2262 Nevada State Council of Defense and chair- man of the Nevada District of War Resources Committee. Senator Oddie was a direct descendant of men who wrote their names tn large letters in the history of the Nation’s capital in Washington, D C. He was sixth in line from Christopher Lowndes, early day mer- chant and shipbuilder in whose ships grain and tobacco were sent to Europe. He was also a descendant of Governor Tasker, one of the early royal] governors of Virginia, and of Thomas Bladen, for whom a village was named. Oddie himself gave his name to a mountain in Nevada. He was related to Gen. Tasker E. Bliss, and his great grand- father was Benjamin Stoddert, first Secre- tary of the Navy and one of the original owners of the land on which the National Capital is built. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I also ask that there be printed at this point an editorial entitled “A Notable Nevada Leader,” from the same newspaper, the Reno Evening Gazette of February 18. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Reconrp, as follows: A NOTABLE NEVADA LEADER For more than 40 years, Tasker L Oddie was a leading figure in two of Nevada's im- portant fields—mining and politics The death of the former governor and United States Senator tn San Francisco Friday brought to a close a carecr that paralleled Nevada history in the first half of this century. Coming to this State in 1898 to look after the mining interests of some New York clients, Oddie remained in Nevada to take part in the discovery of the rich Tonopah mines, and he took an active interest in mining that never left him. With a talent for political affairs, he became district at- torney of Nye County, was a member of the State legislature, and then was elected gov- ernor when the Republican Party was able to break the power of the allied Democrats and Silver Party followers that had held control of the State for 16 years. Oddie was elected to the United States Senate in 1920, and he achieved a notable record during his two terms in the upper House of Congress. A conservative Repub- lican, he was an able legislator and his advice carried considerable weight in na- tional affairs. He thoroughly understood the needs of the western States, and was re- sponsible for much Federal legislation for the improvement of this section. He carried on the fight that finally brought about the Boulder Dam project, at that time the larg- est river and power development that the Federal Government had entered into. The Federal Uighway Aid program, in which the Government shared the cost of building roads through the public lands States on a basis of Federal land ownership, was one of Senator Oddie’s achievements. Senator Oddie and Nevada’s Republican Representa- tive Samuel S. Arentz were responsible for the location of the naval ammunition depot at Hawthorne. Like many another able and experienced Congressman, Senator Oddie was swept out of office in 1932 Six years later, he was again a candidate, but he could not hope to win against the combined powers of the Federal and State office holders, the regi- mented relief vote and the millions of boon- doggling dollars that were distributed just before election time. Although he had been retired in recent years, Senator Oddie kept in close touch with political affairs as one of the elder statesmen of the Republican Party, and he retained extensive mining interests tn the State. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted at this point in the Recorp a part of a column entitled “Nevada Politics,” by the Observer, from the Nevada State Journal for February 19, 1950. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RgEcorp, as follows: NEVADA POLITICS (By the Observer) When Senator Tasker L. Oddie, whose death occurred Friday in San Francisco, landed in Washington, D. C., as a United States Senator early in 1921 he and Mrs. Oddie were greeted with open arms by some Washington oldtimers because of the Sen- ator’s family background and Mrs. Oddie’s former residence in the Capital. Here’s an excerpt from a story in one of the Wash- ington papers published at that time which gives information not generally known here: “The new senatorial hostesses take rank with the Cabinet women in the soctal inter- est of Washington, and in many instances surpass them in the local sense. Senator Oddie, of Nevada, 1s, for instance, a direct descendant of men who have written their names in large letters in the history of the National Capital, and before its existence, in Virginia and Maryland. He is sixth in ljne from that veteran merchant and shipbuilder of Bladensburg, Christopher Lowndes, in whose yards were constructed those stout ships in which the planters of the entire sec- tion sent off their grain and tobacco to Europe and the east, and in this number must be counted the illustrious planter of Mount Vernon. Mr. Lowndes married Re- becca Tasker, daughter of one royal Gov- ernor of Maryland, and the sister of another, that Thomas Bladen, for whom the slcepy village of the eastern branch is named. “One of Mrs. Lowndes’ sisters married Councilor Robert Carter, of Nomini Creek, Va, and these two figured in history as the grandparents of Robert E. Lee. The new Senator from Nevada and Mrs. Oddie will be kept very busy for weeks to come meeting their kindred, who are numerous in and about Washington. “There is Gen. Tasker E. Bliss, who is likewise descended from the royal Governor Tasker, now in command of the Soldiers’ Home. Another illustrious great-grand- father of the Nevada statesman is Benjamin Stoddert, first secretary of the Navy and one of the original proprietors of the land on which the Capital City is built. Mr. Stod- dert, a Revolutionary hero, besides his other claims to greatness, married Rebecca Lown- des and reared a large family in the fine old Stoddert mansion, Prospect Hill, in Georgetown. Mrs. Oddie is not a stranger to Washington, since she spent several years here in her girlhood as a student at the National Park Seminary fn Forest Glen.” Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I also ask that there be inserted an editorial entitled “Men of Integrity,” from the same newspaper, the Nevada State Jour- nal for February 19. There being no objection, the edito- rial was ordered to be printed in the REcorD, as follows: MEN OF INTEGRITY Nevada’s fortunes in mining were at a rather low ebb in May of 1900 when the great silver discovery was made in the rugged mountains of Nye County and Tono- pah sprung up almost overnight. Into that district poured miners and_ prospectors, promoters, and businessmen by the thou- sands. Roads were almost nonexistent but the desert and mountain areas some dis- tance from the south end of Smoky Valley FEBRUARY 23 and the wastelands beyond the southern Nevada terminal of the old C. & C. Railroad at Rhodes were soon populated by men and women lured there by the Tonopah strike. Prospectors had roamed those hills before but now they were out in force and it was not long before they found gold on the desert and the camp of Goldfield, 30 miles to the south, gave Nevada mining the great- est impetus since the days of the Comstock, Tonopah and Goldfield, rivals, friendly, booming, and populated by men of vision, courage, and the spirit of give-and-take, exercised great influence on the affairs of Nevada and spurred on mining develop- ment elsewhere at a pace that spawned one of the most prosperous periods in the State's history. Among the men of courage, vision, and ability who was on the ground when Jim Butler’s burro (so the story goes) wander- ing away from camp kicked a silver laden rock loose from an outcropping was Tasker L. Oddie, young lawyer turned mining man. He had the rock assayed at Austin and then the excitement began. Millions of dollars were produced by the Tonopah mines and Tasker Oddie, one of the original quartet to locate claims there, received a substantial share and spent it in the development of other mines, some of which were failures. But he found time, too, to devote to other things and became a leader of men in a community that needed sound leadership. Honest, straightforward, and possessed of a real insight into human affairs, it was no accident that he was chosen by his fellow citizens to represent them in the State sen- ate at Carson City and neither was it an accident that he was selected less than 10 years after the discovery of Tonopah as a candidate for Governor of Nevada on the Republican ticket. As Governor Mr. Oddie helped to straighten out labor troubles that had beset the State and particularly the mining districts of southern Nevada. His was not a spectacular administration but it was a sane and safe one. Though defeated for reelection to the governorship he retained the affection and the confidence of the people of Nevada of all political faiths and as one of the outstanding leaders of the Republican Party won the party nomination and subsequent election to the United States Senate in 1920 and served two full terms. Though he engaged in many spirited polit- ical contests not a single opponent ever once questioned his integrity. He took victory and defeat in stride and always came up smiling, characterietic of the times and the fine caliber of citizens with whom he worked and enjoyed Ife. Nevada 1s indebted to such men as Tas- ker Oddie for their contributions to the State's advancement. They in turn felt they owed to the State a debt of gratitude which they generously shouldered. Mr. MALONE. Mr, President, Tasker L. Oddie was a great governor, a great United States Senator, and a great citizen. STATEMENT BY SENATOR WILEY RE- SPECTING CONFERENCE REPORT ON OLEO BILL Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RrEcorp a statement I have prepared with reference to the conference report on House bill 2023, relating to oleo- margarine, and I also ask unanimous consent that an article entitled “How Dairying Serves Mankind,” by Milton Hult, president of the National Dairy Council, be printed in the Rrcorp.
1950 There being no objection, the state- ment and article were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: STATEMENT BY SENATOR WILEY THE FINAL CONFERENCE REPORT ON OLEO BILL SHOULD BE DEFERRED; ITS GRAVE IMPLICATIONS SHOULD BE STUDIED Mr. President, the Senate-House confer- ence committee on H. R. 2023 has completed Jts actions, This committee was composed of some of the ablest Members of the Senate and House of Representatives, and I say that irrespective of the fact that their actions were, I believe, deeply harmful to the Ameri- can dairy industry and to 150,000,000 Ameri- can people as a whole. I say that not in disrespect of these con- ferees, whom I admire as individual Senators and Representatives, but I say that on the firm conviction that the conference majority, which is going to report this bill back to the Senate and House of Representatives, has taken an action whose repercussions will be felt by our generation and future genera- tions to come in adverse ways which we can barely estimate today. In making these statements, I direct my principal objection to the omission by the conference committee of that provision which we adopted on the Senate floor, and which Senator Fou.sricnt accepted, which would have provided that oleomargarine as retailed be sold in triangular prisms. The failure of the conference committee to include that one vital provision can spell a death knell to the American butter industry and a body blow to American dairying as a whole. WHY TRIANGULAR PROVISION WAS NECESSARY I havo in my hand a copy of the bill, H R. 2023, as it was rewritten by the committee. I will not discuss at this point its weakening of various phases of the bill, such as the definition of margarine, etc, because I do not believe that we should divert our atten- tion from the one main issue, and that is, that oleo should be sold in triangular form if it is to be properly identified by American consumers. The conference report provides, to be sure, that oleo must be sold in 1 pound or less packages; that the word oleomar- garine or margarine must be printed in type at least as large as the lettering elsewhere on the label; and that a full statement of the ingredients shall be included on the package. To be sure the conference report states that the lettering on each individual quarter-pound wrapper shall refer to oleo- margarine or margarine in a type not smaller than 20-point size. The big question, Mr. President, is: How many consumers will actually bother to read the type, to look at the wrapper, to Closely study the over-all package? The answer 1s: Very few, indeed. On the other hand, a triangular package would have been both feasible and desirable because it would have provided the one way by which the great mass of oleomargarine as purchased could have been casily identl- fied by consumers. The oleo trust professed no objection to the idea of proper identification of their product, However, we now see the proof of what we have contended all along, that the oleo trust wants to masquerade its product as butter in every way, shape, and form, and that is why it fought to eliminate Senator Frear's amendment for triangular packaging. Let me point out that several manufac- turers have furnished the dairy industry word that machinery could fairly promptly be devised for triangular packaging of oleo. That certainly could not have been a legiti- mate objection, therefore, to the effect that machinery was not available. RESTAURANT PROVISION IS INADEQUATE Let me point out that the provisions of the conference report requiring that oleo shall CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE be sold in triangular pats in restaurants, while they may look good on Rae will not have very concrete results, hy? Because in the first place they will undoubtedly not be enforced unless we are to have an army of inspectors, tens of thousands strong, to invade every restaurant in the Nation. Secondly, we note that the amount of oleo consumed in restaurants is comparatively very small in relation to the over-all total of oleo consumed in the Nation. No one has accurate estimates, but I have seen guesses ranging from 1 percent to 5 percent. In other words, the conference committee has taken care of 1 percent of the problem and has left 99 percent of the problem to shift for itself. ARTICLE ON DAIRYING I have in my hand an article written in the latest issue of Think magazine by the president of the National Dairy Council. This article came out almost simultane- ously with the unfortunate action of the con- ference committee. The article points out that some milk is produced on at least 75 percent of the Nation’s farms; it points out that the dairy industry contributes $10,000,- 000,000 to the Nation's retail commerce; it cites the fact that 118,000,000,000 pounds of milk were produced in 1948. Where is the ocean of milk to go if the butter market is destroyed? Does the oleo trust want the milk to be poured into the gutters, or does it want the Government to buy up the surplus butter which cannot find a market? This year it is predicted that the Govern- ment will have to buy 225,000,000 pounds of butter which will fall below the parity price, What a ridiculous inconsistency for the Federal Government to buy up surplus but- ter on the one hand and to take an action which will cause more butter to be in sur- plus on the other hand. Mr. President, I believe that the Senate should defer final action on the conference report on H. R. 2023 for a minimum of 1 month in order that the grave implications of the conference report may be thoroughly studied. The bill could still go into effect on July 1 if we acted, let us say, on the Ist of April one way or the other on the con- ference report. We are not making any unreasonable de- mand in this respect. The oleo bill was en- acted as the first item on the Senate Cal- endar this year. There is ample precedent for delay of final action on a conference re- port I refer particularly, for example, to the decision to hold over the final action on the basing-point bill from October 1949 to January 20, 1950. I believe that the American consumers will come to see that it is not they who have won a@ victory in the conference report, but 30 large corporations seeking to destroy the but.- ter market. The American consumers will see increasingly, as they have already begun to see, that they were sold a false bill of oleo goods. Oleo, unidentified as such, will drive but- ter from the market, and when it does the implications will be grave to every house- wife, every infant, every adult, every farm- er, every workingman, every businessman in the United States. The implications to soil conservation, the implications to the supply and demand of other dairy products will be grave. I urge my colleagues, therefore, to defer ac- tion on the Senate-House report until they have had an opportunity to analyze the grave repercussions of the omission of the triangu- lar packaging amendment. How Darry1nc SERVES MANKIND (By Milton Hult, president of the National Dairy Council) Today dairy products comprise more than 25 percent of the food consumed by the Nae 2263 tion's 150,000,000 people. These men, wom- en, and children sit at dining tables three times a day 366 days of the year to consume more than 118,000,000,000 pounds of dairy foods at 164,000,000,000 meals. Milk, known as nature's most nearly per- fect food, is constantly in the limelight as 60,000,000 quarts of fresh milk and cream are distributed daily to consumers through door- step deliveries and stores. The health of the Nation, to a large degree, has improved as invention and science have stimulated progress in finding new food values in milk and its products for the human diet. Milk was an important article of food long before 6000 B. C. when the oldest written records of the human race were recorded in Sanekrit and preserved in India. To the early peoples of central Asia the cow was 80 important that wealth was measured in num- bers of cattle. In fact, the cow at times was made a sacred animal and 1s still so consid- ered by a substantial portion of the popula- tion of India. When the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth in 1621, they failed to bring with them a cow to provide children and adults alike with milk, butter, and cheese. The colonists became ill, and many died for lack of nourishing food. But conditions changed several years later when the ship Charity brought new settlers and cows from England. As the early Americans moved westward, their covered ‘wagons were always followed by two or three cows. Several hundred years slipped by before significant changes took place in methods of producing milk or manufacturing dairy prod- ucts. One outstanding development that stimulated growth in the dairy industry in the United States and foreign countries was the invention of a test to measure the content of fat in milk. Discovered by Stephen Moul- ton Babcock in 1890 and known in the trade as the Babcock Test, it serves as a major in- strument in handling and processing dairy foods. To Louis Pasteur, the noted French scien- tist, goes the credit of adding another major link to the chain of progress in the dairy industry. His painstaking research led to the-discovery of the pasteurization process which guarantees the purity and keeping qualities of milk and milk products. Among other noteworthy inventions in handling milk and its products are the cream separator, pasteurizer, milking machine, churn, cooling systems, filling machines, ice cream freezers, evaporating and milk drying equipment and scores of other essential machinery, all playing an important role in speeding production and improving the qual- ity of dairy products. Contributing to this trend toward modernization were the rail- roads, which began to build special re- frigerated milk trains to ship milk from milk sheds to industrial centers for processing milk for delivery at the Nation's doorsteps and for manufacturing butter, cheese, ice cream, and a myriad of other products. Then came tank cars and huge tank trucks, all of which enable the dairy industry to haul milk and its products many hundreds of miles every day of the year. Back of these im- portant mechanical developments which con- tributed immeasurably to the growth of the dairy industry was »n ever-increasing fund of knowledge from, the country’s leading scientific laboratories where men tolled in- cessantly to discover the dietary values con- tained in dairy foods. The flow of milk from the Nation’s 22,935,- 000 cows in 1948 amounted to 118,337,000,000 pounds. Of this, 44,500,000,000 pounds was bottled in glass or paper containers and con- sumed as milk and cream in cities and vil- lages, and 12,306,000,000 was utilized on the farms. The remaining milk supply, 61,881,- 000,000 pounds, was manufactured into a variety of dairy foods to satisfy the needs and
