal coup, and ample, backed up as they are by the Sixth Fleet, to discourage any open external aggression against Lebanon.

Some of our friends in the Middle East, notably Turkey, have been encouraged by last week's evidence of United States power and determination and Washington has given a global warning, at long last, of our strength.

We have built dikes in the Middle East against the rising tide of Arab nationalism, but what next?

Our landings unfortunately may ultimately help to produce the very thing we are trying to prevent. In Lebanon, some of those who formerly sided with President Chamoun now

-14860 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 have turned against him because of his request for American aid, and the Lebanese Army, 40 percent of it Moslem, has made no greater effort since the American landings than it had before to end the rebellion against its government. The kid glove approach to the rebels still continues.

The truth is, of course, that Western troops in Arab countries, particularly in countries engaged in their own domestic squabbles, are like a red flag on a bull, we have been put in the position of propping up with our bayonets regimes which have limited popular support and which are faced with strong active opposition from Arab nationalism.

Our military actions, in other words, may well have weakened the political support of our friends. It seems clear that the future of pro-Western governments in Jordan and Lebanon is bright only as long as our bayonets remain. For the strategic key in the Middle Eastern dilemma is Iraq. Jordan and Lebanon are sideshows. The inescapable conclusion is that we have either done too much or we have not done enough. Thus our long-term military objective in the Middle East appears to be fuzzy and undefined and the use of the limited forces we have so far employed may well handicap, not help, the attainment of our political objective.

There are some lessons to be learned. First, Arab nationalism is here to stay. We must accommodate our policies to ·this fact.

Second, Russia is interested in the Middle East and this interest is certain to continue. Ironically, one of the adverse results of our intervention may be that we have strengthened the foothold of communism in the area.

Third, it is wrong to equate Arab nationalism and communism. There are Communists in every country but communism does not dominate any of the Middle Eastern nations. It may, however, if we drive them together.

Fourth, we can perhaps sit on bayonets for a short time but the longer we remain in Lebanon the less comfortable the seat will be. And finally the best we can expect from most of the Arab States of the Middle East is neutralism in the world conflict. Not a clear-cut alinement with the West. We can and must insist on real neutralism. But if we attempt to force Arab nationalism completely into Western channels, we shall have to use a lot more bayonets in many more areas of the Middle East and we shall have to sit. on them for a long time to come.

The ANNOUNCER. Harry Ellis, the assistant overseas editor for the Christian Science Monitor, has served as a correspondent in the Middle East and is the author of Israel and the Middle East and Heritage of the Desert. Mr. Ellis comments now on the American dilemma.

Mr. ELLIS. The big question at the moment fs, will war result from British and American intervention in the Middle East?

But behind this question lurks another: What will happen to the King of Jordan and the President of Lebanon if Western troops are withdrawn? To protect these two men after all is why American forces in Lebanon and British paratroopers are in Jordan. The answer is clear. If, through fear of a big war, the United States and Britain were to pull out their troops under present circumstances, King Hussein and President Chamoun would fall.

Look at it this way: The real threat to King Hussein is that a majority of Jordanians believe the King is an outmoded ruler, the last remaining symbol of Western control of Jordan. To these Jordanians, Colonel Nasser represents true Arab leadership and they want a government of their own friendly to Nasser.

This tide of Arab nationalism has been about to engulf King Hussein as his cousin

King Faisal was engulfed when the British stepped in to protect him~

Let us be clear on this point: Only the presence of British troops now keeps King Hussein on this throne and no political settlement between Russia and the West will change the minds of Jordanians who want their king out.

The situation in Lebanon is different. Many Moslem Lebanese look back bitterly on the French controlled Lebanese census of 1932 which found Christian Lebanese in a 55 to 45 percent majority over Moslems. The resulting governmental setup in Lebanon gave the top hand to Christians.

For some years most Lebanese have demanded a new census on the grounds their higher birthrate plus the emigration of Christian Lebanese out of the country have reversed this percentage. Therefore, say the Moslems, hold a new census and see whether the top hand in Lebanon including the Presidency should not go to Moslems.

The Christians, whose ancestors fought hard to carve out a sanctuary in the Moslem world, have opposed a new census. This issue now has allied itself to Colonel Nasser's clear call on the Arabs to unite under Cairo's leadership. A possible solution exists in Lebanon. If rebels and government can decide on a compromise candidate, Parliament may elect a new President of Lebanon July 24. If Chamoun agrees to step down immediately, rather than serve out his term until September 23, the present crisis might be ended.

The Lebanese of both sides, Moslems and Christians might agree to revive their old partnership in government. Such a solution would permit the withdrawal of American troops from Lebanon.

In Jordan, as we have seen, no such solution appears possible. Western troops presumably will have to remain there, so long as Washington and London want to keep King Hussein on his throne.

Another point we should not forget: Unless King Hussein or the West tries to win back Iraq, President Nasser will have gained a new ally far more important to him than either Lebanon or Jordan. That ally is oilrich Iraq, with a glittering possibility of Kuwait, beyond.

The ANNOUNCER. NBC senior European correspondent Joseph C. Harsch from his base in London comments now by film on the Br itish attitude.

Mr. HARSCH. The sudden swift succession of dramatic events in the Far East over the last few days means three things to Britain. First it means that the estrangement of the Suez crisis between their government and ours is over, and the times we sat in lofty moral judgment on them, punished them, withheld oil from them, threatened to strangle their economic life, those times are over. For better or worse, Britain and America are in the Middle East together now in harness. We are together in the defendant's dock at the United Nations. What we two have done, we have done together, planned it together and executed it together, and we face the consequences together. There is one Middle East policy between us, a joint AngloAmerican policy. To Britons who still smart from our moral disapproval over Suez, andremember keenly our awful threat to their economic life at that time, this is, if by their standards a bit tardy, still a very good thing . . They prefer to be with us. They are profoundly relieved that once again we two are together. Right or wrong, for better or for worse.

Second, this means that there is a long road ahead for this revived Anglo-American partnership in the Middle East. If anyone at home thinks that we are going to settle the Middle East with 5,000 marines in Lebanon in a few weeks or months, then no one here entertains any such illusions. We

have started something together, we and the British. There isn't much point in starting unless we expect to see it through together. Seeing it through can mean years. It might mean indefinitely. It certainly means more than just stabilizing the status quo in Lebanon and Jordan. At the very least it must mean reclaiming Iraq and Syria for the West.

In the end it may well mean a decisive settlement with President Nasser of Egypt. This the British understand and accept. They always thought it should be done. What they wanted to do at the time of Suez. It is what they trust we understand now. They are ready for it, as long as the two of us are working together. Are we?

Third, it means a sudden and drastic disturbance of the domestic British political pattern. Unintentionally, perhaps unconsciously we were allied with the British Labor Party here over Suez. That party opposed Suez just as our Government did and for the identical reasons. That party objected to the use of force as we did, opposed outside of the U. N., regarded intervention as being wrong and a smacking of outdated colonialism.

The old Suez crisis identity of our American Government policies with Socialist Party beliefs here has suddenly overnight been broken. In effect we have gone over to the Tory side of the case. We Americans are now using force in the Middle East and not through the U. N. or with its blessing. Just as the Tory government did at the time of Suez.

Our policies are now in harmony with those of the Tory government here, and out of step with the policies and beliefs of the Socialist Party.

Of course we have not done this in order to change the domestic balance here in Britain between Tories and Socialists, but inevitably it has that effect.

Six months ago it seemed a foregone conclusion that the Labor-Socialist Party would win the next British election. However, tonight that pattern has been thrown out the window. Unless the new Middle East policy fails, the Tories are bound to benefit from it. It is a popular policy, it brings Britain and America together again, also popular here.

By sending our troops to Lebanon we have probably given the next British election to the Tories. We have certainly divided the Labor Party. We perhaps have even struck a fatal blow at the British Labor Party.

This is Joseph C. Harsch, NBC News, London.

Mr. MuELLER. And Joe is standing by on a live circuit with me and with Mr. Baldwin and with Mr. Ellis right now. Also standing by on the same circuit is Jack Chancellor in Beirut. I will turn to Jack in just a moment, but right now I would ask Joe, since I have already indicated that London is saying more on the summit replies to Mr. Khrushchev, I will ask Joe Harsch to cut in and give us the latest developments there.

Mr. HARSCH. The latest development is that the Foreign Office has been working all day on what the answer should be to the Khrushchev business. Mr. Macmillan has set a note of calm and restraint and absence of a hurry. He spent the morning at his home in the country doing the normal thing, reading the lessons at church. He went to a benefit garden party in his garden this afternoon and then casually at teatime he came in to hear what his experts had figured out.

One main point here is to get across the idea that there is no panic, that everybody is perfectly calm about the whole thing.

There is no sense of any serious threat of war, and they are just thinking about what to do next, and the idea is very clear that what we ought to do is keep this thing

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14861 in the U. N. where it is now, and where everybody here thinks it belongs.

Mr. MuELLER. Thank you, Joe. Now, gentlemen, I would ask you all to

listen rather carefully to the answers of a series of questions I am going to put to John Chancellor in Beirut.

John, 1f you are reading me, the first question: Any panic or trouble? What is the general position of A:werican troops at .this hour tonight, there?

Mr. C;EIANCELLOR. We have about 9,200 here in Beirut. One thousand Marines aboard ship. As you know we are operating within a perimeter that runs about 9 miles along the shore and they are holding that without any difficulty. The Marines, particularly those near the airport, are being sniped at regularly and they have had to return this fire upon occasions.

There have been other foreign h arassments. ·A soft drink vendor brought a wicker baslcet of soft drinks into a Marine compound and left it on the ground. A few minutes later a bomb went off. Didn't hurt anyone, but ended all soft drink sales in that area. Otherwise everybody seems to be fine.

Mr. MuELLER. Any comments, gentlemen around the table, or Joe in London?

We pass, J ack. The next one: Do the Lebanese rebels at

all appear ready to stop the shooting and convert their efforts to politics?

Mr. CHANCELLOR. The rebels in Beirut, it seems to me, h ave always been more ready for politics than shooting. Their shooting has never been very effective, I don't think. So far the rebels have held their fire, as you know, against American troops. One rebel leader, Side Salon, says his people won't fire on the Americans, at least now, because he says they have-his people have more wisdom than Eisenhower and won't start a third world war.

However, Salon and other rebel leaders are mad at the Americans because they came in. However, they are sticking with their preintervention plan for a compromise presidential candidate and the shooting is no more than usual, really.

Mr. MuELLER. Any comments anywhere, gentlemen?

Mr. ELLIS. If a new president is elected July 24, is President Chamoun going to want to serve out his term until September 23?

Mr. CHANCELLOR. We haven't that much information from President Chamoun. Although I am convinced, as most observers are here, that he will not run again, of course.

Mr. BALDWIN. Exactly what is the Lebanese Army clothing?

Mr. CHANCELLOR. I am not sure I can answer that, Mr. Baldwin. The Lebanese Army are still in town. The Americans have not moved out of their perimeter and I have no evidence that the Americans m ay h ave replaced any Lebanese soldiers so that they can go and fight the rebels.

Mr. MuELLER. I will ask you a question I know you can answer: You have indicated there are two chief political candidates for the presidency. Could you give us any comparison of their positions on three things: pan-Arabism, the American forces, and the United Nations observers?

Mr. CHANCELLoR. It is very difficult under existing conditions here, to give you these statements and positions. One high military leader who has been mentioned as a possible candidate for the Presidency has been more or less a neutral in this. We have an upcountry lawyer named Ulard Bohos who is running and his position on the Americans is unclear.

As far as Pan-Arab sentiments are concerned, there is, of course, the understandable lure of a state built upon an acknowledgement of the Arab language, geography, and culture. The other kind of Pan-Arab-

ism is reflected by Nasser's United Arab Republic with its striking nationalism. · It is not absolutely popular in Lebanon at this time. As to the relations with the United Natons, I think I can say that many Lebanese feel now, after the American intervention, that the U. N. is not such a bad outfit after all.

Mr. MUELLER. Any comment, Joe Harsch in London?

Mr. HARSCH. No; I am satisfied. Mr. BALDWIN. The military leader, of

course, to whom you refer 1s Brig. Gen. Fuad Shehab, the Chief of the Lebanese Army?

Mr. CHANCELLoR. I am afraid I can't comment on that from here, Mr. BALDWIN.

Mr. MuELLER. A final question: We may lose you 1n the meantime: What is your expectation of this situation between the election ' of a new President on the 24th of July and his taking office on the 24th of September.

Mr. CHANCELLOR. Most of the reporters here say the lead has shifted to the United Nations and other summit conferences, and I am going to end with a cliche and say that nobody knows what will :1appen between those dates.

COALINGA'S VENTURE INTO SALINE WATER CONVERSION

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, our Nation's ever-mounting needs for water for agricultural, industrial, municipal, and domestic purposes present a continuing problem to all agencies and levels of Government-from Congress to the town trustees of remote communities. The threat, which increases steadily, that the growth and expansion of America is overtaking available supplies, at least in some sections of our country, has necessitated a variety of programs and projects to conserve and impound water obtained through natural precipitation. It was this situation which recently prompted the Senate to adopt unanimously a resolution-of which I was happy to be a cosponsor-providing for a 5-year, $10 million field test program of methods of bolstering water supplies through conversion of saline and brackish water.

The urgency of the problem has been dramatically pointed up by the plight of a long-suffering community in my State of California. This is Coalinga-! am sure the President pro tempore is acquainted with it-which ever since the start of the present century has been compelled to rely on tank-car importations for drinking and household water for its citizens, who now number more than 6,000.

The city of Coalinga has paid heavily for sweet water for its residents. Last year the freight bill for hauling water from sources 45 miles away amounted to $43,000.

Within the past few weeks, the city has taken a bold step to alleviate its own acute problem. In the best American tradition, Coalinga has virtually undertaken to pull itself up by its own bootstraps. This community, the business center of an oil-producing area which includes Kettleman Hills, and of the cotton fields on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, has become the first municipality in the United States to install its own water conversion plant.

In view of growing requirements for cooking and drinking water and the bur-

densome expense of importing water from outside sources, Coalinga has contracted for construction of a 28,000 galJon-a-day plant which will use electrolytic methods to remove excess minerals from the water from its brackish-water wells. It also will expand by 50 percent the drinking water supply. According to Mayor Joseph Steele, tests have indicated that most people in Coalinga are unable to tell any difference between the converted brackish water and the city's imported water.

The city of Coalinga merits commendation for this progressive venture. I believe the installation will be an important milestone beside the road the United States is following in the search for a solution of our acute water problem.

Mr. President, I make this statement to the Members of the Senate in order to indicate that progress is being made, not only by means of the appropriate legislation which the Congress has passed, but also by means of the action taken by intrepid city governments, such as that of the city of Coalinga, in my State.

AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 1958 Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, in

view of the fact that the Senate is meeting today following a recess, and inasmuch as the pending business, Senate bill 4071, has been temporarily laid aside in order to permit the handling of morning business, I now move that the Senate resume the consideration of Senate bill 4071, the Agricultural Act of 1958.

The motion was agreed to; and the Sene,te resumed the consideration of the bill <S. 4071) to provide more effective price, production adjustment, and marketing programs for various agricultural commodities.

PROPOSED SUMMIT CONFERENCE AT THE UNITED NATIONS IN NEW YORK CITY Mr. HUJ.\.fi>HREY. Mr. President, I

should like to make three brief points on the proposed summit conference which apparently will be held within the framework of the United Nations, and, as it now appears, in the city of New York, in the very near future.

F.l.rst, I should like to commend the United Nations for the opportunity it is affording for the summit discussions. Ag;!'tin the United Nations has proved to be an invaluable instrument of foreign policy for all nations, as a great, constructive force for peace. Once more the sheer availability of the United Nations as a forum for discussion-both public and private-has preserved the possibility of negotiations, and perhaps has averted a downward plunge into war.

The sheer existence of the United Nations as an institutional framework for discussions which otherwise would be difficult, if not impossible, has been a gravitating influence for our own Government's hesitating acceptance of the summit proposal.

The United Nations provides the environment and the machinery conducive to fruitful negotiations. It has been a

14862 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 24

common assumption that events at the United Nations must be largely publicrelations events-in the glare of television cameras and propaganda handouts. In fact, this fear has been expressed by many responsible persons, particularly in regard to the proposed summit conference under the auspices of the United Nations. But my own experience at the United Nations convinces me that there is much more depth to the situation than mere public relations and propaganda. This leads me to my second point:

Second. The United Nations offers an opportunity for quiet, secret, informal talks, as well as public-platform appearances. This point needs to be stressed today to the American people, because I am afraid that all too often our references to the United Nations have been in terms of a public forum, rather than a solid instrument for effective diplomatic negotiations.

I have been immensely heartened to know that the Secretary General of the United Nations has once more taken the initiative in proposing a tentative plan for just such quiet negotiations.

I ask unanimous consent that two articles from the New York Times, one, from yesterday's edition, entitled "Charter Allows U.N. Summit Talk," and one, from this morning's edition, entitled •·secret summit Conference Is Proposed by U. N. Chief," be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: CHARTER .ALLOWS U.N. SUMMIT TALK-TRYGVE

LIE ONCE PROPOSED HIGH-LEVEL CONFERENCE To HALT COLD WAR UNITED NATIONS, N. Y., July 22.-The ma

chinery for getting the heads of state together for a security council session on the Middle East already exists in the United Nations Charter and the Council's rules of procedure. However, the machinery has not been tested since the United Nations began operating in January 1946.

Former Secretary General Trygve Lie attempted unsucceEsfully to persuade the big powers to have such a session in the hope that this would get the Soviet Union and the West to call off the cold war.

This effort was made in the spring of 1950, at a time when Moscow had begun its United Nations boycott because the Western powers refused a seat to Com·munist China.

Mr. Lie's private negotiating efforts were overtaken by the Communists' surprise attack on South Korea in June 1950, which put an end for the time being to his efforts to patch up the East-West quarrels.

PLAN IS PRESSED The basic idea of a top-level council meet

ing still appeals to many diplomats and is being pushed seriously as pointing a possible way out of the Middle East dilemma.

Under article 28 of the charter, provision is made for the holding of periodic meetings at which the Council's 11 members may be represented by specially designated persons, such as ministers or government leaders.

The Security Council's ow_n rules envisage this by stipulating that the head of a government or foreign minister may sit at the Council without submitting the customary credentials required for delegates.

Those who favor a Council meet~ng at a high level feel that · it would encourage . a more fundamental approach to the problem than can be attempted at the usual delega.:. tion level.

LIE PLAN ENDORSED Eight years ago, Mr. Lie managed to line

up considerable support for this idea, including the backing of three former Presidents of the General Assembly: Brig. Gen. Carlos P. Romulo of the Philippines, Dr. Herbert Evatt of Austr-alia, and Dr. Oswaldo Aranha of Brazil.

Any new attempt to call such a Council meeting would have to overcome certain obvious obstacles. For example, would Soviet Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev come from Moscow to sit at the table with Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Ehek of Nationalist China. The Soviet Premier also has made clear Moscow's wish to include India in summit talks and India is not a member of the Council at this time.

This presents no great difficulty, . however, since the Council rules allow other governments to be invited to participate. However, even if these minor procedural snags could be resolved, many here have doubts that President Eisenhower, Prime Minister Haro~d Macmillan and other heads of government would deem it appropriate to sit as Council members.

ALTERNATIVES URGED Among other alternatives being considered

is the suggestion from Lester B. Pearson of Canada that the Council name a subcommittee t hP.t would meet under the chairmanship of Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold.

Under such a procedure, the Council could name any governments it wished, such as those of the United States, France, Britain, the Soviet Union and perhaps India or others.

This would obviate any decision on a place for China. It would also get the top leaders together for face-to-face talks without the binding restrictions of Coun cil procedures and rules.

SECRET SUMMIT CONFERENCE Is PROPOSED BY u. N. CHIEF

(By Thomas J. Hamilton) UNITED NATIONS, N. Y., July 23 .-Secretary

General Dag Hammarslrjold has drawn up tentative plans under which the proposed summit meeting would be held under the auspices of the Security Council but behind closed doors.

Under the plan, President Eisenhower, Soviet Premier Niki ta S. Khrushchev and the other heads of government would not actually take thetr seats at the Security Council's horseshoe table.

Reliable sources emphasized tonight that these plans were subject to modification in the light of the Soviet announcement that Mr. K h rushchev would be willing to come to New York for a Security Council meeting Monday.

The announcement insl.sted upon the participation of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, of India, which is not a member of the Council, and an undetermined number of Arab leaders.

PROCEDURE IS SUGGESTED Under Mr. Hammarskjold's plan, as pre

pared before the Soviet announcement, the Council would meet in the normal way, with the permanent representatives at the 11 members at the table.

The f.our powers originally proposed by the Soviet Union for the meeting would thus be represented by Henry Cabot Lodge of the United States, Sir Pierson Dixon of Britain, Pierre de Vaucelles, the French deputy representative, and Arkady A. Sobolev of the Soviet Union. Mr. Hammarskjold would have his usual place at the right of the President of the Council.

As soon as the Council convened, one of these delegates would announce that the four governments intended to discuss the Middle East crisis at the heads-of-govern-

ment level and that Mr. Nehru and Mr. Hammarskjold also would participate.

Alternately, Mr. Nehru's participation could be requested by the Council itself.

The Council's rules of procedure authorize it to invite any member state whose interests are affected to take part in a Council discussion. Since the Council is also authorized to invite members of the United Nations Secretariat, or even private citizens, to take part, there would be no difficulty about arrangements for Mr. Nehru's participation.

SECRET TALKS PROPOSED In any event, the Council would promptly

adjourn to permit President Eisenhower, Premier Khrushchev, Prime Minister Nehru, Mr. Hammarskjold, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan and Premier Charles de Gaulle to begin their discussions.

These would be secret, and could be held in Mr. Hammarskjold's office on the 38th floor of the United Nations building, where the Foreign Ministers of Britain, France, and Egypt conferred in October 1956, during the earlier phase of the Suez crisis.

However, meetings could be held anywhere in the United States, or in a foreign country for that matter, depending on the accommodations that could be arranged for the large staff that would accompany the five heads of government.

The Security Council would not meet again until the summit meeting had been concluded and Mr. Hammarskjold was ready to report the conclusions reached.

There would be nothing, of course, to prevent the heads of government from particip ating in the actual proceedings of the Council if they wished. Under the monthly rotation system, France will hold the presidency of the Council for August and General de Gaulle would preside if the heads of government decided to be present when Mr. Hammarskjold presented his report.

COMPLICATIONS FORESEEN However, the Secretary General's tentative

plan would overcome many of the complications that would arise if the heads of government participated in the Security Council meetings. Among these are the following:

The Security Council chamber is not large enough to accommodate the large staffs that would accompany the heads of government, and the circus-come-to-town atmosphere would hardly be conducive to fruitful negotiations.

The possibility that Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, President of Nationalist China, might take his seat at the same table with Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Nehru. Since he would not participate in the heads-of-government meeting, however, there would be no occasion for General Chiang to come.

The question of security. The possibility of holding the heads-of-government meeting outside New York would greatly reduce the problem of guarding Mr. Khrushchev against an attack on his life. It has been suggested that it might be better for the Soviet Premier to stay in Mr. Hammarskjold's 1-bedroom apartment on the 38th floor if the discussions were held at United Nations Headquarters.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, it would be well for us to study the background of the United Nations Security Council operations, and particularly the comments of Mr. Trygve Lie, formerly Secretary-General of the United Nations, who in 1950 proposed a summit conference to halt the cold war. At that time he outlined a program under the terms of Article 28 of the Charter, and pointed out that provision is made for the holding of periodic meetings at which the Council's 11 members may be represented bv specially designated per-

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14863 sons, as well as by ministers or government leaders. Then, as the article in the New York Times points out--

The Security Council's own rules envisage th.is by stipulating that the head of a government or foreign minister may sit at the Council without submitting the customary credentials required for delegates.

I note, Mr. President, that Mr. Hammarskjold has been carefully preparing a suggested proposal to allow the Security Council to convene, possibly request the participation of nonmembers, such as India, and her Prime Minister, Mr. Nehru-and, indeed, others may be requested to attend as I shall mention in a moment--and then adjourn in favor of informal, secret talks among the heads of state.

It seems to me, Mr. President, that Mr. Hammarskjold's proposal is admirably designed to meet the fears and criticisms of those who feel that the United Nations is nothing more than a publicrelations forum.

So I hope a subcommittee on agenda will be appointed, so that prior to any formal meeting of the heads of state, an agenda may be organized, and thus the proposals to be considered in overall study by the heads of state will have been agreed upon beforehand.

My third point, Mr. President, is to stress the invaluable opportunity at the United Nations for direct person-to-person negotiations which might not otherwise take place. I say this with reference not only to the summit chiefs-Mr. Khrushchev and President Eisenhowerbut also with reference to the leaders of other states, and, in this instance, certain of the Middle East states. For example, I believe that President Nasser, of Egypt, should come to the United Nations. I believe that Prime Minister Ben-Gurion of Israel should come to the United Nations, and should be invited to come. I earnestly hope that they and other Middle Eastern leaders will come to New York during this session. I believe that the possibilities of private, behind-the-scenes talks are not limited to talks between the summit leaders; I think progress can be made on other levels, as well. In fact, this meeting at the United Nations may very well be the most important one ever held in terms of resolving the difficulties in the Middle East.

For example, is it not time that the leaders of the great nations and also the leaders of the smaller nations understand that some means of settling the Arab-Israeli conflict must be found? In that connection, what could be better than to have talks between representative, responsible leaders of the Middle East States, such as Ben-Gurion, of Israel, and Nasser, of Egypt, along with others, and with members of the Security Council, in order to promote such a settlement? Surely the problem of the Palestinian refugees needs to be discussed, and I certainly hope that during these summit conferences, consideration will also be given to economic matters and economic programs, such as an economic program through a Middle East agency.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the

RECORD, in connection with my remarks, an article entitled "Nasser Favors Plan, Wants an Invitation," which was dispatched from Cairo by Osgood Caruthers, a very enlightened and well-informed writer. The article was published in today's issue of the New York Times.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: NASSER FAVORS PLAN, WANTS AN INVITATION

(By Osgood Caruthers) CAmo, July 23.-President Gamal Abdel

Nasser is reported to be hopeful that the pt oposed meeting of heads of government at the United Nations Security Council will take place and that he will be invited to attend as an observer.

Informants close to the Presi<ient of the United Arab Republic, who reported this, said also that the leader of Iraq's revolutionary government, Premier Abdul Karim elKassem, planned definitely to take his country's seat at the Security Council if such a sum mit meeting took place.

President Nasser, in a revolution day speech last night, said he fully suppor.ted the proposal by Mr. Khrushchev for a meeting of heads of government to discuss ways of preserving peace in the Middle East. He made this declaration before he had received news of the counterproposal by the United States and Britain that such a meeting be held in the Security Council in New York.

Without waiting to learn whether Mr. Khrushchev would accept this proposal officials in Cairo began circulating reports of President Nasser's acceptance of the idea.

For one thing, the Arab nationalist leader feels he should be a party to any international talks about the area in which he is playing so prominent a role.

Moreover, President Nasser on several occasions has expressed a desire for a personal meeting sometime with President Eisenhower. Even if he were to be seated in a Security Council summit meeting only as an observer, or interested party, he would have opportunities outside the chamber for personal talks with General Eisenhower, in which he would hope to bring about improvement in the present strained relations between the United States and his own new republic, formed by the union of Egypt and Syria.

It was clear that Cairo officialdom also was thinking hopefully of the possibilities that President Nasser would be able to have private talks with Prime Minister Harold Macmillan of Britain and Premier Charles de Gaulle of France about the restoration of . relations severed since the Suez invasion in 1956.

ACCORD ON NEUTRALITY SOUGHT

The primary desire of the Cairo regime, of course, is that leaders of the eastern and western powers would agree to allow the Arab Middle East to remain neutral.

Spokesmen for the Nasser government have been holding out hope this would bring an end to the vehement anti-Western sentiments that exist naturally in the Middle East and during these times are being fanned by propaganda from Cairo and Damascus.

Informants said today that if such a proposition on Arab neutrality were accepted, full political, economic, and social relations

. with Britain and France could be resumed immediately. The Soviet Union already heartily supports President Nasser's type of Arab neutralism, solely with the idea of denying th.e strategic Middle East to the West.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, . I believe our Government should really seize this opportunity to have a meeting. at the United Nations, and should

make the most of it. Our representatives must go there with definite plans, must know in advance what our objectives are, and must have in mind an agenda which will be meaningful and realistic.

The United States must not seek to solve at one time every problem in the world. Instead, the agenda should be limited to problems which are susceptible of solution, particularly to the immediate problem which faces us.

In conclusion, Mr. President, I think our own Government should reverse its foot-dragging approach to the summit and start taking an affirmative view toward these negotiations. We have an opportunity again to demonstrate to the world that we are a peace-loving people, who adhere to lofty principles; that we know how to achieve peace; that we know how to make sacrifices to attain it.

The United Nations is to be commended for the role it has undertaken. Maximum use should be made of quiet diplomacy under United Nations auspices and the opportunity should also be seized for private consultations on a variety of issues among various statesmen who could meet only under auspices lilte these.

Mr. President--The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The

Senator from Minnesota.

INSPECTION FOR DISARMAMENT Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, yes

terday a book of special interest was issued in the field of disarmament. The book is entitled "Inspection for Disarmament," and is edited by Dr. Seymour Melman, associate professor of industrial and management engineering at Columbia University. Specialists contributing to this study have made an invaluable contribution, and the Institute of War and Peace Studies, under whose auspices the report has been completed, deserves the gratitude of all of us who have concerned ourselves with this critically important subject.

As one who had an opportunity to examine the report in advance, I pay tribute to the excellence of many of the essays contained in the book. I cannot, of course, associate myself with all of the varying ideas presented by the authors or by the editor, Dr. Melman, but I am convinced that Inspection for Disarmament is a valuable contribution toward filling the tremendous gaps in available information on this crucial subject. Although the limitations and capabilities of an _inspection system will play a major role in molding the shape of future arms-control agreements, very few studies on inspection have been undertaken or made public. This book is full of useful information on inspection problems and, I feel sure, will be provocative reading to all who are interested in safeguarded disarmament.

The New York Times of Wednesday, July, 23, Mr. President, contains an excellent summary of this report. I ·ask unanimous consent that the Times story entitled "Arms Pact Can Be Controlled, Columbia University Study Finds," be printed at this point in the RECORD.

14864: ·CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD-~ SENATE July 24

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,

as follows: ARMS PACT CAN BE CONTROLLED, COLUMBIA

. UNIVERSITY STUDY FINDS

International disarmament agreements can be effectively inspected and controlled, according to an investigation undertaken by a group of scientists, engineers, and other specialists for the Institute of war and Peace Studies at Columbia University.

The project report said that an early agreement on the cessation of nuclear bomb and missile testing was necessary "to preserve the human species and to prevent a world holocaust."

The report contended that such an agreement could be a highly effective first step toward comprehensive disarmament.

More than 50 persons with specialized technical competence in a wide variety of fields a ided the investigation, which was organized by Dr. Seymour Melman, associate professor of industrial and management engineering at Columbia University.

The Institute of War and Peace Studies was created in 1951, largely on the initiative of General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was then on leave as president of Columbia University to head the allied armies of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The study was undertaken with a grant from the Instit u t e for Int ernational Order.

Dr. Melman edited the 24 p apers written by specialists that comprise the bullt of the report and also wrote a general ana lysis. His main conclusion was that workable systems of inspection could be devised to im:ure compliance with a wide variety of disarmament agreements.

The report says that a relatively modest network of monitoring stations could achieve reliable control over nuclear bomb and high altitude missile testing.

The proposed network would consist of about 25 ground monitoring stations in the Soviet Union and about 7 in the United States. Several additional stations would be located along the borders of both countries. The network would be uniformly distributed so that any test in either country would be within 300 miles of at least 1 station. The report says that other stations might be required for Pacific Ocean areas, Australia and China.

It might occasionally be difficult to identify positively some shocks as earthquakes using stations 300 miles apart. To overcome this, seismic stations could be installed 100 miles apart in the seismic belts. In the case of the Soviet Union, about six additional stations in the Kurile Islands and the Kamchatka peninsula would be required.

This monitoring system was suggested in a paper by Jay Orear, associate professor of physics at Columbia. He contended that such a network of observatories, equipped with instruments to detect acoustic and seismic waves, electro-magnetic radiation and radioactivity, would record even lowyield underground nuclear explosions.

The report thus contradicted the opinions of Lewis L. Strauss, recently retired chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, and of Dr. Edward Teller, who played a leading part in the development of the hydrogen bomb.

Mr. Strauss and Dr. Teller have contended that small underground nuclear explosions might elude detection and have cited this as an argument against cessation of tests.

DETECTION HELD POSSIBLE

But Dr. Orear concluded that deep underground tests with a force of only one kiloton (or 1,000 tons of TNT) probably could be detected within the 300-mile network. (The atom bombs dropped on Japan during World War II had a force of 20 kilotons).

He also pointed out that such an inspection system might be acceptable to the Soviet Union. He recalled that at the United Nations disarmament talks in London on June 14, 1957, the Soviet Union proposed a testban agreement which should be implemented by scientific control posts to be set up in the United States, U. S. S. R., United Kingdom and Pacific Ocean areas.

Copies of the report have been sent to the American delegates to the East-West technical disarmament talks in Geneva. Two copies also have been dispatched to the Soviet Academy of Science which had energetically requested them, Dr. Melman disclosed.

The report does not discuss the political difficulties of attaining a comprehensive disarmament treaty. Its basic concern is estimating the technical feasibility of inspection methods.

NOT DISASTERPROOF

No disasterproof alarm system was envisaged by the investigators. Dr. Melman wrote:

" It is not possible to design and operate a system by which perfect compliance with international disarmament agreements could be guaranteed.

"Let it be clear at the outset that perfection cannot be guaranteed here, nor in any natural or social phenomenon. Indeed, foolproof and flawless reliability in inspection for disarmament is not only unattainable; it is not necessary for workability."

The report probed both the capabilities and the limitations of a wide variety of inspection methods. Dr. Melman concluded that the strong points were more than sufficient to form the basis for an optimistic estimate of workability.

He added: "The gains that could be obtained for the security of humankind by the rela xation of the arms race are so substantial as to be well worth the risks of successful evasion that may be involved in concluding disarmament agreements."

Urging speed in nuclear disarmament, Dr. Melman painted a gloomy pict ure of what the world would be like without such an agreement.

He warned that nuclear weapons would soon be available to many small nations. Then, "if a warhead should be set off in some city, it might be impossible to identify the aggressor, because of the number of countries possessing bombs and the variety of possible ways for delivering nuclear explosives."

Thus it would be impossible even to threaten retaliation unless the aggressor were known. Consequently, the strategy of a balance of terror would f ail as a deterrent against nuclear attacks, Dr. Melman said.

DETECTION METHODS LISTED

Six general methods of inspection were evaluated in the report. The strengths and weaknesses of each were assessed as follows:

1. Aerial inspection: A powerful device for checking on industrial and military installations, and for giving warning of the massing of large military forces. But aerial inspection is almost useless in detecting well-concealed underground sites, nor can it be relied on to identify clandestine modes of nuclear weapons delivery.

2. Government budgets: It is easy to hoodwink budget examiners. Dr. Jesse Burkhead, professor of economics at Syracuse University, who submitted a paper on this method of inspection, believes that a dozen key officials in Washington could conspire to conceal $100 million and divert that sum to armaments without the fiscal control system's being aware of it. Dr. Burkhead pointed out the United States fiscal controls were not designed to thwart complicity.

He cited as examples the secret Manhattan atom-bomb project of World War II, which had spent about $2 billion before its existence was publicly disclosed in the sum-

mer of 1945, and the Central Intelligence Agency, whose heavy annual expenditure is hidden in the Federal budget.

3. Detection of bomb and missile testing: The proposed minimum network of observatories could provide reliable control against attempts to test nuclear bombs.

4. Radiation inspection: Existent medical control systems for checking radiation hazards could be tied in with inspection for disarmament.

5. Scientific and technical personnel: Modern weapons development and research require large concentrations of highly trained specialists. The monitoring of scientific personnel could help detect clandestine production of weapons.

6. Public support for inspection: Since clandestine oper'ations can succeed only with a large measure of public support, an effort should be made to convince people that compliance with a disarmament agreement is mankind's shield against mutual extermination.

EVASION METHODS LISTED

The report also contains a detailed study of evasion methods that might be employed to frustrate a supranational inspectorate. Three evasion teams were set up to devise strategic plans for concealment of weapons inventories and secret arms production. Two of these teams were American, and one British. Each consisted of eight to ten scientists and engineers. Dr. Melman preferred to keep their identities secret.

Team A reported that the chances of a successful clandestine arming operation would be quite favorable, even in the presence of a very large inspectorate, in countries where nationalist sentiments could be used to rationalize evasion attempts.

It said that although the secret production of 200 to 400 modern missiles would require a substantial and highly skilled work force, economic dislocations caused by disarmament would facilitate the recruitment of sufficient numbers of effectively motivated malcontents.

But, said Team A, "this task would become progressively more difficult as working on instruments of death ceased to be regarded as a fine exercise for the scientific mind or manual skill and was instead looked upon as a grave offense against society."

With the spread of sentiment against arms production there would be an increase in the number of people willing to inform on violators "provided that the security of informers can be guaranteed," the team said. It found that, paradoxically, a politically divided population was good guarantee against clandestine armament.

OTHER TEAM PESSIMISTIC

Team B was oppressed by the fear that a power might fa lsify its arms inventories prior to the adoption of a disarmament treaty. The team contended that no single reliable method existed for disclosing secret stockpiles. It argued, in effect: Let us accept the fact that the inventory of existing stocks cannot be checked and that mutual destruction capabilities will continue to exist in the United States and the Soviet Union no matter what agreement is signed. Let us concentrate on the effective prevention of future weapons development, production, and accumulation anywhere in the world.

Team B also warned that during the long negotiating period prior to adoption of a disarmament plan both the United States and the Soviet Union would seek an ideal weapon that could be concealed at the bottom of the seas, in polar wastes, deserts, jungles, or perhaps even within neutral or enemy territory.

This hypothetical weapon would be capable of maintaining a readiness state for years.

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14865 It would be capable of remote firing by sonic, thermal or radio signal. Finally, it would be capable of establishing its own point of origin, and of integrating this information with the preset or in-flight destination instructions, so that the need for precise location of the weapon or even precise knowledge of its location woulc. be eliminated.

Team B said that with such a weapon it would be possible for the United States to deposit in the seas enormous stores of nuclear warheads delivered by egg-laying submarines or by merchant vessels equipped to carry them suspended under the hull. On appropriate remote signal these missiles would rise to the surface, determine their own location and proceed to the target on im:tructions.

Team B explored even more fantastic propo::;als: the ideal weapon would be continuously orbiting around the earth with the capacity to be directed into a military path at any time, or inventories of such weapons might b~ emplaced on the moon.

CONCEALMENT DIFFICULT

Team C, which was British, reported that second-rank powers, such as Britain and West Germany would find it impoEsible to prepare 200 to 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles under secret conditions. Such powers were too small in area and lacked the industrial capabilities to conceal ·such an effort from an inspectorate.

The British believed that evasion would be easier in the Soviet Union, with its traditions of secrecy, than in the United States.

In his general report Dr. Melman suggested that a multiple approach, using several of the six general methods of inspection evaluated in the report would be more effective than the use of any one approach.

Dr. Melman conceded that the effectiveness of material inspection methods for insuring comrliance with a disarmament agreement would be limited not only by possible clandestine production and concealment of weapons but by the availability of technological alternatives, such as biological warfare in place of atomic bombs.

A paper on biological warfare by Dr. Vincent Groupe, professor of virology in the Institute of Microbiology, Rutgers University, said that research and development in this field could be carried out in existing university, industrial, and governmental laboratories and that it would be virtually impossible for an inspection team to differentiate such worlr from the usual programs in public health and agriculture.

But production and field trial of highly dangerous material would be more difficult to conceal, he said. This involves large scale operations and vast proving grounds.

"It is common knowledge," he said, "that such a proving ground exists in Dugway, Utah, and that one of the major centers for biological warfare is Fort Detrick in Frederick, Md. Both of these installations are large and could be observed from the air."

Control of the production and testing phase of a biological warfare program should be sufficient to cripple an effective offensive program, he said.

The general report gave these estimates of manpower requirements for carrying out inspection of various types of disarmament agreements in the United States:

Mini- Maxi-mum

Aerial inspection _______________ 550 Nuclear bomb testing___________ 50 High altitude missile testing ____ 180 Nuclear reactors controL _______ 600 Fissionable materials plants _____ 300

mum 750 50

180 1,500 2,400

1,680 4,880

In addition various groups of industrial plants capable of missile production would require an average of 10 to 20 men per factory.

SMALL-BUSINESS RELIEF Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, 2

months ago I called to the attention of the Senate the businesslike manner in which Congress was addressing itself this year to the major legislative needs of the small-business community. I noted in my speech that longstanding smallbusiness problems were being attacked in this session with a force and dedication. of purpose which seemed certain to produce successful results.

Today I am happy to report again that 1958 is rapidly taking shape in Congress as a year in which small business may confidently expect some important legislative benefits. Already, Congress has passed legislation making the Small Business Administration a permanent guardian of small-business interests. The Small Business Investment Act, a measure designed to provide equity financing and long-term credit for small firms, has been passed by the Senate, and is scheduled to be acted upon this afternoon by the House of Representatives. In the field of antitrust, S. 721, a bill calling for more effective and expeditious enforcement of Clayton Act orders to cease and desist from monopolistic practices, has passed the Senate by unanimous vote, and prompt action on the bill by the House seems assured. And, most importantly, the House passed on Monday afternoon a small-business, tax-adjustment bill.

Fortunately, the early passage by the House of this tax bill for small business affords the Senate an ample opportunity for full study of the measure. My own feeling is that, while the House-passed bill contains many major tax benefits for small entrepreneurs, it should be strengthened in certain respects if we are to discharge properly our responsibilities to the small-business community. Therefore, I was most gratified yesterday

· afternoon when the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN], chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, told the Senate of his plan to submit to the Finance Committee all of the information gathered by our committee during its comprehensive tax study of last year. I shall support the Senator from Alabama as vigorously as possible in his efforts to insure that the small-business tax bill, to be passed by the Senate, shall incorporate the recommendations which resulted from our study. The Congress can no longer temporize in granting practical justice to the sm~Jll-business community in the area of Federal taxation.

SANITATION FACILITIES ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be laid aside temporarily, and that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 1909, Senate bill 3694. It has been cleared with the minority leader.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be stated by title for the information of the Senate.

The CHIEF CLERK. A bill (S. 3694) to amend the act of August 5, 1954 · (68 Stat. 674), and for other purposes.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Montana?

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I ask the Senator from Montana how long it will require to consider the bill?

Mr. MANSFIELD. About 1 minute. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, reserving

the right to object, I wish to say, as acting minority leader, I have been assured that there is no objection to the consideration of Calendar No. 1909, S. 3694, a bill introduced by the Senator from Utah [Mr. WATKINS].

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Montana?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, with an amendment, on page 4, line 12, after the word "section", to strike out the comma and "and with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs on matters of general Indian policy involved in the administration of this section", so as to make the bill read:

Be it enacted, etc., That the act of August 5, 1954 (68 Stat. 674), is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

"SEc. 7. (a) In carrying out his functions under this act with respect to the provision of sanitation facilities and services, the Surgeon General is authorized-

" ( 1) to construct, improve, extend, or otherwise provide and maintain, by contract or otherwise, essential sanitation facilities, including domestic and community water supplies and facilities, drainage facilities, and sewage- and waste-disposal facilities, together with necessary appurtenances and fixtures, for Indian homes, communities, and lands;

"(2) to acquire lands, or rights or interests therein, including sites, rights-of-way, and easements, and to acquire rights to the use of water, by purchase, lease, gift, exchange, or otherwise, when necessary for the purposes of this section, except that no lands or rights or interests therein may be acquired from an Indian tribe, band, group, community, or individual other than by gift or for nominal consideration, if the facility for which such lands or rights or interests therein are acquired is for the exclusive benefit of such tribe, band, group, community, or individual, respectively;

"(3) to make such arrangements and agreements with appropriate public authorities and nonprofit organizations or agencies and with the Indians to be served by such sanitation facilities (and any other person so served) regarding contributions toward the construction, improvement, extension and provision thereof, a.nd responsibilities for maintenance thereof, as in his judgment are equitable and will best assure the future maintenance of facilities in an effective and operating condition; and

"(4) to transfer any facilities provided under this section, together with appurtenant interests in land, with or without a money consideration, and under such terms and conditions as in his judgment are appropriate, having regard to the contributions made and the maintenance responsibilities undertaken, and the special health needs of the Indians concerned, to any State or Territory or subdivision or public authority thereof, or to any Indian tribe, group, band, or community or, in the case of domestic appurtenances and fixtures, to any one or more of the occupants of the Indian home served thereby.

14866 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 "(b) The Secretary of the Interior is au

thorized to transfer to the Surgeon General for use in carrying out the purposes of this section such interest and rights in federally owned lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, and in Indianowned lands that either are held by the United States in trust for Indians or are subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States, including appurtenances and improvements thereto, as may be requested by the Surgeon General. Any land or interest therein, including appurtenances and improvements to such land, so transferred shall be subject to disposition by the Surgeon General in accordance with ·paragraph (4} of subsection (a}: Provided, That in any case where a beneficial interest in such land is in any Indian, or Indian tribe, band, or group, the consent of such beneficial owner to any such transfer or disposition shall first be obtained: Provided further, That where deemed appropriate by the Secretary of the Interior provisions shall be made for a reversion of title to such land if it ceases to be used for the purpose for which it is transferred or d isposed.

" (c) The Surgeon General shall consult with, and encourage the participation of, the Indians concerned, States and political subdivisions thereof, and the government of the Territory of Alaska in carrying out the provisions of this section."

SEc. 2. Section 6 of such act is amended by striking out the word "This" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "Sections 1 to o, inclusive, of this."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment.

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,

S. 3694, sponsored by the distinguished Senator from Utah [Mr. WATKINS], and my distinguished colleague from Montana [Mr. MURRAY], as well as Senators NEUBERGER, BARRETT, ANDERSON, MALONE, BIBLE, and GOLDWATER, is an extremely important legislative proposal. It is especially important to our efforts in trying to improve conditions on many of our Indian reservations throughout the country. This Indian sanitation facilities bill will permit broad sanitation improvements on reservations.

The bill permits making of arrangements for participation in projects by Indian groups, local authorities, and other public or nonprofit organizations, both in construction costs and maintenance and operation. This legislation would authorize acquisition of r_ecessary interests in lands-including acquisition through transfer from the Department of Interior-acceptance of contributions, and ultimate transfer of completed facilities upon appropriate terms to local or State authorities or Indians themselves.

I have addressed the Senate on numerous occasions about the deplorable conditions that exist on several of the reservations in Montana. Unemployment is high; they are plagued with welfare problems because of the lack of sufficient food and adequate housing. Sanitation is generally a problem that arises in these various situations.

At the present time a polio epidemic has broken out on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. The Public Health Service has the situation under control, but I feel that inadequate diets and unsanitary conditions contributed to the epidemic.

The approval of S. 3694 will do much to prevent the reoccurence of this and other epidemics.

The enactment of this bill will be most helpful in our fight to improve the economic and health standards on our Indian reservations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial entitled "Blackfeet Polio Epidemic Spurs Public Health Action," from the July 15, 1958, issue of the Great Falls Tribune, be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

BLACKFEET POLIO EPIDEMIC SPURS PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION

With 13 cases reported to date, and 1 death, the polio epidemic on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation is classed by public health authorities as the worst to strike Montana since 1955.

The cooperative efforts that are now properly being made by medical and public health authorities and the Indian Service to combat and curb the epidemic should also serve to impress on all concerned a lamentable lack in earlier preventive sanitation and immunization programs on the reservation.

As was called to attention in a United Press International news account published in Sunday's Tribune, the Blackfeet Tribal Council at Browning is midway in collecting data on reservation housing. The objective of this survey is to convince Federal aut horities of the need for a federally administered loan program to provide better housing for a m ajor part of the Montana Blackfeet Tribe.

Adequate housing and sanitation are closely interrelated, and on the Indian Reservation they are also r elated to the education program.

The United States Public Health Service administers the official Indian reservation healt h program in Montana and throughout the Nation.

Observation in Montana leads us to conclude that the service rendered is sadly inadequate to meet the needs. Like many other phases of the Indian program, action is taken mainly on an emergency basis.

We hope that the attention now directed to combating the polio affliction on the Blackfeet Reservation will stimulate a more active continuing health and sanitation program for the future on Montana reservations and on all reservations throughout the country.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill is open to further amendment.

If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill <S. 3694) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

FEDERAL SUPPORT OF INCREASED RESEARCH IN FIELD OF CANCER AND ALLIED DISEASES

Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, another giant stride forward has been taken at this session of Congress in the financing of a more adequate program of research into the riddle of cancer. Conferees on Department of Health, Education, and Welfare appropriations have agreed to allocate $75,268,000 for the work of the National Cancer Institute. This is an increase of $18,866,000 over the appropriations for fiscal 1958,

or some 33 percent. The added funds will improve opportunities for further investigation in the relationship between viruses and cancer, and in cancer chemotherapy. Encouraging progress is be .. ing made in these urgent fields.

Credit for this accomplishment-of great significance to all mankind-is due to the untiring leadership of the senior Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL]. As chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee and chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, he has been largely responsible for nurturing and developing the program of the Federal Government for unlocking the grim enigma of cancer. Research into the curbing of this deadly killer appears to be at least nearing the threshold of victory. When this eventual success is won, it will be a lasting tribute to the unceasing efforts and humanitarianism of the senior Senator from Alabama.

Advancement in the cancer-research program of the National Institutes of Health is the subject of an article which I wrote recently for the Denver Post, a fine · newspaper which has mobilized public opinion in this vital sphere. I ask consent to include the article, entitled "America's Best Investment," with my remarks. It was published in the Denver Post for July 15, 1958.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the REcORD, as follows:

AMERICA'S BEST INVESTMENT (By Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER, U.S. Sena

tor from Oregon) When people ask me for my opinion of

the outstanding legislative feats with which I have been associated, they expect the answer to describe spectacular bills such as statehood for Alaska, the immense John Day Dam or repeal of the Federal transportation tax.

Instead, I reply: "The vast increase in appropriations for the National Cancer Institute."

Some of my friends find this answer difficult to fathom.

Yet, to me, the justification for my answer is found in a grim and sinister table. It is a table which shows the deaths in the United S tates from cancer for each year since 1950: 1950 ______________________________ 211,000 1951 ______________________________ 216,000 1952 ______________________________ 223,000 1953 ______________________________ 229,000 1954 ______________________________ 235, 000 1955 ______________________________ 242,000 1956 ______________________________ 245, 000 1957 ______________________________ 250,000

When I first came to the Senate in 1955, funds for the National Cancer Institute totaled some $21 million annually. The latest sums allocated by the Senate for this vital and urgent purpose have amounted to some $81 million. I know of no increase so thoroughly justified-or so much in need of still further expansion.

For example, the National Health Education Committee has reported that research in this field already has produced 16 chemical compounds which cause temporary clinical improvement in patients with various types of the disease.

If we thus are lurking on the frontier of a major breakthrough, can we risk delay or failure merely becaues of a lack of funds? The question answers itself when we consider the quarter-of-a-million Americans doomed to die this year and the next from

1958 ·CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14867 cancer-and on into the distant future, unless some effective cure can be discovered for this insidious plague of human cells runn ing wild.

The President's budget for 1959 had allocated $55,923,000 for work of the National Cancer Institute. Incredibly, this figure approved by the President was some $500,000 below the appropriation for the previous year.

In recognition of the fact that our research experts believe they are on the threshold of important new discoveries, the majority of Senators agreed with me that the adm inistrat ion program was entirely inadequate. Instead, an increase of nearly 40 percent was provided the National Cancer Institute. We all hope that these added funds will open the door of cancer's enigma.

Possible relationships between viruses and cancer are becoming of increasing scientific interest. Senators wanted to malte sure that enough money was available so the cancer institute could fully explore this promising channel.

Dr. Wadell Stanley, a Nobel prize winner, told the Senate Appropriations Committee that "it is difficult to escape the conclusion that viruses may be the etiological agent for most, if not all, cancer, including cancer in man, and this represents by far the most intellectually satisfying working hypothesis which is consistent with all presently known facts."

A major share of the Senate-approved funds would go to finance additional research in this highly specialized field of cancer research. Programs for cancer chemotherapy also will be greatly expanded next year.

Since the speedup of Government funds for cancer research in 3 short years, many advances have been scored. It is now possible through the use of preventive medicine to prevent a few cancers of the type related to occupation.

It is now possible to detect a few cancers quite early when cure by surgery is effective and relatively simple. Chemical cure of at least one type of u t erine cancer also has been added to the gains. The added funds have brought many other real result s.

It must be recognized that the expenditure of money alone may not reduce proportionately the time involved in the event ual unraveling of the r id dle of cancer. However, we must make certain that the talents of all available investigators and of all research facilities are mobilized at peak level. We can never know in advance which laboratory test will deliver the answer.

A good deal of preaching is heard about economy in Government. Here is one sphere of governmental effort for which error on the side of liberality finds justification. These funds affect all mankind.

Think of the psychological impact on the world if American scientists were the first to smash the heart-chilling threat of cancer. The Soviets' success with sputniks would seem less convincing if peoples around the globe realized that the dollars of Uncle Sam made possible the conquest of one of man's most haunting fears.

NEED FOR INCREASED SOCIALSECURITY PAYMENTS

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, is morning business concluded?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there is no further morning business, morning business has been concluded. The pending business is the so-called farm bill.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, yesterday's tentative action of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives in approving a 7-percent increase in social-security benefits will

be greeted with heartfelt approval by the overwhelming majority of Americans, young and old. This is the first step and a big and important step in winning more adequate pensions for our old people. The House bill provides for a minimum increase of $3 per month and a maximum increase of $14. This is not much. It should be more. But it is something. It is an important beginning.

Mr. President, I suppose some will ridicule the proposed $3 monthly increase as inconsequential. Certainly it is pitifully inadequate. We should fight to increase it. But, we should not lose sight of the fact that for the aged person who will receive it, who now is trying to get along on $30 or $35 monthly, the $3 a month will be a great blessing.

It is becoming clearer every day, Mr. President, that it is likely to be squarely up to this body to act in behalf of our aged citizens, so many of whom desperately need increased assistance. On July 18 I announced to the Senate that I would rise every day until the session was in adjournment, if necessary, to plead for an increase in socialsecurity benefits. I hope we can pass the bill before that, of course. But I have done what I had promised. In view of the action of the House, I intend to redouble my efforts for increased socialsecurity payments.

The Senate is about to be faced by a genuine challenge of conscience. I plead with my fellow Senators to think long and hard about the urgent needs of America's old people. I am sure that if the Members of this body will each spend some t ime in solemn reflection on the right or wrong of social security improvements, this proposal will receive overw]1elming support in this body. I am told that this is going to be a tough, h ard, odds-against, uphill fight. There is no economic fight that faces this Congress which is more eminently worth while.

IMPORTANCE OF FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION

Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Mr. President, in our city, from time to time, important statements, many of which represent weeks and months of study and the effort and considered judgment of many people, are prepared and published. Many of these are of great significance, breaking new ground in the development of public policy. For a day or two they hold the spotlight in our news mediums. For this brief period the sheer soundness of such statements shines through like a beacon of light. People agree with them; they read that wheels have been set in motion and they sit back, assured "things are on the track". But if the wheels go forward only briefly, if the wheels then continue spinning without any real progress, the warning of these sentinels of our security is wasted.

In the last 2 years, there have been a number of studies, both governmental and nongovernmental, in the field of education, involving proposals for Congressional action. Yet it now appears that unless some steps are taken quickly,

that this session of Congress may adjourn without the Members of tt.1e United States Senate having had an opportunity to vote on such legislation.

Last November, Dr. Alan T. Waterman, Director of the National Science Foundation, in summarizing the findings of some of these studies, declared:

We do know that statistically only about 50 percent of high-school graduates who are judged capable of receiving college training go on to college. We know that many potentially able scientists and engineers, as well as leaders in other fields, are lost as a result of the failure of this 50 percent to receive advanced training. We must, therefore, redouble our efforts to attract int o our institutions of higher education the potential that is now being lost; and within this group we should make special effort to reach those with aptitudes for science and mathematics.

Dr. Waterman concluded: Let us hope that the Sputnik adventures

will serve to awaken every citizen of the country to the importance of certain "musts" if we are to maintain leadership in the fields of science and technology. Every citizen must realize the importance of adequate school facilities in his neighborhood and the need for improved science teaching in the seconda1·y schools. We do not want to claim for these fields any more than their fair share of gifted boys and girls, but we must see that every student who is capable of receivin g higher education is enabled to get that education. We must see that those with special aptitudes for scientific or technical fields are aware of the fact and given an opportunity to pursue the fields for which they are best suited. We must also realize the import ance of some knowledge of science for ~11 educated people, even though they have no intention of following science as a career.

Shortly after Congress convened, on January 23, 1958, the distinguished majority leader, Senator JoHNSON of Texas, in reporting on a study by the Senate Preparedness Subcommittee, addressed the Senate in a similar vein:

Our country is entering a new period of history in which the total resources of America must be brought ~o their greatest development. No segment of our economy or of our life must be ignored or neglected.

Our programs, our policies, and our practices must all be in good working order. A full national effort is required and this can be achieved only by people working together.

The goal is not merely to imitate some Soviet missile or some Soviet achievement. This attitude could lead us into a hypnotic trance in which we would forget that our true strength is our freedom.

That is a fundamental which we must not forget.

We would lose much more than we would gain if we tried to match totalitarian accomplishments by adopting totalitarian methods and values.

Our need to mobilize today flows from a necessity of forging ahead to broader frontiers of freedom-not merely from the need of catching up with the Soviets.

We must not fail because we sell short the potential of a free society. We must suceed by unleashing our minds, unleashing our capacity, and moving forward with the great force, vigor, and imagination of which we are capable.

The majority leader emphasized the importance of education with these words:

It is obvious that all our plans for the future will be frustrated if we don't foster the training of our children along broad

14868 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 lines through greater concentration on science and mathematics without neglecting the humanities • • • there can be no adequate defense for the United States except in a reservoir of trained and educated minds.

On the same day the distinguished majority leader, in commenting again on educational needs, predicted action on an education bill in the present session of Congress this year.

Later that day, the majority whip, Senator MANSFIELD, the distinguished Senator from Montana, introduced a bill to provide an expanded program of Federal scholarships for study in the sciences and linguistics. In discussing his bill, he said:

We can enact Federal-aid legislation which would help high schools and colleges improve and add additional laboratory facilities in their science departments.

Finally, we can and must enact a broad graduate and undergraduate scholarship program in the sciences and engineering. An expanded Federal scholarship program would do much to increase our supply of these professionals.

Six months later the Rockefeller Brothers Fund issued a report on Education and the Future of America, an apt title indeed. In this report, prepared by a distinguished panel of educators, journalists, scientists, and administrators, there appeared this report on the unhappy conditions in our Nation's schools:

Our schools are overcrowded, understaffed, and ill-equipped. In the fall of 1957, the shortage of public-school cla ssrooms stood at 142,000. There were 1,943 ,000 pupils in excess of normal classroom capacit y. These pressures will become more severe in the years ahead. Elementary school enrollments will rise from some 22 million today to about 34 million by 1960-61. By 1969 high schools will be deluged with 50 to 70 percent more students than they can now accommodate; by 1975, our colleges and universities will face at least a doubling and in some cases a tripling of present enrollments.

If we are to meet these pressures, our schools will need great ly increased public support and attention, and much more money. But they also need somethin g besides money; an unsparing reexamination of current practices, patterns of organization and objectives.

From time to time one still hears arguments over quantity versus quality education. Behind such arguments is the assumption that a society can choose to educate a few people exceedingly well or to educate a great number of people somewhat less well, but that it cannot do both. But a modern society such as ours cannot choose to do one or the other. It has no choice but to do both.

I agreed with all of these statements when they were made--in November of 1947, on January 23, 1958, and on June 23, 1958. I agree with these statements today. Their message is clear-the need for a tremendous effort to improve our schools has not passed.

But it is clear, as we enter what may be the closing weeks of this session of Congress, that Members of the United States Senate are not being given an opportunity to debate and vote on the necessary measures to strengthen our scientific and educational effort. The Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare has completed lengthy hearings on several educational bills. The 1,602 pages

on the subject have been neatly bound in a 2-inch-thick transcript. The hearings were concluded on March 13. Last week marked the completion of 4 full months since the ending of the hearings. The Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare has completed its work on several other matters since then. However, insofar as educational legislation is concerned, the committee has not been heard from for the past 4 months.

The legislation which has been pending before the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare for the past 7 months could do a great deal to overcome these shortages. The administration bill before the committee would create 10,000 new Federal scholarships each year for 4 years; it would assist local schools in the development of better scientific and mathematics programs; it would assist in the development of more well-trained college teachers, encourage and improve the teaching of foreign languages, as well as provide better statistical data on American education so that proper steps may be taken as needed. Senator LisTER HILL, the chairman of the committee, h as a bill with similar objectives pending before the committee.

The school-construct ion bill which the administration proposed in 1957, alt hough defeated in the House that year, is still pending before the Senate committee. The need for this legislation is as great as ever. The effects of the shortage of classrooms go far beyond the 1,-943,000 pupils in excess of normal classroom capacity, for it is not just the 10 or 15 too many pupils crowded into some classrooms that suffer-it is the whole class. Principals and teachers have been forced to strain existing facilities, establishing makeshift classrooms in basement boiler rooms, in school corridors, or even worse, in limiting classes to half sessions, in order to give some education to all students. The inevitable result has been a decline in quality.

Further, as many school officials strive to meet the need for bricks and mortar in order to house students, they are, perforce, obliged to dedicate limited revenues for construction, rather than teachers' salaries.

The Senate has been meeting early and late on many pressing and important problems of the Nation. It is not an easy task to select and schedule legislation for Senate action. I would argue emphatically, however, that our school children are being overlooked-by the United States Senate. If we adjourn this session without substantial education legislation, we will have failed in a national emergency.

THE PEOPLE - TO - PEOPLE PROGRAM-WHAT THE AVERAGE AMERICAN CAN DO TO HELP GET ACROSS THE AMERICAN STORY ABROAD

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, on a great many occasions I have been pleased to point out to our people the outstanding job which as been performed by the private, voluntary, people-to-people program.

I have introduced into the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD excerpts from the litera-

ture published by the various active people-to-people committees. Thereafter, I have distributed, on request, considerable quantities of reprints of my remarks through these various committees for circulation all over the United States, and yes, abroad as well.

A great many achievements have occurred since the inception of the peopleto-people program.

GROWING PAINS OF THE PROGRAM

I would be less than frank if I did not advise that inevitably some of the committees have proceeded faster than others and on a wider, more effective basis.

I would, likewise, point out that the problem af raising private financing for the work of the committees has sometimes been a serious impediment in operations.

After all, the American public voluntarily supports a great many private causes with financial contributions. And it is not easy, considering the many appeals which the public receives, to mobilize funds for still additional causes. Therefore, some of the hoped-for private financing has not yet materialized.

These problems, however, · like problems of changing personnel and problems of voluntary coordination, are growing pains. They are the same sort of growing pains which almost any similar private nonprofit enterprise, or group of enterprises, will experience in getting under way.

COMMITTEES ARE OVERCOMING PROBLEMS

The basic fact that the various independent people-to-people committees are still at work and are expanding their operations is a tribute to their devotion. It is a tribute to their ability to grow past the hard early stages and to fttlfill their fine role, irrespective of the financial and other problems.

It is a tribute to the patriotism of busy citizens who are willing and eager to take time out from their everyday labors in earning a living to shoulder this burden voluntarily in the name of international friendship.

INTEREST IN FOREIGN DIPLOMATIC CORPS

Here in Washington I have been glad to be in touch with the Honorable Cyrus Ching, the active chairman of the speakers' committee, as well as with other chairmen.

Moreover, I and members of the Foreign Relations Committee staff have received and have responded to inquiries from foreign embassies here relative to contacts between more groups in their homelands and similar groups in the United States.

We Americans, as private citizens, have still only scratched the surface insofar as cementing our ties with like-minded individuals and groups abroad is concerned. Civic groups to civic groups, business groups to business groups, hobbyists to hobbyists, advertising groups to advertising groups, fine-art and music groups to their counterparts abroadthis is the unfolding pattern of strengthened relationships.

WHAT THE INDIVIDUAL CAN DO

I send to the desk a helpful leaflet entitled "What You Can Do in People

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE 14869 to People." This leaflet helps to answer the vital question which so many Americans ask themselves and ask their legislators, "What can I, as one lone individual, do: to help my country abroad?"

The answer is that the so-called lone individual can do a great deal.

Indeed, so many lone individuals have done so very much, individually, and then in concert with like-minded Americans, that no person need feel frustrated or unable to serve his country in this noble program of peace and good will.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this leaflet be prlnted in the body of the RECORD and that it be followed by a listing of the various committee chairmen now serving the people-to-people program.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: WHAT You CAN Do IN PEOPLE-To-PEOPLE: You CAN WELCOME OUR OVERSEAS VISITORS Every year, about 700,000 people from other

lands come to the United States. They include students, teachers, businessmen, scientists, and just plain people.

Some come as private travelers, others under the auspices of a variety of public or private agencies. Almost every community in the United States has one or more of these people as a guest, eager to see, hear and learn about America.

The impression each of these visitors getsthe warmth and sincerity of interest shown in him and his country, his opportunity to observe American ways of life, his feeling that there is mutuality of interest-through such things are friends won or lost.

Many visitors come and go without ever stepping inside an American home. But the many who get the opportunity give eloquent expression of their pleasure.

Just before Christmas a year or two ago an A,ustrian student was traveling by bus from New Mexico. He was using the holiday time to visit an acquaintance in the East. Enroute he struck up a friendship with the bus driver. Arriving in South Carolina, the end of his run, the bus driver urged the Austrian boy to stop and visit his family. "I have a son your age," he said.

"I replied I could not," the boy later reported. "I was due in Philadelphia the next day. The driver then offered to buy me a plane ticket to Philadelphia if I would stop for 12 hours with his family. I accepted, and had a most delightful experience."

Many incidents demonstrate that Americans can and do extend hospitality to foreign visitors in thoughtful ways. What to do or how to do it is no problem for those who really want to extend the hand of understanding and friendship. Once they have the desire to do something, they find the way.

Should ypu need help in getting started, help is available from a number of sources. In many cities hospitality groups are in action. These usually are community undertakings to coordinate the work of many organizations. Operations and names differ from place to place, but can usually be located by contracting the mayor, Rotary, Chamber of Commerce, World Affairs Council or a similar local group.

Such agencies can tell you about the possibilities for people-to-people friendship and how you can make your help most effective. But don't depend entirely upon somebody else. Here's where your ingenuity can make a contribution.

Suppose that you are a young man not yet 20. You have little money but a lot of energy. What can you do to help people of other lands learn a little bit more about America?

CIV--936

Harry Morgan, a young man 1n Salinas, Calif., found an answer.

"When I was a kid,'' says Harry, "I couldn't understand why some folks thought foreigners were a strange kind of human being. It didn't seem right."

Harry Morgan felt people should know each other better. He set out to help and took off on a hitch-hiking trip to Europe. He reached the Netherlands just when the 1953 flood waters were receding, and pitched in with the relief work.

"It was while working there,'' he explains, "that I realized that the only difference among people of different countries is the' language barrier. Once you communicate the difference disappears."

This thought lingered with Harry Morgan after he returned home and entered the Air Force.

"I used my spare time to give talks about my experiences in Europe. I discovered that a lot of other citizens were also interested in bringing about people-to-people understanding and friendships."

Harry Morgan's enthusiasm succeeded in raising $1,150. Businessmen in Dayton, where he was stationed, farmers in the nearby countryside, bunkmates and church members helped him.

. With this money Harry brought to America in December 1956, two people with whom he had become friends while in Holland. One was a school teacher and the other was a garbage collector.

For two weeks Harry Morgan's foreigners had a chance to visit America at the grass roots. They went back enthusiastic to tell their friends and relatives about what they had learned.

Airman First Class Harry Morgan resumed his talks and lectures. He appeared before any group that would listen-Lions, Rotary, Kiwanis, church groups. By this time he was expounding the idea of additional visitors.

"Everybody seemed to think it was a good idea," says Harry. "When people would shake my hand they would hand me a dollar. Before I knew it I had several hundred dollars." This led Harry to enlist more widespread citizen support. He offered people-to-people certificates for $1 each.

"Money started to pour in. A 90-year-old woman wrote me she had taken a job as a baby sitter to raise her dollar; two 9-yearolds sold lemonade a.nd sent me $2.41!'

Morgan himself took leave and went to Europe to select four young folks to make the people-to-people visit. In all he interviewed 123 people.

In mid-summer 1957, Gunter from Germany, Robert from France, Ole from Denm ark and Waltrout from Austria spent 2 weeks visiting homes in Ohio and places of interest in New York, Washington and other cities.

Just before taking off for home, they told a nationwide television audience what they had learned about America. It's a friendlier place, they said, than they had expected to find.

What individual Americans through hospitality have done in behalf of greater international understanding is just part of the picture. Through organizations of one kind or another opportunities are multiplied manifold.

Once again, results depend upon what you do to get action started. You might investigate what your civic club, service group, women's club or church organization is doing. Perhaps your company or business association is ready to join a people-to-people project.

Suppose you are a club member, as is Kenneth I. Faulkner, of Melrose, Mass. He's a member of the Rotary Club. He was the club's international service chairman a few years ago when his organization initiated

an unusual plan for foster-ing the friendship of people from other countries.

Each week the Melrose Rotary is host to two seamen from a foreign ship that is docked in Boston.

"Our purpose," says Ken Faulkner, "is nothing more than friendship for other people and a desire to promote understanding."

The Melrose Rotary has a working arrangement with the Boston Seamen's Friend Society. The society's official who regularly visits incoming ships is an honorary member of the club, and he selects the two seamen each week and brings them to a luncheon.

A member of the club is appointed to act as host for each seaman. The host has responsibility for the guest's comfort and for making him acquainted with the other Rotarians.

"Nothing is asked of the seaman,'' explains Mr. Faulkner, "except that he enjoy himself. We try to stimulate conversation and try to learn something from him about his native land. The club president gives a brief biography of the guests when he introduces them."

After lunch photographs are taken of each seaman with his host and the club president. These are mounted in a suitable inscribed souvenir folder and given to the visitors .

The chairman of the club's international service committee writes to the rotary president in the seaman's home port and encloses a copy of the picture.

"This is not a form letter,'' says Mr. Faulkner, .' 'each one is personal and describes what we are trying to do. We ask the rotary president to present the picture to the seaman's nearest relative and extend the greetings of our club . We tell them how much we enjoyed sharing this fellowship with the visiting seaman."

Mr. Faulkner estimates that 500 seamen have been guests of the Melrose Rotary Club during the 5 years th9.t the project has been in operation. A great many countries have been represented including Formosa, India, Lebanon, Greece, the Scandinavian countries, most of the European countries and parts of South America and Africa.

"We placed on the wall at our meeting place a world map and pinned up pictures of our seamen guests," says Mr. Faulkner. "At one time we had strings running from the picture to the seaman's home country but we had to quit this practice because we got too many strings. So now we simply type the seaman's country at the top of his picture."

What are the results? Mr. Faulkner declares that the reaction of the overseas clubs, the seamen and their families "proves to us the worthiness of every effort that we can put into this project." YOU CAN BE A TRAVELING CITIZEN AMBASSADOR

When you go abroad, you are, whether you like it or not, a representative of the United States in the eyes of the people you visit. What you say or do contributes to the impression your hosts have of this country and our people.

Is this of any importance? President Eisenhower considered it of suffi

cient importance to authonze a special message over his signature addressed to every citizen receiving a passport.

"In • • • most lands,'' he says, "there exists a reservoir of good will for the United States and knowledge of what we stand for. In some areas, our country and its aspirations are less well understood. • • •

"As you travel abroad, the respect you show for foreign laws and customs, your courteous regard for other ways of life, and your speech and manner help to mold the reputation of om: country." -

What the President outlines in his letter to American travelers abroad is an opportunity to do something positive for the cause of people-to-people.

14870 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 24 "You represent us all," he says, "in bring

ing assurance to the people you meet that the United States is a friendly Nation and one dedicated to the search for world peace and to the promotion of the well-being and security of the community of nations."

What you do and how you do it, as in the case of all people-to-people activities, is bounded only by your own ingenuity and your own desire to extend a friendly hand.

James MacFarland is an American overseas, stationed at Hamburg. We came upon him in the north German city of Kiel one day when we were visiting a huge garden show. Right in the middle of the exhibition hall was a little stand decked out with American and German flags. A curious crowd milled around it. They were looking at a display of about 75 squash, various types and sizes. An overhead banner read, "The first squash contest ever held in Germany."

Mr. MacFarland was talking to a fascinated group of visitors. He was telling them about squash-what it tastes like, how it is grown and how it is cooked. The jostling and the number of people-which in 6 days ran lnto some 36,000-were clear-cut signs of keen interest.

We learned that Mr. MacFarland who also was chief judge of the squash contest is a passionate garden-hobbyist. No matter where in the world he happens to be living, he says he always has a small garden where he specializes in American vegetables. He explains that it is good fun, gives him fresh food and, most important, gives him a better chance to know and understand the people.

When he came to Germany, Mr. MacFarland got himself a small garden and joined the Kleingarten club. He is still the only American member.

What intrigued MacFarland's fellow members the most about his garden was the squash. For some reason they had not grown squash and to them, as to most Germans, it was a novelty. Mr. MacFarland gave them some seed and that fall the club members were eating squash and enjoying it.

The TV Chef, a Hamburg television personality, heard of the new vegetable and visited MacFarland's garden. The Chef received a few samples, was obviously impressed and returned for more. These he put into his freezer. Came spring and he took them out so that German TV-viewers could see the marvel.

Prior to the telecast, the TV Chef asked MacFarland if he could provide some seed packets in the event any of the TV-viewers might be interested. The Chef estimated about 100 packets would be sufficient and MacFarland wrote to the Burpee Seed Co. which shipped him 300 sample packets.

The telecast took place in mid-April, a few weeks before planting. The TV Chef told about Kleingartner MacFarland's success in raising squash. He demonstrated squash cooking and showed the viewers the tasty new dish.

Within 10 days the TV station was swamped by 10,000 requests--letters, cards, telephone calls and even telegrams. Two hundred requests came from the Soviet Zone. The TV Chef had to go on the air to call a halt. MacFarland cabled Burpee company for help. Burpee responded by sending 10,000 packets airmail and free of charge "in the interest of promoting German-America-n friendship over the garden fence."

The TV Chef was back on the air with this news and the station had to hire a special firm to handle the avalanche of requests. All who asked for seed packets received them along with translated instructions.

Thereafter MacFarland received 4 or 5 letters a day from German Kleingartners telling him about their experiences in raising squash. And their organization presented him with a silver pin and a special citation for "meritorious service to the German Kleingarten movement."

We are told he is the first American ever to be so honored in the group's 60-year history.

Even if you yourself are situated so that you cannot travel abroad, there are many opportunities in this people-to-people activity. Perhaps you can encourage your club or company to sponsor an exchange visit with someone overseas. Or you might decide to help one of the many organizations now working to encourage and make more meaningful the visits of Americans to other lands.

"If people learn to talk to people," thought Donald B. Watt more than a quarter of a century ago, "world peace and understanding will prosper."

Acting on this thought Donald Watt set up what he called The Experiment in International Living to help young Americans go overseas and spend time living with people in other countries.

Today, 25 years later, a nonprofit corporation with no political or religious affiliations (still the Experiment in International Living) is carrying on that program. Supported financially by members' fees, foundation grants, contributions anc a modest endowment, this organization in 1957 sent 80 groups of Americans to live in homes and make friends in 20 countries throughout the world. .

A typical experiment begins when you and 9 other group members meet your leader at a port of embarkation. On board ship you get tips designed to help in your new life in another land. Then when you arrive in your new hometown abroad you are greeted by your host family. For 1 month they will be your family and you will take part in their activities just as if you were a son or daughter. During that time, also, you will meet other young people of the area.

The second month you and your group members and your new friends will make an informal trip through the country, traveling by bus, bicycle, train or hiking. You will see the ancient sights and the modern life through the eyes of the country's own people as you go about with your new-found friends.

In this manner, through this organization alone, 7,000 young Americans in the last 25 years have made lifelong friendships, people to people.

YOU CAN WRITE LETTERS

Face-to-face association with friends overseas is not always possible. But fortunately there are many other ways, such as letterwriting, for communicating friendship.

The effectiveness of letterwriting has been well demonstrated through our history. In America's early days, letters from the frontier helped spur the Western migration. And what the settlers in the New World wrote to their friends and relatives back home about the freedom and opportunity i11. the growing country did much to create a longremembered picture of America.

These same possibilities for letterwriting exist today.

You can use letters to learn more about other countries-their people, culture and ways of living. Your letters will enable you to get better acquainted with people who have similar interests, professions, businesses, and hobbies.

Finding a correspondent is the first step, but this is no serious problem. If you don't know someone overseas you would like to write to, your friends or relatives or your business associates or a fellow member of your church or cl1lb may possibly be able to help you. From there, your approach is no different than it would be any time you seek to establish friendship.

John Harriman is a hard-boiled reporter on the Boston Globe. For 4 years he had watched his daughter, Jane, keep up a correspondence with Lizette Monnet who lives in France.

Then one day Harriman got an assignment that took him to France. Jane begged that he look up her pen pal. As fathers will, he gave a tentative promise. But that was enough, because the Monnets took care of the rest--they looked him up.

"The Monnets received me warmly," M. Harriman wrote in his dispatch to the Globe.

"Suddenly I was talking about home, my chilaren, and finding that this French family knew all about us in Cambridge-how JPne was doing at her school and where she hoped to go to college, and how much longer Gay had before college, even about our 2 cats and our little dachshund.

"For the first time since coming to Europe I was no longer a traveler in a strange land eating in cafes and hotels, but a man sitting down with friends in their home."

When the time came for Reporter Harriman to go about his business, ~e said, '·I found that I was very moved, and began to reflect on what a wonderful thing this penpal arrangement was, how it must foster international understanding, and if every American family could know one French family-and so on and so on."

YOU CAN SHARE YOUR HOBBY

Your favorite hobby may be the starting point for an enriching exchange of ideas and experiences with someone in another country. There are perhaps no people who have a more common bond than those who share an interest in the same hobby.

There are many examples of just such hobby exchanges.

Harry Matthews is a Dallas typesetter, and for many years tape recording has been his hobby. When his son was in Korea, Harry hit on the idea of sending him tape-recorded letters from home.

The response was immediate. Not only did young Matthews like to hear his parents' voices, but the rest of the men in his company got a big lift out of the friendly conversation of folks back home. Harry even got -a letter from the commanding officer telling how much it meant to the servicemen to hear what was going on in the United States of America.

This reaction gave Harry Matthews a bigger inspiration. Why not send tape recordings to English-speaking people the world over?

"My wife and I took an atlas," says Mr. Matthews, "and selected remote towns and cities throughout the globe and addressed letters to 'Newspaper Editor' in each place, asking tape-recording enthusiasts who wanted to exchange tapes with people in the United States to send me their names and addresses and some of their interests."

Harry figures that about 85 percent of his letters were run on the front page of the newspaper. Scores of people wrote to him asking for tape .exchanges.

That was the beginning of World Tape Pals which is now more than 5 years old.

Harry Matthews' house is turned into a sort of world headquarters for the club which has 2,500 members in 59 countries.

Whatever your hobby, whether it be stamps, coins, ham radio, photography, antiques, or any one of the hundreds of other hobbies, you can be sure there are people in other lands who share your interests. By getting in touch with them, there's much you may be able to learn as you enjoy the stimulation of sharing your interest with someone else.

YOU CAN SHARE INFORMATION

Understanding is nurtured by the exchange of infor~ation and ideas as well as by neighborly association, and there are many opportunities for you to help.

Worthwhile books and magazines are good examples of what you can send to friends overseas. They are appreciated everywhere because so many people in other lands read English.

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 14871 People of all countries turn to American

magazines and books not only out of curiosity, but for very practical reasons. Housewives follow homemaking and fashion trends with eager interest. Tailors, dressmakers furniture designers and other producers of goods, teachers, students, researchers, persons who work with their hands, those who cultivate the soil-all look to American magazines for ideas. Those interested in international current events follow intensely the news of the United States and its relations with other nations of the Free World.

Representative American books and magazines that fulfill these needs find their way to eager readers-in homes, schools, libraries, hospital_s, public centers, business places, and rural fairs.

You can send subscriptions or your own back issues to a friend abroad. Or, if you prefer, back issues can be sent to the United States Book Exchange, Inc., 1816 Half Street SW., Washington 4, D. C.

Magazines should be up-to-date, in good condition, and of course not of a sensational type. Family magazines, such as Good Housekeeping, Life, National Geographic, etc., are especially recommended.

Back in 1947, Prof. Albert Croissant, a member of Occidental College's English faculty, looked at the magazines in his Pasadena home and thought that something ought to be done with this inexhaustible supply of reading material that clutters every American home.

He made a list of universities in Europe, Asia, and South America and as an experiment began addressing his old magazines to the professors of English and the librarians of these institutions.

The response was amazing. But Mr. Croissant realized that unaided

he could never hope to accomplish what might be accomplished. He told students, friends and neighbors, local clubs and churches-and soon was flooded with requests for speeches and instruction sheets.

"It wasn't easy," says the professor. "Many thought the way to do their bit was to unload their old magazines on our front porch. Our problem was to get help in moving the magazines abroad."

In 1951, H. R. Wilson read an editorial about Croissant and his Magazines for Friendship in the Pasadena Independent. Through Mr. Wilson's effort the chamber of commerce adopted the project and offered to supply stationery and pay postage. .

This boost helped get the professor's idea going and since then the Magazines for Friendship have been going to all parts of the world.

Mr. Croissant treasures such letters as this one from Prof. Takeshi Haruki in Japan: "People throughout the East read many words about friendship, cooperation, and world peace. They need more than words. And such a simple concrete act as the sending of a good magazine will be far more effective than is commonly realized."

In selecting books for shipment overseas, a good rule is to send a book you would like to keep. Technical books and specialized books are highly prized. So are good children's books. For the general adult reader, you might send modern fiction or nonfiction, especially that which gives a good picture of present-day American life and thought. Other possibilities are literary classics in modern editions, dictionaries, encyclopedias, almanacs, and other standard reference works, in complete, modern sets.

For $30, yo~ can send through CARE a 99-volume, paperback portable library. All the books are new; included are significant titles typical of books Americans are reading. The · price includes all shipping charges as well as guaranteed delivery. You may send the library to any individual or group of your choosing. Or you may leave the selection to CARE, in which case the books will be sent

to overseas schools, libraries, and other information centers.

YOU CAN STIMULATE G{lOUP ACTION

What you do by yourself is important, but what you do to get your associates to help y~m can be even more important. Group actiOn depends upon some individual to start it. Will this be you?

Your company, your professional association, your organization, whether civic social religious, educational, or some other provid~ opportunities for you to take the lead.

When you pool your efforts with your colleagues, the range of what you can do expands tremendously. Examples are almost everywhere.

E~itors. in New York State . and Pennsylvama invited the United Nations press corps to a joint seminar.

The Atlantic Insurance Co. sent information about insurance work to a fanner exchange student in Brazil.

Students at Berklee School of Music in Boston sent American jazz compositions, arrangements, and tapes to students in Prague.

Annapolis High School sent three special editions of its newspaper to students in ·Karachi, Pakistan.

Cleveland Polish-Americans sent tape-recorded greetings to be played over the Poznan radio.

?altex offered scholarships for indigent children of deceased Filipino veterans.

Louisville's International Center supports a library in Karachi.

Johnson's Wax gave the winner of a French home economics contest a free trip to the United States.

Employees of St. Paul insurance companies began writing letters to insurance worl{ers overseas.

The Cosmopolitan Club of Montclair, N.J., sent 14,000 magazines overseas in the last 3 years.

The Public Relations Society of America invited overseas friends to its annual convention.

Standard-Vacuum Oil Co. gave United States picture maps to schools in the Far East.

Hagerstown, Md., has exchanged visitors, students, teachers, exhibits, letters, and songs with Wesel, a German city adopted as a sister city.

The University of Pennsylvania has exchanged students, professors, literature, and research data with the University of Kanazawa in Japan.

The American Medical Association adopted an international film program as part of its annual convention.

The Ambler (Pa.) Gazette published a freedom edition honoring Coburg, Germany, on its 900th anniversary.

The Neiman-Marcus Co. led Dallas in citywide salute to France.

Philadelphia, in a citywide drive, collected 100,000 books for distribution overseas.

The Boys' Club of America gave overseas trips as prizes in boy-of-the-year and familyof-the-year contests.

American Symphony League has set up a world music bank to lend music to conductors, composers, educators, and critics everywhere.

Ted Mack, of TV amateur hour, put talented amateurs from Europe on his program.

National Association of Food Chains was joint sponsor with Department of Commerce of Supermarket USA at Zagreb International Fair.

Aero Club of Bolling Air Force Base invited Ethiopian fliers to correspond.

This can be but a sampling and is offered only to stimulate ideas that will develop in your mind as you join the vast effort which must, in the words of President Eisenhower, "work out not one method but thousands of methods by which people can gradually learn a little bit more of each other."

. PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE PROGRAM ....,..COMMITTEE CHAmMEN AND CocHAmMEN

Advertising organizations: Theodore s. Repplier, president, the Advertising Council Inc., 1200 18th Street NW., Washington: D. C.

Armed services: Charles C. Finucane, As .. sistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Personnel, and Reserve, Department of Defense, Washington, D. c.

B3:nking: Fred F. Florence, chairman, executive committee, Republic National Bank of Dallas, Dallas, Tex. Boo~s: George P. Brett, Jr., president, the

Macmillan Co., 60 Fifth Avenue New York N. Y.; Francis St. John, libraria~ Brooklyn' Public Library, Brooklyn, N.Y. ' '

Business organizations: Harry A. Bullis, c~airman of the board, General Mills, Inc., Minneapolis, Minn.

Cartoonists: Al Capp, 33 Beaver Place, Boston, Mass.

Milton Caniff·, New City, Rockland County, New York, N. Y.

C~vic: Mark Bartman, chairman, Boston National Historic Sites Commission, 183 Essex Street, Boston, Mass.

Education: Dr. Albert Jacobs president Trinity College, Hartford, Conn.;' Dr. Carma '1!.~ow_re"!, director professional services, West V1rgmia Education Association, 1558 Quarrier Street, Charleston, W.Va.

Farm groups: Allan B. Kline, 4209 Grove Avenue, Western Springs, Ill. Fi~e arts gr~mps: Dr. David E. Finley,

Chairman, United States Commission of ~ine Arts, Department of the Interior, washmgton, D. C.

Foreign affairs: Dr. Brooks Emeny, 221 Elm Road, Princeton, N. J.

Foreign service alumni: David McKendree Key, 2543 Waterside Drive NW., Washington, D. C.

4-H Clubs: Warren Schmidt, the National 4-H Club Foundation, 8561 Fenton Street Silver Spring, Md. '

Fraternal organizations: H. Sanders Anglea, Warner Building, Nashville, Tenn.

Handicapped: Maj. Gen. Melvin J. Mass, USMC (retired) Chairman, President's Committee on Employment of the Physically ~andicapped, Department of Labor, Washmgton, D. C.

