1950 Elections,” published in the Chicago (Ul.) Daily Calumet of Februar: 4, 1950, and the other entitled “Lodge’s Amendment,” pub- lished in the Rockford, Il., Star, February 5, 1960, which appear in the Appendix.] PROPOSED AIRPLANE TRIP TO THE NORTH POLE—ARTICLE FROM THE DAILY ALASKA EMPIRE (Mr. BUTLER asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article en- titled “Airplane Scheduled To Make Landing at North Pole Next Summer; Hubbard on Flight,” published in the Dally Alaska Em- pire of Juneau, Alaska, February 20, 1950, which appears in the Ap»yendix.] BOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE WATER- SHED TREATMENT PROGRAM {Mr. ROBERTSON asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp the sup- plemental statement to the 1950 report of the Soil Conservation Service to the Sub- committee on Wildlife Conservation of the Benate Committee on Expenditures in Ex- ecutive Departments, which appears in the Appendix. ] THE H-BOMB: HUMANITY’S NEW PERIL— ARTICLE BY CLARENCE POE (Mr. HOEY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article en- titled “The H-Bomb: Humanity'’s New Peril,” written by Clarence Poe, and pub- lished in the March 1950 issue of the Pro- grossive Farmer, which appears in the Appendix.] LET’S EXPLORE YOUR MIND—ARTICLE BY ALBERT EDWARD WIGGAM [Mr. CAIN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a column entitled “Let’s Explore Your Mind,” by Albert Edward Wiggam, which appears in the Appendix.] NOTES OFF THE RECORD, BY GER- TRUDE PIERSON [Mr. CAIN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp the column en- titled “Notes Off the Record,” by Gertrude Pierson, published in the Cashmere (Wash.) Record, which appears in the Appendix.] RENT CONTROL--EDITORIAL FROM WASHINGTON POST {Mr. CAIN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Rrcorp an editorial en- titled “End of Rent Control,” published in the Washington Post of this date, which appears in the Appendix.] REPEAL TELEPHONE EXCISE TAXES— STATEMENT BY T. H. SANDERSON [Mr. WILEY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a statement un- der the heading “Repeal telephone excise taxes,” prepared by T. H. Sanderson, direc- tor of the Wisconsin State Telephone Asso- elation, which appears in the Appendix.] McCARTHY’'S CRZAKING LIMB—ARTICLE BY PETER EDSON [Mr. TAYLOR asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article en- titled “McCarthy’s Creaking Limb,” written by Peter Edson, and published in the Wash- ington Daily News of this date, which ap- pears in the Appendix.] SOCIAL SECURITY AGAINST RAILROAD- RETIREMENT MONTHLY SURVIVOR BENEFITS—A COMPARISON Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be per- mitted to use 2 minutes to make a state- ment and an insertion in the Recorp. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I shall not object. The junior Senator from Nebraska has asked unanimous consent that he be permitted to speak for 2 minutes. The senior Senator from Ne- braska, however, controls but half of the time. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Tuomas] controls half the time for debate on the pending measure. Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, I shall ask that I be granted only 1 minute of time. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. I shall yield that much time, 1 minute, to the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, on sev- eral previous occasions I have introduced into the Recorp facts and figures relating to tax payments and the benefits of those covered by our two great Federal retire- ment systems—the Social Security Sys- tem and the Railroad Retirement Sys- tem. From the tabulations I have pre- pared to date, it appears that the terms offered to those covered by social security under the legislation now being consid- ered by the Senate Finance Committee are more favorable than the terms offered to railroad employees under the Railroad Retirement Act. I now have a tabulation comparing benefits payable out of the two funds to the dependents of insured employees. Dependents’ benefits are perhaps even more important than retirement bene- fits. So long as a man is still alive, he may be able to continue working and support his family, or if he has been successful he may have been able to ac- cumulate something to help him out when he retires. Dependents’ benefits are primarily intended to take care of cases where the breadwinner dies rela- tively young and there must be some provision to take care of his wife and children. The tabulation I have, which I now want to insert in the Recorp, is labeled exhibit D and compares benefits for widows and children under the Railroad Retirement Act, under the present Social Security Act, and under the provisions of H. R. 6000, as passed by the House of Representatives. It will be noted that in every case the benefits provided for dependents under H. R. 6000 are higher than those provided for men covered by the Railroad Retirement Act. This is true despite the fact the pay-roll tax on railroad men is four times as great as that on employees under the social-se- curity system. Even under the rising scale of tax payments provided in H. R. 6000, the pay-roll deduction from the wages of railroad men will always be about twice as great as that from em- ployees under the social-security system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the table to which I have re- ferred may be printed at this point in the Recorp. There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: 2371 Exursir D.—Social-security versus railroad- retirement monthly survivor benefits—a comparison HR. ’ 600 Rall ’ road social retire- ify pro Tent, nly P 1080 posed Maximum survivor benefits possible Aged widowS........-.--- $34 20 | $48 30 Widows with children....} 34 20 | 44 30° Children... 2222-022. eee 22 80 | 1 4h 30 Widow and I child... 57 00 | 96 60 Widow._....-.---- eee. 34 20, “aR 30 9 ' 22 80 | 148 30 And 2clulhen....... { 22 80 | 42 20 Total... 22.2 79 SO | 128 80 Widow and 3 or more |{ 2! 2 | 37 80 children or 4 or more |) 2! os 37 50 children 21 25 37 60 21.25 | 37 50 Total (prorated equal- 3) & 001 150 00 104, 82 Maanuum.. & 00 | 140 00} 108 32 Parents 22 8011 48.80 | 27 08 175 percent of the primary imstnance amount for first child, and parents Source Rail Pension News, published by the Na- tional Rallroad Peusion Forum, Ine., 1104 West 104th Pl, Chicago 4%, Tl, The above exhibit D bas been submitted to the Senate Finance Committee now holding heanags on HR 0v00 for their study and consideration that) mil workers should receive the same ratio of mereases n benefits now proposed for those covered by socal sceunty and has ech submitted by Mi ‘Thomas Q, Stack, president of the National Railroad Pension Forum, Ine (a volun- tary orgabradtion of union and nonunion raid workers), February 1050 COTTON AND PEANUT ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution (H. J. Res. 398) relating to cotton- and peanut-acreage allot- ments and marketing quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, it is now 12:30. That leaves 3 hours and 30 minutes for the discus- sion of amendments to the bill, which are now pending, and such amendments as hereafter may be offered. Am I cor- rect in assuming that each side will have one-half of the time, or 1 hour and 45 minutes? The VICE PRESIDENT. That is the understanding of the Chair; and the Senator from Oklahoma controls half of the time and the Senator from Ne- braska [Mr. WHERRY] the other half. The time is to be divided equally, allow- ing for the time required for the roll call and for the transaction of routine busi- ness. The Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Nebraska will each have control of 105 minutes, assuming there is no further interruption. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to the pending joint resolution and ask that the amendment be read. The VICE PRESIDENT. An amend- ment is pending. The amendment sub- mitted by the Senator from Oklahoma can only be read for the information of the Senate at this time. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. I submit my amendment and ask that it be read
2372 at the desk for the information of the Senate. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment will be received and lie on the table, and will be reac. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 7, at the end of section 2, it is proposed to add the following: “Provided, That the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and directed to offer for sale at the point of storage any potatoes produced in sur- plus areas and now in the possession of the Commodity Credit Corporation to wholesalers, jobbers, retailers or con- sumers, for distribution and consump- tion in deficit areas, at prices per bushel which will return to the said Commodity Credit Corporation its total investment in such potatoes, including handling and carrying costs: And provided further, That the Secretary is authorized to de- fine surplus areas with respect to the production of potatoes and also deficit areas where such potatoes may be dis- tributed: And provided further, That this proviso shall be complied with prior to either giving away or the destruction of any potatoes now in the possession of the said Commodity Credit Corporation.” Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, I yield to myself 15 minutes. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. The amendment which has just been read for the information of the Senate provides that before the Commodity Credit Cor- poration shall be permitted to give away any of the potatoes which it now pos- sesses, it shall offer them for sale. The potatoes involved will be the potatoes produced in areas, such as Maine, where there are surplus potatoes. The Com- modity Credit Corporation will be au- thorized by the amendment to sell such surplus potatoes in deficit potato areas, or areas where there are not sufficient potatoes raised to supply the demand. The amendment provides that the sur- plus potatoes shall be sold in the deficit areas at a price which will return to the Commodity Credit Corporation its cost, considering its purchase price, or take-over price, and its handling and carrying charges. I will ask later that the amendment be called up for con- sideration by the Senate and for a vote. I hope we may take the amendment to conference and see what we can do to work out a plan for the disposition of our Government-cwned potatoes so as to save as much money as possible and at the same time make such potatoes avail- able to consumers in areas where not enough potatoes were produced to serve the demand for such commodity. Mr. President, I desire to call to the attention of the Senate an amendment which is now printed, and which will be offered later. The amendment is known as the Williams-Ives-Saltonstall-Hen- drickson amendment. I ask that the amendment be read for the information of Senators, and then I shall state my reasons for opposing the amendment. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment will be read for the information of the Senate. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. At the appro- priate place in the bill it is proposed to insert the following: That paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (da) of section 101 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (Public Law No. 439, 81st Cong.) and section 301 (a) (1) (G) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as added by sub- section (c) of section 409 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, are hereby repealed. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma, Mr. President, this amendment, if it should become the law, would repeal portions of the act which was passed and signed last October. If the amendment should prevail, then the 80-percent support price which the law now provides with respect to certain crops in 1950, would be repealed. It provides that the full flexible support price scheduled for all basic commodities, save tobacco, shall go into effect immediately. That means that the provisions for 90-percent sup- port price for the basic products, save tobacco, for 1950, and the minimum of 80 percent of parity for 1951, shall be repealed, In fact the amendment, if enactcd, will repeal and destroy the present farm- price-support law and program, Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at this point? Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma, I yield. Mr. ROBERTSON. Is that substan- tially the bill on this subject the Senate passed early last fall? Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. It is somewhat along that line. It is not the same, but it is substantially the same. Mr. ROBERTSON. The Senator from Oklahoma will recall that the Senator from Virginia voted for the Senate bill; he was opposed to the House bill which continued provision for a mandatory 90 percent of parity for the basic crops for this year. The Senator from Virginia would like to vote again as he voted bcfore, if he can get a clear understanding as to how close this amendment is to what he has previously supported, : Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. The amendment, if agreed to, will repeal the provision of existing law authorizing the use of the highest of either the parity price for the basic commodities, as com- puted under the old formula, or the price as computed by the modernized formula for a 4-year period. Mr. President, this amendment brings up the old fight between high prices and low prices for farm products. It seems that the representatives of the indus- trial East are demanding that those who live in their area receive high prices for the things they produce and at the same time, they are demanding low prices for the things that they consume—products such as food, and cotton and wool for clothing. Mr. President, I remind those who re- side in the industrial East that if the prices of farm products go down, then wages will go down, production will drop, the prices of the things the East pro- duces will go down, and a depression will come again to our country. We cannot have a prosperous econ- omy with one-fifth of our population— FEBRUARY 27 which is what the farmers constitute— receiving for the things they produce prices so low that they are unable to buy the goods produced by industry. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. I yield. Mr. WILLIAMS. The Senator will agree With me, I am sure, that even though the amendment I have proposed 1s adopted, 1t still will leave the support prices of cotton, wheat, tobacco, and corn higher than the prices the farmers have received for those commoditics dur- ing the past 10 years. So we shall not be repealing the support prices, for the farmers still are receiving for those com- modities more money on the average than they have received for them in the past 10 years. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, a few days ago the Senate re- jected a proposed amendment on the theory that we should not change the program after certain crops have been planted. But now it is proposed in con- nection with the consideration of this amendment, that we make such a change. Mr. President, I have only a limited amount of time. Although I shall be glad to yleld for questions and suggestions, I must yield a part of my time to other Senators. For that reason, I wish to make this issue plain. Mr. President, in order that this coun- try may survive, in order that the States, the cities, and the counties may survive, all being a part of our Nation, we must have high prices. We must have high prices for farm products; we must have high wages; we must have high salaries; and we must have high prices for the articles produced by industry generally. In no way can we have a high national income, except through high prices. At the present time the goa! for farm prod- ucts is full parity prices. The present law provides a 90 percent of parity as sup- port prices for basic commodities—such as wheat, corn, cotton, tobacco, rice, and peanuts. The amendment, if approved will repeal and destroy even the 99 per- cent of parity support price for the basic farm products, Mr. President, the record shows that the farmer receives only a relatively small part of the consumer’s dollar. When a consumer goes to the store and buys a dollar’s worth of bread or a dol- lar’s worth of meat or a dollar’s worth of potatoes or any other commodity produced by farmers, the farmer does not receive all of such dollar. The rec- ord shows that the farmer gets less than 50 cents of the consumer’s dollar. Only in times of unusually high prices do farmers receive as much as 50 percent, or 50 cents, of the consumer’s dollar. Who gets the remainder of the money the consumers pay for food and cloth- ing? The railways receive their full share for transporting the commodity from the place of production to the mill or factory. The railroads have fixed tar- iff rates so they receive their full share or 100 percent of their rates. After the commodity reaches the mill where it is processed, the mill receives its full share—not 60 or 80 or 90 per-
1950 cent, but 100 percent of its cost, plus its profits, in connection with the work of processing the commodity. When the product is processed, it goes to the wholesaler or the jobber, as the case may be, and the wholesaler or the jobber gets his full profit. After the wholesaler or jobber receives his profit, the product goes to the retailer for dis- tribution; and the retailer receives his share in profits for handling the proc- essed commodity. So when the consumer buys the fin- ished product, he pays for the trans- portation of the commodity back and forth; for processing, for jobbing or wholesaling, and for the retailer’s profit. Then what is left, if anything, the farm- er receives. At the present time the farmer receives some 37.8 percent or less than 38 cents out of each dollar con- sumers pay for their food and clothing. The result is that in times of low prices for farm products, when others who han- dle suck products are receiving 100 per- cent of their profits, the farmer receives what 1s left—if anything is left. So, Mr. President, I am for high prices in order to assure the farmer a fair share of the consumer’s dollar. He can get his fair share only when we have rela- tively high prices for the commodities which he produces. Mr. President, there is another reason for my opposition to the amendment. At the present time we have a national debt of some $257,000,000,000. We have a na- tional budget of some $42,500,000,000, which must be paid in the form of taxes, if the budget is to be kept in balance. In addition to the Federal budget, we have State, county, city and district budgets totaling some $17,000,000,000, which, added to the $42,500,000,000 Federal bud- get make a grand total of some $60,000,- 000,000, which the taxpayers must pay in order to keep the various units of our Government going concerns. Mr. President, how are we to get $60,- 000,000,000, in taxes from low price schedules? It has not been done in the past. It is not now being done, and it cannot be done in the future. Only a few years ago, at a time within the memory of every Senator, we had low prices. For example, during 1930, 1931, and 1932, the total income of all the people would not have been sufficient to pay the Federal tax bill for the current year. The only way by which high national income can be developed and maintained is through high prices—high prices for farm com- modities, high wages, high salaries, and high prices for the products of industry. Then, of course, in order to be just and fair, all prices must be equalized, so that no group will have an advantage over any other group. Mr. President, we see today economic conditions wherein industrial prices are rising, wherein wages are increasing, and at the same time we see prices of farm products falling day by day. Mr. Presi- dent, such conditions cannot be permit- ted to continue in the United States and I oppose the amendment of the Senator from Delaware. The VICE PRESIDENT. The time of the Senator from Oklahoma has expired. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Virginia. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Virginia is recognized for 10 min- utes. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, late last Friday afternoon, I undertook to participate in the debate on the pend- ing Wherry amendment, which I in- terpreted as placing certainly for the time being an embargo on potatoes from Canada. Frankly, I had had no oppor- tunity whatever to study the problem or to prepare anything on the subject, so I requested the distinguished Sena- tor from Oklahoma to give me 10 minutes this morning in which I might attempt to clarify one or two things I had said Friday, and to enable me to give the Senate the benefit of certain in- formation I secured this morning from the State Department I recall that I said Friday, Canada was our best fricnd and our best customer. I repeat the statement. I said Canada took $500,000,000 worth of goods from us. What I intended to say was that Can- ada took $500,000,000 more goods from us than we took from Canada. Canada last year bought from us approximately $2,000,000,000 worth of goods, and we took from Canada approximately $1,- 500,000,000 worth of goods. I said Canada took from us between three and four times the amount of fresh fruits and vegetables—which, of course, includes potatoes—than we took from Canada. I was unable to answer Friday the charge that the President of the United States and the State Department were ncgli- gent in their duty in not restricting im- ports of potatoes from the 1949 crop, as they had done with respect to the 1948 crop. This morning I got from the State De- partment an answer to the question, which is this: Last week the Department of Agriculture approached the State De- partment with respect to the importa- tion of Canadian potatoes, and the State Department in turn approached the appropriate representatives of Can- ada, to discuss the matter. In the dis- cussion, the facts were developed that up to last week 6,000,000,000 bushels of Canadian potatoes had been imported by us, and that according to their very best estimates, not more than 3,000,000 additional bushels of potatoes would come into this country, to be divided along established lincs between seed and table potatoes. That would be the total of our importation of Canadian potatoes this year out of the crop harvested last fall, and it would be 200,000 to 300,000 bushels less than we took from the 1948 crop under the agreement to curtail im- portations because of our support price. So, Mr. President, I think we are now facing a situation in which we are going to get fewer potatoes from Canada than we did last year. Only 3,000,000 more bushels of potatoes, if nothing is done, will be imported, and yet we are asked to enact into law a mandatory embargo upon Canadian potatoes to become ef- fective immediately, because the Presi- dent would have to take immediate ac- tion because of our surplus production; 2373 but the law would also stand on our statute books for an indefinite period in the future. So I wish to invite the attention of my distinguished colleagues to two per- tinent facts. One is that we are pro- posing to do something which will have no practical effect upon the economy of our Nation at this time. Second, the action would be construed as a highly unfavorable action by the Canadian of- ficials, and I fear would have more seri- ous repercussions than that. Why? Be- cause we all know that ECA Adminis- trator Hoffman has been pleading, urg- ing, and almost demanding that the na- tions of western Europe integrate their economy, break down their tariff bar- riers, and engage in freer trade among themselves, and in connection with the time when her dollar aid will end he has held out to them the hope that one bil- lion of American dollars they will need can be secured by our accepting an equiv- alent amount of European goods in our domestic market, which, Mr. Hoffman said, would amount to approximately 1 percent of our total production, and therefore could not possibly hurt this Nation. But if, because of about 3,000,000 bushels of potatoes we put an embargo against a nation which is buying from us $500,000,000 worth of goods more than we buy from it and which spends every dollar it receives for potatoes for our citrus fruits, machinery, or whatever we are selling, why will not European na- tions believe that when a competitive sit- uation arises we will not treat them with the same kind of selfishness which this amendment proposes that we extend to our neighbor, our best friend, and our best customer? So I say, with those broad implica- tions, the Senate should not go on record in favor of an amendment of this kind. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. The statement just made by the distinguished Senator from Vir- ginia demonstrates how dangerous it is for Members of the Senate to consider an amendment such as that offered by the Senator from Nebraska |[Mr. WHERRY! without complete and exhaustive hear- ings before an appropriate committee. Mr. ROBERTSON. The Senator is ab- solutely correct. We are living in a dan- gerous world which is now engaged in a cold war which could some day eventuate into a shooting war. We are livine in a world in which we need friends. We still have considerable weight in international affairs, but the situation which now con- fronts us indicates that we cannot afford to throw it around. I think we should not do something which could easily be construed not only in Canada, where we have good friends, but in other parts of the world where we are trying to get good friends as meaning that we are not ded- icated to the fundamental principle of live and let live, and that as soon as we feel that the danger of atomic bombs and other types of bombs dropping on our heads is eliminated, we are going to re- turn to a prorram of every man for him- self and the devil take the hindmost.
