CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE

burden of combat in two successive wars.

We think the obligation of military service should be spread a little more than

that. We used the date July 27, 1953,

which will mean that combat veterans

will not be called upon to serve again in

anything short of an all-out congressional mobilization.

The gentleman's amendment would

bring that date to 1956. Here is what is

wrong there. It would mean that you

would eliminate your Ready Reserve at

the present time. You would have no

Ready Reserve at the present time. You

would have to begin at scratch. You

would weaken the defenses of this country very, very seriously by destroying the

Ready Reserve.

The gentleman has stated this is

changing the ground rules. The only

change in the ground rules has been to

soften the impact of the ground rules on

those since 1953 and to this hour. We

have actually reduced the obligation. to

some extent of those people but we have

in no instance made the obligation

heavier on those who were in the service since 1953 to the present hour than it

is at the present time. We have made

the obligation lighter. They have no

complaint about the obligation that they

have assumed prior to the time when

this bill would go into effect.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Chairman,

will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. I yield to

the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Is it not true that

if the Department of Defense wanted to

they could apply the provisions of law

which states that if a man does not fulfill his Reserve obligation he is subject

to a fine of $10,000 or 5 years in jail?

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Yes, but

I am not in favor of enforcing that drastic provision. It is far too severe. We

have reduced the obligation and reduced

the penalty. We have reduced the overall ground rules so that they are softer

on the man in service under this

measure than they were before this bill

came to the House.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. I yield to

the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I think the gentleman misunderstands the intent and the

effect of the amendment. The effect and

the intent is simply that these requirements with regard to men volunteering

or drafted for the service of the 48 drills,

and so forth, will become effective with

all men drafted or enlisting after the

effective date of the act. I do not know

where the gentleman gets the 1956 date.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. The gentleman by inference would relieve us of

the Ready Reserve we have at the present critical time. Then we would have to

start from scratch with no Ready Reserve

and build here in the 4 or 5 years allotted

under this law a brand new Ready Reserve to defend our country. We need

those men at the present time.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. The gentleman's

amendment would postpone the implementation of this program until 1956,

should the amendment become law within the next several months.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. That is

what I understand. So I think the

amendment is a bad one. I ask that it

be defeated.

The CHAIRMAN. The question Is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer a

preferential motion.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. GROSS moves that the Committee do

now rise and report the bill back to the

House with the recommendation that the

enacting clause be stricken out.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I think

the motion speaks for itself. I have no

desire to take any further time and I

ask for a vote.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the motion.

The motion was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the

committee rises.

Accordingly the Committee rose; and

the Speaker having resumed the chair,

Mr. ENGLE, Chairman of the Committee

of the Whole House on the State of the

Union reported that that committee

having had under consideration the bill

(H. R. 7000) to provide for strengthening

of the Reserve Forces, and for other

purposes, pursuant to House resolution

291, he reported the bill back to the

House with sundry amendments adopted

by the Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the

previous question is ordered.

Is a separate vote demanded on any

amendment? If not, the Chair will put

them en gros.

The amendments were agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The question is on

the engrossment and third reading of

the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed

and read a third time and was read the

third time.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a

motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?

Mr. NELSON. I am, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman qualifies. The Clerk will report the motion

to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. NELSON moves that H. R. 7000 be recommitted to the Committee on Armed

Services for further study.

Mr. VINSON. Mr. Speaker, I move

the previous question.

The previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER. The question is on

the motion to recommit.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. NELSON) there

were-ayes 52, noes 161.

So the motion to recommit was rejected.

The SPEAKER. The question is on

the passage of the bill.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, on that I

demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were refused.'

The bill was passed.

A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

PERMISSION TO FILE REPORT ON

H. R. 5614

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the Committee

on Interstate and Foreign Commerce

may have until midnight tonight to file

a report on the bill H. R. 5614.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from Tennessee?

There was no objection.