Hobbies: H. L. Lindquist, president, National Federation of Stamp Clubs, 153 waverly Place, New York, N. Y.

Hotel industry: · Robert K. Christenberry, Ambassador Hotel, Park Avenue and 51st Street, New York, N. Y.

Insurance: Frederic W. Ecker, president, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 1 Madison Avenue, New York, N. Y.

Labor: George Meany, president AFL-CIO 815 Sixteenth Street NW., Washington, D. c:

Learned societies: No chairman at present. _Legal societies: Chief Justice Robert G.

Simmons, Nebraska Supreme Court, Lincoln, Nebr.

Letter writing: Miss Anna Lord Strauss, 45 East 65th Street, New York, N. Y.

Magazines (tentative): Robert Kenyon, president, Magazine Publishers Association, 232 Madison Avenue, New York, N. Y.

Medicine and the health professions: Dr. Louis H. Bauer, secretary general, World Medical Association, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, N. Y.

Motion pictures: Y. Frank Freeman, chairman, Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc., 8480 Beverly Boulevard, Hollywood, Calif.

Music: Mrs. Helen Thompson, executive vice chairman, Box 383, Charleston, W.Va.

Nationalities groups: No chairman at present.

Public relations: No chairman at present. Radio and television: · Dr. Frank Stanton,

president, Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 485 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y.

Harold E. Fellows, president and chairman of the board, National Association of

14872 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 Radio and Television B~oadcasters, 1771 N Street NW., Washington, D. C.

Religious groups: Dr. Eugene Carson Blake, president, National Council of Churches of Christ in the U. S. A., 510 Witherspoon Building, Philadelphia, Pa.; His Excellency Howard J. Carroll, bishop of Altoona-Johnstown, Altoona, Pa.; Dr. Abraham J. Feldman, president, Synagogue Council of America, 110 West 42d Street, New York, N.Y.

Science and engineering groups: Dr. Joseph W. Barker, chairman of the board, Research Corp., 405 Lexington Avenue, New York, N. Y.; Robert B. Lea, 350 Lakeville Road, New Hyde Park, Long Island, N.Y.

Service organizations: John L. Stickley, past president, Lions International, Charlotte, N.C.

Speakers: Cyrus S. Ching, 1625 I Street NW., Washington, D. C.

Sports: Edward P. F. Eagan, 48 Wall Street, New York, N.Y.

Talent group for the entertainment industry: George L. Murphy, 205 South Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, Calif.

Transportation agencies: John W. Hanes, Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., 460 Park Avenue, New York, N. Y.

Travelers: Ralph T. R eed , president, American Express Co., 65 Broadway, New York, N.Y.

Veterans: Capt. Edward V. Rickenbacker, chairman of the board, Eastern Air Lines, 10 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, N.Y.; Lewis K. Gough, 15 North Euclid Avenue, Pasadena, Calif.

Women's groups: Mrs. William Barclay Parsons, Jr., president, National Council of Women of the United States, 345 East 46th

· Street, New York, N. Y. Writers: William Faulkner, Random

House, Inc., 457 Madison Avenue, New York, N. Y.; Harvey Breit, 116 East 64th Street, New York, N. Y.

Youth: Dr. Arthur A. Schuck, chief scout executive, Boy Scouts of America, New Brunswick, N.J.

DECISION TO SEND TROOPS TO LEBANON-CONSULTATION?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks an article entitled ''The New Pentagon Bill-Legislation and Lebanon Decision Seen Enhancing Dangerous Trend," written by Hanson W. Baldwin, and published in the New York Times of July 24, 1958.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the REcORD, as follows: THE NEW PENTAGON BILL-LEGISLATION AND

LEBANON DECISION SEEN ENHANCING DANGEROUS TREND

(By Hanson W. Baldwin) The Defense Department reorganization

bill, passed in differing versions by the House and Senate, was approved by a conference committee yesterday just after the United States had assumed the risk of major war in the Middle East.

The coincidence is instructive. For the final version of the bill, although it rejects some of the President's most emphasized requests, endorses a dangerous trend, well illustrated by the decision to intervene in Lebanon.

That trend is toward the development of a party-line strategy, upon military decisions based upon the advice of one or a few men, rather than upon strategy formulated by many and decisions based upon a careful canvassing of all available military advice.

Prior to his decision to intervene in Lebanon, President Eisenhower consulted at the

White House Donald A. Quarles, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Gen. Nathan F. Twining, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

SERVICE CHIEFS NOT CONSULTED So far as is known the Joint Chiefs of Staff

were not personally consulted, either as a body or as individuals, even though both responsibility and authority are coupled in the service chiefs and even though they know better than any other persons the capabilities and the limitations of their services.

The Lebanese intervention-lilce any other strong military action the United States may take in the nuclear age-ran the risk of war. This risk must be . faced from time to time in the life of any nation that calls itself great. But it should never be faced without the widest possible stock taking by the executive branch of Government, in consultation, when possible, with the legislative branch.

It is particularly important that varying shades of military opinion be consulted, and that the responsible heads of each of the services be asked for their advice, individually and collectively.

There are two reasons for this. One is that one or even several men may be wrong 1n their assessment of a military situation; a minority viewpoint may be right.

This was true of the position taken by Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway, then Army Chief of Staff, at the time of the Dienbienphu battle in Indochina.

MINORITY VIEW WON OUT If G aneral Ridgway had not had the cour

age of his convictions and the right to take his case personally to the President, the United States might well have been involved in a drawn-out major war in Indochina, with no sound military objective in sight. In this case, General Ridgway's minority point of view prevailed, fortunfl,tely for the Nation.

There is another reason why all members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, rather than the chairman alone, shouid be consulted on key military questions. These members are bound to have varying capabilities, and varying personalities.

Sometimes in a democracy such as ours charm plu s service and n ational politics may elevate to the top of his service or to the position of chairman a man undistinguished either for strength of character or professional wisdom. But it is very unlikely that all four service heads and the chairman would simultaneously be yes men or stuffed shirts.

There is strategic wisdom in numbers. The demand, reiterated again and again since the war, for a single military voice, a single military party line from the Pentagon could represent one of the most dangerous possible developments.

Yet the Pentagon reorganization bill continues de facto as well as de jure a trend toward centralization within the Pentagon, and within the executive branch.

PARTY LINE IS SEEN The President's own strong preference for

a single voice from the Pentagon, plus the emphasis given by this bill to a long-term trend in this direction, will inevitably contribute to the development of a military party line. This need not necessarily result, but it will take stout men of moral courage, in and out of uniform, to stand up and be counted.

The reorganization bill, while continuing the trend toward centralization of power over the military within the executive branch of Government, strongly and emphatically rebuffs the President in what Congress correctly interpreted as attempted encroachments of Executive upon legislative authority.

Three key provisions, which the President bitterly opposed, retain some major Congressional grants of power over the m111tary services.

The reorganization bill, in final form, is far less important than the attention paid to it. It contains a few positive achievements; the unified commands, for instance, are better defined.

But it will work no miracles; it will save no money, and it wm result in little, if any, increase in either combat readiness or administrative efficiency. It does nothing to reduce the swollen civilian bureaucracy in the Pentagon, nor does it lessen the influence of politics upon the services. And sooner or later there will be more demands for more sweeping change.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I call the attention of my colleagues especially to the passage in the early part of the article relating to the extent of the consultation of the President with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the lack of it, with regard to the decision to send troops to the Middle East.

That passage fortifies the suspicion that the decision to land troops in Lebanon may have been taken without adequate consideration and without any supporting policy to justify it.

I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks an editorial entitled "The Pitfalls of Silence," published in the Wall Street Journal of July 23, 1958, relating to the crisis in Lebanon.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the REcORD, as follows:

THE PITFALLS OF SILENCE It is over a week since the United States

Marines were dispatched to Lebanon and, in the intervening days, Washington has been wrapped in a strange silence.

There have, of course, been many announcements and comments on the rapidly changing developments. But there has been almost nothing by way of official explanation or debate on what is still the central issue, the basic decision to intervene in the Middle East .

Congress has received one brief message from the President and the public, at least in some areas, has heard an equally brief statement read by the President on filmed television. Both of these dealt with the immediate moves, explaining that the Marines were sent at the request of the President of Lebanon to protect American citizens and the Lebanese Government.

But the President has not followed his previous practice, notably in the Suez crisis, of giving the public a complete and carefully reasoned statement of what the Government intends and why. The Secretary of State moreover, has hardly been heard from at all.

Those in Congress who have doubts about what we are doing have been equally silent. Senator FULBRIGHT of Arkansas is one of the few Members of Congress to raise basic questions. The Democratic leaders in both Houses, for example, have used their influence to stifle questions; Speaker RAYBURN even went so far as to rebuke a Member of the House who started to make some criticisms of the Government's action.

Now it is possible to sympathize with the reasons for this silence. The President, and his Secretary of State, may feel themselves too busy dealing with rapid problems to have time for explanations; or they may feel it best not to explain. Those who have qualms about the action may feel under the necessity to rally around, to do or say nothing that might undermine confidence in the Government at a time when war threatens.

Still, it is a disturbing silence. Across the ocean, in the British Parliament, there were no such inhibitions. Prime Minister Mac-

1958 CONGRESSIONAL · RECORD- SENATE 14873 millan, supporting the American action, went directly to the Parliament to explain in great detail why he did so. In fact, his presentation of the case for intervention is by far the best we have seen; it is calm, carefully reasoned, and impressive.

Nor did Mr. Macmillan act as if questions about Government policy were improper. Mr. Gaitskell, the leader of the opposition, accept ed his duty to ask questions. He made it quite clear that his party did not intend to divide the House; but he also made it clear that the policies of the Government were going to be thoroughly examined.

The result of that debate is that the members of the British Parliament and the British public are in a better position to understand all that is being done, and to judge it, than are Americans. And we cannot believe that the welfare of Britain is damaged by this kind of open debate.

On tLe contrary. In a country of free men it is essential to real unity that those who lead explain to people carefully and thoughtfully t he courses they pursue. People not only have a right to be told what is being done; they must understand why. And they cannot have that understanding if all questions, doubts, qualms, and counterarguments are quashed out of fear that mere mention of them somehow const itutes an unpatriotic act.

There may be, as some would argue, some pitfalls in too much discussion of foreign policy moves. But there is a far more dangerous pitfall in silence when the United States is walking close to war.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, in addition, I believe that the broadcast by Mr. Howard K. Smith, of the Columbia Broadcasting System, on Sunday, July 20, 1958, was extremely enlightening. I believe it would be very helpful to Members of the Senate and the American people in understanding the very confused situation in the Middle East.

There being no objection, the text of the broadcast was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Today this broadcast series is shifted to this new time, and incorporated in our program the World Tonight. I hope the change has not inconvenienced any who listen regularly. The change to a later time will add years to the life of this reporter who no longer has to start work at 3 or 4 in the morning to meet the former deadline.

The past week has been one of the most confusing weelts of news for the American public since World War II. The crisis that began on Monday when in Iraq, radical nationalists overthrew the pro-Western government, has the distinction of being without doubt the most ambiguous crisis in years.

President Chamoun, of Lebanon, feared the rebel success in Iraq would inspire rebels in his own country to overthrow him. In Jordan, King Hussein felt the same fear.

We and the British had to accede to their two requests to come in and help them or see Western prestige and influence collapse in all the Middle East.

But one of the things that makes the crisis so uncommonly ambiguous is though we had to go in to keep from losing prestige, our act of going in is causing us to lose prestige. Two-thirds of the pro-Western parliament of Lebanon we went in to protect is said to be opposed to our coming in. Anyone who knows those countries can be sure that at least half the Lebanese people and probably 90 percent of the Jordanian people

· oppose us for coming in. Underlining ambiguity our interest in

the Middle East has always been to keep Russia and Communists out. Now in the supreme crisis, we march in, but there is not a single Russian soldier around. There is no real evidence of important Communist

participation in the crisis and none whatever of Communist leadership. We, the champions of national independence, find ourselves on Arab soil confronting Arab nationalists.

We say that the countries we have gone in to protect were imperiled by foreign invasion. Our sources of information on this are not substantiated. A U. N. observer team there has a different version-there is infiltration, but the difficulties are largely internal. The U.N. observer team is one we voted sometime ago to send in. Its chief figures are so overwhelmingly pro-American they would be very likely to give us any benefit of doubt. But on this they do not substantiate our case.

The reason the crisis is so ambiguous, confusing, and contradictory is, I would suggest, because the policy on which it is based is in discord with some fundamental realities. It is a policy for the Middle East based on such wrong premises that it was bound to lead into d ead ends in which, no m atter which way you move, you are blocked; no matter what you do it is wrong.

This eventuality has long been forecast by many-by British Laborites, by Mr. Walter Liuomann, to name an American with clear vision, by people in the State Department, by Middle Easterners themselves. If we manage, thanl;;:s to the United States great reserves of prestige and strength, to pull out of the present mess, we will, assuming our policy remains the same, be back in a similar mess again before long.

American t hinking on the Middle East is clouded and warped by several things. One, just as audiences at silent films used to have to h ave a villa in with a mustache so they could understand the plot, so America must have a Communist villain or a crisis makes no sense.

A year or so ago, this reporter followed Vice President NIXON on a tour of Africa. The chief thing noticeable was the encouraging lack of any serious Communist penetration in that continent alone. Yet, in his report back, Mr. NIXON emphasized the Communist threat to Africa. I asked a h igh American official-who must be nameless-why this was done. He answered: "Unless you dramatize a question in Communist terms you cannot get Congress to act to give Africa aid or whatever is needed."

Well, in the Middle East, despite the oversimplifying and misrepresenting political cartoons in some of our papers, communism is a pretty minor thing. It plays no important role. To assume otherwise is to assume falsely, and to mislead ourselves into situations like the present one.

Another warping force is the Israeli question. In 1948, Arabs jQined forces in a nefarious effort to try to destroy Israel. The ugly act so incensed Americans that it created a view of the Arabs-or a prejudice-to which our thinking on Middle Eastern problems has been a slave ever since. Any reporter who tries now to point out simple basic facts about the Arab world finds himself denounced as pro-Arab or anti-Semitic. But, again, as long as we blind ourselves to realities, we can expect to go on walking into open doors with damaging consequenceslike those we are experiencing in the Middle East today. Some day we will have to learn that, without in any way ceasing to support Israel, it is possible to recognize some unalterable realities about the Arab world and start basing a sane policy on them.

Another reason we are wrong is the United States has not had great experience in Middle East policy. That part of the world has been a preserve of our friends the British. When British influence collapsed in the dismal dead end of the Suez fiasco 2 years ago, we stepped ln. Not knowing what to do, we took over British policy wholesale-with ail its archaisms and fallacies. We have continued to base our position there on kings

not on peoples-as the British did-and on a status quo that ceased to exist, as the British did.

As said, many people in the State Department are fully awake to all this. But we understand that Mr. Dulles tends to be a one-man State Department. It is said that he is a supremely self-confident man who takes genuine advice from no one. So the advice of many of his Middle Eastern experts is not heeded.

As to what is wrong with our policy, I suggest to you the following analysis of the situation in the Middle East.

Far the dominant all-consuming force there is Arab nationalism which I suppose can be defined as a suddenly rediscovered fierce pride and identification of Arabs with one another and a desire to run their own affairs in a dramatic and progressive way. Whether one liltes Nasser or not, he is the symbol and leader of the movement, as is clear from the omnipresent pictures of him in every home and hovel in most Arab lands.

Among Arabs, national boundaries mean very little. Most of therr. were drawn by foreigners. It is said that Jordan's frontiers for example were carved out of the desert by Winston Churchill one evening over brandy and cigars. So it is not very meaningful in some cases to talk of Arabs on one side of such a border aggressing against Arabs on the other side. There is a fierce sentimental wish for all Arabs to be united.

Among all new nationalists there is an overwhelming urge to be left alone, to have a period of isolationism, noninvolvement. George Washington stated this eloquently for the new America in his Farewell Address. To leap the centuries, Nehru has repeatedly stated it for the new India. The Arabs have even more repeatedly stated it. They are barely aware there is a cold war on; they are not interested, and want no part of it.

Our great fallacy is to disregard this and to strive to force Arabs into a bloc on our side against Russia. When Britain was negotiating to give up Suez, she made it a prime condition that Egypt join our bloc. Egypt refused to the point of using violence. Britain tried 2 years ago to stuff Jordan into our bloc. Jordanians rebelled in the streets, tore a British officer limb from limb; and Jordan promptly withdrew from the alliance.

The main reason there is any Russian influence in the Middle East is that, on the rebound, in anger at us, some Arabs have been enlisting Russia to counterbalance our pressure. Until we started that there was no Russian influence there.

In Lebanon, President Chamoun's distinctive policy is to tie Lebanon to the western bloc. When Chamoun recently indicated plans to change the constitution to become permanent President, for he knew any popular election would reverse his policy, there was a rebellion against him. That is the main fact about the crisis now in Lebanon.

Iraq was the chief Arab nation on our side. Our pact was named after her capital city, the Baghdad Pact. The current rebellion is aimed to take Iraq out of that pact and give the new rising middle classes of the Arab world predominance.

The point should be as clear as repeated bloodshed can make it-the Arabs don't want to take part in the cold war. Our persistent effort to force them in makes them turn to our foes for balance against us. This policy requires us to base policy on a few kings or governmental chiefs we can trust to stay with us, and a commitment to go in with force and hold their peoples at bay when their peoples rebel. It is that kind of commitment that has got us in the position we are now in.

There are many differences, but basically, in one respect the parallel with China is not exaggerated. The main force sweeping China was a genuine nationalism. We failed to recognize it, let communism discover it and

14874 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 take it over, and thus lost China to communism. Though there is a little affinity for communism. among Moslems, if we persist in our present policy, we may in the end succeed in making communism predominant, and losing the vastly rich and strategic Middle East as we lost China.

A way out suggests itself. Awakened British politicians have been suggesting it for a long time. We have let Khrushchev see the obvious and beat us to the draw at proposing it.

The Arab world must simply be declared out of bounds to the cold war. Much as Switzerland was -declared off limits to the quarrels of Europe for the past century and a half, so Araby should be left to itself, not an object of contention among the great powers.

The question of what to do about all that western-controlled oil in the Middle East arises. The answer is-give it to those to whom it belongs, the Arabs. We will then simply have to buy the oil from them. We may have to pay a little more than we now pay, but that won't be fatal to anybody's economy.

Is there a danger the Arabs will not ship us the oil. but either keep it or sell it to Russia? The answer is, there seems little danger of that. They have to sell it to live. Russia has no need for it, having more oil at home than she needs. The only market, the only people who have the complex marketing and distributing mechanism are westerners, so it will be sold because the Arabs have to, and will be sold to us.

There will be many complications to negotiating an arrangement to neutralize the Arab world. Russia cannot be expected to negotiate in good faith, so we will have to insist on self-enforcing checks. There will be other complications. But the road to follow is clear. At the very least we should stop going down the opposite road.

This is Howard K. Smith in New York.

AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 1958 The Senate resumed the consideration

.of the bill CS. 4071) to provide more effective price, production adjustment, and marketing programs for various agricultural commodities.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, last night I was speaking with respect to the farm bill presently under consideration, and I expressed my very strong and deep opposition to it. When I concluded last night, I was discussing the enormous importance to our farm population of the parity principle-the concept of parityand the overwhelming importance to the farmers of having some provision for economic security. I was pointing out that one of the great inconsistencies in economic life is that all of us attempt very hard to acquire security for ourselves and the people with whom we can identify economic interests, while firmly opposing the same for everyone else. I pointed out that large corporations have achieved a very great measure of security, and that practically no large corporations have failed. I pointed out that labor unions have achieved a large degree of security, and that working people generally, even those who are not members of labor unions, by reason of minimum-wage and maximum-hour legislation, have achieved security. Through tariif legislation and through subsidies to industry, we have provided a great deal of security throughout' the American economy.

Despite that, somehow when we discuss security for farmers through pricesupport operations the idea is considered to be un-American, or in opposition to the free-enterprise system.

I should like to conclude my quotation from the great book by John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society, by reading an extremely pertinent statement on this very point. Dr. Galbraith says:

The desire for economic security was long constdered the great enemy of increased production. This attitude was firmly grounded in the belief that the insecurity of the competitive model was essential for efficiency. Along with the carrot of pecuniary reward must go the stick of personal economic disaster. Both were essential. To remove the stick, which must be the consequence of increasing economic security, would be toremove half the incentives by which men were inspired. This belief still has a considerable role in the conventional wisdom. The efforts of farmers to mintmize uncertainty, although in many respects far less effective than those of larger corporations or trade unions, have inspired especial alarm. In the recent view of a leading agricultural economist-

Referring to Karl Brandt, writing in the Journal of Farm Economics for May 1952-

When millions of able (farm) entrepreneurs have regained the self-confidence to operate without the social harness of bureaucratic guidance and universal risk insurance, it is an even'~ that may amount to a decisive victory in the free, anticollective world.

Dr. Galbraith proceeds: But even in modern corporate life, the

conventional wisdom gives great credit to the threat of adversity. "The characteristic of European busine~:smen as a class as distinguished from Americans is their complacency, their timidity, and their instinctive looking to each other and to government for protection against the rude shocks of the contemporary world. And the thing they fear most is price competition."

The last statement is taken from Mr. Clarence Randall's "A Creed for Free Enterprise."

This is the answer: Plainly, however, the notion that eco

nomic insecurity is essential for efficiency and economic advance was a major miscalculation-perhaps the greatest in the history of economic ideas. (It was the common miscalculation of both Marxian and orthodox economists. Marx and his followers were deeply persuaded that capitalism would be crippled by efforts to civilize it. To cite one obvious example, unemployment compensation would ruin the operation of the industrial reserve army in regulating wages.)

That is the theory of Marxian economics. Incidentally, it is also too widely believed among classical economists.

In fact the years of increasing concern for economic security have been ones of unparalleled advance in productivity. Those spokesmen who have been most alarmed over the debilitating effects of the search for security have often remarked most breathlessly on the improvements in productivity which have occurred at the same time. The economist whose views were just cited-

He is speaking about Mr. Brandt-on the alarming dangers of universal risk insurance in agriculture characteristically observed in the same paper that, "during the last few decades, breath-taking techno-

logical evolution has been opening new frontiers in agriculture, and the progress has been most spectacular in the United Sta1les and Canada. Not only did it assist greatly in World War II, but it also kept millions of people in Europe and Asia alive." Part of this technological advance in agriculture may have been the result of price-support legislation which reduced price and income un.:.. certainty. Farmers were thus able to invest in new technology with increased confidence. But this notably plausible possibility has no standing in the conventional wisdom. Hence it is forthrightly ignored.

I depart from the writings of Dr. Galbraith at this point simply to add that there is no question in the minds of thousands of Wisconsin farmers to whom I have talked, that a great reason why they were able to mechanize their farms, bring electricity to their farms, and were able vastly to increase economic productivity was that the Government stepped in and gave them some security. The fact is that back in 1932 1 farm in 4 in Wisconsin had a tractor, 1 farm in 10 had electricity, and 1 farm in 20 had milking machines.

After 20 years of New Deal farm prdgrams, after the REA program had been adopted, after the farm loan programs were put into effect, and after the farm price-support programs came into being, technology on the farm and productivity on the farm had vastly increased, so that by 1952 there were more tractors in Wisconsin than farms; in fact, there were about 5 tractors for every 4 farms, while 9 out of 10 farms had electricity, and 19 out of 20 farms had milking machines. The result was a tremendous increase in productivity.

There simply is no question in my mind that the way to expand the wealth of America and the way to support, improve, and encourage agricultural productivity is to provide economic security through farm programs such as the price-support program, which, unfortunately, is sought to be crippled by the proposed legislation we have before us.

To go back to the quotation from Dr. Galbraith:

The data on what has happened to output in the age of security could scarcely be more impressive. In the 20 years prior to the 1930's, the decade when the concern for security first became a source of uneasiness, labor productivity-national income produced per man-hour-increased from 89.6 cents in 1900, to 113.3 cents in 1929. This was a total of 23.7 cents or at a rate of about 1.2 cents a year. In the 10 years following the thirties the total increase was from 131.5 cents to 179.2 cents or by 47.7 cents. This was by an average of 4.8 cents a year, or 4 times the amount of the earlier period. The increase continued in the decade of the fifties. Plainly the increased concern for security, so far from being in confilct with increased productivity, was consistent with a greatly accelerated rate of advance. The most impressive increases in output in the history of both the United States and other Western countries have occurred since men began to concern themselves with reducing the risks of the competitive system.

It must be repeated that in the conventional wisdom such empirical evidence is not necessarily decisive. The consequences truly depicted by the conventional wisdom are, it is held, lurking just out of sight. To respect, the evidence is only to evince an u~subtle mind. Yet in this instance the real-

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14875 ity is somewhat difficult to evade. The increase in economic security and the increase in economic product are accomplished facts. The conflict between security and progress, once billed as the social conflict of the century, doesn't exist.

If there is one idea I hope to get across in this debate, it is that this bill would vastly reduce the security of the American farmer. The idea I wish to get across is that the evidence is overwhelming that that would be a disaster, not only for the American farmer, but for our whole productive enterprise system.

As defined in section 301 (a) (2) of that act, parity as applied to income, is described as follows: "shall be that gross income from agriculture which will provide the farm operator and his family with a standard of living equivalent to those afforded persons depe'ndent upon other gainful employment.''

In all the subsequent farm income legislation enacted since 1938, provisions for price support and for use of marketing agreements and orders are based on this concept of parity farm prices and incomes. This bill does not repeal this legislation in so many words. Inst~ad, the bill in effect would repeal the parity concept in farm programs by setting up an entirely new standard in its place.

The new standard proposed by the bill is far from the parity concept. It is about as far from the parity concept as we could get. The price support standard proposed by the bill for farm programs is by definition "10 percent below the previous market price."

What is the point in having supports that do not support? Why must we make a mockery of our farm programs? It would be more accurate and more candid to tell farmers frankly that the intention is to strip away the effective programs which have given them some bargaining power in the past 30 years, and to return them to the same economic helplessness that destroyed hundreds of thousands of farm families during the twenties and early thirties.

For 5 years, the Eisenhower administration has been doing everything it could to discredit the concept of parity for farmers. The administration spokesmen have tried to shame farmers into believing there is something sinful in parity.

The administration has even tried to make city consumers believe that farm surpluses were the cause of high prices, and that farm programs were the cause of surpluses.

All of us in the Senate know that these stereotypes are not true. Yet we know

· also that much of the antifarmer prop'aganda of the administration has been effective in discrediting the farm program among the nonfarm population.

Of course, it has been effective, because it has been poured out in enormous abundance by the Reader's Digest, which has the largest circulation of any publication in the world, by the Saturday Evening Post, by Life and Time magazines, and by virtually all the large newspapers of the United States. They have all given one side, and only one side. I have read these. publications

carefully and searched the indexes. I have never found an article giving the other side, the side in favor of providing some kind of real economic security for our farmers. That side has not been told to the American people, except through thin, small voices like mine, when I make speeches on the floor of the Senate and try somehow to reach the American people. Yet I have found that with this relatively weak voice, even with the overwhelming preponderance of money, capital, and propaganda on the side of discrediting the parity concept, not only do the farmers of Wisconsin overwhelmingly approve of it, but a surprisingly large number of people off the farms approve.

I recall that last February or March there occurred an interesting debate on the postal bill. In the course of that debate it was pointed out that the Government provides enormous subsidies for the Reader's Digest, Life magazine, Time magazine, and the New York Times. It provides huge subsidies for which, of course, those publications fight; and they have every right in the world to fight for them.

For many publications subsidies are about equal to their total profits. In the case of Life magazine, as I recall, the subsidy was in the neighborhood of $9 million. The subsidies for the Reader's Digest and the Saturday Evening Post are very great. Subsidies provide for such publications a great measure of security.

This is not, however, the important kind of security which the Reader's Digest, the New York Times, and the other great publications have. They have control over their own production. They can fix their own prices. During the past 30 years, such prices have always gone in one direction-up. I can remember when the Chicago Tribune cost 2 cents a copy. It costs a nickel a copy today, which represents a very large percentage increase.

Advertising rates in these publications have gone up steadily and relentlesslyalways in one direction. This has not been true, however, of farm prices. They have fluctuated; and every fluctuation represents a heavy degree of insecurity for American farmers.

As I have said, this propaganda has not influenced the Wisconsin dairy farmer to think that reductions in_ milk prices should be accepted without resistance and objection. That is why I am speaking on the floor of the Senate today.

A recent poll by the Wisconsin Agriculturist and Farmer reports that less than one-twentieth of the farmers of Wisconsin think that Secretary of Agriculture Benson is doing a good job.

Think of that. Only 1 out of 20 farmers . think Secretary Benson is doing a good job. When the _ present President of the United States is at the low ebb of his popularity, something like 53 percent of the people think he is doing a good job. When President Truman reached the bottom of his popularity, 35 or 40 percent of the American people thought he was doing a good job. But

in Wisconsin .. the farmers, who are directly concerned, who have the greatest knowledge of, and certainly the greatest experience with the kind of job the Secretary of Agriculture is doing, do not believe that he is doing a good job. Nineteen out of 20 failed to say that he was doing a good job. Only 1 in 20 agreed that the Secretary of Agriculture is doing a good job for them. Not the least of their reasons for feeling this way is the stubborn, continuous campaign that Secretary Benson has waged to discredit farmers and farm programs in the eyes of the public.

The present programs were based on the parity concept. Their objective is that which still stands in the existing farm laws to "provide the farm operator and his family with a standard of living equivalent to that afforded persons dependent upon other gainful employment."

Let me repeat that, because the parity concept is essential for the well-being of our farmers. It is that concept which is being eliminated by the pending bill. The objective is to "provide the farm operator and his fauily with a standard of living equivalent to that afforded persons dependent upon other gainful employment."

The programs are not and never were perfect; they are not fully adequate to the needs of farm families in the present day. But when administered with a sincere determination to help improve and protect farmers' prices and incomes, they operated with reasonable success and at moderate cost to taxpayers.

In contrast to the generally successful record 'of the first 20 years, the present Secretary of Agriculture has somehow managed to operate those programs, since 1953, in such a way as to reduce their effectiveness, while at the same time enormously increasing the cost to taxpayers.

It is no secret that farm income has dropped sharply at the same time farm costs have increased. However, even though most taxpayers are conscious of their taxes, very few taxpayers realize what a tremendous burden the Department of Agriculture has irr~posed on them. The greatest foe of the American taxpayers today is Ezra Taft Benson.

The fact is that last year, as the distinguished Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HuMPliREY] stated last night, the cost to the taxpayer for our farm program under the present administration was six times the cost during the year of the greatest expenditures for such purpose under tl:~ preceding Roosevelt and Truman administrations, during the 20 years of those administrations. The fact is that the taxpayers should be crying for Secretary Benson's scalp.

The fact is also, of course, that taxpayers, unless they are engaged in farming, have no immediate, practical, or insistent reason for becoming interested in farm programs or problems. They read about them through their great newspapers and periodicals, and they get the impression that while Secretary Benson may not be so friendly to farmers, and while he is taking an "objective" view

14876 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 of the farm interests, he is. a great friend and a great champion of the taxpayer.

I have heard it said that the present farm program is in error, is unpopular, and must be changed, mainly because of its great cost to the taxpayers. My argument is that the administration .)f the program can be improved. We have had 20 years of approximately the same kind of laws; yet under the Truman and Roosevelt administrations we did not have the enormous, overwhelming cost to the taxpayers that we have today.

I believe also that, in all fairness, some changes must be made in our basic farm law. That is why I have submitted a series of amendments which would improve and increase farm income. At the same time I am sure we can greatly reduce the cost to the American taxpayers. The fact is that there is no one in the American economy, with the possible exception of the small businessman, who more completely opposes a subsidy system or a giveaway system than the American farmer. He wants to get off the taxpayers' back as fast as he can. We recognize the nature of the farm program and we recognize the tremendous importance of getting the farmer off the taxpayers' back. Let me note at this point that if we insisted on requiring other people in the economy to produce unlimited amounts of their products, to produce as much as they could produce, they, too, would produce great surpluses, and they, too, would have to rely on the taxpayers to provide some economic security for them.

To top off this paradox of enormous spending by the Benson administration, while at the same time providing no real support for farm income, during the past 5 years, the prices paid by consumers for food have risen and the prices received by farmers for farm food commodities have fallen. Let me repeat that. The prices received by farmers have declined, while the prices paid by consumers have increased. As former President Truman has said, "It takes a real magician to accomplish that."

I read an article in this morning's Washington Post stating that General Foods t.as raised its dividend to 60 cents a share. -

Mr. President, on the very day when the Senate is considering a farm bill to hammer down farm income through chopping a hole in the income farmers now receive, the huge General Foods Corp. announces a fat increase in their dividends. What is happening is that the American farmer is receiving less and less, the consumer is paying more and more, and the middleman, the big corporate processor, is benefiting enormously through his widening margin.

We cannot blame the processors. They take advantage of the situation. There is in the Department of Agriculture a tremendously able and experienced group of processing executives. Their whole background dictates that farm prices are considered costs, which are to be kept as low as possible; and that what the consumer pays is income, which is to be pushed as high as possible.

If there has been one successful consequence-and it is about the only one

in the Benson administration-it is that this processing viewpoint, this particular economic outlook, has certainly :flourished in our economy during the past 5 years. The margin is certainly widening. Prices are at an alltime high. The farmer has suffered and the consumer has suffered.

According to Economic Indicators, a monthly statistical publication prepared by the President's Council of Economic Advisors, the retail price of food has risen from 112.8 in 1953 to 121.6 in April 1958. The newspapers of Washington report that official Government statistics show that food prices in Washington grocery stores are at an alltime high record.

Meanwhile, Economic Indicators reports, on page 25, that prices received by farmers have dropped by more than one-tenth. Here are some more economic miracles accomplished by the administration of Secretary Benson. First, let me say again that the bill, if passed, will further depress farm income enormously, far more than it has been depressed during the past 5 years, and will depress it relentlessly and steadily and toward the end which I demonstrated last night. It will end up by reflecting the European price or the Japanese price, minus the freight charges across the Atlantic or the Pacific.

Prices paid by farmers for food have gone up 7 percent, while prices received by farmers for food commodities have gone down 7 percent. Truly, as former President Truman said, "It takes a magician to bring that about."

From 1952 to 1956, the total retail food bill of all our consumers rose by $3 billion, from $44.5 billion in 1952 to $47.5 billion in 1956. Yet farmers' sales of food commodities dropped by $1.6 · billion in value during this period-from $20.1 billion in 1952 to $18.5 billion in 1936.

The margin is widening. $47.5 billion is what the consumer has to pay. The farmer gets only $18.5 billion. The farmer's share of the consumer's dollar is dwindling down to 39 cents. The program under the pending bill will drive the farmer's share down further. Any consumer who has the idea that the program will help him, should recognize what has been happening under the kind of administration of the farm program experienced during the past 5 years.

These figures are dramatic testimony of the kind of job Secretary Benson has done, and for whose benefit he has done it. The amount of the American consumer's food bill, which is pocketed by the middle man, has increased by $4.6 billion dollars.

With the exception of the presidential election year of 1956, Secretary Benson has reduced supports, which were holding up farm prices, at every opportunity presented to him under the law.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table comparing the farm price support levels for various farm ('Ommodities in the years 1952 through 1958 be inserted in the RECORD at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Support price of farm commodities (estab

lished by Secretary of Agriculture under applicable laws)

Commodity 1952 1955 1956 1957 1958

------WheaL·-------------- $2.20 $2.08 $2.00 $2.00 $1.82 Com ____ -------------- 1. 60 1. 58 1. 50 1.40 1. 36 Cotton.--------------_ . 31 . 32 .29 . 29 . 31 Peanuts ___ ------------ .12 .12 .11 .11 .11 Rice ___ --------------- 5. 04 4.66 4. 57 4. 72 4. 33 Tobacco (11-14) _______ . 506 .483 .49 • 51 .54 Butterfat_ _____________ .692 . 562 . 586 . 586 • 566 Milk, manufacturing __ 3. 85 3.15 3. 25 3. 25 3.06 WooL _______ ------ ____ . 542 .62 .62 .62 .62 Barley_--------------- 1. 22 . 94 1. 02 . 95 . 93 Oats __ --------------- - . 78 . 61 . 65 . 61 . 61 Rye- ----------------- - 1. 42 1.18 1. 27 1. 18 1.10 Sorghum, grain ______ _ 2. 38 1. 78 1. 97 1.86 1. 83 Flaxseed_------------- 3. 77 2. 91 3.09 2. 92 2. 78 Soybeans _______ ------- 2. 56 2. 04 2.15 2. 09 2. 09 Beans, dry edible ____ _ 7.87 6. 36 6. 31 6. 31 6.18 Cottonseed ______ ----- - 66.70 46.34 48.60 46.20 45.00

----------Index of farm costs ____ 287 281 286 292 305

NOTES

(1) %-inch official grade for support purposes. Support ~f~~e:r ~~:nv~~~r~sg~~~\~:re about 2 cents per pound

(2) Com produced in compliance with acreage allotments. Noncompliance corn was supported at $1.25In 1956~nd $1.10 in 19.57.

Mr. PROXMIRE. I should like to indicate how drastically and relentlessly the farmers' prices have been hammered down.

Wheat, in 1952, was $2.20. It dropped to $2.08 in 1955, to $2 in 1956 and 1957, and to $1.82 in 1958.

Corn was $1.60 in 1952. It dropped to $1.58 in 1955, to $1.50 in 1956, to $1.40 in 1957, and to $1.36 in 1958.

Cotton has remained fairly stable at 31 cents. Of course the cotton farmer has suffered because his production has declined in many areas of the country, and because, like every other farmer, his costs have risen.

Peanuts have gone down to 11 cents. Rice has gone down. It was $5.04 in

1952. It is $4.33 in 1958. Tobacco has increased in price. That

is a very interesting point. Tobacco has -increased. Why has it increased? The tobacco farmers in Wisconsin will be interested. It is because the concept of parity has been lived up to in connection with tobacco. Production controls are enforced, and they work. The tobacco farmers of Wisconsin would come to Washington en masse if they thought they would lose their program. I tell the tobacco farmers of Wisconsin that they will very likely lose their program if the pending bill is enacted, because the bill establishes a policy which, on the basis of statements made by officials in the Department of Agriculture, is to be applied to other commodities, and specifically and especially to tobacco.

Butterfat has declined from 69 cents to 56 cents.

Manufacturing milk is an enormously important product in Wisconsin. The State of Wisconsin exports more milk than do the next five milk-producing States combined. Milk is the backbone of Wisconsin's economy. It is the backbone not only of our farm economy, but of our whole economy in Wisconsin. It affects the small town economy, because

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14877 if farmers cannot buy, the small-business man in the village or town cannot sell.

It means that they are in trouble. The figures show what is happening to

manufacturing milk under Benson. In · 1952 the price was $3.85. In 1955 the price had gone down to $3.15. Now it is down to $3.06. The recent :flurry of in~ creases in the prices of some farm com~ modities have not affected milk in the least. The price of milk is down now as low as it has been for a long, long time.

The price of wool has increased. There, again, is a program which is working. I may say, incidentally, al~ though I do so with a little political reluctance, that I am very happy about and support enthusiastically the wool amendment to the bill. I shall support it because I think the bill should be im~ proved in every possible respect. Wisconsin has very few wool farmerspractically none-but I think all farmers must stick together. I think we [hall not get a decent farm bill passed unless something is done not only for cotton and rice, but something also for the wool and dairy farmers.

The price of barley has dropped from $1.22 in 1952 to 93 cents in 1958.

The price of oats has dropped from 78 cents to 61 cents. The price of rye has dropped steadily from $1.42 to $1.10.

The price of sorghum grain has dropped from $2.38 to $1.83.

Flax seed has dropped from $3.77 to $2.78.

Soybean prices have dropped from $2.56 to $2.09.

Dry, edible beans have dropped from $7.87 to $6.18.

The price of cottonseed has dropped from $66.70 to $45.

In the meantime, while the income of the farmers has been dropping, their costs have risen steadily and relentlessly from an index of 287 in 1952 to 305 in 1958. There is the real squeeze, there is the terrible injustice, to the Ameri.can farmer.

In general, Secretary Benson has pushed farm support prices down from the level of about 90 percent of parity, which prevailed generally in 1952, to 75 percent of parity, or a little less.

Under the existing law, the Secretary was not permitted to do this in the case of tobacco. With the support price of tobacco fixed by law at 90 percent of parity, the support price has been rising as farmers' costs have climbed, as I have just pointed out.

The parity index of prices paid by farmers for production and family liv~ ing needs has risen during the adminis~ tration of Secretary Benson from 287, in 1952, to a record high of 306; in April of 1958. This illustrates the quicksand quality of dollars-and-cents price support :floors, such as those included in the bill. This 19-point increase in farmers' costs means that the $1.10 :floor supports for corn, if the cost of farming continues to rise in the future as it has in the immediate past, would shrink in purchasing power within 5 years to barely $1.

The same is true of the 30-cent cotton :floor and the $4 rice floor. Fixed dollars-and-cents support :floors have a

built-in sliding scale which ·will reduce purchasing power as farm costs go up . . This, of course, is directly opposite to the parity concept which Congress orig~ inally wrote into our farm laws.

I believe this is something which all the American people can understand. Assume the support price is fixed at a dollar amount. We have had steady in~ :fiation. The reports in today's news~ papers are that temporarily, for this month, there seems to be a little sur~ cease in it. But on the basis of experi~ ence during the past several years, con~ sidering the great monopolistic forces in our economy, particularly in steel pro~ duction, there is no question that prices are much more likely to increase in the next few years than they are likely to decrease. In fact, it is aLmost inevitable that prices will go up, and go up stead~ ily. If the international situation worsens, prices may go up drastically.

Under these circumstances, the $1.10 fixed support price for corn is not help~ ful; it is extremely harmful. The con~ sequence of this kind of operation is to force farmers off the farm. Some per~ sons say that the way to solve the farm problem is to have fewer farmers producing. They say that the efficiency of farm operations has increased, and that farmers can produce more. There~ fore, the way to handle the situation is to have fewer farmers operating, and, therefore, with a drop in farm income, the fewer number of farmers dividing the income will receive more money.

This has not been working very effectively. Although farmers have been leaving the farms, per capita income of the remammg farmers from farm sources certainly has not risen. I think it can be established that the per capita income from all sources has gone down, and gone down seriously.

The injustice of this operation can be seen particularly at present. I do not think it is any secret to any United States Senator or to most of the American people that the country is confronted with a serious unemployment problem.

The Milwaukee Journal, in my State of Wisconsin, made a study of the proportion of Wisconsin farmers who have taken work off the farm to supplement their farm income. It was found that 40 percent of the farmers of Wisconsin, although they worked 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, on the farm, had some kind of substantial off-farm employment to supplement their meager farm income. What kind of extra work can those farmers do today?

I know of an employer in Waterloo, Wis., who got some splendid workers from the farms, but they were persons who during the spring, summer, and fall would have to spend most of their time on the farm. Therefore, they were the last hired and the first who had to be let go. In this kind of surplus labor market, it is very difficult for the farmer to find off-farm work.

That is not all. What about the farmer who has been driven completely off the farm? What does he find when he goes to Chicago, to Detroit, to Boise, to •Butte,

or to Houston? What does he find when he looks for work. He finds there is not enough work for the people who have been working in those places, who have established seniority, who have skills . . What kind of job can the farmer find?

It is extremely unjust to drive the farmer off the farm under those circumstances. Farmers have been leaving the farms under somewhat more comfortable circumstances during the past 10 years. They left the farms in large numbers before the depression. It is not necessary to have terrible economic insecurity, it is not necessary to have low farm income, to cause farmers to leave their farms. They are leaving the farms anyway. As the older farmers die, the young children, after they are educated, instead of continuing with farming, enter some other occupation. This is the healthy course, the proper course, the human way to proceed. But to drive farm income down, as the bill would do, is not the proper thing to do.

I call the attention of the Presiding Officer to the fact that many people in the cities, people who have been reading the Reader's Digest, and the Chicago Tribune, feel that farmers, after all, have it coming to them. They say that farmers have been getting help from the Government. If they were efficient, if they worked hard, they would not be suffering. After all, the farmer is the master of his fate. He has an investment; he has his own job. He can make or break his own business.

The fact is that that is not true. The fact is that the farmer has improved his efficiency and his productivity more than any other group in our economy. The President's economic report for this year, which was on the desk of every Senator at the beginning of the year, shows that since 1947 our agricultural economy, our farmers, have increased their efficiency by more than 80 percent, while people off the farms have increased their efficiency by only about 27 percent.

The farmer has improved his technological efficiency in the past 12 years 3 times as much as have the persons who live off the farms. No one questions that a farmer works long hours. A recent study in Wisconsin showed that farmers worked 12 hours a day. They work with efficiency. They have a capital investment. What do they get for it?

On the basis of studies made by the Department of Agriculture and the College of Agriculture of the University of Wisconsin, in 1958, farmers in Wisconsin are making 45 cents an hour. These are not marginal farmers; they are among the best, most productive, and efficient farmers in the country. They are farmers who have, on the average, an investment of from $40,000 to $45,000 a farm. They are working efficiently and are increasing their efficiency. Yet they are making from 45 to 50 cents an hour. The bill would even drive that amount down.

Not all commodities have had specific price-support programs and established price-support levels even before

14878 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 1953. But the general support programs, established for the major commodities, such as milk, butterfat, wheat, cotton, corn, and tobacco, have served to establish the general level of farm prosperity and general level of farm prices.

This is true for two major reasons. I may say, incidentally, that the gen

eral support programs which have established this sort of thing have also established something very important to the rest of us, something very important to those of us who are not on the farms-namely, a high level of prosperity. In the mind of any economic historian, there is no question that every serious depression the United States has had has been farm led and farm fed. The depressions have started on our farms, because the farmer is an enormously important customer.

The fact is that the farmer buys more steel than does any industry, including the automobile industry, in the United States. In only 1 year-! believe it was 1955-did the automobile industry buy more steel than the farmers did. In all the other years the farmers have been the most important customers of the steel ir:dustry.

The same is true in the case of rubber and many of the other most important industries of the United States. The farmer is an extremely important customer. The program for butterfat and the other farm programs thus have been the backbone of our security and our prosperity. So, Mr. President, when we abandon the parity concept-as the pending bill clearly would do-we not only dig a grave for the American farmer, but we lengthen the unemployment lines in New York, Detroit, Boise, and elsewhere throughout the country.

It is t:rue that the basics, including milk and butterfat, have been supported. But that has been true for two major reasons . .

The first is the competition of crops for land use and other farm resources. The farmer keeps shifting his production to the best of his ability, in order to put his resources to the most profitable use. If the support level for feed grains is reduced and if the level of support for milk is left unchanged, many farmers stop raising grain for sale, and turn, instead, to producing milk. They will, in effect, sell their grain crop out of a milk pail, instead of out of a bushel basket, if thereby they can hope to get a better net return.

Mr. President, that phrase is very important. It is one that the farmers of ·wisconsin recognize-namely, that a farmer can sell his grain crop out of a milk pail, instead of out of a bushel basket. And the pending bill would have that result, because it would enormously decrease the supply of feed grains. It would enormously and very quickly increase the production of milk. That would inevitably and certainly mean that the price of milk would be driven down, and it would put added pressure on milk programs, would build up surpluses, would reduce the proportion of costs that could be recaptured in disposition outlets, and, as a result,

the ~ Government's costs for the milk program would soar. Then the clamor would begin for a reduction of the support level for milk.

Second, if prices of the major commodities are supported at 90 percent of parity, that will help hold the market prices of other, substitutable commodities at a similar level, even though they may not be protected directly by a specific support program.

The prospect which the bill holds out to producers of soybeans illustrates how the bill threatens the entire farming economy. The bill does not give any protection to the producers of soybeans. The support level of soybeans could be dropped as far down the scale as the Secretary of Agriculture might wishand since he took office in 1953, Secretary Benson has cut the price support on soybeans from $2.56 a bushel to $2.09, in 1958.

In industry, in the food trade, in feed, and in manufacturing, the products of soybeans and th3 products of cottonseed are almost completely interchangeable. An increase in the supply of cottonseed reduces the price of soybeans just as surely as if the supply of soybeans had been increased by a similar amount. Soybean producers and their associations have been doing a good job of foreign marketing in private trade and through Public Law 480.

But now, under this bill, the soybean producer is faced with a direct and certain threat. The bill provides a cotton program that will make it attractive to individual cotton producers to plant an additional 40 per cent of acreage. An additional 40 percent of acreage will increase the supply of cottonseed by 40 percent. That will have exactly the same crushing effect upon the soybean market as if there were a sudden increase of approximately 10 percent in soybean production.

I hope the Senators from the corn and soybean growing states will give sober consideration to the effect of the bill upon the soybean market. The bill not only would eliminate corn as a basic and would reduce the support levels for barley and oats, but the fact that it also provides for a vast increase in cottonseed production means that it would result in reducing the returns that farmers can earn from soybeans, at the same time that it would reduce the support level on corn from $1.26 this year to $1.10 for next year. Thus, if a farmer did not like to produce corn at the new, lower support level, the bill would make his decisions doubly difficult by also cutting his soybean prospects out from under him. Surely it would be contrary to the interests of the great corn-producing States to enact this bill without providing some kind of protection for soybean producers from the enforced increase in the supply of cottonseed that the bill would insure.

Mr. President, the changes in the farm program that are needed are in exactly the opposite direction from those proposed in this bill.

The effectiveness of the farm program has been continuously whittled down year after year under Secretary Benson

and President Eisenhower. Farm prices have been allowed to drop by 19 percent; the parity ratio has been allowed to drop by 18 points; but total farm production has gone up 6 percent, in spite of record carryovers.

Mr. President, that point alone should awaken every Senator to a realization of the fact that we cannot win by driving down prices. That does not cut production, and it will not cut production. The statistics show overwhelmingly that as prices are driven down, the farmer is forced to produce more. Of course he has to; that is the only way he can live.

What happens to a Wisconsin farmer when he finds that the price per hundredweight of milk has gone down? Does he then proceed to produce less milk? Of course not. Instead, he has to produce more milk. If he were to produce less milk, he would have no chance to meet the fixed costs he has to meet, including taxes and the costs of the bare necessities of life.

Instead, as prices go down, he produces more. This may be a mystery to agricultural economists, but it is no mystery to the farmer.

I have talked to as many farmers, I think, in the past 2 years as has anyone else in public life. I have talked to farmers all over the State of \Visconsin. I find that the farmers recognize much more readily than does anyone else that when the prices of what they produce go down, they have to increase their production.

In the old days this principle used to be applied in the sweatshops-before organized labor acquired strength: When wages were lowered, the workers had to work longer hours, in order to produce more. They had, if they were to remain alive. Today, the same principle is being- applied to the farmers.

Realized net income of farm operators has gone down by one-fifth, to the lowest point since 1942. The purchasing power of farm income has dropped by almqst one-fourth and farm debt, at more than $20 billion, is at a record high.

Average net income per farm, in spite of a 12-percent drop in the farm population, has dropped from $2,800, in 1952, to only $2,500, in 1957.

Think of that, Mr. President. The average net income per farm-not per person, but per farm, for all the people who rely on a farm for their living-has dropped to $2,500.

Mr. President, how would you or I like to try to support our families on $50 a week? But $2,500 a year does not amount to quite that much a week. And $2,500 a year is the average, not the low, for the American farmers.

In contrast, the average per family income of non-farm families has increased from $5,400 to $6,100. Of course, all of us applaud that; and we hope that average will rise even more. Part of our job as Senators is to pass laws to help create an economic climate which will permit that amount to increase. But another part of our job as Senators is to do all we can to see to it that justice is done to all parts of the economy; and certainly the present situation does not

· amount to justice for the farmers.

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14879 Furthermore, it looks now as if 1959

will be much worse than 1957, even if the bill is not passed to further weaken the support programs. During 1958, farmers will be receiving over $700 million in income from the operation of the acreage reserve of the Soil Bank. This program will not be continued in 1959.

Moreover, all the acres now in the acreage reserve will be turned loose, to go back into commercial production. Each 1 percent by which these additional acres adds to total farm production will mean a 12 percent drop in farm prices, and a 10 percent drop in farm gross income, according to the latest research conducted by Dr. Willard W. Cochrane, of the University of Minnesota.

Mr. President, last night the distinguished Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HuMPHREY] pointed out how, under the provisions of the pending bill, the farmer's income will be whittled down. A little bit will be taken from his income this year, and a little bit more will be taken from his income next year, and his income will continuously be whittled down. In fact, under the provisions of this bill, his income will go in only one direction-namely, down-until, as the Senator from Minnesota pointed out, if the farmer were to turn sidewise, the shadow he would cast would be so narrow, because he would be so thin, that he would be marked absent.

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON] pointed out that when he came to the Senate he heard the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL] make an extremely eloquent speech, the burden of which was that the farmer was not getting a fair break. The Senator from Georgia pointed out that farmers represented 13 percent of the population, and received only 6 percent of the income. As the Senator from Missouri pointed out last night, today farmers represent 12 percent of the population, but receive only 3% percent of the national income.

If this bill is passed, the 3% percent will be further reduced. I do not think there has been a bill which has been before the Senate in a long time in which the question or the issue of economic justice is so clearly focused.

The fall pig crop forecast is up. No one knows for sure when ranchers will slow down the rate at which they are rebuilding their foundation herds, and thus release more livestock on the food market. Egg production is rising.

Mr. President, this bill will, if enacted, start a new chain of economic forces into motion, which will result in a further wave of reductions in farmers' prices, purchasing power, and standard of wellbeing. It will move American agriculture further along on the dismal road on which it has been driven for 5% years by Ezra Taft Benson. It will drive the American farmer the rest of the way back to the condition he was in during the 1930's. This is the wrong direction.

Instead of taking action here to destroy and weaken the supply management programs that we have, instead of further lowering the already too-low price stabilization levels, what we ought

to be doing is to strengthen these programs.

As I said, and I am more sure of this than I have been of anything in my life, the strengthening of the programs will result in a lesser cost to the American taxpayer, if we recognize the simple fact that the farmer must be allowed to limit production and to tailor his production to demand, just as everybody else in the economy does. That fact should be branded on the intelligence of every Senator, and he should realize that the only way we are going to solve the farm problem is by permitting farmers to limit production.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. ELLENDER. How would the Senator from Wisconsin apply to the dairy producers the formula of limiting production to fit the demand? We have been wrestling with that problem for many years. Does the Senator want to kill off some of the cows?

Mr. PROXMIRE. Absolutely not. Mr. ELLENDER. What would the

Senator do? How would he handle the problem?

Mr. PROXMIRE. This is a problem that has been wrestled with for some time, I will say to the chairman of the committee, who is so extremely well informed on the farm program, who has the welfare of the farmer in mind, and who, I know, is working hard for the farmers.

In the State of Wisconsin the problem of how to limit production is of great concern. There have been many meetings in my State to consider the subject. Both the Republican and the Democratic Parties have sponsored tha meetings. We have finally come to an agreement as to how the problem can be worked out equitably and fairly under a self-help program. It has been presented to Congress. I think the Senator from Louisiana is aware of this program, as he is of other programs. I am also sure he disagrees with our views. I am convinced that if this program is given half a chance, it will work. I do not know how we can lose if we give the dairy farmers an opportunity to work out the program. They are willing to provide a sufficient margin as between those who will live by their quotas, and those who will not, so there will be · a sharp and strong incentive to reduce production. I feel if the program is given half a chance it will work.

Mr. ELLENDER. As the Senator from Wisconsin knows, the so-called self-help program has appeared before the Congress for the past 15 years. The first proposal entailed an expenditure, in advances from the Treasury to the agency which would manage the program, of $500 million. The last program has been cut back to a $200 million loan from the Treasury. I do not believe the taxpayers would endorse such a program.

Another fault with the proposal, as I have pointed out, is that we would be transferring legislative authority to the commission which would handle the program. I presume the Senator will

offer to the bill his amendment, on the so-called self-help program.

Mr. PROXMIRE. I intend to. Mr. ELLENDER. We can discuss the

question when the amendment comes up.

Mr. PROXMIRE. I should like to say to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana that in all this discussion I mean in no way to reflect on the very fine character of the Senator from Louisiana and his very sincere feeling for the farmer. Not only that, but he has an unusual and a remarkable competence in this field. However, we do sin-cerely disagree. ·

Mr. ELLENDER. I wish to thank the Senator for his statement. As he knows, during the questioning of Secretary Benson before the Agriculture Committee, the Secretary and I engaged in a heated discussion as to what he described as the losses sustained by the Commodity Credit Corporation.

A good many of the losses which were attributed to the Commodity Credit Corporation were in reality expenditures to support the school milk program, to help our friends abroad, and to furnish food supplies to disaster areas. I think we eventually showed that the losses sustained by CCC were not so great as claimed by the Secretary.

Let me point out to my good friend from Wisconsin that the milk program has been, as he knows, on the statute books since the opening days of World War II. We sought ways and means to curtail production so that it would remain in keeping with demand, but we never were able to find the solution.

I wish to call to the attention of the Senator from Wisconsin that the loss sustained by the Commodity Credit Corporation on milk and dairy products as a whole has almost equaled the losses sustained on all the other basic commodities combined.

Mr. PROXMIRE. I reply to the Senator from Louisiana by saying that the fact is the Wisconsin farmers feel very deeply about wanting to change the program and modifying it so they can limit their production and eliminate the high cost of the support program.

I point out that the $200 million appropriation would not be an annual appropriation. The first cost would be the end.

Mr. ELLENDER. I understand. Mr. PROXMIRE. It would be an in

vestment, and I think it would be a wonderful investment. In the long run, if the program worked, it would save the American taxpayers money. I think it would work. Perhaps · the Senator from Louisiana thinks it would not work. If it should work, it would result in a saving to the American taxpayer, as well as be a great boon to the American dairy farmer.

Mr. ELLE.i~DER. Ever since the first self-help milk program was presented to the Committee on Agriculture, I have urged objection to it. I think I am on solid ground when I say it would be wrong for us to hand over to a commission which would handle the program, legislative authority. That is what the Senator from Wisconsin is requesting. He would be giving to the commission the

14880 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 24 right and the power to tell a milk producer that he must reduce production, instead of letting the prerogative remain with Congress.

We shall come back to a full discussion of this proposition at a later time. When the Senator presents his amendment I should like to go into more detail about my objections to the proposal.

Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for his remarks and colloquy, which help to clarify our position on this matter.

Mr. President, this Congress ought to restate its dedication to the goal of parity farm income. Our present parity price formulas should be replaced by parity income equivalent price formulas, which will show what farm commodities must sell for in order for farmers to earn r.. retu::n on their investments comparable to the returns which are earned on investments in other businesses, and a return on the labor and management effort of the farm owner-operator and his family comparable t.o the return which is earned in other business enterprises of equivalent size and complexity.

I fully agree with the need for a realistic and meaningful new definition of "parity" that is expressed in a statement to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry by Mr. Willia,m Rawlings, executive secretary of the Vlrginia Peanut Hog Producers' Association, and chairman of the parity formulas subcommittee of the National Conference of Commodity Organizations.

Mr. President, I am taking great pains to point out this parity improvement possibility, because once again I want to say we should not go downhill on parity, we should go uphill and strengthen the concept.

Mr. Rawlings statement, which was in the nature of a report and recommendation by the parity formulas subcommittee of the National Conference of Commodity Organizations, is as follows:

The word "parity" was once, and is still intended to be, a concept of fairness and equity. The degree to which farmers are able to attain it has been considered to be a measure of the economic health and wellbeing of farm people in relation to the economic health and well-being of nonfarm people.

Today, however, it is becoming more and more apparent that parity as it is now figured, is a highly misleading concept extremely damaging to the economic health and prospects of agriculture. Parity expressions today are reckoned in terms of price. Yet price parity is an inadequate measurement of agriculture's economic wellbeing. Farmers are concerned about income-and particularly about net income.

Price parity as a measure compares to in-. come parity about as a 19-inch yardstick compares with a 36-inch yardstick. Attainment of 100 percent price parity could still leave farm people far short of income par• ity. To put it in different language, attainment of 100 percent price parity would not yield farmers a. return on their labor, investment, risk, and management comparable to the nonfarm returns for labor, investment, risk, and management.

We believe that agriculture should be able to obtain returns for their labor, capital, risk, and management that are comparable to the nonfarm returns for these factors. We would call this parity of income. We believe this is a fair goal for farmers.

We recognize that income to farmers is now lagging substantially behind nonfarm income in the returns for the four factors mentioned. Simple economic justice requires that they be brought more nearly into a reasonable approximation of parity.

Unless this is done, agriculture is certain to be downgraded, finally to a low estate. If substandard income continues, and prevents farmers from maintaining a level of living to which their labor and investment would otherwise justify, then agriculture will be unable to attract and hold the independent, self-employed farmer as we have known him throughout American history.

I wish to say at this point, Mr. President, before I return to this extremely important statement of Mr. Rawlings, that I have been talking almost solely in economic terms. It perhaps is true that the strongest a·rgument which can be made for my viewpoint as to the bill is not in economic terms at all, but is in social and political terms.

What is at issue here is the preservation of the family farm. There is no institution in America which is more important in preserving and developing character, independence, and all the qualities which have helped build this country than the family farm. The family farm provides a wonderful social unit through which the child, while growing up, is able to work with his father and mother to develop thrift, hard work, and other qualities so enormously important in later life. ·

I might say also, with respect to the welfare of this country, Thomas Jefferson stated the proposition very well long ago when he expressed the fear that we were going to lose the influence of the simple farmer in our public life, and that if we lost such influence it will be a severe loss. That influence has not always been on the side of the party or political philosophy I represent in Wisconsin. By and large farmers have been conservative, and by and large farmers have been Republicans, but they have believed very deeply and very strongly in a political and economic system of freedom.

A system of freedom depends on the attitude, training, and character of the people of the country. That is why I think it is enormously important to do all we .can to stand in the way of and stop any bill which would do what the bill presently under consideration would do, namely, endanger the very existence of the family farm.

Mr. President, I continue to read from Mr. Rawlings' statement:

If continued, we believe substandard income returns would inevit::.bly lead to the domination of agriculture by either Government or nonfarm business interests .

In short, we cannot emphasize too strongly, the urgency for shifting from price to income af? the basis for measuring our degree of parity with the rest of the American economy.

We recognize that we cannot expect major gains in farm income-and a closer approximation of real parity-in a few months. Realistically, we are dealing with a matter of years.

There is no reason, however, why farmers and the full American public should not be told and reminded regularly of the true parity (or lack of parity) facts.

Certainly the American public has been told exactly the opposite. How

many people in America recognize that 100 percent of parity would not give the farmer income equality or even close to it? One hundred percent of parity would put the farmer in a position of about 60 percent of income equality, so he would be far from income equality.

Public understanding of these facts, we believe, is an essential prerequisite for the kind of commodity programs producers need to improve their marketing and income positions.

The returns to farmers for their labor, we believe, should be comparable to the annual earning rate of nonfarm workers.

The returns to farmers for their capital investment, we believe, should be comparable to prevailing farm mortgage interest rates.

In addition, of course, farmers seek returns for their production expenses.

In 1956, the estimated gross farm income necessary to permit returns for labor and capital equal to such returns in other occupations would have been $54.1 billion.

This would have included a return of $5.9 billlon on capital, a return of $30.7 billion for labor, and a return of $17.4 billion for production expenses.

The actual realized gross farm income for 1956 was $34.4 billion, almost $20 billion less than it should have been if agriculture had been in a reasonable parity position with nonfarm segments of the economy.

Obviously we cannot and should not expect to attain a multi-balion-dollar increase in gross farm income immediately. We can, however, do two practical things:

1. We can provide for public recognition of the real extent of ow· departure from parity; and

2. We can begin to take appropriate steps to narrow the discrepancy.

The calculation or measurement of parity in terms of income is already authorized in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended.

Mr. Rawlings concludes as follows: We recommend that this existing authority

now be utilized, as a substitute for present price parity calculations, and that income parity be used as the basis for calculations necessary in any commodity loan, storage, and price-support operations that are now, or may be authorized.

We recommend that proposed legislation be drafted at the earliest opportunity to accomplish these several purposes.

The approach to parity of income, we recognize, is dependent on the development and use of improved commodity programs. There is a need for farmers to obtain a greater degree of control over the marketing and inventory of their commodities so that supplies going to market more nearly balance effective demand.

Such programs are essential to upward adjustment in price-support levels.

Mr. President, if the farm bill which is before the Senate is passed without substantial amendment-and this is extremely important-it will mark the first successful reversal in 25 years of a fundamental economic reform initiated by the New Deal. Let me repeat that statement, Mr. President: If the farm bill which is before the Senate is passed without substantial amendment it will mark the first successful reversal in 25 years of a fundamental economic reform initiated by the New Deal, because it will mean the abandonment of the very heart and soul of the farm program, which did so much to take the farmer o1f his back during the 1930's.

It is just as significant as though the Congress should throw out the minimum

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 14881 wage and .maximum hour law. Of course, the difference is that the farmer does not have the kind of organization labor has. The farmer does not have the political numbers labor has. However, to the farmer, the parity concept is just exactly as important as is the mini·mum wage and maximum hour law to the workingman. That is what is in question. That is what is being destroyed.

This bill would abandon the parity principle which has been the foundation of our agricultural policy for a quarter century and the goal of the American farmers' struggles since almost a generation before that.

It would turn a way also from the principle that farmers should have the opportunity to control their marketings in accord with demand, in order to realize effective bargaining power in a market place that is rigged against them by the predominant power of big business, big finance, and big labor.

It is a fatal compromise with the dreadfully wrong policy which has been pursued with such painful results for family farmers by Secretary of Agriculture Benson during the past 5% years.

If this bill is adopted without substantial amendment, it will plunge American agriculture swiftly back to the helplessness and hopelessness that characterized the lot of our farm families during the 1920's and the early 1930's. In this sense it is truly and literally reactionary in the very worst sense of the word.

I choose that word very carefully, and with all due respect. I hope it does not offend Members of the Senate who disagree with me. The word "reactionary" has become a "smear" term. It should be used with great care. The bill would require our farm program to revert to the disastrous situation of our farmers in the 1920's and early 1930's.

The farmers of America were the first victims of the tragic depression of the 1930's. They have been the first and hardest hit victims of each recession since then.

If our farm families are now to have the fundamental safeguards and protections that were born in the wasteful misery and despair of the depression swept away, then surely every other group in our Nation must fear for their own fate.

If the rights of the farmers are destroyed, how long will it be before social security might be dismantled in a similar wave of reaction, and the old-age sect:rity of our elder citizens torn back down to the level of misery that prevailed in 1933?

If the farmers' economic protections are stripped away, how long will it be before investors and bank depositors will be left nakedly exposed again to the depredations of the swindlers and speculators?

How long will it take thereafter for the rights of collective bargaining, of minimum wage and maximum hours standards, to be destroyed for the working people of our mines and mills and shops?

It will be a long time, because there are 11 million Americans on social security. It will be a long time, because other

Americans know that someday they, too, will be on social security. They have relatives on social security. They are ·acquainted with the social-security program. It will be a long time. I think the evidence is pretty clear. Yesterday the House Ways and Means Committee acted to provide a substantial improvement in social security-not enough, but a substantial improvement.

Think how unjust the situation is. The farmer is diminishing in numbers, and therefore diminishing in political influence and strength. It is difficult for him to obtain political and economic justice.

Mr. President, I am convinced that the significance of the attempt to dismantle the parity concept and the programs based on it to protect the economic security of the farmers is not lost upon the American people, neither in the cities nor in the rural areas.

The attack against the parity concept originates today right where it always did-among those who profit from the insecurity and helplessness in the market place that is the farmers' inescapable lot in the absence of effective protection through Government programs.

The same interests who fought against the establishment of farm programs 25 years ago, and who have fought against maintaining and adapting them to current conditions down through the years, are the real inspiration of this bill. Their spokesman and champion in today's battles is the Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson.

The economic interests and the philosophy that are behind today's attack upon the parity principle for farmers were not less opposed to other fundamental reforms initiated a quartercentury ago, after their own control over our national Government had led us to the ruinous debacle of the great depression. They have not dared to attack these reforms head-on. But their enmity for the programs to help America's ordinary citizens is as unrepentent and unregenerate today as it was when they fought with all their strength against the early farm program legislation .. social security, minimum wage, maximum hours standards, Securities Exchange Commission, banking reform, and all the rest.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield. Mr. ANDERSON. I have listened to

only a small part of what the Senator has had to say, because I have been attendinci committee meetings.

I wonder how the Senator thinks Members of Congress who stood for 90 percent of parity are going to explain to their constituents that they have switched to 90 percent of the market price. Does the Senator believe there will be some difficulty in persuading the farmers, or are the farmers smart enough to know the difference?

Mr. PROXIAIRE. The farmers are very smart. A Senator who has argued that he has always voted for 90 percent of parity and is proud of his record, and who now votes for the pending bill, which does not provide 90 percent of parity, but 90 percent of the market price over

a period of 3 years, will have a difficult time explaining his position to the farmers.

Mr. ANDERSON. As the Senator k.n?ws, I have not been a supporter of ngid 90-percent price supports. I have s~pported flexible price supports conSI~tently. I note in the bill a provision With reference to cotton, which allows a support price of 15 parity penalty points in case the farmer takes a larger acreage.

Looking at page 4 of the report I note that it suggests that under choice (B) it would go down to 60 percent of parity.

The able Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN] is on the floor. I regard the Senator from Vermont as sound a man on agricultural programs and policies as I have ever known. The Senator from Vermont, in 1948, brought before the Senate the agricultural bill submitted by President Truman. It had been my privilege to submit the bill originally to President Truman. As the result of the rewriting of the bill, the so-called Aiken modification of the Hope-Aiken bill contained a flexible provision which ran from 60 percent of parity up to 90 percent of parity.

It was my belief-and it is still my belief-that the effective rate in the so-called Aiken bill was actually 72 percent of parity. At any rate, it would never have gone as low as 60 percent.

· The Senator from Vermont and others were harshly criticized because of the 60 percent of parity provision. At that time I went to a conference at the White House to talk about an agricultural bill. The one thing that some persons demanded was the repeal of the Aiken bill by name, so that this horrible proposal of 60 percent of parity might be expunged from the books and that no one would ever refer to it again.

In the pending bill, I see a choice support level of 60 percent of parity. I wonder whether the · Senator from Wisconsin believes this provision may be somewhat disconcerting to some person who said 60 percent of parity was a horrible thing.

Mr. PROXMIRE. It should be extremely disconcerting. I do not know how they will be able to live with it. Not only the farmers of Wisconsin, but also the farmers of New Mexico and Louisiana and Vermont, understand farm programs better, almost, than any other group. I believe they have long memories of the decisions Senators and Representatives have made. I believe the farmers will watch the vote very closely. Important as the vote will be, with falling farm prices and all, this legislative history is important, too.

Mr. ANDERSON. As the Senator from Wisconsin knows, I have favored flexible price supports right along. When the able Senator from Vermont introduced the bill, I praised his action. I have praised it since. I have never changed my opinion about his original proposal, and I do not intend to.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. When the Agricultural

Act of 1948 was passed, the Senator


from New Mexico was Secretary of Agriculture.

Mr. ANDERSON. When it was intro-duced.

Mr. AIKEN. Yes; when it was introduced. The Senator from New Mexico supported it.

Mr. ANDERSON. I did. Mr. AIKEN. It was also supported

by every major farm organization. It was vigorously supported by the National Grange, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Milk Producers Association, and the Farmers Union. Mr. Patton, of the Farmers Union, gave very strong testimony in support of the provisions of the bill. I might add that it was also supported in public speeches by President Truman. At Los Angeles he made a very strong speech, urging Congress to approve that bill.

Mr. ANDERSON. I believe I should add, if the Senator from Wisconsin will indulge me, that President Truman made a speech in Omaha, in which he referred to the modern and progressive farm legislation which the able Senator from Vermont had presented and which the Senate had adopted.

Subsequently, during the campaign, former Senator Barkley, who was the Democratic candidate for Vice President, and who was elected Vice President, also supported it. As a matter of fact, the Democratic policy committee in its report on legislative accomplishments praised that legislation.

I mention this merely to show the Senator from Wisconsin that some of us are especially shocked by the provision in the pending bill, because we have advocated flexibility for a long time. However, I am wondering what is going to happen to people who advocated rigid 90 percent of parity when they find themselves with 90 percent of the 3-year average price in the market place. ·


Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield. Mr. ELLENDER. I wish to point out

to my good friend from New Mexicoand of course he knows it--that the present price support formula will remain for cotton and for rice as it is now through 1960. The provision for a cotton price support of 15 parity points less than that established by the Secretary of Agriculture in return for being allowed to plant an additional 40 percent of the allotment is optional; it is not mandatory. If a cotton farmer desires to plant more acres for less support, he may do so; it is left up to him. It is not mandatory.

Mr. ANDERSON. I did not raise that question at all. I hope I can say, while the able Senator from Louisiana is on the floor, that any remarks I shall direct to the farm bill or to the report made on the bill by the able Senator from Louisiana, will have to be made by me with a recognition of the part the able Senator from Louisiana has played in trying to reduce the expenditures of our Government.

I have said to him in private, and I might as well repeat it in public, that the things he does at the meetings of the Appropriations Committee in trying

to save money have resulted in the saving of millions of dollars to the American taxpayers. This might be just as good a place as any to put that statement in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

I was referring to what would happen when the 90 percent of the 3-year average price in the market place provision goes into effect.

I am not too worried, as the Senator from Wisconsin knows, about giving more flexibility to the Secretary of Agriculture. If I had my way about it, Congress would pass a broad price-support bill with a sliding scale, which would leave full discretion to the Secretary of Agriculture within certain limits set by Congress. For example, if it provided a level of from 75 percent to 90 percent, he could set the support at any figure between those two figures. I am not worried :::...bout that particular provision of the bill, as I have said. I merely say that it must seem strange to others that the Senator from Wisconsin, is standing on the floor of the Senate and carrying the battle for a recognition of 90 percent of parity as against the concept of 90 percent of the sales price in the market place, especially when there have been so many people who have so strongly supported 90 percent of parity for such a long time. I commend him for his zeal, even though I disagree with his conclusions.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the senator yield?

Mr. PROXMffiE. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. I might add that the

times have changed since we enacted legislation in 1948, 1949, 1954, and even 1956. At that time, we had the support of all the farm organizations, and we undertook to write a new parity formula which would be a formula to end all formulas, because it would be adjusted to a moving base.

Three or 4 years after that formula was enacted into law it was virtually obsolete, for practical purposes. We had not counted on the coming of antibiotics, vitamins, cross breedings, and other developments, which have taken their place in the field of agriculture since that time.

For example, the poultry growers were then producing broilers in 16 weeks. A few years later they were producing broilers in 9 weeks. The cost had been reduced. The break-even point, instead of being 25 or 26 cents a pound, is now down to about 18 cents a pound. No way has been found to write those new developments into the parity formula, c.r to write antibiotics or cross breeding into the formula. If it can be done, we have not found out how to do it, anyway. That is what has made the parity formula of today so unfair to certain commodities and has given great advantages to others. The present parity formula no doubt has worked hardship on the dairy industry. I think the dairy industry should be the first to take a step toward getting on to some other basis for computing its parity prices.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wisconsin yield, so that I may comment on the statement by the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield.

Mr. ANDERSON. I merely desired to say that what the Senator pointed out was the reason why many times I have praised the Senator from Vermont for the forward looking approach which he took in the early agricultural legislation. At that time an attempt was made to recognize that the parity formula had to be a moving, changing device; that new processes were being developed-; that alterations would have to be made; and that, therefore, it was desirable to keep the program on a sort of moving basis.

I know how he was criticized, because I received the same criticisms. Our names were linked in the agricultural legislation of 1948, because I had pro.: posed it, and he had introduced it. He introduced the bill of a Democratic President in a Republican Congress, and saw it through the Senate. I praise him for it. I think it indicated his desire to try to devise a sensible program.

At the same time, I was associated with him in the work of drafting the 1949 bill, which did not repeal many of the provisions of the 1948 bill, but tried to alter them a little, so as to relieve us from some of the criticisms which had been made. But in that discussion, there was much strong language about what the Senator from Vermont and the junior Senator from New Mexico had tried to accomplish by having a parity formula which was adjustable.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wisconsin yield?

Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. Although the Senator

from New Mexico escaped from the office of Secretary of Agriculture with the fewest scars of any Secretary in the past 25 years, nevertheless he was almost accused of trying to starve the American people . because he scraped the bottom of the grain elevators to get grain in order to keep our foreign commitments.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico has put his finger on the issue which is before us in the bill. Knowing of his great competence and his tremendous experience in this field, I think his word should carry great authority. He pointed out that what the bill does is to abandon the parity principle. This is something which every farmer in America should realize.

Mr. President, the present assault upon the principle of parity is the first overt, head-on attempt to repeal the New Deal law. It is not plausible to expect, if this attack succeeds, that it will be the last. _

I serve notice that the people who live in our cities will not be blind to their own stake in the attempt which is being made to isolate the farmers so that their basic economic protections can be legislated away.

Within the past few days, I have received returns from a mail questionnaire. The returns strongly bear out what I have said . about the fundamental sympathy for the rights of farmers which exists among city people. My eyes were really opened by this questionnaire. I was delighted and astonished by the answers which were made.

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14883 One of the questions asked was: Do you favor a self-financing plan that

will permit dairy farmers to tailor their production to demand so as to avoid price-depressing surpluses?

That question was asked in the city of Milwaukee. It was not asked of farmers, but of persons in the city of Milwaukee.

The question strikes at the very heart of the kind of program which dairy farmers-or any other . group of farmers-need and should have to provide a solid foundation for economic security.

In tabulating the replies to this questionnaire, I have segregated all of the replies which have been received so far from the city of Milwaukee. I was frankly surprised-and tremendously pleased-by the tremendous expression of sympathy and support for the rights of the farmers which was evidenced by the replies from Milwaukee.

More than four out of five-81 percent-of the replies from residents of Milwaukee, selected at random, answered this question with a "yes."

Yes, Mr. President, the people of Wisconsin-on the farms, in the small towns, and in the big cities alike-are in favor of a practical program to protect the rights of our farm families.

I am convinced that an overwhelming majority of the people of America will rise in startled indignation to rebuke those who now expose their basic hostility to the reforms which were incorporated into American life as a result of the lessons of the great depression. The parity principle for farmers is one of the pillars of the new outlook on the rights of the people of America which were adopted to secure us all against any repetition of the tragic failure which the depression represented.

Mr. President, the .bill offers not one whit of help to the dairy farmers of America-not even in the shortest short run.

This is a real dump-dairy farm bill. Far from resulting in help, it would, on the contrary, result in an immediate and direct incentive to the creation of extremely damaging competition, both from the extra dairy production which would result from the huge oversupply of cheap feed which the bill would make inevitable, and from the huge increase, of a'IJout 40 percent, in the supply of cottonseed oil.

It gives no recognition to the fact that dairy producers are among the most poorly paid of any group in American agriculture. It gives no recognition to the fact that dairy producers are in serious immediate trouble, as a consequence of the cut in dairy support prices which was ordered into effect last April 1.

The situation in my own State of Wisconsin is particularly serious, Wisconsin farmers, contrary to the general situation in most of the other sections of the country, suffered a serious drought last spring. As a result, crop and pasture conditions are seriously below normal. On top of this, their prices are down.

Some of the people of America have, perhaps, less sympathy for the farm problem. I am afraid that that statement applies to some Senators, too. That feeling may be accounfed for by

the fact that farm prices have risen in the first 4, 5, or 6 months of this year. Now the prices are on the way down. But I think we should recognize that not all farm prices went up. Did the price of milk go up? The fact is that the price of milk stayed down, is down, and has gone down further as a result of the action of Secretary Benson on April 1 of this year.

It is true that some fruit farmers, some beef farmers, and some hog farmers have enjoyed relatively prosperous conditions. But certainly the dairy farmer has not had prosperity. The dairy farmer has been forgotten.

I feel deeply that the pending bill must be amended very substantially before it will be acceptable. I feel deeply that our agricultural economy needs immediate practical help in the way of strengthened farm programs, if we are to prevent the continued erosion of our American agricultural pattern of family ownership and family operation.

In consideration of the imperative needs I have outlined, I have prepared a number of amendments which I propose to call up for action when we are ready to begin voting.

I have already submitted an amendment to add a new title to the bill to establish a Dairy Products Marketing Act of 1958. This is the dairy program which I have worked out with farm leaders in my own State and nationally, and with other Congressional leaders. In my opinion, this represents• the kind of dairy program that dairy farmers want and which will provide a workable and long-range solution to the problems of the dairy industry. Incidentally, it will also save a substantial amount of money for the American taxpayers.

Mr. President, I have also submitted an amendment to provide for a self-help dairy stabilization program. This amendment is not to be confused with my first one. This amendment provides for a plan which has been developed, after years of careful study and discussion, by leaders of dairy producers organizations. In fact, the amendment is identical with a bill introduced earlier in the session by the Senator from Minnesota and my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin [Mr. WILEY] and myself.

Last night I submitted four other amendments; they would set up an REAtype program of loans to farmers' associations, in order to provide for processing and marketing enterprises; to provide for distribution of additional food supplies, through the school-lunch program and State and local welfare agencies; to provide a national security and safety reserve of agricultural commodities; and to authorize the President to initiate negotiations with other nations for the establishment of an international food and fiber reserve program.

Mr. President, I am informed that additional amendments will be offered by other Senators. For my part, I welcome every effort that can be made to make constructive improvements in the bill.

To my colleagues who wish, as I do, to amend the bill so that it will make a constructive improvement in our farm programs, I make this pledge: I will

support every sound and constructive amendment that is offered if it will help improve our farm programs in the direction of strengthening farmers' bargaining power, protecting the prices farmers receive for their products, and improving farmers' incomes.

I wish to make it clear, especially since I have been speaking about the wool amendment, that I intend to support that amendment enthusiastically. I think the wool program is a good one. My only reluctance-and in the past I have been reluctant to have the wool bill passed separately-is because I think all farm commodities should be dealt with together. I think that is essential to political survival. But I believe the wool bill belongs in this omnibus bill; and certainly an adequate dairy bill belongs in it, too.

I have always upheld, as a central principle of my stand on farm policy, that the farmers of America must stand solidly together. Unless the milk producer, the cotton farmer, the wheat farmer, the corn-hog producer, the cattle rancher, the wool grower, and the sugar producer fight shoulder to shoulder, in the long run each will be doomed to fall separately. ·

Mr. President, one of the most eloquent and convincing statements of this principle that I have ever heard was made in this Chamber, 4 months ago, by the distinguished senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL]. His statement was made during the debate on a resolution which would have prevented any reduction in the price supports for dairy commodities during the present marketing year. The Senator from Georgia spoke in opposition to that attempt by representatives from the dairy States to "go it alone" in the hope that a resolution affecting dairy commodities alone might escape a veto by the President.

I have before me the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for March 13, 1958. The record of that debate appears on page 4265.

Mr. President, at this time I wish to read from the speech the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL] made at that time. But, first, let me say that, as one who supported the dairy amendment, I was convinced that probably that amendment would be adopted; and I believe it would have had an excellent chance of being signed by the President. I believe the speech made on that occasion by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL] was a key speech. As he was making it, we could almost see the votes falling away.

After the Senator from Georgia concluded his speech, I spoke to him, and said to him that it was the most effective speech I had ever heard since I had been a Member of the Senate. In fact, Mr. President, if the people of Wisconsin permit me to remain here a while longer, I believe that speech by the Senator from Georgia will still stand out as one of the most effective speeches to be made in the Senate in many, many years.

I read now from that speech by the Senator from Georgia:

I wish to be perfectly frank with the Senator as to why I ask my question. This procedure appears to be a very nice way to split

I

14884 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 24 the agricultural interests of the country into pieces. It appears to be a very nice way to place us in a position where we cannot eve! get any general farm legislation. If we follow this practice of a single resolution embracing all the commodities, and then take up for consideration and pass a nearly identical resolution for a specific commodity, in a separate piece of legislation-

A little later he said: It seems to me important that we have

had one record vote. What we are trying to do now, Mr. President, appears to be dangerous. The only reason I consider it to be worthwhile to bring the matter to the attention of the Senate is that I feel this procedure simply gives a number of Senators an opportunity to eat their cake and have it, too. They can vote against the general farm bill and can go back to tell their constituents "Oh, I voted against that general farm bill ~hich would have kept prices up." But they can also go to the only agricultural ~ndustry they have in their States, to the darry farmers, and say, "I helped to have passed the bill for you to raise your prices and hold them up."

The Senator can go into the city the same night and make a speech setting fo.rth that he fought against increasing all agncultural price supports.

I think if we are going to follow this kind of policy simply to give some Senators an opportunity to eat their cake and have it~ too, we are planting a seed which will completely destroy any hope of enacting any general farm legislation.

The Senator from Georgia concluded by saying:

Mr. RussELL. Indeed that may well be. Not only that, it will tear the groups which should be interested in agriculture to pieces. Every Senator knows that, as a general proposition, one agricultural commodity does not have sufficient strength to secure passage of general legislation by the Senate.

Mr. President, the situation we now face is just the reverse of the one which was before the Senate at the time when the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL] made that outstanding speech. Today, there is before the Senate an omnibus farm bill which excludes the dairy farmer and the very important area of our farm economy that is embraced by dairy farming.

However, in a very large number of the States of the Union, dairying is the No. 1 cash crop. But the pending bill, as it now stands, would "sell the dairy farmer down the river," and he would be forgotten.

I believe that in all good conscience the Senators who, last March, voted against the dairy proposal-and at that time they voted against it because they felt that dairying should be dealt with, along with all other phases of agriculture in a general farm commodity price free~e-now should consider whether it will be consistent for them to vote to exclude dairying from the program under the pending bill.

Mr. President, I conclude, as I did last night, with apologies to the distinguished occupant of the chair, to my other col;. leagues, and to the fine employees of the Senate, all of whom have been detained at great length by this speech. It has been an unusually long speech, particularly for a freshman Member. I have made it with great reluctance; but I have made it because I felt I had to make it. I have made it because I feel this issue

very, very deeply. It affects tremen-dously the people of Wisconsin who are .on the farms, the people of Wisconsin who live in the small towns which depend on the farms, and the peopleboth those on the farms and those off the farms-all over the Nation, because the bill abandons the basic parity concept which is the backbone of the farm program this country has adopted.

I cannot, in good conscience, vote for the bill. I must oppose it with all my strength and all my heart, unless the bill is seriously and substantially modified and amended.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CHURCH in the chair). The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TALMADGE in the chair). Without objection, 1t is so ordered.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I call up my amendment designated 7-23-58-C, which is an amen_dment in the second degree to the amendment, as modified, offered by the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YouNG], which is now pending, and ask th:;.t my amendment be read ·and made the pending question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment to the amendment will be stated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. In the amendment of Mr. YouNG it is proposed tc insert at the proper place the followir~g:

(c) Section 708 of such act is amended to read as follows:

"SEc. 708. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to enter into agreements with, or to approve agreements entered into between, marketing cooperatives, trade associations, or others engaged or whose members are engaged in the handling of wool, mohair, sheep, or goats or the products thereof for the purpose of developing and conducting on a National, State, or regional basis advertising and sales promotion programs for wool, mohair, sheep, or goats or the products thereof. Provisions may be made in such agreement to obtain the funds necessary to defray the expenses incurred thereunder through pro rata deductions from the payments made under section 704 of this title to producers within the production area he determines will be benefited by the agreement and for the assignment and transfer of the amounts so deducted to the person or agency designated in the agreement to receive such amounts for expenditures in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. No agreement containing such a provision for defraying expenses through deductions shall become effective unless-

"(1) the Secretary conducts a referendum, over a period of not more than 6 consecutive days, of the producers who, during a representative period determined by the Secretary, have been engaged, within the production area he determines will be benefited by the agreement, in the production for market of the commodity ~p~cified therein, to determine whether they approve or favor such agreement;

"(2) at least 33¥3 percent of such producers participate in such referendum;

"(3) at least two-thirds of the total num-ber of producers, or two-thirds of the total

volume of production, as the case may be, represented in such referendum, indicate ·their approval or favor."

· Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, once again we are faced with the responsibility of acting on proposed legislation which will vitally affect the welfare of our farming population and indirectly the consuming public. The Senate has previously acted in the present session to protect the farmers against disastrous declines in their income but was met :with a veto by President Eisenhower. The bill before us is perhaps the most important single piece of proposed legislation to come before Congress affecting Tennessee, and deserves the most serious consideration. I sincerely hope that we will be able to pass the bill in a form in which it will be signed into law.

No one will pretend that the bill is designed to solve all of the problems of agriculture. In the· first place, the bill deals only with a limited number of commodities: cotton, rice and corn. I realize fully that other producer groups are in need of remedial legislation, and I am in sympathy with their desires. However, in view of the necessity of obtaining a Presidential signature and the desperate need of the producers of cot~ ton in particular, I hope that the other commodities can be treated in separate legislation in which their problems can be fully met.

As a representative of a State which is a major producer of cotton, I am greatly concerned with the status of cotton in our economy. Cotton farmers in my State of Tennessee have faced the dual problems of limited acreage, which prevents the small farmer from having sufficient acreage to make an adequate income, and price supports which threaten to price domestically produced cotton out of the market.

I would like to emphasize, Mr. President, that Tennessee is primarily a State of small cotton farmers. There are few large cotton farms, the overwhelming preponderance being under 15 acres. These small farmers have been consistently reduced in their acreage, to the point where they shortly will have to cease operations entirely. Even with high price supports, such operations are most difficult, since costs are proportionately higher as the acreage is reduced. The only salvation for these farmers is the right to increase their acreage. Unless the bill is passed the minimum acreage allotment would be 5 acres or the highest acreage planted in the previous .3 years, whichever is smaller. The bill will provide a minimum of 10 acres or the 1958 allotment, whichever is smaller. It is estimated that this measure will -add 21,328 acres to allotments of the smaller farms in Tennessee. Although such an increase is insufficient to fully ·meet the needs of our farmers, I am certain it is a step in the right direction.

Section 101 of the bill provides the cotton farmers with two alternatives, giving them a flexibility and choice which will allow them to meet their own peculiar ec·onomic problems. The farm-

·ers may choose to accept the acreage ·allotment and price supports under existing law, or they may increase their

1958 CON.GRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14885 acreage by 40 percent and receive a price support reduced by 15 percent of parity.

One of the difficulties cotton farmers have faced relates directly to the impact of the price support program on the use of domestically-produced cotton both here and abroad. With high price supports and therefore high market prices, domestic cotton has not been able to compete with many synthetic fibers in spite of its superior characteristics. In the world market American export cotton has been put on a competitive basis only because the United States Government has absorbed the difference between the support price and the market price. With many of the larger cotton farmers willing to expand their production at a lower price, domestic producers will be able to compete in foreign markets without the large amounts of Government support now necessary.

The emergency nature of the situation for the cotton farmers of the Southeast, including Tennessee, is indicated by the reductions in acreage which will occur if this proposed legislation is not enacted. Acreage allotments for 1958 totaled 17% million acres. With no new legislation, this acreage allotment will be reduced to approximately 14 million acres. For farmers in Tennessee this will mean a reduction from 575,762 acres to 466,018 acres, or about a 20-percent reduction. The bill under consideration will result in reductions under the basic allotment formula, the national acreage allotment being 16 million acres. It is estimated that Tennessee will receive an allotment of 529,684 acres. While not enough, this is certainly an improvement over the situation which will result if we fail to take action now.

Much hope was held out for the Soil Bank as a means of helping the farmer. The result, however, has been economic stagnation in many of the small towns and villages in Tennessee which are primarily dependent on agriculture. With reduced acreage, the farmers have bought less fertilizer, gasoline for their tractors, and equipment to operate the farm. Additional acreage will tend to restore prosperity to our rural communities and raise the general level of economic activity.

I recognize that there are many differences of opinion on the proper method of promoting farm prosperity. I think it is clear that we cannot afford to return completely to a free-market situation in which farmers are unable to control their production or their prices. However, in my opinion, it is necessary to give our cotton farmers more opportunity to adjust their production and prices to the market conditions which prevail from year to year. For that reason, I enthusiastically support this bill. It will be a means of staving off complete elimination of many of our farmers from agriculture, and will help to restore a measure of prosperity to them. I hope the Senate will pass S. 4071.

Mr. President, I have always voted in favor of legislation to help the dairy farmers and other groups of agricultural producers. We know that if we add too many amendments to the bill presently under consideration there will be difficulty in passing the bill in the House, and

CIV--937

it may meet a Presidential veto. I hope we can pass this important piece of proposed legislation, since it is very necessary and of vital importance to the cotton farmers.

Mr. President, the farm groups in my State-the Tennessee Agricultural Council, the Farm Bureau, and others-are strongly in support of the bill. I certainly hope it will be passed.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.


Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, first I wish to compliment the distinguished junior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE] for his very fine presentation relating to the pending bill, Senate bill 4071, the proposed Agricultural Act of 1958. I believe that the Senator from Wisconsin presented statistical information and economic analyses which were very revealing as to the inadequacies and weaknesses of the proposed legislation. He has demonstrated a knowledge of agricultural economics and agricultural policy which is reassuring to his colleagues, and I am sure is very gratifying to his constituents.

Mr. President, in my considered opinion the legislation before us, s. 4071, the proposed Agricultural Act of 1958, is unbelievably bad, and I believe it could be economically very dangerous.

It is unbelievably bad because, for the sake of expediency in trying to solve a few problems, it threatens to create far more problems for America's family farmers, for the Congress, and for the taxpayers in years to come.

It is economically dangerous, because the long-range implications to all commodities are being deliberately glossed over under the guise of temporary relief to a few commodities, and too few people have taken the time or trouble to really analyze what this legislation would actually do.

It is not just merely simple legislation to prevent a cut in rice acreage, or avoid further cutbacks in cotton production, or merely to satisfy the acreage needs of feed-grain producers.

It is far more than that. I fully recognize that there is a need for adjustments in cotton acreage, and undoubtedly in the acreage of other commodities. It should be noted here that if there is a need for cotton acreage adjustment, all that is required is a joint resolution by the House and Senate, which would be signed by the President, to extend the acreage which is available this year into the next crop year. That could be done, and it might very well be a practical alternative so far as the acreage needs of cotton producers are concerned.

I am not unmindful of the problems which face certain cotton producers with respect to the need for additional acreage, and I would be perfectly willing to

support legislation which would answer that need. I believe there are problems in the cotton-producing areas which require the attention of Congress. I believe there are needs and problems in the rice-producing areas which require the attention of Congress. I wish to cooperate all the way in the accomplishment of desirable programs for producers of rice and cotton. But, as I shall point out in my remarks today, I believe that the proposed legislation goes much further than meeting those basic needs. Indeed, the proposed legislation would abolish some fundamental principles of agricultural policy which have been with us for about 20 years.

Behind these facades, in a fundamental sense it abandons the very basic principles upon which our farm program has been built over the past 25 years.

During those years there have been several historic farm policy debates in this great deliberate body. Primarily, these debates have been over differences of viewpoint as to the proper level of price protection for our agricultural economy, and differences in legislative philosophy over whether such protection should be established at certain fixed levels in return for farmer compliance with production adjustment efforts, or whether they should remain flexible under a sliding scale-based either on formula of available supplies or on the complete discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture within certain criteria established by law.

In the main, such debates involved sincere differences of opinion as to the best means to the same end objective, the end objective being full parity income for farmers, preservation of the family farm system, and the realization for our agricultural producers of equality of treatment in the economic market place.

Never, to my knowledge, during these many debates, to which I have alluded, were the fundamental objectives of our basic farm policy seriously challengedor openly repudiated.

Never, until now, has this administration or any past administration, since the parity concept first was written into law, openly abandoned the objective of seeking to bring farm prices and farm purchasing power into closer relationship with farm costs and the levels of the rest of our economy.

I repeat that it has been a source of pride to every Member of Congress and to the American people that we have on the statute books as the basic objective of American agricultural policy the concept of parity, which is another word for equality of agricultural producers with the rest of the economy.

Whatever differences may have existed between supporters of higher levels and lower levels of price supports, all swore allegiance to the fundamental parity concept long accepted as a matter of public policy and still on our statute books as a key objective of farm income protection.

Indeed I know of no candidate for office, including the present occupant of the White House, who has ever said anything else but that he supported the concept of full parity for agricultural

14886 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 producers; in other words, supported the basic act of 1938 and the preamble to that act, which outlines the whole philosophy of agricultural legislation.

Parity has become established as the accepted measuring device for comparing how agriculture is doing in relation to the rest of our economy. It is agriculture's economic yardstick. Parity prices merely relates the price the farmer receives for what he sells to the price he must pay for what he buys.

That is a reasonable proposal and a very acceptable economic concept. Parity income relates the amount of income required from agriculture to provide the farm operator and his family with a standard of living equivalent to those afforded persons dependent upon other gainful occupations. Such a concept is as American as the Fourth of July.

The concept was enacted into law as public policy in the original Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. When that act was invalidated by the Supreme Court on other grounds, on January 6, 1936, Congress made clear its continuing intent by enacting new sections of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act on February 29, 1936, declaring it the policy of Congress to secure "reestablishment, at as rapid a rate as the Secretary of Agriculture determines to be practicable and in the general public interest, of the ratio between the purchasing power of the net income per persons on farms and that of the income per person not on farms that prevailed during the 5-year period August 1909 to July 1914, -inclusive, as determined from statistics available in the United States Department of Agriculture, and the maintenance of such ratio.''

Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I am happy to yield to my friend from Oklahoma.

Mr. MONRONEY. I thank the distinguished Senator from Minnesota for his championship, continuing over many years, of the cause of parity income for farmers. It is often hard for people to understand that we are not talking about any special privilege when we refer to parity. I hope the explanation the distinguished Senator from Minnesota is making will be noted by some of our industrialists and some of our bankers, who oppose this program but think there is nothing wrong with adjustments in return on investment to reflect changes in the cost of living.

In trying to explain what may appear to be a very complicated matter, it might not be amiss to oversimplify it by saying that if a bushel of wheat in 1914 would buy a pair of overalls, then a bushel of wheat should still buy a pair of overalls for the farmer. If a pound of cotton would buy a gallon of gasoline at that time, it should still buy a gallon of gasoline today.

We are not talking about any special privilege. We are trying to keep the farmer's income properly related to the cost of the things he buys. No one in his right mind can fail to understand that it is necessary to maintain the parity concept in farm prices in order to help equalize the farmer's cost of doing business.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator from Oklahoma has contributed a very cogent and informative explanation of what we are attempting to do here by his description of a parity price or parity income policy.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. He has always been in the forefront of the struggle in Congress for better and more equitable farm legislation. That is what we are trying to do now, to provide that kind of legislation. That is the purpose of my remarks.

I wish again to express my thanks to the Senator from Oklahoma for his participation in the discussion and for his stating the parity principle in words that everyone can understand. Nothing is very complicated once we expose it to the light of day and have someone state it in simple, yet profound, words.

The objective of the farm policy, with the policy declaration of Congress, still stands on our law books. It has never been repealed.

In fact, I know of no time since 1933 when a real effort has been made to repeal it, except now. For the first time we are faced with a basic revision of agricultural policy. For the :first time in more than 25 years we are being called upon to revert to the pre-1930 period of agricultural economic policy.

I wish my colleagues to know that that is what they are going to be called upon to vote on, regardless of all the formulas in the bill, regardless of all the averages in the bill. What it really boils down to is that for the :first time Members of the Senate are being asked to repeal the parity concept for agricultural production. There can be no doubt about it. As I said last night, the Department of Agriculture has been very clever. They have not said that this is the Department's bill. They say it is acceptable to the Department. The Department spokesmen have said that many of the principles in the bill are principles of a great farm organization, the American Farm Bureau Federation. When someone is critical of the Department of Agriculture for endorsing the repeal and repudiation of the parity concept, they say, "Oh, we do not endorse it. It was recommended by the committee. We accepted it. We went along with it."

In fact, departmental spokesmen have said openly that they know the parity concept is being repudiated and repealed by the express language of the bill. However, they say, these were the recommendations of a farm organization, not the recommendations of the Department. I must say that the Department recommended this year a lowering of flexibility with respect to certain scales of the price supports. Instead of 90 percent to 75 percent, they recommended 90 percent to 60 percent. In some instances they recommended 90 percent to 0. However the parity concept would be maintained, as would the promise of full parity.

Mr. President, we have before us a measure which, when it :finally goes into effect in the third year, will base pricesupport levels not upon parity, not upon what is a fair relationship between what

is the cost of goods which the farmers produce or the price of goods which farmers must produce, as compared with the price of goods which farmers buy; it will base price supports instead upon the average price of the last 3 years, less 10 percent.

So, if the price of a particular com .. modity for the last 3 years averaged, let us say, 60 percent of parity, the support levels which would be offered by the De .. partment of Agriculture for a farm pro .. ducer would be 10 percent less than 60 percent of parity, or 50 percent of parity, but never stated in parity terms.

There is some trick phraseology. I said last night that one of the factors which psychologists and psychiatrists note is what are called conditioned re .. flexes. A conditioned reflex is an automatic response to a particular situation or to a particular sound or set of actions. A conditioned reflex is spontaneous.

For a long time the American people have been told that there are two kinds of price supports-flexible and :firm. In all that time, the phrase "90 percent" has been used. It is either "75 to 90 percent" or "90 percent" or "60 to 90 percent." But the phrase "90 percent" has been used again and again and again. But it was always "90 percent of parity" or 90 percent of true equality in the economic market place.

The bill before us contains the term "90 percent," but it is not related to anything with which it was associated in the past. The bill says that for certain commodities the price-support levels will be 90 percent of the average market price for the past 3 years. The average market price, in the instance of feed grains, ..as I shall point out, could be as low as 55 or 60 percent of parity, if it is calculated on the parity principle.

That is the support level which the Government would offer, and the price would be 10 percent less than 55 or 60 percent, a parity price which was already 40 percent less than being fair.

I want our friends to know that 100 percent of parity means an "even Stephen" break for the farmers; 100 percent of parity is the same sort of thing which a wage earner gets when he has an escalator clause in his contract. Many wage earners work under union contracts with management, contracts which have had wages negotiated at from $1.75 to $2 an hour. If the cost of living goes up 1 percent, the contract wage is calculated so that the worker's income then goes up, let us say, another few cents an hour, to keep the worker's wage at parity or equality.

The same is true of management. Management says that when wages go up, when the cost of operation goes up, when taxes go up, when advertising costs go up, it is necessary to have a little more money for its commodity. That is what management calls parity. Believe me, they get it.

The steel industry knows how to get its parity. The steel industry is the greatest industry in America. Whenever the managers of that industry announce a price increase, what do they do? They tell the American people that the price increase is justified because the costs of operation have risen. That is the way

1958 CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD- SENATE 14887 the steel industry interprets equality of treatment. The steel industry says it cannot pay more taxes, more rent, more interest on the money it needs to expand its business, more wages, without raising the price of its finished product. The price of the finished product is what the industry calls the parity price for steel.

Similarly, it is what the maritime industry or shipbuilding industry calls the parity price for shipping. By the way Mr. President, fellow taxpayers, and con~ stituents, when the United States merchant marine is provided for by Congress, it is provided with 100 percent of parity. We give subsidies to our shipping industry. I am not opposed to that. I simply want all those who have been feasting at the public board to admit it. We need a merchant marine. We need one just as we need the farmers of America.

One of the greatest elements of strength in America today is the family farm. One of the greatest threats to the f':lture is the corporate farm. The only difference between the American corporate farms and the collective farms of the Soviet Union is that in the Soviet Union the government owns the farms; here a handful of people own them. But both types are big, massive, mechanized, and corporate. One type is collective· the other is corporate. One type is public ownership; the other is semipublic ownership.

I want the RECORD to be perfectly clear that I have not yet heard a single Member of Congress advance the proposition that the shipping interests of America ought to receive from the Government the average 3-year market price for their shipping, less 10 percent.

I have not heard anyone say that the steel companies of America ought to receive the average 3-year market price for their product less 10 percent. I h~ve not heard a:t?-yone say that the way to treat the i:f!,!!roads of America, which recently had a bill passed by Congress which provides hundreds of millions of dollars of guaranteed loans, is to take the average income of the last 3 years of "lousy" business, knock off 10 percent below that, and say that that is fair.

But that is exactly what the present proposal intends to do to the farm producers of America. I am here to give some news. I do not intend to let it happen, if I can help it.

On February 16, 1938, Congress enacted a new Agricultural Adjustment Act strengthening and broadening the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotme_nt Act--and providing the basic legislatiOn for all of our price support programs since that date. It has been amended frequently since, but it is still our basic farm legislation-and its basic purposes and policies stand unchanged today.

It declared it to be the policy of Congress to assist farmers "to obtain insofar as practicable, parity prices f~r such commodities and parity of income," and then defined parity as applied to income as "that gross income from agriculture which will provide the farm operator and his family with a standard of living equivalent to those afforded persons dependent upori other gainful occupation."

I hope no Member of Congress really thinks that farmers ought to have a lower standing of living than other people have. Here, for the first time in 25 years, we are contemplating the enactment of legislation which will repeal the objective of every public law, promise, and pledge which Congress has enacted or given for 25 years-for a quarter of a century-that a farm operator and his family are entitled to a standard of living equivalent to that afforded to other persons dependent upon their gainful occupations.

My colleagues will have some fun tryin~ to explain this one out on the stump this fall, because I am going to be around telling the folks, too. My colleagues will have some trouble explaining to farm families why they thought those families ought to get 10 percent less than a bad price.

While limes may be selling at 400 percent of parity, corn has been selling in my State at 58 percent of parity. I shall not vote for a bill which will let it be sold for 10 percent less than that.

We do not need to let this happen, regardless of the differences we may have over what are fair levels of price supports. I hope we will not pass a measure which will repudiate the whole doctrine of parity. We can cure the condition in the bill simply by an amendment to each section of the bill which will make it quite clear that whil~ the percentage of price supports may be lower, the concept of parity is still the objective of American agricultural policy.

I am not arguing whether the program should be 60 percent, 70 percent, 80 perce~t, or 90 percent of parity; bllt certamly we should remain true-and faithful to_ the ~tand9:-!'rl and the objective of Anl~l'll:an agricultural policy since 1933.

Mr. President, one major country in the world has repudiated the concept of parity; it is Soviet Russia. But certainly I never thought Congress would depart from the parity concept, in providing for the agricultural policy for the United States.

Of course, one of the glaring weaknesses of the Soviet Union is its agricultural setup.

On the other hand, in Western Germany, 100 percent of parity is an objective and a reality for most farmers.

In France, 100 percent of parity is an objective and a reality for most farmers.

In Great Britain, 100 percent of parity is an objective and a reality for most farmers.

In Canada, 100 percent of parity is an objective for farmers.

In every civilized country in the Western World, including the countries of Latin America and the countries of Western Europe, the government has a policy of seeking parity of income for farmers.

Only one country, one empire, does not have the pa~ity concept; Nikita Khrushchev and the other boys in the Kremlin apparently dashed, a long time ago, the hopes of the Russian farmers for parity. However, Mr. President, I do not wish to get from steh a source my inspiration in regard to a.gricultural philosophy; oh, no. Furthe~t.'""nore, the whole collective

system of agriculture in the Soviet Union has broken apart at the seams, and today that is a weakness in the Soviet structure which holds the Soviet Union more to a course of nonbelligerency than does anything else.

Mr. President, the quotations I gave a few minutes ago were from the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938-sections 2 and 301 (c) (2), United States Code section 1281. '

During all the conflict over fixed supports or flexible supports, never once was it argued that we should abandon parity as our standard of measurement for whatever program we accepted.

I can imagine what would have happened in this country in 1956 if Dwight ~isenhower and Ezra Benson had said, We oppose parity." If they had said

that, just imagine what would have happened at the ballot boxes. But instead they said, "Do not vote for Mr. Steven~ son; he does not favor as much parity as we do."

In the elections of 1952, 1948, 1944, 1940, 1936, and 1932, the parity concept was the one which was favored. Even ~erbert Hoover was in favor of the parIty concept; and he made a valiant effort to fulfill that pledge and promise.

But at this time, in the year 1958 after parity platforms have been an~ nounced, after candidates have run for office, after some of them have been elected, and after organizations have taken their stand in favor of the parity concept and have told the American farmers and communities that they faV?r it, the Congress is asked literally to dig a grave for parity and to bury it alive.

Mr. President, in the past our country has had firm support programs. The United States has also had flexible support programs. It has also had discretionary support programs. But all of them have been based on the original parity concept, as provided in the law.

There have been arguments and serious debates over the proper formula to use in arriving at our "parity" measuring device. Attempts have been made to improve the parity formula and I believe it has been improved; and from time to time changes have been made in the parity formula. But we have never abandoned the principle. We have had different procedures for the purpose of achieving the objectives. Sometimes we have ?roceeded by means of crop loans; sometrmes, by means of acreage reserves; sometimes, by extensions of credit; sometimes, by means of the Soil Bank. We have had a host of means and methods, to be used to attain the parity objective. But we have never re• pudiated that objective.

Yet that is what the pending bill proposes that the Congress provide. That is why I say the bill proposes the greatest change in agricultural policy since 1933, for it calls for a reversal, and for a return to the policy of the 1920's. .

Contrary to the very policies of the basic law which this bill amends, for all intents and purposes the bill abandons the parity concept, and accepts in lieu therefor 10 percent less than the free market.

14888 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July~ 24·

No longer would price and income protection programs for the commodities covered, at whatever level and to whatever degree Congress, in its wisdom, may determine should exist, have any relationship to the changing costs of the things a farmer must buy, changing taxes, interest, and other prices he must pay, or changes in the rest of the economy.

Instead, any Government protection afforded the farmers would be under what he could normally expect to get in the free market-10 percent under.

Instead of having farm programs designed and directed to bolster the free market, they, themselves, would become a downward drag on the free marketwith an automatic downward escalator of less and less protection for the farmer in the years ahead.

Mr. President, one of the great achievements of the support program of the past was that it maintained high standards. But do my colleagues realize that recently, when the Secretary of Agriculture announced that he would buy some turkeys for the school-lunch program, in order to stabilize or improve turkey prices, the very fact that the announcement was made resulted, in just 1 day, in an increase of more than 2 cents a pound in the price of turkeys. In fact, that increase occurred before the Secretary of Agriculture even bought one turkey. Do my colleagues also realize that if, tomorrow morning, the Secretary of Agriculture were to announce that $2 a bushel would be paid for wheat, solely as a result of the announcement, the price of wheat would rise? Why? Because no other market compares to the market afforded by the Government of the United States. The purchases for the armed services and the purchases for our strategic reserves, in a world of tension, make the Government of the United States the greatest single purchaser the world has ever known. So when the head of the Department of Agriculture states the price he will pay, the entire market takes on a new look. On the other hand, when the Secretary of Agriculture or any other leading official of that Department says prices are too high, down they go.

Mr. President, can you imagine how long the Secretary of Commerce would remain in office if he were to advocate that stock market prices come down? In that case, certainly there would be a march on Washington-by some of the best-dressed men in the Nation, either with vicuna coats or without vicuna coats. To Washington they would come, and they would go to the White House. They would park their coats outside; and then they would go inside the White House, and would say to the President, "Mr. President, in the Commerce Department you have a man who recommends that stock prices be 10 percent lower than the market prices. Get rid of him before you ruin the country."

And I would agree with them; if any Secretary of Commerce were to say such a thing, he should be fired.

Mr. President, can you imagine how long a Secretary of Labor would remain in office if he were to state that he

thought minimum wages were too high, and should be reduced; or if he were to state that minimum wages paid under Government contracts should be reduced? A Secretary of Labor who made such a statement would not remain in office long enough to take a second breath before he said, "I resign.'' He would be gotten out of town faster than the Russians launched the sputnik.

But Secretary of Agriculture comes before certain of the Congressional committees at a time when, for 5 years, the agricultural economy has been decreasing, agricultural indebtedness has been rising, the number of persons on the farms has been growing smaller and smaller every year, and the number of farms has been growing smaller and smaller every year; and under those circumstances the Secretary of Agriculture testifies, before the Congressional committees, "I think agricultural commodity prices are too high. We must do something about the situation. We must get rid of the parity concept, and we must get down to the market-price level. In fact, the market price is too high, and we shall have to cut it by 10 percent. And after that, there will have to be a further cut in price, before a depression psychology sets in."

Mr. President, I am told by some persons that such a philosophy can be made popular. Lately, I have heard that the Department of Agriculture and the Secretary of Agriculture have taken on new popularity-that they are popular in the cities, because the urban consumers feel that it is good to have lower agriculturalcommodity prices.

Mr. President, I can tell you how the Secretary of Labor can be made popular in the country: Reguce labor prices. That would make him popular in some quarters. And I can show you, Mr. President, how to make the Secretary of Commerce popular, too, with the folk who have already taken a licking on stock prices. Just have him say he thinks everybody else should take a loss.

One of the greatest public-relations campaigns America has ever known has been under way in an attempt to build up the policies of the present Department of Agriculture. I say, most respectfully, that, if the United States information program were half so effective abroad, in being able to combat Communist subversion and in being able to carry the message of American democracy to peoples in other lands, as the Madison Avenue experts have been in describing the policies of the present administration at home to the American people, we would have the cold war won.

It has always amazed me how we can have such an ineffective overseas propaganda program and such a very effective administration propaganda program at home. I hope this is no indication that we are bigger "suckers" than others. I do not think so. I think the truth is that the efforts of the experts are spent on fooling the American people, when it would be well if we would try to have the experts tell the truth to the American people and people abroad.

About an hour ago I had a reporter ask me, "Senator, is it not true that word

has gone out that no one should say anything against Secretary Benson because his political strength is considerably better now than it has been?"

I said, ''Well, the first thing about that is it is a part of the propaganda campaign. A part of the propaganda is to make the American people, and even Congress, believe that Ezra is to be untouched, that he is already popular, that he is one of the great political assets of the administration."

That may be. The administration is pretty short of assets. Maybe the administration can call him an asset.

Mr. President, I do not want to be personal about it. I happen to think Mr. Benson is a fine, decent, wholesome man, of good morals and character; but I disagree with his philosophy of government, and I disagree with his philosophy of agricultural economics. That is an honest disagreement. He thinks he is right; I think I am. I am going to show that while he may think he is right, the results of his policies have been exceedingly destructive.


Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. MONRONEY. We all can, as I

do, respect the sincerity and the moral character of the Secretary of Agriculture, but we can sometimes doubt very seriously his judgment and his assessment of the facts. As the distinguished Senator knows, and as he has told the Senate so many times, when the Secretary points the finger of scorn and of blame at the American farmer for the high cost of living, he should know better. The reports of his own Bureau of Economic Statistics show that the prices the farmer receives for agricultural products have fallen while their cost to the consumer has risen. It seems that every time the price of ·wheat falls, the price of bread goes up. The farifi€i"3 ggt hit in one direction with falling prices while the consumers get hit in the other direction with rising prices, often on the same agricultural commodity.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator from Oklahoma is stating a very pertinent fact. Farm prl.ces got down to about 80 percent of parity. That included all prices fixed by marketing orders, and there are many of them. Marketing orders are permitted by an escape clause in the antitrust laws which makes it possible to have marketing agreements, which, literally, through a program of scarcity, force prices up. That is what a marketing order does. All farm prices are included in the overall parity analysis. The administration's farm program finally got farm prices of all commodities, on everything from limes and lemons down to rutabagas-! think the Department even included rattlesnake meat and snails-down to 80 percent. Prices went down so far that, a few months ago, everybody was wondering how long the farmers could take it. Speech after speech related to the depression in agriculture. Now that prices have gone up 2 or 3 percent, we are told farmers are much better off. It is the same as saying, when Khrushchev goes around glowering like a tiger, that he

1958 ,. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14889 is mad, and then saying, when he smiles, "Look at Khrushchev. He is a nice fellow" Do not kid yourself, Mr. President; he just does not happen to have a stomach ache on the day he smiles.

Merely because farm prices go from 80 percent of parity to 83 percent of parity does not mean the policies of the Department of Agriculture are any better. What it means is that because of variable conditions, as a result of acts of nature, such as droughts and :floods, or a freeze in the Southeast, which killed many citrus plants and trees in Florida and other parts of the Nation .-because Divine Providence moved in to rescue Benson at great cost to the farmers, the administration claims its policies are a great success.

Do not misunderstand me, Mr. President. I likes limes. My whole family likes limes. My father's and mother's

· families before us liked limes. But I want you to know, Mr. President, we have a tough time raising limes in Minnesota. We have not been able to do it. I du not think it is right t-o contemplate an agricultural policy on the basis of 400 percent parity for lines, and 300 percent for lemons. I am in favor of the farmers having the benefit of those prices, but I think it is better to contemplate also the prices of other commodities.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. ERVIN. I was going to ask the

Senator if, as a matter of fact, the administration's farm program is not working according to the administration's plans. As I understand the administration's farm policy, it is that if farming can be made sufficiently unprofitable that many farmers will abandon their farms, surpluses will disappear, and the problem, from the administration's viewpoint, will be resolved. I am wondering if the policy is not working according to the plans of the administration.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I think the analysis of the Senator from North Carolina is correct. There is a principle in economics called the Malthusian principle. It is that population growth has a relationship to production of foodstuffs, and production of foodstuffs has a relation to population growth. As the population grows, it will out-eat itself, much of the population will die off, and there will be a resulting balance of production and population.

There is now a Bensonian principle. The Bensonian principle is that if we have surpluses of agricultural commodities, rather than try to reduce the surpluses or rather than control the production which results in the surpluses, the thing to do is to control the situation ·bY the process of economic attri~ tion of the producers of the products. Do not control the products, says the Department. Do not control the end product. Do not try to have an effective control of the marketing. Do not try to stimulate consumption by broad programs. But the thing to do is let the laws of nature, let Adam Smith's ·philosophy of the rule of the jungle in economics, take care of the producers.

As producers are driven off the farms into the cities, we may be able to lower the amount of production. I will say to the Senator from North Carolina, in the language of the day, they have even "loused up'' that.

Mr. ERVIN. In such a case the only surplus left to bother with is a surplus of unemployment.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator is correct. We have not only a surplus of corn, o.f wheat, and of feed grains, but also a surplus of 5.2 million unemployed people in our States. What is more, the administration is now conditioning us to the fact that we have to expect such a situation to continue for some time. All the latest economic reports are to the effect that production is up, income is up, and everything is jolly, except, of course, that somewhere or other there seems to be a skeleton in the closet, in the room in the northeast corner, and that skeleton is about 5.2 million people who are unemployed. If we could get folks to forget about that, say the economists of the administration, we could point to the fact that housing starts are up and steel is up to about 65 percent of capacity, and other things are improving. The trouble is that the economists always have to face the fact that people are around. That is what really bothers them-people.


Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. MONRONEY. Is it not a fact

that the economists and the "brain trust" of the Benson shop seem to have myopia when they are examining the relation of farm prices to the parity index, but they have the sharpest sight and the greatest ability to accent and overpublicize when the per capita farm income goes up. The "brain trust" is shooting for a high per capita farm income. However, the Benson policy, so ably explained by the distinguished Senator from Minnesota and the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, is that we can double the per capita farm income by simply reducing the number of farmers to half.

Mr. HUMPHREY.· The Senator is correct.

Mr. MONRONEY. It seems an effort is made to do exactly that. The liquidation of farmers during the Benson period has established an alltime record. Moreover, the movement is accelerating. In another 3 or 4 years we will be able to show, on the basis of the same income, if the farmers are able to hold the income they had 2 years ago, that the per capita income of farmers has doubled, because we will then have about half as many farmers who are able to live on the farms of the Nation.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator is very correct.

It is said that one can give persons around the table a bigger piece of pie in two ways. One is to have a bigger pie, for the same number at the table; the other is to have the same size pie, or a smaller pie, and get rid of some of the persons at the table. The administration has said, "Look, the house is crowded anyway, and we never liked some of

these folk in the first place. Oh, we invited them in; every election year we invited them in, but they are not really our kind." That is what the administration spokesmen feel; so they either keep the same piece of pie, or get a smaller pie, and get rid of about half the guests. Then they say, "Are you folk not happy? Look at what you have. You have a big piece of pie here."

Of course, those who are outside in the rain are wondering when they are going to get some pie. They have not quite caught on, though most of them have now caught on to the fact that they are the unwanted guests and that really the invitation was a phony.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. PROXMIRE. I should like to

congratulate the Senator from Minnesota for a superb presentation, and I should also like to point out, lest the eloquent statement be misinterpreted, that the piece of pie the farmer is getting, when we talk about the individual farmer, is not getting any bigger. The piece of pie is getting smaller.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Indeed it is. Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. Benson is a

real magician, who has not only driven people away from the table, but has reduced the size of the piece of pie that each remaining farmer receives. Not only that, farmers are being driven away from the table in this day and age and are leaving, as the Senator implies, but as I want explicitly to state, they are going to a market in which there are no jobs available. The farmers who leave the farms cannot find work. They join the lines of unemployed in Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis. They cannot find work.

The Milwaukee Journal made a very interesting study in Wisconsin and found that 40 percent of the farmers of Wisconsin had to have outside work in order to supplement their income. Forty percent of the farmers had outside work. I tell the Senate that the farmer is the last to be hired and the first to be fired. Not only has farm income been diminished, but jobs are vanishing, and there are no other jobs for those farmers in Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Carolina, or Oklahoma. They cannot even find extra work. The recession has hit the farmer, the small businessman and the industrial worker.

What is not fully understood is how surely and disastrously conditions have hit the farmer. The farmer has been pushed by Secretary Benson, under the disastrous policies of this administration, into a market where there is a diminishing supply of jobs, so that he has suffered, and suffered terribly.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I think the Senator's statement as to the farmer who has to take part-time work being the last one hired and the first one fired is a very pertinent observation. I am sure my colleagues who go home to talk to their constituents know that to be the truth.

Let me say to anybody who thinks we are trying to be melodramatic that we are quite candid. Many farm families

14890 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24-

are doing very well. Some farmers are doing exceedingly well. By making that statement, we do not mean they have been given special privileges. We simply mean that through mechanization, heavy investment, careful management, and long hours of work, some farmers have done fairly well.

What we are talking about is not whether the farmers have done fairly well or very badly. We are talking about the principle of equality of treatment. We are talking about whether a farmer in the State of Minnesota is entitled to equal treatment.

A farmer in Minnesota must have an average investment of over $50,000. I want my colleagues to realize that. More than $50,000 of invested capital is necessary, and the farmer works an average of 14 hours a day, 6 days a week, and puts in a good bit of work on Sunday. The average hourly wage for a farmer in Minnesota, on the basis of his $50,000 investment, is less than 60 cents an hour. The average hourly wage is between 50 and 60 cents an hour. That is what the farmer gets.

I submit to my colleagues that the man who washes automobiles at the filling station gets more than that, yet he has no investment.

We are talking about whether, in a high priced economy for agricultural producers as well as for other producers, a man is entitled to at least have an opportunity to earn a reasonable return on his investment. That is what the discussion is about.

I say this, because I can almost hear the response which will come. I can almost hear someone say, "The Senator from Minnesota tried to portray the American farmers as if they were poverty stricken." That is not the case at all. Our farmers are too proud to be placed in that category. Our farmers will work &.t three jobs before they will let that happen to them.

But, Mr. President, when industry insists upon the right to earn 6 percent on its investment, and when utilities are protected by law so that they earn 6 percent or more on their investment, it is not fair for a farmer who has a $50,000, $60,000, or $70,000 investment to earn less per hour than the most common laborer for his work and for his family. Incidentally, that figure includes the value of the food he eats from his farm, also.

That is why people are not going to the farms to live. Senators can ask any young man who has a high-school education, and perhaps a year or two of college work, what his plans are, and whether he wants to go on a farm.

As an example, in my State, according to the Farmers Home Administration, it takes a minimum loan of $20,000 to get started. The minimum loan to start a farm is $20,000.

That is a great deal of money, I will say to my friends. How many young fellows are going to be able to borrow $20,000 at high interest rates of 6 or 7 percent, depending upon where the money is borrowed? They cannot borrow at 5 percent now. The interest rates are 6 or 7 or 8 percent. How many

young men desiring to engage in farming can, first of all, obtain the proper credit? Such a young man can only get a loan if his father signs up and his mother signs up, and it just happens that young man has married the daughter of a fairly well to do farmer.

How many young men are going to go on the farms in those circumstances? The young men are not going to go to the farm, when they know, according to statistical analyses made by our own university, that the average wage per hour is under 60 cents. Why, Mr. President, there is not a business in Minnesota which does not pay more than that to its meanest employee. We have a minimum wage law which provides that if one works in interstate commerce he must receive a minimum of 75 cents an hour, if he is 18 years of age; he must receive that much, without any investment. I know youngsters 17 or 18 years of age who are receiving $1.75 an hour. Yet, Mr. President, we expect farm producers to continue their labors for 50 or 60 cents an hour.

In Washington, D. C. there is less knowledge of what goes on on the farm than almost anywhere else in the United States. I can think of no place where it is more difficult to tell the farm story than in Washington. This city is immunized from any kind of objective analysis of what really transpires in either industrial or rural America. About the largest thing in Washington that looks like a farm is a small plot of petunia plants. When it comes to industry, the main industry is real estate. So it is pretty difficult to tell the story of agriculture in this environment called Potomac fever. It is difficult to get the picture of agriculture.

Nothing would help agriculture in America more than to move the capital into the central part of the United States, where people could see what it really means to live in an agricultural community. In Virginia, and in the countryside of Maryland and Pennsylvania, if one travels a little he can see the picture. We work here from morning to night. If we do not get home to our constituency, we start to believe what we read about agriculture; and when we do that, there is about as much relationship between that and the truth as there is between fact and fancy.

Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. NEUBERGER. I always learn

something when I hear the Senator from Minnesota discuss agriculture. He is one of the best informed men I have ever listened to on the subject of farming.

However, as a Senator from a State which does not participate very extensively in the price support program, there is one point which troubles me. Recently the president of the Oregon State College, which has a very outstanding school of agriculture, pointed out, in a letter to the Oregonian, that about three-fourths of the farms in America do not qualify for any Government supports or subsidies. Dr. A. L. Strand, who made that statement, is

thoroughly and accurately informed, as is the Senator from Minnesota. I believe his statement to be authentic.

I think I was 1 of only 7 Senators who voted last year to do away with the acreage reserve feature of the Soil Bank. I support the conservation reserve, but it seems to me that the acreage reserve has not been very effective, and has largely helped a few large onecrop farmers, rather than the small, diversified farmers.

This is my fourth year as a Member of the Senate. As a Senator from Oregon, I have seen very little legislation come before the Senate which would help the comparatively small farmer in my State. If what we are concerned with is the small farmer, it perplexes me to know what we are doing for him here. For about a quarter of a century there have been six so-called basic crops. If I am not mistaken, I should like to have the Senator from Minnesota, with his superior knowledge, correct me on this. 'l'he basic commodities are rice, corn, wheat, peanuts, cotton, and tobacco. Is that correct?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes. Mr. NEUBERGER. In other words, we

say that peanuts and tobacco, for example, are basic crops; but apples, peas, butterfat, meat, potatoes, oranges, grapefruit, carrots, rutabagas, and many other things which probably contribute far more greatly to nutrition than the three first-named products I have mentioned above are not basic.

I happen to come from a State where only one of the so-called basic crops is raised, and that is wheat. It is raised abundantly east of the Cascade Mountains, on the great upland plateau. On the Coastal Plain and in the Willamette Valley, where by far the largest number of Oregon farmers live, there is nothing raised in commercial quantities which qualifies for price supports. Hardly any of those farms were included in the Soil Bank. Is there anything in the bill which offers those farmers some relief?

Let me make one further observation, and then I shall be interested in the reply of the Senator from Minnesota, whose knowledge of this subject I greatly respect.

There are quite a number of turkey growers in Oregon. They have asked the Government to assist them in a self-help program whereby they can try to maintain the price of their turkeys by restricting the output, so that there can be some fair value in the price of turkeys per pound. They have not been able, to my knowledge, to get such legislation to the ftoor cf the Sena:~. although we have fervent hope that it may still reach there.

What I should like to have the Senator from Minnesota tell me, in order that I may go home and relate it to my people iL Oregon, is this: What kind of program offers real prospective help to the small, diversified, family sized farm which does not produce any of the so-called basic commodities in commercial quantities?

Mr. President, I have great respect for the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, who wrestle with the

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14891 infinite problems presented by the com- Third. Has the committee ever conplexities of modern agriculture. It may sidered the possibility that agriculture be an utter impossibility to write rules may have to be viewed as a public utility? and regulations that will be equally fair Fourth. Has the Department of Agrito every commodity, or for that matter culture ever made a . study of the farto treat equitably everyone operating in reaching changes that may be expected a given commodity group. Of course, we in the pattern of rural life, if commerhave our great farm organizations who cia! farming becomes firmly established speak nationally in regard to general in this country? farm policy, and we have the national Fifth. If the trend to larger and larger commodity groups who press forward agriculture units continues, as appears for programs in support of a particular certain with technological advance, how commodity. For instance, there is aNa- may the intrinsic values of rural life be tiona! Association of Wheat Growers, preserved? whose president this year is_Mr. Floyd Sixth. In the present situation, an Root, an Oregonian. The potato growers average Oregon wheatgrower is reduced have a national organization with its to raising a wheat crop on a fourth of headquarters in Washington. The dairy his wheatland, since his practice of sumpeople, in great number, are represented mer fallowing cuts his acreage approxiby the National Milk Producers Federa- mately in half, and his allotment slices tion. There are many more. Each of in two that remaining half. How will these organizations is interested in long- he survive, with wheat prices perhaps range agriculture legislation affecting his falling to the lowest figure in years? own category and has, I am sure, offered Seventh. What has the committee to its counsel to the committee. say to the dairy farmers who find all

I am wondering, Mr. President, how their costs continuing to increase, at the satisfied the leaders of these farmer or- time milk prices are perilously low so ganizations are with the bill that is now far as he is concerned? before us. This was brought home to me Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator from forcefully by a wire I received Monday Oregon has placed before us again one from my good friend H. D. Rolph, presi- of the most difficult problems facing the dent of the Oregon State Farmers Union, Congress in the field of agricultural legwho feels that the commodities he names islation. His questions are also perfectly have been ignored in S. 4071, the bill timed for the pending bill. There is to provide more effective price, produc- not a thing in the bill which would tion adjustment and marketing pro- help the producers of agricultural comgrams for various agricultural commodi- modities in the State of Oregon. With ties. respect to the feed-grain producers-and

This, I believe, is the chief criticism · there are a few feed-grain producers in expressed in the minority views included Oregon-the prices of feed grains will be in the committee report. I come from down instead of up. So this bill is a a State that has a most diverse agricul- minus for the producers of Oregon. ture. Authorities tell me that over a There is nothing in the bill which relates hundred different Oregon farm com- to wheat. There is nothing which remodities are marketed annually, but the lates to fruits, vegetables, and some of present bill, centering its attention on the other commodities the Senator mencotton and rice, has little interest or tioned. attraction for the producers of these What is there available in agriculture many commodities. In fact, wheat, the policy for the diversified farm, and for one basic commodity that Oregon pro- the producers of commodities other than duces in quantity, is completely over- those which the Senator listed as basics? looked by this measure. Dairying pre- Let me tell the Senator some of the dominates in the agriculture of Oregon's things which are available for fruit procoastal counties. I find nothing in this ducers. There are Federal marketing bill that resolves the very serious prob- orders. A marketing cooperative can be lems of the dairy industry. organized to exercise control, under

Mr. President, I see in this measure marketing orders, iri terms of distribunothing that will ease the financial pain tion, thereby controlling prices. That of Oregon's turkey growers, who now method has been very effective for citrus find it economically more feasible to ship producers. in corn from Nebraska than to feed sur- There is another possibility one should plus Oregon wheat to their growing keep in mind under existing agricultural flocks. policy. The State of Minnesota is the

There are several questions that I be- second largest turkey-producing State lieve are fundamental and pervading in the Union. I believe it is the second which must be answered if we are going or third largest egg-producing State in to offer the farmers of the United States the Union. When the price of eggs goes a measure having any just claim to the down, and the price of turkeys goes descriptive title long range. down, there is trouble. By the way, tur-

First. How can the average farmer keys are a very perishable commodity. who must keep pace with technological They are difficult to raise, and some-

times difficult to market. So when the advance in agriculture, manage the price of turkeys goes down there is trou-mounting capital investment modern ag- ble. There is a large cash. investment riculture requires? involved. There is a great deal of haz-

Second. If technological advance is ac- ard in their production. companied by continuing surpluses, how What authority is there for the Govcan the farmer expect stability of income ernment to be of any assistance? There without adhering to some sort of system is the authority in connection with secof controls and allotments?. tion 32 funds, which are accumulated

from tariffs on the importation of commodities. The tariffs are placed in a fund, and such fund is utilized for the purchase in the American domestic market of commodities which are in excess production.

Also there should be authority in the Commodity Credit Corporation for the purchase of commodities to stabilize market prices, and to make commodities available for relief purposes in the United States-purposes such as the school-lunch program, veterans hospitals, and, I hope, in time, such commodities will be available for old people's homes and for other charitable and relief purposes.

If these policies are used on a timely basis they can be effective. For example, eggs can be purchased when the market price of eggs is down. I remember, years ago, when grade A eggs were selling in my State for 18 or 19 cents a dozen. My wife was paying 75 cents a dozen in Washington for the same quality eggs. In Minnesota, around St. Cloud, in Stearns County, pullet eggs were worth 8 cents a dozen. I used to say that it was hardly worth the wear and tear on the pullet. Every hen must be a pullet one time in her life.

What can we do to bolster that price under existing policies? A timely purchase of eggs for the school lunch program or the Military Establishment or for relief purposes-or even the announcement of such a program-improves and stabilizes the market. ,

What is more, we are greatly in need of credit. In further response to the question of the Senator from Oregon, I have felt for a long period of time that our farm credit structure is inadequate for the present needs of a modern agricultural economy. The credit policy had its inception in the 1930's. We have improved credit availability, but not nearly enough. All too often the Farmers Home Administration conducts its policies on the standards of the American Bankers Association. I do not want anyone to misunderstand me. I believe that most credit should be extended through private credit channels. However, if we are to have for the Farmers Home Administration the same standards as those used by the American Bankers Association, we obviously do not need the Farmers' Home Administration. There is then no need to have the Farmers Home Administration. The purpose of the Farmers Home Administration should be to supplement private sources of credit.

To return to and to conclude my answer to the Senator from Oregon, it is perfectly true that the agricultural policies, as they have been designed by Congress in past years, have not been adequate to meet the needs of diversified agriculture.

That is why I have supported a broadening of the powers of the Secretary of Agriculture so as to permit purchases and compensatory payments. Is it not interesting that only a short time ago we should have passed the Brannan plan for minerals?

Mr. NEUBERGER. The Senator is absolutely correct.

14892 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24.· Mr. HUMPHREY. Secretary Brannan

missed his calling. He should have been Secretary of the Interior. If he had been the Secretary of the Interior, he would have been a hero. We have now passed the Brannan plan for minerals. If our colleagues knew how much iron and other minerals there are in some agricultural products, they would agree with me. If Secretary Brannan had translated the chemistry of agriculture and had told us about the amount of copper and iron and tungsten contained in some agricultural commodities, Con .. gress might have approved his Brannan plan.

The Secretary of the Interior of this business administration, this anti .. Socialist administration, this antisub .. sidy administration, comes to Congress with a plan for compensatory payments and for subsidies for mineral producers, and in no time at all it is reported by the committee and is before the Senate and is passed by the Senate, with hardly a dissenting vote.

I do not want anyone to misunder .. stand what I am saying. I am delighted that we did something for the mineral producers. I support the general~ idea embodied in that proposal. However, is it not interesting that when our. former colleague, a very fine and distinguished man, the Secretary of the Interior of the Eisenhower administration-that busi .. nesslike and conservative Republican administration-comes to Congress with a compensatory production payment · plan for minerals, we are asked to sup .. port this great, farseeing, imaginative proposal.

Poor Charley Brannan came to Con .. gress and suggested that perhaps com .. pensatory payments might be a good idea and would be helpful to some rather difficult commodities which are perishable. It is very expensive to store perishable commodities, and the expense of storing them yields nothing constructive. So he said perhaps it would be a good idea if we would think in terms of production payments or compensatory payments.

What happened to Secretary Brannan should not happen to a fellow American. The roof fell on him. With the roof came the whole National Republican Committee-and some of them are rather heavy. [Laughter.] Is it any wonder that poor Charley Brannan lost his hair? At long last that principle was embodied in a bill the Senate passed a few days ago.

Mr. NEUBERGER. As I -stated a few minutes ago, I have received a very pertinent telegram from my good friend H. D. Rolph, president of the Oregon State Farmers Union. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it may be printed in the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the telegram was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

SALEM, 0 R EG, July 7, 1958. Senator RICHARD NEUBERGER,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. a.:

Senate agriculture b111 in its present form, with no provisions for milk, wheat, vegetables, wool, livestock, is not satisfactory to us. Also the feed grain provision. We hope you will be able to check on the amendments

which will be offered to improve the bill. You are doing a fine job. We do appreciate your cooperation.

H. D. ROLPH, President, Oregon State Farmers Union.

Mr. NEUBERGER. Does the Senator from Minnesota believe, inasmuch as we have now established in the Senate, at the urging of the administration, the Brannan plan for lead and zinc, that some of us may in the future propose the Brannan plan for eggs and apples, without expecting so much fierce criti .. cism as Secretary Brannan received?

I ask that question in all gravity and seriousness. I ask the Senator if we are not almost on the threshold of the time when perhaps we will have to consider very seriously something like the compensatory payments contemplated by the Brannan plan for small, diversified farm .. ers, who raise perishables and who ar~ outside the umbrella of almost any Government protective program?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I think so. I do not believe that merely saying we ought to have the principle of compensatory payments available for our agricultural policy or our agricultural law means that we are about ready to give away the Federal Treasury, or to raise hobgoblins which some of the commentators see in these programs.

If we are to fight a war, we had better have in our arsenal every weapon we can use in fighting and winning it. If we are trying to stabilize agricultural prices, and if we are attempting to have orderly marketing procedures, so that there will be no price-depressing :floods in one month, and a scarcity the next month, and there will be reasonable conditions in the market place for farmers, we ought to have a whole galaxy of means with which to do the job.

What are some of them? There are production payments, crop loans, marketing agreements, farm credit, timely purchases of surplus commodities, farmers' cooperatives. There is also the right of cooperatives to join together in marketing associations.

What I am trying to get at is this: There used to be a time in the life of prehistoric man when there were witch doctors who used the same treatment for every ill. Not so long ago I went to the Medical Museum of the International College of Surgeons in Chicago. It is a wonderful medical museum. If the Senator has a chance to see it the next time he is in Chicago, it would be well worth his while to visit that museum.

Years ago when anyone had a headache, there was one treatment for it: Bore a hole in the head. Modern medical science has found that, although there may be a need at times for a hole in the head, there are also other treatments for headaches. [Laughter.] Sometimes what appears to be a headache, is not a headache at all, but something else. When we treat an economic problem of agriculture, we should not treat it with only one kind of remedy. We should have available a variety of remedies.

As we seek justice and discretionary authority-and I make special note of this-! have not sought in any proposal

though I have made many, or in any amendment I have offered to require the Secretary of Agriculture to make compensatory payments4 I have, however, offered amendment after amendment which has provided . that the Secretary of Agriculture may use compensatory payments, along with other methods.

Do Senators know what happened? We got no place fast. It was because someone has made the words "compensatory payments" nasty words, except when they are applied, as the Senator has said, to sugar or lead or zinc or wool

I wish to make it quite clear that I will vote for the Wool Act again, as I voted for it previously. I have voted for relief for lead and zinc, and I will vote for it again. I have voted for the sugar bill, and I will vote for it again. All I say is, "If you bless my neighbor's children, how about a little blessing for my own?''

Mr. NEUBERGER. What the Senator says is true, of course. A great deal of this is simply a matter of words. In the comparatively short time I have been a Member of the Senate, I have discovered that "what the Government does for me is a service, but what it does for the other fellow is a subsidy." That is the only difference. That is the way the words are used.

I wish to ask an additional question. I think it is timely while the distinguished Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON] is in the Chamber.

One of the most able speeches I have ever heard in explanation or in defense of the two-price plan for wheat was made one evening by the able Senator from Kansas when I had the honor of presiding over the Senate. This epitomizes the problem with which we in Oregon are confronted.

In the eastern part of Oregon, as I have said, there is a very substantial wheat-growing industry. In the western half of the State, along the Pacific seaboard, and in the Willamett e Valley, there are a great many farm families who raise chickens and many turkeys. The natural feed for their ftocks of poultry is the surplus wheat grown in eastern Oregon. However, the wheat is under a price-support program I have endorsed that program, and shall continue to vote for it, but the very nature of the price-support program on wheat tends to make the price too high for the poultry raisers in the western part of Oregon, although the wheat is the logical feed for their birds.

Does not the Senator from Minnesota think that the two-price plan, which was voted in by the Senate several years ago and which expired, I believe, with the veto of the farm bill of 1956, is the most practical solution of this problem? Does he not think that this particular program would offer the wheatgrowers a fair price and a supported price for that portion of their crop which went into domestic consumption for human needs, whereas there would be a much lower world price for that portion of their wheat which would be fed to livestock or to poultry?

What is the opinion of the Senator from Minnesota about that part icular

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE J.4893 program? I know there has been some geographical disagreement on the subject. There is a divided Middle West opinion and a divided Far West opinion. There is a divided opinion in the upper tier of the Middle West and a divided opinion in the lower tier of the Middle West. What is the opinion of the Senator about the two-price wheat plan?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I suppose the simplest answer is that I voted in committee to report the 2-price plan for wheat; and when the Senator from Kansas offered the 2-price plan in the Senate, I voted for it. I was not at all sure then, and I am not at all sure now, that it is the most effective plan. But I think the farmers ought to have a right to try it. That was the main reason why I supported the plan.

The problem in the section of the country from which the Senator from Oregon comes, where wheat is used more as feed than it is in the Middle West, is different from that in my section. It is true that the feeling along the eastern seaboard-and it is my feeling, too-is that the wheat program is not working too well, so it might not be too bad to try something else.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. CARLSON. The Senator from

Minnesota earlier said there was nothing in the bill about wheat. I am happy that the Senator from Oregon has raised this issue. We are raising this year what will probably be our largest wheat crop. As of June 1, it was reported to be 1,-271,000,000 bushels. I believe that when the spring wheat has been harvested, the amount will be larger than that.

On July 1 of this year we had a carryover of 970 million bushels of wheat. The estimate as of July 1 was that there will be a wheat surplus or carryover of 1,200,000,000 bushels. That shows that the present program is one which will have to receive serious thought. I sincerely hope that the Senator from Minnesota, who is a member of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, will keep this in· mind next year, when we will have to come before Congress with an even greater surplus than there has been to date.

Mr. HUMPHREY. If the Senator from Kansas planned to offer an amendment to the bill relating to wheat and wheat production along the lines of the one he offered before, it might serve a very meritorious purpose. But the sooner we begin to try something different from what we have, the better off we will be.

Mr. CARLSON. I had not planned to offer an amendment to the bill, simply because I thought we were close to the end of the session, and there is some farm legislation which is urgently needed at this particular time.

I am firmly convinced that the wheat problem has not been solved by the present program, and that we shall have to give consideration to the domestic parity program for wheat. I appreciate the help I have had, and expect to discuss this matter before the Senate votes on passage of the bill.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Is it not true that the National Grange has supported the program of the two-price system?

Mr. CARLSON. Very definitely. Mr. HUMPHREY. I remember Mr.

Newsom, whom I consider to be one of the foremost agricultural statesmen, favors the system. I really believe that Herschel Newsom is an agricultural statesman.

Mr. CARLSON. I am thoroughly in accord with the Senator's statement. Also, the State farmers' unions of Kansas favor it. I cannot speak for the National Farmers' Union but I am sure they are not unsympathetic to domestic parity. The national organization that I know which supports the two-price system for wheat is the National Wheat Growers Association.

They are sponsoring that type of proposal. I should think they would know the problem of the wheat growers. The National Association of Wheat Growers is convinced the wheat problem will not be solved except through a domestic parity program. This program would save the Government money and assure a sound farm economy.

Mr. NEUBERGER. The present president of the National Wheat Growers' Association is an outstanding resident of my State, Mr. Floyd Root, of Wasco, Oreg. He is a stanch supporter of the two-price plan, of which the Senator from Kansas has been the foremost advocate in the Senate.

I thank the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Kansas for helping to enlighten me on the very important question which now confronts us in the Senate.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, instead of having farm programs designed and directed to bolster the .free market, the present system would lend itself to becoming a downward drag on the free market, with an automatic downward escalator of less and less protection for the farmer in the years ahead.

Now, it is true that this drastic, fundamental change in farm policy under this bill concerns only cotton, rice, and corn and other feed grains.

But certainly there is no Senator on this ftoor so naive to assume that once this door has been opened to throw basic policies of 25 years' standing out the window on these commodities, the parity concept could long be preserved alone for tobacco, wheat, or other remaining commodities.

We need to know what we are doing, in voting on this legislation-and where the road will end that we are embarking upon.

However they may vote, Senators from tobacco-producing States, for example, must realize that they are voting for eventual dependence on the free market for tobacco prices if they support this legislation.

However, they may vote, all Senators from wheat-producing States should realize that this is not just a matter of expanding cotton and rice acreage-it is actually reversing the entire basis of fundamental public policy on agriculture, whatever the differences on how that policy would be implemented.

If all that is needed is to take care of the acreage adjustments for cotton and rice-and I think that is needed-it can be done very simply by a joint resolution of the Senate and the House, which will have the effect of law when signed by the President. All that is needed is a joint resolution to extend for one more marketing year the extra acreage which was granted on an emergency basis last · year for cotton. I submit that that might be a very reasonable alternative.

As a reminder to my friends where the Farm Bureau is the predominant farm organization, who seem to take reassurance in the fact that the Farm Bureau is supporting the bill, let me remind them and the Farm Bureau that it developed its greatest strength, made its greatest progress, and won the widest acceptance from American farmers when it pioneered the parity concept and joined hands with other farm organizations to insist upon its enactment into law.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield upon the condition that he will not lose the ftoor, in order that I may suggest the absence of a quorum, and that the Senate may then receive a visitor from a foreign country?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, upon those terms, I yield to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Minnesota may yield so that I may suggest the absence of a quorum, with the understanding that he will not lose theftoor.


Mr. SPARKMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.



Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LAUSCHE in the chair). Without objec .. tion, it is so ordered.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF MEMORIAL SERVICES FOR THE LATE SENATOR SCOTT, OF NORTH CAROLINA, AND THE LATE SENATOR NEELY, OF WEST VIRGINIA Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi

dent, for the information of the Senate, I announce that on Monday, August 4, the Senate will convene at 10 o'ciock, if that is agreeable to the Members; and there will be memorial services for the late Senator Scott, of North Carolina, and the late Senator Neely, of West Virginia.

Mr. President-The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Texas is recognized.

RECESS Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi

dent, there is in the Capitol the distinguished Prime Minister of Ghana, the

14894 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24. Honorable Kwame Nkrumah. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in recess, subject to the call of the Chair, and that the Chair appoint a committee of Senators to escort the Prime Minister to the Senate Chamber.


The Chair appoints, as the members of the committee, the Senator from Texas [Mr. JoHNSON], the Senator from California [Mr. KNOWLAND]. the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. GREEN], and the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. WILEY].

Thereupon <at 3 o'clock and 8 minutes p.m.) the Senate took a recess, subject to the call of the Chair.

VISIT TO THE SENATE BY THE HONORABLE KWAME NKRUMAH, M.P., PRIME MINISTER OF GHANA During the recess, The VICE PRESIDENT. The com

mittee heretofore appointed to escort the distinguished visitor into the Chamber will now proceed to the performance of their duty.

The Honorable Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, Prime Minister of Ghana, escorted by the committee appointed by the Vice President, consisting of Mr. JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. KNOWLAND, Mr. GREEN, and Mr. WILEY, entered the Senate Chamber, accompanied by His Excellency D. A. Chapman, Ambassador of Ghana to the United States; the Honorable Kojo Botsio, M.P., Minister of Trade and Industries; the Honorable Kofi Baako, M.P., Minister of Information and Broadcasting; Mr. A. L. Adu, 0. B. E., Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Defense and External Affairs; Mr. Enoch Okoh, Acting Secretary to the Cabinet; and the Honorable Kimla A. Gbedemah, Minister of Finance.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Members of the Senate and our guests in the galleries, it is my great honor to present to the Senate a dynamic leader of a new nation, and a friend of the United States, the Prime Minister of Ghana.

[Applause, Senators, and occupants of the galleries rising.] ADDRESS BY THE HONORABLE KWAME NKRU

MAH, M. P., PRIME MINISTER OF GHANA

Thereupon, from his place on the rostrum, the Prime Minister of Ghana delivered the following address:

Mr. President, Honorable Senators, I wish to express my appreciation for your invitation to come here today. It is indeed a great honor to stand before a Senate whose deliberations have guided, and will continue to guide, the destinies of the American Nation, and whose decisions affect people in every corner of the world.

I speak to you on behalf of the Government and people of Ghana--one of the youngest of nations, but one dedicated to those same ideals of liberty and justice which have always guided your own great country. I trust that my visit, at the kind invitation of your great President, will strengthen the ties of friendship which already exist between your country and mine. . I have some appreciation of the weight of responsibility and the burden of work "hich presses on the distinguished Mem-

bers of this great Senate, and I therefore have no intention of talking to you at length. I simply wish to emphasize six basic points.

First. Like you, we believe profoundly in the right of all peoples to determine their own destinies. We are therefore opposed to all forms of colonialism--old and new-and we want to see all nations and their peoples genuinely independent and seeking a higher standard of life. In this respect we have a special concern for those of our fellow Africans whose countries are not yet independent.

Second. Like you, we seek a world .of peace where men and women may bring up their children in tranquillity anc.:. security. Our foreign policy is one of nonalinement, but let no one misinterpret our position in matters affecting the independence of our own nation or the independence of others. I know that you will always finds us alined with the forces fighting for freedom and peace.

Third. We give our full support to the United Nations and its Charter.

Fourth. We pray that your deliberations may succeed in achieving some relaxation in world tension and thus ease the vast burden of expenditure on armaments which weighs so heavily on this country and others. If that can be achieved, we hope that part of the resources thus saved could be used to banish poverty, disease, and illiteracy from the less fortunate parts of the world.

Fifth. I pay tribute to you and your people for the wonderful generosity which you have displayed over the last 13 years in assisting nations devastated by war, and the many other countries which have needed economic help. I am sure that this remarkable record will be enshrined in the history of the world for all time.

Sixth. I do not come to the United States asking for direct financial aid. We need American investment--both Government and private-but only for projects which can stand on their own feet, and ultimately repay the original capital with reasonable interest.

I thank you, Mr. President, and Members of the Senate, for according me this honor. You can be assured of our enduring friendship and good will, and I am certain that the friendship which today exists between the United States and Ghana will endure so long as our two countries exist.

Again, I thank you, Mr. President. [Applause.]

The VICE PRESIDENT. We also have as guests of the Senate today members of the Prime Minister's Cabinet. I should like to ask them to stand, so that the Members of the Senate and our guests will know them.

The Honorable Kojo Botsio, Minister of Trade and Industries.

The Honorable Kofi Baako, Minister of Information and Broadcasting.

The Honorable Kimla A. Gbedemah, Minister of Finance.

Mr. A. L. Adu, permanent secretary, Ministry of Defense and External Affairs .

Mr. Enoch Okoh, acting secretary to the Cabinet.

(The distinguished visitors rose, and were greeted with applause, Senators rising.)

The VICE PRESIDENT. I also introduce a distinguished guest whom we all know, the Ambassador of Ghana to the United States, His Excellency D. A. Chapman.

<Mr. Chapman rose, and was greeted with applause, Senators rising.)

The VICE PRESIDENT. As is our custom, we shall now have the opportunity to meet the Prime Minister in the well of the Senate.

The Prime Minister of Ghana was escorted to a position on the floor of the Senate in front of the Vice President's desk, and was there greeted by Members of the Senate, who were introduced to him by Mr. JOHNSON of Texas and Mr. KNOWLAND.

Following the informal reception, the Prime Minister and those accompanying him were escorted from the Chamber.

RESUMPTION OF LEGISLATIVE SESSION

At 3 o'clock and 32 minutes p. m., the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer <Mr. CoTTON in the chair).

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT A message in writing from the Presi

dent of the United States submitting nominations was communicated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGE REFERRED As in executive session, The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. TAL

MADGE in the chair) laid before the Senate a message from the President of the United States submitting several nominations, which were referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

<For nominations this day received, see the end of Senate proceedings.)

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre

sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its reading clerks, announced that the H0use had passed the bill <S. 3420) to extend and amend the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, with an amendment, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate.

The message also announced that the House had passed the bill (S. 3651) to make equity capital and long-term credit more readily available for small-business concerns, and for other purposes, with amendments, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate.

The message further announced that the House had agreed to the amendments of the Senate to the bill <H. R. 11636) to repeal section 6018 of title 10, United States Code, requiring the Secretary of the NavY to determine that the employment of officers of the Regular NavY on shore duty is required by the public interest.

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14895 The message also announced that the

House had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 12541) to promote the national defense by providing for reorganization of the Department of Defense, and for other purposes.

The message further announced that the House had passed the following bills, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:

H. R. 488. An act to provide for the conferring of an award to be known as the Medal for Distinguished Civilian Achievement; and

H. R. 11805. An act to promote the national defense by authorizing the construction of aeronautical research facilities by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics necessary to the effective prosecution of aeronautical research.

ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION SIGNED

The message also announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the following enrolled bills and joint resolution, and they were signed by the Vice President:

H. R. 7153. An act giving th'l consent of Congress to a compact between the State of Oregon and the State of Washington establishing a boundary between those States;

H. R. 7729. An act for the relief of August Widmer;

H. R.13088. An act to fix and regulate the salaries of officers and members of the Metropolitan Police force and the Fire Department of the District of Columbia, of the United States Park Police, and the White House Police, and for other purposes; and

H. J. Res. 589. Joint resolution for the relief of certain aliens.

HOUSE BILL REFERRED The bill <H. R. 488) to provide for the

conferring of an award to be known as the Medal for Distinguished Civilian Achievement, was read twice by its title and referred to the Committee on Labor. and Public Welfare.


of the bill <S. 4071) to provide more effective price, production adjustment, and marketing programs for various agricultural commodities.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, there are some members of this body who still remember the late, great Ed O'Neal, who built the American Farm Bureau Federation into an effective national force for agriculture-by advocating successfully the very parity concept we are now being asked to destroy.

While there are many other serious flaws in this farm bill, the most basic of all is the abandonment of the parity principle and a return to the Hoover-era conditions of the early thirties.

Yet almost equally dangerous is an entering wedge to abandon devices and machinery by which farmers may adjust market supply into reasonable balance with demand.

The twin arms of basic farm legislation have been the willingness of Con-

gress to offer a degree · of price and income protection in return for participation of farmers in efforts of their own to adjust supply closer to effective demand.

Now we are seeking to chop off both arms.

Mr. President, I want Members of the Senate and the American public to understand that the pending bill provides price supports and no production controls. The oPJy way I can interpret this kind of measure is that it is based upon a desire to kill off all effective price support legislation.

Frankly, I do not believe that an effective price support program is possible without production controls; and when I see a program being advanced which permits unlimited acreage, unlimited production; with price supports at the same time, I say that it can only add up to an economic disaster.

If at the present time, as the distinguished Senator from Kansas said not long ago, we have more than 1,-200,000,000 bushels of surplus wheat, despite the fact that we have taken out of production 35 percent of the entire wheat acreage, imagine what would happen if we ever permitted unlimited production of any and all acres the farmers could plant, with a price support program in addition. I do not see how that kind of legislation could be justified.

On the one hand the administration complains about the surplus, and the American taxpayer has reason to complain about the cost of a farm program. On the other hand, the proposal before us, which is supported by the administration, would permit increased acreagein the cotton situation, up to a 40 percent increase in acreage, and in the case of corn, no allotments whatsoever and no acreage controls at all. Already there are hundreds of millions of bushels of corn in surplus.

It seems to me that the only way to justify such a program is on the ground that the proponents are looking forward to the day when the surplus situation will be so bad, and the price situation so bad, that we shall scuttle every price support program. I hope I may be wrong in that prediction, but I can see very little to indicate that this program would do anything else but increase production by a very large measure, and thereby reduce prices.


Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. • Mr. PROXMIRE. I ask the Senator

from Minnesota if it is not true that a farm program of price supports without production controls is a prescription for disaster to the taxpayer?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I should say that if we have price supports and no production controls, particularly if the program covers all commodities, and there is no way to take acreage out of production with payments, it is bound to add up to increased supply, which, in turn, means lower prices.

Mr. PROXMIRE. It means, in the first instance, that the taxpayer will have to pay more and more and more in order to make it possible to support the sur-

plus production, if there is no limitation on production.

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is my feeling. Mr. PROXMIRE. In the second place,

does it not follow, as night follows day, that, in view of the fact that only 12 percent of our people live on farms, and the 88 percent are taxpayers--of course, the farmers are also taxpayers--whose immediate economic interest, which is being catered to by propaganda, and so forth, is such as to cause them to be opposed to paying taxes to support farm programs, it is logical for those people to oppose supporting farm prices under such conditions.

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. I believe there is a premeditated plan to aggravate the agricultural surplus problem to the point where the taxpayers become as utterly disgusted with it as they became disgusted with the potato fiasco.

I remember when I became a Member of the Senate in the 81st Congress, one of the first things we had to do was to repeal the potato price-support program. Why? It was because there were price supports with no production controls. There were price supports and unlimited production. Potatoes were piling up. We were putting blue ink on potatoes. We were destroying potatoes. We were spending hundreds of millions of dollars on potatoes, only to find that the American peopM became so utterly disgusted with the whole program that we had to throw it out.

Mr. PROXMIRE. The argument that follows, of course, and the argument which some Senators have made and which many people are making, is that many farm commodities are not supported.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes. Mr. PROXMIRE. And that if we take

support off the commodities which are supported, those commodities may not be hurt but, instead, benefited. Does it not follow, again as day follows night, that cheap feed will mean cheap milk so far as the farmer is concerned?

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator is correct. In fact, I have a little pamphlet in my hand entitled "Farmers Never Win Gambling With Cheap Feed." It states:

You can't beat that old shell game, and here's why.

The pamphlet points out some very interesting facts. I will read some of the headlines: Che~p feed means cheap hogs. When

somebody loses, somebody wins. Cheap feed means cheap cattle. Cheap feed means cheap milk.

Mr. PROXMIRE. That means cheap milk for the farmer, not cheap milk for the housewife.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator from Wisconsin is quite right. He will recall that I have a standing offer that those who support the present farm program and the bill should come forward and demonstrate what the reduction in price supports on dairy products would mean to the consumer.

The galleries of the Senate are filled with consumers who, like my family, buy milk and cottage cheese and other kinds

14896 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 of cheese. The Government price-support program, which has reduced the farmers' income by hundreds of millions of dollars, has been disastrous. In my State the loss of income is more than $25 million. That is like taking $25 million and throwing them into the Mississippi River at floodt ime, to be flushed down the river into the Gulf of Mexico. The price of milk has not gone down 1 cent.

Mr. PROXMIRE. That is, the price of milk to the housewife has not gone down.

Mr. HUMPHREY. To the housewife; yes. The price of butter has not gone down. The price of cheese has not gone down. The only thing that has not gone down is the income of the processor. That has gone up.

The pamphlet I have in my hand, which contains information from Government sources, reveals, for example, some very interesting statistics with respect to some packers. It shows the balance sheets of the three important packinghouses for the year ending October 1955, a little more than 2 years ago.

For example, Swift & Co. made a net profit of $22,893,155, an increase in profit over the previous year of 20 percent. Wilson & Co. made a net profit of $4,-571,051, which is an increase in net profit over the previous year of 46 percent. The Rath Packing Co. made a net profit of $2,637,300. That is an increase in the net profit over the previous year of 86 percent.

Mr. PROXMIRE. At this point I should like to remind the Senator from Minnesota that this morning the Washington Post carried an article which announced that General Foods had increased its dividends by a large amount. That is being done at the very time the

Senate is considering a bill which will reduce very sharply the prices the farmers will receive for their products.

Mr . . HUMPHREY. The pamphlet reveals that, while cattle prices were down, so were feed prices down. Feed prices were cheap. Cattle prices were cheap. However, the profits of the processors were rather good.

I do not wish anyone to misunderstand me. I am not opposed to processors making a good profit. They have a big investment. Merely because farmers get into trouble, I do not mean to say that everyone else should get into trouble also. What we should attempt to do is design a policy which will permit those who are in difficulty to get out of the difficulty without in any way jeopardizing the economy or the profits or the economic position of those who are not in trouble.

Mr. PROXMIRE. I agree with the Senator from Minnesota. There is no question about the fact that high profits are good, just as are high wages and high farm income.

I should like to conclude by asking one more question of the Senator. Is it not true that the bill, if passed, will mean cheap feed and that cheap feed will mean cheap milk-cheap milk for the farmer, not cheap milk for the housewife-with an ever-widening spread which will lead relentlessly to economic depression in town and city?

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator is absolutely correct.

At this point in the RECORD I ask unanimous consent to have printed a table on feed grains.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Feed grains: Average price received by f armers

Com (bushel)

Oats (bushel)

Barley (bushel)

Sorghum grain

(hundredweight)

United States

average market price to

producers manufac

turing milk

(hundredweight)

Production of milk on

farms (million pounds)

1952---- ----------------------- - ----- -- - $1.47 $0. 79 $1.37 $2.82 $4.00 ll4, 671 1953 ______ - ---- --- ---- -- ------ - - - - ----- - 1. 42 . 74 1.17 2. 36 3.46 120, 221 1954 ____ - -- -- -- - - -- - - - ------------------ 1. 38 . 71 1. 09 2. 25 3. 15 122,094 1955 ____ --- -- - -- - - -- - -- ---------- - - -- --- 1. 21 . 60 . 92 1. 75 3. 19 123, 128 1956 I_.-------------------------------- 1. 21 . 69 . 99 2.05 3. 31 125,474 1957----------- - - - --------- - ----- - ----- - 1. 02 . 61 . 89 1. 72 3. 29 126, 381

t Note that in 1956-an election year-feed grain prices rose. *fter the presidential veto of t he 90-percen t-of-parity farm bill in early 1956, feed grain price supports were temporarily raised.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The table shows that in 1952 the price of corn was $1.47 a bushel. In 1957 it had dropped to $1.02.

The price of oats dropped from 79 cents in 1952 to 61 cents in 1957.

The price of barley dropped from $1.37 in 1952 to 89 cents in 1957. Sorghum grain dropped from $2.82 a hundredweight in 1952 to $1.72 in 1957. The average market price to producers of manufacturing milk dropped from $4 a hundredweight in 1952 to $3.29 a hundredweight in 1957.

What happened to the price of milk in the grocery stores from 1952 to 1957?

If the occupants of the galleries could respond, and I were to ask the housewives what happened to the price of butter and milk since 1952, and what they h ad to pay for milk and butter in the grocery stores since 1952, they could give only one answer, and that is that the price has gone up.

The price of the feed the farmer uses to feed his cattle has gone down, and the prices the farmer receives for his products have gone down. At the same time, of course, as I said, the prices in the grocery stores have gone up. The price of butter and the price of cheese have gone up.

Nevertheless the Department of Agriculture says that if we reduce the farmer 's prices, we reduce surpluses. That is the greatest hoax which has ever been perpetrated on the American people. It is unmitigated nonsense.

Production of milk on farms went up from 114,671,000,000 pounds in 1952 to 126,381,000,000 pounds in 1957. At the same time, the average market price to producers of milk went down from $4 to $3.29. There was an increase of 12 billion pounds in the production of milk. At the same time, there was a decrease of 71 cents in the price of milk the farmer received.

It is about time we called some people on the carpet and asked them to prove all the public relations nonsense which is spewed out all over the land. They have tried to lead persons to believe that if we cut the farmer 's price, the supply will be reduced. In other words, if we punish him, the farmer, he will cut back the supply. The truth is he does not cut back the supply. He cannot cut back the supply. He must have a certain amount of money with which to pay his taxes. He has to have a certain amount of money to pay the doctor. Doctors' bills have not gone down. Taxes have not gone down. The price of gasoline has not gone down. Nothing has gone down except the cheap advice the Department of Agriculture gives to the farmers. Everything the farmer touches has gone up. I say again that it is about time that those who continue to mouth and reiterate that by reducing prices, production is reduced, should prove their statements. They cannot do it. They cannot produce one scintilla of evidence. But they continue to say it again and again and again.

There is only one other place in the world where there is that much concerted lying. There is only one other place in the world where there is that much official lying-and that is what it is: It is a lie, and a big lie. It is an expensive lie. There is only one other place in the world where such lying is done, outside the allegations and public relations of our agricultural policy, and that is in the Kremlin. Again and again the American people have been led to believe that all that was necessary was to reduce the price, and the farmer would then reduce his production. I assert, without fear of successful contradiction, that that is pure, unmitigated misrepresentation; it is an outright falsehood.

Mr. President, the proposed legislation lessens or takes away price protection ; at the same time, it deliberately abandons any vestige of trying to discourage overproduction of corn and feed grains.

Which commodity will be the next to have the door thrown wide open, to the detriment of producers and the benefit of processors? I shall have much more to say later about the corn and feed grain situation and its implications on other commodities, because I shall offer some amendments on that very section of the bill. For the time being, however, suffice it to erect a "caution" flag against abandoning such a fundamental principle of farm legislation.

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14897 My third major objection to this bad

legislation is in its omissions, rather than its commissions.

It is ridiculous to talk about an omnibus farm bill that shuts its eyes to the acute economic problems of wheat, dairying, and other farm enterprises just as significant to our total economy or even more so than some involved in this legislation.

It is bad enough to neglect entirely great segments of American agriculture needing help.

It is worse to chart blindly a course for other commodities without regard for the adverse effect such a course itself will have on the neglected commodities.

For example, opening the door to unlimited expansion of corn and feed grain production, at a time we already have serious surplus problems, spells new troubles ahead for our entire livestock economy.

I warn Congress that next year there will be no more acreage reserve. The acreage reserve will be out. The acreage reserve has absorbed millions of acres of land by taking it out of production. If the bill shall pass, next year farmers will have the opportunity for unlimited production. The acreage reserve will be a thing of the past. That will mean 66 million acres, which have been taken out of production by either acreage allotments or acreage reserve payments, will be available for planting. We can look forward to having most of those 66 million acres go back into production.

The bill provides a $1.10 minimum price support for corn. Oh, Mr. President, there will be so much corn in America's countryside when millions and millions of acres of land have been put back into production that what will happen to the market price of corn will be nothing short of scandalous. I make that prediction.

I made a prediction in the Senate in 1956 when we amended the law to provide a $1.25 minimum price for cornwhich we did in 1956. It was for corn which was not under acreage allotments. The price was $1.25 for corn which was in no way controlled. Anybody who wanted to plant an acre of corn was guaranteed $1.25 a bushel. Of course, that was an election year. Such a plan had never been undertaken before in the history of the country. Moreover, it was a presidential year. It was worth 15 cents more in a presidential year. This year is simply a Congressional election year. Now the administration proposes to pay only $1.10. Prices are better in a presidential year, when the big show is on.

What was the result of that $1.25 guaranteed price? What was the result of the first break into that acreage allotment system, which had been used in the case of corn for years? The result was a 3-billion-bushel surplus. Think of it. The result was an unbelievable surplus of corn production. We have never gotten it off our backs since.

Before that, it was normal to have at least a 2- or 3-months' corn supply on

hand. But, as a result of that kind of what I call agricultural politics, which came from so-called highminded and highprincipled men, the Nation had the greatest surplus of feed grain America had ever known. It has been depressing the corn and feed grain markets ever since.

I find that the American farmers are perfectly willing to accept controls. The wheat farmers are taking controls. They voted for them again only recently. They are willing to take controls, particularly if they are given a fair price. They do not desire to flood the market with their products.

But if one goes to Mr. Farmer and says, "Here is $1.25 for any bushel of corn you can produce, so go ahead and produce it; do not worry about a thing; produce, produce, and produce," particularly if it is a presidential election year, and particularly if it looks as if the party is not doing too well in the corn belt, there will be plenty of corn production.

The taxpayers of America pay for it. It ought to have been added, somewhat, to the campaign costs.

Mr. President, opening the door to a vast expansion of cotton acreage to meet textile needs cannot help but mean a similar expansion of cottonseed production, because when cotton is produced, cottonseed also is produced. From this production comes new price-depressing competition to soybean oil, lard, even butter, and, yes, linseed oil.

By now Congress should have learned the interlocking relationship of our farm economy, and realize that we must consider the whole picture. It is not enough to try and cure one problem, if we are creating a dozen more. Before I am through in this debate, I shall document for the Senate in more detail just how devastatingly dangerous this bill would be to vast segments of agriculture who might, on the surface, think they are not even involved.

One of the great dangers of the bill is the subterfuge of its design, to sound relatively innocent with provisions that hide or belie the real intent.

Many who have advocated support of this measure, I am convinced from some of the communications I have received, have not the slightest idea of all that is entailed. They are taking a limited view of what might be some short-run gains for the textile industry, for example, and, I believe, shutting their eyes to the total consequences in our economy.

The Senate must beware of selling the farmer's birthright of just treatment for a mess of pottage around which a tremendous propaganda campaign has been built.

Mr. President, perhaps the most honest appraisal of this measure which I have seen is the analysis by the National Farmers Union which looks behind the surface language to find what is in the fine print--and what is behind the fine print. I ask unanimous consent that the analysis be printed at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the analysis was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: SPECIAL AND URGENT REPORT ON LEGISLATIVE

DEVELOPMENTS-REPORT ON S. 4071, PRO• POSED AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 1958 This bill is unbelievably bad. If enacted,

it would represent a 180 degree turn away from kind of farm policy favored by Farmers Union. Specifically, it greatly weakens the existing price-support programs for corn, cotton, rice, sorghum grain, rye, oats, and barley.

But its long-term fundamental implications are even more threatening and disastrous than the rather sizable immediate cuts it makes in the support levels of these specific commodities. The very serious threat of this bill to family farming takes a little time to soak in. But when it hits, the impact is tremendous. This bill, if enacted, could well set into motion the economic and political process by which vertical integration by nonfarm corporations would replace family farming as the basic structure of American farming.

1. The bill adopts the reactionary concept that the so-called free market, rather than parity, should be the goal and measuring guide of farm programs. Price support levels based on parity are replaced by (a) fixed dollar and cents fioors and (b) the ever-falling support level of 10 percent below the average market price of preceding 3 years.

2. Bill abandons or seriously weakens the idea that market supply management through marketing quotas and similar devices shall be used to enable farmers to acquire bargaining power. Acreage allotments for corn completely eliminated. Function of marketing quotas in cotton and rice programs completely changed.

3. If program is enacted for such politically important commodities as corn, cotton, and rice, it would probably be only a matter of a few years until the above two principles would be applied to wheat, tobacco. milk, and other commodity programs.

Bill is a suck-in subterfuge so designed as to sound relatively innocent, with provisions that hide or belie the real intent.

CORN

For example, the fundamental principles of the bill are applied immediately and fully only to corn. Corn is removed from the category of basic commodities. The acreage allotment program and price supports based upon a percentage of parity is repealed effective in 1959. Instead of making the existing corn program more workable, the whole program is abandoned and a new program with a built-in dual highway back to the completely free market is established in its place. Corn supports in the bill are set at (a) not less than the fixed dollar and cents figure of $1.10 or (b) 10 percent below the average market price of the preceding 3 years. With prices paid by farmers rising every year by 3 percent or more the fixed $1.10 would mean less and less as years go by. With 3 years of $1.10 support.levels and market prices the support level under the other formula would drop to 90 percent of $1.10 or 99 cents per bushel.

OTHER FEED GRAINS

The support levels for grain sorghum, rye, oats and barley are set at feed value equivalent to corn supports or 60 percent of parity. After a few years, if 60 percent of parity got secondary feed grain supports out of line with the dropping support price of corn, you can be sure that Congress would be pressured by the proponents of this approach to eliminate the 60 percent fioor.

It should also be noted that the 60 percent floor for the secondary feed grains is 14% percent below the 70 percent of parity support level established for 1956 by Secretary

14898 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 Benson. For grain sorghum, for example, this would mean a support level of $1.62 per hundredweight as compared with the 1958 support price of $1.83. Incidentally, the feed value equivalent of grain sorghum to 99 cent corn is $1.77 per hundredweight. The effect of the bill on rye, oats, and barley would be similar to that I have described on grain sorghum.

COTTON AND RICE

Bill puts off the free market pncmg for cotton and rice by 2 years. That's the suckin feature. A Farm Bureau witness frankly explained the reason to a House subcommittee recently. He said cotton and rice farmers weren't willing yet to accept price supports based on 90 percent of the free market. But with 2 years educational program, he thought they would be willing.

For all intents and purposes, the longterm program for cotton and rice is the same as for corn and the other feed grains. Prices would be supported at not less than 10 percent below the average market price during the immediately preceding 3 years. Marketing quotas and acreage allotments would be relaxed considerably more than economic application of the price inelasticity of demand would indicate, and surpluses would continue to pile up in CCC forcing still further reductions in support levels.

COTTON

For cotton. in 1959 and 1960 each individual producer would be given the option of taking (B) his share of 16 million acre national allotment plus 40 percent more acres and 60 percent of parity supports; or program (A) his share of 16 million acres with supports at whatever the sliding scale calls for with the supply percentage calculated to include the additional cotton that would be produced in program B. (Thus, the temporary support level for even program A would probably be no more than 75 percent of parity in 1959.) Note that the 16 million acreage allotment for 1959 is a rather severe cut from the 1958 national acreage allotment of 17.7 million acres. The program is thus loaded so that most producers will be forced to add 40 percent extra acres, take 60 percent supports and thus get in line to fit into the 10 percent below market price supports that are scheduled to go into effect in 1961. As an added feature to suck in the southeastern cotton areas with attractive bait, acreage allotments of 10 acres or less would not have to be cut below the 1958 allotment.

The bill now provides that in no event shall the market price of cotton be allowed to drop below 30 cents per pound for middling 1 inch; that's about 26 cents a pound for seven-eighths-inch middling which is currently the official grade for price-support purposes. The 26 cents compares with a 1958 support price of 31 cents.

RICE

Bill freezes 1958 rice acreage allotments permanently, and removes rice from category of basic commodities whose support level would be calculated according to the supply percentage table in the 1949 act. Thus, even if rice supplies are reduced the floor support level would not be raised. Instead, for 1959 and 1960, the support ·floor for rice would be a simple 75 percent of parity. Beginning in 1961 the rice support level would be calculated as 10 percent below the average market price for the preceding 3 years. Sets $4 per hundredweight as minimum. (Which is subject to later change by Congress, of course.) LONG-TERM PRICE IMPLICATIONS FOR COVERED

COMMODITIES

This bill, which applies specifically to cotton, rice, corn and the other feed grains 1s a highly dangerous entering wedge to making a reactionary reversion to the fully flexible

free market farm price policy of the ·early 1920's.

