1950 Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Chairman, com- ing from one of the largest cotton pro- ducing districts in Louisiana, and my own parish, being off and on, one of the largest cotton-producing parishes in Louisiana, I feel that the amendment by the gentleman from Texas {[Mr. BEcK- worTH] has considerable merit and is worthy of consideration. I think that the system undcr which we operate in the State of Louisiana, with a large percentage of our cotton farmers being sharecroppers, and since many of the families, both white and Negro grow cotton on the same farms, reducing the amount of acreage allowed to any one farmer or family has resulted in disorganizing and causing hardship to these small cotton farmers, and espe- cially since no family can exist on less than 5 acres of cotton when the farms have been reduced to a point where there is less than 5 acres of cotton to be plant- ed, the landowne: has no other alterna- tive than to let the tenant or share- cropper off and out of the iarm, and these poor, small farmers have no other place to go to raise cotton as all of the others use the acreage allotted to them, and unless they are able to find some other employment, they become a public charge This has resulted in affecting the economy of our section, and many families who have been plantimg small cotton acreage all of their lives are frus- trated and homeless. Mr. Chairman, I could place in the record hundreds of letters which T have reccived from my constituents, but I will only ask permission to place in the Rrc- orp two sample letters which I think show the situation in regard to the 5-acre farmers, as follows’ Funice, la, March 13, 1950 PRODUCTION AND MARKFTING ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D C Dear Sirs I am a farmer, a veteran of the recent war, living in Evangeline Parish, and am having difficulty getting encugh cotton acreage tu make a living It is my understanding, that a farmer ts allotted at least 5 acres under the cotton- quota system I have heen allotted but 3! acres of cotton to plant this year This is not enough to make a living for me and my family I have appealed several times to the parish PMA office to let me plant at least 5 acres, but, have had no results With such a small allotment, I will have difficulty sup- porting my wife and three children, I would appreciate any help or considera- tion on this matter, and receive it in time that I may plant my crop Yours truly, WILSON E£oILEAU. Sr LANpRY PaRisH YounG FARMERS ORGANIZATION, Opelousas, La, May 8, 1950. Ho: Henry D LARCADE, Congressman of Louisiana, Washington, D C. Dear Mr LaRcaDE: We, the undersigned committee, were authorized by the execu- tive committee to represent the St. Landry Parish Young Farmers Organization, which is composed of some 400 or more young farmeis, in the matter explained below. We, as representatives of this organiza- tion, wish to appeal to you as our lawmakers, and ask that you look into the cotton acre- age quota law and see if it cannot be amended in @ manner that it will equalize the cot- ton acreages given to tenant and share- cropper farmers. As the law stands, the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE cotton-acreage quota is based on a per-farm basis and not on a per-family-unit basis. This will force some of the landowners to reduce the number of tenants on their farms, thereby forcing these same tenants to leave the farm, and ir society they will fit no- where. This law as it presently stands has a ruling that no farm can get a smaller quota than 5 acres, unless there was less cotton planted on the farm the previous 3 years We have no complaints against the amount if the man concerned is a landowner. However, if it takes 5 acres’ production to balance a family’s farming system and that family is a one-half share cropper, this same family will actually receive in labor inome the pro- ceeds of 21% acrer of production, which is not enough. The landowner will get by, on the other hand, by cutting down the num- ber of famtlies on hisfarm When this takes place, however, you wt!l have displaced about one-fifth of the tenants on a farm. It will not be possivle for them to go to another farm, because all landowners are faced with the same problem) These tenants have in most cases been farming all their lives, therefore, are not qualified for any other occupation When they icave the farm they will become social misfits, not by thelr own choice but for renson: beyond their control. Hoping we have made our point clear and that you look in’> this matter, we remain, Sincerely yours, Nick Dusvuisson, Chairman, GEORGE BULLER JoserH HAROLD RICHARD, Mr. COOLEY. Mr Chairman, this is just an enlargement upon the amend- ment which was defeated a little while ago. The gentleman from Texas {Mr. BecxwortH], scught first to provide 5 acres as an allotment for every veteran of World War II who could satisfy a local committee that he was in good faith a farmer and desired to plant cotton. The effect of this amendment is even more gracious on his part and he is a hittle more generous, because he now wants to give to every Tom, Dick, and Harry, man, woman, and child, a 5-acre minimum acreage allotment. The effect of his amendment would be to destroy the cotton-control program entirely. I think that anybody who knows anything at all about the amendment knows that that would be its effect were it to be adopted. Mr POAGE Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield. Mr. POAGE Is it not true that 40 percent of the farms of the United States now have a cotton allotment of 5 acres or less? Mr. COOLEY. I think the gentleman is correct. Mr. POAGE. That would mean that 40 percent of the cotton farmers could not save anything in the way of acreage. Mr. COOLEY. In my own State of North Carolina over 50 percent of the farmers have Jess than 5 acres in cotton This would mean that 50 percent of the farmers in my State could not contribute anything to this acreage-reduction program. Mr. Chairman, without further delay, I do want to insist that this is an impor- tant amendment and it would be very disastrous to the cotton program if adopted, I hope the membership of the House will vote the amendment down. 11419 The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas. The amendment was rejected. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. PACE. The committee has two amendments at the desk. I should like to be advised when they are reached. The CHAIRMAN. It is the under- standing of the Chairman of the Com- mittee of the Whole that the pending amendment to section 2 is the amend- ment now at the Clerk's desk offered by the gentleman from Texas | Mr. Manon]. The gentleman from Georgia has two amendments which concern section 3 and section 9 of the bill. Mr. MASON. Mr. Chairman, a@ par- liamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The will state it. Mr. MASON. Under the rules of the House how long can the Committee of the Whole continue a free-for-all among the cotton growers and particularly the Texas cotton growers? The CHAIRMAN’ The Committee of the Whole will continue in session until a motion to rise is adopted. The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas. The Clerk read as follows Amendment offered by Mr Manon’ Page 10, after line 16, strike out paragraph 4 down to and including all of line 3 on page 11 Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I pre- pared this amendment as a companion amendment to the amendment which I offered earlier this afternoon and which was not adopted. I wish to keep the Recorp straight and insist that the posi- tion presented by these two amendments is correct and sound. The arguments which I urged in seek- ing to strike out the language on page 3 that applied only to Texas apply in the same manner to the pending amend- ment. It is not necessary to repeat those arguments. All the talk in the world cannot erase the fact that the pending bill deprives the State of Texas of operat- ing under the general terms of the law as is the case with every other State in the Union. May I take a moment to say that on the final vote I shall vote against the pending biil. Let me say further that if the pending bill becomes the law I predict that there will be widespread dis- satisfaction throughout all parts of Texas Those who ardently defend the pending bill seem not to realize that if the pending bill becomes the law the farmers in 11 of the 21 congressional dis- tricts in Texas will get a smaller cotton acreage allotment in 1951 than they re- ceived in 1250. I am speaking of con- gressional districts and not of individual counties and individual farmers. This unsatisfactory condition will be partially brought about by the fact that the House Committee on Agriculture has failed to reenact Public Law 471 of the present Congress which gave emergency relief to gentleman
11426 many cotton producers throughout the State. I had hoped that the 1950 pro- gram would be improved and that the 1951 program would be better than the 1950 program, The pending bill, while it contains some helpful provistons, is so hopelessly inadequate it is unacceptable. The following statement has been pre- pared by the Production and Marketing Administration in regard to the contro- versy over whether or not Texas allot- ments in 1950 should have been made on a 2-year base period or on a 4-year base period. Officials of the Department have been repeatedly attacked on the floor. I per- sonally have found officials in the De- partment to be gentlemen of high char- acter who have cooperated in a very fine way. Since I am not aware of all the facts and circumstances I have requested the Department to supply me with a statement on the attitude of the Depart- ment in regard to the controversy. I ex- pect to get unanimous consent to insert that statement in the Recorp at this point. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C. Hon. Grorce MAHON, Member of Congress. Drar Mr. Manon: In reply to your request for a statement from this office regarding certain charges concerning the determina- tion of 1950 cotton acreage allotments for the State of Texas and the counties therein the following informationg ts supplied. RaLpH 6. TRIGG, Administrator, PMA. This statement deals with the matter of apportioning cotton acreage allotments to the State of Texas and the counties therein and the charge that officials of the Depert- ment of Agriculture made a mistake that was intended to be made in order to make the allotments work out in the State of Texas tn the manner which it did. It was stated in effect, if not in fact, that officials of the De- partment of Agriculture had intentionally miscalculated acreage tn applying the for- mula set forth in the law for apportioning State and county cotton acreage allotments in Texas with the intention of forcing the State acreage allotment in Texas to be com- puted on the basis of the years 1947 and 1948 rather than the 4 years 1945, 1946, 1947, and 1948. I want to review for your information some of the basic steps and basic facts which served as a fundamental basis for the cotton allot- ment legislation which Congress passed in 1949 and which is before Congress at thts time for amendment. On April 24 and April 25, 1949, 8 meeting was held in Mem- phis, Tenn., generally known as the Belt- wide conference, at which time various rep- resentatives from the cotton-producing States met for the purpose of formulating basic rec- ommendations with respect to apportioning cotton-acreage allotments for future pro- prams. It is an established fact that this group came forth with a number of recom- mendations, the principal one of which con- sisted of a formula for apportioning the na- tional cotton-acreage allotment to States and State acreage allotments to counties. The statement was made that representa- tives of the Department of Agriculture had advised