2374 Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, I yield myself one additional minute. A moment ago I had read from the desk an amendment which I shall call up after 4 o’clock today. In order that I shall not then take unnecessary time, I wish to submit a copy of a let- ter which I sent to Secretary Brannan on February 24, 1950, and I ask unani- mous consent that this letter be printed immediately after the reading of the amendment, which will come after 4 o’clock. The PRESIDING OFFICER (My. HILL in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, I have had made an analysis of House Joint Resolution 398 and Sen- ate bill 2919, which will be 23n confer- ence. This analysis comes from a man who is competent to make such an analy- sis. His name is Horace Hayden. I ask unanimous consent that the analysis be printed in the Recorp at this point. There being no objection, the analy- sis was ordered to be printed in the Rrc- orp, as follows: OKLAHOMA CoTTON GINNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., Oklahoina City, Okla., February 24, 1950. Bubject: Analysis of House Joint Resolution 398 and S 2919, correction of 1949 cot- ton acreage allotment law Senator ELMer THOmaAs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D C. DeaR SENATOR THOMAS: The cotton acre- age allotments laws have become so terribly involved and complicated and there are 50 many unknown factors that it is dificult to make an analysis with assurance that con- clusions will be entirely correct. In the 1938 law there was provision by which the total tilled acres of every cotton farm was taken into consideration From the total tilled acres was deducted the acre- age devoted to other basic crops, the re- mainder left the total acreage available for cotton This total acreage was divided into the county allotment which gave a percent. age factor to be used by the county commit- tee in alloting acreage. The law provided that all farms should be given the came per- centage of tts available cotton acreage The effect of this provision was to cut Gown the man specializing on cotton and increnc- ing the acreage of the tarmer who only planted a small amount of cotton In preparing the 1949 cotton acrenge law, we from Oklahoma and several other States objected to that method of arriving at cot- ton allotments, We requested that the law provido that after the cotton history had been established for all farms In the county, that the cotton history be adjusted percent- agewise to the county’s allotment It is a simple way of handling the matter and to our way of thinking it is the only fair way to handle this allotment We were told that the Department tnsisted on the tillable acres formula rather than the cotton history foi- mula. It looked 50 involved to a number of vs and we felt it would create many in- equities and hardships. During hearings the Department apparently made no objections to the tillable acres formula and left us with the impression that they would insist on that method tn arriving ut farm allot. ments We now undeistand that the De- partment claims that this formula is too complicated and creates muny inequities and that they would much prefer to have the cotton history formula used It {8 too late to make thot change for 1950. The tillable-pcres formula was further complicated by reason of war crops es pro- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE vided in Public Law 12. That created cotton farins that have Icng since changed their cropping system and are not in position to plant cotton. They still have allotments granted them, even though o preat many are surprised in receiving a cotton allolbment and would be more than willing to surrende. their allotment for use by other farmers in that county. You will .ecanl that in the Senate bill 1962, provision was made by which any unplanted acreage could be elther surrendered perma- nently or for 1 year, in order to correct the inequities of the tillable acicage formula That provision was eliminated in the House, and it is our opinion that this particulur point is causing most of the difficulties throughout the cotton South, Oklahoma ex- perieaced this diMiculty under the 1238 law, and we were quite anxious that we not expe- rience it again Texas had a similar experl- ence, but not quite as severe as in Oklahoma We felt at the time that many other States would experience similar difficulties, princi- pally by reason of changes in cropping sys- tems and by reason of cotton credits cieated under Public Law 12 It 1s our understanding that some of the States which objected and helped eliminate the renllotment provision of S. 1962, have now admitted that this was an error So far as I can learn, all States ure fairly well satisfied with the total cotton allotment for the State as provided in Public Law 272, but the method of making allotments to farms is causing general dissatisfaction over the entire belt. In Oklahoma we teel that Public Law 272, if unchanged, will cause 50 percent of our allotment to be unplanted We had hoped that could be cor:ected to a larger extent by the surrender and reallot- ment of unused acreage and were prepared to get most of the unplanted acreage releused tor reallotmen. House Joint Resolution 398, together with a flood of other bills in both Houses, was intreduced in an effort to correct the mistake made in eliminating the reallotment piovi- sion of S 1€62 We believe the meat of the whole situation is some method of getting the States’ allot- ment planted and not increasing the allot- ment for any State above the amount pro- vided in the 21,000,C00-acre national allot- ment We believe that cun only be accom- plished by lcaving to the discretion of county committees and not by application of a fixed rule laid down by the Secretary. HOUSr JOINT RESOLUTION 398 Section I of that bill provided that every farm shall have a minimum of— (a) 70 percent “f the a erage of the 1946 47-48 cotton acreage; or (b) 50 peicent of the highest acreage of any one of thuse years. (Both of the above provisions include acreage in War Corp Cred- its), but (c) No farm shall be allotted more than 40 percent of his total tilled acreage Section II of that bill provides that acre- age which will net ke planted to cotton may be released by holder of allotment und de- ducted fram his allotment, to be used to sup- ply the minimum acreage as provided in section I, Any suriendeied acreage remaining after providing the minimum rereage described above may he reapportioned in amounts de- termined by the Secretary to be fair and reasonable to other farms in same county receiving allotments, which the Secietary de- termines are inadequate. The legislative report on that bill rends, “In the absence of some very exceptional clr- cumstances, however, no farm having a cot- ton history could be said to have an inade- quate allotment if ils allotment was equal to the larger of 70 percent of the amount planted or regarded as planted during the years, 1946 47 48; or 50 percent of the high- est acreage planted or regardcd as planted in FEBRUARY 27 any one of such years, and not in excess of 40 percent of the acreage tilled annually or in regular rotation.” You can see from the above that any fcrcage surrendered over and above the amount necessary to provide minimums eet out above, must be used on small farms or new farms In fact will not be used at all. If unplanted ncreage is surrendered in sufficient volume to provide the minimums set out above, the County and State will not suffer in fuiure years If the unplanted acreege ts not suriendeied in sufficient vol- ume then the acres nece.sary to provide the minimums as set out above are only tempo- rary and will be eliminated in considering the actual planted acreage for future yeurs. Under this provision there is no incentive toi the faimer to release his acreage because {tL is rcleased almost permanently. We be- lieve that provision will mean the reduc- tion in. Cklahoma’s cotton history of at least 200,090 acres for 1951 and future years. This {3s indicative of what will happen to many other States. It is only a stopgap for 1950 and will cause terrific repercussions and disiortion of all State allotments after 1950 5 2919 The Senate has deleted the entire House bill and substituted the principal provisions ol S 2919, changed slightly tn view of later thinkinsr The Senate version provides in the first sec- tion that any unplanted acreage may be sur- rendered without reservation by the larmer who has changed his cropping system and doves not intend to plant cotton in the future. Illustration. (Turned to grass, legumes or other crops that cannot be casily changed from year to yeur) or if the tarmer is plant- ing cotton in a rotation with other crops he mey surrender his cotton allotment for 1 year without reducing his allotment in fu- ture years by such surrender The Senate bill reads that acreage so sur- rendered may (shculd read shail) be reap- portioned to other iarms in the State, pref- erence being given to other farms in the same county as original allotment. Reapportion- ment to be made to farms with inadequate allotments in view of past production records. Up to this point the Senate bill does the thing that we believe should be done. It eliminates the mathematical toxmula which has been written into previous laws or bulls. We do not believe that any mathematical formula can be used without creating scilous handicaps and hardships in many areas, if not all ot them We belleve that it the bill shovid stop at that point, it would probably serve the purpose of correcting many of the inequities caused by Public Law 272. The next section of the Senate bil] provides that no farm shall have less than 60 percent of the average of the 1946-47-48 planted acreage or acreage regarded as having been planted, but contains a limitation that not more than 40 percent of the tilled land after deducting from farms the acreage devoted to other buele crops. In Oklahoma this means that the wheat and peanut acreage shall be deducted before airiving at the acreage to be devoted tuo cot- ton. On most iarms deduction of acreage in other basic c.oys will have no effect be- cause the majority of the farmers sre special- ists just like manufacturers ard they are either specializing in cotton or some other crop. However, on an estimated one-sixth of the farms in this State this Nmitation will work a serious hardship The 60 pereent of the averare or 40-rer- cent limitation of S 2919, is an efiort to force diversification o1 rotation of crops. We beHeve that the 70-percent provision with a 40 percent of total tilled acres as provided in the Hovse bill, will accomplish that result with much less hardship than the provision of the Senate bi = This rigid Mmitation with low average MM cotton history will jorce a
1950 great deal of land to be left entirely out of cultivation for the reason that those farmers do not have the equipment, training or the type of land to be devoted to other crops. We really believe that provision in the House bill is almost too rigid in itself to be im- posed on farmers without notice. Certainly the provisions of the Senate bill are entirely too stringent. It is our conclusion after intensive study with all agencies concerned that if the first section of the Senate bill could be used alone without the provisions of the average planted acreage or the limitation of crop- land to be devoted to cotton, the county committee could work out most of the hard- ship cases, but we do believe that the re- apportionment of surrendered acreege should be left to the county committee and not un- der arbitrary rules that may be set up by the Secretary for use in every county of the belt. It is impossible for one rule to work equally in all counties If it is necessary to have a limitation on the average planted acreage and a limita- tion on the crop land to be devoted to cotton, then we believe the minimums as provided in the House bill would cause less hardship, not only in Oklahoma but every other State, than the Hmitation as provided in the Senate bill. Both bills provide that the farmer may have a reasonable length of time in which to make application for adjustment under the revised law We believe that should be re- tained. The House bill provides for 15 days period and we presume that this means 15 days after the passage by both Houses of the bill. The Senate bill does not set a time limit. We feel that 15 days is too short a time for the committee to acquaint all cot- ton farmers of their privileges Even though planting time is near, we believe that time should be increased to 20 days We also believe that the Senate bill can be handled as a permanent revision which is not in the House Dill. Without question, if the House version 1s adopted in the present form, it will call for another bill to correct the 1951 and future acreages. Otherwise the allotments in 1951 will be in a much worse shape than tney are now. Very truly yours, HoRACE HAYDEN, Secretary. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I yield mysclf 25 minutes. I have no exception to take with reference to the amount of business done between Canada and the United States, but I state that a close analysis of the subject, if the Senator from Virginia [Mr. RoBErRTsON! and the majority leader had made such an analysis, would disclose that the differ- ence in the balance of trade is not based wholly on exports from the United States to Canada or imports from Canada to the United States. I want to stress that my amendment, which would stop imports of potatoes only when we had more than we knew what to do with, is being ob- jected to on the ground that some foreign countries might resent it. It simply will not work out that way. The purposes and principles of the amendment were not objected to. The distinguished Senator from Virginia said that he agreed with the objectives of the junior Senator from Nebraska, but that he disagreed with the methods by which the result was to be accomplished. That is the interpretation I placed on what the Senator said. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. I yield. President, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. ROBERTSON. The Senator from Nebraska has made a correct interpreta- tion of my statement. Mr. WHERRY. The junior Senator from Nebraska wants, therefore, to ex- plain his amendment in terms of foreign relations, to demonstrate that it is logical and sound from every angle, and that the method of procedure is entirely correct. It involves no ill will and will cause none. The nations which signed the multi- lateral agreement at Geneva in 1947 and 1948, foresaw the possibility of surpluses. They foresaw that it would be mani- festly unfair to force one nation to add to its own surpluses by absorbing those of other nations, and they specifically provided for just such a contingency. Under this agreement, any nation with a surplus might, with complete peace of mind, and without in any way antagonizing another nation, prevent that surplus from being swelled by addi- tional imports. Our neighbor on the north, shut off shipments of table potatoes to the United States by agreement made pursuant to the terms of the earlier trade agreement the United States had with that country. It will be seen that Canada did so, because the Geneva trade agreement provided for just exactly that means of protecting America’s agricultural price- support programs. The principal supplier of potatoes im- ported into the United States, has rigidly restricted imports of agricultural and other products from the United States and has completely shut off many Amer- ican products. No element of retalia- tion on the part of either nation was in- volved. The diplomats of our State De- partment realized that Canada’s em- bargoes, quotas, import licenses, and other restrictions on imports of goods from the United States, were born of necessity, exactly as is the amendment which is before the Senate. The countries which signed the Ge- neva trade agreement have already con- sented to this amendment. Article 11 of that agreement, to which most of the countries which export po- tatoes to the United States adhere, is headed “General elimination of quanti- tative restrictions ” Iread paragraph 1. This is the over-all statement: No prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges, whether made effective through quotas, import or export licenses or other measures, shall be insti- tuted or maintained by any contracting party on the importation of any product of the territory of any other contracting party or on the exportation or sale for export of any product destined for the territory of any other contracting party. Paragraph 2 reads: The provisions of paragraph 1 of this ar- ticle— Which I just read— shall not extend to the following— This is the first exception— Import restrictions on any agrtcultural or fisheries product, imported in any form, nec- 2375 essary to the enforcement of governmental measures which operate— Now I read indentation 2, under sub- paragraph (C)— to remove a temporary surplus of the like domestic product. That is as plain as the English lan- guage can be, and it takes care of the very situation we have at hand. How could we do other than admit that the signers of this document in- tended to, and did, provide for limiting imports of a product, that was in surplus in the importing country? There was a complete meeting of the minds on this point that it would be ap- plied, and it has been applied, on a num- ber of occasions by other countries for reasons of State, such as exchange diffil- cultics. We realized that and we con- tinued to opcrate under that provision of the exception to the general provision. Indentation 1 of subparagraph (C) discusses marketing and production lim- itation. That was brought out by the distinguished Senator from Virginia, who asked why we should permit surpluses as long as we have marketing limitations and quotas in this country and provide price supports for all the surpluses from other countries. This provision states that the general elimination of quanti- tative restrictions made effective by ar- ticle 11 shall not apply to agricultural products which are domestically con- trollei by marketing or production pro- grams, In this instance, however, unlike the paragraph in which surpluses are men- tioned, that is, subparagraph 2, a provi- sion at the end of the article states that import restrictions because of marketing or production programs “shall not be such as will reduce the total of imports relative to the total of domestic produc- tion as compared with the proportion which might reasonably be expected to rule between the two in the absence of restrictions.” Therefore the exception to the excep- tion barred the amendment which I orig- inally offered, because we have mar- keting quotas and restrictions imposed in the United States. That is the whole thing in a nutshell. It then goes on to say that in deter- mining this proposition due regard shall be paid to a previous representative period. It seems clear that we should only limit imports to the normal proportion when we have a domestic marketing or production program. If we restrict do- mestic output or sales, then we can re- strict imports in the same proportion. Surpluses were specifically and inten- tionally considered different problems, requiring more drastic measures That is why this surplus clause was placed in the agreement, and we should take ad- vantage of it Just as Canada has. The agreement does not in any sense infer nor state that they should not be eased by shutting off imports. If there had been any intention, even the slightest intention, to prevent this amendment or similar amendments from being adopted, then surely the agreement would have so stated. It did
2376 so state in the case of marketing pro- grams, as I just mentioned, and by the very omission of such a statement with regard to surpluses it provided for just exactly what 1s proposed here. My desire to maintain rigidly the for- eign commitments made by our State Depurtment, much as I disagree with some of them, led me to revise my first proposed amendment so that it would conform to the spirit as well as the let- ter of the Geneva agreement. That is exactly why I did it, because the excep- tion to the exception eliminated the amendment so far as the letter or the spirit of the law was concerned, even though marketing quotas were imposed. Here 1s a provision by which the sur- plus is taken care of. There is no excep- tion to it. We are supposed to rely on it, as are Canada and the other 23 countries. I should be clear that we are follow- ing exactly the course that was pro- vided for in that agreement. It is the ccurse other countries would follow in similar circumstances. It is the logical, sensible course, as was forese2n by those who drafted and signed the controlling trade agrecment. There is no room for the slightest fecl- ing of retaliation. There could not fos- sibly ke any inference that we, by the eadovi:on of this amendment, vould be “teking a crack” at any nation or group of nations. It is a business proposition operated in the friendliest of terms end one forced upon us by the circumstances that created a surplus in this country and in other countries as well. When the 1948 crop turned out to be larger than our requirements, Canada, with no ill feelings on the subdjcct, re- sponded to an appeal by this country to limit exports of potatoes. A willingness to compromise indicated a knowledge on the part of both countrics that drastic action was necessary. It was recognized that the United States could have com- pleicly elaminated all imports under the terms of all our domestic laws and for- elgn agreements concerning potatoes. It was also recognized, as it should be now, that the net result would be the same no matter how the agrecment was negotiated, namely, that of preventing imports from sw: lling the large surplus in the United States. Mr. President, I desire now to read from the actual text of the official letter, which is a part of the agreement which the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. AN- pERSON] mcntioned when we were debat- ing this matter in the Senate. This was sent to the Canadian representative and signed by Robert A. Lovett, Acting Secre- tary of State of the United States. This quotation staies our quid pro quo or share in the agreement: In view of the adverse effect which unre- stiicted imports of Canadian potatoes would have on the potato programs of the United States and the fact that it is anticipated that the Canadian proposal will substantially re- duce the quantity of potatoes which would otherwise be imported into the United States, and in the interest of international trade be- tween the United States and Canada and other considerations, the United States Gov- ernment assures the Canadian Government CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE that it will not hereafter impose any quan- titative limitations or fees on Canadian pota- toes of the 1948 crop imported {nto the United States under the system of regulating the movement of potatoes to the United States outlined in the Canadian proposal. Mr. President, those are the very words which were used. That was the proposi- tion made a year ago. It is the same we are esking for now. It was not retalia- tion then, and it is not retaliation now. The United States was wielding a big stick in that agreement. The Canadian Government knew, and we knew, that we could shut off imports of those potatces, end that public opin- ion would probably force that action. So there was an agreement. There was no thought of retaliation. There was no intention on the part of Mr. Lovett or anyone else to create any ill will between countries. There was no entagcnism between the negotiators, and there certainly is none now. The result of all this was just exactly the same as we have in mind now, except that the former agrcement did allow the shipment of potatoes marked for seed. The situation then was not neaily as bad as it is now, end we are going a little fur- ther than did the former agrecment. The precent situation calls for quick, decisive aciion. It comes several months later in the year than did the November 1948 agreement. Imports are much larger, and we are already destroying millions cf pounds of cur own 1949 crop. None of this congressional action would be necessary otherwise. I cannot, by any stretch of the im- agination, believe that Canada will take it unkindly, or even think of retaliation. Their business sense will certainly point out to them the fairness of a proposition which weuld designate to each respective nation the Job of taking care of its own surpluses. If they have a surplus of potatacs, then they have our decpest sympathy, because we are eflicted with the same malady, only to a much greater extent Let there be no equivocation or mis- understending. The amendment would require us to cease importing potatoes only when and if we had more than we could find usc for, as is provided in the amendment. What could be more fair or business- like? What infinitesimal ground for re- tahation is there? Wuth respect to that angle, I may state some very interesting facts which bring out this friendly atti- tude between our countries. Canada issued an order on November 18, 1947, prohibiting—not just limiting, but prohibiting—the umportation from the United States and other countrics of a wide variety of agricultural and cther commodities. This embargo had a serious effect on a great many farmers, fruit growers, and manufacturers in the United States. These men and these companies, for many years, had marketed a part of their output in Canada. Suddenly, without prior warning, shipments were shut off. Among the items affected were fresh fruits; all fresh vegetables, except pota- toes and onions; most dried fruits; most FEBRUARY 27 canned and packaged goods; beans, peas, rice, peanut butter, honey, molasses, cigars and cigarettes, poultry, eggs, and meat. In addition, typewriters, radios, automobile tires, furniture, pianos, fur coais, and many, many other articles were affected. Apples, onions, and cit- rus fruits were permitted to enter, but only up to 50 percent of the 1946 level. A month or so later the embargo list was considerably enlarged to include paper sacks, facial tissues, wax-coated paper, plywood, and a number of other articles. Was there retaliation on the part of the United States? Certainly not. Did we take action to nullify, insofar as pos- sible, any of these restrictions? Cer- tainly not. Our farmers and manufac- turers objected, for their loss of markets was quite serious to them. This country, however, realized that these actions by our northern neighbors seemed to those rromulgating the laws advisable and necessary and we did not take it as any slap at the United States. Here is an interesting feature of these strict embargoes and quotas adopted by Canada. The announcement was offi- cially made just 4 hours after the pub- lication of the signing and effective date of the comprehensive tariff reductions meade under the Geneva trade agree- ment. In other words, our agreement for the mutual reduction of tariff bar- riers to which Canada was a party was announced just 4 hours before that country rendered almost all her conees- sions ineffective. The United States did not retaliate. Of course not. The friendly, though businesslike, relations beiween the two countries were not affected. It is only fair to say that many of the severe restrictions rlaced upon ship- ments of goods from the United States to Canada have been modified Quotas have been enlarged and import licenses are granted more frecly than before. Canada, however, has little ground on which to object to this one single re- striction on potatoes, when we have too many of our own. Speaking of potatoes, Canada issued an order on April 21, 1948, prohibiting the importation of potatoes, including sweet potatoes, from scheduled countries, including the United States. This pro- hibition was for the period April to June to shut out the early potatoes from the Carolinas, Virginia, and other southern areas. No one rctahated. In May of 1848 Canada prohibited the importation of a number of new items, including parts for repairing radios and many kinds of machinery. In June of 1948 another list of new items under prohibition was issued. On November 1, 1948, the severe re- strictions on imports into Canada of let- tuce and tomatoes were eased somewhat, It was then announced that restric- tions would later be eascd on imports of cabbage, celery, spinach, and carrots. The official proclamation specifically stated that the relaxations would occur later as they were to be timed so as not to prejudice the normal marketing of Canadian produce.
