1950 Column 8: “Able to use fresh and/or dry fruits and juices only.” This column should be checked (\) for schools that do not have facilities to pro- vide a noonday lunch, but that can serve fresh and/or dry frults and fruit or vegetable CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE juices. In the event the school can serve fresh and/or dry fruits, but does not have facilities to serve juices, this fact should be noted in this column also. Where column 6 (type C) is used column 8 should also be completed. 2003 Column 9: “Approximate closing date of lunchroom for summer vacation.” The date entered in this column should be the best estimate of the closing date of the lunchroom for summer vacation. This date may or may not be the achool-closing date. U. 8. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Focp DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS BRANCH Schedule of maximum quantities of sec. 32 commodities that may be tssued to various sizcd families during 1 month, effective July 1, 1949 Commodity Unit 1 person 2 persons 3 or 4 persons | 5 or 6 persons |7 or 8 persons | 9 or 10 persons nee Apples: Fresh... 6 12 20 28 36 42 50 Canned 2 4 & 32 16 20 22 Dried % 1 2 3 4 6 6 Applessuce_. 2 4 7 10 14 18 2 Apricvis, dise ly 1 2 4 5 6 Beans, drie 1 2 3 5 6 7 Cabbage 2 5 & 12 15 18 20 Eggs, dric % 1 Why 2 215 3 34 Grapefruit jul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Posche:, dried ._ 4 1 2 4 4 & 6 Potstoe, Tish _ 10 wn 25 35 4d 55 65, Potatoes, sweet. 2 5 8 1 15 18 20 Prunes, dried... “ye 1 2 3 4 & 6 Raisins, dried_.... 22.2222 ----2 = peepee eee nee 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 Drie’ fruit, hen 2or more are distributed during the 1 2 4 6 8 10 12 same month Potatoo:, when Irish and sweot are distributed during 10 20 25 85 45 55 65 the same month _- United States Department of Agriculture Picduction and Marketing Administration Food Distribution Programs Branch FDP 842.1 ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS I. Purpose and scope: The purpose of this instruction is to set forth the requirements which govern the eligibility of organiza- tion(s) to receive and usc commodities donated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). II. Definitions: For the purpose of this instruction the below-named terms will be construed a3 shown: A. Tax exempt: Exempt from taxation un- @er section 101 (6) of the United States In- ternal Revenue Code, the pertinent part of which reads as following: “The following organizations shall be exempt from taxation undcr this chapter: (6) Corporations, and any Community Chest fund, or foundation, orgenized and operated exclusively for * * © charitable, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children * * > no part of the net carnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, * * *.” B. Nonpenal: Determination as to whether an institution is nonpenal shall be based upon the State statute or constitution estab- lishing the institution, or other appropriate State legislation, or upon a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction or a legal opinion of the State attorney general or other authorized State legal official. C Section 32 commodities: Commodities acquired by USDA pursuant to section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935, as amended, and related legislation. D. Section 6 commodities: Commodities acquired by USDA pursuant to section 6 of the National School Lunch Act, Public Law 396, approved June 4, 10946. III. General: In order to be eligible to re- ceive and use section 6 or 32 commodities donated by the USDA, an organization must meet the qualifications hereby established and be a party to an agreement as set forth in FDPB 843.2. IV. Eligibility requirements pertaining to receipt of section 32, commodities: The fol- lowing types of organizations are eligible to receive section 32 commodities provided they meet the requirements set forth: A. Schools: Public schools, Indian schools operated by the Office of Indian Affairs, and tax-exempt (nonprofit) private schools pro- vided they are of high school grade or under and operate, or propose to operate, a non- profit school-lunch program. Schools not serving complete meals, but otherwise meet- ing the sbove requirements may receive com- modities that do not require preparation for serving. NoTE—No part of the net earnings of any school-lunch program may inure to the bene- fit of any shareholder or individual or to any other school activity. 1, Eligible recipients: All children at- tending an eligible school are eligible to con- sume section 32 commodities. B Welfare agencies: Public or private wellare agencies provided they serve or assist relief recipients. 1. Eligible recipients: Persons receiving the following types of assistance are eligible to receive section 32 commodities: (a) Direct relief. (b) Old age. (c) Aid to blind. (d) Aid to dependent children. (e) Any simular category of assistance. C. Public institutions: Tax-supported in- situtions, other than those supported by Federal funds, provided they are nonpenal and perform charitable functions by provid- ing for needy persons. 1, Extent of eligibility’ Section 32 coms modities may be distributed to public instie tutions on the basis of the number of per- sons served who are unable to pay the full charge for the services provided to them. Nore —Commodity distribution rates are established on a monthly basis. Therefore, organizations that serve eligible persons for portions of months must convert the days into equivalent months of care or assistance provided. Where the number of monthly eligibles, as computed above, is relatively stable the number of such eligibles as ob- tained from records of the last preceding month may be used. Where the number of monthly eligibles, computed as described above, fluctuate from month to month, a monthly average of such eligibles will be computed from records of the last preceding year, D. Private organizations: The following types of private organizations in the manner and to the extent shown below: 1, Tax-exempt organizations, including subsidiaries thereof, or activities supported by tax-exempt funds or foundations, pro- vided that they are engaged exclusively in providing assistance and care for needy persons, (a) Eligible recipients: All persons served by such an eligible organization are eligible to consume section 32 commodities. 2. Tax-exempt organizations that are not engaged exclusively in providing assistance and care for needy persons provided that they serve some such persons, (a) Extent of eligibility: Commodities will be distributed on the basis of the num- ber of persons served who have been certified as unable to pay the usual charge for the care provided to them. NoTre.—The note under paragraph IV, C-1 above, is also applicable to this paragraph. E. Emergency and disaster relief organiza- tions: Any organization providing emergency or disaster relief is eligible provided specific authorization is granted by the area office. F. Experimental or testing agencies: Or- gauizations or agencies, public or private, that are engaged in legitimate experimental, testing or demonstration work for the sole benefit of eligible schools, institutions, agen- cies, or organizations are eligible to receive section 32 commodities for such purposes. V. Eligibility requirements pertaining to section 6 commodities: The following are eligible to receive section 6 commodities pro- vided they meet the requirements set forth. A. Schools: Only schools serving type A or B meals under the national school-lunch program are eligible to receive section 6 com- modities, 1. Extent of eligibility: Uniess otherwise authorized, section 6 commodities will be distributed to schools on the basis of tho number of children who are served type A or B meals for which reimbursement is author- ized and claimed under the National School Lunch Act. Children who are being served type C meals are not to be considered as a part of the basis for distributing section 6 commodities. B. Agencies conducting workshops or ex- perimental programs: Organizations or agencies that are engaged in legitimate ex- perimental or demonstrational work for the sole benefit of the national school lunch program are eligible to receive section 6 com- modities for such purpose, provided the State agency administering the national school lunch program within the State, ap- proves the particular demonstration, experi- ment, or test for which the commodities are needed. 1, Extent of eligibility: Section 6 come modities may be distributed to approved agencies in the speciflc amounts approved
2004 by the State agency administering the school- lunch program. (a) Requests from eligible agencies: Eligible agencies wishing to use section 6 commodities must make written application for such commodities to the State agency administering the school-lunch program. This application should include details as to the type of experiment or demonstration, the period during which it will be conducted, the approximate number to be in attendance, the quantity of commodities that would be re« quired, sponsors, and other pertinent infors mation that would permit determination of the merit and needs of the applicants. The approved application will be forwarded by the State agency administering the school- lunch program to the D/A. The D/A may then distribute, under regularly established operating procedures, commodities in such amounts as are indicated. VI. Referral to area office: If the eligibile ity of any organization is still doubtful after applying the standards established in this instruction the specific problem should be referred to the area office. Such referrals will include all pertinent information, to- gether with reasons for the referral. United States Department of Agriculture, Production and Marketing Administration, Food Distributions Programs Branch FDP 843.1 SCOPE OF DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENTS Distribution of commodities acquired by the Department of Agriculture will be made only to those distributing agencies which have executed and have in effect an agree-~ ment with the Department. Distributing agencies cannot, under any circumstances, redistribute commodities to recipient agen- cies or groups unless eligibility has been de- termined (FDP-842) and a bona fide sub- agreement has been executed between the distributing agency and the recipient agency. United States Department of Agriculture, Production and Marketing Administration, Food Distribution Programs Branch FDP 843.2 DISTRIBUTING AGENCY AGREEMENT WITH THE USDA FOR DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF COMMODI-< TIES, FORM FP-51 I. Distributing agency defined: A distrib- uting agency may be any agency such as a State department of education, department of welfare, department of agriculture, county welfare agency, or any other responsible or- ganization. To act as a distributing agency, the organization must accept the responsi- bilities established in form FP-51 and ef- fect distribution of donated commodities without profit. I, Form FP-51, agreement with the United Statcs Department of Agriculture for distri- bution and use of commodities: This agree- ment (copy attached) is a combination of form CCC-369 (formerly FDA-797) and form CCC-127 (formerly FDA-798). It sets forth the conditions and requirements under which commodities will be donated by the Department and accepted by a distributing agency. Basic legal requirements under sec- tion 32 are incorporated and the provisions are almost identical with those in the two former agreements with the exception of the addition of section 12, A. Preparation: 1. Form FP-51 must be prepared by the distributing agency and submitted in dupli- cate to the Area office of Food Distribution Programs Branch for approval. 2. Sections 12, 13, and 14 are designed to supply necessary information for determine ing eligibility and capacity of the outlet: (a) Section 12~a should be checked if the distributing agency will accept commodities CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE solely for redistribution to recipient agen- cles with which it has executed (or will execute) subagreements (Form FP-58 or a similar form). A State Department of Edu- cation, a State Department of Welfare, a State Department of Agriculture, or a State Board of Administration, which accepts com- modities solely for redistribution, are ex- amples of such agencies. If section 12-a is checked, no information need be shown for sections 13 and 14. (b) Section 12b should be checked if the distributing agency will accept commodities solely for distribution to, or for use by, per- sons whom it serves or assists, County and local welfare agencies, or nonpenal elee- mosynary institutions, which accept come modities solely for use in feeding their own patients or others whom they may assist, are examples of such agencies. (c) Section 12c should be checked if the distributing agency will accept commodities for both (1) its own use, and (2) redistribu- tion to agencies with which it has executed (or will execute) subagreements. An elee- mosynary institution accepting commodities for its own use and also for redistribution to eligible schools is an example of such an agency. In recording the number of per- sons in section 14, this agency would show those persons which it serves, not those covered by subagreements. B. Other conditions of FP-51: 1. The standard form of agreement, FP-51, covers commodities distributed to schools under section 6 of the National School Lunch Act as well as commodities donated for relief purposes under section 382 of the act of August 24, 1935, as amended. Both section 6 and section 32 commodities may be dis- tributed only to those schools which request such commodities, and the quantity dis- tributed must be in accordance with the needs of the schools as determined by the local school authorities. 2. Paragraph No. 2 in Form FP-51 pro- hibits the distribution or use of donated commodities in substitution for commodities normally purchased. It is essential that the provisions of that paragraph be complied with in the distribution or use of section 82 commodities. However, that paragraph does not apply to section 6 commodities. 8. Paragraph No. 3 in Form FP-51 states that the distribution or use of com- modities donated by the Department must be confined “‘to or by persons, groups, agencies, or other recipients determined to be eligible, in accordance with instructions issued by the Department, to receive donated com- modities.” The only recipients eligible to receive section six commodities sre schools participating in the school-lunch-cash-in- demnity program under the National School Lunch Act. Requirements for eligibility for other groups are outlined in (FDP-842). 4. Paragraph No. 4 in FP-5l, which requires carc to be exercised at all times to prevent donated commodities from being dis- tributed or used in such a manner as to ene courage waste, deterioration, or misuse, ap- plies equally to section 6 and section 32 com- modities. C. Approval: 1. The agreement may be approved and signed for the Department by the area field supervisor of the Food Distribution Programs Branch, or his authorized representative upon determination that eligibility require- ments have been met and provided the stand- ard Form FP-51 is used. If any revision of the agreement is requested, the altered agreement must be submitted to the Wash- ington office, Food Distribution Programs Branch, for approval. Notice of approval of an altered agreement must be received before it may be made effective. 2. The original of Form FP-81 shall be re- tained by the area field supervisor and the FEBRUARY 20 signed copy returned to the distributing agency. D. Termination of agreement: The agreement, Porm FP--51, is a continu} ing agreement. However, the agency or th Department may terminate this agreemen by giving 30 days’ notice in writing to the other party. The Department may cance} this agreei.ent immediately upon receipt of evidence that the terms and conditions thereof have not been fully complied with by the agency. When such notice of termina. tion or cancellation of the agreement is ree ceived by the agency, it must comply with the instructions of the Department, either— 1. To distribute all remaining inventories of commodities donated by the Department, in accordance with the provisions of the agreement; or 2. To redonate such inventories to the De- partment; and 8. To transmit such reports as are required by the Department to record final disposition of such inventories, JULY 29, 1947, United States Department of Agriculture, Production and Marketing Administration, Food Distribution Programs Branch, Wash- ington, D. C. FDP 843.3 AGREEMENTS BETWEEN DISTRIBUTING AND RECIPIENT AGENCIES I. Purpose and scope: This instruction de- scribes the forms that contain the minimum terms and information that must be included in agreements entered into by distributing agencies (D/A'‘s) and organizations that are eligible to use and/or redistribute donated commodities. It further describes the pur- pose and use of such forms and the procedure to be followed in their preparation and dis- tribution. A. Approved agreement forms.—Forms FP- 53, FP-53A, and FP-53B have been prepared by the United States Department of Agrie culture (USDA) for use by D/A's in entering into agreements with eligible organizations, Use of these forms is not mandatory as D/A's may prepare their own agreement forms which must contain, as a minimum, the pro- visions of Forms FP-63 or 53A (see exception, subpar. 1). D/A’s who prepare their own agreement forms must submit them to the @rea office for approval before they are put into use. 1. Exception to minimum provisions.—The provisions contained in section 6 of Forms FP-53 and 658A are optional. Recipient agencies (R/A’s) will keep such records as @re prescribed by the D/A who is party to the agreement. The record keeping require- ments prescribed by D/A's will be subject to approval of the area office. II, Definitions: A. Recipient agency: Any organization that has executed an agreement to accept commodities for its own use. B. Subdistributing agency (sub-D/A): Any organization that has executed any agreement to accept donated commodities for redistribution to subunits over which it has administrative control and authority, or to R/A’s over which it has authority because of contractual obligations accepted by such R/A's. Nore 1.—A parent administrative body may act for all of its subunits without the ne- cessity of entering into contracts with such subunits. However, where a sub-D/A Is ac- cepting commodities for and issuing them to R/A's over which it has no administrative control or authority, it is necessary that an agreement he entered into between such sub-D/A and such R/A's. Note 2—-An agency may both use and re- distribute commodities and wili, therefore, k2 both a sub-D/A and an R/A.
