United States of America Congressional Record st PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE SI CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION SENATE Fripay, Fepruary 3, 1950 (Legislative day of Wednesday, January 4, 1950) The Senate met at 12 o'clock merid- jan, on the expiration of the recess. The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown Harris, D. D., offered the following prayer: O God, who art the hope of all the ends of the earth, amid the tragedy of a broken world in deep humility of spirit we ascend the altar stairs of this way- side shrine the fathers reared. In this testing day establish Thou our hearts, as we strive not in enmity against men, but against the evil which enslaves and degrades them. Startle us with the deep meaning for all mankind that a decisive hour has struck in the old story of our planet. We thank Thee for men and women of good will under all skies, the saving salt of the tortured world, upon whose integrity of character and whose under- standing sympathy for other nations and races the hopes of tomorrow rest. As great ideas whose day has come beckon us to be their servants, save us from giving ourselves to the dead past rather than to the living future. We ask it in the name that is above every name. Amen, THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. Lucas, and by unani- mous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Thursday, Febru- ary 2, 1950, was dispensed with. METSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT Messages in writing from the Presi- dent of the United States were commu- nicated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed the following bills, in which it requested the concurrence of the Sen- ate: H.R. 8001. An act to authorize the admis- sion into the United States of certain aliens possessing special skills; and H. R. 6616. An act to provide for the expe- ditious naturalization of former citizens of the United States who have lost United States citizenship through voting in a polit- ical election or in a plebiscite held in Italy. MEETING OF COMMITTEE DURING BENATE SESSION On request of Mr. Lucas, and by unani- mous consent, a subcommittee of the xXCVI——89 Committee on Foreign Relations was au- thorized to sit this afternoon during the session of the Senate. LEAVE OF ABSENCE On his own request, and by unanimous consent, Mr. MILLIKIN was granted leave to be absent from the Senate from 3:30 o'clock this afternoon for the remainder of the day. CALL OF THE ROLL Mr. LUCAS. I suggest the absence of @ quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Scnators answered to their names: Aiken Hayden Millikin Anderson Hendrickson Morse Benton Fun Mundt Brewster Hoey Murray Bricker Holland Neely Bridges Humphrey O'’Conor Butler Hunt O'Mahoney Byrd Ives Pepper Cain Jenner Robertson Capehart Johnson, Colo. Russell Chapman Johnson, Tex. Saltonstall Chavez Johnston, S.C Schoeppel Connally Kefauver Smith, Maine Cordon Kem Smith, N. J. Darby Kerr Sparkman Donnell Knowland Stennis Douglas Lehman Taft Downey Lodge Taylor Dworshak Lucas Thomas, Okla Ecton McCarran Thomas, Utah Ellender McCarthy Tobey Ferguson McCle!lan Tydings Frear McFarland Watkins Fulbright McKellar Wherry George McMahon Wiley Gillette Magnuson Williams Graham Malone Withers Gurney Maybank Young Mr. LUCAS. Iannounce that the Sen- ator from Mississippi [Mr. EaSTLanp! is absent on official business. The Senators from Rhode Island [Mr. GREEN and Mr. LeaHY] are absent on public business. The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Kiicore!], the Senator from Louisiana Mr. Lone], and the Senator from Penn- sylvania [Mr. Myers] are absent on pub- lic business. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Fian- DERS], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Hick- ENLOOPER], the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. LaNaer], and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. THYE] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Martin] is absent on official business. The Senator from Michigan (Mr. Van- DENBERG] js necessarily absent. The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is present. TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Members of the Senate be permitted to submit petitions and memorials, introduce bills and joint resolutions, and present routine matters for insertion in the Recorp and the Ap- pendix of the Recorp, without speeches and without debate. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETO. The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following letters, which were referred, as indicated: REPORT OF FooD AND DruG ADMINISTRATION A letter from the Administrator, Federal Security Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the Food and Drug Adminis- tration, for the fiscal year 1949 (with an ac- companying report); to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. RePorT OF OFFICE OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION A letter from the Administrator, Federal Security Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the Office of Vocational Re- habilitation, fiscal year 1949 (with an accom- panying repoit); to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. ReEvort oF St Exizaperirs HOSPITAL A letter from the Administrator, Federal Security Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of St. Elizabeths Hospital, fiscal year 1949 (with an accompanying re- poit); to the Committee on Labor and Pub- lic Welfare. ReporT oF FroeraL Works AcENcy A letter from the Administrator, General Services Administration, transmitting, pur- suant to-law, the tenth and final report of the Federal Works Agency, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1949 (with an accompanying report); to the Committce on Public Works. PETITIONS AND MEMORIAL Petitions, etc, were laid before the Senate and referred as indicated: By the VICE PRESIDENT: A petition of sundry citizens of New Port Richey and St Petersburg, both in the State of Florida, praying for the enactment of the so-called Townsend plan, providing old-age assistance, to the Committee on Finance. A resolution adopted by the Forrest Watson Post, No. 3333, Vetcrans of Forcign Wars of the United States, of Kenton, Ohio, protest- ing against the enactment of legislation pro- viding compulsory health insurance; to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. A joint resolution of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia; to tho Committee on Rules and Administration: “Benate Joint Resolution 7 “Joint resolution requesting the return of certain property for exhibition at the Ap- pomattox Surrender Grounds Park “Whereas certain furniture which was in the surrender room of the McLean House near Appomattox at the time of the sur- render by Gen. Robert E. Lee is now owned and exhibited by the Smithsonian Institue tion; and 1407
1408 “Whereas the surrender grounds at Ap- pomattox are being restored and facilities for the exhibition of historical material are now available; and “Whereas it is fitting that the furniture from the McLean House should be housed at the surrender grounds. Now, therefore, be it “Resolved by the senate (the house of dele- gates concurring), That the trustees of the Smithsonian Institution and the Congress of the United States are respectfully requested to take such action as is necessary to enable the following turniture from the McLean House to be placed on permanent exhibition at the surrender grounds: “One arm chair, used by Gencral Lee. “One desk or swivel chair, used by General Grant. “One small spool table General Grant wrote out the surrender terms on this table. “One large secretary, and further “Resolved, That the Congress and such trustees are requested also to take such action in order to permit such furniture to be exhibited at the dedication of the sur- render grounds in April 1930." PROHIBITION OF LIQUOR ADVERTISING— PETITION Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr President, I am in receipt of another letter from Mrs. Nora B Powell, State Legislative Direc- tor, WCTU, New Casth County, Del, transmitting a fourth petition signed by 120 citizens of New Castle County, Del, in support of legislation now pending before the Senate Committee on Inter- state and Foreign Commerce to prohibit the advertising of alcoholic beverages over the radio. This brings the total number of signers of the petitions sent in by Mrs. Powell to 2311. I ask that this petition also be referred to the Sen- ate Committee on Inteistate and Foreign Commerce for its consideration ihe VICE PRESICVENT The petition will be received and referred to the Com- mittee on Interstate and Foreign Com- merce. FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE COMMISSION Mr. LEHMAN Mr. President, I pre- sent for appropriate reference and ask unanimous consent to have pranted in the ReEcorpD a resolution adopted by the Business and Frofessional Group, Amer- ican Jewish Congress, South Shore Divi- sion, of Far Rockaway, N. Y., favoring the enactment of legislation providing for a faw employment practice com- mission. There being no objection, the resolu- tion was ordered to he on the table and to be printcd in the Recorp, as follows: Far Rockaway, N. Y, January 27, 1950. Hon. Herorrrt H. LEHMAN, Senate Building, Washington, D.C.: Whereas discrimination against persons on account of race, creed, or color in the matters of employment and civil rights constitute a degrading insult and affront to the people who have fought and died in the defense of American democracy; and Whereas these continued practices are inimical to the best interests of the American People and are in direct contradiction to the Bill of Rights; and Whereas endless demagogy and outright racial hatred have thwarted passage of any decent civil-rights legislation in the Con- gress of the United States. We, the business and professional] chap- ter of the American Jewish Congress, South Shore Women’s Division, do hereby resolve that every effort be made to secure passage CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE at this session of Congress of the McGrath- Powell FEPC bill. BuSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL GROUP, Sovurn SHORE DIvIsIon, AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS. RESOLUTIONS OF CONVENTION OF AMER- ICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I have in my hand a fine booklet containing reso- lutions adopted at the Thirty-first An- nual Convention of the American Farm Bureau Federation held in Chicazo, IIL, in last mid-December 1949. As we are all aware, the Amcrican Farm Bureau Federation is composed of 1,409,009 farm families. They represent the cross sec- tion of all phases of United States agri- culture. The Farm Bureau Federation has active member organizations in 45 States, including, of course, splendid representation in my own State of Wis- consin. These resolutions represent the grass- roots views of Farm Bureau members throughout the Nation, and were based upon discussions held in local communi- tues and at county and State meetings. The booklet was sent to me by Roger Fieming, secietary-treasurer of the fed- eration, I wish that it might be possible to ar- range for the printing of all of the reso- lufions adopted by the federat:on, but unfortunately that is not possible. I know that my colleagues will be inter- ecced in the purcau’s position on inter- national cooperetion, on Federal taxa- ticn, in opposition to taxation of coop- crat.ves, in opposition to monopolies and restrictive trade practices, in opposition to activitics in the field of labor harmful to the public welfare, and so forth I was particularly delighted to see the fine recolutions adcptcd by the federation in connection with decentralization of the Federal Government and turning over to the States and localities functions whuch can best be handled by them. This 1s a matter in which I have long been intcrested. Naturally, the position of the bureau with regard to the agricultural price-sup- port program is the one which is perhaps of deepest interest to my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent, therefore, that the resolutions adopted by the House of Delegates at the Farm Bureau conven- tion on the subject of agricultural ad- justment programs be printed at this point in the body of the REcorp. There being no objection, the resolu- tions were ordered to be printed in the ReEcorpD, as follows: ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMS Gencral prosperity is essential to a success- ful and prosperous agriculture At the same time, a prosperous and productive agriculture is necessary for general prosperity. The two are interdependent. High production per man in the rest of the economy and a high well-distributed real in- come are of the utmost importance to farm. ers. Those furnish the goods for which farm- ers trade; and purchasing power to our con- sumers. High production per man is also of vital importance in securing a high per capita income to farmers. As farmers, we have two great jobs to do. One 1s to earn a reasonable share of the national income through high per capita production on the farm. The other is to get the share which our productive efforts earn. FEBRUARY 3 A postwar readjustment in prices such as has followed other wars has already brought farm prices down to the parity level for the first time since 1941. As usual, farm costs have failed to decline as rapidly as farm prices. GENERAL POLICIES If we are to maintain a prosperous econo- my, Of which a prosperous agriculture is an Integral part, we must, among other things, do the following: 1. Work out and make effective methods of bringing greater stability to cur general price level; 2. Foster policies which will stimulate the maintenance of a full employment cconomy; and 3. Promote international understanding and international trade on a basis consistent with world peace and prosperity. Over the years the American Farm Bu- reuu Federation has developed and sponsored policies designed to attain these broad ob- jectives We shall continue tu do so. Our resolutions on these subjects and, in fact, all of our resolutions are parts of our pro- Sram to assure American agriculture of its proper place in our national and world econ- omy While the lines of action enumerated above are of utmost importance to permanent agri- cultural prosperity, we need to supplement them by various programs designed to bring about specie adjustments within agricul- ture and between cgriculture and the rost of the economy. It is these adjustment pro- groems which we ordinarily refer to as the farm program FUNDAMINTAL P. 1INCII LES. If farm programs are to make the maxi- mum contribution to the development of a sound, prosperous, and well-balenced Ameri- can cconomy, they must be developed and carried out on a long-range basis At the same time we must continually strive to im- prove existing programs and be prepared to recommend changcs on the basis ol exrert- ence. To endure, farm programs must be de- veloped on a bipartisan busis They also must be based on sound fundamental] prin- ciples worthy of support by urban as well as farm people. Farmers cannot hope to muintain any program unless they can dem- onstrate to other groups that !t is sound and in the national interest A fundamental principle of our price-sup- port and production-adjustment pidgrams is the parity concept, which measures a fair exchange relationship between the price of commodities the farmer sells and the price of the things he buys. While furm programs should be directed toward the maintenance of parity, it is not the responsibility of the Government to guurantce profitable prices to any economic group. Instead, we view farm-price suppoits as an appropriate and necessary protection against unreasonable price declines. If price supports are to be used to guarantee tarmers profitable prices rather than as a protection against unreasonable price de- clines, it follows that the Government will determine what is a fair level of income, both to agriculture and to each and every individ- ual farmer. Eventually this would result in a reduction of the farmer's capacity to earn and to get a fair income. Farm income cannot be protected by price- support policics which— 1, Cut us out of badly needed cxport mar- kets or reduce our domestic markets by un- duly restricting the use of products or by encouraging the use of substitutes; 2. Stimulate unneeded or uneconomic pro- duction, thereby forcing ever-increasing Gov- ernment controls over production and mar. keting; or 3. Result in the accumulation of excessive stocks in the hands of the Government, as
1950 such stocks tend to convert price supports into price ceilings and may result in the Gov- ernment assuming complete control of mar- keting, processing, and distribution of agri- cultural commodities. Price supports should be flexible. The level of support should be related to farm supplies and market requirements and should be used as one of the important factors in guiding farm production. Due consideration should be given to pro- viding sufficient flexibility in acreage-ad- justment programs to meet changing needs in production and consumption and to pro- vide greater flexibility in adjusting individual production plans so a; to facilitate efficient land use and not freeze acreage allotments in rigid historical patterns. The utilization of acreage diverted from the production of commodities for which acreage allotments are established presents @ problem in the successful operation of a long-range farm program. The effects which such diversion may have upon the producers of other commodities are recognized. On the other hand, it is realized that there are ad- ministrative problems involved in controlling the use of such acreage. It is recommended that the board of directors make a study of this problem to determine the most feasible means whereby such diverteu acreage may be used in such manner as to prevent adverse influence upon the producers of other com- modities, A program to upgrade the diet, properly coordinated with existing agricultural pro- grams, should aid in diminishing unmanage-~ able surpluses of certain agricultural com- modities and conserve the fertility of our soils. A relatively small increase in the con- sumption of meat and other animal prod- ucts, or poultry, generates demand for con- siderable quantities of grain. In developing such a program, which will likely mean ex- panded production of livestock and livestock products and expanded consumption of fruits and vegetables, consideration should be given to the producers of other commodities. Pro- grams adopted should supplement the exist- ing agricultural programs designed to sta- bilize agriculture. ‘We urge more aggressive efforts to stimu- late increased consumption of agricultural commodities through— 1. Research, education, and improvements in production and marketing techniques; 2. Reduction in costs of production, proce essing, and marketing; 8. Development of new and expanded out- lets for agricultural commodities in domestic and foreign markets; 4. Diversion of surpluses into byproduct uses; 5. Disposal of surpluses in export markets at competitive world prices, including the use of export payments when necessary; 6. Study and use, where practicable, of international commodity agreements; and 7. Support of adequate, wisely planned, economically administered programs de- signed to utilize a maximum of surplus agri- cultural commodities, We recommend the establishment of self- supporting price-stabilization programs by the producers of those farm commodities for which such programs are feasible and admin- istratively practical. In establishing such programs, use should be made of such mech- anisms as surplus-diversion programs, qual- ity control, orderly distribution, and pay- ments through funds contributed by the pro- ducers of these commodities. AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 1949 Based upon the action of the voting dele- gates in December 1948, the board of directors of the American Farm Bureau Federation, at its June 1949 meeting, reached unanimous agreement on revisions in the Agricultural Act of 1948, which it was felt would clarify and improve it. This agreement included en- dorsement of flexible price supports on basic CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE commodities ranging from 75 to 90 percent of parity instead of 72 to 90 percent of parity as actually provided in the Agricultural Act of 1948. It further provided for allowing the total supply of cotton and peanuts to reach 108 percent of normal supply before any ad- justment in support levels would become operative. These provisions are included in the Agricultural Act of 1949. In three principal respects the Agricultural Act of 1949 differs from the unanimously agreed to position of the American Farm Bureau Federation board of directors: 1. It includes the cost of hired farm labor in the calculation of the parity formula. Historically, the application of this provision would have raised parity during periods of relatively high farm prices and would have lowered it during periods when farmers most needed farm prices raised; 2. It provides for a continuation of war- time 90-percent price supports for so-called basic commodities during 1950; and 8. It contains a conference committee amendment providing that during the period 1950-53 basic commodities are permitted to use the higher of the old or the modernized parity formula. Each of these three changes currently raises materially the level of price support and increases the inflexibility in operation of the act in comparison with the recommenda- tions of the American Farm Bureau Federa- tion. This has important implications in- asmuch as we are convinced that the higher the level of price supports, the greater the controls and regimentation. However, the Agricultural Act of 1949 was developed and enacted by the Congress on a bipartisan basis; it provides for a permanent- type price-support program. It retains, but postpones full application of, the principles of flexibility and modernized parity which the American Farm Bureau Federation has consistently sought in recommendations for a long-range price-support program. These basic principles are sound and in the best interests of American agriculture and the general welfare. We encourage farmers to cooperate with worth-while programs developed under the Agricultural Act of 1949. We urge efficient administration of the act. We intend to be prepared to take the initiative in making any necessary revisions on the basis of our experience after the act has been given a fair trial. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following reports of committees were submitted: By Mr. TYDINGS, from the Committee on Armed Services: H.R. 2895. A bill to authorize the sale of select base material, at the Fort Benning Military Reservation, to Muscogee County, Btate of Georgia, for use on county roads; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1248); and H.R. 6361. A bill for the relief of Charles G. McCormack, captain, Medical Corps, United States Navy: without amendment (Rept. No. 1249). By Mr. SALTONSTALL, from the Commit- tee on Armed Services: 8. 