PREDICTION WITH RESPECT TO

APPLE PRICES-VETO MESSAGE

FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE

UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 213)

The SPEAKER laid before the House

the following veto message from the

President of the United States, which

was read:

To the United States House of Representatives:

I return herewith, without my approval, H. R. 5188, to prohibit publication by the Government of the United

States of any prediction with respect to

apple prices. This bill would amend section 15 (d) of the Agricultural Marketing Act (12 U. S. C. 1141 (j) (d).), as

amended, by inserting after the word

"cotton" the words "or apples." The effect of this would be to extend to apples

the existing prohibitions with respect to

the publication of price prospects that

now apply only to cotton.

The provision of the act to which apples would be added is very broad. It

applies to any officer or employee of the

United States, in either the legislative

or executive branch of the Government, except to the Governor of the

Farm Credit Administration. It should

not be extended to other farm products.

In particular, the addition of apples to

this provision would further restrict the

agricultural outlook service of the Department of Agriculture, since it would

prohibit the publication and, on occasion, the formal discussion of future

price prospects for apples by any employees of the Department, including cooperative employees of the Federal-State

Extension Service.

I believe that it is a vital responsibility

of the Federal Government to gather

and disseminate accurate, timely, comprehensive, and useful economic information, so that producers and consumers, buyers and sellers may have available to them the maximum amount of

economic knowledge. This is especially

true of farmers, who generally are not in

a position to acquire for themselves all

the necessary facts concerning supply

and demand conditions affecting their

commodities. Because of the great instability of their prices and incomes,

they stand in particular need of accurate, timely, and comprehensive economic information to assist them in the

development of their plans for production and marketing. Denial to farmers

of this type of information in the case of

another major commodity would represent a backward step, tending to undermine the foundations of the entire agricultural outlook service.

1955 9811
9812

It is difficult to see how the cutting off

of analysis of price trends and dissemination of price prospects by the Department of Agriculture can in any way as- sist the farmer. Interpretations of the

price situation will still be made by others. At times, these may come from

sources whose interests run contrary to

those of the apple producers. This legislation would reduce or seriously limit

the ability of fieldworkers to counteract

price rumors detrimental to the farmers'

interests.

For these reasons I have felt obliged

to withhold my approval from this

measure.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

The WHITE HOUSE, JuZy 1, 1955.

The SPEAKER. The objection of the

President will be spread at large upon

the Journal.

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move

that the bill and message be referred tothe Committee on Agriculture and ordered printed.

Mr. HARRISON of Virginia. Mr.

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to ex- tend my remarks at this point in the

RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from

Virginia?

There was no objection.

Mr. HARRISON of Virginia. Mr.

Speaker, the President's action in vetoing a bill to stop apple price forecasting

by the Department of Agriculture is as inexplicable as it is petty. It is a cruel

and unwarranted blow to the smaller

apple farmers. The veto does not square

with the professed determination of the

administration to get the Federal Government out of activities which are wasteful of the taxpayers' money and

serve no essential purpose. Apple farmers will find it difficult to understand why

the President heeded the plea of bureaucrats of his Department of Agriculture

to let them continue the useless and

often damaging guessing game on apple prices without giving the apple farmers'

organizations, the American Farm Bu- reau Federation, or the authors of the

bill any opportunity to explain why

price forecasting on apples has been

of no value and has done substantial

harm.

In congressional hearings on this legislation, representatives of the apple

farmers, and of agriculture generally,

testified to the damage and confusion

caused by these price guesses, when made

under auspices of the Federal Government. The only witness in opposition to

the bill was a bureaucrat who understandably did not want to be told to stop

doing what he had been doing at public

expense, even if it were useless. It was agreed that the bill would have no effect on the other valuable statistical services

of the Department of Agriculture, to

which the President refers in his mes- sage, and Would prohibit only price forecasting unwanted by all who were supposed to be served by it. For a number

of years, cotton farmers have been protected by law against this crystalballing by Federal bureaucrats on cotton prices. The apple farmers merely

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

thought they were entitled to the same

treatment as the cotton farmers. The

Congress agreed. The President now has

told them they are not.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from

Pennsylvania?

