CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

States Steel Corp. granted a wage rise voluntarily to the late Philip Murray as head of

the USW, because steelworkers' wages had

lagged behind mining and autos. The industry could suggest a voluntary moratorium

on the automatic wage boost. "Long-term

wage contracts," said Reuther, "should be

living documents to meet changed conditions."

Meanwhile, the crocuses have begun to

fight through this winter of discontent.

Machine tool orders rose slightly in January and then again in February. Orders for

structural steel were up 14 percent in February over January. Steel production still exceeds incoming orders, but, at the same time,

consumption-the chewing up of steel-is

thought to exceed production (deliveries to

steel users.)

President Eisenhower feels that we're now

going through the worst of the recession. If

he's wrong, he has company-me.

SHIRLEY LEEKE KILPATRICKVETO MESSAGE (S. DOC. NO. 84)

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

SCOTT in the chair) laid before the Senate the following message from the

President of the United States, which

was read, and, with the accompanying

bill, referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary, and ordered to be printed:

To the United States Senate:

I return herewith, without my approval, S. 2110, for the relief of Shirley

Leeke Kilpatrick.

On March 24, 1958, subsequent to the

passage of this measure by the Congress,

an adjustment of status to that of a

lawful permanent resident of the United

States was granted the beneficiary by

the Immigration and Naturalization

Service pursuant to section 245 of the

Immigration and Nationality Act. S.

2110 is therefore unnecessary.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, March 31, 1958.

THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF RADIO

IN THE PRESERVATION OF FREE

SPEECH AND FREE ENTERPRISE

Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Mr. President, on March 27 I brought to the attention of

the Senate the important role that radio

plays in the preservation of free speech

and the American system of free enterprise. I referred to the recent reports

that had been published about the possible curtailment of the American radio

broadcasting network, and expressed

the hope that it would be able to continue its radio network operations.

In my remarks I referred to the radio

networks which are operated in conjunction with television and noted that

these radio operations were being maintained although they were unprofitable.

Inadvertently, I failed to mention the

Mutual Broadcasting System, the largest in the United States in point of number of affiliates. Mutual has served the

Nation faithfully and well in all areas

of broadcasting. In the area of news

relating to public affairs it has done an

outstanding job.

The remarks I offered concerning the

other networks apply in full measure to

the Mutual Broadcasting Co.

STAY IN REDUCTION OF SUPPORT

PRICES-VETO MESSAGE

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I

should like to address myself briefly to

the veto message of the President on

Senate Joint Resolution 162, the joint

resolution passed by the Senate by an

overwhelming vote, and also passed by

the House of Representatives.

It should also be noted that a substantial majority of the Republican Party

caucus in the Senate also urged the

President to sign the joint resolution, as

did an overwhelming majority-I believe it was 42-of the majority party in

the Senate.

It is very unfortunate, indeed, that

the President found it necessary from his

point of view, and obviously on the basis

of the advice he received, to veto this

first agricultural antirecession measure.

Senate Joint Resolution 162 was designed for 2 purposes and passed on the basis of those 2 purposes. First, it

was designed to prevent further price

declines and further income declines in

agriculture. It was designed to maintain

Government protections at the 1957

levels.

In view of the announced reductions

in Government price supports for 1958,

it was understandable why an overwhelming majority in Congress took the

action it did in asking that price supports, insofar as Government activity

is concerned, be maintained at the 1957

level.

The second purpose was to afford Congress the time needed to perfect longterm, long-range basic agricultural legislation. Those of us on the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry who have that

responsibility, at least initially, did not

want to have to work under the gun, so

to speak, with the economic gun loaded

and pointed at us, ready to go off any

minute. We preferred to be able to work

after more mediation and deliberation

and consideration.

Therefore, the joint resolution was

passed by Congress. However, the action

of the President of the United States

throws the entire agricultural economic

picture into a whirl and into utter confusion.

I predict that prices paid to farmers

for their commodities will go down as the

result of the veto. I predict that the

farmer will suffer economic loss because

of the veto. I predict that the family

farm and the family farm system will

suffer economic tragedy because of this

kind of negative action.

I further predict that corporate farming will expand, that the growth of

large commercial corporate farms will

be expedited and intensified. I do not

believe that is good for America. The

kind of negative policy which is embraced in the veto message will lead

to that kind of development on our

agricultural front, namely, the expansion

and extension of corporate agriculture.

That will be done to the detriment of our

American social and tiolitical systems.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.

Is it not also true that the people who

live on the farms will anticipate from

the veto message that the administration intends to lower supports?

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator is correct. As the Senator knows, the President reiterates his recommendation of

lowering price support levels and broadening flexibility from the present 75 to 90

percent, to the level of 60 to 90 percent.

In fact, he is recommending, in some instances, the full scale, from 0 to 90 percent.

The Senator from South Carolina

further knows that the President asks

that the escalator clauses, which are

built into the present farm laws, whereby

when surpluses are removed, prices tend

to increase be eliminated.

Therefore, I can say that the veto

message will result in lower prices for

farmers for the commodities they produce, and that there will be no savingnot so much as one cent in saving-for

the consumer in the food market. Food

prices have been going up despite the

fact that farm prices have been coming

down. Recently, over the week-end, we heard some so-called good news with

reference to an increase of farm prices.

What did they consist of? They con- sisted of certain types of citrus fruits.

Those prices rose because of an act of

nature, a calamity, which struck the producers and caused a shortage of citrus

fruits. Because of the shortage of citrus

fruits, and because of the frost, and because of the losses to the citrus producers, citrus prices went up well above

100 percent of parity in some instances.

I trust that that is not the administration's program. I trust that the administration is not endorsing a type of

farm program in America which is based on calamities.

What else caused the price rise for

farmers? Potatoes are up to 125 percent

of parity. That is again because of a short supply, brought about by unfavorable weather conditions. We can go

down the whole list of products from

fresh vegetables and citrus fruits to potatoes, and find that that is what has

basically raised the parity price structure.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.

I ask the Senator not to forget cotton.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator calls

our attention to a certain type of cotton,

of which there is a desperate shortage,

and that again has resulted in higher

prices.

The Senator from Minnesota has

pointed out that an abundant supply

of agricultural commodities is the consumer's best protection. I wish to warn consumers that the administration's

program will take the consumers of

America to the proverbial economic

cleaners. The administration's program

results in surpluses for agriculture, and

also results, because of uncontrolled

production and because of unplanned

methods in agriculture and because of a failure of a plan, in higher prices to

consumers.

I notice that the administration has

tried to give the poor dairy farmer a

little more hope. They have said to the

dairy farmer, "We are going to reduce

1958 5773