2264 desires of the buyer on Main Street. These manufactured products, and the amount of milk required to produce them, were as fol- lows: 1,214,000,000 pounds of creamery but- ter from 25,000,000,000 pounds of milk; 1,- 097,000,000 pounds of cheese, from 10,920,- 000,000 pounds of milk; 568,000,000 gallons of ice cream, from 7,900,000,000 pounds of milk; 8,484,000,000 pounds of evaporated milk, from 7,390,000,000 pounds of milk; 172,980,000 pounds of dry whole milk, from 1,310,000,000 pounds of milk; and 658,000,000 pounds of nonfat dry milk solids, from 6,663,000,000 pounds of defatted milk. About 120,000,000,000 pounds of milk were produced or consumed in the United States in 1949. It is difficult to visualize that amount of milk, but if milk produced in this country in a single year were placed in tank cars, each of which would hold 66,000 pounds of milk, it would require 42,857 trains of 60 cars each. A single day’s production would require 117 such trains. Although milk and its products are gen- erally considered as food for human con-~- sumption, they are also used in a wide va- riety of industrial products, such as plastics, textiles, paper coating, paint, flue, films, pharmaceuticals, insulation, fertilizer, insec- ticides, penicillin, plaster, dyes, animal feed, preservatives, explosives, and electroplates. The magnitude of the dairy industry is apparent when it is considered that one out of every 15 families in the United States 1s dependent on milk for a livelihood. Actu- ally, the dairy industry employs full time at least 1,500,000 people in the production, proc- essing, and distribution of milk and dairy products. Ten million persons depend upon the dairy industry for their livelihood. Nearly every segment of the country’s manufacturing, technical, and professional skills are drawn into the industry at one point or another. Among them are vetzrinarians, building suppliers and construction men, fabricators of milk cans, milkers, filters, machinery of all types for processing and manufacturing, producers of raw materials from lumber through most of the metals, and transpor- tation, including rail, truck, and ship. Although dairying is national in scope, in 11 States it is the principal source of farm income. These States are: Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsyl- vania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wiscon- sin. Some milk is produced on at least 75 percent of the Nation's farms, and about 10 percent of the farms, or 585,900, are specialized dairy farms. Every American family 1s a part of an in- dustry that employs millions of people and produces billions of pounds of dairy foods. Dollarwise, cash farm income from dairy products is around $4,000,000,000 annually, but in addition the dairy farmer receives about 82,000,000,000 for the sale of dairy cat- tle for beef and veal. Significantly this income to the farmer is on a daily or monthly basis while most of his other receipts from agricultural products are seasonal. On a retail basis the dairy industry contributes $10,000,000,000 to the national commerce. Dairying has always been a stable branch of agriculture. It has fluctuated less than the national income. A productive dairy herd proved the salvation of many a farm family during the last depression when net income from other livestock and grains was entirely wiped out. Today the avernge dairy cow will produce annually 5,036 pounds of milk compared with 2,360 pounds in 1860. In fact, improved herds will average around 8,835 pounds. This increased production is the result of improved feeding and breeding programs stimulated by leaders in the dairy industry, breed associations, and the col- leyes of agriculture in land-grant schools across the country. The dairy industry has spent and ts spend- ing now millions of dollars in the interest of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE finding new food values and new uses for its products. The dairy chemists are constantly engaged in converting what was formerly a waste into additional income for the farmer and into new, improved products for the consumer. To illustrate, defatted milk, totaling well over 10,000,000,000 pounds an- nually, is worth about 40 cents per hundred pounds today, while 20 years ago it was prac- tically worthless. Both industrial research and nutrition research insure security for the future of farming as a sound business. Research itn nutrition makes clear the fun- damental reason why milk is an essential part of the diet under conditions of modern civilization. Without milk the human diet would be so lacking in certain essential factors, particularly vitamins and minerals, that civilization as now developed could not exist That’s why health authorities across the Nation recommend a quart or more of milk for every child and as close to that amount as possible for adults, both young and old. It was Dr. E. V McCollum, a noted scientist at Johns Hopkins University, who singled out milk as the basic product in the dairy industry and showed how it served mankind 50 significantly in the diet from the cradle tothe grave. Said Dr McCollum: “The peo- ple who have achieved, who have become large, strong, vigorous people, who have re- duced their infant mortality, who have the best trades in the world, who have an appre- ciation of art, literature, and music, who are progressive 1n science and every activity of the intellect, are the people who have used liberal amounts of milk and !ts products.” COTTON AND PEANUT ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution (H. J. Res. 398) relat- ing to cotton and peanut acreage allot- ments and marketing quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senate has before it House Joint Resolution 398, a complete substitute for which the committee has reported. The substance will be regarded as the text of the joint resolution for purposes of amendment. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I should like to make a few remarks about the pending joint resolution. The Sen- ate was told a few days ago by the dis- tinguished Senator from New Mexico [Myr. ANDERSon] what the joint resolu- tion would do if enacted. I should hk2 to give the Senate some reasons why a measure of this character is necessary at this time. It will be recalled that during the first session of the Eighty-first Congress we enacted Public Law 272 In that law it was provided that the 1950 na- tional cotton acreage quota shall be not less than 21,000,000 acres, When the time for the distribution of those acres was at hand, the county committees, which had the duty of distributing the acreage, were in considerable trouble. It will be recalled that the main reason was that since 1942 we had no cotton acreage allotments in the cotton-pro- ducing States. During the war a farmer could plant any amount of cotton he desired, without restriction. There was no necessity for the existence of county commuttees such as we now have. So it can be seen that no accurate record was kept of the amount of acreage planted during the years 1942-49, as had becn kept before 1942. FEBRUARY 23 The question soon arose as to how to distribute the 21,000,000 acres of cot- ton to be allocated under Public Law 272. The county committees were at a loss. The Department of Agriculture was consulted, and ways and means were devised by it as to how best to distribute the acreage. Questionnaires were sent to cotton growers throughout the coun- try. From what I am told, unsatisfac- tory data were furnished, therefore the Department of Agriculture resorted to statistics compiled by the Bureau of Ag- ricultural Economics in order to ascer- tain as nearly as possible the amount of cotton acreage planted during the years 1946, 1947, and 1948. The method pursued by the bureau to ascertain the acreage was to obtain from cotton gins throughout the Nation figures showing the amount of cotton ginned. Then the bureau, by dividing the number of pounds of cotton produced in a given area by the average number of pounds produced per acre, for that area, estab- lished a figure for the number of acres devoted to cotton throughout the cotton States during those 3 years. I may say that, later, when this method did not prove satisfactory, a further at- tempt was made to have the farmers give their acreage figures during the 3 years 1946, 1947, and 1948. I should like to read into the Recorp some of the fig- ures given by the farmers throughout the Cotton States for the purpose of estap- lishing the number of acres planted, in contrast to the number of acres ascer- tained by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Here is what was found: For the year 1945, Alabama. had in culti- vation, according to the Bureau of Agri- cultural Economics, 1,390,000 acres of cotton. According to the farmers who reported, however, the acreage was 2,029,707, or a difference of 46 percent more than the figures arrived at by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Let us take the case of Arizona: There the difference was only 6 percent Now let us take the case of Arkansas: For 1945, the Bureau of Agricultural Eco- nomics figured the cotton acreage as 1,554,000 acres; but when the farmers of that State were questioned in regard to how many acres of cotton they planted during the same year, they reported 2,422,341 acres, or 55 percent more acre- age than that reported by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. During the entire year, for all the Cot- ton States, the number of acres figured by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics aggregated 17,560,665, whereas reports from the farmers indicated 24,169,506 acres, or 37.6 percent more than the figures of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics had shown. The same thing occurred for 1£46, proportionately; the same thing occurred for 1947; and the same thing occurred, likewise, for 1948. It can readily be seen, then, that the job the committees had in allocating among the various cotton farmers of the States the 21,000,000 acres of land for cotton, was a huge task; it was most dif- ficult for them properly, adequately, and equitably to apportion the cotton acre- age. Especially is that true, Mr. Presi- dent, inasmuch as in the previous year the cotton farmers of the Nation had
1950 planted approximately 26,000,000 acres of land in cotton. So the administrators of the new cot- ton law, Public Law 272, in each State, were at a great disadvantage. Many of the local committees had no experienced men. Many of them did not utilize to the fullest extent all the provisions of the law. There was no compulsion for the committees to use them, it is true; but it will be recalled that under the law the Congress provided for sctting aside 10 percent of the acreage in a State, and further, that the committee for each county or parish had 15 percent of its allocation which could be set aside and used in order to remedy, as far as pos- Sible, inequities which might occur in the distribution of acreage. Mr. President, in order to try to adjust this situation—and I may say it is very serlous—the House passed House Joint Resolution 398. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question at this point? Mr. ELLENDER. yield in a moment. At this point I am reminded that the distinguished Senator from Mississippi [Mr EastTLanp], who has just requested that I yield to him, likewise proposed a measure to meet the situation. He was joined by several other distinguished Senators, including the Senator from Mississippi |[Mr. Stennis], the Senator from Alabama |Mr,. Hiu11, the Senator from Arkansas |Mr. McCte..an], the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Jounstron], and the Scnator from Ala- bama [Mr. SpaRKMAN]. Incidentally, when the committee had this problem before it tor consideration, it considered the measure introduced by the Senator from Mississippi, as well as the House joint resolution. Now I gladly yield to the Senator from Mississippi. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, the Senator spoke of the necessity for the en- actment of this measure. Js not the real necessity for the enactment of the joint resolution the fact that in a great number of counties throughout the Cotton Belt there are hundreds of farmers in each county who planted 5 acres or less of cot- ton, and when the cotton allotment was set aside, the farmers who planted 5 acres or less were exempted, under the bill we passed last fall; they took no acreage reduction. When the county's allot- ment was sect aside and the acreage of the farmers who were exempt was charged against the allotment for the county, that left nothing for the farmers with tenants who planted 49 01 50 or 60 acres of land in cotton. The allotment being gone, those farmers and their tenants were faced with bankruptcy and with losing their property unless a sys- tem could be devised to give them an equitable acreage. Mr. ELLENDER. Of course, that was one of the main reasons for the Senate’s action. The Senator’s measure, of course, will correct to some extent the inequities to which he refers, and I have no doubt that it will do a great deal of good. I shall be glad to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE However, it will not satisfy all of the farmers. Mr. EASTLAND. Of course it will not. Mr. ELLENDER. It will not satisfy many of une farmers who are in the position the Senator now describes. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr, ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. EASTLAND. It will take care of every hardship case, as I have described them. It is true that it will not satisfy everyone. But I tell the Senator that it will take care of the hardship cases, the cases of farmers who will lose their property, and the cases of tenants who will have no land to work unless this measure is enactcd. It is designed solely and exclusively to take care of that class. Mr. ELLENDER, There is no question about that, Mr. President. As a mat- ter of fact, the record shows that more than 90 percent of the cotton farmers of the Nation were unaffected by the passage of Public Law 272. The farmers the Senator now describes are the ones really affected; that is correct. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. EASTLAND. In my judgment, 95 percent of the cotton farmers have a fair and equitable acreage allotment and are satisfied with it. They have what acreage they are entitled to. But there are a few—I refer now to the larger operators in counties where there are hundreds of farmers who are exempt—who, because of the provision of the act which exempted the 5-acre and the 3-acre cotton farmers, have no acreage, and face bankruptcy. They are the only ones who are entitled to relief. Mr. ELLENDER, When the Senator refers to 95 percent of the farmers, I presume he refers to farmers within the State of Mississippi. Mr. EASTLAND. No. Mr. ELLENDER. I think evidence was produced to show that about 90 percent of the farmcrs throughout the Nation received a fair allotment; that is, what was to be expected under the act as passed by the Congress. Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ELLENDER, I yield. Mr. KEFAUVER. I should like to say to the Senato? that in one county in Tennessee we have had particularly nu- merous complaints about the working of the present act. The complaint is based upon the evidence adduced that the committee did not accept the PMA report. That is the farmers’ own report, as I understand. Mr. ELLENDER. Yes; that is what I was explaining a few moments ago. Mr, KEFAUVER. ‘They relied upon the report of the BAE. Mr, ELLENDER. That is correct, sir. Mr. KEFAUVER. But the farmers themselves, in trying to establish a higher production, actually went to the gins and obtained the figures of the ginnings for the years 1946, 1947, and 1348. They then computed, on the basis of those ginnings, that the PMA report was sub- stantially correct, and very much higher 2265 than the BAE report. If their acreage could be based upon the actual ginnings, where based upon the information they got from the ginners themselves on their production, they would be satisfied with the result of this amendment, I want to ask the Senator whether, under the amendment, the county committee or the State committee, or whoever has charge of which formula is to be used, can take the actual report from the ginners and figure the acreage on that basis? - Mr. ELLENDER. The national acre- age allotments as now figured will stand. Under the pending joint resolution, no provision is made to change the method by which the present allotment has been made. What the resolution really pro- vides is that an additional acreage shall be made available. The additional acre- age is to be taken from the “frozen acre- age,” which I expect to discuss in a few moments. The facts produced by us show that, although a ceiling of 21,000,- 000 acres was put on cotton plantings throughout the cotton States, the De- partment of Agriculture did not expect that more than 19,000,000 acres would be Planted. Therefore it was anticipated that there would be approximately 2,000,- 000 acres of cotton land which would not be planted. With respect to that acreage, that is, the cotton acreage which would not be planted and which is considered to be frozen, the pending measure provides that it shall be reallo- cated among the farmers of the State with preference being given to the needs of farmers within the same county in which it was released. Mr. KEFAUVER. If the Senator will yield further, it would solve satisfacto- rily the problem we have in Macon County. Mr. ELLENDER. Yes. Mr. KEFAUVER. That is, provided the State committee allocated a suffi- cient amount to this particular county, and the county committee then tried to make up the deficits in hardship cases. Mr. ELLENDER. If I may point out to the Senator, in the joint resolution as reported to the Senate, there is a pro- vision whereby a farmer shall receive acreage equal to 60 percent of the aver- age cotton planted by him in 1946, 1947, and 1948. Mr. EASTLAND. Mtr. President, will the Senator yield for a question at that point? Mr. KEFAUVER. The difficulty about that is, taking the BAE reports, not suf- ficient acreage is allotted to some of our 15- or 20-acre farms to let them get along. Mr. HASTLAND. Mr, President, may I answer that question, if the Senator from Louisiana will yield Mr, ELLENDER. Yes; I yield. Mr. EASTLAND. In answer to the Senator from Tennessee, let me say that the joint resolution provides that the acreage surrendered shall be reallocated by the State committee, preference be- ing given to the county in which the acreage is located. It must be satisfac- tory to the farmers in that county be- fore any acreage can be taken out. That would solve practically the problem in every county.
2266 Mr. KEFAUVER. Iam afraid it would not be a full solution; it would be only a partial solution. Mr. EASTLAND. It 1s impossible to satisfy everyone. In fact, we shall not get very far if we try to satisfy every~- one. Mr. KEFAUVER. I appreciate that, but some of the farmers have been cut down from 20 acres to 6 or 7, and it is going to be very hard for them to get along. Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield to the Sena- tor from South Carolina. Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. If the Senator will read on page 6, I think the question will be found to be answered there: Determination of the average acreage planted or regarded as planted on any farm in 1946, 1947, and 1948 shall be made by the county committee after consideration of such evidence as may be submitted by the owner or operator, and shall be subject to review by the State committee. I think that will answer the Senator's question. Mr. KEFAUVER. That, I believe, is the present law. Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. No. Mr. KEFAUVER. The difficulty is that while they consider the statement of the owner or operator, they actually take the BAE figures, even though they may also consider and take @ look at the owner’s statement. Mr. ELLENDER. There fs no question that the allocation which has already been made will not be disturbed. But the excess cotton acreage will be used in order to adjust inequities which re- sulted in the past. I know of no better way of doing it. Of course, as I pointed out, there has been a great difference in the number of acres reported as having been planted, according to the BAE, in contrast to the self-serving declara- tions made by the farmers, and it will be a difficult matter to resolve. I fear that, notwithstanding the fact that we may pass the joint resolution, there will still remain inequities. However Mr, KEFAUVER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. ELLENDER. As I have Just in- dicated, the Senate version of the joint resolution provides for a minimum of 60 percent of the average acreage for 1946, 1847, and 1948, and there is a further provision which states, in effect, that no such allotment shall be increased by rea- son of this provision, to an acreage in excess of 40 percent of the acreage of the farm which is tilled annually or in regular rotation as determined under the present law, excluding from such acreage the acreage devoted to other crops sub- ject to acreage restrictions. Mr. KEFAUVER. I may ask the Sen- ator whether he does not feel, however, that the language on page 6, which has been read by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, will give the county committee the right to consider the statement of the farmer himself? Mr. ELLENDER. Yes, indeed. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. KEFAUVER. And evidence other than the report of the BAE? Mr. ELLENDER. Yes. However, as I have previously stated, no authority ex- ists or is given to change the allocations already made and which were accepted by the farmers when they voted for acre- age controls a few months ago. BAE figures will have to stand, and I believe they will, in all counties. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. ELLENDER. Of course, if there are cases wherein the county committees obtain evidence to show grave injustices, the committees would have the right to adjust those cascs. But no effort is to be made by the Department of Agricul- ture to change the method which has been in effect since December with ref- erence to the allocation of cotton acre- age to the various States, as I have stated on several occasions. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EKEFAUVER. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator one further question? Mr. ELLENDER. I shall be glad to yield for a question. , The VICE PRESIDENT. Senator decline to yield? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield to the Sena- tor from Tennessee. Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, in a case such as the one to which I have re- ferred, in which the individual farmers have collected information to show that the BAE report is incorrect, or at least they have carricd the burden of proof of showing that the BAE report is incorrect, then there is no prohibition on the coun- ty committee or the State committee to prevent it from considering the newly- discovered evidence. Is that not cor- rect? Mr. ELLENDER. There is no prohibi- tion whatever. Mr. KEFAUVER. Then, how will the individual farmers obtain rectification of the allotment, after they have shown that the BAE report may be incorrect? Mr. ELLENDER. It will depend on the amount of acreage which the county committee will have available for dis- tribution. Under the law as it now stands, the county committees can re- serve, out of the amount allocated to a county, 15 percent, and they can put that acreage wherever they deem proper, in order to assure equitablé treatment for all farmers. Mr. KEFAUVER. I understand that, but how about the State committees? Suppose the evidence shows that a par- ticular county should have received a considerably increased allotment. Of course, the discrepancy cannot be made up by the committee of the particular county. There would have to be action by the State committee. How can the farmers in a given county get the State committee to do something about it? Mr. ELLENDER. The additional cot- ton acreage provided by this measure is to be distributed by the State committee; preference, however, is to be given in those cases in which inequities are in- volved; the remainder can be distributed according to certain regulations which may be devised by the committee. Does the FEBRUARY 23 Mr. KEFAUVER. The Senator has been very generous in explaining this matter so clearly. Suppose the State committee refuses to act in line with the plain evidence in the case in rectifying inequities: Is there any right of appeal to the Agricultural Department or to the Cotton Acreage Control Board, or is the decision of the State committee final? Mr, ELLENDER. It is final, as I un- derstand. I now yield to the Senator from Mississippi. Mr. EASTLAND. Is not this the sys- tem which will be used under the provi- sions of this joint resolution, that if a farmer claims he has an inadequate acreage, not in accordance with the standards established in the law, he files a written request with his county com- mittee and can present any evidence he desires to present to the county commit- tee to claim an acreage of 60 percent of the land which he had under cultivation in 1946, 1947, and 1948, provided it does not exceed 40 percent of his cultivable acreage? Mr. ELLENDER. That is correct, sir. Mr. EASTLAND. There must be someone to pass on these matters and wring the water out if we are to have any acreage controls at all. Under joint resolution as passed by the House, the principal difference is that the farmer could plant 70 percent of what he planted in 1946, 1947, and 1948, but the county committee must take the word of the farmer. I submit that under that lan- guage we would have no effective control. The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER] says that the individual farm- er, if he did not have adequate acreage, would have no right of appeal, no right to go beyond the State committee. Last fall, acreage allotments were made to farmers before an election was held. After each farmer received the acreage allotment he was to have in 195) an election was called, a vote was had, and by a vote of 12 or 14 to 1, the action was ratified. If a farmer was not satisficd with his allotment at that time it was his duty to vote against acreage allotments for this year. Mr. ELLENDER. It may be that the answer I made to a question a few mo- ments ago left some confusion in the munds of a few Senators. What I had in mind was that the allocation of cotton acreage on a national] basis had to stand, and that this measure contains no pro- vision which would permit a change in that situation. Therefore, the admin- istrators of this measure, if it be enacted into law, will have to use the facts as they find them, since there is no law nor any section of a law which would provide for a reallocation of cotton acreage on a na- tional basis. Mr. EASTLAND. That could not be done, because the farmer’s acreage was assigned to him, and certainly we could not now take away from him acreage which has been assigned, because he has a vested right in it by agreement with the Congress of the United States. Mr. ELLENDER. I tried to clarify thata moment ago. Perhaps my answer was not completely clear.