1950 UI. Form FP-53: The Form FP-53 (exhibit A) or other like agreement form will be used in making agreements between D/A's and R/A’s and between sub-D/A's and R/A’s. A. Preparation and distribution: The Form FP-53 will be executed by the R/A in duplicate and sent to the D/A or sub- D/A for approval and execution. Upon exe- cution by the D/A or sub-D/A, one copy of the FP~53 will be returned to the R/A and the original filed. Notre.—When the agreement is between a sub-D/A and an R/A the FP-53 may be amended by placing a dingonal (/) in front of the words “distributing agency,” wher- ever they may appear, and inserting the word “‘sub.” IV. Form FP-53-A: The Form FP-53-A (exhibit B)—or other like agreement—will be used in making agreements between A/A’s and sub-D/A's. A. Preparation and = distribution.—The Form FP-53-A will be executed by the sub- D/A in duplicate and sent to the D/A for approval and execution. Upon execution by the D/A, one copy will be returned to the sub-D/A and the original filed. V. Form FP-53-B: The Form FP-53-B (exhibit C)—or other like form—is an at- tachment to the Form FP-53-A and will ale ways be a part of and accompany it. A. Preparation.—The Form FP-53-B has instructions on its reverse side concerning its preparaticn. Note.—Although the format and wording of the FP-53-B indicates that it is to be used solely for schools under the jurisdiction of & sub-D/A this form may be modified to include information regarding other types of R/A's. For example, a county school super- intendent may be acting as a sub-D/A for all schools under his jurisdiction and for a county institution with whom he has exe- cuted a Form FP-53. In such instances the county institution, as well as the schools in the county, will be shown on the FP-53-B 1 Column (7).—The instructions concern- ing the completion of column (7) should be supplemented by the following: “This col- umn should also contain an entry when a school participating in the NSL program 1s serving prepared meals to children who are not participating in the NSL program. This entry snould be tho total of the figure shown in column (4) or (5) plus the figure repre- senting the average datly number of children who are served a prepared meal but who are not participating in the NSL program.” VI. Effective period of agreements: Effec- tive November 1, 1949, all agreements then in force may, if so desired by the D/A, be continued in force indefinitely provided that R/A’s and sub-D/A's will furnish the D/A’s on or before November 1, 1949, and on or before each succeeding November 1, the fol- lowing information: For recipient schools: Name and address, Average daily attendance. Average daily number of meals served by type (if participating in national school lunch program). Avernge daily number prepared meals served (if not participating in national school lunch program). Number of children able to use fresh fruits and/or juices. For ull other recipient agencies; Name and address, Average daily participation. Notr.—The Form FP-53-B may be used to supply this information. VII. Schools approved for participation in nitional school-lunch program: In States where separate offices administer the direct distribution and the national school-lunch program, or where the area office administers the national school-lunch program in pri- vate schools, the State school-lunch agency or the area Office, is responsible for providing the following information: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE (a) Name and address of schools approved for participation in the national school- lunch program. (b) Number of approved participants in each school, by meal type. (c) Date of approval of schools for partici= pation. As changes occur, that is, as new schools are approved, old agreements canceled or changes occur in the number and/or type of participants, supplemental information will be provided. A. Area-office responsibility: The area of- fice will determine that the above-described information is furnished to the D/A’s con- cerned. B. D/A responsibility: When the above- described information is received by the D/A, it will be checked against the Forms FP-53, 583A, or 68B—or other like agree- ments—on file to ascertain that schools claiming participation in the national school- lunch program (and thereby eligible to re- ceive sec. 6 commodities) are actually ap- proved for such participation. AvucustT 22, 1949. United States Department of Agriculture Production and Marketing Administration Food Distribution Programs Branch FDP 844.2 SCHEDULE OF MAXIMUM QUANTITIES OF SECTION 32 COMMODITIES THAT MAY BE ISSUED TO VAR- IOUS SIZED WELFARE FAMILIES DURING 1 MONTH I, Purpose and scope: The purpose of this instruction is to provide the requirements for use of the attached schedule of maximum rates of distribution of individual section 32 commodities which may be issued to wel- fare recipients eligible for participation in the direct distribution program as set forth under FDP 842.1. II, Authorization for welfare distribution: This schedule does not in itself authorize distribution of any commodities to welfare recipients. Such authority must be con- tained in the notice of allocation sent to the area FDPB Office when commodities are made available. III. Schedule of maximum rates of distri- bution. Distribution to welfare recipients is authorized on a month-to-month basis and in no case may commodities in excess of the amounts listed on the attached schedule be issued during any 1 month. Based on the quantity available, eligible case load, food habits, storage and distribu- tion facilities, local supply, and other per- tinent local factors, the actual distribution rate may be and in some cases should be, less than the maximum rate indicated. A special grouping of rates for dried fruits and potatoes listed on page 2 of the schedule is to apply as the maximum where two or more dried fruits or where Irish and sweet- potatoes are being distributed during the same month. The attached schedule is effective July 1, 1949, for those localities where distribution to welfare recipients has been approved, and for those commodities already authorized for such distribution. Revisions of, or additions to, this schedule will be issued from time to time as necessary. Ju.y 1, 1949. Mr. PHILLIPS of California. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HESELTON. Gladly. The gen- tleman has supported the suggestions made in the resolutions and has been of invaluable help in trying to obtain their consideration. Mr, PHILLIPS of California. I wish this talk could be heard by everybody in the United States. I want the gentle- man to make clear that these are ad- Mr, 2005 ministrative regulations and not in the law enacted by the Congress. Mr. HESELTON. Very definitely, that is true, and I am glad the gentleman em- phasizes that. Ihave here the suggested agreements prepared by the Department and their schedule of maximum quanti- ties made effective July 1, as well as the voluminous regulations and instructions. It is entirely an administrative matter. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I think the Agriculture Committee should give a prompt hearing to these bills. Recently the Secretary of Agriculture following his usual fashion appeared be~ fore a congressional committee and at- tempted to pass the buck, threatening to dump or destroy 50,000,000 bushels of potatoes unless Congress stopped him. His immediate predecessor, now Senator ANDERSON, was able to show the follow- ing day that Secretary Brannan had lied and misled the committee, when it was shown that he had not only the author- ity but also the funds available for the payment of transportation of surplus po- tatoes to school children and needy Americans. It was admitted by a representative of the Solicitor’s Office of the Department of Agriculture, who was pinch hitting for his chief, the Secretary of Agriculture, that they had authority to spend section 32 funds for transportation charges for cattle feed and presumably for school children. How long can this maladmin- istration be tolerated? How long are Americans to go without while we give away and waste needed food? On the question of the administration, or maladministration, the gentleman said in the House here recently, and I should like to recall it to his mind at this time, that the Secretary of Agri- culture not long ago, following his usual fashion, appeared before a congressional committee and attempted to pass the buck, threatening to destroy or to dump 50,000,000 bushels of potatoes unless Congress stopped him. His immediate predecessor, now Senator ANDERSON, was able to show the following day that the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Brannan, had either deliberately falsified the truth or misled the committee when it was shown that he had not only the au- thority but also the funds available for the payment of transportation of surplus potatoes to school children and needy Americans. It was admitted, as the gentleman will recall, by a representative of the Solici- tor’s Office of the Department of Agri- culture, who was pinch hitting for his chief, the Secretary of Agriculture, that they had authority to spend section 32 funds for transportation charges for cattle feed and presumably for school children. There seems to be consider- ably more concern with the problems of livestock or the industrial alcohol users than there is with those of people. How long are we going to tolerate this mal- administration? How long are we going to go without while we give away and waste needed food? It seems to me we ought to have a hearing at the very earliest possible date by the Committee on Agriculture. I know how the gentleman feels about it, and I understand there are a great
2006 many Members of this House who think that a hearing before the Committee on Agriculture is already too long delayed. Mr. HESELTON. I thank the gen- tic-man. I shall reach that point in just a second, if I may. Y should like to add right here that there is another fact in terms of this maladministration I think should be in the Recorp. This Congress last June rassed a Commodity Credit charter bill. By the terms of that bill the President was instructed to appoint an advisory board of 5 persons whenever the Secre- tary should arrive at a situation he felt made their advice desirable and neces- sary. That advisory board was not ap- pointed until February 1 of this year, in the face of the fact that the Secretary appeared before the Senate Committee on January 31 of this year. This had the effect of taking the props right out from underneath this advisory board, which Congress had authorized last June for the very purpose that the Secretary indicated led him to come before the Legislative Committee of the other body. It 1s incredible, I submit, that the United States Department of Agriculture with its far-flung organization could not fore- see months ago that this situation was going to arise. And certainly no one would seriously contend that our legis- lative committees would or should accept the responsibilities of supervising the de- tails of administering the laws we enact. And if our committee were to undertake to do so, everyone knows the reaction which would come from the Executive Department. Mr. HALE. Mr. Speaker, will the gen- tleman yield? Mr. HESELTON. I yield to the gen- tieman from Maine. Mr. HALE. Would it not be to the ad- vantage of the Department of Agricul- ture, if it were desirous of bringing the existing law into hatred, ridicule, and contempt, to maladminister it as much as possible in the hope of putting over the Brannan plan, or something of the sort? Mr. HESELTON. Many responsible people certainly agree with that obser- vation, including the leading Democratic newspaper of New England, the Boston Post, which closed an editorial entitled “Potato Dumping” by saying: Mr Brannan seems more intent on show- ing that the farm price-support program, which he wants ditched in favor of one of his own, is not working out in getting the maximum value for the millions invested. One of the Post’s contemporaries, the Boston Herald, discussed this matter in some detail and concluded as follows: But whether the Brannan plan is practi- cal or not, the administration is going to make the present system as unpalatable as possible. It 1s said that an offer by Spain for some of our surplus potatoes has been turned down, and there are reports tuat the Government has not been buying as many for school-lunch programs and welfare in- stitutions as in the past. To make the thing look even inore threatening, the majority leader in the Senate, Lucas, has suggested scuttling the potato-support program. All this evidence of political manipulation of the farm program by the administration is pretty damning. It suggests that the party which makes so much of its solicitude for CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the farmer, Is really simply using the farmer for its political ends. Not merely by prome ises it cannot fulfill, which is bad enough, but by the actual perversion of administra- tive functions. A third New England newspaper, the Springfield (Mass.) Union, concluded an editorial, as follows: But the Brannan plan has been so thor- oughly discredited that !t will take more than aroused public sentiment against waste under the present program to demand a trial for the Brannan production payment idea. Particularly when it is suspected that the Department of Agriculture is actually put- ting obstacles in the way of distributing the surpluses. I have already quoted the wire which I sent to Secretary Brannan asking for his cooperation. On February 17, I received the follow- ing telegram from Governor Dever: Receipt of night letter and telegram ac- knowledged. State department of public welfare actively cooperating. Has supplied local welfare department with necessary forms and made concessions with regard to transportation from nearby Deerfield in order to eliminate or reduce cost of transportation of surplus potatoes. However, it is felt re- quirements that local welfare department assume responsibility for proper storage and distribution is reasonable and waiver of it by Department of Agriculture should not be requested. I agree thoroughly with the last sen- tence and had intended to make clear at all times that there should be respon- sible authority accepting the necessity for proper storage and distribution. But this is a far cry from executing forms FP-51 and FP-53 only to be confronted with this maze of bureaucratic red tape involving long transportation, with the added cost of unpacking, weighing, and rebagging. I do want to give credit to Governor Dever for helping to break through and waiving that senseless re- quirement. Incidentally, he is a good Democrat. If there is any inclination to escape consideration of this problem by dismissing the facts as political, I want to emphasize that we, who are supporting this possible solution of this situation have stated that we have not presented it as a solution of the problem of a sound agricultural program. We know that is another, broader, vital pro- gram. But this Nation is confronted with @ condition, not a theory. It was pre- cipitated by this order of destruction. The official who gives such an order should be willing to consider its full im- plications. Stubborn insistence on the execution of the order will not be ac- ceptable to the American people. As further evidence of the nonpolitical ap- proval toward a solution I call as wit- nesses the former Secretary of Agricul- ture, the junior Senator from New Mex- ico, and the majority leader in the other body, the senior Senator from Illinois. Finally, I quote from a news dispatch by INS from Washington February 10, as follows: “President Truman has ordered Con- gress and the Agriculture Department to investigate ‘and do something about’ the Government’s $50,000,000 potato-dump- ing program.” If some of us are trying to do something about it, even though we interpret his “ordcr” as a “request,” FEBRUARY 20 any charge of politics has a hollow ring. The dispatch continues: “The President summoned his congressional farm lead- ers to a White House conference, follow- ing which one of the conferees disclosed that Mr. Truman has received a “barrel of letters” protesting the plan to destroy up to 40,000,000 bushels of potatoes.” To continue, upon receipt of Governor Dever’s telegram, I discussed these developments with the Associate Director of Food Distribution here. He said that the plans which had been made were entirely satisfactory to the Department; that the Form FP-53 would not have to be used; that all that will be required is a simple agreement or a letter stating that the local board of welfare would assume responsibility for proper storage and distribution of these potatoes. The previous afternoon, I had a lengthy conference with Mr. Dittrich, in charge of the northeastern area, food distribution program branch, and his assistant, Mr. Philip Hearn. All this led, I am sure, to a final recognition on the part of the Department here and on the part of the Massachusetts State Wel- fare Department that rigid insistence upon the exact compliance with the Federal agreements and regulations, not only would make it utterly impossible for Greenfield to obtain these potatoes eco- nomically, but would, in effect, prohibit the disposition of these potatoes or any other food commodity now owned by the Federal Government to the American people who need them and would only support this order of destruction. At this point may I call your atten- tion to the fact that in the Recorp for February 13 I listed the total amount of food commodities and their cost, which was contained in the official report of the Commodity Credit Corporation at the end of December last year. They run through dried milk, dried eggs, but- ter, cheese, prunes, raisins, edible dried beans, rice, turkeys, and canned Mexi- can meat. There are in excess of 277,- 480 tons of these surplus commodities and they have already cost the Govern- ment over $265,000,000. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HESELTON. I yield. Mr. KEATING. At this point, if the gentleman is willing, I should like to insert a letter which I wrote the other day to Secretary Brannan set.ing forth a break-down of just how much of each of those items every family of four per- sons in the land would be entitled to receive. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to insert at that point in the RecorD my letter to Secretary Brannan, The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. TRIMBLE). Is there objection to the re- quest of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. (The matter referred to follows:) Hon. CHARLES F, BRANNAN, Deparment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Dear MR. SECRETARY: Several people in my district in western New York State have written to ask how they may obtain their rightful share of the Government-owned surplus food you are now holding. They have read about your failure to dispose of our surplus potatoes abroad, even at 1 cent
1950 per bag, and that you are now planning to destroy them. These people fear that you will permit the same thing to happen to the Government's stock of other surplus foods, and they are anxious to withdraw their fair share immediately. I have secured from the Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Human Nutrition, a break-down of some of the surplus-food fig- ures {nto terms that my people could readily understand. The following table has been prepared from the information they were good enough to furnish. eee : Surplus per : Item Total surplus in storage family of 4 persons eee << Cheese. ....- 23,000,000 pounds_....--.-.- About 14 pound Dry milk. ..| 215,000,000 pounds(800,000,000 | 24 quarts, quarts) reconstituted, Prunes. __.-- 50,000,000 pounds. -. _.| U4 pounds, Dried beans | 9,000,000 hundiedweight | 24 pounds, and pets. (900,000,000 pounds), Ralsins. ...-} 23,000,000 pounds....-.-.---] 34 pound, Potatoes....| 50,000,000 bushels (3,000,- | 80 pounds. 000,000 pounds). Died eggs..| 70,000,000 pounds (2,520,- | 542 dozen, 000,000) whole eggs or 210,000,000 dozen, 1econ- stituted). a The people who have written to me feel entitled to receive the above amounts for their families inasmuch as you have pur- chased the food with their money. They point out that the food could be shipped parcel post to their homes at no additional cost to the Government. ‘They are very much opposed to your apparent desire for a planned scarcity, They feel that destroy- ing {ood 1s sinful. These people also tell me they are fully- paid-up Federal taxpayers. But after pay- ing the taxes that support your depart- ment and the other constantly expanding departments of the Government, they could use some help in meeting their grocery pills. Probably there are those who do not need this help which should make all the more food available for those who do. Cordially yours, KENNETH B. KEATING, Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, will the gen- tleman yield? Mr. HESELTON. I am glad to yield. Mr. RICH. I congratulate the gentle- man on trying to get this food put into channels for consumption by those who need cheaper foodstuffs in order to main- tain life. I think whenever the Federal Government raises the price so high that people cannot buy it, and then turns around and destroys it, that is a sin. We all hate it. We are all like Calvin Coolidge. We hate it. I wonder whether the gentleman knows whether these men down in the Department of Agriculture, who receive such large salaries, who are handling this affair, attended the $100 dinner last Friday night, and whether they had potatoes at this dinner; and if they did, if the potatoes were given to the banquet or whether they paid for them. More than that, whether they paid the $20 tax that they were supposed to pay when they hold a dinner at a price like that and have amusement. It is high time that the people of this country investigate the terrible things that are going on in this administration. Mr, HESELTON. I cannot give the gentleman full information because I did not attend the dinner personally. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. HESELTON. I cannot yield now, I want to give the gentleman from Penn- sylvania (Mr. Rico] a further answer. I do understand that when the Sec retary of Agriculture was introduced he was very enthusiastically greeted, and that one well-informed Member of the other body, and, of course, a Democrat, said “They are the boys from the Depart- ment out there.” Does that help the gentleman? Mr. RICH. He attended that dinner. He can pay $100 for a dinner, but when it comes to the poor people of this coun- try getting potatoes, he wants to destroy the potatoes. Mr. PHILLIPS of California. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HESELTON. Certainly. Mr. PHILLIPS of California. The gentleman is doing a fine service in bring- ing out the weaknesses which exist in the administration of the present subsidy law, but it looks to me, as the previous speaker stated, we should have a re- exploration of the entire idea known as the Brannan plan, because I am con- vinced, after listening to the discussion today, that the Brannan plan, as dis- cussed last April, is not similar to the Brannan plan that we are talking about today. I call attention to the fact that the gentleman from Minnesota ILMr. Avucust H. ANDRESEN] brought out the fact that the entire authority for put- ting these programs into effect without any action by the Congress rests in sec- tion 407 of the law. SoI wish to support the suggestion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hua D, Scott, Jr.) that there should be a hearing on this subject as soon as possible by the Com- mittee on Agriculture. I congratulate the gentleman from Massachusetts again for the very concise and informative statement which does service to the people. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HESELTON. Yes. Mr. KEATING. I wish to join the gentleman from California [Mr. PxHIL- Lips) in expressing my gratitude to the gentleman from Massachusetts for the service which he has rendered in bring- ing these facts to the attention of the Department, the Congress, and the Amer- ican people. As the gentleman knows, I introduced a companion resolution along with the gentleman and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Scott] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Cor- BETT]. I join wholeheartedly in the re- quest for early action and an early hear- ing on this bill. I can think of nothing more pressing to which the Committee on Agriculture should give its immediate attention. In my own community I have started action somewhat similar to the course the gentleman has been pursuing in his district. I feel very strongly, that it is sinful to have these potatoes or any other good food destroyed when there are peo- ple hungry both in this country and abroad. I have made a little investigation of Gried eggs. We have heard a great deal about potatoes, but it seems to me that this dried-egg scandal, under the Sec- Mr. 2007 retary of Agriculture, 1s probably the smelliest of the lot that has been un- covered. The Commodity Credit Corpo- ration owns or has under contract to purchase nearly 83,500,000 pounds of dried eggs, acquired at a cost of over $105,000,000. That is the equivalent of practically 260,000,000 dozen eggs. All these eggs are in storage, and most of them are nearly 2 years old. There is no domestic market, and such users as there are have been buying dried eggs imported from Communist China. The State Department declares that they have no authority to stop these im- ports, and the Secretary of Agriculture refuses to act. The Department of Agri- culture, however, continues to buy dried eggs in an alleged attempt to support egg prices at 25 cents a dozen. The farmers’ wives for the most part have been lucky to receive 20 cents a dozen. The cost of the dried eggs to the Depart- ment of Agriculture in terms of shell eggs is 32 cents a dozen. I am advised also that there are only 18 companies now selling dried eggs to the Department of Agriculture. I would like to know, and I feel there are a lot of other people who would like to know, why they have to pay for these things out of their pay envelopes, why the Sec- retary of Agriculture continues to waste the taxpayer's money on such a stupid and impractical plan. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HESELTON. I yield. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I also would like to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts not only for the energy and thoroughness with which he has gone into this particular matter, but recall to your memory what he did to gct enough oil for heat for his freezing communities from an equally incom- petent Federal bureau and the impor- tant accomplishments that he was able to report some months ago. He has been a most useful Member of the House, and the people in his district are very fortunate in having him here. I do not like unjust and inaccurate statements. I am concerned with a statement reportedly made by the Pres- ident at the hundred-dollar-a-plate din- ner—on which no tax was paid—the other night. The President seferred to the Eightieth Congress as the “do- nothing Congress.” I am very much concerned about things down here. We have taken some time this afternoon to point out effectively something that the Department of Agriculture and the Com- mittee of Agriculture may do to advance the cause of the needy and the impover- ished in this country, to see that the food is distributed to the people who can use it, to save the money of the taxpayers. At the same time we have the President telling us that the Eightieth Congress was @ do-nothing Congress, but let us look at the record of accomplishments of the Eighty-first Congress. In the month of January it passed not a single law and this despite the fact that the Senate was in session 19 days for 94 hours, and the House was in session 17 days for 54 hours. In the month of February it had passed only seven public laws. In this current do-nothing Congress, unless those of Us Myr,