the committee that that portion of the Memphis agreement dealing with estab- lishment of a State acreage allotment based on the planting from 1947 and 1948 instead of plantings during the 4-year period 1945 to 1948 would not apply to the State of Texes and that it did not do so until the original acreage igurrs were changed. It is largely with respect to this statement that CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE I direct your attention. I submit that the exact contrary ts the fact with reference to the statement that the Department of Agri- culture advised the committee that this gadget would not apply to the State of Texas. E submit for the record a copy of table No, 2 which was formulated and adopted at the Memphis meeting and which today is the basic formula in the cotton acreage allotment law. I refer you to the fifth column of this table and direct your attention within this column opposite the name Texas ahowing an adjustment for the State for the purpose of carrying out the 1947-48 protective provision of the agreement. This is further identified by the note at the bottom of the table. A copy of this same table can be found in the hearings before the subcommittee of the Committee on Agriculture and Farestry, United States Senate, dated June 14, 15, 22, 27, 1949, regarding 8. 1962, which was the pasic bill embodying the principle worked out at the Belt-wide conference in Memphis, I submit also a copy of # table relating to this same matter worked out by the Depart- ment and made available to the Cotton Bub- committee of the House dealing with this game subject, both of which paint to the probability that the State of Texas would re- ceive the protection of the special provisions relating to 1947 and 1948. The reason I use the word “probabtlity” was the fact that at the time the committees were considering this legistatton and the Department made ap- plication of the various formulas being con- sidered, the amount of war-crop credits which would be used with respect to each State was undetermined and was not available to the Department or anyone else for scveral weeks after the law was enacted. No representa- tive of the Department, not even once, ever gave any member of the House Agriculture Committee the assurance that the State cot- ton acreage allotment would work out in any specific manner. Proof of this is the fact that no one in the Department could have, at the time this legistation was being consid- ered, Known what the exact final answer was going to be. However, all the determina- tions made and submitted to the committees with respect to the application of the basic formula up to the time the Public Law 272 was finally enacted, pointed very clearly to the probability that Texas might be one of the States protected by the so-called gadget provision as relates to 19¢7 and 1948. In applying the law to the best available statistics the calculations gave Texas its allotment on the basis of 95 percent of the cotton grown in 1947 and 1948. When this fact became known the Department was accused of misinterpreting the provisions of the law. A case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Co- lumbia concerning this matter and on March 27, 1950, the court ruled that the law had been properly applied by the Department. This approach having failed, an attempt was made to shift responsibility for the way the law worked to the Department. The De- partment was then accused of deliberately miscalculating the figures. Since cotton acreages had not beer meas- ured since 1942, the Department used the best available statistics, which were the offi- cial figures of the Crop Reporting Board of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The pasic factor which the Board uses in estimat- ing acreages of cotton during years when there are no measurements are the bales of cotton produced as supplied ta the Bureau of the Census by cotton ginners. In the fall of 1949 the Census Bureau reported the sum of 3,210 bales of cotton which was ginned by three gins in the State of Texas which had not been previously reported. Aa is done in aki such tostances by the BAE when such facts are brought forth conciusively, adjust- ments were made in the basic statistics. Also, some adjustments were made in the State acreage atatistics in the fall of 1949 for JuLy $1 Georgia. This situation was not something new or unusual. The Crop Reporting Board follows an es- tablished policy and program in preparing cotton screage and production estimates, This program is as follows: 1. The first acreage estimate for the season ig made as of July 1 and relates to cotton acreage in cultivation as of that date. 2. The first production forecast is made as of August 1, and subsequent production forecasts are made as of the first of the months of September, October, November, and December. 8. The first estimate of acreage for harvest for the current year is made as of September 1 each year. 4. It is required by law to estimate gin- nings; therefore, it ts not possible to release estimates of production for any year until early May following the year*of production. At that time the Bureau of the Census has final reports on ginnings. 65. When the results of each quinguennial census of agriculture becomes available the Crop Reporting Board reviews the acreage and production estimates prepared since the previous quinquennial census. 