1950 Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. STENNIS. The statement has been made on the floor that the so-called small cotton producer has been taken care of under the present law. Mr. ELLENDER. The owner? Mr. STENNIS. Yes. That applies only to the owner; it does not apply to the small tenant who may be included along with many other tenants on a 50- or a 100-acre farm. Mr, ELLENDER. The Senator is quite correct. Mr. STENNIS. Ishould be glad if the Senator would explain that point more fully. Mr. ELLENDER. The 5-acre allot- ment which was provided in the original act, in Public Law 272, of the Eighty-first Congress, and in this joint resolution does not change that situation. The 5- acre minimum is first allocated to all the cotton farmers who own their land in a Particular county or parish. Mr. President, I should like to state that if it had been possible for cotton acreage to have been allottcd to the States and then to the counties on the basis of accurate records and if 10 per- cent of the State allotment had been set aside, and also if the 15 percent county allotment had been set aside, there is no doubt in my mind that Public Law 272, passed by the Eighty-first Congress, would have been adequate. That law provided means for adjusting most of the incquities, We provided that a certain percentage of the cotton acreage could be used by the administrators of the law for adjusting such inequities as have appeared since December 1949. NEVADA COTTON ACREAGE Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. MALONE. The problem in the State of Nevada is one with reference to long-staple cotton. One hundred and ten acres have been allocated to the State of Nevada for 1950 as compared to 1,150 acres planted in 1949. There are approximately 16 cotton States with about 21,000,000 acres. Is that correct? Mr. ELLENDER The ceiling fixed is 21,000,000 acres, but I do not believe the allocation under the Department of Agri- culture quite reached that figure. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MALONE. Does the Senator’s question pertain to this subject? Mr. EASTLAND. It does. Mr. ELLENDER. I shall gladly yield. Mr. EASTLAND. I should hike to tell the distinguished Senator from Nevada that the allotment granted his State, as I recall, is several thousand acres. I think it is 3,000 or 5,000 acres. One of those figures is in my mind. I think it is 5,000 acres. But the point I desire to make is that at a meeting in the city of Memphis, Tenn., a year ago of the farm- ers and farm groups, in which the Sen- ator's State was represented, his State was given the acreage allotment which CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the farmers of his State requested, with no questions asked. It was written into the law. The State of Nevada is the only Siate in the Union in which cotton pro- ducers were given the acreage they re- quested. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield? Mr. ELLENDER I yield. Mr. MALONE. Iam getting some fur- ther details and shall perhaps have them in a half hour, but the record of a 110- acre allotment of cotton to Nevada for 1950 does not in any way resemble 3,000 to 5,000 acres. Mr. ELLENDER. I am glad the dis- tinguished Senator from Mississippi has answered the question, because, as I un- derstand, he was present at the confer- ence at which all the cotton States were represented. Mr. EASTLAND. I was not present at the conference. I was in Washington, but I was not present at the conferences at which the matter of the Nevada acre- age was discussed. I have repeated the statement that was made. Mr. ELLENDER. As I recall—and I am sure the distinguished Senator from Mississippi will also recall—the bill which was enacted during the first ses- sion of the Eighty-first Congress and which 1s now law, was approved in ad- vance by cotton growers throughout the Nation. Mr. EASTLAND. The recommenda- tions of the cotton growers were adopted in toto. In fact, Congress merely rati- ficd what they asked us to do. Mr. ELLENDER. As I mentioned, I have no doubt that the law would have worked exactly as we had contemplated, if it had been possible to obtain accu- rate data regarding cotton plantings for 1946, 1947, and 1948, and further, if the State committees and the county com- mittees had set aside the 10 and 15 per- cent, respectively, to each State and county, so that adjustments night be made. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield first to the Senator from Nevada. Mr. MALONE. In order to clarify the subject further for the distinguished Senator from Mississippi and other Sen- ators I may say that I have before me Report No. 1509, House of Representa- tives, Union Calendar No. 628, dated January 21, 1950. Mr. CooLey, from the Committee on Agriculture, submitted the report. The individual acreages are giv- en on page 6 of the report. Nevada is given 110 acres as of 1948. It shows 100 as the percentage reported by BAE. Mr. ELLENDER. Those initials stand for “Bureau of Agricultural Economics.” Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. EASTLAND. The figure repre- sents acreage planted in the years men- tioned. There was no acreage control in those years. However, the law pro- vides for acreage controls beginning in 1950. I state unequivocally that the Senator’s State was given the acreage which was requested by the growers of 2267 his State. The liberal treatment thus given to the Western States caused great criticism in the eastern end of the Cot- ton Belt. I believe it vas right to deal liberally with the Western States, but the Stiate of Nevada was dealt with more liberally than any other State in the Union, and far more liberally than the State of California. Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator means with respect to cotton planted in the past. Mr. EASTLAND. The big acreage in the six States was planted in 1949, as I recall it. Mr. ELLENDER. There was no acre- age planted in Nevada in previous years, so far as the record shows. Mr. MALONE. Does the Senator have a report which shows the acreages included in the earlier bill? Mr. EASTLAND. To which bill does the Senator have reference? Mr. MALONE. I understood the Sen- ator to say that Nevada was given the acreage which it had requested. The only acreage figure I can find is 110 for 1948. Mr. ELLENDER. That was the num- ber of acres planted in the year which has been mentioned—1949. Mr. EASTLAND. That was the aum- ber planted in those years. The Senator trom Nevada knows as well as the Sena- ator from Louisiana and I know that the acreage planted in his State is en- tirely new acreage. The year 1949 was the first year in which any appreciable acreage was planted. Mr. MALONE. In answer to the Senator's statement, the report states that the acreage for 1950 will be 110 acres. I understand that raising cotton is a new industry in Nevada, but it in- volves long staple cotton, and it has very little to do with southern acreage. Nevada is a new State, agriculturally, still developing and still has, perhaps, Jess than 11% percent of its area in cultivation. Mr. EASTLAND. There is a surplus in the production of Jong staple cotton in the United States, just as there is a surplus in the production of short staple cotton. The statement quoted by the Senator shows that the allotment is 110 acres. I stand corrected. The Senator's State has taken no reduction, according to the figures which the Senator read. Mr. ELLENDER. That is absolutely correct. As I understand it, the law is intended to deal with States which have actually planted cotton, and not with those commencing the growth of it. I may state to the Senator that under the pending measure, as well as under the existing law, a certain amount of cotton acreage is allocated to a State, or to a county, which is to be used by the com- mittees for new growers. That is the only provision I know of which exists in any law for such growers. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. MALONE. My statistician has handed me some figures which show that the acreage under cultivation in Nevada on July 1, 1949, was 1,150 acres. The allotment for 1950, however, will be 110
2268 acres. I submit to the distinguished Senator that it is just a little silly to have 110 acres allocated to an entire State. According to the reports we are receiving about potatoes, as well as reports on other sections of the farm program, I have no doubt that our lack of informa- tion is catching up with us. At the same time, it seems to me that a State should be allocated an acreage which would make sense while in the development stage. According to the amendment which has been offered, potato acre- age would be frozen. Apparently acre- age is going to be handled from the Senate floor believing that acreage con- trols the amount of the product. The only thing we forget on the Senate floor is that if we pay enough for potatoes and pigs, in 2 years we will have potatoes and pigs 10 feet deep all the way from Wash- ington, D. C., to San Francisco. We ap- parently know very little about what we are doing, and only hope that the tax- payers’ money holds out until we learn. Mr. EASTLAND. How much acreage would the Senator desire for the State of Nevada? Mr. MALONE. I should say there should be a minimum of 5,000 acres. There were 1,150 acres last year. I was wondering whether the distin- guished Senators would entertain an amendment to the pending bill to make the minimum for a sovereign State 2,000 &cres, or some other reasonable amount. Mr. EASTLAND. That is totally un- reasonable. Mr. ELLENDER. I think it would be totally unreasonable. I have figures be- fore me showing the acreage for the State of Missouri. According to the BAE statistics, these figures were almost 100 percent out of the way—almost as bad as the Nevada figures. Mr. MALONE. How much did they have? Mr. ELLENDER. BAE - statistics showed in 1945, 268,000 acres. However, Missouri farmers reported that they had planted in the same year 540,174 acres. The error was almost exactly 100 percent. Mr. MALONE. Two thousand acres for a sovereign State would not be very much. Mr. ELLENDER. Personally, I should be glad to consider an amendment, pro- vided it remained in line with the actual plantings of last year, minus a reason- able cut. Mr. MALONE. It was 1,150 acres last year. Would the Senator accept an amendment of that kind? Mr. ELLENDER. I am merely one member of the committee, and I should prefer that the Senator submit his amendment to the Senate, and let the Senate pass upon it. I will say frankly, however, that I think he has a very fair request to make of the Senate in sub- mitting the amendment. Mr. MALONE. If the Senator will yield for one moment, I might say that we can carry crop control to ridiculous proportions in dealing with States, es- pecially in a case where there has been practically no acreage, and it becomes an economic necessity to rotate crops. I shall be very happy to prepare an amendment. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I was attempting to point out to the Senate the essential difference between the joint resolution as it passed the House and the measure reported by the Senate commit- tee as a substitute. The joint resolu- tion passed by the House would increase the acreage by at least twice as much as would be the case under the joint resolu- lution as reported by the Senate commit- tee. The House measure provides for she larger of 70 percent of the average cotton acreage planted during the years 1947, 1948, and 1949, or 50 percent of the highest planting in any of those years. In addition to that provision, which would increase the acreage considerably over the amount provided under the Senate version of the joint resolution, there is another provision which would, in my opinion, increase the acreage over the Senate version. The language to which I now refer provides: That this section shall not operate to in- crease the cotton-acreage allotment of any farm above 40 percent of the acreage on such farm which 1s tilled annually or in regular rotation, as determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary. That means that with respect to any cotton farm, no matter if sugarcane or sorghum or wheat or rye have been planted on it, 40 percent of the entire acreage is considered as being within the purview of the law insofar as the acre- age limitation is concerned. The Senate version of the joint reso- lution provides, that instead of 70 per- cent, only 60 percent of the average planting for 1946, 1947, and 1948 shall be tle limit. The 50-percent provision for the highest year, is left out alto- gether, and the 40-percent limitation, although retained in the Senate version, is further limited to tilled acreage minus any acreage which may have been planted to any crop other than cotton. In other words, the law as it now stands on the statute books—and it was enacted in 1938—remains as then written. Those points, Mr. President, represent the essential differences between the Senate version and the House version of the joint resolution. As was pointed out by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico |[Mr. ANDER- son] when he addressed the Senate a few days ago, the facts adduced before the Senate committee show that there will be increased plantings under the Senate version of from 600,000 to as much as 790,000 acres of cotton. Under the House version, there might be an increase of from 1,400,000 to as much as 2,000,000 acres. The Department of Agriculture has figured that although a ceiling of 21,000,- 060 acres was fixed in Public Law 272, it is probable, as I mentioned previously, that there will be at least 2,000,000 acres “frozen”’—that is, they will not be planted. Therefore if the joint resolu- tion as reported to the Senate is enacted it will mean that we are not going over the 21,000,000 acres provided for 1950 in Public, 272 and the chances are that the actual amount of acreage which will be Planted to cotton in 1950, should the Senate version be enacted, will be FEBRUARY 23 1,200,000 acres below the 21,000,000-acre quota. Mr. LONG. Mr, President, will the Senator yield? Mr, ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. LONG. At the time the Senate passed the cotton acreage allotment bill last year was it estimated that these 2,000,000 acres would be frozen, or was it considered that most, if not all, of the 21,000,000 acres would be planted? Mr. ELLENDER. The evidence shows that it was anticipated that not more than 19,000,000 acres would be planted. Mr. LONG. That was at the time the bill was passed last year? Mr. ELLENDER. Yes. The basis for that statement was the following: The Congress passed an act in 1942 or 1943 providing that all war crops planted in the cotton States would be considered as planted in cotton for the purposes of cotton allotments in the future, and, of course, that resulted in much difficulty, Because of the existence of that law it is now felt that although a quota of 21,- 000,000 acres has been established for 1950, only 19,000,000 acres will be plant- ed. If the Senate version of the House Joint resolution is enacted, it will mean that probably a maximum of 800,000 acres Will be added to the 19,000,000 acres the Department says will be planted un- der the present law. Mr. EASTLAND, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. EASTLAND. The Department of Agriculture figures that the measure would add about 800,000 acres. The cot- ton trade estimates that it will run about 400,000 acres. I am frank to say that I believe the Department of Agri- culture has better facilities and that its figure is more nearly accurate. But I believe, as the distinguished Senator from New Mexico said, that the figures of the Department are liberal, and that the joint resolution before us, if enacted into law, will not result in an increase of 800,000 additional acres. The States of Texas, Oklahoma, and Georgia have surplus acreage because of the credits they received for war crops, and with the enactment of the Senate version of the joint resolution will not plant the minimum acreage which is provided for in the previous legislation. Mr. ELLENDER. As a matter of fact, I think the evidence shows that even if the joint resolution as passed by the House were enacted, although it pro- vides for a greater acreage than does the Senate version, the 21,000,000-acre ceil- ing would not be reached. Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. LONG. Actually in many cases the effect of taking the BAE figures has been that as applied to the individual farmer who might have correctly stated his acreage—he will not be given what his proper share of the acreage allot- ment would have been. Is that correct? Mr. ELLENDER. It results in that, yes. Mr. President, unless the Senators have some questions to ask, I am about to conclude. There is only one other
1950 portion of the joint resolution I did not explain. That is section 2, which pro- vides: No price support shall be made available for any Irish potatoes planted after the en- actment of this joint resolution unless mar- keting quotas are in effect with respect to such potatoes, As I recall, there was quite a discussion on that section a few days ago when the distinguished Senator from New Mexico obtained the floor. I desire to say that I believe that one of the most serious mistakes the Senate has made in the enactment of farm legislation was to provide for support prices without any means in the law to curtail production, either by a marketing quota system or on an acreage allotment basis. I do not believe that any kind of a farm program can long survive unless it contains the means of controlling farm production while supporting farm prices. The pri- Mary purpose of any type of agricultural adjustment legislation of this kind is to bolster prices and enable farmers to secure a fair market value from their crops; when the program becomes a dole for the farmer, and crop production ex- ceeds all bounds of consumption and de- mand, the taxpayer will refuse to foot the bill. If the farmer wants to be able to count on his Government to protect him by assuring a minimum price, he should, he must, be willing to agree to controls on his acreage and production. The American farmer may well consider that runaway production under a price- support program might kill the goose that lays the golden egg. AMENDMENT TO COTTON ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, under the cotton acreage allocation the State of Nevada was allocated 110 acres for 1950, while there were 1,150 acres actually in cultivation in Nevada during the year 1949. In the debate with the distin- guished Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] this morning he indicated he would entertain an amendment to bring the acreage for Nevada at least up to the 1949 acreage. Mr. President, Nevada is a new State, Less than 112 percent of its acreage is in cultivation, and it is a growing State. It is necessary to have crop rotation. It probably is not too well known that the southern boundary of Nevada, ap- proximately on the thirty-fifth degree of latitude extends as far south as the northern boundaries of Mississippi and Alabama. It is realized that subsidies naturally call for acreage restriction, but some judgment may be exercised in respect to a sovereign State which js a new State and in a state of development. There- fore I submit the following amendment, to be added to the joint resolution as a new section: Sec, 3. Notwithstanding any other provi- gion of law there shall be allotted to the State of Nevada for the production of cotton in 1950 not less than 1,150 acres, which is the acreage planted to cotton in Nevada in 1949. The additional acreage required to be allotted by this section shall be additional to the national acreage allotment. xCVI——143 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. President, I submit the paragraph just read as an amendment to the pend- ing measure. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be received and printed, and will lie on the table. CONFIRMATION OF NOMINATIONS IN THE ARMY AND THE AIR FORCE Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, as in executive session, I report from the Committee on Armed Services certain nominations involving routine promo- tions in the Army and the Air Force. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr, Wituers in the chair). Without objec- tion, the nominations will be received. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for immediate con- sideration and confirmation of these routine promotions in the Army and the Air Force, and that the President be notified. The highest promotion on this list is to the rank of colonel. The pro- motions are all routine promotions. They have been in the committee for the prescribed period. No objections have been heard to them. I ask for the im- mediate consideration of the nomina- tions. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Maryland for the immediate con- sideration of the nominations? Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator again state what they are. Mr. TYDINGS. They are nomina- tions involving routine promotions in the Army and the Air Force, the highest of which is to the rank of colonel. They come from the committee with a unani- mous report. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the nominations? The Chair hears none; the nomina- tions are confirmed, and, without objec- tion, the President will be notified forth- with. ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. AIKEN and Mr. WILLIAMS rose. Mr. TYDINGS. I yield to the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN]. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order. The Senator from Maryland has no right to yield the floor to any Senator after he relinquishes the floor. Mr. TYDINGS. I wish to proceed to make a statement, I shall not yield to any Senator. I thought the Senators who rose wanted to make insertions in the REcorp. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I de=- sire to submit an amendment. How- ever, if the Senator from Vcrmont wants the regular order, I shall defer. Mr. AIKEN. I think the regular order is preferable. Mr. WILLIAMS. I will wait until I can secure the floor in my own right; but I appreciate the offer of the Senator from Maryland to yield to me for the purpose of making an insertion in the REeEcorpD. CALL OF THE ROLL Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, I shall suggest the absence of a quorum, 2269 if the Senator from Maryland will yield to me for that purpose. Mr. TYDINGS. I will yield for that purpose, provided I may have the floor after the presence of a quorum is established. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so I may suggest the absence of a quorum? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield for that purpose. Mr. BREWSTER. I suggest the ab- sence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the calling of the roll be vacated. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. WITHERS in the chair). Is there objec- tion? Mr. BREWSTER. Is the request made to vacate the order for the calling of the roll because we do not have a quorum? Mr. TYDINGS. That might be. But many Senators are eating their lunch; and if the Senator does not mind, I should like to proceed. Mr. BREWSTER. Very well; I have no objection. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the order for a call of the roll is vacated, and further proceedings under the call are suspended. PROPOSAL FOR A WORLD DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, the great preponderance of the United States in the field of atomic and hydrogen weapons has given to the free peoples of the world the reasoned belief that no nation on earth will dare attack us or them for fear of the frightful conse- quences of quick retaliation. Statesmen and military men of the greatest eminence in the western world have repeatedly stated that the posses- sion of a huge stock pile of these great bombs by the United States has been the greatest single force in keeping the world at peace during the past several years. In their search for security in a troubled world, the people of the demo- cratic nations of western Europe have based their justifiable hope for-safety upon the solid rock of the military might of the United States. They have done this voluntarily in spite of the ideologi- cal, political, economic, and military pressures that have been applied to make them turn away from us. Until these western Europeans can rehabilitate their ravaged and war-torn countries and provide more adequate military strength of their own, they have realistically taken refuge under the wings of the American eagle. They know that the claws of this great eagle can carry large numbers of deadly bombs which, if necessity demands, could be loosed quickly on any aggressor. At present the United States has pend- ing in the United Nations two disarma- ment proposals. These are being cure rently considered by two separate com- mittees of the United Nations, The first