2681. A bill to authorize the attendance of the United States Marine Band at a cele- bration commemorating the one hundred and seventy-fifth anniversary of the battle of Lexington, to be held at Lexington, Mass., April 16 through 19, inclusive, 1950; without amendment (Rept. No. 1250). By Mr. CHAPMAN, from the Committee on Armed Services: 8.2855. A bill to extend the time limits for the award of certain decorations, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1262). By Mr. CONNALLY, from the Committee on Foreign Relations: 5. 2845. A bill to enable the President to obligate funds heretofore appropriated for 1409 assistance in certain areas in China until June 80, 1950; without amendment (Rept. No. 1251). EXECUTIVE MESSAGE REFERRED As in executive session, The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a message from the President of the United States submitting the nomi- nation of Roy Victor Peel, of Indiana, to the position of Director of the Census, which nomination was referred to the Committee on Post Office and C.vil Service. BILLS INTRODUCED Bills were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows: By Mr. MURRAY: § 2982. A bill for the relief of Mr. and Mrs. Charles Henry Gonda; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. WILEY: S 2983. A bill for the relief of Miss Nene Bazlstad; to the Committee on the Judi- ciary By Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado (by re- quest): 8 2984. A bill to provide for the develop- ment and Improvement of aircraft intended for industrial or personal use, and adaptable for military service; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. By Mr. LODGE: S. 2985. A bill for the relief of Francis C. Pollard; to the Committee on the Judiciary, By Mr. CORDON (for himself and Mr. Morse) : 8 2986. A bill to provide for the design and construction of highway bridges near certain dams; to the Committee on Public Works. (Mr MAYBANK (by request) introduced Senate bill 2987, to amend the Federal Home Loan Bank Act and title IV of the National Housing Act, and for other purposes, which was referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency, and appears under a separate heading.) By Mr SPARKMAN (for himself and Mr. HILx): 8.2988. A bill to amend the Bankhead- Jones Farm Tenant Act so as to improve credit services available to farmers seeking to change or diversify their farming opera- tions or adjust and improve their farming practices; to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK AND NATIONAL HOUSING ACTS Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, by request, I introduce for appropriate ref- erence a bill to amend the Federal Home Loan Bank Act and title IV of the Na- tional Housing Act, and for other pur- poses. I may state the purpose of introducing the bill. Two days ago the House passed a bill concerning the Federal Home Loan Bank. The bill has come over from the House, and was referred to the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency. It is the desire of that committee to have the bill I have now introduced before it, so both bills may be considered together. I introduced the bill by request in order that it may be considered together with the bill which has just come from the House, so that adequate and proper hearings may be held. I ask unanimous consent that a sum- mary of the legislative draft of the bill be printed in the Recor» at this point. The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be received and appropriately referred,
1410 and, without objection, the summary presented by the Senator from South Carolina will be printed in the REcorp. The bill (S. 2987) to amend the Fed- eral Home Loan Bank Act and title IV of the National Housing Act, and for other purposes, introduced by Mr. May- BANK (by request), was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committce on Banking and Currency. The summary presented by Mr. May- BANK was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE DRAFT OF DECEMBER 22, 1949 Section 1. Liquidity requirements: This section would prohibit any member of a Fed- eral home-loan bank from making loans at any time when it did not hold cash and obli- gations of the Urited States in an amount prescribed by the Home Loan Bank Board, which amount would not be less than 5 percent nor more than 16 percent of with- drawable account liability. The Board would be authorized to prescribe by regulation dif- ferent amounts within the limitations speci- fied for different classes of member institu- tions. Failure to comply with the provisions of this subsection would be ground for re- Moval from membership. Section 2 Ratirement of bank stock: This section would increase members’ holdings of Federal home-loan bank stock from 1 per- cent of unpaid principal of home-mortgage loans to 2 percent of unpaid principal of home-mortgage loans, home-purchase con- tracts, and similar obligations, retaining the existing $500 minimum. The excess over 1 percent supplied by members would be used to retire Government stock but not so as to reduce the capital stock, reserves, surplus, and undivided profits to less than 8200,- 000,000. Section 3. Investment of bank-stock re- ceipts: This scction would require Federal home-loan banks to have invested at all times an amount equal to current deposits received from members invested in specified obligations and advances At present banks are required to so invest an amount equal to the sums paid in on outstanding capital subscriptions of members plus the amount of current deposits. Section 4 Treasury purchase of bank obli- gations. This section would give the Sccre- tary of the Treasury discretionary authority to purchase obligations of Federal home- Joan banks. However, his holdings of such obligations may not exceed $1,000,000,000 at any one time. This section would also sub- Ject the Federal home-loan banks to the Government Corporation Control Act even after Government capital stock is retired. Section 5. Retirement of capital stock of FSLIC: This section would require the Fed- eral Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation to annually retire at par an amount of its capital stock equal to 50 percent of its net income for the fiscal year. The Board could authorize retirement of a smaller amount if it determined it feasible. All dividends on the capital stock, past, present, and future, would be waived and in lieu thereof the Secretary of the Treasury would be paid a return, on the average amount at par, of the capital stock outstanding during each fiscal year at a rate to be determined by the Sec- retary of the Treasury taking into considera- tion the current average rate on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States as of the last day of the sixth month of each such fiscal year. Section 6. Treasury loans to FSLIC: This section would authorize borrowing by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corpora- tion from the Secretary of the Treasury, on such terms as may be agreed upon, such funds as in the judgment of the Board are from time to time required for insurance CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE purposes, but not exceeding the agrregate of $750,000,000 outstanding at any one time. EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF FED- ERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS IN- SURANCE SYSTEM—AMENDMENTS Mr. BRIDGES submitted amendments intended to be proposed by him to the bill (H. R. 6000) to extend and improve the Federal old-age and survivors in- surance system, to amend the public- assistance and child-welfare provisions of the Social Security Act, and for other purposes, which were referred to the Committee on Finance and ordered to be printed. CONSTRUCTION AT MILITARY AND NAVAL INSTALLATIONS—AMENDMENTS Mr. RUSSELL submitted amendments intended to be proposed by him to the bill (S. 2440) to authorize certain con- struction at military and naval installa- tions, and for other purposes, which were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. HOUSE BILLS REFERRED The following bills were each read twice by their titles and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: H.R 3001. An act to authorize the admis- sion into the United States of certain alicns Possessing special skills; and H R 6616 An act to provide for the ex- peditious naturalization of former citizens of the United States who have lost United States citizenship through voting in a politi- cal election or in a plebiscite held in Italy. JEFFERSON-JACKSON DAY DINNER—AD- DRESS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT [Mr. LUCAS asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp the Jefferson- Jackson Day dinner address delivered by the Vice President at Raleigh, N C., January 28, 1950, which appears in the Appendix |] THE GLOBAL CHALLENGE TO THE GOP— ARTICLE BY SENATOR MORSE [Mr. IVES asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article entitled “The Global Challenge to the GOP,” written by Senator Morse and published in the Feb- ruary 1950 issue of United Nations World Magazine, which appears in the Appendix ]} REPUBLICAN FROGRAM — EDITORIAL FROM THE NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE [Mr. IVES asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial entitled “A True Orthodoxy,” published in the Feb- ruary 2 issue of the New York Herald Trib- une, together with excerpts from a policy statement framed by the New York Young Republican Club entitled “Blueprint for a Better America,” which appear in the Ap- pendix ] MODERATE-PRICED HOUSING—LETTER FROM SENATOr. LEHMAN TO COMMIT- TEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY |Mr. LEHMAN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a letter dated January 30, 1950, addressed by him to Sena- tor Mayank, chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, on the subject of moderate-priced housing, which appears in the Appendix.] ROOSEVELT DAY DINNER ADDRESS BY BENJAMIN V. COHEN {Mr. LEHMAN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an address by Benjamin V. Cohen at the second annual Roosevelt Day dinner, Chicago, IIl., January 27, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.]} FEBRUARY 8 DISPLACED-PERSONS LEGISLATION—EDI- TORIAL FROM THE WASHINGTON FOST [Mr. LEHMAN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial entitled “Closed Door,” regarding displaced- persons legislation, from the Washington Post of February 3, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.) SENATOR CAPEHART’S RECORD—EDITO- RIAL FROM THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE [Mr. TAFT asked and obtained leave to have printed in the REcorp an editorial en- titled “Businessman Senator,” from the Chi- cago Dally Tribune of January 28, 1950, which appears in the Appendix | WARDS OF THE GOVERNMENT—ADDRESS BY DEAN RUSSELL [Mr. BUTLER asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an address en- titled “Wards of the Government," delivered by Dean Russell before the Convention on Individual Liberty held in Billings, Mont., on January 20, 1950, which appears in the Appendlx | CONTROL OF FLOODWATERS IN THE TENNESSEE, CUMBERLAND, AND OHIO RIVER BASINS—STATEMENT BY ARMY ENGINEERS {Mr HILL asked and obtained leave to have printed in the REcorD a statement by United States Army engineers in the Tennessee Valley Authority regarding the operation of flood-storage reservoirs in the Tennessee, Cumberland, and Ohio River Basins, which appears in the Appendix.] PRIVATE CAPITAL FOR SMALL BUSINESS [Mr. O’MAHONEY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp articles from the New York World-Telegram of Feb- ruary 2, the New York Times of February 8, and the Wall Street Journal of February 3, dealing with the bill introduced by him to authorize the establishment of a private system of capital banks to provide both debt and equity capital for independent business, which appear in the Appendix J THE ROAD TO PEACE—ARTICLE FROM THE MAGAZINE PREVENT WORLD WAR III [Mr. MURRAY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Rrecorp an article en- titled ‘The Road to Peace,” published in the January-February 1950 issue of the magazine Prevent World War III, which appears in the Appendix ] GERMANY’S RELATIONS WITH EASTERN AND WESTERN EUROPE—ARTICLE FROM THE MAGAZINE PREVENT WORLD WAR III [Mr. MURRAY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article en- titled “Made in Germany,” published in the November-December 1949 issue of the maga- zine Prevent World War III, which appears in the Appendix.] MINISTRY OUTWEIGHS THE LAW FOR HIM—ARTICLE BY RICHARD L. NEU- BERGER [Mr. MORSE asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article en- titled ‘Ministry Outweighs the Law for Him,” by Richard L. Neuberger, special writer for the Oregonian, which appears in the Ap- pendix. ] PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD OF EDU- CATION—LETTER FROM HOLLIS P. ALLEN {Mr. MORSE asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a letter recom-
1950 mending the establishment of a National Board of Education, from Dr. Hollis P. Allen, professor of education at Claremont College, California, which appears in the Appendix.] PROPOSED CHANGE IN COUNTING ELEO- TORS—ARTICLE BY ARTHUR KROCK [Mr. KEM asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article en- titled “The Proposed Change in Counting Electors,” written by Arthur Krock and pub- lished in the New York Times of February 8, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] CAPEHART VERSUS ACHESON—EDITO- RIAL FROM WASHINGTON  (IND.) HERALD [Mr. GURNEY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial en- titled “CargeHart versus Acheson,” published in the Washington (Ind.) Herald of January 30, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] CODDLING COMMUNIST AGENTS—EDI- TORIAL FROM WASHINGTON (IND.) HERALD [Mr. GURNEY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial en- titled “Coddiing Communist Agents,” pub- lished in the Washington (Ind.) Herald of January 380, 1950, which appears in the Ap- pendix.} THE POTATO PROGRAM—EDITORIAL FROM PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER [Mr. WILLIAMS asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Rzcorp an editorial entitled “Potatoes: Shocking Example of Wasteful Program,” published in the Phila- delphia Inquirer of February 8, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] THE ALGER HISS CONVICTION [Mr. WILLIAMS asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Rrecorp an editorial entitled “A Liar and a Spy,” published in the January 23, 1950, issue of the Journal- Every Evening, of Wilmington, Del., which appears in the Appendix.) DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN [Mr, CAIN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp two letters, and appendices, written on February 1, 1960, by Prank Pace, Jy., Director of the Budget, to the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Interior, respectively, relating to the development of the Columbia River Basin, which appear in the Appendix.] THE ALGER HISS CASE {Mr. MUNDT asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a copy of @ letter and a summary of the Alger Hiss case prepared by him, which ap- pear in the Appendix.] WHY NOT AN ANTICOMINFORM?—AR- TICLE BY SIEGFRIED WAGENER [Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado asked and ob- tained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article entitled “Why Not an Anti- Cominform?” written by Siegfried Wagener, and published in Plain Talk for January 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] TVA UNFAIRLY ATTACKED BY EDISON ELECTRIO INSTITUTE Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp a statement prepared by me in answer to charges appearing in the New York Times of February 2, 1950, that the operations of the Tennessee Valley Authority have resulted in a loss. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE There being no objection, Mr. Kr- FAUVER’s statement was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Mr. President, the private power lobby, speaking through the Edison Electric Insti- tute, in an article appearing in the New York Times of February 2, 1950, charges that the operations of the Tennessee Valley Authority have resulted in a total loss of nearly $120,- 000,000 since 1933, and a loss of over 86,000, 000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1949. This is the same argument that we have been hearing for years; that the people of America are paying out money which bene- fits only those American citizens residing in the TVA area, There is no cause to reiterate the multiple answers which have been made to this charge. Congress has answered it adequately a num- ber of times. I do think it proper, however, to point out in a general manner the errata that has crept into the computations of the Edison Electric Institute, in making these latest sensational, but entirely erroneous charges. The Institute attacks the method of allo- cation of cost of the multiple purposes of the Tennessee Valley Authority. These al- locations were made, at the direction of Congress, by the Tennessee Valley Authority. The method employed by TVA in breaking down the TVA costs and charging each cost to the proper purpose is, of course, a choice of methods. This would be necessarily s0 in any undertaking which provided several benefits as a result of one over-all operation. But, the allocation method devised and utilized by TVA has been reviewed by both the Federal Power Commission and the Corps of Engineers, both experts in this field, and— while FPC and the Corps of Engineers might have employed somewhat different alloca- tions—these agencies seemed to find no par- ticular fault with the TVA method. Even if another method were employed, the only result would be to reduce or increase the return on the over-all TVA investment. The Edison Electric Institute shows its insincerity by refusing to acknowledge that the people of the United States receive any benefits whatsoever from the common cost of controlling the Tennessee River system on @ multiple-purpose basis. This is con- trary to the expression of Congress. Con- gress directed the Tennessee Valley Author- ity to allocate its costs proportionately to navigation, flood control, and other pur- poses, Other purposes include electric power, research, the fertilizer program, work in the wildlife and fisheries fields, and s0 forth. These other purposes, with the ex- ception of the allocation for electrical energy, are based on specific appropriations by the Congress. If we take the Edison Electric Institute argument, as it was reported in the news- papers, it means we must say that there is no value in navigation and flood control, and charge these items off as “zero.” In ad- dition to the secondary benefits of flood control to the people in the TVA region, I think the people of America who live along the lower Ohio River and in the lower Mis- sissippi River Valley find a great deal of flood-control value in TVA. Had the TVA system of dams not been holding back bil- lions of gallons of water last month, the most disastrous flood in many years would have resulted on the lower Ohto and lower Mississippi. Yet, the Edison Electric Insti- tute would have the American people believe there is no value in the flood-control activi- ties of the Tennessee Valley Authority. To accept the private power trust's ver- sion, we must say that the power consumers in the TVA region should pay the entire cost of flood control and navigation, made possible by TVA, for the American citizens who work and live downstream. That is a preposterous allegation and conclusion, and 1411 Congress rejected it flatly when the private power lobby brought it up previously. The Edison Electric Institute averments include the statement that the nonpower operations of TVA, such as work in forestry, regional planning, research, fertilizer, wild- life and fisheries, and the like, are rendered almost free of charge and the loss made up by donations from the rest of the United States. Actually, these services are provided com- pletely—not almost—free of charge. They are expenses, Just as the service of the Weather Bureau is provided on a dead ex- pense proposition, free of charge to al] Amer- icans who desire to avail themselves of the service. But, may I repeat, all these non- power activities are controlled by specific appropriations of the Congress. These activities, to some extent, have en- abled the TVA section to improve its eco- nomic position. In 1933, before this won- derful regional development, the TVA sec- tion paid only 3 percent of the nationa) in- come tax; now, we are paying a little over 6 percent. I think, Mr. President, the private power lobby ts beginning to stir again in its effort to assure that the South maintains the status quo in economic development: that this great one-third of a nation remain the economic problem No. 1 of America, INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT RELATING TO REGULATION OF PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF SUGAR—REMOVAL OF INJUNCTION OF SECRECY The VICE PRESIDENT. As in execu- tive session, the Chair lays before the Senate a protocol dated in London, August 31, 1949, Executive G, Eighty-first Congress, second session, prolonging for 1 year after August 31, 1949, the inter- national agreement regarding the regu- lation of production and marketing of sugar at London on May 6, 1937, Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous con- sent that the Senate remove the ban of secrecy with regard to the protocol, that the protocol and the President’s message of transmittal be referred to the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations, and that the President’s message be printed in the REcorp. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the request of the Senator from Texas? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. The message from the President and the protocol] were referred to the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations, and the message of the President was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: To the Senate of the United States: With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith a certified copy of a protocol dated in London August 31, 1949, prolonging for 1 year after August 31, 1949, the international agreement re- garding the regulation of production and marketing of sugar signed at London on May 6, 1937. I also transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report made to me by the Secretary of State with respect to this matter. Harry 8. TRUMAN, THe WuitTe House, February 3, 1950. (Enclosures: (1) Report of the Secre- tary of State; (2) certified copy of pro- tocol of August 31, 1949.)