The reversion to free market pricing without market supply management and without compensatory payments goes into effect for corn and other feed grains in 1959 and for cotton and rice in 1961. Thus, the support and market prices of these commodities would swiftly fall to the long-term equilibrium. free market level as during the 1920's and in the early 1930's, after the Federal Farm Board went out of business. The United States price of cotton and rice would be the price established in European and Japanese markets in competition with cotton grown in other lands Ininus the cost of transportation across the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans. The United States price of feed grains would be established by the United States free market price of livestock which would be the Polish and Scandinavian price plus freight to the British Isles and France. Practically all economic statisticians who have studied the matter believe that corn would never rise above 95 cents in the Chicago market. IMPLICATIONS OF BILL FOR COMMODITIES NOT

SPECIFICALLY COVERED

More important to American agriculture as a whole, than even the destruction of the corn, cotton and rice programs by enactment of the bill, would be the economic and political time bombs that its enactment would set up for future destruction of all the other farm income programs provided in existing law.

WHEAT, TOBACCO, AND PEANUTS

The implications of the bill for wheat, tobacco and peanuts are practically obvious. If 10 percen1i below the free market and little or no market supply management is good enough for 3 of the basics (cotton, rice and corn) it ought to be good enough for the other 3. In addition, weakening the price support structure for cotton and corn will put added pressure on the wheat market in two ways ( 1 ) , in the competition for land use and (2), in the market. And even more important, Congress could not be expected indefinitely to maintain existing programs for wheat, tobacco and peanuts, if the other 3 basics were operating on the 10 percent below market price formula.

If, as seems inevitable to me, the bill's principles were applied to these other basic commodities, then the wheat, tobacco and peanut marketing quota programs would be repealed and price supports for those commodities would be placed on the basis of 10 percent below the average of the previous 3 years with unlimited production.

No one knows for sure how far the price of tobacco would fall, certainly to the figure below which Rhodesia could no longer raise tobacco With what amounts to practically slave labor. The support level for wheat would drop to 10 percent below the domestic United States market price for corn plus 4 or 5 cents. Wheat would be lucky to average $1 per bushel, year in and year out, with the price much below that in years of heavy world wheat supply in relation to the supply of corn and sorghum grain.

The support price for peanuts in this event would drop to 10 percent below the price the market would pay for their use for oil.

MILK AND DAIRY PRODUCTS

The bill has no provisions specifically for milk. As of now the existing 75 percent of parity floors for butterfat and manufacturing milk would remain in effect, as would the provisions under which Federal milk marketing orders are established.

But with feed grains and wheat on a 10 percent below market price support program, there would not be any lack of farm program wreckers who would spend a lot of time pointing to the unusually favorable milk-feed ratio and start raising cain.

Moreover, they would have some eoonomie facts to point to. With teed grains and wheat on the free market, With livestock prices dropping to fit free market feed grain prices, there would be a great incentive for everybody who could to go into the business of producing milk for sale to the Government at the then relatively favorable 75 percent of parity fixed fi.oor. Government purchases of dairy products would greatly Increase; the amount of costs recoverable in distribution outlets would fall, and the net Government costs of the dairy program would soar. This would set the. stage for a great hue and cry to add butterfat and manufacturing milk to the list of commOdities that had been placed on the 10 percent below market price support program.

BUTTERFAT

If butterfat were placed on the 10 percent below market price support floor, it would be only a matter of years until the support price for butterfat would drop to 10 percent below the wholesale price of oleomargarine; this would mean a drop from the 1957-58 support level of 58.6 per pound to less than 20 cents per pound.

MANUFACTURING MILK

If the support floor for manufacturing Inilk were placed upon a 10 percent below free market basis, the volume of consumption of ice cream woUld undoubtedly increase by more than the price fell. But the price of cheese, of dry milk solids and of evaporated milk would probably drop to the Philippine or Venezuelean free market price minus freight. The price of dry milk solids would fall to feed value, or less than the cost of transporting skim milk from the farm to the drying factory. United States cheese prices would drop to the European price minus Atlantic Ocean freight. CLASS I FLUID MILK UNDER FEDERAL MARKETING

ORDERS

This type of milk, and the producers thereof, would be affected by this bill in three possible ways.

First, most of these producers bring to market a surplus of milk above that which goes into class I bottles for delivery to housewives. All of such surplus milk would drop in price as indicated above for manufacturing milk and butterfat. Consequently, the blended average price of participating millt producers in Federal order areas would fall as a result of. lower prices for class II milk.

Second, in most market order areas the price placed on class I milk is determined, at least in part, by the market prices of manufacturing milk and butterfat. Thus the class I price would be deflected downward.

But, the third implication of this bill is probably the most dangerous to milk order area producers. The Federal Inilk orders, under the Agricultural Marketing Agreements Act, have special criteria for pricing of class I milk. But is it re·asonable to suppose, politically, that if all other farm commodities and all other kinds of milk and milk products are being priced and supported under the 10 percent below market price theory, the the Federal milk order legislation will not also be changed to use the 10 percent below market formula rather than the criteria now specified in the law.

Former Assistant Secretary Earl Butz and present Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Don Paarlberg have in various speeches both pointed out that the same points made 1n favor of the Benson philosophy for m-anufacturing Inilk in relation to artificial supports were equally applicable to class I milk pricing under Federal orders. The implications of these statements, taken in relationship to the provisions of the Senate committee bill, seem clear and prophetic.

It would be just a matter of time untfl all milk was reduced to the uncontrolled free

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14899 market level. Nobody now knows for sure how long that might be, but reliable esti· mates put it in the neighborhood of $1.75 to $2 per hundredweight compared with a cur

·rent average price of all milk wholesale of $4.11.

SUMMARY As is relatively clear from the foregoing

discussion, I feel that the hidden and longterm implications of S. 4071, the Senate committee farm bill, are more dangerous and sinister than even the injustices specifically done to corn, cotton, rice, sorghum grain, rye, oats, and barley.

As I understand the deals that have been made, the administration has agreed to sign the bill as passed out of the Senate committee.

Because it provides for freezing rice acres at the 1958 level, reduces the scheduled cut ln cotton acres, and eliminates corn allotments entirely, the bill has a certain amount of surface attractiveness to someone who takes only a quick look at its provisions.

Actually, the bill is a first step down a long road that ends in the kind of farm price situation that came about in 1932 after the Federal Farm Board beginning was abandoned.

It will be extremely difficult to defeat the committee bill. Lots of people hate to vote against a farm bill. The offer of the administration to sign it and give cotton and rice producers some acreage relief in 1959 wm be persuasive. Every possible effort is being made to prevent any widespread knowledge of the provisions of the bill from becoming widely known prior to Senate floor considllration. The first effort by its proponents \7as to rush the bill through to passage even before Alaska was admitted to the Union.

Senator HuMPHREY stopped that by putting up a flag in the Democratic policy committee that the bill was controversial. Now it would appear that the bill will not be debated prior to the middle of next week, and probably not until July 11.

However, the committee report does not explain the true nature of the bill, but wraps the whole thing up in soothing sirup, as you can tell from reading it. Time was not adequate for HUMPHREY, PROXMIRE, and SYMINGTON to make a complete and comprehensive analysis of the bill in drafting their minority views.

This b111 goes a long way in the direction of adopting the major provisions that Benson and Eisenhower recommended at the beginning of the session. In fact, the bill differs only in minor particulars for the commodities to which the principles are applied in the bill.

Support levels of proposed bill compared with that which would otherwise be in effect for 1959 are shown in the following table:

EXISTING PROGRAM Cotton: 35 cents per pound. Rice: $4.72 per hundredweight. Corn: $1.36 per bushel. Sorghum grain: $1.83 per hundredweight. Oats: 61 cents per bushel. Rye: $1.10 per bushel. Barley: 93 cents per bushel.

PROPOSED FOR 1959 IN SENATE BILL

Cotton: 29 cents per pound. Rice: $4.33 per hundredweight. Corn: $1.10 per bushel. Sorghum grain: $1.60 per hundredweight. Oats: 57 cents per bushel. Rye: 96 cents per bushel. Barley: 90 cents per bushel. In later years, of course, the prices of all

these commodities would fall from year to year until the free market price stabilized at the world price or whatever other level it might stabilize at. Serious as these specific weaknesses of the Senate bill are they are outweighed by the long-term implications discussed above.

Since the Senate bill, if enacted into law, sets up the economic and political time bombs that could and probably would return all farmers to the unregulated unaided free market, it seems to me that this would largely open the way to usher in the era of farming by vertically integrated ' nonfarm corporate management, probably most commonly chainstores.

Unless the trend in that direction were stemmed and changed, it would spell the doom of the family farm and family farm rural communities as we have known them. The agricultural producers then would not need farm organizations but a specialized type of bargaining agency somewhat similar to industrial labor unions.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, this particular anaiysis is very concise. It covers each commodity-feed grains, corn, cotton, and rice. It shows the long-term price implications; the implications of the bill on commodities not specifically covered. It depicts the implications of the bill for wheat, tobacco, and peanuts. It gives a very fine portrayal of what will happen to milk, dairy products, butterfat, manufacturing milk, and, yes, indeed, class I fluid milk, which ordinarily is protected or taken care of under milk-marketing orders.

The summary analysis which has been prepared by the National Farmers Union legislative service on this particular bill is worthy of the careful consideration of every Member of the Senate.

Let me give as one example a comparison of the support levels of the bill with what is now in existence or what would go into effect for 1959 under the present law. Let us consider cotton. Under the present law, cotton would be supported at 35 cents a pound.

Under the present law, the price of cotton would be 35 cents a pound. Under the pending bill, it would be 30 cents a pound.

Under the present law, the price of rice would be $4.72 a hundredweight. Under the pending bill it would be $4.33.

At the present time, under the pricesupport levels, farmers who participate in the acreage-allotment program are receiving $1.36 for corn. Under the pending bill the price would be $1.10.

Under the existing law, which is not too good, the price of grain sorghums averages $1.83. Under the pending bill, the price would be $1.60.

Under·the present law the price of oats is 61 cents a bushel. Under the pending bill, it would be 57 cents a bushel. So all Senators who voted for the bill would be able, when they returned home, to announce proudly in all the counties of their States in which oats are produced that they voted to cut the price of oats to 57 cents a bushel. Certainly that would be a cheerful message to the hard-pressed oats producers.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield to me?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Minnesota yield to the Senator from Missouri?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I am glad to yield. Mr. SYMINGTON. No one under

stands more thoroughly than does the distinguished Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HuMPHREY] the agricultural problems of the country. All of us know of

his devotion to the farmers of the Nation.

In a case of this sort, it is true, is it not, that facts are the things that count the most?

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. SYMINGTON. I should like to

develop several facts, if I may, with the distinguished Senator from Minnesota.

The distinguished Senator mentioned, first, corn. It is true, is it not, that, in 1957, $179 million of the money of the taxpayers was put into the Soil-Bank program, to reduce the production of corn; but the Government ended up with 222 million more bushels of corn in the Commodity Credit Corporation stocks?. That is a fact, is it not?

Mr. HUMPHREY. It is. Mr. SYMINGTON. Moreover, there

was no cross-compliance. Therefore, in my State, and, I am sure, in other States, the greatest change that occurred in the· farmers' fields in 1957, as compared with the situation in the previous year, was the large amount of sorghums grown. Is not that correct?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes; and the sorghums have a high feed equivalent.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I believe it is about the same as corn.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes. Mr. SYMINGTON. Is it not also true

that many farmers placed corn acreage into the Soil Bank, received payment on the retired acres, and then proceeded to produce a crop with more feed value than had ever been grown on the farm?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Either as much, or more.

Mr. SYMINGTON. It is also true, is it not, that in the same year-as the Senator from Minnesota has well brought out-in which the compliers were paid $1.50 for corn, the noncompliers were notified that they would not be paid anything? Yet later, for reasons which I am sure are well known to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, it was announced that $1.25 would be paid to the noncompliers.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes; the price for corn grown by farmers who did not come under the control program was $1.25; and those farmers were permitted to plant all the corn they wanted to.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Is it not also true that today the basic problem may well be that the Department of Agriculture has never really tried to apply the controls which are provided by the law? Is not that a fair statement?

Mr. HUMPHREY. It is my view that the Department of Agriculture has looked with disdain on production controls, has endeavored to weaken. the ones we have, and has felt that it could rely upon having the democratic process operate in the case of the prices-a plan which has not worked.

Mr. SYMINGTON. In 1933, the principle of parity was established, was it not?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes; in the 1933 act.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Over a period of 20 years, from 1933 to 1953, as the able Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] once· pointed out-there was a total loss on all price-support activities of approximately $1 billion. This included a loss of

14900 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 approximately half a billion dollars in the case of potatoes. Is not that correct?

Mr. HUMPHREY. The total, aggregate loss on all the operations of the Commodity Credit Corporation for 20 years was approximately $1 billion plus, or the equivalent of 35 cents for each person in the Nation.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Whereas, in the case of cotton, there was actually a profit of approximately $265 million; was there not?

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct; the operations in respect to cotton were very profitable.

Mr. ELLENDER. The actual figure is $267 million.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

We know that because of weather conditions and floods in my State, there is a shortage of good-quality cotton. We also realize that cotton acreage will be reduced for the 1959 crop and that something must be done in regard to cotton. I believe the same general problem exists in the case of rice.

However, under the pending bill, the principle of parity, the basis of our farm program for 25 years would, in effect, be abandoned.

Mr. HUMPHREY. So far as the feed grains are concerned-oats, rye, barley, and grain sorghums-the bill would preserve the parity concept at 60 percent. But so far as the others are concerned, the parity concept would be abandoned.

Mr. SYMINGTON. The bill would maintain 60 percent of parity minimum price support on the feed grains; is that correct?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Only in the case of the commodities I have just now enumerated.

Mr. SYMINGTON. The floor is $1.10 on corn, regardless of the value of the dollar. \Ve have already heard of effor ts to lower that floor. After 2 years the parity concept for cotton would be abandoned.

Mr. HIDAPHREY. That is correct; and that is a subject to which I have directed my attention today. ·

Mr. SYMINGTON. Because of the marking up of the Department of Defense appropriation bill, I did not have an opportunity to hear all the Senator's remarks.

The cotton farmers accepts the abandonment of parity in order to get a little more acreage in 1959, as would be the case under S. 4071. The effect may be similar to taking a narcotic in order to ease the pain at the moment: Momentarily the pain would be eased; but later it would be all the greater.

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is my view. Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the Sen

ator from Minnesota. It is also my view. If the basic reason for the pending

bill is a desire to prevent sharp cuts in acreage of cotton and rice, is there any reason why that could not be done by means of a joint resolution passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I believe a joint resolution, which requires Presidential signature, and is "the same as statutory

law, would suffice; and in that way we would be able to meet the acreage l'equirements for cotton and rice.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Then the only question would be whether the President would veto such a measure; is that correct?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes. Mr. SYMINGTON. Some persons

now are saying that if such a measure were passed by both Houses, the President would veto it. Does the distinguished Senator from Minnesota think the President ever would have an opportunity to veto Senate bill 4071, even if it were. passed by the Senate?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I believe that Senate bill 4071, the pending bill, will not reach the President. I have no positive assurance on that score; but from my conversations with Members of the other body, I find that Senate bill 4071 is not favorably regarded; and the Members of the Committee on Agriculture in the other body have indicated privately to Members of this body that they will not take action on the bill.

It is true that that is only a feeling. On the other hand, it is just as much of a feeling as the feeling of those who say that they feel that the President would veto the measure.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, is the Senator from Minnesota willing to yield at this time, in order that we may consider the conference report of the Department of Defense reorganization bill?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Certainly.

REORGANIZATION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-CONFERENCE REPORT Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I sub

mit a report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bHI <H. R. 12541) to promote the national defense by providing for reorganization of the Department of Defense, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. TALMADGE in the chair). The report will be read for the information of the Senate.

The legislative clerk read the report. <For conference report, see House

proceedings of July 24, 1958, pp. 14963-14968, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the report?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the report.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I move that the report be adopted.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, is the conference report being taken up, or is it being agreed to?

Mr. RUSSELL. I have moved that the report be adopted. The Senate had already proceeded to consider the report.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I simply wish to say to the chairman of the Committee

on Armed Services that I think the bill in its present form is an excellent example of cooperation between the Congress and the Executive in assisting in the reorganization of the Defense Department at a time when we all know the security of our country means so much.

I congratulate the Senator from Georgia and the Representative from Georgia in reconciling the differences between the two versions of the bill in a way which I am confident will be satisfactory to the Executive, and which will result in a better bill than either the bill which was originally reported in the House or in the Senate. The two gentlemen from Georgia can take a great deal of the credit for this bill, which I know will be helpful to the security of our country.

Mr. RUSSELL. I am very grateful to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for his very kind remarks. They are all the more generous when we con .. sider that he is one of the prime architects of the bill, and participated in its enactment at every stage of the proceedings and through the conference which was held on yesterday. ·

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I should like to join my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts in commending the distinguished Senator from Georgia for the magnificent job he has done with reference to the defense-reorganization bill. Most wishes of the President have been granted. As the Senator knows, I think the bill does not go far enough; but, because of his diligence and his parliamentary efforts, we have a. bill which is satisfactory to the administration. I believe it will be of great help to our national security.

Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the Senator from Missouri. He is one of the outstanding members of the Committee on Armed Services, and contributed most effectively to the formulation and passage of the bill.

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. RUSSELL. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. LANGER. Will the Senator tell me what happened with respect to the provision concerning the National Guard?

Mr. RUSSELL. The House accepted the Senate amendment which made the National Guard Bureau a statutory agency.

Mr. LANGER. I thank the Senator. I join the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Missouri in thanking the Senator from Georgia for his work. I think such legislation is long overdue.

Mr. RUSSELL. I am grateful to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his kind remarks. I share the hope that the enactment of the bill will contribute to economy in the administration of the Department of Defense, and, above all, in giving the Nation the means of defending that which we all hold dear-what we call the American way of life.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. This Con

gress will enact no more important legis-

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14901 lation than that embodied in this conference report. In my opinion, the conference report is before us today in the good shape it is in because of the diligence and dedicated and very able work of the senior Senator from Georgia. There is no Member of this body who enjoys higher respect in the Senate and in the country, and it is certainly justified, as demonstrated by the job he has done in connection with this extremely complex and controversial piece of legislation. I express to him my personal gratitude for the long hours he has spent in resolving this extremely important matter for the sake of the Nation.

Mr. RUSSELL. I am very grateful to the Senator from Texas. In turn, I wish to thank him for his contributions to the progress of the bill. They were numerous and very helpful.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report.

The report was agreed to.

READJUSTMENT OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS ON EMERGENCY OFFICERS' RETIRED LIST Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I ask

that the Chair lay before the Senate the amendments of the House of Representatives to Senate bill 1732, in order that I may make a privileged motion.

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill <S. 1732) to readjust equitably the retirement benefits of certain individuals on the emergency officers' retired list, and for other purposes, which were, on page 2, line 12, strike out "such grade" and insert "the base and longevity pay which any such officer received while serving on active duty in that grade during the period September 9, 1940, to June 30, 1946"; on page 2, after line 15, insert:

(c) All erroneous payments of emergency officers' retirement pay made after September 30, 1949, and prior to the effective date of this act to any individual advanced by virtue of the authority contained in this act on the basis of service credits certified by the military department concerned, are hereby validated.

And on page 2, line 18, strike out "(c)" and insert "(d)."

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I move that the Senate concur in the amendments of the House to Senate bill 1732.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Georgia.

The motion was agreed to.

FISCAL STRAITJACKET AGAIN DOMINATES DEFENSE

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President-The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Missouri. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if

the Senator will yield, I ask unanimous consent, under the circumstances, that as soon as the Senator from Missouri has completed his statement, the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY] may again have his right to the floor.

CIV--938

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, it is becoming increasingly clear that the fall of 1958 will see a repetition of last year's cash crisis in the Pentagon.

This can only mean that once more there will be a tightening of expenditure ceilings; and cutbacks, stretchouts, and postponement of payments.

There are two sets of circumstances which may well bring this about.

First, as a consequence of the disastrous results of last year's cash crisis, the Department of Defense does not intend to again let itself get into the position of going through half a year before specific expenditure controls are intensified.

The Department has not forgotten that contractors' expenditure estimates were about 16 percent high last year. Nor have they forgotten that this caused the cancellation of some essential programs which might otherwise have survived.

In order to obtain a better job of planning, contractors are now being asked to furnish monthly expenditure estimates. While these are not actually called ceilings, they have the same net effect, because they put an immediate damper on any rising defense expenditures.

This action can only make defense contractors fearful of the consequences of exceeding their estimates; and, therefore, will bring on slowdown tacticsin effect, the opposite of efficient management.

Thus, we see once more the practice of placing fiscal considerations ahead of defense requirements. That is actually going on today, despite the current situation in the Middle East.

The second and more serious reason why cutbacks may be expected is the fact that the debt ceiling will not be high enough, at $280 billion, to permit the Government to finance its programs for fiscal 1959 or 1960. ·

Administration fiscal experts have already announced that the Government deficit for the fiscal year 1958 was $2,-813,000,000; and it is universally agreed the deficit will be considerably greater in the fiscal year 1959.

Experts predict a 1959 deficit of between 8 and 15 billion dollars. A report issued 2 weeks ago by the Joint Congressional Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation leans toward the higher figure.

As clouds continue to gather in various parts of the world, the danger in this situation has even broader significance; especially because it is clear the debt ceiling in the second half of 1957 contributed to the administration's curtailment of defense programs.

It is also recognized that these curtailments were an important cause for the current recession.

In coming months, when increases in Government expenditures would stimulate economic recovery, the current debt ceiling could operate to choke off these expenditures, just at the time they were most needed.

Although the administration did ask for a temporary debt increase during the 3 previous years, last year it failed to make such a request. On the contrary;the debt limit was used as an excuse for failing to provide an adequate defense effort.

Because of recent world developments, this year the administration may ask for an increase in the debt limit prior to the recess of the Congress; or it may again wait until the Congress adjourns and then again try, by referring to the debt ceiling, to blame the Congress for administration failure to carry out the defense programs.

Therefore, at this time the administration should ask the Congress to increase the debt limit to that extent required by the national program.

Moreover, the law should be amended so the debt limit applies to the year-end situations, rather than throughout the year.

Some observers believe that the administration is worried primarily about inflation and a balanced budget, despite President Eisenhower's assuring last November 14 that we "would not sacrifice security worshiping a balanced budget."

Those were his words, not mine. It is becoming more and more clear,

however, that these words are not being turned into action.

Since the President gave that assurance, let us look at the record.

According to the official statistics prepared by the Department of Labor, and thereupon analyzed by the President's Council of Economic Advisers, the value of the dollar has decreased some 2 percent since October 1957.

Based upon the 1957 gross national product of $440.3 billion, this would amount to a decline in dollar value equal to $3.8 billion.

The defense supplementals for the fiscal years 1958 and 1959 reflect, in budgetary terms, the reaction of this administration to the growing danger.

These two supplementals-one for $1.3 billion, the other for $1.6 billion-added together amount to less than seventenths of 1 percent of the 1957 gross national product of the United States.

There we have the picture: A 2-percent decline in the value of the dollar, and a seven-tenths of 1 percent increase in defense budget requests.

This of course reveals that since last October there has actually been a decrease in our defense effort; and the accuracy of that latter statement is nailed down by the fact that, according to the Department of Commerce, from October 1957 to April 1958, defense expenditures decreased at the rate of 3 percent.

Unless there is a decision with respect to the debt ceiling, we can be assured that even less will be done in the future than has been done in the past.

Last year the administration concluded that a $5 billion increase in the debt limit was enough to handle an anticipated deficit of some $1.5 billion for the fiscal year 1958.

Obviously, therefore, it is important to know, now, while the Congress is in session, how much of an increase in the


debt limit is needed to handle the much greater estimated deficit for the fiscal year 1959.

Otherwise, regardless of any and all assurances, our defense effort will have to be curtailed.

If the administration does not make the proper request now, the problem engendered by the debt ceiling can only plague and endanger us later on.

With the world situation as it is, the people have the right to know the truth, so they can demand whatever action is necessary to meet the growing danger.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE-ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker had affixed bis signature to the following enrolled bills, and they were signed by the President pro tempore:

s. 2447. An act to authorize and direct the Secretary of the Interior to undertake continuing studies of t he effect s of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and other pesticides, upon fish and wildlife for the purpose of preventing losses of those invaluable natural resources following a pplication of these materials and to provide basic d ata on the various chemical controls so that forests, croplands, wetlands, rangelands and other lands can be spr ayed with mini~um losses of fish and wildlife; and

S. 2617. An act to amend the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 16, 1934, as amended.



Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will can the roll.


Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


Under the unanimous-consent a greement, the Senator from Minnesota is recognized.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. THURMOND], who has a statement to make, without losing my right to the floor.


The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest that my remarks appear at the conclusion of the address of the Senator from Minnesota.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.

(The remarks of Mr. THURMOND appear in today's REcORD following Mr. HUMPHREY'S speech.)

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I am particularly interested in the observa-

tions which have been made about the bill being a step in the right direction. I suppose if the bill is measured in terms of steps, it might be said that it is somewhat a step in a new direction, except that it is not the right direction; it is a step that is as slippery as a banana peel. I am afraid that the step in this direction would be like stepping on the proverbial banana peel. Without going into a physiological description of what happens to a person when he steps on a banana peel, even though the step might be in a new direction, the end result of the step would generally be disastrous.

The proposed legislation, quite frankly, is a patchwork product reflecting the frustration of Members of the Senate who are unable to reconcile their differences with a stubborn Secretary of Agriculture.

I do not think any members of the Agriculture Committee are very proud of this legislation, even those who suppor t it. For the most part, it is the result of submission to what is virtually legislative blackmail-giving in to Secretary Benson, under the fear of otherwise getting nothing at all.

Repeatedly during the deliberations of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, as tbe present Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. TALM!\DGE] well knows, when amendments were offered by some of us, we were told that if the amendments were adopted, no matter how meritorious they might be, we could expect the bill to be vetoed. In fact, in some instances when amendments were offered members of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry suggested that it would be good to offer the amendments as new bills at a later time. It was admitted that the proposals were meritorious and sound, but we were told that the Secretary of Agriculture had informed the committee-and his representatives, his own technicians, were sitting in the c.ommittee room-that any amendments to the bill would mean that the bill would be vetoed.

That is a most unusual way for Congress to legislate. I believe in the separation of powers. I think it is fitting and proper that we receive advice and consultation from the Department; but to be told, time after time, as we offered meritorious proposals, that any amendment to the bill would result in its veto is, to my mind, unwarranted interference by the executive branch in the activities of the legislative branch.

Even in the debate thus far, we have heard the proponents of the bill say that if any amendments are made to the bill, other than those which the administration wants, such as the wool amendment, the bill will be vetoed. This was told to the junior Senator from Minnesota as he attempted to amend the feed grain section of the bill with nothing more than an alternative proposal containing no mandatory provision at all.

It is no secret that for more than 10 days there has been a conscientious effort on the part of some Senators to reach areas of agreement on proposed amendments which would improve the bill. It is no secret that the leadership

of the Senate has suggested to some of us who are members of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry that we should attempt to find areas of agreement on amendments which would make it possible for use to expedite action on the bill. I have sat in conferences seeking that very objective. Those conferences have ended in utter futility, simply because in each and every instance the word came back that any amendments to the bill which were not approved by the Secretary of Agriculture would result in the veto of the bill.

Today there are in Washington many representatives of the agricultural producing States, particularly the States where cotton is a major crop, urging that the Senate pass the bill as it is, even though it is known that the bill is not adequate. They are urging that no amendments be adopted, because if amendments are adopted, so those leaders or representatives of the organizations say, the bill will be vetoed.

I can plainly understand why my f riends from the States in which cotton and rice are produced do not want to have the bill tampered with in any way. I want my friends and my colleagues from those States to know that I am ever mindful of their problems.

No better presentation of the problem of the producers of cotton was made before the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry than was made by the present Presiding Officer, the distinguished junior Senator from Georgia [Mr. TAL· MADGE]. He pleaded the cause of the farmers of his State with logic, eloquence, and persuasiveness. Adjustments were made in the bill because of the very effective persuasion by the Senator from Georgia.


Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. PROXMIRE. I should like to add

to the statement by the Senator from Minnesota by saying that I was greatly impressed by the excellent presentation made by the junior Senator from Georgia before the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on behalf of the cotton farmers of his State. He made a remarkable fight. It was a fight which improved the bill, as it would not have been improved had it been dictated completely by the Department of Agriculture. The Senator from Georgia made a great fight.

I may also say that I was disappointed the Senator from Georgia did not get what he asked for to begin with. Instead, he had to compromise. But I think he made a great fight and a tremendously persuasive fight for the farmers of his State.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Certainly that is also my recollection. I only wish that I could have been as persuasive as was he.

Mr. PROXMffiE. Furthermore, I wish to state that I was very happy to support the Senator from Georgia 100 percent in the committee, in regard to the cotton section of the bill.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator from Wisconsin has pointed out that, as we developed the bill in the committee-and we worked with perserverance and care-

1958 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD-- SENATE 14903 ful attention to details, and we held long hearings, at which we listened to representatives of every commodity group in the agricultural economy-suggested provisions which modified, or even improved the bill somewhat, ~ believe, were incorporated in it. For example, I point to the provisions for price :floors, such as $4 for rice, 30 cents for cotton, 60 percent of parity for the secondary feed grains-oats, barley, and rye-and $1.10 for com. All those changes were made during the committee's deliberations; and I believe those amendments or changes improve the bill.

But I still say that whenever we proposed, in regard to dairying, an amendment which would have done very little-it would merely have restored what was provided for last year-or whenever we proposed, in regard to feed grains, an amendment which would have allowed the farmers to have an alternative, as between a production-control program and unlimited planting, without control-in other words, whenever a proposal was made, not for compulsion, but merely to allow a choice-we were told that if such an amendment were added to the bill, the bill would be vetoed.

So now the Senate has before it a bill which provides for the very minimum · that is needed by the producers of some of the agricultural commodities.

Therefore, I had to say in all seriousness, and most respectfully, to the distinguished chairman of the committee [Mr. ELLENDER], for whom I have the highest regard, and with whom I have been pleased to work-and I have tried to be a helpful and a faithful member of the committee "the trouble with this bill is that the farmers in northern Minnesota simply have a hard time raising cotton and rice."

Mr. President, I did not become a United States Senator in order to drive an economic dagger into the backs of the farmers of Minnesota.

Therefore; when the feed-grains amendment was added to the bill, thenas the Presiding Officer, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. TALMADGE] knows-! made up my mind that there would be a scrap.

If our friends who represent the areas in which cotton is produced and our friends who represent the areas in which rice is produced are satisfied with the provisions of the bill which pertain to cotton and to rice, .that is one thing. However, the farmers in Minnesota do not produce those crops. I regret that the principle of parity as it relates to those crops, has been forsaken.

On the other hand, who am I to tell farmers in Louisiana and South Carolina who produce cotton the kind of cotton program they should have. I may have some economic views on that subject, but I think the Members of Congress from that area have a fairly good, basic idea regarding the kind of program needed for the production of that commodity. So we have gone along; we have tried our best to accommodate ourselves to the needs of the farmers in those particular areas.

However, Mr. President, in the State of Minnesota, in the great Midwest,

which is the breadbasket of America, large quantities of corn, grain sorghums, oats, barley, rye, :flax, and soybeans are produced. I must say that I am not ready to vote for proposed legislation which in my honest, sincere judgment would mean economic trouble for the agricultural-commodity producers of the Midwest, and also for the merchants whose living is dependent upon them, and aiso for the wholesalers and the manufacturers.

Mr. President, vast quantities of oats are produced in Minnesota. Dodge County, Minn., is the largest oats-producing county in the Nation. Dodge County is the home county of Kasson, Minn.

Mr. President, do you remember of hearing of Kasson, Minn.? Do you remember that in 1952, Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson made speeches there? But, Mr. President, in 1952 neither one of them promised that the price of oats would be less than the average market price for the last 3 years. I know more people in Kasson, Minn., than I know in Washington, D. C.; and I know the farmers of Dodge County. It is a wonderful agricultural county; and at Kasson, both of the two principal candidates for the presidency lifted their eyes to the heavens and, invoking the name of Divine Providence, pledged to the farmers of the Nation-and the pledge was made in the course of a nationwide radio and television program broadcast from Kasson-that they favored 100 percent of parity; and the present incumbent of the White House said that he favored 90 percent of parity prices supports and 100 percent of parity in the market place.

But now we are confronted with a bill which, in effect, would say to the agricultural commodity producers of my State, who have been receiving 61 cents a bushel, and sometimes less than that, for the oats they produce-in fact, during the last 3 years, the prices they have received have been the lowest in a decade-"You will have, as a price support, 10 percent less than the average price you have received for these commodities during the last 3 years, even though the prices in the last 3 years have been the lowest prices you have received during the last decade."

Mr. President, I submit that when we examine the speeches made by Dwight Eisenhower, Ezra Taft Benson, Democratic candidates, or others who ran for office, we do not find that even one of those political office seekers or office holders ever said, either in 1952 or in 1956, when they were seeking votes, that they would "stick" the farmer with 10 percent less than the average price for the last 3 years, which have been the worst years the farmer has had in Lore than a decade. However, that is exactly what the bill provides.

In the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, I said to my colleagues, "If you want to 'mess around' with cotton and rice because they are produced in the areas you represent, that is your privilege. But do not try to tell the farmers of my State that they are not

entitled to a better 'shake' than the one this bill provides."

One way by which the rice producers and the cotton producers can have some agricultural legislation enacted by Congress is to eliminate from the bill the present feed-grains section.

In fact, better yet, I shall offer an amendment which will permit any farmers who may wish to operate under that section of the bill, if that is really their desire, to go right ahead and do so.

But I believe that farmers who believe in crop controls and production controls should have an option. So we are going to submit, here in the Senate-as I submitted in the committee- a proposal which will give farmers an oppor .. tunity to take a chance with a production-control program which will provide higher price support, and will result in removing from production 20 percent of his acreage, and will make it subject to cross-compliance, and will place it in the conservation reserve for 3 years. That is the way to reduce the production of feed grains; and any farmer willing to do that would be entitled, under our proposal, to receive 85 percent of parity for corn; and in the case of other crops, he would be entitled to be paid on the basis of the parity equivalent and the feed value of corn.

So, Mr. President, we offered a good, honorable choice. But what was the response? Instead, the farmers of the Nation were confronted with a proposal which was advanced as a panacea for the feed-grain producers, although in my opinion it would be only a kind of quack remedy which would lead to further complications.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield to me?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. PROXMIRE. I believe the Sen

ator from Minnesota is making a great speech and a basically conservative speech. It is a speech in favor of the family farm and in behalf of attempting to preserve for the family farmer as much economic security as can be preserved.

I wish to call to the attention of the Senator from Minnesota an article, which was published today in the Wash· ington Star which reads in part as follows:

Secretary of Agriculture Benson charged today that unnamed leftwing elements within the Democratic Party are trying to prevent the passage of farm legislation this year by attaching unsatisfactory amendments.

The article then states that the Secretary of Agriculture also said that the bill moves in the right direction.

The article also states that the Secretary of Agriculture would like very much to have added to the bill an amendment which would substitute slightly lower minimum supports for rice and cotton-slightly lower, Mr. President.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Imagine that. Will the Senator repeat that so the Presiding Officer, the Sen a tor from Georgia. [Mr. TALMADGE], will be sure to hear what the Secretary has in mind for us?

14904 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 Mr. PROXMIRE. The Secretary has

protested the amendments we have suggested or submitted. The article reads:

The Secretary said the administration would like very much to add one amendment to the pending bill. This would substitute slightly lower minimum supports for rice and cottton. And he said the administration is suggesting that the minimum supports voted be limited to a 2-year period, when Congress could take another look at the question.

I am used to being called names. We like our politics rough and ready in Wisconsin. But it does not dignify the office of the Secretary of Agriculture to be calling Senators who stand up and fight for their convictions leftwing elements in the Democratic Party. We are in pretty good company, in view of the fact that I hold in my hand an article from the St. Paul Dispatch. Let me read a portion of it.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Before the Senator does so, if he will yield, I may say we really appreciate .the personal attention which the Secretary gives our fine producers in Minnesota, our good folk of religious faith, people of Nordic, Teutonic, and Scandinavian stock, whom the Secretary of Agriculture likes to abuse by calling them socialistic and leftwingers. The Secretary does not know his right hand from his left hand, so he certainly does not know what he is saying when he uses such epithets.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Let me read from an article appearing in the St. Paul Dispatch:

Wearing a big smile and an Ike button, Secretary of Agriculture Benson got off an airplane in the Twin Cities today and de- · clared he wants to get the Government out of the grain business and every other kind of business suitable to private enterprise as fast as possible.

The article states, a little further on: The socialistic tag is, however, one he has

pinned on leaders of northwest grain co-ops who have fought him and the Minneapolis Grain Exchange on issues of higher and :firmer Federal price supports.

Let me also call to the attention of the Senator from Minnesota the fact that on July 10 of this year I put into the RECORD a statement from the National Catholic Rural Life Conference. No one can accuse it of being communistic or socialistic or a leftwing group.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator means no one should.

Mr. PROXMIRE. No one should who understands the backgrounj of the group. Let me read from the policy statement adopted on June 18 of this year by the National Catholic Rural Life Conference:

We recommend that Congress consider Umited direct payments to assist farmers 1n making necessary readjustments in production and marketing. These payments should be limited in three ways: (a) There should be a limit to the amount payable to any recipient, lest our Government should subsidize an already large and profitable farm enterprise. (b) The time during which governmental assistance will be given should be limited to that period in which the desired readjustments of production and marketing can be made. Subsidizing the overproduction of a particular commodity for many years is indefensible. (c) Payments

should be made only to those who abide by proauction and marketing quotas, whenever they exist, and who observe stipulated soilconservation practices.

These are exactly the safeguards the Senators from Missouri, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have been urging-safegu~rds for the taxpayers; conservative measures, not leftwing or extreme radical proposals, but measures which would help preserve our family farms and do it in a fiscally responsible way.

I am shocked and unhappy to read that the S~cretary of Agriculture is resorting to this kind of smear technique. I cannot say I am depressed. I am flattered whenever the Secretary of Agriculture abuses me, whether by name or otherwise, but it demonstrates· the feelings he has.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I do not think the Secretary meant us in particular. He does not mention us by name. He talks about a certain kind of element. Of course, the description does not fit me. Since it does not apply to me personally, I shall have to pass it on to other members of the Democratic Party and let them see whether or not it fits them. I doubt if it does.

It would be interesting if we could send the National Catholic Rural Life Conference program to the Secretary and ask him what he thinks about it. The Department of Agriculture opposes production payments, which the National Catholic Rural Life Conference sponsors or recommends. We tried to get cutoffs on price supports. The Department did not support it, even though the President announced he was in favor of it.

One advantage of this administration is that the President may be for something, but it does not have much influence on officials in his administration. The President was for a summit conference. The Department of State said we should not participate in one. It is somehow hard to get messages over in this administration. There is something wrong in the switchboard at 1600 Pennsylvania A venue.

I remember when the President supported the whole idea of limiting the amount of price support payments to any one farm. I supported it. I offered an amendment in favor of that proposition. When it was submitted to the Department of Agriculture, it was said such a proposal would not work. Support of it was announced only for publicity purposes.

Mr. President, we have two shows going on all the_ time. In one show Eisenhower smiles and says nice things. Then we have another show going on where other officials really go to work on these projects and put the finishing touches on them-and I mean "finishing" touches.

I think the RECORD ought to be clear tonight that the Secretary of Agriculture has seen fit to claim that the leftists block the farm measure. If we can block the farm measure, I do not think we can be called leftists. I think we can be called protectors of the public interest and the Public Treasury. The Secretary says the bill now pending moves, on the whole, in the right direction. What he

means is that it moves in· the right direction "to the hole." He just got that sentence mixed up. As I stated earlier, one can be moving in the right direction, but he can also fall into one of the holes. That is what is happening in the case of this proposal.

Mr. President, very real problems exist for cotton and rice. Members of our committee have been anxious to provide corrective legislation. All of us are willing to do so. Yet Secretary Benson has made it abundantly clear that he will only let protective legislation for cotton and rice become law at a price-the price of slipping into the legislation an indirect way of achieving his objective of eventually doing away with our historic farm programs.

What we are witnessing is the direct result of this administration's use of its veto power to thwart the will-and the judgment-of the majority of the legislative branch.

Ever since this administration came into power, there have been sharp differences of opinion between the legislative and executive branches over agricultural policy.

Such differences became · more pronounced when the people of this country entrusted control of the legislative branch to the Democratic Party while the Republican Party still controlled the executive branch.

Under our constitutional system, it is the responsibility of the legislative branch to establish legislative policy, and of the executive branch to carry out such policies.

Yet the veto power resting in the President gives the executive branch the power, when it decides to use it, to completely repudiate the majority will of the Congress.

I am sure it will be recalled that the Senate passed Joint Resolution 152, which proposed to maintain for this crop year the same price support levels and the same acreage levels which were in effect the previous year. The previous year's program was the administration's program. We said it might be a good idea to continue it for another year. It was an election year, and it was a bad time to legislate on farm policy. Secondly, as to certain parts of the program a greater trial was needed to enable us to ascertain how they were working. But, no, the administration decided it simply had to tamper with the program a little more. It had to reduce the price support levels and reduce acreage, so the President vetoed our resolution.

It was my hope, when the resolution was passed, that two things would take place. First, it was my hope that the resolution would give us at least a holding action for this year, so that when the next Congress came into session, after another Congressional election, we could get an expression of what the people wanted in terms of agricultural policy. My second hope was that the resolution would give us time to develop long range agricultural policy. Both of those hopes were crushed. We see today the administration forcing its will, because of the plight of some agricultural producers.

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14905 The administration says, "All right; but from State after State. I am going

we will give you more cotton acreage. to talk to some of those audiences. We We will even sponsor that; but the price are going to have it out as th whether is to do away with the parity concept in the farmers think they are entitled to agricultural legislation. We will give parity or whether they are entitled to you more rice acreage, but the price is less than parity, 10 percent less than the to do away with the parity concept. lowest prices they have had in the past And later on, 3 years from now, there 10 years. That is what the farmers will will be lower prices." get under the bill presently under con-

The same thing is true with respect to sideration. feed grains, with the exception of what Mr. PROXMIRE. They will get 10 are called secondary grains, as to which percent less every year. a minimum floor of 60 percent of parity Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator is corwas provided by a committee amend- rect. They will get, every year, 10 perment. I want the RECORD to be clear. cent less than the average of the last 3 The administration does not want that - years' prices. The last 3 years' prices in amendment. The administration wants the past decade have been the lowest 3 lower price supports .and does not want years the farmers have had. any floor. As the Secretary said, tf!e I have great faith in the American pending legislation moves in the right people. I do not think they expect to direction, on the whole. What he have special privileg~s. but they would meant was, "in the hole." He does not like to have reasonably equal treatment. want any floor. When we talk to farm audiences we will

Though my colleagues know this al- say, "Do you remember 1952? I think ready, I want them to understand oats were selling at about 80 cents a clearly that, as I said earlier, the ob- bushel, and now oats are down to around jective is to take care only of cotton 60 cents a bushel. In the past 3 years, and rice and leave other commodities oats have been off about 15 cents a out. But the administration also ex- bushel from the price in 1952 and 1953." acted another price. The administra- Do Senators think the farmers will not tion says, "We will help you with cotton be interested, when they are told that acreage and allow up to 40 percent more the program which was supported by the cultivation," although only a year ago administration and passed by Congress there was complaint about surplus cot- is a program in which the oats farmer ton. The administration also says, "We will get a price equal to the average will help you with rice acreage and give price of the 3 worst years he has had you a great deal more. We will even since the end of World War II? He will permit some minimum floors. But we get the average price of the 3 worst have been trying to get rid of the prlce- years. Then he will get 10 percent less support program on corn, so we would than that, and each year he will get 10 like to take a good whack at that." That percent less than the worst he had the is what the administration says. It is previous year. not going to do a merciful killing; that I want to work on that talk. I am is, do it all at once. It is going to tease going to make it a good talk. it to death, with a little clip here and Mr. President, recognizing that such a little clip there. a situation could lead only to a stalemate

So corn for the first time since 1933, in which farm people are the unwilling Mr. President, is no longer to be a basic_ victims, most of us inter~sted in agriculcrop. What is more basic in agriculture in the majority party in Congress ture today than corn? Corn is to be de- have seriously endeavored to find reasonnied the status of a basic commodity. able compromises which the administraNo longer will there be a parity concept tion would accept-knowing from the relating to corn, which is the basic agri- start that we would have to yield concultural commodity of America. No; siderably in many of our viewpoints, but corn is to be treated like some sort of hoping to find a similar reasonableness ragweed; but for a little while, because in the executive branch. the committee members insisted-and I Unfortunately, all such efforts have was one of them who did-we are going been rebuffed. All the yielding had to to have a minimum price on corn of be from the legislative branch. $1.10. That does hot mean, of course, A good example is the farm price and there is a relationship to dollar value. acreage freeze enacted earlier by both Senators should not misunderstand the the Senate and the House-only to be situation. As the dollar. loses purchasing vetoed by the President, is bowing to power, which .it has continued to do each Secretary Benson's wishes. year because of inflation, there will be When it became apparent early this no adjustment upward in price. The year that at least some of agriculture's minimum price will still be $1.10 for most urgent problems had to be met, corn. If there were a parity price-sup- whether we were able to agree or not on port level the minimum would come up future long-range policy, some of us as the purchasipg power went down be- sought to explore the very simplest way cause of inflation. of clearing the atmosphere of farm-pol-

l want to forewarn my colleagues. We icy conflict. are going to have a campaign this year, We merely asked to preserve the and I am going to be in it. I am going status quo. We did not seek fundamento talk to some good farm audiences. I tal changes in farm policy. We did not talked to many such audiences in the even ask that farm-income protection last campaign. I am receiving invita- be improved, as urgently as it was tions, as other Senators are, by the needed. We only asked that the admindozen, to talk to farm audiences . . Those. istration accept our appeal to hold the invitations come not only from my State, line-to keep prices from being pushed

down yet further, and to keep acreage from being pushed down still further on cotton and rice.

If that temporary freeze had been accepted, the door would have been opened for the legislative and executive branches to work closer together in tackling at 1east some of the individual commodity problems-and we might well have been able to produce some constructive farm policy changes in such a cooperative spirit.

But the door was slammed in our faces. The price-freeze resolution was vetoed.

And when it became apparent that the Congress lacked, by a mere handful, enough votes to reach the two-thirds required to override the veto, the Secretary of Agriculture became emboldened enough to renew insisting that things

. be done his way or not at all. I regret and deplore such an arrogant

attitude on the part of -any nonelected governmental official-placing himself above the combined vision of our legislative processes.

In my humble judgment, most Cabinet members of either political persuasion, finding themselves lacking the confidence of a majority of the Congress, would do either of two things:

First. Get out, and give someone else a chance to see if ways could not be found to achieve something for the farm families he is supposed to represent; or

Second. Go to work at trying to reconcile his differences with Congress, in the hope of regaining the confidence that is now lacking.

Secretary Benson did neither. Secretary Benson was given a ma

jority vote of no confidence earlier in this session. Yet, instead of getting out or trying to reconcile his differences and win back majority support, Secretary Benson arrogantly seized upon the threat of Presidential veto as a new weapon to try and force his will upon the Congress.

Rather than showing real concern about cotton- and rice-acreage problems, he seized upon them to use as a tool to gain other objectives which Congress has otherwise declined to accept.

Just as Secretary Benson has repeatedly in the past endeavored to play one group of commodity producers against · another, to the detriment of all agriculture, he once again has used his divideand-conquer tactics to try to force a fundamental change in farm policy through this Congress as the price for averting further cuts in cotton and rice acreage.

Some have reluctantly bowed to this threat.

Others of us refuse to do so, because we believe reasonable ways can be found to meet the immediate problems of cotton and rice without yielding to any blackmail price.

Let me call attention to a portion of the minority report on this legislation, which reads:

As much as we recognize the need for corrective action on cotton- and rice-acreage allotments, we cannot concur in blindly accepting the dictates of any Secretary of Agriculture as to what can be in a bill, or what cannot be. ·

We welcome the Secretary's recommendations. We have always given them serious

14906 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 study. But we are -not ready to delegate to him our legislative powers and our legil)latlve responsibility.

We are not convinced that a majority of the Senate committee really believes this bill is satisfactory legislation. We think the cotton section could have been better. We think that the rice section could have been better.

We think, too, that a majority of the committee stands ready to support and report more effective legislation for corn and feed grain producers, for wheat growers, and for dairy farmers--except for the constantly repeated threat of a veto, and the fear that even the compromise cotton and rice provisions would be rejected if the committee took any action on these other commodities of which the Secretary did not approve.

We cannot subscribe to abandoning our legislative responsibilities and permitting such usurpation of legislative power by the executive branch.

We are unwilling, in the face of the serious plight of farm families, to support legislation for corn and feed grains, for example, which offers no corrective cures but in..stefl.d merely reduces what met~.ger income protection these farmers already have.

The test that was applied to alternative proposals in the Senate committee's decision was not whether it was good for the farmer; the test became whether or not the proposal would be accepted by Secretary Benson. We submit that the veto power rests in the President, and should not be delegated to the Secretary of Agriculture and used by him to control drafting of legislation in our committee.

That is the end of my quotation from the minority report.

It summarizes our attitude toward this pending bill. It raises a serious question of the proper relationships between the legislative and executive branches of our Government, under our Constitution.

If we bow now, we are merely proving that Secretary Benson's arrogance is well founded in deciding there is no need to heed at all the views of the Congress; we may well find that same arrogance spreading still further in a lame duck administration no longer too responsive to the needs and desires of the American people.

For that reason many of us feel that we must make a stand, for what we feel is right and just-whether Secretary Benson approves or not.

Our purpose is not just to block this bill, nor just to invite another veto for political propaganda purposes.

Our purpose is to preserve fundamental principles, while still endeavoring to meet the urgent problems of cotton, rice, corn, and feed grain, and dairy producers in a moderate form that could and should be accepted by the administration without a veto if it is willing to meet us even part way in reasonableness.

Rather than just destroy this bill or even defeat it, those of us opposed to it hope to rewrite it through a series of amendments designed to make it more acceptable to all.

I hope those supporting this bill, because of their concern for cotton and rice, will seriously consider these amendments, and consider the spirit and attitude in which they are being offered.

They are being offered in the hope of making the bill acceptable, not only to many of us in the Senate, but to the House as well.

Spokesmen for the agricultural committee of the other body have already

indicated the bill in its present form is wholly unacceptable. ·

Chairman CooLEY of the House Agriculture Committee has declared publicly that he does not believe we can enact any farm legislation this session, in view of the attitude of the administration.

Congressman JOHNSON of Wisconsin, member of the House committee, strongly attacked the present version of the Senate bill in a statement on page 13177 Of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for July 8 entitled, "Shall We Cut the Farmers Income in Half?"

I urge my colleagues to read that statement. Representative PoAGE, of Texas, ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, has indicated his concurrence in Representative JoHNsoN's views.

These are facts of life that confront this legislation.

I repeat to my friends from cotton and rice producing States: simply yielding now to Secretary Benson by no means assures you this legislation will ever become law. Our task, rather than just please Secretary Benson, is to seek minimum, moderate, solutions acceptable to ourselves, acceptable to the House, acceptable to the farm people in whose behalf we are acting, and, at the same time, acceptable to the President. Let us keep our perspective in proper order.

It would be a deception to mislead cotton producers and rice producers into thinking this legislation has more chance of success if it remains unchanged.

Unless it is amended, many of the stanchest friends of agriculture in this Chamber will be compelled, on principle, to vote against it.

Unless it is amended, it invites the automatic opposition of midwestern and western agricultural areas controlling substantial blocs of votes in the Houseand further divides agriculture by forcing regional differences when we should be working together for the best interests of all farmers, everywhere.

Unless it is amended, it stands little or no chance of ever getting out of the House Committee on Agriculture.

The burden of what happens to farm legislation at this session rests on the shoulders of those who brought this bill to the floor, and support it; not upon those of us seeking to improve it.

If this is merely another idle gesture to permit some recorded votes, with no serious intent of the bill ever becoming law and helping farmers, then let it be voted up or down on its merits-or, more likely, lack of merit.

If, however, this is a serious effort on the part of some to find corrective answers to problems of the cotton and rice industries, then in good faith, I call upon them to join those of us opposed to the bill in its present form in a sincere effort to make it more acceptable not only to the Senate but to the House as well.

In my opinion, to become acceptable the legislation would have to at least undergo these moderate changes.

First. Without endeavoring to change the proposed new price support levels for the next 2 years, the bill must at least preserve the parity concept by abandon·

ing the shift to pegging the future support level for cotton and rice to 10 per· cent less than the free market price in the third year. This means restoring the parity concept to the bill.

Second. Without rejecting the determined effort of the administration to throw the gates wide open for unlimited production of corn and feed grains at lower support levels, the bill must at least preserve the opportunity for the individual farmer who prefers retiring part of his acreage in the hope of bringing production more nearly in balance with demand by offering him the incentive of a reasonably higher support level in return for doing so under strict conditions of cross-compliance and acreage reduction.

Third. Without endeavoring to provide an entirely new program so urgently needed for dairying, the bill must at least reflect the concern of Congress with the serious economic plight of dairy farmers by, at the very minimum, providing a support floor near where the ranking Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee has repeatedly indicated the administration might have accepted had it not been included in a general freeze of all farm prices.

Fourth. Without endeavoring to tie the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture with any compulsory program, the bill must at .least authorize him to purchase and divert for overseas relief purposes an amount of edible oil equivalent to any increased cottonseed oil produc. tion resulting from the expanded cotton acreage proposed under the bill, which would otherwise result in millions of dollars in lost income on competing products through depressing prices of soy .. bean oil, lard, and butter.

I repeat, this is merely discretionary authority. There is no mandatory requirement. I merely feel that the Secretary should have such authority if we are to expand the cotton acreage.

Let me emphasize that these are the very minimum of improvements that need to be made. Amendments will be offered to provide for each. Other amendments will be proposed that go much further, and I shall support some of them because I believe they are right.

But in the spirit of reasonableness and fairness with which I am attempting to approach the legislative problems confronting this legislation, I have attempted in full candor to set forth the minimum changes which I feel must be made to ever gain acceptance of this legislation by the present Congress.

I have said this to the majority leader. I have told this to the chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I have mentioned these four minimum amendments to most . of the members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I have found that most of my colleagues feel that those amendments are reasonable, but I have also found that even though they consider them to be reasonable, the administration lays down the law and says, "If you accept any of these amendments you can expect the bill to be vetoed."

Possibly there is one exception. I am hopeful that the administration will be willing to accept the so-called vegetable

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14907 oil amendment. I have reason to believe that if we take a firm position in the Senate on the vegetable oil amendment, it will be accepted by the administration.

I ask any reasonable person, Are those four amendments very . radical? Do they sound like the product of leftwingers? One amendment merely proposes to restore the parity concept contained in the law in 1933.

The next amendment proposes a dairy price support program of the kind which the ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry thinks is fair.

Another amendment relates to feed grains, as to which a farmer will have a choice. If he wishes to produce at lower prices, with unlimited production, let him do so; but if he believes that production should be cut back, that some acres should be retired and put into the conservation reserve on a 3-year contract, with cross-compliance, he is entitled to a little better price-support program.

These are the most modest amendments anyone could offer. All I am attempting to do is to have a bill for which I can vote. Some of my friends from the · South need some relief with respect to cotton acreage and rice acreage. I want to vote for a bill which provides such relief, but I do not wish to do so and, at the same time, destroy every principle in connection with agricultural policy in which I have always believed.

I am not asking for higher price supports. We are not even trying to raise the price supports. ·We are merely saying, "We would like to give the corn farmer a free choice." If there is to be brought into the market a large quantity of cottonseed as the result of an expanded cotton acreage, we want to see that our soybean producers are not destroyed. That is a fair request.

We are saying to the Secretary, "We are not going to compel you to do anything, but here is the authority in case we get into trouble because of an increase in cotton acreage and cotton seed production. You may buy vegetable oil for overseas relief purposes."

Everyone knows that edible oil is like gold overseas. People are crying for it.

Finally, we are saying that we would like to have a feed grain program under which farmers could stand by their convictions. Thousands of farmers really believe that if there is a price-support program, there should be some controls. They are fairminded people. They do not believe in a free ride.

I have never in my life experienced the kind of adamant obstructionism and stubbornness I have experienced in this situation.

Many a member of the press has asked me: "Senator HUMPHREY, why is it that a farm bill is not coming up?" I should like to state why a farm bill has been delayed. First of all, there was not very much support for it in the Policy Committee. That is one reason. The Policy Committee, of course, schedules legislation for consideration. The Policy Committee always feels a responsibility to the chairman of the committee which reports a bill. More importantly, there

were responsible Members of the Senate who tried to find an area of agreement on some reasonable, moderate, and token amendments.

Just as I break this pencil with my fingers, the Secretary of Agriculture said, "No. You will get nothing." Well, Mr. President, he is going to get a fight. He is not going to put an economic curse on the farm producers of my State without at least my standing here and fighting him. I did not come to Washington merely to please an appointed official of the President. I did not come to Washington to sacrifice my principles. My father before me spoke up for parity and price supports in the legislature of my State. This is a matter of faith with me. It is not a matter of political expediency.

I am one of the Senators who are not farmers. I cannot even claim to have been born on a farm. But I know enough about economics to be aware that unless agriculture has a reasonably good break, there will be no drug stores or grocery stores or department stores, or that they will be in trouble.

I was in South Dakota not long ago. I visited my mother and brother there. We have a business there. We do business with rural people. Rural people understand farm prices. They understand price supports. They understand parity. Woe to the member of this body from a rural community-and this applies also to the House-who thinks farmers do not understand parity. Anyone who votes for this measure to repudiate the principle of parity will have a nice retirement into private life. He will have it deservedly, Mr. President. Oh, I know it is possible to get by with it in the great metropolitan areas, where people are not particularly attuned to agricultural economics. That is one of the sorry things which has developed. The Government of the United States has been a party to it. I refer to dividing our city people from our farm people, and spreading discontent among them.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. Is it not true that

an examination of the voting records in the House will disclose that the Democratic Members from the large cities have a better voting record on farm issues than the Republican Members from country districts?

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator is essentially correct. I do not believe we would have had many farm bills passed in Congress if that had not been the case. I must say that it becomes rather discouraging for some Representatives from cities to vote for farm measures, only to have the President of the United States veto them, and then have the Secretary of Agriculture proudly proclaim the veto, and then have the newspapers say that the Secretary is getting more popular every day.

He is not winning any popularity polls in my State. I do not intend to run against the Secretary of Agriculture. He is not a candidate. Of course, if he wants to do so, I hereby issue an invitation to him. He can take out residence

in Minnesota. It takes only a year to establish residence. He can establish residence in a year and file for State and local office.

However, it is not a question of Senator HUMPHREY versus Secretary Benson. That is not the issue. The issue is an economic one. The issue is a social one. It is not a personal squabble. I find the Secretary to be a very pleasant man whenever I meet him on social occasions. I know of his strong convictions and of his personal attitudes. I am not getting involved in those matters. I do not like to deal with personalities. However, I must say that the economic philosophy of the Secretary of Agriculture is something I cannot stomach.

Even with changes, the bill will certainly not be a satisfactory solution to pressing economic problems of our farm families.

But with these changes, it will at least preserve the historic principles of our farm programs, instead of abandoning them.

And with these changes, it will change the legislation from a bill primarily of regional southern concern to one of nationwide interest and effect that could possibly mobilize the needed support for passage in the House.

All of the changes proposed as a minimum are purposely moderate to such a degree that they should be completely acceptable to the administration-except for sheer pique. None go beyond principles which spokesmen for the administration themselves have espoused.

If they were accepted, I have no doubt that this legislation could be quickly approved in this body-possibly with a big enough vote to assure no threat of any further vetoes.

If that happens, there is a reasonably good chance of similar favorable action in the House-a far better chance, at least, than on the legislation as it now stands. I certainly hope no one is deceived for one moment that the blocking of a rule for the House omnibus farm bill means Secretary Benson has any chance of achieving a working majority in the House for farm legislation bearing the distinct stamp of his personal dictates.

However, until there is some evidence that there has been enough awakening to the realities of this situation, and awareness of the fundamental dangers in the present legislation before us, I feel compelled to serve ample notice on my colleagues that this issue will not be disposed of quickly.

Considerable time may be required to make the record perfectly clear as to what is really involved in this fight, what is happening in agriculture today, where we may be headed if we make the dangerous mistake of blindly accepting the expediency of this new course in farm policy. There is much to be said on all these points, much that needs to be said. And I intend to say it. I do not begrudge the time, nor the energy-when I feel so deeply that the future well-being of all American agriculture is at stake.

I may say at this point that speaking here is not particularly a very popular thing to do, because very little of what is

14908 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 24

said here is reported to the people. I do not say that it is not reported. It simply does not get to the people. As has been said by one of my colleagues, most of the weekly newspapers will carry it in a critical manner so far as the junior Senator from Minnesota is concerned. I do not see any good publicity coming out of all this. I can think of many other items, from a purely personal point of view, to which I could devote my time and effort with more enjoyment to myself.

However, I believe these things need to be said. When the Secretary of Agriculture or any of his spokesmen try to redesign the agricultural policy to the detriment of the farmers of America, particularly the farmers I, in part, am privileged to represent, although I may not be the best scrapper in the Chamber, I am nevertheless not ready to run for cover. There will have to be some discussion of every amendment.


Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. PROXMIRE. I should like to say

to the Senator from Minnesota that there is no better scrapper in the Senate than the Senator from Minnesota. The farmers of Wisconsin have long considered him to be their true champion. The Senator from Illinois has made an extremely good point. It has taken real courage for Representatives from our cities to stand up as they have. I point proudly to the Representatives from my State who represent the city of Milwaukee, CLEMENT ZABLOCKI and HENRY REuss. They have as good a record as any Democratic Representative from a rural district, and far better than any Representative in the Republican Party. It is a record which has taken real dedication and conviction to establish. I say that particularly because the newspapers of my State, as is true of the newspapers of Illinois and Minnesota, are overwhelmingly on the wrong side of the agricultural issue. They are not truly reflecting the interests of not only the farm population but of all of the people. As the Senator from Minnesota has made clear in his speech, we cannot have a prosperous America in the cities unless we have a prosperous America on the farms.

I should also like to point out that our small towns and villages and crossroads have suffered severely from the 6-year farm depression. On the farms of Wisconsin it is not merely a recession; it is a full-scale depression. It is a fullscale depression when the average--not the low-the average hourly income of our farmers is 45 cents an hour. That is a full-scale depression. It is a full-scale depression when we are driving literally thousands of farmers off the farms in Wisconsin, and hundreds of thousands off the farms of America.

That is why I believe it is so impor. tant that somehow the message be gotten across to the American people. As I said earlier, it is an exceedingly thin voice that comes from a very junior Senator as he takes his place in this battle. I say with all my strength and all my earnestness that the story from the farm standpoint and from the stand-

point of the farmers of America has not been told to the people of America. It is almost impossible to get the story through the paper curtain of the Reader's Digest, the Chicago Tribune, and the Milwaukee Journal. I have great respect for the Milwaukee Journal. However, it is dead wrong on this issue, as most great newspapers in America are. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for yielding to me.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I am very grateful to the Senator from Wisconsin. In the 9% years I have served in the Senate I have spoken many times on the subject of agriculture. I hope I have also spoken with some effectiveness. I have spoken for long hours, in the hope of getting the message across. The Senator from Wisconsin is a wonderful partner. I welcome him into the fold and into the battleline here.

Now I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I congratulate the Senator from Minnesota for the speech he is making. On page 17 of the bill it is stated:

That the level of price support for any crop of corn shall not be less than $1.10 · per bushel.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Am I correct in assuming that this is about 62 or 63 percent of parity.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator is essentially correct. I believe it is a little more than 62 percent.

Mr. DOUGLAS. On page 18 of the bill I observe that the level of price support on rice for the next 2 years is to be 75 percent of parity.

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct; "not less than 75 percent of the parity price."

Mr. DOUGLAS. Earlier in the discussion of the price of the floor support for cotton, the price was stated as 30 cents a pound.

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. DOUGLAS. What percentage of

parity is that? Mr. HUMPHREY. That is more than

75 percent. Mr. DOUGLAS. It is about 80 per

cent, is it not? Mr. HUMPHREY. I think the Sena

tor is correct. It is about 79 or 80 percent. In round numbers, I think it is about 80 percent of parity, perhaps higher.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Why should cotton have approximately 80 percent protection, rice 75 percent protection, but corn only 62 percent protection?

Mr. HUMPHREY. If I knew the answer to that question, I think we would have a better agriculture bill. I have tried to get the answer to the question. The answer I see here is that the Department of Agriculture is willing to support those :figures.

By the way, I am not complaining about this. I hope the Senator knows my position is that I think rice and cotton are entitled to those price supports.

Mr. DOUGLAS. So long as corn is to have only 62 percent of parity, I am

opposed to rice having 75 percent and cotton 80 percent.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I know that what the Senator from Illinois really means is that he would like to see a better deal for corn. We do not want to tear anyone down; we would like to get our segment of the economy a little way up. Is not that correct?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I have voted for a general, comprehensive farm bill to protect cotton and rice along with other commodities.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator from Illinois certainly has.

Mr. DOUGLAS. But the moment I see corn dealt out and certain other commodities dealt in, then I protest.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I am delighted that the Senator from Illinois has protested. His voice is always strong, powerful, and courageous. It would be well if we had more protesters around here.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I point out that corn is also removed as a basic commodity.

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. DOUGLAS. What is more basic

in American agriculture than corn? It is the greatest food we have.

May I ask the Senator another question?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Certainly. Mr. DOUGLAS. It is stated that the

administration will support a wool bill, which is to be grafted onto the bill we are now considering. So we will once again have a farm alliance of the cotton-growing States, the rice-growing States, and the wool-producing States; a merging together; but with the Middle West dealt out once more.

What is the present price-support proposal for wool?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I assure the Senator from Illinois that it is not 1 cent less than 90 percent of parity. Last year it was 106 percent.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes; exactly; 106 percent of parity for wool, but 62 percent of parity for corn.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator is correct.

Mr. DOUGLAS. How can that be rec-onciled? ·

Mr. HUMPHREY. It cannot be reconciled. I have been trying to say, time after time, that one of the cleverest politicians in Washington is the Secretary of Agriculture. He has learned how to divide and conquer. He has fought, time after time, to split our ranks.

It is no secret that in 1956 there was a special program offered for cotton. Another special program was offered, at the tail end of the year, fot corn.

As I said earlier, in 1956, when consumer prices were not so high as they are now, and during the presidential election year, there was a floor of $1.25. The farmers were told they could plant all they wanted to plant at $1.25.

Now the floor is $1.10. That proves that presidential years are more expensive than Congressional election years . The price of $1.25 for corn in 1956 filled the bins. We have been in feed grain trouble ever since.

Mr. DOUGLAS. This problem is of great importance to my State, because its two great crops are corn and soybeans.

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14909 Mr. HUMPHREY. Both those crops

are given the works in this hill. Mr. DOUGLAS. Illinois is the second

largest corn producing State, next to Iowa. In 1 year we surpassed Iowa. Illinois is the first State in soybean production.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Minnesota is the second State in soybean production.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Does the Senator agree that there will be an increase in cottonseed production?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I am quite sure of it.

Mr. DOUGLAS. How ' much will the increase be?

Mr. HUMPHRTI:Y. When the question was first discused ·.vith the Department of Agriculture, they thought there would be an increase in the total amount of edible oils-by the way, that is the way the amount must be figured, because one product is competitive with the other-of between 3 and 4 percent.

Mr. DOUGLAS. How much of that will be in cottonseed?

Mr. HUMPHREY. There will be an increase of about 3 to 4 percent in total edible oils.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Hm·i much of an increase in cottonseed will there be?

Mr. HUMPHREY. About 30 or 40 percent.

Mr. DOUGLAS. An increase of 30 or 40 percent in cottonseed?

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. DOUGLAS. And oil? Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. DOUGLAS. How much will the

increase be in soybean oil? Mr. HUMPHREY. The point is that

no one knows what the soybean situation will be, except that it will be worse. We have no indication of the increased amount of plantings of soybeans. What we are talking about is that cottonseed is competitive with or supplemental to soybeans.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Certainly. Mr. HUMPHREY. Under the bill,

there can be an increased acreage of as much as 40 percent for cotton.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Does not cottonseed come from cotton?

Mr. HUMPHREY. If the total edible oil stocks are increased 3 or 4 percent, the price of edible oils will be reduced as much as 5 percent.

When the Department learned that I had an amendment, they did a retake. We were first sort of fishing, assuming theoretically; but when we got down to pay dirt, down to where it was necessary to fish or cut bait, we said we had an amendment, and we wanted to know what the effect of the amendment would be. We wanted to know what the effect of the new plantings of cotton would be.

The Department then reduced its estimates. I believe the new estimates of total edible oils were one-half of the original estimate, or about 2 percent, which would result in about a 3-percent drop in price.

I think these are very conservative estimates. All I can say is that whenever we legislate so that an incentive is placed upon an increase of a certain commodity which is competitive with another, but do not provide any protection for the second commodity which

is competitive, we are opening up a Pandora's Box of trouble.

Mr. DOUGLAS. From what the Senator from Minnesota has said, the price of soybeans and of soybean oil will go down in the coming year.

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. That is our estimate.

Mr. DOUGLAS. What is in the bill for the farmers of Illinois?

Mr. HUMPHREY. My silence is indicative of what is in the bill for the farm producers of Illinois. There is something more than nothing in the bill: Trouble.

Unless some amendments are adopted, to make certain that the volume of edible oils can be properly utilized and properly managed with orderly marketing procedures, the soybean producers of Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and other States will be in trouble. Soybeans have become one of our large crops. It has been a crop with respect to which there has been no trouble, because all the way through the program, I have seen to it, as one member of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, that the price support levels for soybeans and cottonseed were always in balance. For the first time, the balance is being destroyed.

Mr. DOUGLAS. As I understand, the support levels on the so-called competitive feed grains, namely, rye, oats, barley, and grain sorghums, will be tied to the . feed equivalent of corn.

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. DOUGLAS. So as corn goes

down, all the competitive feed grains will go down, too.

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. DOUGLAS. Therefore, is not the

bill a direct blow at the upper Mississippi Valley?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I interpret the bilf to have no beneficial effects for the upper Mississippi Valley, for the Middle West, and even many sections, I may say, of the feed-grain producing South. There are many areas in the South and in the West, and along the eastern seaboard in which there will be no beneficial effects. -

Mr. DOUGLAS. How can such a monstrosity be brought to the floor of the Senate?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I will tell the Senator how. Some increased acreage is needed for cotton producers. Congress passed a law last year . which provided a 1-year extension of some increased acreage. That extension is running out. It would have been taken care of had the President signed a resolution which the Senate adopted. The Senator from Oregon [Mr. MoRSE], the Senator from lllinois [Mr. DouGLAS], and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LoNG], were among those who voted for the resolution to extend the acreage amounts and the price-support levels for cotton. The President vetoed it.

So now the acreage cuts-and they are very drastic ones-go into effect. Therefore, in the name of obtaining acreage adjustments, a brand new program has been brought into being; and it has had the blessing of the Legislative Division of the American Farm Bureau. and even more than that, it has the

support of, and acceptance by, the Department of Agriculture. It does not have the support of the National Farmers Union. It is not the program of the commodity groups which met in Washington for many months. Every Senator knows that, for a whole year, there were meetings, in Washington, D. C., of the various commodity groups-including the wheat, cotton, rice, and tobacco producers-under the coordination of the National Milk Producers Association. All of them met together; and they testified before our committee.

The program I have proposed for feed grains-which would meet the needs of some of my constituents and the needs of some of the constituents of other Senators-was defeated in the committee by only one vote; and that was because of the statement that if any amendment were added to the bill, the bill would be vetoed.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Although I would prefer a general farm bill which would provide decent protection for all the farm segments of the States, I did not come to the Senate to preside over the liquidation of Illinois agriculture.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Neither did I. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the

Senator from Minnesota yield to me? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

PROXMIRE in the chair). Does the Senator from Minnesota yield to the Senator from Oregon?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. MORSE. I wish to ask several

questions in regard to some of the points raised by our mutual good friend, the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DouGLAS].

I believe that in his colloquy of the last few minutes with the Senator from Minnesota, the Senator from Illinois really has stated an obligation of statesmanship which confronts Senators in connection with the pending bill. I do not think Senators can escape it or can run away from it. Instead, each and every Member of the Senate must write his record on it, because, after all, here in the Senate, Senators not only represent their respective States; they also represent the entire Nation. And in my view, the obligation of Senators to the Nation is primary and controlling.

The Senator from lllinois has pointed out-and his statements have been reinforced by the comments made by the Senator from Minnesota-that in this case the Senate is confronted with an attempt by the Secretary -of Agriculture to divide and conquer or divide and rule, in connection with the legislative function, and that there is now before the Senate a bill which would be of benefit to the so-called cotton Senators, and would provide some benefits to the socalled wool Senators-and I suppose I would be numbered among the latter group, because my State is an important wool-producing State-but that the pending bill would not do justice to American agriculture as a whole.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator from Oregon is correct.

Mr. MORSE. However, I think it is our national duty to see to it that the bill will be of benefit to American agriculture as a whole.


I shall vote for the wool amendment because, in my judgment, the principle of the wool amendment should be ap· plied to wool. But it should also be applied to many other agricultu·ral commodities.

I understand that is also the position of the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. MORSE. I understand that that

is the position he has taken in the excellent speech he has made in the Senate this afternoon. That speech is really a great academic speech, and it should be assigned as required reading for all college and university students who take courses in agricultural economics.

However, the bill also includes other amendments, such as those referred to by the Senator from Minnesota.

I wish to make it clear that I do not intend to disregard my national obligations, simply because the wool amendment has been slipped into the bill. I am not willing to "sell down the river" or "push down the economic drain" the other farmers of my State or the other farmers of the Nation, simply in order to have the wool amendment included in the bill.

I shall vote for the adoption of the wool amendment. But I shall also vote for the adoption of other amendments which will make the bill well rounded, just, and fair for the other farmers of the Nation.

If we cannot have such additional amendments included in the bill, I shall vote against the bill in its final form, because if the Senate permits any administration-whether Republican or Democratic-to divide it in the way that, in my judgment, the Senate is being divided as regards its position on the pending farm bill, and if Senators permit themselves to be conquered, so to speak, and prevented from carrying out their national responsibilities, then in my judgment the Senate will have ceased to carry out its primary obligation to the entire Na&ion.

Therefore, to the . Senators from the regions which would receive the so-called benefits of the bill, I plead, "Do not permit yourselves to be bought."

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DouGLAS] for his very fine participation in the debate, and also for the important points he has developed and properly emphasized. He has made it perfectly clear that the proposed legislation is parochial, very limited, filled with what I consider to be economic boobytraps, and that it would. result in harm to a major part of Illinois agriculture.

I also wish to thank the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MoRSE] for his statement. I concur in every word he said. It is my intention to vote for the wool amendment. I believe that the principle of compensatory payments, which is embodied in the wool amendment, could well be applied to some other agricultural commodities, although I do not say it should be applied to all. But that is a principle and an instrument of agricultural economic policy which

could well be applied to agricultural products of other areas.

As the Senator from Illinois said, there are some who feel that if the wool amendment is adopted, it will be possible to obtain enough votes to pass the bill. That may be so; but unless there are further changes the bill will not be a good one, and in that case the Senators who vote for the bill will later rue the day when they did so.

So I ask my Democratic colleagues to remember that our party is the party that wrote into the law the parity concept; and if, in connection with the consideration of this bill by the Senate, the Democratic Party participates in the elimination of that concept from the law, then the Democratic Party will stand as a betrayer of the people.

Mr. President, I will not vote to do that. The people of my State expect me to keep my word; and I have given my word, and for years I have worked diligently and sincerely for the parity concept; and I shall keep my word.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield further to me?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator from

Minnesota is a very skillful parliamentarian. I hope that when the Senate begins to vote on the amendments, he will see to it that adequate amendments which deal with corn and soybeans will be submitted.

Mr. HUMPHREY. They have already been submitted.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I hope they will be considered by the Senate before it considers the wool amendment.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I regret to say that the wool amendment was first submitted.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Is that amendment the pending question?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes; and the Senate will proceed to vote on it tonight.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I regret that very much.

Does the Senator from Minnesota think there is very little chance for the provision of protection for corn?

Mr. HUMPHREY. If the Senator from Illinois means to ask whether I think there is much chance for the adoption of our feed-grains amendment, which includes corn, I shall reply by stating that I believe that amendment will be adopted, because, according to the responses of the leaders in the other body, unless the feed grains are included, no agricultural bill will be passed by this Congress. In other words, Senators who may wish to pretend that the Senate will vote to make provision tor only cotton, rice, and a few other agricultural commodities, can go through the exercise of debating the bill, if they wish to do so; but in such event, their activities will amount merely to verbal gymnastics, because a bill so greatly limited will not be enacted.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Why should we let the full responsibility lie on the House of Representatives? Why should we not do something here to get a balanced bill which will be fair to all, will not give special benefits to a minority.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I assure the Senator that we will try; and, with the Senator's brilliant help and courageous assistance we are going to do our level best. There are many amendments at the desk. More will probably be offered. It is my intention to ask for a yea and nay vote on all my amendments. In fact, I intend to do so on all the amendments.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I hope the Senator sticks to that intention, even though we have to stay here all night long.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I assure the Senator I will stick to it. I want to say another thing to him. There has been no agreement whatsoever to limit debate. There has been no agreement to do anything but to seek to be responsible and to get legislation. I do not seek to delay. I seek to get legislation. We have reasonable, moderate amendments. I did not propose a program which, from the point of view of the Senator from Minnesota, is as extreme or as farreaching as I think it ought to be. I have suggested four minimum reqUirements, which I feel are most moderate.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I may say to my good friend frem Minnesota that it may be all right for the Senator from Oregon to vote for a wool amendment, and then trust to faith or luck that there will be other amendments to protect other crops; but the Senator from Illinois does not intend to take things on faith. i am not here to logroll, but when everybody else is under the mistletoe and is being accepted, but corn and soybeans are left out, then in self-defense I must protect the commodities grown in my State and the farmers who grow them. I refuse to have distress inflicted on commodities grown in the Upper Mississippi Valley. I am here to resort to decent methods of self-defense.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Those methods are most effective. The Senator from Illinois will find a companion in the primitive existence he wishes to pursue in terms of defense of our agricultural commodities. I regret we find ourselves in a situation wherein we cannot vote on other amendments first, but the truth is that in the very beginning of the debate an amendment was offered by our very dear friend of agriculture, the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YouNG]. I feel there should be a yea and nay vote on that amendment. There is a desire on the part of some Senators to have a voice vote, but I should like to see yea and nay votes on all these amendments. I want the corn, soybeans, and other feed grain farmers to find out who is for them and who is against them.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. MORSE. Does the Senator have

any question as to whether we can obtain a yea-and-nay vote on the wool amendment?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I am sure our colleagues will honor us with a yea-andnay vote. There is a display of fair play in evidence. I am sure we can have one.

Mr. MORSE. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes. Mr. MORSE. I am in complete sym

pathy with the point of view expressed

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14911 by the Senator from Illinois. I think we are in a very difficult parliamentary situation. Some amendment has to be voted on first. I did not know that the wool amendment was first. The wool amendment is now pending. I shall vote for the wool amendment. I shall vote for the Senators' other amendments. Then if we do not get what he has described as a reasonably fair bill, I shall vote against the bill. I think that is the obligation I owe to my responsibilities here. I see nothing inconsistent between what I have just said and what the Senator from Illinois has said.

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is exactly the intention of the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. McNAMARA. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. McNAMARA. I should like to ask

a couple of brief questions. It appears from the colloquy now going on that consideration is being given to almost every branch of the agricultural industry except the dairy industry.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I assure the Senator there is no provision in this proposed legislation that affects the dairy industry except adversely.

Mr. McNAMARA. That is true. I can go along with many provisions that do not particularly concern the people of my area, but the dairy industry is very important in the State of Michigan. Why should it be considered so utterly impossible to adopt an amendment which would be of benefit to the dairy farmers? I do not understand such a philosophy. There are many things about this bill I do not understand; that is just one. Does the Senator have any answer to that question? Why is it that every other commodity can be taken care of, and we are ready to listen to the pleas of every phase of the agricultural industry except the one which I think has been grossly neglected and abused recently by Secretary Benson? I do not think such an attitude makes· any sense.

I have in my hand a record of the vote on the last dairy bill. The vote was 50 to 43. We lost by a very few votes.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator refers to the resolution, does he not?

Mr. McNAMARA. Yes, on dairy price supports. I have read from a compilation by the majority leader, not by me. This is gospel; there is no question about the authenticity of it. What explanation does the Senator from Minnesota have as to that question?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I would say to my good friend from Michigan the only explanation is that the Secretary of Agriculture is a stubborn man. He has decided the price-support levels for milk are high enough according to his standards, and that is the way they are going to be. When the junior Senator from Minnesota offered an amendment on dairy products to restore milk prices to $3.25 a hundredweight, it lost by 1 or 2 votes in the committee. The main reason it lost was that it was stated openly in committee that if the amendment was added to the bill, the bill would be vetped.

Mr. McNAMARA. We are hearing that statement again today.

Mr. HUMPHREY. What is really being stated here, before any amendment is even adopted, even before there is a chance to look at it, is that an edict has come down from on high. The Secretary of Agriculture says he will write the policy. The Constitution of the United States provides that Congress shall write the policy.

Mr. McNAMARA. It appears we are wasting a lot of time late at night on something that has been predetermined.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I do not believe in letting the Secretary or anybody else bluff us. In international affairs we constantly hear that if we do this or do that, the Soviet may attack. If we are going to live by that kind of blackmail, we will have to throw the sponge into the ring early.

In legislative matters I do not believe in having rumors or statements by second division or second-level personnel handed to us and being told, "If you do this or adopt such and such an amendment, the President is going to veto the bill." The only time I know that the President vetoes something is when he actually vetoes it, and when we get the veto message. If the President wants to veto the bill, it is his constitutional privilege. I do not think he will veto it as fast if there is a dairy amendment attached to a cotton and rice provision as he would if there were a dairy amendment alone.

Mr. McNAMARA. I agree with the Senator. I am going to be in favor of giving serious consideration to appropriate supports for dairy products.

On another phase of the bill, I should like to say that I am a little surprised to hear the Senator from Minnesota, who is a distinguished member of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, say he is going to support the wool amendment. My inclination is not to support the wool amendment at this point. I should like to know what is wrong with my reasoning. It seems to me the one part of the agricultural program which has worked well has been the wool program. The wool growers seem to be well satisfied with it. Why should we try to amend the law? I know that there is a question as to certain funds not being so readily available any more, but is not the day when this action should be taken 9 or 10 months away? Why do we have to take such action now? Why can we not go on as we are for another year?

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator makes a good point. The wool authorization does not run out, I believe, until March of 1959.

Mr. McNAMARA. What is the rush? Mr. HUMPHREY. There is time. I

would be less than honest if I did not say I find in the wool bill many meritorious provisions. I know it has been proposed that the Wool Act be amended with respect to the source of the necessary funds with which to make payments, but I am going to support the wool amendment.

Even among those of us who see eye to eye on most legislation in the Congress there is occasionally a point upon

which we differ. That is one of the great joys of being relatively independent.

The Senator has asked me why we should support the wool amendment now. I will give two reasons.

First, I think basically the wool amendment is a good amendment. Second, I think one. of the best friends of American agriculture, the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YOUNG], who is sponsoring -the amendment, deserves some recognition for his untiring efforts in these matters.

The second reason obviously is a perS(;mal reason and should be given secondary consideration.

I will state that I supported the wool amendment in the committee, and I shall support it on the Senate floor. I would prefer to vote on the wool bill as a separate bill.

Mr. McNAMARA. I would also. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will

the Senator yield to me at this time? Mr. McNAMARA. I will say, in con

clusion, I am not convinced I should vote for the wool amendment. I still think I shall vote against it.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. ANDERSON. I am happy to hear

the Sei~ator from Minnesota state that he will support the wool amendment. I am happy to hear the Senator say that the Senator from North Dakota is entitled to a great deal of consideration. I hope the Senator from Minnesota will not overlook the fact that the able Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O'MAHONEY] proposed virtually the same thing in 1946 and submitted it to the Department of Agriculture, · where he received the support of the Department of Agriculture.

So far as I am concerned, the Senator from Wyoming who does not seem to get much credit for the wool act, is entitled to a tremendous amount of credit, because he was the original sponsor of it and brought it to the attention of the Congress.

I think more than any single individual the Senator from Wyoming has tried to bring the wool act to fruition.

I say that because sometimes we forget the mute, inglorious Miltons who only stand and wait, when really able to say, "This, after all, is my proposal." That is absolutely true of the Senator from Wyoming. I regret that the Senator from Wyoming is not on the floor at this time to hear me say this on his behalf.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I am delighted the Senator from New Mexico has made those remarks on behalf of the Senator from Wyoming.

I regret that I was unmindful of the early leadership of the distinguished Senator from Vvyoming, who has been giving every bit as much leadership as to the current bill, with respect to wool.


Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. Since it is rumored

that the alliance now being built up is an alliance of Senators primarily representing cotton, rice, and wool areas, and that the corn, soybean, and dairy areas

14912 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 are to be left out, would it not be more wise for us to defeat the wool amendment, and to defeat it by a big vote, with the whole upper Mississippi Valley voting against it? Then if corn and soybeans and dairy products are brought in for consideration the wool amendment could be revived in a proper but not an improper form.

Mr. HUMPHREY. . That is one possibility, I will say to my good friend from Illinois.

Another possibility, which I have heard some of our colleagues mention, is to recommit the bill to the committee with some instructions.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield to me?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. ANDERSON. The Senator from

Minnesota and I have been as far apart as to parity as two people could possibly be.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Not as to parity, but as to how to obtain it.

Mr. ANDERSON. I accept the Senator's correction. I also note that the Senator and I took part at one time in a very interesting· program, in which we were supposed to be on opposite sides, when both of us were trying to accomplish the same goal. I have many times said to the Senator from Minnesota that I do not agree with all the conclusions he reaches, but he has been outstanding in his stalwart championing of the rights of farmers.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I thank the Senator very much. His remarks are very kind.

Mr. ANDERSON. The Senator knows that commendation is only a small part of what is due him for the things he does for the American farmer.

I will say that unless there can be changes in the bill-not so complete as the Senator from Illinois suggests, but

. changes in the bill-the part of wisdom might be to recommit the bill to the committee.

For example, there is a provision in the bill which calls for 1.6 million acres for rice. There is no possibility that we can use more than one million acres of rice production.

Mr. HUMPHREY. What is the present acreage?

Mr. ANDERSON. I regret to say the Senator from Minnesota has asked me a question which I cannot immediately answer. I am not as familiar with the figures as I ought to be. However, it is contemplated we will have 1.6 million acres of rice, as is provided for in the bill, which will produce about 49 million hundredweight, while the American market is ready to consume about 27 million hundredweight. The other 22 million hundredweight will have to be put in storage, along with all the other rice we have in storage.

I will say to the Senator from Minnesota, if we are going to follow such a procedure in that circumstance it might be well to say, "What about doing the same in many circumstances?"

The Senator from Minnesota knows that I come from a State which produces

cotton. I think my State produces very, very good cotton.