2270 committee seeks to reach an agreement with the member nations to outlaw com- pletely the A, H, and other bombs, to destoy the means of making them, and to control for peacetime purposes the raw materials from which they are made. The second committee is con- cerned with achieving disarmament on conventional weapons only. Negotiations on the part of both of these committees have proceeded since 1946, down to approximately January 19, 1950, when the Russian representa- tives withdrew from the United Nations, This work has therefore ceased. Pre- sumably, negotiations will be renewed if and when the Russian representatives return. So far agreements to accom- plish the objectives of the two commit- tees have not been reached. The proposal of the United States to achieve disarmament is a civilized and proper underiaking. ‘These proposals were first made 1n 1946, when the Allies had just won a long, costly, devastating, and bloody struggle. The diffcrences between them then were of a minor nature. The United States entertained the fond hope that upon the wreckage and ashes of a war-ravaged world a firm peace could be built. Our country quickly seized the leadership in this quest and offered to destroy its greatest weapons and the means of making them if other nations would agree to its pro- posal. It was then the hope of this country that 1f an agreement to outlaw the great kombs was reached, it would immediately be followed by other dis- armament agreements which would hft the fear and burden of a new war from the hearvs of men. Steadily since that time the powerful Allies who won World War II have drifted apart. Disagreements have been frequent. The schism between east and west has continued to widen. The threat of war between former allies has at times been imminent. Slowly and surely the great nations have divided into two hostile camps, with Russia the leader of one school of thouent and action, and the United States the leader of the other. Instead of disarmament, as was pro- posed, rearmament is now being prac- ticed by those mighty allies, who but 5 years ago stood shoulder to shoulder against a common en¢my. Lately the rearmament has’ been _ acceleraicd. Russia is now devoting to her military forces five-sixths of the same effort she devoted to it in the first year of her war against Hitler. Even today Russia is devo.uing to her military might two- thirds of the effort that she devoted to it in 1945, the last year of the war. Russia is now maintaining 200 divi- sions, many of them armored. As at present constituted, we have approxi- mately 10. The U. S. S. R. is building up a mighty air force. In some cate- gories, it is superior to ours in quantity, and high in quality. In certain cate- gories of long-range, heavy bombing planes Russia is lacking. Howevcr, she is diligently working to fill this void. Much of our great Navy, in the category of ships, has been put in mothballs and is substantially on a stand-by basis. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Russia is building up steadily a large fleet of new, efficient, and powerful sub- marines. Reports indicate she is con- structing heavier surface craft also. Both the United States of America and the U. S. S. R. are increasing their stock pile of A-bombs, and undoubtedly both of them are working on the construction of H-bombs. This over-all general comparison of the armed might of Russia with that of our own country shows, I believe, that the present advantage in military might, taking into account our commitments overseas, lies with the United States. This is primarily because of our large stock pile of atomic bombs and Russia's relatively small stock pile of this most decisive weapon ever invented for use in war. One of our pending proposals in the United Nations is to achieve the prohibi- tion of the manufacture, possession, and use of the A- and H-bombs. If the pro- posal ts accepted by Russia, it will mean a tremendous reduction in the armed sirength of the United States, with no compensating reduction in the armed strenglh of Russia. It will mean we give up the very thing which experts have proclaimed to be the greatest single factor for keeping the peace. Considering our great distance from the European Continent, it would likely threaten our military preeminence in Europe as well as at home. Therefore, Mr. President, further effort on the part of the United States to achieve prohibition of the manufacture, possession, and use of the A- and H- bombs, without accompanying and com- pensating disarmament programs hy Russia and other nations, may lead the United States and the democratic na- tions associated with us into the abyss of disaster. More than anything else, the posses- sion of a large stock pile of these decisive weapons has given to our country and the democratic nations allied with us a feeling of firm and irreplaceable security. We are so far ahead in stock piling the bombs that no other country can match us in the reasonable foreseeable future. Our couutry has access to the largest part of the known world supply of ura- nium, Russia does not have access to a similar volume of raw matcrials indis- pensible to the making of the great bombs The scientific and mechanical ability and know-how of the United States and the thousands of great industrial estab- lishments where this knowledge and ability can be translated quickly into weapons give the assurance to our people and to the North Atlantic Security Al- liance that we are not lagging behind in the great essentials of modern defense. All these factors taken together have poised the peoples of the free democratic world upon the highest peaks of national and iniernational defense. We are in- finitely stronger than any other nation, in the number and quality of the most decisive weapons known, But, Mr. President, if we continue the laudable course of disarmament in the United Nations through the medium of two separate committees therein we are FEBRUARY 23 inviting grave dangers. With one com- mittee seeking to achieve agreement for the outlawing of atomic weapons and the other working for a scaling down of other conventional weapons, we could be placed in an untenable position. For example, if the Russians, at some future date, should accept our proposals for the prohibition of the manufacture, possession, and use of A- and H-kombs, without agreeing to our other proposals for the scaling down of conventional weapons, we would be caught in a trap. We cannot afford to agree to the prohibi- tion of the A- and H-bombs only. There must be accompanying and compensat- ing disarmament in the fleld of conven- tional weapons, to offset this sacrifice of our armed might. Otherwise, our own people and the people of westcrn Europe would strongly oppose it, and I believe the United States Senate would not vote to ratify any such agreement, for the simple reason that it would transfer muli- tary dominance, particularly in Europe, from ourselves to Russia. We would be emburrassed by the ac- ceptance of the very proposition we put forth. The Russians could say: “All right, we agree to your proposition to outlaw the great bombs. Now let us proceed to do it. We have accepted it. What are you waiting on? Are you go- ing to break faith upon the very proposal which you yourselves made?” Thus if we refused to carry out the plan after agreement was reached to out- Jaw the great bombs, we would stand in- dicted before the world as having welshed on our own disarmament proposal. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate Chamber? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Those who are standing in the Senate Chamber will please be Seated. Senators will find seots. Let there be order. Mr. TYDINGS. If we secure Russia’s acceptance and carry out the plan, we consequently raise Russia’s might greatly while reducing our own. We shatter the present strong faith of western Euro- peans that, they can look to us for pro- tection. We place Russia in a position where without any bombs she can renew all the various pressures on the coun- tries of western Europe. If the two proposals pending in the United Nations are not henceforth han- dled by the same committee, so that any disarmament by one great nation 1s com- pensated for by equal disarmament by others, then we ought to recall our offer from the United Nations. The estab- lishment of two committees to deal with two different kinds of armaments no doubt sprang from the best of inten- tions. However, such a policy 1s neither sound nor wise, nor likely to be rewarded by real accomplishment. One European country, Norway, has more than 100 miles of her northern frontier adjoining the fronticr of Soviet Russia. If there are no bombs in our arsenal with which to come to the aid of Norway and other such countries, they might begin to question whether, under the new alincment of armaments, they would be as safe as they formerly were. From Italy northward all along Eu- rope's Atlantic coast, Russia would un-
1950 doubtedly try to pick off first one, then another of the democratic countries allicd with us. So great would be her comparative might—already poised on the borders of these countries, with ours 8,000 miles away—that the mere threat of armed intervention plus other pres- sures would make it difficult for the west- ern Europeans not to try for the best terms they could get from such a for- midable and threatening power. We should realize that the prohibition of A- and H-bombs, taken singly, might result in the destruction of the demo- cratic world to a large degree. If I were a Norwegian or a Dane, a Dutchman, a Belgian, or a Frenchman, and there were no great A-bombs in ex- istence and all the other armed might of the world remained as at present dis- tributed, I would make a new calculation of the existing power of Russia on the one hand and that of the United States on the other. I would know that Russia had 200 divisions, many of them heavily armored. I would know that the United States had but 10. I would know that for pur- poses of war in Europe, without the bombs, the Russian air force was at least on a par with that of the United States. I would know that the great United States Navy, powerful though it is, is not equipped beyond a limited degree to defend the borders of western European countries where the Russian Army is already poised. Mr. President, may we have order, please? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Those who are standing in the Senate Cham- ber will please find scats. Mr. TYDINGS. I would likely have a feeling that the West had lost the war of ideas with the East, so far as Europe was concerned. As threat after threat mounted, as pressure after pressure from Russia increased upon western Europe, I would begin to wonder whether I had best not make what terms I could with & powerful enemy on the spot, rather than rely upon the smaller forces of my friends and allics more than 3,000 miles away. That, I believe, would be the reasoning of the great masses of the people of western Europe. The North Atlantic Se- curity Alliance might be dealt a blow from which it could not recover. If this came to pass, the United States would then stand isolated in a world whcre strong Russian and allied forces stood on the borders of the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the Arctic Oceans. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate? Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I shall refuse to continue unless there can be order in the Chamber. I simply can- not shout against the conversations of everyone. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let there be order in the Senate and in the galleries. Let everyone including the oc- cupants of the galleries, be quiet while this important proceeding continues. Does the Senator from Nebraska ask to be recognized? Mr. WHERRY. No. I merely wanted to request the Presiding Officer to pre- serve order in the Senate Chamber. The CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Senator from Maryland has made the request three or four times. Conver- sations are going on in the Senate Chamber. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let everyone be in order. Mr. WHERRY. I want to say that I feel that order certainly should be pre- served. It is a very important speech, and I personally am anxious to hear every word of it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ate will be in order. Mr. TYDINGS. That, Mr. President, is the grave danger in proceeding with world disarmament on a partial basis. It is a hazard to ourselves and the North Atlantic Security Alliance when two sep- arate committees of the United Nations are trying to solve this great problem on a dual basis. To institute atomic controls and prohibitions alone would strike a deadly blow at our own de- fenses—a blow calculated to dismember the North Atlantic Security Alliance and weaken the whole democratic world. The means for avoiding this danger, 1f disarmament is to be the continuing quest of the United Nations, is to con- solidate these two committees. Disarm- ament must be equal, not one-sided. No nation can be asked to give up its preeminence in a singie field of military might without accompanying and com- pensating disarmament by other nations in the same or other fields. Disarma- ment by example is not disarmament at all. In essence, this shows the fallacy of trying to achieve world peace by disarm- ament unless the whole subject of world disarmament 1s confronted, analyzed and solved so that all nations shall dis- arm proportionately. In other words, the outlawing of atomic weapons, un- less accompanied by the outlawing and elimination simultancously of other weapons 1s a@ snare and a delusion. All treaties calculated to achieve any measure of disarmamcnt are based upon the indispensable ingredient of world- wide inspection. No nation will trust another’s word as to the amount or ex- tent of disarming which it is putting into effect. Each nation must Know the ac- tual practices being carried out, through inspection, by its own representatives. Without inspection there can be no dis- armament. It is the sine qua non of the whole proposition. So long as large armaments remain, even without bombs, the threat of war lingers. It has not been reduced to jts irreducible minimum, but only by a degree. Thus if war comes—and it could come by the use of the permissible weapons—the moment it starts, all in- spection ceases. Obviously, if we were at war with Russia, we would not permit her representatives to inspect our coun- try, nor would she permit our inspectors to enter her borders. As inspection is an indispensable part of every treaty, these treaties would pro- vide that the disarmament agreements remain in effect only while inspection is possible. So when inspection ceases at the outbreak of war, the treaties are abrogated and declared null and void. It is then permissible for the nations who are parties to the disarmament pact 2271 to begin rearmament in all categories, including A- and H-bombs. Each bellig- erent capable of doing so would at once begin the manufacture of these deadly weapons. As soon as they were produced they would likely be used, just as they were used, as soon as we made them, in our war with Japan. So what have we gained, Mr. Presi- dent, if disarmament carries through, even equitably, only in the top category of major atomic weapons? We have gained only a truce between wars. Dur- ing the period between wars the great weapons would not be used anyhow. You have merely delayed their use somewhat. For immediately upon the advent of war, they are certain to be manufactured and used, as they are acknowledged to be the most decisive weapons known to bring the enemy to his knees. All we have done by such a process is to march the hopes of mankind to the summit of peace, only to find that we must march them all down again. Twenty years ago, Maxim Litvincff, the Russian representative at the World Disarmament Conference in Geneva, said this: “The way to disarm is to disarm.” One cannot be saint and sinner at the same time. If the world wants peace through disarmament, it cannot achieve it by being a Roman rider, with one foot on the horse of disarmament and one foot on the horse of rearmament. There are no short cuts, magic keys, or miracu- lous formulae for the achievement of real world peace, other than through world disarmament. Nor will the cause of peace be aided by partial disarmament in any category of weapons by the great nations unless with such agreement there is accom- panying and compensating disarma- ment by all the parties thercto. Therefore, today I again raise my voice for two purposes: First, to end the pro- cedure in the United Nations where two committees are working to secure agree- ment on two separate phases of the dis- armament program. This must be a single undertaking, either in or out of the United Nations. The present divi- sion of work and effort of these commit- tees is fraught with the grave dangers I have pointed out. If this work is to continue, it should be done by a single consolidated committee, to avoid mis- understanding and irreparable loss of our prestige before the world. Secondly, I renew my plea for a real world disarmament conference, where this subject will be considered in its en- tirety. I ask for a conference devoted to this one purpose. So long as the threat of war remains, as it will remain without world disarmament, there is lit- tle or no real prospect of settling the other disputes of men and nations on any permanent basis. Finally, in the face of the resurgence of Russian military power on land, sea, and in the air—and in the field of atomic bombs—we must review our total mili- tary potential and that of those asso- ciated with us. If this arms race is not halted, it will mean more rather than less defense; more rather than less taxes, for military purposes; more rather than less sacrifices; more rather than less
2272 concern for the ultimate fate of man- kind. Mr. President, this is something which I think may intcrest the Senators who are present. The present announced policies of the State Department seem to condemn us to this course. In an article published in the Reader’s Digest for March 1950 entitled “Is War With Russia Inevita- ble?” Mr. George F. Kennan, the able counselor of the State Department, says war is possible. He says it may come either by accident, or from the tear of the Russians that someone is golng to attack them. Speaking for the State Department, he tells us that there are only three alternatives open to us: “(a) a return to isolation and armed neutral- ity; (b) war, or (c) to continue the policy of throwing our weight into the balance wherever there are relatively good chances that it will be effective in preventing the further expansion of in- ternational communism.” There Mr. Kennan closes the door. We must either retreat back to America and pursue a policy of armed and isolated neutrality, or go to war with Russia, or just hold fast as we are. All imagination, energy, ingenuity, and diplomacy on the part of our Govern- ment and people are by such a policy completely and unmitigatingly discount- ed. They are all deposited in a steel- riveted sphere of frozen vacuity. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I should like to finish my remarks, and then I shall be glad to yield. Without additional State Department policy, the American Nation and those associated with us are compelled to live on the other side of an iron curtain already hiding nearly half of the world and its people. Mr. Kennan's three alternatives, taken together, are mountainous in their de- featism. They are not in the American tradition. They place a new low on American ingenuity. They offer noth- ing but the ultimate expectation of the incineration of mankind, Like Mr. Mi- cawber, the State Department seems willing to wait for something to turn up. Evidently the recent words of Dr. Einstein that “annihilation of all life on this planet is now within the realm of technical possibility” seem to have been completely overlooked. Like Nero, we seem to show a willingness to fiddle while our world burns. We seem to have no plans, other than those stated, to break the stalemate There is little hope held out by these alternatives either to our own people or to the pecple of western Europe. There is no hope held out to those nations, once free, that are now behind the iron cur- tain. This lethargic statement parades us before the world as impotent, devoid even of the will to try, and exhibits a paucity of thoughi and action in the face of a gathering storm which could sweep away all Christendom, all civilization, all living things. I would offer another alternative to the three which the State Department says are our only recourse: the alterna- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tive of taking the initiative, stating our objective before all the world and carry- ing our message in every manner possible to all people behind the iron curtain, I would start it by calling a world dis- armament conference, by going to the very core of the matter, at the begin- ning. There are excellent precedents for this in time of great national trial and danger. Woodrow Wilson did it in his fervent appeal to the people of other nations, over the heads of their own gov- ernments, with his fourtcen points which helped crack the resistance of the enemy in World War I. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill did not hesitate to appeal to the people of other nations by setting forth the allied objectives in the Atlantic Charter. Would not a ringing appeal for rcal world disarma- ment under adequate guaranties against bad faith tear the mask of propaganda, crimination, and recrimination from the face of those who would keep the world in an armed camp? We are the greatest advertiscrs and salesmen the world has ever seen. The dynamic quality of our business life is built largely upon advertising and sales- manship, Why not employ these great American attributes to carry an honest messare behind the iron curtain? It would say in effect: “We in America, the most powerful Nation in the world miltarily, econom!i- cally, and financially, are offering to the governments of all other peoples the proposition to disarm to the lowest pos- sible degree, retaining only such forces as are necessary to keep law and order within our countries.” This would be a hard message to ex- plain away to the people on the other side of the iron curtain. It shows clearly and precisely where the United States stands, what our motives are and what we desire. There must be many Russians who want to be relieved of the awful burden of slaving not for themselves and their families but for the waste of giant arma- ments. There must be millions of Rus- sians who would like to be relieved of the threat and fear of war. This is a difficult invitation for any government to reject. Sooner or later people will begin to realize that much that they need and desire could be obtained if this policy were adopted. Yes, there is a fourth alternative—a call for world disarmament. The im- pact of that message, properly framed, will stir millions in every land all over this earth. It will stir them particularly when they come to know that the alter- native is as Dr. Einstein has said, the possible incineration of all mankind. Let us tell the people of the world precisely what our purpose is. If we do, we will reap a good harvest in the ver- dict of millions of people all over the carth. They will come to know that America ‘s the friend of the common man. They will learn who opposes and destroys the ideal which we seek. We cannot win the cold war by dynam- ic negativism or by burying our heads in the sand in the illusion that the enemy will pass by. We can win it by strong, aggressive, imaginative, diplomatic action, FEBRUARY 23 That is the call of the hour. It is the call that millions are waiting for. I renew my plea for the President of the United States to call a world dis- armament conference. It is fraught with great possibilities for good, even though it fails. It is burdened with blessings if it succeeds. It is the call that stems from strength. It is a call that all but a few will heed. It is a call to end both the cold war and the hot war. It is a call to restore to mankind those inalienable rights—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—with which our Creator has endowed us. I now yield to the Senator from Min- nesota. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, the thought which came to my mind as the Senator was speaking about the vacuum was that what he was endeavoring to do by his splendid statement was to break the seal which was causing the vacuum, and get some action by the State Department and by the President and other nations in an endcavor to come to some type of world-wide agreement on the armament question. Mr. TYDINGS. That 1s correct. Mr. THYE. I should lke to commend the Senator from Maryland. I have listened to him with keen interest. I certainly hope that not only the Presi- dent, but the State Depurtment, will heed the warning and the message which he has elven us. Mr. TYDINGS. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his generous support. At the ezpense of reiteration, it seems to me that if we were to utilhze every possible means which we have at hand, and accentuste all the means at our com- mand to carry the message, that the United States, the strongest nation in the world, militarily, economically, and financially—lI will not say spiritually and morally—is proposing to all the govern- ments on earth a world disarmament conicrence down to the lowest possible point necessary to keep law and order in each country, so that the milhons who now slave for the waste of building great armaments may devote their energies to their homes, to schools, hospitals, roads, food, clothing, and shelter, provided their government and the other governments would only join with us in that quest, it would be a powerful and revolutioniz- ing statement, even if its objective were not realized, which might bring great re- sults In ways which we cannot even now see. If the idea were carried to its ulti- mate conclusion and such a conference were held, it would be a great blessing to all mankind. Mr. THYE. In other words, our si- lence as a nation might be interpreted as evidence of confusion on cur part and a hesitancy to take the aggressive lead- ership necessary to brine abcut the dis- armament which 1s absolutely necessary, particularly in view of the hydrogen ele- ment from which we are now attempting to build bombs. Mr. TYDINGS. The Senator has put his finger on the important point. We are going to have disarmament, or, if we have a war at some period in the fu- ture, there is no man in this Chamber who can be certain that when it is all over the place we now stand on and the