1412 NOMINATIONS IN THE ARMED SERVICES Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, as in executive session, I report favorably cer- tain nominations for promotions in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps, and ask for their present consideration and confirmation, and that the President be notified. These nominations come from the Armed Services Committee with a unanimous report. No complaint has been filed against any of the nominees. The nom- inations have been before the commit- tee for the prescribed period of time, without dissent. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, as in executive session, the re- ports will be received and, without ob- jection, the nominations will be con- firmed, and the President notified. CODIFICATION OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR The Senate resumed the considera- tion of the bill (H. R. 4080) to unify, consolidate, revise, and codify the Arti- cles of War, the Articles for the Gov- ernment of the Navy, and the discipli- nary laws of the Coast Guard, and to enact and establish a Uniform Code of Military Justice. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of a substi- tute. Mr LUCAS. Mr. President, yesterday the able Senator from Nevada [Mr. Mc- Carran! gave notice that he would make a motion to refer the pending measure to the Committee on the Judiciary, and the able Senator from Oregon [Mr. Morse] submitted certain amendments to the bill. I made a brief statement last evening before the Senate took a recess, in the hope that we might be able to finish consideration of the bill this afternoon. I wish to advise Sen- ators that the session will run rather late. I do not wish to hold a night ses- sion. I hope that later perhaps we may be able to obtain an agreement to vote at a certain hour on the pending meas- ure and all amendments thereto. I merely make that statement so as to advise the Senate that probably we shall vote late this afternoon. The VICE PRESIDENT. There is no motion or amendment now pending ex- cept the committee amendment, which is in the nature of a substitute, to which amendments may be offered. Mr. LUCAS. I understand that, but the Senator from Nevada advised the Senate last night that at the appropriate moment he would make a motion to refer the bill to the Committee on the Judi- clary. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, in order that there may be no charge of delay or waste of time on this bill, I now move that the bill be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Nevada. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, in order that it may be fully understood by the Senate that this is not a mo- tion made in haste, nor for the purpose CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of delaying the consideration of a bill of grave importance, I desire to read to the Senate a copy of a letter which was published in the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp of yesterday, and which was written by myself to the able chairman of the Committee on Armed Services {Mr. Typrn¢s] on July 1, 1949: Unrrep SraTEs SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, July 1, 1949. Hon, Mi.iarp E. TyDINGSs, United States Senate, Washington, D.C My Dear SENATOR. H R. 4080, the so-called Code of Military Justice, was reported to the Senate from the Committee on Armed Serv- ices on June 10, 1949. In many of its provisions this bill deals with matters which I believe to be properly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, therefore, I believe it to be my duty to attempt to enforce what I con- sider to be the jurisdiction of the committee of which I have the honor to be the chair- man. Therefore, I intend to move that the bill (H. R. 4080) be taken from the Senate Calendar and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. I hope you may feel it will not be neces- sary to oppose my motion, for I should like to have your cooperation in this matter. I do not wish to burden you now with a detalled discussion of this question, but let me cite some of the more compelling in- stances of provisions in the bill which I feel should have the scrutiny of the Committee on the Judiclary. Article 2 of the proposed new Code of Milli- tary Justice makes it clear that those to whom the code applies (in addition to Regu- lar and Volunteer personnel) include: “(1) * © © all inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces of the United States, and all other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey the same; * * * (2) Reserve personnel while they are on itn- active-duty training authorized by written orders which are voluntarily accepted by them, which orders specify that they are subject to this code; * * * (10) in time of war, all persons serving with or accom- panying an armed force in the ficld; (11) subject to the provisions of any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, all persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces without the continental limits of the United States and the following Territories: That part of Alaska * * *, the Canal Zone, the main group of the Hawaiian Is- lands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.” The above provisions greatly broaden the scope of authority and jurisdiction of mill- tary courts In fact, those civilians who would thus be brought within the jurisdic- tion of military justice appear to include Mr McCloy and all personnel of the Allied Military Government, as well as, no one knows how many, persons in Hawait, since article 5 provides that this code shall be ap- plicable in all places. Article 3 of the proposed code lays the jJur- isdiction to try former personnel for offenses committed while subject to the code, if they cannot be tried in the United States courts and if the sentence could be 5 years or more. This provision, lke the provision above referred to, is extremely important when it 1s realized the code does not provide for bond, arraignment, or any of the usual rights accorded to even the worst type of Civilian defendant, FEBRUARY 3 Article 76 of the proposed code seeks to make the administrative action taken final and binding upon all departments, courts, agencies, and officers of the United States. This seems to me an extremely dangerous provision and subject to serious question on constitutional grounds. It is questionable whether an act of Congress could thus rob the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction. I do not believe all civilian courts should be closed to anyone with respect to all matters which may have been tried before a military tribunal or administratively determined by the military. I question the wisdom of con- ferring absolute finality upon the decisions of an alleged court, the members of which are subject to removal by an administrative officer. I believe the above is sufficient to show the reasons for my conviction that this bill shquld have the most serious consideration of the Committee on the Judiciary before being enacted into law. Kindest personal regards. Sincerely, Pat McCarran, Chairman. There was a reply to that letter by the able Senator from Maryland, the chair- man of the committee, to which I replied on July 19, 1949, as follows: JULY 19, 1949. Hon MILiarp E TyYDINGS, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. My Dear SENATOR TypINas' I have your letter of July 18, with regard to the motion which I have advised you I intend to offer, to refer the bill H R. 4080 to the Committee on the Judiciary. I do, indeed, recall our earlier conversa- tions on this subject. They bogan with dis- cussion of resolutions pending before the Committee on the Judiciary for the investi- gation of military justice. You pointed out that similar resolutions wero pending before the Committee on Armed Services, and that the committee was also working on a new code of military justice; and, as I recall it, you suggested that I allow the matter to rest with the Committee on Armed Services until you had concluded your deliberations on this bill, with the thought that then we could discuss the matter further. In conformance with this agreement, the Judiciary Committee has taken no action on the resolutions pending before it for the investigation of military justice, and the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services to consider and deal with the bill H R 4C80 hos not been challenged. I am not challenging that jurisdiction now, and I have no tntention of challenging it. All I am doing is asserting that the bill includes subject matter clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, and ask- ing that now, after the Committee on Armed Services has had its say, the bill may be re- ferred to the Committee on the Judiciary for consideration of those matters which do lie within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. While it is true that, in a spirit of coopera- tion, I submitted to you, as chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, a very lengthy letter expressing some of my personal views with regard to the bill H. R. 4080, it must be clear that this did not amount to action or consideration by the Committee on the Judiciary, and I cannot feel that the opportunity given me personally to express my views, and the consideration given by the Committee on Armed Services to the views so expressed, should operate to divest the Com- mittee on the Judiciary of its jurisdiction. Because I know there Js not and will not be any acrimony between us with respect to
1950 this matter, Ido not wish to attempt a pointe by-point traverse of your letter. However, in fairness, I belleve I should make one or two comments. Article 2, subdivision (8), may be a “re- stricted version of the authority heretofore provided for the Navy” but it cannot be denied that it expands jurisdiction to mem- bers of the Army and Air Force Reserve. Furthermore, one must bear in mind that, under article 3, such personnel may be re- called to duty without their consent for trial of offenses committed while on such duty with @ questionable statute of Mmitations applicable and limited only (as to military offenses) by the 5-year sentence proviso. This latter limitation is in turn limited only by article 56 which grants the President au- thority (which he may delegate under art. 140) to prescribe limits. In arriving at your conclusions with re- spect to subdivisions (10) and (11) of article 8, you have evidently not considered the deci- sion rendered in McCune v. Kilpatrick (53 Fed. Supp. 80), where a civilian cook, hired to provide meals for a merchant-marine crew and armed guard, was held amenable to trial by court martial on charges of deser- tion, when he quit his job after learning that he was also supposed to cook for about 500 Army troops being transported overseas. As to the Hirshberg and Durant cases, it can just as reasonably be argued that Con- gress should confer jurisdiction on civilian courts to try such cases as that we should further expand the authority of military tribunals. The fact that extant laws provide or do not provide remedies for certain offenses is not the basic question here. It is rather the limit to which we have permitted or will expand the jurisdiction of military courts over the lives and fortunes of our ordinary citizens and nationals. There can be no denial of the power of Congress to confer jurisdiction on our inferior courts to con- sider all matters relating to military offenses. The pattern to be followed by military courte in times of emergency was set in Hawall following December 7, 1941. I do not doubt that careful consideration was given to every word of the bill by both the Senate and House committees, but I submit that the viewpoint from which the consideration is given is most important. Although the committee reports state that it was not the intention to foreclose peti- tions for writs of habeas corpus, I believe you will agree that the proposed language of the bill is clear and unambiguous and would, therefore, never be required to be interpreted by reference to the committee report. Under this language, even if it should be held that the writ might lNe— which is doubtful—the action of a military court would not be subject to challenge, and therefore the writ could provide no real relief. I cannot agree that “the whole subject of military justice is one which falls wholly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services." The Legislative Reorgani- gation Act specifically commits to the Com- mittee on the Judiciary jurisdiction over “Judicial proceedings, civil and criminal, gen- erally,” and over “civil liberties.” Where the rights and liberties of civilians are con- cerned, I believe the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary should stand unquestioned; and there is no doubt such rights are involved in the bill H. R. 4080. I certainly do not wish to enter into a controversy with you over this matter; and I assure you that tf the bill is referred to the Committee on the Judiciary it will be considered most promptly, and most prompt- ly reported back to the Senate. Kindest personal regards. Sincerely, Pat McCarran, Chairman, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. President, there is involved in this bill so much that impinges upon human liberties and human rights that it cer- tainly could not be objectionable to have the bill considered by the Senate Com- mittee on the Judiciary, when, as a matter of fact, human rights and human liberties are involved in the law which is the subject matter of the jurisdiction of that committee. What harm could there come by re- ferring the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary? I wish to assure the Senate here and now that it is my fervent de- sire to vote for the bill if it can be brought in line with what I consider to be the proper procedure. I think a bill of this kind has a proper place and should be considered by the legislative department of the Government. Although the bill undoubtedly has received the diligent at- tention of the Armed Services Commit- tees of both Houses, it can do no harm to have the bill reviewed by the Com- mittee on the Judiciary, with a view to determining whether human rights or human liberties are so affected that some changes should be written into the bill. Again I assure the Senate that I do not make the motion to refer the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary for the purpose of delaying action on the bill or for the purpose of defeating the bill. If that had been the case, I certainly would not have called the matter to the atten- tion of the able chairman of the com- mittee having the bill in charge, nor would I have drawn his attention to matters which I think are vital to the whole situation. Mr. President, House bill 4080, a bill to unify, consolidate, revise, and codify the Articles of War and the Articles for the Government of the Navy, and to estab- lish a Uniform Code of Military Justice, was reported to the Senate from the Committee on Armed Services on June 10, 1949, and the bill is now the un- finished business before this body. I wish to call attention to the fact that my communication with the able Senator from Maryland was on the Ist of July, following the reporting of the bill by the Committee on Armed Services, and when it was pending on the calendar. Many of the provisions of the bill deal with matters which I believe to be prop- erly within the jurisdiction of the Com- mittee on the Judiciary. By way of illus- tration, the code provides, among other things, that the jurisdiction of the mili- tary courts shall be extended to a great many civilians who may be “serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces without the continental limits of the United States,” as well as civilians in the Canal Zone, the main group of the Hawaiian Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. It is obvi- ous that all civilian employees of the War and Navy Departments who happen to be stationed overseas, as well as all em- ployees of the allied military govern- ment, would be included within the new Jurisdictional boundaries. The bill further provides, in article 5, that the code shall be applicable in all places. The caution with which such an ex- pansion of jurisdiction to civilians should be approached is indicated by 1413 regulations issued by the Department of the Army on March 8, 1949, pertain- ing to the practice of law by United States lawyers in the United States area of control of Germany, which ap- pear in the Federal Register issued Fri- day, May 20, 1949, at page 2662. These regulations indicate that the Army de- sires to exercise a strict control over the terms and conditions under which coun- sel may represent both military and civilian personnel as well as foreign na- tionals in the occupied area. Admission to practice and expulsion therefrom are absolutely in the hands of an attorneys supervisory board, composed entirely of either military personnel or civilians sub- ject to military orders. Article 3 of the proposed code estab- lishes the jurisdiction to try former armed forces personnel for offenses com- mitted while subject to the code. It will be noted that this provision of the bill directly affects the civil rights of our citizens, when it is realized that persons arrested by the armed forces cannot be admitted to bond, arraigned, or brought before the grand jury. The hardships that can be the result of such action may be illustrated by three incidents which have been brought to the attention of Congress comparatively recently. The first is a case of an honorably dis- charged sailor who was arrested by Naval authorities at his home in Los Angeles and taken 6,000 miles to the Philippine Islands where, bereft of friends and funds, he was held for about 6 months awaiting trial on charges, which were finally nolle prossed, and was then re- turned by the Navy to San Francisco and left to make his return to Los Angeles and his ruined business as best he could under his own power. We recently read in the newspapers of the case of the ex-soldier from In- diana who was arrested in his home at night by Army authorities and immedi- ately flown to Berlin, Germany, to face charges brought against him there. A third incident was the subject of a private relief bill recently approved by the Senate, involving an honorably dis- charged soldier who was arrested at his home in Georgia on a warrant issued by Army authorities and taken to Fort McClellan, Ala., to face charges of de- sertion, even though he had in his pos- session and exhibited to Army authori- ties an honorable-discharge certificate. He was thrown into the stockade and held there for about 2 weeks, during which time he was not permitted to con- sult counsel, while the responsible Army officers groped through their files to de- termine whether or not the charges brought against him were, in fact, based on sound grounds. Most important of all, the proposed code provides that the quondam court of military appeals—in fact, an admin- istrative body—in its decisions shall bind “all departments, courts, agencies, and officers of the United States.” When it is noted that the only absolute right of appeal to this supreme court is granted to admirals and generals alone, very careful scrutiny should be given the bill to determine whether or not an administrative agency can thus rob the
1414 Supreme Court of its appellate juris- diction. Based on these considerations, and mindful of the jurisdiction of the Judi- ciary Committee with respect to civil rights I now move that the bill, H. R. 4080, be taken from the Senate Calendar and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Nevada yield to the enator from Massachusetts? Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr, SALTONSTALL. Has the Sena- tor read the report of the Committee on Armed Services, submitted by the Sena- tor from Tennessee [Mr. Keravuver], on the pending bill which establishes a Uni- form Code of Military Justice? If he has, he will note on page 32 a discussion of article 76, which the Senator from Ne- vada has just been discussing. It very clearly says the committee’s idea is that— Subject only to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal court, it provides for the finality of court-martial proceedings and judgments. So the question was directly considered by the committee, and the committee be- lHieves the point is covered, particularly in view of the decision by Mr. Justice Black in the case of Humphrey against Smith, decided April 25, 1949. Mr. McCARRAN. That is in the re- port, but why is it not in the bill? Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Nevada yield to the Senator from Tennessee? Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. KEFAUVER. I call the Senator's attention to the fact that the language about the finality of the finding of the court martial is identically the same as the language which has been in the law previously. It was in the Kem amend- ment to the bill passed by Congress in 1948; so that there is nothing new about the language in the proposed Uniform Code. Mr. McCARRAN. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Senator's statement is correct—which I must as- sume, but only for the sake of argu- ment—it does not militate against the motion I am now making. It is a matter for review by the committee which has jurisdiction over that phase of the law. Mr. KEFAUVER. The point I am try- ing to make is that the pending bill adds nothing new in the matter of the final- ity of court-martial proceeding. As the distinguished Senator from Massachu- setts stated yesterday, in the case of Humphrey against Smith, decided April 25, 1949, it was held that the language did not take away the right of review by the Supreme Court of habeas-corpus matters, but that the Court could still review the jurisdiction of the court-mar- tial proceedings. Mr. McCARRAN. What does the bill mean when it says “binding on all de- partments, courts, agencies, and officers CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of the United States”? Does not that attempt to bind the courts? Mr. KEFAUVER. As I said, it is the same language as that which was in the Kem amendment in 1948, It at- tempts to bind the courts on all matters except jurisdictional matters. Mr. McCARRAN. Why does it not say “all matters except jurisdictional matters’? Mr. KEFAUVER. The Humphrey case, of course, decided that the Con- gress, through its enactment, did not, and could not, under the ninth amend- ment to the Constitution, intend to take away the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or of other courts in habeas cor- pus matters. It was the decision in the Humphrey case that the courts still have jurisdiction, and that the law does not take away the jurisdiction of the courts in habeas corpus proceedings. Mr, McCARRAN. But the Congress, when it enacts a law, makes the law. The Supreme Court may reverse a deci- sion the next day, or the next week, as a matter of fact, but Congress, when it enacts a statute, makes the law. The points which are raised here relate to matters which brought courts-martial proceeding into such disrepute in times past that there has been pending before the Committee on the Judiciary for many months a resolution to investigate the administration of military justice. Mr. President, there are many things in the bill which are meritorious, and I am not standing here to argue against the principle of the bill) What I am arguing for is that Congress within its power shall take the most necessary steps to see to it that no bill is passed which has not been reviewed by a com- mittee which claims jurisdiction of the subject matter. In behalf of the Com- mittee on the Judiciary of the Senate, and under the Legislative Reorganization Act as it is now binding upon us, I cer- tainly claim that the Committce on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over certain phases of the pending bill. I do not propose to vote to deny the right of review by a committee which, under the law creating the committee, has jurisdiction. Why deny that com- mittee jurisdiction? Are Senators afraid of the 13 men of whom the able Senator from Tennessee is one? Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARRAN. Certainly. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Ten- nessee. Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, an- swering the last statement of the dis- tinguished Senator from Nevada, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I wish to point out that over a period of more than 2 years the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representa- tives and the Armed Services Committee of the Senate have been wrestling with this problem. They have held very ex- tensive hearings. Those committees have always had jurisdiction of every question encompassed in this bill. The distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 3 months after the bill was FEBRUARY 3 introduced by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee [Mr. Typ- 1ncS], wrote to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee on April 30, 1949, a 36-page letter suggesting cer- tain matters which the committee thought should be incorporated in the bill, and the committee, after lengthy hearings, considered carefully all the recommendations made. The bill is now before the Senate with really only two or three points of dispute to be settled by the Members of the Senate. I as- sume those points of dispute would be present, no matter how many commit- tees had worked on the bill. We are fearful that unless some action is taken at this time, the great accomplishments in the matter of unification and codifi- cation of two complicated military acts may go by the board. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARRAN. The Senator from Nevada has the floor. If the Senator from Tennessee has concluded his state- ment, I shall be glad to yield. I should like to say, before I yield, that human rights and human liberties are the foun- dation stone of this Government, no mat- ter where the human being may be, whether in military forces or in the civil life of the Nation. Regardless of whether the bill may have been held for 3 years, or how long it may have been held, or how much study may have been devoted to it, still, if a committee, to which, by law, is assigned the jurisdiction of cer- tain subject matters embraced within the bill, requests the right to review the bill, that it may give its views or perhaps its sanction to the provisions of the bill, what harm can result by referring the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary? If the Senate wants to limit the time within which it will consider the bill and require the Committee on the Judi- clary to report within a given period, we sha]l do the best we can. But the juris- diction is, by the Reorganization Act, conferred upon the Judiciary Commit- tee, and I certainly cannot remain silent when I feel that the jurisdiction rests in that committee. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARRAN. I shall first yield to the Senator from Missouri. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I should like to inquire if this measure has not been pending in the Congress for some time, and why it becomes a matter of the utmost urgency at this time, when it has been pending for months and when no effort has been made on the part of the Senator from Tennessee or on the part of the majority to bring it to the atten- tion of the Senate. Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at this point? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LEH- MAN in the chair). Does the Senator from Nevada yield to the Senator from Tennessee? Mr. McCARRAN. I yield in order that the Senator from Tennessee may answer that question, if, by so doing, I do not lose the floor.
