CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

loss or damage. Our savings-share accounts

are insured commercially to $10,000.

Superior diversity: Local loans are made

selectively in communities which are enjoying steady commercial and industrial development and extraordinary population growth.

Superior liquidity: Monthly repayment of

short- as well as long-term loans, together

with special investments and high reserves,

assure a maximum of liquidity.

SAVE WITH SAFETY FOR YOUR FAMILY'S FUTURE

How your family's savings earn 41/2 percent:

Loans are made only to responsible people

for valid purposes. Our loans, amply secured by sound collateral and comprehensively insured, are subject to competent examination and periodic reevaluation. Local

real-estate investments that are stable and

profitable yield substantial returns. Our

dividends conservatively reflect these yields.

Our short-term loans, repaid monthly in accordance with closely supervised schedules,

keep our funds constantly productive and

assure liquidity.

Based on conservative principles, our longterm loans are made to correspond with ability to pay and individual family needs. For

both short- and long-term loans, our underlying security are homes owned by local

members which are fully insured against the

risks of loss or damage.

Fundamentally, current Interest rates, our

low operating expenses, and the productivity

of selected investments provide us with a

rate of return which exceeds those earned by

most other kinds of savings investments.

Why your family's savings grow:

Dividends are paid on dividends, so that,

as added to your savings, they compound.

Four and one-half percent compounded

quarterly truly accelerates the growth of

your savings. Indeed, $1,000 compounded

quarterly at 41/ percent for 10 years yield

an average annual return of more than 5.6

percent. Savings, therefore, double themselves in less than 16 years. Regular saving,

of course, maximizes this growth.

What if your family's savings are needed:

If funds are needed, you may take advantage of our counseling services, and you may

exercise your right to borrow against your

family's savings without disrupting your savings program.

Withdrawals, of course, may always be

made at your convenience, personally or by

mail.

When does your family receive its emergency protection:

At once, and automatically thereafter, if

you elect the family-savings plan. By means

of your savings, your family is protected

against the risks of death, disability, and

personal disasters. As you save, automatically your life and disability protection increases.

THE FAMILY SAVINGS PLAN-AN OPTIONAL PROGRAM WHICH PROVIDES TRIPLE PROTECTION

FOR YOUR FAMILY

The family savings plan, a unique program

to triple your family's protection through

liberal dividends and automatic life and disability insurance. Your family's security requires this protection of savings and insurance.

Liberal dividends: Every dollar added to

your family's savings-share account earns

dividends for you at our current rate of 4Y

percent per year. However, under the family

savings plan, you receive cash dividends of

3/ percent per year, compounded and credited quarterly, to make your savings grow

faster, and the additional 1 percent per year

earned by your savings is the full cost of your

life and disability insurance. This insurance

automatically terminates at age 55 in respect

of total and permanent disability benefits and

at age 65 in respect of death benefits.

Automatic life insurance: Automatically,

vith each addition, the balance in your

family's savings-share account is matched

by an equal amount of insurance on your

life up to age 65. As you add to your savings,

you automatically add to your family's lifeinsurance protection.

Automatic disability protection: In addition, in the event of total and permanent disability before the age of 55, your family's lost

income will be replaced by insurance benefits equal to the amount you have in your

share-account under the family savings plan.

Maximum savings benefits: Regular saving helps your family both to meet its needs

and to satisfy its wants. Funds are always

available for emergencies, opportunities, advancement, and pleasure. The family savings plan effectively assures your family the

full benefits of regular saving.

Convenience and protection: Even in times

of need, when protection is most desired, you

need not make withdrawals and reduce your

insurance. Under the family savings plan,

you may conveniently borrow against your

account, using only your passbook as collateral.

Triple security: The family savings plan

is designed to afford your family extra. protection when it is needed most. Upon

death or disability, the balance in your account is automatically doubled. Under the

family savings plan, $2,500, for example, is

automatically increased to $5,000. At times

when the family's income has been reduced

or interrupted these addtional funds are

made available to meet your family's needs.

It's all automatic: Under the family savings plan, your insurance grows automatically with your savings. Premiums, at a rate

not to exceed 1 percent per year, are paid by

the association for you from dividends earned

by your savings * * * at no out-of-pocket

expense to you nor any cash burden on your

family's current budget.

THE FAMILY SAVINGS ASSOCIATION--COMPARE

SERVICE-SAVE WHERE SERVICE MEETS YOUR

FAMILY NEEDS

Save conveniently by mail.

