1950 the people of America; or would he pre- fer to stick to a strict, legal conformity, and as a result gather additional] ll will of the American people, and face the prospect of having no reasonable agree- ment in the future? What we are doing here should be for the benefit of both the potato farmers and the consumers and taxpayers of America. The potato farmer is all three of those; he is both a potato producer, a consumer, and a taxpayer. Unless he, too, like the rest of us, takes the long- range view of the matter, and unless we proceed on that basis, we shall be doing him a real disservice if we insist upon a continuation of a program which is causing widespread disapproval among the people of the United States. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, if I may reply further to the Senator from Mary- land, with the permission of the Senator from Florida, let me say that I think the Department of Agriculture, in the light of the last 3 years’ experience, is attempting this year to bring the supply of potatoes into line with the demand. Mr, TYDINGS. That is correct. Mr. AIKEN. Of course, it is doubtful whether that can ever be done exactly; for if we are to be sure that we shall have sufficient potatoes for human con- sumption in the United States, it is likely that we shall have to plan upon raising a few more than we need each year in order to guard agaist unfavorable weather conditions. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, my final comment to the Senator from Ver- mont—if the Senator from Florida will permit—is just this: We must not lose sight of the fact that when our Govern- ment makes contracts with potato farm- ers it represents all the people of Amer- ica, and it also has an implied contract with all the people of America not to use their hard-gained earnings, which it siphons off in part in the form of taxes, to continue a program which encourages the production of food in such volume that large parts of it, after it is created, simply rot. If that situation develops, then the consumer says to himself or to herself, ‘‘Why should I pay taxes to a government that has a program that destroys millions of dollars’ worth of good food?” In short, Mr. President, every Member of Congress has a running and continu- ing implied contract with them that we will not squander their money, and, in my opinion, that contract is just as bind- ing as the express contract we make with any particular group of our citizens. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida yield to permit a final brief comment? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. I wish to say that the Lucas amendment does not propose to repudiate in a small way part of the agreement made with the potato farm- ers of the country; it simply proposes to repudiate entirely the agreement made with the potato farmers, but not to re- pudiate the agreements made with other farmers. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, if the Senator will permit, let me say that if we keep on as we have proceeded in the XCVI——148 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE past year, we shall repudiate our implied contract with the taxpayers of the United States not to siphon off their tax dollars and let them go down the drain. t (think we must take steps to avoid doing at. Mr. AIKEN. I think that remark would have been in order at any time during the past 10 or 15 years. Mr. TYDINGS. That ts correct. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I thank the Senators for their observa- tions. I shall attempt to conclude my remarks in a few minutes. It seems to me that what is being proposed by the Lucas amendment—and I am a party to it—is to try to bring this matter to a head within a reasonable pericd of time, so that by that time cor- rective legislation can be enacted. It was never intended to shut off the support program entirely to the portion of the industry which happened to be ac- tive now, and then bring the support program back into effect 60 days from now to the portion of the industry which happens to be located farther north in the United States. Mr. President, I see that the Senator from Georgia and also the Senator from Alabama have just reentered the Cham- ber. I call the particular attention of those Senators to the fact that their own States are shown by the compilation I have placed in the Rrecorp nou to have been serious offenders against the price- support program, not to have abused it, not to have relied heavily upon it for the purchasing of any large proportion of the Irish potato production of their own States. I do not have to call to the attention of those Senators the fact that in their States the Irish potatoes are already planted, they are already in the ground, and that if the amendment of the Sena- tor from Delaware should be adopted, and then, following that, the amendment of the Senator from Illinois, we would have a situation under which their States and all similarly located, in which plant- ings have already taken place or in which marketing may even be going on, as is now the case in Florida, would find them- selves completely cut out of the program, looking to the day, 60 days from now, or 90 days from now, whenever 1t may be, when corrective legislation should Pass, thereby bringing into the program and back to the farmers in the large produc- ing areas of the Nation, the benefit of a price-support program, which would have been thus completely denied to the Irish potato producers of Georgia and Alabama, in part to the Irish potato pro- ducers of Florida, and in part to the pro- ducers of Louisiana, southern California, south Texas, and other areas, which have already planted or which may be nearly production. Mr. President, let me say to Senators that insofar as the direct effect upon the potato industry of the State of Florida is concerned, it will be decidedly less than it will be upon the potato in- dustry in the States that are a little farther north. I stated in the beginning of my argument that the marketing of the Florida crop was begun in January, that it has already come along a good 2349 way; that in the very nature of things, before the legislation can pass and be- come law, it will have come still further along, and while a part of the industry of my State will be affected, I call to the attention of Senators the fact that many States will be affected as to their entire production. As to them the adoption of the Williams’ amendment would in effect stay entirely any price-support program until a fairer one can be worked out. It would not cut off a price-support pro- gram for all areas in the Nation from this time forth, but instead, would simply work undue hardship upon areas that will be marketing before the remedial legislation can be passed and placed in effect. I note on the floor the distinguished Senator from Missouri (Mr, DoNNELL], who made some comment on this phase of the situation yesterday, and I should like to advance for his consideration this particular aspect of the matter. He spoke yesterday of the fact that no legis- Jator ever surrenders the right to termi- nate legislation which he thinks is op- erating in a way which is not to the good and to the benefit and for the general welfare of his country. Of course, no one could argue the point with him, because he is so right in it. But I call to his attention two facts which he may have overlooked. First, the fact that the offer as made last November by the Sec- retary of Agriculture, the official agent of the United States Government named in the legislation passed by the Congress to represent it in this program, stated there would be a price-support program, and that that program would be avail- able to potato growers of the various States of the Nation who would reduce their acreage by amounts which he named and would comply with other provisions and conditions which he pre- scribed. When there has been actual reduction of acreage and when there has been compliance with these terms and when the expense of the growing of the crop has already been sustained—in the State of Florida it has been fully sus- tained, all except the marketing in that part of the crop which has not been marketed and in the States immediately north of Florida, it has been sustained in large part—it seems to me that a strong case is made for the essential morality of the recognition of the situ- ation and of the allowance of a proper period of time, as is allowed by the Lucas amendment, in which remedial legislation can be passed, but without bringing any deprivation to those grow- ers who have thus accepted the offer made by the Government and through its agent, without removing from them the protection of the system which they have earned by complete compliance with the conditions stated to them. The acreage reductions in my own State have not been heavy, but they have been a good deal heavier on the growers who were producing last year than is shown by the figure of over-all reduction of 3 percent, which is applied by the order of the Sec- retary of Agriculture. As I happen to know from having been active in the matter some weeks or months ago, when the question was
2330 froned out, there were a goodly number of new growers, particularly servicemen, who wanted to come into the picture, and their acreage had to be considered and taken into account out of the re- duced acreage allowed to the State as a whole. Iam unable to say what the re- duction was on the growers who pro- duced in last year and in prior years, but it is a good deal more than the 3 percent which is set forth in the order of the Secretary of Agriculture. The order of the Secretary of Agri- culture as affecting Georgia and Ala- bama, required a reduction of 7 percent, and I believe that the average reduction required all over the Nation was about J percent. It seems to the junior Sena- tor from Florida that a strong, moral case is made in behalf of the continued recognition by the Congress and by the Nation of a situation under which citi- gens have been offered a proposal which they have accepted and acted upon, and have spent their money and time and employed their labor in growing & crop which has been produced in accord with the proposal of the Government. There is, it seems to me, a very strong, moral question as to whether properly action can now be taken which cuts them off, but still looks forward to the time, 60 or 90 days hence, when the program may be reinstated by remedial legislation to all others in the Nation who happen to plant and produce their crops a little later in the year. Mr. President, if there is any morality in that sort of action, I find it difficult to see it. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. Has the Senator from Florida any assurance that legislation including marketing orders will be en- acted in regard to potatoes? Does he see any possibility of getting marketing- order legislation enacted this year in time to take effect on the present crop before it is planted? Mr. HOLLAND. Marketing-order leg- islation is already in effect, as the Sen- ator well knows. Mr. AIKEN. I mean quota legislation. Mr. HOLLAND. Because I felt the quota legislation probably could not be made applicable as early as the other, I am in support of the amendment of- fered by the Senator from Vermont. As the Senator will recall, in committee, I voted for the amendment, first. Mr. AIKEN. That is correct. Mr. HOLLAND. Only when the mar- keting order part was eliminated did I support the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois. It scems to me that earlier action is possible through the marketing-order procedure than 1s available under the establishment of quotas. But it seems to me also that if the potato industry finds it wholly to {ts interest and welfare, as I believe it to be, it will come here almost as one man to insist upon the enactment, and the early enactment of the quota legis- lation, which will free it from the very just censure of the great public of the United States, who feel that this pro- gram, remedir1 in its effect and designed to help farmers, has been grossly abused CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE by at least certain factions and factors of the Irish-potato industry. Mr. AIKEN. Then do I correctly un- derstand that the Senator from Florida feels that an improvement can be made by reliance upon marketing orders for the year 1950? Mr. HOLLAND. By reliance in part upon marketing orders, The Senator from Florida, by no manner of means, wants to cut himself off from the possi- bility of enactment of quota legislation, because he thinks it is so tremendously needed that the Congress should give it time and attention immediately to its enactment. Mr. AIKEN. I confess I did not un- derstand the Senator from Florida when I was on the other side of the Chamber. Do I understand that the Senator will approve the amendment which provides that the Secretary of Agriculture may enforce the marketing orders for this year? Mr. quotas. Mr. AIKEN. No; that is true. We hope the marketing orders will suffice for future years, too. Mr, HOLLAND, I stated as clearly as I could that I was in support of the approach embodied in the amendment of the Senator from Vermont, which added to the available remedy of marketing or- ders, which is at once available, a quota system which should be made available under speedy legislation action, and that the quota legislation was, in the judg- ment of the Senator from Florida, the most powerful, the most effective, the most helpful, and that we should press immediately for its enactment, though at the same time we would hope that real progress would be made under the mar- keting-order procedure. Mr. AIKEN. I thank the able Sen- ator from Florida. I think we are in agreement both as to the importance of the use of marketing orders, and then the enactment of legislation which will provide for marketing quotas, in the event the Secretary finds it needful to control the production and marketing of the crop in another year. Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida with his charac- teristic fairness and integrity, has re- ferred to the question of the moral prin- ciple involved in the prospective legisla~ tion. I am sure he has made a very strong case for the growers who have relied, in reducing their acreage, upon the announcement made to them, as I understand, by the Secretary of Agri- culture. I should say the Senator's ar-~ gument is one of especial force, and ap- Peals, of course, to the innate sense of equity and justice in the heart and mind, I trust, of every one of us. I agree with him as to the general rule. As indi- cated yesterday in the debate, there has been the general rule. According to the Statement introduced in evidence here by the Senator from Maine, it has been @ general rule, followed by the Depart- ment, not to change rules or assurances during a given crop season. It was pointed out in the debate yesterday, however, that there have been various HOLLAND. Not marketing FEBRUARY 24 exceptions to the rule. I submit most respectfully, Mr. President, that regard- Jess of the fact that inequities may re. sult to the individual grower, to whom the Senator from Florida has alluded, nevertheless the authority of the Secre- tary of Agriculture to make an assur~ ance to the growers is strictly Umited by the terms of the law under which he acts, and in the second place, any meas- ure of this type—in fact, so far as I now see it, the most important measure passed by Congress, unless there be some specific limitation of time therein placed—is subject to the power and the duty of Congress, in the event the gen- era] public interest demands it, to repeal or amend the legislation, even though some injury may result to individuals because of such action. To summarize my view in regard to the remarks of the Senator from Flor- ida along this line, I think he presents a very strong case, entitling his argu- ment to the very careful consideration of this body. I can well see that some would think the illustration he has of- fered to be controlling, and that we should not at this time change the law applicable to the growers. To my mind, we have, however, that duty not only to the individual growers, but to the entire Nation, to all the people of our country. We have a situation in which wartime legislation has in recent years and re- cent months proved productive of bad results, productive of perhaps inefficient administration, certainly an administra- tion which has aroused widespread pub- lic criticism. It appears to me that the heavy liability which rests upon the Government, which is another way of saying, upon all the people of the Na- tion, justifies the Members of Congress who shall consider that the duty of pre- serving the interests of all is superior to the duty of preserving the interests of some particular group. I say that the facts in the case warrant the exercise of discretion by the Members of Congress in determining which attitude they shall take with respect to the proposed legis- lation. Mr. President, I should like to have the attention of the Senator from Vermont (Mr. ArkeN], I ask unanimous consent to ask a few questions of the Senator from Vermont in regard to his amend- ment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator may proceed. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I state to the Senator the understanding which I have of the purpose of the Lucas amendment as preliminary to the first question I desire to address to the Sena- tor from Vermont. It is my understand- ing that the purpose of the Lucas amend- ment is to terminate, until the enactment of a quota law for potatoes, the liability of the Government arising from its obli- gations contained in the Agricultural Act of 1949, Public Law 439, Eighty-first Congress, to support prices of potatoes except as to those potatoes which shall already have been planted when the Lucas amendment, if adopted, shall go into effect. I ask the Senator, first, whether his understanding of the purpose and effect
1950 of the Lucas amendment is as I have just outlined. Mr, AIKEN. I think the Senator has stated the purpose correctly. Mr. DONNELL. I ask the Senator from Vermont, also, whether, in his jude- ment, the lability of the Government te which I have referred can, if the Lucas amendment shall be enacted into law, be revived only by the enactment of a quota law for potatoes? Mr. AIKEN. The Senator is correct. Mr. DONNELL. I ask the Senator whether he considers that the Lucas amendment is subject to the objection that inasmuch as there are now no quotas to potatoes provided for in exitsing law, there may be no price support for pota- toes planted after the enactment of the Lucas amendment, because it is unccr- tain whether there will be a quota law passed for potatoes. Mr. AIKEN. I agree completely with that statement. Mr. DONNELL. I ask the Senator also, whether the Aiken amendment has as its purpose to limit the Government's liability arising from its obligations con- tained in the Agricultural Act of 1949 to support the price of potatoes, Mr. AIKEN. That would be the ef- fect of the amendment which the Sena- tor from Vermont has offered. It would strengthen the hand of the Secretary of Agriculture by making mandatory the use of that provision of the law which permits the Secretary of Agriculture to require compliance with marketing or- ders as & qualification for price supports, and the Secretary is authorized by the Jaw to deny price supports to those who do not comply with the marketing prac- tices which he approves. Mr. DONNELL. Am I correct in understanding that the limitation of Government liability which would be brought about by the enactment of the Aiken amendment would not apply to po- tatoes planted before the enactment into law of the joint resolution? Mr. AIKEN. Potatoes planted before the enactment of the joint resolution would be subject to the provisions of the law as it exists at the present time, the curtailment of acreage, the reduction in price support, and the requirement of marketing agreements which have becn prescribed by the Secretary for the 1950 crop. Mr. DONNELL. In order to be sure that I understand the Senator correctly, under the Agricultural Act of 1949, the price of early, intermediate, and late Irish potatoes, respectively, shall be sup- ported through loans, purchases, or other operations at a level not in excess of 90 percent nor less than 60 percent of the parity prices therefor. Am I correct? Mr. AIKEN. That is a correct state- ment of the law, as I recall it. Mr. DONNELL. May I ask the Sena- tor with respect to his own amendment, the Aiken amendment, which is very brief, and which reads as follows: Src. 2. No price support shall be made available for any Irish potatoes planted after the enactment of this joint resolution unless marketing quotas hereafter authorized by law, or marketing orders under the Agricul- tural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, are in effect with respect to such potatoes, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE I should like to ask the Senator from Vermont how his amendment would accomplish the purpose by limiting the Government’s liability as to potatoes planted after the enactment into law of this joint resolution, and exactly how the resulting limitation would come about? Mr. AIKEN. Marketing agreements are already in effect in nearly all the potavo-producing areas of the country, and it is understood that such agree- mints can be put into effect in any re- maining potato-producing areas before harvesting gets underway. I should like to add that the Secretary, in his announcement of the 1950 potato sup- port-price program said: Growers are reminded that the develop- ment and use of marketing agreements and orders in all commercial producing areas will be a prerequisite and eligibility for price support. In other words, he intends to require the marketing of commercial potatoes in accordance with marketing orders which he himself must approve, and he evidently believes that will be effective, or he would not have made any such requirement. M DONNELL. May I ask the Sen- ator whether the marketing orders to which his amendment refers are those which are provided for in section 5 of Public Law 320 Seventy-fourth Con- gress, which was approved on 4ugust 24, 1935? Mr. AIKEN. I am not certain as to the section, but, knowing that the Sena- tor from Missouri is always correct, I am sure he is correct in this case. Mr. DONNELL. I assure the Senator that in many instances I am not correct. I think, however, the orders to which the distinguished Senator has referred are the ones I have mentioned as being in section 5 Mr. AIKEN. I would certainly accept the statement of the Senator from Mis- souri about that. Mr DONNELL. That is my _ best judgment. Ihave not found any others referred to. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator whether there is any provision in the law creating the right of making marketing orders by which the acreage of potatoes can be required to be reduced. Mr. AIKEN. Yes. The Secretary can withhold support from growers who fail to keep within their acreage allotments which he has already proclaimed. In fact, they were proclaimed last Novem- ber. If they do not Keep within the acre- age allotments prescribed by the Secre- tary, if they do not market their crop in accordance with marketing orders ap- proved by the Secretary, then they are not eligible for price support. Mr. DONNELL. May I ask the Sena- tor whether the provisions of the orders as set forth in the section to which I have called his attention, section 5 of Public Law 320, Seventy-fourth Con- gress, relate only to limitations of quan- tities to be marketed or transported, to allotments of amounts which handlers may purchase, allotments of amounts which handlers may market or transport to various markets, that would determine or provide the methods for determining the surplus of such commodity and pro- 2351 vide for the control and disposition of such surplus and for the establishing or providing for the establishing of pre- served foods? I might say that I have very much abbreviated the terms, but I was reading from the language of section 5, and I am referring particularly to subdivisions A to E, both inclusive, of subdivision 6 of section 8-C created by section 5. Is not that the sole content the orders may cover? Mr. AIKEN. The matter of acreage allotments would not come under mar- keting agreements. It is the handling end of the marketing only which would come under those agreements. I am locking for the provision in the official document of the Department of Agri- culture. Mr. BREWSTER. I think that covers the marketing orders, but acreage con- trol is under another provision, which is covered by the grower’s right to refuse support. Mr. AIKEN. I have found the lan- guage in the document, published by the Department of Agriculture, which states: Regulations for specialty crops, such as tree fruits, tree nuts, and vegetables, govern the quantity, quality, and rate of shipment from the producing area to all markets, but not the price This control, however, tends to strengthen prices of the commodities under regulation. As the Senator from Maine has stated, and as I have said, the matter of acreage allotment does not come under the mar- keting-agreement law, but is in the Agrl- cultural Act of 1948, as continued in the Agricultural Act of 1949. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert at this point in the Recorp the entire contents of sub- division 6, to which I have referred, which contains subdivisions A to E, both inclusive, relating to the contents of the orders under the appellation ‘“'Terms— other commodities.” There being no objection, the matter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: (6) In the case of fruits (including pecans and walnuts but not including apples, and not including fruits, other than olives, for canning) and their products, tobacco and its products, vegetables (not including vege- tables, other than asparagus, for canning) and their products, soybeans and their prod- ucts, and naval stores as included in the Naval Stores Act and standards established thereunder (including refined or partially refined oleoresin), orders issued pursuant to this section shall contain one or more of the following terms and conditions, and (except as provided in subsection (7)) no others: (A) Limiting, or providing methods for the limitations of, the total quantity of any such commodity or product, or of any grade, size, or quality thereof, produced during any specified period or periods, which may be marketed in or transported to any or all markets in the current of interstate or for- eign commerce or 80 as directly to burden, obstruct, or affect interstate or foreign com- merce in such commodity or product thereof, during any specified period or periods by all handlers thereof. (B) Allotting, or providing methods for allotting, the amount of such commodity or product, or any grade, size, or quality thereof, which each handler may purchase from or handle on behalf of any and all producers thereof, during any specified period or pe- riods, under a uniform rule based upon the