In the bill presently under consideration there is a suggestion that it might be possible to increase the cotton acreage by 40 percent, by taking some 15 penalty points reduction in support prices. If such is done-and it may be desirable to do so-l think it is worthwhile to bear in mind that such action might present some problems for the soybean producers.

The Senator from Illinois mentioned that item a moment ago. Whatever we do in the bill presently under consideration to improve the situation of the cotton farmers I think we ought to recognize the implications with respect to the soybean farmers, and we ought to write into the bill a provision that if the bill increases the acreage for cotton, and thereby increasP.s cottonseed oil and cottonseed cake and other production, the Secretary of Agriculture can take into consideration what effect such production might have upon the production of soybeans.

I hope the Senator from Minnesota will keep insisting on that point. I will not be at all alarmed if the Senator from Illinois keeps insisting upQn it, too. It is not possible to write a sound agri:. cultural program by buttering only a few slices of bread. We can only write a sound agricultural program when we recognize that all segments of agriculture tie together and that if we do something for one segment of agriculture we have to recognize the effects upon other segments.

I am glad the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Illinois have raised this question. No soybeans are produced in my State, but that does not change the responsibility of the Congress to look at the problems of the soybean producer in the consideration of a bill of this nature.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I am grateful to the Senator from New Mexico for his comments.

Of course, from him words of commendation mean a great deal because of my high regard for the Senator's point of view and for his expert knowledge.

It is true that as to the matter of how we would gain what we call parity, the Senator from New Mexico and the junior Senator from Minnesota have at times disagreed, but our objective has been the same.

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. Mr. HUMPHREY. Very much the

same. Mr. ANDERSON. If the Senator will

yield further, I should like to say that I do not understand some of the things provided in the bill, because it refers to 90 percent, but it is 90 percent of the average price of the last 3 years. I do not observe anybody standing up to talk about 90 percent of parity anymore. I made a comment to the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE] today that I was glad he stated his convictions, because he still believes that 90 percent of parity for farmers is a desirable thing. It happens I do not so believe. I believe in flexible price supports. I have

advocated such supports since 1947, when I conveyed such a message to the Congress. . · I wonder what this bill will do for the people who have been standing up beating their breasts for 90 percent of parity, when they suddenly fail to remember it anymore? I am glad the Senator from Minnesota remembers what he stood for. There is eternal faith still in his breast, and I commend him for that.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. MORSE. I think the Senator

from New Mexico has put the issue very well for at least some of us in the Senate. I am not going to sit in the Senate and vote to destroy parity.

I want to say I also join with the Senator from New Mexico in his observations with respect to the leadership of the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O'MAHONEYJ on wool issues in the United States Senate for many years past.

I was in the Senate in 1946. I was following the leadership of the Senator from Wyoming on wool issues then. The CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Will SO show.

I should like the attention of the Senator from Illinois for a moment, because he has troubled me by the position he has just taken on the floor of the Senate. I want to be sure that I understand it. He may be right. I wish to say to my friends from Illinois and Minnesota that I would vote to recommit the bill. I think that should be done first.

I am troubled about the parliamentary technique in which we would involve ourselves if we were to follow the suggestion of the Senator from Illinois, that if the wool amendment comes up first, Senators representing soybean, corn, and other interests should vote against it until they can have soybean and corn amendments adopted. Then they will say to Senators representing wool interests, "We will now favor you with our votes on the wool amendment."

That is what bothers me. I do not believe that that kind of bartering on the floor of the Senate is the way to legislate. I want the Senator from Illinois to know that I am not critical. I am trying to see if we cannot find a principle which we can consistently follow, in order to avoid starting to divide among ourselves when our objectives are common.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I have always voted for the national interest on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. MORSE. I know that. Mr. DOUGLAS. I also represent my

State. If other Senators are to discard the national interest and merely work in behalf of particular commodities, I do not propose to be a pacifist and a nonresistant in these matters. I am not a masochist. I do not take pleasure in having pain inflicted upon me, or upon the farmers of my State. If cotton, rice, and wool producers are to say that they are to get their feet in the trough, I will say, "If you do not do justice to

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14913 corn, soybeans, and possibly dairy products, get away from the_ trough.'' I do not think it is a trough at all, but I have ceased to be a nonresistant. · The worm has turned. The grave nature of the upper Mississippi Valley has been betrayed too many times. I am now adopting the motto of the Albany Confederation of the 1750's, "Don't tread on n1e."

Mr. MORSE. Let me say goodnaturedly to my friend from Illinois that what he is really arguing for in regard to the parliamentary tactics outlined here is that he will insist on getting his nose in the trough first.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I suggest that we change the simile.

Mr. MORSE. We have made it perfectly clear that we shall vote against the bill in the national interest if it is not a fair bill. That is why, if I vote for the wool amendment and it goes into the bill, and the soybean amendment does not go in, I will vote against the bill.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Do not deal out corn, rye, sorghums, and the other competitive feed grains.

Mr. MORSE. I am using soybeans only as illustrative of the whole group of commodities which the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Minnesota have been discussing. I do not believe the Senator from Illinois should put some of us in the position where we shall have votes cast against us on the wool amendment unless he and his group can get some amendment in first, because I respectfully say that I do not think that would be voting in the national interest.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I am convinced that before we are through with this discussion we shall all be pulling together in harness for the legitimate objectives we seek. I am delighted to have had this participation by some of the most able Members of this body, who know how to speak with conviction and sincerity.

A few days of educational process might be helpful. At least, tt would give some of my colleagues a chance to hear from the folks at home, instead of having our farmers suddenly discover too late that the Senate has sold them down the river by surrendering unconditionally to Secretary Benson.

I am sure that some of my colleagues who have in the past proven stalwart champions of agriculture will join me, if necessary, in seeing that ample time is devoted to thoroughly exploring the road down which Secretary Benson is trying to take American agriculture. On the other hand, of course, we may be able to persuade them to withhold their fire, to a degree, if some evidence is forthcoming of a willingness to at least explore the chances of perfecting this legislation into something a friend of the farmer can live with.

In due time I shall discuss at considerable length each of the constructive amendments I am proposing, and explain the necessity for including them in this bill.

But for the purpose of this more-orless preliminary warm-up, merely setting the stage for the main fights to come,

I shall confine myself to the rather broad outlines of why agriculture urgently needs better legislation, the dangers of the road down which this present legislation would take agriculture, the tremendous propaganda e:tl'ort that is being put forth to deceive the public about that shift in farm policy, and some better alternatives that we should be seriously considering.

Each of these topics could and should be a full-dress presentation in its own right, and I do not intend to neglect any part of this discussion.

First of all, let us take a careful look at how our farmers are doing.

Despite all the glowing cover-page stories in Life magazine and all the reassuring statements from Secretary Benson, the farmer's pocketbook and his purchasing power-his take home pay upon which so much of the rest of our economy is dependent-is the best measurement of what is really happening. And it is not good.

There may be room for di:tl'erent points of view as to what should be done · about our agricultural problems, but there can be little di:tl'erence of opinion over the fact that our agricultural economy is out of balance with the rest of the economy-even during a period when the rest of the economy has slipped a cog and headed downward.

This administration takes great delight with the passage of years in seizing upon any temporary slight upturn in some farm prices to compare the situation favorably with its own low pointsinstead of comparing the situation today either with where farmers stood under the previous administration on, or with the rest of the economy even today.

One can do all kinds of tricks with statistics. He can fool himself-but it is hard to fool the farmer, or the small town businessman for whom the farmer is the best customer.

Before taking a look at the national picture, I should like to start closer to home-in Minnesota. I know my farm poople~ ~nd I try to keep track of what is happening tc t-hem. Soaring fruit and vegetable prices as a result of weather conditions in Florida may infiuence the national parity figures, but they do not mean much to Minnesota farmers.

On June 15, 1958, the average parity price for the 17 leading commodities in Minnesota, averaged according to the relative importance of the products, was 74 percent of parity.

Corn was only 61 percent of the e:tl'ec- . tive United States parity price. All milk sold wholesale was only 57 percent of United States parity. ·

Oats were also 57 percent of parity. These are the figures from our uni

versity, and they count with our farmers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con

sent to have printed at this poil)t in. ~he. RECORD a table from the July 10 issue_ of Minnesota Agriculture, published in St. Paul by the Minnesota Fanners Union, entitled "How Far From Parity?" showing a comparison of the United States effective parity price and the average price received . by. Minnesota:

farmers for the 17 leading commodities in our State.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD~ as follows:

How jar from parity?-June 15, 1958

Aver- Mfnne-United age sota States price Short of aver-effec- receiv- parity age

Crop or product tive ed by per price as parity Min- unit a per-price nesota cent of

farm- parity 2 ers 1

---------Corn _______ bushels __ Hogs

$1.76 $1.07 $0.69 61

hundredweight __ 22.10 21.20 .90 96 Cattle ________ .do ____ 28.20 23.10 .10 99 Milk, wholesale

hundredweight •. 5.08 2.90 2.16 57 Butterfat. .. pounds __ . 76 .62 .14 81 Oats ________ bushels __ .88 .52 .36 59 Eggs _________ dozen __ .49 .28 . 21 57 Soybeans_._ bushels._ 3.04 2.04 1.00 67 Calves

hundredweight._ 25.60 26.20 0 113 Flax ________ bushels __ 4.33 2. 62 1. 71 60 Barley ________ do ____ 1. 35 . 92 .43 68 WheaL _______ do ____ 2.43 2.11 .32 87 Turkeys ____ pounds __ .38 .29 .11 71 Potatoes ____ bushels __ 2.46 2. 20 . 26 89 Chickens ___ pounds __ .287 .15 .13 52 Sheep

hundredweight __ 10.30 6. 70 3. 60 65 WooL ______ pounds __ .71 .30 .41 42

I Prices are as received by farmers at the point of first sale out of the farmer's hands and should not be confused with prices of specific grades or classes at central terminal markets.

2 Parity price average, 17leading commodities, Minnesota, 74 percent (averaged according to relative importance of products).

Mr. HUMPHREY. Now, Mr. President, in all fairness to areas where prices might be better, I would also like to ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point a table of average prices received by farmers for farm products nationwide, comparing June 15, 1957, with May 15, 1958, and June 15, 1958, and another table making the comparison between June 15, 1958, with June 15, 1951.

There being no objection, the tables were ordered to be printed in the REcORD, as follows: Average prices received by farmers for farm

products, United States, June 15, 1958, with comparisons

Commodity and unit June 15,IMay 15,,June 15, 1957 lll58 1958

----------1------'---Wheat_ ______________ busheL _ $1.91 $1.93 $1.70 Rye ______ --------- _____ do. ___ 1.04 .983 . 952 Rice, rough

hundredweight__ 4. 91 5.06 5. 05 Corn _________________ busheL 1.22 1.15 1.19 Oats __ -------------- ___ do ____ . 661 . 594 . 615 Barley ____ ~ ____________ do __ __ .881 .869 .907 Sorghum grain ·

hundredweight __ 1.89 1. 76 1. 76 Hay, all baled ___________ ton __ Cotton: . .

18.60 17.70 17.10

American upland __ pound __ .3189 . 2910 .2909 · American-Egyptian .. do ____ . 591 .544 .544