No notice required for withdrawals.

No minimum balance required to earn

dividends, or to open your share account.

Special dividend of $1 is credited to new

accounts.

Our experience is at your family's service

for counsel on financial matters. Our advice

and counsel are directed to the management

of family debt, the budgeting of current

and lifelong expenses, adequate insurance

programs, family investments and retirement plans.

Funds are made available on terms appropriate to financial ability and need for home

ownership, construction, or modernization.

Emergency family protection is earned

without extra cost through automatic life

and disability insurance.

Family credit is established for you by our

record of your prudent savings.

Personal loans are granted secured only by

your family's savings without disrupting

your family's savings program.

RULES AND PROCEDURES

1. Dividends are declared and credited

quarterly. Dividends are thereby compounded.

2. Dividends are credited from the 1st of

the month on payments received by the

10th.

3. Loans are made on mortgages, improved

real estate, and pledged savings-share accounts.

4. Loans require comprehensive insurance

against risks of loss or damage.

5. Loans require only small monthly repayments. No commission and no minimum

expense are required.

6. Interest is charged only on the actual

balance of the loan each month.

7. Payments are due monthly without

notice.

8. The association must be notified

promptly of any change in address.

9. Your passbook should always accompany payments or withdrawals whether

made in person or by mail.

A State-chartered institution, our association achieves maximum security through

prudent management and comprehensive Insurance against risks of loss or damage.

Our savings-share accounts are insured

commercially to $10,000.

THE FAMILY SAVINGS AND HOME LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC.

Offices: 640 Frederick Road, Baltimore,

Md.; 16 North Liberty Street, Cumberland,

Md.; 127 North Street, Elkton, Md.; 27

North Court Street, Frederick, Md.; 6 East

Washington Street, Hagerstown, Md.; 8431

Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Md.; 4653

Huron Avenue, Suitland, Md.

[From the New York Times, of March 21,

1958]

PUBLIC IS CAUTIONED ON SAVINGS CLAIMS

The Better Business Bureau of New York

City cautioned the public yesterday against

putting funds In out-of-State savings and

loan associations that advertise higher-thanusual dividend rates and represent their accounts as commercially Insured to $10,000.

In Washington Representative ABRAHAM J.

MULTER, Democrat of Brooklyn, said an

amendment would be offered to the pending

Financial Institutions Act to compel such

savings and loan associations to disclose

fully the nature of such claims in their advertising.

Hugh R. Jackson, president of the Better

Business Bureau, said that savers in about

3,700 recognized savings and loan associations throughout the country had Insurance coverage on savings accounts up to

$10,000 through the Federal Savings and

Loan Insurance Corporation, a Federal Government Instrumentality. Commercially Insured savings and loan associations, he said,

do not have this insurance.

Some Utah, Maryland, and Arizona savings and loan associations, a bureau spokesman said, have advertised commercially insured accounts, adding that companies insuring some of these accounts have been based

in Tangiers and Morocco.

STAY IN REDUCTION OF SUPPORT

PRICES-VETO MESSAGE (S. DOC.

NO. 85)

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

ask that the veto message of the President on Senate Joint Resolution 162 be

laid before the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NEUBERGER in the chair) laid before the

Senate the following message from the

President of the United States, which

was read and, with the accompanying

joint resolution, was ordered to lie on the

table and to be printed:

To the Senate:

I return herewith, without my approval, Senate Joint Resolution 162. I

have given earnest consideration to the

many representations made to me both

for and against it. It is my judgment

that to approve this resolution would be

ill advised, from the standpoint both of

the Nation and of our farm families as

.well. It is regrettable that for the second time in 2 years the Congress has

sent me a farm bill which I cannot in

good conscience approve.

Specifically, the resolution would have

such consequences as these:

First. It would pile up more farm

products in Government warehouses.

1958 5757
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

Second. It would restrict the growth

of markets.

Third. It would postpone the day

when agriculture can be released from

the straitjacket of controls.

Fourth. It would bypass the problems

of the small operator who produces so

little for sale that price supports have

scant meaning.

Fifth. It would hold up the needed

transition to modern parity and would

in fact disregard the parity principle.

Sixth. It would be unfair to those

winter-wheat growers who signed up under the 1958 acreage-reserve program

with the understanding that the price

supports which had then been announced would be the effective rates.