2008 on this side of the aisie are able to get something affirmative done for the peo- ple of this country as the gentleman is now trying to do, with the surplus food commodities program, nothing is going to be done. We may have to take an- other afternoon soon to counsel Mr, Tru- man and his other tax-dodging friends at the dinner and let them know that the only party which does take affirma- tive action on the floor of the House and in the other body is the Republican Party. I can enumerate a dozen things right off for which we stand affirma- tively, and I could name a good many others if I but had the time. Mr. HESELTON,. I might add by way of factual statement that the resolutions to which reference has been made were filed on February 2, and here it is Feb- ruary 20. There is no indication yet that we will have any hearing at any time. ‘We must take this method of letting the American people know what we want to do for them. i Mr, COLE of Kansas. will the gentleman yield? Mr. HESELTON. I yield. Mr. COLE of Kansas. I was very much interested in the gentleman’s dis- cussion of the Brannan plan. The administration's farm program should be exposed for what it truly is— {t is hardly the so-called Brannan plan. But let us suppose for the moment that the administration and the Secretary of Agriculture really believed in their fraud—the so-called plan. Who would be in charge and have the responsibility for its administration? The Secretary of Agriculture? One Charles F, Brannan, the present Secre- tary of Agriculture? If so, and the President very reluctant- ly discharges his trusted aides—I com- end for serious study the report of he Subcommittee on Agriculture of the couse Committee on Appropriations. ithe first 50 pages of part 1 should be particularly interesting. They deal with the testimony of the Secretary of Agri- culture and his philosophy. I should also commend to the Member’s attention part 8—the testimony of the Bureau of En- tomology and Plant Quarantine. One can see how the Secretary of Agriculture discharges his duties, particularly in his own back yard—Denver, Colo. Read of three times norma] rates paid for air- plane rental—read of high-school boys paid at the rate of $1.87 an hour. Read ‘of the waste of millions in the grasshop- per campaign—a flasco that experts testified will threaten the bread basket of the country this coming year, extend- ing as far east as Ohio and to Texas and the west coast. | Mr. HESELTON. I have read that report with care and great concern. As the gentleman says, it is worthy of seri- ous study not only here in Congress but throughout the country. The answers of the Secretary to questions asked by all members of the subcommittee are reveal- ing. There you will find the exact figures for a trial run during the war on a simi- lar pian. You can form your own esti- mate of the probable cost of the pro- Posed plan and then judge its effect upon Mr. Speaker, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE agriculture, the consumers, the taxpay- ers, direct and indirect, and upon the economy of this Nation. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentieman from Massachu- setts has expired. SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to address the House tomor- row for 20 minutes, following disposition of matters on the Speaker's desk and at the conclusion of any special orders here- tofore entered. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR., asked and was given permission to address the House today for 15 minutes at the con- clusion of any special orders heretofore entered. SPECIAL ORDER The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous order of the House, the gentle- man from Wisconsin [Mr. Murray] is recognized for 15 minutes. (Mr. Morray of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and ex- tend his remarks and include certain tables and letters.) THE AGRICULTURAL SITUATION Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing prevalent in the country today, it is confusion aris- ing from so many people going in so many different directions. Since I have been a Member of Congress I have tried to deal with facts. The other night I heard the President of the United States, Mr. Truman, say that he, too, likes to deal with facts and does not like to have any of these scare FEBRUARY 20 things perpetrated by the Republicans, After listening to him I began to wonder whether I have been wasting all of my time since I came to Washington. There is not much use making con- structive proposals to anyone in the Eighty-first Congress. Up to this Con- gress one could feel as if he were a player on the team and could work for the gen- eral good of American agriculture. I of- fered an amendment in the conference of the 1949 agricultural act to provide surplus food for the privute welfare or- ganizations. The other night when President Tru- man was telling what he had done for agriculture he left off 10 percent of agri- culture very appropriately. He did not say what had happened to the poultry industry. He did not say that in January 1950, after 17 years of the more and more abundant life eggs were selling at 62 per- cent of parity. This is the lowest they have been in many years. As a matter of fact, during the last Republican ad- ministration that we hear so much about they averaged 7112 percent of parity. The 2 years the much maligned Eightieth Congress was running the country they averaged 9114 percent of parity. So it gets kind of tiresome to listen to all the cheap politics that is continually being injected into an issue that not only af- fects the welfare of the American farmer but the whole economy of the country. I shall place the official table in the Recorp which will prove the statement I have made at this point. Mr. Speaker, the following officia] table from the BAE shows the percent of parity for eggs since January 1929: Eggs: Price received by farmers as percentage of parity price, adjusted for seasonal variae tion, United States, by months, 1929-50 £ LERSSSSSSSWASSLS essay! Feb. | Mar. | Apr. {| May | June Aug. | Sept. | Oct. { Nov. | Dec. 1 Adjusted average price as a percentage of effective parity, Source: Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Division of Statistical and Historical Research. Computed from Agrt- cultural Prices BAK, The announced parity price of eggs obtained yesterday is 49.2 cents per dozen. For the Nation this is 62 percent of parity. The announced support price for January and February of 25 cents per dozen is 50 percent of parity. In the Midwest many eggs have sold for as low as 39 percent of parity. These prices are ruinous to the poultry industry, Let me give you another example. In connection with labor I noticed also he did not say anything about the fact he had not changed that 25- and 32-cent minimum under the Sugar Act for labor, nor has any member of the Cabinet done 80, He did not seem to worry about that any more than he worried on December 81, 1946, when he did not want the farm- ers of this country to have a support program which provided for 50 cents or 60 cents an hour. He killed that by issuing Executive Order No. 2714. This whole issue has been nothing but a polit- ical football since that time,
1950 Now we have heard so much about the potato business. May I say if the rest of the States had followed the program as Wisconsin followed it they would not be in the trouble they are in today, be- cause we kept our production down. These same States that we hear about having so much trouble are the States that have overproduced potatoes which in turn has caused this trouble. But this ie just the beginning. I have here a letter from one of the outstanding dairy co-ops in the United States. They just take the issues as they come along. In this letter it is stated in part: In 1949 the Government purchase of butter amounted to 100,600,000 pounds. It would appear that Government purchase program for butter will reach 250,000,000 to 300,000,000 pounds. In other words, they are trying to meet their problem. Now, you just add one after the other of these agricultural products onto the load that is being car- ried, and it is time that somebody does a little forward thinking. I have never subscribed to the present reciprocal trade treaty program; promoted by the New Deal or not by the Fair Deal, because, as I have said many times, it is honey- combed with deceit and dripping with deception. Sure, they bring in a pro- gram and mislead the League of Women’s Voters and others, who go out and carry the banner for them. When one ana- lyzes it, what do you find? You will find that during the last 15 years they have erected more vicious trade barriers than at any other time in the history of this country. Did you ever hear of a tobacco bill introduced prohibiting the exporta- tion of tobacco seed? That does not take into consideration the embargo on cotton imports. You notice that the duty on certain kinds of tobacco is pretty near up to $1a pound. Take the duty on pea- nuts, has that ever been changed? Oh, no; 7 cents a pound, which is more than the crop brought for 25 years before the war. So, the present reciprocal trade treaty has not been reciprocity; it has not been good neighbor policy, and I would like to have some one tell me how long they wish to work both sides of the street. A good example was cited last Saturday right here in Des Moines, Iowa. I have here a clipping from the Washington Post of yesterday that says: Brannan tossed responsibility for the po- tato mess at Kline by asserting that the country needs a revised farm program. He called for ‘methods that let American pota- toes compete for the American market, in- stead of letting our own potatoes go to costly waste while consumers buy and eat Canadian potatoes because they are cheaper even after paying 75 cents import duties. Personally, I have just stated what I thought about the present plan of the re- ciprocal trade treaties. But, I think any normal] person believes ir. the philosophy of a good-neighbor policy, and we are spending enough billions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money to perpetuate such a@ program. They believe in the general outline of William Howard Taft—yes, you can go away back to McKinley. Iam willing to be back there with him so far as the principle of reciprocity is con- cerned, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE So, I say today you cannot, out of one breath, say we believe in friendly rela- tions between nations, that we believe in a good-neighbor policy, and then in the next breath, say you are going to use an- other new formula, an indirect way of preventing surpluses by putiing down the price on commodities that will pre- vent imports. If you do not have the fortitude to stand up and do it by direc- tion, I do not think it is wise to do it by indirection. You might have noted last night that Mr. Drew Pearson, over the radio, took note of that and said that Canada was going to retaliate by stopping the impor- tation of other agricultural commodities from the United States. Let us consider the McNary-Haugen bill and bring it up to date. No one in the world ever pro- posed a fairer across-the-board program than that. But, instead of having sur- pluses dumped on the markets of the world, then we should take up the pro- posals of the FAO and try to divert these surplus foods of the United States into a& sccondary market. Then we will not have any of this feeling existing between countries so far as imports and exports are concerned. Just a minute on this so-called trial run business. One of my good col- leagues over here the other day said, “You are going to have a chance to get another trial run in this session.” What were the commodities? Let us analyze them. Wool was one, was it not? Potatoes was another, and eggs was a third. Anyone that has been able to get elected to Congress, especially if he is able to get on the Committee on Agriculture after he became a Member of Congress, should know the price rela- tionship between the different classes of foods. It seems to me anyone should know that the relationship between the four main protein foods which are eggs, cheese, pork, and beef. No one can do anything to disturb the price of any one of those commodities without having an effect on the others of those commodities. We may be going to have a trial run proposed. If anyone proposes another one, I hope he is careful on the commodi- ties selected for the trial. We have seen the butter industry in jeopardy. Now we are asked to add insult to injury and ruin the cheese industry of this country. You cannot put any trial run on eggs or have the price go down to 5 or 10 cents a dozen without dragging the price of pork, beef, and cheese down. There is, I repeat, a long time price relationship between all these protein foods. Just so you will not think we are al- ways sleeping at the switch and always looking backward—we look forward once in a while—and see another one in the background. The only thing that has held up its introduction as a bill is the fact that this oleo bill has not been going through quite so smoothly as they thought it was going to go through. People are beginning to catch on to what it is all about. This is the legislative gadget that is already in the background. Certain interests want to repeal the filled milk law. That is just another step. I will put it into the Rrecorp, so anyone who wants to can know about it at this point: {Public, No. 350—74th Cong.] [H. R. 6861] An act to amend the Filled Milk Act Be it enacted, etc., That the act of March 4, 1923, entitled “An act to prohibit the ship- ment of filled milk in interstate or foreign commerce” (U. 8S. C., title 21, ch. 3) be, and the same is hereby, amended by adding at the end thereof the following section: “ec. 4. The Secretary of Agiiculture is hereby authorized and directed to make and enforce such regulations as may in his juds- ment be necessary to carry out the purposes of this act.” Approved August 27, 1935, If you want to know what filled milk is, I wish to say they take the skim milk and add vegetable oil and then evaporate it and sell it in competition with natu- ral evaporated milk. Since Wisconsin makes nearly 30 percent of the evapo- rated milk, and there are many evapo- rated-milk plants in our State, it is a very serious question: First the butter is weakened, second the cheese industry is at stake, and then the filled-milk threat is proposed. How much can one ses- sion of Congress accomplish? What is worrying me is what is to happen to agricultural prices and our economy be- fore any plan is worked out as perma- nent legislation. I have not spent time trying to belittle the Brannan plan, but I do not intend to sit idly by and see the Brannan plan or any other plan work to the disadvantage to the people in my State. I want to know the facts. The people will decide these issues if they know the facts. At the present time what the Brannan plan proposes is to provide a fixed man- datory price for the so-called storables and to let the so-called perishables find their own level. In the first place there is a chance for argument as to what is a storable and what is not. In effect, it means that States like Wisconsin, with 85 to 90 percent of its farm income from livestock and livestock products, will ac- cept the plan to allow their product not only to reach its normal level or an ab- normal low level. Then the Congress will be asked to appropriate the funds for the difference. This will apply to all the livestock States as well. But the Southern States will keep their manda- tory supports for cotton, wheat, tobacco, and rice, and so forth, and will not take a chance on waiting for congressional action for appropriations for their com- modities. A Brannan plan straight across the board is one proposal, but it is a wholly different plan when certain sections of our country and certain States are picked out for the experiment. If the plan is advisable, then it should be beneficial for all. Who is there that can say that canned meat is not storable, as peanuts of high oil content? It is fair to ask and support legislation that applies to all segments of our agriculture. It is unfair to let one segment take man- datory support for their products and then be so eager to let someone else hold the bag. Mr. KEEFE. We are talking about a horrible situation which exists because the Government has bought surpluses that came onto the market in the form
2010 of eggs, potatoes, butter, cheese and everything else. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent that the gentleman may have three additional minutes in order that I may ask this question which I think would be interesting to everyone. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, with the consent of Members, who have spe- cial orders to follow, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wis- consin may have three additional min- utes. I think this colloquy is very in- formative. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. Mr, KEEFE. As a matter of fact, whether it was right or not on the part of the Department of Agriculture oper- ating through the Commodity Credit Corporation to go out and buy these sur- pluses of eggs, butter, cheese, milk, po- tatoes and everything else, they have gone out and have bought them. I re- call hearing person after person stand- ing up on the Floor of the House and telling about the price of eggs going down and the price of potatoes going down and the price of this, that and the other going down, and demanding that the support-price be paid and that the Secretary of Agriculture go out and sup- port those prices. I would like to ask the gentleman in all fairness if these sur- pluses have developed, and they have these surpluses now in storage, and we are attempting to do something with them to get them into the hands of the people so that they may eat them rather than have the commodities destroyed, and all movements of that kind I am in complete accord with. We are not by doing that dealing with the fundamental question which has brought about those surpluses. Did the Secretary of Agriculture in acquiring those surpluses do so in accord- ance with existing law? That is the question that I would like to have an- swered. Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. Will the distinguished majority leader be kind enough to get me time to answer that? Mr. McCORMACK. The gentleman has obtained three additional minutes. Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. But I have only 1 minute left, and that is quite @ question. Mr. KEEFE. Can that not be an- swered ‘‘Yes” or ‘‘No”? Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. In gen- eral I imagine that the interpretation of the Jaw has been followed. The Depart- ment and Members of Congress have not always agreed as to the interpretation of law. Our recent consideration of cot- ton is a good example. There is nothing in the world that should stop them from distributing it. But we lead ourselves right into another trouble because it is going to be pretty hard to unscramble those eggs after we get them scrambled uptoomuch. The gentleman wanted the answer, and here it is. We should get rid of these surplus products that we have accumulated un- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE der this support program and then should turn right around and have this food diverted though normal channels of trade because we are going to have the grocers of this country complaining very bitterly if we are going to have the Gov- ernment itself furnish a large percentage of the groceries for a large percentage of the people of the United States. The National Council of Co-ops do not wish to be eased out of their marketing activities either. What is the future of farm crops? We should get rid of the surpluses we have on hand. Just analyze it. Out of the $2,900,000,000 worth of food, $2,700,- 000,000 of it was nonlivestock products and we only had $200,000,000 worth of livestock products. There is not very much food, in volume, to dispose of. If the law is not clear we could easily change it. We are in constant session. I have tried for a month and I know many other members of the Agriculture Committee from each party have tried to have hearings on this subject. Up to now they have not been held. I repeat, the hearings should be held, if the law should be clarified and changed; we should as a committee, recommend it. Future surpluses could be diverted into normal] trade channels. This would be one method of preventing a storage and waste problem. Then we should shift over into a stamp plan, so that the corner grocer could take his rightful position, as he fs entitled to, under the system un- der which we are operating in the United States. Any other course will break down the normal channels of trade. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Murray] has again expired. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. HAYS of Arkansas asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include extraneous matter. SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. HAYS of Arkansas asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 hour tomorrow, following the legis- lative business of the day and any special orders heretofore entered. SPECIAL ORDER The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under special order of the House, the gentle- man from Oregon [Mr. ANGELL] is recog- nized for 20 minutes. (Mr. ANGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous mate- rial.) UNBRIDLED AND PROFLIGATE SPENDING MEANS BANKRUPTCY AND DOOM FOR FREE ENTERPRISE AND HUMAN FREE- DOMS Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Speaker, the con- tinuation of the unbridled and profligate Federa] spending of this administration means bankruptcy for the United States and spells doom for free enterprise and human freedoms. The late President Roosevelt said in 1932: Any government, like any family, can for & year spend a little more than it earns, but you and I know that a continuance of that habit means the poorhouse. FEBRUARY 20 The habit has continued since then, except for the short time the Republicans controlled the Hightieth Congress. Thomas Jefferson, the great Democrat, said: I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. * * * To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. * « © We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servi- tude. * * * If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and our comforts, in our labors and in our amusements. * * * If we can prevent the Government from wast- ing the labors of the people, under the pre- tense of caring for them, they will he happy. Although wide publicity has been given to the comparison of expenditures of the 32 Presidents from George Washington to President Truman, I fear that many Americans may have failed to appreciate the significance of this comparison and the headlong march toward the complete destruction of the financial foundations of our Nation. I want especially to em- phasize the gravity of a continuation of the unbridled Federal spending of this administration as shown by the follow- ing tabulation: Spent by 82 Presidents from Washington to Roosevelt (through seo- ond term): Washington__.._ Adams... Jefferson $34, 083, 486 84, 262, 668 12, 424, 289 176, 473, 964 147, 237, 899 65, 427, 017 152, 969, 968 $122, 325, 142 108, 904, 678 173, 477, 220 179, 631, 529 255, 154, 244 272, 933, 490 8, 262, 380, 410 1, 578, 657, 645 2, 253, 386, 743 1, 032, 268, 037 1, 027, 742, 757 1, 077, 629, 089 1, 412, 315, 890 1, 441, 674, 174 2, 093, 918, 514 4, 655, 450, 505 2, 799, 211, 85% 46, 938, 260, 1483 6, 667, 235, 429 18, 585, 649, 115 15, 490, 476, 636 67, 518, 746, 001 Roosevelt (8 years)... 179, 620, 113, 645 Spent by President Tru- man from fiscal year 1946 to September 30, 1949.-22- 22 191, 081, 394, 191 Thirty-two Presidents in 156 years spent $179,620,113,645. One President in less than 5 years has spent $191,081,394,191. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the pres- ent administration is determined to con- tinue to the bitter end this orgy of profii- gate spending. The administration seems bent on putting two tax collectors in every garage. It should not be for- gotien that the money that is being spent is your tax dollars earned by your sweat and self-denial. These wasted funds could be profitably used for a better standard of living, financing new in-