1950 people who are young will still be here, There are potentialities inherent in the type of warfare with which we are now confronted which lead, as Dr. Einstein said, to the possibility ultimately of all life on this planet being wiped out. That Message, together with the one I have briefly outlined, ought to find lodgement in the dullest intellect in the world, wher- ever it may be, Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I enjoyed the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Maryland, particularly his con- cluding comments. I was reminded of the world situation back in the days when, from this country, there came forth the idea enunciated in the Declara- tion of Independence, It spread through- out the peoples of the world a flame of desire for nobler things and for freer government, and it was the beginning of the disintegration of autocracy. It seems to me the present situation is analogous. The peoples of earth are hungry for “the way out”—out of fear, out of tyranny, out of debt, out of war. They are looking for more light. I am satisfied that if the aggressive and dynamic suggestion and the idea which has been so ably pre- sented on two occasions by the distin- guished Senator from Maryland, were properly presented with force, energy, and dynamics by our State Department, it would cause hope to spring afresh in the hearts, and minds, and souls of the peoples of earth; even as the Declaration of Independence did in 1776. Mr. President, I should like to sug- gest to the Senate that there have just come into the gallery some 25 or 30 young men and women from Europe. Their coming is a gleam in the darkness. They are here to spend a year to get ac- quainted with America, with American ideals, and American ways of life. They belong to the Moral Rearmament Group, which is really doing a great job. The Senate will remember that it was only last year that the Chaplain of the Sen- ate visited Caux. He came back spir- itually exhilarated. He wrote two ar- ticles for the Sunday Star, as I recall, and they have been placed in the Recorp. He wrote of the spiritual up- lift and experience he had when he was at Caux. Yesterday we heard read the Farewell Message of George Washington. In it Washington stressed the importance of religion in a people of morality and spir- ituality. Today the Senator from Mary- land has given us a lift with an idea—a liberating idea. At noon I took lunch with this fine group of young men and women and I received a similar lift. I feel there are forces working for good. The world situation is critical but not hopeless. We Americans have adequacy in our blood. Always, with the help of God, we have proved equal to the emergency. In the days of Valley Forge, when things looked darkest, and when Washington was in doubt about the fu- ture, a young man named Lafayette came from France and brought with him to Washington and his leaders the mes- sage, in substance, that the eyes of Eu- repe were looking with hope and expec- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tation toward America, with its new ideas, with its new political and liberat- ing concepts. From that young man came encouragement and direction to Washington to carry on. I say, Mr. President, that today the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Typ1ncs] by his proposal and our young European friends by their presence, furnish a good omen for the world of tomorrow. Iam an optimist. With courage, with the desire to adventure—casting out all doubt, fear, and self-distrust—undaunt- ed by present conditions, with faith, hope and confidence, we will ultimately find the answer, Mr. President. Mr. TYDINGS. Before I yield the floor I will say to the Senator from Wis- consin that his illustration respecting the wide effect of the publication of the Declaration of Independence upon the world is very apt. What he said re- specting that document shows that if an idea is what we believe to be moral and spiritually right, and if it is honestly projected and widely understood, as I believe a simple message of the kind I have outlined would be, no one can measure the force of that idea down through the corridors of time. No man can measure its contribution, even if the proposal fails, toward causing a fer- ment among the people on both sides of the iron curtain who want to have a better way of living than the one they now have. In my opinion one of the reasons the Russian revolution succeeded was that there was just enough apathy concerning the retaining of the old Czarist regime, and enough resurgence toward establish- ing a new regime, so the new regime was able to seize power because the people of Russia thought it offered a better promise for them, whether it did or did not really do so. I believe that now there is a God- given opportunity for leadership by the United States to utilize every agency at its command, to use all its efforts, all its salesmanship ingenuity, all its adver- tising ingenuity, in sending this simple message out all over the world. It can- not do any harm. It springs from strength. The world knows how strong we are. We defeated one nation almost by ourselves, and contributed materially toward defeating two others, and in doing so we had to go across two great oceans. We do not have to apologize or to ex- plain our position. The world knows how strong we are. The force of that message might conceivably rend some of the curtains and tear down some of the barriers now standing between the East and the West. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. I pay my respects to the very able Senator fronmr Maryland for an address which he not only pre- sented forcefully, but which contains much merit. Getting back to the practical side of the situation, I should like to ask the Senator several questions. Does the special counselor whom the distin- guished Senator quoted reflect the posi- tion or the philosophy of the present 2273 head of the Department of State, or is the Senator speaking for himself? In other words, I should like to know from the Senator from Maryland, because of the position he occupies as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, if the appeal is a reflection of the present leadership in the State Department? Mr. TYDINGS. I believe I can an- swer your question affirmatively for three reasons. First, he says substantially what the Secretary of State said in his extemporaneous remarks of 10 days ago. Secondly, it comes from the coun- selor o7 the State Department, who ob- viously would not take a position op- posed t» the position of his chief. Thirdly, the Reader’s Digest very gen- erously waived its copyright to the ar- ticle so that it might have the widest examination in reprints all over the country. I believe any one of those three rea- sons is sufficient, but taking the three factors together there can be only one answer: Yes; what I read and quoted is the present position of the State Depart- ment of the United States of America. Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Senator from Maryland for his answer. I should like to ask him another ques- tion if he will yield. Mr. TYDINGS. I yield for another question. Mr. WHERRY. Could the appeal pro- posed to be made to the leadership of the world and to all the peoples of the world, be made through the United Na- tions? Mr. TYDINGS. That opens up a tre- mendous field for argument. I should prefer to answer the question in this fashion: I beHeve there is a better way to do it than through the United Na- tions. I believe the dramatics of the United Nations have now pretty well passed away. I believe that we have a@ great opportunity for presenting a dy- namic proposal. I believe the call would have to come from a very high peak of authority and eminence in order to carry the conviction that it came from a source that was strong and powerful, that it came in a sacrificial sense, that it came from one who would give up more than anyone else to achieve an ideal. Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Senator for his answer. I should like to ask one more question, if the Senator will yield for a final question. Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Does not the Senator from Maryland agree with me that this dramatic appeal which is proposed to be made, which would be judged by the whole world, should be made in the open? Would it not, with all the dramatics go- ing with it, when given to all the world— even though in the end the satisfactory results the Senator hopes for might not be achieved—be more effective if made openly? Mr. TYDINGS. Yes; certainly. There are many who live behind the iron cur- tain whose labor, sometimes under con- ditions almost of slavery, goes into a giant armament system instead of into the production of houses, of food, of clothing, and so on, who, if they heard
2274 the message, would question whether the government under which they were forced to live ought not to be replaced by some other form of government. There are many ramifications growing out of the proposal other than simply the mat- ter of disarmament, but the greatest advantages to be achieved are those re- sulting from disarmament. I thank the Senator from Nebraska for his remarks. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. McMAHON. There are some points the Senator has made with which I am not in agreement, as the Senator knows from our private conversation, but as to the necessity for hard and con- structive thinking about the affairs of the world we are in complete agreement. Mr. TYDINGS. That is correct. Mr. McMAHON. I congratulate the Senator upon the spirit which has moved him, and I hope his spirits will not flag, and that he will not fail to con- tinue to rise on the floor of the Senate and express his belief and his thoughts on a subject which we must continue to examine and reexamine in behalf of the peace of the world. Mr. TYDINGS. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his remarks. Be- fore I yield the floor I should also like to thank him for his own efforts to try to achieve a new approach to the stalemate which exists between the east and the west, I would not want to surrender the floor without saying what I do not believe is necessary to say, that, of course, until we secure disarmament which gives us the same security we feel with armament, we must Keep our defenses very, very strong, This is not a plea for unilateral disarma-~ ment, for disarmament by example, or any kind of disarmament which would leave us relatively weaker in any respect than we are now. It is a plea for strength in the interim up to disarma- ment, and for disarmament whenever it is possible. COTTON AND PEANUT ACREAGE ALLOT- MENTS The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution (H. J. Res. 388) relat- ing to cotton and peanut acreage allot- ments and marketing quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, the Senator from New York | Mr. Ives], the Senator from Massa- chusetts | Mr. SALTONSTALL] and the Sen- ator from New Jersey [Mr. HENDRICKSON] I send to the desk the amendment let- tered “G” which I ask to have stated, and for which I ask immediate consid- eration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 1, line 2, it is proposed to strike out “planted” and insert in Neu thereof “harvested.” Mr. WILLIAMS. Section 2 of the bill as it is now written has the effect of re- pealing all price support on potatoes which are planted after the enactment CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of this measure. The amendment which I have offered on behalf of myself and other Senators, by changing the word “planted” to “harvested” would have the same effect except that it would apply to all potatoes which are harvested after the enactment of the pending measure. The reason I offer it is that if such provi- sion is not made there is a certain area in the United States in which farmers are now engaged in planting, and it will be impossible to tell who has or has not planted prior to any given date. During the 2 or 3 weeks’ period the bill may be in conference, or during the period while it is awaiting the signature of the Pres- ident they will have an incentive for en- gaging in an almost round-the-clock planting. The result would be that next summer, We Will have the greatest con- gestion of potatoes ready to harvest at one time the country has ever seen, and the result will be a completely demoral- ized market. I have discussed the question with the senior Senator from Illinois [Mr. Lucas], the majority leader, and I understand he has considered the merit of the amendment and might be willing to ac- cept it. Will the Senator from Illinois respond to that statement? Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I regret I did not hear the statement made by the Senator from Delaware. I was discuss- ing another very important matter with my friend the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. WiLEy]. Candidly I was not pay- ing attention to the Senator from Dela- ware. Mr. WILLIAMS. I was pointing out to the Senator that the rcason for offer- ing the amendment ts that it would pre- vent a congestion of potatoes on the market next summer. Without this amendment the farmers would have an incentive for planting faster during the next 2 or 3 wecks. During that time the farmers would have a price-support in- centive for all-around-the-clock plant- ing. I understood the Senator from Illi- nois recognized the merits of the amend- ment, and was willing to accept it. Mr. LUCAS. I did advise the Senator from Delaware that I thought his amendment was sound. After talking over the matter with the Senator from Florida [Mr. HouiAnp] I found that I might have been slightly confused. The Senator from Florida will have some- thing to say about the amendment. There is no doubt that the amendment, as now worded, is discriminatory. However, as I said in my speech the other day on the floor of the Senate, on this subject, it seemed to me that it did not discriminate very much, because most of the potatoes which are planted now and some which are now on the market in the extreme southern section of the country sell on the market for a price higher than the support price. There maybe a few exceptions to that; but on the whole, as I understand from the Department of Agriculture—and the Senators from the South can correct me if Iam wrong as to this—I think prob- ably 90 percent of all the potatoes which will be produced in the next month will sell at a price higher than the support price. So the support price really does FEBRUARY 23 not have too much effect on what we call the early potatoes which are grown in the southern area of the country. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, if we accept the statements by the Senator from Illinois as correct, then there would be no objection at all to my amendment, because if the support price is not neces- sary to the southern potatoes, it would not make any difference whether we change this provision, and the amend- ment would eliminate the discrimination in respect to the farmers, from Virginia and North Carolina west to the Califor- nia coast. Mr. LUCAS. Let me say to the Sena- tor from Delaware that in view of the opposition of my distinguished friend the Senator from Florida, who is a mem- ber of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, I should like to have the Sena- tor from Delaware prescnt the amend- ment, and I should like to have the Sen- ate vote on it, rather than to adopt it as my own at the present time. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be read. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Granam in the chair). The amendment will be stated. The Cuter CLerx. On page 7, in line 12, it is proposed to strike out the word “planted” and insert in heu thereof the word “harvested.” The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment offered by the Senator from Dela- ‘ware {Mr. Wituiams] for himself and other Senators. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, on this question, I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, as I have pointed out, I think my amend- ment is most necessary because of the planting season in North Carolina and Virginia. The potato farmers in those States are now in the midst of planting. In the next 3 weeks, given reasonably food weather, the potato farmers in North Carolina will be able to complete the planting, if it 1s necessary that they do so in order to gct under the deadline; and the same thing is truce in regard to most of the potato farmers in Virginia. As evidence of the fact that a large percentage of the potatoes from that area do move through Government channels, under the support program, I shall show how the potatoes from North Carolina were moving in 1948. I do not have the 1949 records with me; however, s0 far as I know, the 1948 figures present a fair comparison with those for 1949. On June 22, 1948, the State of North Carolina shipped 195 carloads of pota- toes. That area would be involved un- der this particular amendment. Of the 195 carloads of potatoes which North Carolina shipped on that day, 155 of these went under the Government sup- port program and were diverted from the normal channels of trade. On the same date, the Eastern Shore of Virginia shipped 132 carloads of pota- toes. Sixty-five of those carloads of potatoes, or nearly half, went to the Government support program,
1950 The Norfolk section of Virginia, south of Chesapeake Bay, where the potatoes could be planted in time to come under this proposal, shipped on the same day 73 carloads of potatoes, and 64 carloads of them were sold under the Government support program. So a large proportion of the southern potatoes can and do move under the Government support program and can result in just as great destruction of potatoes as we are now experiencing. To show that June 23 was not an unusual day, so far as shipments of po- tatoes are concerned, if we refer to the situation on the following day, we find that on that day North Carolina loaded 149 carloads of potatoes, and only 16 carloads of those potatoes went into the normal channels of trade, whereas 133 carloads of them were diverted to alcohol factories or for use in other ways. On the same day the Eastern Shore of Virginia shipped 264 carloads of pota- toes, and 176 carloads of them went un- der the Government support program. I do not think it is necessary for me to read the figure for all the States which shipped potatoes on that day; but the records show that as to the potatoes pro- duced in the intermediate States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Geor- gia, and the States to the west of them, a large proportion of the potatoes move into the support program, as much so as do the northern potatoes. If at this point we are going to try to correct the potato situation by repealing price sup- port so far as all northern potato farmers are concerned, then let us repeal price support so far as all the potato farmers throughout the country are concerned. As the Senator from Illinois points out, when we do that at this time, it is dis- crimination against one group of farm- ers, because then we have singled out as a guinea pig, we might say, the potato farmers. However, if we are going to single out the potato farmers, because of the scandal insofar as potatoes are concerned, let us do so with respect to all potato farmers, not merely those in one section of the country, because it has been costing just as much money to administer the price-support program for southern potatoes as it hes for north- ern potatoes. Another reason, and to my mind the most important one, why the Senate should adopt this amendment is that if it is not adopted the result will be that all the potatoes which are planted prior to the enactment of the law will have price support, whereas those which are planted after the enactment of the law will not have price support. Consider the situation, for instance, in Virginia or in North Carolina or in any other State of the Union, for that matter: There would be no way on earth by which the Government could tell whether John Jones planted his pota- toes before midnight of a certain day or whether he planted them the following morning, after the bill had been signed. There would be no way to tell which group of farmers planted their potatoes before the joint resolution was signed and which group of farmers planted their potatoes after it was signed. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Under those circumstances, there is no way on earth by which a law based on the exact time of planting could he administered. Therefore, any law en- acted under those circumstances, when we have knowledge of that situation, is ill-advised and unsound. Therefore, Mr. President, I think we have no alternative but to repeal price support all the way across the board, or else drop the project in its entirety. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Leany in the chair). Does the Senator from Delaware yield to the Senator from Colorado? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. MILLIKIN. Was there any im- plied promise to those who planted po- tatoes that they would continue under existing supports? Would the present Proposal result in our violating what might be called an implied representa- tion or promise to them? Mr. WILLIAMS. I would say, in re- ply to the Senator’s suggestion, that the proposal of the Senator from Illinois under section 2 constitutes a violation of an implied promise on the part of the Government to the potato farmers. But my point is that if we are going to violate that promise, let us violate it to all the farmers, not merely to a few farmers in the North, and leave the southern farm- ers unaffected by that violation. In other words, my point is that it 1s im- possible to separate the groups of farm- ers, so far as this matter is concerned. I think the Senator will recognize, as I do, that if the farmers of Colorado today are in the midst of planting, there will be no way on earth 3 months from now to tell whether the farmers planted their potatoes today or tomorrow. In fact, any farmer would run his tractors all night, in order to get all his potatoes planted ahead of the effective date—and so would I, if I were in his position. Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from Illinois could not be en- forced; there is no way on earth by which it could be enforced. The result would be that the farmers would plant excep- tionally heavy during the next 3 weeks; consequently, when the harvesting sea- son came, all those potatoes would be harvested in the same period. That would result in a great congestion of the potatoes next summer and a completely demoralized market. All of them would be harvested at one time, and that would cost the Government an amount of money which could hardly be imagined. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. MILLIKIN. As to the farmers who plant their potatoes after the meas- ure becomes law, would there be the same degree of violation of implied prom- ises? Mr. WILLIAMS. That would depend entirely on how far—— Mr. MILLIKIN. I mean to say, the farmer would be planting his potatoes at that time with his eyes open; he would know what was ahead of him. Mr. WILLIAMS. The Senator from Colorado will agree with me, I think, that 2275 it depends entirely upon how soon a time following enactment of the measure the Senator from Colorado has in mind. As to Maine, I agree with the Senator, but I am referring to farmers in the area where potatoes are now being planted. Such a farmer—John Jones, let us say— might plant his potatoes today. John Smith, with the same intentions and the same promise from the Government that his price would be supported, has bought his seed potatoes and has bought his fer- tilizer and has plowed the ground and has done everything except put the pota- toes in the ground. In respect to this proposal, we would have the same respon- sibility with respect to the man who is planting his potatoes tomorrow as we would with respect to the man who is planting his potatoes today, because each of them has made his investment and has no alternative but to proceed. The amendment of the Senator from Tilinois proposes such a violation of a promise; but if we are going to violate the promise, we should do so for the en- tire group, because, as I have said, 3 months from now it will be impossible to obtain sufficient enforcement agencies to be able to determine just when the pota- toes were planted. Unless we are going to make a division on geographical lines and say that the distinction shall apply to all potatoes south of a certain line, it will be impracticable to make such a division. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. LUCAS’ There is no question about the force of the argument present- ed by the Senator from Delaware, and there is no question about the discrimi- nation or about the repudiation of the implied promise on the part of the Gov- ernment. I do not think the Senator from Colo- rado was in the Chamber the other day when we were discussing the potato situation. My only purpose in offering the amendment, I may say to the Senator from Colorado, is that from the stand- point of the Treasury of the United States, the potato situation is so serious that the time has come when the Con- gress must take some action with respect to the potato program. Otherwise, the potato program alone, which has cost the taxpayers half a billion dollars, will ulti- mately destroy the foundation stones of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which has done so much for the farmers of the Nation. When the Senator from Illinois sub- mitted the amendment the other day before the committee—and it was carried in the committee—he came to the floor of the Senate immediately thereafter and presented a measure which would Place the potato growers of the United States under the same strict, rigid controls as the ones presently applying to the farm- ers who are producing the basic com- modities, such as wheat, corn, tobacco, and cotton. I propose to follow that through immediately with hearings, and to have reported to the Senate a bill which will place the potato growers under such controls, to the end that we shall not have a potato surplus every year.
