10382 That $50,000 shall be transferred to ap- plicable appropriations of the Putilic Health Service for investigations and studies of effects of insecticidal and fungicidal residue on human health.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 188, line 6, after “(7 U, 8. C. 166)", to strike out “$4,185,900” and insert “$4,651,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 189, line 11, after “(7 U. 8. C, 147a)”, to strike out “$2,325,000” and insert “$2,384,400.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Control of emergency out- breaks of insects and plant diseases”, on page 189, line 21, after the word “clti- zens”, to strike out “$850,000” and insert “$2,350,000”; and in the same line, after the amendment just above stated, to in- sert “of which $1,500,000 shall be appor- tioned for use pursuant to section 3679 of the Revised Statutes for the purposes of said joint resolution only to the extent that the Secretary, with the approval of the Bureau of the Budget, finds necessary to meet emergency conditions.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Control of forest pests,” on page 190, line 19, after “(7 U.S. C. 147a)”, to strike out “$539,500” and insert "$590,000 ” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 190, line 22, after “(16 U. S. C., Supp. I, §94-1—594-5)”, to strike out “$900,000” and insert $1,800,000”, and in the same line, after the amendment just above stated, to insert “of which $1,000,000 shall be apportioned for use pursuant to section 3679 of the Revised Statutes for the purposes of said act only to the ex- tent that the Secretary, with the ap- proval of the Bureau of the Budget, finds necessary to meet emergency conditions.” The amendment was agreed to. ‘The next amendment was, on page 191, line 6, after “(16 U. S.C. 94a)”, to strike out “$3,280,000” and insert “$3,'700,000"; in the same line, after the word “amount”, to strike out “$508,750” and insert “$565,350; in line 12, after the word “States”, to strike out “$1,727,800” and insert “$1,947,150”; and in line 14, after the word “and”, to strike out “$1,- 043,450" and insert “$1,187,500.” The amendment was agreed to, \ The next amendment was, under the subhead “Forest Service,” on page 195, line 1, after the word “forests”, to strike out $26,890,000" and insert “$29,320,- The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 195, after line 4, to insert: Cooperative range improvements: For arti- ficial revegetation, construction, and main- tenance of range improvements, control of rodents, and eradication of poisonous and noxious planta on national forest lands, pur- suant to section 12 of the act of April 24, 1960 (Public Law No, 476), $750,000, to re- main available until expended. ‘The armnendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 196, line 0, after the figures “$1,300,000’, to insert “of which $30,000 shall be made available for the establishment of a for- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE est utilization service unit in the South- west.” Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, before we reach line 9, I should like to send to the desk an amendment which proposes an insertion on line 6 on page 196. The VICE PRESIDENT, Apparently the Senator's proposed amendment {s an amendment to the text of the bill. Therefore it is not in order at this time. The question is on agreeing to the amendment on page 196, line 9. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 198, line 14, after “section 10”, to strike out “$880,000” and insert “$1,000,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Forest development—Roads and trails,” on page 196, line 22, after the words “administration”, to strike out “$10,348,000" and insert “$12,000,000.” Mr. MURRAY. I send to the desK an amendment to the committee amend- ment and ask that it be stated. The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will state the amendment. The Leorsuarrv: Crerx. On page 196, line 22, it is proposed to strike out “$12,- 000,000” and to insert in lieu thereof “$14,500,000.” Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, this amendment is necessary because of the construction of Hungry Horse Dam in Montana. The cost of the construction 4s $108,000,000. As a result of the con- struction of this dam, highways, and roads in the forest have been destroyed. Therefore it wiil be necessary to build new roads to take the place of the roads which have been covered up. The log- ging and timber industry is the most important industry in the area, and it is absolutely necessary to construct these roads in order to protect the industry. As I understand, the Bureau of Reclama- tion has authority to construct new roads whenever old roads are destroyed. However, they are limited with respect to the character of roads that may be constructed under such circumstances, The roads which it will be necessary to construct in this case are of a character which will require expensive construc- tion. They are to be constructed on the side of hills. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MURRAY. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. Is it not customary to tn. clude the cost of relocating highways in the cost of the dam itself? I wonder why the cost of relocating highways for a dam should be put in an agricultural ap- propriation bill. So far as I know they are always put in the appropriation for the dam itself. Mr. MURRAY. The item now before the Senate is under the title “Forest Development Roads and Trails.” The roads to which I refer are forest roads. Mr. AIKEN. Even if a forest road is destroyed by the construction of a dam, it would have to be replaced by the agency of the Government which con- structed the dam. Mr. MURRAY. The agency of Govern- ment is itmited in the amount of funds which it can expend in the construction of a road. The specific road I have in JULY 17 mind is of a character which requires very expensive work, because it is on the side of a mountain. It is a read 52 miles long on the west side of the reservoir, and it must be buitt in order to make the national forest timber accessible. The timber products from the mills in this area are worth more than one and a half million dollars a year to the local industries, Wages alone amount to about $1,000,000 a year. In the construc- tion of the Hungry Horse project the Bureau of Reclamation has stated that it may request appropriations to replace roads which will be inundated or damaged by the reservoir, but not for roads of higher standards or Involving superior construction not required in connection with construction of the project. Mr. McKELLAR. May I ask the Sen- ator from Montana whether he came before the committee in connection with this amendment, or whether he got a budget estimate for it? Mr. MURRAY. Apparently it was—— Mr. McKELLAR. I do not believe it has ever come before the committee. We are reading the appropriation bill for committee amendmenis, and I hope the Senator will withhold his amendment. Mr. MURRAY. Iam satisfied to with- hold it. However, it may be that we could complete its consideration at this time. We have spent some time on it already. : Mr. McKELLAR. Was this proposed amendment laid before the committee? Mr. RUSSELL. Oh, no. Mr. MURRAY. This additional amount is necessary because of the spe- cial conditions which exist. The special conditions result from the construction of this huge dam, which has cut off the roads which were previously in use. In order to continue the lumber and milling industry it is necessary to construct this road. As I understand, in the construc- tion of the Hungry Horse project the Bureau of Reclamation has stated that it may request appropriations to replace roads, but not for roads of higher stand- ards or involving superior construction not required tn connection with the con- struction of the project. A survey is now under way to determine the location and cost of the road and the amount which the Reclamation Bureau is authorized to finance. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, my reason for questioning the Senator from Mon- tana as I did was because I thought it might be establishing an undesirable precedent if we undertook to charge the costs of work of this nature to the De- partment of Agriculture, when the cost is really necessitated by the operations of some other Department of Government. I am not questioning the need of the road, because I do not know anything about it. I merely questioned whether this is the part of the appropriation bill where the amendment shail be added, Mr. MURRAY. The Department of Agriculture bas jurisdiction over forest toads and trails. Mr. AIKEN. Is this @ ferest road or an access road? The Senator has said there is a nifilion and a half dollars worth of timber a year coming from the forest
1950 in this area. I think provision for access roads is included under some other ap- propriation. Mr. MURRAY. This amendment is not for building a new road to give access tothe timber. The business involved has been in existence for a number of years, and it is a very important industry in that section, amounting to many million dollars, With the roads now cut off as a result of the construction of the dam, it is necessary speedily to provide a new road. Mr. AIKEN, I still think it should be charged to the cost of the dam, instead of as an agricultural appropriation. Mr. MURRAY. The Bureau of Recla- mation is assuming that part of the cost which it is able to take under the Bureau of Reclamation law. The cost of the road is now being studied, and it is es- timated at $4,000,000. The share of the Bureau of Reclamation is estimated at from one and a half to two million. To make certain that funds are available to build a road of the necessary standard, two and a half million dollars should be added to the Forest Service appropria- tions at this point. To the appropria- tion of $12,000,000 provided in the bill, we are asking that two and a half million be added to order to make provision for the road. Mr. AIKEN. Does this request come from the Forest Service? Mr. MURRAY. I understand it has the approval of the Department. I have not any evidence of it here, but I know they have talked to me and have talked to my office about it, and the amendment was prepared for me by the Department. Mr. AIKEN. Will the Senator yield, so that I may ask the Senator from Geor- gia if the Forest Service requested this appropriation? Mr. RUSSELL. I do not doubt that the Forest Service would like to get all the money it could for roads and trails, but it did not especially request this ap- propriation, because it could not. It has a limitation on its budget estimates. I have a brief statement to make in connection with the amendment when the Senator from Montana concludes. Mr. MURRAY. I submit the matter. Mr. RUSSELL obtained the floor, Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Montana yield so that I may address a question to the Senator from Georgia? Mr. RUSSELL. I have the floor. Mr. HOLLAND. Can the Senator ad- vise the Senate as to whether the pro- posed increase of two and one-half mil- lion would be supported by the authori- zation, or whether the $12,000,000 com- pletely uses up the authorization? Mr. RUSSELL. I cannot say as to that. I think there is adequate authori- zation to take care of the two and a half million dollars, but I hope the Senate will not approve the amendment. It is en- tirely out of line with anything else in the bili, proposing as it does to appro- priate two and a half million dollars for one immediate project, for something which sounds almost suspiciously like a superhighway. There is nothing that causes us more trouble than forest roads and trails, There are innumerable for- ests scattered throughout the United CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE States, and in all of them roads are de- sired. I do not doubt we could spend $20,000,000 on forest roads, to the delec- tation of the people living in the commu- nities adjacent to them, and those who go into the forests for fishing and recrea- tional purposes. Mr. President, it is certainly all out of reason to ask two and a half million dol- lars above the Budget estimate for one road, even though it be one leading to & project so important as is the Hunery Horse Dam. This road ought to be built, if built at all, by funds that come from the same source and are used for the same purposes for which the dam is con- structed, and the Forest Development Road and Trail item should not be loaded up with such anitem. It is not justified or sustained by any budget estimate. Mr, YOUNG. Mr. President, I should like to add a word about the amendment. It properly belongs under the appropria- tion for the Interior Department, Bu- reau of Reclamation. All States have projects, perhaps on smaller scales than the one referred to by the Senator from Montana. In my own State there are some where there are parks nearby, and roads are needed, The money for the proposed road should come under the appropriation authorized for the dam. I am opposed to the amendment for another reason. The agricultural bill already contains a vast sum of money, and the public looks upon it as an ap- propriation for agriculture. If one made an analysis he would find that probably only about one-third of the money ap- propriated goes to agriculture. If this proposed appropriation is added, for an- other item which is not at all agricul- tural in nature, it only increases the amount apparently appropriated for ag- riculture but looked upon by the pub- lic sometimes as a subsidy. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Montana to the amendment of the committee. The amendment to the amendment was rejected. Mr, DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I should like to offer an amendment to the committee amendment, striking out the figure “$12,000,000” on line 22, page 196, and substituting $6,000,000"; in other words, to cut the appropriation in half. Last year we spent a litttle over $10,- 000,000 for the item of forest roads and trails. The House provided the same ap- propriation for the coming year as was made last year. The Senate committee raised the figure by $1,600,000. Mr, President, I have been going back over the history of appropriations and expenditures for roads in national for- ests and national parks, and I find very large sums spent over the years. In view of the national emergency, it seems to me we should slow up on road construc- tion, and save $6,000,000 on this item, and that is the effect of my amendment, The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Illinois to the amend- ment of the committee. The amendment to the amendment was rejected, 10383 The VICE PRESIDENT. The question now is on agreeing to the amendment of the committee. The amendment was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT, The clerk will state the next amendment of the committee, The next amendment was, under the subhead “Acquisition of lands for na- tional forests,” on page 197, line 14, after “(16 U. 8. C. 518-519, 521)”, to strike out “$100,000” and insert “$401,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Farm and other private for- estry cooperation,” on page 199, line 15, after the word “exceed”, to strike out “$490,382” and insert “$785,034”; in line 16, after the word “exceed”, to strike out “$671,392” and insert “$449,200”; and in line 17, after the word “exceed”, to strike out “$138,226” and insert “$65,766.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Flood control,” on page 200, line 3, after the word “expended”, to strike out “$10,750,000” and insert “$9,- 880,000.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the committee for mak- ing a reduction below of approximately a million dollars the amount provided by the House. I am informed, however, that of the final figure of about $9,900,- 000, which is being recommended for flood control in the Columbia Basin area, $1,900,000 is for planning, leaving about $8,000,000 for construction. Mr. President, the word “planning” seems to have a mesmeric influence upon Congress, causing us to appropriate very large sums for planning. In view of the national emergency, I hope that the com- mittee will persevere in its good work, and will consent to a reduction in the appropriation to $8,880,000, which will leave approximately $8,000,000 for con- struction, but will reduce the total for planning from $1,900,000 to nine-tenths of a million dollars. I hope the com- mittee will accept the amendment. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I regret very much that I would not feel author- ized to accept the amendment, If there is any justification for a reduction in this item, it should be applied to the con- struction item and not to the planning item. Mr. President, the planning item in- volves a Nation-wide plan to prevent the siltation of all of the vast reservoirs we are building at such enormous cost all over the United States, The jurisdic- tion of the Board of Army Engineers does not extend beyond the immediate watershed on which a dam is located. The Soil Conservation Service under- takes to draw plans for all the tributaries to the main streams so as to prevent the loss of fertile soil from thousands of acres of land to which we look for that which we eat and wear, as well as to prevent impairment of the investment of the United States in the main reser- voirs. The truth of the matter is that we are probably 20 years behind now with our planning. The planning is going forward. It is not limited to the Colum- bia River. Surveys are being made upon thousands of small streams throughout
10384 the entire United States. I do not be- Neve there is any item in the bill which is more inextricably connected with the future welfare of the United States and the sources of our food and fiber and the preservation of our soil resources than this planning item. I hope the Sen- ate will reject the Senator’s amendment. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Mlinois [Mr. Douc- Las] to the committee amendment on page 200, line 3. The amendment to the amendment was rejected. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the committee amend- ment, The amendment was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The next committee amendment will be stated. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Soil Conservation Service,” on page 201, after line 17, to strike out the subhead “Salaries and expenses.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 202, line 14, after the word ‘‘information”, to strike out "$52,900,000" and insert “$52,400,000.” Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I should like to ask the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Rosset.) to give me an explanation as to why this cut was made, and whether or not the cut will funda- mentally affect the soil-conservation programs which are being planned at the present time. I have received a num- ber of letters from persons in Minnesota who are vitally interested in soil-con- servation activities, in which they have told me that a cut in the budget amount would jeopardize their plans of opera- tion, including more areas and more counties being brought in under the pro- gram of the Soil Conservation Service. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I may state that there is no cut in the budget item, because the figure allowed by the Senate committee is approximately one- half million dollars above the Bureau of the Budget estimate. This is the one item where the House allowed the Depart- ment $1,000,000 above the Budget esti- mate. Since the House had allowed $1,000,000 above the Budget, it seemed that if there was any place where we could cut the bill by reducing in part of this increase above the Budget estimate, it was here. It is true there have been @ number of new soll-conservation dis- tricts organized, and they do not have all the technical staff they should have. But splendid progress is being made in the soil-conservation districts. It is not the kind of thing that can be done overnight. Plans must be drawn, and then the farmers must be induced to accept the plans. Then there may be required 9, 20-year program on one farm in order to complete the plans, It would be highly desirable, if conditions were not so difficult with respect to public funds, to increase this item about $4,000,000 and give all the soil conser- vation districts all the technical help they need. But I believe that by the proper use of the large number of tech- nical soil conservation cperators the service has, if it distributes them prop- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE erly, this work can be carried out with- out any damage whatever resulting from this modest cut. Mr. HUMPHREY. f thank the SBen- ator, because I think the people of Min- nesota, recognize that the Senator from Georgia is an outstanding expert in this field. I wanted the Recorp to show ex- actly what his observations on this sub- ject were. Mr, RUSSELL. I am not an expert, but I am an ardent advocate of soil conservation. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment on page 202, line 14. The amendment was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The next committee amendment will be stated. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Land utilization and vetire- ment of submarginal land,” on page 203, line 2, after the word “note”, to strike out $1,490,000” and insert “$1,665,175.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Water conservation and utill- vation projects,” on page 203, line 10, after the word “expended”, to strike out “$400,000 and insert “$500,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead ‘‘Production and Marketing Ad- ministration—Conservation and use of agricultural land resources,” on page 203, line 23, after the word “States”, to strike out “$282,500,000” and insert “$283,000,- 000”; and on page 206, line 2, after the word “States”, to strike out the colon and the following additional proviso: “Provided further, That not to exceed 5 rercent of the allocation for the agri- cultural-conservation program for any county may be allotted to the Soil Con- servation Service for services of its tech- nicians in formulating and carrying out the agricultural-conservation program and the funds so allotted shall not be utilized by the Soil Conservation Service for any purpose other than technical and other assistance in such county.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Sugar Act,” on page 207, line 23, after “(7 U. 8. C. 1001-1160)", to strike out $60,000,000" and insert “$63,750,000.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I as- sume that the amounts which we appro- priate under the sugar act are more or less prescribed by the act Itself? Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator from Illinois is correct. Of course, the Sena- tor knows that these funds are derived from a special processing tax upon sugar, and are set apart as payments to the sugar producers in this country. If the sugar production does not warrant the payment of this amount, which is mate- rlally below the budget, I will say the remainder is returned to the Treasury. In no years has there been paid to the producers of cane sugar and beet sugar of this country the entire amount col- lected from the special processing tax which is imposed for their benefit, Mr. DOUGLAS. I notice that the House appropriated $60,000,000, which was the amount appropriated for the last fiscal year. I think that should be sufficient, and I shall oppose the com- JULY 17 mittee amendment. The Senate com- mittee apparently divided the difference between the appropriation by the House end the recommendation by the Bureau of the Budget. - Myr, RUSSELL. The House appro- priated the amount which was appro- priated last year. The Bureau of the Budget allowed $67,500,000. I do not think that much money will be needed, but out of an abundance of precaution we did allow half of the increase in the budget estimate, which is $3,750,000, which, as I say, is derived from the spe- cial processing tax imposed upon sugar for the benefit of the producers of sugar in this country. Mr. DOUGLAS. It is not within the province of the Appropriations Commit- tee, but does the Senator know if the appropriate committee has considered the possibility of expanding the produc- tion of sugar further, in order to meet some of the shortages which have re- cently occurred in our cities? Mr. RUSSELL. Iam not an expert on sugar. I see present the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] and the Sena- tor from Florida (Mr. HoLianp], both of whom represent States which produce large quantities of sugar. I may say that the very purpose of these payments is to increase domestic production of sugar. In the last 50 or 60 years we have never produced more than a small per- centage of the sugar consumed in the United States. Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator from Georgia has referred to the fact that only a small percentage of the sugar con- sumed in the United States is produced in this country. I may point out that about 28 percent of the sugar consumed in the United States is produced in the continental United States. The re- mainder is imported from our possessions, and from Cuba and other foreign coun- ries, As the distinguished Senator from Ili- nois has correctly stated the amount provided is to pay conditional payments to sugar growers pursuant to existing law. As the Senator in charge of the pending chapter has stated the appropriation re- quested is $3,750,000 under the budget estimate. Should the amount herein appropriated be in excess of the sum re- quired to meet conditional payments to sugar growers such excess will revert to the Treasury. Mr. President, I trust that the recom- mended appropriation will not be dis- turbed. Mr. RUSSELL. Seventy-two percent of the sugar consumed in the United States is off-shore sugar. The purpose of the tax, as I said, is to increase the domestic production of sugar. Mr. DOUGLAS. I know that the do- mestic production is tied in with the in- ternational agreements with respect to production of sugar in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and so forth. But I think the needs of consumers should be given due weight in this matter, because the effect of the in- ternational sugar cartel, enforced by in- ternational agreements and by national law, has been greatly to boost the price of sugar for city consumers,