1950 I quote the Foreign Commerce Weekly of November 15, 1948: Imports (into Canada) of each of the com- modities will be authorized only when ad- vancing prices or short supplies indicate de- pleted domestic stocks. I submit, Mr. President, that is all the pending amendment seeks todo. In fact, we do not intend to go nearly that far. We would limit imports only when we have an undisposable surplus. The amendment conforms with the trade agreements. It comes within the letter of the law and it comes within the spirit of the law. A year ago we took similar action. Action along the same lines can now be taken, and it should be taken, because the potato surplus is greater than it was a year ago. On that particular subject I wish to say for the record that up to date the importation of potatoes from Canada has been 6,000,000 bushels. The figures given to me by the experts of the De- partment of Agriculture, in conjunction with those of other agencies, show that the estimate of Imports for this crop year is about 15,000,000 bushels, not 6,000,000 bushels or 9,000,000 bushels. Translated into dollars and cents it means upward of $20,000. If the major- ity leader is desirous of economizing, here is the best place I know to begin economizing, for a saving of $20,000,000 can here be made. It can be made by an action which is within the law. We insist that surpluses in this country not be supported in the case of farmers who have no acreage or marketing quotas. Why should Canadian farmers who have no acreage or marketing quotas be pro- tected by us, when we do not protect our own farmers who have acreage or marketing quotas? So, in summary, the amendment of- fered by the junior Senator from Ne- braska conforms to existing law. It complies with international trade agree- ments. Action similar to that I propose was taken by the Administration a year ago, and it can be taken again if Con- gress desires to do s0. Everyone can see there is a tremen- dous surplus of potatoes, and everyone knows that Congress is obligated to act. Adoption of my amendment is neces- gary as a temporary expedient for the protection of the American economy. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of my amendment. Mr. President, how much more time has the junior Senator from Nebraska? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 412 minutes. Mr. WHERRY. I deeply regret that the junior Senator from Virginia [Mr. RoseRTSON] is not now on the floor. I want the Senate to know that the facts I have given relative to surplus potatoes were authenticated and given to me by officials of the Department of Agricul- ture. The chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry is on the floor. He is deeply interested in this particular legislation. I appeal to those who are acquainted with the subject and with the present emergency. The esti- mate of surplus potatoes is in the neigh- borhood of from sixty to seventy million CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE bushels. If 15,000,000 bushels of potatoes are shipped into the United States from @ country whose farmers are not af- fected by United States quotas or United States restrictions with respect to plant- ing, and that country receives the bene- fit of our price support for their surplus potatoes, what does that mean? What are we doing with our own surplus of potatoes? We are selling them for 1 cent a hundred pounds. Mr. President, I say it is the duty of every Senator to save the taxpayer every dime that can be saved to him, and a consider- able sum of money can be saved by the adoption of my amendment, which comes within the provisions of the Trade Agreements Act. It is our duty to take advantage of such an opportunity. We should do so this year in face of a sur- plus which, it seems, will be nearly twice as large as that of last year. If potatoes are imported into the United States at the same rate as itmportations during the first part of the crop year—and the importations during the first part of the year were 6,000,000 bushels—there will be upward of 15,000,000 bushels import- ed. I base that statement on the esti- mate made by the Department of Agri- culture experts. In view of that fact, I say the amendment should be adopted. The amendment would do this year ex- actly what the administration did last year. Mr. President, there will be no rctalia- tion as a result of the adoption of my amendment. No one has more sym- pathy with nor greater good will toward Canada than has the junior Senator from Nebraska. I appreciate every dol- lar’s worth of business we receive from Canada. But why should we guarantee to the growers of potatoes in a foreign country a price support for their potatoes on a vague theory that it is good business for us todo so. I say it is not good busi- ness for us to do so. I repeat, there will be no retaliation for the action proposed by my amendment. Such action should be taken now. I hope the Senate will adopt my amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend ment offered by the junior Senator from Nebraska (Mr. WHERRY!. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from Okla- homa if he cares to use any of his time now. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, I have agreed to give those who sponsor the wheat amendment 30 minutes of the time controlled by me. I prefer that the time be taken on the question now before us, before I yield 30 minutes on the wheat amendment. Mr. WHERRY. The Senator from New York (Mr. IVES] desires to speak, but he wishes to speak after the Senator from Delaware [Mr. WiLLIAMs] has pre- sented his amendment, which is in the nature of a substitute. Mr. IVES. Mr. President, it occurs to the Senator from New York that it might be well to proceed with the other amend- ment prior to the one to be offered by the Senator from Delaware, because the amendment of the Senator from Dela- ware is a complete substitute. 2377 Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, at the present time the pro- ponents of the so-called wheat amend- ment are not on the floor. In order that we may not lose time I yield 10 minutes to the senior Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] to present arguments in favor of an amendment to be later of- fered for himself and in behalf of Sen- ator Lucas, of Illinois, Senator Rosert- son, of Virginia, and Senator HoLiAnp, of Florida. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from Louisiana is recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. ELLENDER, Mr. President, a par- Hamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator will state it. Mr. ELLENDER. As I understand, each amendment will be argued sepa- rately and voted upon at 4 o’clock. Am I correct? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator is correct. Voting will begin at 4 o’clock. Mr. ELLENDER, Mr. President, I ask that my amendment, which I submitted last Friday, be read for the information of the Senate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be read for the infor- mation of the Senate. The Cutler CLERK. At the appropriate place in the joint resolution it is proposed to insert the following new section: Src. . For the crop year of 1951 and there- after no price support shall be made avail- able for any Irish potatoes unless marketing quotas are in effect with respect to such potatoes. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, it is not my purpose here to discuss again in detail the potato amendments. It will be recalled that last Friday the Senate adopted the so-called Aiken substitute amendment to the Lucas amendment. One of the main reasons advanced for the adoption of that substitute amend- ment was that it permitted the Govern- ment to carry out its moral obligation to the growers of potatoes throughout the Nation, in contrast to the amendment proposed by the distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. Lucas]. It will also be recalled that the amendment submit- ted by the Senator from Illinois provided that no price support would be made available to any Irish potato grower for his 1950 crop after the enactment of the joint resolution, which meant that Con- gress would have to take affirmative ac- tion almost immediately in order that the potato growers of the Nation might be in a position to receive 1950 support prices, The Aiken amendment, on the con- trary, provided that until the Congress acted, the farmers growing potatoes would be entitled to price support. My amendment simply provides that Congress must act by 1951 in order that potato farmers may be in a position to receive price support for the 1951 crop. My amendment does not in any manner affect the potato growers insofar as price supports are concerned for the 1950 crop. It affects growers only for the 1951 crop and thereafter. The
2378 Mr. President, as I pointed out some time ago, I know that the Agricultural Committee of the House as well as the Agricultural Committee of the Senate have tried on many occasions to provide an effective law dealing with potato sur- pluses, that is to say, a law which would sufficiently encourage the farmers who produce potatoes to agree to curtail- ment of their acreage in production. That is the only way we can prevent these huge surpluses. I can see no rea- son why a potato grower should be in a different position from that of a cotton farmer, a wheat farmer, or a producer of any of the other basic crops. In order that a wheat farmer or a cotton farmer may obtain support for the price of his commodity, it 1s necessary that the farmers producing that commodity vote among themselves to impose a quota restriction—a curtailment of their acreage. I contend that the same method should be imposed on the growers of potatoes. There is no rca- s0n why it should not be done. As I pointed out last Friday, the mar- keting agreements have been ineffective, insofar as they have been used in an effort to curtail a surplus of potatoss. As late as September of last year, only 55 percent of the potato growcrs of the Natlon had agreed to marketing agree- ments; the others did not enter into any agreements at all. We should note that last year the Department of Agriculture made an effort to support not only po- tatoes produced undcr marketing agree- ments which amounted to 55 percent of the 1949 crop, but also potatoes pro- duced not subject to any sort of market- ing agreements—45 percent of the last season’s yield. As a consequence of price support of this type an enormous surplus of potatoes has been produced each year. We cannot curb the sur- plus production unless and until Con- gress passes a law permitting the potato growcrs to impose upon themselves the same kind of quota adopted by the wheat growers or the cotton growers. I repeat, Mr. President, as I said on Friday, any farmer who expects his Gov- ernment to support the price of his com- modity should be willing to impose quota restrictions upon himself. A number of persons have said that means regimenta- tion. That may be; but I say this is done by the farmer in a democratic way, after an affirmative vote by two-thirds of the growers. Only if the cotton farm- ers or the wheat farmers or the corn farmers agree to vote curtailment of their acreage, will there be a curtailment and I believe that the same, identical method should apply to the producers of potatoes. The amendment I propose simply gives notice to the potato growers of the Na- tion that if they expect price supports from their Government during the year 1951 and thereafter they must lend their support to the enactment of a law which will permit the Department of Agricul- ture to say to the potato growers, “You may plant only so many acres of potatoes each year.” If the potato growers give their unqualified support, I am satisfied that Congress will enact such a law. They are entitled to a price-support pro- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE gram if they are willing to accept mar- keting quotas. As the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Tuomas] stated last Friday, his commit- tee now stands ready to begin hearings on legislation to carry out that proposal, As a member of the Committee on Agri- culture and Forestry, Mr. President, I wish to say that I shall cheerfully and gladly assist, to the extent of my ability, in the enactment of a law which will permit the potato farmers of the United States to impose upon themselves a quota system similar to that which now applies to the producers of all of our basic crops. At the proper time, I should like to sub- mit my amendment. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the dis- tinguished senior Senator from Georgia (Mr. GEorcE]. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, I have proposed an amendment, end I shall offer it at the proper time. However, I think perhaps the distin- guished chairman of the committee and other members of the committee with whom I have conferred will accept the amendment for the purpose of taking it to conference and there considering it. I snould hke to put into the Rrecorp at this point section 359 (b) of the law as it pertained to the use of excess pea- nuts for oll purposes, prior to its repeal. I also offer for the Recorp, in that con- nection, a statement explanatory of that portion of the law and how it was ad- ministered under the law as it has here- tofore existed. . Is there The PRESIDING OFFICER objection? There being no objection, section 359 (b) and the explanatory statement were ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: Section 309 (b) was as follows: “Beginning with the 1941 crop of peanuts, payment of the penalty of 3 cents per pound upon the marketing of peanuts as provided in subsection (a) above will not be required if such excess peanuts are delivered to or marketed through an agency or agencies designated each year by the Secretary or if the producer pays to the United States, with respect to excess peanuts which, when mar- keted, were identified in the manner pre- scribed in the regulations of the Secretary as quota peanuts, an amount determined under regulations of the Sccretary to represent the amount received for the peanuts in excess of the amount which would have been re- ceived had such peanuts been delivered to a designated agency as excess peanuts. Any peanuts received under this subsection by such agency shall be sold by such agency (i) for crushing for oll] under a sales agree- ment approved by the Secretary; (1i) for cleaning and shelling at prices not less than those established for quota peanuts under any peanut diversion, peanut loan, or peanut purchase program; or (ill) for seed at prices established by the Secretary. For all pea- nuts so delivered to a designated agency under this subsection, producers shall be paid for the portion of the lot constituting excess peanuts, the market value thereof for crushing for oil as of the date of such de- livery less the estimated cost of storing, han- dling, and selling such peanuts but not less than prices established by the Sccrctary pur- suant to authority contained in existing law. FEBRUARY 27 Any person who, pursuant to the provisions of this subsection, acquires peanuts for crushing for oil and who uses or disposes of such peanuts for any purpose other than that for which acquired shall pay a penalty of 3 cents per pound upon the peanuts co used or disposed of and shall be gullty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more than $1,000 or im- prisoned for not more than 1 ycar, or both, for each and every Offense. Operations under this subsection shall be carried on under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, and the operntions of any agency designated to receive and market peanuts may be separato from or combined with operations of other agencies.” EXPLANATORY STATEMENT The peanut program operated under this provision The Secretary of Agriculture designated the peanut co-ops as his agencies to receive and market the excess peanuts which were grown. Those co-ops were the VA-NC Pcanut Co-Op, for Virginia, North Carolina, and a part of South Carolina, the GFA tor Geor- gia, Florida, and Alabama and possibly some border States which produced limited quan- titic. of psanuts, and the Southwest Peanut Association for Texas, Oklahoma, Loutsiana, etc These co-ops, as buyers or agents for the Secretary, muintuin buyers at the principal peanut markets and they received and stored the excess peunuts, Then in turn the co-ops sold the excess peanuts to the mills to be crushed into oll. One year at least, there developed a short- age in quota peunuts for edible purposes, and it was fortunate that these excess peanuts were available and a good quantity of them were sold to the edible trade at the Lull sup- port price Later, the profit made on these e.cess peanuts was distributed among peanut growers There were, of course, some cases where the peinut producer undertook to market some of his excess peanuts as quota peanuts But no excessive number of violations were pver reported to me and in addition there have since been some changes in the law which tends to make such violations less Mkely. These changes are contained in Public Law 323 of the Eighticth Congress. Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, I also offer for the Recorn, and ask to have printed at this point, a copy of the act to amend the peanut-marketing provisions of the Agriculiural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, approved August 1, 1947, together with an explanatory state- ment. There being no objection, the act and explanatory statement were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: [Public Law 323—80th Cong.] [Ch. 445—1st sess.) [H. R. 4124] An act to amend the peanut-markcting quota provisions of the Agricultural Ad- justment Act of 1928, as amended Be it enacted, etc., That section 358 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (U. 8. C,, title 7, ‘sec 1358), is amended by striking the last sentence of sub- section (d) and inserting in Neu thereof the following: “The amount of the marketing quota for each farm shall be the actual pro- duction of the farm acreage allotment, and no peanuts shall be marketed under the quota for any farm other than peanuts actu- ally produced on the farm.” Src. 2. Section 359 of the Agricultural Ad- justment Act of 1938, as amended (U.S C., litle 7, sec. 1359), is amended as follows:
