CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

breakfast room. In this regard I want to

emphasize that if any of these fine young

men had to go into combat in the defense of their country I would want them

to go with the best possible training and

the best equipment our country could

give them. In this way, I believe they

not only would be of great service to

their country but they would be able to

defend themselves and to prevail against

their enemies.

In conclusion, I should like to emphasize again that I hope the Congress and

the people of America will bear in mind

that our country, the United States of

America, requests and demands a very

high level of ability, knowledge, courage,

and forceful determination from the men

who wear the uniform of the United

Rtates Marine Corps. As a Nation, we

ekpect them to do the impossible and the

United States Marine Corps has never let

this Nation down, for they have done the

impossible time after time after time.

My plea today then is a plea of caution.

Let us not be too hasty to form unwarranted conclusions. At the same time I

extend to the families and loved ones of

these young men my heartfelt sympathy

and assure them these boys have contributed greatly to the efficiency and the

quality that we respect so highly in the

United States Marine Corps. Let us

hold fast to the great qualities of the

Marine Corps. Let us bring more and

more wisdom into the training of our

young men. Let us provide them with

the knowledge, the ability, the assurance,

together with the faith in themselves and

their military service. Do not destroy

that which has been nobly constructed

out of the fury and fire of victory. May

men continue to be proud-proud they

are marines.

AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 1956-VETO

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC.

NO. 380)

The SPEAKER laid before the House

the following veto message from the

President of the United States:

To the House of Representatives:

I am returning herewith, without my

approval, H. R. 12, designated as the

Agricultural Act of 1956.

It is with intense disappointment and

regret that I must take this action. I

assure you my decision has been reached

only after thorough consideration and

searching my mind and my conscience.

Our farm families are suffering reduced

incomes. They had a right to expect

workable and beneficial legislation to

help solve their problems. This bill does

not meet their needs.

I am disappointed at the long delays

which this legislation encountered. My

first special request in this session of the

Congress was for prompt remedial farm

legislation. A sound, constructive ninepoint program to this end was submitted

on January 9, with an urgent request

for action. It was a program that came

from the grassroots. Suggestions and

criticisms from large numbers of farm

people, in every type of agriculture, from

every section of the country, were analyzed and used. It offered no magic

panacea because, we can all agree, there

is none. It did strike directly at the root

of the low-price low-income problem.

The problem is price-depressing surpluses. Excess stocks of certain farm

commodities have mounted to marketdestroying, price-depressing size as a result of wartime price incentives too long

continued. Any forward-looking, sound

program to meet the needs of farm people must remove the burden of these

accumulations. They are depressing net

farm income by many hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

H. R. 12 would not correct this situation. It would encourage more surpluses. It would do harm to every

agricultural region of the country and

also to the interests of consumers. Thus

it fails to meet the test of being good for

farmers and fair to all our people.

The bill is self-defeating. The soilbank proposal has been incorporated.

This would be constructive, had it not

been encumbered by contradictory provisions. The soil bank would provide an

income incentive to farmers to reduce

production temporarily so that surplus

stocks might be reduced. Other provisions of this bill, however, would result in an equal or greater incentive to

increase production and accumulate

more surplus.

Among the provisions which make this

bill unacceptable are: (1) the return to

wartime rigid 90 percent of parity supports for the basic commodities; (2)

dual parity for wheat, corn, cotton, and

peanuts; (3) mandatory price supports

for feed grains; (4) multiple-price plans

for wheat and rice. The effect of these

provisions would be to increase the

amount of Government control and

further add to our price-depressing surpluses.

Specific objections relative to each of

these provisions may be summarized as

follows:

1. Price supports at wartime 90 percent of parity on basic crops were in

effect in each year from 1944 through

1954. They were not responsible for the

high commodity prices and high farm

income of wartime and the immediate

postwar years. Prices were then above

support levels due to wartime inflation

and the insatiable markets associated

with war. Neither did 90 percent supports prevent prices from falling as postwar surplus stocks began to accumulate.

Price supports at wartime 90 percent

on the 6 designated basic crops did encourage production of these crops relative to others. At the same time consumption was discouraged and the use

of substitutes was stimulated. Market

outlets shrank, and surplus accumulations mounted. Acreage controls had to

be invoked, thereby rationing the right

to produce. Wheat acreage was reduced

from 79 to an allotment of 62 and then

to the present 55 million acres. Cotton

was cut from 25 to 20 and then on down

to the present 17 million acres. These

drastic reductions, forced by the application of the price-support law, penalized

many farmers directly by resulting in

shrunken volume and uneconomic farming operations. In addition, acreage diverted from the basic crops shifted surplus problems into many other crops

and livestock. Now almost every farmer

is adversely affected, regardless of what

crops or livestock he raises.

