CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Mr. President,

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I yield

back the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART]. [Putting the question.]

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I ask for

a division.

On a division the amendment was reJected.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill

is open to further amendment. If there

be no ffirther amendment to be proposed, the question is on the engrossment of the amendment, and the third

reading of the bill.

The amendments were ordered to be

engrossed, and the bill to be read a third

time.

The bill was read the third time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my

time, on condition that the minority

leader does likewise.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield

back the remainder of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final

passage of the bill.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill

having been read the third time, the

question is, Shall it pass? On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I announce that

the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. McGEE] and the Senator from Montana

(Mr. MURRAY] are absent on official

business.

The Senator from Idaho [Mr.

CHURCH], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. GREEN], the Senator from

Florida [Mr. HOLLAND], the Senator

from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY], the

Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE], and

the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUsHIE]

are absent on official business as members of the U.S. delegation on parliamentary conferences in Canada.

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr.

CHAVEZ], the Senator from Alaska [Mr.

GRUENING], and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA] are absent on official business attending the opening

ceremonies of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

The Senator from Wyoming [Mr.

O'MAHONEY] is absent because of illness.

I further announce that if present and

voting, the Senator from New Mexico

[Mr. CHAVEZ], the Senator from Idaho

[Mr. CHURCH], the Senator from Rhode

Island [Mr. GREEN], the Senator from

Alaska [Mr. GRUENING], the Senator

from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY],

the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. McGEE], the Senator from Michigan [Mr.

MCNAMARA), the Senator from Oregon

[Mr. MORSE], the Senator from Montana [Mr. MURRAY], the Senator from

Maine [Mr. MUSKIE), and the Senator

from Wyoming [Mr. O'MAHONEYI would

each vote "yea."

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the

Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], the

Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPEHART),

and the Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON] are absent on official business as members of the U.S. delegation to conferences in Canada.

The Senator from South Dakota [Mr.

CASE] and the Senator from Vermont

[Mr. PROUTY] are absent on official busi- ness of the Committee on Public Works,

attending the opening ceremonies of the

St. Lawrence Seaway.

The Senator from Idaho [Mr.

DWORSHAKJ is absent on official busi- ness. The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr.

WILEY] is detained on official business.

If present and voting, the Senator

from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], the Senator

from Indiana [Mr. CAPEHART), the Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON], the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. CASE], and

the Senator from Vermont [Mr. PROUTY]

would each vote "yea."

The result was announced-yeas 79,

nays 0, as follows:

Allott

Anderson

Bartlett

Beall

Bennett

Bible

Bridges

Bush

Butler

Byrd, Va.

Byrd, W. Va.

Cannon

Carroll

Case, N.J.

Clark

Cooper

Cotton

Curtis

Dirksen

Dodd

Douglas

Eastland

Ellender

Engle

Ervin

Frear

Fulbright

Aiken

Capehart

Carlson

Case, S. Dak.

Chavez

Church

Dworshak

YEAS-79

Goldwater Monroney

Gore Morton

Hart Moss

Hartke Mundt

Hayden Neuberger

Hennings Pastore Hickenlooper Proxmire

Hill Randolph

Hruska Robertson

Jackson Russell

Javits Saltonstall

Johnson, Tex. Schoeppel

Johnston, S.C. Scott

Jordan Smathers

Keating Smith

Kefauver Sparkman

Kennedy Stennis

Kerr Symington

Kuchel Talmadge

Langer Thurmond

Lausche Williams, N.J.

Long Williams, Del.

McCarthy Yarborough

McClellan Young, N. Dak.

Magnuson Young, Ohio

Mansfield

Martin

NAYS-0

NOT VOTING-19

Green Murray

Gruening Muskie

Holland O'Mahoney Humphrey Prouty

McGee Wiley

McNamara

Morse

So the bill (H.R. 7523) was passed.

The title was amended so as to read:

"An act to provide a 1-year extension

of the existing corporate normal-tax rate

and of certain excise-tax rates, and for

other purposes."

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by

which the bill was passed.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I move

to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist upon

its amendments and request a conference with the House of Representatives

thereon, and that the Chair appoint

the conferees on the part of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to, and the

Presiding Officer appointed Mr. BYRD

of Virginia, Mr. KERR, Mr. FREAR, Mr.