Tobacco, types 11-37 ___ do ____ . 512 .470 .435 Cottonseed ______________ ton._ (1) (1) (1)

~~~~~~:::_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-pound== 2.18 2.13 2.13 .109 .110 .110

Flaxseed ___ ----- ___ --busheL_ 2. 72 2. 58 2.64 Potatoes_. ___ hundredweight_ _ 1. 31 .2.37 1. 65 S.weetpotatoes. _________ do. ___ 5 .. 72 5. 91 5. 52 Beans,· qry edible ______ do ____ ·7.22 . - 7.94 8.09 Peas, dry field _________ do ____ 3.57 3. 01 3.16 E:ogs_" ___ ------ _______ .do. ___ 18.40 21.70 21.60 Beef cattle. ____________ do ____ 17.80 23.10 22.30 Calves.------------- ___ do ____ 18.90 25.70 24.70 Sbeep __________________ do ____ 5. 70 7. 64 7.19 Lambs ________ ----- ___ .do._-- 20.20 20.50 21.20 Butterfat, in cream __ pound __ . 591 .576 .573 All milk, wholesale .

3. 74 3. 70 • hundredweight__ 3.80 Milk, retaiL __________ quart •• .207 .209 .209

14914 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 24 Average prices received by farmers for farm

products, United States, June 15, 1958, with comparisons-Continued

Commodity and unit June 15, May 15, June 15, 1957 1958 1958

-----------1---------All chickens.live _____ pound __ $0.196 $0.196 $0.203

Farm chickens, live do ____ .134 .166 .160

Commercial broilers, live do ____ .207 .201 . 210 Turkeys, live __________ do ____ .233 . 271 . 256

~;g~--===~~~~~~~~~~~~p~~;~== .289 .355 . 339 .554 . 363 .377

Adjusted for seasonal varia-tion:

All milk, wholesale hundredweight __ 4. 22 4.19 4.11

Eggs ____ dozen in carton __ .314 .390 . 368

1 Not available.

Source: Agricultural Prices (June 27, 1958). Published by Agricultural Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Average prices received by farmers for farm products, June 15, 1958, compared with June 15, 1951

Aver- June 15, Percent Commodity age, 1958 change

1951

"''beat ________ --- _____ -_--- $2. 11 $1.70 Down 19 Rye __ -- - ------------------ 1. 52 . 952 Down 37 Rice, rough ________________ 4. 82 5.05 Up5 Corn ____ ----------------- - 1.66 1.19 Down28 Oats ____ __ ---------------- - .820 . 615 Down 25 Barley---------_----------- 1. 26 .907 Down 28 Sorghum grain ________ ____ 2. 32 1. 76 Down 24 Hay, all baled _____________ 25.60 17.10 Down 33 Cotton, American upland_ .377 . 2909 Down 23 Tobacco, types 11-37 ______ .420 . 435 Up4 Cottonseed _____ ------- ____ 69. 30 (1) (1) Soybeans __________________ 2. 73 2.13 Down 22 Peanuts_-----------------_ .104 .110 Up6 Flaxseed_----------------- 3. 72 2.64 Down 29 Potatoes_------ - ___ -------_ 1.63 1.65 Up1 Sweetpotatoes ____ -------- _ 3.03 5. 52 Up 82 Beans, dry edible __________ 7. 91 8.09 Up2 HogR ____ ------------------ 20.00 21.60 UpS Beef cattle _________________ 28.70 22.30 Down22 Calves _____ ---------------- 32.00 24.70 Down 23 Lambs __ ------------------ 31.00 21.20 Down 32 All chickens, live __________ . 271 . 203 Down 25 Tm·keys, live ______________ .374 . 256 Down32 Adjusted for seasonal vari-

ation: Down 10 All milk, wholesale __ __ 4. 58 4. 11

Eggs ___ --------------- . 478 .368 Down23

1 Not available. Source: Agricultural Prices (June 27, 1958) , Agricul·

tural Marketing Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Mr. HUMPHREY. These tables show the average prices received by farmers for farm products. Comparing 1951, for example, with 1958, to give a few mustrations, turkeys are down 33 percent, ~bickens 25 percent, lambs 32 percent, flaxseed 29 percent, soybeans 22 percent, grain sorghums 24 percent, barley 28 percent, oats 25 percent, com 28 percent, and rye 37 percent. This is the picture which these tables reveal.

While I hope my colleagues will study these tables, I cannot help but refer to them briefly, as I have done. For example, rye, for which this pending legislation means a further cut in price, is already down 37 percent from 1951. Oats, also facing a new threat under this bill, are already down 28 percent. The same is true for sorghum grain. Soybeans, facing new competition under the proposed exp::msion of cottonseed production, are down 22 percent in price.

To get the true perspective, you must compare these drastic price declines with what has happened to prices paid by farmers for the same period.

Interest payments per acre have gone up 79 percent. Taxes paid per acre have gone up 39 percent. These are figures from Secretary Benson's own reports. I hope he reads them. I hope he recognizes that the biggest increases in the farmers' costs are from higher interest and higher taxes, much bigger than the increases in production supplies and farm-machinery equipment. Somehow, Secretary Benson tries to blame all of the farmer's increased costs on labor in industry, but the facts of his own reports do not seem to support him. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point a table of the index of prices paid b::~ farmers from the report, Agricultural Prices, issued by the Agricultural Marketing Service of the United States Department of Agriculture.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, a;:; follows:

Index of prices paid by farmers (1910-14=100)

Aver- Apr. 15, Percent Item age 1958 1 change

Interest paid per acre ______ _ Taxes paid per acre ________ _ Cash wage rates ___________ _

Motor supplies ____________ _ Motor vehicles ____________ _ Farm machinery ___ --------Farm supplies _____________ _ Building and fencing ______ _ Fertilizer-------------------

Average, above 6 items.

1951

98 335 470 --

156 342 297 264 346 152 --

258

Household operation.------ · 189 Household furnishings ____ __ 277 Building materials, bouse__ 384 Autos and auto supplies____ 267

Average, above 4 256 items.

175 464 567

---169 420 361 294 391 151

---299

Up79. Up 39. Up21.

UpS. Up 23. Up22. Up 11. Up 13. Down1.

Up 16.

212 Up 12. 277 No change. 407 Up 6. 323 Up 21,

287 Up 12.

Food_______________________ 265 288 Up 9. Clothing___________________ 309 326 Up 6. _, ___ _

Average, above 2 280 301 Up 8. items.

Feed______ _________________ 236 Feeder livestock____________ 490 Seed------------------------ 232 --

Average, above 3 314 item3.

Prices t>aid f()r all family 268 living items (average).

273 Prices paid for all produc-tion items (average).

282 Prices paid, commodities and services taxes and wage rates.

1 Or last available data.

203 Down 14. 392 Down 20. 212 Down 9.

---. 262 Down 17.

293 Up9.

271 Down 1.

306 Up9.

Source: Agricultural Prices, (Apr . 30. 1958), A;gricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agnculture.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Any comparison of the farmers' conditions with his own conditions of the past is inadequate without taking a look at how everybody else is doing.

For that information, let us turn to the Economic Indicators, published by the President's Own Council of Economic Advisors. For these figures, we have the full 1957 returns compared with the annual average of 1947-49.

In a nutshell, it shows what every farmer knows-farmers are worse off. and everybody else is better off-but particularly corporations and stock owners.

While income from interest-the money made by bankers primarily on

other people's money, not their ownwas soaring 109 percent during that period, farmers total net income fell 25 percent.

Of course, the administration makes a great fetish of saying that such declined total net income for farmers was divided up among fewer farmers-because of their success in driving more people off the farm .

But even at that rate, the per family total net income of farmers, in current dollars, declined 6 percent while dividend income, for example, went up 70 percent and per person income of nonfarm people went up 39 percent .

Mr. President, it might be helpful if I could have unc:..hlmous consent to have printed at this point a series of tables of how farmers are doing compared with others.

There being no objection, the tables were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: How farmers are doing, compared with

others-Farmers worse off, everybody else better off, particularly corporations and stockowners

Annual P er-aver- 1957 cent age, change

1947-49 -----------1---------Interest.------billion dollars __ 9.0 18.8 +109 Dividends _____________ do ____ 7.1 12.1 +70 Corporation profits:

+39 Before taxes ________ do ____ 29.5 41.0 After taxes _________ do ____ 18.1 20.0 +11 R ental income _____ ____ do ____ 7.2 10.4 +45 Business and professional

28.7 +40 proprietors .. billion dollars .. 20.8 Weekly earnings of manu-

facturing workers .. dollars .. 53 Per person income, nonfarm

82 +55 people. ____________ dollars __

Per person income, farm 1,473 2,045 +39

people ! __ _____ __ ___ dollars .. Farm income parity ratio

848 993 +17

percent.. 58 45 Farmers total net income:

NationaL. billion dollars __ 15.4 --2;490- -25 Per family .current dollars._ 2,654 -6

Number of farms ... millions __ 5.8 4.9 -16

t From nonfarm and farm sources.

Source: Economic lnd!~tors (Council of Economic Advisers) f.ad Farm Income Situation published by Agricultural Marketing Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

How farmers are doing, compared with others-Farmers worse off, everybody else better off, particularly corporations, bankers, and stockowners

1951 1957 Percent change

lnterest _____ billion dollars __ 11.6 18.8 +61 Dividends ___________ do ____ 9.1 12.1 +33 Corporate profits, after

taxes ______ billion dollars __ 18.7 20.2 +8 Rental incomes ____ __ do ____ 9.1 10.4 +14 Business and professional

proprietors billion dollars __ 24.8 28.7 +16

Weekly earnings of manu-facturing workers:

Current dollars billion dollars __ 65 82 +26

1957 dollars ___ ___ do ____ 70 82 +17 Farmers total net income:

National billion dollars __ 16.3 11.6 -29

Per family: Current dollars _____ 2, 951 2,388 -19 1947-49 dollars ______ 2,683 1,901 -24

Number of farms. millions •• 5. 5 4.9 -11

Source: Economic Indicators, published by Council of Economic Advisers to the President of the United States, June 1958 and Farm Income Situation (July 1958), published 'by Agricultural Marketing Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

1958 CONGR~SSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14915 Do FARM FAMn.IEs GET PARrrY INcoME?

Per person incomes, farm and nonfarm compared

1951 1957 Percent change

Income per person of people on farms:

From farming __________ $741 $651 -17 Government payment __ 10 43 +400 From all sources (cur-

rent dollars) __________ 983 967 -2 From all sources (1957

dollars) ___ -------- ____ 1,032 967 -6 Income per person of people not on farm _______________ 1, 763 2,082 +18 Farm family income, per-

56 46 cent of parity income _____

Source: Farm Income Situation (July 1958), published by Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Farmers' share of national income and population

1947- 1951 1957 49 --

Per- Per- Per-cent cent cent

Farm people were. __ 18.0 15.7 11.9 of national population.

And received ________ 11.2 9.4 5.9 of national income.

NOTE.-Income figures for farm people include income from off-farm sources as well as income from farming.

Source: Agricultural Marketing Service, Farm Income Situation (July 1958).

Per farm real income down one-fourth in 6 years

Farm operators' gross income:

Including inventory change __ billion dollars __

Excluding inventory change __ billion dollars __

Farm production expenses billion dollars __

Farm operators' net income:

Including inventory change:

United States total billion dollars __

Per farm current dollars __

Per farm 1947-49 dollars __

Excluding inventory change:

United States total billion dollars __

Per farm current dollars __

Per farm 1947-49 dollars __

Number offarms __ million __ Prices paid by farm family

for living items (Index) __ _

1951 1957 Percent

38.5

37.3

22.2

16.3

35.1

34.3

23.5

11.6

change

-9

-8

+6

-29

2, 951.0 2, 388.0 -19

2, 683. 0 2, 034. 0 -24

15.2 10.8 -29

2, 739.0 2, 232.0 -19

2, 490. 0 1, 901. 0 -24

5.5 4.9 -11

$268 $286

Source: Farm Income Situation (July 1958), published by Agricultural Marketing Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Per farm real income down

1st 1951 ~9~

Farm operators' gross income: Including inventory change

billion dollars__ 38.5 37.5 Excluding inventory change

billion dollars __ 37.3 37.7 Farm production expenses ___ ______ _ do____ 22.2 24.4 Farm operators' net income:

Including inventory change, United States totaL ________ billion dollars __ 16.3 13.1

Excluding inventory change, United States totaL ________ billion dollars __ 15.2 13.3

Prices paid by !arm family for living items index__ 268 286

Source: Farm Income Situation (July 1958), published by Agricultural Marketing Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Nineteen hundred and fifty-eight farm income less than half of parity income goal

Parity farm in

come 1

Farm Actual income, 1957 2 1st

half 1958 2

-----------1---------Farm operators' net income:

Including inventory change: United States total

billion dollars __ 26.2 11.6 13.1 Per farm _________ dollars __ 5,347 2,388 (3)

Excluding inventory change:

United States total billion dollars __ 26.2 10.8 13.3

Per farm _________ dollars __ 5,347 2,232 (3) Farm production expenses

billion dollars __ 25.4 23.5 24.4 Farm operators' gross income:

Including inventory change 5i. 6 billion dollars __ 35. 1 37.5

Excluding inventory change ____ billion dollars._ 51.6 34.3 37.7

1 Calculation based on definition in Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended.

2 Data from Farm Income Situation (July 1958), pub· lished by Agricultural Marketing Services, U. S. Depart· ment of Agriculture.

a Not available.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I suppose it is understandable that a man as hopelessly bankrupt over ideas about improving conditions in agriculture as Secretary Benson has proved to be should continue to whistle in the graveyard, and seize on every opportunity or excuse for misguiding the public about what is really happening under his stewardship.

Yet one of his classic comments that will live to haunt him was a statement a few months ago that "Agriculture has been a source of strength in the current recession."

Now, I suppose Secretary Benson can take a degree of pleasure in the fact that agriculture, with the rug already pulled out from under it several years earlier, finally escaped being alone in a tumbling economy when other segments also got into trouble.

But if he really feels the fact that farmers were already so broke they could not get much worse is a "source of strength" in our economy, I pity the fate of our economy.

Undoubtedly, Secretary Benson welcomed the fact that trouble in the rest of the economy temporarily took the spotlight off him as the greatest source of weakness in our entire economic picture.

Yet he forgets that many of us were warning 2 years ago about what would happen to industry and labor and business generally if farm purchasing power were permitted to remain depressed, while Secretary Benson was voicing bland reassurances that trouble in agriculture could not bother the rest of the country, because agriculture "was not as important" as it used to be.

Perhaps it is understandable that American farmers take Secretary Benson's statements with a big grain of salt, in view of his past record of blind misguidance as long as it served his propaganda purposes.

In assuring the country that agriculture was a bright spot in our recession, Secretary Benson used the occasion to make general observations about the role of farmers in the economy, concluding on this cheerful note:

The main impact of the recession, on agriculture, has been to restrict very sub-

stantially the job opportunities available to our farm people. As you know, one-third of the income received by farm people is obtained from nonfarm jobs and other nonfarm sources.

The Secretary of Agriculture did not point out that the decline in farm income-the farm depression-started several years ago. He did not point out that the estimated realized net income of $13 billion income for this year is almost 14 percent below the actual net farm income of $15.1 billion in 1952.

"Agriculture has been a source of strength in the current recession"April 14, 1958-must take its position alongside other famous quotes of Secretary Benson on the subject of farm income.

Here are samples: February 11, 1953: Analysis leads us to expect no major

changes (in farm prices) during the next several months.

October 21, 1953: It's my belief that the major price declines

are behind us.

November 18, 1953: The retreat of farm prices and in

comes • • • seems to have been stopped a few short months after we took office.

December 16,1953: Let me assure you • • • considerable prog

ress has been made along the road to recovery. I believe that 1953 has marked the turning point-in the right direction.

December 15, 1954: We are headed in the right direction at

last.

January 7, 1955: I am convinced that for agriculture the

road ahead will be smoother than the one we have been traveling.

February 4, 1955: Farm income has been stabilized for some

months-of one thing you can be certain. The better farmers will make money • • • because there is real opportunity in agriculture today.


Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. Is this a variation on

the theme of an old song: "The music goes round and round, but it comes out just the same"?

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. It is the Department of Agriculture's variation of that old theme.

January 16, 1956: A new buoyancy in the market place, a

new hope, a new vigor and zest, can be anticipated. • * * Surely it should be reflected promptly in prices and incomes.

August 17, 1956: Farm prices and the parity ratio have not

only stopped falling-they are definitely climbing.

Of course they promptly dropped. I may digress to say that the Department must have obtained a new public relations man, who concocted that spontaneous and exotic language.


Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.

14916 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- ?EN ATE July 24 Mr. DOUGLAS. Did they use the

phrase that the decline in prices has now bottomed out; or is that a more recent phrase?

Mr. HUMPHREY. That came later. September 11, 1956: We are on the right track. The down

ward slide in prices * * * has been checked. Yes, we are on the right track, and we are going to stay on it.

Mr. President, farmers are not being fooled. Whatever temporary improvements in farm prices may have occurred were certanily not the results of Secretary Benson's farm policies.

If it were not so tragic it would be amusing. When he appears before our Senate committee, every time it is pointed out that his policies have failed completely, he always blames the weather or some other ·facts of nature beyond his control.

Whenever the Senator from Missouri has pointed to discrepancies and to the inadequacy of the farm program, the response usually was that it was due to weather conditions and seasonal adjustments.

Mr. SYMINGTON. In other words, the operation was always successful, but the patient always died.

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. But when there was a slight lift in

farm prices resulting from a combination of factors over which he had nothing to do, he was quick to claim full credit and boast that his "policies" were now proving right.

Out in Iowa-once a good Republican State, coming more and more our way these days-the farmers are more realistic.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD an editorial from the May 17 issue of the Wallace's Farmer, one of the Nation's leading farm publications published in the heart of the Midwest farm area at Des Moines, entitled "Guard Against Too Much Optimism."


GUARD AGAINST Too MUCH OPTIMISM Secretary Benson and some USDA agencies

have really been playing up the favorable farm price situation.

They've predicted a 5 to 10 percent increase in net cash income this year. Benson, Farm Bureau, and others point out that now their program of "more freedom" is starting to work.

City papers have run With the ball, even to talking about a "boom" in rural America.

Farm prices did react favorably the first 3 months of this year. And we're glad to see folks get a decent return on their livestock operations.

But let's not lose our heads, and think that all our troubles are over. Mother Nature, pure chance, and farmers themselves are largely responsible for higher farm prices this year.

First, a highly unusual frost destroyed a lot of vegetable and citrus production in Florida. Prices soared because of the immediate shortage of these products on the market.

Growers elsewhere profited, partly at the expense of Florida producers. A short crop nets farmers more than a big crop.

Second, it was pure chance that all three classes of livestock are being held back to

build up herds at the same time. It is one of the few times that trends for the three have coincided.

Third, the beef price strength is almost entirely farmer-made. Ranchers are holding back large numbers of cows and heifers to build up their herds. Feeders have delayed their marketings 30 to 60 days.

Hog growers, too, had a h and in making the good 1958 livestock prices. They voluntarily held 1957 farrowings stable to prevent a bust in prices this year.

Then, to top things off, egg production dropped 4 percent the first 3 months of this year. This boosted prices about 20 percent, on the average.

There is no real scarcity of meat or protein food. But the slightly reduced marketings across the board created a little price boom.

Then the boom started feeding on itself, since it encouraged further holding back of breeding stock.

The strong livestock prices helped boost corn prices, too. Corn went up about 16 cents at Chicago between mid-March and mid-April. .

We're happy about the situation, along with Mr. Benson. But let's appraise the facts accurately.

Farm people have plenty of problems ahead. And most of them center around surplus productive capacity.

A big segment of farmers Will be in trouble most of the time, as long as we keep on producing a little more than our customers want, most of the time.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, that same skepticism is nationwide, in agriculture. Here is one more example-an editorial from the current month's edition of the Missouri Farmer, entitled "Missouri's Agricultural Picture." Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial referred to be published at this point in my remarks, summarizing the depressed situation in the great State of Missouri.


MISSOURI'S AGRICULTURAL PICTURE Recent figures from USDA for the last

several years show the Missouri agricultural picture like this:

Total gross cash receipts from farm mar- -ketings: about the same.

Production expenses: up sharply. Number of farmers: decreasing steadily. Net income per farm family: gradually de-

clining. The big problem which keeps plaguing all

farmers is the continuous spiral of higher and higher production costs, and the steady slipping of the level of the average of all farm prices.

Let's look at some cost comparisons. Taxes on Missouri farms have gone up from a total of $22 million in 1949 to more than $34 million by 1956. That all-important item of interest on mortgages has climbed from $7.7 million to $13.5 million in the same periodup more than 75 percent. Due to the necessary use of more machinery, and more expensive machinery, depreciation costs have mounted from $75 million to almost $120 million in this 8-year period.

In 1956 all farm production expenses accounted for 70 cents out of every $1 of gross income. When the figures are in for 1957 this may rise to nearly 75 cents out of each dollar. Back in 1949 these expenses took only about 57 cents per dollar of gross income.

Even though there are fewer farms to account for this total income, these production costs have eaten into this figure so far as to return less net income-not only to

the state's agriculture as a whole, but also to each family left on the farm. In 1949 net income per Missouri farm was $2,041. The estimate for 1957 is $1,851. This presents an impossible condition. It's not just that it means lower profits and thus pressure on living standards for farm families. but it also jeopardizes the progress of agriculture.

How can a farmer justify long-range improvements-fences, lime, terraces, new buildings and m achinery-when he is confronted with the very real possibility that he may be next on the list of disappearing farmers?

Hr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, let me read the concluding paragraph of that editorial, to show how deprpssed farm income affects the entire economy:

How can a farmer justify long-range im-provements-fences, lime, terraces, new buildings, and machinery-when he is confronted with the very real possibility that he may be next on the list of disappearing farmers?

Mr. President, I can say in all honesty that the sentiment in Minnesota agrees with that expressed by these editors in Iowa and Missouri.

All the Madison A venue propaganda in the world cannot gloss over the fact that farm income has been steadily and consistently declining, during a period of rising production costs.

Farmers are getting further and further away from ·the goal of equality of farm income with income in other segments of our economy, which was declared the intent and policy of Congress so many years ago.

In establishing that goal, which still stands in existing law today, Congress recognized the fact that farm people and the resources they own make at least as much contribution on the average to the Nation's economic welfare as do nonfarm people.

The risk in invested capital in farming is greater, not less, than the economywide average.

Modern family farming requires more skill and as great human strength and attention to details as does average nonfarm work.

Modern family farming requires as high type of management ability as that required of the average manager of nonfarm business enterprises.

In terms of pure interest return on invested funds, a dollar should be a dollar throughout the economy. Unfortunately, however, the farmer pays a higher interest rate on borrowed capital and earns a lower return on the funds he invests in his own business than any other businessman in the economy.

Farm income is far too low today, and it is not only farmers who should be concerned about it.

Inadequate farm income has not only retarded the economic and social development of rural areas; it has acted to prevent the Nation as a whole from the maximum attainment of its economic goals.

We cannot expect to go on having farm income decline a billion dollars a year, and farm indebtedness go up by about the same amount, without serious consequences for the entire economy.

According to the Department of Agriculture itself. the return to the farm

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 14917-operator for himself and family per hour on typical commercial family-operated farms was less on many types of farms in recent years than the average hourly wages paid to hired farm labor on those same farms.

Last year, the Secretary of Agriculture himself reported to Congress that in 1956 the national average return per hour of farm operator and family farm labor was approximately 70 cents per hour, 30 cents per hour less than the statutory minimum wage for non-farm workers set by Congress under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This disparity between farm income and non-farm income is becoming greater each year, despite our declared goals of public policy toward bringing them closer together. Current trends and current farm policies are not movin the direction of closing the gap.

I do not want to appear pessimistic in reviewing these sad facts of our economic life today, because I do not believe such conditions have to continue. But I do believe these hard facts need to be emphasized to awaken the American people t" the urgent need for concern over what is happening to agriculture. Farmers do not need to be told; their own pocketbooks and bank balances are warning enough. But the rest of the American people need to be shaken out of their complacency-a complacency, unfortunately, that the current administration has fostered by wishful thinking and repeated assurances that all's well when all is not well. The same complacency has been exposed in the field of science and satellites, by Sputnik I and II.

A depressed agriculture acts as a drag or brake on the rest of the economy. A depressed agriculture may not immediately pull the economy into a general business depression during a period of unbalanced inflation-but a depressed agriculture will most certainly hold down the level of total national income, and unless that contraction is offset by expansion in some other part of the economy, falling farm income would mean a redt:ced rate of national economic growth. We are already beginning to see that happen. We should have learned from experience, and heeded the warning that has been there for all to see for the last several years. Our so-called prosperity was meaningless when we were confronted with runaway inflation in some segments of our economy, and serious deflation in others.

What have we been doing about it? And, what is more important, what are we going to do about it?

I am endeavoring to avoid political partisanship, although it is hardly a secret that I believe Secretary of Agriculture Benson has given American agriculture its worst setback in several decades. As much as I regret being personal, it is impossible to review our farm situat ion without looking at what the present Secretary of Agriculture's misguided efforts have already done to our farm economy, and what these policies still threaten to do unless we call a halt.

Bensonism and its basic premise of lower prices has given our farm economy

CIV--939

a hefty downhill push, · while perpetuating a lot of myths in the minds of the non farm public.

What did this administration promise when they offered lower price support levels as the cure-all for your farm problems?

They said it would improve farm income by gaining better prices in the free market. Yet farm income has declined faster and further, and farm prices have steadily dropped. The parity level for all farm prices was at 100 on election day in 1952. It is 84 today.

They said it would curtail production. Yet production has increased, instead of declined. The individual farmer has been forced to increase his production to attempt to keep his income from dropping as a result of the falling prices.

They said it would reduce surpluses. Yet CCC inventories today are nearly five times as high as they were at the end of 1952, and far higher than when the so-called flexible program went into full effect in 1955-despite many new tools provided for surplus removal.

They said it would lower the cost of farm programs to the Government. Yet the realized loss on price support oper-ations has been more than twice as much in the last 5 years as in the preceding 20. . The simple truth is that the flexible theory of regulating output through lowered prices has been a complete failure-resulting in nothing but further depletion of farm income.

And yet all that President Eisenhower and Secretary Benson have recommended to the Congress is more of the samemore flexibility, still lower prices.

It is t ime to call a halt, and cry "enough."

It is also time to challenge these great myths being peddled to the American people about the Eisenhower-Benson farm policies.

I have yet to see any published results of sound scientific, statistical and economic . research of current significance that indicates any connection or relationship between market prices or farm income and the volume of farm production and marketings.

But I do know these facts: From 1929 to 1932, prices received ·by

farmers dropped by 56 percent, the parity ratio dropped by 37 percent, national farm gross income dropped by 54 percent, national net income dropped by 67 percent, and net income per farm dropped by 53 percent. Yet total farm output did not drop; farm output per man-hour increased by 2 percent.

From 1951 to 1956, prices received by farmers dropped 22 percent, the parity ratio dropped 25 points-23 percentnational farm gross income dropped 11 percent, national farm net income dropped 38 percent, and per farm net income, adjusted for price change, dropped by 23 percent. Yet per manhour farm output increased 10 percent, and total output increased by 7 percent.

All the argument about reducing prices and lowering production does not seem to hold true.

In no extended period when farm prices and income fell over a long period of years-and the drop from 1951 to 1956

is the longest sustained drop since the United States Department of Agriculture began keeping records in 1910-did either total or per man farm output decrease.

How, then, does Secretary Benson justify his bland assertions that production can be curtailed by cutting prices? And why does the American press blandly accept that theory as fact-when the facts prove otherwise?

The truth is that high fixed overhead costs make it necessary for farmers to keep producing.

Another fallacy that needs to be nipped in the bud is the Benson theory that lowering farm prices can increase farm income through stimulating consumption. Available economic studies indicate it would take at least a 5 percent cut in unit prices to obtain a !-percent increase in volume of consumption, and this ratio appears to be rising. Even that assumes the entire reduction in farm prices would be passed along to the consumer-and recent history of widening marketing margins makes that unlikely.

Yet with all the economic evidence to the contrary, the administration persists in seeking still lower price support levels because of its fetish against interference in any way with so-called free markets.

That phrase "free markets" has an attractive sound to many, but slogans are not enough to save the farm economy. Let us look at what they are talking about, when they ask for farmers to return to a free market.

The idea of the so-called competitive free market for farm commodities involves a situation where no farmer or group of farmers would be assisted or allowed by government to exercise any control over marketings to raise prices.

Carried to the ultimate, such a policy would eliminate the price protective features of marketing agreements and orders for fruits, vegetables, and nuts. It would probably bring chaos to the fluid milk marketing industry. It would place United States wool and sugar production in full competition with imports without any protection of tariffs, import quotas, or Government payments.

In a competitive free market, the prices of cotton, rice, tobacco, and wheat and all other farm commodities would be allowed to drop to the unprotected world level established by unrestricted production. The prices of corn, other f€ed grains, soybeans, flaxseed, and cottonseed, would be allowed to drop to the level where the entire year's production would move into channels of trade during the year-with no reserves for any emergency.

Importers would be allowed to import as large a volume of competitive farm commodities as they saw fit. The International Wheat and Sugar Agreements would be abolished.

Farmers would be free to produce and market as much of any quality or any and all commodities as they could, but the Government would not stand by as now to buy up or make loans on such commodities in order to hold up the average annual price above the free market level.

That, in effect, is what Secretary Benson is crusading for-if he is sincere in talking about wanting free markets. By

14918" CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24

his own words, he would use price support loans only to prevent wide swings in seasonal :fluctuations but not to hold average annual prices above the socalled free market level.

If the farmer is expected to survive in such a visionary free market, what about the rest of the economy from which he must purchase his supplies, obtain his labor, and sell his product?

Is industry ready to give up tariffs and embargoes that keep out competing imports? Is it ready to abandon costplus contracts? Are the railroads, trucks, airlines, electric power, gas, and telephone companies ready to give up the Federal protection of monopoly control and regulations to insure profits on their investments, along with big salaries to management personnel? Is the businessman ready to abandon price maintenance safeguards and protection of law against predatory price cutting? Are the working men and women of the country ready to give up minimum wage and maximum hour legislation, as well as protection of collective bargaining?

I do not think so, and neither does anyone else in his right mind.

The truth is that we do not have completely free markets in our economy.

The prices of things that farmers buy, both production and family living items, are retail prices like the prices all consumers pay. These retail prices are based on the wholesale prices behind them, which are administered pricesprices set by manufacturers, moneymarket bankers, railroad companies, and many others, on the basis of their Government-sanctioned ability to withhold supply to maintain the set price.

The farmer not only buys his needs in an administered-price market dominated by sellers, but also farmers sell their products into markets where buyers have the upper hand.

The farmer does not sell, usually, to the final consumer of food and fiber products. Farm commodities must move through processing and marketing channels, where those who perform these services possess enough control over supply of their services to enable them to administer or control the prices they receive for such services. Since 1951, for example, the processing and marketing agencies have had enough bargaining power to obtain for themselves the entire drop in farm returns without sharing any with the consumer.

I have often wondered whether some of the loudest advocates of free markets for agriculture would be · quite so vocal if it was a seller's market, instead of a buyer's market-if the farm producer had the upper hand in bargaining power. I am afraid if that was the case these same people would be appealing for Government regulation, instead of insisting upon free markets.

Perhaps one of these days we will have an opportunity to find out, whether we want to or not.

Farmers are at a bargaining disadvantage in the market place today, as they always have been. They need stronger bargaining power.

They have sought to strengthen their bargaining power, in many ways. They have done it through banding together

in cooperatives. -They have done it through working out programs of price maintenance and control of market supply through their Government, just as other segments of our economy have sought to protect their position through Government action.

But, somehow, the public has been led to believe it is wrong for farmers to turn to the Government for price and income protection even though it is accepted as a matter of right for railroads, airlines, utilities, industry, and labor. ,

To be sure the Government's role in our free society should never be one of dominating the market place. But it in:ftuences the market place every day in many ways. Its role should be as the "public interest policemen," seeking to keep a fair balance in our economy. This has been the purpose of our farm programs.

With agriculture now at such a disadvantage in the economy, farmers have every right to turn to the Government for help in ways to strengthen their bargaining power.

It is rather amazing to see that right being challenged. The interest of Government in agriculture is nothing new.

There is a 185-page compilation of United States Statutes designed in one way or another to strengthen tl:e bargaining power of farmers in the commodity market, and to protect and improve farm income in other ways. Much of this legislation goes back many decades.

Although farm income is currently too low, farm gross income would be at least a third less, and farm net income would be more than a third lower, if it were not for the exising Federal farm programs.

Yes, farm income could be considerably higher if there was a will and a determination in the Department of Agriculture to use these laws enthusiastically and persistently.

While we need to improve our price support programs, modernize and expand our farm credit facilities, expand our research both for production efficiency and new uses for farm productsmuch more for the benefit of farmers could and should be done with the laws we already have.

Instead, most of the Federal programs have been whittled down in effectiveness by administrative decisions over the past 4% years, some of which whittling was made possible when mandatory minimum levels of support were reduced in the Agriculture Act of 1954-after the President's veto of a more effective measure.

Unless this existing legislation can be made more effective, farmers must strengthen their bargaining power in other ways. Farmers may turn to united action on their own, by collective bargaining through producers coops, to establish prices and incomes nearer to equality with other segments of our society.

The balance of bargaining power may well shift from buyers to sellers of farm products. Those now so anxious for free markets may be the first to prefer a new· look at effective price-support levels or

direct-payment methods of achieving more equality in farm income.

The sad truth is that this administration has literally wrecked our farm program already, and has no alternative to offer besides wrecking it the rest of the way.

Never before have we had a Secretary of Agriculture so costly to the taxpayers, and yet producing so little results for farmers.

The amazing thing is how well he has been protected by our great mass media of public information, in keeping the truth from the people.

How much longer can the public be deceived?

How much longer can the press go along defending Benson, yet attacking costs of farm programs and complaining about surpluses-when it is under Benson that costs have soared, and it is under Benson that surpluses have reached their peaks?

It is under Benson's legislation, asked for by Benson and the President, and administered by Benson, that farm income has collapsed while costs to the Treasury have soared-and production has added new surpluses to repudiate Benson's theory that lower prices would solve the surplus problem.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point an article from the July 2 issue of the New York Times, headed "United States Expects Peak in Farm Subsidies."

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the ::3-ECORD, as follows: UNITED STATES EXPECTS PEAK IN' FARM SUB•

SIDIES-COST OF PROGRAM Now PUT AT 6 BILLION, UP 1.4 BILLION FROM BUDGET FIGURES

(By Edwin L. Dale, Jr.) WASHINGTON, July 1.-Record farm subsidy

payments-not defense or anti-recession spending-are expected to push the Federal Government's expenditures to a peacetime peak in the 1959 fiscal year, which began today.

Government experts now estimate spending at about $78 billion, perhaps a little less. The budget deficit will depend on the course of the recession and with its impact on tax receipts.

If recovery is brisk, the deficit may be in the comparatively modest range of $6 billion to $8 billion instead of the $12 billion to $12 billion that has been foreseen.

The irony is that the weather, not sputniks or unemployment, has been the chief cause of the upward revision in spending estimates.

The weather has produced good crops and hence the prospect of larger price support outlays by the Government.

Budget experts forecast today that the farm program would cost about $6 billion in the fiscal year, against $4,600 million in the budget submitted in January.

This would be about $1 billion over the record set in the fiscal year that ended yesterday, when farm spending reached about $5 billion.

The previous peak of peacetime spending was $74,300 mlllion in the fiscal year ended June 30, 1953.

The farm increase is easily the biggest single rise over the January estimates and will probably amount to more than all the antirecession measures together.

The rise is coming about despite constant, and generally successful, efforts of the adIninistration to reduce price support levels

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14919 on the basic crops. Farmers continue to grow record crops despite-or perhaps be-cause of-the lower prices. .

One fiscal official put it this way today: "I never dreamed I would see the day

when a Republican administration would be spending $6 billion on the farmers-~nd getting blamed at the same time for reducing f arm prices."

SOn. BANK A FACTOR Besides big crops, an enlarged Soil Bank

and a new export subsidy program will contribute to the increase in farm spending over both the fiscal year just completed and the January estimates.

Elsewhere, there will be increases in defense spending (perhaps $500 million to a total of $40.8 billion), highways, Government workers' pay, and several minor programs.

All the increases would add about $4 billion to the original estimated budget total of $73 .9 billion.

Few experts believe spending will reach $80 billion-the upper figure mentioned by the Secretary of the Treasury, Robert B. Anderson, and the Director of the Budget, Maurice H. Stans.

However, experts caution that projections at this stage involve a great amount of guesswork and that almost any figure is possible.

WARNING TO CONGRESS Still, it is understood that a major motive

of Mr. Anderson and Mr. Stans has been to ward off still further spending schemes pending in Congress. Thus there has been a natural tendency to use the upper range of available estima tes.

As for the deficit, there is a fair degree of confidence among the experts in various agencies that it can be handled without necessarily creating a serious inflationary problem.

Although there is concern about this problem, the potential inflationary effect can, at least in large part, be offset by appropriate Federal Reserve policy. This is a view taken in both the administration and the Federal Reserve.

Besides, it is generally felt that a deficit of the expected size would not be seriously inflationary at a time when the economy was operating well below its potential output.

The real issue, officials believe will be whether appropriate anti-inflation policies

· are adopted once recovery gets well under way;

Several leading officials are much less worried about the deficit than about the new higher "plateau" of spending that the fiscal year beginning today is likely to establish.

Their reason is that such a level of spending-in the range of $78 billion and upward-will foreclose significant tax reduction for a long time.

Tax reduction is still viewed within the administration as essential to achieving more rapid economic growth. Hence the glum view of the spending prospects, even though the deficit may prove fully manageable.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, this particular article reveals that the cost of the farm programs has more than exceeded $5 billion; in fact, it is now about at the $6 billion mark-$1.4 billion over the budget estimate. Still, the program is not working.

Where are our great economy advocates in Congress? Are they not concerned about this mounting expense with no results to show for it?

Yet look around and count them, these men who have made a specialty of voting for economy, and of calling some of us reckless spenders.

They voted for Benson. They voted for Benson's policies. They voted for this reckless waste of funds because they would not heed the lessons of experience in farm legislation.

Will they continue blindly to follow this foolish path of more Bensonism, regardless of cost?

Every time Secretary Benson has asked Congress to lower farm prices, claiming it would save the Government money, it has ended by costing us more.

I should like to see some of these economy advocates really justify their support of Secretary Benson, the great conservative who would pay any price to destroy farm legislation.

The sad part of it is that effective propaganda has made consumers and the public generally think Benson is a hero.,the man who is against all this expenditure-when actually he is the man who has caused it and asked for it.

After running up the costs, and then using them as a reason for trying to destroy farm programs, Secretary Benson has next moved to turn consumers against farmers by unjustly trying to convince them that farm programs are responsible for the high costs of food in the retail market.

That myth was effectively answered last month by Chairman CooLEY of the House Agriculture Committee, in an address before the Livestock Marketing Congress in New Orleans, when he publicly charged that the Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, "by word and deed, is carrying the impression throughout the country that farmers are responsible for high food prices, when, in fact, the prices received by farmers today are substantially below their levels when he took office a little more than 5 years ago."

Let me quote from more of Chairman CooLEY's appropriate remarks about Benson:

Why doesn't he tell the people that the Nation's consumers purchased 11 percent more farm-produced food in 1957 than in 1952, but paid farmers $600 million less for this increased quantity of food?

Why doesn't he tell you that, in contrast, consumers paid to the processors of food and to m arketing middlemen $6.1 billion, or 25 percent more, in 1957 than in 1952?

Chairman CooLEY had· many ·more effective facts to present-facts that need to be studied by any colleague willing to seriously reappraise his views on agriculturallegislation.

Mr. President, because I think the speech is so good, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point a press · statement summarizing highlights of Representative CooLEY's remarks.

There being no objection, the press statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: HIGHLIGHTS OF A TALK BY HoN. HAROLD D.

COOLEY, OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAffiMAN OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, BEFORE THE NATIONAL LIVESTOCK MARKETING CONGRESS, SPONSORED BY THE AMERICAN NATIONAL LIVESTOCK AUCTION ASSOCIATION, NEW ORLEANS, LA., JUNE 14, 1958 Mr. CooLEY charged that Secretary of Agri

culture Ezra Taft Benson, "by word and deed, is carrying the impression throughout the country that farmers are responsible for

high food prices, when in fact the prices received by farmers today are substantially below their levels when he took office a little more than 5 years ago."

Mr. CooLEY said "one must suspect that this new propaganda fits into Mr. Benson's program for cutting farm price supports down to 60 percent of the parity or fair price," and he asked "why doesn't he tell the people the truth, instead of prejudicing the consumer against the farmer?

"Why doesn't he tell the people that the Nation's consumers purchased 11 percent more farm produced food in 1957 than in 1952, but paid farmers $600 million less for this increased quantity of food? Why doesn't he tell you that, in contrast, consumers paid to the processors of food and to marketing middlemen $6.1 billion, or 25 percent more, in 1957 than in 1952?

"Why doesn't the Secretary, the principal spokesman of agriculture in the country-or should be-point out to worried consumers that in 1952 net income per farm in the United States averaged $2,789, and dropped in 1957 to $2,496 per farm, while the average income of a nonfarm family of three persons increased from $5,499 in 1952 to $6,135 in 1957?"

Mr. CooLEY warned that the livestock industry, although currently enjoying reasonable prices, confronts an inevitable crash unless Government policies are formulated forthwith to forestall a buildup of market gluts of cattle and hogs.

He appealed to the members of the American National Livestock Auction Association, and all others gathered in New Orleans for the marketing congress, to work for a sound Government program that will assure stable and fair income for livestock producers and for all segments of agriculture, and which "will be fair to farmers and consumers alike."

"Mr. Benson has been in the process of destroying the farm program for 5 years," he said, "He seems now to be going about the job of convincing the public that farmers never had it so good. That impression certainly would be useful to his efforts in Congress to reduce farm price supports as low as 60 percent of parity. But the facts and figures assembled by the Agriculture Department's own technicians and statisticians absolutely refute Mr. Benson.

"The Department estimates each month, on the basis of current prices, the annual costs on basic items of food for the average American family. The reports on this family annual "market basket" show that, on the basis of prices prevailing during the first 3 months of this year, farmers will get $436 in 1958 for all the items in the basket, a decrease of $46 from the $482 received in 1952, while the consumer will pay $1,054 in 1958, an increase of $20 over the $1,034 paid in 1952. Tfius, while returns to farmers declined, the cost of processing and distribution has increased from $552 in 1952 to $618 in 1958. The items covered include meat and dairy products, poultry and eggs, bakery and cereals, fruits and vegetables and fats and oils."

Moreover, Mr. CooLEY pointed out that, even with the substantial increase in the costs of food between the farmer and the consumer, the average wage of factory workers will buy substantially more food today than in 1952 and in prior years.

"In 1929," he said, "the average wage for 1 hour of factory labor throughout the country would buy 6.4 loaves of bread, and in April 1958, 11 loaves; the hour's average wage in 1929 would buy 1.2 pounds of round steak, in April 1958, 2 pounds; pork chops in 1929, 1.5 pounds, and in 1958, 2.3 pounds; sliced bacon, 1929, 1.3 pounds, 1958, 2.7 pounds; butter, 1929, 1 pound, and 1958, 2.9 pounds; cheese, 1929, 1.4 pounds, and 1958, 3.6 pounds; milk, 1929, 3.9 quarts, and 1958, 8.5 quarts; eggs, 1929, 1.1 dozen, and 1958,

14920 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 3.6 dozen: and potatoes, 1929, 17.7 pounds, and 1958, 25.7 pounds.''

Mr. CooLEY told the Livestock Marketing Congress that the Nation's farm program came into being to rescue agriculture from bankruptcy during the great depression, and -that it served agriculture well, "until Mr. Benson began dismantling 1 t.'' He noted particularly that feed grain production adjustments and price supports helped maintain stable price for livestock for many years.

"I earnestly request all of you here to look at what has happened. Look at the 20-year program prior to 1953, and compare it with the 5-year program under the present Secretary.

"The official reports of the Department of Agriculture show that the price support program through the Commodity Credit Corporation operated for 20 years prior to 1953 at an actual profit of over $13 million on the programs for the basic crops, and the loss on all crop operations at the end of the 20 years was only $1,064,000,000, whereas losses in the last 5 years have amounted to over $4 billion. It should be pointed out, moreover, that with price supports at 90 percent of parity for 11 consecutive years prior to 1953 the actual farm prices were at 100 percent of parity or better, and farm program costs were negligible, whereas during the recent years of falling farm prices, program costs have skyrocketed. And larger and larger stocks have accumulated in our warehouses.

Turning specifically to the livestock situation, Mr. COOLEY said:

"Secretary Benson in recent weeks has attributed the current increase in livestock prices to the administration's farm policies. I only wish this were true. But, unfortunately, we are again witnessing a gross misunderstanding and misinterpretation of agriculture's basic economic position.

"The higher farm prices this year are the combined work of farmers themselves, Mother Nature-and pure chance.

"By chance, cattle, hog, and sheep producers all decided to hold back animals and rebuild their breeding herds in the same year. The ending of the 7 years of drought in the Plains States last summer was an important factor, as all of you well know, in the demand for cattle, as cattlemen from the Plains have bought heavily at your auction markets, to restock their lands that are ftourishing again.

"Let us appraise the facts. .. Livestockmen and all farm people con

front problems that relate to their very survival. Most of these problems center on our vast surplus productive capacity.

"I am sure that every one of you here is interested in a fair return for the producer of the livestock that runs through yq_ur markets. In my way of thinking there is no room in the livestock marketing business for anyone who is not concerned with the wellbeing of the livestock producers.

"Now let us look realistically at the livestock situation and the dangers ahead.

"I am reliably informed by livestock specialists that had hog production expanded sufficiently to utilize fully the 1957 production of feed grains hog prices would be about 50 percent lower than they will be this summer and fall.

"'Even if no feed grains at all were produced this year, we would have enough in the bins to feed out a normal pig crop in 1959, with enough left over to feed our dairy cows, and other animals a full year. And listen to this: feed-grain production this year, with excellent moisture conditions throughout the country, promises to establish a new record, to pile surplus upon surplus.

"This feed must be fed.

"Unless we are abl~ to deal effectively with these huge surpluses, to inftuence orderly marketing of livestock through adjustment of feed production and utilization, under an effective program, the livestock industry must expect disastrous prices in not many months ahead.

"We in the House Committee on Agriculture have been working days, weeks, and months to write legislation that will prevent such a bust, with its disastrous effects upon many thousands of livestock producers and farmers. We have drawn legislation for presentation to the House which would deal directly with the feed surplus problem. At the same time we have been working on legislation aimed at enabling the livestock industry to finance a program for promotion of greater consumption of meat, and we have sought to hold jurisdiction of the livestock industry within the Department of Agriculture, resisting efforts to turn this largest segment of agriculture over to another agency of Government.

"In our efforts to deal with the feed surplus problem we have had no cooperation from Mr. Benson. In fact, we have had nothing but opposition.

"The Secretary has no program for livestock, except to beat down the price of feed grains. He has asked the Congress to let him reduce the support price on corn as low as 60 percent of parity.

"Cheap feed makes cheap livestock-and try as you will, you can't escape it. What Mr. Benson seems never to have comprehended is the fact that livestock producers go broke most often during periods of cheap and abundant feed and that they enjoy their greatest prosperity in times when the prices of feed are stable and at a level profitable to feed producers. All our experience proves that.

"Corn dropped to 55 percent of parity in February and March of this year. A continuation of the administration's policies, for cheaper and cheaper feed, would mean that corn and hog producers must expect prices to average 50 to 60 percent of parity in the next few years. They cannot expect corn prices to average more than 80 cents to $1 a bushel and hogs to average more than $10 to $12 per hundredweight. The effect of cheap feed upon livestock prices may be longer arriving, but it surely would come. These are the warnings of sound economists, not theorists.

"Surely those who look upon the current temporary improvement in farm income as a vindication of the administration's policies are doomed to bitter disappointment and their disappointment will be realized within as short a period as 18 months."

Mr. CooLEY told the Livestock Marketing Congress that it is not necessary to embark upon direct controls for cattle and hog production, to forestall the trouble that now looms ahead. He concluded:

"I am confident that, if we had the cooperation of Mr. Benson, we could avoid catastrophe for the livestock industry, by an effective program adjusting the supply and price of feed grains. I pledge you that, whatever course Mr. Benson may pursue, I shall keep on striving to assure to the livestock industry and to agriculture generally a fair return for their contribution to our economy, our health, and to our strength as a Nation."

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, fortunately, some writers are no longer willing blindly to buy the myth of Secretary Benson's infallibility. Some are looking at the facts, and are bringing them out into the open. Some are insisting that the public should know the truth.

One of them is Tris comn, a distinguished and objective reporter and writer, who told this story in an impressive manner last March in an article written for the New Leader under the title "Farm Income Lowest Since 1942-Down 24 Percent Under GOP."

Because it contains facts pertinent to the issue before us, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in my remarks the article by Tris comn to which I have referred. I commend it to my colleagues for serious reading. It exposes the myth of Bensonism, and tarnishes the halo which this Cabinet member has tried to create for himself.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: FARM INCOME LOWEST SINCE 1942-DOWN 24

PERCENT UNDER GOP (By Tris Coffin)

Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson, whose piety is as well advertised as his dislike of farm subsidies, has performed a miracle. It is the very opposite of the miracle of the loaves and the fishes. The story emerges from statistics dug out of the Department of Agriculture and Labor and the Securities and Exchange Commission:

During Benson's 5 years in office, the price the housewife pays for food has increased enough to inhibit buying of other goods. In Consumer Price Index, food prices have risen 5.4 points (112.8 to 118.2) from January 1953 to January 1958.

Farmers' net income has dropped 24 percent. Last year witnessed a fall of 4 percent, from $12.1 billion to $11.5 billion-the lowest total since 1942. Prices paid to farmers have slipped 16 percent, and the farmers' share of consumer food spending fell from 47 to 40 percent in 5 years.

The Government's losses on farm prices supports are 3Y:z times greater than in all the 20 years before Benson took office.

The budget of the Agriculture Department, a la Parkinson's law, has soared from less than $1.5 billion to $7 billion. Nearly 20,000 employees have been added to the payroll.

Surpluses have piled up, and three times as much corn is on hand now as when Benson took office.

The farm population has decreased by more than 2 million.

Farm debt has increased by $3.2 billion. The farm foreclosure rate has doubled. Distribution of surplus food to schools

and charitable institutions has failed to keep up with needs. Last year, at a time when Benson was warning Congress of enormous dairy surpluses, the Department of Agriculture shut off distribution of butter, at least in Wisconsin, for 10 months to publicly operated mental hospitals, orphanages, homes for retarded children, youth correctional schools, prisons, and needy persons; the reason given was a threatened shortage of butter.

Senator WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Democrat, Of _Wisconsin, who has become one of Benson's most vexing earthly banes, reported in the magazine Presbyterian Life: "In 1954, the United States Government sold the entire supply of dried skim milk in Government storage to animal-feed manufacturers. The dried milk was high quality and fit for human consumption. This sale of more than half a billion pounds of dried milk took place while millions of little children in Asia, Africa, and Latin America suffered from the dreaded disease, kawashiorkor. This malady causes both mental and physical deformity, and costs the lives of half the

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14921 victims receiving hospital treatment. For this ugly killer and maimer of the world's most unfortunate children, a little bit of milk reconstituted from dried milk powder is a complete cure."

There is, however, another side to the Benson story:

Profits of food and kindred products manufacturers increased 36 percent from 1952 through 1956. Food chains and food processors have, in fact, been the chief beneficiaries of the Benson policy, as the spread between the farmer's take and the housewife's bill has continued to widen. Between 1952 and 1956, representative chains and processing firms increased their profits by the following percentages: Borden, 3'3.8; National Dairy Products, 50.1; Beatrice Foods, 83.2; Cudahy Packing, 186.9; Wilson & Co., 111; Armour & Co., 105.2; Quaker Oats, 69.9; Corn Products Refining, 51.4; National Starch Products, 162.2; General Mills, 28.1; Fairmount Foods, 210.7; Safeway Stores, 246.5; Super-Valu Stores, 172.4, and Food Fair Stores, 90.1.

Secretary Benson is asking frantic Midwest Republican Congressmen to run on his record this November. Thus far, one Congressman-neither a farmer ·nor a Midwesterner, but a New Hampshire lawyer with banking connections-has taken his advice.

Ezra Taft Benson arrived in office after a political campaign in which General Eisenhower and his party accused the Democrats of being too miserly toward the farmers. Eisenhower at the 1952 national plowing contest near Kasson, Minn., promised 100 percent of parity. (This has since been denied, but at least five farm-belt newspapers, the Milwaukee Journal, Lincoln Journal, Dubuque Telegraph-Herald, Minneapolis Star, and Indianapolis News, so reported at the time.)

Benson was no stranger to Washington. He had been executive director and chief Washington lobbyist for the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives from 1939 to 1943. Its members included the huge California fruit Growers Exchange, whose products bear the Sunkist label. In this job, he fought effectively against OPA, worked to curb the power of organized labor (he wanted to outlaw the closed shop during the war), and criticized the Agriculture Department for setting up wage and working condition standards for imported Mexican labor. A statement from his office in November 1942 said: "Refusal of the (Roosevelt) administration to discard its prewar concept of the use of labor in industry has resulted in disgraceful inefficiency and a wastage of labor that is retarding the war effort."

Soon after General Eisenhower announced his appointment, Benson gathered his advisers (many of them from .food processors and large food chains) and set up temporary offices in the Washington suite of Avco Manufacturing. There he was the guest of its farm consultant, Karl Butler, who became his number one aide. Very recently, according to the Chicago Daily News, Benson consulted A. P. Davies, of the American Meat Institute, in framing his reply to worried GOP Congressmen. Keynote of the reply was this sentiment: "Concern for the political fortunes of individuals cannot transcend the very function of Government, which is to protect and help its citizens."

Most important was the new Secretary's philosophy. Fundamentally, he opposes subsidizing the farmer, believes agriculture should be returned to the basic laws of supply and demand, and wants marginal farmers removed from the land. (He has never proposed, however, any orderly program for training these deportees in new skills and for finding jobs for them.) He seems to regard the small farmer as shiftless, devoid of the virtues of thrift and hard work, and

admires the efficiency of the large corporation-type farm. His philosophy was revealed in a "General Statement on Agricultural Policy" issued shortly after he took office. It said in part:

"It is doubtful if any man can be politically free who depends upon the State for sustenance. • • • Inefficiency should not be subsidized in agriculture or any other segment of our economy. • • • Too many Americans are calling on Washington to do for them what they should be willing to do for themselves."

What this has meant in practical terms is lower price supports, through the Benson flexible parity plan, on a wide variety of farm products. Critics note that relatively high prices have been maintained for sugar ana wool, two commodities raised in his State of Utah.

Secretary Benson treats his revolution of the farm economy as a semireligious mission. He is one of the 12 Apostles of the Mormon Church, a position roughly equiva• lent to a Catholic cardinal. Congressional critics who storm into his office are chastened by a religious picture and softly voiced religious phrases.

In a speech promoting the philosophy of freedom in agriculture, the Secretary said:

"This objective did not originate with me. I firmly believe that it was laid down by God in Whom we trust as a proper plan for the lives of men everywhere. • • • As a citizen, as a churchman, and as a public official, I feel compelled to do all in my power to advance toward this essential goal as God may give the wisdom and strength to do so."

Similar expressions are: "The President has asked Congress to give us the tools. Give us the tools so that we can help farmers help themselves and with God's help build a constructively sound agriculture for you and your children. • • • While the Department is my responsibility, I shall work as fully to that end as God gives me the wisdom and strength to do."

Representative EUGENE MCCARTHY (Democrat, of Minnesota), in a House debate, questioned the Secretary's use of religion to sell his program. McCARTHY noted: "The Secretary did tell the people of Utah that he had received a witness from the Almighty that he was acting as he should in being Secretary of Agriculture. • • • Also, I heard him at the grain exchange dinner in Minneapolis, talking about the President, say that this man-the President--could reach out and put his hand on the unseen power and use it when he needed it.

The religious side of Secretary Benson has won him the unswerving support of President Eisenhower, who is not usually as firm as he has been in his defense of Benson. Those who know Mr. Eisenhower claim he regards Ezra Benson as something of a saint who is being martyred by pagans. The story is told that last year Benson offered to resign, and the President replied with deep emotion: "If you go, Ezra, I go, too."

Secretary Benson's policies and their results have added to the general feeling of hopelessness in dealing with the vast farm problem. The average American farmer is unable to hold his own in the great struggle for the dollar. He is being pushed off by corporation-type farms run like Ford assembly plants, by giant food processors, and by the food chains. Yet, if the small farmer cannot be encouraged to stay on the land and produce, agriculture, too, will be swallowed up by the giant corporations which, more and more, dictate the economy, morale, and living styles of the American people.

Congressional leaders know they can never go back all the way to the rigid price-support program. Nor can they let Benson continue to carve away at farm subsidies. A combination of many ideas, old and new, must be thrown together. Senator Paox-

MIRE has filed a bold 103-page bill which would, among other things, do the following:

Change the parity formula and provide payments of 80 to 100 percent.

Limit the amount individual farmers could receive for restricting production.

Apply a t ax on processors. Create a tariff formula for duties on such

imported foods as dairy products. Set up a food, fiber and fat stockpile pro

gram as a reserve against natural disasters, insect pests, disease and war, just as certain metals and equipment are stockpiled now under Government subsidy.

Liberalize loans to farmers and co-ops. Create a food-stamp program so that low

income families could obtain enough food to maintain a dietary standard.

Enlarge the school-lunch program to provide each child with a pint of milk a day.

Set up an International Food and Fiber Reserve Bank to prevent famines, help absorb temporary world market surpluses, and finance economic and social development programs.

PROXMIRE'S plan would be controlled in large part by farmers through a national board and local committees. His bill parallels in many ways the thinking of former Secretary of Agriculture Charles F. Brannan, who would set up a multiprice system. Farm commodities would seek their normal competitive levels in the market place, and the farmer would receive the difference between the price he receives and parity. In addition, the Agriculture Department would sell surplus food to low-income and aged persons at prices they can afford.

Senator PROXMIRE's omnibus bill is lying in the Senate Agriculture Committee with little chance of action. At this time, given all the other economic woes with which it must contend, it seems doubtful that this Congress will attempt any basic reforms in the farm program. Instead, mindful of the election ahead, it is likely to pass high and rigid price supports for commodities (such as dairy products) whose growers are facing acute crisis.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the farm policy being pursued by this administration certainly has proved extremely costly to farmers. It has squeezed hundreds· of thousands of them right out of their economic existence.

But that is only part of the toll taken. The cost to taxpayers has been tremendous, despite the lack of results to either farmers or consumers.

This administration's policies have been designed to lull city consumers into believing that low farm prices would continue indefinitely to subsidize the cost of living. This is Secretary Benson's big bid for urban support behind his lowfarm-price legislation. It is unfair, of course, to mislead consumers this way, and may prove dangerous to the entire national economy.

To determine what it costs the city wage earner to feed his family, workers in the United States Department of Agriculture keep a running check on farm prices of 60 food items which go to make up the "family market basket."

In 1947, when farm prices were at a peak, that food basket cost the city consumers $911 for the year. The farmer got $467 of that.

In 1957, with farm prices at low levels, the family market basket cost increased to $1,007; yet the farmer's share dropped down to $400.

14922 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 The city housewife has often blamed

the farmer for the increased cost of food items in her market baskets. The facts do not justify this: <a> Retail food prices climbed 16 percent in the last 10 .Years, while farm prices went down 14 percent; <b> farmers received only 40 cents of each consumer food dollar in 1956, compared with 52 cents in 1946.

Here is a table showing what happened to the various items in the typical market basket between 1946 and 1956:

Retail cost Farm value (percent) (percent)

Bakeryproductsandcereals_ Up 34 _______ Down 7. All bakery products________ Up 3L______ Down 16. Dairy products______________ Up 15_______ Down 5. Meat products ______________ Down 5 _____ Down 29. Poultry and eggs____________ Down 13____ Down 21. Fruits and vegetables_------ Up 12...______ Up 7.

In 1947, farmers got 2.9 cents for the wheat in a 12.5-cent loaf.

In 1955, farmers got 2. 7 cents for the wheat in a 17.7-cent loaf.

In 1947, farmers got 10.3 cents for a quart of milk retailed at 18.8 cents.

In 1955, farmers got 10.2 cents for a quart of milk retailed at 22.5 cents.

Clearly, the farmer is not benefiting from higher food prices. As the consumer pays more, the farmer gets less. The gap between farm value and retail price is widening steadily.

This gap is called the marketing margin or price spread. It includes the charges for handling, transporting, and processing farm commodities from the time they leave the farm until they end up in the consumer's market basket.

These in-between charges for middleman services account for increasing retail prices and declining farm returns.

The consumer who knows enough not to blame the farmer for higher prices is inclined to put the blame on labor. This is because food processors and retailers have put on a high-powered campaign to persuade both farmer and consumer that rising labor costs are responsible for widening market spreads.

The food industries claim that they cannot absorb wage and salary increases and must pass them on to the consumer in the form of higher pricesand backward to the farmer in the form of lower returns.

But the facts disprove this claim: First. Wage and salary increases in the

food industries account for only a fraction of the terrific drop in farm receipts.

Second. Most wage increases were justified by increased productivity-output per man-hour-and even if they were not, food industry profits were high enough to absorb them.

Third. Food industry profits have been increasing: (a) in 1952, food industries earned 7.6 percent after taxe~ 16.8 percent before taxes-on stockholders' equity; {b) in 1955, they earned about 9 percent after taxes-18 percent before taxe~n stockholders' equity; (c) in 1966, food processors' profits rose 7 percent over 1955, and retail chainstore profits were up 29 percent.

These damaging facts explain why corporate Pliddlemen are so anxious to find a whipping boy. By pitting con-

sumer against farmer, or consumer and farmer against labor, they hope to distract attention from their own gains made at the expense of other groups.

It is unlikely the family farmer and the wage earner will fall for this. They know they are each other's best customers and that their economic wellbeing is inseparably interwoven.

Mr. President, this strange situation of soaring food prices while farm income collapses was discussed last month in an enlightening column by Drew Pearson. Every consumer should read it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the Drew Pearson article entitled "Profits Zooming for Food Firms."

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the REcORD, as follows:

PROFITS ZOOMING FOR FOOD FIRMS

(By Drew Pearson) Most interesting question the housewife

and the farmer would like to have answered is why prices on the farm go down while prices in the grocery stores go up.

Since 1952, the year Ezra Taft Benson became Secretary of Agriculture, to 1957, the prices paid to farmers dropped by 16 percent while prices paid by the housewife went up 2 percent. When she went to the grocery store she just did not get any advantages from the fact that farm prices had dropped.

Furthermore, this trend is continuing. During a recession prices usually drop. People who lose their jobs have at least the opportunity to buy food cheaper. But during 1958, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the price of food is still going up.

The question-why this widening gap between food on the farm and food in the grocery store?-is one of the most important in the Nation, and here is an attempt to answer it.

Answer No. 1: Can be gleaned from the stock market. During the big stock market crash of October 21-22 last year when 4,670,-000 and 5,090,000 shares were sold, food stocks hardly budged. The wise guys on Wall Street knew they were making money and didn >t trade them short.

General Mills, biggest flour firm in the Nation, went down only one point. General Foods, biggest food company, went down only five-eighths. Swift, the big meatpacker, went down half a point; Cudahy down threeeights, and Armour a point and a half. Safeway chainstores dropped only one-quarter, Food Fair by only three-quarters.

ZOOMING PROFITS

Again, on November 26, the day of Mr. Eisenhower's cerebral attack, the stock market took another slump with $5 billions of profits wiped out. But food stocks stood like financial rocks of Gibraltar_ General Mills went up one point. Food Fair went up a quarter of a point. Swift, Armour, Cudahy, Safeway dropped by mere fractions.

Since then, food stocks and grocery stocks have enjoyed a healthy, consistent climb-General Mills up around 10 points, General Foods up 12 points; Swift, Armour Cudahy, all up three; Food Fair up eight.

Answer lA: It is part of the same answer, -but if you look at the financial statements of these companies on file at the Securities and EXchange Commission you can understand why their stocks stand firm and how they are making money while both the housewife and farmer suffer.

Safeway S1;ores' profits under Mr. Eisenhower and Benson increased 246 percent between 1952-56. Food Fair stores during the same period went up 90 percent; SuperValu Stores up 172 percent.

The meat packers also fared well. Cudahy profits went up 186 percent under Ike; Wilson & Co. went up 105 percent; Armour up 105 percent. The only meat firm which went down was Swift & Co., which made $21,-698,000 in 1952 under Mr. Truman and $13,-462,000 in 1956 under Mr. Eisenhower.

The big dairy firms did all right, too. Borden's profits went up 33 percent under Ike; National Dairy Products went up 50 percent, while Beatrice Foods went up 83 percent.

The big cereal companies did not do badly either. Quaker Oats, whose executives £.re heavy contributors to Mr. Eisenhower's call?-paign funds, saw their profits go up 89 percent. Corn Products went up 51 percent; General Mills up 28 percent; National Starch 162 percent, and Fairmont Foods up 210 percent·.

Answer No. 2: What's the reason for these tremendous profits? Part of it is failure to enforce the antitrust laws. With the virtual disappearance of the corner grocery store and with retailers more and more dependent on the giants of the food business, the only protection of the housewife is enforcement of the antimonopoly laws.

However, the' Justic Department's Antitrust Division has become a political instrument, as recently shown by Congressman CELLER's investigation of the telephone company. And Secretary Benson, who is supposed to enforce the antimonopoly laws against the meat industry, has as one of his best friends Aled Davies, lobbyist for the American Meat Institute. Davies is now trying to block the O'Mahoney bill which would transfer the enforcement of the monopoly laws regarding the meatpackers away from Benson and put them with the Federal Trade Commission.

Answer No. 3: This is the manner in which Secretary Benson has taken representatives of the big meatpackers, the big dairy companies, the big grain processors into his Agriculture Department and made them, not the farmers, the chief beneficiaries of his administration.

This is an important story which will have to be reserved for another column.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, consumers should be alert to where their own best interest really rests. It is easy to talk about free markets and letting supply and demand determine priceS--when one is a buyer and knows there is an oversupply that will force prices down.

But consumers should look at the other side of the coin and see what the supposed purpose of the so-called free market approach to farm policy really is. The purpose, its spokesmen say, is to discourage enough producers and enough production to bring supply in line with cash demand, and achieve 100 percent of parity in the marketplace. Now, I wonder if consumers realize what such a scarcity philosophy could and would do to prices-particularly with the natural hazards hanging over agriculture that can so quickly turn balanced supply into serious scarcity. I wonder if businessmen really want supply trimmed exactly to demand-with no cushion to protect them from shortage.

If agricultural supply and demand were in balance in this country todaythe objective everybody seems to profess-we would be faced with demands for price controls to keep food prices from soaring.

The truth is that the cushion of excess production beyond immediate ef-

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14923 fective demand is the public-interest stake in farm policy-a stake for which in all fairness some public price must be paid to keep it from penalizing the

· farmer. Clearly, our Nation needs a new and

different farm policy, and it needs it now. It must be based upon a recognition of the need for a rising net income for agriculture-not alone for the sake of farmers, but for the sake of our entire economy. It must be based upon recognition of the public interest stake in abundance rather than scarcity-both for the sake of our own consumers, and for the sake of our international commitments. It must be based upon recognizing that American agriculture has assumed a changing role, and having to be concerned with world needs rather than merely our own domestic needs. It must also be based upon recognizing that changes are under way within agriculture itself, changes which could further serve or seriously harm the public's interest, depending upon how they are directed as a matter of public policy.

Encouraging abundant production as a matter of public policy need not mean blindly perpetuating overproduction of commodities for which no real foreseeable need exists. Rather, it means encouraging shifts in production toward

- commodities better serving our longrange needs.

The basic question is whether desirable shifts, in the public's interest, should be encouraged by incentive, or forced by economic hardship which really would just shift an economic and social problem from rural America to the relief rolls in our cities. Quite frankly, I can see little wisdom in policies designed to speed the movement of people off farms into our cities, looking for alternative opportunities for making a livelihood at the very time unemployment is becoming a serious national problem.

Unfortunately, nothing in the proposed legislation offers any real longrange solution to current problems in our farm economy-and at best only provides makeshift short-range solutions. Even those are offered at a price of backing away from fundamental principles without any real examination of where we are headed.

Regrettably, the administration is still clinging to false assumptions as the basis of its recommendations-assumptions that history has proved to be erroneous and unfounded. Basically, the problem starts from clinging to the theory that lower prices would bring everything into proper adjustment, and would stimulate enough consumption to solve the farm problem.

It is time someone paid heed to scholarly works contradicting the assumptions on which administration policies are based.

Dr. Willard Cochrane, professor agricultural economics at the University of Minnesota, is the author of such a work in a challenging book entitled "Farm Prices: Myth and Reality," published by the University of Minnesota Press.

This is not the propaganda of a farm organization. This is not merely some political stump speaker. This is a careful analysis by a foremost agricultural economist, a nominee for the presidency of the American Farm Economic Association, a former economist with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and with the United States Department of Agriculture. It is a factual presentation about where farm prices come from-and should be must reading for any serious students of the farm problem.

In presenting the book, the University of Minnesota Press declared:

Farm prices are constantly fluctuating, and out of this price variability emerge such serious and continuing farm problems as variable incomes, low incomes over extended periods, and uncertainty in production planning.

In this study, Professor Cochrane seeks to get at the root of the trouble by, first, exploring and exposing what he considers a basic falacy in our present day thinking and approach to the farm problem. This is the widely held myth of an automatically adjusting agriculture, an agriculture that is always out of balance because of an emergency. This myth, he points out, beclouds the issues involved in the whole farm problem.

The farm price myth splits two ways in the public mind, Mr. Cochrane explains, but these divergent attitudes represent differences only in mechanics, not in principle, and they are equally effective in obscuring the real picture. One segment of the public believes that agriculture, if left alone for a while, .would gravitate toward and stabilize at some desirable level and pattern of prices, production, and incomes. The other segment believes that the same result would occur if agriculture were given a temporary helping hand by the Government. Mr. Cochrane shows the fallacies inherent in both of these convictions by presenting an integrated, overall picture of farm price behavior as it really exists. On the basis of this realistic view, he presents the two alternatives or hard policy choices that he believes the American farmer faces today.

That is what the University of Min- . nesota Press had to say of Dr. Cochrane's book.

A constructive review of the same book was written and published recently by Dr. Howard R. Tolley, who has held impressive positions in the agricultural policy field.

Dr. Tolley has been Chief of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Administrator of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, and economic adviser to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the REcORD Dr. Tolley's review of the Cochrane book, published in the May issue of the National Union Farmer, under the heading "Where Farm Prices Come From."

There being no objection, the review was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

WHERE FARM PRICES COME FROM

(By Howard R. Tolley) Many of the conclusions and recommen

dations in Willard Cochrane's interesting and stimulating book point up the need for the bargaining power farm program of the Na-

tional Farmers Union-especially the farm market proration and supply adjustment phases aimed at keeping market supplies in balance with demand.

The ups and downs of farm prices and incomes and the effects of the changing farm programs of the past 25 years are analyzed and explained. The theoretical and technical principles and concepts are stated in straightforward language which a large number of people can understand. At the same time, professional economists and other social scientists will find much that is new and stimulating concerning the behavior of farm prices.

Professor Cochrane dispels the free market myths, still accepted by many, that there is some desirable level and pattern of prices, of production and of income for agriculture at which it would stabilize if left alone for a little while. His analysis leads to the conclusion that if all farm programs were stopped, farm prices and incomes would fluctuate widely and in general would be much lower than prices and incomes in other parts of the economy.

From the standpoint of future agricultural policy and programs, the explanation of why wide swings in the level of food prices bring only minor changes in total consumption is probably the most important contribution of the entire book.

CONSUMER DEMAND INELASTIC

The author stresses the important fact that the consumer behaves very differently with respect to a change in price of a single food item than he does with respect to all food. For example, if the price of pork chops rises relative to other food items, the consumer will cut back his consumption of pork chops and substitute other items--beef and poultry for example-but the total quantity of all food purchased and consumed changes very little.

Thus the explanation of ups and downs of the level of all food prices cannot be found in an analysis of the changes in prices of single commodities, and the author concentrates his analysis on the "aggregate demand for food"-the quantity of total food that all consumers will take at varying levels of food prices.

Retail prices must fall 10 percent to move 2 percent more food into consumption. Since farmers now receive less than 40 percent of the consumer's food dollar, and marketing charges for handling, storing, transporting and processing are unaffected in the short run by retail price changes, this means that "farm prices must fall in the neighborhood of 25 percent to move 2 percent more food into consumption."

And conversely, a reduction of 2 percent in the overall amount offered in the market would raise farm prices by 25 percent. Further, Dr. Cochrane finds that demand "is becoming progressively more inelastic."

FARM PRICES FALL HARD

This has tremendous implications for agriculture. When the supply coming to market increases, farm prices fall so drastically that farmers' total cash receipts are greatly reduced.

Turning to the effect of changes in the farm-price level on the volume of production, Dr. Cochrane says:

"Falling farm prices have not reduced total farm output. The increases in total farm output which have occurred in the past 35 years have resulted from the adoption of cost-reducing production practices, and once adopted those practices have not been abandoned with falling prices. Just as they serve to minimize profits under good prices, they serve to minimize losses under low prices."

FARMERS ON TREADMILL

This the author calls the agricultural treadmill. The incentive to reduce costs

14924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 (on the many small farms aeross the country) guarantees a rapid and Widespread adoption of new technologies.

"Truly the American farmer is on a treadmill. He is running faster and faster in quest of higher incomes growing out of the adoption of new and more productive techniques, but he is not gaining incomewise. He is losing."

With regard to the years ahead, it is the judgment of the author, based on other studies as well as his own, thair-unless counteracted in some effective way-the supply of food may well continue to expand more rapidly than demand even if the population continues to grow at the present rate and we have an expanding economy with full, or nearly full, employment.

Whether production will be slowed down depends on the kinds of governmental action taken. If prices and incomes are supported in some way but production controls remain ineffective as in the past, the answer is probably no.

In the final chapter of the book, past and present national agriculture policies and programs are appraised, and suggestions made for the future. Here Dr. Cochrane deliberately and courageously steps out of his role of analytical economist. In an intriguing discussion of the Economist as a Policy Adviser he says: "Economics is not a synonym for policy, or policy for economic."

The principal conclusions are: 1. A return to the free market would pre

cipitate a major price level decline in agriculture. The price cost squeeze would in time slow down expansion and possibly reduce output, and in 5, 10, or 15 years the farm price level would begin to move upward again.

2. Flexible price supports-lower supports when supplies are heavy, and higher supports when supplies decline--will not reduce output and restore farm prices and incomes to satisfactory levels without first letting prices and incomes fall to levels unacceptable to farm people and other groups friendly to agriculture.

3. If agriculture were transformed into many larg.e-scale, highly emcient commercial farms, all employing the best production practices, production would increase markedly and, in a free market, prices would decline drastically.

4. Fixed price supports protect farmers against precipitous declines in income and remove much of the uncertainty concerning year-to-year price changes. But fixed supports at levels which producers consider fair and equitable encourage them to expand production. Without production and marketing controls much more effective than those developed in the past, huge surpluses will accumulate, and society will not continue indefinitely to pay blllions of dollars annually for farm price and income supports.

5. Greater consumption of food, especially by low-income undernourished groups, is a worthy social objective. The school-lunch and milk-for-children programs might well be expanded and a food-stamp food-allotment program inaugurated. This would make a modest contribution to the overall demand for food. This alone, however, would by no means solve the price and income problems for commercial agriculture. It can be considered as only a supplement to other approaches.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I want to emphasize three of Dr. Cochrane's conclusions:

First. A return to the free market would precipitate a major price level decline in agriculture.

Second. Lower supports when supplies are heavy and higher supports when supplies decline-the Benson flexible theory-will not reduce output and re-

store farm prices and incomes to satisfactory levels without first letting prices and incomes fall to levels unacceptable to farm people and other groups friendly to agriculture.

Third. If agriculture were transformed into many large-scale, highly efficient commercial farms, all employing the best production practices, production would increase markedly and, in a free market, prices would decline drastically.

These are significant conclusions of a recognized authority in his field, and should be heeded.

For this is the very direction this bill proposes to take.

Make no mistake about that. The door is being opened on corn and cotton and rice, but the intention behind it is to move next into wheat and tobacco with the same price-depressing changes in our basic law.

Officials of the Department of Agriculture have admitted it.

Mr. President, in an interview with the top farm writer for United Press International a few weeks ago, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Marvin L. McLain confirmed that if Congress approves this bill, administration officials will next turn their attention to changes for two major commodities left untouched by the measure-wheat and tobacco. I call the attention of my colleagues from wheat- and tobacco-producing areas to Mr. McLain's statements.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a copy of the article written by Bernard Brenner. of United Press International, and carrying a Washington, July 12, dateline.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

(By Bernard Brenner) WASHINGTON, July 12.-A high-ranking

administration farm omcial said today he was "fairly optimistic" about chances for Senate passage next week of the administrationbacked omnibus farm bill.

If the legislation becomes law it could produce lower cotton prices and ward off a potential increase in the price of rice next year. It also could result in reducing corn price supports and dropping Federal attempts to control production of corn.

Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Marvin L. McLain said the big problem is to head off efforts of antiadministration Senators to load the measure with price-raising amendments aimed at reversing administration farm plans. The administration hopes to increase crop sales and farm income by fixing price supports closer to market levels.

McLain added in an interview he believes most farm belt Senators now are interested in getting an acceptable b111 through. He said that if Congress approves the bill, administration omcials will turn their attention next to two major commodities left untouched by the measure-wheat and tobacco.

The administration will make sure that lawmakers from wheat and tobacco areas "know exactly what's facing them next year," McLain added. "Changes will have to be made in those programs or we'll be in serious trouble."

He gave no indication what changes would be proposed in the price support production control programs for wheat and tobacco. He pointed out, however, that last January the President asked for authority to reduce price support floors and eventually ease

acreage controls on these and other major crops.

Wheat supports under present law range between 75 and 90 percent of parity. Tobacco Is pegged at 90 percent as long as marketing quotas remain in effect. For both crops, the administration had asked authority to fix supports between 60 and 90 percent of parity.

McLain said "prospects for passage of the Senate cotton-rice-feed grain bill were brightened by a changed attitude among many farm lawmakers." He said "it's entirely different than anything I've seen in my 5 years here--they finally realize that something must be done."

The legislation would repeal all Federal acreage control on corn beginning in 1959 and drop the farm parity price formuladating back to New Deal days--as the basis of price support. In place of parity, supports would be based on 90 percent. of the average open-market price for the past 3 years.

Cotton and rice would move to the open market support plan after a 2-year transition period. During the 2 years cotton growers would be allowed to choose individually between relatively big planting allotments with low price supports or smaller allotments with higher supports. Rice growers would maintain their present acreage allotments with supports for the 2 years ranging between 75 and 90 percent of parity, at Agriculture Secretary Ezra Taft Benson's discretion.

Without this or other acreage legislation, allotments for all cotton and rice growers would be cut sharply in 1959. This threat has brought many southern lawmakers to reluctant support of the Benson-backed package b111.

Many of the southerners ordinarily WOUld back Senator HUBERT H. HUMPHREY (democrat of Minnesota), and others in scheduled efforts to write in higher supports for feed grains and dairy products. But the threat of e. presidential veto, killing the cotton and rice acreage features, was expected to weigh heavily against antiadministration amendments.

McLain indicated the administration would welcome propoEed amendments adding extension of a farm surplus disposal act and the wool subsidy price support program to the Senate bill.

The power administration farm planners wield over Congressional farm law writers has been demonstrated twice this year. On March 31, President Eisenhower followed

-Benson's advice and vetoed a measure freez:ing 1958 price supports at 1951 levels. Several weeks ago, the House refused even to consider an earlier omnibus farm bill which Benson had attacked as an economic monstrosity.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, from repeated assertions of Administration spokesmen, there can no longer be much doubt as to the road down which Secretary Benson hopes to lead American agriculture.

Before travelling that road, Congress had better consider carefully all the economic and sociological implications of deliberately encouraging such a major change in our agricultural pattern.

Just in case there is still doubt in the minds of some that powerful forces are at work to shift our agriculture from its historic family farming pattern to an industrialized type of farm production, I call attention to a recent address in Washington by one of Secretary Benson's former Assistant Secretaries, Earl L. Butz, whose views have often coin-

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14925 cided closely with those of administration farm leaders.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD an article written by Charles Bailey, published in the Minneapolis Sunday Tribune of May 4, reporting on Mr. Butz' Washington address, during which he compared the coming shift in agriculture from a family basis to a big business basis with similar shifts in our industrial economy.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Ex-BENSON AID FANS FLAMES OF FARM DEBATE

(By Charles Bailey) WASHINGTON.-A flat-voiced Hoosier re

turned here last week and fanned the flames of farm debate with some of the coolest, frankest and most definite words that have been heard here in some time.

Earl L. Butz, former Assistant Secretary of Agriculture under Ezra T. Benson and now dean of agriculture at Purdue University, spent no time arguing for or against farm policy proposals.

Instead, he merely predicted-in the cold, matter-of-fact manner that always marked him as something less than the smoothest Congressional relations expert in townwhat he thinks is going to happen to farming.

Butz' analysis, delivered to the annual meeting of the United States Chamber of Commerce, covered these major points:

Capital requirements for farming are going up-per farm and per man.

"It is becoming increasingly difficult for an individual during his productive years, to accumulate a sufficient amount to finance an economically sized operating unit," he said. "This will become increasingly true in the decade ahead."

He called it inevitable for business units in agriculture to get bigger and bigger, with ever more capital required.

The trend to larger and fewer commercial farms will continue.

"This is not a new trend. It has only been accelerated in the present decade," he said. "It will accelerate still more. All the power of Government and politics can't stop it. Nor should it."

Butz compared this trend to the shift in the pattern of other businesses from "family entrepreneurial" units to "larger units, with more capital, higher levels of manage~ ment, more specialization of labor, and, if you choose, with a higher degree of integration.

"Management has become the key factor in successful farm operation."

"For one thing," Butz said, "managerial ability is even harder to inherit than farmland. A generation or two ago it was not difficult for son to apprentice under father, and take over the family farm, provided son had a strong constitution and a propensity for hard physical work. The latter factors are no longer limiting. The limiting factor now is managerial capacity."

Butz sees the possibility that ownership of some family farms will pass into the form of family shares of ownership, with professional farm-management outfits moving in between the owners and the operator of a farm.

Commercial farms will come to look more and more like manufacturing establishments, with farm managers giving more attention to assembling custom-built packages of technology in the farming operation, With a bigger share of receipts going back into production costs, gross margins shrinking, and profits depending increasingly on growing sales volumes.

Finally, Butz sees our countryside becoming "rurbanized'' with a growing percentage of country dwellers depending on nonfarm employment for their living and thus breaking up the all-farm character of rural areas.

"Farmers," he said, "ultimately will lose their vocational identity as members of the community. At this point farming no longer will be a way of life, but will be a way of making a living, just the same as other business enterprises.

"Political leaders will resist the trend toward large, well capitalized units in agriculture," he said, "both in their oratory, in their Congressional hearings and in their legislation."

Butz, a frequent target of Democrat attacks during his years here, put no party label on this statement. Instead, he depicted it as a struggle between politics and economics in which economics is bound to win. But the fight, he indicated, will be bitter.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the squeeze-out of family farms is regarded by some as natural and desirable on the grounds that it will lead to the modernization and increased efficiency of agriculture through organization along the lines of large-scale industry.

But the implication that family farming is inefficient is absurd in the face of $7 billion worth of unconsumed commodities now on hand. Taking the farm economy as a whole, its productivity has outstripped that of the nonfarm economy. Between 1947 and 1955, farm productivity increased more than 48 percent, while nonfarm productivity increased only 29 percent.

Moreover, all available evidence shows that the family farm is the most efficient unit of production. While many manufacturing industries have increased efficiency through large-scale operation, farming does not lend itself to the same mass-production techniques. There is an upper limit to the size of farm operation beyond which it is pointless to go in pursuit of increased efficiency.

The real problem of agriculture is how to turn efficiency gains into income gains. In their competitive, small-business type of economy, family farmers lack the strong bargaining power of large industrial corporations. Thus when the advocate of industrialized agriculture talks of "increased efficiency" all he means is that he has a foolproof way to turn farm efficiency gains into increased profit--usually for himself.

With farm production and marketing dominated by a few corporations, it would be easy to control output and price. Every stride forward in efficiency could then be turned into corporate profits.

Before swallowing the corporate efficiency line we must ask ourselves: ''Efficiency for whose benefit?" What effect would the centralized control of production and marketing of food have on the welfare of the city worker, the smallbusiness man, the consumer, on all American citizens?

Effect on city workers: The industrialization of agriculture would bring about the dispossession of millions of farm families. Some would · stay on the land as hired hands, but many would flood labor markets in the cities. Wanting to

provide for their families, migrating farmers would have to compete with city workers for available jobs---as is already happening in some cities.

Effect on small-business men: Rural small business could not survive without family farming. A Special Committee To Study Problems of American Small Business, created by the 79th Congress. compared a community of small, familytype farms with one of large-scale farms. It found more than twice as many thriving small businesses in the family-farm community and an altogether more satisfying rural way of life.

Effect on consumers: We would be more than naive if we expected corporate producers with their new-found power for controlling production and fixing prices to pass the benefits of advancing productivity along to consumers in the form of lower food prices. We have this to go on: Although farm prices dropped 23 percent in the past 5 years, consumer food prices rose 3 percent, powerful "inbetween" processing and marketing corporations reaping most of the benefit of low farm prices. With the corporate integration of both marketing and production of food, we could expect bread, meat, and potatoes to fetch premium prices of gold-rush days.

Effect on the American way of life: Pocketbook reasons apart, industrialized agriculture would mean the end of true competitive free enterprise so cherished in this country. Our family-farm pattern was started as the economic foundation of our political liberties by earlyday colonists who :fled the feudal concentration of wealth in the old countries.

Through our homestead laws, and, in this century, through sound farm programs, we have repeatedly reaffirmed our faith in family farming. Are we now prepared to abandon these traditional principles which have fostered individual initiative since our Nation began?

Quite frankly, I have never been ready to concede that sheer bigness in agricul• ture is necessarily the most efficient way of producing our food and fiber, unless it is bigness subsidized through exploitation of human resources, as a result of low wages.

Perhaps, for the present, big, absentee-owned and absentee-manager corporate farming enterprises can get enough cheap labor to take markets away from family-owned and family-operated farming enterprises.

But, certainly, nothing in the history of our industrialization indicates that, if we turn to such mass farming operations as the general pattern rather than the exception, the farm laboring class will remain permanently satisfied at the bottom of the economic ladder.

If the opportunity is denied farm people to work toward getting and operating a farm for themselves-if the only future they see is remaining as hired farm laborers-we can rest assured that the time will come when they will follow the pattern of workers in other fields and organize to insist upon economic bargaining power for themselves.

When that day comes, with the problems it could pose in handling the Nation's food supply, the public may well


wish it had preserved a system of dispersed family-farm production in the hands of thousands of family farmers instead of permitting it to be concentrated as a big business.

In my opinion, in the long run, family farming is not only more desirable sociologically, not only more desirable from the standpoint of the human values of rural life and rural living, but actually will prove the most efficient method of food and fiber production.

The small-business nature of farming is a strong bulwark of political stability for a democracy, and a real safeguard against inroads of either communism or fascism.

Yet, by its very nature, it leaves the individual farmer without protection of bargaining power in the market place.

By lending the strength of our Government to offset the bargaining weaknesses of agriculture, we can prevent the development of industrialized agriculture which will prove so disastrous to the great majority.

City workers, small-business men, and family farmers have mutual interests. They are one another's best customers. The protection of the economic rights of each of them best serves to advance the economic interests and political liberties of all.

Because of the different economic conditions of each group, techniques for achieving income and prosperity goals understandably differ. Yet each-not simply the farmer alone-has turned to the Government for help in creating a climate in which they can achieve just treatment in our economy.

That is the purpose of our farm pro-· grams and our farm legislation.

It is foolish to be debating proposed new farm legislation if we ignore or lose sight of the objectives we are trying to reach.

As I indicated at the outset of these remarks, we are at a stalemate, unfortunately; in developing adequate new programs to serve these objectives properly. Until that situation changes, the least we can do is prevent steps backward; prevent our blindly going off in the wrong direction.

That is my purpose in this discussion, and my purpose in seeking minimum amendments to the pending legislation.

We must keep our eyes on objectives and principles, rather than merely quibble over crossing a T and dotting an I.

With this general background statement of my views, I shall endeavor to cooperate in trying to improve the bill.

I am not in any way seeking to obstruct the enactment of a farm bill, if it does not contain booby traps for the future.

I have prepared amendments which I believe are worthy of careful and thoughtful consideration. They would make the bill more acceptable to the House of Representatives. They would make it more acceptable to farm people. Yet they were certainly not designed to invite another veto.

In due course I shall discuss these amendments in more detail, as each is called up for consideration.

In the meantime, my only plea to my colleagues is to consider well what they are doing in voting on the bill for they may have to live with their decision for a long, long time.

Mr. President, I am very grateful to my colleagues for their participation in the debate.

I have outlined some of the basic features of the bill, and also some of the amendments which I believe to be desirable; and we have indeed had a very splendid debate.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it

has been a matter of serious concern to me that Congress has reached this advanced point in the session without the enactment of a general farm bill. The time for adjournment is almost upon us, and legislation is urgently needed to insure that the position of the farmeralready poor-will not rapidly get worse.

I recognize the difficulties in drawing up such legislation. The problems of the farmer are complex. They are not the same problems in all sections of the country. It is always a difficult task to write sound, long-range farm legislation which will meet with general approval in Congress.

I recognize, too, that many Members of Congress have kept the farm problem in the forefront of their thinking and have been working diligently to bring suitable farm legislation to the floor. As a temporary measure, Congress passed a joint resolution in March, calling for a stay of any reduction in support prices or acreage allotments. The purpose of the resolution was to maintain the farmer's standard of living while work proceeded on measures of a more permanent nature. I was both alarmed and disappointed when · the President vetoed that salutary resolution.

During the 5 years from 1952 to 1957, the deterioration of the farm position can be documented by the following facts, among others:

First. During the 5-year period, farm prices declined 16 percent.

Second. Realized net farm income declined 19 percent.

Third. The purchasing power of farm income declined 23 percent.

Fourth. Farm population declined 12 percent from 24,283,000 in 1952 to 20,-396,000 in 1957.

F'ifth. In 1957, the returns to all farm workers for their labor and management reached a low of 69 cents per hour, while the average wage of industrial workers reached a high of $2.07 per hour.

I am glad that American industrial workers are sharing as they are in the fruits of production. I hope that they will continue to maintain their high standard of living. The farmer, like the industrial worker, has been increasing his productivity, but, unlike the industrial worker, the farmer's increased productivity has not been rewarded. It is time that we take constructive steps to bring the income of the farmer more in line with his productivity, and more nearly on a par with the income of the industrial worker.

With the conditions which I have mentioned handicapping the farmer, it

is small wonder that 12 percent of the Americans who lived on farms in 1952 had moved off the farms by 1957.

There are those who say that this is as it should be--that overproduction on the farm should be eliminated by abandoning the farms, and that we should tell the farmer who fails to support himself on the farm to go out and find himself a job in industry. This oversimplified solution is heartless, unrealistic under present conditions, and, in the long run, it is unsound.

It is heartless because it is shabby treatment for the people who love the land and labor on it, and who deserve a fair reward for their toil. It is unrealistic because it would throw on the industrial labor market men who are untrained and inexperienced in factory work to compete for jobs with the skilled workers. It is an unsound policy to abandon the farms because, in the long run, a strong agricultural economy is essential to the well-being of the whole Nation.

Our Nation's farmers will be called upon, in years to come, to produce the food, the cotton, and the wool to feed and clothe our expanding population. In the event of war, we will call upon our farmers-as we have called upon them in past emergencies-to expand their production quickly. The Nation's farms are as much a part of our war mobilization base as our steel mills.

I am particularly concerned about the plight of the small farmer. He has been described too often, in recent years, as a marginal farmer, because he is not as productive as the large-scale mechanized farmer. In times of depression on the farms, the small farmer is the first to be affected and the last to recover.

Nevertheless, the small farmer is needed and deserves a better fate than to be forced off his land. It has been estimated that agriculture serves as a basis for 35 to 40 percent of the jobs of all workers in this country, even though only 12 percent of the people make their living directly from the farm. It is important to the total economy that the purchasing power represented by the farm population be maintained in the small-farm States as well as in the large-farm States. It is important that the elements of our agricultural economy be well distributed, so that the effect on production of a severe drought in one region of the country may be offset by a good crop year in another region.

The Nation's farmers do not share in the direct benefits of many Federal programs in the field of public welfare. Neither are they the recipients of the various fringe benefits-paid vacations, overtime pay, health insurance, pensions, and the like-which many industrial workers now receive as a matter of course.

Our farmers have not asked for a welfare program. They have asked only for a chance to stay in business and keep their homes, to maintain that portion of God's land which is in their trust, and to have the opportunity to earn a decent living.

I do not intend to tell the Senate today that I believe that S. 4081 is a perfect farm bill or that it will solve all of

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14921 our agricultural problems. I do believe, however, that it is the best general farm bill that can be passed, under the circumstances, at this session of Congress. The Senate Agriculture Committee has worked diligently to bring this bill out, and the committe~ should be commended for its e:fiorts.

The bill does not do everything that it should do for the farm economy, but it is a good program of minimum agricultural assistance.

I am glad to support the bill in its present form.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, for some years now I have become more and more concerned by the problems confronting our farmers. Arkansas is predominantly an agricultural State, and we are vitally a:fiected by the fortunes of agriculture. The problem, however, is a national one and goes far beyond the boundaries of any one State.

Many times during recent months, Senators on both sides of the aisle have pointed to the dangerous decline in farm income. Many statistics pointing up the critical problem are familiar to all of us, but I should like to mention several significant ones:

First. During the 5 years from January 1953 to January 1958, farmers' net income declined 24 percent. Last year, farm income fell from $12.1 billion to $11.5 billion, which is the lowest total since 1942.

Second. In the last 5 years, the farm population has declined by more than 2 million.

Third. Farm debt has been rising, and in the 5-year period, increased by $3.2 billion. The farm foreclosure rate has doubled.

The policies of Secretary Benson have been in a sense miraculous. At the same time, the American farmer was steadily sinking into the mire of a depression, the food price index increased from 112.8 points to 118.2, and food chains and food processors enjoyed great prosperity. To mention only a few, Borden profits rose 33.8 percent; National Dairy Products, 50.1 percent; Wilson & Co., 111 percent; Quaker Oats, 69.9 percent; Safeway Stores, 246.5 percent; and General Mills, 28.1 percent. These figures, Mr. President, tell the story in a nutshell. They are more eloquent as to the trouble in agriculture than anything I can say.

Cotton is the principal agriculture product of Arkansas, and I am, therefore, especially concerned with this segment of the entire agricultural economy. Most Members of this body realize, I am sure, that the cotton industry is a vital pa .. :t of the overall national economy. Eight hundred sixty-four thousand farms are directly engaged in cotton farming, and the value of cotton produced on American farms during 1957 was $1,854,000,000. Cotton is the foundation of a vast industrial complex, involving oil and textile mills, ginners, farm machinery manufacturers, small distributors, chemical and fertilizer industries, and myriad employees.

I doubt, however, that it is generally realized that cotton farmers have faced year after year drastic reductions in their acreage allotments and in market

prices for the product of their labor. For instance, in 1951, without production controls, farmers planted 28,195,000 acres. In 1955, only 18,113,000 acres were allotted; and in 1957 and 1958, allotments were frozen at about 17% million acres. A decrease of one-third in 6 years. Since 1952, price supports for cotton have been reduced 12 percent and price supports for cottonseed hav~ been lowered 33 percent.

Not only has the cotton economy declined, but virtually every other segment of agriculture has been similarly a:fiected. Farm prices have on the average fallen 24 percent since 1952, and the farmers' share of the national income has decreased by 20 percent. Last year, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board stated frankly that the farmer paid for the stability which was maintained in our economy during the socalled Eisenhower prosperity. I quote Mr. Martin's statement:

Now the great shame to me and the thing that worried me most, starting in 1955, was that we, the United States, kept stability in the dollar from 1953 on to the early part of .1956 by declining farm prices, which was bemg offset in the picture by a rise in manufactured prices. In other words, the stability was not a balanced stability, it was farm income going down and manufactured products going up, the net result being stability.

Mr. President, I would like to review briefly the provisions of S. 4071 relating to cotton. The bill reported by the committee o:fiers a choice to cotton farmers. The plan recommended by the committee allows the farmer in 1959-60 to choose between, first, the acreage allotment and support price determined under existing law, and, second, a 40-percent increase in his cotton acreage with a 15-percent reduction in the support price. The additional acreage allowed under the second choice would not be used in establishing history for determining future acreage allotments. This provision permits the farmer to choose the plan which would be most advantageous to his own peculiar type of farming.

The optional program mentioned is available for 1959-60. Beginning with the 1961 crop, cotton will be supported at 90 percent of the average market price during the last 3 years. The bill stipulates that the support price cannot be less than 30 cents per pound for middling l-inch cotton.

The marketing-quota and acreageallotment sections of the bill have caused me much concern, and I have cosponsored an amendment introduced by Senator STENNIS to ease the e:fiects of these provisions on Arkansas. I will discuss these sections in more detail in a moment. The bill provides for a minimum marketing quota for 1958-59 sufficient to provide a national acreage allotment of 16 million acres. This compares with the allotment of approximately 17,500,000 acres for the current crop year. The national acreage allotment proposed would be allotted among the States in the same proportion that they shared in the 1958 allotment. For 1961 and subsequent years the national marketing quota would be set to provide a normal supply of cotton for

domestic consumption and exports but in no case -would the quota be less than that required to provide a national allotment of 16 million acres.

The above provisions would be modified to the extent that each State will receive a minimum acreage allotment of 4,000 acres or the highest acreage planted to cotton in any one of the preceding calendar years. Minimum-farm-allotment provisions are also included in the bill. A minimum allotment of 10 acres or the 1958 allotment, whichever is smaller, is included in the bill. This contrasts with the present law which provides for a minimum of the smaller of either 4 acres or the highest acreage planted in any 3 preceding years. A national reserve of 310-,000 acres is established to provide these minimum acreage allotments.

I mentioned a moment ago that I am deeply interested in the Stennis amendment. Under the present provisions of the bill, as reported by the committee the national acreage allotment for each year is to be apportioned among the ~tates o.n the basis of the same proportiOn which each State shared in the na~ional acreage allotment in 1958. This, m e:fiect, prevents present provisions of law related to adjustments for trends from becoming operative. As a result, Arkansas would be allocated 34,285 less acres in 1959; 43,7 49 less acres in 1960; and 26,266 acres less in 1961, than would be the case under the formula set forth in the present law. The Stennis amendment is, I believe, equitable and should be adopted.

Mr. President, the farm problem is acute and I feel that it is of vital importance to enact farm legislation prior to the adjournment of this Congress. I realize that there is disagreement as to what our long-term farm program should be and that even the great farm organizations have been unable to come to a meeting of minds on the proper course to pursue. With this in mind, Congress early this year approved Senate Joint Resolution 162 which would have frozen price supports and acreage allotments on the basic commodities for 1 year. At least, we hoped to prevent further reductions in price supports and further decreases in acreage allotments.

The reduction in acreage of cotton alone is likely to be 3 million acres-17% million to 14% million-if no farm bill is enacted into law. Yet, despite the fact that Senate Joint Resolution 162 was only a stopgap measure, it was vetoed by President Eisenhower on !l\J.Iarch 31.

Now it is perfectly clear that Senate Bill 4071 is our last chance for farm legislation this year. The Committee on Agriculture deserves great credit for the time and .e:fiort which its members have devoted to the seemingly endless pursuit of a solution to the farm problem. The chairman and members of this key committee will admit, I am sure, that Senate Bill 4071 is not a panacea, but it does contain many important provisions which will benefit the farm economy.

Mr. President, I pay tribute especially to the chairman of the committee, the

14928 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 distinguished Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], who is one of the stanchest friends of agriculture in the Senate, and to the other members of the committee who gave so much of their time and effort to the development of the bill.

I believe, that insofar as cotton is concerned, s. 4071 is a step in the right direction. If cotton is to survive and prosper in the long run, there are several objectives which must be met. The main objectives are, I believe:

First. To regain and keep an equitable share of the expanding textile market at home and abroad, the price of cotton must be competitive with synthetics and foreign growths.

Second. The income of cotton producers must be protected during the transitory period of expanding production and until such time that lower production costs are attained.

Third. Provisions should be made for the protection of farmers who through location or size of operation are faced with higher production costs, and at the same time to provide an opportunity for the more efficient farmers to make a concession in price in return for additional allotted acres.

Fourth. Expand research for new and better uses of cotton.

Fifth. Provision for orderly marketing through normal trade channels.

The pending measure, which I strongly support, does not achieve all of these objectives, but its enactment will give countless farmers throughout the land an opportunity to begin the long hard struggle back to a level of moderate prosperity.

Mr. SYMINGTON. First, Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the distinguished Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HuMPHREY] for his excellent address in r~gard to the farm problems of the country and their relationship to the pending bill.

Mr. President, the farm bill now before the Senate provides for substantial and far-reaching changes from the past and present course of farm legislation.

In many respects, the pending bill is a repudiation of the farm policies and programs we have known since the early 1920's.

The provisions of the bill will have serious effects, not only upon the approximately 20 million people living on farms, but also upon other millions in industries related to agriculture, and also upon citizens in their capacity as consumers and taxpayers.

The effects of this bill would be felt particularly in States such as Missouri, where one-fourth of the population lives and works on the farms, and where agriculture is a billion-dollar industry.

This farm bill is not just another minor modification of the basic farm legislation. It is a radical departure from the concepts and principles which have been developed as the foundation of the Government's farm policy for over 30 years.

The bill would guarantee a sharp reduction in total farm income, despite the f.act that farm income already is down 20 percent since 1952.

The bill would result in stimulating production to new record levels. Based on the experience of the past 5 years, that would result in additional cost to the Government.

From 1952 to 1957, farm prices declined 16 percent; but total farm production increased 6 percent.

Despite reduced prices, production has increased during this 5-year period; and, as a result, the Department of Agriculture expenditures have doubled-from $2.5 billion, in the fiscal year 1954, to an estimated $4.9 billion in the fiscal year 1958.

Only recently we have seen reports that even greater production this year will increase the costs of the Department of Agriculture to an estimated $6 billion for the fiscal year 1959.

The bill abandons the most basic principle upon which farm legislation has been founded for over one-quarter of a century-namely, the parity concept.

A dollar wage, or dollar price, or dollar salary, or dollar income, has little meaning except in terms of what that specific amount will buy-in other words, its purchasing power.

Recognizing this fact, Congress has, by means of the use of the parity formula, consistently tied farm legislation to a measure of the purchasing power.

If the Senate were to pass the pending farm bill as is, the Senate would, in effect, be abandoning the concept that farm families are entitled to an income and a standard of living approximately equal to those of other Americans.

Even with acceptance of the parity principle, our farm programs have been less than successful in the attempts to attain true parity for the farmer with other Americans who work in other_segments of the economy.

In recent years, under the policies of the present administration, the position of the farmer has very much worsened.

Fortunately, the parity concept has limited the steady efforts to drive down farm prices and farm income.

But now the Senate is considering the abandonment of that very concept-the parity concept.

Mr. President, in effect, the bill would announce to the 20 million American farmers who have survived the past 5 years that no longer are they entitled to an opportunity for reasonable economic equality with other Americans.

It is apparent that the Government is no longer concerned with 100-percent parity for the farmers and their families--or even 90 percent, or even 75 percent.

Instead, they are to have support at 10 percent less than what they have been getting in the market place.

In 1957, family farm purchasing power fell to the lowest point in 17 years--the lowest since 1940.

Since 1952, farm purchasing power has dropped 24 percent.

This tragic loss of purchasing power spread from the farms to the towns, and finally to the cities, and contributed to the. current depressed economic conditions throughout the country.

In recent months, there has been some improvement in farm prices and income. But these are insignificant, when compared to the income losses su!Iered by farm families since 1952.

During those 5 years, farm income continually declined and the accumulated loss to farmers has been $14.4 billionor a loss of almost $3,000 for every farm in the United States.

The pending bill would add to that loss; it would result in lower farm income. The bill would result in less farm purchasing power. But even worse, the bill would abandon the very concept of purchasing power-the parity formula.

In 1941, one of the truly great farm leaders, President Ed O'Neal, of the American Farm Bureau Federation, stated before a Congressional committee:

The Congress of the United States has again and again declared as its policy that the prices and income of farmers should be restored and maintained on a basis of parity with industrial wages and industrial prices. • • • We interpret this action by Congress as a determination on its part to redeem its pledge to American agriculture, and to carry out the · parity policy, which it has so often declared. We wish to commend, in the highest terms, this action by Congress • • •. The American Farm Bureau Federation takes the position that we must have a program which will assure full parity, not only to the five basic crops, but to all American agriculture.

That statement by Mr. O'Neal is indicative of the type of thinking which has prevailed for many years, but which the pending bill now proposes to abandon.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, at this point will the Senator from Missouri yield to me?

Mr. SYMINGTON. I am glad to yield to my able friend, the Senator from Minnesota. _ Mr. HUMPHREY. I understand that the Senator from Missouri has just concluded reading from a statement by the late, beloved, and illustrious Ed O'Neal. Is that correct?

Mr. SYMINGTON. Yes-the former president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes; and it is one of the great American farm organizations.

Is it not fair to say that Ed O'Neal was possibly of more importance and greater effect in connection with the effectuation of a proper farm policy and program than any other American of his time?

Mr. SYMINGTON. That is correct. Mr. HUMPHREY. And that program

was based on the parity concept, was it not?

Mr. SYMINGTON. That is correct; the Senator from Minnesota has put his finger on the principal reason why I read that statement by Mr. O'Neal.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Is it not ironical that today, in 1958, that great landmark of legislative achievement-namely, the parity concept, as embodied in the legislative provisions contained in the acts of 1933 and 1938, and then endorsed by the American Farm Bureau Federation, is now repudiated?

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14929 Mr. SYMINGTON. The bill now be

fore the Senate would abandon parity. Mr. HUMPHREY. Is it not even more

ironical that the American Farm Bureau Federation today should be lending itself t.:> the effort to repudiate the parity concept? Certainly, I am very unhappy about it. I am sure the county farm bureaus in Minnesota do not agree that the parity concept should be abandoned or repudiated. I go to many of their ~ee~ings, many of their community PICrilCS, and many of their other gatherings; and I find that the members of all our farm organizations, regardless of the different approaches which they may make to that objective, nevertheless agree on the objective; they agree that the objective of any agricultural bill must be the attainment of parity income and parity prices; and they want them provided in the law-really provided in the law, not just placed in the atmosphere. They want it in the law, Senator. They do not want it just in the atmosphere.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Let me say to my distinguished friend, that when I was in business the trade associations that I was familiar with worked steadily for the members of their organization. It has been my experience that banking associations, State and national are consistently working to better th~ position of banks. Based on my knowledge of trade unions, they are interested in bettering the working conditions, hours of work, and wages of those who are members of their organizations.

As I have studied the basic problems of agriculture, what has surprised me more than almost anything has been the fact that man~· persons in the field of agriculture apparently do not work for the welfare of the family-sized farmer in America.

I believe legislation should be based on the idea that farm families are entitled to a reasonable amour: t of the same support from their Government that is given other segments of our economy.

One of the reason-:: behind the consistent efforts t.:. break down and destroy our farm programs concerns the cost of those programs. It is hard for me to understand the strong attacks on subsidies for agriculture at thJ same time nearly all other segments of our economy receive heavy supports from their Government.

A House Agriculture Committee print entitled "Government Subsidies-Historical Review," revised June 25 of this year, points out that:

CCC farm-price support losses from 1933 to January 1, 1958, have cost the taxpayers less than subsidies to business through postal deficits alone during the 10-year period 1946- 56. Moreover, the losses connected with price supports for farmers have amounted to only a fraction of the cost of business reconversion payments, including tax amortization, and other financial aids to industry during the past few years.

I ask unani 1ous consent that a table setting forth Federa.l expenditures for business aids and special services from the aforementioned publication be printed at this point in the REcoRD.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows: ~ Mail su"Jsidies (10-year pe-

riod, 1946-56) ----------- $5, 968, 000, 000 Business reconversion p ay-

ments (including tax amortization) ----------- 43, 262, 000, 000

Subsidies to m aritime or-ganizations (1938 through fiscal 1957) -------------- 3,500,000,000

Subsidies to airlines ( 1938 through fiscal 1957)------ 614,000,000

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President some of the same groups being so heavily supported by their Government as indicated by this table, are the on~s which lead th~ attack on our farm programs.

I believe that farm families are entitled to a reasonable amount of the same support from their Government that is given other segments of the economy.

The provisions of S. 4071 which cast aside the parity concept, ~ould apply immediately-in 1959-in the case of corn and the feed grains, and, beginning 2 years later, on cotton and rice.

I shall have a little to say about tobacco and wheat in a moment.

Could this be part of a master plan to cut off one commodity at a time from parity, and thereby make it more palata:. ble to those interested in other commodities not forced to bear the immediate effect of this drastic action?

Mr. President, those people interested in wheat and tobacco should be interested in an article printed in the Champaign (!.11.) News-Gazette of July 13, 1958, wh1ch I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the REcORD at this point.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows: ' OPTIMISTIC ON CHANCES FOR SENATE BILL--

LEGISLATION WoULD END ALLOTMENT OF ACREAGE, CUT SUPPORT PRICES

(By Bernard Brenner) WASHINGTON-A high ranking administra

tion farm official said Saturday he was "fairly optimistic" about chances for Senate passage next week of the administration-backed omnibus farm bill.

The administration will malte sure that ~~wmakers from wheat and tobacco areas know exactly what's facing them next

year," McLain added. "Changes will have to be made in those programs or we'll be in serious trouble."