1950 dustrial enterprises and expanding old ones so that jobs may be made available for the ever-increasing army of the un- employed now approaching 5,000,000. The estimated budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1950, is $46,000,000,- 000. This means $1 out of every $6 spent in the United States will be spent by Uncle Sam. We have a public debt of $252,770,359,860.33 as of February 15, 1950, with a deficit estimated for the end of the fiscal year exceeding five billions. ‘We will have to engage in deficit financ- ing for the next fiscal year if we continue the present rat2 of spending. The debt is $1,800 for every individual in the United States. Every child that is born inherits $1,800 of this debt. The national debt represents a hidden mortgage of $6,000 on every home in America. In a single month this year the United States Gov- ernment during peacetime spends as much as the total cost of the Government in the 4 years of the Civil War, namely $3,350,000,000. There is a bottom to Uncle Sam’s Treasury and unless we cur- tail the wasteful and reckless spending, balance the budget, reduce the debt, and conserve our resources the financial sta- bility of the country will be doomed. Ours is indeed a spendthrift Govern- ment. Every day here in Washington we feel the impact of reckless govern- ment spending and were shocked to hear the recommendations of the President for the next fiscal year which will involve an expenditure of over %$5,000,000,000 more than revenues coming in. Our ef- forts to stop wasteful and profligate spending by the Government and bring expenditures and receipts into balance are overridden by the administration, I agree with economists and experts who hold that in times of prosperity such as these we should not only live within our income but should make some substan- tial payments on the Federal debt, which is increasing by leaps and bounds. While we exert every effort to curtail unnecessary expenditures, we should not make the error of failing to provide for our own domestic welfare and to pre- serve, develop, and put into full utiliza- tion the great natural resources of our own country and build up our industries and American enterprise so that we can keep our own country strong, the wheels of industry turning, and our great labor forces employed. During all my service in Congress I have fought to develop and utilize the great resources of the North- west, particularly the land, water, and power resources of the Columbia River and its tributaries. It would be foolish economy to fail to appropriate the nec- essary funds for the development of these great natural resources. The funds put to this use are investments in profitable enterprises which will return to the Government manyfold the moneys invested. This is not the place to make our cuts and savings in expenditures. In fact, we should increase the invest- ments in these great enterprises so that we may produce the goods and services needed to meet our necessary obliga- tions at home and abroad. There are many places, however, even in our domestic economy where large savings can be made in the lavish ex- penditures of the administration. The CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Hoover Commission’s report offers an op- portunity to achieve some savings by its adoption, which should be done. The Hoover Commission has made 288 rec- ommendations. One hundred and twen- ty-four of these require legislation. Thirty-six of this one hundred and twenty-four are already law. I hope Congress will go forward with enacting into law more of these recommendations. Substantial savings can be made by economies and reductions in European rearmament, the Marshall plan, and in other foreign-aid programs as well as our own national-defense program. War expenditures, past, present, and prospective wars, take 70 percent of our national budget. A straw in the wind shows which way it is blowing and small matters indicate the trend and spendthrift philosophy of the present administration. For in- stance, you may have seen in the press that the administration is securing 10 passenger cars for the use of the Presi- dent and the White House which will cost $30,000 apiece. They have 12- cylinder motors, a speed of more than 100 miles per hour, and gold-plated in- terior accessories, While it is true these cars will be acquired on a rental basis it does not require much imagination to reach the conclusion that Uncle Sam, in the end, pays the bill for these 10 de luxe cars. Mr. Speaker, a glaring example of wasteful expenditures brought home to us in Oregon 1s the tragic destruction of the battleship Oregon by an ungrateful government. You will recall that the Oregon was yanked from its moorings in the Portland harbor where it was main- tained as a shrine, by a grateful p2ople, endeared to the hearts of the Oregon school children and all patriotic citizens, and doomed to destruction for junk. The Government disposed of the old bat- tle wagon to a junk dealer for $35,000 and then turned around and bought back portions of the salvage from the battle- ship for which the Government paid $101,731.73, and the Government is still subject to a lawsuit for a further pay- ment for the hull which was repossessed by the Government. The hull, the last remnant of the heroic ship now floats and rusts away in ignominy near Guam in the waters of the far Pacific. Another glaring example of profligate waste of Federal funds is the hot potato, half-baked program of the admuinistra- tion. The administration’s potato pro- gram is a national scandal. The De- partment of Agriculture recently an- nounced that it planned to destroy some 50,000,000 bushels of potatoes which the Government has purchased under the support program. Last year a similar policy was followed by the administra- tion and great quantities of edible pota- toes were destroyed by being saturated with gasoline, dumped, allowed to rot, or converted into fertilizer. Uncle Sam with your tax dollars pays about $2.10 per 100 pounds or approximately $1.25 a bushel for these potatoes and has already spent $30,000,000 on the 1949 crop and it still contemplates buying 45 or 50 mil- lion bushels more. The housewife here in the Nation’s Capital pays 6 cents a pound for potatoes. About 13% million 2011 bushels have been sold at 1 cent per 100 pounds, for livestock feed. The details of one transaction were made public fol- lowing a report of a farmer in East Grand Forks, Minn., who sold 160,000 pounds of potatoes to the Government for $1.46 a hundredweight. Then he bought them back at 1 cent a hundredweight. The potatoes stayed on the farm, while the farmer and the Government representa- tive exchanged checks. In many cases the Government has paid the freight charges in addition and sacked the pota- toes in secks which cost 12 cents second hand and which the farmer can sell and save 12 cents on each 100 pounds for which he pays Uncle Sam 1 cent. Nota bad profit. Sometimes the potatoes are soaked with chemicals or coloring to make them unfit for human consump- tion. Secretary Brannan stated that the Government is prepared, if necessary, to dump 50,000,000 bushels of potatees. The administration’s potato program from its inception has cost almost one-half billion dollars, namely $495,169,000 for the period 1943 to 1949. The adminis- tration has further bungled the problem by importing large quantities of Cana- dian potatoes which are underselling the American potatoes and thereby cutting the throats of American producers as Well as mulcting Uncle Sam for heavy payments under the support program. In addition to potatoes the Commodity Credit Corporation is holding 465,000,c00 bushels of wheat which is about 40 per- cent of last year’s total crop, valued at approximately $1,000,000,000. Its esti- mated holdings of corn total 510,000 bushels or 13.5 percent of the 1949 crop, valued at almost three-fourths billion dollars, It holds 6,000,000 plus bales of cotton which is 27.45 percent of the 1949 crop, valued approximately at $1,000,- 000,000. In addition the Commodity Credit Corporation 1s holding the following: Amount Costs Dried milk..--pounds..} 254, 490, 784 $31, G15, 535, 72 Dried egg, -.--do_..- 40), 445, 878 98, 645, 444, 68 Butter _.do. 1, G74, SOL 61, 003, 323 06 Cheese dow. 23,136, 157 &, 080, 206080 Prunes... ~ do... 49, ORF, 455 5.006, 20.3 64 Kalsins. 0222-22. do....| 22,972, 380 2, 210, 133, 26 Edible diied beans hundredweight__ 4,850, 705 42, 80,9208 40 Rice 22... do... 431, 820 2,935, 252 60 Turkey’ _.._..pounds.. 725, 480 300,173 80 Canned Meaican meat pounds... 49, 448, 878 12, 468, 074. 26 This involves some 277,480 tons of sur- plus commodities costing $265,000,000. These huge Government surpluses of edible products are mounting day by day. It is reprehensible to destroy nourish- ing edible foods which have been pro- duced by American farmers and paid for by American taxpayers. I therefore introduced, on February 8, 1950, a bill, H. R. 7208, prohibiting the destruction of these surplus foods and making it mandatory on the Federal Government to make surplus food products available to charitable institutions, schools, wel- fare agencies, and thousands of needy Americans who are receiving starvation allotments from welfare agencies. The immediate problem is the disposi- tion of the huge surpluses which the Government now {is holding, which have
2012 been purchased with the hard-earned tax dollars of the American public. We are confronted with a condition and not atheory. It would be a scandalous pro- cedure to dump or destroy these edible foods and not make them available to American citizens in need. However, the larger problem is the maladminis- tration of the Federal Government under its present controls in failing to solve this great industrial and agricultural prob- lem—the production and distribution of the necessities of life without piling up huge surpluses paid for by taxes. As a nation, under our mass produc- tion, labor-saving machines, and skilled workmen, we are able to produce more of the necessities of life than the existing markets will absorb. The Government is boosting the market price of these products, potatoes, eggs, butter, cereals, to the consumer by purchasing vast quantities of the products with tax dol- Jars. Thus the taxpayer is hit twice, first, by having the prices of his every- day needs boosted skyward, and, sec- ondly, by hooking him with a heavy tax to pay for controlling the market, buy- ing up the surpluses, and as is now pro- posed, destroying them. The adminis- tration not only has not solved the prob- Jem but is hopelessly bogged down in a program which if pursued to its end will bankrupt the Nation and bring disaster to the potato farmer. I want to see potato farmers as well as all farmers secure a fair price for their produce in the market place. The administration’s program, however, if carried through will bring disaster to the potato farmer and is a fraud on the consumer. Potato farmers are deeply concerned over the huge cost of the support program and they themselves have been making major adjustments, reducing acreage 43 percent since 1943 and supporting a 60 percent support price instead of 90 How true today are the words of Jeffer- son, himself a farmer who designed the modern plow, when he said, “Were we to be directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap we should soon want bread.” Under the administration’s regimen- tation program no farmer is permitted to sow controlled crops until he gets an O. K. from the Big White Father in Washington. We should break the hold of the executive department over legis- lative processes and regain the inde- pendence of the Congress Senator Byrrp, the great modern Democrat, fight- ing for the preservation of our financial integrity, truly said: We are rapidly approaching a financial crisis in the fiscal affairs of our Government. When Congress convenes next January, it will be in the fateful position of determining whether: (1) To retrench drastically; (2) to impose staggering new taxos; (3) to embrace deficit spending again. To me the third course would be the road to certain ruin, for if we again deliberately embark on deficit spending during peace and prosperity, it 1s doubtful whether we shall ever balance the budget thereafter. The only course remain- ing open is to reduce expenditures to the point of a balanced budget under existing taxes. Reduction in tax rates would have a wholesome influence if it could be done with- out deficit spending. The solvency of our Government can be preserved only by the mobilization of public sentiment. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Senator Byrn also said recently the President is traveling “a nonstop, high- speed highway to socialism.” Mr. Speaker, there are only two ways to achieve a balanced budget. One is to reduce expenses and the other is to bring about an increased business volume from which increased tax receipts can be de- rived. A dynamic economy can bring in larger tax revenues but that means sound policies to encourage rather than discourage business expansion. The in- defensible wartime excise taxes should now be repealed in the interests of sound economy since the war has been over for more than 4 years. As reported in the United States News and World Report in a recent issue, defi- cit financing is dangerous in the face of our enormous public debt. It was not hazardous in the early thirties when the public debt was about $17,000,000,000, having been reduced from $2",000,000,- 000 by Republican administrations. Even at $45,000,000,000 in 1939, the Federal debt was small in comparison to the total private debt estimated then at $139,000,- 000,000. But to start deficit financing when the Federal debt is $252,000,000,000 in addition to a huge private debt is risky. It could mean loss of confidence in the integrity of the dollar. It could mean the flight of the dollar from savings to the purchase of commodities and tangi- ble articles. It could mean run-away prices and worse inflation than we have ever had before. Such an inflation ruined Germany and brought Hitler as the alleged savior. The Communists in Russia have been predicting it would nappen again and in America. How long can Europe hold if the United States is in the midst of economic chaos? Since the war's end we have expended over- seas alone over $27,000,000,000. Very Httle, if any, of it will ever be returned to our Federal Treasury. Through the 22 programs of foreign aid devised in the first 4 years after VJ-day we managed to spend $27,100,000,000 through June 30, 1949. This averaged approximately $18,500,000 per day, or $750,000 per hour, or $12,500 per minute, or $200 every time your watch has ticked since the last gun was fired. Uncle Sam, it is later than you think. It is high time to stop, look, and listen, and curb the orgy of wild and profligate spending both at home and abroad, oust the Communists and spendthrifts from our Government and places of authority, reduce the back-breaking tax load on the American people, end the war excise nuisance taxes, balance the Federal budget, put an end to deficit spending, adopt the Hoover report economies, free the Congress from executive domination, and thereby save free enterprise and human Hberty in America. It is high time to invest some of the taxes thus saved in America for the upbuilding of our own country and the welfare of our own American citizens. It is time to adopt a Marshall plan or an ECA for the old people of America so that they in their twilight years may have social se- curity giving them sufficient income from the wealth they have helped to create to provide food, shelter, clothing, and medi- cal care according to the American standards of living. FEBRUARY 20 Let us save the American system, free enterprise, and human freedoms by fol- lowing the sound advice often errone- ously attributed to Abraham Lincoln: You cannot bring about prosperity by dis- couraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weak-~- ening the strong. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot help the wage earner by pull- ing down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. You cannot keep out of trouble by spend- ing more than you earn. ‘We need an Abraham Lincoln today to lead us back to sanity and an abiding faith in the promises of a just God. With more faith in spiritual values and with a judicious handling of our govern- mental affairs, more common sense and less war and devastation, we would be able, from savings alone without increas- ing the taxes, to take care of our own people here in America, provide a decent living retirement for all of our old people in need, the widows, the injured, and the orphans, and still have billions of dollars left over for schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and for the upbuilding and re- habilitation of this great Republic. We are overlooking the admonitions of the Sermon on the Mount and the great spiritual values of life and placing our dependence on material things, the war engines of destruction, and the atomic bomb. For heathen heart that puts her trust In reeking tubs and tron shard— All valiant dust that builds on dust, And guarding calls not Thee to guard. Mr. Speaker, the Great Architect of the universe has been good to America. He has given us the greatest country onearth. It is rich in natural resources; we have great fertile fields, broad rivers charged with almost boundless hydro- electric power, great forests, an indus- trial system with skilled workmen, the greatest and most productive for human welfare and needs in all history, and a garden spot in which to spend our days during the short span we are permitted here on earth. We have, indeed, a wonderful world to live in, yet we are spending most of our time in petty, intolerant jealausics, selfish grasping for wealth and power, and in waging world-wide wars, prepara- tion for war, or the sordid business of cleaning up the mess after death and devastation wrought by war. We need in America today more good will among men and less war, more of the spirit of cooperation, brotherly love, and fellow feeling and less of selfishness, hatreds, animosity, and jealousies which are abroad in the world. Let all loyal Americans join together in unison to win lasting peace, to build a country in which every citizen may make the most of his skill, tnitiative, and enterprise, and to hold aloft the in- spiring torch of American freedom, Op- portunity, and justice. As we in the minority party in the Congress recently