LONG, Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware, Mr.

BENNETT, and Mr. BUTLER, conferees on

the part of Senate.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Mr. President,

I also ask that the bill be printed, showing the Senate amendments.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

AUTHORIZATION FOR VICE PRESIDENT OR PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE TO SIGN ENROLLED BILLS

AND RESOLUTIONS DURING THE

ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the

Vice President or the President pro

tempore be authorized to sign, during

the adjournment following today's session, enrolled bills and joint resolutions

duly passed by the two Houses and found

truly enrolled, and that the Secretary

be authorized to receive messages from

the House.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

VETO MESSAGES FROM THE

PRESIDENT

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, the President of the United States

has transmitted to the Senate today

two veto messages-one on S. 1901, the

so-called tobacco bill, and the other on

S. 1968, the wheat bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the messages be considered to have been read,

and that, with the accompanying bills,

they be ordered to lie on the table and

be printed as documents.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

AMENDMENT OF AGRICULTURAL

ACT OF 1949, TO STABILIZE AND

PROTECT THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT

FOR TOBACCO-VETO MESSAGE

(S. DOC. NO. 32)

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before

the Senate the following message from

the President of the United States, which

was read, and, with the accompanying

bill, ordered to lie on the table, and to

be printed:

To the Senate:

I return herewith without my approval

S. 1901, "an act to amend section 101(c)

of the Agricultural Act of 1949 and the

act of July 28, 1945, to stabilize and protect the level of support for tobacco."

This bill fails by a wide margin to do

what should be done if the best longterm interest of the Nation's tobacco

farmers is to be safeguarded.

The bill's merits are few. For the first

time in many years tobacco prices would

be supported at less than 90 percent of

parity-in the first year, for example, at

88 percent for Flue-cured tobacco and at

87 percent for burley. Supporting tobacco prices as provided in S. 1901,

rather than at 90 percent of parity under

a continuation of present law, would

result in a saving to the U.S. Government

in the first year of $14 million.

The bill's demerits, however, are

fundamental and far reaching. The bill

takes a long step backward by resurrect11950 June 25
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

ing 90 percent of "old parity" as one

basis for determining the support level

for tobacco. The Congress itself discarded the "old parity" formula years

ago. Because the bill actually can result

in the support level being set at 90 percent of "old parity," the American tobacco farmer in such circumstances

could very easily be misled into believing

he would receive 90 percent of parity, as

parity is computed for all other commodities.

But more importantly, I cannot approve a bill that holds out hope to the

tobacco farmer that it will help him solve

his problems, when such is not the case.

U.S. growers of many types of tobacco

are heavily dependent upon exports.

Yet we have been fast losing our fair

share of foreign markets. The deterioration in our tobacco sales abroad

can be directly attributed to the high

level of price supports that are required

by existing law. And while prices have

been supported at these high levels, and

would continue to be under this bill, the

law has required severe cuts in tobacco

acreage in the United States at a time

when acreage and production abroad

have been expanding. The best that can

be said about S. 1901 is that it might slow

down the rate at which we are losing our

fair share of foreign markets. It would

not prevent further losses. It certainly

will not regain any lost markets, because

the level of price supports it requires

would still be too high.

I believe the bill's demerits far outweigh its merits, and accordingly I am

returning it without my approval.

The Congress has a pressing responsibility to enact realistic legislation designed to meet the problems of tobacco

farmers--legislation such as that recommended in my special message of January 29,1959.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, June 25, 1959.

STRENGTHENING OF WHEAT MARKETING QUOTA AND PRICE-SUPPORT PROGRAM-VETO MESSAGE

(S. DOC. NO. 33)

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before

the Senate the following message from

the President of the United States,

which was read, and, with the accompanying bill, ordered to lie on the table,

and to be printed:

To the Senate:

I am returning herewith, without my

approval, S. 1968, a bill "to amend the

Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, the

Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as

amended, and Public Law 74, 77th Congress, as amended."

This bill seeks to enact temporary

wheat legislation. It would require

wheat producers to reduce their acreage

by 25 percent and at the same time would

provide for increases in price supports on

wheat to 90 percent of parity.

On May 15 when I approved the joint

resolution for extending the date for

announcing the 1960 wheat acreage allotments and marketing quotas I said:

It is my hope that these additional 2

weeks will be used by the Congress to enact

realistic and constructive-not stopgapwheat legislation.