There was no objection.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish

to express my shock at the President's

action in vetoing H. R. 5188. This measure would prohibit publication by the

Department of Agriculture of its predictions as to the future price of apples.

This was a bill which passed the House

and the Senate with little or no opposition. This happened because it had been

clearly demonstrated to the satisfaction

of the Members of both Houses that this

was legislation that was needed. It was

needed because many apple growers,

large and small, had suffered substantial

losses on their crops because in past years

the Department of Agriculture's guess

as to the future prices of apples proved

to be well below the ultimate market

prices. As the result of relying on the

bad guessing of Mr. Benson's experts,

many a farmer was misled into selling

his crop for a price far short of what he

could have realized without the misguiding guidance forthcoming from the Department of Agriculture.

When similar speculations in cotton

prices worked a hardship on the cotton

growers the Congress passed a law prohibiting the Government from expressing any predictions as to cotton futures.

What the Congress attempted to do was to give this same protection to the apple

growers of this country, but now the

President has come along to deny them

this protection. Mr. Eisenhower has re- cently taken up residence in one of the

great apple producing counties of this

Nation, and it is difficult to estimate the

losses which will flow. to many of his new neighbors as a result of today's action by the President. This is indeed an unfortunate veto. One that reflects a complete failure to understand the plight

of the typical farmer and the problems

he faces.

The SPEAKER. The question is on

the motion.

The motion was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

CALL OF THE HOUSE

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.

Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum

is not present.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I

move a call of the House.

A call of the House was ordered.

The Clerk called the roll and the following Members failed to answer to

their names: [Roll No. 107]

Anfuso Bentley Burdick

Baker Bolton, Canfield Barden Oliver P. Cederberg

Barrett Bowler Celler Belcher Boykin Chase

Bell Buchanan Chatham

ChiperfieldL

Clark

Cole

Coudert

Dague

Davis, Tenn.

Dawson, Il.

Dempsey

Denton

Dies

Dingell

Dollinger

Doyle

Eberharter

Fine

Fino'

FJ are

Frazier

Grant

Green, Pa.

Gubser

Hess

Hill

Holifleld

Jackson

James

Kean

Kearney

Kearns

Kelly, N. Y.

Kilburn

Kirwan

Kluczynski

Krueger

McDowell

McGregor

Mack, Ill.

Mason

Morrison

Moulder

Mumma

Perkins

Polk

Powell

July 1

Preston -

Reece, Tenn.

Reed, Ill.

Reed, N. Y.

Riehlman

Rivers

Robsion, Ky.

St. George

Scherer

Sheehan

Siler

Smith, Wis.

Taylor

Udall

Van Pelt

Watts

Widnal

Wier

Williams, N. Y Yates

Zelenko

The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 349

Members have answered to their names, a quorum.

By unanimous consent, further proceedings under the call were dispensed

with.

COMMITTEE ON RULES

Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the Committee

on Rules may have until midnight tonight to file reports.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION

BILL, 1956

Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules I call

up House Resolution 294 and ask for

its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That during the consideration

of the bill (H. R. 7117) making appropriations for the legislative branch for the

fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, and for

other purposes, all points of order against

the bill are hereby waived.

Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to

urge the adoption of House Resolution

294 which will make in order the consideration of the bill H. R. 7117, making appropriations for the legislative

branch for the fiscal year ending June

30, 1956, and for other purposes.

House Resolution 294 would waive

points of order against the bill and that

is all that it would do.

Mr. Speaker, I think a rundown on

the figures that are contained in this

bill would be helpful and interesting

to the membership of the House. In

1955 the total appropriation in this bill

was $63,062,003. The budget estimate for

this year was for $66,572,138 while the

Committee on Appropriations actually

recommends in this bill the sum of $66,-

280,675 for this fiscal year, which is

$1,291,463 less than was in the 1956

budget estimate.

Mr. Speaker, this bill contains the appropriations necessary for the House of

Representatives, the joint offices, the

Architect of the Capitol, the Botanic

Garden, the Library of Congress and the

Government Printing Office.

Mr. Speaker, the waiver of points of

order is necessary because of a few limitations and'legislative provisions not