1950 The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the committee amendment on page 207, line 23. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, is the amendment which has just been agreed to the one which comes under the head- ing “Sugar Act"? Mr. RUSSELL. Yes. As I previously stated, the committee saw fit to approve an increase of $3,750,000 in the amount available for payments to sugar pro- ducers, Mr. WHERRY. Does the amendment provide for any change in the basic Sugar c Mr. RUSSELL. No; the amendment makes no change in the basic Sugar Act whatever. Such action could not be taken in connection with an appropria- tion bill. Separate legislation would be required to do so, Mr. WHERRY. I understood the dis- tinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. Doveras] to say that the act should be amended so the rights of consumers of sugar could receive greater recognition. Mr. RUSSELL. What the Senator said was obiter. He merely observed that the law should be changed for the benefit of consumers. Mr. WHERRY. That would require amendment of the substantive law. Mr. RUSSELL. Yes. The VICE PRESIDENT. The next committee amendment will be stated. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Marketing services,” on page 208, line 20, after the word “products”, to strike out “$2,050,000” and insert $2,187,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 211, line 23, after “(7 U. S. C. 135-135k) ”, to strike out “$3,550,000” and insert “‘$3,- 495,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Federal Crop Insurance Corpo-~ ration,” on page 212, line 6, after the word “expenses”, to strike out “$6,854,- 000” and insert “$7,204,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Salaries and expenses,’ on page 212, line 14, after the word “re- ports”, to strike out “$8,150,000” and in- sert “$8,750,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Loan authorization,” on page 212, line 21, after the word “program”, to strike out “$25,000,000” and insert “$40,000,000.” Mr, DOUGLAS. This amendment would increase by $15,000,000 the au- thorization for rural telephones. Mr, RUSSELL. Yes. We increased the loan authorization from $25,000,000 to $40,000,000 for the rural-telephone program which was authorized by an act of last year. It is still $10,000,000 below the budget estimate. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the committee amendment, on page 212, line 21. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. MYERS subsequently said: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the Rscorn, in connection with the REA amend- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ment, which I understand appears on page 212, a statement I have prepared. There being no objection, the state- ment of Mr. Myers was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: STATEMENT BY Senator Myers Within the last few weeks, this country has come face to face with a test that may well be as crucial as any in our entire history. In the final analysis—whether the decision is achieved now or some day in the future— it is a test of strength between the free world and the tyrannical world. The suc- cess of our cause will depend upon the strength of our free people, the strength of our democratic institutions, and the strength of our economic system. Let us thank God for the opportunities we have had to build that strength and for the enterprise that has impelled us to use our opportunities. Today, as we give consideration to the appropriation bill before us, I want to bring to the attention of the Senate what the farmers of America are doing through their REA program to build a stronger and more productive agriculture in this country. As @ result of the work they have already com- pleted, rural America is infinitely better pre- pared than ever before to meet whatever emergency may be forced upon us. If the lenders of our industry should an- nounce that they had just brought into 85 percent of their factories a new kind of low- cost power capable of increasing factory out- put and efficiency, it would be news that would startle the world. Yet that is exactly what the farmers through the REA are do- ing right under our very eyes, without fan- fare and without headlines. When ‘REA was established in 1935, only 1 farm in 10 had central station electric service. At the time of Pearl Harbor, 8 farms in 10 had electricity. Despite that relatively small percentage, electricity helped the farmer achieve record after record in production through the years of World War Ir Today, 85 percent of the farms in this country have electric power on them. The REA program that barely had time to get started before the Japs blasted us into the war, has, in the last 6 years, virtually revo- lutionized American agriculture. What farmer today would dream of under- toking a dairy farm without electricity? His labor-saving milking machines, his milk- saving refrigeration, his electrically-powered water system—all these and more are essen- tial parts of a well-run, efficient and pro- ductive dairy farm. What has happened on the dairy farm is just one instance. The same thing has been happening on 86 percent of all the farms in America. 80 multiply these advances by the 5,000,000 farms that have modern elec- tric power today. Then you will begin to appreciate the impact of REA on our agri- cultural and on our whole economy. In the electric motor, industrial America has had an efficient source of power for many decades. It has been a significant factor in the development of America as the world’s greatest industrial nation. Today the elec- trict motor is also out on the farm, ready to help the farmer grind feed, clean the barn, pump water, dry grain and hay, and in gen- eral provide highly essential and low cost power for the farmer. Consider these things in the light of the crisis that is confronting us today. We have out on the farms of America the equivalent of millions of extra hands that just a few years ago were not available. We have put into our agriculture new power, new effi- olency, new productivity. All of it 1s adding to the strength of this Nation as we go for- ward in the leadership of the free world. The progress farmers are making with the help of the REA program is all the more significant when the character of the pro- 10385 gram is taken into account. The REA pro- gram is one of the finest expressions of our democracy. It works on the principle of local control, local ownership, and local ac- complishment. Here is a program that helps the people help themselves. REA is only a lending agency. It is the local people, with the help of Government financing, who are building the power systems that are electrifying the farms. It is the local people who operate these power systems and who are paying back the money to the Government—paying it back with interest. Last October when Congress passed legis- lation authorizing loans for the Improve- ment and expansion of rural telephone serv- ice, it followed this REA pattern of pro- viding the people with the help they noed to do' the job themselves. Today this new telephone program is beginning the job of modernizing rural communications as the electric program has been modernizing power and light on the farm during the recent past. I have always been glad to support the rural electrification program—one of the most beneficial and forward-looking mea- sures instituted by the Roosevelt adminis- tration. It has been of benefit to every part of the country. I am happy to point out the achievements of the REA borrowers in my own State. From 23 percent of our farms electrified when the program started, we have since then forged ahead until now the per- centage is well over 90 percent. We have 18 REA-financed systems in Pennsylvania and these privately owned, lo- cally managed, taxpaying business organiza- tions have already invested 625,000,000 of loan funds in their power systems. They are paying back these loans, in a sound business- like way, while doing a job of building a stronger agriculture in Pennsylvania, From the time Morris L. Cooke, of my home State of Pennsylvania, as the first Ad- ministrator of REA, set the program on ita course of progress, this program has bullt, and built well, the strength of rural Amer- ica. It is a program in which the people of this country and the free world have a big stake and which must be pressed forward in the achievement of its objective. It is for that reason that I urge upon you to support the appropriation of the Rural Electrification Administration in the bill be- fore us. This program is making a great contribution to the people of this country at @ very minimum of cost, since the loans are being paid back to the Government. This is tremendously important to all of us, whether we are permitted to live in peace or whether we must mobilize our strength for war. REA is an investment that is already paying back dividends many times over in extra power for farmers and for America. The VICE PRESIDENT. The next committee amendment will be stated. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Farmers Home Administra- tion—Loan authorization,” on page 214, line 6, after “(except grants under 504 (a))”, to strike out “$56,350,000” and in- sert “$71,350,000”; in the same line, after the amendment above stated, to insert “of which not to exceed $3,500,000 of the amount available for the purposes of title I and section 43 of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, as amended, may be distributed to States and Territories without regard to farm population and prevalence of tenancy, 1n addition to the amount otherwise distributed thereto, for loans in reclamation projects and to entrymen on unpatented public land.” Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I wish to ask a question of the Senator from Geor- gia in regard to the amendment in line
10386 6 on page 214, Will that provision en- courage the settlement of the more sparsely populated States where there 1s a large amount of undeveloped land? Mr. RUSSELL. No; the amount of $3,500,000 is supposed to be available for some irrigated projects in some States which have very small populations, but where the veterans have moved in to take up the lands which are subject to irri- gation. Mr, AIKEN. The amendment would apply particularly to a State such as Wyoming, would it? Mr, RUSSELL, Exactly, and possibly to three or four other States where such irrigation projects are coming into op- eration. Mr. HILL. Mr. President, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor will state it. Mr. HILL. To what amendment does the Senator from Vermont refer? The VICE PRESIDENT. To the com- mittee amendment on page 214, begin- ning in line 6 and ending in line 13, The question is on agreeing to that amendment. The amendment was agreed to. The VICE PRESID: . The next amendment of the committee will be stated. The next amendment was on page 215, line 5, after the word “acts,” to insert a colon and the following additional pro- visos: “Provided further, That for the purpose of making loans pursuant to the foregoing authority, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to use as a public- debt transaction the proceeds from the sale of any securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under that Act are ex- tended to include such loans to the Sec- retary: Provided further, That repay- ments to the Secretary of the Treasury on such loans shall be treated as a pub- lic-debt transaction.”’ Mr. BRIDGES. Mr, President, I should like to have an explanation from the Senator from Georgia in regard to the amendment. It seems to me that it is clearly legislation on an appropriation bill, and that the amendment, if adopted, would open wide the door. The amendment is clearly legislation, Mr. President, and it goes into a field which certainly was not dealt with in the bill as it was passed by the House of Representatives. Certainly the lan- guage of the amendment is wide in its fmplications and scope. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I trust that the Senator will withhold any point of order he may intend to propose against this amendment. I think I would be less than frank if I did not say that the amendment is sub- ject to a point of order. However, iden- tical Janguage has been carried in the appropriation bill for a long time, as a means for the procurement of funds with which to make this type of loans under the Farmers Home Administration. The language of this amendment or similar language was set forth in the budget, Just as was the case in lest year’s bill. It was included in the bill as reported CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE by the House Appropriations Committee, but on the floor of the House the pro- vision was stricken on a point of order. There is nothing new so far as this method of borrowing is concerned. It has been used for a number of years. Up until now a very creditable repay- ment record has been made, There can be no question that the amendment f{s legislation; but its enact- ment into law is necessary in order to implement all of the activities of the Farmers Home Administration. Mr. BRIDGES. What is the repay- ment record? From my own impression and the impression of the persons with whom I have talked, this amendment would leave the matter wide open. Mr. RUSSELL. Of course, the Sena- tor realizes that when rehabilitation loans are made under the Farmers Home Administration, we are not deal- ing with the very best credit risks, be- cause the basic law provides that no such loan can be made until the prospective borrower is able to submit evidence that the loan is not available from any other source, In that connection, the general practice has been to require such state- ments from the banks in the community, from the production credit agency, and from other sources of credit. So far as the tenant loan program is concerned, there has been a perfectly amazing repayment record. Repay- ments are current; in fact, the collec- tions really are ahead of the yepayment schedule in the case of the purchase of farms by means of the funds obtained under this provision of the act. In the case of rehabilitation loans, there have been some losses; there can be no ques- tion as to that. Those who were ad- ministering this portion of the law in- herited a great many loans from the old Rural Resettlement Administration and from the old seed loans, which were made only in cases of dire emergency. So the transactions in the case of such loans are included under this heading. Of course, the loans to which I have just referred occurred away back in 1018 and 1920—almost in the days of antiquity, so far a8 any modern agricultural pro- gram is concerned. However, generally speaking, a very fine record of collections has been made. For the past 6 years the collections have greatly exceeded the loans. A study of the collections would do a great deal to restore one’s faith in the honest pur- poses of mankind, because some of the loans were made years ago and some of the borrowers meantime have left the farms, Yet when they reached a time when they were able to secure employ- ment, they repaid the loans. This program has been vital in con- nection with extending aid to veterans of World War I. As I recall, approxt- mately 50 percent of the loans which have been made were made to veterans, and all the new loans being made are being made to veterans. Mr. BRIDGES. But is there a lim- itation? Will not the sky be the limit? Mr. RUSSELL. Oh, no; a limit is set forth on page 214, JULY 17 On page 215, this amendment would begin with the words: Provided further, That for the purpose of making loans Pursuant to the foregoing cu- thority— And the loans are limited by the amount set forth on page 214. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will thes Senator yield? RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. WILLIAMS. Do I correctly un- derstand the Senator from Georgia to say that the same language was in- cluded in the last appropriation bill? Mr. RUSSELL. ‘Yes; and funds have been available. I do not know that the provision in last year’s appropriation bill was in identically the same language as the language of this amendment; but the funds have been available from the Treasury, under the last several appro- priation bills. Mr. WILLIAMS. In view of the fact that it is recognized that such language is essential to the program, why has not enabling legislation been introduced through the normal channels, and en- acted? Mr, RUSSELL. I cannot answer that question, because I am not a member of the standing Committee on Agricul- ture and Forestry. I really cannot say why such enabling legislation has not been enacted Mr, WILLIAMS. Will not the Sena- tor from Georgia agree that that is the manner in which the matter should have been handled? Mr. RUSSELL. Oh, yes; there should have been legislation in that connection. However, I am sure the Senator from Delaware will agree with me that in the case of the appropriation bills generally, certain language has been carried for years in those bills, although normally it would properly be the subject of pro- posed legislation introduced by some of the standing committes. Mr, WILLIAMS. I can understand why the matter might be handled once in this way; but I do not understand why year after year the appropriation bills should carry provisions which are purely legislation. Mr. RUSSELL. Of course, there is a question as to whether the amendment is legislation. It was regarded as legis- lation in the House of Representatives. However, there is some question as to whether it is legislation. This language makes available to the Secretaiy of the Treasury funds for the purpose of being loaned by him to the Secretazy of Agriculture, to be used by the Secretary of Agriculture for this purpose, Mr. WILLIAMS, Do I correctly un- derstand that this authority is limited by the amount et forth on page 314, in ? Mr. RUSSELL. Oh, yes; there is no question about that. | Tt ‘is absolutely lmited by that amount. Mr, BRIDGES. So in this case, if no point of order is made against the amendment, and if the amendment is adopted and is contained in the bill as finally enacted, the provision thus made
1950 will be similar to the provision which has been made in previous years in the ap- propriation bill. Is that correct? Mr. RUSSELL. That is correct. Mr. BRIDGES. And the amount is limited to the appropriation set forth on page 214, in line 6; is that correct? Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator from New Hampshire is entirely correct. Mr. President, I would be the last per- son to be willing to have this language make available an unlimited amount of money, because, of course, the provision is in the nature of an appropriation. Mr. BRIDGES. I understand that the Senator from Georgia watches these matters carefully, but, of course, I wish to be sure just what we are doing in this respect. Mr, RUSSELL. The Senator is correct. Mr. BRIDGES, Do I correctly under- stand that the Senator from Georgia has no information about this matter, except as to what has occurred in the past? Mr. RUSSELL. Yes; I think I can state that, so far as loans for the pur- chase of land are concerned, the repay- ments are current, and no losses have occurred. Some losses have occurred on rehabilitation loans, but the funds lost since the Farmers Home Administration was established would be less than 3 per- cent of the total amount of money made available. Mr. AIKEN. Is it not a fact that the repayments have been approximately 85 or 90 percent—in short, that the repay- ments have been good? Mr. RUSSELL. They have been more than that, under the Farmers Home Administration. Mr. AIKEN. I think the repayments have been somewhere between 90 and 95 percent in my own State. The repay- ments to the Farmers Home Adminis- tration on loans which were made to the poorest class of agricultural bor- rowers-——— Mr. RUSSELL. The poorest credit risks in the Nation. Mr. AIKEN. The repayments on those loans have compared very favora- bly with the repayments to the RFC, I am sure, although the loans made by the RFC were made to what was sup- posed to be a higher and better class of borrowers—in the case of the RFC, to industrial and financial borrowers, Iam sure a very good record has been made, considering the fact that loans have been made only to persons who could not borrow money anywhere else. However, I do question the language of the amendment and the continuance of the language year after year in the appropriation bill, It seems to me that there cannot be a clear statement of the Government’s financial affairs, in re- porting ca what our expenditures and our receipts are, until this matter is treated as one related to the expendi- tures and receipts of the Government, rather than as public debt transaction. I think that point should be cleared up, and that a correction should be made. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me? Mr, RUSSELL. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Minnesota. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. THYE. I should like to raise a question in connection with this matter. Certainly it is never the intention to write off any of these loans unless it becomes a positive fact that the loan cannot be collected. The loan may be carried for a number of years; and it is necessary to review it again and again before a decision finally is reached to write off the loan as being uncollectible. I think that has been one reason why it has been difficult to write any specific language on this point, because it is the desire not to write off such a loan if it can possibly be collected. For that rea- son, the language is broad, almost to the point of vagueness, in this case. However, I would say as the Senator from Georgia has said, that probably there is no other legislative provision which has done more, actually, to take a young man or a young family off the re- lief rolls or to get them out of a dis- couraged state of mind, and put them on a self-supporting and self-respecting basis, by providing them with funds, and by doing so at a time when they have neither credit nor proof that they would be good managers, except for the fact that the man may have been a good hired man somewhere in the neighbor- hood. He may have married a good, sound, reliable young girl, and that was the only asset he had. No banker could loan to a man under those circumstances. Here was an agency from which he could obtain the funds, start farming, and, in due time, pay off the loan. I could relate three specific cases of young men or young couples who ob- tained such loans. It was only for a matter of 3 or 4 years. The loans en- abled them to carry on. They have made a most remarkable achievement in start- ing out in life for themselves. I would say it is one of the appropriations which has functioned in a commendable man- ner. The vagueness of the language re- sults from the lack of knowledge of how to write an act in any manner that would be applicable to such a situation. Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his contribution. I shall be through, as soon as I give the Senator from New Hampshire the spe- cific figures for the year 1949. In that year, $91,507,519 was loaned: principal and interest was collected of $117,114,511. Mr. BRIDGES. I may say to the Sen- ator that that is a rather unusual Fed- eral accomplishment; but I still say the regular committees of the Congress should provide for this project by law rather than to place the item in a gen- eral appropriation bill. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Georgia yield to the Sena- tor from Nebraska? Mr. RUSSELL, I am glad to yield. Mr. WHERRY. I was not present when the testimony was adduced on this item. In the table for loan authoriza- tions the loan authorization for 1960 was given as $40,000,000 for farm tenancy and housing loans. The estimates for 1951 were $70,000,000. The House bill provided for $56,350,000, which was an 10387 increase over last year, but which was short about $13,000,000 of the budget estimate. I have been quoting from the table of loan euthorizations found on page 112 of the committee report. The Senate committee has restored the full amount of the budget estimate; in fact, it has gone further than that and added $1,350,000. A footnote reads: Includes $1,350,000 transferred from direct appropriation for enlargement and develop-~ ment loans. So the appropriation exceeds the esti- mate by $1,350,000. What was the evi- dence adduced which required the Sen- ate to exceed the budget estimate by $1,350,000? That is my first question. The second question is, Is the $1,350,000 cash, or {is it a loan authorization? Mr. RUSSELL. The House trans- ferred the $1,350,000. I will read to the Senator a brief statement from the House report, Mr. WHERRY. I have read the side slip, Mr. RUSSELL. I quote from the House report, page 141: An increase of $15,000,000 has been au- thorized for farm tenancy and housing loans, $1,350,000 has been approved as a transfer from direct appropriation to borrowing au- thorization for enlargement and develop- ment loans under section 60¢b of the Housing Act of 1949, and an additional €1,- 000,000 in borrowing authority has been pro- vided for water facilities loans. The reason for that, and what has hap- pened, is that instead of appropriating the money directly from the Treasury, it was all put into this loan arrangement, to be borrowed from the Secretary of the Treasury. Last year we made a modest appropriation for the Housing Act, and it was made as a direct appropriation from the Treasury. Inasmuch a3 the House had included the $1,350,600 in the funds authorized to be borrowed from the Secretary of the Treasury, instead of making it as a di- rect appropriation, we left it in that shape. Mr WHERRY. The point I make 1s, Was there a decrease by $1,350,000 at some other place in the appropriation bill? This exceeds the budget estimate by $1,350,000. Mr. RUSSELL, Oh, no. Mr. WHERRY. The Budget estimate for 1951 is $70,000,000, and the Senate committee has recommended $71,350,000. That is provided through the transfer of funds. What I should like to ask is, If the transfer is made and covers this particular item, where is it deducted in the appropriation bill? Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator is mis- taken about the Budget Bureau's esti- mate. The total Budget estimate was $160,000,000. Mr, WHERRY. We are talking about farm tenancy and housing loans. I re- fer merely to loans. Mr. RUSSELL. Very well. Mr, WHERRY. If the Senator will re- fer to page 112 of the report of the Com- mittee on Appropriations of the Senate he will find the table of loan authoriza- tions,
10388 Mr. RUSSELL. I understand, but the Budget Bureau's estimate for these items was $160,000,000, Mr. WHERRY. That is true, but it is broken down into farm tenancy and housing loans, $70,000,000; production and subsistence loans, $85,000,000; water facilities loans, $6,000,000; a total of $160,000,000.. The House bill provided $145,350,000. The Senate committee has recommended $160,350,000. The answer is obtained by the breakdown of farm tenancy and housing loans, which we are talking about. I am asking where the $1,350,000 comes from, and where it is deducted in the appropriation bill. It states in a footnote that the $1,350,000 was transferred from direct appropria- tion for enlargement and development loans. Mr. RUSSELL. Yes. Mr. WHERRY. I understand that. But why did the Senate committee add $1,350,000 to the farm tenancy and hous- ing loans, unless the amount were taken from something else? The Budget esti- mate is $70,000,000. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I think he will find that $1,000,000 of that was taken from water facilities loans. Mr. WHERRY. I understand that. I have that explanation. But it still runs $1,350,000 above the budget estimate. Mr. WILLIAMS. The entire amount recommended by the Senate committee 4s $160,350,000, which includes an in- crease in the farm tenancy and housing loans of $1,350,000. Mr. WHERRY. That is the point Iam making. Why was that done? Mr. RUSSELL. I am advised by the clerk of the committee, though he has not absolutely shown it to me yet, that it comes off the appropriation and was transferred to loans. Mr. WHERRY. Does that mean that it comes off the general appropriation for agricultural purposes? Mr. RUSSELL. That is correct; and it is put Into the loan provision. Mr. WHERRY. Is it deducted in cash? This is a loan authorization. Mr. RUSSELL. It is deducted from the item for grants. I have the Budget Bureau’s estimate now. The item for grants comes under the Farmers Home Administration, for housing. Mr. Y. Oh, the amount comes off housing, is that correct? Mr, RUSSELL. On the item found on page 215, in line 16, Whereas the budget estimate is $2,000,000, the item of ap- propriation is $650,000. Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Senator. That is the transfer that is made, is it? Mr. RUSSELL. Yes. Mr. WHERRY. One more thing: Is this still a loan authorization of $1,350,- 000, or is it cash coming from the direct appropriation? ti Mr, RUSSELL, It is a loan authoriza- ion. Mr. WHERRY. And are the loans retmbursables? Mr. WHERRY. They are reimburs- ables, the same as the farm tenancy and housing loans? Mr. RUSSELL, Yes. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment on page 216, line 5. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Salaries and expenses,” on page 216, line 1, after the numerals “1949”, to strike out “$27,700,000” and in- sert $29,000,000.” Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I should like to ask the distinguished Sen- ator from Georgia a question in connec- tion with page 96 of the report on the general appropriation bill. It has to do with rural electrification and the South- western Power Administration. I at- tended all the hearings on this subject, which, as I recall, were joint hearings of 8 subcommittee of the Committee on In- terior and Insular Affairs and a subcom- mittee of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I notice, at the end of the first paragraph under the heading “Rural Electrification Administration,” the following: The committee believes that no loan should be made for construction of such facilities uniess in areas where private power com- panies cannot or will not furnish adequate power at reasonable rates and within a rea- sonable time. I thoroughly agree with the report, and I concurred in it as a member of the subcommittee, but it was my understand- ing that the Administrator had the de- termination, because there were such great variations in various sections of the country. As I understand, up to the present time the Administrator has studied carefully the needs, and it was rather left to the Administrator as to the loaning of the money. Mr. RUSSELL. I do not know of any- one who can pass upon that question other than the Administrator of the REA. The funds are made available to him. He is responsible for making loans, and certainly it would be within his juris- diction to determine the facts and reasons. Mr. MAYBANK. I thank the Senator from Georgia for his statement, Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I also de- sire to thank the Senator from Georgia for his stetement, because I agree with him 100 percent that it is the Admin- istrator who has the jurisdiction and the full authority for determining what rates are reasonable. As the Senator knows, in States which have public util- ity commissions all existing rates, pre- sumably, are reasonable from the stand- point of the utility companies, because they have been found so by the State commissions, Utility rates may be reasonable in the light of a company’s accumulation of in- vestments, including uneconomical and obsolete ones, and still be completely un- reasonable from the standpoint of the cooperative’s need for lower cost power to extend electric service to farmers and its ability to obtain such low-cost power by constructing its own generating fa- cilities. 80, as the Senator knows, under the basic law and under the intent of the JULY 17 committee, these are facts within the jurisdiction and the authority of the Administrator of the REA to determine. Mr. RUSSELL. I never had any other thought with reference to it. Mr. HILL. I will say to the Senator that as a member of the subcommittee, I did not, either. Furthermore, even though the rates themselves may be reasonable, other terms and conditions demanded by the power companies may impose intolerable burdens on the cooperatives. Such burdens, appearing in many existing contracts, include restrictions on resale of power, refusal to deliver power to the co-ops’ load centers, necessitating cost- ly construction by the co-ops; insist- ence on ratchet clauses requiring the co-ops to pay for more power than they get; and requirements that the co-ops pay higher rates for power used by con- sumers in larger amounts. Of course, the Administrator, in con- sidering whether loans should be made on generating plants or transmission lines, has it fully within his jurisdiction to consider, and he should consider, these questions; is that not correct? Mr. RUSSELL. They all go to the rea- sonableness of the rates. Mr. HILL. For instance, a power company in the State of Alabama, in submitting a proposed contract had in the contract a provision permitting the company to stop serving the cooperatives by reason of war. We know, of course, that in time of war it is very important that farmers have power. We know that during the last war farmers, with less manpower, with less fertilizer, fewer in- secticides, and other things which they had in the past, stepped up their crops. One important reason why they were able to do it was because so many of our farms had electricity and the farmers were able to use the electricity to step up war production. So, of course, in de- termining whether rates are reasonable, the Administrator has it in its jurisdic- tion and should consider all these ques- tions to which I have adverted. As the Senator knows, the REA has made loans for generation and transmis. sion facilities only where no adequate source of power was available or where a saving in the cost of wholesale power to the cooperatives could be achieved. The matter is in the discretion and in the judgment and determination of the Ad- ministrator, just as the distinguished Senator from Georgia has so well said. The policy of the Administrator as to loans for generating plants and trans- mission lines is clear. It stands today just as it has in the past. Mr, JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presl- dent, will the Senator yield? Mr, GEORGE. I yield. Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. The able Senator from Alabama has well stated the present policy of the REA, as related in its administrative bulletin which was placed in the hearings. The question I should like to ask the Senator from Georgia is this: Was it the intention of the committee to rewrite the REA law through this paragraph in the report? Mr. RUSSELL. Not in the slightest degree. We did not undertake to rewrite
1950 the REA law, and we did not propose to do anything which would interfere with getting electric current into farm homes, Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. And there is nothing in either the bill or the report which would overthrow the present pol- icy of the REA? Mr. RUSSELL. I do not know that I am completely familiar with all the de- tails of the present policy, but there is nothing in the committee report which, in my judgment, disturbs the power or the discretion which the Administrator has under the present law. There has been a feeling in some quarters—but, speaking for myself, I did not concur— with reference to‘putting anything at all in the report dealing with the subject. There has been a feeling that the pro- portion of loans being made for gener- ating and transmitting facilities by the REA was increasing at too great a rate, perhaps to the detriment of the cause of getting power into farm homes. Hear- ings were had for four or five days in conjunction with the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations. I was not sufficiently well qualified in the science of electricity and its distribu- tion to be able to pass upon each and every one of the cases presented to the committee. They were presented, on the one hand, by those who were very much in favor of transmission and gen- erating lines, and they were opposed, on the other hand, by those who were very much opposed to them. I could not pass upon the question. It was necessary for someone in the administrative end of the Government to pass on it. The Rural Electrification Administration has its Administrator, and it is his duty to pass upon these applications. That is his obligation under the law. Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. In the Sen- ator’s judgment, there is nothing in this provision, is there, which would take away from the Administrator his author- ity or discretion? Mr. RUSSELL. For my own part, I take this to be an admonition to the Administrator to exercise great care in the making of these loans. As I see it, there is nothing in the bill which changes the law. There is nothing in the report of the committee which could be construed as changing the law. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I believe the committee was justified in stating that no loans should be-made for the erection of generating plants unless private power companies cannot or will not furnish adequate electric current at reasonable rates and within a reasonable time. The Subcommittee on Interior was presented with evidence to show that REA loans were being considered on the guaranty of SPA agreeing to purchase all the current produced so as to make possible the discharge of the proposed loan. In other words, one Government agency guaranteeing the loans of another Government agency. Such should not be permitted for obvious reasons. Mr. President, I should like to read the following language from page 95 of the committee’s report as indicative of the fact that the committee realizes that it was not within the province of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Appropriations Committee to change the law on the subject of REA: In view of the importance of this matter, the committee respectfully suggests that the standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry review this entire subject to deter- mine whether legislation is necessary. Mr. RUSSELL. Yes. I agree with that. That is where legislation ought to come from. It cannot come from the subcommittee. Mr. HILL. If there is to be a change in policy, it ought to come from the Com- mittee on Agriculture and Forestry, the standing legislative committee of this dy. Mr. RUSSELL. I took that position in the subcommittee. I also took it in the full committee, but was not sustained. However, that is my position. Mr. YOUNG. Would the distin- guished chairman of the subcommittee interpret the paragraph to mean that REA has been making loans in the past which were not justified, and that this was a word of admonition to the REA to curtail some of its present loans? Mr. RUSSELL. I made no such state- ment, Mr. President. I said that for my own part I was not sufficiently expert nor would I undertake to go into the merits or demerits of these loans. I think it is a matter for the Administra- tor of the REA and for the standing com- mittees of Congress. Mr, YOUNG. I had the same idea. I felt that there was nothing in the lan- guage of the bill which would change the present program or do injury to it. My understanding is that if they are not able to get current from existing companies at reasonable rates they may build gen- erating plants as they have done in the past. Does the Senator have the same understanding? Mr. RUSSELL. Oh, yes. There is no question that in compliance with the spirit and letter of the original REA Act the Administrator would have that authority when it is necessary to get current to the farmers, Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I wish to say that what the Senator from Georgia has stated ts also my under- standing of the matter. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota ([Mr. Lancer] received a telegram which deals with the subject under discussion. He had to leave before he was able to pre- sent the telegram for insertion in the Recorp. I ask unanimous consent that the telegram be printed in the Rrcorp, at this point, There being no objection, the telegram was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: RUTLAND, N. Dax,, July 15, 1950. United States Senator Wriutidm LANGER: Have been informed restrictive, language in pending Senate report on Interior and Ag- riculture appropriations could have bad ef- fects on future administration of generation and transmission loans. Urge your coopera- tion in bringing about deletion of any lan~ guage or items that could be construed or interpreted as restricting administration of Rural Electric Administration in any way. The great value of unrestricted policy is in its competitive strength. The good common sense of our cooperatives and Administrator 10389 will avoid unreasonable or excessive invest- ment im generation or transmission, But if REA ever loses its power to build facilities whenever or wherever found necessary ex- pedient or desirable—then our co-ops and the people they serve will be at the mercy of the commercial private-owned utilities, On the other hand the threat of real compe- tition will make them willing to coordinate and cooperate for the common and public good, We have achieved a considerable de-« gree of coordination and cooperation with the private-owned public utilities here in North Dakota. We could never have done this with a restricted Rural Electric Admin-« istration. Strongly urge your complete vigi- lance in maintaining a strong unfettered REA and a public power policy that puts the good of the people above any special privie lege group, Oxnxp A. WruM, President, North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives, Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, may f inquire which committee amendment ig now under consideration? The VICE PRESIDENT, The amend- ment on page 216, line 1. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I wish to discuss this amendment. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, may I inquire what was the Chair's statement? I could not hear it. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair announced that the amendment under consideration is on page 216, line 1. Mr. DOUGLAS. I should like to point out that last year this organization spent for administration $26,149,000. The House increased the figure to $27,- 700,000, or an increase of more than a million and a half dollars. The Senate committee has raised this figure still further by $1,300,000. I am very glad to see that everyone seems to approve of the substantive work of the Farmers Home Administration. I think it is do- ing @ very excellent type of work. How- ever, these appropriations would not help the tenant farmers. These appropria- tions are intended for the officials in the Farmers Home Administration. I hope very much that the Senate will recon- sider the action by which it approved the amendment, and I move such reconsid~ eration, The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment has not been approved. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment on page 216, lines 1 and 2. Mr. DOUGLAS. I hope very much that the committee amendment will be rejected and that we may save $1,300,- 000. Its rejection would reduce the amount of money to be spent by the Officials in the Department of Agricul- ture. Otherwise they would get a mil- lion and a half dollars more than they received for the fiscal year just ended. Mr. RUSSELL. I merely wish to call attention to the fact that last year we passed a housing bill. The provision for farm housing, when compared with what was provided for urban areas, is some- what pathetic. We have insured billions of dollars’ worth of urban housing. How< ever, when we get $40,000,000 for farm housing all over the Nation, objection 1s raised to that small amount. Of the billions which we have provided for hous- ing the farmers would get the so-called magnificent sum of $40,000,000 under the