This resolution would fix farm price

supports and farm acreage allotments at

not less than existing levels. The true

need is to relate both price supports and

acreage allotments to growing market

opportunities.

With regard to Government controls,

what the farm economy needs is a thaw

rather than a freeze.

Improvements have been made in

farm legislation in recent years. The

keys to these improvements have been

expansion of markets and greater opportunity for our farm people to exercise

their own sound judgment.

Fears were expressed by some that

farm prices might collapse when high

rigid price supports were abandoned.

These fears did not materialize. Instead, farm prices rose. This month the

index of prices received by farmers is 9

percent above the level that prevailed in

June of 1955 when high rigid price supports were last generally in effect. The

parity ratio now stands at 87, up 6 points

from a year ago.

Most of agriculture is without production controls and without price support.

This is generally true of meat animals,

poultry, and fruits and vegetables.

There is impressive evidence that

farmers stand to profit from less rather

than more governmental intervention.

Unsupported prices of cattle and hogs

are unusually strong.

Despite these bright spots, many farm

problems remain to be solved. The pricecost squeeze continues to harass our

farm people. Production restrictions impose a severe burden. Many of our farmers-those on farms not large enough to

be profitable-are earning incomes which are below any generally accepted standard.

Cotton, wheat, corn, and other basic

crops have major problems. Progress in

solving the problems of these crops cannot be made by going backward. We

must continue in the direction which the

Congress set in 1954 and endorsed in

1956-changes in the direction of greater

opportunity for adjustments made necessary by our ever-changing agriculture.

I said, prior to the passage of this resolution, that what it proposed would be a

turn of 180* in the wrong direction. After

reviewing the resolution in its final form,

I adhere to this conviction.

For the 1957 crop, prices were supported, product by product, in accordance

with a complex set of legislative and administrative considerations. The same

was true in the establishment of acreage

allotments. To carry these forward unaltered, despite changes in demand, in

supply, and in surplus stocks would be

contrary to sound legislative procedures

and would completely disregard economic fact.

Now, I want to turn to the progress

that has been made through programs

already in effect. In recent years a

many-sided attack on farm problems has

been launched. Substantial gains have

been achieved:

Through the rural development program to help those at the low end of the

income scale.

Through market-making exports

which last year reached an alltime high.

Through providing needed credit to

family farms.

Through sharing our abundance with

the needy at home and abroad.

Through market development in cooperation with producer organizations and

the food trade.

Through surplus reduction, which has

cut down our stocks by more than a billion dollars.

Through stepped-up research to find new uses for farm products.

Through special programs to increase

milk consumption.

Through expanded long-range con- servation measures.

While it is necessary to reject the

freeze embodied in this resolution, the

Congress and the executive branch can

be helpful in other ways.

A five-point program should be undertaken, involving various separate but related actions. Some of these are the re- sponsibiilty of the Congress and some are

administrative. Some call for legislation, while ample authority already exists

for others.

1. The old basic law should be revised.

On January 16, 1958, I sent to the Congress a special message on agriculture

which recommended needed changes.

Many of the problems will be alleviated

if the Congress will act on these proposals in this session:

Authority to increase acreage allotments up to 50 percent, and to widen

the range within which price supports

may be provided.

Elimination of acreage allotments for

corn, permitting all corn farmers to

plant in accordance with their best management decisions, so that price supports would apply to all corn rather

than, as the freeze bill would have it,

to only about 1 acre in 7 in the commercial corn area.

Abolishment of escalator clauses in

the law because these rigid provisions

keep farm people continually under the

shadow of price-depressing surpluses.

Extension of the Agricultural Trade

Development and Assistance Act, with

substantial increased authority to move

surplus stocks abroad.

Shifting the price supports for cotton

to the average of the crop, the same as

for all other farm products.

There is opportunity to make these

needed changes before fall seeding time

if the matter is undertaken promptly.

2. When these necessary legislative

changes have been made, 1959 acreage

allotments will be established at levels

as high or higher than those prevailing

in 1958. Certain statutory provisions

which place a floor under acreage allotments for cotton and rice are scheduled

to expire after the 1958 crop. Producers

face sharp acreage reductions unless

the law is changed. When the Secretary of Agriculture has been given the

necessary authority to adjust price supports and acreage allotments he will set

1959 allotments at levels at least as high

as those in use this year. For cotton

and rice these allotments will be substantially above the levels which would

otherwise prevail.

