1950 81 should not only be discharged but should be immediately prosecuted. How- ever, unless the President will cooperate with us in that, the possibility of a suc- cessful prosecution is rather remote, be- cause of the complete iron curtain of secrecy. I wish to thank very much the Sen- ators who very paticntly have remained here and have listened to what may have been somewhat tedious during the last 8 hours. I assure them that I tried to keep my remarks as brief as possible, while at the same time giving Senators all the perti- nent information from the files. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I shall detain the Senate only a moment, and then I shall move that the Senate take @ recess. I do not know whether the newspaper clippings which have come over my desk are correct or incorrect. However, I know that the reporters for the wire services and other reporters for various newspapers who heard the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin in his latest tour across the country have reported many things he said which alarmed me, to say the least. When the Senator from Wisconsin was at Wheeling, W. Va., the newspapers re- ported that the Senator declared he had a list of 205 persons working for the State Department, who were known to the Sec- retary of State to be members of the Communist Party. When I read that statement I was shocked, and alarmed, as I had a right to be. It seemed to me that if the Senator from Wisconsin had a list of 205 persons whom he knew to be working in the State Department, and he waited to go on a Republican tour in West Virginia in order to tell the people of the country the fact, it seemed to me to be slightly out of order. If he had the information, he should have reported it directly to the Secretary of State or toa committee of the Senate of the United States. Not satisfied with that, in Reno, Nev., when he was making another political speech, the Senator from Wisconsin said he had compiled a list of 57 Communists in the State Department. Later, in an- other speech, he named four individuals, three of whom, I understand, have not been with the Department for some time, one of whom was never with the State Department. In that statement the Senator from Wisconsin said he hastened to say he did not charge any one of the four with being a Communist. Mr. President, the only thing the Sen- ator from Illinois has been attempting to get, and it is information, which the Senate and the country are entitled to have—is a statement of the names of these individuals in the State Depart- ment, and to get the names as fast as possible, in order to clear up any cloud that may be hovering over every member of the State Department at this very mo-~ ment. Mr. President, the Senator from Wis- consin has done an injustice to members of the State Department who are loyal and patriotic, and who are attempting to carry on in the great world crisis in which we find ourselves. Instead of do- XCVI——125 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ing so on a political tour, it would have been much better and much more in keeping with the best interest of the Nation, had the Senator submitted the names directly to a committee of the Senate or to the State Department, in- stead of making political propaganda out of it from one end of the country to the other. Mr. President, the Senator from Mli- nois can speak for the majority party in saying there is not a single Member on this side of the aisle who is not as much interested as is the Senator from Wis- consin in determining where Commu- nists rest, if there are any within the Government departments, and we will do the very thing the Senator is request- ing. I guarantee him that a committee will be formed at once, and the Senator from Wisconsin will have an opportunity to come before the committee to tell who these persons are. Before the com- mittee, he will not be able to hide behind numbers. He will have to tell the facts and disclose the names of the persons within the State Department who are Communists. It ought to be done, Mr. President. If such charges can be made against a group in the State Department, without naming them, they can be made against almost any group in any depart- ment. Therefore, in view of what the Senator has said upon his political tour over the country, and in view of what he has said on the floor of the Senate to- night, it becomes absolutely necessary to clear this matter up as soon as possible. So far as I am concerned, if, as the Senator said in his Wheeling, W. Va., speech, if the press quoted him correctly, there is a single person in the Depart- ment carrying a Communist card, the Senator from Illinois wants to know about it, and every other Senator wants to know about it. We shall find out. We shall not find out by innuendo and by half truths and distorted facts. The facts, if there are facts, will be produced. We shall not go around talking about No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, and so on to No. 83. Mr. President, that is all I have to say at this time. I repeat what I said in the beginning, that all the Senator from IIli- nois was trying to find out was as to who the persons in question are. I think the Senate and the country are entitled to know as speedily as possible just who in the State Department is being charged with being a Communist. If the facts produced show that the persons on the lHst are Communists, the Senator knows that the President of the United States, as well as the Senator from Illinois and every other Member on this side of the aisle will not rest until such Communists are discharged from cffice. Moreover, if there have been any traitorous acts either of espionage or anything else con- nected with it, having in mind the num- bers the Senator has given us, they, too, ‘will probably be ferreted out. But, Mr. President, to assert that 205 persons are card carriers of the Commu- nist Party, or that even 87 are card car- riers, is to reflect seriously upon the FBI, The FBI knows practically every Com- munist card carrier in this country. I say the President of the United States and the FBI would not knowingly permit 1981 such a card carrier to remain in any Government department. If they would, I should want to find out about it myself. The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the pleasure of the Senate? RECESS Mr. LUCAS. I now move that the Senate stand in recess until tomorrow at 11 o’clock a. m. The motion was agreed to; and (at 11 o’clock and 42 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a recess until tomorrow, Tuesday, February 21, 1950, at 11 o'clock a. m. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monpbay, Fesruary 20, 1950 The House met at 12 o'clock noon. The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Bras- kamp, D. D., offered the following prayer: Almighty and eternal God, we beseech Thee that in this Brotherhood Week our moments of prayer may be radiant with clear visions of high and helpful things that we are privileged to do together for the welfare of humanity. We believe in no man’s infallibility of wisdom and judgment, and may we therefore accept the Master’s overtures of counsel in the noble adventure of building a social order which is truly Christian. Grant that, as brothers of the Son of Man, our minds and hearts may be im- pervious to those attitudes and feelings which are alien to the spirit of our blessed Lord. Hear us in His name. Amen. The Journal of the proceedings of Thursday, February 16, 1950, was read and approved. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate, by Mr. McDaniel, its enrolfing clerk, announced that the Senate had adopted the follow- ing resolution (S. Res. 229) : Resolved, That the Senate has heard with profound sorrow the announcement of the death of Hon. ScHvuyLER OT1s BLAND, late @ Representative from the State of Virginia. Resolved, That a committee of two Sena- tors be appointed by the Vice President to join the committee appointed on the part of the House of Representatives to attend the funeral of the deceased Representative. Resolved, That the Secretary communit- cate these resolutions to the House of Repre- sentatives and transmit a copy thereof to the family of the deceased. Resolved, That as a further mark of respect to the memory of the deceased the Senate do now take a recess until 12 o’clock meridian tomorrow. The message also announced that pur- suant to the above resolution the Presid- ing Officer had appointed Mr. Byrp and Mr. ROBERTSON members of the commit- tee on the part of the Senate. LEAVE OF ABSENCE Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. ABERNETHY] may have an indefinite leave of absence on account of illness,
1982 The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mississippi? There was no objection. PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to extend my remarks by inserting an article. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the requcst of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. [Mr. Parmin addressed the House. His remarks appear in the Appendix. ] THE READING OF WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the spe- cial order agreed to on February 16, the Chair designates the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McSwEENEY] to read Wash- ington’s Farewell Address immediately after the reading of the Journal on Wednesday, February 22, 1950. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. HERLONG asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Rrecorp. FREEDOM DAY Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? There was no objection. Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, in con- nection with their campaign 1n behalf of good government at less cost, the Florida Retailers Association has sug- gested a new and jubilant national holi- day to celebrate tax freedom. The date of the holiday this year would be April 28. The idea is that from January 1 up to April 28 this year, the average per- son works for the Government. He will be liberated on April 28 and may then work for himself and his family for the remainder of the year. I commend this organization for their campaign to call to the attention of the workingman the fact that 32 cents out of every dollar goes for taxes, and 21 cents of that amount are for under- cover or hidden taxes. These taxes penalize the workingman out of all pro- portion because you and I kncw he must spend, and consequently pay tax on, virtually every dollar he earns in order to live. Yes; the cost of government is too high. Our best consolation at this time is: Thank God we are not getting all the government we are paying for. On the other hand, if we paid only for the government we got, we could celebrate Tax Liberation Day much earlier in the ear. y EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. ELLIOTT asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp in two instances and include ex- traneous matter. Mr. BRYSON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Record and include a speech he deliv- ered last Friday. Mr. BOLLING asked and was given permission to exvend his remarks in the Recorp and include a Jefferson-Jackson Day speech by the President of the United States. Mr. DAVIS of Georgia asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include extraneous matter. Mr. PASSMAN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the REcorD. Mr. PATTEN asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the REcorRD. Mr. CROOK asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a petition by Charles C. Price, head of the chemistry depart- ment, Notre Dame University, pertinent to world federation. SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED Mr. BRYSON asked and was given per- mission to address the House today for 20 minutes following disposition of mat- ters on the Speaker’s desk and at the conclusion of any special orders hereto- fore entered. . Mr. DAVIS of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the. House on tomorrow for 40 minutes following disposition of matters on the Spceaker’s desk and at the conclusion of any special orders heretofore entered. PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend my remarks, and include a resolution which I am today introducing. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Cali- fornia? There was no objection. (Mr. Ho.irretp addressed the House His remarks appear in the Appendix. |} FIFTY-SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF THE SINKING OF THE ‘‘MAINE” Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illi- nois? There was no objection. Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it was unfortunate that the fifty-second anniversary of the sinking of the battle- ship Maine fell on Calendar Wednesday. There were many Veterans of the Spanish-American War, with represent- atives of patriotic orders, in the galleries in the expectation that the special order previously entered would be reached. I wish to thank for myself, as well as for all my comrades everywhere, the lead- ers on both sides of the controversy which is the cause of the futility and confu- sion of recent Calendar Wednesdays. The leaders on both sides of the contro- versy, or at least those who seemed to me to carry the prestige of leadership and with whom I talked, were all most coop- erative in agreeing that when the legis- lative business of the day had been dis- posed of and by a common understand- FEBRUARY 20 ing the time had come to adjourn, the actual motion to adjourn would be with- held until after the proper and fitting observance of an anniversary sacred to veterans of a war of 52 years ago and of tremendous historical significance. It is only fair that I should make this state- ment in order that no one anywhere, es- pecially no comrade of mine in any camp of the United Spanish War Veterans, should have reason to believe that even in the heat of a bitter controversy on this floor either side to that controversy in- tentionally would slap at the memory of the Maine’s heroic dead. Such was not the case, and this fact I wish to be widely known. My own position on FEPC is well and publicly known. It does not stem from political expediency. My years remain- ing are not so many that consideration of politics as affecting my personal interest could possibly be an inducement to change the pattern of a lifetime of thought and of action. I do not believe in discrimination, any sort of discrimi- nation, and by my sons and my grand- children I wish to be remembered, and to that extent to be an influence in their lives, as one who, having had an oppor- tunity to serve in the Congress of the United States, voted against discrimina- tion whenever jt showed its ugly head: and voted for all measures calculated to end discrimination and to advance brotherhood. I do not know of any better way that in my humble sphere I can serve my country and my God. But because in this I am as sincere as sincerity itself I have no right nor thought of question- ing the equal sincerity of those who do not agree with me on matters of pro- cedure and of policy. My personal re- spect for the characters and abilities of my colleagues is not measured by the degree with which our conclusions and our convictions on public questions are or are not in harmony. I did not think it fair to the memory of the 260 heroes who died in the Maine that any of the bitterness of controversy marking our recent Calendar Wednes- days should attach itself to the cere- monies honoring their memory. It speaks most hearteningly for the char- acter of this body, where functioning democracy has its highest expression, that among all of the leaders or those I judged to be the leaders on both sides of this controversy with whom I talked I found none who was not in hearty agree- ment. I regret that it was impossible for me to contact every individual Member. For my comrades, to whom February 15 is a sacred anniversary, I desire from the bottom of my heart to thank the majority leader [Mr. McCormack]. His remarks as reported at the bottom of col- umn 2, page 1824 of the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp of February 15, 1950, I bring to the attention of all patriotic groups. There is no better work in good citizen- ship done in America, a work contribut- ing to the building of a strong American character in each succeeding genera- tion, than the work to which these patri- otic groups are dedicated in the annual observances of the great anniversaries
1950 of historic events in the progress of our people and the growth of our Republic, As the gentleman from Massachusetts, our majority leader, had said unanimous consent was necessary for the House to proceed with the Maine memorial serv- ices as suggested. I am very happy to say that our distinguished colleague who did object has since told me that his ac- tion came from a misunderstanding. I might add that on that very night we met with other Members of Congress who had served overseas or in foreign waters in time of war at the dinner ten- dered us by the commander in chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, a mighty organization of overseas veterans now in its fifty-first year and founded by the men who were the volunteers of 1898 and to whom Feb- ruary 15 will remain a sacred day as long as the breath of life remains with them. As comrades as well as colleagues we joined together in our observance of the Maine memorial day and in mutually regretting that a trivial misunderstand- ing had prevented the intended observ- ance on the floor of the House. But after the House had adjourned, and before joining up at the commander in chief’s dinner, I had driven out past Falls Church down the Lee Highway to the place where now there is a national cemetery on one side of the road and on the other side a tavern and a few other buildings. This was the site of Camp Alger 52 years ago, forgotten by this generation, although the service it ren- dered 33 years after the end of hostilities in 1865 in healing the still sore wounds of sectional warfare, deserves a better fate than oblivion. It was the camp of the Spanish-American War near the National Capital, and on the soil of Vir- ginia, where regiments from the North and the regiments from the South, again wearing the same uniform, pitched tents together and trained as reunited broth- ers to fight the battles of the Republic. Only one person did I find who ever had heard of Camp Alger, so forgotten by the present generation is the war of 1898 that healed the wounds of the war of 1861-65 and started the United States of America on the road to world leader- ship. I pass his name to the surviving soldiers and sailors of the Spanish- American War with the hope that to him they will send messages of their appre- ciation. Melvin Steadman is 17 years old and in Falls Church he is known as the historian because every inch of rich historical interest in that locality he has charted with a fidelity to accuracy that could come only from love of country and from willingness to subject himself to the hard, grinding labor of research. He had not fallen into a modern trend of forgetting the Spanish-American War, or of minimizing its far-reaching repercussions. He not alone knew the general site of Camp Alger, but he was able to direct me to the spots where every regiment was camped. I selected the place by the roadside as best I could where I had stood 52 years ago with my distinguished colleague from Michigan (Mr. Wooprurr] of the same regiment, with other boy soldiers from Michigan and from Massachusetts, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE infantrymen of the Ninth Massachu- setts largely from the district now rep- resented by our distinguished majority leader, waving our hats and screaming a welcome to the regiment just in from Tennessee at the head of which marched Col. Cordell Hull, later to become our great Secretary of State. That night, 52 years ago at Camp Alger, on the soil of Virginia, the tents of the boys from Tennessee were spread beside the tents of the boys from Michi- gan and Massachusetts. Again the country was at war and it was a united country. God grant that it ever shall remain such and that under the influ- ence of its leadership the world in which we live shall itself be a world united in peace and brotherhood. SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. TRIMBLE asked and was given permission to address the House today for 15 minutes following any special orders heretofore entered. REREFERENCE OF BILL Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service be discharged from further con- sideration of the bill H. R. 7192, and that the bill be referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee? There was no objection. COMMITTEE ON RULES Mr. McSWEENEY, from the Commit- tee on Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 479, Rept. No. 1665), which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed: Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the Btate of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3105) to extend the benefits of the Vocational Education Act of 1946 to the Virgin Islands. That after general de- bate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 56-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee ehall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amend- ments thereto to final passage without inter- yening motion except one motion to recommit. COMMITTEE ON RULES Mr. SABATH, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 480, Rept. No. 1666), which was referred to the House Calen- dar and ordered to be printed: Resolved, That immediately upon the adop- tion of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (8. 2784) to promote the rehabilitation of the Navajo and Hopi Tribes of Indians and a better utilization of the resources of 1983 the Navajo and Hopi Indian Reservations, and for other purposes, and all points of orders against said bill are hereby waived. That after general debate which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Pub- lic Lands, the bill shall be read for amend- ment under the 5-minute rule. At the con- clusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amend- ments as may have been adopted and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. TACKETT asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the REcorp and include two editorials. Mr. TAURIELLO asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Record and include two newspaper articles. Mr. RAINS asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Record and include two newspaper editorials. Mr. WHITTINGTON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an editorial entitled “Keep Flood Control Under the United States Engineers.” Mr. SABATH asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the RecorD and include an article entitled “Practice What We Preach.” TAFT-HARTLEY ACT Mr. CAVALCANTE, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. Mr. CAVALCANTE. Mr. Speaker, the friends of the Taft-Hartley Act now ad- mit that neither an injunction under that act nor an order from Mr. Lewis can re- turn the miners to the pits against their will. Further, these friends of the act admit that “if this be the shape of events to come, Mr. Lewis will have put himself and his union beyond the reach of the Taft-Hartley Act, for that law does not apply to individual miners.” ‘These ad- missions by the friends of the act bring into the open the misconceived proposi- tions contained in it. It advances the proposition that a labor union is the property of the union leader and that it exists separately and dis- tinctly from the individual employee. It advances the proposition that a labor union is not necessary for the individual employee to bargain collectively with his employer. It advances the proposition that the individual employee can bargain collectively through a leaderless and emasculated labor union. All these prop- ositions are misconceived and show the fangs of infamous revenge. They pose the doctrine of divide and conquer like a knife at the heart of collective bargain- ing. These propositions are like manna to the predatory lust of the National As- sociation of Manufacturers.