2352 amounts produced or sold by such producers in such prior period as the Secretary deter- mines to be representative, or upon the cur- rent production or sales of such producers, or both, to the end that the total quantity thereof to be purchased or handled during any specified period or periods shall be ap- portioned equitably among producers. (C) Allotting, or providing methods for allotting, the amount of any such commodity or product, or any grade, size, or quality thereof, which each handler may market in or transport to any or all markets in the cur- rent of interstate or foreign commerce or 80 as directly to burden, obstruct, or affect interstate or foreign commerce in such com- modity or product thereof, under a uniform rule based upon the amounts which each such handler has available for current ship- ment, or upon the amounts shipped by each such handler in such prior period as the Secretary determines to be representative, or both, to the end that the total quantity of such commodity or product, or any grade, size, or quality thereof, to be marketed in or transported to any or all markets in the cur- rent of interstate or forelgn commerce or 80 as directly to burden, obstruct, or affect interstate or foreign commerce in such com- modity or product thereof, during any speci- fled period or periods shall be equitably ap- portioned among all of the handlers thereof. (D) Determining, or providing methods for determining, the existence and extent of the surplus of any such commodity or prod- uct, or of any grade, size, or quality thereof, and providing for the contro} and disposition of such surplus, and for equalizing the bur- den of such surplus elimination or control among the producers and handlers thereof. (E) Establishing, or providing for the es- tablishment of, reserve pools of any such commodity or product, or of any grade, size, or quality thereof, and providing for the equitable distribution of the net return de- rived from the sale thereof among the per- sons benefictally interested therein. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator another question. His amendment, as I under- stand, instead of providing that no price support shall be made available for any Irish potatoes planted after the enact- ment of the joint resolution, unless mar- keting quotas shall be in effect with re- spect to such potatoes, offers the addi- tional alternative that if marketing orders under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, are in effect with respect to such potatoes, the price support shall be made available. Am I correct? Mr. AIKEN. That is correct. How- ever, in order that there may be no mis- understanding or misinterpretation at all, I should like to insert in my amend- ment the words, “or marketing agree- ments and,” so that my proposed amend- ment would read as follows: Szc. 2. No price support shall be made available for any Irish potatoes planted after the enactment of this joint resolution unless marketing quotas hereafter authorized by law, or marketing agreements and market- ing orders under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, are in effect with respect to such potatoes, I simply add the words “or marketing agreements and.” I do not think that adds anything to the joint resolution, because usually there are not marketing orders without marketing agreements, but in order to satisfy anyone who might be in doubt, there is no harm in inserting the words I have suggested, so as to read, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE “marketing agreements and marketing orders.” Mr. DONNELL, Mr. President, may I ask the distinguished Senator whether or not Public Law No. 320, of 1935, does not only cover orders with marketing agree- ments, but orders with or without mar- keting agreements, so there may be orders, may there not, without market- ing orders? Mr. AIKEN. I understand that may be so, but I do not know of any cases where it has been done, or may be done. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, this is my last question in this series of ques- tions. Ags I understand from the Sena- tor’s earlier answer, the purpose of his amendment is to restrict the liability of the Government to maintain price sup- ports as to potatoes and to restrict it as indicated, namely, that no such price support shall be made available unless either marketing quotas shall be here- after authorized by law, or marketing orders, under the Agricultural Act of 1937, as amended, are in effect with re- spect to such potatoes. Mr. AIKEN. That is the purpose of the amendment. Mr. DONNELL. I am unable to sat- isfy myself that the insertion by the Senator from Vermont of the provision granting price supports in the event marketing orders are in effect is going to insure any decrease in the ability of the Government. The point I have in mind is this, and I shall try to state it as clearly as I can: The existing law, the Agricultural Act of 1949, particularly title 2, states the following: The Secretary is authorized and directed to make avallable * * *. The price of * * ® potatoes shall be supported through loans, purchases, or other operations at a level not in excess of 90 per- cent nor less than 60 percent of the parity price therefor. I see nothing in the act of 1949, from which I have quoted, which would limit the obligation of the Secretary of Agri- culture to maintain that support price to potatoes which pass in commercial operations. Does not the Senator from Vermont agree that under the 1949 law there is an obligation on the part of the Govern- ment to provide a price support for all potatoes, except possibly culls—which I understand are not good potatoes—re- gardless of whether or not they move in commerce, and, since we have here a marketing-order insertion in the Sena- tor’s amendment which applies, as I see it, only to matters relating to the com- merce end of potatoes, the disposal of surplus, and the limitation of quantities to be marketed, Iam unable to see where there is any restriction at all in the gen- eral obligation to provide price supports for all potatoes, because the orders, as IT understand, simply refer to potatoes which either pass in these respective methods through commerce, or are to be disposed of as surpluses. In other words, if I may clarify it perhaps a little better than I have, on the one hand, as I see it, in the 1949 act, which is the pres- ent law, there is an obligation on the part FEBRUARY 24 of the Government to maintain a sup- port price as to all potatoes, and the amendment of the Senator from Ver- mont, on the other hand, provides that no price support shall be made available for any potatoes unless either quotas or marketing orders come into effect. I see nothing under the marketing-order pro- vision which limits the obligation of the Government under the general provision of the 1949 act. AmInot correct in that statement? Mr. AIKEN. I do not think the Sen- ator is quite correct, because in the same law, in the middle of page 4, paragraph (c) reads: Compliance by the producer with acreage allotments, production goals, and market- ing practices— It was clearly understood that mar- keting agreements would come under the heading “Marketing practices”— (including marketing quotas when author- ized by law), prescribed by the Secretary, may be required as a condition of eligibility for price support. Then, a marketing order, which fol- lows a marketing agreement, is referred to, quoting from a Department bulletin: Regulations for specialty crops, such as tree fruits, tree nuts, and vegetables, gov- ern the quantity, quality, and rate of ship- ment from the producing areas to all mar- kets, but not the price. This control, how- ever, tends to strengthen prices of the com- modities under regulation. Mr. President, as I interpret that statement, potatoes which do not com- ply with the regulations or the market- ing orders would not be supported. Iam fully aware of the fact that there has been passed around today a statement that the Secretary says this is meaning- less. If it is meaningless, why did the Secretary in his announcement of the potato price-support program on No- vember 16, 1949, state: Growers are reminded that the develop- ment and use of marketing agreements and orders in all commercial producing areas will be a prerequisite to eligibility for price support. If that provision is meaningless, why is the Secretary using it for the 1950 crop? I wish to qualify my earlier state- ment. I do not know that the Secretary has made any such statement. It is simply a rumor which has been com- municated to me recently. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Missouri yield? Mr. DONNELL. I yield to the Sena- tor from Illinois, with the understand- ing that I do not thereby lose the floor. Mr. LUCAS. I shall state exactly what the Secretary of Agriculture has said in regard to marketing agreements: Marketing agreements have very certain and very definite weaknesses and by no means—— Mr. AIKEN. From what is the Sena- tor reading? Mr. LUCAS. From a memorandum which has been prepared by the Secre- tary of Agriculture. Mr, AIKEN. For him, or by him? Mr. LUCAS. For me, on the very point under discussion,
1950 Mr. AIKEN, May I ask when it was prepared? Mr. LUCAS. I received it this morn- ing, as a result of the very interesting debate which the Senator and I had yes- terday about his amendment. Mr. AIKEN. Does the Senator expect to put the whole memorandum in the RECORD? Mr. LUCAS. I shall put the whole memorandum in the REcorp, or anything else I have with respect to the potato situation, and which the Senator desires to have included in the REcorp. I now read from the memorandum: Marketing agreements have certain very definite weaknesses and by no means are a cure-all for the potato-support problem. The first weakness is that the Government still has price-support obligations on all withheld grades of potatoes—except culls— which are produced by eligible growers. Therefore, if there is a surplus, marketing agreements in themselves do not assist in any way in reducing the amount of that sur- plus. Although such agreements are bene- ficial to consumers, they do not directly benefit the Government insofar as reducing its obligations for any given amount of surplus. That is the important point I have been emphasizing all through my argu- ment. It does not relieve the Govern- ment of the United States from its obli- gations to the cooperators. It must sup- Port not only the potatoes that go to market but also the ones that are kept at home. I quote further from the Secretary’s memorandum: Another thing that marseting agreements will not accomplish is any positive control of surplus production. At present, the only effective measure for attempting to control production are the voluntary acreage allot- ments Reduction of potato production from its recent average of over 400,000,000 bushels down to a reasonable supply figure is the primary problem at present. Marketing agreements can be used to control the mer- chantuable grades and sizes which are moving into commercial channels but cannot be used to reduce the total surplus itself since under existing legislation the Government is re- sponsible for supporting the price on all commercial grades of potatoes whether or not they are sold in commercial channels. This statement verifies the argument which is being made by the very able Senator from Missouri [Mr. DonnELL] with respect to the amendment of the Senator from Vermont | Mr. AIKEN]. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Missouri yield to me so I may ask the Senator from Illinois a ques- tion? Mr. DONNELL. Certainly. Mr. AIKEN. Does the Secretary ex- press an opinion as to the desirability of terminating supports on all potatoes not planted at this time? Mr. LUCAS. That does not have any- thing to do with the point we are dis- cussing at all. Mr. AIKEN. It has everything in the world to do with it. Mr. LUCAS. Not at all. Mr. AIKEN. Certainly it has. Mr. LUCAS. We are talking about the effect of the Senator’s amendment, and what it means with respect to the present law. I told the Senator yester- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE day that what I am proposing to do by my amendment, I am doing or my own responsibility. The Senator read into the Recorp, as I recall, that the Secre- tary said that when he starts with a pro- gram he wants to go through with it. That is his opinion. I have a different idea about what ought to be done with potatoes. I am not consulting the Sec- retary on that particular point at all. But I did ask the Secretary about the marketing agreements. I have now read from the memorandum he wrote for me. Mr. AIKEN. But does not the Secre- tary believe that requiring the use of marketing agreements and marketing orders as a qualification for price sup- port will have a beneficial effect in han- dling the potato situation this year? Mr. LUCAS. He says it will help the consumers, but it will not relieve the Government of its obligations with re- spect to payment of the money to the potato producers, That is the point the Senator from Illinois has been trying to stress all through the argument. Mr, AIKEN. I believe the interpreta- tion by the Secretary is very valuable and enlightening at this time, because I take it to mean that he believes that if potato growers are required to keep No. 1 pota- toes off the market, are prohibited from marketing them, in other words, that they should be reimbursed to the extent of the support level. Is that the under- standing of the Senator from Illinois? Mr. LUCAS. The Senator from Ver- mont knows there are certain standards prescribed by the Department of Agri- culture which the potato grower is com- pelled to meet in order to get the pota- toes into commercial channels. The po- tatoes which get into commercial chan- nels are supported, and the potatoes which stay in the cellars at home, with the exception of 10 percent which are known as culls, are also supported. The trouble we are having at the present time is that the potatocs that are now in the cellars which cannot find a mar- ket are still costing the Government many millions of dollars. Mr. DONNELL. Under the law, the price support applies to potatoes: which are in the cellars as well as to those which are in the market. Mr. LUCAS. That is correct. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DONNELL. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. May I inquire if the Sec- retary of Agriculture registered any ob- jection to requiring the use of market- ing agreements and marketing orders? Mr. LUCAS. The Secretary of Agri- culture does not make any suggestion along that line at all. The only thing the Secretary is saying is that the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont is absolutely futile and useless because the Secretary is doing the very thing now under the present law that he would do under the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont. The Senator’s amendment does not do a sin- gle thing toward meeting the problem in which the Senator from MDlinois is interested. Mr. AIKEN. It is true that the Sec- retary is using that provision of the law, 2353 evidently expecting that it will work. I velieve it will work. I think it would have worked if it had been applied last year. But I understand that the De- partment felt that there were ex- tenuating circumstances which made it impracticable last year. Mr. LUCAS. Regardless of what the Senator from Vermont thinks the Sec- retary of Agriculture should have done, or what I may think about it, the Secre- tary is at this very time following the same course as is provided for in the amendment proposed by the distin- guished Senator from Vermont. The Secretary advises me that the Senator’s amendment will in no way whatsoever change the present policies of the De- partment of Agriculture. The Depart- ment is not empowered to take the course proposed by the Senator from Il- linois and thereby save the taxpayers some 50 million, 60 million, or 70 million dollars this year on the 1950 crop. Re- gardless of what the Senator believes his amendment would accomplish, the Secretary of Agriculture is now pursuing the same course that the Senator by his amendment wants him to follow. Therefore the amendment would accom- plish absolutely nothing so far as settling the problem is concerned. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DONNELL. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. I will simply say that the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont will make mandatory the use of this provision in future years un- less a law is enacted which provides for marketing quotas on potatoes. With the explanation made by the Senator from Illinois, I would come to the conclusion that the Secretary of Agriculture and the Senator from Vermont are pretty much in agreement as to how the 1950 crop of potatoes should be handled and supported. Mr. LUCAS. That is true. Mr. AIKEN. But I should like to strengthen the Secretary’s hand by the adoption of my amendment. I am op- posed to cutting off the support for all potatoes which are not planted up to this time, cutting it off arbitrarily after the Secretary has made an agreement to support the price, has named the price, and allocated the acres which can be planted in each State. I think I am entirely correct and consistent, and I be- lieve the Secretary in the program he has laid out this year is on the right track, and is profiting from some of the mistakes made last year. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Missouri yield? Mr. DONNELL. I yield. Mr. WILLIAMS. I wish to ask the Senator from Vermont if he does not believe that in the event we are going to repeal price supports on certain pota- toes, it would be better to repeal price supports across the board? Mr. AIKEN. The Senator is correct, but I do not think we ought to repudiate our agreement with the farmers. Mr. WILLIAMS. If it is proposed to repeal price supports on potatoes, it