3. When necessary new authorization

is provided in keeping with my legislative recommendations, the special ex- port programs for our surplus crops

will be enlarged. Opportunities exist

to export, both for dollars and through

special programs, large quantities of our staple commodities.

Wheat is becoming better known to

consumers abroad. Market development

and promotional activities have made more people acquainted with the merits

of our many export products. These

commodities can alleviate hunger and

need, and should be so used.

4. Dairy products acquired under the

price-support operation will be used outside the regular domestic commercial

market. These products will not be offered for sale in such markets during

the remainder of 1958 at less than 90

percent of parity. While freezing supports would not be a useful step, we seek to help the dairy industry in other

ways.

To strengthen markets, the butter,

cheese, and dry milk acquired under

price support will be donated to the

school-lunch program, to charitable institutions, and to needy persons. Exports will be made when this can appropriately be done.

Such inventory management will serve

to bolster the market.

Meanwhile, the administration will

continue to support the special school

milk and armed services milk programs.

We will also support as a further aid to

dairy farmers, the accelerated brucellosis

control program. Stepped up promotional activity will increase consumption.

Every constructive step available to us

will be taken to increase the use of our wholesome dairy products.

5. An export program for cotton, corn,

and other feed grains, similar to the

present export program on wheat, will

be put into effect. This can be done

without legislation. The effect of this

program will be to move these products

directly from commercial markets to the

export trade without running them

through the Commodity Credit Corporation. Under the wheat-export program

farmers have obtained broader markets

and substantial price benefits in the market place. Marketing efficiency has been

promoted and the amount of wheat

which has moved into Government channels has been reduced. The new program for cotton and feed grains is expected to have similar effects.

5758 March 31
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

To meet the rapidly changing conditions in agriculture, farmers must be

able to make their own management decisions on their own farms. They must

not have their production and prices

frozen in an outmoded pattern. They

must not be made the captives of a restricted history; they must be given freedom to build a brighter future. This can be done if farmers and those who serve them will team up in support of sound

legislative and administrative action.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, March 31, 1958.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I

cannot say that I am very much sur- prised at the veto message which has

just been submitted to the Senate, although I had hoped the President would

sign this very mild joint resolution.

The hard facts are that our country

is in the midst of a recession. Business,

industry, and labor are today feeling

the impact of an economic distress

which has stalked our agriculture for

the past 4 or 5 years.

The resolution which the President

has seen fit to veto was reported by

the Senate Committee on Agriculture

and Forestry solely and simply because we believe it offered a mild form of re- lief to our farmers who have already

suffered disastrous declines in their

incomes.

I note in his veto message that the

President takes the position that be- cause farm prices rose slightly during

the past month, the outlook for future

farm income is bright. I would remind

the President that the slight rise to

which he has referred was due first and

foremost to weather conditions. For

example, an analysis of the price rise

indicates that strawberries accounted

for 15 percent of the increase; Irish

potatoes, 20 percent; and eggs, 12 percent. In other words, price increases for

these three commodities-strawberries,

potatoes, and eggs-made up 47 percent of the entire rise in the parity ratio.

These commodities, however, make up

less than 10 percent of total cash re- ceipts from farm marketings. Of course,

the reason for higher prices for these

three commodities is the shortage in

supply. In the case of strawberries,

these prices are for the new crop which

is just beginning to come in, while in

the case of potatoes, the fact that storage stocks are down 20 percent below

March 1 figures coupled with weather

damage to the new crop of potatoes is

responsible. The increase in egg prices was caused by generally unfavorable

weather conditions in Northern and

Eastern States.

Increase in the prices of meat animals

accounted for 28 percent of the total

increase in parity ratio. The fact is that

slaughter at federally inspected plants of

cattle during this period decreased 19

percent; slaughter of calves dropped 4

percent; hogs, 16 percent; and sheep, 14

percent. These figures show the principal reason for the increase in prices of

meat animals. Meat animals account for

about 29 percent of total cash income

from farm marketings.

The facts available indicate that price rises reported in this latest release are

the result of shortages of supplies, and

not the result of expanded markets for

these commodities.

In addition, it is inconceivable to me

that any action directed towards lowering of price supports in any way could

be based on increased prices occurring in

only 1 month under the stress of unusual

shortages of supplies.