1984 AIR FORCE ACADEMY Mr. WITHROW. Mr. Sneaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wis- consin? There was no objection. Mr. WITHROW. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced a bill providing for the establishment of an Air Force Academy, which will be a counterpart for West Point and Annapolis. The new Air Academy is to be located at Camp McCoy, near Sparta, Wis. Last week the Services Academy Boerd, composed of presidents of uni- versities, met to decide what should be done about establishing an Air Force Academy on a similar basis as that of Annapolis and West.Point. The chair- man of the Services Academy Board is Dr. Robert L. Stearns, president of the University of Colorado. General Eisen- hower, president of Columbia University, is the vice chairman. This Service Academy Board, after praising our Mili- tary Academy at West Point and also our Naval Academy at Annapolis, called for an Air Force counterpart. I am proposing the establishment of the new Air Force Academy at Camp McCoy, Wis., because the Government now is in possession of more than 40,000 acres of land which fs ideal for air bases. There are many present Government facilities at Camp McCoy which could be utilized in the building of an Air Acad- emy. The selection of Camp McCoy, which is now an inactive Army post, would mean a great saving to the Gov- ernment. It would expedite the con- struction of an Air Academy in that it would not be necessary to acquire land. In addition, the schoo] would be located in a locality which is subjected to the changing temperatures of the temperate zone, This would be particularly desir- able in view of the fact that all of our military leaders are taking seriously the prospect that if there is a war fighting will take place where it is bitterly cold. They are anticipating what can be done to train our men in event there are Major clashes in the Arctic regions. Camp McCoy is all the more desirable because not more than 14 miles from it is located a large and modern Government hospital. In addition, Camp McCoy has excellent transportation facilities being served by both the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific and Chicago & North Western Railroads. The establishment of the Air Academy at Camp McCoy, Wis., would mean a great deal to western Wisconsin at a time when there is every indication the unemployment situation will become more and more acute. Then, too, it would bring to life a ghost Army instal- lation in which the Government has already invested millions of dollars. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. O’SULLIVAN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorp in two instances and include ex- traneous matter. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. POTTER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorp and include an article entitled “Don’t Jump Yet, James.” Mr. HALE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorp and include extraneous material. Mr. DOLLIVER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an address delivered by him on Iowa people and their State. Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks in the Recorp in three instances and include extraneous matter. Mr. GOODWIN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a letter and a state- ment showing how the reduction of the tariff on rubber footwear imperils the American workingman. ALTERNATE CAPITAL OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mississipp1? There was no objection. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the proposition that was made a few moments ago to establish an alter- nate capital of the United States some- where in an area where it would be most protected. That place, it seems to me, would be near Paducah, Ky., for several reasons. In the first place, it would be near the center of population, remote from the coast, and beyond the mountain ranges. In the next place it would be on the Ohio River, on the Tennessee, and our in- land waterway we are now constructing, and near the Mississippi, with both rail and water transportation available. It would also be near Mammoth Cave where, in case of an atomic attack, you would have the greatest storm cellar the world ever saw, and one that is big enough to hold the entire Congress and every department and every bureau of this Government. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. RANKIN. I yield to the gentle- man from Iowa. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would suggest Des Moines, Iowa, where it would be completely hidden by the tall corn. Mr. RANKIN. The trouble about Iowa is that it is too far west, it is not on any stream, s0 we would be denied the use of water transportation, and it is re- mote from Mammoth Cave. I say that near Paducah, Ky., is the best place, when viewed from every standpoint. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Mississippi has expired. FERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Dakota? There was no objection. FEBRUARY 20 (Mr. Burpick addressed the House. His remarks appear in the Appendix.] Mr. JONAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from IIli- nois? There was no objection. [Mr. Jonas addressed the House. His remarks appear in the Appendix.] EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. LEFEVRE asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the RecorpD and include a newspaper article. Mr. JUDD asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks 1n the REcorp in three instances, in each to include extraneous material. Mr. HORAN asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the REc- orp in three instances, in each to include newspaper articles. Mr. HILL asked and was given permis- sion to extend his remarks in the Rsc- oRD and include a communication from the management and labor committee of the Denver Chamber of Commerce. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks in the REecorp and include a reso- lution of the American Livestock Asso- ciation. Mr. HESELTON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and to include extraneous mate- rial. Mr. POULSON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp in five instances and in each to include editorials. IMPORTS FROM RUSSIA VIA GREAT BRITAIN Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to ad- dress the House for 1 minute, revise and extend my remarks, and include extrane- ous matter. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Min- nesota? There was no objection. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like particularly to have the attention of the Members from Boston and the east-shore areas. I think this is an important item for their fishermen. The British Socialist Government purchased 80,000 cases of crab meat from Russia, presumably canned by Japanese prison slave labor in Russia. They took those 80,000 cases back to England and shipped over 44,000 cases to Boston and New York to be sold in this country at $54 acase. That is expersive crab meat. I thought the people of this country ought to know that we are still per- mitting important commodities to come in from Russia and now they are coming in the back door, through England, and being sold here. I presume that 34,000 cases now in England will be used just prior to the election to kind of sweeten up some of the people who are not used to eating crab meat in England. Mr. Speaker, I think this is an impor- tant matter and that fishermen of the
-1950 country ought to know and, particularly, the people who eat this expensive Rus- sian crab meat at $1 a can. I feel the American people should know that we are still doing business with Russia, even through the back door provided by Eng- land, and what has happened with im- ports of crab meat is only a sample. BRITISH GOVERNMENT SELLING SOVIET-PACKED FOOD IN UNITED STATES British Food Ministry is selling Russian- packed crab meat from consigned atocks in New York and Boston, insisting on certified checks before releasing Chatka brand to domestic distributors. Socialist government has already moved to the United States and is selling for its own account about 44,000 cases out of a much larger block acquired from the Communists probably in # barter deal. Quality crab meat is selling slowly. One reason is that price of $54 for a case of 96 cans is so much higher than competing canned fish. Another is resentment against a product packed in Kamchatka by Russians probably assisted by retained Japanese pris- Oners of war working as the equivalent of convict labor, so experienced in the canning of crab meat that they furnished us nearly all that type of crab before the war. British Government recently reduced their price in this selling because of competition from another block of Russian crab meat, secured in a barter deal by a southern Cali- fornia organization and offered to distribu- tors in smaller cases. Complaints to Washington from domestic crab meat packers, who are not much af- fected by competing with a quite different product, have become entangled in the usual interdepartmental differences. Fish and Wildlife Section of Department of Interior resents the British Labor admin- istration dumping Russian products in the United States. State Department wishes no interferences with British effort to get dollars, especially on the eve of election where the Labor gov- ernment dumping Communist-produced food in the United States could be made a campaign issue. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF Foop DISTRI- BUTION, INC. New York, N. Y. The SPEAKER, The time of the gen- tleman from Minnesota has expired. THE POTATO SITUATION Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent to address the House for 1 minute, revise and extend my remarks, and include a short editorial from the Williamsport (Pa.) Gazette and Bulletin. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. Mr. RICH. Mr, Speaker, the Pennsyl- vania Cooperative Potato Growers Asso- ciation want no more part of the Federal price support program for potatoes they are growing this year. Read this editorial. ‘When the farmers of my State say that they do not want any support prices on the potato program they realize just what this administration is doing. Run- ning the Government into bankruptcy. Let me show you one item here. Out in Minnesota they paid a farmer for 160,000 pounds of potatoes $1.46 a hundred, or $2,336 to a farmer. Then the farmer bought the potatoes back for $16. Now, I see in this morning’s paper, after paying a penny per hundred pounds CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE he is selling the bags back to the Govern- ment for 16 cents a bag. So he is mak- ing 1,600 percent on his second purchase of potatoes. He owned the potatoes. He sold them to the Government. Then he bought them back from the Govern- ment and the Government is going to pay him 1,200 percent on the price that he paid for the bag. You see Uncle Sam holds the bag. That is some business by this administration. It is the way it runs business. When is it ever going to stop? The editorial is as follows: [From the Williamsport (Pa.) Gazette and Bulletin of February 16, 1950) NO SUPPORT, THANK YOU! The Pennsylvania Cooperative Potato Growers Association wants no part of the Federal price-support program for the pota- toes they grow this year. That was the unanimous decision of the members of the association at a meeting at Harrisburg this week. The action is a sig- rifficant sequel to the Federal dumping of the Nation’s 1949 surplus potato crop. Last year, only 4 percent of this State's potato growers signed up for the 1949 potato price-support program, says the association. The State produced 19,000,000 bushels of po- tatoes. In Maine, 62 percent of the growers were eligible for price support and they grew 72,000,000 bushels of potatoes. The co-op points out that Pennsylvania potato growers have constantly tried to ad- just their production to consumer needs but on a strictly voluntary basis. And that kind of voluntary control doesn’t cost the tax- payers any monéy for price support. Thus Pennsylvania’s potato production contributed less to the surplus with only a small percentage of the growers under Fed- eral control than Maine's crop did with more than half of the potato industry being paid to stay within acreage limitations. In all fairness to Maine, it must be said that the weather upset potato acreage plan- ning. Never before had this country pro- duced a surplus 2 years in a row with perfect weather recorded during those 2 years. That's something production and marketing experts didn’t figure out. Try as we may, we can’t understand how they can expect to either. It is Just another example of how things get all fouled up when you ram price support props into the natural supply and demand machinery. It takes more than a little courage to turn down Federal handouts these days but Penn- sylvania potato growers apparently prefer freedom in farming to subservience to the Federal Government. That from the “potato roots” of Pennsyl- vania, if you please. HOOVER COMMISSION REPORT WITH REFERENCE TO VETERANS’ ADMIN- ISTRATION Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from West Virginia? There was no objection. Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, in the past few days I have received many, many communications opposing the Hoover Commission report as it affects the Veterans’ Administration program. This proposed reorganization would dismember the Veterans’ Administration to the detriment of the veteran. I feel strongly that the present rights of vet- 1985 erans must be maintained, and the plan as proposed by the Hoover Commission is definitely against the veterans’ welfare. This proposal would destroy the struc- ture of veterans’ benefits which have been built up over the past 31 years. We must remember that Mr. Hoover, him- self established the Veterans’ Admin- istration in 1930 for the purposes of effi- ciency, economy, and uniformity of pol- icy and administration. To make changes now would throw the adminis- tration of veterans’ laws into a state of chaos. Every time an effort is made to save tax money it is, you can be sure, at the expense of the war veterans and widows and orphans. History is just repeating itself again in this proposal. The recom- mendations contained in the Hoover re- port would lead to neither economy, nor efficiency, and no one can question the fact that the veterans’ cause is just. It destroys the traditional recognition of the rights of veterans to Federal em- ployment preference, which has been in existence since Civil War days, and which is our way of showing to these that fought for our country the gratitude of a nation to its war veterans. This report would only add agencies to our already much too large and com- plex Government. It would also add ad- ditional] expense for high-bracket execu- tives to head these added agencies, and we have no assurance that this opera- tion would be administered any more effi- ciently or economically. We must remember the care of the re- turned war veteran and his dependents is a part of our national obligations. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from West Virginia has expired. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. TACKETT asked and was given Permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp in two instances and include an editorial from the Ar- kansas Democrat and another from the Texas County Gazette. Mr. WHITE of Idaho asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include certain extracts. ANNIVERSARY OF LITHUANIAN INDE- PENDENCE Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday was the thirty-second anni- versary of Lithuania’s declaration of in- dependence. Due to the passing of our late colleague, the distinguished gentle- man from Virginia, Mr. Bland, I was unable to obtain the floor at that time to extend sincere greetings and best wishes to my fellow Americans of Lithu- anian descent and birth. The Lithuanian people are continuing their valiant fight for liberty and inde- pendence and I feel that it is fitting to direct the attention of the American
1986 people to the fact that Lithuania is to- day carrying on a battle for the identi- cal freedom which we succeeded in ob- taining in 1776. In this valiant strug- gle to preserve the ideals of liberty and equality they have earned the admira- tion and esteem of all freedom-loving peoples throughout the world. Their cause should be one for the whole democratic world which observes with great sorrow the tragedy of sacri- fice to ruthless imperialism that has en- veloped Lithuania. They have been cruelly dominated by the Soviet rule of terrorism and oppression but this has not daunted their patriotic fervor and intense love of liberty and justice. Be- cause of the indomitable spirit of the people and their devotion to ideals under the most trying conditions, Lithuania will not remain enslaved. Such a coura- geous struggle must and will lead to fi- nal triumph. In their cause the Lithu- anian people have the support of free- dom-loving people everywhere who fer- vently hope and pray that the day is not far distant when once again they shall proclaim the establishment of an inde- pendent Lithuania which will take its Place beside the democratic nations of the world. PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICE Mr. MADDEN, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 481) which was re- ferred to the House Calendar and ordered printed: Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in or- der to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R 874) to provide for the demon- stration of public library service in areas without such service or with inadequate li- brary facilitios. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and con- tinue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted and the previous question shall be considered as ordcred on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. MADDEN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorpD and include an editorial. Mr. BOLTON of Maryland asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks in the REcorp. Mr. MULTER (at the request of Mr. BIEMILLER) was granted permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp in two instances. Mr. DOYLE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp in three in- stances and accompany the same with appropriate printed material. Mr. McCORMACK asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Rrecorp and include two editorials. Mr. McCORMACK asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Recorp and include an address recently made by John E. Peurifoy, Under Sec- retary of State. LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute, and to revise and ex- tend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, in relation to the program for tomorrow, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALTER] spoke to me in relation to a motion that was to be made to take from the Speaker’s desk and send to conference the basing-point bill. That motion will not be made tomorrow. Mr. WALTER. I understand it is to go over for a week. Mr. McCORMACK. That is agreeable to me. Mr. HALLECK. I wonder if the gen- tleman could tell us just when it will be called, as there are several Members very much interested. Mr, WALTER. It is hoped that it will be brought up 1 week from tomorrow, Mr. McCORMACK. I am going to suggest, so that we can have control, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Water] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER] confer with me, be- cause I would like to put that in the program when I announce it the latter part of the week, as to when it will be taken up, so the Members can have ad- vance notice, rather than 24 hours’ no- tice, or a shorter notice, or rather than the statement now that it will probably be made next Tuesday. In other words, as a result of this colloquy, so that the House will be advised as to my state of mind, there is no definite date made for next week. I am not construing it that a definite date ismade. Those interested will confer with me sometime this week as to a date, so that I, in turn, can advise the House when I announce the program for next week. That is the only fair course to pursue in the interest of all Members of the House. The gen- tleman from Pennsylvania will see that that takes place, and unless they confer with me, I would not expect that a mo- tion would be made, even if it is one of priority, without the majority leader having been conferred with, in order to give the House at least 2 days’ advance notice. Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yleld? Mr. McCORMACK. Iam glad to yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania. Mr. WALTER. I discussed with the gentleman from Texas [| Mr, Patman], the matter of calling up this privileged reso- lution on Tuesday of next week, as he will oppose the motion. It is entirely agreeable to him. I believe that under the circumstances, therefore, it will be right to announce at this time that it will be called up on Tuesday. The SPEAKER. Let the Chair make a statement. A great many people are interested in this matter and the Chair has told a great many people who were deeply in- FEBRUARY 20 terested in it that it would come up to- morrow. Nobody has said anything to me about not bringing it up tomorrow. When Members change their minds about calling up motions of this kind the Chair would like to know it in ad- vance; and that is no criticism of the Majority leader. Mr. McCORMACK. I _ understood that is so, because no criticism could be directed toward the majority leader, ex- pressed or implied. The majority leader was undertaking to advise the House as to a changed situation so that the Mem- bers might govern themselves accord- ingly. The majority leader is trying to fix some kind of definiteness with refer- ence to the program for next week. As far as I am concerned my statement stands, that the gentleman from Penn- sylvania [Mr. WALTER], the gentleman from New York [Mr. CEeLuErR], and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman], confer together; and I expect they will confer with me also as to the date on which they would like to bring it up next week. Under those circumstances and with that understanding the matter will be left in an uncertain state as to date. It will probably be called up next Tues- day, but I cannot state that definitely at this moment. I expect that both the Speaker and I will be consulted in the matter. Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, will the gen- tleman yield? Mr. MCCORMACK. I yield. Mr. RICH. It seems to me that the program should be announced not later than Thursday, because many Members leave the city on Friday and they probably would not get notice. If the majority leader could make the an- nouncement on Thursday as to the date on which this bill would be called up it will accommodate the membership very much. Mr. McCORMACK. I think that is a very fair and proper thing. I always try to announce the program for the coming week on the Thursday of the week preceding, and do whenever pos- sible. The other day in announcing the pro- gram I said there might be a change, and I wish to state now that a rule has been reported out by the Committee on Rules on the bill S. 2734, to rehabilitate the Navajo and Hopi Indians. That bill will be in order tomorrow. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix in four sep- arate instances and in each to include extraneous matter. Mr. BOGGS of Louisiana asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks in the Appendix of the Rrcorp and include extraneous material. Mr, KENNEDY asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp and include an article from this morning’s Washington Post. . Mr. BUCHANAN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp and include an article entitled “Some Lessons from Past Congressional Investigations of Lobby-