10390 provisions of this bill. These are not self-executing loans. Someone must ex- etute them and administer them. The item is $1,000,000 less than the Budget Bureau allowed. We tried to go just as slowly as we could, I think the amend- ment should be approved, Mr. WILLIAMS. It ts my under- standing that the House of Representa- tives included $739,385 to take care of the projects which the Senator from Georgia has described. Mr. RUSSELL. That is correct. Mr. WILLIAMS. Therefore even if we reject the Senate amendment of $29,- 000,000 and accept the House figure of $27,700,000, that amount would be avail- able to take care of the project which the Senator has described. Mr. RUSSELL, But that is not for housing alone. Water facilities are in- volved also. They are considered to be very important. Mr. WILLIAMS. It does include hous- ing. Mr. RUSSELL. Yes. Mr. WILLIAMS. That was included at the time the House determined the figure of $27,700,000. It will be found that the House figure was $26,960,615. They decided to make it the round figure of $27,700,000, and included in that item are all the expenses which the Senator from Georgia has described. The Sen- ate Appropriation Committee has in- creased that item by an additional $1,- 300,000. As one who voted for the re- organization plans, with the thought that if we would support the President in the reorganization of the Government we would get a lower cost of administra- tion, I now find that under this appro- priation bill practically every adminis- trative branch of the Government is calling for an average increase of 8 to 10 percent over and above what was al- lowed to them last year. I do not under- stand it. I am beginning to wonder if, as one who supported the Hoover Com- mission reorganization plans on the basis it would provide greater efficiency, I was not being fooled. Instead of sav- ing 3 or 4 billion dollars a year as was promised if we would accept these re- organization plans, we now find the re- organized departments costing more than the old agencies. I wish the Sen- ator from Georgia would point out why this department should cost the tax- payers approximately 10 percent more than it cost last year, and unless good reasons are given I shall vote against the committee amendment, which increases the amount by $1,300,000. Mr. RUSSELL. I shall undertake to explain the matter. The amount which was available last year, as I recall, was $26,960,615, if the appropriation for the full year reflected the increase in sal- aries that was allowed by the Congress. In the 1960 estimate, the Budget Bu- reau approved the sum of $618,000 for the expense of making additional farm ownership and water facilities loans to homestead entrymen and others on reclamation projects. I am not alto- gether familiar with the detafls of those loans, but members of the committee who are familiar with them, who live in the areas where these projects are now CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE being developed and opened up, stated that that was most important. Then for costs of making the addi- tional farm housing loans and grants in 1951, and servicing farm housing loans made in 1960, the budget allowed an In- crease of $2,059,300. For servicing in 1951 insured mort- gages made in prior years and the addi- tional production and subsistence loans to be made in 1950, the budget allowed $362,060. Then there were the pay adjustment costs, which grew out of the increases in pay given under the Accelerated Pay Increase Act, the Ramspeck Act, and any other acts of Congress, which amounted to $811,615, which made a total of $30,- 000,000 for the 1951 Budget estimates. Of that amount, the Senate commit- tee has allowed a total of $29,000,000, which is $1,000,000 below the Budget estimate. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I point out to the Senator that it may be $1,000,000 below the Budget estimate, but it ts still $2,000,000 more than the amount under which the same agency operated during the past 12 months, Mr. RUSSELL. I just undertook to explain that there is $2,059,800, for the housing loans in the rural areas. Mr. WILLIAMS. That law was in effect at the time the House gave con- sideration to the bill, and the House de- cided that $26,700,000 was enough. Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, the House de- cided that, but I do not agree with the House. I do not think these loans will be self-executing. There is no way the provisions of this act can be carried out other than that we have provided. Time and again I have seen members of the Committee on Appropriations sit- ting on the floor when there came before the Senate bills to increase the pay of Feaeral employees and Senators receiy- ing telegrams from one source and an- other and would come in and vote “aye” to raise the salaries of employees. Then they would go out and telegraph some- one, “I voted for your pay increase,” and would telegraph another one, “I voted for your pay increase.” ‘They received the plaudits of those whose salaries were in- creased, but later when the Committee on Appropriations received a budget esti- mate which raised the appropriation a million dollars more than the agency had had the previous year the Senator's would come forward and say, ‘‘What do they mean by increasing this estimate a mil- lion dollars?” The Budget Bureau did not do it; Congress did it by voting for the increases in pay. The same thought applies when we pass an act such as the Housing Act. We said we were going to let the farmers get just alittle housing. Of course, it was hardly enough for them to smell, $40,000,000 over the entire United States, as compared with a billion dollars poured out for housing in the olties. But when ‘we passed that bill and some official came in and asked for a little money to ad- minister the Farm Housing Act, he was told, “You are going away up in your tion.” We cannot add to the duties of a bureau of Government on such an extensive scale, to deal with farm JULY 17 housing in 8,000 counties in the United States, without allowing for some in- crease in the appropriation to administer the program. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, RUSSELL, I yield to the Senator from Delaware. Mr, WILLIAMS. I am very giad to hear the Senator from Georgia point that fact out, because it is one of the facts that need to be brought out. I remind him that I emphasized the same thought in 1949 at the time the Congress passed the pay-increase bills, I was one of the few Senators who voted against these in- creases, and, if I remember correctly, the Senator from Georgia voted for them. If I am in error, the Senator can correet me, I agree with him fully that it is inconsistent for those who vote for every salary increase and every authorization bill to then attack the appropriations bills and try to convince the public that they are great economizers. The best way to cut Government ex- penditures is to stop voting for the authorizations. Perhaps I am in error in thinking the Senator from Georgia voted for the pay Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator's mem- ory is completely in error on that point. It so happened that the Senator from Georgia, the Senator from Arizona, and the Senator from Colorado, who sit in the same row of seats, got together and framed an amendment to reduce every salary increase that was brought out by the Senator's committee, and we got the amendments approved on the floor of the Senate. Then I voted against the bill, after it was amended. As I recall, it was a viva voce vote. Mr. WILLIAMS. I stand corrected in my statement then. I do know that there were very few Senators who voted against the salary increases. At that time I took the position Congress should not increase the salaries until we had a balanced budget, and I agree with the Senator from Georgia that it is poor taste for those who have consistently voted for the authorizations to attack the appropriations. Mr. RUSSELL. I hope the Senator did not understand me to be making a personal statement with respect to him when I was discussing the pay-increase bills, because I will say that the Senator from Delaware has saved the Govern- ment millions of dollars by his constant objection to such bills on the calendar and otherwise. Mr, DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the committee has approved $27,700,000 for administrative expenses of the Farmers Home Administration, which is an in- crease of $1,551,000 over 1950 appropria- tions. The House committee stated, on page 141 of its report, as follows: This increase will permit the Department to put the farm-housing program authorized on & part-year basis in 1980 on a full-year basis in el, and will cover increased pay costs, In addition, it will provide appraxi- mately $800,000 for servicing insured mort- gages made in prior years and for handling the addfttional farm-tenant and water-facill- ties loans authorized for 1951.
1950 We are not proposing that we should go hack to the appropriation for the year 1949 and 1950. We are perfectly willing to have the appropriation go forward by a million and a half beyond that. The House says that is sufficient to provide for the extra work. We simply do not want to go up $2,800,000. I point out that if we approve a $29,000,000 appropriation for administra~ tion, that will represent administrative costs of 18 percent of the moneys dis- bursed and loaned by the Farmers Home Administration. They are disbursing and lending something over $166,000,000, and here there is recommended $29,000,- 000 for administration, which represents an administrative cost of 18 percent. I submit that 1s a rather high administra- tive ratio, particularly when, a, the Sen- ator from Georgia has correctly pointed out, at least half of the outlays are for loans, not direct appropriations. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the committee on page 216, line 2. Mr. DOUGLAS, I ask for a division. On a division, the amendment was agreed to The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will state the next amendment of the com- mittee. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Extension Service—Payments to States, Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico,” on page 217, line 25, after the word “and,” to strike out “section 3 of the act approved June 20, 1936 (7 U. S. C. 343c), extending the benefits of the Capper-Ketcham Act to the Territory of Alaska, $10,000” and insert “the act ap- proved October 27, 1949 (Public Law 417), extending to the Territory of Alaska the benefits of the Capper-Ketcham Act and sections 21 and 23 of title II of the Bank- head-Jones Act, $42,150; Puerto Rico, section 3 of the act of March 4, 1931 (7 U.S. C. 386f), authorizing extension of the Capper-Ketcham Act to Puerto Rico, $31,348”; in line 12, after the figures $408,000," to insert “and the act ap- proved October 26, 1949 (Public Law 406), extending the benefits of section 23 of title II of the Bankhead-Jones Act to Puerto Rico, $40,000”; and in line 17, af- ter the name “Puerto Rico”, to strike out “$27,000,000” and insert “$27,103,498.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Salaries and expenses,” on page 218, line 24, after the word “possessions,” to strike out “$900,000” and insert “$915,000.” The amendment was agreed to, The next smendment was, under the subhead “Office of the Secretary,” on page 219, line 11, after the word “‘Agri- culture”, to strike out “$2,143,300” and insert “$2,179,300.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was under the subhead “Office of the Solicitor,” on page 220, line 6, after the word “service”, to strike out “$2,450,000” and insert “$2,675,000”; and in the same line, after the amendment just above stated, to insert “together with such amounts from other appropriations or authorizations as are provided in the schedules in the budget for the current fiscal year for CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE such expenses which several amounts not exceeding a total of $207,000 shall be transferred to and made a part of this appropriation.” Mr. DOUGLAS. This is not an ap- propriation for persons giving direct service to agriculture. It is an appro- priation for lawyers in the Department of Agriculture. In 1950 the appropria- tions for legal services in the Office of the Solicitor were $2,364,000. The House upped that to $2,450,000, an increase of $86,000. The Senate committee is now proposing an appropriation of $2,675,000, which is an increase of over $300,000 compared with the appropriation for the current year. There is the further pro- vision that there shall be added to this sum for legal services other appropria- tions or authorizations provided for in various other items in the bill. The legal profession is a very valu- able profession, but it seems to me that economy can be made on the legal staffs in virtually every governmental bureau in Washington. Washington is well known for being top heavy with lawyers, and the departments are top heavy with lawyers. This is one place where we can effect a reduction without impairing service in the slightest. Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield. Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Has the Senator from I}linois made investigation to de- termine how much of this additional $250,000 or $300,000 increase is for the use of law libraries? It is inconceivable to me that a request of that kind should be made, because in every section of the United States, in every city of any con- sequence or in every country of any con- sequence there are public law libraries. Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not know. I cannot believe, however, that that is an {tem which is of any significance in the total. I belfeve the principal amount must be for the payment of lawyers. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. The Senator from Illi- nois understands, does he not, that it takes a great many lawyers to find the proper interpretation for acts of the Congress which will be entirely satisfac- tory to the head of the Department that employs the lawyers. Being sure of that on my own part, I will gladly support the proposal of the Senator from Illinois to kill this amendment. Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator from Vermont has again and again, I think very properly, called the attention of the Senate and the country to the fact that increasingly the heads of departments, instead of asking for legal opinions from the Attorney General, ask for legal opin- ions from their own legal departments, and then these legal departments sol- emnly give opinions satisfactory to their chiefs, The Senator from Vermont has point- ed that out again and again, and I quite agree with him in that respect. I am delighted that he reinforces my pro- posal, Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I think I pointed out that for the year 1948 the 10391 Attorney General’s office, which ts sup- posed to intepret laws which are not clear to the agencies which are concerned, gave only 33 formal opinions on laws to all the agencies of the Government. The other interpretations, or “misinter- pretations” perhaps would be a better word, for some of them anyway, were made by solicitors in the offices of the various agencies, and, of course, the solicitors and their staffs, being respon- sible to the heads of the agencies for their jobs, do the best they can to bring forth interpretations which will be satis- factory to the heads of the agencies which employ them. One of the greatest weaknesses of our Government today is the great amount of employment and money expended on these solicitors’ offices, which spend so much time in finding ways of getting around the intent of the Congress. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I real- ize it is always very popular to jump on the lawyers in the Government. My. AIKEN. No, no, Mr. President; I was not jumping on the lawyers. I was jumping on the heads of the depart- ments who insist that the lawyers bring in the interpretations they want. Mr. RUSSELL. I am impressed by the fact that in every revolution the first persons who are in danger are the law- yers. When Jack Cade delivered his famous address to his men at Cheapside, he told them how he was going to bring it about so that they could buy a 3-penny glass of ale for half a penny, and a 4- penny loaf of bread for 1 penny, and one of his men said, in referring to the rev- olution, that “the first thing we will do is to kill off all the lawyers.” Much of that same spirit seems to have come down from the days of Jack Cade’s rebellion. It is not a question of securing lawyers for the Department of Agriculture. The increase was not put in the bill arbi- trarily and capriciously to give Mr. Bran- nan some high-powered gentleman who could twist the laws around to his liking. It was put in the bill in the hope that we would be able to have a sane lending pro- gram in connection with the telephone legislation which was passed last year and the housing legislation which was passed last year, which greatly adds to the legal duties of the Department of Agriculture. The Department is going to lend a great deal of money under those two bills. It is going to lend $40,000,000 for housing, and $30,000,000 is contained in the act dealing with the rural telephone program, In addition innumerable cases are arising by virtue of the imposition of acreage allotments and marketing quotas in the case of some commodities, and the plans we have been compelled to make for adjustments on other crops next year. Of course, if this war con- tinues I imagine all acreage allotments and marketing quotas will go out the window, because the farmers will be re- quested to produce a great deal more. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Benator yield? Mr. RUSSELL, I yield. Mr, AIKEN. The Senator from Georgia realizes, does he not, that if
10392 acreage allotments and quotas go out the window probably twice as many lawyers will be required to enforce the price ceilings on farm commodities. Mr. RUSSELL. That will not be a matter which will be dealt with in the Department of Agriculture. If that must be dealt with we will have a Mr. Henderson or someone else to handle it. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment? Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. McKELLAR. The subcommittee took proof as to all these matters, did it not? Mr. RUSSELL. The subcommittee did, yes. Mr. McKELLAR. The bill was re- ported after the most careful investiga- tion and after extensive proof, and after careful consultation both in the sub- committee and in the full committee. Is it not reasonable to suppose that what was done in the subcommittee and in the full committee is a better way of legis- lating than simply to take the offhand opinion of one of our own Members on the floor? Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I mere- ly wish to say that the committee re- ported this item $395,000 below the budget. Some Senators have been talk- ing about a 10-percent cut. Here is a case where more than a 10-perceiit re- duction was applied to the budget esti- mate. I believe it would be a short- sighted policy to defeat this amendment, involving as it does about $207,000, when the money is absolutely necessary to any sane and sensible administration of the telephone loan program and of the farm- housing program. Senators can strike it out of the bill if they will, but I under- hesitatingly predict that in the long run such action will mean much greater losses to the National Treasury in con- nection with these two important lend- ing programs which were authorized last year. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. The side slip does not state the number of lawyers that should be hired. Does the Senator know, from the evidence, the nimber of Jawyers proposed to be employed? Mr. RUSSELL. I can find how many the Department wanted to employ. I do not know how many the Department will hire with this money, because we ap- plied a rule of thumb and hoped this modest increase would be sufficient to enable the Department to avoid great loss in connection with the telephone Joan program and the housing program. We have the figures requested by the Department, but it is impossible for me to carry them all in my mind. They re- quested 125 lawyers. That is the num- ber they would employ if they were al- lowed the entire six-hundred-thousand- odd dollars requested. I imagine the amount the committee allowed would, on the original basis, probably mean the employment of 35 or 40 lawyers. Mr, FERGUSON, Dogs not the Sen- ator feel that such a number of lawyers is altogether too many simply to inter- pret the provisions of three or four CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE atatutes? Could not such interpreta- tion be made in the local office? Mr. RUSSELL. This appropriation is for the local office. Mr. FERGUSON. That is what I un- derstood. Does not the Senator feel that 40 lawyers are too many to be employed simply to interpret three or four laws? Mr, RUSSELL. I think if they can get by with respect to the Telephone Loan Act with 40 lawyers it will be an achieve- ment to be hailed throughout the coun- try. Ifa private enterprise were to em- bark on a program of that kind, which is supposed to expand from year to year and will involve the lending of probably $2,000,000,000 of Government funds, they would undoubtedly employ more than 40 lawyers, and each lawyer would be paid three times the salary scale provided for the Government lawyers. If some gigan- tic organization were getting ready to emberk on a program of the same Kind it would certainly need more lawyers than are proposed to be hired by the Govern- ment. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr, FERGUSON. I agree that they would be paid more money. but I do not think any firm would hire 40 lawyers. Mr. RUSSELL. Many a firm would have more than 40 lawyers. Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. YOUNG. I, too, was of the im- pression a few years ago that the law- yers in the Department of Agriculture did not work very much. However, last year and the year before I had many oc- casions to deal with the Department in connection with the REA program. I then found that the lawyers in the De- partment of Agriculture are among the hardest-working employees of the Gov- ernment. I have known them to work Saturdays and Sundays, in order to de- velop programs for my own State. Mr. FERGUSON. Were they working on programs or on propaganda? Mr. YOUNG. They were working on the strictly legal aspects of the REA in my own State. I had a lawyer friend from North Dakota working with them, 80 I know whereof I speak. rel FERGUSON. I am gied to hear The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kerr in the chair). The question is on agree- ing to the committee amendment on page 220, in line 6. [Putting the ques- tion.] The “ayes” appear to have it. Mr. FERGUSON. I ask for a division. On a division, the amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment of the committee will be stated. The next amendment: was, under the subhead “Office of Information,” on page 221, line 19, after the Aigures “$611,- 128”, to insert a colon and the following proviso: “Provided, That when and to the extent that in the judgment of the Secretary agricultural exhibits and mo- tion and sound pictures relating to the authorized programs of the various JuLy 17 agencies of the Department can be more advantageously prepared, displayed, or distributed by the Office of Information, as the central agency of the Department therefor, additional funds not exceeding $800,000 for these purposes may be transferred to and made a part of this appropriation, from the funds applica- ble, and shall be available for the objects specified herein.” Mr, AIKEN. Mr. President, may we have an explanation of this amendment? I understand that it provides for an ad- ditional $360,000 for sound pictures which will set forth and propagandize the programs of the various agencies of the Department of Agriculture. I, for one, would like to have an explanation of this amendment, and J should like to know its source. Mr. RUSSELL, Mr. President, the language to which the Senator adverts, which I believe is to be found on page 221, beginning in line 19——- Mr. AIKEN. That is correct. Mr. RUSSELL. That language has previously appeared in the appropriation bill, It was submitted by the Bureau of the Budget this year. It was then ap- proved by the House Committee on Ap- propriations, but was stricken from the bill when the bill was, being dealt with on the floor of the House of Representatives. That action was taken on a point of order, . The amendment was voted by the Sen- ate Appropriations Committee to be re- stored to the bill, in view of the state- ment to the committee by the Depart- ment of Agriculture, which I shall read: The purpose of this language is to facili- tate financing the production and distribu- tion of motion pictures for bureaus in the Department by the existing and authorized facilities in the Office of Information. The authority of the Department to produce mo- tion pictures, in furtherance of the purposes of the Organic Act of 1862 (6 U. 8. C. 611) has long been recognized and the Depart- ment has provided them since 1912. They are used mainly by the Extension Service as education and demonetrational aids. The authority to transfer contained in this language was inserted in the Agriculture Ap- propriation Act of 1943. While essentially the same result can be accomplished under the relmbursement authority of section 601 of the Economy Act, the above provision per- mits a merger of transferred funds, in the interests of simpler accounting. Mr. AIKEN. But has the amount been used in other years? Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on this point? Mr. AIKEN. I yield, Mr, ANDERSON. Let me say that one of the best of all sound motion pictures developed by the Department of Agri- culture is one which deals with the pres- ervation of agricultural products in can- ning work and in the preservation of fruits. I am sure the Senator from Vermont is familiar with some of those motion pictures, Their great advantage is that instead of requiring a home dem- onstration agent to go from house to house and to set up the demonstration in each house, films are now available to show how these facilities can be used in the deep-freeze units—an extremely fine demonstration of what to do in the home canning of fruits and vegetables.