1950 (1) By changing the first sentence of sub- section (a) to read as follows: “The market- ing of any peanuts in excess of the mar- keting quota for the farm on which such peanuts are produced, or the marketing of peanuts from any farm for which no acre- age allotment was determined, shall be sub- ject to a penalty at a rate equal to 50 percent of the basic rate of the loan (calculated to the nearest tenth of a cent) for farm mar- keting quota peanuts for the marketing year August 1-July 31.” (2) By striking out the last sentence of subsection (a) and inserting in Neu thereof the following: “Peanuts produced in a calen- dar year in which marketing quotas are in effect for the marketing year beginning therein shall be subject to such quotas even though the peanuts are marketed prior to the date on which such marketing year begins. If any producer falsely identifies or fails to account for the disposition of any peanuts, an amount of peanuts equal to the normal yield of the number of acres har- vested in excess of the farm acreage allot- ment shall be deemed to have been marketed in excess of the marketing quota for the farm, and the penalty in respect thereof shall be paid and remitted by the producer. If any amount of peanuts produced on one farm 1s falsely identified by a representation that such peanuts were produced on another farm, the acreage allotments next established for both such farms shall be reduced by that percentage which such amount was of the respective farm murketing quotas, except that such reduction for any such farm shall not be made if the Secretary through the local committees finds that no person con- nected with such farm caused, aided, or ac- quiesced in such marketing: and if proof of the disposition of any amount of peanuts is not furnished as required by the Secretary, the acreage allotment next established for the farm on which such peanuts are produced shall be reduced by a percentage similarly computed.” (3) By striking subsection (b) and redes- ignating subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g), as subsections (b), (c), (d), (€), and (f), respectively. Approved August 1, 1947. EXPLANATORY STATEMENT From this act you will observe: 1. That the marketing quota for each farm is confined to the actual production of the allotted acreage, while previously the mar- keting quota was either the actual produc- tion or the normal production, whichever Was greater; 2. That the penalty on the marketing of excess peanuts was increased from 3 cents per pound to 50 percent of the support price; 8. That if any producer falsely certifies or fails to account for the disposition of any peanuts, he will be deemed to have marketed excess peanuts to the extent of the normal yield of the total excess acreage; 4. If a producer misrepresents peanuts produced on one farm as having been pro- duced on another farm, then the acreage allotments in the future for both of such farms shall be reduced by the same percent- age that the falsely certified peanuts bears to the marketing quotas for each such farm. It must be admitted that these changes and additional penalties will make violations far less tempting and far less likely than they were under the program previous to the passage of this act. Mr. GEORGE. Mz. President, I wish to say a few words about this amend- ment. It has been in the law; it is not new. It only permits the crushing of excess peanuts—that is to say, peanuts grown over and above the quota—for oil purposes at the market price. There is CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE no subsidy, no support price, in that regard. Question has arisen that perhaps in complete fairness to the producers of soybeans, I should modify or amend my amendment. At the proper time I shall offer to it an amendment or modifica- tion simply providing that if the Secre- tary imposes acreage controls and mar- keting controls on soybeans, then, not- withstanding the provisions of this act, he shall have full power to impose re- strictions upon the marketing of oi] pro- duced from peanuts grown on excess acreage. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. GEORGE. Iam glad to yield. Mr. WHERRY,. The price paid for peanuts which are to be crushed for oil is lower, is it not, than the 40 percent of parity paid for other peanuts? Mr. GEORGE. Yes; very much lower. Mr. WHERRY. Can the Senator give us some idea of what that price is? Mr. GEORGE. Peanut oil is now selling for about 14 cents a pound. At present market prices, it is not feasible to plant peanuts to be used for the pro- duction of peanut oll. The peanut oil is produced only from the extra peanuts. Under the Marketing Act, the Secretary of Agriculture is required to reduce the peanut acreage to the point which will meet only the trade requirements for edible peanuts. Therefore, such a pro- vision would eventually eliminate the production of peanut oil, unless oil from peanuts produced on excess acreage could be sold at the prevailing market price. Mr. WHERRY. I should hke to ask another question, to bring out what I have in mind. Let us say that a farmer produced peanuts which would not be ac- ceptable at price support, under the parity formula. Could such a producer of peanuts go to the Commodity Credit Corporation and, even though the pea- nuts would be used to produce peanut oil, be able in any way to receive the support price under the 90 percent guaranty pro- vided in the Agricultural Adjustment Act? Mr. GEORGE. Not at all. Any excess peanuts must be used only fer oil pur- poses by agencies designated by the Secretary of Agriculture himself. Mr. President, as I have said, I wish to add to my amendment, by way of amend- ment or modification of it, a further provision reading in substance, that in the event the Secretary imposes acreage restrictions or marketing restrictions on soybeans, notwithstanding the provisions of this act, he shall have the same power and authority to control the planting of excess peanuts, even for oi] purposes. Mr. President, peanuts already are un- der strict quotas. The one real difficulty in that connection arises from the fact that the penalty for any excess planting is very high. The penalty now is 50 per- cent of the support price, if the farmer overplants his acrage and undertakes to sell in any way at all the peanuts pro- duced on the excess acreage. So, Mr. President, I amend or modify my amendment before I offer it. After modifying it in the way I have just indi- cated, I now offer the amendment, 2379 In this connection, I ask that a brief statement in connection with the amend- ment be printed at this point in the REcORD. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: The proposed amendment to again author- ize the planting of excess acreage of peanuts is very necessary for the following reasons: 1. Peanut acreage has already been re- duced approximately 40 percent, that 1s, 20 percent in 1949 and another 20 percent in 1950. Such reductions have already sub- stantially reduced the economic welfare of Peanut growers. 2. Another reduction in peanut acreage, of between 10 and 20 percent, 1s quite likely in 1951 as it is anticipated that a normal crop on the 2,100,000 acres allotted for 1950 will produce a surplus of peanuts for edible purposes. Such further reductions next year will mean that the acrenge of the peanut producer will be reduced at least in half, if not more 3 For the most part, peanuts and cotton are produced in the same areas. Marketing quotas are now also in effect for cotton and this year the cotton growers will suffer a substantial reduction 1n cotton acreage, some more than 50 percent if the pending resolution is not enacted, and many as much as 40 percent if the pending resolution ts enacted While the nationul cotton acreage for this year is 21,000,000 acres, resulting in these reductions, the Secretary will be re- quired under the Cotton Quota Act to further reduce cotton acreage in 195) to about 17,- 500,000 acres Reduction in the acreage even below that figure is contemplated in 1952. 4. Areduction In peanut acreage of 50 per- cent or more, together with the reduction in cotton acreage in an equal amount, will make idle millions of acres of land in the cotton-peanut areas and will make it im- possible for the farmers in those areas to produce sufficient crops for the support of their families. 5. It 1s not contemplated, nor would it be worth while, for any farmer to plant only excess peanut acreage, because the price of peanuts to be crushed into oll is not sufficient to cover cost. But, as the farmer must have the labor and equipment to plant his allotted acreage, he can in some cases plant additional acroage as excess peanuts for of] without any great additional expense and possibly at a small profit. 6. Mention has been made that the pro- duction of the peanuts for oil would be un- fair inasmuch as this additional vegetable oil would be made available. But there are no controls of any kind on soybeans and the small quantity of oll proguced from ex- cess peanuts would be incignificant com- pared to the oil derived from soybeans. Cotton growers are not permitted to plant the acreage taken out of cotton and peanuts but reports reaching us indicate that mil- lions of acres to be taken out of corn pro- duction this year under the corn-acreage- allotment program will be planted in soy- beans and will quite substantially increase the soybean production for this year. Cer- tainly it would be most unfair to permit the corn growers to put their idle acres in soy- beans and to refuse the cotton growers to put some of their acreage in peanuts for oll. 7. Nor is there any control of any kind on the production of hogs, from which lard is made. Reports indica‘e that there is a sub- stantial increase in the pig crop, which will result in more hogs and more lard. The small quantity of ofl produced from excess peanuts will not equal the increased lard derived from the increased number of hogs. 8. For years efforts have been made to establish a market for refined peanut oil,
2380 both for edible and cooking purposes. Pea- nut oil is a superior oil, more nearly like olive of]. These efforts have resulted in the establishment of a market for refined pea- nut oil and this needs to be greatly ex- panded. There is a good market today for a blend of peanut and olive oil. Peanut oll is needed tor the cooking of peanuts for the salted-peanut processors. Peanut oil is needed where high-temperature cooking is required inasmuch as peanut oil will not smoke as quickly as lard and other oils. Peanut-oll-refining plants have been estab- lished and represent considerable invest- ments. Pcanut-oil mills where peanuts are crushed into oil are located all over the pea- nut-producing area and represent millions in investment. 9. But, under the peanut marketing quota law no provision of any kind 1s made for the production of peanuts for oil, The Peanut Marketing Quota Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to continue to reduce the pea- nut acreage until only the exact amount needed for edible purposes can be produced. This will mean that there will be no peanuts to crush into oil; there will be no peanuts to crush for these plants; there will be no peanut oil to refine in the peanut-refining plants; there will be no peanut oll in which to cook salted peanuts; there will be no peanut oil for cooking purposes, for salads, or for any other purposes. Certainly we must not wreck the economy of these people or deny the public a commodity they want. There are one or two areas which have never produced anything but edible peanuts and the growers in those areas are not in- terested in the production of excess peanuts for oil. But they have been broad-minded enough to understand the problems facing the peanut growers of other areas and they are not objecting to this amendment. However, they are asking that the last par- agraph of the amendment be enacted. This paragraph provides that any acreage planted in excess of allotted acreage shall not be considered in the future in establishing acre- age allotments. We believe this provision is fair and have incorporated it in this amend- ment. I may add that under the present law, the acreage planted in excess peanuts may after 8 years be taken into account to a limited extent in determining the peanut acreage allotment for the farm on which such excess peanuts have been grown. The language of the present law on the subject is as follows: ‘SECTION 358 (D) “Any acreage of peanuts harvested in ex- cess of the allotted acreage for any farm for any year shall not be considered in the estab- Ushment of the allotment for the farm until the third year following the year ir which such excess acreage is haivested and the total increases made in farm-acreage allot- ments in any year based on such excess acre- age shall not exceed 2 percent of the national acreage allotment for such year. Provided, That in the distribution of such increases based on such excess acreage the total allot- ments established for new farms shall not be less than 59 percent of such increases.” The last paragraph of the pending amend- ment changes this so as to provide that the excess acreage shall not be considered in establishing future farm acreage allotments for the farm at any time. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Pres- ident, if the junior Senator from Colo- rado [Mr. MILLIx1n] is ready to proceed with the wheat amendment, I yield to him whatever time he may desire, up to 80 minutes. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, my colleague, the senior Senator from Colo- rado [Mr. Jounson], is present; and I prefer to have him proceed now. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Very well; I yield 15 minutes to the senior Senator from Colorado. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Colorado [Mr. Jounson] is recognized for 15 minutes, Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Pres- ident, I ask that the amendment offered by the junior Senator from Colorado and myself, to tne pending resolution, House Joint Resolution 398, be printed in the Recorp at this point. There being no objection, the amend- ment intended to be proposed by Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado and Mr. MILLIKIN was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provi- sion of law, the farm acreage allotment of wheat for the 1951 crop for any farm shall not be less than the larger of— (a) 50 percent of— (1) the acreage on the farm seeded for the production of wheat in 1949, and (2) any other acreage seeded for the pro- duction of wheat in 1948 which was fallowed and from which no crop was harvested in the calendar yeur 1949, or (b) 50 percent of— (1) the acreage on the farm seeded for the production of wheat in 1948, and (2) any other acreage seeded for the pro- duction of wheat in 1947 which was fallowed and from which no crop was harvested in the calendar year 1948; adjusted in the same ratio as the national seeding for the production of whcat during the calendar year 1950 (adjusted for abnormal weather conditions and for trend in acreage) bears to the national acreage allotment for wheat for the 1951 crop; but no acreage shall be included under (a) or (b) which the Secretary, by appropriate regulations, deter- mines will become an undue erosion hazard under continued farming. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no allotment increased by reason of the provisions of this section shall exceed that percentage of the 1950 allotment for the same farm which (1) the acreage al- lotted in the county to farms which do not receive an increase under this section is of (2) the acreage allotted to such farms in 1950. To the extent that the allotment to any county is insufficient to provide for such minimum allotments, the Secretary shall al- lot such county such additional acreage (which shall be in addition to the county, State, and national acreage allotments other- wice provided for under the Agricultural Act of 1938, as amended) as may be necessary in order to provide for such minimum tarm al- lotments. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Pres- ident, the pending joint resolution that is a continuation of a relief plan which the wheat growers of the country worked out last year for the purpose of affording relief in the matter of wheat acreages. Until 1948 the Department of Agriculture had been calling upon the wheat growers to increase their acreages of wheat, and thereby to increase the production of wheat. In 1949, however, the tune was changed very suddenly, and wheat grow- ers were threatened with a restriction and a reduction of acreage. It so hap- pens that in producing agricultural crops it is not a matter of turning on the faucet and then turning it off, at will; the process is more complicated than that. Especially is that true in the light of modern farming practices, including crop rotation on the one hand, and, on the other hand, summer fallowing. It FEBRUARY 27 requires more than 1 year in which to raise a crop of wheat. In many in- stances, under crop rotation procedures and practices, it requires a great many years in which to produce a crop of wheat. So when the world came very suddenly in 1949 that the crop would of necessity have to be reduced, it meant of course a considerable readjustment, a readjustment which would adversely af- fect many of the farming practices of the country. When the veterans returned from the war, many of them purchased wheat farms. Wheat land is relatively cheap, compared with other farming lands. The veterans purchased the land. They did it innocently enough, not anticipating that changes would be made and restric- tions imposed and insisted upon in the reduction of acreage. So the veterans are left in a very bad way. Last year the Congress acted to ease the situation, to work out o gradual reduction in the wheat acreage, so as not to inflict par- ticularly heavy punishment upon wheat growers who had come into the picture very late. During the past few years we have had favorable wheat-growing seasons in Kansas, Nebraska, and eastern Califor- nia, especially. In eastern Colorado large acreages have been plowed up and planted to wheat. In Colorado we are new growers of wheat. The older grow- ers of wheat in other sections are taken care of more or less in the plans of the Department of Agriculture to reduce the crop, but the new grower found himself completely wiped out, his business com- pletely destroyed, should he comply with the suggestion made by the Department of Agriculture with respect to the re- duction of his acreage. He was not given a place in the picture at all. The amendment which we were suc- cessful in having adopted by the Con- gress a year ago gave some wheat farm- ers in certain areas advantages over so- called old growers receiving allotments on their 10-year adjusted acreage. It also provided for the addition of too many acres to the 1950 allotments, to fulfill the requirements of the amend- ment, The amendment we are offering today meets these two very serious objections. It provides that the basis of adjustment to the proposed allotment for 1951 shall be compared to the seedings in the fall of 1949 and spring of 1950, for the 1950 harvest. The act passed last year, Pub- lic Law 272, in section 5 provided that the allotment should be compared to the 10-year average, adjusted for trend. The provision this year requires that no farm shall be given more acreage than the average of the other farms in a coun- ty receiving allotments on the 10-year adjusted acreage formula of the 1948 AA ct. Had this plan been adopted last year, 10 percent Iess acres would have been required, or 1,712,000 instead of the 4,- 507,000 that were needed. Approximate- ly 7.6 percent represented reduction on so-called new farms, and this formula would have brought the national average reduction to a little over 17 percent.