1950 ing” by Edgar Lane, notwithstanding the fact that it exceeds the limit estab- lished by the Joint Committee on Print~ ing and will cost $328. Mr. SANBORN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a letter. HARMFUL COMPETITION FROM ABROAD Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we just heard the statement made in regard to crab meat being sent to the people of England and America from Russia in direct and harmful com- petition with our own fisheries on the coasts of our country, hurting both our fishing industries and our consumers. Russia must smile at our discomfiture. Russia must laugh when objection is made to the tmportation of such large numbers of Swiss watches, movements, and parts and nothing is done to curtail them. Russia knows precision instru- ments are of military importance to our national defense and the watch workers are precision instrument makers. Watches are imported from Switzerland in such large numbers that the watches are selling at the Filene Co. at Boston for $13 each and at Philadelphia for $11. The tremendous importation of Swiss watches, movements, and parts is permitted to continue. The Secretary of State has authority to stop the imports and to keep United States workers em- ployed, and to save our United States watch industries, but he does nothing about it. The Waltham Watch Co. has gone out of business because it did not receive the necessary loan from the Re- construction Finance Corporation, and because it did not secure Government orders, These things have been permit- ted to occur, notwithstanding the fact that the Waltham Watch Co. turned its entire plant over to the United States Government during the war for wartime production and the United States Muni- tions Board has stated that the United States watch companies are a vital part of our national defense. To be fair to our United States Department of De- fense let me say I believe they have been willing to place orders with the Waltham Watch Co., but the orders were not asked for by the administration. We must preserve our watch industries, as they will be needed in the next war. Mr. Speaker, these precision workers are needed in manufacturing the atomic bombs and other bombs. It is most vital to our country to keep the Elgin Watch Co. and the Hamilton Watch Co., as well as the Waltham Watch Co. The tre- mendous Swiss competition is also very dangerous to them. They are most vital to our national defense, and this ruinous competition will put them, too, out of business. CONSENT CALENDAR The SPEAKER. This is Consent Cal- ender day. The Clerk will call the first bill on the Consent Calendar, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE RESIDENT COMMISSIONER FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 2988) to provide for a Resident Commissioner from the Virgin Islands, and for other purposes. Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ar- kansas? ' Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I ob- ect. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? Messrs. WILLIAMS, DEANE, and BYRNES of Wisconsin objected. AMENDMENT TO CIVIL SERVICE RETIRE- MENT ACT OF MAY 29, 1930, AS AMENDED The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 4295) to provide certain benefits for annul- tants who retired under the Civil Serv- ice Retirement Act of May 29, 1930, prior to April 1, 1948 Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I understand this measure is now pend- ing before the Rules Committee. I ask unanimous consent that it be passed over without prejudice. The SPEAKER. Is there objcction to the request of the gentleman from Iowa? There was no objection. MUSEUM AT KLUKWAN, ALASKA The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 2012) to authorize the erection and operation of a museum at Klukwan, Alaska. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the b.11? Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I object. PRACTITIONERS BEFORE ADMINISTRA- TIVE AGENCIES The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 4446) to protect the public with respect to practitioners before administrative agencies. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? Messrs. TRIMBLE, GROSS, and CUN- NINGHAM objected. NATIONAL CEMETERY AT FORT LOGAN, COLO. The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 4548) to provide for the utilization as a na- tional cemetery of surplus Army Depart- ment-owned military real property at Fort Logan, Colo. Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wis- consin? There was no objection. PUBLIC AIRPORTS SERVING NATIONAL PARKS, NATIONAL MONUMENTS, AND NATIONAL RECREATION AREAS The Clerk called the bill (S. 1283) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire, construct, operate, and maintain public airports in, or in close proximity to national parks, monuments, and re- creation areas, and for other purposes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, this bill has 1987 been passed over without prejudice at the request of the gentleman from Kan- sas (Mr. Scrivner]. The gentleman from Kansas is ill today and unable to be present; therefore, I ask unanimous consent that it be passed over without prejudice. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa? There was no objection. FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL LABOR The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 5557) to provide for coordination of arrange- ments for the employment of agricul- tural workers, admitted for temporary agricultural employment from foreign countries in the Western Hemisphere, to assure that the migration of such work- ers will be limited to the minimum num- bers required to meet domestic labor shortages, and for other purposes. Mr. DEANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? Mr. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I object. The SPEAKER, Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? Messrs. SUTTON, GRANGER, and BIEMILLER objected. FOREST RECREATIONAL RESOURCES The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 2419) relating to the disposition of moneys re- ceived from the national forests. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? Messrs. BYRNES of Wisconsin and WHITE of Idaho objected. Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wis- consin? There was no objection. CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN VETERANS’ ADMINISTRATION HOSPITALS The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 5965) to provide for the construction of certain Veterans’ Administration hospitals, and for other purposes. Mr. DEANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? There was no objection. SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN PARTS OF ALASKA BY WAR VETERANS The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 4424) to provide for the settlement of certain parts of Alaska by war veterans. Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? There was no objection. ALASKA AIRPORTS The Clerk called the bill (S. 2436) to amend the act entitled “An act to au- thorize the construction, protection, operation, and maintenance of public airports in the Territory of Alaska,”
1988 The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I object. Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. EDUCATION OR TRAINING OF VETERANS The Clerk called the bill (S. 2596) re- lating to education or training of vet- erans under title II of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (Public Law 346, 78th Cong., June 22, 1944). Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Speaker, a rule has been granted on this bill; therefore, I ask unanimous consent that it be passed over without prejudice. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas? There was no objection. PROVIDING A CIVIL GOVERNMENT FOR GUAM The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 4499) to provide a civil government for Guam, and for other purposes. Mr. REDDEN. Mr. Speaker, the Com- mittee on Public Lands which reported out this bill is now considering a substi- tute bill for the legislation proposed by this bill; consequently, I ask unanimous consent that the bill may be passed over without prejudice. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? There was no objection. EXTENDING CERTAIN VETERANS’ BENEFITS The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 6561) to extend certain veterans’ benefits to or on behalf of dependent husbands and widowers of female veterans, Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. AMEND WORLD WAR VETERANS’ ACT, 1924 The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 6562) to amend the Veterans’ Regulations to provide additional compensation for the loss or loss of the use of a creative organ. There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That subparagraph (k) of paragraph II, part I, Veterans Regulation Numbered 1 (a), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: “(K) If the disabled person, as the result of service-incurred disability, has suffered the anatomical loss or loss of use of & crea- tive organ, or one foot, or one hand, or blind- ness of one eye, having only light perception, the rate of compensation provided in part I, paragraph II, subparagraphs (a) to (j), shall be increased by $42 per month; and in the event of anatomical loss or loss of use of a creative organ, or one foot, or one hand, or blindness of one eye, having only light per- ception, in addition to the requirements for any of the rates specified in subparagraphs (1) to (n). inclusive, of part I, paragraph II, the rate of compensation shall be increased by #42 per month for each such loss or loss of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE use, but in no event to exceed $360 per month.” Src. 2. The last paragraph of section 202 (3) of the World War Veterans’ Act, 1924, as amended (38 U. S. C. 473), is hereby amended to read as follows: “There shall be paid to any person who suffered the loss of the use of a creative organ or one or more feet or hands as the result of an injury received in the active service in line of duty between April 6, 1917, and November 11, 1918, compensation of 842 per month, independent of any other compensation which may be payable under this act: Pro- vided, however, That if such injury was in- curred while the veteran was serving with the United States military forces in Russia, the dates herein stated shall extend from April 6, 1917, to April 1, 1920,” Src. 8. This act shall be effective from the first day of the second calendar month fol- lowing the date of enactment of this act. With the following committee amend- ments: Page 1, line 10, after the word ‘“compensa- tion”, insert “therefor shall be $42 per month independent of any other compensation.” Page 2, line 1, strike out “shall be increased by $42 per month.” The committee amendments were agreed to. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed. The title was amended so as to read: “A bill to amend the Veterans Regula- tions and the World War Veterans’ Act, 1924, as amended, to provide additional compensation for the loss or loss of the use of a creative organ.” A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1917 The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 4684) to amend subsection (c) of section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917 and subsec- tion (a) of section 338 of the Nationality Act of 1940. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? Mr. WALTER. I object, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? Mr. MARCANTONIO. I object, Mr. Speaker. REPEAL CERTAIN AUTHORITY AT FORT MONROE The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 4316) to repeal the authority to assess owners of nonmilitary buildings situated within the limits of the Fort Monroe Military Reservation, and for other purposes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, re- serving the right to object, I would like to have a member of the committee ex- plain this bill. Mr. VINSON. Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced by the late distinguished Member from Virginia, Mr. Bland, with a@ unanimous report by the Committee on Armed Services. It has to do with the repealing of the authority to assess FEBRUARY 20 certain owners of nonmilitary buildings situated within the limits of the Fort Monroe Military Reservation. It was submitted to the House by the distin- guished gentleman from Texas {Mr. Kiu- DAY] who is absent today on account of illness. If the gentleman wants the full details of the bill, he can find them in a very able report which was prepared by the gentleman from Texas. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, my purpose in reserving the right to object was to have some member of the com- mittee emphasize in the Recorp the fact that this bill is another illustration of the outstanding character of service ren- dered for so many years by our late col- league from Virginia, Mr. Bland. I am acquainted with the purposes of the bill, which are good, but I felt that this col- loquy should appear in the Recorp in or- der to again convey to the people of the district that our late colleague so ably represented for so many years the fact that even in his serious illness, in his last days, when he was undergoing the effects of his serious illness, that he was carry- ing on his public service ably and coura- geously. The passage of this bill would be, in a sense, probably the final monu- ment of the great work done by our late colleague. Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, will the gen- tleman yield? Mr. McCORMACK. I yield to the gen- tleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. RICH. Can the gentleman tell us whether or not the Committee on Armed Services approved this bill unanimously? Mr. VINSON. I may say to the gen- tleman from Pennsylvania that bills sent from the Committee on Armed Services to the Consent Calendar are unanimously approved by that committee. Mr. McCORMACK. I withdraw my reservation of objection, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That, effective July 1, 1948— (a) That paragraph headed “Sewerage sys- tem at Fort Monroe, Va.,” of the act entitled “An act making appropriations for fortifica- tions and other works of defense, for the armament thereof, for the procurement of heavy ordnance for trial and service, and for other purposes,” approved August 1, 1894 (28 Stat. 213), as amended, is amended by strik- ing out the following: “; and the Sccretary of War is hereby further authorized to assess upon vessels using the wharf at Fort Monroe, Va., one-half of the actual cost of repairs rendered necessary by the ordinary wear and tear of said wharf, and any damage done to said wharf by any vessel shall be paid for by the owner or owners of said vessel; and he is also authorized and directed from time to time to cause to be assessed upon and col- lected from the owners of nonmilitary build- ings situated within the limits of the Fort Monroe Military Reservation, and from indt- viduals or corporations engaged in business thereat, other than water-navigation com- panies, one-half of such sum or sums of money as he may deem just, reasonable, and necessary for expenditure upon the repair and operation of, such roads, pavements, streets, lights, sewerage, and general police, as in the opinion of the Secretary of War should be constructed and maintained in order to protect the inteiest of the United States and the interests, health, and general welfare of the said nonmilitary interests now
1950 established or that may hereafter be estab- lished at Fort Monroe: Provided further, That all funds collected as above provided, or that may be received from other incidental sources from and after this date, be, and are hereby, made special contingent funds, to be col- lected and expended for the above purposes in accordance with rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of War, who will render annually to Congress 4 detailed account of all receipts and expenditures.” (b) The Secretary of War is hereby em- powered to authorize and regulate the activi- ties of the nonmilitary interests on the Fort Monroe Military Reservation in accordance with the law, and rules and regulations pre- scribed by him, relating to similar nonmili- tary interests on other military reservations. With the following committee amend- ments: Page 1, line 8, strike out “1948” and insert “1950.” Page 8, line 8, strike out “War” and insert “the Army.” The committee amendments were agreed to. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to recon- sider was laid on the table. PATENT OFFICE The Clerk called the bill (8. 2328) to increase the number of examiners in chief in the Patent Office, and for other purposes. There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That section 476 of the Revised Statutes (United States Code, title 85, sec. 2) be amended to read as follows: “There shall be in the Patent Office a Com- missioner of Patents, two assistant commis- sioners, and 12 examiners in chief, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The assistant commissioners shall perform such duties pertaining to the office of commis- sioner as may be assigned to them, respec- tively, from time to time by the Commis- sioner of Patents, and the examiners in chief shall serve as members of the board of ap- peals and may also perform such duties of a comparable nature pertaining to the office of commissioner as may be assigned to them, respectively, from time to time by the Com- missioner of Patents. All other officers, clerks, and employees authorized by law for the office shall be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce upon the nomination of the Commissioner of Patents in accordance with existing law.” With the following committee amend- ment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following: “That section 482 of the Revised Statutes (35 U. 5S. C. 7) is amended by adding the following paragraph: “*The Commissioner, when in his discre- tion considered necessary to maintain the work of the board of appeals current, may designate any examiner of the primary exam- diner grade or higher having the requisite ability, to serve as examiner in chief for pe- riods not exceeding 6 months each, and any examiner so designated shall be qualified to act as @ member of the Board of Appeals. Not more than one primary examiner shall be among the members of the Board of Ap- peals hearing an appeal.’ The committee amendment was agreed The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The title was amended so as to read: “An act to amend section 482 of the Re- vised Statutes relating to the Board of Appeals in the United States Patent Office.” A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. BALES OF CONDEMNED NAVAL MATERIAL The Clerk called the bill (S. 1990) to amend section 429, Revised Statutes, as amended, and the act of August 5, 1882, as amended, so as to substitute for the requirement that detailed annual re- ports be made to the Congress concern- ing the proceeds of all sales of con- demned naval material a requirement that information as to such proceeds be filed with the Committees on Armed Services in the Congress. There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the last sentence of section 429, Revised Statutes, as amended (5 U. 8. C. 468), is hereby further amended by deleting therefrom the words “or mate- rials” and “and materials” where they ap- pea. therein. Sxc. 2. The sixth sentence of section 2 of the act of August 5, 1882 (22 Stat. 206), as amended (34 U. S, C. 544), is amended to read as follows: “It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Navy annually to file with the Committees on Armed Services in the Congress information as to the proceeds of all sales of materials, stores, and supplies, made under the provisions of this act, and the expenses attending such sales.” The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table. ARMY INSTITUTE OF PATHOLOGY BUILDING The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 6539) to amend Public Law 626, Eightieth Con- gress, relating to the Army Institute of Pathology Building. There being no objection, the Clerk Tead the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That section 1 of the act of June 12, 1948 (Pub. Law 626, 80th Cong.), is hereby amended by deleting that part which reads as follows: “Forest Glen, Md.: Complete plans and specifications for construction of an Army Institute of Pathology Building, including all necessary auxiliary facilities; $600,000,” and substituting the following: “Army Medical Center, Washington, D. C.: Complete plans and specifications for con- struction of an Armed Forces Institute of Pathology Building, including all necessary auxiliary facilities, 8350,000.” The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to recon- sider was laid on the table. Mrs. BOLTON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the Recorp. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Ohio? There was no objection. Mrs. BOLTON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep sense of appreciation to the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services that I take this oppor- tunity to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Vinson] for his courtesy 1989 in considering my bill H. R. 6589, which would change section 1 of Public Law 626 of the Eightieth Congress, This bill re- lates to the Army Institute of Pathology building and provides for the authoriza- tion of a sum of $350,000 instead of the original sum of $600,000 to complete the plans and specifications for the con- struction of an Armed Forces Institute of Pathology building, including all neces- Sary auxiliary facilities. In modern medicine the Department of Pathology, the laboratory of any hos- pital or group of hospitals, is the heart of the facility. Accurate diagnosis and consequent treatment is largely de- pendent upon perfection of laboratory work. The benefits to be derived from the change of location of the contemplated building have been recognized by both the Department of Defense and the De- partment of the Army. The fiscal ad- vantage of the savings made possible as well as the value of the broader improve- ments involved has been given Bureau of the Budget approval. All three recom- mend passage of the bill. FEDERAL RECLAMATION PROJECTS The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 7220) to expedite the rehabilitation of Federal reclamation projects in certain cases. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? Mr. RICH. Reserving the right to ob- ject, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have somebody explain the bill. Mr. ASPINALL. In the first session of the present Congress we passed a bill providing for the procedure to take care of emergency programs on reclamation projects. In so doing, we established a procedure which calls for a delay of 60 days in the committees of the House and the Senate. That defeats the very pur- pose of the bill in some instances. There are two reclamation projects in the West, one in my district and one in the district of the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. Barrett], which are in need presently of this repair work in order to deliver water for the coming irrigation season. There is a tunnel that is down in the Grande Valley water users’ project. Un- less this bill is passed and immediate consideration can be given to those re- pairs, there will be some 88,000 acres of land in Mesa County, Colo., that will be left without any irrigation water in the present season. Mr. RICH. Has this legislation been approved by the Interior Department? Mr. ASPINALL, It has been approved by the Interior Department and the com- mittee has acted favorably on it. Mr. RICH. What is the cost? Mr. ASPINALL. No cost whatsoever as far as this legislation is concerned. The SPEAKER, Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the second sen- tence of the act entitled “An act to provide for the return of rehabilitation and better- ment costs of Federal reclamation projects,” approved October 7, 1949, is amended by striking out the period at the end thereof and inserting a semicolon and the following:
1990 “except that, any such determination may become effective prior to the expiration of such 60 days in any case in which each such committee approves an earlier date and notifies the Secretary, in writing, of such e@pproval. With the following committee amend- ment: At the end of the bill insert the following: ": Provided, That when Congress is not in session the Secretary's determination, if accompanied by a finding by the Secretary that substantial hardship to the water users concerned or substantial further injury to the project works will result, shall become effective when the chairman and ranking minority member of each such committee shall file with the Secretary their written approval of said findings.” The committee amendment was agreed to. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to recon- sider was laid on the table. Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Speaker, that completes the call of the eligible bills on the calendar. The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House the gentleman from Michigan {Mr. Horrman] is recognized for 10 minutes. SAFETY IN THE COAL MINES AND THE TAFT-HARTLEY LAW Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, my purpose today is to call to your attention the remarks of the gentieman from Pennsylvania (Mr. CavVALCANTE] made on the floor of the House on February 2 last. At that time, and I am reading from the ConGREs- SIONAL REcorD, at page 1376, he said: Mr. Speaker, nearly one-half million of our fellow men in this Nation go down to the collieries to work For the first 11 months of 1949 the friends of the Taft-Hartley law have upon their heads the blood of 534 of these our fellow men who went down to the collieries, never to return alive In view of this, how Hitlerlike and macabre is the voice of the colossus from Winchester— I assume that means Winchester, Va., and I assume it refers to a Member of the other body because of remarks made by that gentleman with refercnce to the coal strike and which are here referred to— who calls on the President to invoke that infamous law against these fellow men and to “handle arrogant labor leaders like Gov- ernor Tuck did here in Virginia.” The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. CavaALcaNTEe] continued: Verily, Mr. Speaker, the hand that handled the labor leaders in Virginia was (sic) indeed the hand of Tuck, but the voice that com- manded the hand of Tuck was truly the voice of the colossus—Hitlerlike and macabre. It is the prototype of this colossus that is un- Germining democratic government by refus- ing to yield obedience to the limitations on Btates’ rights contained in the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution of this democratic Govern- ment. Men of honest minds rejoice in the sane decision of the President not to use the infamous Taft-Hartley law. My point now is, and it was when I raised the question the other day, as to the propriety of those remarks being made from the well of the House. Those remarks in my opinion charge all those CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE who supported the Taft-Hartley Act, and that means more than two-thirds of the membership of cach body, with being re- sponsible for the death of those 534 miners who lost their lives through acci- dents in the mines. We are all aware of the fact that all too often the Members of Congress and the Congress itself, as a whole are charged with reprehensible conduct. My point is that it is not proper for a Member of the House to make that kind o a charge when there is no foundation in fact for the charge. I was overruled by the Speaker and, of course, I abide by that ruling, although I do not agree with the Speaker’s decision. Under the precedents then cited it seems a question of personal privilege and privilege of the House was raised. It is also contended that the question was raised at a jproper time and in proper manner. Most respectfully, but having in mind the doctrine of free speech, permit me to express the opinion that, while there are precedents justifying the ruling of the Speaker, some of them made by the present Speaker, there are precedents to the contrary. It has been held that a Member may present a question of privilege involving words spoken in debate, notwithstanding another method of procedure is avail- able. Permit me to quote from Six Can- non’s section 561, as follows: Although the previous question had been ordered on a pending resolution, it was held that a question of privilege might be debated. A Member may present a question of priv- {lege involving words spoken in debate not- withstanding the rule affording another method of procedure under such circum- stances. On December 12, 1912, the House was con- sidering the contested election case of Mc- Lean v. Bowman, The previous question had been ordered on tho resolution offered by Mr. S. F. Prouty, of Iowa, as a substitute for the resolution (H Res. 687) recommended by the Committee on Elections No. 1, when Mr. A. Mitchell Palmer, of Pennsylvanta, claimed the floor for a question of privilege based on personal references made in debate by Mr. John R. Farr, of Pennsylvania. Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, submitted that the proper procedure under the circum- stances was to demand that the words ob- Jected to be taken down under the rule, and a question of privilege was not involved. The Speaker [Champ Clark of Missouri} said: “It seems to the Chair it would be an out- rageous decision to hold that a man can stand here as a Member and say anything he happens to think of about another Member and the one who is assaulted shall not have personal privilege of replying. That 1s a general rule If the gentleman, Mr. Palmer, will state what the other gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Farr, said, then the Chair will rule whether it 1s a question of personal privilege.” Thereupon Mr. Mann made the further point of order that the previous question having been ordered Mr. Palmer could not be recognized to present a question of priv- llege until the vote was taken on the pending resolution. The Speaker said: “The only question in deciding this point of order, is whether, the previous question having been ordered on this contest, it brings the transaction to such a conclusion that the gentleman will have to wait until the House gets thrdugh voting. That is the FEBRUARY 20 point of order last made by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Mann. “The Chair is of the opinion that ff there is a question of personal privilege involved the gentleman ought to be heard on it, not- withstanding the fact that the previous ques- tion has been ordered on the pending resolu- tions.” I did not leave in the Reconp my orig- inal remarks on this subject because I thought that they were a violation of the privileges of the House. I am re- ferring to it now, and quoting these re- marks, which I have quoted in full, be- cause I still think, and everyone has a right to his individual opinion, that those remarks were a violation of the priv- fleges of the House, because, in sub- stance, they charge Members of the House with being responsible for blood- shed, and they also, by inference and reference to newspaper items, reflect upon a Member of the other body. There is no connection whatsoever, at least I can see none, between the death of those miners and the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act. If reference had been made to some legislation which had to do with conditions in the mines or with safety regulations, then perhaps the statement would have been justifiable as a statement of opinion. But certainly there is nothing in the Taft-Hartley Act that by any stretch of the imagination can be construed as creating conditions which are responsible for the death of those men. I was wondering why it was that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Cav- ALCANTE! made that statement. Then a colleague from Pennsylvania suggested perhaps it was because of the attitude of some of the gentleman’s constituents. Now, I have no information as to how the gentleman voted on teller votes ex- cept what I get from the papers and our colleagues. I do recall that when the Wood bill was before the House the leadership, at least according to the press, had a substitute, the Sims amend- ment, and that, when the Sims amend- ment came on the floor, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and if he desires to dispute it or deny it, of course, I will ac- cept his statement—according to appar- ently reliable witnesses, went through the tellers and voted for the Sims amend- ment. It is also said that the Sims amendment was opposed by the members of the United Mine Workers. I find in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette of May 4, 1950, at page 5, Ingrid Jewell, byline, this statement: The administration lost a good chance to obtain middle-of-the-road labor legislation when the Sims bill fatled. Some Democrats blamed the United Mine Workers in part for this defeat. The United Mine Workers sent telegrams to many Congressmen Tuesday saying, “The United Mine Workers support only the Lesinski bill. It will consider a vote for the administration-sponsored sub- stitute or for the Wood bill the same as a vote for the present Taft-Hartley Act.” Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Yes, I yield. Mr. McCORMACK. Does the gentle. man know that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr, CAvALcANTE] went
1950 through the tellers the way the gentle- man states? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. No, I do not, of my own knowledge; two of my colleagues who opposed the Sims amend- ment so advised me. Mr. McCORMACK. Under those cir- cumstances, does not the gentleman feel that it would be better to find out first, before making a statement which inti- mates that, and which might be miscon- strued? In other words, the gentleman from Michigan does not know whether or not the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania (Mr. CavaLcANtE]—and I do not, I assure the gentleman—voted for the Sims substitute or not. Is that correct? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. It is correct that I do not know of my own knowledge how the gentleman voted. I have no information on that except as I gathered it from Members, as I gathered it from his colleagues. Two of the gen- tleman’s colleagues told me that he voted that way. But it does not make any dif- ference. He undoubtedly voted in ac- cordance with his convictions, as was his right. As a matter of fact, it is none of my business, nor the business of any other Member, how he voted, although we have a right to refer to the fact that the gen- tleman voted one way or the other. I am not criticizing him for voting that way. I am just trying to get some ex- planation as to why the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. CavALCANTE] made that very serious charge on February 2 which reflects upon a Member of the other body, upon the House as a whole, upon every Member who voted for the Taft-Hartley law. Mr. McCORMACK. Of course, I am not passing into the other question, ex- cept that my friend made the remark he did without any other comment whether or not he knew it himself. On the Taft- Hartley law, I remember that the gentle- man from Michigan was one of the most. severe critics of what he termed to be the dictatorial power exercised by the general counsel, Mr. Denham. You re- member in the Eightieth Congress you had a committee investigation, and you made a very strong report attacking the dictatorial power of the general counsel. Is that not correct? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. No; that is not quite correct. Mr. McCORMACK. Oh, I remember it well. I think the gentleman should re- fresh his memory on that. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I will be glad to. Mr. McCORMACK. Because the gen- tleman and the majority report wanted to have the general counsel suspend ac- tion, pending an opportunity for the gentleman’s committee to consider and report legislation. As I remember, there was a@ severe condemnation of Mr. Den- ham, that he was usurping power in a dictatorial manner, and Mr. Denham said he was simply carrying out the law. I thought the gentleman’s committee made the best argument that I heard against the Taft-Hartley bill. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE I may have five additional minutes in order to answer the gentleman. The SPEAKER. Well, there are 50 or 60 minutes of special orders, however, if there is no objection. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I will withdraw the request, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as you have narrowed down the issue, I will say “yes,” and here is what it was: Your first proposition was & broad, general one, that I condemned Mr. Denham generally. That is not quite accurate. On the whole and to date he has done a good job, straying but very few times from his job. Here is what I did do. I remember the occasion to which the gentleman re- fers. It was when Mr. Denham pro- posed to interpret the law contrary to all previous holdings, and to bring within its terms and subject to its provisions as construed by the NLRB all of the em- ployees of hotels, restaurants, bars, and similar business organizations. When the Hotel Owners’ Association and the head of the Bar Tenders’ Union came here and protested, a committee held hearings, Mr. Denham testified, and I certainly did, in the strongest words at my command, condemn that attempt of Mr. Denham to put another interpreta- tion upon the law which we had writ- ten, an interpretation different from in- terpretations which had always previ- ously been given it and had been acted upon for years. In that particular instance, the gen- tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Mc- Cormack] is right in his contention that I criticized Mr. Denham and Mr. Den- ham just forgot his proposed interpreta- tion. There is no question about it. And I thank the gentleman for calling my attention to it, because it enables me to emphasize the point that an adminis- trative officer is always too prone to legis- late, just as courts are sometimes prone to legislate by judicial interpretation. But the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack], who is a past master at the art, has again today drawn what is sometimes referred to as a “red her- ring” across the trail and, perhaps fool- ishly, I have been so enchanted that I have followed him off the main road, away from my purpose, which was to, if I could, cause the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. CavVALCANTE] to give us some explanation as to why he so in- accurately charges those who are respon- sible for the Taft-Hartley Act—and that, as has been so many times stated, in- cludes more than two-thirds of the Mem- bers of each House—with the responsi- bility for the death of those miners. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. CavaLcanTE] denies, on his honor as a Member, that he voted for the Sims amendment, then, of course, his col- leagues will accept his denial and I will look for some reason for his unfounded charge of February 2 other than that it grew out of displeasure on the part of those who were members of the United Mine Workers, My information is, as stated, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania I[Mr. CavaLcanTeE], on the teller vote, voted for the Sims substitute or amendment to the 1991 Wood bill, and it was suggested that the United Mine Workers, for whom he some- times so eloquently speaks here on the floor, were displeased. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I yield. Mr. McCORMACK. The gentleman from Michigan said, “If the gentleman from Pennsylvania denies it.” Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Yes; if he denies it. Mr. McCORMACK. The burden is on the gentleman from Michigan to prove that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. CAVALCANTE] went through the tell- ers and voted for it. It is up to him to support the affirmative, not to the gen- tleman from Pennsylvania to support the denial. The gentleman from Michigan takes the affirmative. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I sure do; and I will say that according to two of his colleagues that is just what he did. If he says he did not I will accept his denial on the theory that he ought to know what he did and that his col- leagues may have been mistaken. Mr. McCORMACK. The gentleman from Michigan is too good a lawyer to proceed on that theory. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I will say that I am not practicing law since I came here, like so many do. And I will say further that, if a Mem- ber can only act on what he himself sees or hears, then our activities will certainly be circumscribed here in the House. If the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack] told me today that last week some other Member voted in a certain way, I would certainly accept his word until I learned that he was mis- taken. As to what happened when the Sims amendment was up for consideration, permit me to quote Fred W. Perkins in the Pittsburgh Press of May 3, 1949. Mr. Perkins wrote: Mr. RaYBugn emerged from a top level con- ference of House Democrats and announced that a new bill would be introduced today as a substitute for the Lesinski labor bill which was backed by the Truman adminis- tration * * * so it appeared that the House leadership, convinced that a coalition of House Republicans and southern Demo- crats was too strong to beat down. had grabbed the ball from the White House. * * © The new labor bill (Sims) will be introduced in today’s House session under ® parliamentary situation that gives it vot- ing priority over the Wood bill. Chairman Lesinsxr of the House Labor Committee, a staunch opponent of the in- junction provision, indicated he was not too happy about the compromise bill but he said, “I feel bound to go along with the majority.” On May 4, 1949, referring to the pas- sage of the Wood bill, Mr. Perkins wrote: In addition to being a slap at the Presi- dent, acceptance of the Wood bill also amounted to a repudiation of the leader- ship of House Speaker Rayrsurn, of Texas, It was he who had whipped up a compro- mise bill (Sims). The compromise was de- signed to attract the votes of the wavering southern Democrats, and apparently it suc- ceeded.