2354 should be done in such a manner that the law could be enforced. Mr. AIKEN. If the Government of the United States were to go back on its promise to some of the potato grow- ers, it would be just as well for the Gov- ernment to go back on its word to all the other potato growers. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I should like to submit for the considera- tion of the Senate that, as I understand, under the Lucas amendment the price support for Irish potatoes planted after the enactment of the joint resolution is cut off. We know that that amend- ment would stop the obligation of the Government with respect to all Irish po- tatoes planted after the enactment of the joint resolution. The obligation will have ceased and terminated and under that amendment no further money will have to be paid by the Government. Now as I understand, the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont of- fers another condition under which price supports shall be made available. He sees, of course, as we all do, that under the present condition of the law there {fs no requirement or provision for mar- keting quotas for potatoes. But the Senator from Vermont would permit a price support not only after the enact- ment of a new law, if one be passed, pro- viding for marketing quotas, but he would permit—and I know he does it with the very best of intentions, and he may be correct, I am not sure of that— he would permit a price support to be made available for any Irish potatoes with respect to which marketing orders under the Agricultura] Marketing Agree- ments Act of 1937, as amended, are in effect as to any potatoes, regardless of when planted Mr. AIKEN. Providing they comply with the acreage allotments which the Secretary has prescribed for this year, and marketing practices as prescribed by the Secretary. Mr. DONNELL. I may say, Mr Presi- dent, that the proviso which the Senator preposes to place in the joint resolution, of course fs to be found elsewhere in the law. Yam not contradicting the Sena- tor’s statement. He may be quite cor- rect. But as to the amendment, which seeks to attain the same objective in substance as does the amendment of the Senator from [lnois—— Mr. AIKEN. No. Mr. DONNELL. With respect to the determination of the restriction of the liability of the Government, as I see it, there is this difference between it and the amendment of the Senator from Tlinois. The amendment of the Sena- tor from Ilinois absolutely terminates the Government’s liability. The Senator from Vermont provides for a price sup- port with respect to all potatoes con- cerning which marketing orders, under the act of 1937, are in effect. Mr. BREWSTER. Marketing ageree- ments. Mr. DONNELL. The language is “mar- keting orders.” Mr. AIKEN. Marketing agreements and marketing orders. Mr. DONNELL. Does the Senator say “marketing orders”? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr, AIKEN. It may be superfluous wording, but it does not hurt the amend- ment any, and it may satisfy some per- sons who may question the language. Mr. DONNELL, The subject matter of the agreements would be substantially the same as the subject matter of the orders. The orders would be the same as agreements, would they not? Mr. AIKEN. The orders are issued to the handlers by the Secretary of Agri- culture, based upon an agreement with the handlers, but cannot take effect until the agreement is approved by 50 percent of the handlers and the orders are ap- proved by two-thirds of the producers. Mr. DONNELL. The point I make in that connection is this: It seems to me that under the terms of section 6, which I placed in the Recorp this afternoon, it is possible for every potato to be the subject of a price support, because of the fact that subdivisions (d) and (e) of the series of things that may be in- cluded in the marketing orders, cover all potatoes, not merely some of them, but all of them, because they refer, in the case of subdivision (d) to potatoes which are included in the surplus. And they include in the case of subdivision (e) those which may be put into reserve pools which are established. Mr. AIKEN. Well, Mr. President—— Mr. DONNELL. If I may, I should like to complete the statement of this point, and then I should like to have the views of the Senator from Vermont, because I may be incorrect, as I have said. I wish to pay tribute at this time to the fine ability and knowledge of the Senator from Vermont, exceeding mine by many, many fold, as I see it. But here is an amendment which says that there can be price support for all potatoes with respect to which market- ing orders and/or agreements are in effect. I assume that the orders merely carry into effect the agreements; and the sub- ject matter of the orders, as prescribed in the statute, may be sufficiently broad to include all potatoes. Therefore, the minute the amendment of the Senator from Vermont is adopted, price support will be available—the words of the amendment are “shall be made available”—as to all potatoes with respect to which marketing orders are in effect, and the Secretary of Agriculture could put the marketing orders into ef- fect, under subdivisions (d) and (e), relative to surpluses and pools, as to all potatoes. So it seems to me that, on the one hand, we have the amendment of the Senator from Illinois, which, regardless of any demerits it may have, has the merit of cutting of all lability as to price support for potatoes which are planted after its enactment; and, on the other hand, we have the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont, which seeks to reduce the Hability, but gives no assurance of any reduction of li- ability because, for the reasons indicated, the potatoes which must be covered by price support under his amendment may include all potatoes, not merely a small portion of them. FEBRUARY 24 I shall certainly be glad to hear the Senator from Vermont on that point. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I shall give the Senator from Missouri good rea- sons why the use of marketing agree- ments and marketing orders should be required. In the first place, the Sec- retary of Agriculture would not be util- izing that provision of the law this year unless he felt that some good would come from it. In the second place, we must remem- ber that sometimes marketing agree- ments and orders are necessitated be- cause of the disorderly marketing of a commodity. For instance, if a market is overloaded, the price breaks, and drops below the support level. We must also remember that if mar- keting agreements are required, a grower who does not abide by it is not entitled to any support at all. We do not know what that amounts to. The Senator from Maine tells us that in the State of Maine last year approximately 2 percent of the potato producers did not comply with the po- tato program. The Secretary of Agri- culture would deny them any support at all for their potatoes, or he could have done so last year, had he required the use of marketing agreements. That is where one considerable saving can be made. If the Secretary of Agriculture does not use the provision of the law requiring marketing agreements and orders to be in effect, he would have to support the price of No. 1 and No. 2 potatoes for all growers. But if he does require it, then he has to support the market price only for the potatoes of growers who comply with the marketing order. I do not know what it will amount to. Ido not think the Secretary of Agri- culture knows what it will amount to. I do not think anyone knows. But evi- dently the Secretary of Agriculture thinks it will amount to something, and I think it will amount to something; and I should like to have that provision in the law, so that it will have to be used in future years, following 1950, unless a marketing quota law is enacted at this session of Congress. Mr. DONNELL. I should like to ask the Senator a further question: Does he not agree with me that the amendment of the Senator from Illinois does abso- lutely terminate the obligation for price support as to all potatoes planted after the enactment of the joint resolution? There can be no doubt of that, can there—namely, that under the amend- ment of the Senator from Illinois, the lability of the Government for price sup- port as to potatoes planted after the enactment of the joint resolution is ter- minated. That is true under the Lucas amendment, is it not? Mr. AITKEN. Yes; under the Lucas amendment, that is entirely true. Mr. DONNELL. But under the amend- ment of the Senator from Vermont, there is no absolute termination; there is a termination only as to such potatoes as are not embraced within the market- ing orders or marketing agreements. Is not that correct? Mr, AIKEN, That is correcs,
1950 Mr. DONNELL. And we cannot tell what potatoes will or will not be em- braced within the marketing orders or agreements. Is not that true? Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, Ihave had handed to me an example of what we have been discussing with regard to mar- keting agreements and orders. In the Red River Valley there is a marketing agreement and a marketing order for the potato growers, and the order which is in effect prohibits the shipment of culls and No. 2 potatoes. The eligible grower can sell his No. 1 potatoes and his No. 2 potatoes, I understand, under price sup- port; but the ineligible producer, the one who fails to go along, must keep his No. 2's at home, with no payment what- soever. The Senator from Missouri under- stands that, under the marketing agree- ment, if two-thirds of the producers agree to the marketing order, it auto- matically becomes binding on the rest of the growers in that area, If they re- fuse to comply with that order, they are denied support for the No. 2’s and the culls. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, with this final remark I shall yield the floor: It seems to me that we are confronted with a choice as between two amend- ments. One is the Lucas amendment, which absolutely terminates the liability of the Government for price support as to the potatoes planted after the en- actment of the joint resolution. Let me say in that connection that I am inclined to favor the amendment of the Senator from Delaware, making the pro- vision applicable to all potatoes harvested after the enactment of the joint resolu- tion, in which event the cessation of the liability would be applicable to all po- tatoes harvested after the date of enact- ment of the joint resolution, regardless of when they were planted. At any rate, the amendment of the Senator from Illinois, either as he has stated it or as the Senator from Delaware would amend it, has the merit of providing for abso- lute termination of governmental ability for price support on the potatoes to which the amendment refers. It seems to me, I say most respectfully, that under the amendment proposed by the Senator from Vermont, there jis not such a complete cessation of govern- mental lability for price support as will be accomplished either by the amend- ment of the Senator from Illinois, as It has been submitted, or by the amend- ment of the Senator from Illinois as it would be amended by the amendment of the Senator from Delaware. I think the matter is one of choice; I think it is for the Senate to determine whether it desires to terminate the lla- bility and to know where the Govern- ment stands; or whether it will adopt an amendment under which, as I see it— inasmuch as any marketing order and agreement made in pursuance of the 1937 act would make the potatoes embraced within the order and agreement immedl- ately subject to the obligation that price support shall be made available—we have a highly uncertain effect; we do not know how much, if any, the Government will CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE save by the adoption of the amendment submitted by the Senator from Vermont. I wish to thank him and the other Senators for the assistance they have given me in responding to my questions. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mac- nusoN in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Sena- tor from Delaware to the committee amendment. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Hickenlooper Martin Benton Hil Maybank Brewster Hoey Millikin Bricker Holland Morse Butler Humphrey Mundt Cain Hunt Murray Capehart Jenner Myers Chepman Johnson, Tex, O'Conor Chavez Johnston, 8.C. Robertson Connally Kefauver Russell Cordon Kem Saltonstall Darby Kerr Schoeppel Donnell Kilgore Smith, Maine Dworshak Knowland Smith, N J. Eastland Langer Sparkman Ecton Lehman Stennis Eljender Lodge Taft Ferguson Long Taylor Flanders Lucas Thomas, Okla, Frear McCarran Thye George McClellan Tydings Gillette McFarland Watkins Green McKellar Wherry Gurney McMahon Wiley Hayden Magnuson Williams Hendrickson Malone Withers The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo- rum is present. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Delaware’ IMr, WILLIAMS] to the committee amendment. The yeas and nays having been ordered, the clerk will call the roll, The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico |Mr. ANDER- son], the Senator from MDlinois [Mr. Dovuctas], the Senator from North Caro- lina {Mr. GraHam], the Senator from West Virginia |Mr. NEELY|, the Senator from Wyoming |IMr. O’MaHoney], and the Senator from Florida |Mr. Perper) are absent on public business, The Senator from Virginia {Mr. Byrp) is absent because of illness in his family. The Senator from California [Mr, Downey], the Senator from Colorado (Mr, JouHnson], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Leanyl, and the Senator from Utah [Mr. Tuomas] are absent on official business. The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O’Mauoney] is paired on this vote with the Senator from North Carolina [Mr, GraHam]. If present and voting, the Senator from Wyoming would vote “yea,” and the Senator from North Caroling would vote “nay.” I announce further that if present and voting, the Senator from Illinois |Mr. Douc.ias], the Senator from Colorado (Mr. JoHNsoN], the Senator from West Virginia |Mr, NeELy], and the Senator from Utah {Mr. THomAs] would vote “yea.” 2355 Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire {Mr, Bripces] and the Senator from North Dakota | Mr. Youne] are absent by Jeave of the Senate, If present and vot- ing, the Senator from North Dakota [Mr, Youne] would vote “yea.” The Senator from Michiga VANDENBERG] is necessarily absent. The Senator from New York [Mr. Ives] is absent on official business. If pres- ent and voting, the Senator from New York would vate “yea.” The Senator from Vermont ([Mr. FLAnbERS], the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. McCartuy], and the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Tosey] are de- tained on official business. If present and voting, the Senator from Vermont [Mr. FuanpErs] would vote ‘“‘yea.” The result was announced—yeas 47, nays 31, as follows: YEAS—47 [Mr, Aiken Hendrickson Mundt Benton Hickenlooper Myers Brewster Humphrey O'Conor Bricker Jenner Saltonstall Butler Kem Schoeppel Cain Kilgore Smith, Maine Capehart Knowland Smith, N. J. Cordon Langer Taft Darby Lehman Taylor Donnell Lodge Thye Dworshak Lucas Tydings Ecton McMahon Watkins Ferguson Magnuson Wherry Frear Malone Wiley Gillette Martin Williams Gurney . Morse NAYS—31 Chapman Holland Maybank Chavez Hunt Millikin Connally Johnson, Tex, Murray Eastland Johnston, 8.C. Robertson Ellender Kefauver Russell Fulbright Kerr Sparkman George Long Stennis Green McCarran Thomas, Okla. Hayden McClellan Withers Hill McFarland Hoey McKellar NOT VOTING—18 Anderson Graham O'Mahoney Bridges Ives Pepper Byrd Johnson, Colo, Thomas, Utah Douglas Leahy Tobey Downey McCarthy Vandenberg Flenders Neely Young So Mr. WILLIAMS’ amendment to the committee amendment was agreed to, Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, I offer the amendment which I send to the desk and ask to have stated. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT, The Sena- tor will state it. Mr. ROBERTSON, While the Wil- liams amendment was pending, I sent to the desk an amendment to the same line in the same portion of the resolu- tion, with the request that it be called up as soon as the vote was taken on the Williams amendment. I ask whether my amendment can now be considered, or would the Williams amendment elimi. nate consideration of my amendment? The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment which has just been adopted apparently does not affect the amend- ment offered by the Senator from Vir- ginia. The Senator’s amendment was sent up to lie on the table and to be called
2356 up at his pleasure. The Chair has now recognized the Senator from Nevada. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia was under the impression that he had asked the Chair to have his amendment considered as soon as the Williams amendment was voted on, and the Chair ruled the other amendment had to be first considered. The VICE PRESIDENT. Only one amendment can be considered at a time. When an amendment is disposed of, any Senator who wants to offer another amendment, regardless of whether it has been sent to the desk to be printed and to lie on the table, is supposed to receive recognition to offer his amendment. The mere fact that the amendment had been sent up previously has no parlia- mentary effect. The Chair did not know the Senator from Virginia wss seeking recognition. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia would like to pro- pound another parliamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. Mr. ROBERTSON. There has been printed an amendment proposed by the distinguished Senator from Nevada [Mr. McCarran] relating to the cotton quota. As I understand, he is now asking to leave the potato section and to take up an amendment relating to cotton. I make the point of order that the Lucas amend- ment, as amended, is now the pending question, and that we cannot leave it to consider an amendment relating to cotton. The VICE PRESIDEN’. There is no division as between the Lucas amend- ment and the committee amendment. It is all a part of the same amendment, Therefore the Chair is impelled to over- rule the point of order. The clerk will state the amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada. The LecrsnaTive CLERK. On page 1, after line 10, it 1s proposed to insert the following new subsection: (6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section and without reducing any farm-acreage allotment determined pursuant to the foregoing provisions of this subsection, in the case of any State with an allotment for 1950 amounting to less than 3,000 acres, the allotment for such State shall be in- creased by an additional acreage of 2,000 acres to be used for establishing allotments for new farms in 1950. The additional acre- age required to be allotted under this para- graph shall be in addition to the county, State, and National acreage allotments and the production from such acreage shall be in addition to the national marketing quota. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, I understand my amendment is satisfac- tory to the Senators in charge of the joint resolution. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr, President, yes- terday, during the debate, it developed that Nevada had an allotment of only 110 acres, and I suggested to the Senator from Nevada [Mr. MaLone], who had an amendment, that, speaking for myself, I would be willing to take the matter to conference. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE by the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Mc- Carran]. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I should like to call up my amendment—— The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thinks the Senator from Virginia should be recognized. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I should Hike to call up my amendment. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment will be stated. The L&GIsLaTIvE CLERK. On page 7, line 12, it 1s proposed to strike out the words “the enactment of this joint reso- lution” and in lieu thereof to insert the words and figures “March 15, 1950.” Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, the effect of my amendment is this: The potato amendment provides that there shall be no price supports for potatoes planted after this resolution shall be- come law. That might be March 6, March 8, March 10, or some other in- definite date. An amendment has been adopted which strikes out “Planted” and inserts “harvested.” So my amendment, if adopted, would strike out both the provision of the Lucas amendment and the language of the Williams amend- ment and provide support prices for po- tatoes planted prior to March 15 and not after that date. The purpose is to equalize the treatment of all who pro- duce early potatoes. The Florida po- tatoes start to market in January. The marketing will be practically concluded by the Ist of April. In North Caro- lina some potatoes have been planted. A few have been planted in Tidewater Virginia, but on the Eastern Shore of Virginia none have been planted. By March 15, from the Atlantic Ocean to California potatoes will be planted, and the potatoes which will be harvested are thin-skin potatoes which will not keep. They will be covered by this provision. Otherwise, we will have a situation, even under the Williams amendment, in which potatoes from Florida, which have already been sold, will receive the bene- fit of the support prices. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield. Mr. WILLIAMS. If I correctly un- derstand the situation, the Senator from Virginia proposes to change the lan- guage of the amendment which has just been adopted. I would like to inquire whether that is in order at this time. The VICE PRESIDENT. It does not affect the amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware, which was agreed to a while ago. Mr. WILLIAMS. I understood the Senator from Virginia to say it did af- fect my amendment. The VICE PRESIDENT. It does not affect it in a parliamentary sense, Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, a par. Mamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor will state it. Mr. WHERRY. From every other point of view it would be affected, would it not? The VICE PRESIDENT. That is a questicn which the Chair cannot pass on, FEBRUARY 24 Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, may the clerk read the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia as it is written? The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will again state the amendment. The Lecrsnative Cirerx. On page 7, line 12, it is proposed to strike out the words “the enactment of this joint reso- lution” and in leu thereof to insert the words and figures “March 15, 1950.” The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment simply fixes a different date. Mr. WILLIAMS. I should like to point out to the Senator from Virginia that I think he is somewhat confused, because his amendment will not in any way affect Virginia potatoes. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, then the amendment has not been prop- erly drawn, because {t was certainly my intention to affect Virginia potatoes, L[Laughter.] Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr, President, I point out to the Senator fror: Virginia that we have changed the word “planted” to “harvested,” and since it is impossible to harvest the Virginia potatoes prior to March 15, therefore the Virginia potatoes could not be affected by the amendment. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I wish toamend my amendment. The sit- uation is changed. [Laughter.] I wish to add to my amendment by striking out the word “harvested,” and then perhaps it will do some good for Virginia, if we adopt it. The VICE PRESIDENT. That would change the amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware and agreed to by the Senate. That can only be reached by moving to reconsider the vote by which the Williams amendment was agreed to. Mr. ROBERTSON. I respectfully bow to the ruling of the Chair. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment and ask to have it read. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Virginia withdraw his amendment? Mr.ROBERTSON. DoT have to with- draw it, Mr. President, or could the Chair rule it out of order? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator either has to withdraw it, or there will be a vote on it. Mr. ROBERTSON. on the amendment. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Ropertson |, The amendment was rejected. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment presented by the Senator from Ver-= mont will be stated. The Curer CLerK. On page 7, it is proposed to strike out lines 11 to 14, in- clusive, and in Meu thereof to insert the following: SEc. 2. No price support shall be made available for any Irish potatoes planted after the enactment of this jotnt resolution unless marketing quotas hereafter authorized by law, or marketing agreements and marketing orders under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, are in effcct with respect to such potatoes. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, this amendment is identical with the one that I ask for a vote