If wartime rigid 90 percent supports

were the answer to the problem of our

farm families, there would now be no

problem.

Farm incomes have declined in every

year except one between 1947 and 1954,

and in all these years 90 percent supports were in effect.

Farmers are not Interested in price

alone. What they really want for their

families is more net income, which is

affected by volume and costs as well as

by price. The 90 percent of parity approach focuses on support price alone.

To return now to wartime 90 percent

supports would be wrong. Production

would be stimulated. Markets would be

further destroyed, instead of expanded

as must be done. More surplus would

accumulate-and surpluses are price depressing. Regimentation by ever stricter production controls would be the end

result.

It is inconceivable that we should ask

farm families to go deeper into this selfdefeating round of cause and effect.

2. The provision for dual parity would

result in a permanent double standard

of parity for determining price supports.

Four crops would receive preferential

treatment out of 160 products for which

parity prices are figured. There is no

justification in logic or in equity for

such preferential treatment.

Particularly is this true because, under

the working of the modernized parity

formula enacted by the Congress, increasing the parity prices of some commodities automatically lowers the parity

prices of all other commodities. If

parity prices for wheat, corn, cotton,

and peanuts are to be higher, then parity prices of the other products must be

lower.

To whatever degree prices would be

further artificially raised there would

be a corresponding stimulus to production, more controls on farmers, reduced

consumption, increased accumulations,

and lower prices in the market. Such

a device for parity manipulations could

destroy the parity concept itself. It

places a potent weapon in the hands of

opponents of all price supports for farmers. We have no right to place the welfare of our farm families in such

jeopardy.

3. The provision for mandatory supports on the feed grains would create

more problems for farmers. The market for feed grains would shrink as livestock production would come to depend

more on forage and less on grain. The

flow of feed grains into Government

stocks would increase and production

controls would necessarily be intensified.

Price relationships between feed, livestock and livestock products would be

distorted. Producers of feeder cattle,

feeder lambs, and feeder pigs would be

faced with downward pressure on prices.

An imbalance would develop between

feed crops and livestock products, with

all its adverse consequences.

4. The multiple-price plans for wheat

and rice would have adverse effects upon

producers of other crops, upon our re6358 April 16
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

lations with friendly foreign nations,

and upon our consumers.

There are other serious defects in the

bill such as certain provisions found in

the section dealing with the dairy industry. Still other features are administratively bad and would require the

hiring of thousands of additional inspectors and enforcers.

I recognize that the restoration by

H. R. 12 of wartime mandatory 90 percent price supports applies only to 1956

crops. This, in combination with other

objectionable features of the bill, would

put us back on the old road which has

proved so harmful to farmers.

Bad as some provisions of this bill

are, I would have signed it if in total

it could be interpreted as sound and good

for farmers and the Nation.

After the most careful analysis I con- clude that the bill is contradictory and

self-defeating even as an emergency re- lief measure and it would lead to such

serious consequences in additional sur- pluses and production controls as to

further threaten the income and the welfare of our farm people.

Because the good features of the bill are combined with so much that would

be detrimental to farmers' welfare, to

sign it would be to retreat rather than

advance toward a brighter future for our

farm families.

We now have sound and forward-looking legislation in the Agricultural Act

of 1954. Neither that act, nor any other, can become fully effective so long as it is

smothered under the vast surpluses that

have accumulated. We imperatively

need remedial legislation to remove this

burden and enable the fundamentally

sound program provided in the act of

1954 to become workable. Such re- medial measures were proposed in my

message of January 9.

I am keenly mindful that the failure

of the Congress to enact a good new farm

bill can have unfavorable effects on farm

income in 1956, unless prompt administrative efforts to offset them are made

immediately. Particularly, the failure to

enact a Soil Bank before planting time

this year makes such administrative efforts imperative.

Consequently, we are going to take

prompt and decisive administrative action to improve farm income now. I

have conferred with the Secretary of

Agriculture and the administration is

moving immediately on four major

fronts:

1. In 1956, price supports on five of the

basic crops-wheat, corn, cotton, rice

and peanuts-will be set at a level of

at least 821/2 percent of parity. Tobacco

will be supported as voted in the referendum in accordance with existing law.