1950 announced, our people must arouse themselves to preserve our precious liberties and freedoms—the right to worship God in our own way; to speak freely our minds without fear; to con- duct our lives and our affairs without officious meddling by a too-powerful Government. We must revivify those qualities of diligence, economy, courage, initiative, and patriotism which enabled our forefathers to make this Nation great. God save America! Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ANGELL. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. KEATING. In answer to the gen- tleman from Wisconsin [Mr. KEEFE] on the subject which he was discussing with his colleague from Wisconsin [Mr. Mur- RAY], as I understand it, under the pres- ent law the Secretary of Agriculture does have the power to curtail acreage to pre- vent this country from getting into such a@ mess as we are in with a lot of these surplus commodities that we have on hand. It is a situation that should have been foreseen and prevented by prompt action. Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ANGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. I think it should be evident to most anyone that you cannot run a support program and come out with an even number of bushels of any particular commodity. You can run a 100-yard dash and stop at a hun- dred yards; but naturally you will have some surpluses, but it should not cost over two or three million dollars, if it is operated in a conservative way. How-~- ever, I do not think you can pin-point it right down to the bushel or right down to the dozen eggs. Mr. KEATING. I agree with the gcn- tleman that you cannot stop at an exact point, but certainly 50,000,000 bushels, in the case of potatoes, or these tremendous amounts of eggs that are on hand is a long way from what I would characterize as good administration. I wanted to say that for the benefit of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. KEEFE] who I felt had not been entirely accurately informed by his colleague from Wisconsin [Mr. Murray]. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ANGELL. I yield to the gentle- man from Wisconsin [Mr. KEEFE]. Mr. KEEFE. I thank the gentleman from New York |Mr. Keatine] for at- tempting to clear up this situation. In view of the complexity of the situation and with so limited time to discuss it, I am serving notice that I am going to ask for a special order with sufficient time to discuss this proposition and to submit to the Congress and to the people of this country what I conceive, and what many other people who have cooperated with me in the effort, conceive to be a real step forward in the solution of the prob- lem that has brought about the very situation that we have here now. Any law that we pass at this time, in my opinion, simply deals with an existing XCVI-—~—127 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE situation that is atrocious, the disposi- tion of this surplus material that has been accumulated. Legally or illegally or what not, we have the surpluses on hand, and all we are talking about now is how we can get those surpluses to move out in forms of charity so that they will be eaten rather than destroyed. It seems to me that before a new crop comes on in this country, under the present price- support program, it is the duty and obli- gation of the Congress of the United States to take another look at this situa- tion and have an opportunity to enact some form of legislation that will take care of the situation and prevent the accumulation of these vast surpluses which bring about the atrocious situa- tion we now complain of. It is in that direction that I think the members of the Committee on Agriculture ought to work and the Members of Congress also. It does not look good to criticize after the fact unless we have a program to submit to the American people that will be a bet- ter program than any of the other pro- grams under which we have operated up to date. Mr. ANGELL. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. I now yield to the gen- tleman from Idaho for a question. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. I wish to ask a simple question of the gentleman from New York; can he tell us how the Sccre- tary of Agriculture through the exercise of his power of limitation of acreage could control the surplus supply of eggs? Mr. ANGELL. I yield to the gentle- man from New York to answer, if he so desires. Mr. KEATING. If the gentleman would like to know, I thought he was a farmer and represented a farming area. Mr. ANGELL He is a miner. Mr. KEATING. I am essentially a man who represents an industrial area; but as I understand, hens have to be fed and the acreage of their food has a lot to do with the amount that is available for the hens, and the number of hens has a lot to do with the production of eggs; and I may say to the gentleman from Idaho that it is hens that lay ergs in this country, in case the gentleman is not aware of that fact. Mr. ANGELL. Does not the gentle- man from New York agree that not only do hens have to be fed but human beings hke to be fed also? Mr. KEATING, I quite agree with the gentleman. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr, ANGELL. I yield to the gentle- man from Minnesota (Mr. AuGusT H. ANDRESEN |. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I should like to answer the question. We had one great industrialist shed light on this important question, a man by the name of Mr. Luckman, who {is the head of Lever Bros. He said that even if we did not feed hens any feed they would still lay eggs. I think he had some se- cret formula he had prepared, probably sawdust. Mr, ANGELL, Perhaps he would feed them soap. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Maybe he mixed the sawdust with a little soap. 2013 But he does not make soap any more; h2 severed his connection with that com- pany; but at that time he was urging that we limit production not only by not feeding hens but by not feeding livestock. In that way we could get rid of the feed- ing problem. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. If the gen- tleman will yield, I think that Mr. Luck- man, as chairman of a hundred-dollars- a-plate, tax-exempt, non-tax-paying dinner, who was fired the other day, also laid an ege. Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Speaker, in my previous remarks I discussed the ordcr bringing in some other crop-control programs which as you know will run into the hundreds of millions of dollars of Federal expenditures, much of which has been wasted. I agree with the gen- tleman from Wisconsin [Mr. KEEFE]. There are two problems involved in the problem of surpluses under crop control; one is that we have these large surpluses on hand of edible foods which the Amer- ican taxpayers have paid for and they are now being wasted, because the Sec- retary of Agriculture has announced he will cause them to be destroyed. It is not fair to farmers who produced them or to the consumers who are in dire need. It is a scandalous program. I introduced a bill (H. R, 7208) to prevent just this sort of thing, to prevent the destruction of edible foods and to require and make it mandatory that the Federal Govern- ment through the Department of Agri- culture or any other department that has charge of these foodstuffs make them available for human consumption to our people here in America who are in need, school children, old people on welfare, starving Indians, and others in need of food. Let me say that there are millions of people here in America to- day who are not getting enough to cat; they are on a starvation dict, if you please; they are starving to death. In my own city, for instance, a little while back a notice appeared in the local press of the death of a man who was on relief. The old man died and the diagnosis of his case was that he had starved to death. Mr KEEFE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield at that point? Mr. ANGELL. Just a moment and I will yield. The average payment to these old peo- ple under social security is $25 a month, which is $11 less than to those who are on public relief; and I say to my col- leagues, Mr. Speaker, and I say to the country that it 1s certainly a tragedy for this great rich country of ours to spend billions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money buying up these surplus foods to increase the price so the ordinary individual can- not buy them and then take the edible foods, cover them with gasoline or other chemicals, or otherwise destroy them. That, I say, is indefensible. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield further? Mr. ANGELL. I yield to the gentle- man from Wisconsin. Mr. KEEFE. And I wish to call ate tention to the great work the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. ANGELL! has done throughout his service in Congress to try
2014 to render aid to the aged people of this country. And I want to say to him that I hope there is incorporated in this social-security bill that is pending in the other body, a bill which was passed by this House, a provision for a stamp plan, if you please, that would permit bene- Nieiaries under title I, the contributory old-aze system, and the beneficiaries un- der the old-age and survivors insurance title and the public relief title and gen- eral security, a provision to give to the beneficiaries of those titles the use of these surpluses and the direction to see that they are directed thrcugh the nor- mal channels of distribution under that stamp plan. That program is a part of the program I am going to submit in the next few days to the Congress which I believe is a well worked out and a well thovght out plan that will have all of the benefits of the Brannan plan for con- sumer appeal but will wipe out the situa- tion such as exists today where we have the surpluses confronting us and no way that anybody can think of to get rid of them. There is an opportunity in the Senate today to write a provision into the Social Security Act that will offer the avenue where we can take care of these aged people. give them a little additional income above the measly, pitiful pension and annuities which they get, either un- der the insurance program or the con- tributory program or the noncontribu- tory program and allow those payments to be made in the form of food declared surplus by the Secretary of Agriculture, issue them monthly stamps to buy it with at the same time their checks for these pensions are issued. It is a simple plan and would be a most workable plan, it seems to me, and one that will solve the thing in the interest of doing some- thing for the people who need it the most. I thank the gentleman for raising this question in this debate. Mr. ANGELL. I agree with the gen- tleman from Wisconsin. Let me say further that he will recall when H. R. 6000, the social-security bill, came before the House for consideration it came here under a gag rule and we were not per- mitted to offer a single amendment. Mr. KEEFE. That is right. Mr. ANGELL. If we had been per- mitted to do so we would have offered these amendments which would have ac- complished the things the gentleman and I are now discussing. I started to say a moment ago that there are two problems before us in con- nection with the disposition of surplus commodities now held by the Federal Government. One is the immediate problem, a factual one, of getting those foodstuffs into the possession of Amer- ican citizens and others who may use them for food, particularly the needy people. The Government has them and let us make them available to the needy. That ts one problem. Let us not destroy them. The other and the larger prob- lem, however, 1s the long-range program in connection with the production and distribution of the foodstuffs of America, and other commodities for human needs, so that the Federal Government will not have to take the taxpayer's money to pay for them, then pile up large surpluses, such as potatoes for instance, then be at CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE our wit’s end as to how to destroy them, either by sinking them in the sea or covering them with gasoline or chemicals or by turning them back to the farmers at 1 cent per 100 pounds when Uncle Sam has paid $2.20 a hundred pounds for them. The housewife is forced to pay 6 cents a pound for potatoes for her table. In many cases Uncle Sam sacks them in addition so that he is paying 12 cents for second-hand sacks or 22 cents for new sacks to put the potatoes in. They are then turned over to the farmers for 1 cent per hundred pounds including the sack. The farmer himself could dump those potatoes in the back yard of his farm, take the sacks and sell them and make 11 cents apiece and if a new sack he would make 21 cents apiece. The farmers are not to blame for the bun- gling of the program. The farmers have cooperated with the Government. I want the farmer to get a fair price in the market place. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ANGELL. I yield to the gentle- man from Massachusetts. Mr. HESELTON. I want to assure the gentleman and the membership that those who filed these resolutions which we have called to the attention of the Committee on Agriculture and the House are addressed only to this immediate urgent problem. We are not indicating that we do not recognize the over-all and equally important matter that the gen- tleman has pointed out. But I would like to add right here in terms of what the gentleman has said that according to the latest figures there are 2,715,751 persons receiving old-age pensions in this coun- try, there are 1,484,404 persons receiving dependents and children benefits, there are 92,000 blind receiving help and 543,- 000 on State and local relief rolls. I think the gentleman is entirely right that when we have some 278,000 tons of edible food we should find some way of bring- ing those people and that food together. These are more than statistics. Mr. ANGELL. I agree with the gentle- man and thank him for his contribution which is very pertinent to this discus- sion. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ANGELL. I yield to the gentle- woman from Massachusetts Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Is it not true that the Government is buy- ing the best potatoes? It seems to me that the potatoes that I have been secur- ing are the worst that I have eaten for a great many years. Mr. ANGELL. That is true, the Gov- ernment only buys top grades which the Secretary of Agriculture has announced he is ready to destroy. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. And Canadian potatoes are selling at a lower price than our own. Mr. ANGELL. That is correct. I thank the gentlewoman for bringing Ca- nadian potatoes into the discussion. Is it not nonsensical for this Government to dip into the Treasury and buy Ameri- can grown potatoes and support and raise the price so that the ordinary citi- zen cannot buy them, and then let down the bars and ship in thousands of car- Mr. FEBRUARY 20 loads of potatoes from Canada, or allow them to be shipped in, from Canada, to undersell the potatoes grown in America, and then use American dollars to sup- port the price for the potatoes the Ca- nadian potatoes displace? If that is not nonsensical, I would like some gen- tleman to point out to me what ts. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. They are allowing Swiss watches and Swiss watch parts to come into this country, underselling our own and putting our own industry out of business. Mr. ANGELL. That is quite true. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr, Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ANGELL, I yield to the gentle- man from Idaho for a question. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. I want to say to the gentleman, in all this discussion about potatoes I have never heard @ prac- tical and feasible way of preserving those surpluses. We have in Maine and in Idaho vast dehydrating plants, and it would be a simple matter to turn the potatoes, which is a highly perishable product, into a staple, by dehydrating the potatoes and making them available for shipment to people that are starv- ing. I want to also commend the gen- tleman for his stand on feeding the hungry and for his views on social secu- rity, increasing the compensation for people who are dependent. Mr. ANGELL. MayI say to the gen- tleman from Idaho that we have a very acute problem in my own district. Many of you know that the city of Portland is the greater portion of my congressional district. We have some 500,000 people in that area. We have some very critical problems in reference to many of the needy people, particularly some of the newcomers who have come into our State. Many of them are unable to find the necessary funds and to find the food- stuffs to maintain their existence. Asa matter of fact, Oregon is the fastest- growing State in the Union. A large per- centage of those people coming to Ore- gon are in my congressional district. Just this week I had up with the Secre- tary of Agriculture this question as to why we could not make available to these needy people in Portland welfare agen- cies, school lunches, schools that are tak- ing care of veterans and maintaining cafeterias that are not run for profit, and other welfare groups—why we could not make available to the people in Port- land these surplus commodities, particu- larly the potatoes which are to be de- stroyed, and I have not yet received a favorable answer from any Government agency or official. I have been very much intrigued by the argument made on this floor by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. HEseELToN], the very scholarly and con- vincing arguments he has made with reference to that very problem, and the fight that he is putting up for the people in his district, similarly situated to many in my own district. I am doing the same thing in my district, particularly for the people of Portland, and I have not yet received any favorable response from the Department of Agriculture or the Com- modity Credit Corporation or any other Government agency as to how they will make available to those needy people
1950 these surplus commodities which the Secretary of Agriculture has announced he is going to destroy. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yleld? Mr. ANGELL. I yield to the gentle- man from Wisconsin. Mr. KEEFE. It seems to me that we are wrestling with a problem that is of supreme importance. While it is impor- tant to deal with this immediate prob- lem of surpluses, it seems to me the more important over-all question that the Congress ought to direct its energy and attention to is the rewriting of an entirely new over-all program, or the incorporation of old ideas into a new pro- gram to deal with this problem. The Brannan plan proposes a system of pro- duction payments with some other re- finements that no one knows exactly what it is going to cost. It may be as- sumed, however, that it will not cost less than the present system which is geared to a system of price support. In either event, whether under the present system or under the Brannan plan, if the cost is three or four billion dollars a year, it is going to be financed through deficit financing, and your children, and great grandchildren, are going to be called upon to ultimately pay that bill. Now, I ask you again in your thinking to raise the commensurate benefit that will ac- crue to your grandchildren out of cither the present program or the Brannan plan, if it is enacted. They are the ones that are ultimately going to have to pay for it. It seems to me, if we are going to have to pay in any event to maintain the balance in our economy as between agriculture and the other segments of our economy and make that balance available through deficit financing, add- ing to the national debt, as we are doing, we ought to adopt a program of com- pensation to the agricultural population of this country that would not only in- sure them an adequate income but would gear that income to soil conservation, to tree planting, to reforestation, and to crop practices that will give to future generations some benefit on account of the money they in after years are going to be called upon to pay. We are not doing it today. Mr. ANGELL. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his able contribu- tion. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous order of the House, the gentle- man from Indiana [Mr. Jacoss] is recog- nized for 30 minutes. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, this is the first time since I have been a Member of this House that I have stayed through special orders, and I am glad I did. I have enjoyed the mutual-admiration society that my friends to my left seem to be enjoying. In fact, it reminds me a good deal of a lawsuit that was tried down in southern Indiana, back in the years when I was a young lawyer, before a@ justice of the peace. The jury dis- agreed. The young lawyer that was de- fending the case met the foreman of the jury after the trial was over and said, “I wonder why you couldn't agree upon a verdict?” The foreman said, “Well, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the truth of the matter is we did agree. We decided that this was the best law- suit that had been tried in Shelby County in 25 years, and we just thought we ought to have it over again.” So I suppose we will have these pota- toes over again in potato patties and in various ways. It reminds me of the remark that was made last year in a column by Dan Kid- ney, who writes for the Scripps-Howard papers, when a prominent Member of Congress was investigating Howard Hughes and had to call off future hear- ings because he got poison ivy. Mr. Kidney wrote that it was the first case in history of a man getting poison ivy from handling a hot potato. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. McCORMACK. We have hstened to a lot of remarks today about the po- tato situation Many of us predicted this last year. The gentleman from Wis- consin |Mr. Keerrl is the only one who has spoken this afternoon that has ap- proached it in its proper level and in a proper way. The responsibility rests upon Con- gress. Every other Member who has spoken has been shadow-boxing, duck- ing their own responsibility. We passed the law. The Secretary of Agriculture has to administer the law, whether ne likes to or not. We directed him by law what to do. Most of those who spoke today, if not all of them, voted for the bill they passed last year. We warned last year, those of us who advocated the adoption of the Brannan plan as an experiment, on three farm products, that you were go- ing to hurt the whole farm program. By law you provided that the Secretary of Agriculture could not do anything ex- cept what he is doing. We even provided by law—lI did not, but a majority of the Congress did—that the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of a surplus could pay the transportation charges when the food was to be used for animals, but in the case of potatoes he could not pay one penny of transportation charges to let those surplus potatoes get into the hands of human beings. So let us face the sit- uation. It is everything the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. ANGELL] said. I agree with him—it is a sin. But the sin or the cause of the sin rests upon the Congress. Let us take our own responsibility. Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask for this time this afternoon more or less upon a point of personal privilege. On the Ist day of February the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Horrman] came in- to the well of the House and in his in- imitable way took the Democrats over the coals about certain things. After he had finished I came down into the well of the House to answer him. Among other remarks I said this, and I quote from the ReEcorD: I think these differences— Meaning the differences between the Democrats and Republicans— are explained to a great extent, by that sage remark that was made by our colleague from Pennsylvania, the immediate past chairman 2015 of the Republican National Committee, Mr. Hucu D. Scort, Jr. He said that the Repub- lican Party was constituted of the very best people in this country; cultured folks. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Will the gentleman yield, since he has mentioned my name? Mr. JACOBS. May I finish the quota- tion and then I will be glad to yield. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Iam ask- ing the gentleman to yield at this time for a special reason. Mr. JACOBS. I yield. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I wrote the gentleman a letter in which I said to the gentleman that the statement which he imputes to me is false; he had no proof of it and if he attempted to repeat it again, I would brand it to his face and in his presence as an utterly false, untrue statement. If the gentleman has au- thority or witnesses, he should produce them before imputing to me a statement which I never made, and which there may be some reason to believe he knows I never made. Mr. JACOBS. I rose today to prove you did say that. I have the proof here and I shall proceed to submit it. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Mr. Speak- er, will the gentleman yield further? Mr. JACOBS. I do not yield further. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Then the gentleman has no proof. Mr. JACOBS. Well, I have 27 min- utes left. Let us wait and see whether I have the proof. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. May I suggest to the gentleman he will need not only 27 minutes, but 27 years to prove something that never happened. Mr. JACOBS. Of course, you would like us to accept the statement that it never happened before the witnesses are heard. Now, I will proceed to read what I said. Continuing the quote: Of course, since they have taken all the best people of the country, he figures there is no one but riffraff left for us Democrats. Consequently, we often see things in a dif- ferent light than does the gentleman who associates only with the best and most cul- tured people. In taking this up chronologically, if the gentleman had not risen, I would still have called attention to his letter which he wrote me in which he said it was not true. I will read one sentence from his letter at this time. It is dated Febru- ary 2: This is to say specifically and emphatically that J never did make the statement you attributed to me or any statement carrying that intent or purpose. You will observe that I did not purport to quote his exact language. I para- phrased what I understood he had satd. When I received his letter I realized that anyone might be in error and I might have been misinformed. If I had been misinformed and if I felt now that I was misinformed, I would be the first man to come into the well of the House and publicly withdraw the statement and apologize for having made it. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBS. For what, a question or @ speech?