1950 was printed and was on the desk, except that after the comma, following the word “Jaw,” the words “or marketing agree- ments” were added. Personally I do not think this addition makes any difference whatever in the amendment, but those words are inserted to satisfy anyone who might be in doubt. I am informed that it does not change the meaning of the amendment in any way. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator offer this as a substitute for sec- tion 2? Mr. AIKEN. The amendment as I offered it is as I wanted it. I merely modify the one which was printed and was on the desk. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor is now offering an amendment? Mr. AIKEN. I am offering an amend- ment to the committee amendment. The VICE PRESIDENT. It is, in ef- fect, a substitute for section 2. Mr. AIKEN. That fs correct. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Vermont yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. WHERRY. In view of the action taken on the Williams Amendment, by which the word “planted” was changed to “harvested,” would the Senator from Vermont consider changing his amend- ment in line 2 by striking out the word “planted” and substituting “harvested’’? I do not suppose it makes much differ- ence. Mr. AIKEN. I do not think it will make much difference, except the Secre- tary has already advised those areas which are planted that they must come under marketing orders. Mr. WHERRY. I suggest that there might be some question of interpretation. I think that if there is no objection, it would clarify the amendment, if the Senator would make the change. Mr. AIKEN. I have no objection. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator fiom Vermont modify his amendment? Mr. AIKEN. I do not think it changes the effect of the amendment in any way. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion 1s on agreeing to the amendment of- fered by the Senator from Vermont (Mr. AIKEN]. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, this is an exceedingly important amendment. If it 1s agreed to by the Senate, the discus- sion we have had with respect to pota- toes will be meaningless and futile. Mr. AlKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS, Let me finish my state- ment. Mr. AIKEN. Very well. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Illinois declines to yield for the present. Mr. LUCAS. I base the statement I have just made not alone upon my own interpretation of the Agricultural Ad- justment Act, as amended, the 1949 act, but also upon what the Secretary of Ag- riculture says this kind of an amend- ment means. J should like to remind the Senate that, irrespective of what the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE distinguished Senator from Vermont may say that the amendment means, ir- respective of how he may construe the law, regardless of how he would like to have it administered, it so happens that the Secretary of Agriculture, the official who is to administer the potato law, and is doing so at the present time, has given his views of the effect of such an amend- ment. In view of the colloquy we had here yesterday with respect to this mat- ter, I requested the Secretary of Agricul- ture to give me his opinion upon market- ing agreements, and how this amend- ment would affect the amendment I have have offered for the purpose of clearing up what seems to me to be a rather scandalous situation. This is what the Secretary said about market- ing agreements: Marketing agreements have certain very definite weaknesses and by no means are a cure-all for the potato-support problem. The first weakness is just the Government still has price-support obligations on all withheld grades of potatoes (except culls) which ate produced by eligible growers. Therefore, if there is a surplus, marketing agreements in themselves do not assist in any way in reducing the amount of that surplus. In other words, it is not only the pota- toes which meet the requirements of the marketing orders so far aS grade and size are concerned for commercial mar- keting, which are supported and pur- chased, but the potatoes which are now in the cellars of the farmers in Maine, Idaho, Michigan, Illinois, and all other States, unless they are culls, are also under the price-support program. If this amendment is agreed to, the Secretary of Agriculture, so far as the 1950 crop is concerned—and he says so— will go on doing exactly what he is do- ing at the present time. The Secretary says further in his statement: . Although such agreements are beneficial to consumers, they do not directly benefit the Government insofar as reducing its obliga- tions jor any given amount of surplus. Mr. President, that is the point. This amendment will not in anywise reduce the obligation of the Government inso- far as surplus potatoes are concerned, and the surplus potatoes are the pota- toes which are on the farms at the pres- ent time and cannot be disposed of. The Secretary further says: Another thing that marketing agreements will not accomplish is any positive control of surplus production. At present, the only effective measure for attempting to control production is the voluntary acreage allot- ments. Reduction of potato production from its recent average of over 400,000,000 bushels down to # reasonable supply figure is the primary problem at present. Market- ing agreements can be used to control the merchantable grades and sizes which are moving into commercial channels but cannot be used to reduce the total surplus itself since under existing legislation the Gove ernment is responsible for supporting the price on all commercial grades of potatoes whether or not they are sold in commercial channels. 2357 Mr. SALTONSTALL, Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I have read in the newspapers of, let us say, 160,000 bushels of potatoes being bought by the Government and then sold back to the farmer for 1 cent a bushel. If I heard the Senator’s statement correctly, will there not be a great unfairness created between the man who now has his pota- toes on the farm from his crop of last year, which he has not sold to the Gov- ernment, and the man who has sold his to the Government and gotten his money at the support price? Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I presume the Senator could offer a number of ex- amples of cases in which there would be unfairness. As I said on the floor yes- terday, we do not pass a law without injuring someone, somewhere. The question here does not concern the 1949 crop. I am attempting to do something about the 1950 crop. Why it is, after the expenditure of all the -noney we have paid out in behalf of the potato growers of this country, that those who are primarily interested in potatoes still try to protect the potato growers in their efforts to get the very last ‘lollar they can out of the potatoes, is a little more than I can understand. As I said yesterday, the potato growers have taken from the Treasury of the United States half a billion dollars in subsidies. This is more than the pro- ducers of all the other basic and non- basi: crops put together have received. Surely it is time to call a halt, regardless of some injury here and some injury there. Mr. President, the Department of Agriculture spent $224,000,000 on the 1948 crop of Irish potatoes. The allot- ment in 1949 for commercial potatoes was 1,200,000 acres. That would ap- proximately be $187 per acre that the taxpayers of America have given to the potato growers for their surplus potatoes. In 1949 there were harvested in the United States approximately 87,000,000 acres of corn, 77,000,000 acres of wheat, 27,009,000 acres of cotton, and one and a half million acres of tobacco. If the Federal Government had lost $187 per f.cre on merely these four major crops not counting the millions of acres of oats, barley, rye, sorghum, and so forth, the farm program in that one year alone would have cost approximately $36,000,- 000,000, which is in excess of the total gross farm income in 1949 from all sources, which was only $35,000,000,000. Mr. President, I mention these figures to show what we have been doing for the potato farmer of America. Notwith- standing all the money which has been spent for the potato grower, we find Sen- ators clamoring on the floor of the Sen- ate, “Just give us another year of these subsidies. Do not do anything to us now.” Mr. President, I told my good friend, the Senator from Vermont, and also the chairman of the Committee on Agricul- ture and Forestry told the Senate that
2358 hearings would be held on the bill which I introduced, which is similar to the one the distinguished chairman of the com- mittee introduced last year dealing with potato surpluses. When the Senator from Vermont was told that hearings would be held immediately upon that bill so that rigid controls could be applied to potatoes, as they are now applied to tobacco, corn, wheat, and cotton, the Senator from Vermont said he would look with sympathy upon that kind of legislation. The potato farmers have had a great- er bonanza than any other group of farmers in America, Mr. President, Adopt the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont and the potato growers will continue doing exactly what they have been doing for the past 5 years. Mr. LUCAS subsequently said: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Recorp at the con- clusion of my remarks an article entitled “Unholy and Unjustifiable,” appearing in the February 18 issue of the Washing- ton Star. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Rzcorp, as follows: UNHOLY AND UNJUSTIFIABLE No matter how one looks at it, the potato situation obviously adds up to a nonsensical fantasy rivaling anything to be found in Alice's topsy-turvy Wonderland. But though it has its comic side, there is no real fun in it for either the taxpaying American consumer, the Federal officials involved, or intelligent agriculturalists (including their representatives in Congress) who rightly re- gard it as a scandal that threatens to under- mine the basically necessary over-all pro- gram for the support of farm prices. In effect, stated with some oversimplifica- tion, the situation is one in which the grower earns a handsome Federal reward for doing precisely what the Government has been urging him not to do. In other words, he has an advance guaranty that if he over- produces potatoes—even when he knows there is no market for an excess—he will profit. There is no risk in it tor him; he will still recetve a good price for something that there is too much of already. The guaranty, of course, is fixed by law. Under that law, he can count on getting a certain minimum for his spuds. If he cannot get tt from the consumer, then Washington will give it to htm by buying up his surplus at a high figure (it has averaged $1.85 per 100 pounds) and then selling the whole business back to him for a penny per 100, on condition that he use it for fertilizer or livestock feed. As far as the American consumer ts con- cerned, this program may well be described as one that has added insult to injury. The injury is this: That he has been forced to pay a8 potato price so artificially high, and so much out of line with the economic law of supply and demand, that food brokers in many eastern cities (including this one) are now importing tubers from Canada at a cost considerably below that of shipments from Maine. As for the insult—an insult to the intelligence—it consists of the fact that the average citizen, besides being thus penalized in the market place, must fork over taxes to support the system that imposes the penalty. To date, according to Agriculture Secretary Brannan, the Government— which means the taxpaying public—has lost about a half billion dollars trying to make the thing work, but the results just seem to get crazier and crazier. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Indeed, the results have been so bad that Senate Majority Leader Scorr Lucas has now been moved to describe the subsidies involved as being nothing less than “unholy and un- justifiable”’—at least to the extent that they are granted without adequate controls over production. Under present law, the only control in operation provides for a limitation on acreage, but the growers have circum- vented this, and doubled their output per acre, by an intensified use of fertilizers and by planting rows closers together. Accord- ingly, with the overwhelming backing of the Committee on Agriculture, Mr. Lucas is pressing for action to attach to the House- approved cotton bill a rider to deprive the 1950 crop of all price supports unless strict marketing quotas are in effect. Along with others, he is pressing also for additional checks to deal with the long-range problem of potato surpluses. Certainly, the situation cries aloud for cor- rective action. Like our agricultural prod- ucts in general, the lowly spud may have to have some form of continuing support. But the present system—which serves a8 an in- contive to overproduction—is plainly too cockeyed to be tolerated much longer. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I am not disposed to argue the merits of market- ing agreements or marketing orders with the Senator from Illinois. Nowhere do I find that the Department of Agricul- ture or the Secretary of Agriculture en- dorse the proposition of the Senator from Illinois. I do understand that the Secre- tary states that the Department expects anyway to put into effect the provisions of the amendment which I am proposing now. But what the Senator from Illinois is proposing to do now is precipitantly to do away with the supports for all po- tatoes in all States where they have not yet been harvested. That means that only those potatoes already harvested in southern Florida and perhaps in southern Texas would be eligible for any support this year. With the adoption of the Williams amendment prohibiting support for any potatoes not yet har- vested at the time of the approval of the joint resolution, we will have a situation under which we can either approve the amendment I propose, which will con- tinue support for potatoes under certain restrictions of the Department of Agri- culture, or we can accept the proposal made by the Senator from Illinois, and kill all potato support in States both North and South at this time. That is what the bill will accomplish if enacted as it now reads with the Williams amend- ment in it. There may be some argument for kill- ing all potato support at this time, even those already planted in South Caro- lina, Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana. There may be some argument for that, and we may come to doing it some time. But the situation now is that our Gov- ernment has entered into an agreement with the potato growers of this country to support the price of potatoes at a reduced rate from that of last year, on @ reduced acreage from that of last year, and with the requirement that marketing agreements and orders be ob- served—otherwise, the growers will not be entitled to any support whatsoever, So the question now is: Shall we kill potato-support prices completely, or will we adopt my amendment? FEBRUARY 24 Mr. President, on my amendment, as modified, to the committee amendment, I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, in Virginia we raise two types of potatoes; those which are planted early in the spring and harvested in the summer, and those which are planted later and harvested in the fall. I offered an amendment to the Lucas amendment be- cause I thought the Lucas amendment was unfair to those who would not have planted potatoes by the time the joint resolution became law. In my opinion, the Williams amend- ment, against which I voted, made it still more unfair, because that, as the distinguished Senator from Vermont has just pointed out, would have taken care of the potato growers of Florida and of a part of Texas, but no other potato growers. But now, Mr. President, we are faced with the situation of changing the rules in the midst of the game. Growers have either planted potatoes or they have bought the seed potatoes and the ferti- lizer, to plant them, on the assumption that they would have the same type of price support, which is not a great deal, but 60 percent of parity. Is that what it will be? Mr. AIKEN. Sixty percent of parity. Mr. ROBERTSON. Sixty percent of parity. Ioffered my amendment with the view of covering potato growers clear across the continent who were in that peculiar situation. My amendment would at least take care of them. My amendment was not adopted. I listened quite attentively when the distinguished Senator from Vermont explained his amendment, and he predicted that if its provisions were properly administered— of course, I cannot guarantee that they will be—that there would be no appre- ciable surplus of potatoes. Then the distinguished Senator from Illinois read a statement, I believe pre- pared by the Secretary of Agriculture, saying that if we should adopt the Aiken amendment we would leave everything in status quo, we would have no big sur- plus and no big loss to the taxpayers. Mr. President, earlier today, fearing that not a sufficient number of my col- leagues would see my viewpoint respect- ing my amendment, and that we might have to reach the situation by some other approach, I discussed the problem with the senior Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Hoty], a member of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I should like to propound a question to my dis- tinguished colleague from North Caro- lina, who I am happy to see is on the floor. What was the testimony before the Committee on Agriculture and For- estry of the potato expert from the De- partment of Agriculture on a proposal such as we are now about to vote upon? I should like to have the Senator from North Carolina answer that question. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the Senator from North Carolina may answer the question. Mr. HOEY. The representatives from the Department of Agriculture stated
1950 that they were now putting into effect the same thing that is recommended and included in the amendment of the Sena- tor from Vermont. They indicated that they thought they would be able to con- trol the situation so that there would not be the sort of surplus which has accrued heretofore, and the same kind of Joss pre- viously entailed. Mr. ROBERTSON. I understand that the representatives of the Department of Agriculture came before the committee and said that without any action on the part of the Congress, they were going to do what the Senator from Vermont says should be done by the amendment he proposes to place in the law, otherwise we will not have any price support at all. Is that correct? Mr, HOEY, The amendment of the Senator from Vermont makes mandatory what the agricultural commissioner says they are doing already. Mr. ROBERTSON. Then, do I under- stand that my distinguished colleague from North Carolina believes, from his Jong and wide knowledge of farm mat- ters, and from serving on the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, that the Aiken amendment will] safeguard the tax- payers as well as do justice to the farmers? Mr. HOEY. I am supporting the Aiken amendment. Isupported it in the committee. I did not think it was fair in the middle of a planting season to repudiate the contract which the Gov- ernment has made with the potato grow- er, any more than I would thing that the Government ought to repudiate any other contract it makes with any of its citizens. I believe in the integrity of the Govern- ment, in the maintenance of its con- tracts, even though it may occasion some loss of money. I believe that by proper administration by the Department of Agriculture a vast amount can be saved. I believe that the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois would tend to a great deal of confusion. I do not be- lieve that another bill could be passed quickly enough to remedy that situation. I am extremely anxious that the Gov- ernment shall save money on the potato program. I believe that as a result of the discussions which have been held on the floor of the Senate, which indicate the sentiments of the Senate, the De- partment of Agriculture will go forward with this program in an earnest effort to reduce the losses. Furthermore, I be- lieve that disposition can be made of the potatoes in such a manner as not to. cause resentment on the part of the pub- lic, which has been aroused by reason of failure to use the surplus potatoes for proper purposes, Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr, President, the yeas and nays have been ordered on the Aiken amendment. I do not feel that I should add anything to the statement made by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN] for himself and the Sena- tor from North Dakota [Mr, Lancer], as CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE modified, to the committee amendment, The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. MAGNUSON (when his name was called). On this vote, I have a pair with the junior Senator from North Carolina (Mr. GRAHAM]. If he were present and voting, he would vote “yea.” If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote ‘‘nay.” I withhold my vote. The roll call was concluded. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico |Mr. ANDER- son], the Senator from Illinois {Mr, Dovuctas], the Senator from North Caro- lina [Mr. GraHAM], the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Neety], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr,. O'MaHONEyY], and the Senator from Florida |Mr. Pepper] are absent on public business. The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Byrp] is absent because of illness in his family. The Senator from California [Mr. Downey], the Senator from Nevada [Mr, McCarran], the Senator from Utah [Mr. THomasl, and the Senator from Ken- tucky [Mr. WirTHeERS] are absent on of- ficial business. The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. AnpveErson! is paired on this vote with the Senator from New York [Mr. Ives]. If present and voting, the Senator from New Mexico would vote “nay,” and the Senator from New York would vote “yea.” The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douc- Las] is paired on this vote with the Sena- tor from Ohio [Mr. Bricker|. If present and voting, the Senator from Illinois would vote “nay,’’ and the Senator from Ohio would vote “yea.” The Senator from West Virginia Mr. Ner.y] is paired on this vote with the Senator from North Dakota | Mr. Youna]. If present and voting, the Senator from West Virginia would vote “nay,” and the Senator from North Dakota would vote “yea.” If present and voting, the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O’Mauoney], and the Senator from Utah [Mr. THomas] would vote “nay.” Mr.SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [{Mr. BripcEs] is absent by Jeave of the Senate. The Senator from North Dakota | Mr. YounG!] is absent by leave of the Senate and is paired with the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Nre.y]. If present and voting, the Senator from North Da- kota would vote “yea” and the Senator from West Virginia would vote “nay.” The Senator from Michigan [Mr. VANDENBERG] is necessarily absent. The Senator from New York [Mr. Ives] is absent on official business and is paired with the Senator from New Mexico |Mr. ANDERSON). If present and voting, the Senator from New York would vote “yea” and the Senator from New Mexico would vote ‘‘nay.” The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Bricker] is detained on official business and is paired with the Senator from Wlinois [Mr. Dovetas]. If present and voting, the Senator from Ohio would vote “yea” and the Senator from Illinois would vote “Nay.” 2359 The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. McCartry" is detained on official busi- ness. The result was announced—yeas 43, nays 35, as follows: YEAS—43 Aiken Hendrickson Mundt Brewster Hickenlooper Murray Butler Hill Robertson Cain Hoey Schoeppel Capehart Holland Smith, Maine Chapman Hunt Smith, N. J. Cordon Johnson, Colo. Sparkman Darby Knowland Stennis Dworshak Langer Taylor Fastland Lehman Thye Ecton McClellan Watkins Ferguson Malone Wherry Flanders Martin Wiley Fulbright Millikin Gurney Morse NAYS—35 Benton Johnson, Tex McMahon Chavez Johnston, 8.C. Maybank Connally Kefauver Myers Donnell Kem O'Conor Ellender Kerr Russell Frear Kilgore Saltonstall George Leahy Taft Gillette Lodge Thomas, Okla. Green Long Tobey Hayden Lucas Tydings Humphrey McFarland Williams Jenner McKellar NOT VOTING—18 Anderson Graham O'Mahoney Bricker Ives Pepper Bridges McCarran Thomas, Utah Byrd McCarthy Vandenberg Douglas Magnuson Withers Downey Neely Young So Mr. ArkeNn’s amendment, as modl- fled, to the committee amendment was agreed to. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the Aiken amendment, as modified, to the committee amendment was just agreed to. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I move to lay on the table the motion to re- consider. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agrecing to the motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The com- mittee amendment is open to further amendment. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, to the committee amendment, I offer the amendment lettcred “D”, which I send to the desk and ask to have stated. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment to the committee amendment will be stated. The LecISLATIVE CLERK, At the end of the committee amendment, it 1s proposed to add the following new section: That whenever the supply of Irish pota- toes 1» the United States is, or is practically certain to be, in excess of the goal of produc- tion or national production allotment set by the Secretary of Agriculture, pursuant to section 401, Public Law 439, Eighty-first Con- gress, the President shall proclaim that fact, and thereafter, until such time as the Presi- dent may determine and proclaim that such & surplus no longer exists, no Irish potatoes or products thereof shall be imported into the United States. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I have had two amendments printed and have requested that they lie on the,table.