1992 Referring to the Sims amendment, Russell Nixon, Washington representa- tive of the left-wing CIO Electrical Workers, complained bitterly: That compromise beat us. It disstpated our strength The Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph, refer- ring to the Wood bill and the Sims amendment, on May 4, 1949, carried this statement: The Wood bill was approved after the House had repudiated (311 to 183) a compro- mise measure put forward by the Democratic leadership. This bill added six amendments to the original administration repealer in- cluding the Taft-Hartley antistrike injunc- tion. * * * House Speaker RAYBURN * 2 ¢ “They thought it would attract votes and have a better chance of passage than the original Lesinski bill * * *° The leadership compromise instead of win- ning southern Democrat support antagonized northern prolabor Democrats who called for its defeat.” My query is this: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. CavALcANTE] charges more than two-thirds of those who were Members of the House and of the other body when the Taft-Hartley bill became law, and many who are today Members of one or the other body, with the responsi- bility for the death of 534 miners. He said—and these are his words, as you will find in the CONGRESSIONAL REcorD on page 1376: For the first 11 months of 1949 the friends of the Taft-Hartley law have upon their heads the blood of 534 of these our fellow men who went down to the collieries, never to return alive. Why did the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania make that monstrous statement? Was it because it was reported that he did vote for the Sims amendment, not realizing that it carried most of the pro- visions of the Taft-Hartley Act, and that, on the 2d of February 1950, he wanted his people to know that he was not in favor of the Taft-Hartley Act or any of its pro- visions, and so made the quoted state- ment? The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. CAvVALCANTE] is too intelligent, has too much common sense—at least, that is my opinion—to, after sober considera- tion, attempt to connect the death of those unfortunate miners with the Taft- Hartley Act, or to believe that the blood of those miners is upon the heads of those who voted for that act. I hope that sometime from the well of the House the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania [Mr. CAVALCANTE] will tell us just what he was trying to do when he made that 1-minute speech on February 2. The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired. AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL COPIES OF HEARING ON AMENDMENT OF IMMI- GRATION ACT Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, by direc- tion of the Committee on House Admin- istration, I submit the following privi- leged resolution (S. Con. Res. 69) and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read as follows: Resolved by the Scnate (the House of Representatives concurring), That there be printed 3,090 additional copies of the hear- ings conducted before a subcommittee of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Senate Committee on the Judiciary on S. 1832, Eighty-first Congress, first session, to amend the Immigration Act of October 16, 1918, as amended. Such additional copies shall be for the use of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. PROGRESS ON THE IHCOVER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, by direc- tion of the Committee on House Admin- istration, I submit the following privi- leged resolution (S. Con. Res. 70) and ask for its immediate consideration. * The Clerk read as follows: Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That there be printed 5,000 additional copies of Senate Re- port No. 1158, Elghty-first Congress, first ses- sion, entitled ‘Progress on the Hoover Com- mission Recommendations,” of which 3,500 copies shall be for the use of the Senate Com- mittee on Expenditures in the Executive De- partments, 1,000 copies for the Senate docu- ment room, and 600 copies for the House document room. rhe resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. THE LATE HENRY J. BACKOF Mrs NORTON. Mr. Speaker, by direc- tion of the Committee on House Admin- istration, I submit the following privi- leged resolution (H. Res. 459) and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read as follows: Resolved, That there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House to Mrs, Anna M. Backof, widow of Henry J. Backof, late an employee of the House of Representa- tives, an amount equal to 6 months’ salary at the rate he was receiving at the time of his death and an additional amount not to exceed $350 toward defraying the funeral ex- penses of said Henry J. Backof. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. PLUMLEY (at the request of Mr. HALLEcK) was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the ReEcorp and include a brief statement. Mr. MERROW asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Rrecorp and include an editorial. The SPEAKER. Under the previous order of the House the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Aucust H. ANpRESEN] is recognized for 30 minutes. HOT POTATOES! Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Mr. Speaker, now that the Republican $1— tax payed—Lincoln Day chicken box din- ner and the Democratic $100—tax free— per plate Jackson-Jefferson Day dinner are matters of history and the food has been consumed, it may be advisable to proceed to the consideration of other matters. Although more than 12,000 en- thusiastic Americans attended the Re- publican dinner, I have learned that the Republican committee just about broke even on the cost after paying the Bureau of Internal Revenue around $2,400 in taxes on admissions, I understand, how- FEBRUARY 20 ever, that the Democrats took in $530,- 000 at their hundred-dollar-plate dinner, and paid no taxes to the Government on admissions. That money is in the bag for use in the coming congressional campaign. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman gets into that will he yield for a question? Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I am glad to yield to the distinguished and able Representative from Michigan. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Can the gentleman tell me from first-hand knowledge, not hearsay, as to whether the Democrats had wine where we only had coffee? Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN, I know that we only had coffee at the Republican dinner with some delicious chicken, po- tatoes, rolls, and ice cream. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. First- hand now. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I was not present at the $100 Democratic din- ner. They did not invite me or any other Republican, and I cannot tell the gentleman, from first-hand knowledge, if wine or other liquor was served to the 5,300 money-flushed Democrats who each paid $100 for their dinner, and no tax. Today I will talk about potatoes—hot potatoes. From what I read in the papers, Agriculture Secretary Brannan is taking care of the potatoes. It seems rather strange, and almost sinful, to learn that the Secretary intends to dump and destroy 50,000,000 bushels of pota- toes, when the law specifically authorizes him to give these potatoes and other sur- plus food owned by the Government to needy Americans through both national and local relief agencies. I was wondering if the Democrats served potatoes at the $100 per plate— tax free—Jackson Day dinner the other night. I looked over the menu which appeared in the newspapers, but I could not find either Irish potatoes or any Ca- nadian potatoes which are coming into this country in millions of bushels through the courtesy of the Truman ad- ministration. However, I found an item on the menu in French which read Pommes Rissole. I looked it up in a French dictionary and found Pomme de Terre to mean Irish potatoes, and Rissole meant baked brown and basted. Speaking about Rissole potatoes, I would have thought that Mr. Charles Luckmann, late of Lever Brothers, one of the largest oleomargarine manufac- turers in the world, who was in charge of the Jackson Day $100 per plate—tax free—dinner, would have arranged to have had these Pomme Rissole—Irish potatoes—dipped in oleomargarine in honor of the Dixiecrats. But my investi- gation discloses that he did not dip the Pomme Rissole in oleo. I understand that they used butter for basting, and it probably came from my home State of Minnesota. I feel strongly honored that butter was used by Mr. Luckman and his Democratic associates, and particularly at this time, when the Democratic Party is gleefully and willfully legislating to liquidate millions of small dairy farmers in the United States by legalizing the manufacture and sale of yellow colored oleomargarine to imitate butter. The
1950 use of butter at the Jackson Day dinner demonstrates that the Democrats still prefer butter. Butter, that fine and healthy natural product, produced by millions of American dairy farmers, will always be used at Republican dinners, There is no substitute for butter. Mr. Speaker, the potato-dumping pro- ram has been given a lot of publicity by ecretary Brannan, and most Americans are concerned about it. Good food should not be wasted where there are hungry people. Something should be done about it, and the Secretary of Agri- culture can now do a great deal to correct the administration of the program, if he will follow the law. I have been very critical about the ad- ministration of the potato-support pro- gram for the past 3 years. My ire was aroused when I found that the Depart- ment of Agriculture ordered kerosene poured on thousands of bushels of new potatoes in the State of Alabama at a time when Canadian potatoes were being imported to take care of the needs of eople in many parts of the United tates. It was difficult for me to under- stand why the Truman administration ordered the destruction of potatoes grown by American citizens, and then, rmitted the importation of Canadian otatoes. Considering that the Secre- tary of Agriculture and the President had full authority to stop potatoes from coming into this country, it will always remain a mystery to me why they did not act to protect American producers and the taxpayers of this country. Mr. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I yield to the gentleman from Utah. Mr. GRANGER. Iam wondering why the gentleman is so much concerned about potatoes now when a year ago he did not have any concern whatsoever when the administration tried to do something to rectify the potato program. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Will the gentleman tell us what the admin- istration tried to do to rectify the program? Mr. GRANGER. What they tried to do was to put the potato program under acreage control and to put into effect the Brannan plan so far as it affected potatoes. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Well, I know they had authority to do that. I may say to the gentleman that the big- gest complaint has come from the cost of the program for the 1948 crop which was $225,000,000. I think the gentle- man will agree that is the largest amount of potatoes that the Govern- ment has ever bought. Mr. Brannan says that the Republicans were respon- sible for the potato program so far as the 1948 crop is concerned. Does the gen- tleman agree with that? Mr. GRANGER. I do; absolutely. The Congress and the Committee on Agriculture cannot sit here and blame the potato program on something else. We have been writing farm legislation and certainly some of that responsibili is ours and so far as I am concerned, am ready to take what blame is on me and do something about it, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I may say to the gentleman I will do likewise, but in placing the blame it should be placed where it belongs. On September 21 of last year Mr. Brannan blamed the Republicans for this expensive potato program, at which time he said that the Government had spent $225,000,000 to support the price of potatoes and most of them were dumped. Now, just what are the facts? If I may have the attention of the gen- tleman from Utah, I am sure he will agree with me when I say the gentleman recollects that back in 1946, on Decem- ber 31, the President of the United States, the present incumbent, issued an order to terminate the Steagall amend- ment. In that order it was provided that the support price program as pro- vided for in the Steagall amendment of 80 percent of parity for potatoes and other commodities, would not expire un- til January 1, 1949, so that this expendi- ture of $225,000,000 on the 1948 potato crop came under the Democratic law that was extended by President Truman on December 31, 1946, for a 2-year period. The expenditure of $225,000,000 was made under the old Steagall amendment which did not expire until January 1, 1949. In addition to calling the attention of the gentleman from Utah to the expira- tion of the Steagall amendment on Jan- uary 1, 1949, which governed the sup- port price of the 1948 potato crop at 90 percent of parity, I would also like to re- mind him that the Secretary of Agricul- ture did not propose his Brannan plan until April 7, 1949, and, under no cir- cumstances could his plan have oper- ated for the 1949 potato crop. The Sec- retary proposed, and the Democratic majority on the Committee of Agricul- ture agreed, that a trial run on potatoes be tried out for the 1950 potato crop. I am sure, that the gentleman agrees with me on the time of the application of the trial run for potatoes. The Hope Act, to which the Secretary undoubtedly referred, did not go into op- eration until January 1, 1949. In that act we put in the provision—and the gen- tleman was a party to it—that potatoes should be supported at between 60 and 90 percent of parity. Mr. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield further? Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I yield. Mr. GRANGER. I want to say to the gentleman and to the House that to my knowledge the Secretary of Agriculture appeared before our committee for the last three successive years and asked our committee and asked the Congress to do something about the potato program, and he pleaded with us to put a limitation on the production of potatoes, and we re- fused to do it. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. We did do something about it in the Eightieth Congress by reducing the support price from 90 to 60 percent of parity. Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, will the gen- tleman yield? Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado, 1993 Mr. HILL. I would like to say this to the gentleman from Minnesota. I think it is more important to solve this potato difficulty that we now face than it is to ask or indicate whose fault it is or who is toblame. But let me give the gentleman @ little illustration. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. If the entleman will do that in his own time, would appreciate it. Mr. HILL. I want to show the gen- tleman what has happened. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. If the gentleman wanted to do something to solve it——— Mr. HILL. I did. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. He wants to tell me what happened. Mr. HILL. That is right. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I will yield a litle later. Mr. HILL. I put it in the Recorp last year, showing what they had done. Mr. PHILLIPS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PHILLIPS of California. If the gentleman will permit me to say, I think the gentleman from Utah should not overlook the fact that when the potato growers of California came down here and asked the Secretary to reduce the subsidy on potatoes, the present Secre- tary was not willing to do so. So, I do not want somebody to put the entire blame on either political party or the potato growers themselves. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Well, the Secretary of Agriculture I may say, is using the Congress, this Democratic Congress, as a whipping boy to destroy the support program for American agri- culture, and no gentleman on either side of the aisle can dispute it. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr, Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I notice this, though, that before election time the Democrats were claiming all the credit for getting this potato subsidy to the growers. Now that the thing has not worked out they are following their usual and customary course of trying to blame the Republicans. They claim it when it is a benefit to them, but when it kicks back—oh, no, they did not have any- thing to do with it. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Speak- ing of potatoes, and the reason the Sec- retary has to dump 50,000,000 bushels of potatoes which he says the Government owns, I think we ought to analyze that and correct it. The gentleman from Colorado has suggested we ought to correct it. Mr. HILL. That is right. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. As a matter of fact, the Government has not urchased 50,000,000 bushels of potatoes. 'o date the CCC has purchased 25,000,- 000 bushels of potatoes, so they have another 25,000,000 to go. Ido not doubt a bit that the CCC will be forced to buy another 25,000,000 bushels, and the pro- gram is going to be expensive, because of the importation of millions of bushels of potatoes from Canada.
1994 LARGE CANADIAN POTATO IMPORTS MAKE UNITED STATES PROGRAM EXPENSIVE The potato support program will be very expensive because the Truman ad- ministration has failed to carry out laws passed by Congress with reference to stopping imports of Canadian potatoes when the support program is in opera- tion. The Secretary of Agriculture and President Truman could stop all imports of potatoes, but they refuse to do so. Canadian potato growers increased their 1949 potato production by 39 percent, and it is now estimated that from 12,- 000,000 to 20,000,000 bushels of Cana- dian potatoes will enter the United States from such crop during the mar- ket season. For every bushel of potatoes coming into this country from foreign countries the United States Government will be forced to buy 2 bushels of Ameri- can-grown potatoes in order to hold the price to support levels. As a matter of fact, our Government is supporting the price of foreign-grown potatoes and providing a market for them in the United States. If 20,000,000 bushels reach our domestic market, the cost of the potato support program will be at least $40,000,000 more than it would have been if the Secretary of Agricul- ture and President Truman had carried out existing laws stopping imports. I am not criticizing Canadian pro- ducers. They are good businessmen. But why in the name of common sense should American taxpayers be called upon to support the price of Canadian- grown potatoes or any other commodity produced in a foreign country. I insist that the President and the Secretary should immediately invoke the provisions of section 22 of the AAA to stop these imports and thereby save the American market for domestic producers and stop this waste of the taxpayers’ money. Mr. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman yield? Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN, I yield to the gentleman from Utah. Mr. GRANGER. I know the gentle- man wants to be fair. He does not want to say there is no barrier against the importation of potatoes into the United States from Canada. The gentleman well knows there is a 75-cent per 100 pounds tariff on it. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. On the first 5,000,000 bushels the duty was 37.5 cents. That quota has been filled up, and we have over 6,000,000 bushels in here, and they are paying 75 cents a bushel duty import over the quota. No duty is paid on potatoes bootlegged into this country. Canadian growers think it is profitable and want to ship the pota- toes down here for whatever they can get out of them, which is a few cents under the support price. They are get- ting the benefit of our American pro- gram. Mr. GRANGER. The gentleman re- members the effort that was made by the gentleman from Georgia |Mr. PAcE] and others to call to the attention of the House that this very thing was going to happen, that this potato program would ruin the whole support program if it were put into operation. will CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. That is why the committee fixed it at 60 per- cent of parity. Mr. GRANGER. You fixed it at 60 percent of parity, but the Secretary of Agriculture told you that was not enough, that he could not even support them at any price unless there was acreage con- trol on them. The gentleman knows that. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I have served on the Committee on Agriculture for a good many years, and under sev- eral Secretaries of Agriculture, but the gentleman knows that the present Sec- retary of Agriculture has given very lit- tle cooperation to the committee in the shaping of constructive policies for American agriculture. Since April 7, 1949, the Secretary of Agriculture has fought the support program which the gentleman from Utah and other mem- bers of the Committee drafted into law, and we have had little or no help from him since that time. He has been too busy playing politics with the welfare of American farmers, and I, for one, re- fuse to play politics with the future wel- fare of our farmers. It seems to me that those of us, who are really inter- ested in the prosperity and success of American farmers should work together free from political partisanship in our aim to enact constructive legislation. That is the way it has been on our com- mittee until the Secretary injected pol- itics into the shaping of farm policies. Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. HOEVEN. Does not the gentleman see in the Secretary’s position some ul- terior motive to try to scuttle the pres- ent farm-support program so that he can force on the Congress the so-called Brannan plan? Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. That is the way it would appear to me, and I think it appears that way to the general public. Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, wil’ the gen- tleman yield? Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado. Mr. HILL. The gentleman well knows that when we sat in that meeting the Secretary of Agriculture would not spec- ify the products on which he wished to carry along this experiment; neither would he even estimate the cost of car- rying out that type of program. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. That is correct. Mr. HILL. As to the acreage of po- tatoes the Department of Agriculture re- quested the potato growers to produce in the United States, the gentleman will remember that they asked for an in- crease in 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947, and it is my recollection that they asked for bry gncrease of the potato acreage in 48. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. That is right, and the potato producers have always been under the goal suggested by the Secretary of Agriculture. Mr. HILL. Further, they cut the po- tato acreage 36 percent in the United I yield FEBRUARY 20 States while the Department of Agricul- ture was asking to increase it. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. You would probably like to know where some of these Canadian potatoes are going, It sounds like a train caller in a union station calling the stations where these Canadian potatoes are going. They are going to Buffalo, they are going to the Dakotas, to Duluth, Minn., in my own State, down to cities in Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, and Maine. They are even go- ing into Maine, just think of it, where last year the Secretary spent $65,000,- 000 of the taxpayers’ money to buy up about 65 percent of the Maine crop. They are going to Maryland, Massachu- setts, Michigan, Montana, New York, North Carolina, Philadelphia, Pitts- burgh, Puerto Rico, even, South Caro- lina, Vermont, Virginia, the State of Washington, the District of Columbia, and many other points for domestic con- sumption at a time when the Secretary is ordering the destruction of American produced potatoes, Mr. GRANGER. Where do you think they should go? Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. They are going into the areas where we al- ready have surpluses of potatoes and where the Government is buying them and keeping them off the market. Mr. McSWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I yield. Mr. McSWEENEY. I would hke to ask the gentleman from Minnesota this question. I want to refresh my own memory. Was not he one who objected in the conference with the Secretary of Agriculture when we were trying to work out the McNary-Haugen bill in committee when he wanted to impose his thought entircly upon our operations? I remember there was much opposition in committee and I am asking the gen- tleman whether or not he was one who objected? Mr. AUGUST H ANDRESEN. I am proud to say to the gentleman from Ohio who was a very distinguishcd and able membcr of the Committee on Agri- culture, that I was one of the members who was for the McNary-Haugen bill and on all occasions helped to put it through the House as ihe gentleman did, too. And it was vetoed by President Coolidge. I do not know whether that was imposing my will upon people, but if we had the McNary-Haugen bill today we would have some pretty sound con- structive legislation because it would give the American farmer the benefit of the home market for that part of his prod- uct which is consumed in this country and then he would be assisted in dispos- ing of his surplus in the world market. Mr. McSWEENEY. If I may ask the gentleman to yield further, the gentle- man has not quite cleared my own mind on the question. Did we not, and I remember the gentleman joined at that time, did we not in some way resent the imposition of the Secretary’s ideas on that bill, over the ideas of the commit- tee? In other words, we as a committee wanted to act independently and tried to
1950 work out a program. Was not that the situation in 1922 and 1924? Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Yes, I think we did. We did not have any pressure from the Executive. Mr. McSWEENEY. Now, the gentle- man objects because the Secretary of Agriculture does not impose his thoughts and ideas on the committee. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I want the Secretary of Agriculture and the President to carry out the laws we have enacted here in Congress. I want a proper administration of the law and not maladministration. That has been the trouble with the potato program ever since it went into operation. It has been said that if they put the Brannan plan into operation where they let the price of potatoes sink down to a supply-and-demand level price this pro- gram would all work out and the people would eat more potatoes. I am some- what skeptical about that. I think they are eating all the potatoes they care to eat. But I know the price will go down. The Secretary says that the potato farmers should receive an average of $1.59 a bushel for their potatoes. That is under the Brannan plan. Last year we produced 402,000,000 bushels of potatoes. The surplus is from fifty to seventy-five million bush- els. You can imagine what would hap- pen to the price of potatoes if we let them sink down to whatever they would bring on the market. I estimate that they would probably go down to 35 cents a bushel. To be fair about it, let us just say that they went to 59 cents @ bushel. Under the Brannan plan the farmer is entitled to $1.59 a bushel on 1,800 units, or around 16,000 bushels. If the prices went down to 59 cents a bushel that would mean that the Gov- ernment would pay the farmer a dollar @ bushel on 16,000 bushels, under the 1,800-unit plan, or $16,000. So the farmer would have to get a check for a dollar a bushel on those po- tatoes in order to receive the income standard provided by the Secretary of Agriculture. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a ques- tion? Ithink this is important. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I know it is. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Was the gen- tleman in favor of the farm-support price program and parity? Mr, AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. The gentleman voted for the support pro- gram. But that has nothing to do with this. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. I would like to know if the gentleman was in favor of the support-price program. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I do not yield further to the gentleman, be- cause the gentleman is not sticking to the subject. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. But this is im- portant. I am asking for information. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. The gentleman can look up the record. He will know then that the gentleman sup- ported the Democratic farm bill which was approved by the conference com- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE mittee. While I was not satisfied with all provisions of the bill, because it did not give equality of treatment for dairy, poultry, and meat products, it was the best that we could get from a Democrati- cally controlled committee and Con- gress. Does that answer the gentle- man? I am not satisfied with the ad- ministration of the support program. It can only fail if present methods are con- tinued. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. That answers the question. But criticism is being made—— Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I re- fuse to yield further to the gentleman. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. The Brannan plan is one of the most important issues before the House. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I am going to tell you about it. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Mr, AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I re- fuse to yield further. The Secretary says that he does not have any law. We have found out that there is a joker in the bill—— Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I re- fuse to yield for a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. A point of order, Mr. Speaker, The SFEAKER pro tempore. gentleman will state it. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. I would like to have it noted in the Recorp that the Re- publican side demanded the regular order when I wanted to ask the gentleman a question. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I re- fuse to yield and I have the floor, Mr. Speaker. I have discovered that in the Depart- ment of Agriculture they found a joker in the Agricultural Act of 1949, the act that was put through by the Democratic majority in Congress, aided by a great many Republicans who wanted to get some kind of farm legislation. I point out that you have the Brannan plan in the act of 1949. They have discovered it in the Department, and I am wondering why the Secretary does not put it into operation. Section 407 of the act, under subpara- graph (d), the Secretary has authority to make contracts with potato producers and handlers so that the farmers who produce those potatoes will get either 60 or 90 percent of parity, whatever he fixes the price at. He can let those po- tatoes sink as low as they will go. He can fix the price on them. Then he can go to the Commodity Credit Corporation, which is asking for $2,000,000,000 more, and use such funds to pay the handlers and producers the difference between what the farmers get for their potatoes— and he fixes the prices on them—and the price that they should have gotten under the parity-support program. Now, it is in existing law. Why does he not use it? I will put the section in the Rrcorp, and I will quote the exact law. He has not used it. It appears that he wants to destroy the support program rather than The 1995 to improve it and make it workable. I am not satisfied with the present support program. However, I am willing to sit down with my colleagues on the commit- tee to work out a constructive program for agriculture, and the Secretary should be willing to cooperate. I am inserting hereafter section 407 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, approved by President Truman on October 31, 1949, and call your particular attention to clause D which authorizes the Sec- retary of Agriculture to sell perishable commodities owned by the Government at prices fixed by Lim. This section of the law has been used by the Department on two different occasions, and in both instances in dealing with potatoes, which I will shortly relate. Src. 497. The Commodity Credit Corpora- tion may sell any farm commodity owned or controlled by it at any price not prohibited by this section. In determining sales poll- cies for basic agricultural commodities or storable nonbasic commodities, the Corpo- ration should give consideration to the estab- lishing of such policies with respect to prices, terms, and conditions as it determines will not discourage or deter manufacturers, pro- cessors, and dealers from acquiring and carrying normal inventories of the commod- ity of the current crop. The Corporation shall not sell any basic agricultural com- modity or storable nonbasic commodity at less than 65 percent above the current support price for such commodity, plus rea- sonable carrying charges. The foregoing re- strictions shall not apply to (A) sales for new or byproduct uses; (B) sales of peanuts and oilseeds for the extraction of oll; (C) sales for seed or feed if such sales will not substantially {mpair any price-support pro- gram; (D) sales of commodities which have substantially deteriorated in quality or as to which there is a danger of loss or waste through deterioration or spoilage; (E) sales for the purpose of establishing claims aris- ing out of contract or against persons who have committed fraud, misrepresentation, or other wrongful acts with respect to the com- modity; (F) sales for export; (G) sales of wool; and (H) sales for other than primary ‘uses. But, suppose that the Secretary would put the Brannan plan into operation on potatoes raised in 1949. The Depart- ment estimates the 1949 crop at 402,- 000,000 bushels. The Secretary states that farmers should reccive an average of $1.59 per bushel for potatoes. Assum- ing that the average market price of potatoes would drop to 59 cents per bushel, and I believe that the price would be lower, the Secretary would pay the farmer $1 per bushel as a production pay- ment, if Congress appropriated the money. Each farmer would be entitled to receive protection on 1,800 units or 16,000 bushels of potatoes which would amount to $16,000 for every farmer that produced 1,800 units, or a total cost to American taxpayers of $400,000,000 to provide production payments on the 1949 potato crop. Can you imagine this or any other Congress providing such a staggering sum to subsidize a few potato producers. Mr. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN, I re- fuse to yield at this time.