6. Revisions are made in the estimates for previous years at other ttmes during the sea- son when conclusive evidence becomes avalil- able. During the past year, questions were raised with respect to the acreage determination in a number of States, among which was Texas, where county committes presented evidence of additional ginnings which had not been included in the census recards. A similar situation developed tn Georgia for the years 1047 and 1948 where new gins were located which had not reported their ginnings to the Bureau of the Census. These additional gin- ings, not previously reported, were verified and accepted by the Bureau of the Census. Whenever this situation arises the additional ginnings are not considered official until fully verified by the Bureau of the Census. The discovery of these omissions necessitated the revision of acreage estimates in the two States concerned. A complete background information on the Texas situation was pro- vided Mr. Poage in a letter dated February 24, 1960, by Mr. C. E. Burkhead, head, Divis- fon of Field Crop Statistics, and also another at .tement by him dated February 10, 1950. Because of the uses BAE cotton acreage estimates were put in the fall of 1949 and early 1950 the Crop Reporting Board made a thorough analysis of the data for the years 1944 through 1948, by counties, and on a State and National basis. While a minimum number of changes were finally required in the State estimates a number of changes, both upward and downward, were made in the county estimates, primarily based on the PMA 532~c data and total quantity grown reported by the Bureau of the Census, Therefore, for all practical purposes the ac- tual production for each county is known. While the Board gave conalderable study to the estimates for a period of years in the fall of 1849 the procedure was not unusual. The primary purpose of the review was to arrive at the most accurate esttmates possible based on all avattable mformation. In the final analysts comparatively few changes were re- quired. A record of these changes is in- cluded on page 7 of House Report 1509. A memorandum dated January 19, 1950, was given. to Mr. Joseph C. Parker, counsel for the House Committee on Agriculture, from Mr. 8. R. Newell, Assistant Chief of BAE, and Chairman of the Crop Reporting Board, setting forth tn more detail the policy followed in reviewing and revising the cotton estimates in the course of the 1950 cotton aNotment program. Copies of this material are avatiable for anyone interested in further studytng the facts. The Depart- ment carrted out the law in eccordance with the facts.
1950 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 11421 Taste 2.—Cotton distribution, 1945-48 average acreage in cultivation, July 2, with allowance for Public Law 12 adjustments on ratto basis, small farm minimum and State adjustment for 1947-48, national total, 22,500,000 Geres (consistent with an approximate national baleage of 12,000,000 bales) Adjust- | Adjust 1 A ajust- ment, ’ ment, Bate? small farm minimum total 4 463 2 26 29 74) 25 4,147 24 1, 480 3 39 28 738 41 1, 681 40 2, SBL 18 21 a1 966 4 1, 192 Ly & 205 1 177 stemeonenen- 233 3 630 ee eee 4 13 244 22, 500 1 Public Law 12 adjustment included on ration basis 4 Reduction in no State more than 5 percent of 1947-48 average acreage. Nore.— With an estimated 5 percent underplantings the net acreage would be approximately 21,375,000 acres, Proposed base for distribution of 1950 and 1951 allotments using the 1945-48 average cotton acreage in cultivation adjusted for war crops (see below) (2) for 1947 and 1948 plantings, and (3) estimated additional acreages for small farm minimum allotments Btate Missouri. ........ in: Arkansas. Louisiana. Oxlahoma. Texas. .... Total Provision sma} farm minimum. State adjustment 1 Public Law 12 adjustment included on ratio basis. § Reduction in no State more than & percent of 1947~48 average acreage or 15 percent under 3948 plantings. Prepared for Mr Joseph O, Parker, clerk, House of Represcntatives, Committee on Agriculture, about May 26, 1049, Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chaicman, I rise in opposition to the pending amendment. Mr. Chairman, without trying to im- pose upon your time, I want to call attention to what this amendment would do if it were passed. You will recall that the gentleman from the Nineteenth Dis- trict of Texas sought a short time ago to change this bill in order to enable his dis- trict to perpetuate a special gadget or formula under which his district will re- ceive substantial benefits this year. The committee was of the opinion that we should place Texas as most of the States of the. Union, under a general formula that would apply to all alike, to his district and to all others alike. The committee rejected the gentleman's amendment. xCVI-———1719 Basic dis- Adjust- | dust Adjuat- tribution, acreage acreage awh ment, small farm marnty 1045-48 Btate minimum total Thousands | Thousands | Thousands | Thousands of ucres of acres of acrer of acres 423 440 584 487 63 23 aA a4]. 26 O54 725 689 738 1,065 1, 138 1,004 1,143 1, 278 1,313 1, 6 1,474 24 Pa 26 39 704 753 720 735 J, 605 1, 627 1, 566 |_. 1,674 870 2, F600 2, 160 2,671 2, OR5 2,371 2, 228 |. 2, 1038 886 940) 880 62 1,158 1,074 1114 1,187 8, 426 8, 074 8, 700 8, 265 187 215 186 477 226 276 250 23 248 636 810 673 130 6388 4 4 Ce eres ReneS 4 i 13 2 re 13 22, 600) Hi: district for this year had the benefit of 355,000 acres of cotton that in the absence of the special gadget would have gone to 17 other districts in Texas. That there was no animus on the part of those of us who sought to have the gen- eral formula apply in Texas is evidenced by the proviso that the gentleman now seeks to strike out. That provision pro- vides that any county in the State of Texas may in the coming years count for their history either the cotton that was actually planted in 1950 or the amount that they would have had had Texas not operated under a special gadget in 1950. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairmaa, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POAGE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. MAHON. Is it not true that under the regular law, if my amendment is adopted, my district soulc get the credit for its plantings in 1950, the 2-year basis. That is the reason why I offered the amendment. Mr. POAGE. No; other States will not share on the 2-year basis. Only those that are under « special gadget and that have shown some reason why they should be under a special gadget will operate under the formula that the gen- tleman proposes. As a matter of fact, if this amendment is adopted the Nine-~ teenth District of Texas and three other Qistricts will receive history credit for cotton to which they were not entitled and they will perpetuate it on down through the years in their history. We