1950 Mr. KEFAUVER. If the Senator from Missouri means that the committee has not been diligent—— Mr. KEM. I did not mean that. I wondered why the urgency had become SO great. Mr. KEFAUVER. The Senator did make that inference, and I want respect- fully to answer the Senator on that point. It was agreed that the subject would first be considered in the House of Representatives. A House bill was passed and sent to the Senate on May 5, 1949. Even anticipating the House bill coming over to the Senate, a subcom- mittee of the Committee on Armed Serv- ices held a hearing on April 27, 1949; also on May 4, 1949, one day before the House bill was passed, and on May 9, and on May 27. Then, with reasonable dispatch and as quickly as possible, the matter was referred to the full Commit- tee on Armed Services, and on June 10, within 18 days after the subcommittee had completed its hearings, the full Armed Services Committee acted upon the bill and a clean bill in the nature of an amendment was reported to the Senate which had also taken into ac- count the 36-page memorandum, a very useful one, which the distinguished Sena- tor from Nevada had submitted to the committee. Since that time, the chair- man of the Committee on Armed Services and the chairman of the subcommittee have written a number of letters and have spoken very frequently to the ma- jority leader with regard to bringing the bill up for consideration by the Senate. We have certainly not acted without dili- gence. I think we have shown unusual diligence in the matter. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARRAN. I should like to conclude my remarks, but I yield to the Senator from Missouri. Mr. KEM. I should like to say, Mr. President, that I did not mean to infer that there had been any lack of diligence on the part of the Senator from Ten- nessee, for he is diligent about every- thing he undertakes. But it is difficult for me to understand the necessity for immediate action on the bill, and why it has become a matter of such great ur- gency just at this time. It has been pending for many months, and it is dif- ficult for me to understand why any harm can be done to the public interest by having the subject deliberately con- sidered by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, my motion is not for the purpose of delay. I believe in the principle of the bill. My motion is not meant to delay consid- eration of the bill. It is made in good faith, so that the Committee on the Ju- diciary may give consideration to cer- tain phases of the bill) Nothing em- phasizes my position more than does the reference made by the able Senator from Tennessee to a Supreme Court decision. Undoubtedly, in the case to which he has referred, the Army was arguing that a writ of habeas corpus would not lie. There was no question about that. If CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE they argued it at that time, they will argue it again. Are we going to enact laws which will set aside the rights of civilians in the armed services, rights which are fundamental to the democ- racies of the world? It seems to me that we would be placing those rights in jeopardy. It seems .o me that that ques- tion should be considered from a view- point other than the military viewpoint. It should be considered from the civilian viewpoint as well. That is one of the reasons why I say the bill should go to a committee which is not charged strictly with military thoughts and military ideas, because hu- man liberties run through all life. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I would say, most respectfully, to the Senator from Nevada that our effort— and I was a member of the subcommit- tee which considered this matter—was to protect the liberty of the individual within the armed services and to accord him the greatest possible justice as a soldier, and, at the same time, to have regard for the purpose of our armed services—to fight and to win wars and to protect the national security. This is not an emergency measure. Any bill which comes to the floor of the Senate must at some time or other be debated. This bill has been delayed because of the desire to make it as nearly perfect as possible. It is now before the Senate for consideration and debate. I say to the Senator that I would not argue to him for a moment the question of there being an emergency, but I do argue to him most sincerely that the bill has been carefully considered for more than 2 years by the Committees on Armed Serv- ices of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Except in a few instances, which I should be glad to point out to the Senator, there is no extension of au- thority over the jurisdiction of courts martial as it has existed over the period of years. There are a few exceptions, as I have said. I da not wish to give the Senator the impression that there are no changes, but I say that such as there are have been considered carefully and we believe the rules and regulations of the Army and the Navy, under the Constitution, are within the questions that are to be considered by the Committee on Armed Services. We have carefully considered the bill. There is no effort to take away any of the responsibility of the Commit- tee on the Judiciary, but I most respect- fully say that I do not think the bill be- longs in that committee, any more than do many other subjects. When one committee which has Jurisdiction has considered and reported a bill, it should come before the Senate and be either voted up or voted down, Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, in reply let me say that if the principle which the able Senator from Massachu- setts advocates were adhered to in this body, there would be no occasion for the 1415 Committee on Banking and Currency to seek now to discharge itself from the consideration of a bill pending in that committee because there is a certain phase of the bil! which belongs to the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. That is one question which is pending here now. When the Commit- tee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce passed upon the basing point measure and brought back its report to the Sen- ate, it asked, on the request of the Com- mittee on the Judiciary, that the bill be referred to the Committee on the Judi- ciary, and this body did not hesitate to do that. Both those measures were important. The one now pending before the Com- mittee on Banking and Currency, which the committee is about to ask the Senate to refer to the Committee on the Judici- ary, is an important bill. The bill that involved the basing-point question was certainly an important bill It has taken the time of the Senate for many, many days. All these bills were impor- tant measures. The bill which came from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and which was re- ferred to the Committee on the Judici- ary, is an emergency bill. The country is calling for legislation on the subject it covers. If the principle advocated by the able Senator from Massachusetts were to be adopted by the Senate, then some committees would be entirely shorn of jurisdiction because a certain bill had been assigned to another com- mittee. However, Mr. President, this argument is likely to lead us into a wrong channel. Iam not arguing regarding the diligence exercised in the consideration of the pending bill by the committee which handled it. I think they have done a fine piece of work. But there are mat- ters in the bill which they looked upon with a certain slant and in a certain light, which I believe should have the impartial consideration of those who look upon it from a different viewpoint. The military is one thing, and the train of thought of the members of the mill- tary is along a certain line, and that is fine. But civilian life and civilian law are another thing. In all fairness, I say to the Senate that it cannot afford not to refer this bill to the Judiciary Committee, in view of the contention which has arisen, in view of the voluminous correspondence we have received in the Committee on the Judi- ciary, not with reference to this bill alone, but with reference to injustice practiced by military courts. They are reeking with injustice, if we are to be- lieve the charges which have been made. Ido not make them, because I have no right to, but I say that if we believe the charges which have been filed with my committee, military justice has gone far afield from real justice. If that be true, Mr. President, or if there is a group in this country which suspects it to be true, can there be any argument to the effect that the Judici- ary Committee of the Senate cannot have the bill; they cannot consider it.
1416 Is it desired that Senators who, like myself, favor something of the kind de- signed by the bill shall vote against the bill? I certainly shall vote against it if it comes to a vote and my committee is denied the right of review. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield? Mr. McCARRAN, I yield to the Sena- tor from Illinois. Mr. LUCAS. The statement made a moment ago by the distinguished Sen- ator from Missouri |Mr. Kem] causes me to ask the Senator from Nevada to yield in order that I might try to answer his inquiry with respect to the speed with which the pending bill has been brought up. Mr. McCARRAN. I hope that will not be brought into this argument. Mr. LUCAS. Very well. Mr. McCARRAN. But the Senator may proceed if he desires. Mr. LUCAS. I should like to make a short statement in the Senator’s time, if I may. Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. On June 10 last year the Committze on Armed Services re- ported the pending bill. I may say to the Senator from Missouri that there- after during the last session, the dis- tinguished Senator from Maryland [Mr. Typincs], the chairman of the commit- tee, asked me several times if he could not bring it up for consideration. We were unable to do that He also has asked the Democratic policy committee during this session to arrange to have the bill considered as soon as possible, and the Democratic policy committee, after considering a number of bills, believed that it was proper to bring this bill to the floor of the Senate. I knew nothing about the fact that the Senator from Nevada would make a motion to refer the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary. That was not sug- gested to the policy committee, and I knew nothing about it. I believed the bill would be debated on its merits and be voted up or down without a motion to refer it to another committee. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I should like to say, in that connection, as I said to the Senator from Tennessee, that I am sure there has been no lack of dili- gence on his part, and I am sure thcre has been no lack of diligence on the part of the able majority leader, the Sena- tor from Illinois. But the fact is that the bill has already been pending on the calendar for many months, and it is pass- ing strange that it should be argued now that there will be such great pub- lic harm if it is considered deliberately for a few weeks, let us say, by the Com- mittee on the Judiciary. Mr. LUCAS. I am not erguing that question. This is a House bill. Mr. KEM. It is unnecessary for the Senator to argue anything else in that connection, because I am sure he has been as diligent as he could be. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, again I wish to emphasize that this motion is not made for the purpose of delay, but is made for the purpose of affording an CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE opportunity for careful study. I again say that if the Senate wishes to limit the time which the Committee on the Judiciary shall have to consider the bill, I am entirely content, but I certainly cannot without protest see this bill go through, after the history of the bill as made on the floor here this morning, showing that as early as July 1, 1949, the chairman of the Committee on the Judi- ciary drew the attention of the chair- man of the Committee on Armed Serv- ices to certain phases of the bill and told him he would make this motion; that reply was made to my letter, and my answer again emphasized the fact that I would make the motion. All of that drew the attention of the Committee on Armed Services to the vital questions in- volved in the bill. There are at least eight points in the bill which should be reviewed by the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. President, if it be the will of the Senate that one of its standing commit- tees which has jurisdiction, under the law governing, shall be deprived of juris- diction, then I have nothing further to say, and I shall have done my duty so far as I have been able to see it. I shall certainly vote against the bill, and I shall ask for a record vote on it, if our committee is not permitted to have juris- diction. I again say that if the Senate desires to limit the time within which the Jvdiciary Committee may consider the bill, I shall agree to such an amendment to my motion. Mr. President, I ask for a quorum at this time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. clerk will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: The Anderson Hoey Moree Benton Holland Mundt Brewster Humphrey Murray Bricker Hunt Neely Bridges Ives O'Conor Butler Jenner O'Mahoney Byrd Johnson, Colo Pepper Cain Johnson, Tex. Robertson Cepehart Johnston, S C. Russell Chapman Kefauver Saltonstall Chavez Kem Schoeppe) Connally Kerr Smith, N J. Cordon Knowland Sparkman Donnell Lehman Stennis Douglas Lodge Taft Dworshak Lucas Taylor Ecton McCarran Thomas, Okla Ellender McCarthy Tydirgs Ferguson McCle.lan Watkins Fulbright McFarland Wherry George McKellar Wiley Gillette McMahon Williams Gurney Megnuson Withers Hayden Malone Young Hendrickson Mavbank Hill Millikin The PRESIDENT pro tempore. A quorum {s present. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. McCarran] to commit the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, I desire to correct a misstatement of fact. This is not a motion to recommit; it is a motion to refer. If it were a motion to recommit, the bill, if the motion carried, would go back to the committee from whence it came, FEBRUARY 8 The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair said “commit,” which is substan- tially the same as to refer. Mr. McCARRAN. I simply wish to point out that it is a motion to refer the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is what it is; that is true. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, let me state for the information of the Sen- ate that should the motion to refer pre- vail, the bill will come back to the Senate with any changes, If any changes shall be madc by the Judiciary Committee, as amendments to the bill. I wish to state emphatically that, so far as I am con- cerned, control of the bill will not be taken out of the hands of the Senator who now has control of it, but the bill will be reported with the action of the Judiciary Committee. Again I say that if the Senate desires to limit the time within which the Ju- diciary Committee shall consider the bill and report it to the Senate, I shall have no objection. Mr McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. McCLELLAN. I was going to ask, when does the able chairman of the Judiciary Committee think he will be able to report the bill, with such changes as his committee might desire to make? Mr, McCARRAN. I state this as con- jecture: I say within 30 days. Mr. McCLELLAN. I thank the Sen- ator. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Mc- Carran]. Mr. McCARRAN asked for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Chief Clerk called the roll. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, the Junior Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Tosry] is absent on official busi- ness. If he were present, he would vote “yea.” Mr.LUCAS. Iannounce that the Sen- ator from California [Mr. Downey], the Senator from Delaware [Mr. FreEar], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr, Gra- HAM], and the Senator from Utah [Mr. Tuomas] are unavoidably detained on Ofiicial business. The Senator from Mussissippi [Mr. Eastuianp] is absent on official business. The Senators from Rhode Island [Mr. Gre=n and Mr. Leauy], the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. K1ncore], the Sena- tor from Louisiana |Mr. Lone], and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Myers] are absent on public business. Mr.SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Fran- pers], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Hicx- ENLOOPER]!, the Senator from North Da- kota [Mr. Lancer}, and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Ture] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Kansas | Mr. DarBy] is detained on official business. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Van- DENBERG] is necessaril, absent. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Martin] is absent on official business,
1950 The Senator from Vermont [Mr, Arxken] who is detained on official busi- ness, is paired with the Senator from Maine (Mrs. Sm1tH], who is also detained on official business. If present and vot- ing, the Senator from Vermont would vote “yea,” and the Senator from Maine would vote “nay.” The result was announced—yeas 83, nays 43, as follows: YEAS—33 Benton Hendrickson Morse Brewster Ives O'Conor Bricker Jenner Schoeppel Butler Johnston,8 C Stennis Cain Kem Taft Capehart McCarran Thomas, Okla. Cordon McCarthy Watkins Donnell McClellan Wherry Dworshak McKellar Wiley Ecton Magnuson Williams Ferguson Malone Withers NAYS—438 Anderson Holland Mundt Bridges Humphrey Murray Byrd Hunt Neely Chapman Johnson, Colo, O’Mahoney Chaves Johnson, Tex. Pepper Connally Kefauver Robertson Douglas Kerr Ruseell Ellender Knowland Saltonstall Pulbright Lehman Smith, N. J. George Lodge Sparkman Gillette Lucas Taylor Gurney McFarland Tydings Hayden McMahon Young Hill Maybank Hoey Millixin NOT VOTING—20 Aiken Green Myers rby Hickenlooper Smith, Maine whey Kilgore Thomas, Utah Eastland Langer Thye Flanders Leahy Tobey Frear Long Vandenberg Graham Martin So Mr. McCarran’s motion was re- jected. AGRICULTURAL PRICE-SUPPORT PROGRAM Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I was somewhat surprised this morning to see in a newspaper a headline reading ‘“Tru- man blames ‘spud’ deficiency on Hill,” and to read in the second paragraph of that news story the following: Specifically, Mr. Truman blamed the potato mess upon the Agricultural Act of 1949, often referred to as the Anderson farm bill, for its author, CLINTON P. ANDERSON, of New Mexico. I was aware that the President had had some unpleasant things to say about the actions of the Eightieth Congress, but so far as I knew, he had had very little to say which was uncomplimentary of the Eighty-first Congress, and I was so surprised at the quoted statement that I took the liberty of calling the official reporter at the White House, who makes a clear record of what is said at press conferences, and asked to have the exact wording repeated to me. I do not guar- antee that what I repeat is completely accurate, but it was taken down slowly from the President's official reporter. The official text was not available at the time I desired it. The question came from May Craig, representing some Maine newspapers. The question was as follows: Mr. President, do you have any comment on the present crisis relating to the surplus of potatoes? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The President’s reply was as follows: I think the lady from Maine ought to know more about potatoes than anybody in the United States. She ought to understand that this Farm Act, which was amended last year, pute us in the position to place those potatoes in the condition in which they are. And that whole thing is a sectional thing for the benefit of the potato growers of Maine—as well as the potato growers in the United States, but that is how it came about. I suggest you talk to Senator BrewsTER about it. I submit to the Members of the Sen- ate that that is something quite differ- ent from saying that the President blames the potato situation upon the Agricultural Act of 1949, because I think everyone should recognize that not 1 bushel of potatoes now causing difficulty in the market was grown or produced or supported under the Agricultural Act of 1949. Whatever program there may be for those potatoes arose as the result of the Agricultural Act of 1948. As to whether the Senator from Maine [Mr. Brewster) is responsible for that, I am not able to say. I know that the distin- guished Senator from Maine is quite able to take care of himself, but I have un- derstood that on the particular occasion when the bill passed, he was away on official duties, probably in another part of the world, and I am glad to know that his influence extends as it does across the waters in such remarkable fashion. Mr. President, I desire to review brief- ly some things which I think should not be forgotten. They are brought to my mind again by a cartoon which appeared on February 1 in the same newspaper containing the story to which I have re- ferred. It showed a hot potato which Congress was juggling, and beside it was a figure which I assumed to be a repre- sentation of me, and the label] on it was “The Anderson Farm Act,” indicating, quite clearly, the belief that the surplus was acquired because of some farm legis- lation in which I had had a part. Mr. President, I wish time would per- mit me to review in detail some of the things of a similar nature which have appeared recently, but I know of a story to the effect that the Senate Commit- tee on Agriculture and Forestry was dis- cussing the desirability of adding $2,000,- 000,000 to the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, and I took some part in the discussion. The closing para- graph of the newspaper story was that at that time I indicated that I held the Department’s policies responsible for the huge potato loss, and predicted that such losses would continue until those policies were changed. Mr. President, fortunately there is a transcript of every word I said in that hearing, and I suggest that there is not a word of truth in that paragraph. I did not blame the policies of the De- partment of Agriculture. I made it en- tirely clear that I thought the responsi- bility was solely with the Congress of the United States. In support of that, I de- sire to submit two or three things which perhaps might otherwise be forgotten. On November 29, 1946, I addressed a letter to the Senator from Oklahoma 1417 (Mr. Tuomas], chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, and to the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Senator Capper, then ranking minority member of that committee. I also sent it to the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, and to the ranking minority member of that com- mittee. The letter which I should like to have {ncorporated in the Rrcorp at this point pointed out that a surplus of po~ tatoes existed in 1946. The letter showed that the surplus was going to cost the Government of the United States approximately $20,000,000, and it pointed out that with the 1945 problems in mind we had tried to reduce the 1946 cost. We found we were able to reduce acre- age, but were not able to reduce the over-all production, because additional fertilizer had been used, the growing weather had been somewhat favorable, and we found we had a surplus of from 92,000,000 to 100,000,000 bushels. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the REecorp, as follows: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, November 26, 1946. Hon. ELMER THOMAS, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate. Dear SENATUR: The basic relationship be- tween our agricultural price-support commit- ments and production levels for the various crops involved is one of the most funda- mental questions before us at this time. As you know, farmers have been promised price support at not less than 90 percent of parity on many important agricultural commodities for two full calendar years after the formal declaration of the end of hos- tilities. While this congressional provision is very sound, giving farmers deserved pro- tection during the transition from wartime to peacetime operations, it is obvious that under certain conditions, and for certain commodities, this support can serve to pre- vent the development of production patterns in ine with peacetime needs. While this situation will have more serious implications for the future, If domestic or foreign demand for the products of our farms falls off materially, it is also of im- mediate concern We are having very real trouble with potatoes this year. In calling this whole question to your attention, I should like to review the potato program— in light of the difficulties we are having in carrying out price-support commitments with this first of the major postwar surplus crops. We had a surplus of potatoes even in 1943 and also in 1945. Potato production in 1945, for example, was 425,000,000 bushele—then the third largest crop on record, despite the fact that harvested acreage was 200,000 acres less than the 1934-43 average. Price-support operations or the 1945 crop resulted in a net cost to the Government of about $20,000,000. With 1945 problems clearly in mind, we set 1946 potato-production goals which called for material reductions. When the potato price-support program was announced later in the fall, levels were calculated on the low side of the possible price-support range. We were trying to keep support prices from being an incentive to excessive production, put we were criticized rather severely for this action. As a matter of fact, in April the price-support levels were increased by about