1950 I think the sound film developed on the canning of fruits and vegetables alone is worth all the money which has been used for this purpose. Mr. AITKEN, But if there already is a provision of $1,265,800 for this purpose, is the Secretary of Agriculture to be given authority to exercise his own judg- ment in the spending of an additional $300,000 for the production of motion and sound pictures relating to the au- thorized programs of the various agen- cies of the Department? Why do we have the appropriation in two places? Why do we provide that the $300,000 can be taken from some other fund if the Secretary of Agriculture desires to use it in the production of motion and sound pictures which will set forth the work of any agency of the Department which he may choose to have set forth? The amendment almost gives the Sec- retary of Agriculture unlimited author- ity to produce the kind of motion pic- ture or sound picture he wishes o have produced, so long as it has some relation- ship to the work of one of the agencies of the Department of Agriculture. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me at this point? Mr. AIKEN. Certainly; but first let me say that I am particularly concerned with this amendment, and perhaps the Senator from New Mexico knows why. Mr. ANDERSON. I can only say to my good friend, the Senator from Ver- mont, that I do not know why the mat- ter ts handled in this fashion. I was only attempting to reply to the question as to whether or not sound films and motion pictures demonstrating the work of the Department have heretofore been used. I say that in my opinion the expendil- ture of money for films heretofore pre- pared has been a very good expenditure. Mr. AIKEN, The Senator from New Mexico is entirely correct. If properly used, a reasonable amount of money well spent would return good dividends on the investment. However, I see no restriction on the Secretary of Agriculture in regard to the use of this $300,000 to produce the kind of film he may wish to have produced, so long as it relates to some phase of the work of the Department of Agricul- ture. - Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. Can the Senator say whether any division of the Depart- ment of Agriculture which under the agricultural appropriation has any money to spend in relation to authorized programs of the various agencies of the Department, could transfer all that money to this particular agency and have it do all the work and handle all the program? Mr. AIKEN. I would rather have the Senator from Georgia answer that ques- tion. As I read the law, it seems to me that $300,000 would be taken out of the $1,265,800. Or could it come from any unused funds of the Department of Ag- riculture? Mr. RUSSELL. No; the $300,000 is very similar to the appropriation for the Office of the Secretary. As the Senator CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE is aware, there go into the Office of the Secretary various allotments from vari- ous bureaus and agencies within the De- partment of Agriculture, for the purpose of supervision of the work within that agency. I think the $300,000 is in addi- tion to the appropriation referred to by the Senator, and I think it can be trans- ferred from funds which are appropri- ated for the various branches of the De- partment of Agriculture, Mr. FERGUSON. But not necessarily under the Office of Information? That is the idea, is it not? Mr. RUSSELL, It has to be spent un- der the Office of Information. Mr. FERGUSON. But it can come from any other agency of the Depart- ment of Agriculture; can it not? Mr. RUSSELL. Oh, yes; there is no question about that. So, as I understand this $300,000, it comes by transfer from any agency of the Department. For example, I think the Commodity Credit Corporation, if it has any funds available for this purpose, can transfer them so as to have a film made to show farmers how to store corn in home storage; and the money could also be used for the distribution of that film. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. Could the money also be used to show the advantages or disadvantages of the Brannan plan? It could be used for that purpose, could it not? Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, if the Senator from Vermont will permit me to reply, let me say that I do not think the money could be used for that purpose at all. If I thought it could be used for that purpose, I certainly would not approve of this amendment. However, I do not think the money could be used for such @ purpose, because the amendment states that the funds may be used for “author- ized programs.” Up to this good moment, the Congress of the United States has not authorized the Brannan plan. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator from Michigan that I think I agree with the Senator from Georgia that the money could not legally be used to promote a new program. But the money could be used for the produc- tion of a sound or motion picture to show how the American farmer in recent years has attained salvation under the pro- grams of the Department of Agriculture. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. Marketing is a part of the Brannan plan, is it not? Distri- bution is a part of the Brannan plan, and both are recognized in other sections relating to the marketing of farm prod- ucts. Does not the Senator think that the funds could be used for that pur- pose, and, therefore, to demonstrate the values of the Brannan plan? Mr. AIKEN. The Senator from Michi- gan believes, as I do, that certain funds appropriated to the Department of Agri- culture have already been used—or mis- tised—for the promotion of the Brannan plan, 10393 There is no guaranty that, if Com- modity Credit or PMA funds have been used for that purpose, this $300,000 movie or sound film could not also be used at least promote enthusiasm, to show that while we are doing pretty well under the present programs, we might do even better, Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator is fa- mililar with the recent program in Minnesota, under which some $34,000 or perhaps as much as $50,000 was used in behalf of the Brannan plan, even though not authorized. The Senator has no doubt as to that faet, has he? Mr. AIKEN. I also pointed out re- cently, when the Senator from Michigan was absent from the Senate Chamber, that the Comptroller General never ruled on the point ratsed by the Senator from Michigan, namely, that the Secre- tary of Agriculture, at the meeting in Minnesota, violated the Jaw by making a speech in favor of the Brannan plan. The Comptroller Genera] held that it was a matter which would properly come be- fore the Department of Justice, not be- fore the Comptroller General. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield to the Senator from Delaware. Mr. WILLIAMS, ‘Is the Senator from Vermont familiar with the statement I made previously on the floor of the Sen- ate, in which I showed that the Secre- tary of Agriculture had pointed out to his top PMA men that in his opinion it was more important that they work to- ward the enactment of his legislative program than that they work to make the existing law function? Mr. AIKEN. I believe the Senator from Delaware made some such state- ment. Mr. WILLIAMS. I quoted a portion of a letter which the Secretary had writ- ten to his top officials, in which he had made that statement. Mr. AIKEN. There is some indica- tion that at least a few of them have borne that admonition in mind. It ap- pears to me that this is definitely legis- Jation on an appropriation bill, and I ask the Chair to rule on it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Chair correctly understand that the Senator from Vermont is making the point of order? Mr. AIKEN. I am making the point of order tha it is legislation on an ap- propriation bill. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I should like to be heard on the point of order, Mr. AIKEN. I may say that I am highly suspicious of this item of $300,- 000, which ts to be used for the produc- tion of a sound or motion picture, as proposed. I make the point of order that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, it is a legislative matter, but it is an amend- ment to a legislative matter, because the language which precedes it, writing out all the numbers of the yearbooks which cau be printed, is itself legislative. So
10394 it is an amendment to a legislative pro- vision which comes to us in the House bill, We certainly have a right to amend a House legislative provision which comes to the Senate. When the House under- takes to write out and prescribe how many of the Yearbooks of Agriculture shall be printed for the use of the House and Senate, and to write in a great deal of legislation in connection with the Office of Information, the Senate has a right to amend it to the extent pro- posed, because when the House legis- lates, then the Senate has a right to legislate. The House provision, pre- soribing the number of yearbooks which can be printed, is purely legislative. That is one form of information. We come forward with another. While I am about it, the distinguished Senator has talked about a sound film. This provision is not only for a sound fin, but for preparing an segricultural exhibit to be taken around to State fairs and gatherings of that kind. It was not placed in the bill with any idea of pro- moting the Brannan plan—perish the thought, so far as our committee is con- cerned. I do not know how the Members feel about it. I did not poll them. But this is a provision which has been in the bills since 1943. It is not a new idea to assist by means of the dissemination of infor- mation by way of agricultural exhibits, moving pictures, and otherwise. It has been in progress since 1943, and it is cer- tainly not put in this bill with any idea of propagandizing for the Brannan plan. The Brannan plan was in existence be- fore 1943. It was not called the Brannan plan. It bore the name then of a gen- tleman from Iowa or Illinois, some doc- tor from one of the agricultural college experiment stations in that area, who headed the movement as an emergency or a depression measure, The Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Brannan, later pinned his name to the program evolved by this professor. But there is nothing about the Brannan plan in this amendment. I hope the Senator wil} not assail it on those grounds, be- cause it does not relate to the Brannan plan. Mr, AIKEN. I may say that the Sen- ator from Vermont did not bring up the idea that this might he used for promot- ing the Brannan Plan. However, the Senator from Vermont is not satisfied with this provision. I should prefer, Mr. President, to make the point of order that the provision is not germane to the ill WHERRY. Mr. President, will the g Senator yield? Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Is it not a fact that this identical language was stricken from the bill in the House, that a point of order was made against it, and that it was removed from the bill for that rea- eon? Mr. RUSSELL. That is exactly cor- rect. But the House has an entirely dif- ferent system from that of the Senate when it comes to dealing with points of order. Mr. WHERRY. I understand that. But, unless there is something else about CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE this amendment which is absolutely germane—— Mr. RUSSELL, Of course, it is ger- mane, Mr. WHERRY. Unless it amends the provision which came to the Senate from the House, it seems to me that it is not germane. Mr. RUSSELL. It is a proposal to amend what the House sent to the Senate, Mr. WHERRY. That 1s correct. Mr. RUSSELL. What the House sent to the Senate was a provision for in- formation, and this amendment relates to information. It provides for exhibits ex- plaining new agricultural developments of major interest to farmers and is sup- plied to some 35 largo State and inter- state fairs which request this material each year. Technical assistance and production facilities are also extended to department agencies for the preparation of small exhibits, for limited use. addition, the Office of Information pro- vides motion picture, radio, and projec- tion service for the Department and supervises the distribution of films from 72 cooperative State film libraries for the use of extension agencies. Mr, AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. This amendment goes far beyond the provisions sent to Senate by the House. In fact, it au- thorizes the Secretary to use his own judgment as to whether or not $300,000 worth of sound or motion-picture film would promote the work of the Depart- ment. Mr. RUSSELL. Upon whose judgment are we going to have to depend for information? Mr. AIKEN, I ask for the judgment of the Senate upon the point of order, Mr. CHAVEZ and Mr. LUCAS ad- dressed the Chair, The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. RUSSELL. I yield first to the Senator from New Mexico, after which I shall yield to the Senator from Tlinois. Mr. CHAVEZ. The language sought to be employed is that which has to do with information. Mr. RUSSELL. That is correct. Mr. CHAVEZ. It happens that what the House did was to provide for infor- mation in the form of yearbooks. The yearbook contains possibly a thousand items of information beneficial to the farmer. Am I correct? Mr. RUSSELL. Of course. Mr. CHAVEZ. Besides the items out- lined in the yearbook, giving sound in- formation to the farmer, the Senate amendment provides only for additional information, but, nevertheless, informa- tion. Is that not correct? Mr. RUSSELL. That is correct. There can be no question about the ger- maneness of the amendment. The item is as follows: For necessary nses in connection with the publication, indexing, lilustration, and distribution of bulletins, documents, and reporte, the preparation, distribution, and JULY 17 Gisplay of agricultural motion and sound Pictures, and exh! , and the coordination of informational work in the Department. It goes on to provide for the publica- tion of 230,850 copies of the yearbook for the use of the House and the Senate, which {s certainly legislation. Then comes the amendment which provides for additional information dealing with agriculture, to be furnished by the transfer of $300,000 from other appro- priations. Then follows this legisla- ion: That in the preparation of motion pictures or exhibita by the Department, not exceed- ing a total of 610,000 to be used for employ- ment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706 (a) of the Organic Act of 1944— And 60 forth. That is legislation. The whole section is legislation. Mr. LUCAS, Mr, President, will the Senator yield? Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator from Georgia has just read into the Recorp what I had intended to read, under the general caption of “Office of Informa- tion.” Everything which he has read, it seems to me, is right in line with what the proviso does. It deals with the same subject matter, and it seems to me it ts all absolutely germane, Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. The point on which the House sustained the point of order, however, was that the $300,000 was to be transferred from other bureaus within the Department of Agriculture, in addi- tion to the amount of money allocated for the purposes which the Senator-just mentioned. It seems to me it is new legislation, and that the House was cor- rect in striking it out. Mr. RUSSELL. I do not intend to pass on the rules of the House, because from what little experience I have had I know that they are widely different from the rules of the Senate. Limita- tions are not out of order in the House. In the Senate it has been held that all imitations are out of order. There is no similarity of rules as between the House and the Senate in dealing with appropriation bills. I claim, and shall continue to insist so long as I am a Member of the Senate, that when the House legislates one line, as it does when it spells out the number of yearbooks to be printed, it has opened the door, and the Senate can legislate on the subject oven in an appropriation bill. Mr. WHERRY. I agree with the dis- tinguished Senator in that respect, but I make the point that that was not the issue in the House. It was not on the question of whether it was germane to the Office of Information; it was that the $300,000 was to be transferred within the Department for the purposes out- lined. It was on that question that the point of order was made. I submit that if the Senate attempts to write it into the bill under the theory that it is amending what the House did, a point of order can properly be made. Mr. RUSSELL. I do not agree at all with the Senator from Nebraska,
1950 Mr. McKELLAR. Mr, President, will the Senator yield? Mr. RUSSELL, I yield. Mr. McCKELLAR, Mr. President, the amendment provides that— Not exceeding 6300,000 for these purposes may be tranaferred to and made a part of this appropriation, from the funds applicable, and shall be available for the objects spe. cified herein. Tne amendment could not be more germane, Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. ‘The Senator will state it, Mr. McFARLAND. | Is a point of order debatable? The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not debatable. Mr. McFARLAND. Iinsist on the reg- ular order, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has raised the question of germaneness of the Senate amendment, which has just been dis- cussed, to the bill as passed by the House. Under rule XVI, paragraph 4, the Chair will submit the question of ger- maneness to the Senate, which, under the rule, is not debatable. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, if the Senate is anxious to have a vote on this question tonight, the junior Senator from Nebraska will suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Hickenlooper Millikin Anderson Hill Morse Brewster Holland Murray Bridges Humphrey Myers Butler Ives O'Mahoney Chapman Jenner Pepper Chavez Johnson, Colo, Robertson Connally Kem Russell Cordon Kerr Saltonstall Donnell Kilgore Schoeppel Douglas Langer Smith, Maine Dworshak Lehman Smith, N. J. Eastland Lodge Stennis Ecton Lucas Taft Ellender McFarland Thomas, Okla. Ferguson McKellar Thye Fulbright Magnuson Watkins George Malone Wherry Graham Martin Williams Hayden Maybank Young The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is present. The question is, Is the committee amendment before the Senate germane to the House provision? The question is submitted to the Senate. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, a par- liamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor will state it. Mr, WHERRY. The rule provides that no further point of order can be made and that the question of germane- ness must be settled by a vote. The VICE PRESIDENT, Two ques- tions are involved. One is the question of new legislation. Where new legisia- tion is proposed by a committee, the Senate may decide that it is germane to the provision in a House bill. In that case the point of order on the ground that it is new legislation no longer lies. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. WHERRY. In other words, if the Senate decides that the language is ger- mane, the point of order is actually set- tled by the vote on the question of germaneness. The VICE PRESIDENT. If the Sen- ate decides it is germane, of course it can vote on the question of agreeing to the amendment separately. However, the point of order that it is new legisla- tion is then disposed of. Mr. TAFT. A point of inquiry, Mr. President. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor will state it. Mr. TAFT. Germane to what? Ger- mane to the bill? Germane to the pro- vision of the House bill? The VICE PRESIDENT. Germane to the House language, to which it is an amendment. The Senator from Georgia, in charge of the bill in reply to the point of order that it was new legislation, contended that it was germane to the provision of the bill to which it is an amendment, which is the House language. Mr. WHERRY. A parliamentary in- quiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. Mr. WHERRY. Was the point of order raised to the question of germaneness or on the ground of new legislation? The VICE PRESIDENT. The point of order was made against the amendment on the ground that it was new legisla- tion, and the Senator from Georgia, to counter that point of order, said that it was germane to the legislative provision in the House text. Mr. WHERRY. I did not hear the Senator from Georgia raise the question of germaneness, and the point of order was not debatable, so how was it raised? The VICE PRESIDENT. The present occupant of the chair was temporarily called out at the time the point was raised, but the Chair understands that when the point of order was raised against the language on the ground that it was new legislation, the Senator from Georgia contended that it was germane to the House provision, and that raised the question, and the occupant of the chair at that time submitted the ques- tion to the Senate, and the point of no quorum was made. That is the present situation. The question is, Is the amendment germane to the House language? Mr. WHERRY., I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The VICE PRESIDENT. Those who take the position that the language of the committee amendment is germane to the House language will vote “yea.” Those who take the contrary position will vote “nay.” The Secretary will call the roll. The legistative clerk called the roll. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senators from Connecticut [Mr. BznTon and Mr. McMaxon], the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Hory], and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Typrxos] are absent on public business. The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Byrn}, the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Frear], 10395 the Senator from Iowa (Mr. GILLeTTs), the Senators from Rhode Island {Mr. GreEEN and Mr, Leany], the Senator from Wyoming {Mr. Hunt], the Senator from Texas (Mr. JoHNnson], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. McCarran], the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. McCuetian], the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Nreuy], the Senator from Utah (Mr. THomas], the Senator from Maryland (Mr. O’Conor! are detained on official busl- ness. The Senator from California (Mr. Downey] is absent because of illness. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JoHNsToN], the Senator frcm Louisiana {[Mr. Lona], the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Tayitor], the Senator from Ken- tucky [Mr. Wrrters] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Keravver] is absent on official committee business. The Senator from Alabama [Mr, SPARKMAN] is absent by leave of the Sen- ate on official business. I announce further that if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. JouNnson ], the Senator from South Caro- lina {Mr. Jonnston], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. McCuriian}j, and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. NeeLy] would vote “yea,” Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Washington [Mr. Carn], the Senator from South Dakota {Mr. Muwnpt], the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Togsey], and the Sen- ator from Michigan (Mr. VanpEnserc] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from California [Mr. KNOWLAND] is absent because of a death in his family. The Senator from Indiana {Mr. Capr- HART] is necessarily absent. The Senator from Wisconsin {Mr. Wixey] is absent on official business. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Bricker], the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Darsy], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Fian- pers], the Senator from South Dakota {Mr. Gurney], the Senator from New Jersey {[Mr. HENpRIcKSON], and the Sen- ator from Wisconsin (Mr. McCarrny] are detained on official business, The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 35, nays 25, as follows: YEAS—85 Anderson Hill Maybank Chapman Holland Morse Chavez Humphrey Murray Connally Johnson, Colo. Myers Donnell Kerr O'Mahoney Douglas Kilgore Pepper Eastland Langer Robertson Ellender Lehman Russell Fulbright Lucas Stennis George McFarland Thomas, Okla. Graham McKellar Young Hayden Magnuson NAYS—25 Aiken Ives Smith, Maine Brewster Jenner Smith, N.J. Bridges Kem Taft Butler Lodge Thye Cordon Malone Watkins Dworshak Martin Wherry Ecton Milikin Williams Ferguson Baltonstall Hickenlooper Schoeppel NOT VOTING—36 Benton Cain Downey Bricker Capehart Flanders Byrd Darby Frear
Giliette Knowland o’Conor Green Leahy arkman Gurney Long ytor Hendrickson McCarran Thomas, Utah MoCarthy Tobey int McClellan Tydings Johnson, Tex, McMahon Vandenberg J .8.0. Mundt Wiley Kefauver Neely Withers The VICE PRESIDENT. On this vote the yeas are.35, the nays are 25, the Senate holds the amendment germane, and that settles the point of order on the ground that it is new legislation. COMMUNISTS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE— REPORT OF MAJORITY MEMBERS OF SUBCOMMITTEE OF FOREIGN RELA- TIONS COMMITTEE Mr LODGE. Mr. President, the report of the majority members of the Tydings subcommittee which is just out, not having gone through the Foreign Rela- tions Committee, asserts that I was absent for 9 of the 31 sessions of the meetings of the subcommittee, that for this reason the subcommittee was “bur- dened in its work” and that there was significance in most of these absences coming during consideration of the Amerasia case. The truth is that the Fenator from Rhode Island [Mr. Grezn], who is one of the majority signers of the report, missed five meetings—five of the nine—as I did, because we were members of the subcommittee of two which was taking testimony in New York and abroad on the day-to-day policing of the loyalty program pursuant to a unanimous vote of the full subcommittee. This was be- tween the date of May 26 and June 5 when most of the consideration of the Amerasia case occurred. I missed the other four meetings because a young man who was a close friend of my son's, of myself, and of my whole family, was drowned near my home in Massachusetts and I was preoccupied for several days with many things pertaining to the trag- edy. This occurred in March just as the subcommittee was beginning its hear- ings and could have had no possible effect, burdensome or otherwise, on the work of the subcommittee. It is a pity—and it is foreign to all the usual courtesies between Senators— that I should be criticized by name for being absent on official committee work and, secondly, for being absent because of the death of a close and beloved friend. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey and Mr. HICKENLOOPER addressed the Chair. Mr. LODGE. I shall be glad to yield in a moment when I have completed my statement. It is this type of petty sniping—this attempt to hit below the belt-—which has made the work of the subcommittee so difficult. If the other statements in the majority's report are no more ac- curate than these statements about my- self, the report will be chiefly valuable as fiction and as special pleading, rather than as fact. Indeed this makes the whole document suspect. The majority report also attacks me by name for reading 12 of the 81 loyalty files. Twelve files taken at random and requiring five whole days to read, are a representative cross-section and con- vinced me that the files were in such an CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE unfinished, undeveloped state as not to provide a sound basis for reaching con-~ clusions. It is noteworthy that, while the majority criticizes me for refusing to accept these files blindly at their face value, nowhere in the majority report are these files discussed as individual cases, one by one the way Ido. There is merely a blanket endorsement, and there is no way of knowing whether the majority read 61 files or none at all. My report goes into specific details. Mr. President, in my minority views, I purposely made no personal attacks on any members of the subcommittee and, at this serious moment in history, I shall not do so, but it is necessary that I clarify the flagrant misstatements which the majority have seen fit to make about my part personally in this investi- gation. They must be indeed desperate men to use these personal methods to divert attention from the main issue which, of course, is the total inadequacy of their investigation. I now yield to the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Presi- dent, I should like to ask the Senator from Massachusetts a question. As I re- call the history of this investigation, the resolution adopted by the Senate author- ized the Senate Foreign Relations Com- mittee to investigate the matter and to report to the Senate. Am I to under- stand that the subcommittee, which was designated to investigate and report to the full Foreign Relations Committee, has released a report to the press pur- porting to be the report of the full committee? Mr. LODGE. Yes. It is an unusual proceeding, though, since the subcom- mittee should have reported to the full Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. As a member of the Foreign Relations Com- mittee, I must utter a vigorous protest against that procedure. I have never heard of it before. The subcommittee was appointed to report to the full com- mittee, and the full committee was to consider it before any public report was made. Mr. LODGE. I think that is correct. I think it ts a most unusual procedure. I know of no reason for taking this un- usual procedure and ignoring in rather cavalier fashion all the other members of the committee. I now yteld to the Senator from Iowa. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Massa- chusetts would tell me when he man- aged to obtain a copy of this report of the subcommittee, that is of the majority members of the subcommittee of which I happen to he a minority member, Iam curious about that. Mr. LODGE. I got it this afternoon at about 4 o’clock. I went down into the sort of battle station they have down in the cellar. I went in and asked a young lady there to give me a copy of the re- port, which she did. Maybe she was not supposed to do so. Maybe I am not sup- posed to see it until it comes out in the newspapers tomorrow. Mr. HICKENLOOPER,. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? JULY 17 Mr, LODGE. I yield to the Senator from Iowa. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. For a con- siderable period of time, I may say to the Senator from Massachusetts, I have peen obtaining my information about the subcommittee from the newspapers. XI have been totally unable to secure a copy, galley proof, or otherwise, of this so-called report of the majority party membership on this subcommittee. I understand it was freely handed out to the newspapers this morning, and per- haps yesterday, and on last Friday at least one or two newspapermen, I am told, had access to the galley proof; and yet, as a member of the subcommittee, I was not provided with any such re- port. I understand that after some con- siderable inquiry on the part of my office this afternoon two copies were sent over late, after they had been pretty gen- erally scattered around to the public. I think it is a rather fantastic pro- cedure, and I expect to have something to say about it when I can find out what the majority has said, One or two little things that have been quoted to me by the press certainly will lend themselves to a considerable amount of interesting comment. Mr. LODGE. Let me say to the Sen- ator from Iowa that we have a well- established procedure in the Senate, which has developed over the years as the result of experience; and whenever @ little handful of Senators undertake to violate that procedure and bypass it, naturally and obviously it makes any- thing they do suspect. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator again yield? Mr. LODGE. I yield. Mr. HICKENLOOPER, Was it the understanding of the Senator from Massachusetts that this subcommittee, to which he and I both, at least on paper, belong, was to report to the Foreign Re- lations Committee as a creature of the Foreign Relations Committee, or was the subcommittee to broadcast its own specialized and very difficult-to-under- stand findings to the world before they were reported to the Foreign Relations Committee? Mr. LODGE. My understanding is that the usual procedure is for the sub~ committee to report to the full commit- tee, and in this case that has been com- pletely violated. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Does the Senator from Massachusetts further un- derstand that assistant counsel for the subcommittee, Mr. Morris, who had no part in the preparation of it, not only was refused a copy of this report, but that at least until this morning, so far as I know, there has been a complete refusal on the part of the majority to pay Mr. Morris’ expenses or anything else for the very vigorous investigative work he has done for a considerable time, from, as I recall, Mareh or about that time? Mr. LODGE. I did not know that, If the Senator from Iowa says it is so, of course I believe it, I am in. HICKENLOOPER. toned that it is true; that his investi- gations were becoming a little bit too detafled and were producing too many
1950 possible witnesses for the subcommittees that his activities gave offense to the majority, and they therefore decided to eut him off the expense account and re- fuse to pay his hotel bills and his travel expenses, So in connection with what investigation he did after that, up until now at least, I think he has advanced his own money: I wondered if the San- ator from Massachusetts knew that. Mr, LODGE. I did not hanpen to know that, but it does not surprise me, I will say. Mr. PERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, LODGE. 1 yield. Mr. PERGUSON. The Senator has indicated, in what he has had to say to the Senate, that a majority report has been issued. Mr. LODGE. Yes. Mr. FERGUSON. Was that report submitted to all the members of the sub- committee so that a vote could be taken en the issue of that particular report? Mr. LODGE. No. Iam glad the Sen- ator from Michigan asked me that ques- tion. I never saw the majority report until this afternoon when I went down- stairs and asked a young lady to give it to me, and she did. So my statement of medividual views, which is contained in the back part of the subcommittee re- port, was written completely without knowledge of what the majority were g0- tng to say, and I never had any chance to see what the majority were going to say until the thing was in print, and I only got it by the back door, it might be said. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question? Mr, LODGE. Yes. Mr. FERGUSON. Is it not customary when a subcommittee is going to make a report, and call it a majority report, that the subcommittee report is shown to all the members; that a meeting ts called, and a vate is had on the report, and then if a majority of the votes are cast in favor of the report, it will be called a majority report? As I under- stand, that was not done. Mr. LODGE. ‘That was not done, No; that was never done at all. Mr. FERGUSON and Mr. IVES ad- dressed the Chair. Mr. LODGE. I yield first to the Sen- ator from Michigan and then I shall yield to the Senator from New York. Mr. PERGUSON. How, under any aystem of procedure followed in the Sen- ate, can this so-called report be called a majority report of a subcommittee, no voting having ever been taken on the particular document? Mr. LODGE. No vote was taken in the subcommittee, but three of the five members of the subcommittee have put their names to the report, and I imagine it will be called the majority report. But, of course, there never has been a vote in the subcommittee on this report, because the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Hycxen.ooprr) has never seen it at all, and I saw it just thia afternoon at 2 o'elock, ; 4m order to elear the record, let me say XCVI-——055 ; CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE that I sew ft in the hands of a news- paperman in the President's room for a moment, about 30 minutes ago; but otherwise I have not seen it. Mr. LODGE. The Senatar from New York has a copy of it, but I shall not ask him how he got it. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr, President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LODGE. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. Does the Senator know by what authority the report has been printed at public expense as a ma- Jority report of the subcommittee, ff it has never been voted upon? Mr. LODGE. I am at a loss about that; I am puzzled to know how it hap- Mr. IVES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LODGE. I yield. Mr. IVES, I should like to ask my dis- tinguished friend the Senator from Mas- sachusetts whether he feels that the re- port, by any construction which might be placed upon it, is a direct violation of the resolution by which the investigation is taking place. I should like to read the resolution again, so the Senate can see just what has happened. The resolution reads as follows: Resolved, That the Senate Committee on Relations, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorined and di- rected to conduct a full and complete study and investigation as to whether persons who are disloyal to the United States are or have been employed by the Department of State. The committee— It refers only to the full Senate Com- mittee on Foreign Relations, not to the subcommittee— shall report to the Senate at the earliest practicable date the results of its investiga- tion, together with such recommendations as it may deem desirable, and if said recome mendations are to include formal charges of disloyalty against any individual, then the committee, before making said recommen- dations, shall give said individual open hear- ings for the purpose of taking evidence or testimony on said charges. In the conduct of this study and investigation, the com- mittee is directed to procure, by subpena, and examine the complete loyalty and em- ployment files and records of all the Govern~ ment employees tn the Department of State and such other agencies against whom oharges have been heard. That is the end of the resolution; but again I inquire of the Senator from Mas- sachusetts whether he feels that the in- tent and purpose of the direction con- tained in that resolution have heen carried out in this instance. Mr. LODGE. I make it a big point In my statement of individuel views; I categorically demonstrate that the sub- committee has not done the job the Sen- ate assigned to it. Of course I agree wholeheartedly with those who contend that the subcommit- tee should come first to the full commit. His as the prime figure in this whole mat- Mr, LODGE. I yield to the Senator from Texas. Mr. CONNALLY. I wish to speak in my own time, Mr. President, Mr. LODGE. Mr. Predident, that is all I care to aay about this matter. I wish to set the Rucorp straight in regard to the point about me. Mr, CONNALLY. Mr. President, I wish to say that of course IT Was not a member of the subcommittee, and I took no part in ites deliberations. The Committee on Foreign Relations meets tomorrow at 10 o’clock to hear the subcommittee as to this report. The chairman of the subcommittee, the Sen- ator from Maryland {Mr. Typ. Nos} does not happen to be on the floor of the Sen- ate at the moment; but he has stated to me that tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock—and I hope the Senator from Massachusetts will be there; he is a member of the subcommittee—the sub- committee will submit its report to the full committee. Mr. LODGE, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CONNALLY. I yield. Mr. LODGE. Is the Senator aware of the fact that this report has been re- leased to the press or to a newspaper to be issued tomorrow morning? Mr. CONNALLY. I have been in- formed of that. I did not release it te the press. Mr. LODGE. No; I did not suppose the Senator from Texas had done so. Mr. CONNALLY. But I have been {nformed that the release has been made. Of course, Mr. President, we know that oftentimes releases are made several Gays ahead of time in order to get news coverage about a matter. However, I do not think the Senator from Massachusetts had anything to do with releasing the report. I think he is entirely opposed to such practice. Regardless of all that, let me say that tomorrow the full committee is to meet at 10 o’clock. As I construe the resolu- tion, it means that the full committee will report to the Senate, and that is what the full committee intends to do. Mr, President, that is a statement of the facts, without any denial of mine in regard to anything that has been said in this connection. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Pres- ident, will the Senator yield? Mr. CONNALLY. I yield. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I never heard of this report until an hour or two ago; and then I asked about it, and a copy of the report was sent to my office, es I am informed. Let me inquire how the subcommittee oan make a report until the full commit- tee has met. Mr. CONNALLY. The full committee has met. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. But the subcommittee has not met-—— Mr. CONNALLY. Yes; {t has. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I am told that not the entire subcommittee has met. Mr. CONNALLY. Oh, yes; if did meet. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. But I have never seen the report until now, Mr. CONNALLY. The Senator from New Jersey says he has a copy of the re- port now.