11422 are not objecting to that. We are let- ting them keep that history. This amendment would however say to those districts that were denied their fair share of the Texas allotment in 1950 that you can never get your history back. Re- member this history we are talking about only relates to the division or acreage within the State of Texas and does not add anything to the national allotment or the State allotments. Those of you who come from other States need not fear. We are asking that in the future Texas cotton be divided on the basis of history as between the counties of Texas as if those who were denied this half million acres this year had received it. We are not trying to take from the gen- tleman the history that he built up this year, even though he built it up under a misapprehension of facts. We are sim- ply saying those districts who lost this year will have the benefit of coming in on equal terms with those districts that got the advantage this year. His district got a cotton allotment this year to which it was not entitled. He is going to have a history next year as the result of that, although 1t was a mistake. Now, then, he comes along and tries to deny to those of us who were denied the full right to grow a full crop this year even the right to grow cotton in the future. It seems to me to be grossly unfair. I am sure that the membership of this House will want those districts in Texas that con- tributed so generously to the tremendous crop grown in the Nineteenth District to have a history comparable to what they would have had had he not found this extra cotton on his doorstep. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. The question is on the amendment of- fered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr, Maxcn]. The amendment was rejected. Mr, PACE, Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Pace: Page 13, line 15, after ‘‘(e)”, strike out the comma. The amendment was agreed to. Mr.POAGE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. PoacE: Page 16, Mne 13, strike out section 6 in its entirety. Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes out section 6 in its entirety. Section 6 is the section which relates to the changing of the allocation of the wheat acreage. It was felt neces- sary to put this provision in here earlier in the session because of the hardship that apparently would be worked on cer- tain Western States were it not placed in the bill. In recent weeks ‘the allotment of acreage for wheat has been deter- mined by the Department and is substan- tially greater than had originally been supposed would be possible. This makes it possible for the Department of Agri- culture, through the operation of the for- mula that is now in effect, to give to the States that had expected to suffer an un- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE conscionable cut a percentage of wheat acreage which we understand is satisfac- tory to all of them. I think it can be fairly stated that the Representatives from both the western and eastern sec~ tions are in agreement that this section should now come out and that the De- partment should allocate wheat on the basis of the letter which I placed in the Recorp last Thursday on page 11278 in which the Department explains the method whereby wheat will be allocated. That methed of allocation will give to the States that had expected an unconscion- able cut a reasonable amount of wheat. They, therefore, proposed to strike out the entire section and to operate on the basis as outlined in the Department let- ter. We believe it will work substantial justice to all sections of the country with- out increasing by 1 acre the wheat al- lotment, and I think everybody was anxious to achieve that result. Iam au- thorized to offer this amendment on be- half of the committee. Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to de- tain the Committee for the full 5 min- utes, but I should like to ask a question or two so that we can clarify the idea expressed by the gentleman from Texas LMr. Poace], to which, of course, I am not going to object. IfI understand this correctly, my own State of Colorado, since they have increased the wheat- acreage allotments from 172,719,000 to 72,784,810 acres for this year, would for this year, the 1951 crop, or the 1950 acres, be allotted 2,856,632 acres less, or 96.1 percent of our acreage for 1949. I am sure we will make no objection if that is the case. Mr. POAGE, Yes; because the state- ment of the Department to the subcom- mittee, and their letter, which is in the ReEcorp of last Thursday, states that they will carry out the allocation upon that basis. I have before me now their state- ment, which gives the figures in each State, and those are the correct figures as given to the subcommittee by the De- partment of Agriculture. They state in their letter that they will act on that basis, Mr. HILL, One more question. That would answer my objection. Take a county which liad an increase of over 100,000 under gadget 272, that county then would not b2 cut under the applica- tion of this formula more than 4.9 per- cent. This would follow the average curtailment of the wheat acres in the State. Is that correct? Mr. POAGE. If it had the State aver- age, that would be true. I cannot give the gentleman assurance that every county in the State will get the same treatment, but I understand that the formula will enable his State committee so to handle his State acreage that there will be only a 3.9 cut within his State. Mr. HILL. That would be even better than the figures I just