1950 So, Mr. President, it can be seen that the amendment we are offering today is very modest, when compared with the amendment offered a year ago. While the amendment was adopted primarily to assist those States which were responding to the pleas of the De- partment of Agriculture by sharply in- creasing their acreage, and was believed at the time to be limited to six or seven Western States, it actually assisted wheat farmers in 40 of the 48 States whose plight was such that a formula based on 50 percent of their wheat land being fal- low or involved in rotation and soil con- servation practices helped them out. I shall read a hst of certain of the States which received assistance. The figures are those of the Department of Agriculture: Ohio_....---.--------------------- 71, 846 Indiana___--- 118, 285 Minols__._---------------- ~- 170,222 North Dakota (estimated) —.-.------ 300, 000 South Dakota..---.--..--------.-. 243, 856 Nebraska__.----------------~------ 303, 527 Kansas ___-_-_--_---_--------------- 398, 278 Montana.__.---------.- ee 473, 109 Idaho__--.------~---------------- + 305, 424 Colorado (the largest) -..-......---- 789, 225 New Mexico__-.------------------- 59, 070 From the beginning of the war years until 1948, the Department of Agricul- ture, as I have already said, asked for increased production. For the first time, in 1948, caution was suggested. Acreage was not reduced in 1948, but farmers were cautioned that it might become necessary. During this period, much new ground was broken and sold to returning vet- erans, who were not aware of allotments or quotas or controls of any kind, and who bought the land in good faith. It is this group who require time in order to make their adjustments. They are the States showing the greatest addi- tional number of acres under the provi- sions of the summer fallow amendment. The purpose of an allotment program is to bring voluntarily the supply into relation with the demand. The pro- grams, to be effective, must receive com- pliance. The real test of the summer fallow amendment is whether seedings were reduced. It is one thing to issue orders and make suggestions; it is another thing to obtain compliance of the orders and suggestions. The Department of Agri- culture figures, based on a limited sur- vey, show 561,000 less acres were planted than would have been the case other- wise. In other words, had the Congress not adopted the amendment last year with respect to wheat acreages, the farmer would have planted 561,000 more acres than were actually planted as a result of the amendment. Mr. President, I have in my hand a letter received today from a wheat grow- er in eastern Colorado, which explains how the formula operates. The letter is addressed tome. It is dated Arapahoe, Colo., February 22, 1950, and reads as follows: Your support of the agricultural summer fallow bill is hereby recommended. This letter is in confirmation of my recent wire to you and to expand on same a bit. XCVI——150 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATEE The writer telegraphed me saying he was supporting the summer fallow amendment which the junior Senator from Colorado [Mr. MILLIKin] and I have been sponsoring. The letter con- tinues: My planted wheat acreage for harvest this year is 1,047. If it had not been for the summer fallow bill passed by Congress late last summer I would have planted 2,200 acres for 1950 harvest. The first wheat- acreuge restriction bill passed by Congress in 1949 only permitted me to plant about 750 acres for 1950 harvest or approximately one-third my total cultivated acres. Of course, I would rather have taken a chance on the production from 2,200 acres at an open-market price than be assured of a Gov- ernment-support price on one-third my total cultivated acres. I hope Senators will catch the sig- nificance of that statement. It is simply this: The only punishment inflicted on a farmer if he plants more acres than permitted under the Department regu- lations is that he is not assured of a Government support price. So long as his neighbors are getting a Government support price for their wheat, the farmer who has not complied can take chances and may sell his wheat at a pretty good price. If he sells it for less than the support price, it will, of course, make it more difficult and more expensive for the Government. and will increase the support price of all other wheat. That, I think, ought to be evident So it is to the advantage of the country, to the advantage of the Department of Agri- culture, and to the advantage of every- one else concerned with the problem, to find a solution in an orderly way, and effect compliance. Had we not adopted the amendment las. year, the amount of wheat grown, the amount of acreage planted would have been a great deal more than it was. The same thing is true now. The amendment we are offering today carries as it should carry, greater limitations than the amend- ment adopted the last year. The philosophy used in agreeing to the amendment last year was that it would gradually ease off the problem, and we are carrying out that same philosophy at this time. To proceed with the letter: I am only one of many wheat farmers in Colorado operating under similar circum- stances. A serious handicap to the thriving new wheat industry of Colorado will be a terrific blow to the continued prosperity of all other Colorado business. Most of us farmers are only asking to plant 50 percent of our total cultivated acres. We want to conserve our land, if possible, but we must make a living and be able to pay off our mortgages too. That would be difficult to do on only about one-third or less of our possible productive capacity. The farmers are fighting for their life in my State. This man’s letter makes it specific as to just how this amendment would apply. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HeEnpricKson in the chair). The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. The Sen- ator from Oklahoma yielded me more than 10 minutes. He is not present at this time, but he told me to proceed. 2381 The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, the Senator may proceed. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. The farmers found it to their advantage to retain this allotment after Congress passed the bill, because that is what they want to do; they do not want to do other than that. Congress met their problem squarely and gave them an increase which they could accept in a reasonable way and still make a living on their farms. They ccccpted it and went ahead. The compliance wv ud have been bet- ter if the amendment had been adopted 30 days earlier. Some early plantings were in and the frrmers, in many in- stances, had ignored their allotment. In other instances, land prepared for seed- ing had to be planted. The amendment pleased the farmers because it provided @ means to consider their particular problem on the basis of the farm and to get away from inequities resulting in distorted acreage statistics. If a farmer goes outside the program, under allotments his only penalty is that he does not receive a Government loan to support the price he receives. His production adds to the total supply and must be considered when computing, under the formula, the next year’s allot- ments. The end result is that those farmers who do comply are compelled to take a deeper cut; that is, to divide up a smaller number of allotted acres. The mere fact that a farmer Is not eligible to a loan is of no help to cooperators. Actually, what happens is that when a men knows he is not going to get sup- port and is going to have to sell his wheat on the market, and it is expected to be sold under the support price, he plants more acreas to make up for the lower price he expects to receive. So that failure to provide a “livable” program actually results in aggravating the sup- ply program. ‘ I hope Senators will realize the force and the logic of that argument. The only penalty is that the farmer does not have the Joan privilege. He can grow any amount of wheat he wants to grow, under the law, but he cannot get a Gov- ernment loan on his wheat. He must sell the wheat on the open market. When the price of wheat is held up to a higher level, the farmer who grows it outside the program will not have very much diffi- culty selling his wheat. He will possibly sell it at a slightly reduced price. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to insert in the Recorp at this point a digest of letters received and comments on this subject. There being no objection, the digest and comments were ordered to be printed in the ReEcorp, as follows: Dioest oF LETTERS IN THE FILES OF THE COLO- RADO GRAIN GROWERS ASSOCIATION AND THE NATIONAL WHEAT GROWERS ORGANIZATION Please reenact the summer-fallow amend- ment as it made it possible for me (us) to plant within the allotment, There were many thousands of acres of land not sown because Congress granted us sufficient acreage so it was possible for us to comply. Its wheat growers and the State of Colorado itself were being unduly penalized by the first wheat allotment and I know that only @
2382 small percent of the farmers could coop- erate. Under the present program, section 272.5, I don't know of but one farmer who ts not cooperating and he will another year if the program remains as it is at present. As Iam a small-grain grower, the first cut would have about put me out of business. I sure welcomed the amendment. To my Knowledge, all of my neighbors have com- plied with their new allotments. I was much pleased with the last wheat allotment which our Congressmen got for us wheat farmers. I have stayed under the last allotted acicage granted me and I believe that most of my neighbors have. If these allotted acres had not been raised to a reasonable level, I would have disre- garded the whole thing and planted twice the acres I now have in. In my fall plowing, I let my idle acres lay fallow. GENERAL COMMENTS Wheat is not perishable and the Govern- ment has usually made money on the stocks it has taken over as it takes only a small disaster, drought, or disease, to wipe out sur- plus. There 1s adequate storage and CCC has contracted to rent and pay for space whether it is used or not. The problem of storing a commodity such as wheat is not great. Wheat is a food used throughout the world The Asia situation is such that wheat may be a deciding factor in a cold war. There has been 15 unbroken years of bumper crops. The high plains area of east- ern Colorado and western Kansas is droughty now. The farmers desire to cooperate and are in accord with the provisions of House Joint Resolution 398 They are willing to go along. Wheat farmers cannot stand a huge slash in operations in any one year and must have the opportunity to adjust their operations to a declining income Large machinery re- placed with lighter; lands sowed to pasture with income from livestock takes time. Soil conservation requires gradual adjust- ment of acreages, otherwise an erosion hazard is created as well as a weed problem. Important. One more year of a provision such as House Joint Resolution 398 will bring the adjustments for trend up to a point where relief will not be needed. This re- quest is to bridge the adjustment period. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. How much time has been consumed by the senior Senator from Colorado? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thir- teen minutes. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. I yield the remainder of 20 minutes to the jun- jor Senator from Colorado. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, I should like to lend my endorsement to the very fine presentation of the sub- ject made by my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Colorado [Mr. JOHNSON]. The question of allotments for wheat is vital in Colorado and in a number of other Western States. Pursuant to the request of the Depart- ment of Agriculture to meet the food needs of the Nation in time of war and in the readjustment period after the war, many persons went to the eastern prairies of Colorado and to the western portions of Kansas and Nebraska, opened up new land, and planted it to wheat. Those persons included many veterans. They spent their own money or borrowed money for the purchase of the heavy CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE and expensive machinery required. They perhaps should have known, but they did not know, about allotments, quotas, controls, and so forth and so on. Per- haps they thought they were fighting a war for freedom. But, in any event, they went into that country and opened up new lands. By opening up new lands they did not have the benefit of the 10- year formula which applies to the old wheat farmers, and, under the Jaw as it was last year, prior to the amendment which was adopted last year, those farm- ers would have had their acreage cut as much as 80 percent of what it had been. It would have been a ruinous thing. It would have been disastrous to a great part of the State of Colorado and of other States finding themselves in the same situation. In the heavy wheat- growing sections of Colorado the econ- omy of dozens of towns turns on the money received from the production of wheat. That, in turn, fertilizes the econ- omy of that whole portion of the State. The figures are large enough and the money is important enough so that it can favorably or very adversely affect the economy of the entire State. Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MILLIKIN. I yield. Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Is not that condi- tion generally true in the two or three western tiers of counties in the State of Kansas adjoining the State of Col- orado? Mr. MILLIKIN. I should say the sit- uation is precisely the same, and for the same reason. Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the posi- tion which the senior and junior Sena- tors from Colorado are taking in this most important situation which affects the western third of the State of Kansas. Mr. MILLIKIN. I appreciate the Sen- ator's statement very much indeed. Mr. WHERRY. Mr President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MILLIKIN. I gladly yield. Mr. WHERRY. Is it not also true of the western counties in Nebraska? The Senator knows well that there are several counties in western Nebraska which can be placed in the same category with those counties in Colorado of which the Sen- ator is speaking. Mr. MILLIKIN. The situation is ex- actly the same. In fact, it has happened that men have been in western Kansas and in the part of Nebraska to which the Senator is referring, thinking they were in Colorado, or vice versa. There are some classic campaign stories with refer- ence to Colorado politicians who wound up in Kansas or in Nebraska trying to convert voters to our own causes in Colo- rado. The line which has been laid be- tween the States is an invisible one. The soil is the same, the climate is the same, and economic conditions are the same. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. MILLIKIN, I yield. Mr. WHERRY. The amendment of- fered by the distinguished senior and junior Senators from Colorado is an ex- tension of what was done in the prior Congress, is it not? FEBRUARY 27 Mr. MILLIKIN. That is correct. I may say to the distinguished Senator that it ts an improvement over what was done last year. The distinguished senior Senator from Colorado has poirited out that by interpretation of the amendment which was adopted last year, or possibly by a misinterpretation of it, we took in more than we intended to take in. We benefited 40 out of 48 States. We did not intend to reach that far. We were aiming to encourage the practice of sum- mer fallowing in the dry-land States. But the amendment of last year was interpreted by the Department of Agri- culture to include also the situation re- sulting from the normal practices of crop rotation in States other than dry- land States. The result was that much acreage was added which we never an- ticipated would be taken in. This year we have tailored our new amendment in the light of the facts we have learned, so that it will more nearly meet the special situations which we are discussing. I do not see how there can be any possible objection to it. The over-all effect on the allotment does not exorbitantly in- crcase it, but it meets an extreme emer- gency in the parts of the country to which the distinguished Senators from Kansas and Nebraska have referred. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. MILLIKIN. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. It is the principle I am talking about. Mr. MILLIKIN. The principle is the same. We have an amendment here which is intended to promote soil con- servation by promoting summer fallow- ing. We are not giving the benefit of the amendment to those who come in and in one big single shot break up the sod, and possibly open a large extent of country to a future dust bow]. We are trying to restrict the benefits to those ne follow sound dryland farming prac- ces. In that connection it should be added, perhaps, that out in the western sec- tion of the country it is impossible to turn from wheat to oats, to barley, to potatoes, or follow the usual rotation routines of the older parts of the coun- try. It is wheat country. Perhaps in the course of time it may be possible to put some of it in grass and turn it into livestock country. However, it takes money to buy livestock, and it takes time to get a grass coverage going. These veterans, these people we are talking about, are already in debt paying for the machinery necessary to grow wheat. I believe that brings me fairly to a point which was touched upon by the distinguished senior Senator from Colo- rado [Mr. Jonwson]. We believe that within another year, if we could have this amendment for one more year, the farmers in Colorado will then be in shape to adjust themselves to the regular for- mula, and will not need special consid- eration. - Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President will the Senator yield for another question? Mr. MILLIKIN, I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Of course, the junior Senator from Nebraska is well aware of farming practices in his State, and I think I am quite familiar with the prac-
1950 tice of summer fallowing, to which both Senators from Colorado have referred. However, for the record, I wonder if the Senator would expand a little on summer fallowing. Just what does it mean? I suppose every Senator knows what it is, but I know there are some Senators who are wondering about sum- mer fallowing, and they would like to know how it helps the land, and why it is a soil conserving practice. If the Sen- ator would care to do so, I think it ought to be made clear. Mr. MILLIKIN. I do not hold myself out as an expert agronomist. But the point is, first, that we want to keep out those who rush in, trying to take advan- tage of the high price of wheat, opening up large areas of land without regard to conservation of the land, and putting all of it in wheat, and making a single shot at a good market and pulling out and leaving the country to blow away. Our practice is to put roughly half our Jand into fallow for 1 year, and to work it the next year, to rotate it in that way. We have better crops, and better cover on our land. It enables us to avoid, at least in part, the dangers from ‘dust bowhne” and from losing our topsoil. Mr. WHERRY. The purpose is to in- duce the farmer to do that. Of course, the good farmer docs that voluntarily. In some cases it is the practice to use one-half the land, and in other cases it is the practice to use one-third the land. In my section of the country, it is usually a third of the land which is summer fallowed and taken out of production. So in reality the farmer is actually pro- ducing only on half his farm, if he takes half for summer fallowing, or he is pro- ducing only on two-thirds, if one-third is out of production. Fallowing builds up the soil. It gets rid of weeds, and it makes for a sound farming program. Is not that true? Mr. MILLIKIN. That is exactly cor- rect The formula which we are presenting this year assumes that half the land would be so treated. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Colorado has ex- pired. Mr. WHERRY. I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Colorado. Mr. MILLIKIN. The formula which we are discussing this year gives this top advantage to the farmer who puts half his land in summer fallow. I do not be- lieve any soil conservationist could ask for a fairer dedication of land to conser- vation purposes than that. Mr. €CHOEPPEL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MILLIKIN. I yield. Mr SCHOEPPEL. Is it not generally advocated by men who arc well versed in conservation practices that an owner in the western section of the country should utilize half of his land and sum- mer fallow the remainder? Mr. MILLIKIN. It is my understand- ing that that is the constant preaching of the experts on soil in that part of the country, that half the land should be allowed to fallow in alternate years. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question? Mr. MILLIKIN. I yield. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. WHERRY. I should hke to clear up the discussion of summer fallowing. Is it not true that those who summer fallow the land do not get any benefits from any crops on that land? Mr. MILLIKIN. They do not get the benefit of a single acre. Credit is given on the land which is planted. Let us as- sume a total of 1,000 acres. Credit is given on the 50 percent planted in wheat, let us say. On the other 50 percent, which is idle, no credit is given. How- ever, if 50 percent of the land is not fal- lowed, the program does not apply, and the farmer does not reccive the benefit of the 10-year formula or the benefit of price support. Mr. WHERRY. There is no return to the owner of land on the part that is summer-fallowed. Mr. MILLIKIN. There is no return to the owner of the land on the part that is summer-fallowed. I should lke to em- phasize again that, unless a man follows sound practice, if he puts all his land in wheat, he does not get the benefit of the formula I am discussing, and does not get the bencfit of the 10-year formula, and his wheat is without support Mr. President, that brings me to some- thing the distinguished senior Scnator from Colorado emphasized several times, and I do not feel there would be any harm in mentioning it again, because there may be one or two Senators now in the Chamber who were not present vhen it was referred to. We arc trying to encourage the wheat farmers in the western section of the country to adopt conscrvation practices, and we found, by the operation of the amendment last year, that if we give them a little incentive, a httle encour- agement, they will abide by those prac- tices and follow the formula, whereas if they do not have that encouragement there will be a different result I think all those from the older States who are interested in wheat should pay partic- ular attention to this. It is possible to open up a great deal of the land in the area to which I am referring with heavy machinery, and the cost per bushel of producing is relatively cheap. What do they do? They beat the game by opening up two or three times more land than if they were following the for- mula. The distinguished senior Senator from Colorado made that very clear. What is the consequence? It is that the base of wheat production is increased, with the result that when we come to make next year’s national allotment, we have to reduce the allotment to everyone. So that it is distinctly in the interest of every “old grower” to approve the for- mula which we have proposed, because it tends to hold down the gross national production of wheat. and, in addition, tends to encourage sound conservation practices. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Colorado yield? Mr. MILLIKIN. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. ELLENDER. Does the Senator know how much this amendment would increase the national wheat-acreage al- lotment? Mr. MILLIKIN. I can give the distin- guished Senator an estimate. Assuming 2383 that everything remains the same as it was last year, there would be added ap- proximately 1,250,000 acres, as distin- guished from approximately 4,500,0C0 acres added by last year’s amendment. Mr. ELLENDER. What in the Sena- tor’s amendment would cause him to be- lieve that would result? Mr. MILLIKIN. First, because last year’s amendment was tied to the 10- year average. This year we are tying it to the relation of 1950 to 1951. The change in that part of the formula, plus the change in interpretation by the De- partment of Agriculture, would, I be- lieve, cause that reduction. We have designed the amendment to produce that very result. Mr ELLENDER My reason for ask- ing the distinguished Senator the ques- tion is that I have a letter from the De- partment which I think challenges the statement, and I expect to read it ina few moments, for the information of the Senate Mr. MILLIKIN. I think the Senator will find that the amendment last year overreached more than we had intended, for two reasons. First, it was tied to the 10-year average instead of being tied to a later and more limited period. Ssc- ond As 1 said a while ago, they inter- preted conventional rotation in the old wheat States to be the same as dry land summer fallowing, which let in acreage which we did not intend to be included. Mr. ELLENDER. I am informed that when the present law, Public Law 272, was enacted, in which is contained vir- tually the same amendment as is now proposed, the evidence produced showed that the amendment would not have the effect of increasing acreage over the na- tional average to more than about 2,000,- 000 = Is that not so? Mr. MILLIKIN. I forget what the estimate was, but I very frankly say that the acreage under last year's amend- ment exceeded what we had anticipated. Mr. ELLENDER. Yes. My informa- tion is that there was some evidence to the effect that the increase over the national acreage allotment would be less than 2,000,000, or about 2,000,000. But as the record shows, it was increased 4,600,000 or 4,700,000, as I remember. As I recall, the amendment, when en- acted last year, was supposed to take care of certain counties in western Kan- sas, in Oklahoma, some in Idaho, but when it came to apply it, it had to be applied to every State in the Union. Therefore, the greater increase over the national average resulted. Mr. MILLIKIN. In view of the Sena- tor’s statement, let me say that the bene- fits under the act were larger than we anticipated. That came about through an error in the formula, which I have explained, and it came about through interpretations of the formula which counted in normal rotation, whereas we intended to limit it to dry-land summer fallowing. Mr ELLENDER. If the Senator has already explained that, I do not want him to go into it further. Mr. MILLIKIN. The next thing I should like to emphasize is that in this year’s formula we have drafted a provi- sion to get away from that. We have