10398 Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. No. I say that I am told that a copy of the report is in my office. I asked for it about 2 hours ago. I insisted upon having it be- fore it went to the press, Mr, CONNALLY. The clerk of the committee states that copies have been sent to all the members-——— Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Because I requested that it be done, 2 hours ago, because I knew it would have to come to the full committee, for the committee to pass on it. Mr. CONNALLY. The Senator from New Jersey has a copy of the report now; does he not? Mr, SMITH of New Jersey. Yes—in my office. Mr, CONNALLY. Then I hope the Senator will be at ease about it, for he has it. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I have not read it. Mr. CONNALLY. I have not either. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. But I do not understand how the report could be made, unless the full subcommittee acted on it. Mr. CONNALLY. The subcommittee must have knowledge of it, because the Senator from Massachusetts has indi- vidual views of his own which are printed in this pamphlet. Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CONNALLY. I yield. Mr. LODGE. I never saw the re- port—— Mr. CONNALLY. The Senator from Massachusetts saw the one he signed; did he not? Mr. LODGE. Of course I did; that al- most goes without saying. Mr. CONNALLY. That is what I am talking about. Mr. LODGE. But until this afternoon I did not see the report signed by the three majority subcommittee members. That is the point the Senator from New Jersey is trying to make, and I think it is a very good point. I do not see why we are trying to debate it. Mr. CONNALLY. According to my mathematics, three constitute a major- ity of five. That is my understanding of arithmetic. The Senator from New Jersey, who is a professor, certainly should know that three is more than two. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I agree with the Senator as to that; but I wish to say that when I am on a committee which is to receive a report from a sub- committee of five, all five of the mem- hers of the subcommittee should be present at the meeting with the full sub- committee to make the report. I point out that the two other members of the subcommittee were not consulted. Furthermore, I have been advised that the press was informed of this report before I had seen it. Mr. CONNALLY. The Senator from New Jersey says he is a member of the full committee. I am not complaining of that; we are glad to have him on the committee, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. However, my point its that as a member of the committee, I should have seen the re- port before it was given to the press, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, at any rate, I have stated the facts. Sen- ators can draw their own conclusions. I have stated that the committee will meet tomorrow at 10 o’clock. I hope the Senator from New Jersey will be there, with his usual perceptive ability and with a smile on his face. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I will be there. Mr. CONNALLY. I hope so. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, the Sena- tor from Massachusetts has said that he filed a separate report, in the nature of individual views. I wonder whether he submitted it to the other members of the full committee, before it was issued, so that the members of the full com- mittee had a chance to see it first. Mr. LODGE. The other members of the subcommittee had a chance to see it. Mr. LUCAS. However, my point is that the Senator from New Jersey is complaining because the report of the majority of the subcommittee was not submitted to the full committee before it was issued to the press. I wonder whether the Senator from Massachu- setts submitted his individual views to the full committee or to the subcommit- tee. Iam wondering whether the Sena- tor from Massachusetts, in filing his in- dividual report, submitted it to a com- mittee of five, in a special session called for that purpose? Mr. LODGE. We never have had a vote in the subcommittee on either the report which is signed by the three Sen- ators or on the views which I submitted. Neither of those documents was ever presented for a vote. The three Sena- tors said, ‘We are going to make our report.” I said, “I will make my re- port.” I then turned in my report. I have been wondering for a long time whether the Members of the majority had a chance to see my report before they finished their report; I do not know. I never had a chance to see their report; that, I can assure the Senator. Mr, LUCAS. I understand. Mr. LODGE. Whether their report has been altered in the light of my re- port is something I do not know, Mr, LUCAS. I am not talking about that. But, in view of the questions pro- pounded by the Senator from New Jer- sey, who seems to be very much wrought up about the fact that the report was not submitted to the full committee, I was trying to ascertain whether the Sen- ator’s report was submitted to the full committee for action, or whether the re- port made by the Senator from Iowa was submitted to the full committee—or has he made a report? Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Presi- dent-———- Mr, LODGE. If I may say to the Sen- ator from Illinois, the subcommittee did not come to a head, the way most sub- committees do, by having a meeting at which a document is presented, which is voted up or voted down. Of course, three is a larger number than two; I agree with the Senator from Texas about that. Mr. LUCAS. I am glad the Senator agrees with that. Mr, LODGE. But it is impossible to have a vote larger than two, unless there JULY 17 isa vote. The proceeding, in a way, be- gan to peter out, to disintegrate. That is where we are now. All I could do was to make my own statement, and my state- ment is in the document, away in the back: but it is there. I wish the Senator from Illinois would agree withit. I think he would agree with a large part of it. Mr, LUCAS. I am going to read It. I want to say the proceeding did not dis- integrate, so far as the Senator from Massachusetts is concerned. Mr. LODGE. No. Mr. LUCAS. Because he filed a sep- arate report. He apparently never asked the full committee to consider his own report, submitted for the purpose of over- turning the action of the full committee. Mr, LODGE. I argued my views for 5 months, every time there was a chance of doing so, I submitted my report early to the Senator from Maryland and the other members of the committee had plenty of time to see it if they wanted to, and could very well have signed their names to it had they wanted to. They did not want to. When the Senator from Tiinois reads it he will see why they did not want to. Mr. LUCAS. I understand. The Sen- ator does not altogether disagree with @ number of things which are in the ma- jority report. It is my understanding that the Senator definitely found, for instance, that Lattimore was not a Com- munist. He also found that Service was not a Communist. Mr. LODGE. No. Mr. LUCAS, I think that is in the report. Mr. LODGE. No. I think the Senator had better read what I had to say about those cases. It is not quite so simple as that. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator agrees with the majority of the subcommittee as to two of the alleged chief Communists does he not? Mr. LODGE. No; that is not correct. If the Senator from Illinois wants to undertake to discuss what I think about this whole case, though it is a bit late, I shall be delighted to do so. Mr. LUCAS, Please do not do that now. Mr, LODGE. The Senator should cer- tainly let me comment on what he said my views were. I know he is fair. Mr. LUCAS. The report speaks for itself. I have merely been told that by someone. Perhaps I should not even have mentioned it. If it misinterprets in any way the Senator’s attitude, I will simply withdraw it, to keep him from en- tering upon a Jong discussion, because the three majority members of the sub- committee, the Senator from Maryland {Mr, Typrnos], the Senator from Con- necticut {Mr. McMaHow], and the Sen- ator from Rhode Island [Mr, Green], are not present. Frankly, perhaps, I should not have said that. Mr, LODGE. I wonder where they are. {(Laughter.] GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1051 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appro- priations for the support of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes.
1950 The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion ts on the amendment on page 221, beginning in line 19. Mr, TAFT. Mr. President, this amendment had not been called to my attention until now. It is a quarter of seven. I should like further opportunity to examine it and study tt. I wonder whether the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Georgia, would be willing to postpone the vote until tomorrow. The amendment reads: Provided, That when and to the extent that in the judgment of the Secretary agri- cultural exhibits and motion and sound pio- tures relating to the authorized programs of the various agencies of the Department oan be more advantageously prepared * * * by the Office of Information, * * * ad. ditional funds not exceeding $300,000 for these purposes may be transferred to and made a part of this appropriation, from the funds applicable, and shall be available for the objects specified herein: The distinguished Senator from Geor- gia says that that is not an increase in the funds available for information, and that the amount can be used by the dif- ferent departments. He has other argu- ments, including the argument that this amendment has been in the bill before. Nevertheless, Mr. President, the way it is framed, it seems to me that it can be used very well for a program like the Bran- nan plan. I have seen Department of Agriculture bulletins which are distinct- ly propaganda for the Brannan plan, and whether ‘“‘authorized programs of the various agencies” includes programs sim- ply authorized by Mr. Brannan and not authorized by Congress, I have no par- ticular means of checking, without fur- ther investigation. If the Senator is willing to defer action on the amendment, if after I examine all the Senator's arguments I find them sound I shall make no further request for delay tomorrow morning, and shall say nothing on the subject. But I should like the opportunity, if the Senator is willing, to go over the evidence until the first thing tomorrow morning. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I am always agreeable to any reasonable re- quest, and it may be there is nothing un- reasonable about the request of the Sen- ator from Ohio. I am a little amazed that my distinguished friend from Ohio should have been 7 years discovering this horrible bugaboo under the bed. This language has been in agricultural appro- priation bills for 7 years. It has been re- newed. It has been before the Senate time and time again. It is not merely getting read now to jump forth, seize the Senate, and force the Brannan plan through. It has been in the bill for all these many years. I do not believe there is any reason for delaying action on the amendment. Mr. TAFT. Possibly it is the language under which the Brannan plan has been printed and issued in booklet form by the Secretary of Agriculture. If so, then I want it to come out of the bill. That may not be true. I can only say to the Senator that it is now 10 minutes of 7. I should like, if he will grant me the privilege, to have the opportunity of look- ing into it somewhat further. It may be CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE that I shall that Iam wrong. If so, I will yield fy to the Senator's views, the first thing in the morning. Mr. RUSSELL. f should be willing to agree to any language which would pro- tect us from an avalanche of propaganda for the Brannan plan. I should be per- ectly willing to include a proviston that the programs must be authorized by Con- gress. I think that that is the only logical construction that could be placed on the language. But if the Senator from Ohio wishes to study the matter through, tonight, and peruse it, I shall not object to letting it go over until tomorrow. My. TAPT. I thank the Senator. Mr. RUSSELL. I hope his good, sound judgment will bring him to the conclu- sion that he should vote for the amend- ment, and that he was in error in think- ing the amendment was not germane. Mr. TAFT. That was based on the fact that I had not thoroughly examined it. But it seemed to me that in the way the authorization was framed, it per- mitted the use of money for particular agricultural programs not primarily in- formational, but to be used as informa- tional programs. The Senator assures me that that is not so; so possibly my thought as to its germaneness was wrong. But it seems to me that if the amendment does what has been in- dicated, then I shall not think it germane to a general appropriation of money for programs of information. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, in view of the fact that this amendment is going over until tomorrow, I think I should read this further paragraph from the testimony before the committee: The authority to transfer, contained tn this language, was inserted in the Agricul- tural Appropriation Act of 1943, and while essentially the same result can be accom- plished under the reimbursement authority of section 601 of the Economy Act, the econ- omy measure permits the transfer of funds in the interest of simplified accounting. Really, there is authority under other laws for the transfer of these funds. This provision makes it simply a matter of bookkeeping. But I am perfectly willing to let the vote go over until to- morrow morning. I should like to have action on the other amendments com- pleted. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the amendment will go over until tomorrow. The clerk will state the next amend- ment. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Library,” on page 222, after line 19, to strike out: Not to exceed $12,000,000 of the funds ap- propriated in this title shall be available for travel expenses, Amounts available from ap- propriations contained in this title are here- by reduced by the total sum of @645,496, such amount to be carried to the surplus fund and covered into the Treasury immediately upon approval of this chapter. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “Title U—Corporations,” on page 223, line 17, after the word “ex. ceed”, to strike out “$16,000,000” and in- sert “$16,350,000.” The amendment was agreed ta, 10399 The next amendment was, on page 224, line 3, after the word “discharge”, to strike out “$170,515,181" and insert “$68,698,457.” Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, may we have an explanation of that amend- ment? It seems to me to revert to the old method of keeping the Commodity Credit Corporation funds intact by can- celing notes which the Corporation has given the Treasury. I recall that the General Accounting Office protested very vigorously against that kind of book- keeping, because the losses of the Com- modity Credit Corporation never ap- peared as a Government expenditure under such a method. While I realize that the Senate committee has cut the amount which the House had canceled from approximately $170,000,000, to ap- proximately $66,000,000, and for that I am very grateful, I wonder if the Sen- ator—— Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I am sure the Senator will rejoice and be exceedingly glad when he hears the ex- planation. The reason the sum was cut from $170,515,131 to $66,698,457 was be- cause upon a reaudit it was found that the losses were that much less than the figure of $170,515,131. Therefore, the Government is really $103,816,674 bet- ter off than we thought it was as a re- sult of the transactions of the Commod- ity Credit Corporation. Mr. AIKEN. Is it the plan to wipe out losses of the Commodity Credit Corpora- tion simply by canceling notes given to the Treasury? Mr. RUSSELL. That is the only way in which we have ever handled it. Mr. AIKEN. I know. As I pointed out, the General Accounting Office vig- orously protested such methods. I shall not oppose the amendment tonight. I think I shall concentrate on the other amendment which has been under dis- cussion and which is much more vul- nerable. Mr, RUSSELL. It has been found that approximately $103,000,000 worth of notes will be paid to the Treasury which we did not think would be paid, and the Government is $103,000,000 better off than appeared by the figures submitted. Mr, AIKEN. The Senator from Ver- mont ts very happy to learn that. He is almost ready to think the Commodity Credit Corporation did not need the $2,000,000,000 which we appropriated a while ago. Mr, ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. ANDERSON. Is it not a fact that at the price at which cotton was selling it looked as if there might be losses on the 1948 crop, but with the increase in the price of cotton all the losses were wiped out by the realization that the Commodity Credit Corporation could sell its stocks at more than they cost, and if they closed the pool and took in some cotton they would actually sustain a profit instead of a loss? That applies to corn, wheat, and many other com- modities. These stocks are not nearly so extensive as some people calculated. I think some of the money recently ap- propriated will not be used. I made a calculation and figured that probably the
10400 Corporation will not need all of the $2,000,000,000. But the wise thing was to appropriate it, but the desire would be that it would never require that amount of money. Mr. AIKEN. If we find the Commod- ity Credit Corporation does not require the $2,000,000,000, the impression made on the public with regard to the farm program would be much better if we re- scinded that authorization. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. WILLIAMS. I agree with the Sen- ator from Georgia that from the stand- point of the taxpayers it makes no dif- ference whether we pay for this pro- gram through cancellation of notes or through appropriations, but I think the Senator will agree with me that this can- cellation of notes in appropriation bills does have the effect of hiding from the American people the true cost of the program, Mr. RUSSELL. I cannot see that it docs. An appropriation would be more widely publicized than would the can- cellation, but I do not think it hides the facts from anyone who wishes to get the facts. Mr. WILLIAMS. I agree that it does not exactly hide them, but it does not give the publicity to the cost of the pro- gram that would be given through a direct appropriation by Congress. Mr. RUSSELL. I do not think the use of the word “hide” was fortunate. If the appropriation were made for that purpose it probably would be a little more evident to the reader of a news- paper, but any person who went into the subject would find that on the can- cellation theory it would be more widely recognized. Mr. WILLIAMS. The reason I raised the point is because in one of the re- cent reports of the Secretary of Agricul- ture he pointed out the amount of money which Congress had appropriated for the Corporation since its inception in 1933. While he emphasized the amount of money which the Corporation had paid back into the Treasury, he failed to mention the $1,500,000,000 of note can- cellations, nor did he mention the $2,- 000,000,000 which had automatically ac- crued to this Corporation under section $2 during the past 15 years, both of which were taxpayers’ money. The in- clusion of these items would make quite a difference in the ultimate answer as to the results of the program. Mr. RUSSELL. That would make a difference, of course. Mr, WILLIAMS. The so-called sur- pluses about which the Secretary of Ag- riculture has been boasting have been false and misleading. The Commodity Credit Corporation was never estab- lished with the thought of making money. No one thought it would make money. But the taxpayers have a right to know what losses are involved and that information has not been given them. I think the Senate should aban- don this note-cancellation procedure and make direct appropriations, In that way the cost of the program would be evident to everyone, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, did I understand the Senator to say “several billions of dollars’? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. Mr. ANDERSON. I do not think it is a false profit. When the FCA has to buy cotton and buys it from the Commodity Credit Corporation at the market price, it does not cost the Treasury of the United States a penny more than it would if it went on the open market and bought the cotton. That transaction resulted in a profit of more than $200,000,000. Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not questioning the merits or demerits of the individual transaction. I directed a letter to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget and asked him if he would review the operations of the Corporation for the past 13 years and give me the net result, from the standpoint of the taxpayer, of the operations of the Commodity Credit Corporation since its inception. In his reply, which I have here, he said: In answer to your letter of February 1, 1949, the net loss sustained by the Com- modity Credit Corporation from its organiza- tion on October 17, 1933, through December 81, 1948, was @2,145,980,367 plus the around @2,000,000,000 which it had received under section 32. He went on to point out—— Mr. ANDERSON. A portion of that is for the subsidization of food, and has nothing to do with the farm program. Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not breaking it down, but I am saying that the Corpora- tion has not shown a profit. On the contrary, its loss is nearly $4,000,000,000 total. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I think it is as wrong as it can be to say that the Corporation has lost several billions of dollars, when we realize that the Congress of the United States voted that, instead of paying the full price of something, it could be taken, for con- venience, from the funds of the Com- modity Credit Corporation—— Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not question- ing here the merits or the demerits of the program authorized by Congress, nor am I questioning the program. But Ido question the statement of the Secretary of Agriculture in a bulletin, from which I quote, when he said: Incidentally, Commodity Credit Corpora- tion shows a lifetime profit rather than a loss, That statement is not true. There is no use of our trying to conceal the fact that these support programs do cost money, and I think the true facts should be made known to the American tax- payers. I shall not oppose the amendment, be- cause it is immaterial whether we cancel the notes or whether we authorize an appropriation, but I do think the true picture should be presented in the report by the Secretary of Agriculture, and I think legislation should be enacted to correct this unsound procedure. Mr. ANDERSON. I subscribe to that statement fully. I think one of the tragedies of the whole system of report- ing is that the Comptroller General can issue a report and say the loss has been $2,000,000,000 on this program. If that is saddled on the farmer, it is a serious JULY 17 thing. I agree with the Senator from Delaware that if we could segregate those things which were subsidy programs in furtherance of the decision of the Con- gress itself to handle it that way we would be better off. A great deal of money was used in the campaign against the foot-and-mouth disease in Mexico. The Government could have done that by direct appro- priation by Congress, or it could have done it by the use.of Commodity Credit Corporation funds. The amounts which were used from Commodity Credit Cor- poration funds should not be charged to the farm program. I agree with the Senator that it would be desirable to have a complete and well- rounded picture of the Commodity Credit Corporation. I think it would show that the cost of the farm program has been extremely low. I think that a great many things whioh have been charged against the Commodity Credit Corpora- tion make it look as though the farm program has been extremely costly. Whatever the figure is, we ought to hove it. Mr. WILLIAMS. I merely say that the Commodity Credit Corporation as a corporation under the supervision of the Secretary of Agriculture has cost the tax- payers around $4,C00,000,000, according to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget. Perhaps that should not all be charged against the agricultural pro- gram. However, we do not have a break- down of these items in view of the fact that we have never been able to get the books of the Commodity Credit Corp- oration. Without the books we do not know how we should assess these charges, The point I am raising is that the true cost of these programs would be clearer if Congress would get around to making a direct appropriation. The Secretary of Agriculture should come in and jus- tify appropriations on the basis of the merits or demerits of the question in- volved. Then there would be no ques- tion in the mind of the committee, Con- gress, or the country as to what it 1s costing. Furthermore, I say that when the Secretary of Agriculture puts out a bulletin in which he says this Corpora- tion, the Commodity Credit Corporation, has shown a lifetime profit, rather than a loss, that statement,is not true. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment on page 224, line 3. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “Title IV—General provisions,” on page 229, after line 5, to insert a new section as follows: Szc. 411. Of the funds appropriated in this chapter for travel expenses, $791,888 shall be carried to the surplus fund and covered into the Treasury on or before August 1, 1950; but such amount shall be credited toward any other reduction in amounts available for such travel expenses resulting from decreases in appropriations made by this act below the pudget estimates. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I have heretofore sent an amendment to the desk relating to the Meat Inspection Service. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment,