Even a hasty reading of the Presidents veto message shows that the administration has definitely made up its

mind to beat down farm prices even

below the levels of this year, but above

and beyond that is the fact that the President has done again almost the same

thing he did in 1956.

Senators will recall that in 1956, Congress passed and sent to the White House, a stop-gap farm bill which would have

supported farm prices for the basic

commodities at 90 percent of parity for

1 year only. The President vetoed this

act, and in his veto message made much

of the fact that the legislation involved

an abandonment of the administration's

flexible price-support program. Yet, in

almost the same breath, he, himself,

abandoned the sliding scale, and in an unprecedented move announced an arbitrary high-level price support for the

basics-a rigid price support-a 1-year

price support, and-I might add-an

election year price support.

In this veto message, the President

has, in a sense, done almost the same

thing.

He has vetoed the bill which froze

acreage allotments for 1959 at the 1957

levels. At the same time, he has held

out a "carrot" to Congress and said that

if we give Mr. Benson the authority he

wants to fix support levels at between 60

and 90 percent of parity, he, the President, will see that, and I quote:

Nineteen fifty-nine acreage allotments will

be established at levels as high or higher

than those prevailing in 1958.

In other words, Mr. President, if Congress freezes acreage, it is terrible, but if

the administration freezes acreage, it is

constructive.

Now, Mr. President, as to price supports, the Chief Executive almost ignores

these. He speaks in glittering generalities of the prosperity farmers will enjoy

if only Congress makes it possible for

price supports to be further lowered.

Therefore, Mr. President, we can only as- sume that the President wants lower

prices.

Now, let us take him at his own word.

Let us assume that he gets what he

wants. He has promised to give farmers

at least the same acreage in 1959 as they

had in 1958. Yet, he also says that price

supports should be reduced.

Given the same acreage and a lowered

price support, it is obvious that farm income will be further reduced. Therefore, I am drawn inevitably to the sad

conclusion that this administration

doesn't want to bolster farm pricesthat it wants only to see farm prices further depressed.

The President said in his veto message

that the price of meat animals, for example, has remained reasonably stable

and that since the price of meat is not

supported, the experience of the livestock

industry offers support for his position

that price supports depress, rather than

assist, farm income. The President

should know that the price of grain is

supported. This factor alone has its

stabilizing mark on the meat industry.

In addition, the price of meat is receiving

support under the program of Government purchases. As the record will

show, when the price of pork or beef, for

example, sag, the Department of Agriculture undertakes direct purchases in or- der to bolster the price of meat.

In addition, as I have already stated,

cattle marketings are much lighter this

year due to the fact that ranchers are now restocking depleted herds-herds

that were previously liquidated because

of weather conditions. Now with the

end of drought conditions along the

Great Western Plains, the grass is beginning to grow again, and ranchers are once more able to use lands which lately were unusable. This is another good reason why the price of meat products

has been firm-there has been a scarcity

of good beef.

There are two other points in the veto

message which are of great importance.

The first is the contention that lower

farm prices mean lower consumer prices.

This is not so. The record demonstrates

that even while farm prices have been

declining, food prices have been soaring

to an alltime high. The share of the

consumer's dollar received by farmers

for a representative number of food

items has been declining from around

51 cents in 1948 to 40 cents today.

The second point is somewhat more difficult to explain, and evidently the

President either did not receive an ex- planation, or saw fit to ignore it. I refer

to the fact that the bill he has vetoed

has been described as a freeze. The

bill was not a freeze, in the sense that

it froze price supports and acreage at

1957 levels. It merely provided that

price supports and acreage could not

drop below 1957 levels. In other words,

all the bill did was place a floor beneath

price supports and acreage.

I am most hopeful, Mr. President,

that over the Easter recess, while Members of the Senate and the other body are at home, their constituents will dis- cuss with them the President's action.

I am sure that if this is done, it will be

possible to override the President's veto.

At any rate, I think the effort should be

made.

The President is wrong; the Congress

is right.

At this time, Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that a memorandum

I have prepared, dealing with the President's veto message, be incorporated in

the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the memo- randum referred to was ordered to be

printed in the RECORD, as follows:

MEMORANDUM

Today the President returned Senate Joint

Resolution 162 to the Senate with a veto.

He states that the resolution had many un- favorable points which compelled him to exercise his veto.

Specifically he stated that:

1. It would pile up more farm products In

Government warehouses. My comment is

that this short-term legislation could not

1958 5759