1996 Mr. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will count. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I will yield to the gentleman. Mr. GRANGER. I withdraw the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN, Let me finish this statement, please, and then I will yield. I repeat, with the as- sumption that potatoes would go to 59 cents a bushel if we had the Brannan plan—I think they would go probably to 30 or 35 cents a bushel—but assuming they went to 59 cents a bushel, the Sec- retary would take out of the taxpayers of this country a dollar a bushel and pay the producers, and the program would cost for the 1949 crop over $402,000,000. I understand that the experts in the Department have been figuring out how much this Brannan program would cost for all commodities. They got the fig- ure. I could not get it. They would not release it. But I understand the figure is so stupendous that they have sup- pressed publication of the amount. I now yield to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. GRANGER. Of course, the gen- tleman can make any assumption he wants on what the potato program would cost, if he says it is going to be so much a bushel and says nothing about what the production will be. The gen- tleman well knows that when you are figuring on what the support price would be on potatoes, the Secretary was figur- ing on a reduction in acreage, which would make all the difference in the world in what the gentleman is trying to say. Furthermore, let me say that the law which the gentleman says has been discovered has not been discovered. We discussed that in the committee. We discussed it with the Secretary, and he told you and he told me that he did not think he had the authority and he did not want to exercise it without direct authority from the Congress. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Well, he has the authority. They have dis- covered they can use it, and they have used it before. In fact, they used the same provision of law back in 1943 when the Secretary of Agriculture made con- tracts with 25 potato handlers from Maine to Idaho, and they purchased 6,469,000 hundredweight of potatoes, and the Secretary fixed the price of those potato2s at 67 cents per hundredweight below the support price, and he wrote checks out of the United States Treasury to reimburse handlers and producers for the loss. It cost the taxpayers $4,341,- 561.25. The same section of the law was used by the Secretary for the 1947 potato crop at a cost of $32,000. The facts are that the Secretary can use existing law to sell Government-owned perishable commodities in the domestic market at low prices, without loss to the producer. I doubt very much if the Secretary is serious about enacting the so-called Brannan plan as a solution of the farm problem. He would rather use it as a political issue as it promises everything CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE to all people without mentioning that the beneficiaries will pay the bill in higher taxes under a regimented economy that will leave all controls in the hands of bureaucratic Washington. Furthermore, if Congress would fail to appropriate the billions of dollars necessary to carry out his plan, the Secretary knows that the farmers under the program would wind up in bankruptcy and without any farm program whatsoever. Under the Bran- nan plan, farmers would be completely dependent upon the Federal Govern- ment for a substantial proportion of their farm income. Failure to make producer payments would result in a bankrupt agriculture and a beginning of a Nation- wide depression of staggering propor- tions, which would destroy our entire economy. To avoid such a disaster we must have a sound program that will assure prosperity for agriculture as the one basic industry in our American economy. While the Secretary may claim that he needs additional authority or direction from Congress to put his plan into opera- tion for potatoes and other perishable commodities, it is ironical that he de- manded the repeal of the Agricultural Act of 1948, which he and his solicitors claim gave him full authority to put the Brannan plan into operation. It seems to me that we have a right to question the Secretary’s sincerity. COST OF 1948 POTATO SUPPORT PROGRAM Secretary Brannan has made many public utterances as to the cost of the po- tato-support program for the 1948 crop. The program cost -$225,000,000. As stated earlier in my remarks, the Sec- retary attempts to place the blame for these excessive costs on the Eightieth Congress and the Republicans. The facts are that the support program for the 1948 potato crop was handled under the Democratic law continued for a 2- year period by President Truman on De- cember 31, 1946. The Hope provisions of the act of 1948 did not become effec- tive until the potato crop of 1949. The Hope Act specified potato supports at from 60 to 90 percent of parity. If it were not for large imports of Canadian potatoes in 1949 and 1950, the cost of the 1949 potato program would be at least 50 percent under the figures speci- - fied by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary of Agriculture consist- ently refused to supply me and other members of the committee with detailed information on the cost of the 1948 po- tato-support program. When I requested him to supply me with information as to the amount of individual payments made to large potato producers, he refused to give ittome. Shortly after he denied my request for information a well-known and able newspaper reporter published all of the information in a Washington paper. This news story disclosed that several commercial potato producers had received as much as $500,000 from the Government. This newspaper report had all of the facts. If the Secretary did not have this vital information, I would like to know what employee in the Department supplied the information to the reporter and withheld it from the Secretary. FEBRUARY 20 Facts in my possession disclose that around $200,000,000 was divided or paid to less than 30,000 large commercial po- tato producers for their 1948 crop. The small producers got very little out of it. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I yield for a question, not a speech. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. I wish to ask the gentleman if the Brannan plan is not a simple business proposition. If the manufacturers of the supplics that the agricultural industry must use charge such tremendous prices and make such tremendous profits, does not the Brannan plan furnish an answer? I will give the gentleman an illustration. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. What is the gentleman’s question? Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Take barbed wire, at $8.50 a roll. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. That is never used on potatoes. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Yes, it fs. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. No; out in the gentleman’s country they do not fence their potatoes in. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. The only way in which the farmer can get money to buy the equipment and machinery he needs is by selling the produce he raises. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I do not yield further; I understand the gen- tleman's point of view. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. How can he pay the increased prices and swollen profits of those manufacturers if he does not receive a support price that keeps our economy in balance? Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I un- derstand the gentleman's philosophy, and I agree with him that our economy must be kept in balance. Surely, if farm prices are permitted to sink to whatever the market will bring, the farmer will be out of line on all of the items he is re- quired to buy, including barbed wire and farm machinery. The support program was enacted to provide a floor under farm prices, with the aim that agricultural purchasing power would be on a parity with other segments of our economy. It should be obvious to the gentleman from Idaho that farmers cannot long continue in business if they get low prices for farm products and pay high prices for the things they must buy. The gentleman has referred to swollen profits of manufacturers of farm ma- chinery and equipment, and suggests that they be required to finance the Brannan plan that he wants enacted into law. I hold no particular brief for man- ufacturers. They have been making large profits. But the gentleman over- looks that all manufacturers and busi- ness concerns collect their costs and profits from consumers and buyers of farm machinery and other consumer goods. Consumers pay the bill. They also pay the cost of government largely through taxes hidden in the price of com- modities and articles consumers pur- chase. The farmer and people living on fixed incomes are the only groups that cannot pass on their taxes to other con- sumers. I say to you frankly that the high cost of government is responsible for the high cost of living. Reduce the
1950 cost of government and you reduce the cost of living. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. If you withdraw support from the agricultural industry the factories will have no market for their output. The Brannan plan offers the only solution by drawing off these ex- cess profits and paying them where they belong, to support our national economy. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I agree with you that if supports are withdrawn from agriculture, the Nation will ex- perience a serious depression. The sup- port program is intended to maintain agricultural purchasing power in order to avoid or prevent a depression. I cannot agree with you that the Bran- nan plan is the only solution. When we consider that the success of the Brannan plan wholly depends upon annual ap- propriations made by Congress, the gen- tleman from Idaho should have enough experience to realize that such appropri- ations will not be made—especially at a time when the Truman administration is running a deficit of $5,000,000,000 a year. Again I say, that if Congress fails to ap- propriate the billions of dollars necessary to carry out the Brannan proposal, the farmers will be headed for bankruptcy and without any farm program whatso- ever. That will result in a Nation-wide depression. I would also like to point out that a farm plan similar to Brannan’s proposal has been in operation in Socialist Eng- Jand for the past 5 years. The Socialist government soon liquidated the large in- come individuals by heavy taxes, and after that the rank and file of the people paid the bill through higher taxes. Then the American taxpayer began financing this Socialist experiment. The first con- tribution to England from this country was in the nature of a $3,750,000,000 loan in 1946, and after that we have kicked in over $1,000,000,000 a year. Mind you, this money came from American tax- payers. In England, the farmers are reg- imented and controlled by the Socialist government, and further, they have be- come dependent upon their government for a substantial portion of their income, and American taxpayers are helping to finance the bill. No, my friend, the Brannan plan is not the solution for American farmers. But getting back to potatoes again, out in the gentleman’s country they raise so many potatoes it is unbelievable; they put a lot of fertilizer in the ground and they get tremendous production. We in Minnesota can raise only 150 to 200 bushels an acre, but out in his country they raise 600 bushels to the acre; and they are good potatoes because they ship 2 lot into my own section. It shows how thrifty and vigorous they are in produc- ing abundance even on a reduced acreage. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. If the gentle- man will yield further, I will say some- thing he will like to hear. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Ishould be delighted to yield under any circum- stances if the gentleman has something pleasing to say to me. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. It is my con- clusion that if you have support prices and unlimited production the only an- swer is to keep the foreigners from com- xXCVI——126 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ing in and taking your markets, as they are doing with potatoes. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. The gcntleman thinks that is all right, does he? Mr. WHITE of Idaho. So that makes me a protectionist to that extent. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I am glad to hear the gentleman make that admission. Mr. WHITE of Idaho, I knew the gentleman would like to hear that. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. We must protect the American workers and producers from this flood of imports that are coming into the United States. If we do not, we will go down with the rest of the world and the outcome will be socialism or communism in the United States, Congress is blamed for the expensive fiasco in the potato-support program by the Secretary of Agriculture. He wants to destroy the general agricultural sup- port program and remove the price floor from diversified products produced by farmers in Northern States. If he suc- ceeds, farm prices on dairy and poultry products, hogs, fresh fruits, and vege- tables will drop to depression levels and these farmers will be headed toward bankruptcy. The trouble with the potato-support program is not in the law but mainly in the administration of it by the Secretary of Agriculture and the failure of the Truman administration to stop imports of large quantities of foreign-produced potatoes. Mr. Speaker, I say to you, in all seri- ousness, that those who seek to play poli- tics with the welfare of 6,000,000 farm families living in this country are jeop- ardizing the entire economy of the Na- tion. Agricultural prosperity is vital to the security and happiness of every American, and we, as legislators and offi- cials in Government, must get together in a cooperative and nonpolitical spirit to draft policies that will assure equality of opportunity for American farmers so they, too, may fully enjoy all benefits of our American standard of living. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has expired. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. FALLON asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a resolution. Mr. DONOHUE (at the request of Mr. FURCOLO) was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an editorial. SPECIAL ORDER The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the previous order of the House, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. HEsELTON] is recognized for 30 minutes. (Mr. Hese.ton asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks and include extraneous matter.) THE POTATO SITUATION Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with another aspect of this pota- to situation. It relates to those people who are in charge of the responsibility of administering welfare in all of our com- 1997 munities at a greatly increasing cost to the average taxpayer. It also deals with people who could eat these potatoes if we could get the potatoes to them but who are unable to purchase the potatoes on the open market. It deals particularly with a procedure which I think is practi- cal especially now through which we can be of some assistance in those cases. It will take about 15 minutes for me to place this information before the House. Then I shall be happly to yield to anyone who wishes to add any comments. I would like to report briefly on the developments in Greenfield, Mass., with reference to obtaining surplus potatoes from areas immediately adjoining Greenfield, and for the use of persons certified to be in need of them, but un- able to purchase them. I think you will all recall that there was @ meeting of the Senate Committee on Agriculture with the Secretary of Agriculture on January 31. Prior to the hour of that meeting, the Secretary had issued a press release covering his state- ment to be made before the committee. I shall insert the full release in the revision of my remarks, but I want to dea] now with one specific sentence. It is as follows: However, section 411 of the act of 1949 requires that section 32 funds be devoted principally to perishable nonbasic agricul- tural commodities which are not designed for mandatory price supports by the act. Potatoes are designed for mandatory sup- port, and it is therefore not possible to continue using these funds to finance po- tato disposal on a paid-freight basis. This was brought to the attention of the Secretary ana he called upon Mr, Edward M. Shulman, associate solicitor in charge of production and adjustment, Commodity Credit Corporation, to tes- tify. Mr. Shulman stated: I do not think it is a prohibition, The junior Senator from New Mexico inquired: Do you regard it as a prohibition? Mr. Shulman replied: No, sir. This was extensively discussed in the other body on February 2 and 3. I called specific attention to page 1427 of the Recorp where certain important facts are set forth, and specifically to the re- marks of the former Secretary of Agri- culture, the junior Senator from New Mexico, as follows: I call attention to the fact that in the 1949 Farm Act there is provision that com- modities in danger of spoiling can be handled in several specific ways. The Thomas amend- ment provides, first of ail, that such com- Modities shall be available to Indians and other needy persons within the United States. The school-lunch program and charitable in- stitutions * * * I may say to the Sen- ator from Wisconsin, I would like to see that provision of the act tried and tried vig- orously before we turn to the alternative of seeking at this late date to establish a stamp plan which has tremendous administrative dificulties. Nevertheless, on Friday evening, Feb- ruary 3, the Secretary ordered the field men of the Federal Department to start
1998 dumping the 50,000,000 bushels of sur- plus edible potatoes and predicted that the total to be destroyed in the next few weeks would be between 25,000,000 and 40,000,000 bushels at a cost of $1.25 per — bushel. That would be between $31,250,- 000 and $50,000,000. This precipitous ac- tion was tragic in the face of the state- ment of former Secretary of Agriculture Anperson in the Senate Friday afternoon that the 1949 act gave the Secretary dis- cretion to make these surplus commodi- ties available to school-lunch programs, to welfare and charitable institutions, and to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. On February 9 I was requested by re- sponsible constituents in Greenfield, Mass., to inquire as to the possibilities and procedures for obtaining some of these potatoes for persons in need of them but unable to purchase them. After conferences with the Division of Food Distribution Program Branch of the Department, I reported that I had been advised that the Department was willing to cooperate in this effort, and that it would send me copies of agreements which were available for completing ar- rangements for such distribution, I shall include copies of two agree- ments in the revision of my remarks known as Form FP-51, Agreement with the United States Department of Agri- culture for Distribution and Use of Com- modities, and the State agency, and Form FP-53, an Agreement Between Distribut- ing Agency and Recipient Agency for Commodities Donated by the United States Department of Agriculture. At this time, however, it is necessary to refer only to two sentences in these forms. In Form FP-51 there is the following sentence: Such distribution or use shall not be in excess of the maximum rates of distribution established by the Department. In Form FP-53 there is the following sentence: Commodities will be requested and ac- cepted only in such quantities as can and will be fully utilized but not to exceed the rates established by the United States De- partment of Agriculture. Let me emphasize those words, “not to exceed the rates established by the United States Department of Agricul- ture.” On July 1, 1949, effective immediately, the Federal Department issued a sched- ule of maximum quantities of section 32 commodities that may be issued to vari- ous-sized welfare families during 1 month, I shall include that schedule in the revision of my remarks, but for pres- ent purposes I need only refer to the schedule for Irish potatoes in particular. It provides the following maximum quantities: For 1 person__..----------.-.--.---.-- For 2 persons--.-.....-.. For 8 or 4 persons... For 5 or 6 persons... For 7 or 8 persons__..._- For 9 or 10 persons...... For 11 or more persons..-....------_.