1950 The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment has not been offered. The Senator does not need to request unanimous con- sent to withdraw it. Mr. LUCAS. Mr, President, I move that the Senate proceed to the consider- ation of executive business. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold that motion so that I may ask a question of the Senator from Washington? Mr, LUCAS. Very well. Mr. WHERRY. I did not have an op- portunity to read the Senator’s amend- ment. Mr. MAGNUSON. I submitted an amendment which would have provided $2,500 for a part-time veterinarian to inspect meat at the Seattle stockyards, I have the assurance of those who are familiar with this program that out of the three-thousand-two-hundred-some- odd inspectors we ought to be entitled to at least one inspector at the union stockyards in Seattle. Mr. ANDERSON. Iam not sure that the Senator should withdraw his amend- ment. I am of the opinion that if his amendment is a good amendment it should be carried to conference. The Seattle Union Stockyards deal primarily, so far as the inspection of cattle is con- cerned, with cattle on the hoof, It is not @ question of meat grading. The city of Seattle takes care of that by ordinance. It has to do with this cattle which come into the country from Canada. Ship- ments from Canada into the United States are not covered by the interstate commerce provisions. It is upon that basis that the Department of Agricul- ture has refused to place an inspector in the union stockyards at Seattle. I do not think it would be wholly out of order for the Senator from Washington to press his amendment and, if suc- cessful, to have the Senate conferees carry it to conference. If that is de- sirable to the Senator from Washington, I think the provision for $2,500 should be voted on by the Senate. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment is not in order at this time. The amendment was ordered to be printed and lie on the table. Mr. MAGNUSON. TI do not want to embarrass the subcommittee, because the chairman assured me that there would be sufficient meat inspectors to provide one for Seattle. I make the point that this involves an international pro- gram, Mr. RUSSELL. I do not know that there will be a sufficient number of meat inspectors to take care of all demands from all over the country. Certainly if there is a slaughtering proposition in- volved, or if it involves a packing house, the Senator from Washington is en- titled to an inspector. It would not make any difference whether the cow came from Canada or from the moon. The Government would be responsible, of course. If it is a question of inspecting cattle on the hoof, it is an entirely dif- ferent proposition. Certainly we are in- specting cattle which comes into the country from Mexico, and certainly the rule which applies to the border of Mex- ico should apply to the border at Can- ada. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. MAGNUSON. Would the Senator be willing to take the amendment to con- ference? Mr. RUSSELL. I would have no ob- jection to taking it to conference. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Washington cannot offer his amendment now. It is not in order until all committee amendments have been disposed of. UNJUSTIFIED INCREASES IN THE PRICE LEVEL Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I wish to take 3 or 4 minutes on an extraneous subject matter. I ask unanimous con- sent to have the remarks I shall now make printed in the Recorp at the con- clusion of the debate today on the ap- propriation bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered, Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I hold in my hand a cartoon which appeared in this morning’s Washington Post. The cartoon is by Herblock; and in a very real sense I think it constitutes the finest, most penetrating “speech” I have ob- served thus far on the entire economic problem which confronts the country. Even though the “speech” is in cartoon form, it says a great deal; it says some- thing to which the American people and, particularly, the administration, should give heed. I understand from newspaper reports that the President of the United States perhaps will make a statement later this week in regard to our economic prob- lems. If the President does, I am sure the speech he makes will demonstrate very careful study and thought in regard to what in my opinion is a current eco- nomic crisis. The cartoon to which I have referred shows Uncle Sam in the process of being fitted to a new pair of shoes. The sales- man, however, has gotten his boxes mixed, obviously, because he is present- ing to Uncle Sam one shoe which is marked “War footing’—and thav is shown as a high shoe—and another shoe marked “Partial mobilization”’—and that shoe is shown in the cartoon as an ox- ford, whereas the shoe that Uncle Sam is shown to have taken off is marked “Business as usual.” Mr. President, I wish to present very briefly to the Senate a price problem which is becoming a great emergency in the United States as the hours go by. Over the week end and during most of today I have been gathering informa- tion in regard to what is happening to the price structure in the United States. Certainly there is no scarcity of food- stuffs. For that matter, there is no scar- city of a large quantity of the items which the fear of a spreading war have caused to rise to a price level which can honestly be characterized as a profiteer- ing price level. I happen to be one who thinks it too bad that in a period of hysteria which is sweeping our country, caused by fears which apparently many consumers en- tertain as to the possible scarcity of goods, once again great economic forces are collecting blood money from the American people; yet that is what they 10401 are doing because of the great inflationa- ry changes in the price level which are occurring in the United States. Por instance, Mr. President, let us con- sider meat. There is no scarcity of meat. There is ample meat in the storage houses of the United States to- day. Let the great meat packers justify if they can—but they cannot—the in- creases in meat prices which the meat packers are guilty of imposing upon the American people in the last few days. Mr. President, its is profiteering. It is the collection of blood money. It is a tariff imposed upon the American con- sumers because the fear of a spreading war is creeping into the minds of many American consumers. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. I yield for a question. Mr. MAYBANK. I was going to ask the Senator whether in his judgment there is any scarcity of eggs, either. Yet only recently the price of eggs has been raised 3 cents a dozen. Mr. MORSE. There is no scarcity, so far as I can determine from such re- search as I have been able to conduct; and I intend to continue it on a per- sonal basis until the Congress does what I think it should do. So far as I can determine, there is no scarcity in the case of any of the food- stuffs which have been subjected to the unconscionable price increases which have occurred in the past few days. Again, Mr. President, the explanation is simply that certain economic forces are taking advantage of the American consumers. In my judgment it is time we took action to stop the profiteering which already is characterizing the price structure. I think the meat packers have some- thing to answer for in connection with the increases in meat prices which are occurring in the United States. I hope the President will have something to say about that, if it is true—as I judge from the ticker—that he is going to make a statement on the over-all policy of the administration in regard to economic controls during this period of time. Mr. President, in my judgment we have no right to sit here as a Congress and see the American consumers suffer the losses that this inflationary spiral, represented by the unconscionable in- creases in food prices during the last few days, is causing them at the present time. I think it is already a little late for the administration to be talking about imposing some reasonable checks which will have some power of restraint over the sources of supply of food. I think it is a little late for the adminis- tration to be taking such steps, but per- haps it is better to have it done late rather than not at all. Mr. President, I do not like controls; but let us face the fact that we had bet- ter do some checking with respect to some of the basic commodities which de- termine the standard of living of our people, Let us realize that we must put in the stop now on the basic commodi- ties—such as meat, for example. I think it is simply outrageous that the average housewife has been subjected to such price increases. For instance,
10402 this morning I received from my own State a report in regard to meat prices in Oregon. If we go into the matter, I think we shall find that there is a uni- form national pattern, a jiggling up of the price structure on some of the basic food commodities, I think we must face the fact that we should establish some checks on a few of the basic commodities in the field of food. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. Yes, in a moment. After I yield to the Senator from South Carolina, I -vish to say something about some other commodities, commodities outside the field of food. I simply wish to say that it is no an- swer to talk about voluntary controls in the case of the basic commodities, Mr. President. Voluntary controls con- stitute a nice theory; but where are the voluntary controls? The meat packers certainly have it within their power to put some voluntary controls into opera- tion. However, they have not done so. Perhaps after they get the prices up to an even more unconscionable level than the present price level, the meat packers may wish to try to stop us from doing what we should do in the interest of the people: at that time the meat packers may try to prevent such action by sug- gesting some voluntary controls. How- ever, by that time we shall have to deal with a roll-back on prices, rather than a stabilization of the prices then existing— prices which, for example, the meat packers already will have gotten up. Now I yield to the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon has said he does not like controls. Let me say that I do not like controls, either. Certainly I hope it will not be necessary to have a system of rationing. I wish to say that I expect the Bank- ing and Currency Committee to begin an investigation of price increases. As the Senator from Oregon knows, that committee {s charged with the duty of making studies of all matters relating to prices. I have asked the committee to meet on Thursday, following the Presi!- dent’s address on Wednesday to the Con- gress, and following his address on Wed- nesday night to the people, So our com- mittee will be studying the price increases which have occurred in the last few days. I hope it will not be necessary to have rationing. I have always been opposed to rationing. However, I hope the American people will keep their heads clear and their feet on the ground, and will not be stampeded into hoarding sugar or other commodi- ties—as has been reported recently in the newspapers—and I hope the produ- cers of the various commodities will not a.tempt because of the tragedy occur- ring in Korea, to take advantage in the way the Senator from Oregon has dis- cussed. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I have great confidence in the Senator from South Carolina and in the Banking and Currency Committee, and I am sure they will do what is desirable to be done on the basis of facts presented to the committee. Ils good news to hear that CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the Senator from South Carolina intends in his committee to proceed to investi- gate this matter, beginning next Thurs- day. However, I think it is time that a few of us on the floor of the Senate is- sued some warnings to the business forces in the United States which are taking advantage of the war situation by jack- ing up to unconscionable levels the prices of commodities which are not even scarce. Mr. MAYBANK. The Senator is quite correct. Mr. MORSE. Certain business forces are attempting to take that step because they have control over the distribution of such commodities. For instance, this morning I talked to three butchers in Washington, D. C. They informed me that they cannot tell what their meat will cost them next week. One of them told me of the increases in the wholesale price of hams cited to him by his whole- saler since last week. Yet, as the Sena- tor from South Carolina knows, there has been nothing to produce any scarcity in hams, nothing which would justify an increase in the price of hams in less than a week. There is only one word by which to describe that action, and it is a nasty word: It is the word “profiteering.” Mr. MAYBANK. The Senator is quite correct. Mr. MORSE. It is profiteering at the expense of the fears of American mothers and fathers, and it is profiteering at the expense of the blood which is being shed by American boys in Korea. Believe me, Mr. President, I am going to make my voice heard for a few min- utes today on the floor of the Senate in opposition to that kind of unconscionable economic conduct on the part of any group within our citizenry—whether it be the meat packers or any others, Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. MAYBANK. Let me point out that even the price of bread has been raised 1 cent. Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. 1 yield. Mr. YOUNG. It is good news to me that the increase in prices is not charged to the price-support program. In fact, if we had had a price-support program in regard to meat, I think we would not be faced with the situation confronting us today as far as meat is concerned. There is not a surplus of meat today. In fact, the reason we have a scarcity of meat now is that there has been no as- surance to the producers that they would be protected against extreme losses. As a result, many livestock producers, and particularly feeders, have either cut down their operations or gone out of business, fearing there would be an ex- treme price collapse. So we now have many who are out of business who ought to be in business. I think this is a case where lack of a support-price program is more responsible for this price increase than if we have had one. Mr, MORSE. I should like to say, to my good friend from North Dakota that there is no scarcity in meat, as between last week and this week, which would justify the tremendous increase in the price of meat. That is, the over-all sup. JULY 17 ply of meat to which the Senator from North Dakota has directed attention in no way justifies the increase in the price of meat on the part of wholesalers as compared with the prices last week and the prices being quoted this week. That cannot be justified, and it can be ex- plained only by the fact that those who have control over the channels of dis- tribution of meat are taking a profiteer- ing advantage of the Korean war. I do not like it. I am glad to hear the Sen- ator from South Carolina point out that as chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, he does not like it, and that he proposes to find out the causes for it. Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one further question? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Oregon yield to the Sen- ator from North Dakota? Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. YOUNG. I think the question of unreasonable price rises is quite as ob- jectionable to the producer, to the farm- er, and to the feeder as it is to con- sumers. I think it is uncalled for and very objectionable from a long-range farmer viewpoint. Producers are al- ways hurt by extreme price fluctuations. Mr. MORSE. The Senator from North Dakota is absolutely right. If a poll were taken of the cattlemen, sheep- men, hog raisers, and other producers of livestock, they would express the same sort of resentment which the Senators from North Dakota, South Carolina, and Oregon are expressing this afternoon on the floor of the Senate. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Oregon yield to the Sen- ator from New York? Mr, MORSE. I yleld. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I de- sire to associate myself very strongly and sincerely with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Oregon. I can see no justification whatever for the increase which has taken place in the price of meat and of certain other com- modities. There certainly has been no substantial increase in the number of men and women in Armed Forces, or in the number of men and women in the consuming public who are interested in the purchase of meat. To me is is a clear case of a desire to take advantage of a situation, which should be the last thing to commend itself to patriotic Americans at this time. Last Saturday, in two radio programs over many of the stations in New York I gave warning of the situation to which the distinguished Senator from Oregon has so clearly and appropriately re- ferred, and I intend to continue to raise my voice until some remedy is found. Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Oregon yield to the Sen- ator from Nebraska? Mr. MORSE. I will yield in a mo- ment. I appreciate the supporting re- marks of the Senator from New York. They do not surprise me at all, because his record of placing the interests of the average families of America uppermost
1950 speaks for itself, and what we are plead- ing for here this afternoon is deserved protection for the great consuming pub- lic of America, T now yield to the senior Senator from Nebraska Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, to some extent I wish to agree with the remarks which have been made by the distin- guished Senator from Oregon. But Iam wondering whether he has taken into consideration the psychology which has & great influence on the market, especi- ally regarding such commodities as meat, which are so essential to our livelihood. In my State there are, of course, a great many farmers who buy cattle, who raise hogs, sheep, and so forth, for the market, from which we get our daily supplies. ‘When those animals are ready for mar- ket, they must go to market; they cannot be held because the price does not suit the man who has prepared them for market. He must take what the market offers. The market has been rather high, not only lately, but all along, going back to a period during the war. For a Jong time we have not seen a low-price meat year. The continual flow which takes care of the markets in New York City, Chicago, and other great centers must come from the feed lote of Ameri- ca. I should like to ask the Senator from Oregon whether he can give the farmers or feeders of my State any as- surance that if they should sell the sup- ply which is prepared for the market today, they could replace their stock at a price which would enable them to oper- ate at a profit, when they sell it. Mr. MORSE. Let me say to the Sen- ator from Nebraska that the economic principles for which the junior Senator from Oregon is pleading, if adopted, could not possibly hurt the cattle pro- ducers, because, when I am simply ask- ing for a check on profiteering prices, Iam certainly not hurting the cattle pro- ducers but really proposing an economic principle which must be put into opera- tion if they are going to be able even to stay in business. If profiteering prices are allowed to continue to soar, I know of nothing that can give greater assur- ance to depleting the plains of America of cattle on foot. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Benator yield? Mr. MORSE. In a moment. I desire to make clear that the first principle I have laid down—and I have three I wish to Jay down, Mr. President—the first principle I have laid down is that in the field of foodstuffs there is no scarcity which would justify the great increases in prices of the past few days. The rea- gon of the increases, in my judgment, must be attributed to the selfishness and greed of those who are responsible for that type of profiteering. Before I lay down the second proposi- tion, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, we have here what I belfeve to be a perfect exam- ple of not having the Brannan law in effect. If we had had it, prices would be down. If we had it, the farmer would get at least the cost of production plus @ reasonable profit. It is all right to stand here and complain, as some Sena- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tors are doing today, but when the De- partment of Agriculture tried to solve the problem, all we heard was scorn and ridicule. Today, the country is simply reaping the whirlwind of that situation. Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Oregon yield to the Sena- tor from Kansas? Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. SCHORPPEL. Mr. President, I desire to apologize to the Senator from Oregon by reason of the fact that I was called from the Senate Chamber and did not hear the beginning of his speech. But I am wondering whether the Sena- tor is now limiting his discussion solely to profiteering and the advance in prices of foodstuffs? Mr. MORSE. No, That was merely my first proposition. Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Then I should like to ask the Senator from Oregon a ques- tion. Iam sure he is aware of what has been taking place in the cotton market and the finished goods market, including sheets and pillow cases and children’s clothing. Will the Senator have some- thing to say about the advance of prices in that fleld? Mr. MORSE. Very briefly; but I shall surely have something to say about it. The second proposition I desire to lay down, Mr. President, is that free compe- tition will not operate to solve this price problem in a period of such national emergency as is now upon us, when such Jarge sums of money are going to be spent necessarily for the purpose of di- verting from the normal economic stream a large portion of our economic goods for war uses. Let me put it in this way: The moment a national emer~ gency, such as this arises, it is impossi- bie to have the ordinary economic laws of competition, supply, and demand op- erate successfully, because the conduct of the Government itself in purchasing for war purposes vast stores of economic goods for the prosecution of war places certain business interests in a position where, if they are not subjected to rea- sonable checks, they can profiteer and the consumer has to pay the bill. That goes to the type of goods, particularly, to which the Senator from Kansas (Mr. ScHorpre.) has referred, such as cotton goods, but more particularly housing goods, steel goods. Already we find, so I have been told by four contractors within the past few hours, that certain house fixtures and most steel products are already in the gray market, and many of them are in the black market. Already, in order to purchase some of these goods to complete housing projects, there must be a little bonus paid to get delivery, because the holders of those goods are already saying to contractors, “Well, we think all this is going to be needed by the Government, and we can make no promises on delivery.” ‘The conversation then indicates that if the contractor has « little “do-re-mi” to pay by way of a bonus—and it constitutes nothing more nor less than an economic bribe—he can get his steel products, Again, Mr. President, let me say I am glad te know thet the Senate Commit- tee on Banking and Currency will go 10403 into this subject, because if it does it will find, I am satisfied, that what I have said is true, that in the clearly scare goods there is already a gray-market situation, and, in some places, a black-market sit- uation, The last premise I desire to lay down, Mr. President, is that the Congress itself has a great public duty to perform to proceed with speed in protecting our economic system from the type of dam- age that is being done by those who want to profiteer as the result of the Korean war situation. Their conduct ts the best ammunition that could be sup- plied to the Communist forces the world around. I think one of the best evi- dences we could give as to the strength of self-government, as to the strength of our democratic processes, is for the Congress to proceed without delay to determine the minimum steps we need to take in order to check the rising spiral of inflation, and to eliminate the abuses of profiteering, as our answer to the Commuist forces in the world, to show that democracy can protect, as we all know it can if we do our job, the free- enterprise system from the type of un- conscionable license to exploit that is being made use of by forces which at the present time are seeking to gain greedy, selfish advantage from the Korean war. In closing, Mr. President, let me say that I realize that these remarks will be misinterpreted by some persons who will say “Morse is for a return of all the war- time controls.” That is not correct. I believe we should profit from the lessons of World War II in regard to controls. I believe we should recognize the fact that, while we do not need to go so far as we went in World War I, yet, if we are to check the profiteers, half a dozen or 8 or 10, at the least, of the basic prod- ucts which are vital to maintaining a stabilized economy will have to be put under some reasonable Government regulation until this crisis is over. If we do not do that, Mr. President—and I am not one given to predictions—if we let this inflationary spiral climb higher, it will be a matter of only a few weeks at the most until the workers of the United States will demand a Nation- wide wage increase. A Nation-wide wage increase will cheapen further the American dollar and leave the workers not with more real money in their pockets, but with less real value. That is why I think we have 2 job to do on the home front to support the boys on the war front. It was a great thing for General Cates to say, when bidding good-by to the shipload of marines which left San Fran- cisco a few days ago, “You have a job to do”’—-I am not quoting his exact words, but his meaning—‘and I am sending you over there to do that Job as quickly as possible.” We have a job here at home to do, Mr. President, to support those boys by seeing to it, in the first place, that they get the war matériel neede” so that there may be saved lives which are being unnecessarily lost in. Korea because of a lack of equipment. ‘We have a job to do to keep our economy a@ sound free-enterprise economy. We shall have no sound free-enterprise