mentioned? Mr. POAGE. That is correct. Mr. HILL. I think I should state in all fairness to everyone that I cannot JULY 31 help but feel that the Department has the intention and every idea of carrying out this wheat allocation or allotment to the States in the manner the gentleman has mentioned. Therefore, I think we can accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Poacr]. Further, Mr. Chairman, it does seem that a factor which we must consider in this matter is that as long as this wheat amendment or section of the cotton bill is being considered by the legislative branch of our Government, it would be impossible for the Department of Agri- culture to fix the acreage allotments in the various States and also b> impossible for the State committees to assign county allotments. Since August is here and wheat farmers are anxious to know the wheat acreage they can plant this fall, and whereas this bill might be delayed in the Senate for some time, I feel that with the definite promise of the Depart- ment of Agriculture to carry out the wheat allotment as proposed by charts and maps presented to our Committee on Agriculture, we should accept the amendment and strike this section from this bill. Last year this House passed Public Law 272, which protected the wheat farmers of several Western States, in- cluding Colorado, and permitted them to hold the wheat acreage for the 1850 crop. Under this gadget as provided by Pub- lic Law 272 the testimony by experts from the Department of Agriculture in- dicated that had this gadget not been provided wheat farmers would have in- creased the wheat acreage in the United State for the crop of 1950 more than 500,000 acres. So, really, gadget 272 curtailed wheat acreage. The reason- ableness of it appealed to the farmers and they complied with the recommen- dations oz the Department in a most commendable manner. If the present wheat allotment is car- ried out as indicated by statements from the Agriculture Department, wheat growers in the West and in Colorado should be able to produce wheat in suffi- cient quantities to provide for our usual consumption, as well as a necessary re- serve in time of crop shortage or world- wide general food supply. Mr. WICKERSHAM, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WICKERSHAM. I yield. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the pending amendment and all amend- ments thereto close in 8 minutes, includ- ing the remarks of the gentleman from Oklahoma. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? There was no objection. Mr. WICKERSHAM. Mr. Chairman, may I remind the committee and Mem- bers of the House of the statements I made last year during the consideration of the acreage allotment measure.
1950 Members of the committee have lq- bored under the false premise that just because a farm was out of cotton pro- duction during the years 1946, 1947 and 1948 that it had gone out of cotton pro- duction. As a matter of fact, the base period should be lengthened. In western Oklahoma we are faced with a two-crop system, principally cotton and wheat, Giversifying by raising additional crops such as oats, barley, alfalfa, grain sor- ghums, cattle, and some clover, millet, and so forth, depending on rainfall, hail, drought, windstorms, greenbugs, and so forth. No law enacted from a national stand- point can work equitably without some exceptions. We need those eXceptions in western Oklahoma. If the Depart- ment of Agriculture were permitted to express its opinion here today, we would find that it would oppose many of the provisions 1n this bill. Our farmers are interested in the farm program and it is their desire to comply with any act which is fair and equitable, I hope the committee will adopt my rec- ommendations in conference, because the future will be determined by our action today. The crop year 1949 should not have been excluded. It isnot fair to allow only those who raised cotton in 1950 to vote on next year’s program. There should be a small set-aside to constitute a national reserve, to be allo- cated by the Secretary of Agriculture to emergency areas, There should be a special provision to allocate some acreage to the Secretary in order that he could allocate allotments to irrigation and reclamation areas to the extent that the acreage would not be taken from the acreage of the dry-land farmers. The program should be so planned as to make the most advantageous use of the soil to which it is adapted. By all means a provision should be included in this bill to provide exchanges of cotton and wheat allotments at the county level through the triple-A com- mittees. In the interest of our country we should take every precaution to protect the family size farms to the extent that the farmers and their families will have economic family-operating units. We should encourage diversification, the use of soil conservation practices and soil conservation in this and every other farm measure. Our State PMA committees and our county committees exercised full use of the provisions under the 1949 act, yet many hardships occurred. This was not the fault of the State or county commit- tees. ; Although this bill today is an improve- ment over the one passed last year it, still has many provisions which should be corrected. Before you vote on the measure T should like to read the following news CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE article from Saturday’s Washington News: Gor To Grow More Corron Cotton experts say Government must spur cotton planting next year if we're not to run into actual shortage by 1951. We've a short crop and stocks are going fast. By August 1, 1951, carryover’s likely to be 8,000,000 or 8,500,000 bales, and experts say 4,000,000 1g danger point. That means 1961 cotton farmers must produce crop big enough to meet all 1952 needs plus at least 500,000 bales to carry over, It means planting 27,~ 000,000 acres next year, compared with 19,000,- 000 this year, they