2276 My thought was, I may say to the Senator, that the only way we can get quick action on that matter is to cut off the support price entirely until we can act on a bill of the kind I have men- tioned. If we do not do so, we may not get down to business on a bill and, in the end, we may lose at least $50,000,000 upon the 1950 potato crop. I am trying to save that for the Treasury. Senators on the other side of the aisle, as well as Senators on this side of the aisle who are talking about economy all the time should realize that here 1s an opportunity to save $50,000,000, without hurting anyone. The potato growers have fared better than any other group of farmers in America. We cannot con- tinue these large subsidies. I am not blaming anyone. The Con- gress of the United States, Democrats and Republicans alike, are responsible. We had the program during the war. We followed it after the war. The Eightieth Congress followed the same mandatory price-support program, and at the present time, in the Anderson bill, Potatoes are placed under a mandatory price support of from 60 to 90 percent. The move proposed by the amendment seems to be in the right direction, al- though I admit it repudiates an implied promise, and is drastic legislation. But sometimes drastic legislation is neces- sary in order to arrive at a solution of an existing problem. Mr. IVES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Delaware yield to the Sen- ator from New York? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. IVES. Mr. President, the able Senator from Illinois pointed out the possibility that $50,000,000 might be saved through the enactment of the amendment he proposes. I think that is a fine saving; heaven knows I am for it. But it occurs to me, and I should like to ask the able Senator from Delaware whether it is not correct, that if by the operation of the proposal of the Sena- tor from Illinois, $50,000,000 can be saved, cannot a substantially greater amount be saved by accepting the per- fecting amendment offered by the Sen- ator from Delaware? Mr. WILLIAMS. Unquestionably. I should say that about half the cost of the program will apply to the potatoes which would be planted prior to the possible enactment of the legislation. I agree with the Senator from Illinois it is drastic legislation, and I also agree with him that drastic legislation per- haps is necessary if we are to clean up a situation which has become a national scandal. I have criticized the potato program on humerous occasions during the past 3 years, yet we have never been able to get any legislation which would correct the situation. I understand the Senator from Illinois has introduced a bill which he considers a step toward a solution of the prob- lem. I think we should approach the problem with the thought in mind of solving it, not of going through another year, 1950, throwing away another $100,- 006,000 and Gestroying a large volume of good edible food. I shall support the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Senator from Illinois in his effort. As to whether his bill is what I would go along with, I do not Know; I have not studied it. But I think we should take some action to obviate the wholesale de- struction of potatoes, and not sit idly by and have a repetition in 1950 of what has happened during the past 5 years. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I want to thank him for the statement he has just made. I am very grateful to him for his view- point, which coincides with that of the Senator from Illinois. Iam not so much interested in the word “planting,” as against the word “harvesting.” I think, however, the Senator from Delaware has a very valuable point with regard to the substitution of the word. My amend- ment involves a deeper principle. I am trying to get something done with the potato program which will prevent a repetition of the scandalous things which have happened under the potato program year after year, and which have disturbed the press and the people of the country. It simply does not seem to me to be fair and right that potatoes should be subjected to ne controls when other commodities, such as the basic commodi- ties I mentioned a moment ago, are under rigid support controls, Iam tremendously concerned with the wheat program, the corn program, and the soybean program in Illinois and the Middle West. I am trying to do some- thing to stop the criticism and publhc condemnation of the entire program which has been enacted by the Con- gress over the past few years. That is all the Senator from Illinois 1s trying to do. Iam trying in the long run to elimi- nate the objectionable features from the potato program, and these include the exorbitant subsidies; in this way we may save the rest of the agricultural program, Mr. DONNELL. Mr. the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. LDoes the Senator from Delaware yicld to the Sen- ator from Missouri for a question? Mr. WILLIAMS. I should lke first to reply to the Senator from Ilnois, and then I shall yield to the Senator from Missouri. Mr, DONNELL Very well. Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not question the intentions of the Senator from Illi- nois, nor do I object to what he is trying to achieve. I point out, however—and I think perhaps the Senator will agree with me—that in trying to achieve his goal by means of his amendment to the joint resolution in the manner in which he has written it, there is a possibility that it would cost the Government sev- eral million dollars more than would be necessary, as a result of encouraging the farmers, by placing the incentive before them, to plant more rapidly for the next 3 or 4 weeks’ period. The Government would have to buy those potatoes at the particular time of the year when many of them could not be stored for an indefinite period. They would rot. Therefore, they would be removed from the market channels and within 3 or 4 weeks thereafter there would be a shortage of other potatoes coming into the market. It would re- President, will FEBRUARY 23 sult in exorbitantly high prices to the consumers. Therefore without my amendment, I think we would defeat the purpose we have in mind. We might save $25,000,000 or $50,000,000 in one place, but we could very well lose more than half of it in another place, and thus benefit no one. I now yield to the Senator from Missouri. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I shall ask the Senator from Delaware a ques- tion in a moment. I shall have to pre- cede it by a very brief statement, so I can make my question intelligible. I noticed with some concern the confes- sion made by both the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Illinois that the amendment of the Senator from Illinois involves a repudiation of an implied agreement. I do not like to be put in the position, and I do not think any other Momber of the Senate does, of voting for an amendment which amounts to a repudiation of an agree- ment, expressed or implied. What I want to ask the Scnator is this: Is not this the correct actual situation: Whenever Congress passes a law, such as the price-support Jaw, it does so with the entire moral and Icgal right both to repeal and change the law at any time the national welfare shall make it ad- visable so to do, and therefore, even though the law be in effect at the mo- ment of planting, any farmer who plants and makes his investment in advance, as was indicated a Httle while ago, does so subject not only to the legal right but to the moral right of the Congress in safeguarding the interests of the Nation to change or repeal the law at any time. I do not at all agree with the view that in adopting the amendment, whether it be with the word “harvested” or with the word “planted,” we are vlo- lating any agreement, expressed or im- plied I ask the Senator whether he does not think my statement is a correct statement of the situation. Mr. WILLIAMS. I think the Senator from Missouri is correct—that Congress has a right to repeal or change any law which may have been passed. While I feel that there is an implied promise to the farmers, I point out to the Senator from Missourl, as a reason why I have no objections to poing along with the change at this time, that when the sup- port price was first passed as a wartime measure, we told the farmers that within a certain period after the war the price- support program would be discontinued. The farmer, therefore, fully expected no supports 1n the postwar period, yet Con- gress did extend such supports. By the same token, we are changing it now. It may be said we violated an implied prom- ise when we projected the price-support program for another year or two, yet there was no objection. The fact that we projected it beyond the period when we said it would cease does not preclude our perfect right to stop it at any time we wish. Mr. DONNELL. the Senator yield? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yleld. Mr. DONNELL. I merely wanted to make it perfectly clear at this point that, if I vote for the amendment of the Sen- ator from Illinois, I shall not consider Mr. President, will
1950 that I am violating any moral obligation of the Government any more than I am violating a legal obligation. If I thought it violated a moral obligation, I do not think I should vote for it. Mr. WILLIAMS. I agree with the Senator from Missouri about that. I think we have to weigh the other factors involved, such as the effect on agricul- ture generally and on the Nation as a whole if we fail to take this action. Mr, DONNELL. Certainly. Mr. WILLIAMS. If the other factors outweigh the consideration of the im- mediate welfare of the potato growers, then we have no alternative except to vote for the amendment to repeal the potato-support program. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator yield? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. In other words, I take it the Senator agrees that the Congress, the legislative body of the Nation, is charged with a duty and responsibility of taking care, so far as legislation can do it, along these lines, of the welfare of the people of the United States as an entirety. Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct. Mr. DONNELL. And when we pass price support law, particularly as the Senator has well pointed out, during the war conditions, we pass that law with the moral as well as the legal right to change it whenever in the judgment of Congress the best interests of the Nation will be subserved by such change. Is not that correct? Mr. WILLIAMS. That is the way I feel. I agree with the Senator. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President—— Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the Sen- ator from Illinois. Mr.LUCAS. Mr. President, much as I always dislike to disagree with the able lawyer from Missouri, the distinguished Senator | Mr. Donne..],I am constrained to say that, in my opinion, the passing of the so-called Anderson bill occurred at a time when the potato farmers of the country had already planted potatoes. There can be no question about that so far as the South is concerned. At the present time they are operating under the law. When we follow through with the amendment I have offered, if it should become law, we are absolutely repudiating not only an implied, but an expressed promise written into the law. In the opinion of the Senator from Illinois, we have a right to repudiate it because of the great emergency which exists in the potato-subsidy situation. That is my reason for offering the amendment. In other words, I am will- ing to do what I am trying to do because I believe it is a step in the right direction toward saving the entire farm program from complete collapse. As Ithink every Senator knows, public confidence is pretty low with regard to the potato program, If the economy of the Nation demands such a drastic step, I am will- ing to take it. If any Senator says that we are not repudating an implied prom- ise, I cannot agree with him. Mr. WILLIAMS. Regardiess’ of whether we are repudiating an expressed or implied promise, there is no more will CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE repudiation in changing the wording as I suggest than would otherwise be the case. Mr. LUCAS. That is a different prop- osition. The whole tenor of my amend- ment is not changed. Mr. WILLIAMS. It was my under- standing that the Senator from Illinois was attempting to work out some correc- tion of the potato problem. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator is correct. If I had not introduced a bill following this amendment my conscience would not be very clear. But we shall have a bill before this session of Congress which will place the potato growers of the Na- tion in the spot in which I think they want to be. In other words, I believe they want complete and rigid controls from here on. They do not want to be placed in their present situation any more than does any other farmer in the Nation. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. BREWSTER. We have had much discussion about morality, and particu- larly about the manner in which things have been carried on by the administra- tion. I had never suspected that the Senator from Missouri would take a more liberal view, let me say, on this question than has the administration. I want to read what I think is an en- tirely accurate statement: It has been the historic policy of the Department of Agriculture not to change a program in the middie of a crop season, The Department policy in this respect has been repeatedly stated by numerous high officials. The most recent official reiteration of record of the Department's policy was the testimony of Mr. Ralph S Trigg, Adminis- trator, Production and Marketing Adminis- tration, and President of the Commodity Credit Corporation. Mr. Trigg. while testifying on September 19, 1949, before a Scnate subcommittee hear- ing on 8. 2482, to repeal price support on potatoes and eggs, stated the policy of the Department, in reply to @ question, in the folowing language. “If there are any adjustments to be made, we think they should be made at the end of a marketing season of a commodity, whether it is a calendar-year basis or an- other basis, but not in the middle of a pro- gram to the extent of removing supports entirely.” We have been assured today, by other top- ranking officials of the Department of Ag- riculture, that that policy has not been changed, In other words, they recognize that there is some obligation, certainly moral and possibly legal, when we have an- nounced a program and farmers have proceeded under it to carry on. Our wartime program was to be carried on for 2 years after the war. We lowered the support price of potatoes from 90 to 60 percent. We continued the program on the other basic commodities. That was a carefully considered action. This is the first time there has been a respon- sible suggestion that a change in the middle of a season did not constitute some degree of repudiation of certainly an impled obligation. I appreciate the attitude of the Senator from Illinois, who 2277 frankly recognizes that is the case, al- though he feels that the circumstances justify it. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yleld? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. I want the Senator from Maine to understand that the Senator from Illinois is doing this on his own responsibility, and not as majority leader. I conferred with the Depart- ment of Agriculture concerning this amendment, and also concerning the bill which I introduced, and represi nt- atives of that Department helped me prepare the bill. I think the Secretary of Agriculture, if he were called to testify, would probably take the same position he took in September. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I yield now to the Senator from Colorado. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, since the validity of the moral pronounce- ments of the distinguished Senator from Missouri [Mr. DonnELL] has been called into question, may I defer my request for recognition? It is such a strange and unusual situation that I should like to hear what the able Senator has to say about it. Mr. DONNELL. I do not think it is necessary for me to say much more, be- cause I think my position is perfectly clear and sound. I appreciate what the Senator from Maine has said. I assume he was reading from—was it someone's testimony? Mr. BREWSTER. It was a statement by the Potato Council. The quotation which I read was from Mr. Trigg’s testi- mony before the Committec on Agricul- ture and Forestry. The Senator from Illinois was kind enough to say that the Secretary of Agriculture would confirm the statement that we did not contem- plate changing the program in the middle of the season. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. I can well under- stand that the policy of not changing the program during the middle of the crop season is perfectly sound and should be followed, but I do not think that alters the fact that the Congress of the United States is entitled at any moment to use its best Judgment as to whether existing laws, whether they be price-support laws, tariff laws, or what- ever they may be, should be changed or repealed. When I vote for a bill which is to be enacted into law, unless there is some provision which says how long it shall remain in effect, I think every Member of the Congress has a perfect right, {f we find conditions changed to the extent that it is advisable to act from the standpoint of the welfare of the Nation as a whole, to vote to repeal such a law. Mr. WILLIAMS. I concur with the Senator from Missouri in the statement that we have a perfect right to do so. We have a perfect right to change a law at any time. This is not the first time it has happened. The price-support law was supposed to expire 2 years after the war. In 1948,
2278 in the latter days of the session, we en- acted the so-called Hope-Aiken law. Had it not been enacted, there would have been no price-support provisions. The potatoes in Maine were in the ground at that time. Mr. BREWSTER, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. BREWSTER. The Senator is in error. The potatoes were in the store- houses. Mr. WILLIAMS. We enacted that law in June. It was during the planting season in Maine. We enacted it about the 19th of June, because it was almost the last act of Congress at that session. The same is true of 1949, when we en- acted the Anderson bill. We changed the rules in the middle of the game with regard to the wheat farmers, who planted wheat in the fall. After the wheat was planted, we changed the rate of sup- port. Congress has done that on other occasions. I think we have a right to change the rules the other way. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. BREWSTER. The actual facts are that potatoes are planted certainly before the end of June. They are usually planted before the Ist of June. The Senator says we changed the law. As a matter of fact, under the marketing practices, Maine potatoes are all in store- houses by November. I think the Sena- tor from Delaware must be familiar with that. Mr. WILLIAMS. is correct. Mr. BREWSTER. In other words, on December 31 potato prices were still sup- ported at 90 percent. Every potato in Maine necessarily must have gone into the hands of the Government unless there was some asSurance that they would be supported for the remainder of the marketing season. It is quite true that the wartime program could have expired on December 31, but everyone with common sense recognized that un- less there was some support of the 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 bushels of pota- toes remaining in the northern market at that time they would all be turned over to the Government. It was for that very practical reason that the support price on potatoes was extended for 6 months, the remainder of the marketing season. In my judgment that was noth- ing other than a recognition of a practi- cal solution of the problem. It does not seem to serve as an example of changing the situation in the middle of a crop season. Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not question- ing the right of Congress to extend the program 6 months beyond the first of the year in order to give them time to market the potatoes. Mr. BREWSTER. It saved the Gov- ernment millions of dollars. Mr. WILLIAMS. Otherwise the Gov- ernment would have had many more potatoes at the end of December. I rec- ognize that fact. Mr. BREWSTER. Those potatoes would have been turned over to the Government. I think the Senator CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. WILLIAMS. But the fact re- mains that in 1948, after the potatoes were planted, Congress did change the rules of the game for the subsequent year. Last year, when Congress pro- jected 90-percent support on wheat for this year’s crop, again Congress changed the rules of the game. Had the Andecr- son Act not passed, the flexible provi- sions of the Aiken law with its lower price supports would have been in effect. So that we have on other occasions qur- ing the crop year changed the level of support on agricultural commodities. When we adopted the support program at the beginning of the war it was all new legislation. Mr. BREWSTER. I wonder whether the Senator will recognize the fact that there is a moral obligation which the Government owes to the potato and wheat growers. If the Government de- cides to increase the allotment, certainly there is no violation of any moral or legal obligation, but if the Government de- cides to curtail and reduce the allotment, the situation is quite different. No one is suggesting that the Government does not have a legal and moral right to be more generous. Whether the Govern- ment has a right to repudiate an obli- gation already existing is the issue which is presented here. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. I deny that there is any obligation existing. I do not be- lieve there is. Mr. BREWSTER. I said that is the question which is presented here. Mr. CONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator indulge me, please. I would appreciate it if the Senator would per- mut me to finish my statement. I agree that in a normal situation there should never be any change made during a crop season. I fully agree with that. I be- lieve it would take an extraordinary situation to Justify Congress to change rules during a season. However, I think that if Congress, in its wisdom, deter- mines that the situation 1s such that the best interests of the Nation as an entirety will be served by a change dur- ing the season, Congress has a perfect right, not only legally, but morally, and indeed, the duty, under some circum- Stances, to do It. Mr. President, if I may I should hke to address a question to the distinguished Senator from Delaware. Does the Sena- tor from Delaware believe that merely because Congress provides a certain tariff level, let us say, on a particular commodity, which leads investors to erect buildings and make their mvest- ments, Congress is thereby precluded from changing the tariff whenever, in its judgment, the best interests of the Nation as a whole may make it advisable to do so? Mr. WILLIAMS. It has always been recognized that Congress can change any law which it has enacted, and that it should change a law at any time the best interests of the country as a whole justify the change. It is more unfortu- nate that the correction was not made at FEBRUARY 28 the time of the enactment of the law last year. Last year when the Anderson bill came back from conference, I was one of the Senators who voted against the bill, be- cause, as I pointed out at that time, I felt it would not work, and that it would ultimately result in the greatest whole- sale destruction of food which the coun- try had ever known. I still feel that way about it. I beheve that section 2 is a step toward correcting the potato situa- tion. We may see other food-destruction programs if we do not now recognize the fact that we have on the statute books a farm program which cannot be sup- ported by the Treasury. The program must be lowered, not only on potatoes, but on other commoditics. I intend to introduce another amendment to the pending resolution which I believe will partly take care of the situation. If we do not lower the support prices, potatoes will be only a small fraction of the over- all loss. Mr. MILLIKIN and Mr. BREWSTER addressed the Chair. Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield first to the Senator from Colorado. Mr. MILLIKIN. I have little remain- ing interest in the debate, because the distinguished semor Senator from Mis- souri has restored the pillars to the tem- ple, and I am satisfied with his definition of the law. I should like to remind the distinguished Senator from Delaware that of course the purpose of agricultural acts is to serve notice on the farmer how he can plan his life, do his work, and how he can invest his capital. I agree that we can change any law. Wecan makea tax law retroactive, within certain limits. We can, as the distinguished senior Sen- ator from Missouri has suggested, change our tariff laws. We can change anything we have passcd. We can undo It and we can amend it. The question is still whether we should do it. I did not want what is proposed here glossed over with any kind of fancy semantics. We have passed a law under which people have planted crops. The question 1s whether we should change the law before the crops are harvested, and after the farm- ers have spent their money, and after they may have changed their ways of life. Perhaps the situation warrants it, A very strong argument can be made that 11 is an extravagant law, that it pro- vides unjust windfalls, or a law that we cannot see through, and that a change is warranted. However, I should like to see this dcbate proceed on the basis of what is really involved, without any glossing over with fancy terminology. We changed our gold-clause contracts at one time on the ground of paramount public interest. We have done all kinds of things of that type. Some of them, I think, were unfortunate, I think we should always be extra cautious in pull- ing back any implied promise to people. We should have a very strong case. Mr. WILLIAMS. The point I am making is that we should not take one group of farmers and penalize them alone. Let us teke all potato farmers and put them in one group. Let us not draw a geographical line across the
1950 country and say that we are going to repeal supports on only those farmers north of the line. If we do not do that, we do a severe injustice to farmers who are in the midst of the planting season because it would encourage them, by dangling our price supports, to go ahead and plant potatoes in the next 2 weeks that they would normally plant in late March or early April. If Congress is going to take this dras- tic action, if that is what we decide to do, I think we should not upset what might remain of our so-called free mar- ket by now taking action which will completely demoralize the potato market next June and July. Mr. MILLIKIN. The Senator has an- swered in part an objection which I raised to his argument awhile ago—that is, he points out an administrative diffi- culty. I still suggest that there is a difference between changing the rule on someone who has already planted his crop and changing it on someone who has not planted his crop. The Senator answers by saying that there is a dead line that causes administrative and po- licing difficulties. That situation exists as to every piece of legislation in which there is provided an effective date. Mr. WILLIAMS. Not to the extent to which we have it in this case. If it were not for the fact that the law could not possibly be enforced, as I see it, I would not propose the change. I can see a greater responsibility with regard to the acres which are planted than as to those which are not, yet there are border- line cases in which we have an equal responsibility. When a man who has now gone to the extent of investing his money ready for planting we do have the same responsibility. That is the difficulty of trying to correct the situa- tion in the middle of the season. Mr. MILLIKIN. The Senator from Colorado is not now taking any position in this matter. I have listened with great interest to the debate, but, as I said before, we should know what we are doing, and know the implications. Mr. THYE and Mr. HOLLAND ad- dressed the Chair, The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoey in the chair). Does the Senator from Delaware yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield first to the Senator from Minnesota. Mr. THYE. I wish to say that the Senator from Delaware is entirely cor- rect in calling to our attention the fact that unless some emphasis is placed upon the question of the acres to be harvested, there will be a rush to plant additional acres before the measure goes into effect, thereby causing greater diffi- culty to the administrators, and possibly placing a heavier drain upon the Treas- ury than otherwise would be placed on it. I also call to the attention of the Sen- ate the fact that there are times when the rules are changed. For instance, take the poultry producer whose flock of pullets comes into production in the fall of the year. The Department of Agriculture reduced the support price for eggs 8 cents as of the first of the year. The pullets to which I have re- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ferred are grown throughout the sum- mer of the previous year, and come into production in the late fall. They are actually in production now, and the pro- ducers are receiving 8 cents a dozen less for the eggs than they actually antici- pated at the time they placed their or- ders for the baby chicks, and grew the pullets. Mr. President, that group of farmers are certainly placed under a handicap, in view of the high prices of grain, such as corn and wheat, under the high-sup- Port levels. They are being placed un- der a further handicap because they are the buyers of this high-priced grain which they must acquire in order to produce the eggs. So I say that the producers of poultry and the producers of eggs have been placed under a handi- cap in the past 2 months because of the new announced support price on eggs. I believe the amendment offered by the able Senator from Illinois, by which he proposes immediately to strike off any support to potatoes does not go far enough. To that amendment there should be counied an actual acreage con- trol or a marketing agreement provision so as to cover it all But that cannot be done on the floor. Such proposed Iegis- lation should go to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, and an in- telligent program developed through hearings. Producers should be allowed to come before the Senate committee. In that manner it could be determined what should be embodied in the legislation. Then it could be brought to the floor and enacted. In that way the producers would have greater confidence that all of us were trying to get to the bottom of the question, and draw up the legislation in the proper manner. At the present time of the farmers who are engaged in the production of pota- toes there are those who have held back a certain amount of seed stocks which are now in warchouses to be planted this spring. They probably lost an opportu- nity either to sell seed potatoes to the producers in the deep South or they have lost the opportunity to place their pota- toes on the market. I think we are changing the rules at a time when it js going to be most embarrassing to the farmer who held back seed stock which he proposed to sell to the southern pro- ducers when the southern producers asked for seed last fall. Mr. President, I share the feelings of the Senator from Illinois. I know he is sincere in his efforts, and that he is Just as grieved over the fact that we must change the rules at this late date, as any other Senator could possibly be. But T honestly believe that we should not con- fuse the growers any more than they are already confused, by agreeing to the amendment, unless we can couple the amendment with some expression that we intend to deal with the subject by legis- lation which will embody marketing agrcements and also acreage controls, so that when the producers see us in action here they will know that they are going to be protected in the end, rather than that all support 1s going to be taken olf. The earlier potatoes are already com- ing to market. Some of the potato farm- 2279 ers have already had the benefit of the 60-percent support on crops they have now harvested. So I say that before we act on the amendment let us em- body acreage control or marketing agree- ments so that we may know what we will have in the legislation, and where we will be after the legislation has been enacted. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I should like to say to the Senator from Minnesota that I think it is most un- fortunate that we are trying to write this legislation on the floor. Neverthe- less, we are confronted with the fact that we have pending on the calendar a measure which is now before the Senate by which it is proposed to repeal the price support of all potatoes which are Planted thereafter. If we are going to do that, let us do it with our eyes open, and Ict us do it across the board Let us not divide the potato farmers into two groups, but do it all across the board, and thereby remove or do away with the congested period of potato har- vesting, which would not only upset the economy of the farmers, but also in- crease the cost of the program so far as the Government is concerned. The Senator from Minnesota has overlooked one thing. He pointed out that only on the basis of acreage con- trol can we hope that a reasonable quantity of potatoes will be planted. I was not necessarily referring to that fact. Mr. THYE. Will the Senator permit me to correct my own statement? Mr. WILLIAMS, Let me finish, and then I will yield. It is not a question that the potato farmers will plant more potatoes than they would with or without the law. What I am trying to point out is that Farmer John Jones would at an earlier date plant the 10 acres he is going to plant, perhaps the first of April He will rush and get them in the ground the latter part of February or the first of March, thus trying to get them under the deadline. The result will be not more acreage planted, but simply a con- gestion for a period of 2 or 3 weeks of potato planting, whereas the planting of potatoes should be spread out over the usual period. That is the reason why I offered the amendment, so that if the legislation is enacted, it will not re- sult in upsetting the economy for the marketing season in the months to come. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield long enough so I may cor- rect my own statement? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. THYE. Instead of saying acre- age quotas I should have said market- ing quotas. I should like to correct the Recorp in that respect. Then we would overcome the difficulty the Senator from Delaware has called to our attention. If we have marketing quotas we would overcome the difficulty the Senator from Delaware has outlined. Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not think the Senator understood me. Let Us con- sider for example the county of Wicom- ico in Maryland immediately below where I live. If the legislation took its
2280 norma! course, up to the time of the sign- ing of the measure by the President, the farmers in that county could rush their planting and get most of their potatoes into the ground ahead of the deadline. Under the marketing quota they are still entitled to plant the potatoes when they get ready to do so, and they can market them wien they get ready to do so. What I am contending is that unless ihe amendment I have offered 1s agreed to, farmers will rush to plant their pota- toes in a 2- or 3-week period, earher than they otherwise would, and they would be ready at a time when the North Carolina potatoes would come into the market Marketing quotas do not provide thet a farmer can market only so meny potatoes at a given date. It merely provides that so many potatoes may be planted, but the date for plant- ing muy b® earlicr or later. Mr. THYE My. President, at the out- set I said I approved of the amendment of the Senator from Delaware to the committee amendment because it went further than the latter and would hav? the effect of protecting the Treasury against the potatoes now in the ground or that could be planted in the ncxt few weeks. But I went even further and said that unless we provided in the law for marketing agreements, marketing quotes, we would confuse the producers or growers of potatoes, rather than clar- ify the situation for them. It is for that reason I said that while the Sena- tor from Illinois is absolutely correct in offering his amendment and the Sena- tor from Delaware is absolutely correct in proposing his amendment to the amendment of the Senator from Illinois, yet both of them leave a problem still unanswered, and that we should enact legis!ation which would provide for mar- keting agreements and marketins quotas, and which siould go through the Sen- ate Commu tee on Agriculture and Fo1- estry, where hearings could be had. In that way confidence on the part of the producer would be developed, because he would have an opportunity to be heard before the legislation was enacted. Mr, LUCAS. Mr. President, I wish to make a statement 1n response to what the able Senator from Minnesota has said. The Senator from Minnesota was not present last week when I introduced a bill on the subject of potatoes. Pre- viously an amendment offercd by the Senator from Illinois had been placed in the joint resolution The Senator from Illinois made a short statement. re- specting it, and followed that by intro- ducing a bill. It is the opinion of the Senator from Illinois that the only way that legisla- tion affecting potatoes cen be passed in the present session of Congress is to adopt the amendment. The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Tuomas |, chairman of the Committee on Agriculiure and Forestry, has now re- turned to the Senate. He introduced a measure similar to the one 1 recently introduced. Iam satisfied, from his at- titude the other day, that he is willing and ready to hold hearings immediately upon that bill. So long as we have in the joint resolution the amendment I proposed, we are bound to gct a potato CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE bill this year, But just so sure as the amendment is not agreed to, the hear- ings will drag out over weeks, and we may not have any action in the House. What will then happen is that we will have another year of large potato sur- pluses, with no relief for the taxpayers of Amcrica. That1s what I want to point out to the Senator from Minnesota. Furthernvore, if the potato program is permitted to continue, and potato grow- ers are subsidized out of all reasonable proportions, then, as I have said many times befcre, our entire farm program dealing with the basic commodities will be seriously threatened. The potato growers are not objecting, as I under- stand, to being placed under rigid con- trol through marketing quotas and mar- keting agreements. But what I fear is that if we do not agree to tne amend- ment we will not get a potato bill through the present session of the Congress. If we do not get it passed during this ses- sion of the Congress, not only will the Treasury lose a great deal of money, but the farmers and the peopie generally will lose confidence in the entire farm program. The Senator from Minnesota is nO More anxious to pass a bill of this sort than 1s the Senator from linois. The Senator from Illinois made 1t very clear in his speech that he was ready to go torward at the proper time and have hearings on the potato bill which I introduced. That bill is rather a long one, It is technical in nature Hear- ings will be held upon it. Such a bill cannot be written upon the floor of the Senate and actcd upon on the floor of the Senate Therefore, 1t secmcd to me the wise thing to do was to offer a sim- ple amendment which everyone can un- derstand, and the adoption of which will definitely produce a potato bill this year. Mr TYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. THYE. The Senator does agree, then, that he wil accept the amend- ment offcred by the Senator from Dela- ware because that would cover all pota- tocs, and not impose a drastic hardship on those growing potatoes in the latter part of the scason or the latter part of the year It would affect all erowers of potatoes whose potatoes would be marketed tod2y and marketed hence- forth, Mr, LUCAS I told the Senator from Delaware that I was very much in sym- pathy with his amendment and I thought it proper that I should go along with him in substituting the word “harvested” for “planted.” But after talking to my good friend, the Senator from Florida, who 1s a mem- ber of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, I suggested to the Senator from Delaware that he had better pre- sent the amendment and let the Scnate vote upon it, because the Senator from Florida 1s much opposed to it. But I am in total sympathy with what the Senator 1s trying to do. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. BREWSTER. I am sure we ap- preciate the position of the Senator from Illinois and we know how ereatly he is FEBRUARY 23 concerned about the matter. I appre- ciate also the degree of influence which he wields on the floor of the Senate and the control he exercises over the pro- gram we take up here. So there could be no Member of the Senate who would be more likely to be able to redeem his assurance that this will be taken care of in due course, But I think even he recognizes, in view of ihe history of Icgislation, that the ex- ecution of the potato growers at this time, as is accomplished by his amend- ment, coupled with the assurance of the Senator from Illinois that subsequently there will be legislation which will take care of them, docs Ieave them in a some- what precarious position, particularly because I believe the Senator from Illi- nois will agree that legislation looking to this matter has bcen before the Com- mittee on Agriculture and Forestry for 5 months, but no hearings have been held. If hearings had been held, we could have gone into this matler. The potato producers are ready to go into hearings on it, and I can assure the Senator that there will be no delay so far as the potato growers are concerned. The delay which has occurred thus far has been due to other legislative prob- lems. We are not critical; but we feel it is a little drastic, particularly when we are not the cause of the delay, for the Sena- tor from IlJinois to cut off price supports now, with the assurance that subse- quent action will be tuken. Mr. LUCAS Mr. President, I agree with the Senator that it 1s a little dras- tic, but not in view of the potato situa- tion, particularly when potatoes have had support preference over any other agricultural commodity, either basic or nonbasic. SoI think the potato growers could stand a complete loss this year and still would be iar ahead. However, I am not proceeding on that theory in any way whatsoever. I am proceeding on the theory of getting a po.ato bill passed at this session, so that we can stop the trend of a detrimental public attitude, a lack of public confi- dence in the entire program, and also save $50,000,000 or $75,000,000 of the tax- payers’ money. Mr. BREWSTER. What the Senator from Illinois 1s doing speaks so loud that it is difficult for us to hear what he says If only the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry would have a hearimg on the quota bill of the Senator from Ili- nois or the quota bill of the Senator from Oklahoma, then we would be very greatly reassured. Mr. LUCAS I guarantee the Senator from Maine that there will be a hearing upon the potato bill. I do not know whether the Senator from Oklahoma is now in the Chamber, but I know exactly how he feels about the matter; and there will be a hearing. The only way we shall get a hearing and the enactment of a bill on the sub- ject is by adopting this amendment at this time, because the protests among the potato growers will then be so strong for the enactment of the kind of a program envisioned by the bills which have been introduced that we simply will have to hold hearings.