2360 This one is lettered “D.” It leaves out the quotas or the marketing agree- ments. I shall explain that point later. The amendment is very simple and to the point. It would prohibit the im- portation of potatoes when we have or when it appears certain that we shall have a surplus of our own. The logic behind it is that when we have a surplus, we shall concentrate on the disposal of i, and not absorb or dispose of the surpluses of other countries. The amendment is not the answer to the entire problem of potato surpluses in the United States, of course; but it would remove one very aggravating feature, namely, that of greatly increased sur- pluses because of the importation of large quantities of the very commodity of which we have too much. At least we can ease the situation to that extent. Section 22 (f) of the Agricultural Ad- justment Act, which I think incorporates a vicious principle which should never have been enacted into law, and should be repealed, provides—and I quote now from page 8, subsection (f), under sec- tion 22: No proclamation under this section shall be enforced in contravention of any treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is or hereafter becomes a party. Mr. President, my amendment, how- ever, in no way runs contrary to that section, which is still the law of the land. The amendment I offer to the committee amendment is not in contravention of any foreign-trade agreement; it does not contravene any of the reciprocal-trade agreements. As a matter of fact, the general agreement made at Geneva, to which Canada, the United States, and some 25 other nations adhere, specifi- cally provides for the very action I am now asking to have taken when surpluses of an agricultural product or a fisheries product occur. The countries foresaw the possible need for the very thing the amendment seeks to accomplish. Mr. President, the amendment {s ur- gently needed. Certainly it is an unwise policy for us to permit imports of com- modities of which we already have sur- pluses. That cannot be brought home I think any better than by quoting a colloquy between the junior Senator from Nebraska and the junior Senator from New Mexico, on February 16, at the time the distinguished majority leader intro- duced the so-called quota amendment to the joint resolution which is now pending. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Nebraska yield to the Sen- ator from West Virginia? Mr. WHERRY. I am glad to yield. Mr. KILGORE. Would it not be wise for the Senator to add to the statement about importing a product into this country of which there is a surplus, the words “a surplus, the price of which the Government has guaranteed’? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, it would suit me very well, but, to draw an amendment which does not run counter to the law to which I have referred re- quires that it be drawn as I have drawn it, and I shall explain it later. I was CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE one who voted with the distinguished Senator from Washington to eliminate section 22, Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Nebraska yield to the Sen- ator from Washington? Mr. WHERRY. I am glad to yield. Mr. MAGNUSON. The _ Senator's amendment is, of course, similar to the over-all amendment I proposed last year to the agricultural bill, except that it applies directly to potatoes. Mr. WHERRY. No, Mr. President, the Senator is misled. ‘The amendment is not similar to the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington. Mr. MAGNUSON. I merely wanted to make the observation. If it is not simi- lar, it is all right. Mr. WHERRY. I agree, however, with the amendment the Senator offered, but the Senator’s amendment ran im- mediately into guaranties made and agreements entered into under the Gen- eral Agreement of Tariffs and Trade. I may point out to the Senate that there is a provision also which permits the amendment I am here offering to be made without interfering in any way whatever with the agreement. It is different from the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington; with which I am in complete agreement, by the way. I would support it again, if the Senator were to reoffer it on the floor. But I am satisfled the amend- ment represents the practical way of reaching the objective, as I shall show when I get to that point in my argument. It does not interfere with trade agree- ments. Mr. MAGNUSON. I merely wanted to make the observation that I have in- tended to reoffer the proposal. I had thought possibly I might offer it as an amendment to the pending joint resolu- tion, since it involves the same problem, but, upon considering the question fur- ther, it seemed to me it would be much more in point to offer it in the manner suggested by the Senator from West Vir- ginia, in connection with the Commodity Credit Corporation legislation. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Washington can offer it at that time, and, of course, the same arguments will then be made against it that no doubt were made be- fore. But I want to make clear at this point that my amendment relates only to potatoes. While it is only a small part of the over-all objective of the Sen- ator from Washington, yet it can be adopted without running head-on into the very trouble the Senator encoun- tered when he offered his amendment last year, which I supported. I should like to refer to the colloquy between the junior Senator from Ne- braska and the junior Senator from New Mexico, for the reason that the junior Senator from New Mexico has been the Secretary of Agriculture and has, there- fore, had wide experience in the ques- tion of meeting the problems of surplus, At the time the distinguished majority leader was making his able address in favor of his own amendment, I asked FEBRUARY 24 the majority leader a question, which was, in part, as follows: I am also interested in another phase of the question which the distinguished ma- jority leader did not mention in his re- marks. I am asking for information. Re- cently I read in a newspaper the statement that in the city of New Orleans a million pounds of potatoes which were imported from Canada were being sold in that mar- ket, and of course they received the benefit of the support price. At the same time the Government is selling potatoes for 1 cent a hundred pounds in order to get rid of the surplus, I should like to ask this question: Has there been any extension of the agreement which was once made between our State Department and Canada and other nations which import po- tatoes relative to the quotas which the dis. tinguished majority leader has mentioned? It is my understanding that there have been imported into the domestic market from other countries millions of pounds of pota- toes which have had the benefit of the sup- port price, and, if I am correctly informed, the Canadian farmers last year increased their acreage 10 percent while our farmers decreased thelr acreage 10 percent. Does the Senator have anything in mind along that line relative to restrictive legislation? The honorable majority leader re- plied: That question was not discussed in the committee. It is of !mportance, of course. It 1s my understanding that the potatoes which have gone into the market at New Orleans were shipped by water from Can- ada. Mr. WHERRY. I understand that. At the same time they were sold in direct compe- tition with the American producer who was operating under the support price. Mr. Lucas. That is correct, no doubt, but it has nothing to do with the problem which is before us. The problem that we are con- cerned with here would exist whether there were potato imports or not. At that point the junior Senator from New Mexico {Mr. ANDERSON] rose in the Senate Chamber, addressed the Chair, and requested the majority leader to yield. The majority leader yielded, and the junior Senator from New Mexico said: I discussed this matter briefly with the distinguished minority leader a minute ago when he asked me the same question. I could not give him a very satisfactory an- swer, That particular matter came up at a hearing and was brought to the attention of the committee by the Senator from Maine [Mr. BrewsTerR|]. There was an agreement between Canada and the United States lim- iting the quantity of potatoes which could be delivered to this country. I regret to say that I do not recall when the agreement terminated, but it was some time during the year 1949. The Senator from Maine asked who had allowed it to lapse, and, so far as I know, the question was not answered, and I do not know who allowed it to lapse. I do think it is an im- portant question and ultimately should be answered. Mr. WHeErry. Mr. President, I should like to ask the distinguished Senator from New Mexico ea question. Does he know whether the Secretary of Agriculture, or possibly the Secretary of State, has the authority or used the authority to terminate the agree- ments about which he is talking? Mr, ANDERSON. I regret to say that I do not know. What I do know 1s that the Cana- dian Government has certain rights to ex- port to the United States at a certain lower rate of duty potatoes which would ordinar- jly carry a higher rate of duty. Theoret-
1950 ically they could export a good many pota- toes to this country, but the Department of State, working with the Department of Agriculture, negotiated an agreement with Canada whereby Canada would not export, in etthcr 1948 and 1949, more than a cer- tain number of potatoes. I understand that agreement has been terminated. I do not know whether it was terminated by its own Hmitations, or whether it was terminated at the request of the Canadian Government, or was terminated at the request of our Government, I merely say to the distin- guished minority leader that that was a question the Senator from Maine [Mr. BrEwsTER] raised, and which was not an- swered, I think it is an important question to be answered, but I do not have the in- formation, and I do not think any member of the Committee on Agriculture was fur- nished the information. Mr, Wuerry. I thank the Senator for the answer he has given me, I hope the distin- guished chairman of the Committee on Agri- culture and Forestry may propound that question, in discussing and considering pro- posed legislation. I should like to ask another question of the Senator from New Mexico. Realizing that the distinguished Senator has been Secretary of Agriculture, and has had wide experience, does he feel that the importation of potatoes from other countries has had an impact upon the domestic market, or does he feel that such importation is a minor question at this time? There has been much talk around the Senate, Mr. President, to the effect that the slight imports coming in make no difference. About the first thing that is asked Mr. Hoffman, when he comes be- fore the Appropriations Committee to testify, is a question about surpluses. The answer is, ‘““Well, they are so small in comparison to our production that they make no difference, anyway.” There were editorials in the newspapers say- ing, “We had a production this year of about 400,000,000 bushels, so what does 10,000,000 or 15,000,000 bushels amount to, as far as a surplus is concerned?” When it is analyzed, it makes a great deal of difference. It was for that reason that I asked the question of the former Secretary of Agriculture, I now want to read his answer relative to what he calls “these small surpluses that affect the market.” So far as potatoes are con- cerned, potatoes are only one item. We have thousands and thousands of other commodities and materials being im- ported, with like effect and with similar impact upon the economy of the United States of America. Potatoes represent but one commodity; scores of other com- modities raise the same question. I read now the answer of the distinguished junior Senator from New Mexico: I think it has a very great impact on the American market. I am not an economist, as the Senator knows, but distinguished economists who have been consulted by the Department of Agriculture have worked out estimates as to what happens when there is a surplus, If there 1s a surplus of 5 per- cent— Mind you, Mr. President, “‘a surplus of 5 percent.” In 1949 the goal of produc~ tion was 350,000,000 bushels of potatoes. That is the amount the Department of Agriculture really thought would be con- sumed in the domestic market. The do- mestic market did not consume quite that many potatoes, I am now told, but some- thing like 350,000,000 was what was esti- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE mated to be consumed. It is also stated by the Department of Agriculture that the amount of potatoes produced in this country last year was 402,000,000 bushels. So that leaves a difference of 52,000,000 bushels of surplus potatoes thrown on the markets of the United States. I shall give statistics later to show that the amount of potatoes shipped to this country last year was in the neighborhood of 9,000,000 bushels, and this year, at the rate at which they are being imported, the amount may reach 15,000,000 bushels. So, if we take the importation of 15,000,000 bushels and the surplus of 50,000,000 or even 60,000,- 000 bushels, there are being imported to this country an amount which is practi- cally one-fourth of the surplus which is causing us difficulty at this time. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. I yield. Mr. BREWSTER. Does the Senator recall that while we were reducing our production by 10 percent, at the request of the Agricultural Department, and the citizens of Maine were reducing their production by 10 percent, the Province of New Brunswick, Canada, increased its production by 10 percent? Mr. WHERRY. I am aware of that fact, but I thank the Senator for his ob- servation. The point I wish to stress js this: But distinguished economists who have been consulted by the Department of Agri- culture have worked out estimates as to what happens when there 1s a surplus. If there is a surplus of 5 percent, it does not result in the price dropping 5 percent; ordt- narily 1t may drop 10 percent, or if there ts 8 surplus of 10 or 20 percent, it might result in a drop of 60 percent. Five percent would be 3,000,000 bush- els; 10 percent would be 6,000,000 bushels. That is an illustration of the effect that is created upon the domestic market of the United States by these importations. So, when Washington newspapers say, “What is the difference?’, they have apparently not given to the subject the analysis which is being given by the economists of the Nation, that it is the percentage of potatoes coming into this country against the surplus we have which results in such a great impact upon our domestic economy. Mr, President, I continue with the an- swer of the Senator from New Mexico (My. ANDERSON] : Every time there are a few more bushels, it disturbs a market which is already in trouble. When there was demand for the product in this country slight importattons were insignificant, but when, as this year, there is a surplus of potatoes, any aggrava- tion of it is many times more effective than in ordinary periods. Mr. President, I am taking some time to bring the point to the attention of the Senate because what is true of potatoes is true as to scores of other commodities, the impact of which is causing difficulty in the American market. They may not be so dramatic as potatoes, because they have not received so much publicity. I mentioned Mr. Hoffman, who con- tends that these slight importations have no effect. In a statement in the press attributed to Paul G. Hoffman, Economic 2361 Cooperation Administrator, he said that the administration’s drive to increase imports from Europe to balance inter- national trade would create unemploy- ment in a few localities, necessitating special unemployment programs, He anticipated special unemployment programs because of the dislocations which he says will actually happen. I read from the newspaper article: But he insisted, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that the extent of unemployment resulting from competition from imports was greatly exag- gerated, Compared to total American pro- duction, he said, these imports would be & mere drop in the bucket, with negligible effect on the whole economy. That is the point I want to illustrate. There are produced 400,000,000 bushels of potatoes and about 15,000,000 bushels will be imported this year, but that does not reveal the full story of the impact caused by the importation. It is respon- sible for a quarter, if not for a third of the surplus. Mr. Hoffman goes on and says that what we should do is to lengthen the period of unemployment insurance, in- stitute job-training programs to teach workers other skills, and management- training programs aimed at getting busi- nesses blocked by foreign competition to turn to new products, so as to permit the importation of products into this country. That is his answer to the questions asked about the dislocations caused by importations of similar commodities. Mr. President, I think it is an unwise policy to continue to permit imports into this country of commodities of which there is a domestic surplus. The United States owns enough lin- seed oil so that we would not need to produce any for more thana year. That is the situation, also, with reference to eggs. All Senators have heard about that situation. They are scattered all over the United States. The situation is known in every section of the country. A number of other agricultural prod- ucts are in surplus. How could it be otherwise at this particular time, when the huge output under pressure to feed the whole world has caught up to and exceeded the demand? It will take a little time to adjust our domestic output, as the rest of the world is rapidly catch- ing up with and exceeding the prewar production. Ishould like to say, Mr. President, that 2 years ago when the junior Senator from Nebraska pleaded against controls and asked the Senate to take them off, and not to impose price ceilings, he was criticized severely from one end of the land to the other. I said at that time, “If you remove the controls and give the producers an opportunity to produce, they will produce all the food that is necessary, and the prices will be so low that you will be asked for relief from sur- pluses rather than from price ceilings.” That was true of meat. Steers in the feed-lots are selling for half the price at which they sold 2 years ago. The same is true of hogs. They have to be mighty fine hogs to bring $15 a hundred pounds. As to eggs, the bottom has fallen out of the market. A good fat hen will not
2362 bring enough to pay the freight to ship her to market. The restrictions under this resolution are the most strict that have ever been tmposed. A potato farmer might go to the other extreme and, within 6 months or a year, say, “Why in the world did you hold down production? Why not let it operate in normal channels?” If the Aiken bill had been in effect, as the Sen- ator has already stated, two-thirds of the difficulty would have been elimi- nated. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. I yield. Mr. LANGER. It ts very likely that there would not have been any surplus if the Secretary had appointed an advisory committee. Mr. WHERRY. That is correct. We are dealing with the economy of the country. I do not want to make any ex- aggerated statement. The potato situ- ation is bad, and I am offering an amendment which I think will help to correct the situation. The importations of potatoes should be stopped, because they are adding to the surplus we al- ready have. What is true of potatoes is true of many commodities which are coming into this country. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Maine. Mr. BREWSTER. I think the Senator will be interested to know that two ship- loads of potatoes from Canada are now on the way to Florida. The cargo amounts to 50,000 bushels. On their ad- mission the Government will simply have to buy 50,000 bushels of Florida or other potatoes to make up for the quan- tity in that shipment. Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Senator from Maine for his observation. It is very much in point. On the same mar- ket there will be potatoes sold at 1 cent a hundred pounds, the price of which we are supporting for no good reason. The people of the United States, how- ever, stirred up by the Government order to destroy millions of bushels of potatoes, and by the constant importation of huge quantities which force the destruction of even more of our own, are demanding that something be done. Potatoes are perishable. Storage for any length of time is impossible. They are grown in every State of the Union, mostly, in fact, almost entirely, by small, individually owned farm units. It fis not sound economics nor is it fair to all these millions of farm families to saddle them with the burden of foreign surpluses on top of our own. I repeat, these very surpluses are largely a result of expanded planting and improvement of yields when much of the world was starving and needed all the food the United States could produce. Now we are retrenching at home. Can there be any objection from any source against some kind of similar retrench- ment concerning imports, especially where there are no acreage Hmitations or where, in many instances, the acreage Nmitations have increased by leaps and bounds? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE I want to invite the attention of the Senate to some statistics. Our production goal for potatoes in 1945 was 408,000,000 bushels. We actu- ally produced 418,000,000 bushels. In 1946 our goal was 377,000,000 bush- els. We actually produced 484,000,000 bushels. In 1947 our goal was 375,000,000 bush- els, We actually produced 389,048,000 bushels. In 1948 the goal was 375,000,000 bush- els. We actually produced 445,850,000 buskels. In 1949 the goal was 350,000,000 bush- els. We actually produced 401,962,000 bushels. In 1950 the goal will be 335,000,000 bushels. With the Aiken amendment and with the pending amendment, it is my opinion that there will be no surplus. In fact, if we have adverse weather con- ditions we may wonder why we placed these strict quotas on the farmers who are producing potatoes. Let us see what the imports were. In 1938, they were 764,000 bushels, with a value of $581,000. In 1939, 1,564,000 bushels, with a value of $1,527,000. In 1940, 1,324,000 bushels, with a value of $1,272,000. In 1941, 1,267,000 bushels, with a value of $670,000. As I did with the other figures, I now skip the war years and go to 1946. In 1946, the importations were 2,260,000 bushels, with a value of $3,279,000. In 1947, 5,258,000 bushels, with a value of $7,454,000. In 1948, 6,176,000 bushels, with a value of $9,130,000. In 1949, 9,574,000 bushels, with a value of $12,- 920,000. If the estimates which the Department of Agriculture gave me hold good for the remainder of the year, the maximum amount of importations—they tell me, but they are not sure about it—according to their conservative estimates, will be 15,000,000 bushels, with a value of $19,- 000,000. That shows how potato impor- tations are growing. Yet with the grow- ing importations, we are placing restric- tions on our own potato growers. Use of potatoes in the United States varies, but it is estimated we are going to use in the United States around 335,- 000,000 bushels, so that the difference be- tween the production goal and the actual production is what gives the surplus, and that is what we must watch out for. So that taking the goal next year and the production this year, there is a sur- plus of about 65,000,000 to 70,000,000 bushels of potatoes. And if we import 15,000,000 bushels into this country this year, that does have a decisive effect upon price of potatoes in the open market. CLASSES OF IMPORTS; CERTIFIED SEED AND OTHER There are two classes of imports— certified seed and other. The latter is generally designated as table stock, although it may include small quantities used 1n the making of starch, flour, or similar products. In the act of 1930, all potatoes were dutiable at 75 cents a hundred pounds. The pres- ent rate of duty is a little complicated. Imports of seed: The first 2,500,000 bushels imported 1n any crop year, be- ginning on September 15 of each year, FEBRUARY 24 are dutiable at 3742 cents a hundred. Imports above the 2,500,000 bushels are dutiable at 75 cents a hundred. Imports of other potatoes: The first million bushels imported in any crop year are dutiable at 3744 cents a hun- dred; imports above that amount are dutiable at 75 cents a hundred; provided, that if production in the United States, as estimated on September 1 of each year by the Department of Agriculture, falls below 350,000,000 bushels as many more table potatoes may enter at the 37%- cent rate as the production estimate ts under the 350,000,000 bushels. In other words, every time our produc- tion drops 1,000,000 bushels below 350,- 000,000 bushels, the importing countries can add a million bushels at the duty of 3732 cents a hundred pounds. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will not the Senator cal] attention to the fact that our goal for this year is 350,000,000 bushels? Mr. WHERRY. Yes. Mr. BREWSTER. So that If we were successful, and if everybody cooperated, and we were to produce only 335,000,000 bushels, Canada would be able to send to the United States 15,000,000 additional bushels at a duty of 3732 cents a hundred pounds. Mr. WHERRY. That is the point which I was about to make. I thank the Senator for making the observation. Ac- cording to the schedule I have, if we reach the goal of 335,000,000 bushels, under the general trade agreements— and there are 23 of them—foreign coun- tries can ship into our country 15,000,000 bushels additional at a duty of 3714 cents a hundred pounds. Mr. WATKINS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. I yield. Mr. WATKINS. The Senator has partly answered my question. His state- ment is based on our having reciprocal trade agreements with Canada and other potato-producing countries. Am I correct? Mr. WHERRY. That is correct. The general agreement is implemented by the schedule I have, which arrives at the figure of 350,000,000 bushels. That is covered in the Reciprocal Trade Agree- ments Act. Mr. WATKINS. If we produce under that figure, the foreign countries may increase their imports. Mr. WHERRY. That is correct. There is no limit to the quantity of po- tatoes that may enter the United States at the 75-cent rate of duty. It is unlim- ited, at 75 cents duty. SEPARATE AGREEMENT WITH CANADA TO LIMIT SHIPMENTS OF POTATOES TO THE UNITED STATES The substantial surplus of potatoes re- sulting from a bumper crop in 1948 caused considerable pressure on the ad- ministration to limit imports. The President, with the Secretary of Agriculture, had authority to apply a quota or otherwise clamp down on the importation of foreign-grown potatoes, but he chose the alternative of making a separate arrangement with Canada. That is the agreement referred to by the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. AN-