2016 Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. For a question. Mr. JACOBS. I yield for a question. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. The gen- tleman has had since the 2d of Feb- ruary to make that apology, or to make that investigation. There were between 550 and 600 people in the hall when the remark which the gentleman imputes to me is alleged to have been made. Has the gentleman spoken to or interviewed any one of those 550 or 600 people? Mr. JACOBS. I will come to my proof in a moment, but the implication is un- fair as I shall show you. Since I made my investigation I notified you on the 7th that I would on the following day, if granted time, comment upon it. Up until now I have not had an opportunity to gain the floor. I notified you that if I did this morning I would comment on it this afternoon, and you are here. Now I am going to proceed to submit proof that the gentleman did say some- thing that meant exactly what I para- phrased. Bear in mind, his statement was that he did not make any statement carrying that intent or purpose. First, I think it is well to quahfy the witness. You call a witness. Those who are going to listen to the witness want to know something about the wit- ness, so I am going to tell you whom I am calling as a witness in this case and the circumstances under which the wit- ness testifies. I am going to call none other than the Philadelphia Inquirer, a daily newspaper that is published in the gentleman's own district, or the city from which he hails. It is a newspaper that is thoroughly Republican. I shall prove before I finish that it is extremely friendly to the gentleman from Penn- sylvania and extremely unfriendly to the Democrats as it is friendly to the Repub- lican Party. I shall further show that the circum- stances under which this witness testifies are circumstances under which it could not be in error, because it so happens that the quotation that I will refer to is attributed by this friendly witness to the gentleman from Pennsylvania in a story in which the gentleman from Penn- sylvania had denied a similar statement by Mr. Philip Matthews, who was chair- man of the Pennsylvania State Demo- cratic Central Committee. I shall first give the quotation, and then I shall qualify the witness. You will remember I said that the gentleman had said that the Republican Party is constituted of the best people and the most cultured folks. What Mr. Matthews had previously said, sometime previous to June 29, 1948, was that the gentleman from Pennsylvania |Mr. Hucu D. Scort, Jr.) had made this statement: We are the best stock. We are the people who represent the real grit, brains, and back- bone of America. This is quoted in a story printed under the headline in which the gentleman from Pennsylvania denies that state- ment and brands it as a lie. In the story the gentleman from Pennsylvania is quoted as saying: In short, it is a le. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE He proceeded to say: Actually, I said then and I think now that the Republicans are of the stock of Abraham Lincoln; that we havo the best party; that in that party we have the best guts and brains in America. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. If the gentlcnian will yield right there, I would like to congratulate the gentleman on having for the flist time in his address meade an accurate statement. That last statement is exactly what I said. Mr. JACOBS. I am glad to have the gentleman admit it. It will probably dispense with the proof that is neces- sary to qualify the witness, although the prcof is rather a ncving, if you consider some of the editorials nnd cartoons. I feel like I did one time when I was in a lawsuit, and I had 25 witnesses to prove all of the gory details of an accident, and I was getting ready to murder the other side, and the lawyer on the other side got up and admitted the fact. I felt rather disappointed. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Does the gentleman expect me to apologize for having said that the Republican Party is the party of the stock of Abraham Lincoln? Mr. JACOBS. No. I am going to dis- cuss what you said. It just dispenses with my having to qualify the witness. I was wondering if you were going to dispute the Philadelphia Inquirer. We will dis- cuss what the gentleman said. Now, re- member I said that he had said that the Republican Party was constituted of the best people. Well, as one who grew up in the same neighborhood in which Abraham Lincoln spent his life from the time he was 9 until he was 21, we folks down there think that Abraham Lincoln and those who admire him and his prin- ciples are of the best people in the world; and if you are of the stock of Abraham Lincoln, then what he said is true, that you are of the best people. So what I cannot understand is why the gentleman got so excited when I said that he had said that the Republican Party was con- stituted of the best people. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBS. In just a moment, I would like to make this comment. What he meant, of course, was that the Re- publican Party had a monopoly on the stock of Abraham Lincoln, because it was a political speech the gentleman was making, and what point would there have been in saying that you had people of the stock of Abraham Lincoln if the Democrats also had people of the stock of Abraham Lincoln? He would not have intended to make it, so obviously that is what he meant. Mr. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yicld? Mr. JACOBS. I yield. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Does the gentleman say that I am in error in the assumption that the Democratic Party and its orators, the Republican Party and its orators; yes, the Commu- nist Party and its orators have all claimed that they were following the principles of Abraham Lincoln? FEBRUARY 20 Mr. JACOBS. Oh, I think so; it isa good deal like saying that the Devil quotes the Scriptures. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. They have all claimed credit as his followers, have they not? Mr. JACOBS. Sure. Mr, McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBS. Certainly. Mr. McCORMACK. As a matter of fact, when you read the life of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, Abra- ham Lincoln was really a disciple of Thomas Jefferson; he was the progres- sive of his day; as a matter of fact, Thecdore Roosevelt said that if Abraham Lincoln had lived then he would be classed as a radical progressive. If Lin- coln were alive today he would be a Democrat Mr. JACOBS. I think that is quite true. But I would like to proceed fur- ther with this statement. Now, the gen- tleman from Pennsylvania says that this statement is accurate, that that is what he said and I am still trying to figure out—— Mr.HUGHD.SCOTT,JR_ If the gen- tleman will yield, I will say that the last statement the gentleman made was accurate and that it was the only state- man the gentleman had made today that was accurate. Mr. JACCBS. I understand, and I be- lieve these people here have intelligence enough to understand that point. A person does not have to keep reminding them of it; there are some good people here, :ome people with brains, so what I would like to do now is to go ahead and discuss it. Mr. Matthews said that the gentleman had said, “We represent the real grit.” Now, he says that what he actually said was “In this party we have the best guts.” Well, what is he quibbling about? He is a Philadelphia lawyer; he knows that they both mean the same thing, un- doubtedly. I will not argue with him about whether they have the best guts or not, but I will tell you what I will do, I will agree that they have the most abundant; and I will tell you why I will agree to it. The truth of the matter is that when I came down here and mede that statement I was intending to “rib” the gentleman from Michigan; that was a parenthetical remark. There was no feeling of hostility toward the genticman from Pennsylvania; I paraphrased what he had said. Isubmit it to the fair judg- ment of everyone who heard both state- ments that it was a fair summary of what he said and did not warrant ad- dressing a letter to me in which he used the word “‘lie.” I submit that it is a fair paraphrasing of his remark that he had admitted to here on the floor. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBS. In just a moment. Whether they have the best guts or not they certainly have the most abundant of them, because the gentleman was over here and they were having a great time and they enjoyed it; and I did, too, as far as that is concerned, when the gentleman from Michigan was on the floor. I did
1950 not agree with him, but he does an excel- lent job when he comes down here and uses the fish scaler on us Democrats. I enjoy art for art’s sake. Mr, HOFFMAN of Michigan. If the gentleman will yield, I just wanted to thank him for his compliment. Mr. JACOBS. We Democrats have enough sense of humor to enjoy art for art's sake; we recognize art when we see it. We do not say anything nearly as strong as what the gentleman from Michigan said or what the gentleman from Pennsylvania himself has said since. I remember one place where he referred to the Democrats as practicing hypocrisy. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentle- man from Massachusetts. Mr. McCORMACK. The word “ap- plause” was kept in the Recorp which I Observed with some amazement because for years we were not supposed to put that word in the Rxecorp. But it is a mark of respect for the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. JACOBS. It only shows how fair we are to the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. There are two things I should like to say. The applause was put in the REcorp because it was a part of the proceedings, I sup- pose, but there was left out of the Rec- ORD my thanks to the gentlemen from whom it came. I do not know how that happened. The gentleman from Indiana said a moment ago that he went down in the well to rib the gentleman from Mich- igan. I assume he referred to me. Mr. JACOBS. Yes. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Why did you not do that and lay off the gentle- mean from Pennsylvania [Mr. Huan D. Scort, Jr.1? I would not care. He is sore about it. Mr. JACOBS. I will tell you why. Because the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania belongs to the same party and he is your former national chairman. Frankly I had never met the gentleman from Pennsylvania but I just assumed he was a good sport like the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. He is. Mr. JACOBS. I was apparently mis- taken. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. He is, but he does not like to be ribbed. I do not care so much unless it is something serious. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Mr, Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. The gentleman has just implied that I am not a good sport. I want to suggest that anyone who can sit here and listen to these wanderings incubated in the gentleman’s own cerebrations has to be @ good sport in order to sit here and listen to them. Mr. JACOBS. I appreciate the fact. I have seen a smile on the gentleman’s CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE face. However, it would seem he was quite outraged over this paraphrasing. Mr, McCORMACK, Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentle- man from Massachusetts. Mr. McCORMACK. If I remember, in connection with the question of ex- clusiveness, Governor Driscoll and five other Republican governors sent a tele- gram recently to the chairman of the national committee protesting among other things against the exclusiveness of the Republican Party. That means the group in control. They were pro- testing their exclusiveness as distin- guished from the people themselves and the Republicans as a whole. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. If the gentleman will yield, I can explain that. It is not so long ago that some of them excluded me out, so I am not in any clique. Mr. JACOBS. I just want to comment @ little further on this question of the gentleman saying that they were of the stock of Abraham Lincoln and had the best guts in the country. You know, that is what we call puffing in law school. We are puffing our own wares, our own stock. I do not see anything wrong in that and I do not understand why the gentleman from Pennsylvania should take offense at it. Let us proceed now to the next state- ment. He said, “We have the best, brains in America.” Well, of course, that is where I got the idea they felt they were the most cultured folks in America. 5o, after all, when I reccived the gentleman’s letter I thought to myself: Well, after all, you may be mistaken about this. If you are mistaken about that, the manly thing to do is go on the floor and admit it. But I always investigate when I am challenged. I investigated and I feel quite clear that the gentleman did make the statement which is attributed to him by the Philadelphia Inquirer. I do not think there can be any question but what it means exactly the same thing as I said when I was on the floor the other day. I would have thought that all he meant was that they were advocating the best principle, consequently the people who think most clearly fall in behind them and support their principles. But one of the reasons that it occurred to me the gentleman might have meant something else was the fact he took umbrage at what I had said. In regard to this matter of being of the stock of Abraham Lincoln, I am re- minded of what happened during the Lincoln dinners just recently. I would like to read to you from an article ap- pearing in the Indianapolis Star: LINCOLN’S PITHY QUOTES BELONG TO BOME- BODY ELSE WasHinaton.—Sadder and wiser speech writers were vowing around here yesterday to stick to the Gettysburg Address from now On. Many of them had sent their Senators and Congressmen out for the Republican Lin- coln Day festivities armed with this quota- tion: “You cannot bri ebout prosperity by Giscouraging thrift. ‘You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You 2017 cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by de- stroying the rich. You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initia- tive and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” Republicans starting out on the annual speech-making tour in tribute to Abraham Lincoln found these tempting statements. There is no denying that they sum up the criticism of the Fair Deal that Republicans have been making for a long time. The only trouble 1s, Abraham Lincoln never said tlem. The Cleveland Plain Dealer edi- torially said it “bet that Lincoln would be sorry that he didn't think of (them) first.” Actually, the statements started on their way about 10 years ago when a group of Jef- fersonian Democrats in California laid them down as a credo. Somehow they were picked up in a folder issued back in 1942 by the committee for con- stitutional government and mistakenly ate tributed to Abraham Lincoln. Then Mrs. Francgss P, Botton, Republican, Ohio, put them in the CoNcrRESsIONAL REcoRD, although she said she did not pretend to vouch for them. Eventually Look magazine came out with an article offering the quotations as genuine, This, of course, set off Life and Time with an exposé of the quotations. But all this made no impression on the speech writers. When Senator Wii11am E. JENNER started for Chicago with his Lincoln Day speech, he had the quotes neatly set down as the base of his address MHurried telephone calls set the Hoosier Senator right. Senator Homer E. CAPEHART’S research ex= pert sent him homeward with the quotations among his notes, although there was hope now he might not use them. Senator HuGH BuTumEr, of Nebraska, was all set to refer to them in a speech in Arizona, Meantime, the Library of Congress’ legis- lative research staff was getting phone calls by the dozen asking for confirmation of the Lincoln quotations’ authenticity. The Library staff sadly reported that the quotations were not from Lincoln. They sent inquiring congressional offices photo- static evidence of their origin. The inquiries became so numerous that the research staff finally got out a general letter explaining the whole situation. So, if my Republican friends consider themselves experts on Abraham Lincoln, or, if they think they are of the exclu- sive stock of Abraham Lincoln, it is a rather strange thing that they would start out making all these Lincoln Day addresses throughout the country with a false quotation from Abraham Lincoln. I want to say this, in closing, to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. When I made the comment on the Ist of Febru- ary I had absolutely no intention of of- fending the gentleman at all. I under- stood that he had said that, or that in substance. If I had not thought that it was true, I would not have said it in the first place. If I had found that it was untrue, I would come down here and ad- mit it and I would apologize to the gene tleman. It is my opinion that the en- tire truth is now in the Recorp, both the way I paraphrased the remark and the exact remarks that the gentleman ad- mits are correct,
2018 I wish to say in closing that I have no feeling of animosity toward the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. It was more in fun than anything else. The only thing that makes it serious to me is that the gentleman did take offense at the re- mark, and I want to assure him that it was not personal so far as I was con- cerned at all. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I wanted to say that when the gentleman refers to false quotations attributed to Abra- ham Lincoln, that he has already estab- lished himself as an expert witness on false quotations, and I would accept that. But, I wish, if the gentleman is to quote a letter which I wrote to him, that the gentleman would be good enough to in- clude the entire letter, or so long as he has not done so, I will be glad to include it. Mr. JACOBS. I will put the corre- spondence in the REcorp. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I take no umbrage at any accurate statement, and since the gentleman admits that he did accuse me of making a false quotation, attributed not to me but to the chair- man of the Democratic State Committee of Pennsylvania, but now admits that I made merely the correct quotation which refers to the stock of Abraham Lincoln, I accept his apology subject to the right of further comment in the special order I shall have very shortly. Mr. JACOBS. Is the last quotation attributed to the gentleman in the Phila- delphia Inquirer correct? Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. No; the last quotation is not correct. ‘‘We are the stock of Abraham Lincoln,” is cor- rect from there on. Mr. JACOBS. How about the follow- ing, that we have the best party, that in that party we have the best guts and brains in America, does the gentleman deny that? Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I do not deny it. Iam a good Republican as the gentleman is a good Democrat. I was speaking at a Republican meeting, and I do not withdraw a word of it. The gentleman called it “puffing.” Perhaps he should call it salesmanship. Mr. JACOBS. I am perfectly willing then to let those who have heard what I said and what the gentleman admits he said judge as to whether or not my para- phrasing was inaccurate. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentle- man from Michigan. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. The gentleman is in an amiable frame of mind. Does he not think he ought to apologize to me? The gentleman wrote me a letter asking me to come over, that he was going to talk about me, and he has not done it, and I am disappointed. Mr. JACOBS. After all—— Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Will the gentleman some other time? Mr. JACOBS. I will talk about the gentleman some other time, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. All right. Mr. JACOBS. I am sorry I did not mention the gentleman any more than Idid. I do apologize for not mentioning him. By the way, I will not talk about him, but I will give him some advice. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Wait a minute; is the gentleman going to charge for it? Mr. JACOBS. No, no. As I told you the other day, I am not practicing law for fees at all. According to my friend Westbrook Pegler I made $150,000 a year practicing law, so this advice ought to be worth something, and it is free. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I hope it is worth more than it costs me. Mr. JACOBS. It should be. The gentleman, I understand, has a lawsuit pending against a colleague for libel. In my experience in practicing law for 21 years, I have found there is one freat danger to a libel suit, and that is the danger that the other fellow is liable to prove it. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Does the gentleman mean to state, now—— Mr. JACOBS. I am speaking ab- stractly, the gentleman understands. I know nothing about the case. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Yes, I guess you do not know anything about the case. Although I do not love law- suits, and I am sure he does not, if the gentleman wants to repeat outside the statement that the other gentleman made, I can guarantee him a lawsuit. Mr. JACOBS. Of course, I know noth- ing about the fact Mr. HUGH D.SCOTT, JR. Mr. Speak- er, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBS. This has moved west. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I under- stand that. I am afraid the gentleman will forget me. I want to get the benefit of further conversation with the gentle- man. Mr. JACOBS. ‘The gentleman has had plenty of benefit. I have paid more attention to him than to anybody else. Also while the gentleman from Michi- gan was on the floor that day he was talking about the gentlewoman from California. He was telling how she was coming out of the ladies’ room down- stairs, and had met some lady going in, and had told her, “This is only for Con- gresswomen.” ‘This is not legal advice. I could not charge the gentleman for it. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. It is not rest-room advice, is it? Mr. JACOBS. No; it is just plain, practical advice, based on the legal ad- vice I gave the gentleman on the dan- gers of a libel suit. Let me make a sug- gestion. The gentleman had better be watching that libel suit instead of the door to the ladies’ rest room. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Do not charge me with being near the rest room. I do not even know where it is. Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to make a part of my remarks correspondence consisting of three letters exchanged between myself and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and also an article from the Indianapolis Star dated February 11, 1950, which con- tains the entire quotation to which I referred earlier in my remarks, FEBRUARY 20 The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana? There was no objection. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, House o¥ REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., February 2, 1950. Hon. ANDREW JACOBS, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. JAcogs: Each time the old lie bobs up I have to nail it. Although you did not give me the courtesy of any advance notice when you launched your attack on me on the floor yesterday, let me, at least, have the opportunity to advise you against making the same particular mistake again. This is to say, specifically and emphatically, that I never did make the statement you attributed to me, or any statement carrying that in- tent or purpose. It wags false when first used, it was false when used by you, and the pur- pose of this letter is simply to request that you do not again fall into the same error; if you do, I shall be ‘under the obligation of publishing this letter and alleging that the statement 1s a lie, that I informed you that it was a lie, and that you have repeated it. I assume you will do no such thing to an- other Member of the House and I would ap- preciate your so advising me, as, of course, I cannot always be present on the floor when you are and have no other means of know- ing whether you intend to make unwar- ranted and inaccurate attacks upon one who has certainly given you no cause for such action. I may add, my own people were people of very modest circumstances, that they were all Democrats, and that I have never made any distinction between peoples of any race, color, or creed in my whole Hfe; my Judg- ment of people is based on their conduct and their actions, and that, of course, is the way I would judge you and the way I would ex- pect you to judge me Very truly yours, Huey D Scort, Jr. Fesruary 7, 1950. Hon Hue D. Scott, Jr., House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Scott: Responding to your com- munication of February 2, 1950, please be ad- vised I will, if granted tlme as requested, comment upon its contents on Wednesday, February 8, 1950. May I say I regret your umbrage at what I considered good-natured ribbing. Them that can’t take it, shouldn’t dish it out. Yours truly, ANDREW JACOBS, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., February 7, 1950. Hon. ANDREW JACcoss, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Jacoss: I have never objected to good-natured ribbing. I simply like people to stick to the truth. Very truly yours, Huan D. Scort, Jr. The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Bryson] is recognized for 20 minutes. SOIL CONSERVATION FOR SOUTH CARO- LINA’S PIEDMONT AND THE NATION Mr. BRYSON. Mr. Speaker, I received a letter the other day from a long-stand- ing friend and neighbor of mine, sug- gesting that I make a speech here in the House on soil conservation. This man,