1418 15 cents a hundred pounds, largely to come peneate for increases in the parity index. Despite the downward adjustment in pro- duction goals and efforts to hold price sup- ports at the lower levels, the situation in 1946 is much worse than it was in 1945. The Department is now engaged in price-support operations of the largest scale yet experienced for this commodity. Potato goals recommended by the Depart- ment for 1946, based on historical produc- tion figures and prospective demand, were expected to result in a production of approx- imately 378,000,000 bushels. Instead, pro- @uction soared to 478,000,000 bushels, giving us a surplus of between ninety and one hun- dred million bushels. While the total national acreage was only about 1 percent above the established goal, three factors contributed to the overproduc- tion in 1946: (a) reductions in acreage in low-yleld areas, and increases in high-yteld areas; (b) ideal growing weather throughout the high-yield areas; and (c) wider-spread use of newly developed, more efficient in- secticides such as DDT. With this huge crop in prospect, the De- partment was committed to support potato prices, under provisions of the Steagall amendment, at 90 percent of parity. I want to repeat that the Department an- ticipated the potato surpluses and that from the outsct every effort was made to assist all branches of the distributive trades in moving potatoes through normal channels of distribution into human consumption. B.t despite comprehensive and consistent sales- promotion efforts by both Government and cooperating industry, the Department has been compelled to purchase or otherwise re- move from regular trade channels approxi- mately 40,000,000 bushels of 1946 crop pota- toes to carry out its price-support obliga- tions Approximatcly 55,000,000 bushels, now under temporary or permanent loan, still remain for removal from ordinary trade channels. The task of diverting the potatoes pur- chased by the Government has been attacked vigorously and continuously throughout the season. Here are the diversion outlets which the Department has exploited to the fullest extent feasible: 1 Direct distribution: Approximately 1,- 000,000 bushels of potatoes have been dis- tributed directly to school-lunch programs and to approved public institutions free of charge (Purchases started in May, only a month before schools closed for the summer, and schools reopening in September have not yet had a chance to absorb any appreciable amount ) 2. Diversion to starch mills and livestock feed: Despite continuing shortages of box- cars, potatoes have been shipped to every practical outlet About 2,000,000 bushels have been diverted to starch mills. Another 1,500,000 bushels have been sold, most of them at 20 cents per hundredweight f. 0. b., to farmers for use as livestock feed. 8. Diversion to alcohol manufacture: Dis- tillers have taken 20,000,000 bushels for dis- tillation of beverage alcohol—the largest of the diversion outlets. Shortages of grain this year for normal distilling operations opened this special outlet for surplus pota- toes. An additional 6,100,000 bushels of potatoes have gone to distillers of industrial alcohol for ultimate use in the manufacture of synthetic rubber, antifreeze, and other products. With better grain supplies in 1947 and future years, the beverage alcohol outlet will not be available. 4. Export outlets: A total of about 525,000 bushels. The question immediately arises as to why potatoes were not exported in any appreci- able vo'ume. Early in the production season, the Department sent letters to all interna- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tional agencies and foreign countries known to be in need of food supplies, calling atten- tion to the very large United States potato supplies and offering to make them readily available. However, because of the high water content of fresh potatoes, shipping charges are relatively high per unit of net food value. They also require special han- dling. They must be protected from rotting in summer and from freezing in winter. Hence, it has not been possible to arrange large-volume shipments for export. So far potatoes have been exported only to Belgium, though the Department 1s continuing to fol- low up any possible opportunity to ship pota- toes at the competitive world price not only on a government-to-government basis, but even on a government-to-individual basis. UNRRA and foreign governments have not been willing to purchase dehydrated pota- toes at a cost of 25 to 30 cents a pound when they could purchase flour at 5 or 6 cents per pound. This held true even when the De- partment offered to supply the potatoes free of charge except for the processing costs. Since early May, we have geared our pro- gram to continuous and aggressive effort to utilize the potatoes which, under the man- date of the Steagall amendment, we are com- pelled to support. In all sincerity, I cannot conceive of any practical step which we have overlooked. But, despite all our efforts, best current estimates are that there still may be as many as 20,000,000 bushels of potatoes for which we shall be unable to find any practical out- let or use at all, and which are likely to be a total waste. These potutoes are now largely in temporary storage, the larger percentage of them in the northeastern section of the country. It has been necessary to leave many of the potatoes in the field, simply covered with straw or other material. The storage is not the type which will protect them from freezing this winter. Reports will soon begin to appear, telling how potatoes are rotting in the flelds or going to waste in other places. This is an unpleasant situa- tion, but it is a stark reality we must face. The over-all cost to the Government for the 1946 potato-support program 1s esti- mated at $100,000,000 Of this amount the Department will recover, roughly, $20,000,000, leaving a net cost to the Government of ap- proximately $80,000,000. Remaining action with regard to 1946 po- tatoes will center around continuing efforts to move every possible bushel into some use- ful diversion, thus holding costs and wastage to a minimum. The problems of the 1947 crop, however, are already squarely before us. The approved production goal for 1947 is set at a figure which, with the presently as- sumed yields, would produce a potato crop nearly 100,000,000 bushels below this year’s total. The national goal is now being brok- en down to county and farm levels within the States. Price-support commitments under the Steagall amendment are, of course, in effect for 1947. In an effort to avoid a repetition of the excessive costs and waste which have accompanied the very high 1946 production, the Department has announced that only those farmers who keep within allotted po- tato-acreage goals will be eligible for price support under the 1947 price-support pro- gram. While details of this support pro- gram have not yet been worked out, the pro- posal has resulted in a great deal of discus- sion among farm leaders. This 1s a good thing. All who are concerned with the in- terests of American agriculture should assist tn reaching the soundest possible solution of the problems involved. It Js generally agreed in the Department that something of the nature of the pro- posed program is necessary if we are to cut tremendous costs to the Government and FEBRUARY 3 also eliminate the accompanying waste of food. Because the problems we are already facing with regard to potatoes may arise for other commodities in the not far distant future, it is obviously imperative that the whole question of price-support policy, to accom- plish the underlying objectives of the legis- lation, be given prompt and thorough con- sideration. Leaders in the poultry industry, for example, have already expressed serious concern over the possible effect of existing price-support legislation on orderly transi- tions within their industry I therefore hope that a joint conference with the Senate and House Agricultural Committees can be ar- ranged’ at an early date to consider this problem. I am cending similar letters to the chair- man of the House Committee on Agriculture and the ranking minority members of both committees. Sincerely yours, CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Secretary. Mr. ANDERSON. During that entire time, Mr. President, I tried to point out to the Congress that we could not ex- pect to be fortunate in the disposition of agricultural surpluses at all times. It will be remembered that in 1945 and 1946 the United States was desperately short of food grains. We were trying to meet commitments to send food abroad, and it was difficult to meet them and, at the same time, to permit the dis- tilling of alcoholic beverages. At that particular time the distillers, cooperat- ing with the Government, felt that if they could use surplus potatoes they could make neutral spirits to blend with other alcoholic beverages and produce something for the consuming public, even if it were not quite so good as my dis- tinguished friend from Kentucky would say was the top brand from his State. Neutral spirits are not a very satisfac- tory substitute for the finest product from distilled grains, but at that partic- ular time the situation of the distillers was so desperate that we required them to put into their product certain quan- tities of neutral spirits made from pota- toes, and although the program of sup- porting potatoes cost a great deal of money, it was more than offset by alco- holic-beverage tax receipts into the Treasury of the United States. There- fore, the potato program was not quite so harassing in 1945 and 1946, and even in 1947, because there was available a product requiring a certain quantity of potatoes. Even if there had not been, so long as the distillers would use pota- toes, there was money coming to the Treasury of the United States. Mr. President, the letter which I have placed in the Recorp shows that in 1946 I called upon the Congress to enact leg- islation which would control the produc- tion of potatoes, and pointed out the dangers which might exist if such legis- lation were not promptly enacted. In May 1947 there appeared a very vicious criticism of the Government's po- tato price-support program, sponsored by a Member of the House of Representa- tives. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the able Senator yicld before he goes into that subject?
1950 Mr. ANDERSON. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Illinois. Mr. LUCAS. In the letter which the Senator has now introduced into the ReEcorD, does he advise the Congress as to the type of control which should be used in connection with the potato pro- gram? Mr. ANDERSON. No; it is a sugges- tion that we adopt the same methods which were put into effect for the control of tobacco, corn, wheat, and other prod- ucts, by acreage limitations and quotas upon production, but it does not suggest whether we should have a limitation upon bushels or a limitation upon acres. It merely suggests that our agricultural program, particularly, let us say, con- cerning tobacco, cotton, and peanuts, has been effective, that the farmers’ reduced acreage, and therefore the assumption was that these things might be done for crops which were getting out of control. The desire was that some step might be taken to cure the situation. In newspaper stories which appeared in May 1947, a Member of the House of Representatives had been very critical of the Department of Agriculture con- cerning its disposition of potatoes. It was a common practice to take a photo- graph of a pile of potatoes which were being destroyed, and hold that up as an example of Government waste, saying that people wanted to eat those potatoes, and yet the Government would not let the poor people eat them. Mr. President, there was more to the situation than that. There was a legis- lative prohibition against making the po- tatoes available. So on May 26, 1947, I addressed a letter to the Representative in question, and if it is not improper, under the rules of the Senate, to include the name of the Representative, I should like to have the letter in full introduced into the Recorp at this point. If it vio- lates the rules of the Senate as to comity between the two branches, the name of the Representative to whom the letter was written can be deleted. But I wish to point out that again early in 1947, as Secretary of Agriculture, I was pleading with the Congress to do something to bring potatoes under effective controls, as other agricultural commodities had been brought under controls. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the Sen- ator from New Mexico? There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Unitrep SrTatTes DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, May 26, 1947. Hon. Aucust H. ANDRESEN, House of Representatives. Dear AvGusT: Your discussion of the po- tato support-price problem which appeared in the ConGrEssIOoNAsL Recorp for May 21, 1947, coming from one who has for so long been closely associated with farm problems and farm legislation, does not, I hope, reflect your true knowledge of the situation. You surely could not be ignorant of the fact that on November 26, 1946, I addressed a letter to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the House and Senate Agricultural Com- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE mittees, in which I pointed out the responsl- bilities of this Department under the price- aeupport legislation and the inevitable diffi- culties of administering this legislation, with particular reference to price supports for Potatoes. I included in that letter an estimate that there would be as many as 20,000,000 bushels of potatoes for which we would be unable to find any practical outlet and which would likely be a total waste. I asked that the whole question of price-support policy be given prompt and thorough consideration by the Congress. A copy of that letter was mailed to you, and yet, knowing that I am powerless to make any change in price-sup- port responsibilities, you now “call upon the Secretary of Agriculture to halt the Depart- ment of Agriculture's wanton destruction of potatoes as it goes on today.” In my letter of November 26 I pointed out that this De- partment had sent letters to all international agencies and foreign countries known to be in need of food supplies, calling attention to the very large United States potato supplies and offering to make them readily available. I retated how this Department had offered to supply potatoes free of charge to UNRRA and foreign governments for dehydration for relief feeding and that they had not been willing to pay the processing cost of about 15 cents a pound now and 25 to 30 cents a pound earlier when they could purchase flour at 5 or 6 cents a pound. Despite these facts, which you scarcely could have forgotten, you now deplore the destruction of potatoes “at a time when food prices are high and people abroad are starving.” You claim to have in your possession bills of lading and tags proving that potatoes are being imported for sale in the very territory where farmers are being paid not to harvest their crops. In the first place, there is now no territory in which farmers are being paid not to harvest their crops. So I suggest that you reexamine your bills of lading and tags. Potatoes are being imported from Canada and some of the imported seed stock goes into the South, where it is sometimes sold for table use if it will bring a higher price than for seed or !f seed needs have been met. You are, no doubt, familiar with the fact that the reciprocal-trade agreement with Canada provides for the importation of 1,500,000 bushels of seed stock at a reduced tariff rate and a million bushels of table stock at a reduced tariff rate. As a matter of fact, quotas for both seed stock and table stock since the beginning of the quota period, September 15, have been exceeded, and Canadian potato importers are now paying the regular tariff rate of 75 cents per hun- dred. Imports since the beginning of the quota period have totaled nearly 4,000,000 bushels. When speaking of imports of Cana- dian potatoes, however, it would be only rea- sonable to refer also to exports of potatoes from this country to Canada. For the 12 months ending August 31, 1946, exports of potatoes from this country to Canada totuled nearly 8,000,000 bushels. From September 1 through the end of March exports of potatoes to Canada were only a little over 32,000 bushels. However, the nor- mal period of heavy movement is through the months of May, June, and July. California potatoes are now moving in volume to the western provinces of Canada. The city of Vancouver, for example, received during the month of April 23, 400 bushels of potatoes from the United States. We do not expect exports of potatoes to Canada this year to be as large as last year, but we do expect a sub- stantial movement to Canada. In your reference to the letter received from a farmer living in North Carolina re- porting that the Government has paid this farmer for not digging his potatoes this year, I assume that you misspoke, since potatoes . pounds. 1419 are not yet being harvested in North Caro- lina. The farthest north, I believe, in which potato harvesting is going on is South Caro- lina. Perhaps it would be well for me to review again at this point our price-support opera~ tions for the 1946 crop. We are coming out surprisingly close to the estimates I made in my November 26 letter. The 1946 crop was neurly 100,000,000 bushels over the goal. From this crop nearly 3,000,000 bushels were distributed through the school-lunch pro- gram and to charitable institutions. About 10,500,000 bushels, or more than 10 percent of the total surplus, have been exported. This was accomplished by offering the pota- toes for export for rellef feeding abroad at token prices as low as 4 cents per hundred Approximately 11,000,000 bushels were diverted to livestock feeding, and this was made possible again by making them available at token prices. Another 10,500,000 bushels were made available to starch mills manufacturing starch in this country for re- lief abroad. The greatest diversion of pota- toes that otherwise would have been wasted was to distillers for beverage and industrial alcohol—a total of around 30,000,000 bushels. Outlets have been found for approximately 65,000,000 bushels of the surplus. In my letter of November 26 I estimated that about 20,000,000 bushels would be wasted. Actually, we now believe that this total will be more nearly 22,000,000 bushels. In the absence of any action or advice from Congress following my letter of Novem- ber 26, I have taken the initiative in dealing with the potato problem for 1947 by reducing the goal by a little more than 150,000 acres below the goal of last year and by setting up acreage quotas within which potato growers must remain in order to be eligible for price aupport In 1947 the potato price-support program emphasizes the removal of lower grade and inferior quality potatoes from food channels, We anticipated that there would be some local surpluses in early and intermediate potato growing areas, especially because of adverse spring weather delaying potato har. vests tending to make the harvest in some areas bunch up and overlap instead of com- ing on in an orderly manner. This has been true in Alabama where, up to now, there was &@ surplus of about 28,500 bushels. Of this amount 21,000 bushels have been distributed through school-lunch programs and to insti- tutions. For the remaining 7,500 bushels of lower-grade potatoes no practical use was found. No dehydration facilities were lo- cally available, and farmers in the peak of the pasture season were not interested in feeding these potatoes to Nvestock. These early potatues, which are thin-skinned and with high water content, are not desirable for export. Freight charges are too great to ship these potatoes to northern starch plants. Alcohol plants were not interested. There. fore, since we were required to support po- tato prices, and because there was no other place to put the surplus of lower-grade po- tatoes, they have been destroyed. However, if as you state, new potatoes are being sold in Washington and in eastern cities at 5 to 10 cents a pound, it is not be- cause farmers are getting a price anywhere hear this amount. Our support price in Alabama, for example, for May is 27 cents per pound for No. 1 potatoes. This price, incidentally, is about 35 cents per 100 pounds higher than for May of last year because support prices, as directed by Con- gress, are based on 90 percent of parity for Potatoes, and parity has increased consid- erably in recent months due to the increase in the cost of things farmers buy. I can only say again now what I said in my letter of November 26—that because the problems we are already facing with regard