1950 Mr. BREWSTER. The potato growers have not been able thus far to influence the Senator from Illinois to adopt their viewpoint, so we are not gure that it will be possible to do so subsequently. The Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has had full power to hold hearings at any time in the last 5 months. Mr, LUCAS. I am only one of the members of the committee. During that period the potato growers have not talked to me at any time about holding any hearings whatsoever. I think they perhaps have written to the chairman of the committee. But the Senator can count on having the Senator from Ili- nois cooperate with the potato growers in obtaining the passage of the proposed legislation to which I have referred and thereby prevent the recurrence of potato surpluses. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. THYE. When the Senator refers to the bonanza for the potato growers, that may be true of some of those who have been growing potatoes for a long time; but I am thinking of some of the thousands and thousands of young men who have started in that business since the end of the war, and who probably have obligated themselves not only to produce potatoes but also in respect to certain seed stock. Such young men now have their seed stock on hand for plant- ing in the coming season. I am think- ing of them. By the action proposed here today, we would take everything away from them. Senators say that if this amendment prevails, they promise the potato grow- ers a day in court, so to speak, a day be- fore the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I know the Senator from Ili- nois will see that-there will be a Senate committee hearing on his bill. I know he will do that. I will help him, if neces- sary, to get it; but I do not think he will need my help. Nevertheless, we will go through the entire spring season with argument on the proposed legislation, and we may not be able to secure its enactment, for in the measure now before us there is no mandatory provision on our part, in re- spect to the enactment of such legisla- tion, As a result, we leave in a serious pre- dicament the young potato grower who has assumed the obligation of purchasing high-priced machinery and paying infla- tionary prices and paying high prices for seed. We leave him with no assurance that he will get any relief in the future, although, probably, he was one of the young men who carried the responsibil- ities of the Nation by fighting on the battlefields in the recent war; and since that time, over a period of the last 3 or 4 years, perhaps, he has gone into farming. We would do away with all price supports so far as he is concerned, and we would do so just as he {s pre- paring to plant his crop. Therefore, I think we should deal with the entire question now, and not now cut the price supports from under him; and perhaps later, perhaps in 3 or 4 weeks, begin a hearing, but perhaps by the con- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE clusion of the session not give him any support. The young man who incurred Many obligations in order to have a chance at the bonanza to which the Senator from Llinois has referred will not be the one who will be protected; the one who will be protected will be the man who has made his bonanza, and who probably will be in Florida, and can stand the change. Iam not talking about the latter group. I am talking about the young men who, during the past 3 or 4 years, in a time of inflationary prices, have had to pur- chase the equipment and have already made that investment. That is why I do not wish to see this amendment prevail, because it will take everything away from such young men, and will leave them dependent upon the possibility of the taking of future action by the ccnmittee and by the Congress. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I do not think it is possible to enact any law which does not have an adverse effcct upon someone. The argument the Sen- ator from Minnesota is making can al- ways be made, namely, that someone will be adversely affected. It is true that a man who went into the potato busi- ness last year or this year may be hurt a little. But that always is the case; someone is always getting economically hit, so to speak, as a result of the enact- ment of legislation. If that argument were valid, and if we had to follow that theory from beginning to end, no legis- lation affecting the economy of the country would ever be enacted. The Senator can take that position, of course: and it is perfectly logical for him to do so if he wishes to. But I am one who cannot continue to see the edi- torials and the articles which are writ- ten about potatoes, and continue to receive the hundreds of letters from peo- ple in my section of the country who ask, “What, if anything, can you do about potatoes?” without attempting to do something about them. The Senator from Minnesota and I both know that the potato growers have had half a billion dollars in subsidies since the war—more than the subsidies paid for all other commodities, basic and nonbasic, put together. When any- one tells me that the potato growers have not had a bonanza out of the sub- sidies, and that we should not stop it, for fear of injuring some young fellow in Minnesota who has just started in business, I point out that he is not the only one who is injured by the present situation. Mr. THYE. Let us not single out Minnesota; let us also include North Dakota, Alabama, and many of the other States. ‘ Mr. LUCAS. Oh, yes; and we can in- clude Illinois, too. Iam sure the Sena- tor from Minnesota was thinking of some of the young fellows in Minnesota who are of voting age, and I do not blame him for doing so. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, I am sure the Senator from Illinois does not want the words “voting age” included in the Recorp. He and I do not operate that way; at least, I never have operated that way. 2281 I am thinking of the young man who went into farming following the war. All we have to do Ms to look at the record, and we find that that young man paid $2,300 or $2,400 for a tractor last fall, and nearly $400 for a spreader, and he has commenced to obligate himself for the purchase of planting machinery and insecticide spraying machinery. The Senator and I have no conception of what his obligations are unless we ex- amine the figures. Otherwise, we have no conception of what the young farmer who has begun farming in the past 2 or 3 years has had to obligate himself for. At the present time it costs anywhere from $5,000 to $6,000 or $7,000 to begin farming. This young man has obligated himself for $7,000 or $8,000 or $10,000 in order to get a crop. If the Senator and I take the props from underneath his price support this afternoon, with- out assuring him that adequate legisla- tion on the subject will be enacted, he will have nothing to take to the banker when he asks for a renewal of his note or for a little additional credit in order to be able to carry himself through the coming planting season. In such event, he simply will not get any credit. Mr. LUCAS. I am sorry I used the words “voting age.” Let us substitute the words “legal age.” Mr. THYE. Let us drop that from the Recorp. We do not want the Recorp to convey the idea that the Senator and I are trying to get votes by what we do here. I do not have to get my votes until 1952. [Laughter.] Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, the Sena- tor from Minnesota is one of the able members of the Committee on Agricul- ture and Forestry. I think he will agree with me that there ts not a single mem- ber of that committee who will not vote for the kind of bill the Senator from Tilinots has been talking about, after we have had hearings and have perfected the bill. We have discussed this whole Matter pro and con across the table, both in executive session and elsewhere, and I can assure the Senator from Minne- sota, so far as I am concerned, that hear- ings will be held within the next 10 days on this bill. I am saying to the Senator that the only way we shall obtain the enactment of such a bill at this session of Congress is by the adoption of this amendment at this time. If we do not, this matter may drag out over a long period, and perhaps there will not be any legislation of this sort passed by the House of Representa- tives. But if we vote for this amend- ment, and if it is adopted, everyone will see to it that hearings will be held. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. The Senator has re- ferred to the adoption of his amendment as the only way by which the enactment of a potato bill can be forced at this ses- sion of Congress. Let me ask him who he thinks will be forced. Mr. LUCAS. No, I do not say tt is probably the only way, but it is the only sure way, I may say to my friend from Vermont, to get a potato program this year. We have gone a long time, and
2282 nothing has been done about potatoes. This is the first time it has been seriously considered by the committee and the Congress and this has been wholly the result of the little amendment which the Senator from INinois proposed to the joint resolution respecting cotton and peanut acreage allotments. It has created quite a bit of controversy. Mr. AIKEN. If we have been unable to have a hearing on the joint resolution within the past 6 months, what causes the Senator from Illinois to hope we shall be able to have hearings on it before the end of the potato-planting season, so the law can be enacted before the end of the potato-planting season this year? Mr. LUCAS. I do not know. The Senator from Illinois does not have very much influence around here, but I be- heve he has enough to get the potato legislation considered. I think the Sen- ator knows that if we have hearings there will not be a member on the com- mittee who will not vote for the bill Mr. AIKEN. I wonder whether the Senator would have the same enthusiasm for repudiating a contract with potato growers in the State of Illinois, if Illi- nois were not the State having the lew- est potato yield of any State in the Union, or approximately so? Suppose the potato growers of Illinois produced 400 bushels an acre, instead of 100 Mr. LUCAS. The Senator is now ask- ing a hypothetical question having noth- ing whatever to do with the issue. The Senator from Illinois does not care to be dragged now into a dead-end street on some other issue which is not before the Senate Mr. AIKEN Does the Senator believe that the same moral right to violate or repudiate a contract made by the Gov- ernment with potato growers would hold good for the repudiation of a contract with the cotton grower, the corn grow- er, the hog grower, or the wheat grower? Mr LUCAS Whenever the question is raised, the Senator from Illinois will answer it. Mr. AIKEN. I think the Senator from Tlinois should tell us now where he stands. Who knows but what someone will come in tomorrow with a proposi- tion to repudiate price support for the corn grower? Mr. LUCAS. The Senator from Illi- nois will cross the bridge when he gets to it. The only question now before the Senate is the one regarding the price support of potatoes. Mr. AIKEN. And the repudiation of the contract with the potato growers. Mr. LUCAS. That is all right; if the Senator from Vermont desires to offer an amendment taking the support prices away from corn, wheat, cotton, or some other basic commodity, the Senator from Illinois could answer that in due course. Mr, AIKEN. The Senator from Ver- mont believes that the integrity of the Government should be binding, and that when the Government makes a contract, even though a bad one, it should comply with the contract and then hope to profit by the experience. Mr. LUCAS. There have been many instances cited. The Senator from Min- nesota cited one a short while ago, with CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE regard to the lowering of the support price on eggs by the Department of Agri- culture, which was done by regulation. The Senator from Colorado called aiten- tion to the repudiation of the gold clause. Mr. AIKEN. But is it not a fact that in lowering the support piice on eggs, the Department of Agriculture kept within the law? Mr. LUCAS. Yes. Though the De- partment kept within the law, it still might have been a hardship to many farmers and seemed to them to have been a repudiation But that 1s neither here nor there We have only one issue be- fore us today, and it can be decided any way the Senate desires. I have done my best to present to the Senate something which will perhaps get us out of the trouble we are in with respect to pota- toes. How Senators representing potato- growing States can continue to ask for this kind of subsidy, on the theory that otherwise there would be the repudiation of an implied promise, when they have had half a billion dollars of subsidies since the war, more than those of all other basic and non-basic commodities put together, is a little more than I can understand. If Senators representing potato-growing States do not want to correct this situation, and are insistent on obtaining the subsidy, then let them vote the amendment down, and, when the amendment is voted down, let the Government go ahead and pay another $50,000,000 or $75,000,000 out of the - Treasury to potato growers, who destroy the potatoes after raising them, under the present program. Senators may do as they wish. When I have finished, I shall have done all I can to apprise the Senate and the country of what the situ- ation is. I am doing the best I can in thet regard. Mr. ROBERTSON Mr. will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I am in thorough sympathy with the ob- jective of the distinguished Senator from Illinois. I know the potato pro- gram has been an undue burden upon the taxpayer. The law may not have been perfect, and certainly the admin- istration of it has not been perfect, in my humble opinion. But I want to call the attention of my distinguished col- league to a possible 1esult which I do not think he intends. As I understand his amenacment, it will not apply to potatoes already planted when it becomes the law. Is that correct? Mr. LUCAS. That is correct, unless the amendment is adopted Mr. ROBERTSON. I am assuming I shall support the Senator’s amendment. In Princess Anne and Norfolk counties, in Virginia, a good many potatoes have already been planted, but not all of them. On the Eastern Shore of Virginia, and extending into the Eastern Shore of Maryland, a few potatoes have been planted, but not a great many. The joint resolution will have to go back to the House for action, and to the White House to be signed. It will probably be the 8th of March at the earliest before it can become a law. In the meantime we have gotten almost up to the full planting period in Tidewater Virginia President, FEBRUARY 23 and the Eastern Shore of Maryland, yet there will be a few farmers who had wet land or some other condition which made it impossible for them to plant, whose potaices will not be planted by the time the joint resolution becomes effective, unless we are going to make them lie about it. In fact, wlo is going to say, “The potatoes were planted just today’? The farmers are operating by days now. I was wondering whether my distin- guished colleague would be willing to eliminate an administrative feature which I think would be very difficult to enforce. Certainly it would be most un- fair to say to one farmer, “You plant- ed on the 7th of March; you will get paid,” and to another, “You planted on the 8th of March, and you can get noth- ing.” If the Senator would be willing to fix a definite date, let us say, the 15th of March, it would take care of all the other potatoes that go to market in June. There are a good many winter potatoes in Virginia, as there are also in the North and in the West; and we can look into the subject when we have a little more time. Mr. LUCAS. If the Senator puts it on the 15th of March, the farmer who planted on the 16th will lose out. Mr. ROBERTSON. But I am saying that in these areas that bring potatoes to the market in June, they have got to plant them by the 15th of March, other- wise the potatoes will not mature. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator can offer an amendment of that kind. If he does, I shall be glad to consider it. Mr. ROBERTSON. I hope, if I do, the Senator will accept it. Mr. LUCAS. No; I cannot undertake to say that. Mr ROBERTSON. The Senator would not vigorously oppose it, though. Mr. LUCAS. I do not vigorously op- pose anything the Senator from Virginia does. Mr. ROBERTSON. I want to cooper- ate, but I should like a little reciprocity. LLaughter.] Mr AIKEN. Mr. President, there 1s no question that the dramatization of the potato program by the Department of Agriculture and the metropolitan press has done a great deal of harm to the entire farm-support program in the United States. We do not want to forget that the farm-support program helped America win the war just as war con- tracts in industry helped. Under the law, we were bound to continue the farm- support levels for 2 years following the war. We are not bound to continue the supports at that level from now on. There have been several factors which have contributed to the present unfavor- able situation regarding potatoes. I should like to point out before I go any further that potatoes are not the only crop by any means. It is true that im- mediately following the war, and even respecting the 1948 crop, it cost $224,000,- 000 to support the price of potatoes. It will probably cost $80,000,000 this year. But potatoes are not the only crop. It will cost at a minimum about $70,000,000 to support peatnuts for last year. It will cost about $75,000,000 or so for the sup- port of eggs When the books are all balanced, a few years hence, it will he
1950 found that the cost of supporting some of the grains and other commodities will have amounted to as much for the year 1949 as the cost of supporting potatoes. But let us see how we came to be in the present situation. The Department of Agriculture, as authorized by law, allo- cates to each State each year a certain acreage which the State is permitted to plant in potatoes, and to be eligible for price supports. They have done s0. Each year since 1943 the potato farmers have planted fewer acres than have been allocated to them by the Department of Agriculture—fewer acres than the De- partment has estimated were necessary in order to produce the amount of pota- toes needed by the country for human consumption. But the yield per acre has been increasing. Iam very happy that is true. It has been increased with respect to other crops also. Some of the tobacco growers have doubled their yield per acre. The peanut growers, while taking a cut in acreage last year, increased their yield by 8 or 9 percent per acre. It is a very proper thing for farmers to use their land to its best advantage, and they have a limited number of acres to plant, of course they are going to try to yet the most out of those acres. So the increase in the yield per acre has been a factor in the overproduction we have now. We also have many more small flelds, I be- lieve, than had been planted in previous years, fields that would produce from 25 bushels up to 200, 300, or even 500 bushels, which do not come under the classification of commercial producers, That has added to the crop materially. We have also had, as a factor contribut- ing to our difficulties, a gross underesti- mation of the yield of potatoes for last year. In September it was estimated that the yield of potatoes would be 363,- 000,000 bushels. That was the estimate of the Department of Agriculture. It would have been approximately the amount of potatoes which the United States needed during the last year. But between September and December the estimate on the yield increased from 363,000,000 to 402,000,000 bushels, some 40,000,000 to 50,000,000 bushels more than the country needed. It is incredible that such an error could have been made in estimating the size of the potato crop, but nevertheless the error of 40,000,000 bushels crept in somewhere. The grow- ing season was pretty nearly over by the last of September, in all parts of the United States, and yet, when the potatoes were counted, it was found there were 40,000,000 bushels more than the Depart- ment of Agriculture had estimated there would be. We have been afflicted, from the view- point of the potato growers, with a con- siderable decrease in the per capita con- sumption of potatocs. That has been due to several causes, but is principally due to the fact that persons who work in our plants and factories have had in recent years more money with which to buy meat and poultry, and they have bought more meat and animal products and fewer potatoes, until we are now probably at an all-time low in the history of the United States with regard to po- tato consumption per capita. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE We might add also to the trouble of the potato industry the great increase in the cost of transportation and han- dling which at this time makes it un- profitable to ship potatoes from the sur- plus area of Maine into the interior part of the United States and to dispose of them in that way. In fact, it appears to be cheaper for the port cities on the Gulf coast and the Atlantic coast to buy Canadian potatoes, which our Govern- ment permits to enter this country un- restricted, and to pay the price, includ- ing the duty and water transportation, Canadian potatoes can undersell the po- tatoes which are produced in this country. Those are some of the reasons, Mr. President, why we find ourselves in the difficulty we have had with reference to potatoes. I might say, and I think I could prove it, that the situation has been very badly handled this year, not only through an overestimate of the acreage over-all, but through a gross overestimate of the acreage allocated to the commercia’ potato areas. Further- more, there has been, to my Knowledge, no serious effort to increase the distri- bution of potatoes through the normal channels of trade, although under the Agricultural Act of 1948 and the act of 1249 the Secretary of Agriculture is di- rected to move the surplus crops through the normal channels of trade and in- crease their use, if it is possible to do so. A month ago Washington celebrated Broiler Week, which resulted in moving immense numbers of broilers to Wash- ington, Every restaurant in the city served broilers, whether we wanted them or not. There has been no comparable movement in behalf of the potato crop. Another rather unfortunate circum- stance has been that nonprofit institu- tions and the poor people of the country have not been able to get potatoes as they should for human consumption. The potatoes are available, the need is present, but the rules and regulations established for their distribution are such that most institutions do not bother to try to unravel the red tape neces- sary to get the potatoes. In my own State, the overseers of the institutions for the poor do not bother to go through the rigmarole necessary to get potatoes for the familics which are being assisted by the public. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Lucas] said there may have been an implied agreement on the part of the United tates Government to support the price of potatoes this year. I say there has been no implied agreement, but there has been a direct. contract on the part of the Federal Government to support the price of potatoes this year. A notice to the potato growers was issued on November 16,1949. It was issued at that early date in order that the potato growers, both North and South, could make arrangre- ments for their seed and fertilizer to pre- pare to produce the 1950 crop. In the South, probably as far north as Wash- ington, D. C., a great part of the expense of the crop has already been entered into. In the North, where fertilizer is such an important item, I know that if the potato growers have not already made their pure 2283 chases of fertilizer they will probably be out of luck in getting it this year, because of the shortage of potash and possibly of other ingredients. The commitment which the Govern- ment entered into with our potato grow- ers on November 16, 1949, has some modi- fications in the program in which we en- gaged last year. First, there is a reduc- tion in the support price of potatoes from $1.08 a bushel to 96 cents a bushel. Then there is a reduction in the amount of acreage which each commercial potato- growing area can plant. The Depart- . ment has insisted on a reduction of 86 000 acres for the 1950 crop, as compared with the 1949 crop, and each State has already had allocated to it the number of acres it can plant to commercial potatoes. Maine has been allocated 120,400 acres. North Dakota has been allocated 102,- 800 acres. California was allocated so many acres for late potatoes and so many acres for early potatoes, and so forth. The allocations have all been made, but they have been reduced from those of Jast year to the sum total of 86,000 acres which the Department of Agriculture es- timates will produce an over-all potato production of 335 000,000 bushels. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. ROBERTSON. Does that take in- to consideration the experience in the past few years in which potatoes have been planted more closely together and have been more highly fertilized? Mr. AIKEN. Yes. I think the Secre- tary has estimated 100 bushels to the acre in Illinois and 450 bushels to the acre in Maine. There have been some differ- ences in the methods of planting, but not to the degree which some persons would have the public believe. Many of the planters who used to place their rows 36 inches apart now place them 34 inches apart. If they put them too close, the law of disminishing returns sets in. The farmer cannot properly cultivate and take care of the crop. Thirty-four inches apart is considered to be the minimum feasible distance, but there is no ques- tion that potato growers have found out how to produce much more efficiently than they did in prewar days. Mr. ROBERTSON. I understand that potentiality has been taken into con- sideration in fixing support quotas for the growing year. Mr. AIKEN. That is correct. Mr, ROBERTSON. I understand my distineuished colleague is of the opinion, if we have no additional legislation, that there will be no great surplus for the Government to buy on the basis of the present quotas. Mr. AIKEN. Unless the Department of Agriculture has grossly underesti- mated again. But, with the experience of the past few years, there is no reason why that should be the case. It seems that the potato industry has just about reached the maximum of its production at the present time. Mr. ROBERTSON. Does the Senator think that the Department might make the same mistake three times in succession?