1950 DERSON], It has nothing to do with the reciprocal trade agreements, however. An exchange of notes resulted in the mutual signing of a document in which Canada agreed to try to limit the ship- ments of potatoes to the United States to those marked “Certified seed” until the end of the current crop year. I cite Public Document No. 3474, Joint Agricul- ture and State Department Release No, 954, November 26, 1948. In return for a bona fide effort on the part of Canada to send only seed, and to send it to the usual seed markets, and only during the usual shipping season, the United States promised not to assess quotas or other limitations on imports during the 1948-49 season. That agree~ ment was not renewed. Ispeak with au- thority when I say that there has been an attempt to renew it, but, of course, Can- ada does not want to renew that agree- ment when under the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act they get the benefits from importations which they are now enjoying. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. I yield to the Senator from Maine. Mr. BREWSTER. That agreement, I think it is fair to assume, is clearly the result of the power in the hands of the President to set quotas or to stop impor- tations. Does the Senator know why, in view of the surplus this year, with which the authorities have been familiar for the past 6 months, no steps have been taken by the President or the Secretary of Agriculture, so far as we know, to institute restrictions on Canadian importations? Mr. WHERRY. That is the $64 ques- tion. There is no reason given for it. I am told that strenuous efforts are be- ing made to renew the agreement, rather than use the power of the President to do the very thing the Senator has sug- gested. Why it has not been done, I cannot tell. Mr. BREWSTER. The Secretary of Agriculture was asked about that, and he said before the Committee on Agricul- ture and Forestry that he had no in- formation as to any attempts to renew the agreement this year, and he did not know whether it had lapsed or had been denounced, Is it possible there was any- one interested in increasing the appar- ent surplus of American potatoes in or- der to dump them at a critical moment and persuade the American people that a change was desirable? Mr. WHERRY. My answer is that someone must have been interested in doing it, because at this moment the surpluses are much larger than they were when the agreement was made a year ago, so if it is necessary, and the President had the power then, he cer- tainly has the power now, and the Sec- retary of Agriculture has been negligent in failing to exercise his power to stop importations of potatoes, which have had such a disastrous effect on the potato market, and which are causing us to make undue payments at the expense of the taxpayers which otherwise would not be made, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. BREWSTER. Would it not be well for those who are so interested in the matter to urge the President and the Secretary of Agriculture to take the steps which would in the next 3 months save the American Treasury $20,000,000, beyond peradventure? Mr, WHERRY. I certainly think so. That is the conclusion I was about to announce. I think that if the amend- ment shall be agreed to, it will become mandatory that the administration do something about importations of pota- toes. Mr. President, I should be glad indeed to answer any questions, If there are no questions, I should like to have action on the amendment as quickly as possible. Mr, ROBERTSON. Mr, President, I do not wish to detain the Senate very long, because I am as anxious to see action completed on the bill as is any other Senator. I was going to say that I frankly admit that I did not know until today the volume of the importa- tions of potatoes from Canads. This afternoon I have ascertained that the average over a period of years has been about 1,000,000 bushels, and that for 1948 it had reached 9,500,000 bushels. I believe the Senator from Nebraska said that when it did that, stimulated by our support program, giving a market that was artificially supported, and so very profitable that potatoes could be brought into the United States over the tariff barriers, the President acted un- der section 22 of the Agricultural Act of 1948 to reach a gentleman's agreement or some kind of agreement limiting the amount that could come in. I think that the amount heretofore estimated to come in in 1950 is probably excessive, because I have been informed this after- naon, and, I believe, officially so, that the outside estimate is now 13,000,000 bushels. But in any event I want to say that this unconsumable surplus on our hands is too much. I for one will certainly bring to the attention of the White House my re- marks made on the floor ioday respect- ing the power which the President has under the Agricultural Act of 1948, to reach some agreement not to permit Canada to take advantage of our agri- cultural program, which has not been well handled, we will admit, but which was designed in good faith to help our farmers and our potato growers, and which has thereby created a market which was never intended when our reciprocal trade agreement with Canada was negotiated and the tariff was fixed under it respecting competitive Cana- dian potatoes, Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield briefly be- cause I do not want to hold the floor Jong. Mr. THYE. I should like to ask the able Senator from Virginia a question, The President does have, under the Re- ciprocal Trade Agreements Act, the pow- er to regulate or fix the number of bush- els of potatoes, or the volume of pota- toes, which may come into the United States. He does have that power now, does he not? 2363 Mr. ROBERTSON. There js an es- cape clause in all the reciprocal trade agreements. Mr, THYE. That clause can be put into effect when what we call the perll point is reached? : Mr. ROBERTSON. That is correct. Moreover, the President can act under section 22 of the Agricultural Act of 1948, which provides: Whenever the President has reason to be- Neve that any article or articles are being or are practically certain to be imported into the United States under such condi- tions and in such quantities as to render or tend to render ineffective, or materially interfere with, any program of price sup- ports or production controls, he shall cause on immediate investigation to be made by the United States Tariff Commission, with due notice to interested parties, with an opportunity for hearing. Mr. THYE. Mr, President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield. Mr. THYE. Then I should say to the able Senator from Virginia that there is now legislation on the statute books, there is now authority reposed in the Secretary of Agriculture to declare that potatoes are surplus, and when he so de- clares, the President, or the State De- partment, can regulate the importation of any commodity or any product or produce. For that reason, while the leg- islation proposed by the able Senator from Nebraska would specifically deal with the question, yet the President has the authority and the power under the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act to close out or shut off any importation of potatoes when there is danger of a surplus. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. i should like to ask the Senator whether the amendment would not in effect make mandatory a statutory declaration of a peril point? Mr. ROBERTSON. Oh, the amend- ment would do more than apply a peril point. It would cut off all importation of potatoes. It would smack our best friend in the face. Senators speak of $9,000,000 worth of potatoes coming in from Canada. For every dollar of po- tato importations from Canada, Canada buys three or four dollars’ worth of fresh fruits and vegetables from us. By smacking our best friend in the face in the manner proposed by the amendment we would cut off the market in Canada for Florida oranges and grapefruit, for Texas oranges and grapefruit, for Cali- fornia fresh fruits and dried fruits. Over and above that, Canada is the best customer we have in the world, Sena- tors talk about $9,000,000 worth of pota- toes. Canada buys $500,000,000 worth of goods from us, and she pays for them, It is not a give-away proposition under the I4arshall plan. Mr. FERGUSON. Would not the adoption of the amendment mean the application of the statutory peril-point provision? Mr. ROBERTSON. I will say that it is worse than the peril point, because in
2364 that event at least the Tariff Commis- sion could make investigation and rec- ommendation, on which the President could act. The amendment would shut off all importations of potatoes from Canada immediately. I think that would be a most ill-advised thing to do. We would be acting as though Russia did not have the atomic bomb. We would be smacking our best customer in the face over some potatoes, when we have a law under which we can handle the situation. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. The amendment only provides that the authority which the President now has shall be made manda- tory. That is all it provides. It would apply only at a time when there is a sur- plus, and the surplus will be determined on the basis of the allocations and the national allotments made by the Secre- tary of Agriculture. The occasion may never arise to put this provision into force, but if the occasion should arise, it then would become mandatory upon the Secretary of Agriculture to do exact- ly what the law now provides he shall do. It does not change the law. Mr. ROBERTSON. The Senator from Nebraska has presented two amendments which are printed. I do not know which of the two he is now offering. The amendment I have in my hand says “if @ surplus exists.” Everyone knows a surplus does exist. The other says “if a quota is imposed.” Perhaps the Senator is going to offer that amendment also. I say, Mr. President, that in my honest opinion, if the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Nebraska is adopted, it will immediately shut off all importation of potatoes from Canada. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. It will doso only when there is a surplus. That language is taken out of the agricultural act. The Senator goes as far afield as can be when he says that adoption of my amendment would shut off all business from Canada. The amendment provides only that when allocations are set and national allot- ments provided, if there are surplus po- tatoes the provisions of the amendment become effective. It applies not only to Canada, but to 23 other countries. They shall not continue to ship potatoes into the United States so long as the condition of surplus exists. Mr. ROBERTSON. Is the Senator from Nebraska trying to get the Senator from Virginia to say that he never reads the newspapers, that he has never heard of any surplus of potatoes in the United States, that he has not heard that the Secretary of Agriculture has asked Con- gress, “What shall I do with 50,000,000 bushels of surplus potatoes? If you do not tell me what to do with them, I will sell them for 1 cent a bag, or destroy them.” I know there is a_ surplus. Everyone in the country knows there is a surplus, and the Senator from Ne- braska knows that everyone in the coun- try knows there is a surplus. Does the Senator think Canada does not know what the effect of his amendment would CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE be? Does he believe that Canada does not know that adoption of the amend- ment would stop the importation of all potatoes into the United States from Canada? Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. I should like to say to the Senator from Virginia that if the amendment is adopted, and if an order is issued prohibiting the importation of more potatoes from Canada, that will immediately be followed by Canada plac- ing a restriction against imports of some of our own agricultural products, and the net result will be to injure the American farmer and not help him a single bit. Mr. ROBERTSON. There can be no doubt about that. But the situation is that the Canadian Government is not shipping potatoes into the United States. The potatoes are shipped here by the Canadian farmer, who finds a good mar- ket here and takes advantage of it. No one can blame the Canadian farmer for doing that. But if the amendment is adopted by congressional action, the Canadian Government immediately comes into the picture. By adopting the amendment we will have struck at the Government of Canada. Adoption of the amendment would mean that we have, in my opinion, violated our treaties with that Government. The shutting off of imports of potatoes from Canada by the proposed action would, in my opinion, mean the violation of a trade agreement with Canada under which we agreed to take potatoes of a certain type, but we did not place the quota. Since then we have adopted an escape clause. We now have section 22 of the act of 1948. I for one shall certainly communicate with the White House, because when we are paying our taxpayers’ money to sup- port the potato price, I dn not condone any action which will permit Canada to step up her normal export of potatoes to us from 1,000,000 bushels to 13,000,000 bushels. Everyone knows that the im- portation of potatoes from Canada has been stepped up, because the support price has made ours an attractive mar- ket. But let us not ask the Congress to go on record as now proposed, by the adop- tion of the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska, and thus smack in the face the best friend we have in the world. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield. Mr. WHERRY, I resent those words, and I have the right to speak, because I submitted the amendment. I am not smacking anyone in the face. Iam ask- ing that there be done exactly what the President of the United States did last year. Last year he did exactly what we are now proposing to ask him to do this year. But he has refused to act. So far as that is concerned, our business with Canada has been fine, and will continue to be fine, whether my amendment is adopted ornot. All we ask the President of the United States to do is exactly what is provided in the legislation now on the books. He took action a year ago. The President refuses to take such action now, as was so ably pointed out by the FEBRUARY 24 junior Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], who would like to know why such action is not being taken now. The idea is that we are asking that something be done in a mandatory way which is similar to that which was done a year ago. If the Senator from Virginia had been on the floor when I offered the amendment he would have known which amendment I offered. I think I gave the Senate a very fair presentation of it. I said that not only is Canada shipping potatoes into the United States, but is shipping potatoes into our territories. Allin the world the amendment does is to provide that there shall be no further importation so long as there is a surplus of this commodity in the United States. That surplus is de- fined by the allocation and the national allotments fixed by the Secretary of Agri- culture himself . Mr. ROBERTSON. I want to say to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska that he did not see me on the floor for the same reason that I could not hear him. I was sitting behind him, and I do not hear so well when I am behind the speaker as I do when I am in front of him. Neither does the Senator see so well those who are behind him. I will read one of the amendments offered by the Senator from Nebraska, which I assume to be the one on which he now asks action: That whenever the supply of Irish potatoes in the United States is, or is practically cer- tain to be, in excess of the goal of production or national production allotment set by the Secretary of Agriculture— That js one situation. Mr. WHERRY. Pursuant to section 401 of the present law. That is the amendment I am offering. Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes. Pursuant to section 401, Public Law 439, Eighty-frst Congress, the President shall pro- claim that fact. Everyone knows that at this time we have an excess of potatoes. Everyone knows that while the amendment would ask the President to proclaim it, he has now no option but to proclaim it. Every- one knows it will be congressional action, through the President, immediately cut- ting off any imports of potatoes from Canada. We may call it hostile action or {ll-advised action, or we may call it, as the Canadians would call it, I believe, a slap in the face. I do not think Can- ada would regard it in any other way. The Canadians might not say officially or over the radio or in talking to the President, “You have slapped us in the face,” but at the same time it seems to me the language here proposed would mean just that. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield. Mr, FERGUSON. Is it not a fact that in the past we have enacted legislation of this nature, doing the same thing with respect to cotton? Mr. ROBERTSON. We have had in the Agricultural Adjustment Act an es- cape clause to protect our cotton grow- ers from the importation of cotton, and then we would put on a quota. Mr. FERGUSON, That is correct.