He gave no indication what changes would be proposed in the price support-production co~trol programs for wheat and tobacco. He pomted out, however, that last January the President asked for authority to reduce price support floors and eventually ease acreage controls on these and other major crops.

Wheat supports under present law range between 75 and 90 percent of parity. Tobac~o is pegged at 90 percent as long as marketmg quotas remain in effect. For both crops, the administration ha<i asked authority to fix supports between 60 and 90 percent of parity.

McLain said prospects for passage of the Senate cotton-rice-feed grain bill were brightened by a "changed attitude" among farm lawmakers. He said it's "entirely different than anything I've seen in my 5 years here--they finally realize that something must be done."

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President reporting on an interview with Assistant Secretary Marvin McLain regarding the chances for approval of S. 4071, the article states: H~ s.aid t~at if Congress approves the bill,

admm1stratwn officials will turn their attention next to the two major commodities left untouched by the measure--wheat and tobacco.

This would seem to destroy whatever notion some people might have that tobacco and wheat are not included in the overall efforts to destroy the farm program.

Mr. President, during consideration of this farm bill in the Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee some Senators justified the abandonme~t of the parity concept on the grounds that a price floor would nullify the effect of this action. But even before· the bill came up on the Senate floor, efforts were being made to remove or to lower these minimum price support levels.

In a press conference on July 15 in discussing the 30-cent-per-pound :tioor on cotton, Secretary of Agriculture Benson stated:

If the legislation becomes law it could We would like to see this amendment to produce lower cotton prices and ward off a set the minimum at 28 cents per pound, not potential increase in the price of rice next more than 28 cents. year. It also could result in reducing corn price supports and dropping Federal at- Turning to rice, Mr. Benson stated: tempts to control production of corn. We have a similar situation in rice in the

The legislation would repeal all Federal . bill. It provides for minimum support of $4 acreage controls on corn beginning in 1959 per hundred, which is about 66% percent of and drop the farm parity price formula dat- parity. This is about 10 percent above the ing back to New Deal days-as the basis of minimum which we suggested of $3.60 or 60 price support. In place of parity, supports percent of parity. We think the $3.60 level would be based on 90 percent of the aver- should prevail in the best interest of the rice age open-market price for the past 3 years. growers and the rice industry.

Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Mar.vin · . L. McLain said the "big problem" is to head Whlle Mr: Benson did not suggest a off efforts of antiadministration senators lower floor 1n the case of corn, he indite "load" the measure with price-raising cated his opposition, stating: amendments aimed at reversing administra- However, we think, generally speaking, tion farm plans. The administra'Mon hopes that minimums in dollars and cents may get to increase crop sales and farm income by us into some difficulty when we move from fixing price supports closer to market levels. the basis of the average of the last 3 years 90 ~cLain added in an interview that he percent of the average for the last 3 ye~rs.

belleves most Farm Belt Senators now are "interested in getting an acceptable bill ~he Champaign, Ill., News-Gazette through." He said that if Congress approves article states: the bill, administration officials will turn McLain said prospects for passage of the their attention next to two major commodi- Senate cotton-rice-feed grain bill were ties left untouched by the measure-wheat brightened by a changed attitude among and tobacco. farm lawmakers.

14930 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 Mr. President, let me assure Mr. Mc

Lain and others that my attitude on the farm situation remains unchanged.

I believe that farm families have an equal right with other Americans to assistance from their Government in obtaining a reasonable share of our national income.

I shall stand by that belief, not only during consideration of this farm bill, s. 4071, but until the farm families of our country secure reasonable economic equality.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. SYMINGTON. I yield to my friend from Minnesota.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Before the Senator from Missouri takes his seat, I want to commend him on his very forceful remarks. The Senator from Missouri has been a stalwart champion on behalf of American agriculture in the deliberations of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. He has never wavered in his support of the family farm. He has taken a broad national view on agricultural policy. The Senator from Missouri knows that earlier today I indicated there was a difficult road ahead for this proposed legislation, even if it passed the Senate. I pointed out that certain leaders in the House had expressed great doubts about the bill.

I now note that in a press release for today, which was distributed by the public relations committee of the North Carolina Cotton Promotion Association, there is an indication of some change in the sentiment of the other body.

I say, first of all, I am sure every Senator has been called many times by people who are concerned about the pending bill. I have had lots of letters from chambers of commerce and from people who are in the cotton-industry field. I respect those contacts. I respect that interest.

The chairman of the House committee I understand has now ·indicated the House may take -action upon a bill along the lines of the Senate bill, except that the H-ouse bill, I think it -should be noted, according to the release, will·have within it the parity principle and will not have the formula the Senate bill has, which emasculates that parity principle.

If the Senator will permit, I shall read excerpts from this release:

It was agreed, both by Mr. CooLEY and the . farm and cotton leaders of North Carolina, that in the House this bill would be strengthened by reestablishment of the principle of parity. Mr. CoOLEY took action immediately in this direction with his committee members.

I quote, further on: Abandonment of the parity principle in

1961 in the present Senate bill, by basing support price for cotton on a formula related to the 3-year average market price rather than parity, has been the major criticism of the Senate bill.

That is the very point which the Senator from Missouri has emphasized tonight. I am hoping that the Senator from Missouri or some other Senator will offer an amendment to the section of the bill which deals with cotton. Since the Senator comes from a State which

produces a vast amount of cotton, and since cotton is an important crop to his State, I hope he will offer an amendment to restore the parity principle to the bill.

Mr. SYMINGTON. We might as well face up to what is going on. It is becoming very clear. We are considering a bill to destroy parity.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Of course. Mr. SYMINGTON. The distinguished

junior Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON] knows a great deal about the farm picture. Few, if any, know more. The Senator has been the Secretary of Agriculture. I understand he is considering an amendment to send the bill back to the committee and to freeze cotton and rice acreage. Such an amendment would handle the most serious problem facing cotton and rice farmers.

Speaking for the cotton farmers in my own State, I have become increasingly worried about the approach of S. 4071. It is much like taking a narcotic when one is in pain. There may be a few more cotton acres in the year 1959, but when parity is taken off cotton entirely, except on the basis of a dollar floor, what will happen? Will not the pain be greater after the narcotic wears off, especially for the small farmer? Of course that situation would even be worse with respect to corn, because it would apply to corn in 1959.

The more I learn about this bill the more I believe that it is designed to (l.e·stroy what has been built up for the American farmer since the early 1930's, that is, the concept of parity.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I should like to make a final observation, if the Senator will permit. Is the Senator from Missouri familiar with an article which was published in this evening's issue of the Washington Star entitled "Benson Claims Leftists Block Farm Measure"?

Mr. SYMINGTON. No; I am not. I have not seen it.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Those of us who are debating this measure are classified as leftists. The article reads:

Secretary of Agriculture Benson charged "today that · unnamed leftwing elements within the Democratic Party are trying to prevent the passage of farm legislation this year by attaching unsatisfactory amendments.

Later on the Secretary goes further and says:

"The truth of the matter," declared Secretary Benson, "is that the leftwing elements do not want any farm bill this year."

He asserted these elements were being subjected to influences of the Farmers Union.

Let me give the Secretary of Agriculture some news. I want to let him in on something. The Farmers Union of Minnesota is an important farm organization, the largest farm organization in terms of family farms, and it is not leftist. It is not rightist. It is Minnesota, and its members are good American citizens. I am getting sick and tired of having the Secretary of Agriculture get that red brush out and splash it around. If the Secretary of Agriculture wants to go around looking like an Indian on the warpath, that is his business, but he

should not go around splashing me with ink and paint and feathers. I am sick of it.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, one of the finest farmers in my State is Fred Heinkel. He is the president of the Missouri Farmers Association, the largest farm organization we have. Just a few days ago Mr. Heinkel said: •'The more I study the bill, based on my knowledge of what the Department of Agriculture is attempting to do to the American farmer, the more I am against it."

Mr. President, I certainly hope Secretary Benson was not referring to people who have an honest difference of opinion as to the merits of S. 4071.

It is unfortunate that the Secretary of Agriculture has to classify people who disagree with him as leftist and imply that their motives are any less patriotic than his own.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. SYMINGTON. I have noticed that certain commodities seem to be well taken care of, while a~ the same time the Secretary of Agriculture has been driving down the prices and income in my State and the State of the distinguished Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Will the Senator yield for one final observation?

Mr. SYMINGTON. I am glad to yield. Mr. HUMPHREY. If one is to speak

about leftists, of course, left of center as .to agricultural policy, I suppose, would be someone who would favor any policy which tends to collectivize agriculture, to make it big business, whether it be state capitalism or pr ivate capitalism. Big business agriculture would fit the pattern of the Marxist, Communist development in agricu1t·1ral policy. I will just let the record stand, if we are going to start having a name-calling contest, as to which policies have ~ontributed to the collectivization of agriculture and the corporate system of agriculture. There has been more abandonment of family farms in recent years than for many years. There has been more and more concentration of agricultural production in fewer and fewer hands. There is only one country which has had more rapid progress in the concentration of agricultural production ~n fewer hands than the United States of America in recent years. Since the Soviet Union had already collectivized, the one country is China, ur.der the Communists.

I do not accuse anyone of having a -premeditated plan to collectivize American agriculture; but before the Secretary starts to get out his paintbrush and splash around, hit and miss, with no target except anyone he can hit, I suggest that he examine his own policies. His own policies have not ·contributed to what I call the private entrepreneur. They have not contributed to individual private enterprise. They have not contributed to the family farm. They have contributed to industrialization, big business, and corporate structure in American agriculture. It is up to him to demonstrate to the contrary, because the statistical facts from his own Department prove that I am correct.

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1493-1 Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,

the article entitled "Benson Claims Leftists Block Farm Measure," written by J. V. Horner and published in the Washington Evening Star of July 24, 1958, has been made a part of the RECORD.

Part of the article reads in part as follows:

"The truth of the matter," declared Secretary Benson, "is that the leftwing elements do not want any farm bill this year."

He asserted these elements were being subjected to influences of the Farmers Union.

Mr. President, the Farmers Union is not an important organization in my State.

Nevertheless I think it is unfortunate for a member of the President's Cabinet to attack one of the country's leading farm organizations.

I do not believe such action is in accordance with our principles and our traditions.

Mr. MARTIN of Iowa. Mr. President, on sunday, July 20, the st. Louis GlobeDemocrat published an editorial praising the policies of Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson and urging enactment of the farm bill now pending before the Senate. Its logic and reasoning are so sound and cogent that I think its words might be of benefit to all of us.

I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: CONGRESS MUST END FOOTDRAGGING AND BACK

THE BENSON FARM PROGRAM

Hard-sense policies of Ezra Taft Benson won a smashing victory last month when the House killed the Democrat-sponsored omnibus farm bill, properly indicted by the Agriculture Secretary as an absurd "monstrosity." But that was 3 weeks ago.

Congress in the interval has failed to pass vital, urgently needed legislation to support the Nation's farm program. There has been too much hassling and bootless delay.

Some of the Agriculture Department's most essential- functions have been deadended for lack of funds. Planning and schedules hang in an administrative nearvacuum without required laws. And target date for adjournment of Congress is less than a month away.

Two extremely important agriculture measures are in Capitol Hill hoppers.

One is Senate bill 4071, a constructive proposal dealing with supports and acreage allotments for cotton, rice, corn, and feed grains. The other provides for extension of the 1954 act, authorizing disposal of surplus farm products through sale for foreign currency, through barter and as donations to needy abroad.

Senate farm measure 4071 is a radical departure from previous agriculture bills. It seeks to abandon high support techniques. It is designed to bolster crops at figures under current market prices-not dish out lavish Federal sudsidies.

Such subsidies, often higher than prices, have created our fantastic, costly and wasteful surpluses.

There is no iota of sense in growing foods except to eat. That is the Benson philosophy, and nothing could be more rational.

The Senate proposal moves sturdily in this direction. Its Agriculture Committee has reported out the measure, though without dairying provisions, and it is now on the Senate Calendar.

In the case of corn and feed grains, so important to the Midwest, the Senate bill would knock out all acreage allotments and set supports for next year at 90 percent of the last 3 years' market price.

This obviously makes props a kind of insurance, in case of a bad crop year. It does not offer tax bounties for overproducing, which is the core of the surplus plight.

A similar approach is made in cotton, but more moderately. Cotton growers would be enabled to trade higher acreages for lower price supports. Current market prices, based on a prior 3-year average, would be the basis for cotton supports beginning in 1961. Other variants of the policy to let farmers plan their own crops, acreages and management--free of Federal dictation and bounty lagniappe--are contained in provisions for rice, oats, barley, rye, and sorghum.

The Senate has already passed an extension of the surplus disposal law, known as the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act. The House has not acted but had a provision covering this extension in its defeated omnibus measure.

Chief difference between Senate and House measures is that the Senate extends the law for 2 years, the House for 1. Mr. Benson prefers a 1-year extension.

This valuable law has incurred antipathy from Canada, Mexico, South American States, and other nations, because it tends to curtail their grain markets.

State Department and Secretary Benson are concerned over this aspect of the program and wish only a year's continuation of the act to emphasize the policy is only temporary.

Another divergence between House and Senate legislation on this issue is that the Senate proposal gives the Agriculture Secretary discretion in bartering farm surpluses. House thinking had been to compel the Secretary to barter wherever possible, regardless of harm to our international friends and foreign policy. Manifestly the Senate bill is much superior.

Extension of this law is compulsory and probably will be voted.

Mr. Benson's program in surplus disposal is at a standstill. The old act expired June 30, and the Agriculture Department has no money to carry on a splendid schedule that has got rid of $3,934,000,000 of surplus farm products through sales, barter, and donations abroad.

Both Senate bill 4071 and extension of Public Law 480 for surplus disposal are giant strides in establishment of a rational national farm policy-a policy that has made the farmers alone show rising prosperity while almost every other segment of the economy has been hit in the recession.

America most sorely needs a commonsense policy in agriculture. It must shuck the bounty thesis that has cost taxpayers $15 billion, shackled farm progress, and piled up waste surpluses. Secretary Benson has plotted away, and these two measures will speed the day.

The country has to stop trying to fix farm prices. It must liberate agriculture from controls and quotas, continue to promote markets abroad, dispose of existing surpluses approximating $7 billion in Government bins. Then we must use research to find new crops and new uses for old.

The best panacea for farmers is to help them to help themselves.

That, we firmly believe, would be mightily advanced by enactment of the two farm proposals now before Congress. They clearly should be passed.

PERSONAL STATEMENT BY SENATOR CASE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. President, I shall take only a moment or two to state why I shall not be present to vote when the wool amendment comes up in connection with the farm bill.

The Senator from South Dakota, along with the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. MoNRONEY], the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. HOBLITZELL], and the Senator from Delaware [Mr. FREAR] are designated to attend the meetings of the Interparliamentary Union at Rio de Janeiro. I must board a plane in about an hour.

I am confident that the so-called wool amendment will be adopted, because it is necessary for the wool industry to know now what its operating plan will be for next year. I have not heard of any opposition to the amendment, and I assume that it will be adopted. My vote would be for extension of the Wool Act.

On final passage of the bill, I would vote "yea," because I think some farm bill is needed at this session. I am assuming that no destructive amendment will be adopted.

Personally, I favor a trial of the corn plan proposed in the bill, recognizing that the present corn plan has not been too effective. There has been no true reduction in production, at least in my State. I am in favor of the elimination of the distinction between commercial and noncommercial corn counties. I think that is well justified, because corn is corn, whether it is grown on one side of the county line or the other.

In conclusion, let me say that I hope the bill will pass. I would vote "yea" on final passage.

Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, in connection with the subject matter to which the Senator from South Dakota is addressing himself, I wish to express my gratitude to him for attending the Interparliamentary Union. I hope I may be able to obtain a reservation on a later plane.

I have received word from Rio that in connection with the meetings of the Interparliamentary Union, which embraces some 60 nations of the world, both free and Iron Curtain countries, the Russian delegation of 41, including staff members and interpreters, arrived in an SO-passenger jet plane, and members of the delegation have carried the propaganda and the publicity of the Soviet Union to this convention. They are loaded with resolutions condemning the policy of the United States in the Middle East.

Our delegation and our diplomatic representation in Rio are asking that all members who have been named, appointed, an~ authorized to represent the Senate get to the conference as soon as possible.

The distinguished majority and minority leaders have agreed that one Democrat may leave for each Republican. Therefore during the week the delegates will be gone, to some degree absences on one side of the aisle will be offset by absences on the other.

Let me say to my distinguished colleague that I expect to leave very shortly, on the earliest plane on which I can obtain reservations.

Mr. CASE of south Dakota. Mr. President, personally I am very glad to hear that the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma is planning to go to Rio

14932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 as a member of our delegation. We have our work cut out for us. I hope we may be able to make some contribution to the result which we all desire to achieve.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, as acting majority leader, I wish to state that the Senators from Oklahoma and South Dakota are making a sacrifice to attend the conference at the specific and urgent request of the administration and the Senate leadership. We know that it is their personal wish and desire to remain here, because important legislation is under consideration, but the leadership feels that the interests of the country as a whole take priority over any particular legislation. They are needed at their post of assignment for very important national reasons. We wish them luck and know they will represent our country with honor and distinction.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON] was compelled to leave the Chamber. I wish to congratulate him for the work he has done in committee, and for the statement he has just made in connection with the attack by the Secretary of Agriculture upon Members of the Senate who are trying to amend his bill and make it a better bill.

Let me say that long ago I became very distrustful of men who went about with a Bible in one hand and a tar brush in the other.

I also have become distrustful of men who begin each meeting with a prayer and end the meeting with a smear. I think the Secretary of Agriculture should review his statements in the light of his professed Christian principles.

Second, let me say that possibly the Secretary of Agriculture is confused as between "left" and "right." These are designations which are modeled upon the arrangement in European parliaments, which have semicircular halls such as ours. I visited the French National Assembly a number of times. Both in the French National Assembly and in the other semicircular halls, the left is designated as that section to the left of the speaker or presiding officer as he faces the body. So in this hall the Republican Party would be on the left and the Democratic Party on the right. The Democratic Party is generally in the right.

The Republican Party usually gets left. So possibly Secretary Benson may have been denouncing his own party members. If that be so, I wish to defend members of the Republican Party. t do not believe they are leftists. I do not believe that they should be smeared in this fashion, any more than Democrats should be smeared.

THE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, before I make a brief speech on the pending amendment, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the REOORL as a part of my remarks a letter which I have received from an American Fulbright student, signed "Fulbright Student to France."

The student has traveled extensively in the Middle East, and writes a letter exceedingly critical of American policy in the Middle East. The student sets forth some points of view so well that I believe the letter should be made a part of the RECORD, without disclosing the name of the student.

I ask unanimous consent that it may be printed in the RECORD at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

JULY 18, 1958. Senator WAYNE MORSE,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C., U. S. A.

DEAR SENATOR MORSE: The Iraq ian rebellion will no doubt reap a harvest of misinterpretations back home. Its only surprise for me-a recent visitor to the country-was that our Intelligence couldn't see a violent eruption in store from a people that had overlong contained and repressed its political grievances. If an inquiring mind wanted to penetrate beneath the superficies of Iraqian politics which showed at the level of Nuri Said and cohorts (apparently the only aspect of Iraq visible to our State Department), it would discover that outside this narrow little sphere of rulers, there was nothing but discontent ravaging popular opinion.

Peasants and landless laborers, living in miserable depths of poverty, small sheiks with land in their hands, tradesmen and city merchants, students government-educated abroad, civil employees at every level (including students returned and employed as engineers, scientists, doctors, teachers, etc.), lawyers and even members of the congress-all felt the top government absolutely insupportable-to put it mildly. Each was disgruntled with-if not the wholethen one aspect or another of a rule imposed upon them against their wills. Was there ayone who didn't decry the hypocrisy of Nuri Said and his collusion with the British?

I thought in the religious pilgrimage sites where puritanical prohibitions stifle out any whitr of social change it would be ditrerent. I found a seething, angry spirit, antigovernment in the extreme. No matter what nuance of political opinion a man might have-left, right, Communist or anti-Communist or in between-utter despise for the powers that then were was a constant. Often among the uneducated and illiterate it came out in a nihilism: Let the government be destroyed, that's our aim. What after that? Often they had no idea. The end result of total exasperation.

Land reclamation, dam and highway building had been pursued with extravagant waste, and there was very little to show for it (except perhaps for costly portfolios in government offices of projected engineering works, done up fancy by the ivory tower crew to impress whomever in the government need be impressed, studies often taken from hypothetical, nonexistent conditions, longwinded, time consuming, a waste engineeringwise, and a shame when what the country so desperately needed was the actual dams, irrigation systems, roads themselves). Foreign engineering contractors had hoodwinked the government right and left with poor materials and bad construction. They built two lane highways (so as to bid lowest and get the contract) where four lanes would scarcely suffice even today's traffic. The new roads buckled so badly often that traffic preferred to take to the open desert. A professor in the College of Engineering, Baghdad told me that not one of the highways on the five year

plan had ever been completed, though many had been started.1

First things-such as public health (in very low state, considering the numerous diseases endemic to many localities-tuberculosis, malaria, trachoma and other serious and very prevalent eye diseases, hookworm, schistosom~e and numerous other parasites, and acute asthma from desert dust-to name a few) -first things cam_e second on the list of things to do of the Iraqian Board of Development. The government went in for big things, like spectacular dams. It seemed to have that under-developed-nation complex of wanting impressive industry, whether feasible or not. Meanwhile it made feeble etrorts to conquer disease and illiteracy. Right next to the town of Najaf .Population c. 15,000) it built a tuberculosis hospital, with 40 beds. The doctor in charge of that hospital told me the incidence of tuberculosis there was 90 percent.

While it sent thousands of students abroad .every year for a university education, it left out of its education program the multitudes of illiterates. It often allowed these university students to linger abroad on into

,doctors of philosophy and beyond, when the country urgently needed them as rough-and-ready college graduates. When its ivory tower scholars did finally come home, there was often no place for them in the economy-they were often too specialized. Nobody was more disgruntled than they to find the government had not actually envisaged a position for them that would make some little use of their training. The idea had apparently been to create a corps of young men grateful and loyal to the government. What a miscarriage that was. (All the foreign-trained scholars I knew had remained bachelors, for when they got home they couldn't find any women who were educated.) The contrast between this highly favored few and the vast majority of illiterate people reflects just how: far the Iraqian Government's application of democratic principles went. There were very few who didn't mock the government's sincerity. And very few of the government students took their job seriously. Most didn't care one way or the other and took the attitude of blaming corruption at higher levels for what didn't get done. Nobody was really willing to spend himself to accomplish anything; they were so skeptical of what could be done with the government so corrupt. Perhaps this completely negativistic attitude-something much more negative than passive resistance-accounts for the United States misinterpretation of the situation in Iraq. What a contrast between this and the positive, hopeful spirit in Syria and Egypt.

So much for a few of the more obvious aspects of acute discontent that met me on my recent visit to the eastern villages of Iraq and the capital.

The unfortunate apparition of a choice between the existing corruption, or alinement with Nasser, drove the Iraqis his way. You may perhaps know (though the American press never seems to reveal it) that the government of Nuri Said had long ago put an iron clamp on freedom of the press, of speech and of assembly (as did Jordan's Hussein, much later, following suit), and for years threw whomever it cared to call Communist in jail forevermore (Hussein likewise when last year's trouble between Syria and the United States began). With the popularity of Nasser greatly enhanced after Suez, pressure got worse in Iraq, and when the explosion would come, it seemed bound to have the violence of the French Revolution. After so much sup-

t Some of the dams that American engineering firms had taken over, however, have reached the point where some use is derived from them. They were written up in Engineering News Record this year.

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14933 pression, I'm surprised there hasn't been more slaughter. Perhaps it's only because a small faction of very vested interests would care to perpetuate the Nuri Said regime. If there is more fighting, it's most likely to be an attempt by some individualist (Iraqis are extremely so) with a different idea of what the revolution should bring.

There was no moderation in the opinions I listened to in the villages, only extremist, lawless, cruel opinions of what should be done with the "tyrants" and "traitors." · Was it Radio Cairo that had whipped up the pace? Evidently.

What are we going to do in such a volatile, treacherous situation? By force of arms impose what governments in the Middle East are most easy to deal with-governments like Nuri Said's and Hussein's that crush out civil liberties, all the while talking in flattering terms about having made a decision between communism and the W-est? Or are we going to let this poverty-stricken, desolate desert land go its neutral way and benefit from a little peace under whatsoever government the people choose? Certainly an effort on the part of our Intelligence to discern what popular opinion really is, would have saved the State Department the shock of the revolt. How could It have gone onnow for a matter of years--completely unaware while the situation was building up?

Across the deserts in Baghdad and in the villages and mud huts, I know how they are taking our armed interference in Lebanon, especially because it was accompanied by a move of the British characteristic (in colonial people's minds) of gunboat diplomacy of the 19th century-as you well know. "Imperialism," they will say, and the Communists will be triumphant, jubilant.

After this very crude move, Iraq's esteem for America has fallen to the bottom, I despair. Perhaps there is still hope, if our State Department decies in the end to inform itself on the Middle Eastern situation. What proposal I would make at home would no doubt be decried by a host of redblooded flag-waving Congressmen as idealistic, is this: a positive propaganda campaign that, instead of speaking about the American way, offers practical applications of American developments-a medical-help program that reaches the level of the common people, and is plainly and boldly labeled as aid from the United States of America wherever and whenever it appears. A few more military coups against governments we support, coups using arms that we provided to keep those governments in power, and perhaps our State Department will learn that hard-headed ideas of force are not winning us the Middle East.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I have received a copy of a telegram which a group of distinguished Americans have sent to the President. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks.

There being no objection, the telegram was ordered to be printed in the ?rECORD,_ as follows: President DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER,

The White House, Washington, D. C.:

Til-considered use of armed force is seriI>Usly weakening position of United States throughout world. Urge you immediately abandon military intimidation as approach to world problems, cease undermining authority of United Nations, and seek to establish friendly relations with successor regimes in Middle East.

CIV--940

MORRIS A. COPELAND, CHANDLER MORSE, JOHN A. BRITTAIN, NORMAN KAPLAN, RoYAL E. MoNTGOMERY, DoUGLAS F. Down.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ·have also received a cablegram sent, it states, by Iraqi graduates of American universities, protesting American foreign policy in the Middle East.

I ask unanimous consent that it be incorporated in the RE€ORD at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the cablegram was ordered to tie printed in the RECORD, as follows:

BAGHDAD, July 19, 1958. Senator MORSE,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. MoRsE: On behalf of graduates of American universities in Iraq, we appeal to you in the most urgent manner to stop United States aggression in our sister Arab State, Lebanon, the aggression against our sister State, Jordan, and the aggression being contemplated against our own beloved country. It is not possible for us to see how the United States, with complete disregard of the principles of the United Nations and without paying any heed to the report of the United Nations Commission in Lebanon, can give itself the right to land troops in Lebanon which is, according to the report of the U. N. Commission, torn by civil war. The United States position on the revolution in Iraq is equally deplorable. It is well known that the previous royalist regime was a police state, intensely hated by the people of Iraq, who staged several unsuccessful revolutions to overthrow it in 1941, 1948, 1952, and 1956. We should not have to remind you that the right to revolution is an inherent right of the people of any country, and the United States of American was founded by such a method. Our young republic which came into being a few days ago enjoys the support of the overwhelming majority of our people whose slogan on the day of .the revolution was, This is the day we have wanted. How could such a revolution then, arouse the Ire of Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge and be used as a pretext for intervention in Lebanon and possible intervention in Iraq? Such Western intervention in Iraq as is being prepared will not deceive world public opinion, no matter under what pretext it is carried out, even though it may deceive the American people, thanks to the lies and distortions of the monopoly press. If such aggression be unleashed against us, we will meet it with all. the forces at our disposal, including the support of the Asian-African and Socialist countries, and the sympathy of decent people all over the world. Should this lead to an atomic war, which may well be the case, it will indeed be tragic, but the responsibility will clearly and entirely rest upon the shoulders of the United States. We sincerely hope that commonsense and simple human decency will prevail and will curb the hotheads in Washington, who seem to be insistent on drawing the world into the abyss and that world peace and our freedom will be saved. ·

AnNAN RUBAII, President of the Society of Iraqi

Graduates of American Universities.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I have in addition received a cablegram from 172 physicians, 40 nurses, 55 technicians, and a group of medical students, criticizing American foreign policy in the Middle East. I ask unanimous consent that it .may be inserted in the RECORD at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the cablegram was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

BAGHDAD, July 20,1958. Senator MoRSE,

Senate, Washington: We, members of the Iraqi medical profes

sion, protest to you in the strongest terms possible the landing of troops in Lebanon, .the invasion of Jordan, and threats against the Republic of Iraq and other Arab states.

No amount of lies and distortions could hide the fact that this is a flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations to which your governments have pledged their allegience.

It is an act of clear aggression, worse than Suez, since it is taking place in the presence of the United Nations Commission in Lebanon and with complete disregard to its opinions and those of the Secretary General of the United Nations.

We cannot condemn too strongly the Western position on the latest events in Iraq, which are purely the concern of the Iraqi people. Our revolution, which overthrew the hated royalist regime, has enjoyed the complete support of the people.

An attempt by the West to overthrow the republic, under whatever pretext, will be met with the strongest resistance possible from the Iraqi people who, surely, will not find themselves alone in this fight to defend their freedom and independence.

As loyal citizens of our country we cannot tolerate this threat to our sovereignty and the denial of our right to choose the system under which we live.

As members of the medical profession, we are greatly disturbed by the great danger of atomic war involving the death of millions of people. Western brink-of-war-policy is putting us face to face with this possible outcome.

We appeal to you, in the name of humanity, to put an immediate end to Western intervention in the internal affairs of other nations and thereby save world peace.

(Signed by 172 physicians, 40 nurses, 55 technicians and medical students.)

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, this afternoon I had the very interesting experience of participating with my good friend, the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CooPER] in a trans-Atlantic discussion with two members of the British Parliament, one a member of the Liberal Party, and the other a member of the Conservative Party. The discussion was moderated by a distinguished Canadian, Mr. Robert MacKenzie.

All I wish to say about the discussion at this time-because at a later time when the transcript of the discussion is available, I shall ask to have it inserted in the RECORD--is that it was most informative to listen to the British poin.ts of view presented by those two distinguished Members of the British Parliament.

It was very refreshing to me to find that, as in the Congres·s, there is far from unanimity in support of the use of military force by the United states Government and by the British Government in the Middle East. I made clear in the discussion that, so far as I am concerned, and speaking only for myself, and I do not consider my views to be singular in America, for millions of American citizens are in no mood to send American boys to the Middle East to give up their lives in order to protect British oil in some Arab sheikdom-the two great citadels of freedom in the

14934 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 world, Great Britain and the United States, should move, and move quickly, through the United Nations, to get their troops out of Lebanon and out of Jordan, and to get United Nations forces into those countries. We should stop giving the impression to the world that we are willing to resort to what I had hoped was a discarded notion in international relations, that any country any longer can impose its will upon the choice of peoples of other countries by military force.

I stressed the fact, in that trans-Atlantic discussion, as I have expressed it on the floor of the Senate, that I believe the President of the United States has exceeded his constitutional power to the extent that he seeks to justify the sending of troops into Lebanon on the basis of a commitment to Chamoun to defend the so-called independence of Lebanon.

By what authority did he make the commitment? He certainly did not make the commitment with the approval of the legislative representatives of the American people.

Under the inherent Commander in Chief powers of the Constitution, it is pretty well established and settled in constitutional law that no President has the right to send troops into any country except to protect American lives and property. That is the limited purpose, and, accordingly, of course, there should be an evacuation of the Americans in that area. We are not doing that in Lebanon.

Because of the confusion which has been spread in America in regard to the basis for having marines in Lebanon, let the RECORD show that we now know that the so-called civil war or revolution in Lebanon was such a lackadaisical affair that the casualties on each side averaged less than one a day, for days and days. At no time has there been the type of military conflict in Lebanon which even begins to meet what we refer to when we use the phrase "civil war" or "revolution."

For the most part, Lebanon has divided itself into Christian sectors and Moslem sectors. The Lebanese have been glaring at each other across their barriers and destroying some property, but, for the most part, under circumstances which made fairly clear that lives would not be lost although property was being destroyed.

In a situation of this kind we sent marines into Lebanon, and by this act we have done ourselves terrific damage in all Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

We have just heard the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. MONRONEY] inform the Senate that our American delegation to the Interparliamentary Union meeting in Rio de Janeiro have already received notice of what the Russians will try to do at the conference in the next few days. They will try to capitalize, with their vicious lying, subversive, and propaganda technique, on what was the great mistake of our military intervention in the Middle East.

In the discussion I had this afternoon, I was impressed with the members of

the British Parliament and with their great concern over the question of "How are you going to get out?" Think of it, Mr. President. Think of the real problem which faces the United States Government tonight in regard to the Middle East, of how to save face and get out of Lebanon. We never should have gone in there in the first place, because the very steps which will have to be taken now, to get the United Nations forces into Lebanon should have been taken before we ever moved in.

Oh, I know that when one dares to take the position I have taken in opposition to the risking of American lives in Lebanon, he will be subject to a certain amount of criticism and abuse. But, as I said to my friends from the British Parliament in the discussion this afternoon, when they were talking about the crux of the problem, is it not the real crux of the problem, the British desire for oil from the Middle East? I think the problem of the supply of oil can ·be worked out by negotiations, diplomatic conferences, and United Nations procedure without the use of military force on the part of Great Britain and the United States.

As I said to my British friends, one of the salient principles of American foreign policy has been our support of the precious right of self-determination of the people of a given nation. What happens to that right in Lebanon when the United States sends in marines and announces that they have landed to support the Chamoun group, against whom other Lebanese are in revolt? We cannot square our support of the principle of the right of self-determination with the policy which the President of the United States is following in Lebanon when he gives as 1 of his 2 reasons for sending the marines in support of the Chamoun government that a commitment had been made to support the Chamoun government.

That is why I say it is so important to make American foreign policy known to the American people, so they will exercise their right to determine for themselves what American foreign policy is, rather than to have the President of the United States and the Secretary of State proceed to make commitments in violation of the principle of self-determination, and follow these commitments up by sending American boys to protect a government and to risk their lives, when back of it all we know we cannot eliminate the factor of oil for Europe.

I do not propose to sacrifice the lives of American boys for oil for Europe. Rather, I propose, as I said on the broadcast this afternoon, to seek to put to work the peaceful procedures of the United Nations Charter, as set forth, for example, in the judicial article of the charter, to which we seldom refer, in an attempt to settle international disputes which threaten the peace of the world.

I wanted to make this statement because one in my position can never know-and never can foretell-what representations will be made about an attitude he takes. I have not the slightest idea what representations will be

made about the position I took on the trans-Atlantic discussion this afternoon. Therefore, I owe it to myself to make this statement in the Senate tonight.

In my opinion, both Great Britain and the United States have made a serious mistake, Great Britain in sending troops into Jordan, and the United States in sending troops into Lebanon. I said to my British friends that I think both countries ought to proceed to withdraw their forces and to join in making certain that all our influence is brought to bear in the General Assembly of the United Nations to get General Assembly support for sending United Nations police forces into those areas. I hope the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Hammarskjold, will proceed, as he has the legal authority to do, to strengthen the United Nations observation team in Lebanon, because I think that is a first and necessary step to a broadening of the use of a United Nations police force in the Middle East.

Mr. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Oregon.

PROPOSED CHANGES IN CHARTER OF GROUP HOSPITALIZATION, INC. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, earlier

this afternoon the chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, the distinguished Senator from Nevada [Mr. BIBLE], introduced a bill proposing changes in the charter authorizing the operation of Group Hospitalization, Inc., in the District of Columbia. I am happy to associate myself with him and with the ranking member of the minority on the committee, the distinguished Senator from Maryland [Mr. BEALL], in cosponsoring this needed legislation.

The objective of the bill is to achieve a greater degree of participation by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia in the ratesetting operations of this nonprofit public-service corporation.

In cosponsoring the bill, I am reserving judgment as to the necessity or desirability of the recent 42 percent increase in rates. That is properly a matter to be determined by competent and objective quasi-judicial proceedings. I am very much interested, however, to assure myself that proper procedures are set forth in the charter to assure the subscribers to this plan that rate changes are made only to the extent necessary to maintain a sound financial position for the operation.

It is my belief that the bill as introduced will accomplish this purpose, and it is my intention to take such action upon it, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Health, Education, and Safety of the of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, as is possible during this session of Congress.

Some of us on the Committee on the District of Columbia were besieged, shortly after the bill increasing the salaries of Federal employees was passed, by protests from some employees because the Group Hospitalization authorities in the District of Columbia pro-

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14935 ceeded to raise the cost of group hospitalization. I do not know whether there was any cause-to-effect relationship between the salary increases provided in the bill passed by the Congress and the decision of the hospitalization group thereafter to raise the hospitalization costs. But I think the subscribers to the service certainly are entitled to have the Senate District Committee look into the situation.

To that end also, I am happy to join in the cosponsorship of the bill which the chairman of the committee introduced this afternoon.



Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I intend to support the pending amendment designed to incorporate in the omnibus farm bill the Wool Act extension provisions of S. 2861. In doing so, I wish to make it perfectly clear, as I think I did earlier this afternoon in my colloquy with the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HuMPHREY] and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DouGLAS], that I reserve the right to cast a negative vote on the bill itself, because, in my judgment, unless a number of amendments to the farm bill are adopted, it will be a measure difficult to support and justify to the farmers and small-business men of my State and of the Nation.

In fact, I would prefer to vote for the extension of the Wool Act by the adoption of S. 2861, rather than to have that bill attached to the farm bill as an amendment. However, the amendment is perfectly germane to the bill; therefore, it is highly proper to offer it to the bill.

Unless the farm bill is so amended that I can honestly say to. myself that . I am voting for a bill which is just and fair to the farmers across the Nation, which is just and fair to the farmers of my State who raise agricultural products other than wool, then I cannot vote for the bill in its final form, even though it has a desirable wool amendment in it.

I was very much interested in the discussion between the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HuMPHREY] and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DouGLAS] this afternoon, in which they sought to point out that they feel a parliamentary strategy is being used in the Senate in an effort to divide the Senate on a regional or agricultural product basis; that an appeal is being made to the so-called cotton State Senators and the so-called wool State Senators to support the bill, because cotton and wool, if the wool amendment is added to the bill, will be placed in an advantageous position.

I said in the colloquy this afternoon, and I reiterate the statement now in my speech on the wool amendment, that I do not think Senators should permit themselves to be so victimized. Unless we stand together for a bill which is fair to all segments of agriculture, then we

will only illustrate the historic utterance that "if we do not hang together, we will hang separately," so far as this matter is concerned.

Therefore, Mr. President, after I vote for the wool amendment, I want my friends in the Senate who will submit other amendments, in order to make the bill a fair one, to know that I shall vote for their amendments, too.

But if the final form of the bill is such that, for all intents and purposes, it is a cotton and a wool bill, I shall vote against it, because I believe that the farmers of the Nation are entitled to a farm bill which will do justice to all segments of American agriculture.

However, I believe that the amendment to extend the Wool Act thoroughly deserves, on its own merits, the favorable consideration of all Senators who have at heart the best interests of the sheep and wool industry.

Mr. President, sheep raising is carried on in every county of Oregon. According to the Atlas of Oregon Agriculture, an official publication of Oregon State College, in 1954, nearly 8,000 Oregon farms had on them 860,650 sheep and lambs, valued at $14,787,908. Those animals, as I have said, are distributed among all 36 counties, but the greatest concentration is ·in Eastern Oregon and the Willamette Valley.

In 1956, Oregon wool producers received $3,737,000 for their 8,124,000 pounds of production. In addition, because of value added in grading, handling, and marketing of wool, there came into our. economy another $447,000, 65 percent of which went into wages. A sizable portion of that increase was spent in local stores. Thus, when I speak in favor of an extension of the Wool Act, I speak not only in behalf of the farmer-producer, but also in behalf of the workers and the small-business men of my State.

This is not a new position for me to take. In 1947, under the leadership of the _ distinguished Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O'MAHONEY], I voted for price supports for wool. In 1954, I voted against a ceiling on wool price supports. I supported the original Wool Act, and I voted for earlier extensions of those supports; and tonight I shall again vote for those supports.

Mr. President, a great number of Oregonians have written to urge that I do all in my power to see that the Wool Act is extended this year. I pledge to them that I shall do so. If the omnibus bill to which the amendment to extend the Wool Act is proposed does not survive the vicissitudes of debate; or if the bill is not amended sufficiently to become · a fair farm bill; or if as a result of amendment, it should face a veto, I shall, in conjunction with others friends of the wool growers, move to have Senate bill 2861, which now is on the calendar, called up for action prior to adjournment.

A portion of a memorandum which was forwarded to me by proponents of the extension of the Wool Act price-support provisions impressed me because it gave a very clear indication of why early enactment of this proposed legislation is

imperative. The memorandum reads, in part, as follows:

In order to maintain the gains toward increased wool production already · underway, an incentive price for the 1959 market ... ing year which begins next April must be announced this summer. Otherwise, our domestic woolgrowers will figure that they cannot count upon more than the free market price for their wool after March 31, 1959, when the authority for incentive payments under the present act expires. Without assurance of continuance of an incentive level, they will not have the confidence to retain ewe lambs for breeding stock. ·

Increases in sheep and wool production due to the very nature of the enterprise can be only gradual even under the most favorable conditions. Considering the time it takes to hold back more ewe · lambs for breeding and getting those lambs into production, a 3 or 4 percent increase annually is about all that can be expected in practical operations. Raising more sheep is not like raising more wheat where the seeding of one more bushel of wheat can result in 30 or 40 more bushels within a few months.

Due to the longtime nature of the sheep and wool enterprise, a continuing program is essential to give growers the confidence needed for them to make plans for increasing wool proP.uction. The incentive price· must be announced at the time they are deciding whether or not to hold back their ewe lambs for future breeding purposes and thus long before the increased ·production from t.hose lambs will reach the market.

Mr. President, I believe that ·memorandum makes a very sound presentation of the -basic reasons why the Wool Act extension measure should be enacted, either as .an amendment to a fair agricultural bill, or as a separate bill in the form in which Senate bill 2861 now is awaiting consideration by the Senate.

Mr. President, I have received from Oregon a number of communications in which residents of Oregon comment on the · proposed extension of the Wool Act. I ask unanimous consent to have the communications printed at this point in the RECORD, in connection with my remarks.

There being no objection, the telegrams and letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

KLAMATH FALLS, OREG., July 24, 1958. Hail. WAYNE MORSE,

United States Senate; Washington, D. C.:

We urge renewal of the 1954 Wool Act, Senate bill 2861.

BOARD OF DmECTORS, KLAMATH PRoDUCTION CREDIT AsSOCIATION.

PORTLAND, OREG., July 23, 1958. WA'¥'NE MoRSE,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

As passage of National Wool Act is essential for survival of Oregon woolgrowers suggest all possible effort for renewal of act before Congress adjourns.

PORTLAND WOOL TRADE ASSOCIATION, THOMAS B. BISHOP, President.

VALE, OREG., July 20, 1958. Han. WAYNE MoRSE,

Washington, D. C.: Urgently request your full support for

passage of S. 2861. Industries desperately in need of Wool Act extension.

Kindest regards, JULIAN ARRIEN.

14936 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 BROOKINGS, OREG., July 20, 1958.

Senator WAYNE MoRSE, Senate Office Bui lding,

Washington, D . C.: I urge you to do everything possible for

passing of the National Wool Act. GENE CoLEGROVE.

HARBOR, OREG.

BROOKINGS, OREG., July 20, 1958. Senator WAYNE MORSE,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

HoNORABLE Sm: We urgently request that you act immediately on the National Wool Act before Congress adjourns this session.

Sincerely, DELMER COLEGROVE, Sr.

PORTLAND, OREG., July 19, 1958. Honorable WAYNE MoRSE,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. 0 .:

We understand that the agricultural omnibus bill containing the wool incentive program was defeated. This is a serious blow to the sheepmen of Oregon and urgently request your assistance in introducing and supporting new legislation which will continue the present program for another 4 years. As we are financing a large portion of sheepmen in the Northwest we realize the value of the incentive program. In our estimation this program has definitely carried out the original intent and has been benefi.cial in stabilizing the sheep industry in our area; therefore we feel that it would be very unwise to discontinue this program now.

NORTHWEST LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION CREDIT AsSOCIATION.

HEPPNER, OREG., July 21, 1958. Senator WAYNE MoRSE,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. 0.:

Urgently request your efforts be directed toward extension of National Wool Act thli session.

SHmLEY AND GEORGE RUGG.

ARLINGTON, OREG., July 20, 1958. Senator WAYNE MORSE,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: ·

We urgently request you make every effort to have the wool bill brought out of the Agriculture Committee to the floor of the Senate for action before Congress adjourns. The fate of the sheep industry is at stake. Further liquidation can be stopped only by extension of this act.

GEORGE SHANE & SoN.

HEPPNER, OREG., July 21, 1958. Senator WAYNE MoRsE,


Urgently request your efforts be directed toward extension of National Wool Act this session.

VmGINIA AND DICK WILKINSON.

HEPPNER, OREG., July 21, 1958. Senator WAYNE MORSE,



WAVEL WILKINSON.

Senator WAYNE MoRSE, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C.:

ONTARIO, OREG.

Request support and immediate action for extension of National Wool Act.

D. F. FRASER.

COQUILLE, OREG. Senator WAYNE MORSE,


Request your immediate efforts to bring bill to extend Wool Act from committee and, through Congress this session. Wool support ends this year unless this bill is passed now.

HOLLIS MAST, President, coos County Livestock

.Association.

LAKEVIEW, OREG., July 23, 1958. Senator WAYNE MoRSE,


Urgent get action renew Wool Act. Request your help.

FREMONT SHEEPMAN'S ASSOCIATION.

REDMOND, OREG., July 22, 1958, The Honorable WAYNE MORSE,

United States Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

The Agriculture Committees of both Houses have favorably acted on the wool bill but it has not come to the floor of the House for action. We would like to urge your support on this matter since you realize the importance of the Wool Act to the sheep industry and the welfare of our community. The sheep industry cannot survive in the face of foreign competition without sufficient tariffs and without any support program.

W. C. HAYS, Secretary-Treasurer, Central Oregon

Production Credit Corporation.

THE DALLES, OREG., July 22, 1958.

Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C.: Would appreciate any help you can give

to get bill S. 2861, Wool Act, on Senate floor for favorable consideration.

J. MERTON STEIN, Secretary-Treasurer, Mid-Columbia

Production Credit Association.

Hon. WAYNE MORSE,

PORTLAND, OREG., July 23, 1958.


May we call your attention to renewal of Wool Act of 1954, now favorably acted on by Agricultural Committees of both House and Senate, but has not been permitted to come to floor for action. Renewal of this act before adjournment of present session is vital to survival of western sheepmen and to woolen industry of this country. It is our hope that you will be able to give enactment of bill your active support.

C. M. BISHOP, President, Pendleton Woolen Mills.

ECHO, OREG., July 22, 1958. Senator WAYNE MORSE,


Understand the bill to extend the National Wool Act beyond its present expiration date has not been permitted to come to the floor of either House for action. I hope that you and others of the Oregon delegation to Congress will earnestly endeavor to get action on this bill. I will also contact NEUBERGER and Representative ULLMAN.

GAYLORD MADISON, President of Umatilla Wool Growers.

ROSEBURG, OREG., July 21, 1958. Senator WAYNE MoRsE,

United States Senate, Washington, D. 0.:

Douglas County Livestock Association requests your support toward renewing Na-

tional Wool Act. We feel it essential to our sheep industry. Your assistance urgently needed to get this legislation through before present act expires.

DARLEY WARE, President.

NORTH PoRTLAND, OREG., July 24, 1958. Senator WAYNE MoRsE,


We urgently request your help in introducing and supporting legislation necessary to extend the present Wool Act. Failure to extend the act would be a serious blow to the expanding sheep industry in the State of Oregon.

W. E. WILLIAMS, President, Portland Union Stockyards.

PROSSER E. CLARK, Secretary, Livestock Exchange.

CURRY COUNTY LIVESTOCK AsSOCIATION,

Gold Beach, Oreg., July 21, 1958. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: The sheep industry

and wool income is of vital importance in Oregon. While we are generally opposed to subsidies we must admit that the wool incentive payment is most economically sound and of most vital importance to our total economy and preparedness.

Our sheep population in the United States is approximately half the number on farms during the early OPA uneconomic regulations period when WAYNE MoRsE made his daily speech opposing restrictions on lamb marketing. At that time he predicted it would put our sheepmen out of business, and it did, many of them. During World War n Southern Hemisphere wool was stockpiled again, making the woolgrower a victim of controlled economy disadvantages. The sheep industry plays a very important part in good land use and should be encouraged.

Now we are threatened with political negligence. The Agriculture Committees of both Houses have favorably acted on the wool bill but it has not been permitted to come to the floor of either House for action. There is now a grave danger that Congress will not act at this session and there may be less than 3 weeks left before they adjourn.

We urgently request that the Oregon delegation use their combined influence and united action to get the wool incentive bill on the floor before Congress adjourns this session. Thank you very much.

Yours very truly, CHARLES R. KNOX,

President.

OAKLAND, OREG., July 22, 1958: Hon. WAYNE MoRsE,

United States Senator, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I am Writing relative to the Wool Act.

Woolgrowers are faced with ruinous low prices if the Wool Act is not renewed. Wool is an important commodity from the standpoint of defense, and our growers are an important segment of our Oregon agricultural economy.

I would urge every effort on your part to see that this important piece of legislation is passed before Congress adjourns.

Sincerely yours, EUGENE H. FISHER,

Member, Pacific Wool Growers Board of Directors.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, in conclusion, I wish to say to the wool producers of my State that if, in the next few hours, or on tomorrow, if the debate on the farm bill continues until then, I find, at the conclusion of the debate, and when the Senate is asked to vote on the farm bill, that I am confronted

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14937 with a choice between voting for a bad farm bill which contains only a few good provisions, such as the wool amendment, and voting against the bill-in the hope that if the bill is defeated, we shall be able to pass a better bill-! shall vote against the bill.

If we cannot obtain the adoption of what I consider to be the amendments which must necessarily be adopted if the bill is to be a fair one-and the wool amendment is one such amendment; but it is only one, among others-then I shall vote for a motion to recommit the bill, in the hope that the committee will report a better bill.

I make that statement tonight, so the RECORD will show it, because I am well aware that there will be those who will be so much concerned with their own immediate economic interests that they will be very much disappointed should I vote against the bill if it contains a provision which will be of immediate benefit to them.

However, Mr. President, as I pointed out in the Senate earlier this afternoon, once again, so far as my representation of the people of Oregon in the United States Senate is concerned, I am confronted with the necessity of making a choice between voting to carry out what I consider to be my primary obligation in serving as a United States Senator from Oregon for the Nation and voting to carry out my obligation as a Senator from Oregon, and for Oregon alone, in the United States Senate.

As I have said over and over again in my State, I believe that I best serve the long-time interests of my State when I vote for proposed legislation in accordance to my answer to the question, "Will this measure best promote the interests of the Nation as a whole?"

Mr. President, in my judgment the pending bill in its present form will not best promote the interests of American farmers across the Nation as a whole; and, on the question of final passage, if the bill then is in its present form, I will not vote for it.

However, I sincerely hope that by the time the third reading of the bill is reached, there will have been added to the bill amendments along the line of those suggested in the debate this afternoon by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY], the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DouGLAS], and the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE], because I believe such amendments will make the bill a national farm bill, not a bill-as it is, in its present form-for only a selected group of farm interests. 'l'HE WOOL AMENDMENT TO 'l'HE FARM BILL

SUBSIDIES VERSUS TARIFFS

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I join the distinguished Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YoUNG] in supporting his amendment which will add the National Wool Act of 1954 to the pending bill, since it is absolutely necessary that there be a subsidy for wool, so long as the free-trade principle has been extended by the Congress.

Mr. President, the bill to extend the National Wool Act is Senate bill 2861. It has been reported to the Senate, and it would extend the Wool Act for 4 years. That is exactly what the amend-

ment which now has been submitted to the pending farm bill will do.

It continues appropriating 70 percent of the specific duties on all wool imported into the United States to be used to make incentive payments.

In addition, it authorizes the use of more money, if it is required, in order to accomplish the purposes of this act, which is to increase wool production to 3 million pounds of shorn wool production in the United States as compared to the present production of 2,300,000 pounds.

Under the 1935 Tariff Act if the 1934 Trade Agreements Act had not been extended the tariff-under the equalization of costs of production principlethe tariff would have represented the difference in cost of production here and in the chief competing country; and the producers would be back in business.

Being a 2-product industry, the growers definitely feel that they need this provision, and have been highly pleased with the results of the wool subsidy act up to now.

Prior to the promotion program, we could always sell a leg of lamb and lamb chops at a ·good price, but had no demand for the lesser known cuts. With the promotion, such sales have been possible under this act for 3 years, . and demand has been created for those lesser known cuts, and it has helped the entire market.

I urged that the bill be adopted without crippling amendments.

I want to say again, so long as we have a free trade principle established in the United States, through Congressional act transferring its constitutional responsibility to regulate foreign trade to the President, who has the authority to destroy any industry through trading it for his foreign policy, there is no opportunity for the 1930 Tariff Act principle to take over in this or in any other field, then a subsidy is necessary if we are to keep producing this strategic materialand Mr. President, it is just as simple as that.

If the 1934 Trade Agreements Act had not been extended, we would have reverted to the 1930 Tariff Act and the Tariff Commission, which is an agent of Congress, would have regulated tariffs under section 336 of the 1930 Tariff Act. In that section there is a provision for what is called the equalization of cost of production principle, under which the Tariff Commission would have determined the cost of producing wool in this country-not the high cost, nor the low cost, but the reasonable cost-as compared to the reasonable cost of the production of that commodity in the chief competing nation, which in this case probably would be Australia, and the difference is made up by the tariff. If that provision had come into play no subsidy would have been necessary in this field.

It is well known that a sheep unit, a ewe and a lamb can be produced in Australia for about one-fifth, or 20 percent, of the cost of producing that unit in the United States.

Without going into detail, the difference in the standard of living in Australia as compared with the United States is well known. I was over much

of Australia in 1943. The wages there are very low. The range is good. The available production is very high. Of course, the cost of water transportation for the product is very low. So with our standard of living it means either a tariff or a subsidy or going out of the business.

Mr. President, I have a letter from John Carpenter, of Elko, Nev., and I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the RECORD at this point.


ELKO, NEV., July 21, 1958. Senator GEORGE MALONE,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I am writing you in regard to

the wool bill. It is very important that we get this bill extended.

No need to go into the details, as you have always supported the sheepmen in their attempt to survive.

I sincerely hope you will give this important matter your utmost attention.

Sincerely yours, JOHN CARPENTER,

Magnuson Ranch.

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I also have a wire from Pete Elia, Smith Creek Livestock Co., Elko, Nev. I ask unanimous consent that the telegram be printed in the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the telegram was ordered to be printed in the REcORD, as follows:

ELKO, NEV., July 24, 1958. Hon. GEORGE MALONE,


Your immediate efforts in passing the bill to renew the Wool Act at this session of Congress is strongly urged. I am sure you are aware that the future of the sheep industry is at stake. Your work on this behalf will be appreciated by the entire sheep industry.

PETE ELlA, Smith Creek Livestock Co.

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I also h~ ve a wire from Earl Edgar, Itcaina. Livestock Co., Elko, Nev., which I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD.


ELKo, NEV., July 24, 1958. Hon. GEORGE MALONE,


As you are aware the renewal of the Wool Act at this session of Congress is very important to our sheep industry. Appreciate your doing your utmost for us.

EARL EDGAR, Itcaina Livestock Co.

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I also have a wire from Joe Echegaray, of Elko, Nev., asking that the Wool Act be extended. I ask unanimous consent that the telegram be printed in the RECORD at this point.


ELKO, NEV., July 24,1958. Hon. GEORGE W. MALONE,


Please try to pass renewal of Wool Act this session. Your efforts on behalf o! sheep industry will be greatly appreciated.

JOE EcHEGARA'I'.


Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I have wires and letters from Gov. Charles H. Russell; Fred M. Strosnider; F. M. Fulstone, Jr., F. M. Fulstone, Inc.; Roberts Sheep Co.; Domingo Calzacorta, Blue Dick Sheep Co.; Celso Madarieta; George N. Shallow, Nevada Wool Marketing Association. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the RECORD at this point.


CARSON CITY, NEV., July 22, 1958. Hon. GEORGE W. MALONE,

Senator for Nevada, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C.: Nevada wool growers unanimously are in

favor of support of extension of the Wool Act as a protection to one of our basic industries. I concur with them that extensons is essential. Please file copies of this telegram with committee.

Regards, CHARLES H. RUSSELL,

Governor.

YERINGTON, NEV., July 22, 1958. Senator GEORGE MALONE,

Senate Office Buildi ng, washington, D. C.:

Assurances here passage of National Wool Act before August adjournment would greatly benefit wool growers of Nevada. Urge your best efforts for such legislation.

Kind personal regards, FRED M. STROSNIDER.

. YERINGTON, NEV., July 22, 1958. Senator GEoRGE MALONE,


We urge immediate action for renewal of the Wool Act.

F. M. FULSTONE, Jr. F. M. FuLSTONE, INC. ROBERTS SHEEP Co.

ELKO, NEV., July 21, 1958. Hon. GEORGE W. MALoNE,


Have been advised that the wool bill might not be passed before adjournment of Congress. As you are aware this wool program has been the salvation of the industry. Therefore would appreciate your imxnediate efforts on behalf of this wool bill.

DOMINGO CALZACORTA, Blue Dick Sheep Co.

ELKO, NEV., July 21, 1958. Hon. GEORGE W. MALONE,


I have been urged by the sheepmen to contact you regarding action to renew the Wool Act before adjournment of Congress. Your efforts on behalf of the sheep industry at this time will be gratefully remembered.

CELSO MADARIETA.

NEVADA WOOL MARKETING ASSOCIATION, Ely, Nev., July 10, 1958.

Hon. GEORGE MALONE, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. 0. DEAR SENATOR MALONE: We understand the

farm bill will be coming up next week for further consideration. Wool growers in Nevada will appreciate your support for adding to the farm bill the extension of the Wool Act as reported by the Senate Agriculture Comxnittee.

We wlll also appreciate it if you will fight amendments which will cause the farm bill to be vetoed.

I am sure that you realize enactment of favorable wool legislation is vital for the

continuance of the sheep industry in Nevada.

Best personal regards, GEORGE N. SWALLOW, Manager.

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, in the referendum conducted under section 708 of the National Wool Act, under which ballots were mailed to sheepgrowers all over the United States, sheepgrowers were given from June 27 to August 18, a period of 54 days, to make a determination, to mark, and to mail in their ballots.

The proposed amendment which would limit the voting period to 6 days would work a hardship in many cases, particularly in Western States where there are large flocks of sheep. In my State some of the sheepgrowers are out on the range for weeks at a time. Some of them do not even receive their mail in more than 6 days.

It would not only be impractical, but it is an effc- ~ on the part of any such amendment to insure that the referendum will not meet the deadline, since there is a requirement that a certain percentage of voters must vote in the referendum before section 708 can be used to comply with the growers' own self-help :;>romotion and advertising program, paid by the growers. It is an unusual request simply because it is not practical.

Every sheep organization and other general farm organization in the United States is supporting the continuation of section 708 in its present language, and opposing the position taken by certain organizations that seem either not to understand t~e conditions or that are opposed to the program.

Sixty-seven thousand two hundred and eighty-eight producers out of 335,974 producers in the United States voted in the 708 referendum under the Wool Act. This represents 20 percent of the producers. In view of the fact that 80 percent of all producers have less than 50 head of sheep, this was considered to be a large percentage of voters, because to the small producer, sheep is a sideline. It is also indicated by the fact that those producers have 12,918,-165 sheep out of the 31,582,000 sheep in the United States. Thus, 41 percent of the sheep in the United States were rept·esented in this referendum.

Mr. President, I have a table showing the figures on percentage of growers voting in the latest marketing referendums held on cotton, wheat, peanuts, and rice, and I ask unanimoc:; consent that the table appear at this point in the RECORD.

There beina no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: F igures on percentage of growers voting in

latest marketing referendums held on cotton, wheat, peanuts, and rice

Total Estimated P er-M arketing year votes cast total eligi- centage

ble to vote vot ing

Cotton: 1957------------------ 231,678 1, 263, 773 23.1 1958. ---------- -------

Wheat: 229,315 1,222,087 18.8

1958 ~June 20, 1957) ___ 235,039 894,960 26.3 1959 June 21, 1958) • •• 230, 300 881,619 26.1 Peanuts: 1956 __________ 39,138 152,672 25. 6

Rice: 1958 •• ------------ 6,827 25,205 27.1

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President~ the Wool Act-that is, the bill which was introduced to extend the Wool Act, and which now has been offered in the form of an amendment to the farm bill by the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YoUNGJ-would suffice to carry on this important industry for another 4 years.

I note that the Senator has asked that all of us who joined in introducing the original bill be now joined as sponsors of the amendment.

I am in favor of the amendment, Mr. President, to be voted as an amendment to the bill, without any crippling amendments to the Young amendment.

I want to say again that I am not generally in favor of subsidies. We opposed the subsidy in the first instance, 3 years ago-1955-until Congress had again extended the 1934 Trade Agreements Act for 3 years, allowing the President of the United States and the organization of 36 foreign competitive nations in Geneva to write off any industry in our country to further a foreign policy. They could then sell any American industry down the river through an Executive order, by an Executive decision, or by a multilateral trade agreement in Geneva, without reference to the Congress.

The Senate Committee on Finance did amend the 1934 trade agreements extension bill this year, and provided that the President, if he decided to bypass the Tariff Commission in an escape-clause action, had to get the consent of a majority of both Houses of Congress. I am sorry to say that amendment lost in this body; however, we did retain 5 amendments which I hope the conference will hold in the bill.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MALONE. I yield. Mr. YOUNG. Is it not true that the

sheep producers of this Nation would much prefer a little tariff protection to the passage of the bill we are considering tonight? The sheep producers would much rather have no program at all and only a little tariff protection which would take care of their needs~ That would be the simple way to handle it.

Mr. MALONE. I will say to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota there is no question but what the principle adopted in 1789, in the first Tariff Act, was a principle of protection of the American investor and the American workingman. That principle was carried through until 1934. It was exemplified by the 1930 Tariff Act, which was called the equalization of the cost of production act.

In other words, under that act the Tariff Commission would simply determine on its own motion, on request of the President, on request of the Congress, or on request of a producer or a consumer, the difference in the fair cost of production in this Nation and in the chief competing nation.

The cost equalization principle was laid down in 1930, in section 336 of that act. The Tariff Commission on its own motion or by request would simply determine the difference in cost and that would become the tariff.

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14939 In the present case under the 1930

Tariff Act, the Tariff Commission would determine the cost of producing wool in this country. It would not consider the high or the low cost, but would consider the reasonable cost of production in the United States and the reasonable cost of production in the chief competing nation, which in this case might be Australia or any other low labor cost nation. That difference would be recommended as a tariff.

That was a 150-year-old principle, laid down by the Congress of the United States, until upset by the 1934 Trade Agreements Act--an international socialistic program.

Mr. YOUNG. Is it not true that prior to the adoption of the Wool Act nearly 4 years ago, the sheep population in the United States had dropped to the lowest level in 70 years? In fact, it had dropped to such a dangerously low level that in the event of war we would have found ourselves with a very difficult problem on our hands.

Mr. MALONE. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota is entirely correct. The sheep industry was on the way out, like the crockery industry is now gone and like the glass industry is now going. The textile industry is on the way out. We had an exhibition, last year and at the beginning of this year, when the Free Trade Act, the extension of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act, was under consideration, with respect to the fact that textiles in this country are being absolutely destroyed. The Secretary of State made a great show of consulting Japan, to see if Japan would temporarily decrease its shipments of textiles into the United States, so that some of our textile companies might survive.

If someone, 25 or 30 years ago, had said--especially since we were about to go to war against Japan, and did go to war against them, and will again one of these days if we keep this procedure up, only the next time Japan will probably join with Russia-that we would have to depend on the philanthropy and good will of Japan toward the United States to stay in the textile business, so that some of our own textile mills might survive, I think that man would have been put into an insane asylum. Indication of something like that at that time would never have been considered possible, yet we have reached such a condition of dependency.

In 1955 when the Wool Act passed the Congress we were actually at the mercy of Australia and all the cheap producing countries, simply because we had extended the Free Trade Act another 3 years. Now we have extended the act for 3 years in the bill as it passed the Senate and for 5 years in the bill as it passed the House, and nobody knows what the conference committee will do. At least the act will be extended for 3 years to the utter abandonment of the workingmen and investors of this Nation.

Frankly, without any subsidy, which is what it is, the wool business is gone under the free-trade policy to which this Nation is committed. Mr. President, we know what will happen if the bill is not

passed to provide a subsidy, with an extension of 3 or 4 or 5 years, or whatever the conference committee agrees upon, of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act. If this subsidy bill is not passed and there is no tariff adjustment the sheep will not be brought out of the mountains next year. They will be a total loss.

Mr. President, there is only one chance for the sheep business, and that is a tariff or a subsidy to keep in production a strategic material. This sheep business provides something we could not fight a war without. We certainly could not get the wool from across the ocean, from Australia, if there were a war on, considering the submarines.

Some of us have had experience in this field. During World v.-ar II, I was a consultant to the Senate Military Affairs Committee, which is now the Armed Services Committee of the Senate. I was also consultant to the Secretary of War.

I am the person who was sent into Dutch Harbor behind the Japs. The War Production Board sat in conferences-and I sat with them sometimesworrying about getting strategic materials from Africa and from other places, while 90 percent of the ships were being sunk, Mr. President, during the first 6 months. Of course, and that could happen again.

I am saying nothing about the economic effect of the business in this country, with reference to the economics of the country. I am happy to know we retained the five amendments to u-_e Trade Agreements Act.

We retained 5 of the 6 amendments which the Committee on Finance of the Senate added to the bill for extension of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act. One of those amendments was the one instructing the President, when considering national defense, that he must consider the economic structure of the country, and the importance of the industry to a healthy economic structure.

That is the way we ran this country the first 150 years. If a person could compete with other Americans he was in business. Now he would not be in business unless he could complete with Siam, Australia, and 75 other foreign nations.

We did put an amendment on the bill, Mr. President, to the effect that in considering national defense we should consider the economy of this country and the economic structure of this country, and the President must do that if the conference committee leaves the amendment in the bill. I hope the conference committee will leave the five amendments in the bill, as was done by the Senate.

In more direct answer to the Senator from North Dakota, I should like to observe that the Senator made a fine presentation of his amendment when he offered it last night. I compliment the Senator on his presentation.

We have only 1 of 3 choices. Either the industry will go out of business, we will pay the subsidy, or we put a tariff on the wool representing the difference in cost. This country was operated for 150 years on that policy, so that Americans could compete with Americans in

the production of a product. Not only wool, but 5,000 other products are concerned. An American should be able to stay in business if he can compete with other Americans, who pay about the same wages and the same taxes, with the same expense of doing business. Then, if he can get himself financed, he is in business, if his judgment is correct.

But now one can spend his money and get started in business and in Washington, D. C., through an Executive order, an industry can be utterly destroyed. It is being done every day.

Mr. President, I hope this amendment will be adopted, without crippling amendments.

Mr. WATKINS. Mr. President, the Young amendment to this bill is identical to S. 2861 which is now on the Senate Calendar. In fact, S. 2861 has been on the calendar since April 21, 1958-nearly 2% months now. Under these circumstances, I hope the Senate will enact this amendment. While it is true that the National Wool Act does not expire until March 31, 1959, nevertheless failure to extend that act during this Congress will produce uncertainty on the part of wool growers as to their production plans at the very time we are trying to encourage the annual domestic production of 300 million pounds of wool.

In section 702 of the National Wool Act of 1954, Congress declared:

It is hereby recognized that wool is an essential and strategic commodity which is not produced in quantities and grades in the United States to meet the domestic needs and that the desired domestic production of wool is impaired by the depressing effects of wide fluctuations in the price of wool in the world markets.

The same provisions of law declared it "to be the policy of Congress, as a. measure of national security and in promotion of the general economic welfare to encourage the annual domestic production of approximately 300 million pounds of shorn wool, grease basis, at prices fair to both producers and consumers in a manner which will have the least effect upon foreign trade."

Sections 703 and 704 authorize the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Commodity Credit Corporation, to obtain this level of domestic production by use of incentive payments. The payments, when added to the national average price received by producers, are to provide producers a national average return equal to the support level set by the Secretary.

congress thus recognized that certain impediments, which are inherent in the nature of the wool industry, interfere with the natural price mechanism to such an extent that the market alone cannot be relied upon to guarantee an annual domestic clip of 300 million pounds. For example, an incentive must be provided during the period of expansion of this industry, if producers are to be able to incur increased costs of, first, acquiring additional range land; second, carrying out range improvements on presently held lands so as to increase forage yields; and, third, obtain competent herders at wages comparable to what these people can get in other occupations.

14940 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 All these things must be done and

growers cannot, over the relatively long period of time it takes to increase sheep numbers and thereby wool production, by themselves finance such an undertaking without at least a guarantee of receiving 100 percent of parity.

For this reason, during the 1955 and 1956 marketing years, the actual payment rates were set at levels-19.2 cents per pound and 17.7 cents per pound, respectively-which when added to the national average prices received in the market place-42.8 cents and 44.3 cents respectively-would give growers a total return of 62 cents per pound, or 106 percent of parity. Preliminary data provided by the USDA indicates that the total return for the 1957 clip probably will be between 100 and 101 percent of parity.

I think it is appropriate for the Senate to evaluate the progress which the industry has made during the past 3 years toward expanding production upward so as to provide an annual domestic clip of 300 million pounds of shorn wool. In this connection, I think it well to call to your attention the last paragraph of the Department of Agriculture's favorable report on S. 2861, which reads as follows:

With regard to the progress being made toward increased production of wool in accord with the intent of the act, sheep numbers and wool production continues at low levels. Shorn wool production in 1957 is estimated at 226 million pounds compared with the 300 million pound goal under the act. The net decline in wool production the last few years has been primarily due to reductions in sheep numbers in Texas and several of the Western States where severe drought conditions prevailed. Due to the nature of the enterprise, year-to-year increases in wool production can be expected to be only gradual even under most favorable conditions.

Concerning the effect of the drought, I would point out that wool production in the Western States for the years 1955, 1956, and 1957, at 112.2, 111.0, and 107.3 million pounds, respectively, was well below the 10-year average-1946-55-for the Western States of 112.8 million pounds.

Other factors not mentioned in the USDA favorable report on the bill, which served to mitigate the effect an incentive payment program normally would have upon productions, include these: First, when the Wool Act of 1954 became effective, the Commodity Credit Corporation had some 150 million pounds of wool in its inventories. This served to depress market prices which made growers move cautiously in the direction of increasing sheep numbers. Second, this effect upon domestic production was reinforced by the then low prevailing world price for wool.

On the other hand, several things have occurred recently which in my opinion point to much better prospects for gradually increasing domestic production to an annual clip of 300 million pounds-that is, if the incentive provided by the National Wool Act are extended to growers.

First, the drought has been broken; the western range conditions are the best in several years.

Second, there is some indication that a buildup of flock and herd numbers is

beginning to take place and that shorn wool production, although sheep and lamb prices in 1958 may not average much differently than those in 1957, will be up somewhat in 1958. For example, the Department of Agriculture reported in the March 1958 Wool Situation Report that-

An increase in shorn wool production appears to be in prospect this year. The number of stock sheep and lambs on January 1 of this year, 27.4 million head, was 3 percent larger than a year earlier and the largest since January 1, 1953. * * *

The number of ewe lambs was up 16 percent. Ewes 1 year old and older increased 1 percent.

Stock sheep numbers in the 11 Western States, Texas, and South Dakota increased 3 percent, the first gain in 6 years. * * * These 13 States accounted for 65 percent of the total number of stock sheep. Inventories were up in 8 of these States. Stock sheep in Texas, the leading sheep State, increased 5 percent. Range conditions in most areas in the West last year were the best of several years.

Stock sheep numbers continued to increase in the native sheep States, where they were up 4 percent from a year earlier and 28 percent from January 1, 1950. January 1 inventories in 21 of the 35 native sheep States were up from a year earlier (p. 10).

Third, only a few months ago the Commodity Credit Corporation disposed of the last pound of its wool stocks, which were acquired under the nonrecourse loan program prior to passage of the National Wool Act of 1954.

There are, however, several problems which may prevent realization of the Congressionally expressed goal of getting an annual domestic clip of 300 million pounds, unless the Congress takes appropriate steps to remedy them. First is the need to insure that adequate funds will be available to make incentive payments to growers.

There is some doubt that the present method of providing these funds will be sufficient in the years immediately ahead, as the following portion of the United States Department of Agriculture's report on the bill before us implies:

Under the act, the total payments are limited to 70 percent of the specific duties collected on wool and wool manufactures since January 1, 1953. These amounts have ranged from 25 to 35 million dollars a year-$28 million last year. Through March 1957, which includes the years 1953 and 1954 plus the first 2 years of the new program, the total was $128 million. Payments totaled approximately $58 million the first year and around $53 million the second. Deducting these $111 million in payments from the amounts available for payments, leaves a $17 million balance for the current and later years to cover payments in excess of duty collections.

For this reason, the Agriculture Committee has amended the bill so as, first, to authorize ''the appropriation of such additional sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the act"; and, .second, to "repeal the proviso w~ich limits total payments under the act to 70 percent of the specific duties on wool and wool manufactures"-report, page 2.

I realize there has been some objection to the self-help promotional program authorized by section 708 of the National Wool Act. This criticism seems to come mainly from those people who prefer a

program of publicity, research, and information conducted on a national basis for all meat products by one organization.

I interpolate here in the text of my remarks that certain organizations, notably the Farm Bureau and the Wool Growers Association in my State are very closely related. As a matter of fact,

·most of the woolgrowers, I understand are now members of the Farm Bureau. It is the Farm Bureau which has the overall program of publicity for all kinds of meat products.

The sheep industry, however, seems to feel that such an approach, as far as it is concerned, is and would be inadequate, since sheep are dual-purpose animals, whose major products, wool and lamb, require an entirely different promotional effort than do other forms of livestock. That is a very convincing argument, so far as I am concerned.

In this connection, also, I want to point out that the American Sheep Producers Council, the promotion organization authorized to carry out the approved program, has been handicapped in its efforts to increase wool and lamb consumption at better prices to growers by the drought, which caused heavy marketing of cattle, as well as sheep and lambs, and resulted in lower returns to growers. To date the administrative costs incurred by the council have been modest. Through May 1958, they amounted to only 5 percent of total disbursements of $3.3 million. As of the same date, receipts in excess of disbursements are slightly in excess of $3 million as well. In my opinion section 708 should remain as part of the National Wool Act.

REFERENDUM PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 708

Section 708 of the National Wool Act of 1954 provides a method for growers to

. organize and conduct advertising and sales promotion programs for the industry's products and the financing of such programs by deductions from their payments. It thus permits growers to use their own money in efforts to increase the demand for and the returns from lamb and wool in the free market and thereby reduce the amount of payments from the Government to accomplish the objectives of · the act. It is all in the interest of promoting the use of wool and lamb, the two products which come from this operation. As sales increase, the need for calling upon the fund from which the incentive payments are made will become less. Thus the growers will be permitted to use their own money in efforts to increase the demand for lamb and woot, and thereby help to reduce the amount of the payments, as I have already indicated.

Soon after passage of the act, growers and grower groups organized the American Sheep Producers Council to conduct advertising and sales promotion programs for lamb and wool. Growers, in a referendum held in 1955, approved deductions of not to exceed 1 cent a pound from incentive payments on shorn wool and not to exceed 5 cents per hundredweight from the payments on unshorn lambs for financing the advertising and sales promotion programs. Upon ex-

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14941 tension of the National Wool Act, it is planned that the Secretary will hold another referendum to determine the continued willingness of growers to use a portion of their payments to conduct advertising and sales promotion of their products.

Over 67,000 growers, or more than 20 percent, voted in the referedum in 1955. The sheep represented by their vote aggregated 13 million head, or nearly 50 ·percent of the total number of stock sheep and lambs in the United States. Since the deductions from the payments for advertising and sales promotion are related to the volume of production, it was announced that the outcome of the referendum would be based on the number of sheep owned by the growers voting rather than the number of growers. As it turned out, there was close correlation between the number of growers balloting and the vote on the basis of sheep numbers, 71.27 percent of the number of growers and 71.98 i;>ercent of the sheep represented being for approval. I am referring to the way it worked the first time. That is the program which ought to be adopted; not a restricted program requiring a heavier percentage, and that sort of thing.

In such a referendum, every effort is made to conduct it in a manner that wm obtain the largest possible participation of growers. Wide publicity is given to encourage growers to vote. All growers, therefore, have knowledge of the referendum and the opportunity to vote one way or another if they have sufficient interest to do so.

There would be no advantage in requiring that a minimum percentage of growers vote in a referendum for theresults to be conclusive. As a matter of fact, such a requirement could work to disadvantage and serve to increase the work and expense of conducting a referendum. Because of the large number of farms and ranches with only a few sheep each, there would be many growers who will not take the time to vote. It is doubtful whether many of them will vote regardless of the effort made to get them interested.

The reason for that is that they wili not receive very much in the way of actual dollars for their own benefit because of the small production they have. For that reason they are not likely to give up their work and spend considerable time in the voting procedure. With about 80 percent of the growers actually producing a small percentage of the wool and lamb, of course, the larger growers, who have greater interests and who produce very heavily, will be the ones most vitally interested, and they will vote. But, the small sheep owners will not take the time and trouble to vote. At most, it will be very difficult for them to meet the requirements of the amendment which has been offered by my colleague from the State of Utah [Mr. BENNETT].

Furthermore, the requirement that two-thirds of those voting be in favor for approval serves to protect those who do not vote. There must be 2 votes in favor to offset each 1 voting against and the requirement of such a majority

serves as a safeguard for those not voting at all.

A requirement that a certain percentage must vote in a referendum for the vote to be considered an expression of the opinion of the producers would not be consistent with the general method of popular voting. In all of our popular elections, only those who vote decide the issue.

I should like to point out that in bond referendums, held practically everywhere in the United States, when the people are favorable to a bond issue, there is usually a -light vote. There has never been any question of the efficacy of that kind of voting. So far as I know, there is no requirement in most States--certainly not in my own State-that a certain percentage of voters must vote on a bond issue. Sometimes a bond issue is adopted by a very small percentage of the total vote, perhaps as small as 10 percent of the total vote. We have not found that that procedure has been disastrous, or that it is not the right kind of procedure in the case of bond referendums. Huge sums of money are authorized to be borrowed, and the security of the taxpayers is put up. I cannot understand why in an activity of this kind such stiff requirements should be provided.

I have the feeling that the wool growers themselves ought to have more voice than anyone else in this matter, because they are the owners who will have a deduction made from their income to pay for the program.

While I am a member of the Farm Bureau and some other organizations which wish to impose restrictions, or insist that a certain percentage of the sheepowners must vote, I feel that in this instance the amendments are not practical. It is an unnecessary requirement. As a matter of fact, I believe it is unfair to the wool growers and the lamb growers of the country. For that reason I am opposed to the amendment.

From a practical operating standpoint, the determination as to whether a proposed agreement under section 708 should be made effective should be left to the administrative discretion of the Secretary. If he feels that the number voting or the volume of production represented in a referendum has not been adequate due to lack of producer interest, or if there are other factors indicating that the agreement should not be made effective, the Secretary should have latitude to determine that the agreement should not be made effective. In such cases, the Secretary should be counted upon to use his best discretion in the interest of the producers and the general public.

With the long period of successful operation under the referendum provisions of the type which are now in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, the National Wool Act of 1954 should be extended without any change in section 708. Any change in that language might influence attempts to make changes in the referendum provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act for which there appears to be no need and would only serve to

disturb the so far successful operation of that act.

Mr. President, I have received numerous telegrams and letters from the people of my State, from the Governor of the State, from many of the county commissions of the 29 counties of Utah, from interested business groups and Chambers of Commerce, from the Utah Wool Growers Association, and from many of the wool growers themselves.

I ask unanimous consent that these communications be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the communications were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, July 17, 1958. Hon. ARTHUR V. WATKINs,

United States Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

Urge your support of wool bill. Sheepmen want it. I believe it is vital to economy of State and Nation.

GEORGE D. CLYDE, Governor of Utah.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, July 22, 1958. Hon. ARTHUR V. WATKINS,

United States Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

Sheepmen of Utah are very much concerned over attacks on extension of Wool Act. This legislation is vital to the Utah sheep industry. I again urge that you do everything possible to secure passage of legislation extending this act during this session of Congress.

GEORGE D. CLYDE, Governor of Utah.

ExHmiT 1 STATE OF UTAH,

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Salt Lake City, January 17, 1958.

Hon. ARTHUR V. WATKINS, ' Member of Congress, Senate Office

Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR WATKINS: I have recently

reviewed the report to Congress :from the American sheep industry. I have long been aware of the problems of the sheepmen in Utah and have watched with interest the effect of the incentive-payment program provided by the National Wool Act. I am sure it has been helpful to the sheep and wool industry. It has brought stability to the industry and in many cases prevented the liquidation of longtime sheep operators. The sheep and wool industry is not entirely out of the woods, but it is improving. I believe an extension of the National Wool Act is essential to continued improvement and stability of this industry.

Sincerely, GEORGE D. CLYDE.

(Copy to Mr. J ames A. Hooper, Utah Wool Growe.rs Association, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

ExHmiT 2 THE STATE OF UTAH,

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Salt Lake Ci ty, January 29, 1958.

Hon. ARTHUR V. WATKINS, United States Senator, Senate Office

Buildi ng, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR WATKINs: We, the Utah

State Department of Agriculture, would like to be placed on record at the hearings to be held February 6 and 7 as very much in :favor o:f the continuation of the 1954 Wool Act.

The sheep industry was very much in f avor of a p rotective tariff that would protect the industry from imports of wool coming into this country and sold below the cost of production in the United States.

Inasmuch as it was impossible to get a tariff h igh enough to protect the industry ..

14942 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 the 1954 Wool Act was passed. We feel that the act has saved the sheep industry from bankruptcy.

When foreign wool is allowed to be purchased in this country at prices lower than the cost of production, the sheep industry would be in jeopardy and would result in sheep numbers being reduced to a point where we may find ourselves in a bad position so far as national defense is concerned. We all know that wool is a very important product in times of war; in clothing our soldiers as well as our people at home.

The sheep industry plays an important part in our agricultural economy in the Western States. The crop can be harvested from many millions of acres of mountain ranges and desert lands by sheep that would otherwise go to waste.

Anything you can do to secure the passage of this bi11 wm be greatly appreciated, as the future of the sheep industry is dependent upon such legislation.

With very best regards. Yours sincerely,

UTAH STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

ALDEN K. BARTON, Livestock Commissioner.

(Copies to Senator BENNETT, Representative DAwsoN, Representative DIXoN.)

WOOL HANDLERS, INC., Salt Lake City, Utah, July 16, 1958.

Hon. ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR WATKINS: I am taking this

liberty of writing you a note regarding the pending Wool Act that hasn't been passed or acted upon up to this time during this session of Congress.

Senator WATKINS, I am not only a wool grower of Utah, but I am in the wool business, covering all of these Western States, and I am asking you in all sincerity to get back of this passing of the Wool Act, and have the same acted upon during this session of Congress. If this is not passed, and domestic wool is not supported we can figure that the wool industry, especially in the range States will pass out of the picture. The Wool Act of 1956 is the only thing that has saved the wool growers of the West from having to liquidate their sheep outfits.

As stated above, please do everything possible to have the Wool Act passed during this session of Congress.

Very truly yours, G. A. HANSON.

UTAH FARM PRODUC-nON CREDIT ASSOCIATION,

Salt Lake City, Utah, July 18, 1958. Senator ARTHUR V. WATKINS,


DEAR SENATOR WATKINS: We have just re• ceived a letter from Senator BENNETT, informing us of the difficulties encountered in securing passage of the National Wool Act. We have been aware through news in the press of the obstacles encountered but have been hopeful that favorable action would be taken in this session of Congress.

Dealing as we do with many of the sheepmen of Utah, we recognize the necessity for the continuation of the present program. We are grateful to you for your past help on matters pertaining to agriculture and trust that you will do everything possible at this time to assure passage of this important legislation.

Very truly yours, E. K. WINDER, General Manager.

EvANSTON, WYo., July 22,1958. ARTHUR V. WATKINS,


Please support National Wool Act. Do everything possible to get this act passed. Very important.

FRANCIS FRAZIER, Chairman, R i ch County Commis

sion, and a Wool Grower.

EPHRAIM, UTAH, July 21,1958. Senators WATKINS and BENNETT,


DEAR SENATORs: We urge continuation of Wool Act sponsoring incentive payments. We cannot compete with low-cost production foreign wools. Payments no burden to Government, wool tariff takes care of that.

MANTI NATIONAL FOREST WOOL GROW• ERS ASSOCIATION,

ADIN NIELSON, President. P. C. PEERSON, Secretary.

RICHFIELD, UTAH, July 21, 1958. Senator ARTHUR V. WATKINS,


We feel that the Wool Act which expires with the 1958 session should be extended for another 5-year period. It has been invaluable to the sheep men in stabilizing the industry. We would appreciate any support you could give its extension.

PIUTE COUNTY WOOL GROWERS, DOUGLAS Q . CANNON.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, July 17, 1958. Senator ARTHUR V. WATKINS,


We thank you for your support on request of the sheep industry to extend National Wool Act and urge that you do all you possibly can to get extension passed before adjournment of Congress.

Sheep industry in precarious position and without the extension of the Wool Act it could be very serious.

UTAH LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, July 18, 1958. Senator ARTHUR V. WATKINS.,

Senate Building, Washington, D. C.:

Renewal of National Wool Act very vital for the welfare of sheep industry even with incentive help the average outfit is only realizing very nominal return on its investment. It is my judgment that without incentive help for wool liquidation of a large number of sheep outfits will be necessary.

I. H. JACOB, President, Producers Livestock Loan Co.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, July 18, 1958. Hon. ARTHUR V. WATKINS,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.:

We strongly urge you support S. 2861 extending National Wool Act. Feel extremely important this legislation be passed this session to prevent collapse of wool industry in Utah and surrounding States.

GEORGE S. ECCLES, President, First Security Corp.

CEDAR CITY, UTAH, July 18, 1958. Hon. ARTHUR V. WATKINS,


Due to the low price of wool at the market place, I feel it is imperative that Congress renew the Wool Act, in order that the grower might have a chance to stay in business, therefore, I sincerely urge that you do every-

thing you can to get this legislation through Congress this session.

CARLOS JONES.


United States Senate, Washington, D . C.:

We urge you to do everything possible to get the Wool Act extended this session of Congress. We cannot jeopardize our industry and the advertising and promotion program now so well started by taking a chance with a later session action favorably on this bill.

ALEX WILLIAMS,



Word has come Congress may not act on extension of Wool Act before adjournment. Sheepmen feel we cannot survive without this program. Much progress in the promotion and advertising activities would be lost if this act is not extended. Urge you to do all possible for extension now.

L. N. JoNEs.



Thanks for recent letter promising support, but fearful Congress will adjourn without extension of Wool Act so vital to Utah and the West. Please spend every possible effort to get Senate passage this bill at once.

KEN GARFF, DAVID FREED, DAVID A. RoBINSON, MILO S. FARSDEN,

Deseret Livestock Co. with 200 Stockholders.

CEDAR CITY, UTAH, July 21,1958. Senator ARTHUR V. WATKINS,


As director of the Utah Wool Growers, I urge you to make every effort to bring to the Senate floor and support extension of National Wool Act.

WENDAL JONES.

WOODS CROSS, UTAH, July 21, 1958, Senator ARTHUR V. WATKINS,


We are an old established sheep and cattle company in the fourth gem~ration

raising over 1 million pounds lanb and onequarter million pounds beef each year. Without the wool incentive in 1957 our company would have made less than 3 percent on its investment. If the wool industry in the West is to survive we must have an extension of the National Wool Act.

HATCH BROS. Co.

MONTICELLO, UTAH, July 21, 1958. Senator ARTHUR V. WATKINS,

Senate Office Building, washington, D. c.

DEAR SENATOR: Please use every means available to see bill to extend Wool Act is passed this session Congress. This bill vital to Utah sheep industry.

A. JAY REDD.

MoUNT PLEASANT, UTAH, July 21, 1958. Senator ARTHUR V. WATKINS,


Do all you can to renew Wool Act. It baa been a lifesaver to the wool growers.

JENSEN BROS. INC. SPRING CITY, UTAH.

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 14943 MANTI, UTAH, July 21, 1958.

Senator ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C.: Wool Act passage· this session absolutely

necessary. Sheep men need this bill. San Pete County best industry. Sheep are off 80 percent from the thirties.

WILFORD WINTCH.

MANTI, UTAH, July 21, 1958. Senator ARTHUR WATKINS,


Push National Wool Act with every effort at your command.

ARTHUR H. NELL.

KAYSVILLE, UTAH. Senator ARTHUR V. WATKINS,


We strongly urge that section 708 of National Wool Act be left intact without restrictive amendments as proposed by Farm Bureau.

Mrs. THORNLY K. SWAN, President, Utah Wool Growers

Auxiliary. Mrs. J. WILLIAM SWAN,

Chairman, State Make-It-YourselfWith-Wool Contest.

MONTICELLO, UTAH, July 22, 1958. Senator ARTHUR v. WATKINS,


We would like to solicit your full support of passage of National Wool Act in this session of Congress.

SAN JUAN WooL GROWER, LISLE ADAMS, Secretary.

WASHINGTON, D. C., July 9, 1958. Senator ARTHUR V. WATKINS,


Senators YouNG and MUNDT have announced their intention of offering the bill to extend the National Wool Act as an amendment to S. 4071, the farm bill. The proposed amendment is identical to S. 2861 cosponsored by you and 47 other Senators and as unanimously approved by the Senate Committee on Agriculture. We sincerely hope you will support this proposal. Congressional action is urgent because sheep growing is a longtime enterprise and next year's incentive payment program must be announced this summer or growers and their financing agencies cannot properly plan for even next year's operation. We also sincerely hope you will oppose any crippling or limiting amendments to the Wool Act extension, particularly section 708 under which a successful program is underway to promote lamb and wool at the grower's own expense. The combination of incentive payments and the self-help program has made this act successful and effective. This telegram is sent on behalf of 97 United States sheep organizations as listed in the record of hearings on S. 2861 who have authorized us to speak for them in urging extension of the present Wool Act at this session as vital to the wool-growing industry.

NATIONAL WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION, EDWIN E. MARSH, Executive Secretary.


Senate Office Building, 'Washington, D. C.:

Urge passage vital wool bill. Notify Utah delegation this stand.

UTAH STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

EPHRAIM, UTAH, July23, 1958. Hon. ARTHUR v. WATKINS,


DEAR SENATOR' WATKINS: Any extra; effort to expedite passage of WooJ Act this session would be appreciated by 40 members: of Ephraim Lions Club.

EPHRAIM LIONS CLUB, CLIFFORD H. SONDRUP,

Pre.sident.

MoUNT PLEASANT, UTAH., July 22, 1958. Senator ARTHDJ. V. WATKINS,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C .. •

We urge you to make every effort to get the National Wool Act passed during this session beyond its present expiration date. You no doubt understand how much this industry and the individual growers have at stake in this area.

SAN PETE COUNTY COMMISSION, A. REEVE NORMAN,

Member of Commission.

COKEVILLE, WYO., July 22, 1958. Senator ARTHURV. WATKINS,


DEAR SENATOR: We are alarmed for the extension of the Wool Act, 1954. Will you do your best for us in this session. We will be able to return the favor in November.

Best wishes, L. B. JOHNSON.

RANDOLPH, UTAH.

VERNAL, UTAH, July 23, 1958. Senator ARTHUR V. WATKINS,


We, the members of Uintah Woolgrower Association. consisting of 63 members and operating 100,000 sheep, urgently request that you do all in your power to get the Wooi Act passed. The future of the sheep industry vitally depends upon the passage of this bill.

Sincerely, CLI.FFTON McCoY,

President, Association.

TREMONTON, UTAH, July 23, 1958. Senator ARTHUR V. WATKINS,


We, 28 members representing 35,000 sheep, request your influence for the continuance of the National Wool Act. Future of sheepman and the business he supports is at stake as well as the need for meat and wool. In any national emergency your last pitch effort to extend this act is imperative to economy of the sheep business.

CACH FOREST WOOL GROWERS. BILL GORING, President.

LOGAN, UTAH.

EPHRAIM, UTAH, July 23, 1958. Senators WATKINS and BENNETT,


Request your immediate support in continuation of Wool Act program.

JoHN ARMSTRONG & SONS, INC, CURTis ARMSTRONG, President.

BLANDING, UTAH, July 23, 1958. Hon. ARTHUR V. WATKINS,


Request your assistance in getting Na .. tional Wool Act extended.

REED BAYLES, Jones Bros. Sheep Co. (By Vincent Jones).

PRICE, UTAH, July 23, 1958. Hon. ARTHUR V. WATKINS,

United States Senate, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C.: We urge you to exercise your utmost efforts

for the renewal o:f the present Wool Act which is to expire at the end of 1958.

The loss of the incentive payment on wool would surely doom the sheep industry in the Western United States. It must be renewed at this session of Congress if we are to survive in the face of foreign competition.

Very truly yours, WILLIAM MARSING.

PRICE, UTAH, July 23, 1958. Hon. ARTHUR V. WATKINS,



for the renewal of the present Wool Act which is to expire at the end of 1958.


Very truly yours, ORSON L. MARSING.

MoUNT PLEASANT, UTAH, July 23, 1958. Senator ARTHUR V. WATKINS,


DEAR SENATOR: The sheep business cannot exist without a substantial income from wool. This product is a vital national asset and should not be allowed to deteriorate or be lost. Your interest in extension in this incentive program is appreciated. Please use every effort to have it continued.

JoHN K. MADSEN, Rambouillet Farms, Inc.

MOUNT PLEASANT, UTAH, July 23, 1958. Senator ARTHUR V. WATKINS,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C'.

DEAR SENATOR: The wool incentive program is the best means yet devised· to protect this domestic industry against foreign competition. Sheep men cannot stay in business without it. Your utmost effort for its extension at this session of Congress is strongly urged and will be greatly appreciated.

JOHN S. McALLISTER, Manager, Fairview Land and Livestock.

PRICE, UTAH, July 23,1958. Hon. ARTHUR V. WATKINS,


Wcrshington, D. C.: We urge you to exercise your utmost efforts



Very truly yours, LEON MOYNIER,

President, Carbon County Woolgrowers.

OGDEN, UTAH, July 23, 1958. Senator ARTH'UR V. WATKINs,


I would like to see action taken on the Wool Act before Congress adjourns.

KENNETH BRYAN.


PRICE, UTAH~ July 23~ 1958. Hon. ARTHUR V. WATKINS,

United States Senate, senate Office Building~



The loss of the incentive payment on wool would surely doom the sheep industry in the Western United States. It must be renewed at this session of Congress if we are to sur• vive in the face of foreign competition.

Very truly yours, JAY PAGANO.

MORONI, UTAH, July 23,1958. Senator ARTHUR V. WATKINS~


Thank you for your efforts to extend the National Wool Act. We feel the survival of our industry depends upon this act. We urgently request you get bill for extension on floor before Congress adjourns.

PHARES NIELSON, President, Jericho Wool Growers.

MoNTICELLO, UTAH, July 23, 1958. Senator ARTHUR V. WATKINS,


Bend effort to extend the Wool Act. BOARD OF SAN JUAN COUNTY ·

COMMISSIONERS.


Mr. WATKINS. !yield. Mr. YOUNG. I listened with great in

terest to the very thorough discussion of the wool producers' problem by the distinguished senior Senator from Utah. I commend him for his great interest in the farmers, ranchers, and small-business men of the Nation. I have noticed throughout the many years I have served with the senior Senator from Utah that he has been very close to them and has always come to their rescue whenever they needed help.

Mr. WATKINS. I have never been a woolgrower myself, except in a very small way. I think I had, at one time, 25 pet lambs which were picked up on the farm as the sheep herds went by. They were orphan lambs.

But in the course of my practice as a lawyer, I have represented many woolgrowers of my area in mortgage matters when they were in extreme difficulties, operating under the conditions of the Reciprocal Trade Act, I may say. They were having a desperate time to continue in business. I tried to help them solve problems so they could keep out of bankruptcy.

I have felt, over the years, that there would have been far more success, and we would have had no necessity for establishing incentive programs to produce more wool, if we had had the protection of the tariff we once had. But since that has been done away with, and we now have the reciprocal trade program, we do not have sufficient tariff protection.

So it is only fair now that this program be kept in effect. It has been operating successfully since it was first enacted a few years ago. We should keep it in effect. Whatever the cost may be should be charged against the international policies, the so-called foreign-aid program of the United

States. It is done in the interest of helping our friends, neighbors, and allies to be prosperous. I think that is the proper place to make the charge. It is a subsidy, in effect, to those people, and not to our own people.

Mr. YOUNG. The Senator does not claim to be a sheepherder himself, but he knows their problems.

Mr. WATKINS. I have lived on sheep ranches. I have had much to do with the activities of sheep raising. At one time I came very close to being involved in a sheep feeding operation. Fortunately, I was not too heavily involved, but some of my colleagues were, and they lost heavily in the operation, because of the fact that one can never depend on the market from one year to the next.

Sheep raising is a long-range operation. It requires the purchasing of rangelands; it requires the purchasing of equipment; it requires the leasing of Bureau of Land Management areas for winter range, spring range, and fall range. Then it is necessary to get forest permits for summer range. The Department of Agriculture and Forest Service begin to make cuts and then further cuts. Business begins to dwindle, and one does not know whether he will be able to remain in business.

Sheep raisers have all those difficulties to contend with. They are some of the reasons, in addition to the others I mentioned earlier this evening, why the sheep industry has had a difficult time in the past 25 years.

Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. WATKINS. I yield. Mr. THYE. I commend the distin

guished senior Senator from Utah for his most intelligent and enlightening statement on the problems of the wool producer and the sheep owner. It is a type of business which is hazardous in every conceivable manner, both in the care of the Iamb at lambing time, the handling of the sheep, and the protection against the many diseases with which the flock can be infected. Sheep raising is a highly skilled and hazardous profession.

Unless we give it some protection, such as is proposed in the bill, it will not be possible to continue to produce sheep and wool in sufficient quantities. Wool, of course, is a strategic material in the economy of the entire Nation.

I commend the distinguished Senator from Utah, not only for his courageous stand on the question, including what he proposes and opposes, but also for his intelligence in outlining to us the need for effective legislation.

Mr. WATKINS. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his very gracious remarks. I may say, once again, that I think we should not put restrictions on the program for voting in the referendum to determine whether a deduction should be made for a sales promotion program. To me, such a program is very important.

I know that many persons do not know the value of lamb as a food. I myself have had occasion to do the family shopping. I have gone into the markets of

this area and have found that Iamb is not generally carried in stock.

I have said to the wool growers of my State, "You are in difficulty. Why not get busy and tell the people of the country about your lamb product and about wool. Don't let the synthetics take over your wool market. Do not let other meats crowd out the use of lamb. There is a place for all these products."

In the turkey industry, for instance, which is getting to be one of the really big industries in the agricultural field, it was found necessary to devise a program which would require an agreement or an arrangement to be approved by the vote of the turkey producers, whereby sums could be deducted from the sales of their products, so that the industry could be promoted.

It seems to me that we should encourage that type of program in this field, rather than discourage it. We should not place impediments in its way.

I hope the National Farm Bureau Federation, my own local Farm Bureau, and other similar organizations, will do everything they can to promote this type of program. I understand those organizations favor it, but there seems to be some difference of opinion between the wool growers and the National Farm Bureau Federation as to the method of conducting a referendum.

The 6 days for voting which have been mentioned in the amendment offered would be completely impractical, because of the very nature of the sheep growing industry, particularly in the Western States. There ought not to be a requirement for a certain percentage of the small ;farms throughout the United States to participate in the referendum. The referendum could be conducted in such a way as to be fair to all, and without requiring such a heavy percentage.

Mr. President, I hope the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota, without any crippling amendments added to it, will be adopted.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I hope the Young amendment to include the wool bill will be adopted. I shall speak briefly about the amendment, and then shall speak generally about the farm bill itself.

It happens that the wool bill, which has been offered as the Young amendment, has had long and distinguished sponsoring by a good many groups. I hope the Senate will adopt it because the wool situation is quite different from that of many of the other agricultural situations throughout the country.

When the agricultural output of an area is only a small portion of the world output, and the world output is about ready to drop onto our shores at bargain prices, it becomes important that something be done to protect the prices of the domestic industry.

I hope all Members of the Senate will vote for the Young amendment, which will add the wool bill to the farm bill, even though I am not too enthusiastic about all sections of the pending farm bill. .

The wool bill was carefully considered as far back as 1946; and the following

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14945 year it was presented by the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O'MAHONEYJ-not in a form identical to that of the pending amendment, but substantially the same. I believe that the 1954 or 1955 extension of the wool act was added to the farm bill on my motion.

Therefore, I believe it proper for the wool bill to be included as an amendment to the pending farm bill, so the wool farmers will be told that the Congress intends them to have this much support.

Mr. President, I intend to address myself to a few phases of the farm program, and to suggest that the pending farm bill will not solve all our agricultural problems, and that it might be well for us to consider the possibility of handling these matters one at a time, by means of separate bills, in the hope of obtaining the enactment of sounder legislation than that likely to be obtained by combining only a sufficient number of provisions to make it possible for a farm bill to be reported from committee.

In fact, if a few more votes had been needed in the committee, probably the bill would now include a provision in regard to soybeans. But in the committee there were just enough votes to report the bill; it was reported by a vote of 8 to 7. However, I suggest that that is not the best way to proceed.

Wheat and tobacco are encountering difficulty at the present time. I hope that, in time, Congress will be in a position to deal with these agricultural commodities a little more definitely than the way in which I believe it is dealing with them in the pending bill.

I realize the great difficulties involved. I have sat-as have the able Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN] and the able Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YouNGJ-in conference after conference in which the Senate's position was sustained for a long, long time, although the position taken by the House was completely opposite; and many times such positions by the Senate have finally been enacted into law. In fact, I may say that, only a few years ago, the wool bill which was enacted into law contained some provisions which the House of Representatives did not favor. On the other hand, in conference it is not always possible, of course, to sustain the position voted by the Senate and reject the position voted by the House. So I do not blame my colleagues for not always achieving everything they set out to achieve.

I was very much interested in an article entitled "We Are in a Mess With Our Wheat," which was published in the July-August 1958 issue of Nation's Agriculture, the official publication of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Let me say that I regretted that earlier in the session today reference was made to a publication in which the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Benson, was quoted as referring to leftist groups as those who oppose enactment of the pending bill. I have not talked to the Secretary of Agriculture about that matter; but I believe he was not referring to Members of Congress, for I do not believe the Secretary of Agriculture regards any

Members of Congress, even those who ·may be opposed to the policies he favors, as being members of leftist groups.

So I believe the reference to which attention was called earlier in the session today, in connection with the debate on the farm bill, was an unfortunate one.

In the current edition of the official publication of the American Farm Bureau Federation, we find the article I have mentioned, which reads, in part, as follows:

Some may have been fooled into thinking the present program---

That is to say, the present program in regard to wheat--was working because the carryover was whittled down by 125 million bushels in 1956-57.

A little farther along in the article, we find the following:

As a result of this combination of circumstances, the United States captured 43 percent of the entire world trade in wheat, in the record year for international trade.

But the tide is now running the other way. The experts figure that domestic uses during 1957-58 will fall 16 million bushels below the earlier estimates. Exports may be 50 million bushels less than forecast and almost 200 million bushels less than last year.

I believe that is of a great deal of interest to the Congress.

The new leader of the Canadian Government has suggested that he does not view kindly the possibility that the United States may be dumping wheat in markets all over the world; and that fact may mean something to wheat farmers throughout the United States.

In the article we also find the following:

The b1llion-bushel winter wheat crop expected this year was produced with the national wheat allotment at the legal minimum and with 5.3 m1llion allotted acres in the soil bank.

If that allotment is not applied in future years, we may accumulate a still larger surplus.

The article also points out something to which I think we need to pay some attention, namely:

Here is another proof that acreage controls and quotas just won't work.

Over the last 5 years, yields per acre have increased at an average rate of 1.3 bushels annually.

Average yields of the last 3 years have been 50 percent greater than the 1935--39 average.

With the increased yields of recent years, the 55 million acre national allotment--when . viewed from the production standpoint---is actually 50 percent greater than in 1939 when the minimum allotment was established.

In other words, the 55-million allotment today is equal to about 82 million 1939 acres.

Mr. President, 82 million acres of wheat were all right in 1941 and 1942, when the other nations of the world were looking to the United States for food. We could even sustain a crop of that size in 1946, and perhaps in 1947, while the agriculture of other nations was getting on its feet-and when, in fact, agriculture in all parts of the world was getting on its feet.

But the present-day equivalent of 82 million acres in 1941 and 1942-namely,

55 million acres of wheat-is far too much for us to have in the years 1957 and 1958.

I think these figures tend to indicate that a farm bill which deals with only 2 or 3 commodities, is not all it should be. An omnibus farm bill should deal with a great many agricultural commodities-although I would prefer to have the agricultural commodities dealt with 1 by 1, by means of separate bills, and in that way try hard to have the legislative provisions for the individual commodities stand on their own feet.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield to me?

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. CLARK in the chair). Does the Senator from New Mexico yield to the Senator from Kansas?

Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. CARLSON. I appreciate the fine

statement the Senator from New Mexico is making in regard to wheat. I intend to discuss the subject rather briefly in connection with the pending bill, although I shall not submit amendments in that connection.

But I was pleased to hear the Senator from New Mexico say that the Nation has a wheat problem.

Mr. ANDERSON. It has, for there is on hand a 4-year supply of wheat.

Mr. CARLSON. There is no question about that.

This year the United States probably will export 575 million bushels of wheat. Next year the United States probably will be lucky to export 375 million bushels.

So I have been very much pleased to have the distinguished Senator from New Mexico discuss this matter; I can think of no one whom I would prefer to have discuss proposed wheat legislation.

Mr. ANDERSON. I thank the Senator from Kansas.

There are in the Senate Chamber this evening some Members who are very devoted friends of wheat farming; I refer, among others, to the Senator from Kansas EMr. CARLSON] and the Senator from Minnesota EMr. THYE].

I merely say that when we come to consider a general farm bill, it is extremely difficult to patch together adequate provisions for all agricultural commodities.

I may be wrong, but I believe we probably shall never have an omnibus farm bill which will include, with any success, provisions dealing with all agricultural commodities. So the day may come when Congress will feel bold enough to tookle this problem commodity by commodity, by means of separate bills. When that day comes, I shall be very happy to support the attempt of the able Senator from Kansas to secure the enactment of some good wheat legislation.

Mr. CARLSON. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield to me?

Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. THYE. I am happy to join the

Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON] in

14-g46 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24

paying tribute to the distinguished Sena· tor from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], formerly a distinguished Secretary of Agriculture, because he understands these problems. Not only is he a student of them, but his knowledge uf them is all the broader because of the fact that he has been an operator in that field.

Let me say that, over the weekend, I was in Minnesota. For the past few days the wheat combines have been at work on the farms in Minnesota; and the elevators are paying $1.71 a bushel for the wheat. So we can imagine the problem with which the wheat farmer is faced, when the wheat is piling up, and when a 4 years' supply already is on hand, and when $1.11 a bushel is now being offered for wheat. If it were not for some kind of support, I do not know where the price of wheat would be today, in view of the fact that the wheat combines are in operation all the way from the panhandle of Texas to the Northwestern States.

Today, the situation is far different from the situation in the old days, when the threshing machines had a 60-day to 90-day run, with the result that the wheat would trickle in from the Southwest, and then would trickle in from the Northwest.

But, today, in 1 week the entire wheat crop from K ansas comes in, and the entire wheat crop from Oklahoma comes in, and the entire wheat crop from the Dakotas comes in.