2384 also provided specifically—which over- comes another defect—that no farmer benefiting from this formula can benefit more than the old-wheat farmer in the same county. We found some situations where under the formula of last year a new wheat farmer might take 71% per- cent reduction, and the old-wheat farmer 1742 percent. We intended nothing of that kind, and we place a specific lim- itation in the measure this year whereby the new-wheat farmer will not have a greater benefit than the average of the old-wheat farmers in the same county. I think that is a very equitable solution. I should like to emphasize again, for the benefit of the Senator from Louisi- ana, who was momentarily called off the floor, that with this Itmited amendment, and with 1 year of it, we believe we can get ourselves adjusted so we can fit in with the national pattern. There has been some objection to this amendment on the ground that some or- ganizations were studying the whole wheat problem. We have no objection, of course, to people doing skull practice on the wheat problem. I should like to emphasize that the organization which proposes to start next week to study this subject, is studying a long-range pro- gram for wheat. We are limiting this amendment to meet a short-term situa- tion, an emergent situation. We encour- age their study of the long-term wheat problem as we encourage the study of all similar problems. But we think it is a confusion of an important subject mat- ter to ask us to give up a position we must take to meet an emergency situa- tion in the Western States, which will solve itself within a year or so, simply be- cause someone is thinking on long-range problems. The same is true in the House of Representatives. They are engaged in a comprehensive study of the wheat problem. They have made a start with it. They will probably be continuing the study all through the remainder of the session, and I hope good will come from it. But our people must know what they can plant. They must know what ma- chinery they must obtain. They must know about seed. They must finance themselves. The amendment is intended to meet that temporary purpose, as dis- tinguished from measures which I hope will turn out to be better long-range wheat problem solutions. I believe the senior Senator from Colo- rado [Mr. Jo.1nson] amply emphasized the fact that we really do not solve our problem by withholding this temporary aid. May I ask the distinguished Sen- ator from Louisiana whether he heard the discussion having to do with what will happen if we do not bring these peo- ple within the formula? Mr. ELLENDER. No;I didnot. Iam sorry I was not on the floor at that time. Mr. MILLIKIN. I thought the senior Senator from Colorado developed a very striking point. We want to bring farm- ers within the formula so they will adjust and follow proper soil service practices. If they are left without the formula, the way for them to beat the game is to open three or four times more land than would otherwise be planted; therefore three or four times more wheat will be produced than otherwise, which in turn will in- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE crease the national gross production, which in turn wil] make necessary deeper cuts in the next national allotment. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. President, will my colleague yield? Mr. MILLIKIN. Gladly. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. The only penalty for increasing the acreage is that a Government loan cannot be obtained on the support price. That is the only penalty the grower suffers if he goes outside the program. Mr, MILLIKIN. That is_ correct. There js no prohibition against his doing it at all, but if he does so he does not obtain the support price for wheat. He may have to sell it for less, but he can sell it for considerably less if he doubles and trebles and quadruples his acreage, and can still come out with as good @ financial result. But we have found that the effect of the amendment has been to encourage the growers to comply, and they have comphed. It has had a very wholesome result. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MILLIKIN. I yield. Mr. ELLENDER. Has the Senator taken into consideration the suggestion that was made last year, and again re- cently, by the Department of Agricul- ture, and I read from a letter, as follows: That a national reserve of approximately 1 percent of the national allotment would be adequate to provide additional acreage needed to relieve distress areas. This na- tional reserve would be apportioned by the Becretary to such counties as he finds would suffer undue hardships under allotments determined under existing legislation. In other words, rather than have the Senate adopt an amendment which would be applicable to the country as a whole, the Department would set aside, as I understand, 1 percent of the national allotment and use that in order to take care of such cases as the Senator has discussed. Mr. MILLIKIN. My objection to the 1 percent does not necessarily go to the principle of a reserve. The 1-percent reserve is regarded as inadequate by the wheat farmers with whom I have dis- cussed this matter. They do not like to have the thing completely within the discretion of the Department of Agriculture. The pres- ent formula is a formula which can be followed by all who can read. It applies uniformly wherever it applies, and hits everyone equally, and without discrim- ination, who finds himself in the situa- tion to which the amendment is applicable. Mr. ELLENDER. The only difficulty, as I understand, stems from the fact that the adoption of the amendment would increase considerably the national acre- age allotment. As I shall point out ina few moments, the amendment differs from the pending so-called cotton amendment. Mr. MILLIKIN. I would respectfully answer the Senator by saying that in real effect I do not believe it would result in any increase. By its first initial im- pact there will be an increase but this year’s formula reduces by perhaps 60 or 65 percent the increase resulting from the amendment of last year. The reason Mr. FEBRUARY 27 I say that in ultimate effect I do not believe it in fact would increase anything is that if we do not give the farmers in question the benefit of securing this com- pliance they will multiply their wheat lands, grow more wheat, and ultimately we will have a larger national wheat production on which we will have to figure our national allotment, and no one will come out to the good on that. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Sentaor yield further? Mr. MILLIKIN. I yield. Mr. ELLENDER. I made an attempt to compare the language contained in the law respecting the 1950 crop with the language in the pending amendment, and I do not see much difference. Can the Senator specifically point to the new language in the pending amendment which will cause the acreage to remain stationary rather than to increase it over the national average? Mr. MILLIKIN. Let me invite the Senator’s attention to the language of the amendment beginning on page 2, line 2. After setting out the summer fallowing formula—— Mr. ELLENDER. Which is the same as in the present law? Mr. MILLIKIN. Yes. After setting that out—and there is a slight difference in comparison, and I will bring that to the Senator's attention—I read be- ginning in line 10 on page 2, as follows: Adjusted in the same ratio as the national seeding for the production of wheat during the calendar year 1950 (adjusted for abnor- mal weather conditions and for trend in acreage) bears to the national acreage allot- ment for wheat for the 1951 crop; Last year we tied that to the 10-year acreage. This time we have a limited comparison between the 2 years which are mentioned in that language. The experts who have consulted with me tell me that that will produce the effect we desire. Mr. ELLENDER. In other words, the basis for the reduction, from a national standpoint, will be decreased by using the 1951 acreage planted, rather than the 10-year average. Mr. MILLIKIN. That is correct. Mr. ELLENDER, Is there anything else? Mr. MILLIKIN. It was tying ourselves into the 10-year average that caused a great deal of our trouble. I assure the Senator that it was entirely uninten- tional. It caused some windfall results which none of us anticipated, and which we did not want. Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator con- cedes, however, does he not, that the language of the bill will be beneficial to all wheat growers, and will not be con- fined to those in Idaho, Colorado, and Kansas who now are suffering because of the lack of a provision of this sort in the law? Mr. MILLIKIN. It will apply to those who come within the following pro- visions: (a) 50 percent of— (1) the acreage on the farm seeded for the production of wheat in 1949, and (2) any other acreage seceded for the pro- duction of wheat in 1948 which was fallowed
1950 and from which no crop was harvested in the calendar year 1949, or— As an alternative— (b) 50 percent of— (1) the acreage on the farm seeded for the production of wheat in 1948, and (2) any other acreage seeded for the pro- duction of wheat in 1947 which was fallowed and from which no crop was harvested in the calendar year 1048. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ScuoerrPe, in the chair). The time of the junior Senator from Colorado has expired. Mr WHERRY. Mr. President, I won- der whether the Senator from Oklahoma will grant more time to the Senator from Colorado. Mr THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, I yield one additional minute to the distinguished junior Senator from Colorado M.,. MILLIKIN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma very much. Mr JOHNSON of Colorado. President. Mr. MILLIIC\N. I yleld now to my distinguished colleague. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. resident, I hope the Senator in charg of the bill will take the amendment to conference end will sce what can be worked cut there The Department of sriculiure has offered an alternate plan. Fernaps when the conferees on the part of koth Houses meet in conference, they will be able to work out a satisfactory provision, as between this plan and the alternate plan proposed by the Depart- ment. I most sincerely urge upon the Senator from Oklahoma that he give us at least the consideration of taking the amcndment to conference. Of course, if the cenferces on the part of the Senate are not able to work out the matter with the conferees on the part of the House, that will be one thing Perhaps the con- ferees will adopt the language preposed as an alternate plan, providing for about 700,090 acres, I think; or perhaps the conferees will adopt the language which we think proper, permitting the acreage we think necessary, namely, just twice that much. The Senator said 1,250,000. Perhaps there will be some mceting of the minds of the conferees and the mat- ter can be worked out and adjusted in conference. Certainly that is the place where edjustments should be made, rather than here on the floor of the Senate So I hope the Senator who is in charge of the bill will take the amendment to conference. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, I should hke to add my own earnest solici- tation to the same effect. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute further to the junior Senator from Colorado. Mr. MILLIKIN. I thank the Senator. I shall take a part of that minute to add my plea to that of my distinguished colleague. I hope the great chairman of the committee will take the amend- ment to conference and will see whether it will be possible for the conferees to work out something to relieve the distress of our people in that area of the country. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, I understand that the Depart- Mr. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ment of Agriculture proposes an amend- meni. I yield now 15 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana, for a presenta- tion of the Department’s viewpoint. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President—— The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from Louisiana is recognized. Mr. ELLENDER. I desire to state at the outset that I am very sympathetic with the situation which exists in Colo- rado and in sevcral other of the whcat- growing States in the western part of the country. After a study of this amendment, I find that it does not accomplish the same purpose that it sought to be acccm- plished with respect to the cotton amend- ment. As to the cotton amendment, both the House version and the Senate version of the joint resolution were studied by the committee in the light of a con- siderable amount of evidence which was adduced by the growers, by the Farm Bureau, and also the Department of Ag- riculiure itself A reading of the hear- ings, will disclose that all witnesses, in- cluding those from the Department of Agriculture, are in agreement that the adoption of the cotton amendment will not increase the 21,000,000-acre ceiling which has been fixed in Public Law 272. The evidence shows that althcugh a 21,- 0C0,060-acre ceiling was fixed, yet there will be in the neighborhood of 2,000,000 so-called “frozen” acres; in other words, acreage which will not ke planted by the farmers, althouch they could plant it if they desired to do so. It is a portion of the 2,000,000 “frozen” acres which the cotton amendment secks to distribute among the cotton growers of the cotton-producing States, so as to adjust the inequalities which resulted from the present statute. With respect to the wheat amendment, I desire to inform the Senate that in the committee we hcard no witnesses on this amendment. There is no way to judge from the record how much the amend- ment will increase the wheat acreage. As I pointed out a moment ago, when a similar amendment was addcd to Public Law 272 the evidence produced then in- dicated that the increase in acreage would be less than 2,000,000 acres, as I recall the figure. However, it developed as I shall point out in a few minutes, when I refer to a report from the De- partment of Agriculture with respect to this amendment, that instead of increas- ing the acreage by 2,000,000 acres, which was the top cstimated figure, the so- called wheat amendment in fact in- creased wheat acreage more than 4,030,- 000 acres. Further, the amendment which was adopted and passed as a part of Public Law 272, applied not only to the areas for which my friends, the Senators from Colorado, tried to make adjust- ments, because of inequalities, but also to the country asa whole. The letter which I propose to read shows that the amend- ment had the effect of giving wheat acreage to a number of localities which did not deserve it. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. 2385 Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Of course, when we had the amendment before us a year ago, we had no idea that it would be applied to crop rota- tion States, where summer fallowing is not practiced at all, Alabama, Michigan, and many of the other States, in var- ious sections of the country, which never practice summer fallowing, received large acreages for wheat, and that in- creascd the amount of wheat produced. Actually, we were thinking about sum- mer fallowing. But the Department of Agriculture interpreted summer fallow- ing to be crop rotation, which is quite a diffcrent matter, and one which we did not contemplate. A year ago we did not think the amend- ment would increase the wheat acreage by more than 2,600,080 acres. We are very certain this time that the acreage will not be increased more than a million and a quarter acres, at the most, a million and a half acres. Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator is re- ferring to the notional acreage, is he not? Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Yes; the national acreage. Mr. LUCAS. My. President, will the Senator yield at this point? Mr, ELLENDER. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. LUCAS. According to Mr. Trigg, the Administrator, in the memorandum he presents on this matter: It is estimated that continuation of the Public Law 272 provisions with respect to wheat, as proposed in H. J Res. 398, would result in an increase of approximately 4,000,000 acres over and above the national acreage allotment for the 1951 crop of wheat, assuming a national allotment equal to that proclaimed for 1950. Mr. ELLENDER. That is what I in- tend to submit to the Senate for its consideration. Mr. President, as I understood the dis- tingushed Senator from Colorado [Mr. MILLIKIN], he sought to change the law so as to have it provide that instead of making the 10-year average the yard- stick, the Administrator would use for that purpose the wheat planted in 1949, Am I correct in that? Mr. MILLIKIN. That is correct. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Or in 1950. Mr. ELLENDER. Well, whichever year is used does not make a great deal of difference for the purpose of my ques- tion. I should like to know how that would change the situation. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the distin- guished Senator be permitted to give me an answer to that question. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection permission is granted. Mr. ELLENDER. The summary fol- lowing is included in the amendment, with which we are now concerned, just as it was included in the amendment which was previously added to the pres- ent law. The language itself is not changed in that respect, hence the Ad- ministrator is apt to put the same in- terpretation on summer fallowing as he did in Public Law 272. Unless the Sen- ator can point out in his amendment some language which would change that