-. These maximums, particularly in the middle groups are absurd. I have made @ request for an immediate review and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE revision and shall report the results of the request as soon as I have them. The full press release follows: Unrrep StTatzs DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Jonuary 31, 1950. THE PRESENT POTATO SITUATION (A statement by Secretary of Agriculture Charles F. Brannan before the Senate Com- mittee on Agriculture and Forestry at 10 a.m., January 31, 1950) Once more I find it necessary to call to the attention of Congress a serious situation which has developed in the carrying out of mandatory potato price-support operations. The 1949 potato crop is now estimated at 402,000,000 bushels—nearly 40,000,000 bushels greater than the August-September offictal estimates of 363,000,000 bushels, and 52,000,- 000 above the production target of 350,000,000 bushels upon which the 1949 acreage goals were based. In other words, increased yields as a result of exceptionally favorable growing conditions have added about 40,000,000 bushels to the crop since the early fall estimates. And these 40,000,000 bushels have been added to the surplus which will have to be handled in carrying out price support. In terms of the price-support job, the situation is this; To date*we have bought @ little less than 20,000,000 bushels of 1949 potatoes. Our men now estimate that we will have to buy a total of around 65,000,000 to 70,000,000 bushels from the 1949 crop in order to meet mandatory price-support commitments. This means that we will still have to buy from 45,000,000 to 50,000,000 bushels, in addition to the potatoes already handled. It appears now that the final cost will range from 8 low of $80,000,000 to a high of 100,000,000, depending on the policy which is followed in disposing of the surplus stocks acquired from now on. This situation again points up the fact that we do not have an adequate mechanism to help farmers bring their production in line with the demand. The only medium avall- able to us under the existing legislation is to reduce price support. We did this, taking full advantage of the provisions of the law by dropping the support on 1949 potatoes to 60 percent of parity—the bottom of the per- missive range. At the same time, I pointed out in the public announcement of this de- cision on November 17, 1948, that I was doing this with reluctance, that it was not a desirable or adequate way to get production adjustments, and that I was taking the action only because no other effective way was available. Acreage goals for potatoes are not a posi- tive and effective way of securing downward adjustments in production. When they are not backed by marketing quotas—and they cannot be under existing legislation—they become largely voluntary. The fact is that the only effective mechanism which we are authorized to use in supporting prices is the purchase and withdrawal from the market of enough of the potato supply to maintain market prices at the predeter- mined support level. This tends to nullify the effectiveness of acreage goals or allot- ments. With the whole market supported, the producer who plants beyond his acreage allotment suffers no real penalty. He can simply sell in the open market at the support price, even if he ts ineligible to sell directly to the Government under price-support operations. Acreage goals were in effect for the 1949 potato crop on as realistic a basis as possible in terms of production requirements, average yields per acre, and equitable dis- tribution among the States. The national production requirement, or target for pro- duction, was reduced by 25,000,000 bushels FEBRUARY 20 from the 1947 and 1948 levels. Commercial acreage was reduced by 20 percent. The assumed yield was increased by 17 percent over that used for 1948, up to 186 bushels per acre. This assumed yield for 1949, as the basis for setting acreage allotments, was the average of actual yields in 1946 and 1947, and the then avatiable estimate for 1948— the years of the three highest yields of record. Most farmers went along with their allot- ments and total potato plantings in 1049 were in line with the national goal, but there were some decreases in low-producing areas and some increases in high-producing regions. Yields went up to 211 bushels per acre, in spite of the fact that in the summer it was officially estimated that they would be only slightly higher than the assumed yields which were the basis for goal estabe lishment. Practically all of this increase took place in the 18 late-surplus States, where the yield reached an average of 238 bushels per acre. It was obviously not pos- sible for the official crop reporters or anyone else to foresee the developments which would cause the late crop to progress so favorably. At that, the yield averages for 1949 as a whole did not vary nearly as greatly from the assumed ylelds as they had in 1947 and 1948. For 1950, we lowered the estimated re- quirement figure by another 15,000,000 bush- els—or to 335,000,000. We raised the yield estimate to 200 bushels per acre. We have cut the commercial acreage another 7 per- cent in establishing allotments. These steps should work toward production more nearly in line with demand for the 1950 crop, but as already pointed out we will be dependent not only on the weather but also upon the compliance of growers—especially those com- mercial producers in the higher-producing areas. The immediate probiem is what to do with the potatoes we will have to take off the market in the weeks ahead in order to keep prices at the required support level. There are alternate courses which can be followed with regard to the basic policy of disposal. We can continue to move all stocks to some diversion outlet, setting aside and spending the money necessary to see that the potatoes go into some secondary use. On the other hand, we can save something like $15,000,000 by simply permitting the potatoes to remain in the areas where they are produced. In the late spring of 1947, a Subcommittee on Food Shortages of the House Agriculture Committee recommended that the Depart- ment of Agriculture avoid dumping of pota- toes entirely, even if this required “marketing in areas distant from that where the local surplus exists.” This has been regarded as @ mandate to save potatoes regardless of cost, and the Department has dumped no potatoes since that time. Carrying out this diversion-at-all-cost policy has been very expensive. While the net cost for 1948 crop potato price support Was $224,000,000 it has been estimated that the commodity cost of the potatoes bought from that crop—the prices paid to producers, including grading and sacking—was less than two hundred million. Around $25,000,000 of the net cost represented transportation charges, above any payments by recipients, in order to get the surplus potatoes to diver- sion points so that somebody would use them. The commodity costs themselves could be reduced matertally, of course, if grading, sacking, and other marketing services which are necessary when potatoes are to be moved out of the area were dispensed with. On the 1948 crop, it is estimated that these services involved an additional cost of about 830,000,000. In other words, an extra cost of about $55,- 000,000 in handling price-support opera- tions for the 1948 crop could have been saved by abandoning the potatoes right where
1950 they were produced. And we could save about $15,000,000 in handling the rest of the 1949 crop surplus if we dropped long-haul distribution. Certain provisions of our new legislation, the Agricultural Act of 1949, are complicat- ing our current potato-distribution opera- itions and adding to an already difficult situ- ation. In previous years, we have distributed large volumes of potatoes for human consumption in school lunch programs and nonprofit wel- faro institutions. Believing that this was an extremely desirable type of distribution, we have encouraged it to the limit through the use of the so-called section 32 funds for paying transportation and handling charges, in addition to the commodity cost itself. However, section 411 of the act of 1949 re- quires that section 32 funds be devoted prin- cipally to perishable nonbasic agricultural commodities which are not designated for mandatory price supports by the act. Pota- toes are designated for mandatory support, and it is therefore not possible tou continue using these funds to finance potato distri- bution on a paid-freight basis. The act provides (in sec. 416) for dona- tion of commodities such as potatoes to school lunch and welfare outlets, but they must be donated f. o. b. at shipping point. In other words, we can no longer pay trans- poitation charges on this type of distribu- tion. However, there ts provision in the act for distribution for livestock feed of commodi- ties which are threatened with loss through spoilage, without the restriction on the pay- ment of transportation or handling charges, The paradox of u situation in which we would pay transportation costs on potatoes going for livestock feed, but would be forced to assess such charges to those who wanted them for human food, is so obvious that we jeel obligated to discontinue paid-freight distribution for livestcok feed. The result of this whole situation is that our purchases could not be stepped up as much as needed for support purposes in re- cent weeks, because purchases beyond cur- rently available disposal outlets would ob- viously create an untenable situation. With a lag in purchases, market prices are dipping below the support level. Growers, principally in the Northeast and North Cen- tral areas, are rightfully complaining. They have been promised price support at a man- datory level, and they are entitled to it. The present situation must not be permitted to continue. Decisions must be made prompt- ly so that support operations can be reac- tivated to protect potato farmers. I want to make one thing clear. The De- partment of Agriculture has done and is con- tinuing to do everything it can to move surplus potatoes under the provision of the act of 1949. We have offered them to United States exporters at 1 cent a hundred pounds for shipment outside the country, and while we are working aggressively on this and have had some inquiries it is obvious that any possible export outlets will not move a sig- nificant volume. Large enough orders are not available now when needed. We have offered potatoes for donation under the terms of section 416 of the act, and have made every effort to stimulate this type of distribution. We have been in touch with the Munitions Board and other agencies which might be interested in exchanging potatoes for strategic materials produced abioad. We have notified the Bureau of Indian Affairs and all public and private domestic welfare agencies that the potatoes are available without cost. We have given similar notice to private welfare organiza- tions which might be interested in ship- monts to rel'cve needy persons outside the United States. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE In spite of our best efforts to encourage these donation outlets, the agencies con- cerned are not showing any great desire to place requests. As pointed out before, the fact that school-lunch programs and wel- fare agencies will now have to pay the trans- portation costs may actually slow down this distribution. In any event, it is apparent that all these donations and export outlets will not correct the situation we now face in the potato-producing areas—a situation which is growing more aggravated dally. It is now time for a decision on potatoe distribution policy. It would be possible, of course, to continue all-out efforts to divert in order to avoid the unpleasant task of seeming to destroy potential crop values. Alcohol plants, for instance, would probabiy accept substantial shipments of potatoes if we make them available at practically a zero price and pay all costs of transportation to their plants. It must be borne in mind, however, that there is no scarcity of end products such as alcohol or starch. In fact, diversion of potatoes to these products will contribute to surplus problems for other commodities. After the most careful consideration, and in view of all the factors involved, we have decided that the soundest and most prac- tical course for us to follow in handling the rest of the 1949 potato crop surplus is to limit distribution to outlets which will not involve cost to the Government beyond the commodity cost itself. In other words, we intend to move all the potatoes we can through practical diversion channels, gen- erally in or reasonably near the areas of production. But when these outlets have been used we will dispose of surplus potato stocks in the least expensive way, which will at times mean dumping them locally. This is the course we will follow, unless the Congress directs us to do otherwise. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HESELTON. I will be glad to. The gentleman also filed one of the four bills. Mr. KEATING. I asked the Bureau of Human Nutrition to break-down for me the number of pounds of potatoes per family of four persons that cach family could get out of the surplus amount they have on hand, and they tell me that every family of four persons 1n the land is entitled to 80 pounds of potatoes out of this surplus. Of course, as the gen- tleman knows, there are many families that do not need this help with their grocery bills which should make avail- able all the more for those that do. I certainly agree with the gentleman, therefore, that these maximums should be raised. Mr. HESELTON. I thank the gen- tleman for that comment. I might say that I took the trouble Saturday, and’I should have them some time today, to order pictures taken of what those quan- tities would be. I think the Members will be amazed to find out that it amounts in the neighborhood of seven to eight medium-sized potatoes for a fam- ily of three persons for a week and the same number of slightly larger potatoes for a family of four persons for the same period. To go on: My constituents from Greenfield had been assured of cooperation on the part of the commodity distribution division of the Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare and over the week end 1999 all of the clergy of that town, together with the Council of Social Agencies, con- ducted a complete survey in order to pro- vide exact information. They did this because they had been advised it would be necessary to make this survey and to report definite figures. Then, we ran into insistence by the State office that these potatoes which were largely located within a radius of 6 to 10 miles of Greenfield would have to be transported south to Springfield, a matter of some 25 miles, unloaded, weighed, and rebagged presumably into these lots of 10, 20, 25, 35, 45, 55, and 65 pounds constituting the maximum amounts. Of course, they would then have to be brought back through these communities where they are now stored and delivered at Greenfield. All of this was in the face of the willingness by the Salvation Army at Greenfield to use its truck in going a few miles to obtain these potatoes, take them to Greenfield, store them and be responsible for their distri- bution. I not only got in touch with the Department here, but I wired Governor Dever of Massachusetts, requesting his cooperation to remedy this. On February 15, I wired the Secretary of Agriculture stating the entire back- ground, including the fact there were approximately 7,000,000 pounds of sur- plus potatoes now available for food in the Connecticut Valley, and included the following sentence: In view of complete rellability and good faith of clergy of Greenfield, Council of Social Agencies, and Salvation Army and of extra unnecessary expense to the taxpayers of Massachusetts and United States if rigid compliance required and under all circum- stances in terms of providing these potatoes for food for people who need them now, I respectfully urge your prompt action in or- dering the requirements of FP-51 and FP-53 waived so that these potatoes may be made available promptly and without expense to these people. This is a perfect illustration of the sheer impossibility of a Federal depart- ment undertaking to manage a far- flung program affecting all of our com- munities, large and small, without pro- viding flexibility, without recognizing that the officials and citizens of our com- munities not only have ability and in- tegrity, but that they can do a far bet- ter piece of work in carrying out the de- tails of any such program than can State or Federal officers undertaking to han- dle the entire program. I am glad to report that on Saturday the boarJ of public welfare at Greenfield formally agreed to act as the storing and distributing agency for potatoes in the town of Greenfield, and so informed the director of commodity distribution in Boston. I hope that this has met with approval in Boston by this hour and that these potatoes can be started from stor- age spots to people who are in need of them within the matter of hours. All this points up the immediate ne- cessity of consideration by the Commit- tee on Agriculture of the identical bills filed on February 2—H. R. 7135, H. R. 7136, H. R. 7137, and H. R. 7138. I shall include a copy of that brief resolution in an extension of my remarks, so it may
2000 be readily available. I urge all who are interested in providing clear and spe- cific authority which will prevent waste and destruction of these enormous quan- tities of food commodities to join in re- questing an early hearing upon these bills. The bill is as follows: H, R. 7137 A bill to amend Public Law 439, Eighty-first Congress, cited as the “Agricultural Act of 1949” Be it enacted, etc., That in order to pre- vent the waste, and to assure proper utiliza- tion of food commodities acquired through price-support operations, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Commodity Credit Cor- porate are authorized and directed to make vallable such commodities as follows in the order of priority set forth: First, to school- lunch programs; and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Federal, State, and local public- welfare organizations for the assistance of needy Indians and other needy persons; sec- ond, to private welfare organizations for the assistance of needy persons within the United States; third, to private welfare or- ganizations for the assistance of needy per- sons outside the United States. The Secre- tary of Agriculture shall first determine that ny such commodities are in ample supply over and above such reserves a8 may be re- quired and deemed in the public interest. The Secretary of Agriculture and Commodity Credit Corporation shall make any such commodities available at point of storage, at no cost save handling and transportation costs from point of storage. The Secretary of Agriculture and the Commodity Credit Corporation may advance as against han- dling and transportation costs in making de- livery up to the equivalent of 6 months’ storage costs on any such commodities turned over, Finally, as soon as these potatoes in the Connecticut Valley have been dis- tributed, I shall attempt to provide a brief memorandum covering the proce- dure which, in this instance, diverted these potatoes from destruction to food purposes. With this clear precedent, I am confident that others who may be in- terested can provide their communities with all the information necessary to accomplish this purpose. Yet, may I point out that unless these resolutions, to which I have referred, are enacted in some form, this precedent will only serve those communities located within a rea- sonable distance from the places of stor- age and that this, of itself, leaves a clear inequity in the program. I hope to have very shortly official figures as to the cost of storage on these several food commod- ities. Based upon the information I have been able to obtain, I think {t is safe to assume that storage charges on a limited list of food commodities are running well in excess of a million dollars a month. Furthermore, if the Secretary was ac- curate in stating that the cost of destruc- tion of potatoes alone would run between thirty-one and a quarter million to fifty million dollars,it is obvious that this is a situation which required the immediate consideration of Congress. May I conclude by inserting a copy of a letter signed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Corsetr], the gentle- man from New York [Mr. Keatrna], the gentleman from Pennsylvania {Mr. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Hucx D. Scott, Jr.) and myself and sent today to the chairman of the Commit- tee on Agriculture. I hope a great many of you who are concerned as to this mat- ter and feel that some prompt action must be taken will support our request by letter or by personal efforts. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HovusE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., February 20, 1950. Hon. Harorp D. Coorer, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Re: H. R, 7185, H. R. 7136, H. R. 7137, H. R. 7138, Dear Mr. CHAIRMAN: May we call your at- tention to these identical resolutions filed in the House February 2, 1950, and referred to the Committee on Agriculture. Because of the urgent nature of the prob- lem presented in terms of the proposed de- struction of edible surplus potatoes, some of this destruction we understand having been carried out, we request your full cooperation in setting these resolutions down for hear- ing at the earliest possible date. We believe the full facts should be developed as quickly as possible so that this destruction may be avoided and this particular commodity made available for food. We are confident that you and all members of the committee recog- nize the emergency nature of the problem, and we hope that you will believe that we have tried to make a constructive suggestion in the interest of the American taxpayer and in the interest of those millions of Americans who unfortunately are not able to purchase this fine food commodity in the open market, We are informed that the latest figures show 2,715,751 persons receiving old-age pen- sions, 1,486,404 receiving dependents and children’s benefits, 92,000 blind people re- ceiving help, and 543,000 on the State and local relief rolls. With this total minimum figure of 4,837,155 people who could make use of these potatoes if they could be given to them, there are many thousands more who clearly are not able to pay the current price of potatoes and therefore are not purchasing them. According to the Commodity Credit Corpo- ration, as of December 31, 1949, it held ap- proximately 277,480 tons of 10 surplus food commodities which can be eaten without further processing. The Corporation's offi- cial report shows that the total cost was approximately $265,000,000. We hope we have made a suggestion which can be uti- lized to get this food to deserving people rather than to pay additional amounts for storage and ultimately hire more people and pay further amounts to destroy this food. Respectfully yours, Rosert J. CORBETT, Thirteenth District, Pennsylvania. KrennetH B. Kxatina, Fortieth District, New York, JOHN W. HESELTON, First District, Massachusetts, Huon D. Scorr, Jr., Sixth District, Pennsylvania, I now include the full texts of Forms FP-51, FP-53, FP-53A, FP-53B, the schedule of maximum quantities of sec- tion 32 commodities that may be issued to various families in 1 month, together with the texts of certain regulations and instructions issued by the Department in this field designated FDP 842.1, 843.1, 843.2, 843.8, and 844.2. Together they are clear, compelling evidence and a clas- sic example of regulation. You will find in them little, if any, recognition that the FEBRUARY 20 people in our communities know any- thing of their problems or that they have the intelligence to deal with them honestly and capably. But the tedious course forced upon the people of Green- field before they could find a way through this tangled maze of red tape and the re- sulting silly results should ease the course and efforts of people in other communi- ties, if they are in a position to obtain some of these potatoes for people who need them. Form FP-51 (7-31-46) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, AGREEMENT WITH THE UNIT=p States DEPART- MENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR DISTRIBUTION AND Usz or ComMMODITIES The ......----------..--------.- ancanmence (Name of agency) (Street and No. or RFD Box No.) (County) hereinafter referred to as the agency, hereby makes application on behalf of itself, and other agencies which may subsequently des- ignate the agency to act in their behalf, for commodities donated by the United States Department of Agriculture, hereinafter re- ferred to as the Department. The agency agrees to accept the responsi- bility for the distribution or use of any commodities donated to the agency and to provide or cause to be provided proper facil- ities and arrangements for the acceptance and distribution or use of such commodities in accordance with the following minimum terms and requirements: 1, To designate a representative who shall be charged with the responsibility for the proper management and control of all ac- tivities pertaining to the distribution or use of commodities. He shall be authorized to sign on behalf of the agency requests for commodities, reporte, or other documents necessary in the operation of the direct, dis- tribution program. 2. To accept and distribute or use the com- modities in a manner which will assure that they will be used in addition to, and not in substitution for, commodities normally purchased or funds normally provided. 8. To confine distribution or use of com- modities received from the Department to or by persons, groups, agencies, or other re- cipients determined to be eligible, in accord- ance with instructions issued by the De- partment, to receive donated commodities. Such distribution or use shall not be in ex- cess of the maximum rates of distribution established by the Department. 4. That care will be exercised at all times to prevent donated commodities from being Gistributed or used in such quantities or manner as to encourage waste, deterioration, or misuse, 5. To furnish adequate personnel and proper facilities to receive, handle, store, dis- tribute, and, in the case of institutions and school lunch or child-feeding programs, to Prepare and serve the commodities in ac- cordance with instructions issued by the Department, 6. In the case of institutions and school lunch or child-feeding program, food will be served in a common dining room, wher- ever possible, and there will be no dis- crimination or segregation whatever between Paying and nonpaying persons in the type of meals served and the manner of serving. 7. That representatives of the Department may make inspection at any reasonable time of the commodities in storage, or of the
1950 facilities or warehouses used in the handling or storage of commodities. 8. To assume full responsibility for demur- rage or any other charges which may accrue after a car has been placed for unloading by the delivering carrier at the point desig- nated in Form FP-54, delivery order, or if such placement is prevented by any cause at- tributable to the consignee or any agent of the agency. 9 The agency will maintain true and ac- curate records pertaining to the receipt and distribution or use of the commodities. Such records shall be retained by the agency for a period of at lekst 2 years and shall he available during such period for inspection by representatives of the Department at any reasonable time and piace. The agency will submit monthly reports on Form FP-155 to the Department on or before the 10th of the month following the monthly period covered by the report. 10. Containers received with shipments of donated commodities from the Department will be used exclusively in the redistribution or storage of commodities received or will be sold promptly. Such sales will be care- fully supervised and made at a price levet which will not disrupt the market for similar products or otherwise interfere with the manufacture and sale of similar containers. The funds derived from the sale of such containers will be used by the agency only for costs involved in distributing or using donated commodities. 11. The agency further agrees to investi- gate promptly all complaints received in con- nection with the distribution or use of the donated commodities and to correct any ir- regularities disclosed, reporting promptly to the Department in each instance. The De- partment shall have the final determination as to when a complaint has been properly adjusted, whereupon it shall be considered closed. 12. The agency is (check type of agency): a. One to which commodities will be do- nated solely for redistribution to eligible recipients with which the agency, acting as an agent of the Department, has executed agreements. b. One to which commodities will be do- nated solely for distribution to or use by persons whom it serves or assists. c. One to which commodities will be do- nated both for redistribution to eligible re- cipients and for distribution to or use by persons whom it serves or assists. 13 The agency is: (Check one—if 12a above is checked, omit this item). {_) A nonpenal eleemosynary institution. [] A private hospital serving some cases without cost to the patient. (-] Operating a nonprofit school-lunch or Child-feeding program serving children of high-school grade or under. (| A State welfare agency [7] A county wel- fare agency which will restrict distribution to per- agen cy local welfare sons eligible to re- ["] A private welfare ceive commodities. agency {_] Other; specify 14. There are _.---- persons (check one— if 12a above is checked, omit this item). Who are patients served without cost by the private hospital. Who are served meals daily by the school- lunch or child-feeding program. Who are receiving assistance from the agency. 16, The agency or the department may ter- minate this agreement by giving 30 days’ no- tice in writing to the other party. The De- partment may cancel this agreement imme- diately upon receipt of evidence that the terms and condition, thereof have not been CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE fully complied with by the agency. Sub- ject to such notice of termination or can- cellation of the agreement, the agency agrees to comply with the instructions of the De- partment either— a. To distribute all remaining inventories of commodities donated by the Department in accordance with the provisions of this agreemrnt; or b. To redonate such inventories to the De- partment and to transmit such reports as are required by the Department to record final disposition of such inventories. All reporting requirements of this agree- ment have been approved by, and subsequent reporting and record keeping requirements will be subject to the approval of the Bureau of the Budget in accordance with the Federal Reports Act of 1942. Date _.---------.--------- +--+ Approved ° UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Form FP-53 (5-13-48) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, AGREEMENT BETWEEN DISTRIBUTING AGENCY AND RECIPIENT AGENCY FOR COMMODITIES Do- NATED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE The below-named recipient agency hereby makes application for commodities donated by the United States Department of Agri- culture to the below-named distributing agency. The recipient agency is (check type of agency): ( Operating a nonprofit school-lunch pro- gram and is serving ~..... persons of high- school grade or under daily. (Average datly participation.) There are children enrolled in the school. ( Operating a nonprofit child-feeding pro- gram (other than a public or private school), such as summer camps, child-care centers, playgrounds, etc., and is serving ~-_-_. chile dren daily. O A nonpenal, charitable institution with eo---- persons residing therein. 0 A public/private welfare agency with eum persons receiving assistance from the agency. Distribution is restricted to persons eligible to receive commodities. Only schools will fill in one of the boxes below: NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH INDEMNITY PROGRAMS Only schools that have an agreement with @ State agency under which they operate in the national school lunch program will sub- mit the requested information in this box. The children are served the following type lunch (check applicable box or boxes and fill in number of children served each type of meal): Type A (] (No. served) Type B [7] (No. served) Type O [7] (No served) 2001 NOT IN NATIONAL SCHOOL-LUNCH INDEMNITY PROGRAMS Only schools which do not have an agree- ment to operate a national school lunch pro~ gram will submit information in this box. This school conducts one of the following type programs (check one): |] Hot lunch prepared and served each day. (| No cooking facilities installed, but fresh and/or dried fruits and juices (milk) are distributed when available. The recipient agency hereby agrees to the following terms and conditions: 1. Commodities will be requested and ac- cepted only in such quantities as can and will be fully utilized but not to exceed the rates established by the United States De- pariment of Agriculture. 2. Commodities received under this agree- ment will b2 used solely for the benefit of those persons served or assisted by the recipient agency and will not be otherwise disposed of without prior written approval of the distributing agency. Under no cir- cumstances will the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture commodities be sold or traded. Such commodities will be used in additicn to, and not in substitution for, com- modities normally purchased, and expendi- tures for food will not be reduced because of receipt of such donated commodities. (The preceding sentence does not apply to com- modities distributed under the terms of sec- tion 6 of the National School Lunch Act.) 8. Facilities for the proper handling and storing of commodities requested and ac- cepted will be provided. The distributing agency and the United States Department of Agriculture are authorized to inspect at any reasonable time the commodities in storage or the facilities or warehouses used in the handling or storage of commodities. 4. These foods will be served in a com- mon dining room, wherever possible, and there will be no distinction or segregation whatever between paying and nonpaying per- sons in the type of meals served and the man- ner of serving. 5. Containers received with the commod- ities donated by the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture will be used in accord- ance with instructions prescribed by the distributing agency. 6. Books and records pertaining to the receipt and use of commodities will be kept, for a period of not less than 8 years, and re- ports furnished to the distributing agency as required. As a minimum, these books and records will contain the following: (a) a record of all commodities received, including date, and quantity; (b) an inventory record of donated commodities on hand at the end of each month; (c) a record of container use and an accounting of all funds derived from the sale of empty containers; and (d) a daily record of lunches served to chil- dren and institutional inmates (for schools under the national school lunch program, the present daily record of lunches served, form FP-9, will suffice). The distributing agency and the United States Department of Agri- culture are authorized to inspect such books and records at any reasonable time and place to insure compliance with the above condi- tions. (The record keeping requirements contained herein have been approved by the Budget Bureau in accordance with the Fed- eral Reports Act of 1942.) 7. Either agency may terminate this agree- ment by giving thirty (30) days’ notice in writing to the other party. The distributing agency may cancel this agreement immedi- ately upon receipt of evidence that the terms and conditions thereof have not been fully complied with. Subject to such notice of termination or cancellation of the agreement, the recipient agency agrees to comply with
2002 the instructions of the destributing agency, either (a) to distribute all remaining inven~- tories of the United States Department of Agriculture commodities in accordance with the provisions of this agreement or (b) to return such inventories to the distributing agency, and to transmit such reports as are required by the distributing agency to record final disposition of such invento les. (Signature of authorized representa- tive) Approved and certified for the period of Ban ene ene mance meween to October 31, 19_-. (Signature of authorized representa- tive) ExuisiTt B Form FP-53A (5-13-48) UnrTrep STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION. AGREEMENT BETWEEN DISTRIBUTING AGENCY AND RECIPIENT AGENCY FOR COMMODITIES Donaten BY THE UNITED StatTrs DEPART- MENT OF AGRICULTURE The below-named recipient agency hereby makes application for commodities donated by the United States Department of Agricul- ture to the below-named distributing agenoy. The recipient agency thereby agrees to the following terms and conditions: 1. Commodities will be requested and ac- cepted only in such quantities as can and will be equitably distributed and fully uti- lized by eligible schools ag listed on the at- tached Form FP-53B, but not to exceed the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE rates established by the United States Dee partment of Agriculture. 2. Commodities received under this agree- ment will be used solely for the benefit of those persons served or assisted by the recipi- ent agency and will not be otherwise disposed of without prior written approval of the dis- tributing agency. Under no circumstances will USDA commodities be sold or traded. Such commodities will be used in addition to, and not in substitution for, commodities nor- mally purchased, and expenditures for food will not be reduced because of receipt of such donated commodities. (The preced- ing sentence does not apply to commodities distributed under the terms of sec. 6 of the National School Lunch Act.) 8. Facilities for proper handling and stor- ing of commodities requested and accepted will be provided. The distributing agency and the United States Department of Agri- culture are authorized to inspect at any reasonable time the commodities in storage or the facilities and warehouses used in hand- ling or storage of commodities. 4. These foods will be served in a common dining room, wherever possible, and there will be no distinction or segregation what- ever between paying and nonpaying per- sons in the type of meals served and the manner of serving. 5. Containers received with the commadi- ties donated by the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture will be used in accord- ance with instructions prescribed by the distributing agency. 6. Books and records pertaining to the receipt and use of commodities will be kept, for a period of not less than 3 years, and reports furnished to the distributing agency as required. As a minimum, the recipient agency will maintain the following books and records: (a) A record and supporting related documents of all commodities re- ceived, including date and quantity; (b) a record of the distribution made to schools and receipts from the individual schools sup- porting such distribution: and (0) an ac- counting of container funds. The recipient agency will be responsible for the main- tenance of the following records by each school eligible to receive commodities under this agreement: (a) A record of all com- modities received, including date and quan- FEBRUARY 20 tity; (b) an inventory record of donated come modities on hand at the end of each month; (c) @ record of container use and an ace counting of all funds derived from the sale of empty containers; and (d) a daily record of lunches served to children. (For schoole under the National School Lunch program, the present daily record of lunches served, Form FP-9, will suffice.) The distributing agency and the United States Department of Agriculture are authorized to inspect such books and records at any reasonable time and place to insure compliance with the above conditions. (The record-keeping re- quirements contained herein have been ap- proved by the Budget Bureau in accordance with the Federal Reports Act of 1942.) 7. Either agency may terminate this agreee ment by giving 30 days’ notice in writing to the other party. The distributing agency may cancel this agreement immediately upon receipt of evidence that the terms and con- ditions thereof have not been fully complied with. Subject to such notice of termination or cancellation of the agreement, the re- cipient agency agrees to comply with the ine structions of the distributing agency, either (a) to distribute all remaining inventories of United States Department of Agriculture commodities in accordance with the provi- sions of this agreement, or (b) to return such inventories to the distributing agency, and to transmit such reports as are required by the distributing agency to record final dis- position of such inventories. (Name of recipient agency) (Address of recipient agency) (Title) Approved and certified for the period of to October 31, 19—, (Month) (Day) (Year) (Name of distributing agency) “(Signature of authorized representative) Wow ewe ne ene: eee wee een eee nen women nwa nn - (Title) Form FP-8B (5-13-48) RM FP-83A 8CH Name of school qa) (2) INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING COLUMNS 1 THROUGH 9 OF “ATTACHMENTS TO DIRECT DIS- TRIBUTION AGREEMENT FORM ¥P-53A SCHOOLS” Column 1: “Name of school.” For schools eligible to participate under the National School Lunch Act the school name should be entered exactly as it appears on the school-lunch agreement. For all other schools the official name of the school should be entered. Column 2; “Address.” U.S Department of Agriculture Production and Marketing Administration ATTACHMENT TQ piper DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT Address y By attendance national school-lun Type A (4) Typo B (5) For schools eligible to participate under the National School Lunch Act the address should be entered exactly as it appears on the school-lunch agreement, For all other schools the complete mailing address of the school should be entered. Column 8: “Average daily attendance.” This figure should represent the average number of children attending school daily. This column should not reflect the school enrollment figure, Columis 4, 5, and 6: “By schools partici- pating in NSL program,” Average daily number of meals served schools participating in program Typo O (6) Form approved Budget Bureau No, 40-R1835 Name and address of reofpient agency Able to use “Gey fruits’ | Approximate By schools not} and Juices clos ne date of participating only. unchroom for in national Insert check Summer vace school-lunch | (Y) mark, if program. applicable @ 8) (9) ey Bignature......-nencccccacnncnecncnacenccecnenneencesnasece These columns will be completed only for schools participating in the national school- lunch program, and should reflect the aver- age number of children eating in the lunch- room by meal type served. Column 7: “By schools not participating in NSL program.” This figure should represent the average daily number of meals served for schools that do not have an agreement with a State agency to operate under the terms of the National School Lunch Act, but that do cp- erate @ nonprofit school-lunch program.