So if it were not for the floors in the support price, I do not know where we would be so far as the wheat market is concerned. But I come back to the question. Wheat was selling for $1.71 at the Minnesota elevators as of last Monday morning. We need to do something with regard to wheat before many months go by, because we cannot continue to pile up wheat in the manner in which we are piling it up. We ar e trying to develop a market for wheat under Public Law 480, but we cannot continue to fill our warehouses as we are doing. We are going to have to take a cold, hard, intelligent look at this question before many months go by. Otherwise the farm economy will be shattered on the rocks.


Mr. ANDERSON. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. YOUNG. I wish to commend the Senator from New Mexico for his analysis of the wheat situation. For the past 4 years, under quotas, wheat production dropped from 1,450,000,000 bushels to 950 million bushels. This year there will be a production of about 1,400,000,000 bushels. Quotas are break· ing down. Either we are going to have to make quotas work or eliminate them. As the Senator from New Mexico has pointed out, farmers can grow and sell up to 15 acres of wheat without penalty. There are other reasons for this increase in wheat production: There are new varieties of wheat which bring higher yields; we have improved methods of farming; and increased use of fertilizer have greatly incl·eased wheat production.

· I think the main reason why the committee did not consider wheat at the present time was that there was a wide difference of opinion on how to deal with the problem. I think we shall need the assistance of the Senator from New Mexico in devising a better wheat program next year.

Mr. ANDERSON. I want to suggest to the Senator from North Dakota, and I hope the Senator from Mississippi will hear the next few words I say, that perhaps the cotton producers can take a lesson from the wheat producers. As the Senator from North Dakota will recall, when the amendment was proposed to allow farmers to grow wheat on 15 acres, without penalty, and statistics were introduced to show that it would not cause any great trouble, that only a tiny bit of wheat would be produced under the provision, and that only a few farmers would be permitted a few acres, I had words to say about the proposal. I said it would open the door. The bill was passed. The provision with respect to the 15 acres was enacted.

Now the proposal is being made that there be a similar arrangement with respect to 10 acres planted to cotton. It is said it is a minimum, that only a few acres of cotton are involved, only 300,000 acres, and that just a little bit of additional cotton will be produced. Somehow, ways will be found to carve up cot· ton fields, and pretty soon there will be a whole new crop of farmers who will have 10 acres of cotton. That may not be a serious problem where production is 400 pounds to the acre, but a week ago tonight I was standing in a field of the finest cotton I had ever looked at. That particular farm last year had 21,000 acres of cotton, and the owner marketed 75,-000 bales of it. About $15 million was realized from that farm.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. Mr. EASTLAND. That farmer pro

duced, on 21,000 acres, 75,000 bales of cotton.

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes; he did. Mr. EASTLAND. He made a lot of

money. Mr. ANDERSON. Yes; he did. Mr. EASTLAND. Yet the Senator

would deny a minimum acreage allotment of 10 acres, which amounts to only a fraction of 1 percent of our national allotment, but which would enable hundreds of thousands of small farmers to live.

Mr. ANDERSON. It is the same story which was told with respect to wheat. It is said that only a few acres will take care of a few people. Let me read from this publication. I am sorry I have to depend on what the American Farm Bureau Federation carries in its publication. I have not had time in the last few weeks to devote myself to farm statistics.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question before he reads from the article?

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator from

New Mexico has a very distinguished record. I think he knows I hold l:im in the very highest regard. I consider him

to be a man 'Of tremendous ability. I think he is sincere. I think he is conscientious. I know of no Member of this body who holds the Senator from New Mexico in higher regard than I do. The Senator from New Mexico is opposed to this bill, is he not?

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes; I think it would be safe to say I am opposed to this bill.

Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator would offer amendments or motions that would kill the bill--

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, I have not-Mr. EASTLAND. Let me finish my

question. Because the Senator is sincerely and honestly opposed to the enactment of this bill.

Mr. ANDERSON. Let me say· to the able Senator from Mississippi that I have not offered any amendments. I have not taken any part in' the offering of any amendments. I have felt, and I still feel, that a better job could be done with an agricultural bill than has been done with this one. I am willing to concede in advance that it is most difficult to prepare such a bill. I say the innocent little iJroposals which are made, for 10 acres here and there, may lead to trouble.

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YOUNG] and I had an extended discussion in the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry about the 15-acre question when it came up. Neither one of us had figures to prove it, but both of us definitely felt it might lead to difficulties. What did it lead to? In 1957 the 15-acre exemption, which was only to affect a few acres, ·was used by 620,000 growers, including 230,000 who did not have an acre of wheat in their allotment.

I say that runs into a very, very substantial acreage, and a very, very substantial production.

One of the reasons why we have a 4-year supply of wheat on hand, and cannot possibly curb it, is that we have allowed a group of farmers to plant to 15 acres whether they had allotments or not. If we are to have controls, they should be real controls; we cannot have loopholes. A 10-acre loophole in cotton acreage will in time lead to as bad a situation with reference to cotton as we now have with reference to wheat.


Mr. ANDERSON. I yield to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. ELLENDER. I should like to point out to the Senator from New Mexico that the 15 acre minimum for wheat farmers is not to be compared with the provision in the fat·m bill cur· rently before the Senate. What we are trying to do in this bill is simply provide that all cotton farmers who planted 10 acres or less in 1958 shall not lose any acreage next year. In other words, if a cotton farmer had 10 acres this year, he will continue to get 10 acres. If he planted 7 acres he will continue to get 7; he will not get 10 acres. The purpose of this portion of the bill is to permit the cotton farmer who plants 10 acres on down to as little as 1 Y2 acres, to be granted the right to plant the same acreage next year and the year after that, as he planted this year.

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14947 The purpose of the provision is not to

hand out to each cotton farmer a minimum of 10 acres, in the same manner as every wheat farmer was provided with a minimum of 15 acres, but to allow cotton farmers who are now planting on 10 acres or less, the right to plant exactly the same acreage next year. That is all the proposal does. There is no absolute minimum acreage allowance that all cotton farmers will receive. Instead every cotton farmer in the Nation who planted 10 acres or less of cotton this year will be given exactly the same amount of cotton acreage next year. The purpose of this measure is simply to make sure that cotton acreage cuts are not put upon the shoulders of those who can least afford it-the small family cotton farmer who tills 10 acres or less.

Mr. ANDERSON. Let me say to the Senator, who has stated the situation correctly, that some persons have scars in their systems from the :fights they have gone through. There was a time when farmers who were planting tobacco objected to the reduction they were going to get in acreage. A minimum was provided below which the farmer could not be reduced. That minimum, as I remember it, was something like four-tenths of an acre. It looked fairly innocent. What did we do? If 40,000 acres of tobacco were taken out of an area and certain farmers could not have their acreage cut, the farmer whose acreage was cut was a large producer, and his acreage was very drastically cut.

Some farmers are cultivating 1,000 acres of cotton. If we apply a minimumacreage provision, and then reduce a State's allotment down to what is necessary in order to bring the State into balance, it will be necessary to take acreage from all the large producers, from all the successful farmers, and give it to the small farmers. If we were tomorrow to est.ablish a cotton acreage which had some regard for what the market could use, there would be planted about 8 million acres of cotton, and that would cut the acreage in half. Therefore, the total for every State would be cut in half. If we let every farmer have 10 acres, if he had ever planted 10 acres, then the acreage of the large farmers would be reduced by 50 percent, 75 percent, or 80 percent.

That situation always causes people to say, "Look at this program. You are taking the best farmland in our county out of production. Jim Jones is the best cotton producer we have. You are giving this small farmer, who has 10 acres, the full amount, but you are cutting Jim Jones 50 percent or 75 percent."

I will say that is not provided in the bill presently under consideration, but I have seen bills which did so provide.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I should like to point out again that such action is not included in the bill under consideration.

Mr. ANDERSON. There is a cut to 16 million acres, which is a reduction of about 1 Y2 million acres.

Mr. ELLENDER. I understand. Mr. ANDERSON. If that is applied

across the board, together with a 10-

acre limitation, there will be some very heavy reductions.

Mr. ELLENDER. No. Mr. ANDERSON. Then later we will

have a bill to consider, as we always do, because people will say, "You cannot do that this year. Next year you can do it, yes, but you cannot do it this year.'' So this year we give the extra acreage, and then some more, and then there is accumulated a tremendous supply of cotton in the warehouses once more.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Sen tor yield?

Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, may

I point out to Senators present that the bill under consideration has no provision that would work as the Senator has indicated. Instead, each cotton farmer would be given an allotment on the basis of a national 16 million-acre allotment. However, if the farmer falls into the category of those who planted less than 10 acres this year, then that acreage necessary to bring up his farm to the level of what he planted this year would be taken from an additional 310,000 acres, which is provided under the bill in addition to the national 16-millionacre cotton allotment. This 310,000 acres to take care of the small farmer is a definite total which is specifically spelled out in the bill.

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. Mr. ELLENDER. That total of 310,000

acres cannot be increased, unless there is additional legislation.

Mr. ANDERSON. Unfortunately we do not legislate for only 1 year. If there results an accumulation of cotton, then somebody will say, "Let us do something about that next year." Then in the next year we would lower the acreage to 10 million, and down the whole thing would come. The reduction would take place as I have said it would take place.

There is a final example I should like to suggest to the Senate. In one Illinois county in the 1930's there were 126 farmers growing wheat, while last year in the same county there were 1,200. Those farmers could get the 15-acre minimum, and produce in good style.

I am willing to grant that is not the situation with reference to the bill presently under consideration, at all.

Mr. ELLENDER. I am glad the Senator makes that point.

Mr. ANDERSON. I have served too long with the able Senator from Louisiana to try to say that this bill does something it does not do, or to try to mislead anybody as to the contents of the bill. I merely point out that there are some bad influences which could come into being. I recognize the difficulties involved in getting the bill reported by the committee, but I recognize that many bad things can happen after the bill has been reported by the committee.

In the New York Times on Tuesday, July 22, there was carried a story under the headline "Big World Grain Surplus Seen as Asians Face Rice Shortage.''

There is a great deal of information as to how great a shortage actually exists in certain supplies of grain, yet we are now being tied up by situations which do not let us get rid of a good deal of our

products and keep us in a condition which brings criticism of the farm program, which it should not be possible to level at it.

I should like to say a few words about rice. The bill under consideration would fix a national acreage allotment for rice of 1.6 million acres. The use of 1.6 million acres for rice will generally produce about 49 million hundredweight of rice. We are able to consume about 27 million hundredweight of rice, and we have to export the rest. In normal times export of the rice might not be too difficult. We do have a domestic need, as I say, for a little more than half of what we can produce.

Mr. ELLENDER. I should like to point out that, according to figures supplied me, domestic consumption is approximately 62 percent of production.

Mr. ANDERSON. Perhaps it is 62 percent.

Mr. ELLENDER. My :figures show that we consume about 62 percent of our production.

Mr. ANDERSON. I only say that I have :figures which start in 1910 and go up to 1957 and 1958. I notice in the years 1956 and 1957 we had about 1.6 million acres or 1. 7 million acres of rice production, and there was a production which ran 49 million hundredweight. With 1.6 million acres we might get something like 43 million hundredweight. We use 27 million hundredweight. Perhaps that is 62 percent, but there still remains 38 percent to be exported. This is a time when people around the world do not have too much money with which to buy things. The Government will have to step in and buy a great deal of the rice crop, a great deal of the cotton crop, and a great deal of the wheat crop. I do not believe that is the best thing for us to do.

I am naturally curious as to what is going to be said by those who vote for this bill and who have been voting for 90 percent parity supports. I have heard 90 percent of parity talked about for a long time. I have taken a look at the provision in the bill. Clause (c) on page 4 at ~ine 18 reads:

The Commodity Credit Corporation is directed, during the period beginning August 1, 1959, and ending July 31, 1961, to offer any upland cotton owned by it for sale for unrestricted use at not less than 10 percent above the current level of price support prescribed in choice (B).

It is not necessary to be in the commodity business very long to know that in this instance the same law applies which applies to the question of good and bad money. Bad money always drives out good money. The low-priced cotton always moves into the market, and the high-priced cotton always moves into the loan category. Therefore, the market price of cotton, if there is an 81-percent provision with respect to the supply, will go down 15 ~:ints, or down to 66 percent, and the farmers will get perhaps 90 percent of that. By 1961 we will have 59 percent of parity, and by 1962 the support price for cotton will be about 54.6 percent of parity. Where will the people who hav" been talking about 90 percent of parity be then? They will say.


••we talked about the matter. We voted Mr. ANDERSON. That is very fine. I for a bill which brought the support thank the able chairman. down to 54.6 percent by 1962, but we dis- I am not in a position to say that this cussed the matter." bill is an extremely bad bill. I do not

I do not believe this provision will af- wish to condemn it wholeheartedly. I feet the States represented, in part, by merely wish to say that there are a great the able minority leader, by the Senator many things to be considered in connecfrom Arizona, and by the Senators who tion with a farm bill. live in the delta of the Mississippi, and I am sorry the floors have remained it will not affect the people of my State, in the bill at the level at which they are. perhaps as much as others will be af- I have found myself in disagreement at fected. I believe, however, it will be a times with the present Secretary of Ag~ severe blow to certain areas in the Deep .riculture, but I must say openly and South, where the production cost of cot- publicly that I think the floors he sugton uniformly has been far above what gested, of $3.63 for rice, 28 cents for it is in other sections. cotton, and $1 for corn are better figures

I recently saw hundreds of acres of to use than $4 for rice, 30 cents for cotpenalty cotton. Th _ producer of the ton, and a figure for corn of $1.10. Some penalty cotton was saying, "Yes; I only day we must make these commodities a get 50 percent on the cotton. I have to little more competitive than they are. pay 50-percent penalty, but I will come We must keep these programs moving out on the deal all right. I am not going along. I believe it might be well to reto plow up one acre of my penalty cot.. duce the floors. I do not believe that a ton. I am going to leave all the cotton farm bill which does not take some recin, because I can make money." And he ognition of wheat in its present situation can make money, particularly if he has is a complete bill. a program of skip-rowing, which we see I know the problems of the committee. throughout the West. However, I hope the Committee on Agri-

Our people can live with the program. culture and Forestry, in the short time We would like to have a history for the remaining in this session, will make an cotton, and I think we ought to have a effort to do something about the wheat history for the cotton, especially if we situation. Personally, I think we ought have to take a penalty; but we can live to make a test to determine whether the with the program. 15-acre provision can be removed from

I hope those who have talked, and the bill without too much danger. I talked very loudly about 90 percent of think it could. A great many farmers parity will recognize that they are not who have made use of the 15-acre provoting for 90 percent of parity when they vision could very well not have planted vote for the bill under consideration. that wheat. That would have been a

I hope the provision the able Senator great help to the wheat-producing areas of Kansas, Texas, and Oklahoma.

from Arizona [Mr. HAYDEN] has offered, with reference to extra long staple cot- Mr. CARROLL. Mr. President, will

the Senator yield? ton, will be agreed to. The extra long Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. staple cotton had a move down from 90 Mr. CARROLL. Let me say to the percent to 75 percent, and when that cot- distinguished Senator from New Mexico ton did not get its share of the market at that I have been following with great 75 percent the growers voluntarily asked interest the debate with reference to that they be placed under a 60 percent wheat. As I observe the estimated car .. provision. I think the growers of that ryover on July 1, 1959, of 1,200 million cotton ought to be allowed to continue . bushels, the thought occurs to me that the program, because their production of with the great experience of the Senator cotton and consumption of cotton has from New Mexico and the chairman of been going up rapidly. I hope that the the Committee on Agriculture and For .. amendment to be offered by the able estry, who is present in the Chamber, Senator from Arizona will be agreed to. as well as the junior senator from

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, Will Georgia [Mr. TALMADGE], the situation the Senator yield? could be explained to me in such a way

Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. that I could explain it to the wheat Mr. ELLENDER. I have already dis- farmers back home in my State.

cussed this matter with the Senator from The Colorado wheat growers have said Arizona. I wish to confess it was an er- to me, "Acreage control is not practical." ror to put this provision in the bill, be- I think there is proof of it today, because cause it was only recently that we low- of the 900-million bushel carryover we ered the support price for extra long are facing today with the 1958 crop. I staple cotton at levels ranging from 60 am referring to stable businessmen to 75 percent of parity. I am sure there farmers who have substantial holdings: will be no objection on the part of the They want to know why the Congress committee to restoring a price between does not adopt bushel control or unit 60 and 75 percent of parity. control, which I think is provided for

Mr. ANDERSON. I am happy to have in the so-called Talmadge farm bill. the able chairman of the committee say Year after year we face the question that. I stand beside another friend [Mr. of surpluses. We talk about acreage JOHNSTON of south carolina] who helped control. Wheat farmers vote each year us to get through the provision for 60 on controls as they did last month.

They want marketing quotas. They percent, and I am very happy to know want price support. They voted in that that figure will be allowed to con- favor of quotas this year by 84 percent. tinue. And still we give them a program which

Mr. ELLENDER. There was an over- does not meet their needs nor the best sight on the part of the committee. interest of the Nation.

Is there some reason why we cannot have unit or bushel control on wheat, or pound control on cotton and devise a .sensible program? I note the presence in the Chamber of the junior Senator from Georgia [Mr. TALMADGE], whose farm bill would provide for such sensible and workable controls. The chairman of the Committee on Agriculture .and Forestry is also present and I invite his recommendations. . I have also talked with Members of _the House about unit control as against the present acreage controls which, in effect, offer no control.

Would such a unit control program be administratively feasible? Is there some reason why the Congress cannot devise a comprehensive, sound, in':.elligent, workable program, as the Democrats pledged in their convention in 1956, when they said they were going to offer the people of the country an agricultural bill of rights. Do we have one before us this evening, upon which we are to vote tomorrow? Are we giving the farmers at home the type of program they themselves want? Do the Democrats know what they are proposing here today? Is this the promised "agricultural bill of rights"? Is there not a feasible farm program which can be presented to the country?

I do not address my remarks entirely to the Senator from New Mexico, but he has a fine background of experience, and I have great confidence in his judgment. I would appreciate his comment on the subject.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I would rather have the Senator from Louisiana or the Senator from Georgia answer that question.

I point out to the Senator from Colorado that acreage controls, when we have prices which are pretty strong incentives, have never worked, so far as I know. I doubt if they ever will work.

At the present time we have a system of trying to administer cotton acreage. I was about to say something about the State represented, in part, by the able ·senator from California [Mr. KNowLAND]. In the State of California there is a great deal of skip-row cotton. The farmer plants 4 rows and skips 4 rows, so that there are four outside rows.

I went through two fields which were lying side by side. I do not like to say this about anything that grows in the State of California, but there is a wonderful color to cotton when it is the finest cotton in the world. I have never ~een such color in cotton in my life as I saw in the cotton in the State of California.

This particular farmer had two prac .. tices. In one field he was growing cotton planted solidly. In the next field he was skip-rowing cotton. He picked 3 bales from the solid growth, and 4 bales from the skip-row cotton.

The Department of Agriculture needs to watch that practice pretty carefully. Not every farmer can afford a program of skip-rowing, but it makes a tremendous difference in the yield. In the State of Texas there is in operation a different program. They plant 2 rows and skip 2 rows, so that every row i.s

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 14949 an outside row. That·makes production several times what it would be in the solidly planted fields.

As soon as controls are put into effect, the farmers buy extra fertilizer and adopt improved farming practices. The Senator from California well knows that his State has moved ahead because the farmers have spent their money for fertilizer and good farming practices. The result is enormous yields of the finest cotton I have ever seen in my life.

Mr. CARROLL. Would that situation be corrected by unit control?

Mr. ANDERSON. It could be corrected by bale control of production, with penalties.

In connection with one field in Arizona last year, the farmer paid a $900,000 penalty for planting thousands of acres of penalty <;otton. Subsequently ~e received a refund of several hundred thousand dollars because the cotton did not turn out as well as he thought it would.

It is that sort of thing that is bothersome about the program. If we had bale control, we could say how large the crop should be, and anything over that amount would move under penalty. It is very difficult to administer such controls in connection with a crop like wheat, when thousands of producers are under the 15-acre provision and they do not have to account for any of their wheat. But if a farmer in the State of Kansas, South Dakota, Colorado, or Texas, in a large farming area, overplants wheat, he must plow it up. He must account for every acre he has. But there are areas where that is not true, and those are the areas where wheat production has expanded most rapidly. The time has arrived when the strictest controls must be imposed or else the controls must be on an entirely different basis.

Mr. CARROLL. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield?

Mr. ANDERSON. I should like to answer the question completely.

Mr. CARROLL. I do not wish to draw the junior Senator from Georgia into this discussion, except for the RECORD. It is very clear to me that wheat is not to be treated at all in the bill before US, perhaps because of the heavy carryover, perhaps because of existing law, and perhaps because of existing price supports. This is not my field. I am not an expert in this field. However, my wheat farmers at home tell me, "If you will give us bushel control, we will know what our price-supported income will be, and all overproduction of grain can be, placed in storage as insurance. If we are hailed out or blown out or dried out next year, we shall have something to go on." Farmers could plant whatever acreage they please but the normal supply needed by the Nation could be calculated in bushels and controlled at that level regardless of production per acre.

That seems to me to be a far more) sensible program, if it is administratively feasible. It seems to me to be a more sensible program to place before the taxpayers of the country, when we think of . the enormous sums they are required to pay for support of surplus farm commodities.

CIV--941

If the ·junior Senator from Georgia, who is the sponsor of the particular measure to which I refer, would care to respond at this time, I should be very happy to hear from him.

Mr. TALMADGE. I shall comment for a moment or two. First let me say that I am not an authority on wheat. I do not pretend to be an authority on the subject. However, on the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry there are several of the Nation's outstanding authorities on the subject. I refer to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YouNG] and the distinguished Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MuNDT]. We also have the distinguished Senators from Kansas [Mr. SCHOEPPEL] and Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY and Mr. THYE]. They can answer any questions with reference to wheat far better than I can.

However, while I do not wish to make an extensive observation on the subject, I should like to say that there is a minimum wheat-acreage allotment of some 50 million acres and that no provision has been placed in the omnibus bill with reference to wheat.

Second, with reference to unit measures of control, I could not agree more with the Senator in his observations. Certainly,. we have learned that with an allotment of a certain number of acres of cotton, we do not know how many bales of cotton those acres will produce. Certainly, with an allotment of corn acres we do not know how many bushels of corn will be produced. It will depend upon the efficiency of the farmer, the amount of fertilizer he uses, the fertility of the soil, and on a great many other factors.

Therefore I believe it can be stated with certainty that an allotment of acres will not control production to the degree we seek to control it in the various bills. However, we have used the acreage allotment control heretofore, rather than a unit measurement.

I introduced a bill at this session of Congress, which is pending before the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. As yet no hearings have been held on it. I have not requested the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry to hold hearings on it, because I know, with the present climate in the Department of Agriculture and the attitude of the President of the United States at this time, there is no chance whatever of having the bill passed by Congress this year.

We have begun an educational campaign, which I hope will be of some benefit at some future date in writing a farm bill which will give the farmers the same degree of protection which is now enjoyed by people who work under the minimum-wage law, and by people who ~re fortunate enough to belong to labor unions.

It has been stated on the :floor of the Senate many times during the debate on the farm bill that the farm population now amounts to about 12 percent of the total population of the country; yet the people who till the soil for a living earn only slightly more than 3 percent of the Nation's income. It can be readily seen, therefore. that those who farm for a

living earn about 25 percent of what the nonfarmers earn. That is a sad situation, particularly when we realize that farmers produce all the food we eat and produce all the raw fiber that we use to make clothing. They grow the timber that we use to build our homes and churches and other public buildings.

I believe that ultimately the answer to the farm problem must be predicated upon a system of domestic allotments, the domestic allotments for the basic commodities amounting to the farmers' individual share of the domestic market. Upon these commodities the farmer ought to be paid 100 percent of parity. After he receives his domestic allotment he should be permitted to produce whatever he sees fit to produce. This would give the farmer freedom to farm.

I am one who believes that an abundance of agricultural commodities in this country is a blessing, not an evil. I suggest that we let those commodities seek their level in price, and let them be exported, and let us continue to produce them for export. Every time we reduce our acreage in this country, it is increased overseas, and that applies whether it be cotton, tobacco. or any other commodity.

Therefore I say we should let each farm commodity seek its own level. I would have the Government, by compensatory payments, make up the differ- · ence between the domestic parity allotted to the individual farmer and the base level of the crop.

Such a program has been criticized as the Brannan plan. It is not the Brannon plan. All it does is to provide that the farmer who produces a basic commodity will receive the same fair share of the national income that is received by every other citizen in our country.

It would do for the farmers what the minimum-wage law does for the people who work in interstate commerce. It would do for the farmer what the power of collective bargaining does for the people who are fortunate enough to belong to unions. It would do for the farmer what tariff protection laws do for industry. It would .give the farmer a fair share of the national income. It would recognize the fact that the standard of living in the United States .is greater than in Brazil or India or Pakistan, and that we are not going to let the farmers of the United States compete with the farmers of Pakistan or India or Brazil for a standard of living.

Mr. CARROLL. I thank the junior Senator from Georgia for his very illuminating explanation, and also the distinguished Senator from New Mexico for his observations on the subject.

I have only this to say. Last year we had a farm bill before us. We talked about how that bill failed to live up to . the promises made in the platforms of both political parties. Now here we are this year with a worse farm bill than last year. Unless we adopt a progressive and intelligent farm program, we will come back in 1960 with some new political programs but no real practical solution of the basic farm problems.

This is what we said in 1956: There are two soft spots in our economy. One


has to do with small business and the other has to do with the farm program.

We are now about to go home and as yet we have not squarely met these problems. The Democrats promised an agricultural bill of rights, and we have this weak bill before us today. Nor are there any stimulating farm ideas coming from the Republican side or from the Department of Agriculture.

I say to the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. TALMADGE] that, although I do not fully comprehend the full implications of all he has said, I am impressed with the vigor with which he presented his ideas. At least he understands the concept of unit control. The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERsoN] understands the concept of unit control. He did not deny the validity of that viewpoint. The view expressed by the Senator from Georgia certainly merits consideration by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and by the members of his committee, as well as by the House Committee on Agriculture. We must move forward in this field. We are not doing that. The House has rejected a good farm bill. It was because the city people are getting sick and tired of carrying a heavy tax load caused by the great food surpluses which are being piled up as a result of a negative farm policy.

Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. CARROLL. I yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr.

CLARK in the chair). The Chair points out that the Senator from New Mexico had the floor when he yielded to the Senator from Colorado for a question.

Mr. CARROLL. In the absence of the Senator from New Mexico, I claim the floor.

Mr. BENNETT. I raise a point of order. How did the Senator from Colorado get the floor? He was not recognized.

Mr. CARROLL. The Senator from New Mexico yielded it to him, to leave the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Utah raise a point of order?

Mr. BENNETT. I am questioning the transferring of the fioor--

Mr. CARROLL. I have no desire to take the floor away from any Senator who wishes it in his own right. I received the floor from the distinguished junior Senator from New Mexico. I propounded a question to him, and I assume he went out to do some research on it. [Laughter.] I now have the floor.

Mr. BENNETT. I raise the point of order and ask for the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reluctantly is compelled to rule that the Senator from New Mexico yielded to the Senator from Colorado, under the rules, for a question, and that the Senator from Colorado does not have the floor in his own right.

Mr. CARROLL. If I do not have the floor, I shall have to yield it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Utah.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I shall begin by apologizing to my colleague

from Colorado. If the situation were not what it is, I would not have interrupted in this matter.

Interestingly, the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON] assured me an hour and a half .ago that he intended to speak for only 5 minutes.

I am the sponsor of the pending amendment; and I have been under some pressure from the leadership on the other side of the aisle to get on with the business, so that Senators may vote tonight, and that voting can begin. So on that basis I have presumed, rudely, to claim the floor in order that the Senate may return to its orderly business.

Mr. CARROLL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield. Mr. CARROLL. I appreciate the

courtesy of the Senator from Utah, and perhaps the time will come when I shall be able to repay in kind.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, there is at the desk an amendment, which is the pending question, which, because of the nature of the parliamentary situation, has to be identified as an amendment to S. 2861. It is designated as "7-23-58-C." This amendment was intended to be offered to the wool bill, if that bill had been offered a-s a separate bill. Now that the wool bill has been offered as an amendment to the agriculture bill, the designation of the amendment, of course, must be an amendment in the second degree to the amendment, as modified, offered by the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YOUNG].

I wish to make two modifications in my amendment. On page 2, line 13, the word "6" should be changed to "21."

On line 22, after "(3)", insert "of those who participate.''

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Utah restate the modification he desires to make? The Chair is in some doubt.

Mr. BENNETT. The first modification is on page 2, line 13, to change "6" to "21."

The second modification is on line 22, after "(3) ", to insert "of those who participate," so that the sentence will read:

(3) o! those who participate, at least twothirds-

And so on. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Utah has a right to modify his amendment. The Senator may proceed.

Mr. BENNETT. I stand here tonight in an interesting, perhaps an unenviable, position. Most of my fellow Senators from the western wool-growing states have already spoken in opposition to the amendment I have offered. This fact might create the impression that I am antagonistic to the wool bill. The truth, of course, is far from that. I am very desirous of having the wool bill passed at this session, so as to continue the present program in its essential and important features. However, one problem has been raised

which I think is of sufticient importance to warrant the study and consideration of the Senate. I hope that the wool bill will be passed either as an amendment

to the agricultural bill or as a sep .... rate bill, if that should become necessary.

S. 2861, the original wool bill, has been on the Senate Calendar for many weeks. During that time, a question has arisen over a matter of principle involving provisions of section 708 of the present law, which would be continued as law if the pending amendment of the Senator from North Dakota should be adopted and finally become law.

Under section 708, a program is provided whereby funds can be obtained to promote the greater use of wool and meat from sheep and goats. Under the present law, all those who raise sheep and goats are privileged to vote in a referendum; and if two-thirds of those who· vote agree, a small fraction of the growers' benefits will be withheld by the Secretary of Agriculture, under an agreement, and expended for the promotional program.

So far as I know, there is no opposition among the wool growers to the continuation of the withholding program. My question arises because under the present program there is no provision for a minimum number or a percentage of the growers who must vote in the referendum before the results become binding on the industry. As things now stand, it is theoretically possible to put this program into operation if only 3 growers voted and 2 of them voted for the program. I recognize the fact that that sounds ridiculous, but it is theoretically possible.

In any event, a comparatively small percentage of the growers could make the decision and require the withholding of funds from every benefit paid to every grower in the United States.

In the last referendum, approxima-tely 23 percent of the growers voted, and more than the necessary two-third voted for the program. So approximately between 16 and 17 percent of the sheepgrowers in the United States put the program into operation, and effectively imposed a tax on the other 83 or 84 percent of the growers. I realize that the percentage was higher than that in terms of the total number of sheep; but that is the situation.

What bothers me, in addition to that, Mr. President, is the experience we have had with other programs in agriculture involving referendums. The record has been that when a referendum was new and interesting, a comparatively large number of growers voted; but as thereferendum became a matter of accepted experience, the number has tended to diminish.

It is interesting to see that between 1954 and 1958-5 years--the number who voted in the wheat referendum dropped from 54% percent of the growers to 26-fu percent. That was a drop of more than half in 4 years.

In the cotton referendum, in 1955, 27 percent of the growers voted; in 1958, only 18 percent voted.

But the cotton picture becomes even more interesting, if we go back to 1938. The number of growers who voted in the upland cotton referendum in 1938 was 1,527 ,000. The number of growers who voted in 1958 was 229,000. Five-sixths

1958 · CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14951 of those who voted the first time, said "Oh, what's the use? It is going to go through, and we are not bothered."

If the wool situation follows that pattern, we can expect in a year or two to find 10 percent of the wool growers of the United States imposing this tax on the other 90 percent.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I yield. Mr. GOLDWATER. What is the tax

used for? Mr. BENNETT. It is turned over to

an organization which develops a promotion program for the greater use and sale of lamb and wool and wool fabrics. I am sure Senators have seen advertisements to that effect in the national magazines and the local newspapers.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Was not the wool act intended to protect the American wool grower from foreign imports?

Mr. BENNETT. I am sure that is correct.

Mr. GOLDWATER. I do not say this as speaking against the Senator's amendment, but I think it will be of interest. The other ctay I saw a cigarette lighter carrying the inscription: "Lamb's my meat," That lighter was a giveaway or a present by the American Wool Growers Association. Does the Senator from Utah know where that lighter was made?

Mr. BENNETT. I would be interested to know.

Mr. GOLDWATER. It was made in Japan.

Mr. BENNETT. Fortunately for the American wool grower, so far as I know, sheep are not grown commercially in Japan. At least, we are not importing wool from Japan. We are importing much cotton. Maybe the Japanese will follow that lighter up. I hope not.

Mr. President, I think it is time for Congress to face this question as a matter of basic policy.

There are now before Congress proposals from other segments of agriculture which suggest the use of similar withholding programs, based on the same device of conducting a referendum within the industry. Following in the pattern set up in existing law applicable to the wool industry, these new proposals also suggest no minimum limit in the case of those whose votes would be permitted to bind the whole industry.

Therefore, I think it essential that we now consider the problem specifically, and begin to establish a policy pattern for every industry which wishes to use this device.

Obviously, there are two sides to the question. Already this evening the Senate has heard my colleague and very fine friend, the senior Senator from Utah [Mr. WATKINS], as well as other Senators from the West, attack the proposal I am making, and indicate that they do not support it.

There are those who are opposed to any requirement that a minimum number of those eligible to vote must vote if the referendum is to be valid. They argue that everyone who really is interested will have an opportunity to vote, and that the program should not be

jeopardized because of indifference. On the other hand, there are those who feel that to accept this idea is to permit ' taxation without representation, so to speak-in other words, the establishment of a rule by which a small minority could impose a checkoff on a whole industry. I am one of those who do not believe that to be a sound principle; and for many weeks I have been urging my friends who take opposing views to try to find a common ground, so the question would not be involved in our consideration of the bill here in the Senate. Unfortunately, that has not happened.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield to me?

Mr. BENNETT. I am glad to yield. Mr. YOUNG. Would the Senator from

Utah be willing to have applied to wool the same principle that is applied in the case of milk marketing orders, meat marketing orders, wheat quotas, tobacco quotas, and so forth?

Mr. BENNETT. I think the time has come when we should consider adopting that principle as a basic one.

Unfortunately, as the Senator from North Dakota knows, the Senator from Utah is not directly involved in the handling of the agricultural program in the Senate, and thus he is not able to pass judgment on that particular question.

Mr. YOUNG. In Utah, there are many woolgrowers who have large herds, whereas in North Dakota the average herd of sheep is quite small.

Of course, in the case of wheat, when the total number of farmers who produce wheat is considered, it includes farmers who produce wheat on only 10 acres or 15 acres, and who therefore have no vote in the referendums. They are not permitted to vote, even if they wish to.

Mr. BENNETT. However, the heading on the publication of the Department of Agriculture is "Estimated Total Number of Those Eligible To Vote."

In the case of wheat, the number has dropped from 54% percent of those eligible to vote to 26.3 percent of those eligible to vote.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield to me?

Mr. BENNETT. I am glad to yield to my friend, the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. MUNDT. It seems to me that the proposal of the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT] might lead to the adoption of a rather dangerous precedent; I refer to the proposal that, in order for an election to be valid, a certain percentage of the eligible voters must vote. For instance, if that principle were to be extended in its application, it might result in endangering the election of Senators.

I am sure that a principle such as the one now suggested by my colleague for application in this case would not be properly applied to presidential elections, Congressional elections, elections of school-board members, and so forth.

Mr. BENNETT. But today there is such a rule in the Senate; theoretically, unless 49 Senators are present, no action taken by the Senate is valid.

Mr. MUNDT. But I am referring to the election of Senators. No such rule applies to the election of Senators from

Utah or from South Dakota, for instance. In such cases there is no rule that, in order to have a valid senatorial election, a certain percentage of the eligible voters must vote.

So I do not believe we should impose such a rule on the wool industry, when we would be unwilling to impose a similar rule upon ourselves.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield to me?

Mr. BENNETT. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. I am afraid the Senator

from South Dakota is unduly alarmed. It is common knowledge that the most successful and the most widely used marketing orders today are the milkmarketing orders; and in order to have a valid milk-marketing order, 66% percent of the total number of producers are required to vote in favor of the order.

So what the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT] proposes-and I do not say this as an argument in favor of his amendment-is far, far less than what is required today of the dairy producers.

I have said that in the case of milkmarketing orders, the requirement is that 66% percent of the total number of producers vote. I believe that is true, although I am not sure that it is true in all areas. But I know it is true in the marketing areas with which I am most familiar.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I appreciate the statement the Senator from Vermont has made.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield to me?

Mr. BENNETT. I yield. Mr. GOLDWATER. I wish to try to

answer the Senator from South Dakota, without at the same time giving an equally good argument to my friend, the Senator from Utah. I may point out that in the past few years this body decided that more than 50 percent of the eligible voters would be required to vote, in order to have democratic processes applied in connection with the functioning of the unions of the country.

So, actually, what the Senator from Utah is proposing is less stringent than that proposal.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield further to me?

Mr. BENNETT. I yield. Mr. MUNDT. I think it would be man

ifestly unfair to impose on the wool industry and the sheep industry such a new rule-namely, that in order for a referendum to be valid, a certain percentage of the eligible voters would have to vote.

It seems to me that in that connection it would be more in keeping with equity to evaluate the votes on the basis of the number of sheep in the flock of each individual voter-just as, in effect, a similar rule applies in the case of voting by stock owners.

However, in the case of the present proposal, there would be an additional restriction, namely, that a certain number of the persons who have sheep, and who are eligible to vote, must vote if the referendum is to be valid. I think such a restriction would vitiate the act.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, obviously the Senator from South Dakota and I do not agree.


Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield further to me?

Mr. BENNETT. I yield. Mr. YOUNG. One of the reasons

why I oppose the amendment is the situation which exists in my own State. In North Dakota, sheep raising is a sideline; there are not more than one dozen large operators in the entire State. In fact, the average number of sheep in all the fiocks on all the farms of the Nation is only seven.

So when sheep raising is only a sideline, those who raise sheep are not interested in taking the time and the trouble to vote; voting in connection with such matters does not mean that much to them.

In the case of the dairy farmers, inasmuch as most dairy farms are more or less of average size, it might be possible to impose such a requirement.

But in this case, I believe such an amendment would destroy this part of the program.

Mr. BENNETT. I should like to have a little discussion about arithmetic with my friend, the Senator from North Dakota. According to the best information I can obtain, there are between 315,000 and 320,000 woolgrowers or sheep owners in the Nation. But it seems to me that on the fioor of the Senate it has been stated, this evening, that the· sheep population is 30 million. Does the Senator from North Dakota know what the correct figure is?

Mr. YOUNG. · According to the information I have, there are approximately 300,000 producers in the Nation.

Mr. BENNETT: That is- correct. How many sheep are there?

Mr. YOUNG. Approximately 30 million.

Mr. BENNETT. If there are 30 million sheep and 300,000 sheep owners in the United States, the average fiock in the United States is 100 sheep; it is not 7.

Mr. AIKEN. I suggest that the time of year makes a great difference as to the number of sheep. Lambs come into the picture from the end of February to June, which means that at that time of year there will be at least one-third more sheep than there were at the end of January.

Mr. BENNETT. But, of course, that number does not represent the difference between 7 and 100.

Mr. AIKEN. That is quite a difference. . Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I am glad to yield. Mr. LAUSCHE. I wish to ask a ques

tion for the purpose of obtaining information. Is there in the statutes anywhere a program providing for the advertising of a specific farm product the financing of which is done through a law such as is suggested by the Senator from Utah?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. A sheep program has been in effect for 2 years. An advertising program is in operation. It is a fact. This bill would continue it.

Mr. LAUSCHE. What are the provisions of the present program with regard to the voting formula? _

Mr. BENNET!'. Two-thirds of those who vote must vote for the program.

There is no minimum as to the number who must vote.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Do I understand correctly that is the present law?

Mr. BENNETT. That is correct. Mr. LAUSCHE. That when two

thirds vote--Mr. BENNET!'. No; when two-thirds

of those who vote. Mr. LAUSCHE. Then the deduction

becomes allowable? Mr. BENNETT. It becomes manda

tory as to everybody who receives a benefit under the program.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Is a similar program existent as to any other farm product?

Mr. BENNETT. Not that I know of; no program which involves the deduction of money.

Mr. LAUSCHE. A final question: What does the amendment of the Senator from Utah provide with regard to the existing law? - Mr. BENNETT. The amendment of

the Senator from Utah is an amendment to the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota. The Senator from North Dakota proposes that the existing law should be continued for 4 years, practically without change. The Senator from Utah suggests this change.

Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. To whomdoes the· Senator from Utah desire to yield? · · ·

Mr.- BENNETT. Perhaps I had better conclude my colloquy with the Senator from Ohio. The amendment of the Senator from Utah would require that onethird of the growers must participate before the election referendum can become valid. If less than one-third participate, then there has been no decision.

Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? ·

Mr. BENNETT. I yield to the Senator from· Minnesota.

Mr. THYE. Who would conduct the election?

Mr. BENNETT. The Secretary of Agriculture.

Mr. THYE. Has not our philosophy been to have less regimentation and red tape, and would this not be adding to regimentation and red tape?

Mr. BENNETT. The amendment of the Senator from Utah does not change the law in that respect.

Mr. THYE. Those who desired to be regimented and to cast a vote could cast a vote; but those who did not care to vote were not compelled to vote. · Mr. BENNETT. They were not com

pelled to vote, but the money was taken from them.

Mr. THYE. That is correct, and the producer has not complained about it; but in this instance the Senator is proposing to make it mandatory that a certain percentage vote.

Mr. BENNETT. That is true. Mr. THYE. Therein lie regimentation

anci mandatory provisions. Mr. BENNETT. I do not think it is

regimentation to ask that one-third of those eligible must vote before they bind the other two-third's. Again, that is a difference of opinion between me and my friend. ·-

May I continue with .my statement, Mr. President?

In applying this principle to the wool bill, there were those who felt strongly that the minimum should be set at 40 percent of the wool growers who should be required to participate. I personally feel this percentage is too high, considering that there has been no limitation during the life of the present wool bill. I think the principle can be established if a smaller minimum participa-tion is required. _

I have selected the figure of 33% percent because my conversations with both sides of this argument indicate that this seems to be the lowest figure that can be sustained without developing opposi- · tion which might be sufficient to jeopardize the whole bill. I agree that 33% percent still represents a minority, but if it will serve to establish the principle, it can be adjusted up or down later, after we have had experience with it. At the same time, I realize that this requirement sets a very difficult task for the wool growers who favor this promotion program, and for the organizations that represent them.

In 1954, the latest date for which the Department of Agriculture has figures, there were approximately 315,000 producers of wool who -would be eligible to vote. Eighty percent of these have small farm fiocks, from 50 head down to 5.

Under this amendment, and if the number of producers has not grown materially, about 105,000 growers would have to participate to validate the referendum. and 70,000 would have tQ approve the program to put it into effect. In the last referendum some 67,000 voted. In effect, the number of voters would have to be increased by 38,QOO, or a little more than 50 percent. I agree that this would be difficult, but I do not think · it is impossible to attain. In the past there was no need to work for total· vote, and therefore no point in following through to get out a big vote. If the total vote becomes as important as a big affirmative vote, and I believe the two can be attained together, I believe this program can be sustained. Before, people could be indifferent without risk. The very knowledge that a minimum exists, and that to abstain is in fact to vote against the program, should encourage participation. Then, too, there has been a specific program in operation whose benefits can be pointed out and the whole continuation can be justified.

As I have said, Mr. President, I know our woolgrowers need this bill. I know, too, that without some such amendment as mine, there might be enough opposition to the bill as to put its passage in jeopardy. Therefore, I earnestly urge my colleagues to support the amendment and then support the Young proposal to include the wool bi11 in the general bill before us. By doing this, I think we shall not only make extension of the Wool Act easier and safer, but we shall set this principle of minimum participation up as a Senate policy for similar programs that may be considered in the future.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question?

Mr. BENNETT. I yield.

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14953 Mr. LAUSCHE. Where will the pro

ducers be if and when the time comes when, with respect to each farm product, there will be a similar situation prevailing as that which now prevails in the case of the woolgrowers? By that I mean when the producers of pork, lamb, beef, and other farm products find themselves, by legislative fiat, required to pay a certain amount of money into the fund for advertising purposes. My answer to the question, if I may answer my own question, is that they will be in the identical position they would be in if no law had ever been passed requiring compulsory contributions for advertising purposes.

Mr. BENNETT. It is the opinion of the Senator from Utah, judging by the record in the referenda with respect to other crops, it might well be that after a few years a small group in each area would control the situation and the rest of the growers would have given up and assumed they had no say or no need to have a say. I believe this is an important matter.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. I should like to make it

plain that my reference to milk marketing orders a few minutes ago did not imply that a milk marketing order under Federal law permits any checkoff or deduction of funds for promotion purposes. There are several million dollars a year sp-ent in promoting the use of milk and its products, but the funds for th'at purpose are all provided by voluntary checkoff on the part of the pro-: ducer, or in some cases under State law where the checkoff is authorized for the promotion of dairy products within the State. There is no Federal law permitting a checkoff system for dairy producers for promotional purposes.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. Presidei_lt, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield. Mr. LAUSCHE. In Ohio efforts were

made to secure the passage of a law dealing with one of the fruits, though I do not recall now which fruit. I took the position that such action would place upon many unwilling growers a burden which ought not to be imposed upon them by law, and that, if they wanted such a program, they ought to subscribe ·to it voluntarily and provide the necessary funds. I was opposed to the program. I would be opposed to this program if it were now initially before the Senate.

Mr. BENNETT. This program was adopted by the Senate 2 years ago. It is the hope of the Senator from Utah that it can be stiffened.

Mr. President, I have no desire to continue this discussion further. I hope a vote can be taken soon.

SEVERAL SENATORS. Vote! Vote! Vote! Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, I

rise, as we near a vote, to speak very briefly in favor of the Young amendment, which contains the provisions of the Wool Act, and to oppose the proposal by the distinguished Senator from Utah to modify the Young amendment. ·

When I was a member of the legislature in my State, we enacted ·laws to

provide for th~ use of funds from the milk producers, dairy producers, and growers of wheat to advertise and promote those products. This program was set up by law. The program has been successful in my State. I doubt if very many dairy producers or wheat growers would like to see those laws repealed in Oregon. They have been very successful laws.

I learned only a few moments ago from the very able Senator from Kansas, who has been a leader in the field of agriculture, that somewhat similar legislation with respect to wheat was enacted in his State of Kansas. I believe the operation of the law is successful in that State.

I support the Yo\lng am.e"ndment with:. out the modifying features proposed by the able Senator from Utah.

Mr. President, there is great interest among the woolgrowers of Oregon in the action the Senate takes relative to S. 2861, the important features of which are· embodied in the Young amendment. I have had several communications expressing that interest, with all of them urging action on the bill as it came from the Committee. As cosponsor of this measure, I ask unanimous consent that wires and letters from Oregonians, including the Governor of Oregon, the Honorable Robert D. Holmes, be printed in the RECORD at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the tele..; ·grams -and letters -were ordered ·to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

SALEM, OREG., July 22, 1958. Senator NEUBERGER,


Oregon sheepmen deeply concerned over lack of Senate action to date on Senate 2861 to extend the National Wool Act which understand has been on Senate Calendar past couple months. To plan their operations for 1959 including number of ewes held for breeding sheepmen must know promptly what conditions they will face during coming season. Your best effort toward calling this important bill up for Senate action without further delay will be greatly appreciated.

ROBERT D. HOLMES, Governor of Oregon.

PORTLAND, OREG. The Honorable RICHARD L. NEUBERGER,

Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

On behalf of the sheepmen of Oregon, I seek your assistance to get S. 2861 on the Senate Calendar. This bill extends to National Wool Act, and it is vitally important to the sheep industry that the National Wool Act receive favorable consideration by the Congress.

C. B. STEPHENSON, President, First National

Bank of Portland.

MAUPIN, OREG., April 28, 1958. Senator RICHARD NEUBERGER,


Woolgrowers of this area strongly urge immediate consideration of S. 2861 to extend Wool Act as Senate Agriculture Committee reported; also urge you oppose any amendments which might prevent accomplishing purposes o! this act.

GEORGE WARD. WAsco CouNTY.

FOSSIL, OREG., April 28, 1958. Senator RICHARD NEUBERGER,


Request you seek quick consideration of S. 2861 to extend Wool Act as approved by Senate Committee. We oppose any injurious amendments to promotion and self-felt program. Urge that you oppose such amendments on Senate floor.

J. P. STEIWER, Secretary, Oregon Wool Growers.

CORVALLIS, OREG. Senator RICHARD NEUBERGER,

Washington, D. C.: Our members would appreciate your help

in seeking early action on S. 2861 relative to extension of Wool Act reported by Agricultural Committee of Senate. We further request you use your influence 'in opposition to any amendments injurious to the intent of the act.

AMERICAN ROMNEY BREEDERS AssociATION,

H. A. LINDGREN, Secretary.

LAKEVIEW, OREG., June 23, 1958. Sen a tor RICHARD NEUBERGER,

Senate Building, Washington, D. C.:

Urgent get -action renew Wool Act. Request your help.

FREEMONT SHEEPMANS' ASSOCIATION.

REDMOND, OREG., July 22, 1958. The Honorable RICHARD L. NEUBERGER,

United States Senate Office Building, Washingtoni D. C.: ·

Tlie · Agriculture· Committees of both _Houses have favorably a«ted on the Wool bill but it has not come to the floor of the House for action. We would like to urge your support on this matter since you realize the important of the Wool Act to the sheep industry and the welfa!"e of our community. The sheep industry can not survive in the fact of foreign competition withou-t sufficient tariffs and without any support program.

CENTRAL OREGON PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION, RED• MOND, OREG.,

By W. C. HAYS, Secretary-Treasurer.

THE DALLES, OREG., July 22, 1958. Hon. RICHARD NEUBERGER,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: _

Would appreciate any help you can give to get bill, S. 2861, Wool Act on Senate floor for favorable consideration.

J.MERTIN STEIN, Secretary-Treasurer, Mid-Columbia

Production Credit Association.

ROSEBURG, OREG., July 21, 1958. RICHARD NEUBERGER,


Douglas County Livestock Association requests your support toward renewing National Wool Act. We feel it essential to our sheep industry. Your assistance urgently needed to get this legislation through before present act expires.

' DARLEY WARE, President.

REDMOND, OREG., July 21, 1958. Senator RICHARD L. NEUBERGER,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D .a.:

Please use best efforts to pass the Wool Act.

HENRY E. ROOPER. ANTELOPE, OREG.

14954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 PoRTLAND, OREG., July 23, 1958.

H011. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER, Senate Office B.uilding,

Washington, D. C.: May we call your attention to renewal of

Wool Act of 1954, now favorably acted on by Agricultural Committees of both House and Senate, but has not been permitted to come to floor for action. Renewal of this act before adjournment of present session is vital to survival of western sheepmen and to woolen industry of this country. It is our hope that you will be able to give enactment of bill your active support.

PENDLETON WOOLEN MILLS, C. M. BISHOP, President.

EcHO, OREG., July 22,1958. Senator RICHARD NEUBERGER,


The Agricultural Committees of both Houses have favorably acted on the Wool bill to extend National Wool Act beyond 1958 marketing year. However, up to now, has not been permitted to come to the floor of either House. It would be bad for Oregon sheepmen to lose this support along with past reductions in tariff which the Wool Act is to reimburse growers. For I do not agree with the stand of the American Bureau of Federation, feel they should be ignored in this matter.

GAYLORD· MADISON, President of Umatilla Wool Growers.

CURRY COUNTY LIVESTOCK AssociATION,

Gold Beach, Oreg., July 21, 1958. Oregon Delegation in Congress: WAYNE

MORSE, RICHARD NEUBERGER, WALTER NORBLAD, Mrs. EDITH GREEN, AL ULLMAN, CHARLES PORTER:

The sheep industry and wool income is of vital importance in Oregon. While we are generally opposed to subsidies we must admit that the wool incentive payment is most economically sound and of most vital importance to our total economy and preparedness.

Our sheep population in the United States is approximately half the number on farms during the early OPA uneconomic regulations period when WAYNE MoRsE made his daily speech opposing restrictions on lamb marketing. At that time he predicted it would put our sheepmen out of business, and it did, many of them. During World War II southern hemisphere wool was stockpiled again, making the woolgrower a victim of controlled economy disadvantages. The sheep industry plays a very important part in good land use and should be encouraged.

Now we are threatened with political negligence. The Agricultural Committees of both Houses have favorably acted on the wool bill but it has not been permitted to come to the floor of either House for action. There is now a grave danger that Congress will not act at this session and there may be less than 3 weeks left before they adjourn.

We urgently request that the Oregon delegation use their combined influence and united action to get the wool incentive bill on the floor before Congress adjourns this session. Thank you very much.

Yours very truly, CHARLES R. KNox,

President, Curry County Livestock Association.

WESTERN OREGON LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION,

McMinnville, Oreg., April 28, 1958. Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER,

Senate Office Building-. Washington, D. C.:

I want to take this opportunity to urge that you seek early consideration and action

on S. 2861, to ext·end the Wool Act as reported by the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Since wool is classed as a strategic commodity and production below a safe level in the United States, I surely oppose any tieup with any other commodity.

Checked on prices here in Yamhill County, Oreg., today; 36 cents per pound long grades, 31 cents per pound lamb wool and short wool. Last year as of April 28 was 64 cents per pound'.

The sheepman, both large and small, needs this act extended and intact.

Sincerely yours, WALTER A. SHUMWAY,

President, Western Oregon Livestock Association.

PACIFIC WOOL GROWERS, Portland, Oreg., July 10, 1958.

The Honorable RICHARD NEUBERGER, United States Senate,

Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: I had in

tended to write you this letter previous to the time that the debate in the Senate came up on the farm bill. However, I expect that progress has not gone so far but what we may present our views, which might be helpful to you. .

Naturally, we hope that you wm support vigorously, the extension of the Wool Act, which, as you know, is vital to the preservation of the domestic sheep industry.

It is our understanding that you have on hand a separate wool bill, S. 2861,. which is still on the calendar and might be brought up separately if the Wool Act is not extended as a part of the farm bill, should it pass. Of course, if the farm bill should be defeated, every effort should be made to have the Wool Act passed separately. This is the considered opinion of the entire industry, both manufacturers and producers.

Your cooperation and support in accomplishing the end sought, will be sincerely appreciated. We also hope that you will oppose any amendment intended to cripple the operation of the Wool Act, as we understand such a move might be in the offing.

Mr. Edwin E. Marsh, who is secretary of the National Wool Growers Association, is in Washington, staying at the Hotel Continental. His telephone number is National 8-1672. If there is any information you require concerning the legislation from the standpoint of the domestic woolgrowers, he will be very glad to furnish it to you.

Cordially, R. A. WARD,

General Manager.

EUGENE, OREG., July 17, 1958. Senator RICHARD NEUBERGER,


The Oregon Wool Growers Auxiliary asks you to please not allow any amendments to be added to section 708 of the National Wool Act Renewal.

Mrs. MARION G. KREBS, President, Oregon Wool GToweTs

Auxiliary.

ARLINGTON, OREG., July 20, 1958. Senator RICHARD NEUBERGER,


We urgently request you make every effort to have the wool bill brought out of the Agriculture· Committee to the floor of the Senate for action before Congress adjourns. The fate of the sheep industry is at stake. Further liquidation can be stopped only by extension of this act.

GEORGE SHANE & SoN.

PORTLANIY, OREG., July 19,1958. Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER,


We understand that the agricultural omnibus bill containing the wool incentive pro-

gram was defeated. This is a serious blow to the sheepmen of Oregon and urgently request your assistance in introducing and supporting new legislation which will continue the present program for another 4 years. As we are financing a large portion of sheepmen in the Northwest we realize the value of the incentive program. In our estimation this program has definitely carried out the original intent and has been beneficial in stabilizing the sheep industry in our area; therefore, we feel that it would be very unwise to discontinue this program now.

NORTHWEST LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION.

VALE, OREG., July 19, 1958. Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER,

Washington, D. C.: Urgently request your full support for

passage of S. 2861. Industries desperately 1n need of Wool Act extension.

Kindest regards. JULIAN ARRIEN.

HEPPNER, OREG., July 21, 1958. Senator RICHARD NEUBERGER,



VIRGINIA and DICK WILKINSON.

HEPPNER, OREG., July 21, 1958. Senator RICHARD NEUBERGER,



WAVEL WILKINSON.

HEPPNER, OREG., July 21, 1958. Sen a tor RICHARD NEUBERGER,



SHIRLEY and GEORGE RUGG.

BROOKINGS, OREG., July 20, 1958. Senator NEUBERGER,

Washington, D. C. HoNORABLE Sm: We urgently request that

you act immediately on the National Wool Act before Congress adjourns this session.

Sincerely, DELMAR COLEGROVE, Sr.

BROOKINGS, OREG., July 20, 1958. Senator NEUBERGER,


I urge you to do everything possible for passing of the National Wool Act.

GENE COLEGROVE. HARBOR, OREG.

ONTARIO, OREG., July 21., 1958. Senator RICHARD L. NEUBERGER,


Request support and immediate action for extension of National Wool Act.

D. F. FRASER.

COQUILLE, OREG. Sen a tor RICHARD NEUBERGER,


Request your immediate efforts to bring bfl!l to extend Wool Act from committee and through Congress t:his session. Wool support ends this year unless this bill is passed now.

HOLLIS MAST, President, Coos County Livestock

Association.

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14955 PORTLAND, OREG., July 23, 1958.

RICHARD L. NEUBERGER, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. a.: As passage of National Wool Act is essen

tial for survival of Oregon woolgrowers, suggest all possible effort for renewal of act before Congress adjourns.

PORTLAND WOOL TRADE ASSOCIATION, THOMAS B. BISHOP, President.

KLAMATH FALLS, OREG., July 24, 1958. Hon. RICHARD NEUBERGER,

United States Senate, Washington, D . a.:

We urge renewal of the 1954 Wool Act, Senate bill 2861.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KLAMATH PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION.

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK IN AGRICULTt-...~ AND HOME ECONOMICS,

STATE OF OREGON, McMinnville, May 5, 1958.

Hon. Senators WAYNE MoRSE, RICHARD NEUBERGER,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C .

GENTLEMEN: It has been called to our attention that Senate bill 2861 regarding the extension of the wool program is about to be brought before the Senate for vote.

The price of wool in Yamhill County is lower this year than it has been for several years. Our sheep producers feel they need the support given them through this Wool Act. Therefore, the Yamhill County Livestock Association solicits your support in helping to pass this bill.

Sincerely yours, VERYLE JONES,

Pres-ident of Yamhill County Livestock Association.

OAKLAND, OREG., July 22, 1958. Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER,

United States Senator, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: I am Writing relative to the Wool Act.

Woolgrowers are faced with ruinous low prices if the Wool Act is not renewed. Wool is an important commodity from the standpoint of defense, and our growers are an important segment of our Oregon agricultural economy.

I would urge every effort on your part to see that this important piece of legislation is passed before Congress adjourns.

Sincerely yours, EUGENE H. FISHER,

Member, Pacific Wool Growers Board of Directors.

Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, S. 2861 was reported by the Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee April21. I believe I have heard of no particular opposition to the measure, although there may be a minority who would favor moderate amendments. Judging by my constituents, it has unanimous backing from the wool growers and equally strong support from allied industries.

I would like to emphasize the point made by the Governor of Oregon, in his wire, in which he invites attention to the fact that woolgrowers are at this time planning their operations for 1959. In determining the number of ewes to be held for breeding, sheepmen should know very shortly the conditions under which they will operate next year. Favorable action now on the wool measure would help greatly in this respect.

The urgency of this bill was especially emphasized to me yesterday by ex-State Senator W. H. Steiwer, of Fossil, Oreg.,

an official of the National Wool Growers Association and a past president of the Oregon Wool Growers Association, with whom I discussed the problem. Mr. Steiwer has raised sheep for many years in the Blue Mountain area of eastern Oregon, and is a recognized authority on matters pertaining directly to wool production.

Mr. President, in supporting the bill we are not experimenting but rather putting our stamp of approval on the tested program, which has won support from all segments of the wool industry. I urge prompt and favorable action, and I should like to ask unanimous consent to have printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, at this point, a letter I wrote to the able Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT] earlier this week, on the urgency of extending the Wool Act.


JULY 22, 1958. Hon. WALLACE F. BENNETT,

Cochairman, Confe1·ence of Western Senators,


DEAR SENATOR BENNETT: I am pleased to hear that you have asked the majority leader to call up S. 2861 separately if it is determined S. 4071 is not to be considered.

I have heard from the wool people in Oregon who are concerned over the question of incentive price and the question of the number of ewe lambs to retain. Of course, they must decide these questions in the next few weeks. The action taken on the wool bill will, I know, determine the decisions of the woolgrowers in this respect. As a cosponsor of S. 2861, I appreciate your sending me a copy of your letter in which you have very properly brought this matter to the attention of the Majority Leader just at this time.

With kind regards, I am, Sincerely,

RICHARD L. NEUBERGER, United States Senator.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.



Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I will take only a half minute.

The Secretary of Agriculture now has authority to do exactly what the Senator from Utah is proposing. The Secretary can require that higher percentage of producers vote if he wants to. This is a good program. I believe the amendment would kill this very good program.

Mr. BENNE'IT. Mr. President, I am afraid I must ask the Senator from North Dakota to explain his statement. It is my understanding the Secretary of Agriculture has the power to require a higher percentage of those who participate, but no power to set a minimum on the participation.

Mr. YOUNG. The Secretary has the authority to require a higher percentage of participation.

·Mr. BENNET!'. Of those who partici-pate?

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. SEVERAL SENATORS. Vote! Vote! Vote! The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT] to the amendment, as modified, offered by the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YOUNG]. [Putting the question.] ·

The amendment to the amendment was rejected. .

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Young amendment.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California will state it.

Mr. KNOW!...AND. Is the request of the Senator for the yeas and nays on the Young amendment?

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator is correct.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota requests the yeas and nays on the Young amendment. Is there a sufficient second?

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I want

to state briefly my support of the amendment offered by the hard-working junior Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YouNG]. The modifying language he has developed, which provides a ceiling of 85 percent of parity on wool supports from tariff receipts, is unquestionably fair, reasonable and equitable.

As has been noted earlier by the able senior Senator from Wyoming [Mr. BARRETT], who is one of this country's truly distinguished authorities on our wool industry, the Wool Act must be extended if we are to keep the sheep industry safely on the road to recovery.

The Department of Agriculture has recommended extension of the Wool Act. Our own Agriculture and Forestry Committee has recommended it. Our domestic industry cannot survive without it. And, Mr. President, I know of no reason for not continuing this eminently successful program.

To illustrate how some of the people in Colorado feel about this matter, I would like to have printed in the RECORD some of the telegrams and letters I have received, and for that purpose ask unanimous consent.


GYPSUM, COLO., July 23, 1958. Sen a tor GORDON ALLOTT,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C .:

We want and need the National Wool Act extended. Please contact Congressmen W. S. HILL and J. E. CHENOWETH. Please do all you can for us.

Thanks. J. LEROY MAYNE.

ASPEN, COLO., July 23, 1958. Senator GORDON ALLOTT,


DEAR SIR: Respectfully urge your efforts on behalf of the wool bill.

Appreciatively. A. PERRY CHRISTENSEN.

14956 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 SALIDA, COLO., July 23, 1958.

Hon. GORDON ALLOTT, Senate Chambers,

Washington, D. C.: The sheep industry in Colorado urgently

needs the extension of the Wool Act. E. E. NYWMYER.

SALIDA, COLO., July 23, 1958. Hon. GORDON ALLOTT,

Senate Chambers, Washington, D. C.:

We urge you to expend all possible effort toward immediate passage of Wool Act.

WILLIAM E. BRAY, GEORGE MIKE YOUNG, MARSHALL HUGHES, RoY DAVIS, EDWIN JACOBS, FLOYD KINION,

San Miguel Wool Growers Association. REDVALE, COLO.

SALIDA, CoLo., July 23, 1958. Hon. GoRDON ALLOTT,

Senate Chambers, Washington, D. C.:

The survival of our sheep industry is in the extension of the Wool Act.

ORDWAY, COLO.

HIXON RANCH Co. REX HIXSON.

SALIDA, COLO., July 23,1958. Hon. GORDON ALLOTT,


Please do everything possible to get the wool bill passed.

T. C. ALEXANDER, Member, Board of Directors, Presi

dent of Saguache County Wool Growers Association.

SALIDA, COLO., July 23, 1958. Senator GoRDON ALLOTT,

Senate Chamber, Washington, D. C.:

Would appreciate all you can do to urgently pass the Wool Act.

JOSEPH R. BERNARD, Saguache County Wool Growers.

SALIDA, COLO., July 23, 1958. Hon. GORDON ALLoTT,

Senate Chamber, Washington, D . .c.:

Respectfully request your immediate support of the Wool Act.

M. R. RIGGENBACH, President, Rio Grande Wool Growers.

MONTE VISTA, CoLo.

RIFLE, COLO., July 23, 1958. Senator GORDON ALLOTT,

Senate Building, washington, D. C.:

Your efforts to extend the wool bill before adjournment will be appreciated by our organization and the sheepmen of western Colorado.

RIFLE PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION.

NATIONAL WOOL GROWERS AsSOCIATION,

Salt Lake City, Utah, July 21, 1958. Hon. GORDON ALLOTT,


DEAR SENATOR ALLOTT: Thank you for your letter of July 10 in response to my recent telegram regarding the National Wool Act extension.

Since the sheep industry is a long-range operation and requires considerable planning ahead, it is most important for growers to know this summer what returns they can expect next year so that they can know what to pay for ewe lambs and also to arrange financing for 1959. If the National Wool Act is not extended, increased liq?idation of

sheep numbers will result. We, therefore, hope that action can be taken either thl'ough amending the Senate farm bill to include the Wool Act extension or by bringing S. 2861 to the floor for separate action.

Any assistance you can give us in this connection will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours, EDWIN E. MARSH, Executive Secretary.

RIO GRANDE COUNTY FARM BUREAU, INC.,

Monte Vista, Colo., July 21, 1958. Senator GORDON ALLOTT,

Washington, D. C. HONORABLE SIR: It has been brought to my

attention that the Wool Act for 1959 has not been acted upon in the current legislature.

The Agriculture Committees of both the Senate and House have favorably acted on the wool bill, but it has not been permitted to come to the floor of either House for action.

If there is no Congressional action, when the present Wool Act expires at the end of the 1958 marketing year, there will be no law authorizing a support program for wool and no promotion program, either.

The domestic wool industry cannot survive in the face of foreign competition without sufficient tariffs and without any support program.

We trust that you and the Senate will consider this very important matter before adjourning this year.

Yours very truly, GLEN w. NASH,

Legislative Chairman.

FARMERS AND MERCHANTS BANK, Monte Vista, Colo., July 22, 1958.

Hon. GORDON ALLOTT, Uni.ted States Senator from Colorado,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. ALLOTT: As you no doubt realize, the sheep business is very important to the Rocky Mountain empire. With the incentive payment the growers have been making a small progress with their deals, but without it many would have been forced out of business.

It is imperative that the wool program be renewed, and I hope you will use your influence to get the Wool Act renewed before Congress adjourns.

Very truly yours, C. W. DORNEY.

MoNTE VISTA, COLO., July 22, 1958. Senator GORDON ALLOTT,


DEAR SENATOR ALLOTT: Will you please lend your support to the passing of the wool bill before the end of the current session of Congress?

I understand the Agriculture Committees of both Houses have acted favorably on this bill, and we need it here in the West. Your support of this program will greatly be appreciated.

I would also like to urge your support for Federal aid to vocational education. Our vocational agriculture programs are a great asset to our community, State and our Nation.

Thanks for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely, ROBERT P. KELLY,

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I am opposed to the extension of the Brannan plan for the wool industry for another 4 years.

For the past 4 years we have spent over $180 million in subsidy payments to the producers of wool. Under this formula the farmers can sell their wool

in the open market and not be in the least concerned as to the price received since they can bill the United States Government for the differential between the price received and the support price, which for the past several years has been fixed at 62 cents per pound.

The argument is advanced that these subsidy payments go to more than 250,-000 wool producers; however, statistics show that while there may be over 250,000 wool producers in America, a substantial part of the benefits goes to a small percentage of the lot.

For instance, in 1956 subsidy payments from the Government in the amount of $51,870,000 were mailed to 287,229 producers; however, statistics show that while 287,000 producers participated in the 51.8 million subsidy payments in 1956, 6,426, or only 2%. percent, of this number received 44 percent of the total, or $22,891,243.93.

As an example of some of the so-called small farmers who are being helped by this Brannan plan subsidy, the record shows that in 1956 Armour & Co., meatpackers in Chicago, received $80,990.78, while Swift & Co., also meatpackers in Chicago, received a total of $58,892.21.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a table showing breakdown of the distribution of payments of $1,000 and over by size groups for the year 1956.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Payments under the National wool Act of

1954 1-Distribution of payments of $1,000 or more by size groups

Shorn wool pay· Unshorn lamb ments payments

Num- Amount Num- Amount ber ber

$60,000 and over. 1 $61,983.80 ------ ------------$50,()()(}-$59,999 . • 2 109,905.37 ------ ------------$40,()()(}-$49,999.- 6 262,329.62 ------ ------------$30,()()(}-$39,999 __ 12 395,542.92 ------ ------------$25,()()(}-$29,999_- 25 682,603.94 ------ ------------$20,()()(}-$24,999-- 39 862,529.60 ------ ------------$15,()()(}-$19,999-- 71 1, 195, 604. 04 1 $19,529.35 $10,()()(}--$14,999_- 209 2, 518, 648. 01 7 78,657.25 $5,()()(}--$9,999_- -- 774 5, 321,018.30 38 247,172.04 $3,()()(}-$4,999 ____ 1,108 4, 285, 128. 21 99 376,175.38 $2,()()(}--$2,999_ --- 1, 253 3, 067,174.43 151 361,450.72 $1,()()(}-$1,999 ____ 2,926 4,128, 775.69 667 915,748.11

Totall,OOO. and over ____ 6,426 22, 891, 243. 93 963 1, 998, 732. 85

Compiled by Livestock and Dairy Division, CSS, U. S. Department of Agriculture from listings submitted by ASC county offices pursuant to Notice LD-40 (Jan. 28, 1958) and telegram Feb. 7, 1958, to ASC State offices requesting a special report on payments made by each ASC county office. Payments to the same grower by more than 1 county office have not been combined and are shown in this report as separate payments.

1 Growers receiving payments of $1,000 or more on either shorn wool or unshorn lambs for the 1956 market· ing year listed according to amount of payment.

Mr. WILLIAMS. There were 365 wool producers who received $10,000 or more each, as shorn wool payments, or a total of $6,089,147.30, which represents an average of over $16,500 each.

These 365 producers, out of the total of 287,000 wool producers received 11¥2 percent of the payments, yet they represented only about one-eighth of 1 percent of the number of producers.

When this program was first started the proponents argued that it would be self -supporting bY. setting aside the cus-

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14957 tom payments received on the importation of wool. At the time the fund had an accumulated balance of $68,655,000. In 1955, 1956, 1957, and 1958 collections in the amounts of $31,480,000, $28,157,-000, $23,390,000, and $33,015,{)00 were added, bringing the total to $184,697,000. Total payments under the wool-subsidy program for the years 1955, 1956, 1957, and 1958 were listed as follows: 1955-------------------------- $58,000,000 1956 __________________________ 53,100,000 1957 __________________________ 30,900,000

1958-------------------------- 42,000,000

Figures for the years 1957 and 1958 are estimates.

As indicated from this report the fund is broke, and there is not enough money available at the present time to continue making payments even under the existing law. This is recognized by the proponents of this legislation when under section <b > of the pending proposal there is contained the enabling authorization for the appropriation of whatever further amounts may be necessary.


Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. YOUNG. That provision was

changed after the bill left the committee. The price support is now limited to 85 percent of parity if there is not sufficient income from the tariff.

Mr. WILLIAMS. The amendment still carries enabling legislation to appropriate whatever money may be necessary to make the payment, up to 85 percent; does it not?

Mr. YOUNG. That is correct. Mr. WILLIAMS. That is what I said. Imagine the potential cost should this

socialistic formula be extended to all agriculture programs as was advocated under the preceding administration and as will be advocated again unless this principle is stopped. There is not money in the Federal Treasury to advance such a wholesale giveaway program.

Only recently this same socialistic formula was approved by the Senate for practically the entire mining industry, and that measure is now pending before the House of Representatives.

Wlth our Government currently spending at a rate of over $1 billion per month in excess of its income it is time for the Congress to call a halt to these expensive programs-otherwise, we will be responsible for touching off another round of inflation.

Let us not overlook the fact that our nationa.l debt is already bumping the ceiling, and the most conservative estimate for the next fiscal year is that at a minimum we will have a deficit in excess of $10 billion. This has got to stop, and the time to stop it is now. Let us stop authorizing these socialistic gravy trains for every special group.

I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the RECORD a list of those subsidy payments which were made to the wool producers of $10,000 or more.

There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, as follows:

Warren Livestock Co., Cheyenne, Wyo., $61,983.80.

M. & R. Sheep Co., Oildale, Calif., $56,-831.49.

Armour & Co., West Fargo, N. Dak., $53,-073.88.

Bolthauser & Moyer, Inc., Fargo, N. Dak., $46,501.95.

Covey Bagley et al., Cokeville, Wyo., $46,-035.35.

Salyer Land Co., Corcoran, Calif., $44,-001.78.

Blair & Hay Land· and Livestock, Rock Springs, Wyo., $42,792.03.

Deseret Livestock Co., Salt Lake City, Utah, $41,623.37:

Paul Blood, Morrill, Nebr., $41,375.14. Bruneau Sheep Co., Boise, Idaho, $39,-

327.25. Herman Werner, Casper, Wyo., $36,603.87. Hendricks Co., Flying H, N. Mex., $36,-

233.56. J. E. White & Sons, Marfa, Tex., $34,051.14. c. B. Land & Cattle Co., Ely, Nev., $31,-

66t'.84. Flat Top Sheep Co., Jerome, Idaho, $31,-

613.91. Ray W. Willoughby, San Angelo, Tex., $31,-

608.89. Frank A. Hubbell Co., Albuquerque,

N. Mex., $31,243.44. Redd Ranches, LaSalle, Utah, $31,148.49. Table Mountain Co., Willow Creek, Mont.,

$30,881.31. Emmett Elizondo, Fruita, Colo., $30,803.14. C. M. French, Willows, Calif., $30,366.08. James Iriart, Bakersfield, Calif., $29,835.20. J. R. Broadbent, Evanston, Wyo., $28,-

839 .58. Palm Livestock Co., Elk Mountain, Wyo.,

$28,748.99. Seaton Ranch Co., Fort Shaw, Mont., $28,-

510.46. Swift & Co., Omaha, Nebr., $28,364.35. Bridegaray & Sagardia Bros., Fresno, Calif.,

$28,241.37. Gaston Erramouspe, Rock Springs, Wyo.,

$28,230.86. John D. O'Conner & Sons, Klamath Falls,

Oreg., $28,087.95. C. F. Flower, Sunnyside, Wash., $27,905.14. Wardlaw Bros., Del Rio, Tex., $27,809.30. Werner, Inc., Casper, Wyo., $27,651.38. Jumpcreek Sheep Co., Boise, Idaho, $27,-

570.82. J.P. White, Jr., Roswell, N.Mex., $27,425.22. Paradise Sheep Co., Phoenix, Ariz., $27,-

337.06 Sutter Basin Corp., Robbins, Calif., $27,-

299.62. Hatch Bros. Co., Woods Cross, Utah,

$27,065.53. E: R. E. Sheep Co., Bakersfield, Calif.,

$27,030.64. Mortons, Inc., Douglas, Wyo., $26,617.87. Cow Creek & Pioneer Co., Rawlins, Wyo.,

$26,578.74. Fowlkes Bros., Marfa, Tex., $26,105.22. G . N. Nelson & Sons, Denver, Colo., $26,-

005.96. Diamond Ring Co., Casper, Wyo., $25,555.27. Bidart Bros. & Tejon Co., Bakersfield, Calif.,

$25,340.06. Sullivan Co., Medicine Bow, Wyo., $25,-

269.79. Joseph Mouren & Sons, Huron, Calif.,

$25,177.56. Bar X Sheep Co., Rock Sprin~s. Wyo.,

$24,968.17. Sieben Livestock Co., Helena, Mont.,

$24,860.32. Hixson Ranch, Ordway, Colo., $24,605.83. Fred W. Bennett & Son, Mountain Home,

Idaho, $24,444.49. w. T. Jenkins Co., Battle Mountain, Nev.,

$24,281.12. AJA Sheep Co., Buckeye, Ariz., $24,167.75. Faure & Servel, Quincy, Wash., $24,117.51. Perry Land & Livestock Co., North Salt

Lake, Utah, $24,071.38. L. U. Sheep Co., Worland, Wyo., $23,824.89. Mervin Derue, Starbuck, Wash., $23,805.49. Fine Sheep Co., Nyssa, Ore., $23,353.79.

Carl E. Nicholson, Boise, Idaho, $23,206.26. Bacon Ls Co., Inc., Jerome, Idaho, $23,-

063.58. E. Quintana, Marsing, Idaho, $22,421.54. Ramon Perez, Vaughn, N.Mex., $22,409.91. Imperial Land & Cattle Co., Imperial,

Calif., $22,306 .87. A. J. Vey, Echo, Oreg., $22,242.27. A. T. McDannald, Hurtsel, Colo., $22,101.76. YO Ranch, Mountain Home, Tex., $22,-

098.16. C. A. Lewis, Cowley, Wyo., $21,855.22. Frisco Mt. Sheep Co., Phoenix, Ariz., $21,-

757.86. Sieben Ranch Co., Helena, Mont., $21,-

684.19. Sycamore Feed Yard, Sycamore, Ill., $21,-

648.41. Ray Eyherabide, Bakersfield, Calif., $21,-

569.20. J.P. Ansolabehere, Bakersfield, Calif., $21,-

318.13. L. L. Sheep Co., Casper, Wyo., $21,200.57. Joe Mendiburu, Oildale, Calif., $21,137.85. Stratton Sheep Co., Rawlins, Wyo., $21,-

128.48. Lee B. & Harold Corn, Roswell, N. Mex .•

$21,025.78. Two Bar Livestock Co., Casper, Wyo.,

$20,634.07. E. V. Wing, Gerber, Calif., $20,508.56. Midland Dunten Sheep Co., Rock Springs,

Wyo., $20,198. Soulen Livestock Co., Weiser, Idaho, $20,-

124.81. J. D. Aldecoa & Son, Boise, Idaho, $20,-

112.38. Jack Lane, Ketchum, Idaho, $20,111.59. Simon Harriet & Sons, Buffalo, Wyo., $20,-

076.48. H. H. McGee, Roswell, N. Mex., $20,061.24. Shamrock Ranch Co., Casper, Wyo., $20,-

023.38. Pat & Abb Rose, Del Rio, Tex., $20,002.31. Manger Ranches, Inc., West Sulphur

Springs, Mont., $19,975.87. Burke Sheep Co., Casper, Wyo., $19,752.20. Miller Bros., Inc., Cleveland, Mont., $19,588. J:spil Sheep Co., Glendale, Ariz., $19,564.93. Parrott Investment Co., Chico, Calif.,

$19,290.13. Green River & Big Sandy Livestock, Rock

Springs, Wyo., $19,160.31. George Coutts, Worland, Wyo., $18,958.36. Kuhr Land & Livestock, Cleveland, Mont.,

$18,909.40. R. H. Bennett & Son, Mountain Home,

Idaho, 018,805.72. Magagna Bros., Rock Springs, Wyo.,

$18,770.47. Milton Rudnick, Bakersfield, Calif.,

$18,752.15. Pete Itiana, Deeth, Nev., $18,637.81. W. H. & W. E. Corn, Roswell, N. Mex .•

$18,576.77. Field Bros., Sonora, Tex., $18,349 .39. Lloyd Sorensen, Elko, Nev., $18,318.96. Smith Creek Livestock Co., Elko, Nev.,

$18,182.47. Leo Sheep Co., Rawlins, Wyo., $18,164.58. Bill Smith, Boise, Idaho, $18,156.87. National Livestock Co., Carlsbad, N. Mex.,

$17,795.71. Grabbart Bros., Emblem, Wyo., $17,772.77. Sylvan Pauly, Deer Lodge, Mont., $17,691.99. R. c. Rich Sheep Co., Burley, Idaho,

$17,684.91. John & George Arkoosh, Gooding, Idaho,

$17,583.86. John Ellis, Casper, Wyo., $17,459.07. Big Timber Livestock Co., Billings, Mont.,

$17,357.67. Leland Ray Smith, Craig, Colo., $17,349.68. Charles Lau, Idaho Falls, Idaho, $17,263.18. Hammett Livestock Co., Hammett, Idaho,

$17,237.21. Peter H. Anderson, Alder, Mont., $17,202.72. Coffin Sheep Co., Yakima, Wash., $17,-

103.89. Highland Livestock & Land Co., Emmett,

Idaho, $17,091.32.

14958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 McGregor Land & Livestock Co., Hooper,

Wash., $17,030.88. Estate of J. A. Manterola, Peoria, Ariz.,

$16,739.46. Clayton Long, Shoshoni, Wyo., $16,707.27. Spencer Sheep Co., Idaho Falls, Idaho,

$16,667.83. Frank Runyan, Hope, N. Mex., $16,582.33. Buzzard Ranch Co., Alcova, Wyo., $16,-

3€3.38. Cokevllle Land & Livestock, Cokeville,

Wyo., $16,314.44. Taylor Ranch Co., Midwest, Wyo., $16,-

239.30. J. B. Saldubehere, Bakersfield, Calif., $16,-

126.23. · Idaho Livestock Co., Challis, Idaho, $15,-922.98. · Ralph Faulkner, Gooding, Idaho, $15,909.94.

J. L. Sprinkle Co., Chinook, Mont., $15,-868.60.

Dan J. Cavanugh, Twin Falls, Idaho, $15,-867.22.

Macrae Sheep Co., Paul, Idaho, $15,780.92. Noriega Sheep Co., Bakersfield, Calif., $15,

'130.09. Cunningham Sheep Co., Pendleton, Oreg.,

$15,695.88. Mauricio Guerry & Son, Castleford, Idaho,

$15,639.39. . Spring Valley Livestock Co., Caldwell,

Idaho, $15,601.74. Gilbert Livestock Co., Alder, Mont., $15,-

588.18. J. Perry Olson, Grand Junction, Colo., $15,-

578.50. John Pouchoulou, Montrose, Colo., $15,-

568.50. -J. & F. Ansolabehere, Bakersfield, Calif.,

$15,567.97. E. W. Clarkson, Belle Fourche, S. Dak.,

$15,559.41. Silver Lake Ranches, Inc., Brackettville,

~ex., $15,552.12. B. B. Dunbar, Uvalde, Tex., $15,477.50. Dolph Briscoe, Jr.., Uvalde, Tex., $15.475.11. Rosebud Livestock Co., Winnemucca, Nev.,

$15,410.27. Fernandez Co., San Mateo, N. Mex., $15,-

409.40. Pickett Sheep Co., Oakley, Idaho, $15,-

366.28. Yparrea Bros., Fresno, Calif., $15,363.30. Bertrand Paris, et al., Cherry Creek, Nev.,

$15,361.42. Brailsford Bros., Inc., Hagerman, Idaho,

$15,314.32. Herbert M. Corn, Roswell, N. Mex., $15,-

295.15. N. J. Meagher, Vernal, Utah, $15,179.07. John G. Indart, Fresno, Calif., $15,157.80. H. C. Dobson, Mesa, Ariz., $15,122.66. Charles F. Waller, Roswell, N. Mex., $15,-

104.34. Marley & Whi~ney, Roswell, N. Mex., $15,-

032.18. Mau Sheep Co., Rock Springs, Wyo., $15,-

002.16. Fred N. Laidlaw, Inc., Muldoon, Idaho,

$14,975.83. Ben Roberts, Alcova, Wyo., $14,946.44. W. F. Waller, Roswell, N. Mex., $14,924.11. Tom Drumheller, Ephrata, Wash., $14,-

877.47. John Mitchell, Ozona, Tex., $14,844.82. Mark Davis, Casper, Wyo., $14,842.94. Meagher Co., Hayden, Colo., $14,838.41. Big Trails Sheep Co., Worland, Wyo., $14,-

834.31. Allison Ranch Co., Fort Stockton, Tex.,

$14,780.79. Harry Katseanes, Blackfoot, Idaho, $14,-

759.64. George Clements, Picacho, N. Mex., $14,-

716.13. B. E. Wilson, Del Rio, Tex., $14,696.37. E. F. Noelke estate, Rankin, Tex., $14,680.49. W. A. Sterrett, Roswell, N.Mex., $14,666.47. J.P. Espy, Fort Davis, Tex., $14,652.27. A. Saldubehere, Lancaster, Calif., $14,-

613.32.

Ray Jarret, Britton, S. Dak., $14,589.35. John P. Cooney & Sons, Harlowton, Mont.,

$14,550.28. L. W. Roberts, Cokeville, Wyo., $14,466.78. William S. Young, Coalville, Utah, $14,-

386.80. B. B. Brooks Co., Casper, Wyo., $14,381.66. White Acorn Sheep Co., Rock Springs, Wyo.,

$14,345.68. Little & Wilson Sheep Co., Emmett, Idaho,

$14,304.49. John !berlin & Sons, Buffalo, Wyo., $14,-

260.76. Russell Spencer Et al., Sanderson, Tex.,

$14,182.73 . Louis Larsen Sheep Co., Rawlins, Wyo.,

$14,088.03. Uinta Livestock Corp., Lyman, Wyo., $14,-

059.07. James Schied, Jerome, Idaho, $14,021.62. Dan H. Hughes, Montrose, Colo., $13,988.72. Sario Livestock Co., Gardnerville, N~v.,

$13,888.09. Pine Grove Livestock Co., Rawlins, Wyo.,

$13,886.02. Arambel & Erreca, Los Banos, Calif., $13,-

858.27. Frank Williams, Grand Junction, Colo.,

$13,765.48. Simon Martinez, Sunnyside, Wash., $13,-

740.47. Rath Packing Co., Waterloo, Iowa, $13,-

716.36. Erreca & Laxague, Los Banos, Calif., $13,-

716.24. E. B. Elgorriaga, Madera, Calif., $13,694.76. Owen Bros., San Saba, Tex., $13 ,692.41. Berg Christianson Co., Dillon, Mont., $13,-

666.47. James Barquin, Riverton, Wyo., $13,654.11. Pete Yrueta Co., Winnemucca, Nev., $13,-

642,33. . Cohn Livestock Co., Hermiston, Oreg., $13,-616.10.

Fremont Sheep Co., Riverton, Wyo., $13,-582.77.

John Narbaitz, Firebaugh, Calif., $13,-460.70.

Little Land & Ls Co., Howe, Idaho, $13,-430.81.

Albert Holland, Worland, Wyo., $13,429.71. M. & G. Bertagnole, Salt Lake City, Utah,

$13,389.37. Ohaco Sheep Co., Casa Grande, Ariz., $13,-

285.22. J. H. Clements, Jr., Hope, N. Mex., $13,-

260.69. Yellowstone Sheep Co., Rawlins, Wyo.,

$13,251.89. Victor I. Pierce, Ozona, Tex., $13,188.14. J. Burton Tuttle, Snowmass, Colo., $13,-

187.23. Holmes Livestock Co., Chico, Calif., $13,-

152.21. Bradley Neff Sheep Co., Kemmerer, Wyo.,

$13,104.96. Cherry Creek Sheep Co., Ingomar, Mont.,

$12,972.92. Alfred Kuhn, Sacramento, Calif., $12,951.45. Pratt Cattle Co., Brackettville, Tex., $12,-

941.18. W. D. Beers & Son, Salt Lake City, Utah,

$12,868.48. S. L. Stumberg, Sanderson, Tex., $12,855.35. F. V. Cp.uhape, Hope, N. Mex., $12,847.69. Williams & Tavenner, Deer Lodge, Mont.,

$12,805.65. S. Clyde Marley, Roswell, N. Mex., $12,-

773.80. Bar C Ranch, Fort Collins, Colo., $12,748.95. C. P. Johnson & Sons, Casper, Wyo., $12,-

675.38. Nick Muir, Harlowton, Mont., $12,652.34. Runyan Bros., Pinon, N. Mex., $12,652.02. R. I. Oil & RFA Co., Dillon, Mont., $12,-

649.87. Etcheverry Sheep Co., Cokevllle, Wyo., $12,-

637.02. Labarge Livestock Co., Rock Springs, Wyo.,

$12,631.64.

Kuhn & Miller, Sacramento, Calif., $12,-621.83.

Castle Mountain Co., White Sulphur Springs, Mont., $12,603.30.

Elbert Overton & Son, Yeso, N. Mex., $12,-590.03.

Ray Finley, Cutbank, Mont., $12,587.08. Van Irvine, Midwest, Wyo., $12,576.44. Andrew Little, Jr., Emmett, Idaho, $12,-

572.10. J. L. Sheep Co., Inc., Muldoon, Idaho,

$12,555.34. John Uhalde & Co., Ely, Nev., $12,549.99. G. L. Livestock Co., Rawlings, Wyo., $12,-

497.82. John Briggs & Son, Dell, Mont., $12,478.08. '"'· H. Robison, Ely, Nev., $12,462.81. John H. Anderson, Jr., Alder, Mont.,

$12,447.74. Hormer J. Brown, Dixon, Calif., $12,435.23. Martin Paternain, Los Banos, Calif.;

$12,368.73. G. A. Hanson Sheep Co., Salt Lake City,

Utah, $12,361.36. Ball Bros., Lewisville, Idaho, $12,360.75. Wickahoney Sheep Co., Bruneau, Idaho,

$12,336.18. Broadbent Livestock Co., El Centro, Calif.,

$12,315.58. J. B. Blakeney Ranch, San Angelo, Tex.,

$12,307.75. A. Steidlmayer & Sons, Colusa, Calif.,

$12,299.37. Adams & Haliday, Blanding, Utah,

$12,179.30. J. C. Siddoway & Son, Teton, Idaho,

$12,146.58. Borda Land & S~eep Co., Carson City, Nev.,

$12,096.92. John Aldasoro, Telluride, Colo., $12,092.99.

. Estate of Ray Talbott, Los Banos, Calif., $12,059.72.

Ruehl & Arnstein, Inc., Spokane, Wash., $12,059.17

L. Pache Co., 'rinnie, N. Mex., $12,024.02. Phil Hoon, Moses Lake, Wash., $12,014.37. Tobe Foster Estate, Capitan, N. Mex.,

$11,998.82. Tom D . White, Roswell, N.Mex., $11,991.05. Wyatt Livestock Co., Yakima, Wash.,

$11,987.11. Jose Azparren, Fresno, Calif., $11,917.55. Hislop & Son, Spokane, Wash., $11,907.76. Alden K. Barton & Sons, Manti, Utah,

$11,907.10. . Petersen Ranch, Brackettville, Tex., $11,-893.45.

J. G. Lewis, Jr., Dixon, Calif., $11,875.51. Ellison Ranching Co., Tuscarora, Nev.,

$11,828.26. Adolph Stieler, Comfort, Tex., $11,817.26. Hudspeth Land & Livestock Co., Prineville,

Oreg., $11,799.84. Slaughter Ranch, Roswell, N. Mex., $11,-

765.97. Labonte Ranch, Douglas, Wyo., $11,693.48. J. S. Woosley & Son, Ten Sleep, Wyo.,

$11,676. Glen Knapp, Caldwell, Idaho, $11,664.10. George Stover, Weiser, Idaho, $11,659.71. Mitchell Lecertua & Son, Shoshone, Idaho,

$11,616.15. Eugenio Perez Ranch, Vaughn, N. Mex.,

$11,552.31. L. W. Goffena, Roundup, Mont., $11,524.44. A. S. Patterson, Roswell, N.Mex., $11,468.16. Allied Land & Livestock, Elko, Nev., $11,-

461.69. Red Hill Sheep Co., Wickenburg, Ariz.,

$11,457.46. Thousand Peaks Livestock Co., Salt Lake

City, Utah, $11,441.37. Eusebio Astorquia, Gooding, Idaho, $11,-

437.54. Owen Prather, Pinon, N.Mex., $11,435.39. Rochelle Sheep Co., Arminto, Wyo., $11,-

398.33. Blake Sheep Co., Rawlins, Wyo., $11,395.58. Hart & Ingram, Fowler, Colo., $11,384.03. Nich Chournos, Tremonton, Utah, $11,-

353.01.

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14959 J. w. Newman, Twin Falls, Idaho, $11,-

335.28. Alfonso Sarlo, Reno, Nev., $11,334.44. Too by Bros., Eureka, Calif., $11,315.21. Reynolds & Asbill, Yeso, N.Mex., $11,294.07. J. G. or D. A. Broadbent, Lyman, Wyo.,

$11,253.78. E. c. Longmire Co., Willows, Calif., $11,-

246.95. T. M. Sanders, Glenwood Springs, Colo.,

$11,243.05. Lockett Sheep Co., Phoenix, Ariz., $11,-

212.97. Hutto Bros., Carta Valley, Tex., $11,207.17. Wm. E. Crews, Jr., Marfa, Tex., $11,203.41. Pleas Childress, Ozona, Tex., $11,191.48. Byron J. Taylor, Selden, Kans., $11,181.51. M;rs. Annie F. Long, Shoshoni, Wyo., $11,-

169.90. Harold Thompson Estate, Cokeville, Wyo.,

$11,122.13. Frank Oneida & Sons, Shoshone, Idaho,

$11,026.23. E. A. Stolworthy & Sons, Idaho Falls, Idaho,

$11,021.31. Clarence Quinlan, Antonito, Colo., $11,-

001.58. Charles R. Kippin, Morgan, Utah, $10,982.15. Thompson Bros., Mountain Home, Idaho,

$10,970.34. J. Golden Bair, Glenwood Springs, Colo.,

$10,955.82. Joe B. Mayer, Big Lake, Tex., $10,939.42. Magnuson Ranch, McGill, Nev., $10,928.86. E. E. McPherrin, Live Oak, Calif., $10,900.82. Rees T. Jenkins, Susanville, Calif., $10,-

865.64. Ansolabehere Bros., Bakersfield, Calif., $10,-

846.39. Mayland Bros., Emblem, Wyo., $10,842.66. Dick and Tom Moore, Douglas, Wyo.,

$10,838.07. D. Eyherabide, !Bakersfield, Calif., $10,-

781.20. Colby Sheep Co., Great Falls, Mont.,

$10,765.91. Claude Collins, Jr., San Angelo, Tex.,

$10,757.75 N.D. Blackstone II, Ozona, Tex., $10,741.79. Taft Paxton, Kanosh, Utah, $10,725.72. Edward Sargent, Chama, N. Mex., $10,-

720.96. Neidiffer Strickland Rubin, Holtville, Calif.,

$10,713.80. Geo. 0. Teel, Hope, N.Mex., $10,696.48. Itchnina and Arram Bide, Malta, Mont.,

$10,675.17. Graig Cornell Co., Dillon, Mont., $10,667.84. Sandstone Sheep Co., Rawlins, Wyo.,

$10,657.20. Lloyd Keller, Ogden, Utah, $10,632.76. Ray Anchprdpguy, Red Bluff., Calif.,

$10,622.28. Fernando Giocaechea, Elko, Nev., $10,-

610.53. William I. Moore, Sheridan, Wyo., $10,-

605.98. W. C. Bates, Carlsbad, N. Mex., $10,598.11. Dick Alexander, Brownwood, Tex., $10,-

581.71. Cross Mt. Sheep Co., Casa Grande, Ariz.,

$10,569.86. Dubuque Packing Co., Dubuque, Iowa.

$10,563.60. Bud Wilson, Lucille, Idaho, $10,549.50. Glenn Briggs, Murtagh, $10,543.30. Angus Mcintosh, Las Animas, Colo., $10,-

522.56. The Merriam Co., Moneta, Wyo., $10,519.77. Cargile & Son, San Angelo, Tex., $10,517.35. Austin Milspaugh, Ozona, Tex., $10,515.76. A. R. Pardue, Cut Bank, Mont., $10,483.90. Clyde Earwood, Brackettville, Tex., $10,-

483.46. Lockhart Oil & Livestock, San Antonio,

Tex., $10,478.96. Frank Jouglard, Soda Springs, Idaho, $10,-

471.86. N. & N. Land & Livestock Co., Miles City,

Mont., $10,459.61.

P. H. Livestock Co., Rawlins, Wyo., $10,-456.30.

Patrick Rose, Jr., Del Rio, Tex., $10,453.72. Frank Paxton & Family, Montrose, Colo.,

$10,422.08. D. Olcomendy & Son, Stockton, Calif., $10,-

416.49. Herman Goodrun, Picacho, N. Mex., $10,-

415.26. Frank Wilkinson & Sons, Heppner, Oreg.,

$10,349.90. Werner Irvine, Inc., Casper, Wyo., $10,-

313.91. Cow Creek Co., Rawlins, Wyo., $10,303.63. Ed C. Mayfield, Sonora, Tex., $10,277.60. W. N. & L. R. Reed, Sterling City, Tex.,

$10,274.27. John Childress, Ozona, Tex., $10,274.16. Howard Sheridan, Hoover, S. Dak., $10,-

251.33. Velma C. Clark, Lincoln, Calif., $10,243.56. Alfred J. Burke, Hoover, S.Dak., $10,237.89. Continental Rambler Co., Rawlins, Wyo.,

$10,236.79. Pendleton Ranches, Pendleton, Oreg., $10,-

219.09. Ben Etchegoin, Fresno, Calif., $10,216.49. S. & A. Sheep Co., Bakersfield, Calif., $10,-

177.75. Evans Ranch Co., Sanderson, Tex., $10,-

136.80. Parley Probst, Heber, Utah, $10,134.72. Dan Mcintyre, Hotchkiss, Colo., $10,129.40. Double Springs Livestock Co., May, Idaho,

$10,111.86. Black Butte Sheep Co., Billings, Mont.,

$10,095.93. Lester Stratton, Wentworth, S. Dak., $10,-

083.47. Frank Peters, Tinnie, N. Mex., $10,072.91. Hindi Sheep Co., Duran, N.Mex., $10,065.98. Whitney Ranch, Sacramento, Calif., $10,-

052.88. Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station,

Moscow, Idaho, $10,028.81.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD prior to the vote on the Young amendment a statement I have prepared thereon.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

WOOL AMENDMENT (Statement by Senator HuMPHREY)

As a cosponsor of the bill now on the Senate Calendar providing for extension of the Wool Act, I am naturally anxious to see favorable action before Congress adjourns. It is my hope to get such action, one way or another, so the wool industry will know where it stands.

However, I have indicated my doubts about the strategy of seeking to tack the Wool Act extension onto the pending farm bill before the Senate, as an amendment, because of the weaknesses in the farm bill itself.

Perhaps I would not be so dubious about such a course if there were any reasonable assurance this bill can be improved sufficiently to hold some promise of acceptance in the other House.

In my judgment, it would have been a wiser course to wait until we have neared completion of work on this bill before calling up the wool amendment.

However, the Senator from North Dakota has called up the amendment. He has been a good friend of agriculture, and has not let partisan lines stand in the way of trying to improve our farm legislation whenever possible.

For that reason I shall support his amendment, but only with the word of caution that I may yet find it impossible to vote for this bill until further improvements are made. I hope our friends from wool States

who have been so concerned about this wool legislation will show equal concern for other commodities, and help improve the rest of the bill. I am quite sure that the final test as to whether or not many of us now willing to vote favorably on the wool amendment can vote for the final bill will depend on how much help we get in making other needed changes in the bill.

Part of our problem in getting action separately on the wool legislation has been quite frankly the failure of many Wool Act supporters to cooperate with other commodity groups. I am saying this as a friend of the wool producers: the reason they have had trouble getting this Wool Act extended, to a large degree, has been the lack of interest of some wool spokesmen in problems of other farm people.

All agriculture is a minority, and we cannot get anywhere by further splitting up the voice of the minority group. Farm groups need to cooperate and work together. The wool industry is no exception.

I hope we can count on some help from the wool group in meeting the problems of corn and feed-grain producers, and dairy producers.

Unless we do, many Senators who would otherwise support the wool legislation will likely vote against this bill.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD, at a point before the vote on the Young amendment, a statement in support of the amendment.


STATEMENT BY SENATOR COOPER Kentucky has historically been one of the

leading farm flock States. For many years, the Bourbon Stockyards, in Louisville, was the greatest spring lamb market in the world.

In Kentucky sheep numbers had sharply decreased from 1949 to 1954. But since the inauguration of the Wool Act the decline in production has been reversed.

For example, on January 1, 1957, there were 605,000 head of sheep in Kentucky. On January 1 of this year, 1 year later, there were 623,000 head of sheep. The Wool Act is producing an increased production in Kentucky.

Ten thousand eight hundred and eightyfive farm flock operators in Kentucky participated in the incentive program last year. We produce one of the better wools in the fleece wool States of the Nation. It is recognized as a clean wool, for our sheep are raised on good grass with very little dirt, and our wools bring a premium price.

I think the Senators from the Western States will agree that Kentucky furnishes a prime market for the ewe lambs they sell. Their blackface western ewes come to Kentucky as replacements and to increase production. The Wool Act has been, as Congress intended, an incentive to increase production of this basic livestock industry, in which we do not produce in sufficient supply for our own civilian consumption.

To our wool growers in Kentucky, one of the most important sections of the Wool Act has been the self-help program included in section 708. Through this program our growers join with the other growers of the Nation in promoting the use of wool and lamb.

An incentive program for wool, without the self-help plan, enables our growers to promote their own products. The more they can promote the sale of lamb and wool, the smaller will be the cost of this incentive program.

I joined as cosponsor of the bill introduced to renew the National Wool Act,

14960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 which is now offered as an amendment to the pending farm bill.

I strongly urge the renewal of the National Wool Act, and associate myself with my good f riends, the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YouNG] and the Senator from South Dakota tMr. MuNDT}, on this· amendment to extend t~1e act for 4 years, and I strongly endorse a c:mtinuation of the self-help promotion feature of section 708.

Mr. BIDLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD, prior to the vote on the Young amendment, a statement I have prepared in support of the amendment.


STATEMENT BY SENATOR BmLE In earlier remarks, I reviewed the back

ground of the Wool Act and pointed out how it has been of immeasurable benefit to the Nation's wool producers. · In reviewing some figures, I discovered that the gradual deterioration of the wool industry in the United States in the last half century has been both startling and lamentable. In my own State of Nevada, for example, the shorn wool production in the year 1910 amounted to 8,029,000 pounds. By 1942 this annual figure had dropped to 5,521,000 pounds, while in 1957 the total plummeted to 3,873,000 pounds.

The overall objective of this -legislation is to raise the production of wool in the United States to 300 million pounds. We are still more than 50 million pounds short of that figure, but continuance of this legi&lation gives strong hope that the goal can be achieved in the not too distant future.

Before remedial legislation of this type was enacted, our wool industry faced virtual extinction because Of competition with imports of ' foreign wools and, in more recent years, with increasingly stiff competition from synthetic fibers.

This act has had a beneficial, doublebarreled effect . It has brought stability to the wool industry through incentive payments and, at the same time, through the self-help program established under section 708 of the measure, has boosted considerably the industry's other product which is lamb. . In a referendum held in 1955, growers ap.: proved deductions of not to exceed 1 cent a pound from incentive payments on shorn wool and not to exceed 5 cents per hundredweight from the payments on unshorn lambs for financing an advertising and promotion program. Thus the growers are increasing the demand for their products in the free market through programs which they themselves have organized and financed. As the demand for wool products increases, the amount of payments required from the Government to accomplish the objectives of the act will be reduced.

Since this act was passed in 1954, we have witnessed a decided stimulus in the wool industry. In Nevada, for example, producers received payments totalling $687,700 for the 1955 marketing year through October 31, 1957.

By providing for an extension of the National Wool Act we will be performing a distinct service, not only to an important segment of our economy that is producing a strategic commodity, but to millions of Americans who rely on wool as one of their basic needs.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the modified amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YouNG] for himself and the Senator from South Dakota

[Mr. MUNDT]. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk called the roll. Mr. MANSFIELD. I announce that

the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD), the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FuLBRIGHT], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GoRE], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. GREEN], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. · HENNINGS], the Senators from Florida [Mr. HoLLAND and Mr. SMATHERS], the Senator from Montana [Mr. MURRAY], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O'MAHONEY], and the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] are absent on official business.

The Senator from Delaware [Mr. FREAR] is absent on official business attending the Interparliamentary Union in Rio de Janeiro as an official delegate of the Senate.

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY] is absent because of illness.

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. McCLELLAN] is absent because of a death in his family.

I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FuLBRIGHT], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GoRE], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. GREEN], the Senator from _Missouri [Mr. HENNINGS], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY] , the Senator from Montana [Mr. MURRAY], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O'MAHONEY], the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], · and the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] WOUld each vote "yea".

I further announce, on this vote, the Senator from Delaware [Mr. FREAR] is paired with the Senator from Florida [Mr. HoLLANDJ. If present and voting, the Senator from Delaware would vote "nay" and the Senator from Florida would vote "yea."

Mr. DIRKSEN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. HoBLITZELL J and the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. CASE] are absent because of official business having been appointed by the Vice President to attend the 49th Congress of the Interparlia~entary Union in Rio de Janeiro, and, if present and voting, they would each vote "yea."

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BusH], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MoRTON], and the Senator :from New Jersey [Mr. SMITH] are detained on official business.

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. FLANDERS], and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. PoTTER] are necessarily absent.

If present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MoRTON] and the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. SMITH] would each vote "yea."

The result was announced-yeas 67, nays 9, as follows:

Aiken All ott Anderson Barrett Bennett Bible Bricker

YEAS-67 Bridges Carlson Carroll Case,N. J . Chavez Church Cooper

Curtis Dirksen Dworshak Eastland Ellender .Ervin Goldwater

Hayden Long Hickenlooper Magnuson Hill Malone Hruska Mansfield Humphrey Martin, Iowa Jackson Martin, Pa. Javits McNamara Jenner Monroney Johnson, Tex Morse Johnston, S. C. Mundt Jordan Neuberger Kefauver Pastore Kerr Payne Knowland Proxmire Kuchel Purtell Langer Revercomb

NAYS-9

·Robertson Russell Saltonstall Schoeppel Smith, Maine Sparkman Stennis Symington Talmadge Thurmond Thye Watkins Wiley Young

Beall Butler Capehart

Clark Ives

Bush Byrd Case, S. Dak. Flanders Frear Fulbright Gore ·

Cotton Lausche . Douglas Williams

NOT VOTING-20 Green Hennings Hoblitzell Holland Kennedy McClellan Morton

. Murray O'Mahoney Potter Smathers Smith, N.J. Yarborough

So the modified amendment offered by Mr. YOUNG, on behalf of himself and other Senators, was agreed to.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I mov:e · that the Senate reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. · The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. ~ Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr_,: ~resident, I

offer an amendment. . .. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The a.mendm~nt will be stated.

The amendment offered by Mr. SYMINGTON is as follows: On page 5, beginning with line 2, strike out all down through line 2 on page 6, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"SEc. 102. (a) Section 101 (b) of the Agri·cultural Act of 1949, as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: 'Provided, That the level of price support for upland cotton ~ay be less than the minimum level provided in the foregoing table, but not less than 65 percent of the parity price, if the Secretary, after consideration of the applicable factors specified in section 401 (b) , determines that such lower level is desirable and proper'." .

(b) Title I of such act is amended by adding at the end thereof a new section as follows:

"SEc. 103. Middling linch and grade numbered 3, one and seven-sixteenths inches shall be the standard quality of upland and extra long staple cotton, respectively, for purposes of price support under this act."

(c) The amendments made by this section shall be effective with respect to the 1961 and subsequent crops of cotton.

On page 15, beginning with the comma in line 6, strike all through the word "that" in line 10.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON].

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I wish to announce that we will have no further votes this evening. The Senate will meet tomorrow at 10 o'clock if it is agreeable. Nothing controversiai will be considered this evening.

1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 14961 PRINTING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON

PHYSICAL RESEARCH PROGRAM AS IT RELATES TO THE FIELD OF ATOMIC ENERGY Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the unfinished business, the farm bill, be temporarily laid aside and that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar 1969, House Concurrent Resolution 325.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The concurrent resolution will be read.

The concurrent resolution was read, as follows: · ·

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy be authorized to have printed for its use 10,000 copies of the public hearings on "Physical research program as it relates to the field of atomic energy," held by the Subcommittee on Research and Development during the 85th Congress, 2d session; and be it further

Resolved, That the Joint Committee be authorized to have printed 10,000 copies of the report on the above hearings; and be it further

Resolved, That the Joint Committee be authorized to have printed 2,000 copies of the index of the above hearings.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the concurrent resolution?

There being no objection, the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 325) was considered and agreed to. ·

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement explaining House Concurrent Resolution 325 be printed in the RECORD at this point.


STATEMENT BY SENATOR PASTORE I support House Concurrent Resolution

325, providing for the printing of 10,000 copies of hearings held last February by the Research and Development Subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy on the AEC physical research program. The resolution also provides for an equal number of copies of a subcommittee report. Some 50 of our leading research scientists throughout the country testified at these hearings and the document represents a valuable source of information on the basic research activities going on in this country's laboratories and universities.

Estimated cost of printing the additional copies, over and above normal printing costs for the first thousand copies, is $9,428. I believe this is a good investment in view of the fact that these hearings are to be given wide distribution throughout America's scientific community and to the public through Members of Congress.

ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A. M. TOMORROW

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business this evening, it stand in adjournment until 10 o'clock tomorrow.


AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 1958 The Senate resumed the considera

tion of the bill <S. 4071) to provide more

effective price, production adjustment, and marketing programs for various agricultural commodities.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, during the course of the debate this afternoon the junior Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HuMPHREY] referred to a press release issued by the public relations committee of the North Carolina Cotton Promotion Association, and approved by HAROLD D. CooLEY. The Senator from Minnesota quoted briefly from the press release. In order to have the full text before the Members of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the RECORD at this point. ·

There being no objection, the press release was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,· as follows:

WASHINGTON, D. C., July 24, :!.958.-Hope for farm legislation before Congress adjourns has received new life in the House this week, Congressman HAROLD D. CooLEY, chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, said today.

In an effort to expedite action, the Cotton Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture met yesterday to begin work on a proposal in harmony with the farm bill now receiving attention in the Senate.

As the Senate nears final action on its bill, the House will be in a favorable position to take affirmative action, Mr. CooLEY said. Any differences in the two bills can be worked out in conference following House action, the North Carolina Congressman pointed out.

In a conference Tuesday of this week with A. C. Edwards, executive vice president of the North Carolina Farm Bureau; Robert F. Morgan, chairman of the North Carolina Senate Agricultural Committee; F. H . Heidelberg, executive vice preside.nt of the North , Carolina Promotion Assodation; and by phone, with Harry B. Caldwell, mastJr of the North Carolina State Grange, Mr. CooLEY was urged, and agreed, to talt:e this action toward legislation in view of the disastrous situation facing cotton in North Carolina, and throughout the Cotton Belt.

It was recognized in the Tuesday conference that the legislation now under consideration in the Senate has some undesirable features, the principle one being_ abandonment in 1961 of the parity principle. However, in view of the critical situation, the helpful aspects of the Senate bill merit support. Without remedial farm legislation at this session of Congress, cotton farmers face an automatic reduction of more than 20 percent ·in their present acreage allotment.

It was agreed, both by Mr. CooLEY and the farm and cotton leaders of North Carolina, that in the House this bill would be strengthened by reestablishment of the principle of parity. Mr. CooLEY took action immediately in this direction with his committee members. The North Carolina group advising with him left the conference to work with other cotton leaders from other States of the Cotton Belt now in Washington. Their support, it is believed, will help smooth the way for favorable action by the House.

Abandonment of the parity principle in 1961 in the present Senate bill, · by basing support price for cotton on a formula related to the 3-year average market price rather than parity, has been the major criticism of the Senate bill by Mr. CooLEY, North Carolina's farm organizations and cotton leadership, and leaders in many other sections of the Cotton Belt.

The principal provisions of the farm bill under consideration would provide for a natipnal minimum quota of 16 million acres

of cotton in 1959 and 1960. A choice these 2 years for cotton farmers-to plant their share of this acreage and receive a support price based on present law, or plant additional acres at a lower support price. Farmers with a 10 acre or less allotment in 1958 would retain their 1958 acreage.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, also during the discussion this afternoon the distinguished junior Senator from Missomi [Mr. SYMINGTON] inserted in th~ RECORD a news item from the Washington Star of this afternoon. In the course of the discussio:tl it might have been inferred that the Secretary of Agriculture had referred to some Members of the Senate as leftists.

A call from the· Secretary of Agriculture advises me that he never referred to any Member of the Senate as a leftist. It is well known that there are leftists in the United States who will infiltrate either major party at every opportunity which may be presented. So I do not regard that statement as being very serious.

It was also inferred that the leftists. so-called, of a certain farm organization would like to load down the bill so heavily that it would be killed. If anyone wishes to look at the RECORD of the day before yesterday he will find a statement from that farm organization to the effect that if the bill cannot be amended in such a manner as to be totally unacceptable to the administration, it ought to be killed.

Those are simple, factual statements; but, in all fairness , they ought to be placed in the RECORD.

OUTDOOR RECREATION RE-SOURCES REVIEW COMMISSION

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the RECORD a letter dated July 11, 1958, which I have received from Mr. David R. Brower, executive director of the Sierra Club, of San Francisco, and an editorial entitled "Recreation Survey Calls for 'Slow Bell,'" published in the Eugene, Oreg., Register Guard of July 6, 1958, relating to a review of outdoor recreation resources.

There being no objection, the letter and editorial were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

SIERRA CLUB, San Francisco, July 11, 1958.

The Honorable WAYNE MoRsE, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C. DEAR WAYNE: Word has just reached us

that the President, on June 28, signed the act establishing the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission-legislation which you sponsored and helped on its way through Congress.

This is just a note of our appreciation fm• what you have done. This concept was one close to our heart, as you will note from the enclosed reprint concerning our own efforts in 1956 and 1957.

We hope the Commission will soon be established, financed, and working effectively. Most important, as you may have noted in our testimony, we are especially anxious that the Commission devise means of putting up that .closed-during-inventory sign on scenic . resources that might otherwise be lost prematurely and permanently.

14962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 24 We offer you, in your work with the Com

mission, and we offer the Commission itself, our full cooperation in its important workfor whatever benefit our 66 years' experience and 12,000 members can contribute.

Sincerely, DAVID R. BROWER,

Executive D i rector.

RECREATION SURVEY CALLS FOR "SLOW BELL"

It was all too apparent to weekenders who headed for the freedom of the great outdoors over the long holiday that the great outdoors is getting crowded. Fishermen jested that they were apparently expected to bring their own rocks to stand on. Those who headed for forest camps found other campers practically in their laps. Thus we know, but only in a gel).eral way, that some of the recreational resources of the country are sadly overcrowded. But we don't know, exactly, how great the crowding will be a year or two hence, nor where it will be. Nor do we know just what plans to make to accommodate new crowds which in future years will be spending their longer vacations in their high-powered cars, flitting from vacation spot to vacation spot.

Thus we welcome Congressional passage of S. 846, a law providing for a national inventory of the Nation's outdoor recreation resources, the first such survey in our history. Twenty-four outdoor organizations, notably the Izaak Walton League of America, sought the survey. So did six States by legislative action. Among the States were Washington and California, but not Oregon. The survey, which wlll be made of both private and public land, wm culminate in a report by September 1, 1961. A bipartisan 15-member commission will direct the survey, with help from an advisory council made up of representatives of Federal agencies and outdoor organizations. Special studies may be made, notably of the experiences of the Swiss and the Swedes in meeting their recreation needs.

This is of the essence. An example is the 1935 experience of the National Park Service which in that year could have bought a 30-mile stretch of seashore at Assateague Island in Maryland for wildlife protection for $9 ,000 a mile. Now the same land, being turned into subdivisions, costs $111 ,000 a mile. Some resources, dissipated in years gone by, can be restored. Some cannot be.

In the past half century the Nation has been diligent in taking inventory of many of its resources-its timber, its oil, its mineral wealth, its agricultural potential. But there has been no comparable effort to weigh our future recreational needs against our present and future recreational assets. Until now. This survey could be as important a milestone in conservation as creation of the national park system or the setting aside of Federal forest reserves.

In the 3 years between now and the expected presentation of the report , reclassification of public lands should be at a minimum. Only where extreme urgency can be shown should we permit drastic changes in land use patterns. Examples nearby are the reclassification of the Waldo Lake limited area and proposed reductions in the enormous Glacier Peak primitive area in northern Washington. Perhaps changes in these and similar areas should be made. Perhaps not. The facts we have are as yet incomplete. We know, pretty well, about our need for timber and water. We know much less about our need for recreational areas.

If we proceed now at slow-bell, awaiting results of this national survey, we can then make our national decisions from a knowledgeable position. They will more likely be decisions we can live with, decisions our grandchildren will not regret we made.

PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES OF FORESTRY AND LOGGING OPERATION8-RESOLUTION Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the RECORD a resolution adopted by the Western Council of Lumber and Saw Mill Workers, of Portland, Oreg., concerning the exclusion from protection of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 of certain employees engaged in forestry and logging operations.

There being no objection, the resolution was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: RESOLUTION ON FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

EXEMPTIONS

Whereas an amendment enacted in 1949 excludes from the protection of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 employees of forestry and logging operations in which not more than 12 employees are employed; and

Whereas even major lumber producing employers in the western lumber industry are now exploiting their employees, through this amendment, by contracting their logging operations to small groups of 12 or less employees; and

Whereas this results in eliminating from the protection of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 approximately one-third of all the employees of a major western industry; and

Whereas this leads to longer hours at lower wages and to increased unemployment in a basic western industry already afflicted with serious unemployment and economic insecurity; and

Whereas this exemption encourages unfair competition to fair logging operators who try to maintain fair wages, hours, and safe working conditions: Therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Western Council of Lumber and Sawmill Workers and each district council of lumber and sawmill workers and each affiliated local union immediately demand of their respective Congressional delegations immediate repeal of any exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act of any employees of the logging and lumbering industry; and be it further

Resolved, That each district council and local union immediately present copies of this resolution to local, central or State labor bodies with which they are affiliated for concurrence and action as set forth herein.

COMMITTEE MEETING -DURING SENATE SESSION TOMORROW

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas . . Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Preparedness of the Committee on Armed Services may sit during the session of the Senate tomorrow.


TRANSACTION OF ADDITIONAL ROUTINE BUSINESS

By unanimous consent, the following additional routine business was transacted:

ADDITIONAL REPORT OF A COMMITTEE

Mr. CHAVEZ, from the Committee on Public Works, to which was referred the

bill <H. R. 6701) granting the consent and approval of Congress to the Tennessee River Basin Water Pollution Control Compact, reported it favorably, with amendments, and submitted a report (No. 1961) thereon.

AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 1958-AMENDMENTS

Mr. HUMPHREY submitted amendments, intended to be proposed by him, to the bill <S. 4071) to provide more effective price, production adjustment, and marketing programs for various agricultural commodities, which were ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.

HOUSE BILL REFERRED

The bill <H. R. 11805) to promote the national defense by authorizing the construction of aeronautical research facilities by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics necessary to the efiective prosecution of aeronautical research, was read twice by its title, and referred to the Special Committee on Space and Astronautics.

ENROLLED BILLS PRESENTED The Secretary of the Senate reported

that on today, July 24, 1958, he presented to the President of the United States the following enrolled bills:

S. 2447. An act to authorize and direct the Secretary of the Interior to undertake continuing studies of the effects of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and other pesticides upon fish and wildlife for the purpose of preventing losses of those invaluable natural resources following application of these materials and to provide basic data on the various chemical controls so that forests, croplands, wetlands, rangelands, and other lands can be sprayed with minimum losses of fish and wildlife; and

S. 2617. An act to amend the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 16, 1934, as amended.

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A. M. TOMORROW

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I move, pursuant to the order previously entered, that the Senate adjourn until 10 o..,clock tomorrow morning.

The motion was agreed to; and <at 10 o'clock and 53 minutes p.m.> the Senate adjoUl·ned, the adjournment being, under the order previously entered, until tomorrow, Friday, July 25, 1958, at 10 o'clock a. m.

NOMINATIONS

Executive nominations received by the Senate July 24 (legislative day of July 23) 1958:

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

The following-named persons to be Interstate Commerce Commissioners for terms of 7 years expiring December 31, 1965 (reappointments):

Everett Hutchinson, of Texas. Robert W. Minor, of Ohio.

Date post:	21-Apr-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

SENATE - Govinfo.gov

Documents