1950 Mr. 8. B. Huff, of route 2, Piedmont, 8. C., is just a plain, practical farmer. But he has a great passion for conserving our soil and water resources, and restor- ing the productiveness of some of our farming lands which have suffered much through years and generations of neglect or abuse. Mr. Huff is chairman of the board of supervisors of the Greenville County Soil Conservation District. He knows what he is talking about when he says that an adequate  soil-conservation program must constitute the basis of any long- range agricultural program. My per- sonal observations likewise confirm his statement that this is a matter of great interest and importance, not only to his neighbors and himself in the South Car- olina Piedmont country, but also to farmers and other people everywhere. A permanent healthy agriculture is a matter of direct concern in every State and in every congressional] district in the country. We, whose business it is to pass upon a great variety of legislation af- fecting the welfare of agriculture, cer- tainly should take the time occasionally to discuss the progress and needs of such basic undertakings as those for conserv- ing our production farmlands, our for- ests, our wildlife, and our other natural riches. William Jennings Bryan said one time: Burn down our cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms, and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country. Although I am a city man, I agree with Bryan’s reasoning in this regard. No one needs to remind me, for example, that it was South Carolina land that actually provided my own education and has helped to support me in my law prac- tice since. For it was cotton produced on the land around that kept the spin- dles turning in the Greenville mills where I worked for 15 years while going through school. And it is cotton, livestock, peaches and other products of this same land that today still provide the wealth upon which I and my fellow townsmen depend for our living. It is most cer- tainly true that if agriculture succeeds, industry thrives; and if agriculture lan- guishes, industry and all our business in town suffers accordingly. Grass has not grown in the streets of Greenville, Laurens, Union, or Spartan- burg, but we undeniably have paid a price through the years for agricultural set- backs in our part of the country. Not all of these can be charged against the cot- ton insect infestations of years past or to economic upsets. Thinking people know, even without the experts telling us, that wasteful use of our land and of the water which enables it to produce has reduced crop yields and lowered farm income and purchasing power. We know, too, that generations of preponderantly row-crop farming—cotton and corn—took heavy toll in damage to our farms, our mills and our public facilities such as highways, railroads, and industrial and city water supplies. Sloping fields gashed with ugly, unpro- ductive gullies; roads relocated one to several times because the old wheel tracks CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE grew into impassable ditches where run- off water sluiced down them from hbor- dering cropland; and muddy streams and silt-clogged ponds and reservoirs— these are our constant reminders that we have not always used our land and managed our rainwater too well in the past. I can show you more than one reservoir that has silted full or nearly so behind dams built in my day, filled with soil washed off the fields upon which we depend for growing our food, feed and fiber crops. This process of man- made soil and water waste started long before my time, of course; but it is im- portant to keep in mind that when our forefathers took over from Nature the job of managing the land and the waters of our Piedmont country, the land was covered with timber and our streams were, in the words of early-day writers, “of surpassing transparency.” It has been a long, long time since anything like that could be said of our streams such as the Saluda, Enoree, Reedy, Tiger Rivers and others. Today, in fact, siltation of our reser- voirs, streams and harbors and flood damage along most of the country’s rivers are of major concern to all of us. We spend a great deal of time here in Con- gress, as you know, considering flood con- trol survey reports and appropriations. I think we all are pleased that, since the Flood Control Act of 1936 was enacted, proper weight now is being given to the important watershed phases of flood con- trol, up on our farmlands and timber lands, with soil and water conservation playing a major part in such planning and operations by the United States De- partment of Agriculture through the Soil Conservation Service and the Forest Service. In South Carolina, for example, pre- liminary examinations have been com- pleted by the Soil Conservation Service and flood-control surveys are scheduled to start during the 1951 fiscal year in the Santee-Cooper watershed in which my counties lie, as well as on the lower Pee Dee and the Tar-Neuse watersheds and in the coastal drainage from the Savan- nah River to the Albemarle Sound. That is most of the State, except for the part included in the Savannah River watershed, on which a survey already is well under way. I certainly hope to see this important work carried on through. My part of the country, of course, does not have any monopoly on our unenviable history of land and water use. It came about, not deliberately or maliciously, but through the course of conventional settlement and development of the land in the best accepted American tradition. I feel sure that the land story follows a similar pattern in most of your States and districts. We can profit in looking back, though, only to the extent that we employ the lessons of the past in shaping our course for the present and the future. We lawyers find past court decisions indis- pensable in building up our cases day by day. Nature has rendered some sharp decisions on man’s occupancy and use of the land; we who hold title to or rent the land today will do well to study those decisions and weigh the penalties and awards which have resulted. Frankly, 2019 I believe we have been doing a pretty honest job in this respect in recent years: and the good results are much in evidence. Great strides have been made, as you know, in the last 17 years in many phases of our economy. We can think of an imposing list, ranging from the guaran- teeing of bank deposits to social secu- rity and housing aid. The advance- ments in the fleld of agriculture have been especially noteworthy. Some of those we now accept as a matter of course as permanent, everlasting, stable improvements include: rural electrifica- tion, now expanded to extend rural tele- phones; Federal crop insurance; Farm- ers Home Administration lending for farm ownership or production and sub- sistence needs, with 28 percent of the ownership loans already paid up in full 30 or more years in advance, and the re- mainder paid an average of 2 years in advance; and the varied Production and Marketing Administration functions, from its marketing service and the school-lunch program to the agricultural conservation programs. But I have no time to talk about these various worth-while activities today, even though some of them contribute materi- ally to furthering of the country’s soil- and water-conservation accomplish- ments. The agricultural conservation payments, for example, have helped the farmers to do more conservation work. Progress of soil conservation likewise has been hastened because of the educational program of the Extension Service; the cooperative research work of the experi- ment stations and the State colleges with the Soil Conservation Service; and the United States Forest Service’s con- servation and research on national for- est lands. I shall confine my remarks principally to the work of our Greenville County Soil Conservation District and the approximately 2,200 other districts organized and run by local farmers of the 48 States and 4 Territories and in- sular possessions. Generally speaking, I think that soil conservation as it is being carried on through these democratic, locally voted and managed districts is perhaps the greatest program in agriculture that has been hit upon in recent years, if not in all time. The purpose of soil conservation is to help all agriculture. Any number of our scientific agricultural achieve- ments are of incalculable value or indis- pensable, such as crop, livestock and poultry improvements, insect- and dis- ease-control methods, and so on. But none of these alone can produce a bale of cotton, a pound of beef or pork, or a board foot of lumber unless there 1s pro- ductive land on which to grow our food, feed, fiber, oil, and timber crops. Our Greenville County soil-conserva- tion district is 9 years old. It is one of the 33 such districts which blanket the entire State of South Carolina—one of 8 States which are 100 percent covered by these districts. The other soil-con- servation districts in my congressional district are the Laurens County district, of which Mr. Ryan F. Lawson, of Clinton, is chairman; the Spartanburg district, Mr. J. A. Bridwell, of Moore, chairman: and the Broad River district in Union
2020 County, Mr. W. C. Camp, of route 2, Gaffney, chairman. Each of them has its own report of splendid conservation accomplishment; but I have time to dis- cuss in any detail only the work of the Greenville County district, with which I naturally am most familiar. I can say with certainty that the con- servation work they report is actually out there on the land. I have been out and have seen the results of this soil- and water-conservation planning and land treatment. I have observed the systems of terracing, the conservation drainage improvements, the conservation farm wildlife developments that are proviidng us with better hunting and fishing, the cover cropping, the farm ponds, and other practices and measures. Thus I have had the opportunity of observing at first-hand the great contribution these farmer districts have made toward re- storing the permanent productiveness of the farm lands in our part of the country, where cotton has placed a heavy drain on the land. In the Greenville County district’s 1949 annual report which Chairman Huff sent me, I was impressed by such indicators of healthy progress in district accom- plishment as the growth in the number of conservation farm plans. That has been from 75 plans covering 7,599 acres at the close of 1940 to 865 plans covering 90,000 acres at the end of 1949. Some of the individual accomplishments re- ported included about 4,000 acres of pas- ture established, more than 6,000 tons of lime, and a thousand tons of superphos- phate used, 100,000 trees planted, and 162,000 pounds of summer legume seed and 34,000 pounds of winter legume seed planted. The Soil Conservation Service, as the technical agency which helps the Green- ville County and the other districts in conservation surveying, planning, and initial application of these measures, at the request of the district supervisors, has supplied me with some additional fig- ures. They show, among other accom- plishments, that our Greenville County district farmers to the first of this year have done 17,000 acres of contour farm- ing and developed 3,700 acres of new cover crops, done nearly 13,000 acres of strip cropping, built 1,428 miles of ter- races, and put conservation woodland management into effect on 18,000 acres. Those figures, you understand, repre- sent only a few of the conservation meas- ures actually put on the land in the one soil-conservation district in one county. I could give you comparable facts about the others in my congressional district, elsewhere in South Carolina, and for the country asa whole. I think it is enough to point out at this time, though, some more general State and national figures. For exampie, I find that to January 1 approximately 29,000 complete conserva- tion farm plans had been worked up by district farmers and assisting Soil Con- servation Service technicians in South Carolina. These plans called for the treatment of 414 million acres, and the land treatment reported as already ap- plied totaled more than 3 million acres in our South Carolina soil-conservation districts. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Also, I was interested in knowing that 11% million acres in my State alone al- ready have had the benefit of detailed conservation surveys, which the Soil Con- servation Service assists the districts to make to find out what conservation treatments the land needs on each farm, and how each acre may be used most profitably and safely. If any of you are not acquainted with this basic land inventory on which the districts’ con- servation planning and land treatment are based, I am sure you would find it worth while to post yourselves on_it. These land capability surveys, as I un- derstand them, develop for every acre on every farm such pertinent information as to the type of soil, the slope of the land, the amount of erosion it has had in the past, and its susceptibility to further erosion under prevailing climatic condi- tions with different kinds of use cultiva- tion, pasture, and so forth. With such facts available it is then possible for the farmer to separate the best land from the less productive and more hazardous lands, and plan his farming accordingly. It seems to me this ought to be good in- formation for us to have for the entire country, and that such a national land inventory could have many important uses in the planning and carrying out of almost all the different agricultural pro- grams, whether they be strictly soil con- servation, farm credit, production allot- ments, or whatever. Dr. H. H. Bennett, Chief of the Soil Conservation Service, tells me that by the first of this year, January 1, 1950, detailed soil conservation surveys ade- quate for farm planning had been made on 321,000,000 acres in the country as a whole. He pointed out, though, that the demands from the districts for help in planning and applying conservation measures had been so heavy that the survey work had not been able to go for- ward as rapidly as it should of late. I also asked Dr. Bennett for other Na- tion-wide soi] conservation accomplish- ment figures. They showed that up to January 1, 1950, about 807,000 complete soil conservation plans had been pre- pared in districts alone, covering nearly 222,000,000 acres. More than 112,000,000 acres of that had been treated with need- ed conservation measures by the first of this year, just in the soil conservation districts and not including past work done in the erosion control demonstra- tion projects, CCC camp areas, and through other programs in which the Soil Conservation Service has partici- pated. Nor do they include the impor- tant soil and water conservation research activities which this agency is carrying on all the time in cooperation with the State experiment stations. But enough for figures. Meantime, let us go back to Mr. Huff's report from the Greenville County Soi] Conservation District and consider a couple of points brought out which I think are most im- portant in connection with the success- ful undertaking of our whole conserva- tion program. One is the local commu- nity-group approach which our Green- ville County farmers are using to help speed up their programs. I find that just about everybody agrees on the need for going ahead as fast as possible with FEBRUARY 20 this soil- and water-conservation work; and I understand that this group-action procedure is getting splendid results, both in our local district and in other districts all over the country. As it is worked out in the Greenville County district, this method consists of organizing communities into groups for the purpose of getting a pattern of soil conservation over entire neighborhoods, without regard to farm boundary lines. The district has five of these neighbor- hood groups, with two Negro groups. These organized farmers select a leader for each group within the soil-conserva- tion district; and, as Chairman Huff points out, these farmer-leaders have in many instances “become true conserva- tionists and are rendering a real service to the cause of soil conservation.” I think you will agree with me that this is the basic, democratic way of going about @ job of this kind. It is no wonder that our Greenville County conservation groups have attracted the attention of agricultural leaders from different parts of the United States and from foreign countries. Closely related to this successful farm- er-group approach to the conservation problem is the emphasis which our Greenville County district is giving to community-wide support of its program. As Mr. Huff wrote: As we soil conservation district supervisors understood our duties better, we came to believe that people, other than farmers, have &@ responsibility to the land. As we saw the success Of groups of farmers working to- gether, we realized that the help of these other people would give impetus to the soil- conservation program and that it would be well to seek this outside help and give them the opportunity to have a part tn the soil- conservation movement. In considering the fact that every citizen has a stake tn the land, district supervisors have called upon all types of business, banking, manufacture ing, commerce, and industry to help with the job. We have sought the help of teachers, preachers, newspapers, radio, civic clubs, and private citizens. I personally can vouch for the success which has attended their efforts in this common-sense attitude toward the con- servation program. For example, I had the pleasure of attending the Greenville County district meeting in Mauldin at the close of the district’s 1949 pasture contest, which the supervisors have sponsored each year since 1947. - Busi- ness firms of Greenville furnish prizes in the contest and put on a dinner at the close of each year’s event. The super- visors report that these pasture contests have resulted in the planting of 4,000 acres of fescue and Ladino clover. I wish I had time to tell you of some of the outstanding results which our indi- vidual district farmers have had with their pasture-livestock programs. The Greenville County district super- visors call attention in their report to what I agree is a particularly significant phase of this whole matter of conserving our soil and water resources. That is, “the tremendous infiuence for good among young folk of the community— influence that will keep these boys and girls on the farms, continuing the type of farming their fathers advocate.” Dur- ing the past year, the Greenville County
1950 district also sponsored a soil-conserva- tion contest among 4-H Club boys, with prizes provided by the Greenville Kiwanis Club through its agricultural committee. The district supervisors also are co- operating with veterans’ classes, by get- ting motion pictures for the classes and cooperating with the instructors in ob- servational tours. Over the country gen- erally, I understand that a most con- structive soil conservation training pro- gram for veterans has been under way. Also, that many veterans are among the approximately 16,000 private contractors who have found most profitable oppor- tunities in terracing, drainage, pond building, and other conservation-con- struction work for soil conservation dis- trict farmers. I want to mention another outstand- ing conservation contest activity in my county. That is the 2-year Picdmont communities soil-conservation contest. Originally sponsored by the Spartan- burg Herald-Journal, the second contest now under way is being sponsored by supervisors of the Spartanburg, Laurens County, and Broad River, Union County, soil-conservation districts in my own congressional district and the districts in Cherokee, Polk, and Rutherford Coun- ties. I am told that 370 farmers and 28 groups are participating in Spartanburg County, with $10,000 in prizes offered by business firms; 145 farmers in 10 groups in Union County, with $3,000 in prizes; and 269 farmers in 14 groups in Laurens County, with $2,800 in prizes. Every cotton mill in Laurens County is offering & prize in the contest. This will give you a further idea of the way all of us down in my part of the country believe in getting behind this important work of soil conservation. Nor is this just another do-good move- ment that all these varied interests enter into because it seems to be a genteel and proper thing todo. Our mill owners and business and professional people of all kinds appreciate all too well the fact that we people in town are not going to pros- per unless the farmers of Greenville County and the rest of the country can keep up their income and maintain their purchasing power. Soail-conservation farming, it has been demonstrated over and over, is the most efficient and hence the most economical and profitable. It enables the farmer to adjust his produc- tion best to meet changing market and other conditions. As I have pointed out to this body be- fore, my home is the center of the South’s thriving and growing cotton textile in- dustry. None of us, naturally, want to see cotton driven from the South; but neither do we want to see our good land needlessly exhausted in growing quanti- ties of cotton which may not be needed at a given time, or our already depleted and low-producing lands needlessly pushed to produce surplus cotton. In- stead, we want to grow the cotton which is needed on our good land, economi- cally and profitably, and produce other, needed commodities like feed and live- stock, fruit, timber, and so on on the lands best suited to produce them safely and profitably. I should say that the same general goal would hold for the Wheat Belt and other cash-crop areas. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The agricultural pattern in our south- land already is changing definitely in that very direction, to the everlasting benefit and well-being of us all. While our industries thrive, many of our people are living better than they ever did be- fore. Soil-conservation farming unques- tionably has played an important part in this. And new agricultural develop- ments are bringing new prosperity to many localities. In my home district, for example, peach growing has become an important part of our agriculture in recent years. In fact, Spartanburg County has become one of the Nation's peach centers, now that South Carolina has forged ahead of even Georgia in peach production in some recent years. Mr. Huff in his letter reminded me that the farmers of Greenville County and the Nation are concerned over the type of agricultural legislation that may be considered and passed by Congress this year. We now are working under the greatest pressure to economize and are trying to slash off every unnecessary expenditure possible. But for us to cur- tail or hinder this sound soil-conserva- tion program which is so successfully under way would be false economy, and the resultant loss to the country would be too terrible to contemplate. As you know, busy farmers like Mr Huff do not sit down and write letters to their Congressman just to be doing something. He and his fellow farmers are sincere in their efforts to help im- prove our agriculture and our whole economy with it. They are standing on their own feet, and giving liberally of their own time and sometimes cash money to get the job done. All they ask is that we make available to them such facilities which they need as the tech- nical assistance provided by the Soil Conservation Service, along with the continued educational help of the Exten- sion Service and PMA conservation in- centive payments. Dr. Bennett tells me that the demands from soil-conservation districts for Sot] Conservation Service technical aid con- tinues to be far in excess of the person- nel available for giving such assistance. In my own State, for example, the back- log of farmer applications for conserva- tion surveying, planning, and application help through their districts totaled about 2,850 on January 1. I know that this agency is just about as efficient as it could be in assigning all but a very small per- centage of its employees to work directly with the farmers or to duties involved specifically in getting conservation onto the land. I have visited the Service’s southeastern regional office in Spartan- burg, and am personally acquainted with Dr. T. 8S. Buie, the regional director, and different members of his etaff in Spar- tanburg and in the fleld offices in my counties. I also have had the pleasure of attending a meeting of the local chap- ter of the Soil Conservation Society of America, composed of members from dif- ferent agencies and groups and individ- uals whose work has to do with soil, water, forest, and wildlife conservation. It is good to see all these people work- ing together toward the common objec- tive of conserving and making more sat- isfying use of our land and other re- 2021 sources—the farmers, agricultural and other scientists, business and professional people, and just about everybody else. This teamwork is going to continue to Pay us big dividends. And, as Mr. Huff wrote: Until— The soil-conservation district— supervisors can add all our State and National lawmakers to the enlisted group of Americans who are helping farmers to save the soil, then we will be minus an assistance that can do much to encourage good land use. I hope it may be said of all of us here that we are going to meet this challenge squarely and wholeheartedly. The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Ar- kansas [Mr. TrimMB.E] is recognized for 15 minutes. FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION Mr. TRIMBLE. My. Speaker, perhaps no measure pending before the House of Representatives is of more importance to the eventual welfare and security of the American people than that providing for Federal grants in aid to the several States to maintain a more adequate system of public elementary and secondary educa- tion. The American people, as well as the Members of Congress, know the value of education. However, some of those same people, and particularly the Mem- bers of Congress, have not always been willing to do those things which are im- perative to the satisfaction of the edu- cational reeds of our children. I believe the people are ahead of the Congress in their thinking on this matter and desire this legislation. It is not necessary to argue the im- portance of public education. However, it is important to note that influential businessmen in America have in recent years arrived at conclusions which those in the teaching profession have main- tained for years. Recently the United States Chamber of Commerce, through its education committee, made a com- prehensive study of education in all of the States and in most of the countries of the world. On the basis of this study, these businessmen concluded: First, that there is a direct relationship between the level of educational attainment of people and the level of their economic well- being; second, that education is an ef- fective instrument through which busi- ness, agriculture, and industry can ex- pand in rising degree; third, that there should be in every community a suffi- ciently comprehensive public-school pro- gram to not only develop the productive skills and techniques of the people, but, also to develop their desires for the things that are produced; fourth, that the preservation of our democratic in- stitutions and ideals, together with our economic institutions and ideals, is de- pendent upon the maintenance of a suf- ficiently adequate system of public edu- cation to develop the capacities and the willingness of our people to govern them- selves effectively; fifth, that the money spent on education is not an assessment but an investment in the future of America,