1950 Mr. ROBERTSON. We had a gentie- men’s agreement affecting cotton piece cloth from Japan, at one time. Mr. President, I see no objection in the world to asking the President to do what we would like to authorize him to do; but I contend that is not what this amendment would do. I contend that this amendment immediately would cut off, by congressional action, the impor- tation of potatoes. I think that would be unwise and shortsighted, and would be calculated to invite retaliation or reprisals. For years Canada has purchased far more from us than we have purchased from Canada, Canada has been buying our fresh fruits and vegetables and other commodities, and has bought far more from us than we have bought from her. Mr. President, I shall yield the floor. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, be- fore the Senator yields the floor, I should like to ask him a question. Mr. ROBERTSON. Very well; I yield to the Senator from Maine. Mr. BREWSTER. Is the Senator from Virginia familiar with the provi- sions of the Canadian trade agreement, which I hold in my hand, which ex- pressly contemplates the very situation we now face? I read now from page 23, article XI, section 2, in which the very ac- tion we have just referred to is contem- plated. The provisions of section 2 are, in part, as follows: The provisions of paragraph 1 of this article— Which provides ‘about not imposing quotas or restrictions— shall not extend to the following: 7 . * * . (b) Import and export prohibitions or re- strictions necessary to the application of standards or regulations for the classifica- tion, grading, or marketing of commodities in international trade, (c) Import restrictions on any agricul- tural or fisheries product, imported in any form, necessary to the enforcement of gov- ernmental measures which operate— (1) to restrict the quantities of the Hke domestic product permitted to be marketed or produced, or, if there is no substantial do- mestic production of the like product, of a domestic product for which the imported product can be directly substituted; or (iy — This comes directly to the matter now under our consideration— to remove a temporary surplus of the like domestic product. Mr. President, could there be a better description of the product here in- volved? Mr. ROBERTSON. I do not think so; I think that is a perfect description. I have not challenged that under the re- ciprocal trade agreement we have the power to act or that under the Agricul- tural Act of 1948 the President has the power to act. I have said that I did not know until now that this many potatoes have come in. I did not know the Presi- dent had the right to act. Mr. BREWSTER. He had the power to act, and has had it for 6 months, but he has not acted. He has taken that position when conditions have been building up to the tragic situation of to- day, which has led the Senator from XCVI——149 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE TDinots to demand that all supports be wiped out. Despite that, they have calmly admitted 15,000,000 bushels of potatoes, which js one-third of the sur- plus we are arguing about; and neither the President nor the Secretary of Agri- culture has lifted a hand to stop the importation of those potatoes. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I shall not yield further. I have tried to make it clear that I wish to go along with the efforts to reach the goal the distinguished Senator from Nebraska has in mind, but I cannot en- dorse the method by which he is propos- ing to reach it. Mr. LUCAS Mr. President, it is ap- parent that it will take some time to reach a vote upon this amendment alone, because other Members of the Senate desire to speak upon it. It is practical- ly a part of the reciprocal trade agree- ments. In view of the fact that there are other amendments to be voted upon, I wonder whether we can obtain unani- mous consent to vote on Monday, at either 2 or 3 o'clock. Mr. WHERRY. I wonder whether the distinguished majority leader would propose that the vote be taken at 3 o’clock. I myself would not object to having the vote taken at 2 o’clock, but I think 3 o’clock probably would be gen- erally satisfactory. Mr. LUCAS. When I stated earlier today that we would have a night ses- sion, a number of Senators immediately came to me and said they had dinner engagements Of course, I do not like to disappoint them. Mr MILLIKIN. Mr. President—— Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the Senator from Colorado. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr President, re- serving the right to object, the proposal is that we shall vote at 3 o’clock on Mon- day—on what, please? Mr. LUCAS. On everything—all the amendments to the joint resolution and on the joint resolution itself. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, let me inquire who would have charge of the time. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator from Okla- homa (Mr. Tuomas], the chairman of the committee, and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN]. Mr. WHERRY. I asked that ques- tion because the wheat amendment is still to be discussed, is it not? I do not know how much time will be required for that purpose. I might inquire of the Senator from Colorado whether 3 o’clock would be satisfactory, in view of the fact that the wheat amendment has not yet been reached. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, I un- derstand that the distinguished senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. Grorce] has an amendment. My colleague from Col- orado [Mr. JoHNson] and I have an amendment This is a rather talkative subject, of course. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Mc- CarraAnt also has an amendment. Mr. ELLENDER. It has been dis- posed of. 2365 Mr. MILLIKIN. I wonder whether it would be better to provide for the vot- ing to begin at 4 o’clock on Monday. Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, I have an amendment. I am perfectly willing to offer it for consideration in confer- ence; if it is accepted, I should be glad to let it be handled in that way. Other- wise, I should wish to have perhaps 30 minutes, or approximately that much time, to discuss it. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I am en- deavoring to accommodate the Senator from Nevada [Mr. McCarran] as much as possible, in connection with the meas- ure we expect to take up following this one, and he is trying to have it brought up as soon as possible. I was trying to help him out. But I shal) be glad to provide in the unanimous-consent agreement for the voting to begin at 4 o’clock on Monday. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, who will have charge of the time? Mr. LUCAS. The Senator from Ver- mont [Mr. A1Ken] and the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. THomas1. Mr. WHERRY. That is satisfactory. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will it be understood, in connection with the agreement, that the Senator from Geor- gia will have 30 minutes, if necessary, for his matter, and that my colleague from Colorado [Mr. Jonnson] and I will have 30 minutes for our matter, if neces- sary? Mr LUCAS. The Senator from Okla- homa [Mr. THomas] is chairman of the committee and is in charge of the bill. Whatever is agrecable to him will be sat- isfactory to me. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, re- serving the right to object, I should like to have it understood that I shall have at least 30 minutes. }ir. LUCAS. Of course, we could con- yene at 11 o’clock on Monday, and could arrange to have the voting begin at 3 o'clock: that would give us 4 hours. Mr. WILLIAMS. With the under- standing that I shall have 30 minutes? Mr. WHERRY. The Senator from Delaware, I suppose, would wish to have time allotted him by the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], who is not now in the Chamber. Mr. LUCAS. I am sure that can he arraiged between those Senators; the Senators on the other side of the aisle never have difficulty in making arrange- ments with one ancther. Mr. TOBEY. Yes; we are one happy family. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I am not in favor of a “not-later-than” pro- vision in the unanimous-consent agree- ment, for when such a provision is in- cluded in an agreement, Senators are in doubt as to the exact time when the vot- ing will begin and are unable to make definite arrangements with regard to their time Crring the preceding hours on that day. So I suggest that the agreement defi- nitely provide for the voting to com- mence at 4 o’clock on Monday. If the majority leader wishes to have the Sen- ate convene at 11 o’clock on Monday, that will be satisfactory to me. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Monday next,
2366 following the recess of the Senate from tonight until Monday, the Senate pro- ceed to vote on the pending joint resolu- tion (H J. Res 398) and all amendments thereto, at 4 o’clock p. m.; provided, that no amendment which is not germane shall be considered; and provided fur- ther, that the time between 12 o’clock noon gnd 4 p. m. on said day shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents, to be controlled, re- spectively, by the Senator from Okla- homa [Mr. Tuemas!] and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN]. Mr. WHERRY. I haveno objection. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is_ there objection? Mr. LUCAS Mr. President, in that connection, I ask unanimous consent that we waive the requirement for hav- ing a quorum call. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. The question is on agreeing to the unanimous-consent agreement proposed by the Senator from Illinois. Without objection, the agreement is entered into. RECESS TO MONDAY Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I move that the Senate now stand in recess until 12 o’clock noon on Monday next. The motion was agreed to; and (at 6 o’clock and 34 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a recess until Monday, February 27, 1950, at 12 o’clock meridian. NOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by the Senate February 24 (legislative day of February 22), 1950: DIPLOMATIC AND ForeION SERVICE George A Garrett, of the District of Co- lumbia, now Envoy Extraordinary and Min- ister Plenipotentiary to Ireland, to be Am- bassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Ireland. The following-named persons, now Foreign Service officers of class 3 and secretaries in the diplomatic service, to be also consuls gencral of the United States of America: Leon L. Cowles, of Utah. Robert F. Hale, of Oregon. John F. Fitzgerald, of Pennsylvania, now a Foreign Service officer of class 5 and a sec- retary in the diplomatic service, to be also ® consul of the United States of America. The following-named Forcign Service stuff Officers to be consuls of the United States of America: Harold M. Granata, of New York. Edward S. Parker, of South Carolina. The following-named Forcign Service re- serve officers to be secretaries in the diplo- matic service of the United States of America: James E Bowers, of North Caro)ina. Thaddeus C Martin, of Arkansas. Harold M Micki, of Virginia. Post OrticE DEPARTMLNT Osborne A. Pearson, of California, to be Assistant Postmaster Generzal. (To fill va- cancy created by appointment of Vincent C, Burke to the position of Deputy Po:tmaster General under authority of ecec. 2 of Reor- ganization Plan No. 3 of 1949 ) COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE Robert A. Ricdell, of Los Angeles, Calif., to be collector of internal revenue for the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE sixth district of California, to fill an existing vacalicy. UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS EUGENR Worry, of Texns, to be an asso- clate judge of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, vice Hon. Charics S, Hutfleld, deceased. IN THE Navy The followine-named (Naval ROTC) to be ensigns in the Navy, from the 2d day of June 1950; Richard T. Ackley William Acosta Robert D. Albright John R. Allen Roger D. Alling John L Appel, Jr. Robert J. Armstrong Henry J. Arnold Richard W. Arnold, Jr. Paul W. Arthur Allen E. Alman Anthony A Attardl Daniel G Anderson, Robert I. Backstrom Jr. Donald C. Buseck Lyle C Anderson James E. Johnson Ralph E Anfang Jack C. Scarborough, William M. Apgar Jr. The following-named (Naval ROTC) to be ensigns in the Supply Corps of the Navy, from the 2d day of June 1950. Francis B Quinlan John B. Sherman Alois E Schmitt, Jr. Max L. Washington The following-named (Naval ROTC) to be ensigns in the Civil Engineer Corps of the Navy, irom the 2d day of June 1959. Renato D Stefano, Jr.Harvey M Soldan Byron A Nilsson Gene F, Straube James H Longworth (Naval Reserve avia- tor) to be an ensign in the Navy. The following-named (civillan college graduates) to the grades indicated in the Dental Corps of the Navy’ LIFUTENANTS (JUNIOR GRADE) William N. Grammer Ray B. Mueller The following-named (civilian college graduates) to be leutenants (junior grade) in the Dental Corps of the Navy" Lawrence B Frey, Jr Donald C, Olson Thomas R Haufe Burton D. Ostergren Goldie D. Greer to be an ensign in the Nurse Corps of the Navy. SENATE Monpay, Ferrvary 27, 1950 (Leg.stative day of Wednesday, February 2, 1950) The Senate met at 12 o’clock mcrid- ian, on the expiration of the recess. The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown Harris, D. D., offered the following prayer: God of all mercies, in a world swept by violent forces with which unaided we cunnot cope, Thou only art our help ond our hope. Through all the mystery of lufe Thy strong arm alone can lead us to its mastery. Thou hast made of our very restlessness a sign that without Thee we cannot be satisficd. Fronting the claimant duties of this new weck, steady our spirits with the realization of untapped power available to servants of Thy will if only they go quietly and confidently about their ap- pointed tasks. Forgive us the distrust of ourselves, of life, and of Thee, and for the cowardly doubts which blind us to the heights which are full of the char- FEBRUARY 27 jots of God. In the dear Redeemer’s name. Amen. THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. Lucas, and by unan- imous consent, the reading of the Jour- nal of the proceedings of Friday, Febru- ary 24, 1950, was dispensed with. MESSAGES 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, and he announced that on February 25, 1950, the President had approved and signed the act (S. 1980) to amend section 429, Revised Statutes, as amended, and the act of August 5, 1882, as amended, so as to substitute for the requirement that detailed annual reports to b2 made to the Congress concerning the proceeds of all sales of condemned naval material a requirement that infor- mation as to such proceeds be filed with the Committees on Armed Services in the Congress. The message also announced that the act (S. 2681) to authorize the attend- ance of the United States Marine Band at a celebration commemorating the one hundred and seventy-fifth anni- versary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord, to be held at Lexington and Concord, Mass, April 16 through 19, in- clusive, 1950, having been presented to the President on February 14, 1950, and not having been signed by him within the 10-day period prescribed by the Consti- tution, had become a law without ap- proval. . MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE-—-ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its read- ing clerks, announced that the Speaker has affixed his signature to the following enrolled bills, and they were signed by the Vice President: 8 2328 An act to amcnd section 482 of the Reviscd Statutes relating to the Board of Appeals in the United States Patent Office; and H R.7220 An act to expedite the reha- bilitation of Federal reclamation projects in certain cases. ABDUCTION OF GREEX CHILDREN Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I have been very much interested in the prob- lem of the displaced Greek children ever since it was brought to the attention of the United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans in 1948 by the Greek Government, which charged that thou- sands of Greek children were being torci- bly abducted by the guerrillas for Com- munist indoctrination in the castern European countries and as a means of further terrorizing the Greek country- side. The fladings of that special com- mittee revealed that approximately 25,- 000 children had been removed to Al- bania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and other countries in eastern Europe. We all know that the efforts of the United Nations and of the International Committee of the Red Cross have so far failed to suc- ceed in revaedying this truly tragic and unjustifiable condition. I have asked the
1950 Secretary of State on several different occasions to use every means at his dis- posal to underscore the position of the United States with respect to the resolu- tions adopted by the United Nations. If we Americans can take the leadership in inspiring world opinion against what is one of the biackest marks on the Soviet record, We will have done a humane and a@ manly thing. I will continue to do whatever I can as an individual Senator to achieve this result. LEAVES OF ABSENCE On request of Mr. Lopae, and by unani- mous consent, Mr. SALTONSTALL Was eX- cused from attendance on the sessions of the Senate today. On request of Mr. WHERRY, and by unanimous consent, Mr. AIKEN was ex- cused from attendance on the sessions of the Senate today and tomorrow. On request of Mr. WHERRY, and by unanimous consent, Mr. YouNG was ex- cused from attendance on the sessions of the Senate for the week beginning today. On his own request, and by unanimous consent, Mr, SCHOEPPEL was excused from attendance on the session of the Senate tomorrow. On his own request, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Darsy, because of official business, was excused from attendance on the session of the Senate tomorrow. COTTON AND PEANUT ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution (H. J. Res. 398) relat- ing to cotton and peanut acreage allot- ments and marketing quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair suggests that the Senate is proceeding under a unanimous-consent agrcement, under which the time between now and 4 o'clock is divided between the propo- nents and opponents of the pending joint resolution, and controlled respec- tively by the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. THomAs!] and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN]. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr, President, I ask unanimous consent that we may proceed with what might be termed the morning hour until the Sen- ator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN! shall reach the Senate, because he is in con- trol of one-half of the time, unless some other Senator has been designated to contro] the time. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN] is absent. I ask unanimous con- sent now, on behalf of the Senator from Vermont, that he may have leave of the Senate to be absent today and tomorrow. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. WHERRY. The Senator from Vermont has asked that in his absence I take charge of the time which was given into his control when the unani- mous-consent agreement was made. I would say, for the information of the majority leader, that it is perfectly agreeable to me thal a quorum be called, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE and that routine business be transacted, provided the time is taken out of the time allotted to both sides. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the unanimous- consent agreement be modified so as to substitute the Senator from Nebraska for the Senator from Vermont to control the time on behalf of the opponents of the joint resolution. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it fs so ordered. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma obtained the floor. CALL OF THE ROLL Mr. LUCAS. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield that I may suggest the absence of a quorum? Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. for that purpose. Mr. LUCAS. of a quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sccre- tary will call the roll, The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: I yield I suggest the absence Brewstcr Hickenlooper Millikin Bricker Hill Morse Bridges Hoey Mundt Butler Humphrey Murray Byrd Hunt Myers Cain Ives Necly Chapman Jenner O'Conor Chavez Johnson, Colo O’Mahoney Connally Johnson, Tex Robertson Cordon Johnston, 8 C Russell Darby Kerr Schoeppel Donnell Kilgore Smith, Maine Douglas Knowland Smith, N J. Downey Langer Sparkman Dworshak Leahy Stennis Fastland Lehman Taylor Ecton Lodge Thomas, Okla Ellender Long Thomas, Utah Ferguson Lucas Tobey Frear McCarran Tydings Fulbiight McCarthy Watkins George M: Clellan Wherly Graham McKellar Wiley Green McMahon Willlams Gurney Maguuson Withers Hayden Mulone Hendrickson Maybank Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator [rom New Mexico [Mr, ANDER- son], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Kerauver], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McFarianp], and the Senator from Florida {Mr. Pepper] are absent on pub- He business. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Benton] is necessarily absent. The Senator from Iowa {Mr. GILLETTE! and the Senator from Florida [Mr. Hot- LAND] are absent by leave of the Senate on official business, Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr AIKEN], the Senator from Missouri {Mr. Kem], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SaL- TONSTALL], the Senator from Minnesota I Mr. THYE]), and the Senator from North Dakota |Mr. Younc] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Carg- HART] and the Senator from Pennsyl- vania [Mr. MaRTIN! are absent on official business. The Senator from Vermont (Mr. Fianpners}, the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Tart], and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. VANDENBERG! are nccessarily absent. The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is present. 2367 MEETINGS OF COMMITTEES DURING SENATE SESSION On request of Mr. Lucas, and by unan- imous consent, the Committee on the Judiciary was authorized to meet today during the session of the Senate. On request of Mr. THomas of Okla- homa, and by unanimous consent, the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations were excused from attendance on the session of the Senate this after- noon and the Committee was authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate. TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators may be permitted to submit petitions and memorials, introduce bills and joint resolutions, and present routine matters for the Recorp without debate. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered, and the time consumed in the transaction of routine business will be charged equally against both sides. PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS Petitions, etc., were laid before the Senate, or presented, and referred as indicated: By the VICE PRESIDENT: A concurrent resolution of the Legislature of the State of New York; ordered to lie on the table: “Senate Resolution 42 “Whereas there {s now pending in the Con- gress of the United States, a bill H. R 4453, known as the Fair Fmployment Practice Act, the purpose of which is to establish a per- manent agency of the Government to climi- nate discrimination in employment; and “Whereas the State of New York has been among the pioneers of the States of the Union to enact such legislation which has been successful In reducing or eradicating such dscrimination in the Industries of this State; and “Whereas all citizens without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin are entitled to equal opportunity to be gain- fully employed and it is in the puble in- terest that such unfair practices, which tend to engender bitterness and unrest among large segments of our population be eradl- eated as opposed tc the principles of our form of government; and “Whereas during the last war when it was essential for our war industries to keep pro- duction at their highest level, the Fair Em- ployment Practice Committce was highly successful in reducing or eliminating such discrimination in such industries: Now, therefore, be it “Resolved (if the assembly concur), That it is the sense of the people of the State of New York, expressed through the considered judgment of their representatives in the leg- istature, that the enactment of sich legisla- tion is of the greatest importance to the people and will tend to unite the country and create greater respect for our institu- tions among the other peoples of the world; and be it further “Resolved (if the assembly concur), Thut the Congress of the United States be, and it hereby is, respectfully memorialized to enact with all convenient speed H. R. 4453 or such other, similar, appropriate legislation as will accomplish the purposes of this resolution; and be it further “Resolved (ij the assentbly concur), That copies of this resolution be transmitted to