2386 situation, I doubt that the rmendment would have the cffect the distinguished senior Senator from Colorado [Mr. JoHN- S50N! just pointed out. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. MILLIKIN. In last year’s amend- ment, after going through what we have referred to as the fallow-acreage part, the amendment provided— Adjusted in the same ratio as the national average of seeding for the production of wheat during the 10 calendar years 1939-48 (adjusted as provided by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended) — And then it continued, as follows— bears to the national average allotment for wheat for the 1950 crop. In this year’s amendment, the com- parable language is: Adjusted in the same ratio as the national seeding for the production of wheat during the calendar year 1950— We know what the national seeding is-— (adjusted for abnormal weather conditions and for trend in acreage) bears to the national acreage allotment for wheat for the 1951 crop— Which is the forthcoming allotment. Mr. ELLENDER. Let me point out that the distinguished Senator said the Department misinterpreted the use of the provision regarding fallow land; that is to say, instead of using what we know as fallow land, the Department included all other land not put into cultivation, including crop rotation. My question is this: Is there in this amendment lan- guage which will cause the Department not to follow the same interpretation of fallow-land as it did under Public 272? Mr, MILLIKIN, I should think the debate here itself would cause the De- partment not to follow the same course. Mr. ELLENDER. Does not the Sen- ator think it would be better to make specific provision for that in the law? Mr. MILLIKIN. Thatis No.1. There were several departmental interpreta- tions. In the State of Colorado, for ex- ample, they required a man to choose; they gave him a choice as to whether he wished to come under the 10-year for- mula or under this formula, In many of the States the procedures were rigid, and that choice was not made available— perhaps through a misconstruction of tbe act. I am not challenging anyone's good faith; but through the whole series of constructions and interpretations, we found ourselves with something on our hands much bigger than we thought it would be Iam told that the difference between tying it in the way I have said— in other words, to a short period of re- cent years, rather than toa 10-year aver- age—will perform the principal] func- tion of saving acreage for us. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I should like to read for the information of the Senator the letter to which I re- ferred a few moments ago. The letter is dated February 27, and is addressed to the distinguished chairman of our committee, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. THomas], It reads as follows: This is with reference to House Joint Reso- lution 898 which, in effect, proposes exten- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE sion of the essential provisions of Public Law 272 with respect to wheat to be applicable to the 1951 crop of wheat. We have carefully reviewed this proposed legislation and have come to the conclusion that its enactment would result in inequi- table wheat acreage allotments and a need- lessly excessive increase in the total wheat acreage allotment such as resulted from the application of Public Law 272 in 1950. Our position is based on the following con- siderations: 1, The provisions of Public Law 272 were originally designed to relieve producers in summer-fallow areas where, because of ma- terial expansion in the acreage seeded to wheat, the regular trend formula as provided under basic legislation, did not permit ade- quate adjustments for such acreage cxpan- sion. The princtpal areas for which this legislation was to bring relief were the sum- mer-fallow areas of Colorado, Kansas, Mon- tana, and Idaho. 2. The provisions of Public Law 272 which were applicable to all farms in the United States, resulted in additional farm wheat acreage allotments totaling about 4,500,000 acres Over and above the original national wheat acreage allotment as proclaimed. Analysis of the distribution of this addi- tional acreage as between the different States reveals that at least half of the total increase was allotted to farms and areas where there did not exist a problem of adjustment of the original allotments as determined under the provisions of basic legislation. The pro- visions of Public Law 272, taking the higher of the acreage sceded to wheat in 1948 or 1949 as a basis for determining minimum farm acreage allotments, proved to be par- ticularly objectionable in that it granted allotment increases where the wheat acre- age was abnormally high because of unfa- vorable weather conditions having interiered with the normal planting of other crops 8. A study of the areas for which relief was heeded, and to which Public Law 272 was principally intended to apply, indicates that there were only about 50 counties where such adjustments were justified. These counties are largely in eastern Colorado, western Kan- sas, southeastern Idaho, and north-central Montana A map ts attached showing the location of these distress counties. I may say I have the map on my desk, and any Senator who may be interested has the privilege of looking at it. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, if this is a convenient place? Mr, ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. MILLIKIN. Returning to the dif- ference between the revised average we are using this year as compared to the one we used last year, the 10-year aver- age is substantially under the high aver- age which was planted in the past 2 or 3 years. The 10-year average is about 74,000,000 plus acres. The 10-year aver- age figure made a reduction of 17.6 per- cent on the basis of the 10-year average, whereas on the basis of last year, com- pared with this year, it would have been a 17-percent reduction. That was the enormous slippage which occurred ac- cording to an erroneous comparison. Mr. ELLENDER. Yes. I see. Mr. MILLIKIN. I should like to in- vite the Senator’s attention again to the fact that we specifically say in the pend- ing amendment that— Notwithstanding the foregoing, no allot- ment increased by reason of the provisions of this section shall exceed that percentage of the 1950 allotment for the same farm which (1) the acreage allotted in the county FEBRUARY 27 to farms which do not receive an increase under this section is of (2) the acreage al- lotted to such farms in 1950. That in itself will have a very restrain- ing influence so far as enlarging the acreage is concerned. Mr. ELLENDER. I do not think there can be any doubt about that, I may say to the Senator; but the thing that puz- zles me 1s why the Department had to allow so much of the acreage to States other than the ones for whose benefit the law was enacted. It interpreted “fallow land” as being any land not in cultivation, even crop rotation; in fact, the sky appeared to be the limit under the Department’s definition of so-called fallow land. I understand there is nothing in the pending amendment to change the definition, or that would re- quire or even induce the Secretary of Agriculture to interpret the term “fallow land” differently from the way he inter- preted it last year. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield to me for a moment? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. MILLIKIN. The debate last year, just as it has done this year, stated exactly what we meant by “summer fal- low land.” I do not know how it could be made more definite, even though we were to use 500 words to define it in the joint resolution. I doubt whether it can be made any clearer than it has been made in the course of the debate. Is the Department of Agriculture completely immune from the debate and the inter- pretations which are to be put upon laws as a result of what takes place in the Senate? Mr. ELLENDER. Evidently it is, in this case. Mr. MILLIKIN. The Department not only applied normal legislation affecting farming in sections where fellows are operating perhaps on a 5-year plan, but it applied all kinds of soil-conservation practices as being within the conception of “summer fallow.” It did not have to do a number of things it did, things which caused a lot of trouble to the Department itself. Mr. ELLENDER. The greater part of the trouble resulted from the inability of the Department to determine the meaning of ‘fallow land.” It appears to me that you Senators, the proponents of this amendment, should give considera- tion to a definition of what is meant by “fallow land,” so that acreage will not be increased to the extent that it was in- creased under Public Law 272. You should not rely on what is said in debate. The Senator admitted a few moments ago that when Public 272 was debated fallow land was discussed in debate, but the Department took no heed of the in- terpretation placed thereon as Senators understood. Mr. MILLIKIN. I may say to the Sen- ator from Louisiana, it is as clear to us in our section of the country as the word “cotton” is to the distinguished Senator who has the floor. Mr. ELLENDER. But it may not have the same meaning in Ohio, and it may not have the same meaning in Louisiana,
1950 We have fallow land in the rice fields in Louisiana. There may be some land with characteristics similar to the rice land in Louisiana or the wheat lands in Colorado, but such land given a differ- ent name, or a different intcrpretation is placed thereon when considered in the light of fallow land. The Department found itself obligated to treat all lands alike, if they had the same characteris- tics Mr, MILLIKIN. If I may make the statement, the Department felt itsclf ob- ligated, not found itself obligated. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado, I pre- sume the Senator from Louisiana will be a conferee on the part of the Senate when the joint resolution goes to confer- ence with the House. Mr. ELLENDER. I imagine so; I do not know. l4r, JOHNSON of Colorado. Ihope he will be. Mr. ELLENDER. The distinguished chairman has just informed me that I probably will be. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. That is good news to all of us, because we know how capable the Senator from Louisiana is and how well qualified to work out the question. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, I yield three additional min- utes to the Senator from Louisiana. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Pres- ident, 1f the Senator from Louisiana will yield, getting to the point, will he con- sider taking to conference the amend- ment offered by the jumor Senator from Colorado and myself, for the purpose of working out the solution to the problem, and will he also take with him the staff from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry to see what can be worked out as between the two proposals? Would the Senator object to doing that? Mr ELLENDER. Speaking for myself, not for the committee, I would consider doing that. But I should prefer that the matter be lcft to Senators, and that is my reason for stating the views of the Department, in order that Senators in turn may make their own decisions. The Department, as I shall show in a few moments, does not favor the amendment, because it will not accomplish the pur- pose the distinguished Senator has in mind, but, on the contrary, wil further ageravate the enormous wheat, surplus we now have on hand. ‘That is the difficulty. If the proposal could be worked out in a@ Manner whereby the national wheat acreage would not be increased, there misht be some justification in our en- deavoring to reach some kind of an avreoment in conference. With that in mind, if the Senate should approve this amendment, I wish to state to the dis- tinguished Senator that I shall work to that end, But I also want to state to my good friend that I was at first op- posed to the cotton acreage resolution now pending before the Senate, believing that it might increase the cciling fixed in the present law. However, when evi- dence was introduced to show that the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE measure would add about 800,000 acres of the 2,000,090 acres which were frozen, and would leave a balance of 1,200,000 acres, under the ceiling fixed by the De- partment, I then decided to support the joint resolution, I understand that un- der the pending wheat amendment, in the light of information furmshed to me by the Department, the wheat acreage would be increased in excess of 4,500,000 acres. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Of course we do not agree with that inter- pretation, but the 2,000,000 acres of frozen cotton of which the Senator speaks is, I think, comparable to the 4,500,000 acres of wheat. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Louisiana has expired. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, I yield two additional minutes to the Senator from Louisiana. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I shall continue reading from this letter, for the information of Senators. I think it 1s very important. There were no hearings on the amendment, and I should like the Senators present to have the full bencfit of the views expressed by the Department after a study of the amend- ment. I read further: Instcad of confining the allotment in- creases essentially to these areas, the appli- cation of the provisions of Public Law 272 resulted in allotment increases tor all wheat- producing States, and in most cases the ad- ditional ullotments outside of the distressed ureas were totally unwarranted, and have given rise to problems of inequities as be- tween ifarm ullotments. Furthermore, the needlessly large increases in the total wheat acreave allotment ussigned to farms, if con- Unucd, would seriously impair the effective- ness of the adjustment and price-support progiams 4 It is estimated that continuation of the Public Law 272 provisions with respect to wheat, as proposed jin House Joint Resolution 398, would result 1n an increase of approxi- mately 4,000,000 acres over and above the national acreage allotment for the 1951 crop of wheat — That is a far cry from the estimate just made by the distinguished Senator from Colorado, of approximately a mil- lion and a quarter acres. It is three times more— assuming a national allotment equal to that proclaimed for 1950 A smuller national wheat acreage allotment for 1951 than for 1950 would not materially 1.educe the esti- mated additional allotment required to meet the minimum farm acreage allotment pro- visions of the proposed Icyislation. In fact, lo ver national allotment may even cause a larger increase in the ndditional acreage be- cause of the greater number of individual farms which would become eligible for ad- justment undor these provisions The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the letter be incoiporated in the Recorp at this point. There being no objection, the re- mainder of the letter was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: 5. The change in the 10-year base period, by which the national wheat-acreage allot- ment is apportioned to States and counties, from 1939-48 to 1940-49 as applicable to the 1951 crop of wheat, will, of itself, result 2387 in a natural shift of larger acreage to the distressed areas. For example, the State of Colorado would receive approximately 210,- 000 acres more than in 1950, assuming the same national allotment. Obviously, the problem of providing special adjustments for these areas will be less acute in 1951 than it was in 1950. 6. The Department 1s taking the position, and has testified to that effect before a sub- committce on wheat of the House Committee on Agriculture, that a national reserve of approdimately 1 percent of the national al- lotment would be adequate to provide the additional acreage needed to relieve distress areas This national reserve would be ap- portioned by the Secretary to such counties as he finds would suffer undue hardships under allotments determined under exist- ing legislation, For the foregoing reasons, the Department recommends that the provistons of House Joint Resolution 398 not be enacted. Sincerely yours, RatpyH S. Triaa, Admuintstrator, Mr. IVES. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Delaware. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 20 minutes. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, this afternoon, under the unanimous-con- sent agreement, the Senate will vote on House Joint Resolution 398 and all amendments pending. At that time, on behalf of the Senator from New York (Mr. Ives], the Senator from New Jer- sey |Mr. Henprickson!, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SaLtonsrayy], and myself I shall call up our amend- ment H in the hope that the Senate will give it favorable consideration. This amendment proposes to reduce the support prices on all so-called basic commodities by repealing, effective im- mediately, the rigid 90-percent support formula and making all agriculture com- moditics subject to the sliding scales of support levels sect up in subsections (a) and (b) of section 101, of the Agricul- tural Adjustment Act of 1949. This is the so-called flexible formula. Paragraph (1) of subsection (d) of section 101 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 provides price support at 90 per- cent of parity for the 1950 crop of any basic agricultural commodity, if mar- keting quotas or acreage allotments are in effect and marketing quotas have not been disapproved. Paragraph (2) of such subsection (d) provides price sup- port at not less than 80 percent of parity for 1951 crops under the same clircum- stances. Repeal of these two paragraphs would make the sliding scales of support levels set out in subsections (a) and (b) of section 101 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 effective immediately, instead of waiting until January 1, 1$52. At. this point I ask unanimous con- sent to have inserted as a part of my remarks an analysis of this amendment as prepared by the Icgislative counsel: There being no objection, the analysis was ordered to be printed in the Reccrop, as follows: Paragraph (1) of subsection (d) of section 101 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 provides price support at 90 percent of parity for the 1950 crop of any basic agricultural com- modity, if marketing quotas or acreage al- lotments nre in effect and marketing quotas have not been disapproved. Paragraph (2)
2388 of such subsection (d) provides price sup- port at not less than 80 percent of parity for 1951 crops under the same circumstances. Repeal of these two paragraphs would make the sliding scales of support levels set out in subsections (a) and (b) of section 101 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 effective im- mediately. The support level for tobacco whenever marketing quotas are in effect would, of course, continue to be fixed at 90 percent of parity by subsection (c) of such section 101; and any price-support levels announced by the Secretary prior to repeal of peragraphs (1) and (2) would not be af- fected by such repeal. I was advised by the Department today that no support level has been announced as yet for the 1950 crop of any basic agricultural commodity. Mr WILLIAMS In October 1949 when Public Law 439, E:ghty-first Congress, the Anderson farm bull, was passed, I vo'ed against the bill and pointed out at thet time my reasons: F.rst. That the cost would be prohibi- tive from a taxpayer’s standpoint, Sccond Under the rigid controls pro- posed it would mean the complete regi- mentation of our farmers, and the ulti- mate socialization of American agricul- ture, Taird. I warned then that the pro- po.ed high support prices for the basic gticulture commodities would benefit none but the large landowners in estab- lished areas. The cut-back in acreage necessitated by the hig support price that would have to be imposed upon the small farmers would force many of them out of business. Tre fact that I was correct is borne out by subsequent developments. The act that here today we have the dif- fersnt croups—cotton, wheat, peanuts, and potatocs—all sceking corrective leg- islation to increase their acreage allot- ments for the small farmers proves that the law has not been satisfactory. But J repeat my previous warning that the encectment of this bill today increas- ing acreage allotments for all these in- tcrests will not permanently correct the situation Without adopting a provision to low-cr the support prices it might well prove to be the straw that broke the amel’s back and destroy the entire farm program The American taxpayers are revolting avzainst the enormous cost of this farm program The consumers are becoming enraged at the wholesale destruction of food by the Covernment for the sole purpose of creating artificial shortages and thereby maintaining high prices. Every acre added to the wheat, cot- ton, and peanut allotments under this bill will be directly at the additional ex- pense of the taxpayers and prove of no benefit to the consumer unless we take sone action to lower the support prices. Already under this program of high support prices, as of December 31, 1949, the Government had accumulated under loans and inventories agricultural com- modities totaling $3,645,129,317. The joint resolution before the Sen- ate today proposes to increase the cot- ton acreage by 800,000 acres over what the Department of Agriculture lists as necessary, notwithstanding the fact that as of December 31, 1949, the Govern- ment already had in inventories and un- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE der loans over $955,000,000 worth of cot- ton. Nearly $1,000,000,000 in cotton has been purchased at a price approximately 5 cents per pound more than the 10-year average farm price for this product. We are also being asked, with the understanding that the Government will buy all the output, to increase the wheat acreage. Yet on December 31, 1949, the Government was holding under loans and inventories over 465,000,000 bushels of wheat at a cost of $996,719,026. We are being asked to increase the peanut acreage; yet the Government has spent over $55 900,000 since June 30, 1949, alone to hold the markct on pea- nuts at its high price of 10% cents per pound against an average farm price, 1940-49, of only 71% cents. The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Tuomas] charged this morning that this amendment proposes to go back to 1932, but I call his attention to the fact that the adoption of this amendment, assum- ing the lowest support price would be in effect, would still leave the support price higher in most instances than the pre- vailing prices at the farm in the past 10 years. This period includes the war- time years. That certainly is not de- pression legislation. The same situation is true of prac- tically all agricultural commodities un- der the support program and in order to save time I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Recorp a chart listing over $3,645,090,000 in commit- ments as of December 31, 1949, which includes $1,725,064,794 27 in actual in- ventories and $1,920,064,523 in outstand- ing loans under price-support operations. There being no objection, the chart was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Inventories Provram, commodity antites Value branch, aid commodity | Quantity (cost) PRICL-SUPPORT PROGRAM Cotton Cotton, American- Egyptian .-_.- bales. - 62 $168, 251, 16 Cotton, upland. .do 22] 3, 711,881 | 617,712, 330 47 Cottonseed... tons_. bh, 352 3,842, 280 18 Flax fiber.. 22. pounds. . 178, 145 84,019 76 Dairy Buller... -| 06, 200,088 | 60,518, 706 82 Cheese 12-2. 23, 148, 193 7, THO, 437 4h Milk, dried. 215, 779, 300 | 27,399, 459 87 Fats and oils Linseed oll.....-- do... [304, 827, 620 | 111, 337, 590. 73 Peanuts Farmers stock pounds. .} 70, 594, 445 7, 440, 793 50 Shelled 2. do.-..| 2,131, 420 314,041 88 Fruit and veretable Fruit, debydrated or dnied Pranes..-pounds_.} 49, 085, 455 5, 006, 203 64 Ransins..--.- do__..| 22, 972, 340 2, 210, 133 26 Potato starch....do...-} 10, 632, 658 630, 006, 76 Potatoes, Irish hundred weight... 2, 199 2, 804. 14 Grain: Barley_...---. busbels..} 24,626,019 | 35, 088, 095, 71 Beans, dry edible hundredweight_.| 4, 850, 795 | 42, 859, 926 40 Com... bushels._} 76, 000, #28 | 116, 817, 457, 77 Flaxseed... ---do_...| 18, 043, 222 | 88, 344, 527,19 Grain sorg hundred weight... 6,151,995 | 17,314, 716,92 Oats....------ bushels..| 11, 258, 146 9, 596, 728. 32 Peas, dry edible hundred weight... 2, 048 10, 306. 82 .o aoe eenene nnn do.-.. 431, 820 2, 936, 252. 60 we eneennee bushels... 775, 905 1,379, 900, 18 Jas, hay and pas pasture.....pounds.. 725, 422 146, 518, 87 Soybeans.....bushels..| 8, 02k, 865 7, 497, 720 94 Wheat....... ~---do....|162, 114, 483 | 398, 776, 466, 37 FEBRUARY 27 Inventories—Continued . Program, commodity Value branch, and commodity | Quantity (cost) PRICE-SUPPORT PROGRAM— continued Livestock rool Appraised pounds. .| 61,000, 168 | $48, 843, 903. 62 Unappralsed do...-| 8, 313, 732 4, 666, 173 47 Poultry Eggs Dried__....-.d0....] 69, 036, 207 | 89, 317, 232, 00 Liquid ot frozen . do... 6, 264 2,026. 48 Turkeys....--.-- do... 725, 4b) 300, 173 80 Tobacco Naval stores: Rosm._------ do. _-_/210, 837, 798 17, 110, 995, 49 ‘Vurpentine gallons 2, 032, 177 1, 109, 967. 77 Total price-sup- port program...|--.---..---- 1,726,064,704 27 Loans — Quantities . Value loans Commodity ogee outstanding Wheat.....-.------ bushols-. {308,112,461 [ $507, 942, £00 Corn. 22 ----d0--. Aud, 554, 657 500, 814, 277 Cotton, - bales i7 337, 307, 041 ‘Vobacco -pounds- 151, 891, 620 C0 es Pn waeeeee | Bh, 422, 016 1,9 920, 04, 523 Included under “Other” above were lonns on flaxseed, peanuts, sovbeans, potatoes, barley, drv edible heans and peas, grain sorghum, oats, rice, rye, rosin, turpentine, etc Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, im- mediately following this list of inven- torics I ask unanimous consent to have inserted another chart showing the ac- tual support price of these commodities as compared with the 10-year average price the farmer received for the same commodities. There being no objection, the chart was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: Support levels and 10-year average prices re- ceived by farmers on commodities now being supported by the Commodity Credit Corporation either under 1949 or 1950 price-support programs 10-vear su pport average wriee Price re- Commodity Unit dctual ceived by price) {farmers 1040-40 Cor... eee eeee ee enee- Rushel.... $1, 40 $1 16 -| Pound.... 105 0755 Bushel_..- 1.78 1 80 -|----- do__.- 195 149 Hundred- 6 55 36 30 weight, Dry edible peas__...- — 3.07 429 Potatoes -___. 96 1 24 Sweetpotatoes 1,72 1 s6 Cotton. ...- . 272 2225 Cottonseed 49 50 58 20 W ool, sho 423 408 Tobacco, flu «425 3,303 Barley... - “Bushel 2 1 09 98 Grain sorghums. Hundred- 200 1.88 Oats...-.-. . 69 656 Ryec_.-- 127 119 Boy beans 2 007 2.03 Tung nuts 60 00 79. 30 Butter... . 60 498 RES... - 37 : en Hundred- 8.07 weight. Choddar cheese.......} Pound. .-- 31 278 Turpentine........... Qallon.... 40 582 See footnotes at end of table.