1420 to potatoes may arise for other commodi- ties, it is obviously imperative that the whole question of price-support policy, to accome- plish the underlying objectives of the legis- lation, be given prompt and thorough con- sideration by the Congress. Sincerely yours, Cuinton P. ANDERSON, Secretary. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, on the 26th day of February, 1948, I ad- dressed a letter to the Congress of the United States, sending similar letters to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the House and Senate Com- mittees on Agriculture, urging that they give early and careful consideration to the question of legislative price-support provisions, with particular reference to the potato situation. That letter again pointed out that the country was going to be in trouble on the question of po- tato production if something did not happen, and if some legislation were not passed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that that letter be printed in the Recorp at this point. There being no objection, the letter ‘was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, February 26, 1948. Hon ARTHUR CAPPER, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, Dear SFNator. Once again I find it neces- sary to call to the attention of Congress cer- tain basic problems involved in the manda- tory price-support provisions for farm com- modities, and the administration of programs to carry out these legislative provisions. Potatoes are the crop of most immediate concern, but the basic principles apply to the other commodities which are covered by the Steagall amendment and related legislation. In November 1946, I addressed a letter to the then chairmen and ranking minority member of the agricultural committees in both the Senate and the House. In this lctter I brought up the whole question of price-support policy, with spec.fic reference to the troublesome potato situation, and urged that the subject be given prompt and thorough consideration, In January 1947, in testimony before the Senate and House committees, I went into more detail regarding the problems involved, At that time I outlined the probable difficul- ties ahead of us in carrying out price sup- ports, and estimated the costs Which might result. Aguin I urged early legislative action, suggesting the establishment of a time- table which would permit prompt considera- tion of the more immediate questions. It was pointed out that the farmers needed to know the answers in time to plan their future operations. Unfortunately, no legislative action has yet been teken We are etill operating under the same inficxible provisions which held 18 months ago. Iam not suggesting at all that the price-support provisions should have been revoked. Congress was farsighted in granting our farmers basic-price protection for the postwar period of necessary readjust- ment to peacetime-production schedules. Farmers deserved this protection, and it would have been unthinkable to go back on the promise. At the same time, our farmers do not want production to continue under a frozen pattern which results in waste of pro- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE auction effort, money, and soil. And it is obvious that the present inflexible price sup- ports, under certain conditions and for some commodities, can encourage this sort of wasteful production. What I suggested a year and more ago, and am repeating now, is action to achieve those adjustments in price-su;)port provisions which would be gen- erally beneficial, while staying within the spirit of the price-support commitments. As I said before, potatoes offer our most pressing current problem. We had serious troubles with potato-price support for the 1946 crop. Through a combination of fac- tors, production that year was very large. It was necessary to remove nearly 100,000,000 bushels from normal channels of trade, in order to follow legislative direction on price assurances to farmers. Net cost of the price- support operations for 1946 crop potatoes ran to about $89,000,000. More than 25,000,- 000 bushels were lost entirely, when no use- ful outlets could be found before spoilage set in. As you know, the Department of Agricul- ture took direct steps to minimize price-sup- port costs and waste for the 1947 crop. Supports were limited to those farmers who stayed within potato-acreage goals. Other provisions channeled better-quality potatoes into the commercial market, with any neces- sary diversion concentrated on the lower grades. These efforts were partly successful. When the year’s marketings are completed, the total we will have been forced to remove from commercial markets will be far below the figure for the 1946 crop. And less than 500,000 bushels have been lost because no useful outlet could be found in time. In spite of these favorable developments, however, the net cost of price-support operations for the 1947 crop is running far higher than anyone likes. With the parity index up, support-price levels have been cor- respondingly above those of the year before. Handling costs have been higher. The effort to channel every possible bushel of surplus potatocs into some useful diversion, cutting wastage to a minimum, has added to these handling costs. Our best current estimate is that the net cost for price-support opera- tions on 1947 potatoes, when the marketing year ends, may be about half the cost a year ago—or around $45,000,000. The fact that the current program may cost this much, even for a year Wen pro- duction was only a few million bushels above the goal, end when all practicable steps were taken to minimize costs and waste, under- lines the continuing problem. The time has now come when we must give potato growers an indication of what to ex- pect with regard to the 1948 crop In the absence of any action by the Congress, this is the situation at present: The Department of Agriculture will of course continue to support potato prices nt 90 percent of parity until December 31, 1948, the end of the 2-year support period following the termination of hosilflities, as provided by the Steagall amend- ment. This is simply a matter of cariying out existing law, which offers no alternative. After that date, however, the Department does not plan to continue the price supports which are specified in the Steagall amend- ment unless directed to do so by the Congress, I am well aware of the fuct that termina- tion of potato-price suppcrts at that time of year would create very difficult problems. The late crop, produced generally in northern States, is harvested and piaced in storage by the end of October or early November. It is then normally marketed throughout the winter and spring. Termination of price supports on December 31, in any year when we did not have potato shortages, would naturally result in a tendency for growers to sell the bulk of their late crop to the Depart- ment before that date, in order to assure FEBRUARY 3 themselves the protection afforded by the program. The consequences of such an ab- normal! situation are obvious. Since the Congress has not indicated its willingness to continue Steagall price sup- port after December 31, the Department would be very reluctant to carry out price support after that date without specific direction with respect to both authority and minimum-support levels. Price support and farm production plans for the early and intermediate portions of the 1948 potato crop will not be affected by the December 81 cut-off date. It is the late crop which will be directly affected. Plant- ing of the late crop customarily begins about April 15, and in order to assure just and equitable treatment for all growers definite announcement of just what price supports will apply to the late crop, and for what period, should be made well before that date. I therefore respectfully request that the Congress give early consideration to this problem. It 1s important for all crops which are under price support; it is urgent for potatoes, The need for greater flexibility of methods and price levels should be consid- ered, The question of what comes after De- cember 31 should be answered. If Icgislation along these lines is not deemed possible or advisable at this time, the Department stands ready to proceed under present authority, guided by such directives or specific suggestions as the Com- mittees on Agriculture may give us. Our position is that we want to serve farmers and the public interest with maximum efl- ciency and least cost. To this end, the Department is anxious to cooperate with the committees in every possible way. Our in- formation and technical services are, of course, available to you on call. I am sending similar letters to the chatr- man of the House Committee on Agricul- ture and the ranking minority members of both the House and Senate committees. Sincerely yours, CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Secretary. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, with that sort of a history, one can imagine roy surprise at being accused, inferen- tially at least, of being opposed to effec- tive controls upon potatoes. As a mat- ter of fact, a subcommittee of the Sen- ate Committee on Agriculture which was considering price-support legislation last summer and fall proposed several ten- tative drafts of bills which might be passed by the Congress to support agri- cultural prices. On the fifth day of August the com- miitee issued a committee print which represented its latest thinking, and probably elmost its final draft. A great many drafts were prepared, and a great deal of hilarity developed over the fact: that the committee could not seem to make up its mind, but at that time the committee was carefully exploring the possibilities not only of what was de- sirable, but of what was likely to be ac- cepted by the Congress, and therefore enacted into law. The committee moved somewhat cautiously. It would try one procedure, and if that seemed to be improper, would try something else. In the committee print of August 5, 1949, there was a section of the bill, sec- tion 2, on page 7, lines 3 to 10, reading as follows: Price support for any kind of Irish pota- toes (Whether storable or nov) shall be
1950 made available to the producers at not more than 90 percent nor less than 60 percent of the parity price for such kind of Irish pota- toes as of the beginning of its marketing geason. Then this interesting clause was in- cluded: Except that, if the Secretary— Meaning the Secretary of Agricul- ture— determines such action to be necessary in order to avoid excessive losses, he may pro- vide for a lower level of price support. Mr. President, that clause was in the bill because we recognized that there was not at that time an cffective meas- ure for the control of acreage or produc- tion of potatoes. It was felt that if the growers were not cooperative with the Government, the Secretary of Agricul- ture could strike out all provisions for price support—could drop the support price to 50 percent, to 40 percent, to 10 percent, or to zero, if need be, in order to make them realize that there must be compliance with reasonable acreage goals. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. Is the Senator referring to a draft of a bill which was prepared by the subcommittee, and which never reached the full committee? Mr. ANDERSON. That is correct. This is a subcommittee draft, which the subcommittee had hoped would be its final version. After this was prepared, it invited the Secretary of Agriculture to meet with the committce on August 6, in execu- tive session, to decide whether the bill was satisfactory 1n all details, and then it was to be submitted to the full com- mittee. It contained the language I have read, “cxcept that if the Sccretary determine such action to be necessary in order to avoid excessive losses, he may provide for a lower level of price sup- port.” The committee mct with the Secretary of Agriculture on August 6, 1949. I have @ memorandum in my office as to what happened at that time, but in order that there might be no possible misunder- standing, I checked this morning with the clerk of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, and I find that his notes are exactly the same as mine, namely, that at that meeting on August 6 this clause was removed from the language at the suggestion of the Secretary of Agricul- ture. Mr. President, I am not critical of that decision, because all of us realize that the best way to control agricultural prod- ucts is not simply to drop support prices to zero. We were trying to establish decent support levels, and perhaps it was harsh treatment to suggest that if potato growers refused to cooperate, the Secre- tary should have autocratic power to drop the support levels to an absolute minimum. Following our discussion and at the suggestion, I must say, of other members of the committee, but with the advice of the S2cretary that provision xCVI——980 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE was removed from the draft, and the final bill as «t came to the full committee did not contain that language. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield? Mr. ANDERSON. I yield to the Sen- ator from Wisconsin. Mr. McCARTHY. I may say, by way of preface to my question, that I have a great deal of respect for the ability of the Senator from New Mexico, and I admire him for the work he has done in trying to get before the Senate a good piece of farm legislation. But I have a thovght to which I wish to have the Senator’s reaction at some time during his remaiks. As the Senator knows, there are being piled up at this time enormous quanti- ties not only of potatoes, but also of eggs and butter, which are three of the staple food products. I have a bill, which I have prepared and have ready for introduction cither today or tomorrow, which will provide for a food-stamp plan. It is more or less of an abbreviated Alken bill. The Aiken bill, as the Senator knows, pro- vides for a food-stamp plan covering all commodities. My bill would cover mere- ly commodities which are in surplus. It would provide that whenever any edible food product was in surplus, food stamps would be issued to the families in the lower-1Income brackets, so that instead of destroying potatoes, instead of hav- ing eggs spoil in the limestone caves of Kentucky, instead of having butter stored up and becoming rancid, pcople would be able to obtain and consume those products. I should like to know what the Senator would think about such a proposal, and whether he could go along with that type of program. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I dislike to demand the regular order, but the Senator from New Mexico was making a very orderly address upon the potato question. Now we are getting something else into it. I hope the Senator from Wisconsin will wait until the Senator from New Mexico has completed his statement relative to potatoes, before embarking on the subject of eggs, cream, butter, and milk. Let us stay with the one subject, because I think what the Senator from New Mexico has to say is of real importance. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I suggest to the very able majority leader that the Senator from Wisconsin needs no advice from the Senator from IIli- nois on this subject. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I demand the regular ordcr. Mr. McCARTHY. The Senator from Wisconsin—— Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I demand the regular order. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin is asking the Senator from New Mexico a question. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico can yield only for a question. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, Iam asking the Senator from New Mexico a 1421 question at this time. The Senator yielded for that purpose. My question is whether the Senator would favor the type of food-stamp plan to which I have referred, which I think would solve not only the surplus-potato problem but the surplus-egg problem, the surplus-butter problem, and other surplus-food prob- lems. I think they are tied up. We do not have a number of different prob- lems. The entire surplus problem is one problem. I ask the Senator from New Mexico the question because I have so much respect for his judgment. I am sure he can throw considerable light on that subject. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr, President, I had hoped to proceed in an orderly way, but I may say to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin that I have previously, in a public capacity, reported upon the Aiken food-stamp bill. There are a great many things in the Aiken bill which greatly appeal to me. I have felt that the whole scope of the bill is at the pres- ent time too great; but we are making headway with the school-lunch program, which I hope we all support, and we might extend it gradually by experiment- ing with the food-stamp plan. I may say to the distinguished Sena- tor from Wisconsin that the author of the food-stamp plan, Milo Perkins, dis- cussed the food-stamp plan with me, and I became very much interested in it. I may say that if we can use potatoes as a testing ground for the food-stamp plan, we may learn some lessons. We may learn how difficult it is to determine the famihes which are in real need. Perhaps the most difficult part of the relief program was the application of a means test to the people. So I say to the Senator, without discussing the mat- ter in detail, that while I think a great deal of benefit can result from the use of the food-stamp plan for the disposal of surplus products, a tremendous amount of spade work must be done slowly, in order to find out what can be accomplished. The Department of Agriculture has not been unconscious of the need for a change in the program and for the in- clusion of proper controls. Under date of September 2, 1949, there was addressed to me as chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this problem a letter from the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Bran- nan _ In that letter the Secretary very clearly sets forth that the Dcpartment itself recognizes that the present po- tato program needs overhauling and strengthening. I quote directly from the letter from Secretary Brannan to me, as follows: The present potato program needs ovcr- hauling and strengthening, but the answer does not Ife in withdrawing price supports from the commodity. Last November— I am still quoting from the Secretary’s letter— when I announced the general price-sup- port plan for 1949 crop potatoes, I said, “I have been extremely reluctant to approve the lowering of the support price for potatoes to 60 percent of parity. Controlling excess production by dropping price supports
1422 sharply is not a desirable way to get adjust- ments, no matter how necessary these ad- justments may be.” Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me at that point? Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. BREWSTER. I understand that fs a letter from the present Secretary of Agriculture. Mr, ANDERSON. That is correct. It 4s a letter from the present Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Brannan, to me as chairman of a subcommittee considering price-support legislation. Mr. BREWST=2R. Is not the clear im- plication of that statement that reduc- ing the support price was one method, although, as I understood, he said not the most desirable method of securing control of production? Mr. ANDERSON. I prefer to use his exact language, I will say to the distin- guished Senator from Maine. He said: Controlling excess production by drop- ping price supports sharply is not a desirable way to get adjustments, no matter how neces- sary these adjustments may be. Mr. BREWSTER. That would be a rather clear indication, the Senator from Maine would think, that it would be calculated to reduce production. I wanted the record to be clear, because when the Secretary appeared before the committee on Monday or Tuesday, I understood him then apparently to qualify that statement considerably. I make that statement so his position may be clear in the record. Mr. ANDERSON. I may say to the Senator from Maine that at the same session it was pointed out that when the price support was dropped from 90 per- cent to 60 percent, the production of potatoes dropped from 450,000,000 to 402,000,000 bushels, which is a rather substantial drop. Mr. BREWSTER. That would be a rather significant indication, would it not, that certainly the support-price re- duction did have a very material effect in connection with the acreage alloca- tion as well? Mr. ANDERSON, Yes; I think that is true. But I believe credit should also k given to those growers who cooper- ated by trying to reduce their acreage and trying to reduce their production of potatoes. Mr. President, there are many other items in the letter, and in a report, which the committee received at that time which indicate that there was recogni- tion of the difficulties in connection with the potato program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that at this point there be incor- porated in the Recorp the recommenda- tions of the Department of Agriculture on the subject of repeal of the potato- price-support program. They are car- ried at page 11 of the hearings on Sen- ate bill 2482 and Senate bill 1751. Those recommendations suggest the desira- bility of a complete revision of the po- tato program. But the main thing sug- gested by the Department is that there must be a limitation on acreage and the establishment for potatoes of definite CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE marketing quotas, backed by penalties comparable with those now authorized for the so-called basic crops, I ask that the recommendations as they appear in the hearings, beginning on page 11 and ending near the middle of page 12, be incorporated in the Recorp at this point. There being no objection, the recom- mendations were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: RECOMMENDATIONS Reviewing our present situation, as the basis for recommendations, several funda- mental weaknesses are obvious in the po- tato program and in the authority under which the prcgram must be developed. We do not have the authority to put positive and effective production and marketing con- trols into effect. Purchase of surplus pota- toes is the only workable price-support mechanism available to us under present legislation. The need to find some form of diversion outlet for these acquired surplus stocks, because of the insistence that we must avoid commodity waste, adds greatly to the over-all cost of the price-support op- eration. And indications are that the drying up of diversion channels will inevitably force @ return to some dumping of potatoes in the future if the present type of program is continued, in spite of the pressure to avoid waste. One of the greatest weaknesses of the present program is that it serves to benefit the noncooperators—the growers who ignore acreage goals and produce as they please— &@s much as it does the cooperators who re- duce acreage in order to comply with estab- lished allotments. We are forced to take enough potatoes off the market to hold prices of all potatoes at or near the support level. It therefore makes little financial difference to the grower as to whether he sells to the Government or in the open market. The price is about the same. This js a situation which in fact results in penalizing the co- operator. He has fewer potatoes to sell now at the support price than his noncooperating neighbor, and he may have a lower acreage base for some future production or market- ing quota calculation. A program under which market prices were permitted to adjust themselves downward on the open market, backed by production payments, would correct this basic weakness. The noncooperator would get only the market price. The cooperator would have price pro- tection at established fair levels through the production payments. Such a plan would obviously give consumers the benefit of lower prices when the supply-and-demand situa- tion warranted lower prices. At the same time, it would offer one of the most effective possible incentives for compliance with an equitable production and marketing sched- ule in Hine with established needs, Another fundamental program need is the authority to establish definite marketing quotas for potatoes, backed by penalties com- parable with those now authorized for the so-called basic crops. Experience has shown that the voluntary acreage goals are not enough. Even when acreage is adjusted, yields can be stimulated to abnormal! levels. And there is at present no effective way of assuring compliance even on an acreage basis. It should also be specifically provided that the Department has the authority to condi- tion price support upon the adoption of mar- keting agreement and order programs in areas where these are feasible. These agree- ment and order programs help stabilize mar- keting, keep lower grades out of commercial channels, and assure consumers the better quality potatoes. FEBRUARY 3 In addition to the provisions just men- tioned, a sound potato program should also include the authority to continue purchase, joan, and other customary measures in carry- ing out price support. The potato problem is very complex, and yields are not predict- able. It is therefore essential that authority for the various types of programs mentioned be provided so that producers may be able to adjust and adapt programs to meet changing conditions, Such programs should minimize Government costs, reduce or eliminate waste, seek improvement in marketing practices, and at all times protect the basic interests of producers while assuring good quality pota- toes at fair prices for consumers. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, we did not stop with that. The Senate com- mittee considering this matter appreci- ated the recommendations contained in the letter from the Secretary of Agricul- ture and the report of Mr. Ralph Trigg and Mr. Frank Woolley, representing the Department. So at a hearing on Senate bill 2482 on September 19, 1949, I re- quested the Department to submit its recommendations concerning potato leg- islation. On September 28, 1949, the Secretary of Agriculture sent a letter to the distinguished chairman of the Sen- ate Committee on Agriculture and For- estry, the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Tuomas] in which he refers to that re- quest and does submit the legislation. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, not that the legislation suggested be printed in the Recorp, but that the let- ter from the Secretary of Agriculture transmitting that information be incor- porated in the Recorp at this point. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: SEPTEMBER 28, 1949, Hon. ELMer THOmas, Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, Deak SENATOR THOMAS: At the hearing on 8. 2482 on September 19, 1949, Senator Ciin- TON P. ANDERSON requested the Department to submit its recommendations concerning potato legislation. In accordance with this request we have prepared the enclosed bill which is designed to carry out the recommen- dations and proposals for improving the po- tato program which the Department has made on several occasions. The major feature of the bill is the estab- Mshment of mandatory price support for po- tatoes whenever producers demonstrate that they are willing to undertake effective ad- justment of supplies to market demands The price support would be extended to pro- ducers by means of purchases, loans, produc- tion payments, or other operations. By pro- viding the Department a choice of the means of extending price support, it will be possible for it to devise a program which will effec- tively further the interests of the producera and of the general public. Adjustment of supplies to demand would be attained when needed through the use of farm marketing quotas, acreage allotments, and marketing agreements and orders. The legislation would not permit price support for any crop of potatoes with respect to which producers had disapproved marketing quotas and would authorize the Department to deny price sup- port if producers refused to put into effect marketing orders which were deemed by the Department to be essential to the efficient operation of the program. The devices contained in the enclosed bill for potatoes are contained, in the main, in
1950 8. 1971 which the Department has recom- mended, but in 8, 1971 they are applicable to agricultural commodities generally. The proposed legislation would provide the Department with the means for an effective and unified attack upon the potato problem which we recognize as one of the more serious now affecting agriculture. We would be glad to appear and furnish to your committee such additional information or assistance as you may desire. Sincerely yours, Cuanrues F, BRANNAN, Secretary. Mr ANDERSON. I wish to point out that on the fourth day of October 1949, the distinguished senior Senator from Oklahoma introduced Senate bill 2634, which was a bill to provide price supports for potatoes and to regulate the market- ing thereof. Some Senators may not agree with all the provisions of the bill, but I suggest to the Senate that the bill affords an opportunity for careful con- sideration of this problem, and promises hope of a solution. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. BREWSTER Do I correctly understand that the bill was introduced by the senior Senator from Oklahoma? Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. I had sent a letter to the Department of Agriculture requesting suggested legislation. The Department of Agriculture sent to the distinguished chairman of the commit- tee its idea of what should be introduced as proper legislation, and the distin- guished senior Senator from Oklahoma promptly introduced the bill. Mr. BREWSTER. Did the bill repre- sent the views of the Department of Agriculture and of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture at that time as to what might be a constructive solu- tion of this problem? Mr. ANDERSON. I believe so. Mr. President, I submit that the Con- gress of the United States should pro- ceed immediately to deal with this prob- lem. I do not know whether Congress should deal with it in the way suggested a day or two ago by the distinguished majority leader [Mr. Lucas], by repeal- ing all price supports on potatoes, or whether it should follow the suggestion of the distinguished senior Senator from Oklahoma, chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, of trying to find a method of control which would be effective. I should like the Senate to realize that the question of price sup- ports is important to all the people. We are now concerned with support- ing the price of potatoes. Some may say that the support level is too high. The average of the support level in all States in 1949 is $1.10. It is estimated that it will be $1.01 for 1950. Many may quar- rel with that level. I think it is a rather low level. I submit to the Sen- ate that the level contained in Senate bill 1971, introduced by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agricul- ture and Forestry, and commonly un- derstood to incorporate the Brannan plan, provides an income support stand- ard which, if applicable to potatoes, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE would give a support level of $1.59. I assume that it might be applicable to potatoes, because that figure was used in the testimony at the hearings before the committee. Surely, if it was not in- tended to be a price that the farmers would receive, it would not have been used. The support level on potatoes at the present time is $1.10. So we have a dif- ference of 49 cents between the level proposed in the so-called Brannan plan, as incorporated in Senate bill 1971, and the level actually given to the farmers at this time. I do not believe that the support level given to the farmers on potatoes is excessive. I agree that there have been some dis- agreeable experiences and I agree to a limited extent with the distinguished Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Ture], who pointed out that weather conditions had been extremely good. Favorable weather conditions have resulted in an increase of millions of bushels of pota- toes, but I wish to point out that the farmers are not always going to get the benefit from these factors. I have a figure which I should like to introduce into the Recorp, though I have not had an opportunity to check it completely. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? . Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator made the statement that he does not believe that, the support price for potatoes {is too high. Mr. ANDERSON. No. I say that I do not believe that the support level is too hgh. I realize that the Senator from Illinois has properly interrupted me, because I neglected to say that there must be effective controls of potato pro- duction. If effective controls were in play we would not be bothered by the support-vrice situation. Mr. LUCAS. I agree with the Sena- tor with respect to that, but so long as we continue the present program, with no acreage controls or limitations and no quotas, and no bag Hmits or bushel limits—in other words, with no controls whatever—we shall continue to have the potato problem in our laps, so to speak. The potato situation is giving an ex- tremely dark eye to the entire farm pro- gram. As the Senator well knows, pro- ducers of the basic commodities can get the support price only if they comply with certain conditions with respect to control. I was one of the Senators on the Committee on Agriculture and For- estry last year who were constantly talk- ing about taking potatoes out from under the mandatory price-support program. We did not do it. It seems to me that the time has come when we must do something drastic about the potato situ- ation if we are to continue to main- tain the confidence of the American people in the entire farm program, which is so vital to corn, wheat, cotton, and tobacco, which are subject to absolute acreage controls, quotas, and allotments. Mr. ANDERSON. I agree completely with the distinguished majority leader. In my opinion there is no possibility whatever of bringing this program under 1423 control until we have established some effective means of restricting production. We do not have that at the present time. However, at the time the agricultural legislation was under consideration, testimony was given to the committee time after time, both by potato growers and by the Department of Agriculture, that the approximate loss from the pro- gram would be in the magnitude of from forty to forty-five million dollars for the crop of 1949. It now appears that the loss may be between $80,000,000 and $100,000,000. The result is that there ts far more interest, as well as more agita- tion, on this subject than there would have been if the calculations of the grow- ers and the Department of Agriculture had been borne out. What prevented the calculations from being borne out was to a great degree extremely fine growing weather. Therefore, we must realize that the committee felt that when the loss was to be $225,000,000 in 1 year and could drop to $45,000,000 in a year, apparently the growers were trying to cooperate, and we might be able to get this done voluntarily. If we could get it done voluntarily, I am sure we all agree that that would be a better method of doing it than by burdensome controls. Mr. BREWSTER rose. Mr. ANDERSON. Before I yield to the Senator from Maine, I should like to say that the junior Senator from Ili- nois {Mr. Doucias] came to me when the agricultural price bill was on the floor and when a great many amend- ments were being suggested to it. He said he wanted to propose an amend- ment to strike potatoes from the list of crops receiving support. I asked the junior Senator from Illinois to withhold his amendment. I explained to him what I have now explained to the Sen- ate. I explained to him that the cost had been $225,000,000 for 1 year and that we were assured by the Department that it promised to be somewhere in the neigh- borhood of $45,000,000 the next year. I said that in my opinion it was a trend in the right direction and we ought to give the farmers a chance to work out their own salvation without regimenta- tion. It now appears that the informa- tion I gave to the distinguished junior Senator from Illinois was not reliable. It was the best we could do at that time. I am, indeed, sorry that I misled the junior Senator from Illinois by telling him that the cost of the program would be Jower than it was, and that condi- tions would not be so burdensome as they have proved to be. I should like to yield to the distin- guished Senator from Maine. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, first referring to the junior Senator from Tilinois {Mr. Dovatas), I regret that I should almost have to say, “Et tu Brute,” since the Senator from Illinois was raised near to the heart of the greatest and finest potato-growing region in the world, and I have no doubt that his magnificent physique is in substantial measure a result of eating those pota- toes.
1424 Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator permit me to interrupt, in order to reply? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapman in the chair). Does the Sen- ator from New Mexico yield to the Sen- ator from Illinois for that purpose? Mr. ANDERSON. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from Illinois, to permit him to propound a question to the Senator from Maine. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. Mr. DOUGLAS. Let me say, in reply, that I am not ashamed to have grown up on eating small potatoes. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois is not a small- potato himself in any way, I would say. (Laughter. ] I think perhaps this is the proper point at which to clear the record, in the absence of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], who was chairman of the committee, I believe, at the time when the 1948 act was passed. Since I understood the Senator from New Mexico to point out that whatever was done in 1949 was done under the provisions of the 1948 law, which is quite correct, I ask whether the provisions which were finally incorporated in the 1949 law were a practical replica of the provisions contained in the 1948 law. Mr. ANDERSON. Yes; I am glad to say they were. The reason why they were carried forward, I may say to the distinguished Senator from Maine, was the feeling I have just expressed, which was prevalent in the committee, namely, that if a group of growers, having cost the Treasury $225,000,000 in 1 year, had come forward voluntarily and had said, “We will try to handle this thing ourselves,” and had succeeded in lower- ing the cost to approximately $45,000,. 000, then I and others felt that the Con- gress could say, “We like that; that is the way to get the job done. If it can be done that way, we shall be glad to have you do it voluntarily.” All of us know that acreage limitations and marketing quotas are not satisfac- tory methods for handling these prob- lems. All of us realize that all sorts of things can happen to marketing quotas, Some of these days, perhaps, we shall have before us a bill providing for mak- ing some changes in cotton acreages. When that happens, the question will im- mediately arise as to how much an in- crease in acreage will mean in terms of total production. Of course, it will de- pend entirely on where the extra acreage is allowed. If the extra cotton acreage is allowed only in the State of Georgia, it might mean an average production of 180 or 190 or 200 pounds to the acre; but in the State of California it could mean as much as 600 pounds or even 1,000 pounds to the acre. Therefore, I say that acreage limitations in themselves are not a very satisfactory procedure. I am sure the Senator from Maine realizes that the committee in its delib- erations was guided very largely by what appeared to be a downward trend and what seemed to indicate that in another year the cost would be negligible, insofar as the Treasury was concerned. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. BREWSTER. I should like to ask the Senator for his permission to insert at the end of his remarks the actual statistics, under date of November 10, 1949, covering the production per acre per State, for the 1949 potato crop. Ido that in order that the statistics may be available to show the reductions which have been made in this program. That is how there was brought about the reduc- tion from 452,000,000 bushels to 386,000,- 000 bushels, as shown by the report, which is some 14,000,000 or 16,000,000 bushels under what it later developed they produced. Mr. ANDERSON. I think the last figure is some 402,000,000 bushels. Mr. BREWSTER. Yes. Mr. ANDERSON. I should be very glad to have the statistics inserted in the Recorp. I would appreciate it if the Sen- ator would insert them at the conclusion of my remarks. Mr. BREWSTER. I shall be very glad to do so. (See exhibit A.) Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President—— Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield to me? Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. BREWSTER. I wished to say that the reduction which has been made, under present estimates, in total amount of more than 125,000,000 bushels, or a total of more than 50 percent, is not the Jeast encouraging indication of the progress which has been made under the—if I may term it so—Aiken-Ander- son provisions regarding potatoes which how are extant. Mr. ANDERSON. Again, I say, I claim no responsibility for the present situation of potatoes, but I also say that I am not trying to dodge the fact that under the bill which now is the Agricul- tural Act we would have, and without acreage legislation will have this year if conditions continue as they are, a bad potato-surplus situation. I only say that I had hoped the acre- age-limitation bill might have been con- sidered, and I hope it may still be consid- ered. But I say to the Senator from Maine, who has a great burden on his heart in this respect, that I believe if something is not very quickly brought about in the way of regulating acreage and controlling and limiting output, there will be a great deal of popular sup- port for the suggestion made by the distinguished majority leader that the potato program be entirely scuttied. Mr. BREWSTER. Iam quite aware of the distress which is occasioned through- out the country when we have this po- tato situation. I warmly appreciate the action of the Senator from New Mexico in clarifying the record and the respon- sibility in this case. We have made great progress, I think the Senator from New Mexico referred, did he not, to the fact that the Lord apparently did help out, in this case, not exclusively the sinners to whom the Senator from Florida referred. I think he will find that in almost all the States there was compliance in substantial measure with the acreage goals. Cer- tainly in the State of Maine there was, FEBRUARY 8 I think, approximately 80 or 90 percent compliance. There was, however, an increase in the yield per acre. Would the Senator from New Mexico agree that we might well be approaching the limit of productivity per acre, so that the producers cannot go on indefinitely increasing the yield per acre, even with the help of the Lord, which has seemed to enter the picture at times. Mr. ANDERSON. Yes; I agree with the Senator that a point is reached when the increase in the production of po- tatoes per acre stops. But I wish to re- mind him that when the increased pro- duction stops in the rain-belt sections of the country, there always comes into the situation the irrigation-belt potatoes. Although the average production of po- tatoes years ago was approximately 160 or 170 bushels an acre, 1 year a 40-acre area in California produced 1,100 bushels an acre. So I do not believe we can count on natural processes alone to bring the production of potatoes under control, but must have a type of Imitation which not only controls acreage but also contains a marketing allotment or mar- keting quota based on bushels. When that is done, I believe it will take away the incentive to use extremely high- powered fertilizers and to put the hills somewhat closer together in the rows. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ANDEREON. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. I am very glad the Senator from New Mexico has clarified the point concerning the relative in- effectiveness of mere acreage limitations as such, Is it not true that in many States, including the State of the dfstin- guished Senator from Maine, the rows have been placed so close together that the potatoes are literally bumper to bumper, and that therefore while there are acreage limitations, the yield per acre has been increasing, and Uncle Sam has paid the bill? Mr. ANDERSON. Of course, I should prefer that the Senator from Maine at some later date explain the agricultural situation and the very fruitful yields the farmers of Maine have had. But I believe it is fair to say that to some degree the hills have been placed somewhat closer together in the rows, and occasionally the rows have been moved somewhat closer together. The main thing, how- ever, is that the producers have had the finest type of seed and the most produc- tive fertilizers, and they have greatly benefited by two additional factors: One, the use of new types of insecticides which were developed during the war, which have been very effective; and the other, the Lord has not only continued to smile at them, but in the case of Maine he has laughed out loud at them, with the result that there has been a tremen- dous outpouring of potatoes. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr, BREWSTER. May I ask whether that does not seem to be a very clear indication of divine favor upon Maine policies and practices, in this instance?