2368 the President of the United States, the Sec- retary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives of the United States, and to each Member of the Congress of the United States duly elected from the State of New York, and that the latter be urged to do all within their power to bring about the enactment of such legislation. “By order of the senate: “WILLIAM S’ KING, “Secretary, “In assembly, February 21, 1950. Con- curred in without amendment. “By order of assembly: “ANSLEY B, BoRKOWSKI, “Clerk.” By Mr. LODGE (for himself and Mr. SALTONSTALL) : Resolutions of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusctts; to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry: “Resolutions memorializing the Congress of the United States to lower the high cost of food “Wherers the laws which guarantee farm- ers high prices for thelr commodities wee enacted to relieve an acute national eco- nomic emergency affecting the farm industry which no longer exists; and “Whereas the new law is plainly designed to keep basic fuods as high in price as they have been, and “Whereas this is plainly inflation of a most painful nature; and “Whereas it overlooks the fact that most of the tncome of the American family pays for focd; and “Wherens according to laws of surply and demand in a free market food becomes cheaper the more it {8 produced, v hile under the law in question the taxpayers’ money ts used in ever greater amounts as food be- comes more plentiful to prevent the con- sumer from the taking advantage of the natural action of economic law which has made Amcrica the greatest nation in history, and “Whereas the Government has under loan or has taken title to four-fifths of all the flaxseed produced last year, third of all the cotton, nearly a third of all the wheat, more than half of all the peanuts, two-fifths of all the potatoes and dried edible beans, nearly half of the stored butter, and “Whereas the present new farm price-sup- port program will cost billions which will come from the same people who will pay the resulting high prices, and “Whereas the farmers are becoming more and more dependent upon the Government: Therefore be it “Resolved, That the General Court of Mas- sachusetts hereby urges the Congress of the United States to enact laws that will be in Keeping with a peace time economy, and be it further “Resolved, That copies of these resolutions be transmitted forthwith by the State secre- tary to the, President of tie United States, to the Presiding Officer of each branch of Congress, and to the Members thereof from this Commonwealth. “In house of representatives, adopted, Feb- ruary 13, 1950. “LAWRENCE R. GROVE, “Clerk, “In senate, adopted, in concurrence, Feb- ruary 16, 1950. “IRvinG N. HAYDEN, “Clerk.” Resolutions of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; to the Committee on the Judictary: “Resolutions memortalizing Congress to pass anti-poll-tax legislation “Resolved, That the General Court of Mas- sachusetts hereby urges and petitions the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Congress of the United States to pass legis- lation which would remove payment of poll tax as a prerequisite of the right to vote in elections; and be it further “Resolved, That copies of these resolutions be sent forthwith by the Secretary of the Commonwealth to the President of the United States, to the presiding officer of each branch of Congress and to the Members thereof from this Commonwealth. “In house of representatives, February 13, 1950 “LAWRENCE R,. GROVE, “Clerk. “In senate, adopted, in concurrence, Feb- ruary 16, 1960. adcpted, “IRVING N. HAYDEN, “Clerk.” Resolutions of the Gencral Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; ordered to lie on the table: “Resolutions memortalizing Congress to pass antilynching legislation “Resolved, That the General Court of Mas- sachusetts hereby urges and petitions the Congress of the United Statcs tu pass legis- lation seeKing to make it n Fedeial offense for any person to engage in the crime of lynching, and be it further “Resolved, That conies of these resolutions be sent forthwith by the Secretary of the Commonwealth to the President of the United States, to the presiding officer of each branch of Congress and to the Members thereof from this Commonwealth. “In the house of representatives, adopted, February 13, 1950. “LAWRENCE R GROVE, “Clerk, “In senate, adopted, in concurrence, Fcb- ruary 16, 1950 “IRVING N HayYvEn, “Clerk.” INDEPENDENCE FOR LITHUANIA Mr. WILEY Mr. President, I have in my hand a resolution adopted at a mass meeting of Lithuanian-Americans in my State of Wisconsin in commemoration of the thirty-second anniversary of the declaration of independence in Lithu- ania The resolution pertains to the un- speakable crimes which have been com- mitted against the heroic freedom-loving Lithuanian people. Mr. President, each of us I am sure, in the Senate recognizes that in spite of the Soviet occupation of the Baltic arcas, the people of those three coun- tries are as deserving of freedom and are as unalterably opposed to Soviet op- pression as are any other peoples trapped behind the iron curtain. I believe that the United States Government should resolutely oppose eny action which would indicate that we agree to the occupa- tion of Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia; on the contrary, we must make unmistak- ably clear that we will never agree to such violation of the rights of free peo- ples. I ask unanimous consent that there be printed at this point in the body of the Recorp the text of this resolution adopted by the Lithuanian-American Council Branch of Racine, Wis., and ap- propriately referred. There being no objection, the resolu- tion was referred to the Committtee on Foreign Relations, and ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: FEBRUARY 27 RESOLUTION ADOPIED AT A MASS MEETING OF THE LITHUANIAN AMERICANS, HELD UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE LOCAL BRANCH OF THE LITHUANIAN AMERICAN COUNCIL, INC, IN COMMEMORATION OF THE THIRTY-SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF THE DECLARATION OF INDE- PENDENCE IN LITHUANIA, AT SOKOL HALL ON THE 12TH OF FEBRUARY 1950 Whereas Lithuania, the country of our fathers, has been, and still is, unlawfully eccupled by the Soviet military and police forces, and Whereas the Government of the United States, though recognizing the independence of Lithuania, has failed to condemn the un- lawful acts of the Soviets in the occupied country, and to extend any help to their victims; and Whereas the Soviet rulers apply ever harsher methods of opposition and outright annihilation of the indigenous population of that country’ Be it therefore Resolved, That we, Americans of Lithuanian deecent and ancestry, shall continue to sup- port the efforts of Lithuanian people to re- gain freedom and reestablish an independent Lithuanian Republic, be it further Resolved, That we appeal to the Govern- ment of the United States to denounce open- ly the Soviet policy of destruction of native population, the crime of genocide, and take effective steps to make Russia respect the principles of the declaration of humun rights; be it further Resolved, That we go on the record as favoring the immediate ratification of the convention outlawing genocide by the United States of America Senate, be it also Resolved, That we urge the Government to use its power and influence to help Lithuania and other Baltic States regain their freedom and soveriegn rights in ac- cordance with the principles of Atlantic Charte: and the Charter of the United Na- tions, and not to make any peace settlement with the Sovict Russia until this has been achleved, and be it finally Resolved, That the Resolution forwarded to the President of the United States, and copies thereof sent to the Secretary of State, the Senators and Representatives of the State of Wisconsin, and to the press LITITUANIAN INDEPENDENCE Day COMMITTEE, GEorGE Kapocin, Chatman. MokTIn Kasparaltis, Secretary. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following reports of committees were submitted: By Mr McKELLAR, from the Committee on Appropriations H.R. 7207. A bill making appropriations to supply urgent deficiencies in certain :ppro- priations for the flscal year ending June 30, 1950, and for other purposes; with amend- ments (Rept. No. 1287). By Mr. McCARRAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary. 8. 298. A bill for the relief of John Row- land; without amendment (Rept. No. 1288); S 915. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Johanna Dagnall; without amendment (Rept, No. 1289); 8.1169. A bill for the relief of Christina Shalfeieff; without amendment (Rept. No, 1290); 8.1261, A bill for the relfef of Marie Louise Ardans; without amendment (Rept. No. 1291); 8.1262, A bill for the relief of Juliana Mendiola Alastra; without amendment (Rept. No. 1292); S, 1484. A hill for the relief of Augustino Mariia; without amendment (Rept. No. 1293) ;
1950 8.1524. A bill for the relief of Edith eee without amendment (Rept. No. 8.1798. A bill-for the relief of Mrs. Minda Moore; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1295); 5.1920. A bill for the relief of Anna fang paoveky: with an amendment (Rept. No. i S 2156. A bill for the relief of Sister Edel- rudis Clara Weskamp; without amendment (Rept. No, 1297); 8.2308. A bill for the relief of William Alfred Bevan; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1298); 8.2393. A bill for the relief of Martin Al- brecht; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1299); §. 2431. A bill for the relief of Sumiko Kato; without amendment (Rept. No 1300); 8.2479. A bill for the relief of A, D, Strenger and his wife Claire Strenger; with- out amendment (Rept. No. 1801); 8. 2568. A bill for the relief of Carmen E. Lyon; without amendment (Rept. No, 1302); 8.2611. A bill for the relief of Roland Roger Alfred Boccia, also kKiown as Roland Barbera; without amendmert (Rept. No. 1303); S 2655. A bill for the relicf of Mrs Evelyn M Hryniak; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1304); 8.2811 A bill to amend section 1462 of title 18 of the United States Code, with respect to the ‘mportation or transporta- tion of obscene matters; without amend- ment (Rept. No. 1305); S 2812 A bill to prohibit the transporta- tion of obscene matters in interstate or for- eign commerce; without amendment (Rept. No 1306); § 2934. A bill for the relfef of Julius Elzas; without amendment (Rept. Na. 1807); H.R. 1025. A bill for the relief of Waymon EH Massey; without amendment (Rept. No. 1308) ; H.R. 3138. A bill for the relief of Arthur Holbert; the estate of Ernest L Gass, de- ceased; and the estate of James L. Thomas, deceased; without amendment (Rept. No. 1309); and H.R. 6694 A bill for the relief of Ervin Haas and Leno Vescovi; without amend- ment (Rept. No. 1310). 8S Res. 202. Resolution to investigate in- terstate gambling and racketeering activi- ties; with amendments (Rept. No. 1317); and, under the rule, the resolution was re- ferred to the Committee on Rules and Administration, By Mr. LANGER, from the Committee on the Judiclary: 8 274 A bill for the relief of Constantin E. Aramescu; withou’ amendment (Rept. No. 1312); 8, 2277. A bill for the relief of George A. Voregarethsos (George Spiro Chatmos); with an amendment (Rept. No. 1313); and 8 2427. A bill for the relief of Masne Maru- moto; without amendment (Rept. No 1314). By Mr. WILEY, from the Committee on the Judiciary: S. 2071. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Alice Willmarth; without amendment (Rept. No. 1811). By Mr. O'CONOR, from the Committee on the Judiciary: H.R 1024 A bill for the relief of Jacob Brown; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1318), By Mr. O'MAHONEY, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs: H.R. 3482. A bill granting the consent of the Congress to the negotiation of a com- pact relating to the waters of the Canadian River by the States of Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1319). CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION OF CERTAIN ALIENS Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, from the Committee on the Judiciary, I report an original concurrent resolution, and I submit a report (No. 1315) thereon. The VICE PRESIDENT. The report will be received, and the concurrent reso- lution will be placed on the calendar. The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 75) was ordered to be placed on the calendar, as follows: Resolved by the Senate (the House of Rep- resentatives concurring), That the Congress favors the suspension of deportation in the cause of each allen hereinafter named, in which case the Attorney General has sus- pended deportation for more than 6 months: A-4048507, Alvarez, Jose Gonzalez. A-2095740, Arrigh!, Arrigo. A-4648315, Augustine, Albert Gustave. A-6872585, Ballingall, William. A-4582467, Barriero, Modesto, or Modesto Barriero Peretras A~4761012, Baxter, Mary (nee Mary Ram- say or Mary Robertson). A-6244274, Beaumont, Richard Louis A 1209360, Bernd, Karl Johan, or Carl Johan Bernd A-3220706, Bokwa, Josef. A- 6429061, Bouma, Anna (Anna Novak) (nee Anna Vojtova). A-4238831, Bronk, (nce Blackwell). A-5940317, Brown, David Emanuel. A-6262197, Calengaos, Leonardos Petros, or Leonardos Kalengas. A-6052567, Chang, Shou-Lien, or Sheldon Shou-Lien Chang. A-6172679, Chiotelis, Anna, or Anna Hio- telis (nee Anna Hadjinicoluou). A-4337869, Chow, David Ta Wei, or Chow Ta Wet or David T. W Chow. A-4587482, De Gonzalez, Carmen Pardo, or Carmen Pardo Vda De Vega. A-5346987, De Putter, Theodule Joseph or George De Putter. A- 3526012, De Regt, Leendert, or Leo De Reget or Leo De Regt. A-3884367, Divitcoff, Petre George, or Petros Georgios Divitcoft. A-5081920, Drechsler, Karl. A-5724435, Espeneda, Nellie (nee Scholes aka Nellie Peterson or Nellie Perry or Nellie Churchill). A-6788094, Fieber, George John. A-5906975, Fong, Wone, or Fong Wone or Harry Wone or Rev. Harry Wone. A-6960675, Gomez-Diaz, Parfirio, or Por- firio Gomez-Madina, A-4709443, Grenoski, Joseph Frank, or Frank Stroda or Franzisek Grenowski or Frank Grenowski. A-6083456, Herman, Josephine Moreno. A-6164076, Jasnoch, Felix Bruno or Jass- noch. A-5422397, Johansson, Nils Sigvard, or Nils Hohansson or “Nick” Johansson. A 9618508, Johnson, John Moore. A-9702404, Knutsen, Bernt Mathias. A-6262159, Koufoudakis, Aristides Dl- mitrios. A-6245684, Koufoudakis, Eftihia Aristides, A-6845908, Larsen, Sigurd. A-6743645, Lee, Anna Dorothy. A-5924981, Lefert, Joseph Emil. A~-5829039, Lettsome, Ellen Rebecca, or Ellen Rebecca Jennings. A-4769464, Lettsome, Hueroy Alpheous, or Hugh Roy Lettsome “Angel.” A-5931974, Lolax, Einar William, or Einar Lolax. A-6261601, Lucas, Asime). A-4680115, Luzzi, Domenico, Margaret Elizabeth Vala Stamati (nee 2369 A-4952215, Makritzky, Alexander Edward or Makritsky or Makrickite or Makricki or Mo- kricki or Makrickys. A-3764722, Makritzky, Michalina Maria, A-1074052, Mallis, Antonios Apostolis. A~-4869382, Marshall, George Falkner. A- 1703554, Migliore, Caterina (nee Dionigi or Catherine Migliore or Leonarda Savolardo or Saviordo or Guiseppa Bagarella). A-1783420, Migliore, Anthony, or Antionino or Antonino Migliore or Salvatore Migliore or Antonino Joseph Miglore. A-2307727, Migliore, Rose, or Rosa Migliore or Guiseppa Migliore or Rose Mary Migliore, A-2155981, Min, Ng Yick, or Ng Yik Nin or Eng Yick Min. 4-9190465, Morfessis, Telemachos Morfessis). A-7118357, Muller, Carl Christian Frederick pihelm, or Carl Fred Lem or Carl Fred Muller m. A~3993801, Nevarez-Alarcon, Nunfa. A-1959816, Nigo-Gonzalez, Leonardo, or Leon Nigo A-6796861, Noakes, Romkje Anna, A-6972143, Ojeda, Domingo. A-6972142, Ojeda, Manuel. «\-4793221, Paraskevopulo., (alias Peter Kostas Parras). A-5967020, Patronas, Minns A-5678915, Peavey, Fred Weshington, or Fred W. Peavey. A-5648749, Perry, Amy Jane (nee Donald- son). A--3316027, Petersen, Alice Marie. A-66644€8, Peterson, Dorothy (nce Arron or Dorothy Lewis). A~3800C60, Petrone, Domenico, or Domi- nick, alias Leonardo Ricciardi. A-5642085, Piovesan, Vittorio Giovanni, A-4683822, Propst, Anna (nee Perrault or Ethel Georgeanna Perrault Pronst). A-6768116, Pukansky, Joseph, A-6767390, Pustelnik, Stefan Pawel. A-4996573, Rausch, Eva (nee Bieler or Evette Ruusch or Chawa or Ewa Bleler). A-33920038, Reyes, Jose Billegas. A-4461206, Roland, Elizabeth Allen (nee Allen). A-6138932, Rosario, Maximo. A-7044248, Rose, Maria Alexandra, A-6392231, Salgudo, Jorge, or Jorge Sal- gado-Rodriguez A- 6868037, Sandoval-Stlva, Epitasio. A-4721106, Schachter, Herman Max. A-6344539, Schulhof, Bernard or Bernat. A~-4671903, Seeber, Eugene John. A-6735481, Sikaras, Helen (nee Martoulas or Helen Stelios Martoulas). A~-5045298, Silver, Isidore aka Icko Iola, or Izzo or Izzi or Icek or Itcko Igla. A-5970137, Simmonds, Delia Hortencia. A-1170976, Simone, Tommaso (also Thomas Bimone). A-1904276, Skordas, Lambros. A--6958757, Smith, Emma Maria Valdes (nee Valdes). A-1701220, Stathapoulos, Steve Stathes. A-4640449, Stettler, Bbaschnig). A-6097430, Stevens, Peggy Joan (nee Mc- Cartney). A-4510827, Taberlet, Fred Romolo, or Rome olo Taberlet. A-6817646, Toullatos, John. A-5138238, Tronrud, John, cr John Wil- helm Tronrud. A-1161491, Tschinkowitz, Valentin, or Wal- ter Bayer. A-4398037, Vaz, Manuel Viegas, A-6921004, Warwick, William. Telemachos (alias Peter Kostas Stephanos, or Emma (nee Emma A-3263373, Wiessgarber, Barbara (nee Spanier). A-3263372, Wiessgarber, Nikolaus A-4634372, Wolff, Hedwig Sadie (nea Schauer),
2370 A-6172745, Zakos, Sophie Kretekos, or Bophie Kretekos (nee Perides). A-6318230, Zachou, Theodota (nev Theos dota Goussi). A-5074052, Zarensky, Isaac, or Zarebski or Zarembsky. £.-6905274, Just, Reinhard. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, from the Committee on the Judiciary, I re- port an original concurrent resolution, and I submit a report (No. 1316) there- on. The VICE PRESIDENT. The report will be received, and the concurrent res- olution will be placed on the calendar. The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 76) was ordered to be placed on the calendar, as follows: Resolved by the Senate (the House of Rep- resentatives concuiring), That tho Congress favors the suspension of deportation in the case of each alien hereinafter named, in which case the Attorney General has sus- pended deportation for more than 6 months. A-5291150, Becerra, Jose Guadalupe. A-2960766, Bianco, Anthony Lo. A-6236755, Cochian, Graham, Rayman, or Graham Reginald Boske. A- 4600090, Colantonio, Michele. A-6592617, Conran, Judy Lynne. A-1265760, Cumelia, Raymond, or Raimon- do Cumella. A-9771239, Giatrakos, Elefterios A-4426284, Ginararls, Avgcrinos George. A-6721979, Klimenko-Gurewska, Helene (now Helen Kuntz), A-4757164, Ecesling, Grete Hedwig A-2246831, Lam, Caroline Han Fang Wang (alias Caroline Han Fang Wang Lim). A- 408887, Liu, Len Hee (alias Len Hee Lee or Liu Hen Hee). A-9776877, Loolam, August Reginald. A-3624104, Mavrakis, Stratos Antoniou, A-1536223, Merani, Giobatta Alessendio, or Emilio Giobatta Merani, or Emilio G. Merant, A-5438346, Mitchell, Aurelia. A-4751973, Oh, Sydney Bah, or Sydney Bcott Bahoh. A-4691270, Rodrigues, Jose, A-1371419, Rupa, Amir Bin. A-3171881, Schneider, Victor. A-7145695, Squazza, Assunta, or Assunta Giunei A-7145696, Squazza, Fernanda, or Fernanda Giungi A-5242646, Teijeiro, Olegario, or Olegario Teijeiro Garcia. A-6062104, Young, Virginia Josephine, A-4490814, Cividanes, Jesus Vielro, ENROLLED BILL PRESENTED The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, February 27, 1950, he presented to the President of the United States the enrolled bill (S. 2328) to amend section 482 of the Revised Stat- utes relating to the Board of Appeals in the United States Patent Office. BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION INTRODUCED Bills and a joint resolution were in- troduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows: By Mr. LODGE: S 3125. A bill for the rellef of Dr. Lutfu Lahut Uzman, to the Committee on the Ju- diciary By Mr. BUTLER: S. 3126. A bill to revise the basis for award of disability pension; to the Committee on Finance. 8.3127. A bill authorizing the issuance of & patent in fee to Eva Peneaux White Thunder; CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 8.3128. A bill authorizing the issuance of @ patent in fee to John D. Decora; 8.3129. A bill authorizing the issuance of a patent in fee to Mr. and Mrs. Charles Whit- ford, heirs of Anna Louise Whitford, de- ceased; and 8.3130. A bill authorizing the issuance of @ patent in fee to Lot Smith and Helen Sey- mour Smith, heirs of Charles Smith, de- ceased; to the Committee on Interlor and Insular Affairs, By Mr. JENNER: S 3191. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Wil- liam I Spaulding, to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr McCARRAN: S.3132. A bill to incorporate the Amert- can Scciety of International Law, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr LANGER: S 3133 A bill for the relicf of Anthony B. Estella, his wife and two children; to the Committee on the Judiciary. S 3134 A bill to provide for a 25-percent increase in the annuities and pensions pay- able to railroad employees and to their sure vivors; to the Committee on Labor and Pub- lic Welfare By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Hoey): S 3135. A bill to amend the peanut-mar- keting-quota provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended; to tho Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. By Mr. O'MAHONEY (for himself and Mr, Hunt): S 3136. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to transfer to the town of Mills, Wyo, a sewage system located in such town, to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs By Mr. LANGER: S 3137. A bill for the relief of Carmine Amedeo; S 3138 A bill for the relief of Mohammed Bulboo!; S 3139. A bill for the relicf of Asmoth All, Angob Ali, Esrail Ullah, Mufaffar Ullah, Moraham Ali, Miftahuj Jaman, Moskod Ullah, and Mascndor Ali; 8.8140. A bill for the relief of Azman All; S. 3141. A bill for the relief of Mohammed Katal Miah (or Kutat Miah); and S 3142 A bill for the relief of Mohammed Hanif, to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina (by request) : 8.3143. A bill to provide for the conduct of a periodic census of governments; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. By Mr. LEHMAN (for himself and Mr. IvEs): S.J. Res.156. Joint resolution to permit certain war-service indefinite employees to acquire competitive civil-service status and permanent tenure by qualifying in noncom- petitive examinations, to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. PRINTING OF COMMITEEE REPORT EN- TITLED “LOW-INCOME FAMILIES AND ECONOMIC STABILITY” Mr. O’MAHONEY sukmitted the fol- lowing resolution (S. Res. 233), which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration: Resolved, That the committee print en- titled “Low-Income Families and Economic Stability,” printed for the use of the Joint Committee on the Economic Report, be printed as a Senate document. AMENDMENT OF DISPLACED PERSONS ACT—AMENDMENT Mr. KILGORE (for himself, Mr, Gra- HAM, Mr. FerGuson, Mr. Dovucuas, Mr. Morray, Mr. NEELY, Mr. SmitH of New Jersey, Mr. Morse, Mr. SALToNSTALL, Mr. FEBRUARY 27 HENDRICKSON, Mr. Macnuson, Mr. IvEs, Mr, LEHMAN, Mr. BENTON, Mr. HUMPHREY, Mr. Fuianpers, Mr. Myers, and Mr. THYE) submitted an amendment in the nature of a substitute, intended to be proposed by them, jointly, to the bill (H. R. 4567) to amend the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR OF CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS—AMENDMENTS Mr. CAIN submitted amendments in- tended to be proposed by him to the bill (H. R. 5472) authorizing the construc- tion, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors for navigation, flood control, and for other purposes, which were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. Mr. MAYBANK submitted an amend- ment intended to be proposed by him to House bill 6472, supra, which was or- dered to lie on the table and to be printed. NOTICE OF MOTION TO SUSPENI. THE RULE--AMENDMENT Mr. DOUGLAS subinitted the follow- ing notice in writing: In accordance with rule XL of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby five notice in writing that it 1s my inten- tion to move to suspend paragraph 4 of rule XVI for the purpose of proposing to the bill (H_ _R. 7207) making appropria- tions to supply urgent deficiencies in cer- tain appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1950, and for other pur- poses, the following amendment, namely: On page 6G, line 17, strike the period after the word “law”, insert a colon and add: “Provided further, That hereafter, the amount of annual leave for Government employees, including the employees of the Postal Service, shall be at the rate of 20 days per year, and the amount of sick leave shall be at the rate of 12 days per year for classified and wage board em- ployees.” Mr. DOUGLAS also submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to House bill 7207, making appro- priations to supply urgent deficiencies in certain appropriation for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1950, and for other pur- poses, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. (For text of amendment referred to, see the foregoing notice.) LINCOLN DAY ADDRESS BY SENATOR KNOWLAND [Mr HICKENLOOPER asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Rrecorp an ad- dress delivered by Senator KNOWLAND at u Lincoln Day dinner at Des Moines, Iowa, on February 16, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] MISTREATMENT OF GREEK CH:LDREN— EDITORIAL COMMENT {Mr. LODGE asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp various state- ments regarding the mistreatment of Greek children, which appear in the Appendix.] IDITORIAL COMMENT ON PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ABOL- ISHING ELECTORAL COLLEGE {Mr. LUCAS asked and obtained leave to have printed jin the Recorp two editorials, one entitled “Constitutional Amendment on