Within this range of price support

flexibility, the administration intends to

set minimum support levels that will

result in a national average of:

Wheat at $2 a bushel.

Corn at $1.50 a bushel.

Rice at $4.50 per hundred pounds.

A separate support for corn not under

acreage control in the commercial corn area will be announced at an early date.

Price supports on cotton and peanuts

have not yet been announced but will

be at least 82Y percent of parity.

The Secretary of Agriculture will announce shortly the details of the' new

cotton export sales program.

2. For this year the support price of

manufacturing milk will be increased to

$3.25 per hundred pounds. The support

price of butterfat will be increased to

58.6 cents a pound.

3. We will use Department of Agriculture funds, where assistance will be constructive, to strengthen the prices of

perishable farm commodities. We will

have well over $400 million for that purpose for the year beginning July 1.

These actions the administration will

take immediately.

I nuw request Congress to pass a

straight soil-bank bill as promptly as

possible. It should be in operation before fall seeding for next year's crops.

It is vital that we get the soil bank authorized in this session of the Congress.

There is general agreement on it. I am

ready to sign a sound Soil Bank Act as

soon as Congress sends it to me. That

can be accomplished in a very few days

if the leadership in Congress will undertake the task.

This combined program of administrative action and legislative enactment

will begin now to improve the income

and welfare of all our farm families.

Here is a challenge for both the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HousE, April 16, 1956.

The SPEAKER. The objections of the

President will be spread at large upon

the Journal, and without objection the

bill and message will be ordered printed.

There was no objection.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous consent that the further

consideration of the message be postponed until Wednesday next.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

CONSENT CALENDAR

The SPEAKER. This is Consent Calendar day. The Clerk will call the first

bill on the Consent Calendar.

DISPOSAL OF LANDS UNDER BANKHEAD-JONES FARM TENANT ACT

The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 6815)

to provide for the orderly disposition of

property acquired under title III of the

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, and

for other purposes.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that this bill may

be passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from Colorado?

There was no objection.

AMENDING THE FEDERAL PROPERTY ACT OF 1949

The Clerk called the bill (S. 2364) to

amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, and for other purposes.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous consent that this bill may

be passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from Iowa?

There was no objection.

WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF AIRCRAFT OR MOTOR VEHICLES

The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 319) to

punish the malicious destruction of aircraft and attempts to destroy aircraft.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that this bill may be

passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from

Michigan?

There was no objection.

NATIONAL MOTTO

The Clerk read the resolution (H. J.

Res. 396) to establish a national motto

of the United States.

There being no objection, the Clerk

read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, etc., That the national motto of

the United States is hereby declared to be

"In God we trust."

The joint resolution was ordered to be

engrossed and read a third time, was read

the third time, and passed, and a motion

to reconsider was laid on the table.

TRANSFER OF LAND TO MUSKOGEE,

OKLA.

The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 7679)

to provide for the conveyance of certain

lands by the United States to the city of

Muskogee, Okla.

There being no objection, the Clerk

read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the Administrator

of Veterans' Affairs is authorized and directed to convey by quitclaim deed to the

city of Muskogee, Okla., all the right, title,

and interest of the United States in and to a tract of land containing approximately nine acres located north of the existing Veterans'

Administration hospital reservation situate

in Muskogee County, State of Oklahoma, likewise being a portion of certain lands conveyed

to the United States by the city of Muskogee by warranty deed dated March 17, 1945, re- corded in the office of the clerk of Muskogee County on June 23, 1945, in book 839, pages 432 to 434, the exact courses and distances of

the perimeter of which shall be determined

and approved by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs. The city of Muskogee shall pay

the cost of surveys as may be required by the

Administrator of Veterans' Affairs in determining the required legal description. SEC. 2. There shall be reserved to the

United States all minerals, including oil and

gas, in the lands authorized for conveyance by section 1, and the deed of conveyance shall continue such additional termi, con- ditions, reservations, and restrictions as may be determined by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to be necessary to protect the

interests of the United States.

SEC. 3. The deed of conveyance shall pro- vide that the tract of land authorized to be

conveyed by section 1 of this act shall be

used by the city of Muskogee, Okla., for such

purposes as will not, in the judgment of the

Administrator of Veterans' Affairs or his designate, interfere with the care and treatment

of patients in the Veterans' Administration

Hospital, Muskogee, Okla., and that if such

1956 6359