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