The proposed legislation embodied in

H.R. 7246 is stopgap. It is not realistic.

It is not constructive. It goes backward

instead of forward. It is not in the interest of the wheat farmers of America.

The bill disregards the facts of modern

agriculture. The history of acreage control programs-particularly in the case

of wheat-reveals that they just do not

control production. Under acreage controls in the 1954-58 period, acreage was

reduced by over 25 percent but at the

same time yield per acre was increased by

about 30 percent. The same situation

would be likely to happen in 1960 and

1961. The poorest acres would be retired from production and all the modern technology would be poured onto the

remainder.

- Hence the bill would probably increase,

and in any event would not substantially

decrease, the cost of the present excessively expensive wheat program now

running at approximately $700 million a

year.

In mY January 29, 1959, special message on agriculture, I recommended that

price supports be related to a percentage

of the average market price during the

immediately preceding years. In this

message I also stated that if in spite

of the tremendous increases in yields

per acre the Congress still preferred to

relate price support to existing standards

then the Secretary should have discretion in establishing support levels in accordance with guidelines now in the law.

Contrary to the recommendations I

made, this bill prescribes for a sick patient another dose of what caused his

illness. The proposed return to the discredited high, rigid price supports would

hasten the complete collapse of the entire wheat program.

While the hour is late I feel that this

Congress still has the opportunity to

adopt realistic wheat legislation beneficial to all segments of our economy.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, June 25, 1959.

FLAG RAISING CEREMONIES AT

JUNEAU, ALASKA, JULY 4, 1959

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the

Senate proceed to the consideration of

Calendar No. 423, Senate Resolution 135.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will be stated by title for the

information of the Senate.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A resolution

(S. Res. 135) authorizing the appointment of a special committee to attend

the flag raising ceremonies at Juneau,

Alaska, on July 4, 1959.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection to the present consideration

of the resolution?

There being no objection, the resolution was considered and agreed to, as

follows:

Resolved, That the Vice President Is au- thorized to appoint seven Members of the

Senate as a special committee to represent

the United States Senate at the ceremonies

to be held at Juneau, Alaska, on July 4,

1959, where the United States flag bearing

forty-nine stars will first officially be flown

In commemoration of the admission of

Alaska Into the Union as a State, and to

designate the chairman of said special com- mittee.

Resolved further, That the expenses of the

committee, including staff members designated by the chairman to assist the committee, which shall not exceed $15,000, shall be

paid from the contingent fund of the Senate, upon vouchers approved by the chair- man.

REPORTING BY SENATE OF DETAILED INFORMATION ON ITS

PAYROLLS

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the

Senate proceed to the consideration of

Calendar 422, Senate Resolution 139.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

resolution will be stated by title for the

information of the Senate.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A resolution

(S. Res. 139) to provide for the relorting by the Senate of detailed information on its payrolls.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection to the present consideration of

the resolution?

There being no objection, the Senate

proceeded to consider the resolution.

Mr JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Missouri to make a brief explanation of the

resolution.

Mr. HENNINGS. Mr. President, this

resolution was called to the attention of

the Committee on Rules and Administration some several weeks past. It relates to what many of us have heard and

read about, and about which inquiries

have been made of us concerning the

staffs of the respective Senators and

themselves.

In considering the matter, the Committee on Rules and Administration

tried to reach what we thought was a

proper conclusion. We did so after two

meetings. We spent the greater part of

the time in discussing what we thought

would best meet the responsibility of the

Senate to the people of the United

States in a full and free disclosure of

our own financial transactions, our payrolls, and all other information, about

which some of us feel strongly.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Was this a

unanimous report?

Mr. HENNINGS. The resolution was reported to the Senate unanimously by a

full attendance of the Committee on

Rules and Administration, either in person or by proxy, on Wednesday of this

week.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will

the Senator yield?

Mr. HENNINGS. I yield.

Mr. ELLENDER. Does the resolution

contain language which would require

the names of the employees to appear

under the name of each Senator; that is,

to identify them together with their respective salaries?

Mr. HENNINGS. Yes.

Mr. ELLENDER. I do not read the

resolution in that way. The meaning is

not clear. The resolution should provide

that under the name of each Senator

1959 11951