1950 Support levels and 10-year average prices re- ceived by farmers on commodities now being supported by the Commodity Credit Corporation etther under 1949 or 1950 price-support programs—Continued 10-year Support | average ; . yee EP price re Commodity Unit Maerua celved by price) farmers 1040-19 Rosin (prude N)_.-o.- Hundred- Ho 72 244 87 welt, Flaxseed_200222 222. | Bushell .. 3744 3 46 Hay and pasture seed Clover Alsihe.. . ..-] Pound. -_.. 2h 2, 235 Tadino 0002}. - 12h 1118 ode. $5 2 279 Sweet. 2 2 ORG Crasses Orchard 4.00. -]...d0..00 2. 15 2 16s Sudan $_......]-- do... 208 24h Timothy «0 |-..do.... 06 2004 Northern alfalfa: .}.-.do...22-- 32 2 2nd Common — lespe- de7a... -- 16 2194 Turkeys... .. 3 291 Hogs Junuary 1950.2... Hunlied- 14 90 15 20 weight, February 1950... | ..do.... et March 1050_...2. |... do.....-- 10 20 |i... ‘Support Jevels listed are thosa most recently an- nounced, 1949 support price listed af 1950 program not yet announced, 2 1930-48 average § Not avaiable 4 Certified seeds only, Mr. WILLIAMS. Unless some action is taken by Congress in the immediate fu- ture to correct this situation no one dares estimate the amount of next year's inventories The wholesale destruction of food and give-away programs which are inevitably a part of continuing this unrealistic pro- gram will prove to be a major national scandal, and might well result in com- plete repudiation of all agricultural benefits. Not only are the taxpayers and the consumers clamoring for some action to correct this odious situation, but the eastern dairy and poultry farmers are also being forced out of business through the unwarranted high support on grain products. We cannot continue this policy of sup- porting the western farmers at a level of wartime prosperity at the direct expense of the eastern farmer and city consumer. As evidence that this situation is being viewed with alarm by the eastern farm- ers I read into the REcorD a copy of a telegram received from Mr. J. A. McCon- nell, general manager of the GLF, of Ithaca, N. Y.: Iriaca,N Y, February 20, 1950. Hon. JoHN J WuLxIAM3s, Senate Office Building: Following is the text of a telegram sent to- day to New York and New Jersey Senators and other Congressmen from New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania: “Position of dairy- men, poultrymen, and other northeastern farmers is rapidly deteriorating under pres- ent price squeeze. Grain prices supported at artificially high levels in the face of falling milk and eggs are making an intolerable situ- ation. While consumers are benefiting from lower milk and egg prices, production of these foods cannot be maintained indefinitely un- less costs can be reduced. Most Members of Congrees are on record against further re- strictions on food production, yet present situation is heading us rignt toward guch. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE CCC has been pushed by existing support legislation into asking for $2,090,000,000 more, to lock up more grain supplies, which will further aggravate squeeze on animal indus- tries and half of which will be almost cer- tain further loss to the taxpayers Dairy and poultry farmers, already piachcd, face worse prospects ahead. Egg prices now scarcely cover cost cf fecd alone, hens almost unsal- able. Milk price continues downward. Pres- ent situation of vast grain surpluses held in dead storege with further action of same kind looming is intolerable We urge im- mediate congressional action to lower grain support prices to 75 percent of parity or toa point that will unlock tho:e vast frozen sup- plies” J. A McConne.t, General Manager, Cooperat.ve GLF Ertchange, Inc. The adoption of our amendment ad- vancing the effective date of the flexible provisions of the parity formula from January 1, 1952, to read “‘cffective im- mediately,” will not solve all of this prob- lem, but it will be a step in the right di- rection. I think Congress should start working toward the elimination of all wartime subsidies, and this farm subsidy is only one of the many affecting various seg- ments of our industries, and which are being carried forward at an enormous annual expense to the American tax- payers. Now that we are enjoying rela- tively high prosperity, they are unneces- sary. Mr. President, now what would be the effect of making the flexible provisions of the Anderson Act effective immediately? It would mean that instead of maintain- ing a rigid 90-percent support level, the support price would be allowed to fluctu- ate between 75 percent and 90 percent on the basic commodities with the actual level depending upon supply. With to- day’s heavy investments the support price on many of the basic commodities would drop to the 75-percent level Corn at 90 percent parity is being supported at $1.40 per bushel. Under the flexible formula the support price of corn would fluctuate between $1.22 and $1.40. This minimum of $122 would still be 6 cents higher than the 10-ycar average farm price for corn. Wheat at 90 percent parity is being sup- ported at $195. Under the flexible formula the price of wheal could fluctu- ate between $1.60 and $195. I call at- tention to the fact that this minimum price of $1 60 1s still 11 cents higher than the 10-year average farm price for wheat. The 10-year period includes the war years. Cotton, instead of being supported at rigid 90 percent, or 27.2 cents per pound, would be allowed to fluctuate between 2212 cents and 27 cents, depending upon supply. This minimum of 22'2 cents on cotton is still equal to the average price the southern farmers have received for cotton during the past 10 years. I will not take the time to enumerate how this amendment will affect all com- modities, but these are fair examples. It is understood that the amendment will directly affect only those commodities now under the rigid 90 percent support. However, all other commodities not un- der the 90 percent formula which are 2389 supported at a lower level will be lowered somewhat, in that one of the factors used in computing their base is their price Yelationship to the basic commodities, and as other commodity prices are low- ered, the result is a general lowering across the board. In view of the Government's huge com- mitments under this program, represent- ing over $3 500,000,000, and in view of the fact that the Secretary of Agriculture has already warned the Congress that he will need an additional $2,000,090,000 to continue this farm program at its pres- ent level, I feel that Congress has no al- ternative except to take some immediate steps to lower the cost of the program. We must do this not only to protect the consumer and to avoid the loss of billions of dollars, but we must take immediate action to safcguard the future security of every American farmcr. That is what our amendment proposes to do. Under this wasteful and destructive program of planned farming—and planned distribution—the American farmer is gradually losing his previous marketing system represented by free en- terprise. Many of his traditional mar- kets are being taken over by foreign pro- ducers. The producers of substitute products are taking over much of the domestic market. I know of no better way to illustrate this than to cite how the Canadian potato farmers have profit- ably increased their acreage, and at the same time increased their sales in Amer- ican markets, at the expense of our do- mestic producers, Again I cite how the manufacturers of rayon and nylon have expanded the use of their products, both in this country and abroad, at the expense of cotton and wool. This rapid expansion for their products has been possible largely as a result of cotton and wool being with- held from normal channels of trade through Government monopoly. Prices of cotton and wool are being maintained at artificially high levels and as long as this situation exists substitutes will con- tinue to make inroads on their markets. Mr. President, I have before me to- day’s issue of the Wall Street Journal, on the front page of which an article calls attention to the fact that rug man- ufacturers and many garment manufac- turers are using substitute products be- cause of the excessively high costs of cotton and wool. The farmers have lost many of their normal export markets since recently their former cash customers have been educated to expect American agricul- tural products as free gifts. They now refuse to even consider outright pur- chases. Peanuts have been converted into oil for export because that procedure was more profitable under the existing high- support program. This has resulted in @ gradual reduction in uhe consumption of peanuts through norma! distribution channels. . Today farmers in all sections of the country are directing their attention to the production of high level supported crops, with the result that unless these
2390 artificial high-support prices are low- ered soon the western and southern farmers are going to wake up and find their monopoly on production gone never to be regained. Peanuts, cotton, tobacco, wheat, and corn are all being produced today by farmers in areas never intended to produce these crops under normal conditions. The day of reckoning will be hard not only for these marginal producers, but also for the farmers in the South and Midwest, for unless they soon recognize the danger, they will never again regain their present position. The American people should not be fooled by the socialistic proposals of the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Brannan. He has presented as a perfect solution for the agricultural problems a proposal whereby he promises to— First. Give the farmers more. money than they now receive; Second. Give the consumer lower food prices; and Third. Cost the American taxpayers less money. At a later date I shall discuss this fan- tastic plan in detail. In the meantime I would suggest that if anyone is inter- ested in knowing how the Brannan plan of Government-controlled production and Government-controlled distribution will affect American farmers, he should read the farm program as it is now func- tioning, under the socialistic regime in England. I urge that the Members of the Senate Join with us today in removing the farm- ers from the political auction block by taking this first necessary step toward restoring some degree of sanity in our agricultural program. Let us begin a sytematic reduction in the unrealistic support prices. Let us put a stop to the scandalous policy of wholesale destruc- tion of good edible foods in a country where many of our own people do not have the actual necessities of life. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, how much time do I have? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes. Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. MUNDT. I understand the amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware and his colleagues would bring into operation in the present crop year the reduced sliding scale of parity pro- tection which would come into operation in 1952 under the normal operation of the so-called Anderson bill. Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct. Mr. MUNDT. Would it be considered to be what has been described as an or- derly procedure for getting an equitable adjustment for the farmer by dropping him sharply as much as 15 percent in 1 year? Mr. WILLIAMS. This would apply only in one or two instances. For in- stance on wheat it would apply because it is in excess supply. I point out to the Senator from South Dakota, however, that there is nothing wrong with our changing the rate at this time. It was in October of last year, after the 1949 crop had been harvested and after the winter CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE wheat crop which will be harvested in 1950 had been planted, that Congress took action to extend the 90-percent pro. vision. Congress increased last October the parity guaranty on this crop last October after it was planted and we have now a perfect rate to reduce it to its pre- viously scheduled rate. Had the Con- gress not taken that action last October the flexible provisions of the Hope-Aiken law would have gone into effect on Janu- ary 1, 1950, which would have provided a sliding scale between 60 and 90 percent, a little lower than that now proposed. What is proposed today is the putting into effect of the flexible provision of the Anderson Act, at a time prior to the Planting of the 1950 corn or cotton or spring wheat. We are within our rights to change the law before these crops are planted, in exactly the same manner as we increased the rate in October 1949 after the fall wheat crop was planted. Mr. MUNDT. Mtr. President, I should like to call the attention of the Senator to the fact that since the enactment of the Steagall amendment, in 1938, the farmcr has been operating under one set of regulations guaranteeing him a firm parity support price of 90 percent. The Senator now proposes to drop that by 15 percent, especially in the case of crops produced and harvested in the Midwest, therefore precipitating what I am sure would result in farm-operating chaos in that section of the country. When the prosperity of this great farm- ing area in the Middle West is adversely affected or destroyed, the entire struc- ture of our economy and _ prosperity throughout the country are jeopardized, because seven times the production of this section of the country each year amounts to the total national income. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has expired. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I think I have used only 20 of the 30 min- utes which had been allotted to me and I will yield the remainder to the Senator from South Dakota. Mr. WHERRY. How much time does the Senator want? Does he desire 10 minutes more? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. Mr. WHERRY. I yield to the Senator 10 additional minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 10 more minutes. Mr. WILLIAMS. I should like to point out to the Senator from South Dakota that there is nothing proposed under our amendment which would in any way affect the normal prosperity of the farm- ers to whom he refers. If the amend- ment shall be agreed to, the support price on corn at the %75-percent minimum would still be $1.22 a bushel. That cer- tainly is not a depression price. The average price the farmers have received for the past 10 years for corn, including the war years—was $1.16 a bushel. The support price at the minimum would still be 6 cents higher than the average price they had received in 1940-49. The average price of the wheat sold in the West was $1.49 for the period be- tween 1940 and 1949. The amendment would drop the support price from $1.95, so it could fluctuate as low as $1.60. This FEBRUARY 27 is 11 cents higher than the 10-year aver- age farm price. We cannot continue to maintain these prices in the Midwest at 25 to 30 percent higher than the wartime level, at the expense of the taxpayer and the eastern dairy and poultry farmers, dnd the city consumers. Mr. MUNDT. In the interval the Senator has described, however, the prices which the farmers have been com- pelled to pay have steadily gone higher instead of going lower. When the Steagall amendment was written, the farmer, who is the greatest consumer in this country, was paying his fair share of a 40-cent minimum wage, and now he is paying a 75-cent minimum wage throughout the country. Correspondingly, all his other prices are going up, at a time when the Senator from Delaware proposes to drop his sup- port price 15 percent. Mr. WILLIAMS. I should like to call the attention of the Senator to the fact that while that is true, at the same time the prices at which the eastern farm- ers, the eastern poultrymen and dairy- men, are selling poultry and dairy prod- ucts in the East have been declining. At the same time, the Government has been taking their tax moneys and sup- porting the western farmers at an ex- traordinarily high level. Their earning power has been reduced and their taxes increased as a result of this extravagant and wasteful program. We surely do not want a repetition of 1932. I agree with the Senator in that respect. But that does not mean that we can afford to continue to take money out of the Treasury and support a level of prosper- ity for the western farmers higher than that which they enjoyed during the war, I should like to have the Senator from South Dakota answer me this. What plan does he have to get rid of the $3,500,000,000 of surplus agricultural products which we have today—it may be $5,500,000,000 worth next year, since the Secretary says he needs two more billion dollars? What are we going to do with these products unless we destroy them? Surely the Senator from South Dakota does not advocate that we de- stroy them? You cannot overlook the fact that our inventories are continu- ously to grow larger under the present program. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I com- mend the Senator for the very eloquent and articulate manner in which he de- fends the poultry farmers of the East. Looking at the sponsorship of this par- ticular proposal I recognize it to be from among Senators who are particularly in- terested in the poultry interests of the East. Mr. WILLIAMS. In reply, I will say that the poultry and farmers to whom he has referred, whose interests I have at heart, yes, have so far operated with- out coming to the Government and ask- ing for any subsidy; which is more than the Senator from South Dakota can say for his farmers. I wish the Senator from South Dakota would join with me in taking his farmers off the back of the taxpayers. The eastern poultrymen voted again the other day that they did not think the answer to their problem was Government subsidy. They went on
1950 record again against asking the Govern- ment to underwrite their losses. I feel that the least the western farmers can do is to accept a lower support price—to take some of their own risk. Do not expect the Government, out of the Treasury, to guarantee the farmers of the Midwest a margin of profit greater than that which existed during the war. A continuation of this unsound policy will ultimately result in repeal of all farm-support legislation. Mr. MUNDT. I think the Senator’s farmers in Delaware are to be com- mended for being able to continue on their own. I do not blame the Senator one bit for defending his farmers. The poultry farmers of America have their own organization, and they can speak for their own industry. But it certainly seems to me there must be some other solution to the problem than facing the direc prospect of an immediate depression affecting the great portion of our popu- lation represented by the diversified farmers of the Midwest. If the Senator from Delaware will yield to me a little longer, because I have some measure of interest in the 10 minutes additional time allotted by the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. WHERrRyY], I should like to point out further to the Senator that I concur with him that the Ander- son bill does not provide good, adequate, permanent farm legislation. I think we must have better legislation than that. I think the Anderson bill misses entirely some of the features that farm legisla- tion should have. But obviously, in a 10-minute postscript to the speech of the Senator from Delaware, we are not going to devise a comprehensive farm bill for America. Until we have such legislation available, however, I do not think we should drive the dagger into the back of the American farmer in the Midwest and say, “You take this 15 percent cut. You get into the slough of depression. You go ahead and make it easier for the poultry farmers of the East.” The poultry farmers of the East have their problems, but after all they are not the majority of the farmers of the country, and their problems do not represent the greater portion of the farm problems of the country. Mr. WILLIAMS. We are not proposing to bankrupt the farmers in the West. Also, the poultry farmers in the East are not solely the ones interested in this problem. One hundred and forty mil- lion Americans, as taxpayers and con- sumers, are interested in the bill. They are becoming greatly concerned over the fact that the Government is piling up huge surpluses of agricultural products respecting which no one apparently has @ program of disposal, except one of de- struction, Mr. MUNDT. I am not asking the Department to destroy them. There is now enough legislation on the statute books to provide for disposition of the surpluses in an orderly and economic fashion. The fact that the Department does not do so is no reason why they are authorized under the Jaw to refrain from properly disposing of the surpluses. Mr. WILLIAMS. There is no way to dispose of $3,500,000,000 of agricultural CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE commodities except to lower the price. I point out that what we are proposing to do today is to lower the price from the artificially high level at which it is now being maintained, higher than the war- time level of prices. Even then the prices would be higher than those received dur- ing the past 10 years. The minimum, under our amendment, would in many instances be higher than the price the farmers of the Midwest received during the war. The Senator cannot tell me that his farmers in the Midwest went broke during the war. The farmers of the Midwest have simply been spoiled. Mr. MUNDT. The costs which the farmers are paying are rising steadily. The prices of things the farmers had to buy were fixed during the war years. OPA fixed prices and wages. Now con- trol of such prices have, rightfully, been taken off, and the prices of the things the farmers are buying are skyrocketing. While the prices of goods the farmers buy are skyrocketing, the Senator from Delaware proposes to bring down the prices of products he is selling. I can- not, right in the middle of a Monday afternoon, think of a better way to bank- rupt the farmers than the proposal which is now made to bring down the prices of the commodities he has to sell. Mr. WILLIAMS. If they cannot op- crate efficiently, some of them should go out of business. If they cannot pro- duce corn today as cheaply as during the war, there is something wrong. Mr. MUNDT. There is nothing wrong with the farmer. What is wrong is the economy of the country. Mr. WILLIAMS. We are headed for even more severe postwar inflation un- less Congress takes recognition of and acts to stop the many spending programs proposcd to be put into effect. Programs which are going to cost billions and bil- lions of additional dollars of the tax- payers’ money. We will have the infla- tionary spiral which the Senator has been describing and lamenting this af- ternoon unless we begin reducing the cost of government. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. MUNDT. Does not the Senator agree with me that the way to deal with postwar inflation is to push prices down horizontally, and not simply permit cer- tain prices to remain at their artificially high level while the prices paid to the farmers for their products are driven down? Mr. WILLIAMS. I will say to the Senator that wherever we begin there will be those who say, “Begin with the other fellow first.”” We must begin some- where, somtime, if we are going to re- store any degree of sanity in the cost of government. There is no better time to begin than now. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Nebraska {Mr. Wuerry], who is now absent from the Chamber, allotted me 10 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator from Maine is rec- ognized for 10 minutes. Mr. BREWSTER. I wish to speak in support of the amendment of the Sen- 2391 ator from Nebraska [Mr. WHERRY] de- signed to require the President to exer- cise the power which he very clearly has under the existing law, but which during the past year he has failed to exercise. Ishare the concern of the Sen- ator from Ilinois [Mr. Lucas] as to econ- omy in Government. While I cannot agree with him on the repudiation of what I believe to be the Government’s obligation in connection with the cur- rent program on potatoes, it is plainly within the province of the administra- tion, and the exercise of authority it pos- sesses, to exclude the potatoes from our neighbor to the north, which are simply adding to the surplus we now have. Some five or six million bushels have al- ready come in, and it is estimated that eight or ten million additional bushels will come in, which will cost us from ten to fifteen million dollars. While I realize that ten to fifteen million dollars is a small sur, in view of our current deficit, the saving of that amount, at any rate, would be a substantial contribution, and one which could be achieved without do- ing injustice to anyone. A good deal of question was raised as to our relations with Canada. The sug- gestion was made that this was one of the ways that Canada could pay her debts to the United States; that her trade balance was adverse; that she was buy- ing here more than we bought from her; therefore that this was one way to per- mit her to accumulate her balances. I can appreciate the force of that argu- ment, but at the same time I think our first obligation Is to make sure the main- tenance of a strong economy here at home, and one which shall not unduly tax us. In addition to the annual trade bal- ances, which are adverse as between us and Canada, there are the very large sums which are being invested in Can- ada by Americans. More than 500,000,- 000 American dollars are invested in Canada in various enterprises. While that does not appear in our current trade Statistics, it is a very substantial con- tribution to the balance of payment, and explains some of the reasons why we find that Canada during the past year has exercised a prudence in this mat- ter which is conspicuous by its absence in our own agricultural and trade pol- icies. I am very happy to quote from the Foreign Commerce Weekly, published by the United States Department of Com- merce, Charles Sawyer, Secretary, Office of International Trade, Thomas C. Blais- dell, Jr., Director. This covers the field surveys of the Department of Commerce, and it contains a report on the policies pursued by our Canadian friends, which are in glittering contrast to the policies pursued here. To those who are con- cerned as to whether we will injure the Canadian economy by prohibiting the importation of potatoes which we do not need, and which simply contribute to our surplus, I would commend the careful consideration of this report by the Department of Commerce, on page 15, of the issue of November 15, 1948, entitled “Tariffs and Trade Controls— Import Restrictions Relaxed on Certain Fruits and Vegetables,”