2022 These are conclusions of businessmen with which, in my opinion, the vast ma- jority of the people of America whole- heartedly agree. When these conclusions are evaluated in the light of conditions which prevail among the public schools of America, the importance of Federal aid legislation begins to emerge in its true perspective. The need for immedi- ate action by the House of Representa- tives becomes more evident. A number of committees and commis- sions, both public and private, have studied the needs of public education in America during the past generation. Each of these has discovered the eco- nomic fact that the high concentration of cconomic wealth in certain areas of the Nation inevitably results in the fact that certain other areas of the Nation do not have sufficient taxable wealth to maintain an adequate system of public education. Each of these has discovered the sociological fact that many areas of the Nation have a greater proportion of children to be educated than other areas. Each of these has discovered the further fact that the children and the economic wealth are not necessarily in the same areas. In every instance where a committee or commission has recommended a solu- tion based upon these facts, the recom- mendation has been that the only way by which certain areas of the Nation can give any semblance of decent educational opportunities for its children Hes in the Federal Government utilizing its power to tax wealth wherever it is in order to educate children wherever they happen to be. This means Federal aid to edu- cation. While there are Members of Congress who sincerely question the need for Fed- eral aid to education, I do not believe that this question is the real issue. It is my considered judgment that the vast majority of the Members of the Con- gress, as well as the vast majority of the people of America, agree that Federal aid to education is necessary. The real question now pending before the House is not, “Should Federal aid for educa- tion be provided?” but rather it is, “In what form shall Federal aid for educa- tion be provided?” It is unfortunate that the debate on Federal-aid legislation, both in and out of Congress, has centered around the question, “Should public funds be pro- vided for parochial or sectarian schools?” This debate, of course, has raised issues pertaining to the principle of the separa- tion of church and state. I yield to no one in my adherence to this principle, I agree with the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States that “The first amendment has erected a wall be- tween church and state” and that “That wall must be kept high and impreg- nable.” It is certain that direct pay- ments of public funds to all types of private sectarian schools is unconstitu- tional. In the words of the Supreme Court, “no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any re- ligious activities or institutions what- ever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.” CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Since the Constitution prohibits the use of public funds for private sectarian schools, the debate in and out of Con- gress is actually centered around the question, “What constitutes aid to pri- vate sectarian schools?” It is unfortu- nate that many people seem to think that the answer to this question lies in statutory enactment. As a matter of fact, however, this is a question for ju- dicial determination, a question of judi- cial interpretation of amendment 1 to the Constitution of the United States. In my opinion, there are two ways of securing a comprehensive answer to this question. One is by the process of secur- ing judicial determination through the courts of each alleged violation. The other is an amendment to the Federal Constitution which specifically spells out an answer to the question by enu- merating those practices which are pro- hibited. A thoughtful study of the situation forces one to the conclusion that the ed- ucational issues involved in the principle of the separation of church and state cannot be resolved by statutory enact- ment. These issues may be complicated by statutory enactment but they cannot be resolved. These issues are already with us and certainly they cannot be re- solved by the failure to enact Federal aid to education legislation. In this situation there seems to have developed three schools of thought. One school of thought is represented in sec- tion 6 of S. 246, which passed the Senate of the United States last year by a vote of 58 to 15. The advocates of this point of view hold that the most significant issue in Federal-aid legislation is the preservation of State and local con- trol in the determination of educational policy. They recognize that the char- acter of education under our decen- tralized system differs in type and quality from State to State and community to community. They believe that this varicty of education has promoted free- dom of thought and consequently a ma- terial progress greater than that of any other country in the world. They recog- nize that the educational issues involved in the principle of separation of church and state cannot be resolved by passing a law, but they have studiously avoided any provision which will complicate the issues further. In spite of charges to the contrary, proponents claim that section 6 of Senate bill 246 does not in any way compromise the principle of the separa- tion of church and state. It is an open unequivocal facing up to the situation that actually exists. The advocates of this position do not claim for it virtues which it does not possess, but they do claim that it in no way compromises or complicates the principle of the separa- tion of church and state. It forecloses Federal dictation of policy in education in any sense. It is purely a States’ rights bill. The ideas of the advocates of the sec- ond school of thought are embodied in the Barden bill. They seek to avoid the sectarian issue by the simple expedient of limiting the use of Federal funds, in their definition of current operating ex- penses, to those services about which FEBRUARY 20 there has already been judicial deter- mination. The advocates of this point of view seem to think that the passage of such a bill will resolve the educational issues involved in the principle of the separation of church and state. Pro- ponents of Senate bill 246 contend that this is not the case. The issues are with us already, and they will be with us even after the passage of such a measure. You cannot, they contend, resolve issues by avoiding them. It is true, however, that such a procedure does not compli- cate the educational issues involved in the principle of the separation of church and state. But it is equally true that such a procedure would not resolve them. Advocates of S. 246 are disturbed by the fact that many advocates of the Bar- den bill are claiming for it virtues which it does not possess. The realistic facing up to the situation which actually exists, embodied in section 6 of S. 246, is no more of a compromise of the principle of the separation of church and State than is the procedure of avoidance as em- bodied in the Barden bill, they contend. As a matter of practical operation in the several States, there is no basic dif- ference between the Barden bill and 8S. 246. For example, if the Barden bill were enacted there is nothing to prevent a State in which the constitution and laws authorize the providing of trans- portation service for children in non- public schools from allocating additional State funds for this service and replac- ing these State funds with Fedcral funds authorized by the Barden bill. Some in- sist that the Barden bill if passed would tend to make the National Government superior in the determination of educa- tional policy—the very opposite of States’ rights. Neither the Barden bill nor the Senate bill resolves the issues involved: in the principle of the separation of church and state in the area of education. Neither the Barden bill nor the Senate bill com- plicates the issues involved in the prin- ciple of the separation of church and state in the area of education. Neither the Senate bill nor the Barden bill dis- criminates against children attending nonpublic schools since the schools which both bills seeks to assist are open to all children. The third school of thought is repre- sented by the National Catholic Welfare Conference. The advocates of this school of thought insist that any Federal aid to education bill must embody the prin- ciple of the Federal Government with- holding a portion of the funds authorized and appropriated and the allocation of these withheld funds directly to nonpub- lic schools in all States regardless of the provisions of State laws and constitu- tions. This principle does complicate the issues involyed in the principle of the separation of church and state in the area of education. The adoption of this principle by the Congress would mean that the Congress would assume the re- sponsibility for the determination of edu- cational policy and provide for the en- forcement of this policy by bypassing State laws and constitutions. This would be a violation of the principle of the preservation of the State and local
1950 control] in the determining of educational policy. It would be the precedent for a course of action which, followed to its logical conclusion, would mean the com- plete alteration of our traditional system of public elementary and secondary education. Opponents believe that it is error for the advocates of this principle to picture it solely as a simple matter of human justice, when, as they contend, there is a@ basic and fundamental principle in- volved. The principle that is imme- diately violated, however, is not the sepa- ration of church and state, although I can see that ultimately this principle would be involved. The immediate principle which the procedure would vio- late is the principle of the preservation of State and local control in the deter- mination of educational policy. The answer to a complex problem can never be found by the expediency of avoidance. As each succeeding Congress has failed to assume its liability to realis- tically face the issues involved in Fed- eral-aid legislation, the problems have become more complex and the needs for action have become more acute. If we refuse to assume our responsibility now, a clear, sound, and defensible solution will be more difficult in the future. There is a sane and sensible way to provide Fed- eral grants in aid to satisfy the educa- tional needs of the children of America without violating any fundamental prin- ciples. If the members of the Educa- tion and Labor Committee can find suffi- cient time to ascertain the facts, principles, and issues involved in this legislation, and will deliberate upon these findings in an unemotional and unbiased way, as I am sure they will, they can report out a bill which will meet the approval of a majority of the Members of the Congress. If individuals and groups in the committee and out continue to claim for their ideas virtues which they do not possess, as a clear analysis of these ideas will reflect, then the Con- gress, by its inaction, will condemn an- other generation of children to a life of inadequate educational opportunities. The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Hucu D. Scort, Jr.] is recognized for 15 minutes. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I yield. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I just want to say to the gentleman from In- diana |Mr. Jacogs] while he is here, in reference to the last remark that the report about the Member from Cali- fornia came to me from an employee of the Democratic Party and my statement was not based on anything thatIsaw. I did not make the statement on the basis of anything Isaw. The gentleman’s in- sinuation that I was watching the rest- room door is just an indication of his type or style of argument. Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield in order that I may comment on that? Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Yes; Iam glad to yield to the gentleman. Then I Mr. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE have a few things to say which I think will be of interest to the gentleman. Mr. JACOBS. I am very glad to be corrected. But the reason I was so cer- tain that the gentleman himself had seen it is because the gentleman is a lawyer and I do not assume he would indulge in hearsay evidence. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Of course a lawyer never testifies. He calls witnesses. The gentleman, in his long speech today, gave us nothing but hear- say when he referred to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Scorr]. If you want it, I will let you know where I got the information. It was an employee on the Democratic side of the House who reported the incident, and it came to me as a Republican because it was thought it might be of some use in the debate on FEPC. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I yield. Mr. KEATING. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Jacozss! referred to hear- say evidence. That is all we have heard from him today with regard to the re- marks about the gentleman from Penn- sylvania. So I think it scarcely lies with him to criticize hearsay evidence. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I agree with the gentleman. Of course all that he has said today refers to remarks which he learned or says he learned from his own Democratic State chairman of the State of Pennsylvania. Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Ionly have 15 minutes. The gentleman had twice as much time. Suppose I yield to the gentleman now, and then may I ask the gentleman to permit me to proceed with- out interruption. Mr. JACOBS. I should certainly like to correct the statement that the gentle- man just made. I referred to a quotation in the Philadelphia Inquirer which the gentleman himself admits is accurate. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. The gen- tleman referred to two quotations, one which he now himself admits and knows to be inaccurate and is attributed to Philip Matthews, State chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party; and an- other one which is a report of what I ac- tually said, which the gentleman accepts as true, and so do I. I must say there are times when one is reminded, and I will ask the brilliant gentleman from Indiana if he is not also reminded, when some people take the well here, of what John Randolph of Roanake once said about another bril- liant wit, a person given to quips and courtroom anecdotes, that he reminded him of a mackerel in the moonlight— that he shines and stinks. I am afraid that any logorrheic effort on the part of the gentleman from Indiana really does not call for or deserve any particular comment from me. Iam sure the gentle- man will not think I am assuming any superior attitude if I tell the gentleman that logorrhea is a Greek word mean- ing a rush of words to the mouth. I am sure, then, that any logorrheic effort on the part of the gentleman from Indiana needs no further comment. The gentle. 2023 man has been in labor for years and he has found it quite painless. So painless indeed that the evidence indicates be- fore the Committee on Education and Labor that on one occasion he, as a law- yer, received a fee of $65,000 from, I be- lieve, the Carpenters’ Union and he re- fers to me as being a Philadelphia law- yer with the implication that I am the success which the gentleman asserts that he is. I assure the gentleman I never in my life either charged or received any sum of money anywhere remotely simi- lar to that and I certainly have never taken from the pockets of the working man $65,000 singly or collectively in one or any number of fees. I have had the privilege of represent- ing certain A. F. of L. unions. I have, in fact, been a member of a CIO union in Philadelphia, but then, of course, not quite being in the same class as the gen- tleman admits he himself is in, my own fees in such cases ran to $75 or $100 or $150. So that when the gentleman has established, first, that he is a lawyer; second, that he is a good lawyer; and third, that he is a high-charging law- yer, I will not dispute him on any of those counts and will be very glad to ad- mit it. I came here today because the gentleman has sent me many communi- cations stating that he intended to make various attacks on me, which I judged to be personal. I find that the moun- tain in labor has produced a mouse, I will ignore them other than to say that my letter of February 2 to him, having been placed in the Recorp, would seem to be an answer. Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR.. I refuse to yield further. The concluding paragraph of that let- ter ought to be an answer in itself. It reads: I might add that my own people are peo- ple of very modest circumstances. There has never been a $65,000 fee in the family. That they were all Democrats. That is, my original ancestors. That I have never made any distinction between peoples of any race, color, or creed in my whole life. My judgment of people ts based on their conduct and their actions. That, of course, is the way I would judge you and the way I would expect you to judge me. Had the gentleman intended to make a@ full-throated, big-hearted apology, as the latter part of his statement would Indicate, he would at least, I hope, have included that paragraph from my letter. i will be glad to yield to the gentle- man from Indiana. Mr. JACOBS. The truth of the matter is that the reason I did not read it is because I did not have time, as I yielded so often to you. Although I think you would consider it a favor, because per- haps you would not want to disclose the fact that you were a Democrat or that your ancestors were. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I never was, if you want to get the story straight. I answered the gentleman by saying that
2024 many of my people were Democrats, but that I came to my city to practice law at the age of 21 and I learned to read and write meanwhile. But I did not give the gentleman the full answer that I had in- tended. I was also, like the gentleman, born a New Dealer, but I remained a New Dealer only until about the age of 3 when I learned to dress myself. Does that an- swer the gentleman? Mr. JACOBS. No. I have known Democrats who could dress themselves before they were 21. But I should like to comment on that, if the gentleman feels as he expressed himself in the let- ter, which I did not read in full because I had tried to be generous in yielding to the gentleman when I had the floor; if he does feel as he expressed himself in that letter, I want to say to him that the Democrats would welcome him back with open arms any time he wanted to apply for membership. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I can see why the gentleman would be glad to have me back, and I appreciate the invitation, but I assure him that I long ago made my choice, and Iam very happy in it. I much prefer to be here, contending for the things in which I believe than to be out charging labor unions $65,000 fees. Mr. JACOBS. I have never been able to figure out what you folks do believe in. It might even hit me if I could figure out what your party stands for. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. We do not believe in Alger Hiss. We do not turn our backs on men who are loyal to the country, it is true, but we do turn our backs on men who are accused of per- jury—perjury which is based upon trea- son. I would like to know whether the gentleman has some comment on Alger Hiss, and which way he turns his back when treason of that type is involved Mr. JACOBS. I certainly hold no brief for Alger Hiss. I say the law should take its course. I have always said so. I would like to comment in that regard, if the gentleman will yield. I never charge @ political party with responsibility for the people within it, who fall from grace. I will give you a little instance. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I am afraid I cannot yield to the gentleman for a speech. Mr. JACOBS. Of course, the gentle- man cast an aspersion. I ylelded to you on numerous occasions. I expect you used about one-fourth of my time. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I do not yield further, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to hear any more of the gentleman’s courtroom stories for the reasons which I have indicated. I yield back the re- mainder of my time. Mr. JACOBS. You are quite gcncrous, are you not? SMALL-BUSINESS COMMITTEE OF HOUSE AND GENUINE SMALL-BUSINESS GROUPS OPPOSE 5. 1008 Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 2 minutes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, tomor- row week, February 28, the House will CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE likely vote on a motion to send 8. 1008, the so-called basing-point bill, back to conference and appoint new conferees. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PATMAN. I yield. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Has there been an agreement that we will vote on the 28th of February on this subject? Mr. PATMAN. If I correctly under- stood the colloquy today, it is set down for the 28th, with the understanding that an agreement will be reached before the calendar is gotten out by the majority leader at the end of this week. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I did not un- arstand it quite that way. I gathered from the statement of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack] that he would not schedule it until he knew definitely what time 1t would be taken up. The gentleman 1s here, Let us hear from him. Mr. McCORMACK. My statement was that it was incumbent on those inter- ested to confer with the leadership. Among those I mentioned was the gen- tleman from New York | Mr. CELuEr], the gentleman from Pennsylvinia {Mr. Wat- TER], and I assume also the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman]; that they would let me know definitely so that I could advise the House that 1t was gen- erally understood to be next Tuesday, but I was not accepting that as a definite assignment. Mr. PATMAN. As I understood it the gentleman did not state that it was defi- nitely scheduled or would be until there had been a further conference. Mr.McCORMACK. Exactly; and I as- sumed that they would confer with me before that. Mr. PATMAN. But the gentleman had not announced a definite date. Mr. McCORMACK. That is correct; I think the gentleman understands the situation. Mr. PATMAN. Really, then, it will not come up before next Tuesday, Feb- ruary 28. Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PATMAN. I yield. Mr. MICHENER. As a matter of fact we all know that the gentleman from Texas is opposed to bringing this matter up. He has written letters and is doing everything he can to prevent it. I do not want the House to be placed in a position that the time when this bill comes up depends upon an agreement to which the gentleman from Texas is an important party, because if the gentic- man from Texas has his way this bill will never go to conference. Mr. PATMAN. The reason that a con- ference was held with the gentleman from New York, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and myself, was because we had agreed heretofore that it would be brought up tomorrow, and they felt they should ask me if I objected to the proposed postponement. I said cer- tainly. I hope the gentleman from Ncw York sees the error of his way and never brings it up. They felt that—we having had several conferences about the mat- ter—they should say something to me about it; because we have to make prep- FEBRUARY 20 aration on our side just the same as the gentleman has to make preparation on his side. We are as much entitled to advance notice as those on the other side. Mr. MICHENER. But there are Mem- bers of the House who want it to come up, Members, who like the gentleman from Michigan now speaking, believe that the ordinary procedure of the House should be followed. The Senate passed the bill 1008, the House passed the bill 1008 with amendments. Each House has legislated on this subject. It seems to me therefore that we ought to follow the regular rules and send it to confer- ence and try to work out an agreement, because whatever agreement is worked out the report of the conferees must come back to the House for a vote, yes or no. Mr. PATMAN. That is a question that will come up when the motion is made. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman has expired. Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for two additional minutes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? “Ir, PATMAN I yield to the gentle- man from Massachusetts. Mr. McCORMACK. May I say to the gentleman from Michigan that the whole attitude of the gentleman from Massa- chusetts who 1s now talking, as majority leader, is to protect the other Members of the House. Mr. MICHENER. trve. Mr. McCORMACK. My whole desire is to protect the Members of the House, and I am imposing this condition, that we be consulted. That means that the minority leadership will be advised; whatever we program we will advise the minority leadership. The purpose is that we may have some kind of control, some understanding, so that I can advise the House in ample time that the Mem- bers may be here toact. My whole effort is for the benefit of the House. Mr. MICHENER. That is as it should be, and Icommend the gentleman. The only thing I am worried about is that if this bill is not sent to conference until the gentleman from Texas [ Mr. Patman] agrees that it shall go to conference, there will never be a conference. It has been postponed now week after week. Mr. PATMAN. I have never tried to unduly delay it or block it; the gentle- man is not charging that, I hope. Mr. MICHENER. No; 1am noi charg- ing that. Mr. PATMAN. Iam perfectly willing for it to come up at any time. All I want to know is the exact date. I think that is fair. Mr. MICHENER. That is what we are interested in also; we want a day ccriain fixed. Mr. PATMAN. We want that too, for we must meet the issue. We were ready for it to come up tomorrow and expected that it would come up tomorrow. But the House is in this ridiculous attitude: I am sure that is