1950 Mr. ANDERSON. Oh, I think it is only an exemplification of the shrewdness of the Yankee traders. [Laughter.] Mr. BREWSTER. I do not wish to row with the Senator from Ilinois about rows, but I think the Senator from New Mexico has stated the matter much more accurately in respect to the nearness of the hills, rather than the rows, because of cultivating problems with which the Senator from Illinois was familiar in his youth when he had to hoe the rows by hand. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President—— Mr. ANDERSON. I yield to the dis- tinguished Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, re- gardless of what we do in regard to acre- age contro! or any other type of control for the year 1950, I believe it is now ob- vious that unless something is done, more than 50,000 bushels of potatoes will spoil. Mr. ANDERSON. Fifty million bush- els, I believe. Mr. McCARTHY. So, unless some- thing is done, some 50,000,000 bushels of potatoes will spoil. As the Senator knows—and I see on the floor of the Senate the two Senators from Illinois, who can answer for their State—in my own State of Wisconsin, in the city of Milwaukee, there are literally thou- sands of families who would eat many more bushels of potatoes if they could get them. I wonder whether the Sen- ator will agrec with me that it would be well, thinking solely of the disposal of the 50,000,000 bushels of potatocs which would otherwise spoil, to apply the Aiken food-stamp plan, if we may call 1t that, to potatoes, as a test run, to sce what would happen if we were to say to the families of the lower-income groups— ‘These potatoes, instead of being allowed to spoil, will be made availakle for food.” Wul the Senator say it might be well to make a test run on potatoes? Of course, if his answer to the question is “Yes,” I think we then could expand the stamp plan so as to include other edible food products, such as cggs and butter, Mr. ANDERSON. I may say to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, I should greatly prefer to have the mat- ter considered by the Senate Committee on Acriculture and Forestry, under the chairmanship of the distinguished senior Senator from Oklahoma; and if it de- veloped that the project was desirable, well and good. But I call his attention to the fact that in the 1949 Farm Act, there is provision that commodities in danger of spoiling can be handled in several specific ways. The amendment was inserted by the distinguished chair- man of the committee the senicr Sena- tor from Oklahoma [Mr. Tuomas]. The amendment provides, first of all—I may state the ordcr incorrectly, and I apolo- gize in advance to the Senator if I do— but first of all, it provides that such commodities shall be available to In- dians and other meedy persons within the United States, the school-lunch program and welfare and charitable in- stitutions. We went way beyond what anyone had ever contemplated, by mak- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ing it possible that all sorts of institu- tions could participate. It strikes me as strange that there does not seem to be any interest in these potatoes in con- nection with the school-lunch program on the part of welfare institutions, State charitable institutions, or among the In- dians. But the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma went further than that. He provided they might become avail- able to orphans’ homes and institutions of that character. It seems to me it might be possible to make potatoes available to some of those groups under the terms of that very liberal amend- ment to the act, and to dispose of a great deal of the surplus. I may say to the Senator from Wiscon- sin I should like to see that provision of the act tried, and tried vigorcusly, be- fore we turn to the alternative of scek- ing at this late date to establish a stamp plan, which has tremendous administra- tive difficulties. I do not wish to dis- sociate myself, however, from the idea tnat a stamn plan is an cffective way of handling surpluses, because I believe that it is. But I know there must be some sort of means test, otherwise it would bring down the farmer’s normal market for his potatoes, which must not be done It was sugzested to the committce re- cently that if some of the scientists of the Department of Agriculture could de- viso a way of making potatoes nonfat- tening, it would accomplish more than all the other programs put together. [Laughter | Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ANDERSON. If the Senator from Idaho will permit me to sum up in the Recorp at this point, as I desire to do, I shall then yield to him. HAVE PRICE SUPPORTS FORCED CONSUMERS TO PAY UNREASONAB’ E PRICLS? In the case of mony foods, the rela- tively high prices which have prevailed at various times since the end of the war have been entirely unrelated to the price-support program. When con- sumers complain of high food prices, they are usually thinking of meat prices. There is not and never has been a sup- port price on beef, veal, or lamb. There is a support price on hogs, but it has had little effect on pork prices, since almost no governmental action has been neces- sary to keep hog prices above the sup- port level. In 1935-39, consumers spent 23 per- cent of their disposable income for food. Currently, they are spending 27 percent; however, they are eating better. The food, v hich cost consumers 23 percent of their inttcome in 1935-39, would cost them only 19 percent of their income today. Food prices have already come down substantially. At the prices prevailing in July 1948, the annual retail cost of a market basket of food for a family of three average consumers was $712. In October of 1949, the same quantity of food could be purchased for $637, Dur- ing this period, when the retail cost of an annual food supply for a family of three was falling $75, the farm price of this food fell $69 while charges made for 1425 services performed after the commodi- ties left the farm declined a modest $6. Thus we have had a decline of almost 11 percent in food prices since July 1948 and this decline has been largely at the expense of the farmer despite the farm price-support program. I wish to point out, Mr. President, in view of the tremendous surpluses of po- tatoes, the support-price program does hot wholly account for the cost, The farmer has been receiving currently an average of $1.40 per bushel for potatoes, and if the price is extravagantly high, as certain people have claimed, perhaps the costs that enter into the marketing of potatoes might be worth checking into. I regret I have taken so long. I now yield to the Senator from Idaho. Mr. TAYLOR. I did not want to let any discussion of potatoes go by with- out saying a word, 1n order that the peo~ ple of Idaho might Know I was at least in attendance on the floor of the Senate at this very important moment in the history of our Nation. [{Laughter.] I should lke to say that in the State of Idaho we do not dump as many po- tatoes as do the people in the State of Maine. Our potatoes are more in the nature of consumer potatoes, instead of being of the dumping variety. (Laughter. 1 Strange as it may seem, I read in an Idaho newspaper only yesterday that the Idaho Potato Growers’ Organization was demanding or suggesting that we do away completely with the potato pro- gram. The suggestion was accompanied by a proviso, of course, that Iuaho wouid not be willing to forego any benefits, un- less other sections of the Nation agreed to do likewise. However, I feel that I should say, I take the pronouncement by the Idaho Potato Growers’ Organi- zation with a grain of salt. I have found that, generally speaking, 1t seems the Republicans get control of the various organizations representing potato grow- ers, wool growers, and cattlemen. More than once I have found definitely that they have made public pronouncements for political purposes, when, if they had thought anyone would take them seri- ously and do away with the support pro- gram, they would probably have fainted; certainly they would not have issued the statement in the first instance. Psarhaps my colleague from Idaho, who is on the floor, and who is a Republican, could give us his idea of whether the potato- growers’ association actually meant what it said when it offered to forego any bene- fits, in order to aid in doing away with the potato support-price program. Mr, ANDERSON. Mr. President, be- fore the junior Senator from Idaho moves into the discussion, and unless there are questions, I should lke to close briefly what I have to say. I have tried to point out that the potato surplus is not, I think, solely the fault of any piece of agricultural legislation. A great many people have believed we should have acreage limitations and marketing quotas upon potatoes. It is unfortunate that we do not have them, and I say that the potato growers of the country must face this alternative: Either they must suggest the type of control legislation
1426 which can be passed by the Congress, and passed very quickly, or, in my opin- ion, they will face a rider on the cotton bill, if it comes to the floor of the Sen- ate, or upon some other bill, which will wipe out entirely the potato support pro- gram. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senotor yield? Mr. ANDERSON. In a moment, . the fecretary of Agriculture has clearly indicated that he does not think that extreme slashes are good. There- fore, I think there should be brought forward a proper and effective type of Jevislation, He will, of course, speak for himself, but for whatever value my ex- perience has, I suggest that we do need to have potato-control legislation If it is not passed within, probably, 2 or 3 wecks, there will be a rider on some bill which will wipe out supports alto- gcther. I now yield to the distinguished Sena- ter from Maine. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, I eortainly appreciate the scholarly and accurate discussion of the subject by the Senator from New Mexico. Would he not agree that in view of the history of this subject, a hearing by the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on the pending proposal of the Department would be in order before there should be what might seem to be in some respects a meager mention of the potato program without the formality of any hearing or opportunity for those concerned with a crop affecting 48 States, and that the Commuttee on Agriculture and Forestry should hold hearings to see whether, in the light of all the developments to which the Senators from New Mexico and Uh- nuis have referred, there can be evolved what further steps are necessary to reach the goal which the Senator sug- gests? Mr. ANDERSON. That is correct. But I want to say that sometimes when industrics or persons happen to be in jcopardy they are far more agrecable to levislation than they otherwise would be; and this “sword of Damocles” which the majority leader displayed may have a good effect, for it may help the Senator from Maine and other Senators interest- ed in potatoes to Join with Senators who do not have such a problem in their Scates to see if they cannot get before the Coneress at the earliest possible date the type of control suggested to the Con- gress in 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, and which may not be out of place in 1950. Mr. BREWSTER. Is it not true that the potato growers themselves were the ones who, if they do not claim author- ship, at least sponsored the proposals for a cut of 60 percent in the support price? That was a most remarkable pro- posal, coming from the producers of a great crop, indicating their own recog- mition of the fact that the problem must be met. I am sure they all recognize that there is still ground to be covered, and they want to make their full con- tribution to the solution of the problem. Mr. ANDERSON. I may say to the Senator from Maine that I fully recog- nize that the potato growers suggested a reduction, and the Secretary dropped the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE level to 60 percent. There was some re- duction in the crop, but, quite obviously, it was not sufficient, and we must go a step farther. Mr. DWORSHAK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ANDERSON. I yield to the Sena- tor from Idaho. Mr. DWORSHAK. Mr. President, I am reluctant to project myself into the discussion of potatoes, in view of the fact that the question of partisan politics has been raised. But {ft might be appro- priate to refer to an Associated Press dispatch which appeared in Washington newspapers and, I assume, elsewhere in the country, day before yesterday, ema- nating from Miami Beach, Fla. I read from that dispatch: Miami Beacw, Fua., February 1.—The Po- litical League of the American Federation of Labor said today a growing farm revolt acainst Republican policies will help elect a Congress next fall to insure Taft-Hartley law repcal Joseph D. Keenan, the league's director, said Midwest farmers have grown increasing- ly fearful of GOP price support in view of falling farm prices and prospects for more farm surpluses I invite attention to that item because, apparently, some of those who would en- gage in partisan politics outside of farm circles are trying to continue their mis- representation of the entire farm sup- port-price program so as to make it ap- pear that Republicans in the Congress and in the Department of Agriculture are entircly responsible for the administra- tion of the entire plogram. Certainly Mr. Keenan, of the Polhtical League of the American Federation of Labor, as well as are other Americans, 1s fully aware of the fact that Congress is domi- nated and controlled completely by the Demccratic Party and that the Depart- ment of Agriculture and Secretary Bran- nan have the authority, under existing law, including the law which was passed last fall, to edminister the program in an efficient manner, and that if there is a current revolt on the part of midwestern farmers or the potato farmers in Maine, in Idaho, or in the Red River Valley, or elsewhere, certainly there is no justifica- tion for claiming that the dissatisfaction stems from the fact that there is a lack of public confidence in the GOP price- support program, because the facts are that the Republican Party currently is not in control of the executive branch of Government, and neither does it have the majority control on Capitol Hill. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I should like to say in response to what has been said by the Senators from Idaho that I have tried very hard in all my political life, not to get my politics and my farm programs mixed up. I have enjoyed working with the distinguished Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN] and all the members of the committee from both sides of the aisle, and I hope nothing I have said can be regarded as having a political implication. Some time ago the distinguished senior Senator from Vermont permitted me to see a newspaper article, which I returned to him, dealing with the question of politics. It came as a surprise to me, FEBRUARY 3 because I think I can be just as partisan next November in speaking on political issues as can any other Member of the Senate, and I hope to be; but, so far as farm Jecgislation is concerned, I have tried not to be partisan. Mr. DWORSHAK. Mr. President, I certainly do not want the inference to be drawn that I was directing my re- marks toward the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. During his incum- bency as Secretary of Agriculture I had an opportunity to work very closely with him m solving many agricultural prob- lems, and I wish to reiterate what I have said on many occasions, that during his term as Secretary of Agriculture he ren- dered outstanding service to the agricul- tural industry of the Nation. I pay that tribute to him at this time. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ANDERSON. I yield to the dis- tinguished Senator from Vermont. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I am sure the Senator from New Mexico will agree that no law should be condemned, no matter whose name it bears, until there has been an earnest and sincere effort to apply it properly. I am surprised to learn that many institutions in the Na- tion have not known until the fact was recently publicized that they could have surplus potatoes. Mr. ANDERSON. I think the Senator is doing a fine service in calling attention toit. There might go out from the press gallery a notice that potatoes are avail- able upon the payment of freight, under the amendment offered by the distin- guished Senator from Oklahoma |Mr. Tuomas], whereby orphanages, hospitals, public-welfare agencies, school-lunch programs, and Indians might be able to obtain potatoes. Mr. AIKEN. I think it is particularly unfortunate that inaccurate releases from the Department of Agriculture re- ceive wide publicity through the press, whereas a correction of inaccuracies made before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has not received anywhere near the same coverage, if it has reccived any coverage at all. There is one newspaper which appar- ently recognizes this attack on the potato surplus for what it really is, namely, a political move, and I ask unanimous con- sent to insert in the body of the REcorp a story by Josephine Ripley, in the Chris- tian Science Monitor of February 2, 1950, which I think accurately describes the situation, and the motives for drama- tizing the destruction of fifty or sixty million bushels of potatoes, which, in my opinion, are likely to be needlessly de- stroyed. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Porato Growers DISMAYED AT PUBLICITY ON SURPLUSES (By Josephine Ripley) WASHINGTON.—Potatd growers are dis- mayed to find themselves the helpless victims of power politics, as the administration now seeks to publicize rather than hush the prospective destruction of millions of bushels of surplus potatoes,
1950 Why all this fuss, they ask, about a po- tato surplus which has been reduced to one- half what it was last year, with the cost cut proportionately? As for dumping the surplus and leaving it to rot or be burned, as is now planned by Secretary of Agriculture Charles Brannan, instead of selling to industrial users as has been customary, the National Potato Council argues that there is no more reason for dumping this year than there was last. Moreover, it is claimed that the Govern- ment already has a bidder for nearly all of the surplus for industrial use. POLITICS BLAMED The reason for the sudden fuss and pub- licity is put down to politics—to an admin- istration move to hold up this scandal of food destruction as an argument for its new farm panacea, the Brannan plan, under which this couldn’t happen here Potato Council spokesmen point out that Government agitation over this year’s sur- plus is not consistent with the facts, This year’s surplus, regrettable as it may be, they say, ts only 65,000,000 bushels or s0, com- pared with 134,000,000 last year. Attention is also called to the fact that the cost of price supporting the 1948 crop was $225,000,000, while Mr. Brannan’s estimate places this year's cost at less than half of that—between $80,000,000 and 100,000,000. Why isn’t the Government Jumping at the oppoitunity to sell this year’s surplus for industrial use, as in previous years? And 1s all this fuss being made over the mere §15,- 000,000 extia it would cost to mnke these potatoes available for use when the admin- istration is dealing in terms of billions in its over-all price-support program, potato farmers are asking. But the question ts rhetorical. It is all too pninfully clear to them, caught as they are themselves in the vise of power politics of the administration farm program—the Brannan plan Under the Brannan plan, there would be no buying and no dumping All potatoes go to market, with the consumer getting lower prices and producers collecting price support in the form of production payments, Since the public scandal of potato burning some years ago, the Government has care- fully avoided dumping, even though it is the cheapest way of disposal But the extra cost of handling has been paid without a murmur in order to steer clear of public criticism. EYFECTIVE ARGUMENT Now, suddenly, caution is being thrown to the winds, and the prospective destruction js being deliberately publicized For the scandal of planned food destruc- tion no longer holds any embarrassment for the administration, since it can be used #8 an effective argument for the Brannan plan Maine potato growers are particularly dis- mayed over the unpleasant and unpopular prospect of this potato dumping They feel they are being put in a most unfair light, according to spokesmen here, including Sena- tor Owen Brewster, Republican, of Maine. They point out that Maine producers have the highest record of compliance with Agri- culture Department production regulations of any State Maine farmers not only cut potato acreage back as directed, but also adopted a voluntary marketing agreement limiting the marketing of eating potatoes to the top, No. 1, grade. Under these circumstances, they feel they do not deserve to have the spotlight of such unfavorable publicity turned in their direc- tion, as it will be when the dumping begins, for the major part of the surplus happens to be in Maine this year. TOTAL MAINE STOCKS Total potato stocks in Maine now total around 45,000,000 bushels, it is reported. About half of these would normally go to market, leaving between 20,000,000 and 25,- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 000,000 as surplus for Government purchase and disposition. The unexpectedly large surplus developed as a result of exceptionally good growing conditions, good fertilizer, and closer plant- ings. Moreover, stocks are larger right now, it is claimed, because the Government has not been buying as many surplus potatoes for school-lunch programs and for welfare in- stitutions as in other years. Senator BREwsTeER also has called attention to the fact that despite a prospective potato surplus in this country of some 70,000,000 bushels, between 12,000,000 and 15,000,000 bushels still are imported from Canada. These are potatoes coming in under re- ciprocal trade agreements, with potato {m- ports balanced by United States exports of other commoditics to Canada. WIDER MARKET If these extra potatoes were not coming down over the border, Maine growers figure that they could dispose of that many more of their own stock, and thus come out with a much smaller surplus which could be han- dled without much cost or difficulty under the program. Meanwhile, the Government 1s reported going uhead with dumping plans, although desperate efforts are being mude by potato- council officials to head off the prospect, if possible But little hope is held that it will be possible to change Mr. Brannan’s mind about this And more trouble loomed on the potato horizon, us Senator Scorr Lucas, Democrat, of Illinois, threatened to knock mandatory price support out trom under potatvues en- tirely in an amendment to the cotton bill. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield? Mr. ANDERSON. I yield to the Sen- ator from Illinois. Mr. LUCAS. May I inquire of the Senator from New Mexico, or the Sen- ator trom Oklahoma, who is chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, what the Secretary of Agricul- ture said, when he appeared before the committee a few days ago, with respect to the distribution of the surplus pota- toes under the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, and which was enacted by the Congress? Unfor- tunately, I was unavoidably absent from the meeting of the committee, and I am anxious to know what the Secretary said about it. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I have with me the statement made by the Secretary of Agriculture on Jan- uary 31, 1950, which covers some eight mimeographed pages. I do not desire to burden the Recorp with it, but I should be very glad to have the Senator observe it and study it. I do not think he will find there that. to date there has been much interest in the distribution of the potatoes. Mr. LUCAS. May I inquire whether or not the Secretary was interrogated on the points which have been raised in the debate today by the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Ver- mont as to whet should or could be done with the surplus potatoes under the Thomas amendment? Mr. ANDERSON. I think that under the present circumstances I should prefer to have the record speak for itself. There was interrogation. Mr, AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield? 1427 Mr. ANDERSON. I yield to the Sen- ator from Vermont. Mr. AIKEN. In the Secretary’s press release, given out prior to his appear- ance before the Senate committee, he claimed that under the Anderson Act of 1949 he could not pay any transpor- tation at all on any of the potatoes to get rid of them other than to an alcohol plant, or some such place as that. One of the Members of the Senate—I do not recall who it was—asked him if that was not inaccurate, and he said, ‘‘Well, I have my lawyer here. We will refer it to him.” The attorney, Mr. Ed Shulman, then rose and told the committee that the Secretary did have the authority, or at least that there was no_ prohibition against doing the thing which he claimed he could not do in the release which he had given the press That is what I refcrred to when I said that the inaccurate statement in the release was given wide publicity in every newspaper in the country, but the correction, and, if I remember correctly, an apology for making the statement made by the Sec- retary, never received any coverage any- where. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, re- garding surplus potatoes, at the present time it is common to blame the existence of a surplus on what is called the Ander- son Farm Act, but, as I developed in the questions to which the Senator has re- ferred, I believe it would have been pos- sible to avoid some of the criticism of the act. Mr. AIKEN. I wish to say that the representative of the Solicitor’s Office of the Department of Agriculture sustained the Senator from New Mexico, and did not sustain the contention of the Scec- retary of Agriculture. Mr. ANDERSON. In any event, the desirable thing to do is to get these potatoes rolling. I do not care how it is done, or what happens thereafter. If it is impossible to move them, then some legislative steps should be taken. All I want to point out is that: moving these potatoes to alcohol plants, distributing them to charitable institutions, or pass- ing them to hospitals, does not solve the underlying problem, namely, that we cannot have a support price on potatoes unless we have a control over the pro- duction of potatoes, and we must move in that dircction. I have been saying that since 1946. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. ANDERSON. I yield to the Sen- ator from Tlinois. Mr. LUCAS. I should like to make an observation or two in the Senator’s time. After listening to the colloquy among various Senators it does seem to me that this question of the distribution of the surplus potatoes should be further explored to determine whether or not we can do more than has been done under the amendment which was offered by the Senator from Oklahoma last year and enacted by the Congress. If money is needed in order to ship surplus potatoes to the different chari- table institutions, or to whatever organi- zation is outlined in the law, we can