say. The CHAIRMAN, The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Marsauts]. Mr. MARSALIS. Mr. Chairman, I shall support the committee amendment striking section 6, the so-called wheat amendment, from this bill. This amend- ment was originally put into the bill for the purpose of taking care of the situa- tion that existed in Colorado and a few other Western States. At that time the national allotment as originally an- nounced by the Secretary of Agriculture for the 1950 crop of wheat was 68,944,099 acres. In view of the Korean war situa- tion, however, the Secretary of Agricul- ture increased this acreage for the 1951 crop to the sum of 72,784,810 acres. The amendment provided that no county should be cut more than 5 per- cent of its last year’s allotment. The Department of Agriculture, through a modified formula which it adopted, based on the previous law in effect prior to the special legislation adopted last year, states that such formula will protect against undue hardship cases in Colo- rado and other States and that it will be equally as effective as section 6 of the bill. The distinguished and able gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Hope] gave an excellent explanation of how such areas as Colorado would be taken care of under this formula in answer to my question to him during the debate on this bill last Thursday. As explained to me by the Dapart- ment of Agriculture, the Colorado wheat acreage allotment for this year will be 2,856,653 as opposed to 2,971,769 which was allotted last year. In other words, this new figure represents 96.1 percent of the acreage planted to wheat last year. The Department also stated that the State committee would in turn compute each county’s last 3-year average and scale it to the State allotment and that in no event should any one county re- ceive less than 95 percent of its last year’s acreage, nor more than 105 percent of such acreage. In view of these representations by the Department of Agriculture, under which any county in the State would be as well off as it would be under the amendment, and in view of the further fact that the farmers otherwise would have to wait until legislation including this amend- ment is passed, which might take consid- erably longer since it has not as yet been scheduled in the Senate and farmers are ready to start planting their crop at this 11423 time. I feel it is for the best interests of wheat farmers in my district that the amendment be adopted and section 6 taken out of the bill thereby permitting much quicker action in determining the specific allotments, The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Podce]. The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 6? Are there any amendments to sec- tion 7? Are there any amendments to section 8? Are there any amendments to section 9? Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. BrcxworttH: On page 19, after line 18, insert the fol- lowing: “4, Add at the end of section 859 of such act the following new subsection: ‘(j) the penalty provided for in this section shall not apply with respect to peanuts produced by any person who is recognized by the county committee as being a peanut farmer if his total acreage planted to peanuts during the year in which such peanuts were produced did not exceed 2 acres.’” Mr, COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the pending amendment and all amend- ments thereto close in 7 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? There was no obfection. Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Chairman, this is in line with the general principle Thave advocated in regard to a minimum for cotton producers. A strange thing has happened in some of our counties, We find that a person who has been growing cotton cannot grow cotton, and in instances he has been growing pea- nuts, he cannot now grow any peanuts— certainly not enough to stay in the busi- ness. I have here some letters from folks— some, incidentally, not from my district. This one says: Number of producers who will cease to grow peanuts: 60. That is from one Texas county, Number of producers receiving Jess than 2 acres who will cease growing peanuts: 99 percent of those who receive less than 5 acres, In another Texas county there are 53 old grower farms that receive less than 2 acres, and 69 new grower farms that receive less than 2 acres, It is estimated that 80 percent of the farms will cease to grow peanuts and 50 percent will cease to farm. I submit to the Members of this House that by legislation, you are definitely putting people out of the business of growing a given crop which they have any
11424 grown, and also putting them out of the farming business in some cases, It is my opinion that an amendment like this would have a salutary effect to prevent that being done, putting people off the farms or out of the business of growing certain crops. Hovse or REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C, May 29, 1950. Dear Faicnps: County by county in your State I'd like the following information’ I would like to know the number of pea- nut producers in each county. Generally in thinking of your average farmer and pro- ducer, what is the least number of acres he can afford to grow or economically grow? How many producers in your State received allotments less than the number of acres you mentioned in answer to the immediate pre- vious question? How many of your peanut producers received allotments of less than 2 acres? Of the number of peanut farmers recelving allotments of less than 2 acres, how many will cease to grow peanuts? Approxi- mately how many will cease to farm for themselves? How many new producers ap- plied for peanut acreage in your State this year—1950? How many acres did you have to distribute to them? Approximately how much did each 1ecelve? I repeat I'd like to obtain this Information county by county, Regards, Linpiey BECKWoRTH. ae DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, College Station, Tex., June 13, 1950, Hon, Linpiey Beck wortH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. BeckwortH: This will reply to your letter of May 29 in which you requested certain information regarding peanut acre- age allotments and the acreage of peanuts that should be grown on the farm to sustain the farm family. Tam attaching a summary of the number of farms and total allotted peanut acreage for all Texas counties. The summary is pre- pared to show data separately for ‘‘old” farms and “new” farms. We do not have information on the other questions raised in your letter and feel that we cannot afford to ask our county commit- tees to make the statistical analyses and summaries required since each county has a very heavy work load for the next several months. I trust that the attached summary will answer most of the questions on peanut allotments. Very truly yours, B F. Vance, Chairman, State Committee, 1950 peanut allotments (original issue) Old Allot- | New | Allot- County farms {| ments | farms | ments Anderson. ....... 1,011 | 12,196 3 266 207.7 Angelina... - 78 125 9 14 28 Atascost.. 968 | 26, 638. 7 4 314 2 Aastin. 174] 2,870 6 8 241 Bailey. 4 83 6 1 16 Bastrop - 244] 2,654 5 71 61.6 Baylor. - 3 43 3 1 (i) Bee..... 5 1,006 7 34 33 1 Bexar... 571} 9,466 7 30 101.8 Blanco. . 1 Ct 2 en en Bosque. - 86] 1,949 2 Ty 26,3 Bowie... --- 58 800 9 39 Brazos. -- 34 1370 5 2.8 Brooks. - 1 Le Pe Peers Brown ... 520 | 9,242 8 3 123 Burleson. 625.4), 10 6.9 Burnet 22 344.7 2 47 Caldwe' 4o W170 19 94 ‘Allah: £06 | 8,675 3 33 1001 Camp 39 O15 13 29 Cass. 122 7183 54 24,2 LO es Ar 1 65 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 1950 peanut allotments (original tssue)— Continued Old Allot- | New Allot- County farms | ments | farms | ments Cherokee 2. .2..- 97.7 Clay... 13 4 Coke... 11 Coleman .o.e--f V2] OR fee pee wee Colling, worth... 27 3 Colorado........ 210 Comanche. 180 8 Cooke .. 84 2 Coryell... 8.8 Dallas . Ll Denton... WL. De Wilt . 417 Dickens... 0 Dimaut. 66 Duval 20 8 Fastland 112 6 rath... 163 3 Falls... 12 Fannin. 301 8 Fayotte. 20 3 Fisher... 64 Fort Ber 42 Frankiin 97 Freeston 206 Frio. 2. 1029 Gaines 677 Gar 47 Gubspe 260 Goliad 45 Conzales.. 65 7 Grayson... V4 2 Gregg... 2 Giimes.__.. 20-4 Guadalupe . 614 Hall 2 eeeeceee-| OP 287 Def Hamilton. 59 Flaris...... 88 7 Harrison 0... -} 8 | 20 6 Joe | eee ee Hendeison.. 86 9 Hidalgo........-.)-.------]---------- 34 Ti... 617 Hood... ... 135 2 Hophins.. 46 5 Houston... 144 6 Jack. -.... 143 dackson......... }.-------]---------- 7 Jim Hogg. 171 Jim Wells..- 152 Johnson... 5. Jones 301 Kernes. 30 5 Kent ...2....---| GL | 900 4 ef eee Kimble 18 Kloborg.....-----| -------|---------- 46 Lamai.. 33 9 Lamb «|eeeeee- -- Lampasas, 43 Lasalle... 26 Lavaca... 470 Loe... 12) 3 Leon...... 463 Liberty .... 19 Limestone....... 20.1 Live Oak... 80 Tdano  ... 69 MoCulloch. 218 McLennan...... 18 6 MeMullen.....--) 3] 85 7 Jee] eee - Madison_.. 2.22. 207 Marion... 83 Mason-... 36 9 Maverith. 18 Medina..... 36 3 Monard ae 43 iam. 49 1 Mills... 179 Montague. . 47.6 Montgomery 41 OM... 2. 211 Motley . 18 2 Nacoguoche: 86 Navarro......---) 4 NO GY ef ee Nueces -..2.----| |) 8 fe] eee eee Palo Pinto... 187 | 3, 206 20 45 9 24 00 6 16 TOR | 11, O98 67 120.1 BLO | cen wal ww ween ne ii 4 3 2 22 WZ 6 7 3.6 66 287 8 54 108 04] 1,458 2 31 210 50 6H) 4 79 209 488 7 48 145 5 6 88 31,0 0.7 9.8 53.8 79 23 101 JULY 81 1950 peanut allotments (original tssue)~— Continued Old | Allot- | New | Allot- | County farms | monts | farms | monts ' 866 2,207.5| 156 43.1 9 177, 2 | neue. lemwennn ene 36 248 5 19 23.0 [2 ---|-awweee--- 165 440 3 64 150 187 638 4 05 25 3 25 183.9 4 2.6 26 47.5 |i... |ennee een ee 273 | 7,070 3 47 103 6 19 78 9 12 46 3 56 0 4 17 35 872.1 3 6.4 1 [1 Se Ene 50 27 3 3.8 107 2727 33 130 1 56 21.6 5 6.4 14 3.5 3,711 4, 996. 8 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Giddings, Tex, May 29, 1950. Hon. Linptey BecKwortH, House of Representatives, Washington, D C. Dear Sir: Reference is made to your letter of May 15 and we herewith enclose the fole lowing information: 1 1. Number of peanut farms in Lee County: 054, 2 The least number a farmer can afford to grow: 10. 8. Number of producers receiving allot- ments less than the above’ 661. 4. Number of producers receiving allot- ments less than 2 acres: 174, 5. Number of producers who will cease to grow peanuts (approximate): 50. 6. Number of producers who will cease to farm for themselves (approximate) : 25, 7 Number of producers who applied for new grower allotment, 1950: 72. 8 Number of acres to distribute to them: 109 7. 9 Approximate grower: 1.5. Very truly yours, WarreEN D. Moopy, Secretary, Lee County PMA. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Montague, Tex, June 7, 1950. Re peanut questionnaire. Hon, Linpu8ty BeckworrH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. BecKwortH: In reply to your recent questionnaire, you will find listed be- low the Information you requested concerns ing peanut growers in Montague County. Number of peanut producers in county: 375. Smallest acreage producer could afford to plant: 5, Number of producers receiving less than 5 acres: 207. Number of producers receiving less than 2 acres: 71. Number of producers receiving less than 2 acres who will cease to grow peanuts; 90 acreage for each new « percent or approximately 64, Number of producers receiving less than 2 acres who will cease to farm for themselves: 50 percent or approximately 35. Number of applicants for new grower al- lotments: 84. Number of acres for distribution to new growers: 73 2.
1950 Acreage (approximate) each new grower received: 1.5 to 3, Yours truly, Bue. E. Wricnr, Secretary, Montague County PMA. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Bastrop, Tex., June 1, 1950. Hon. Lrnotey BrcKWworTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Sm: This will reply to your letter dated May 15, 1950, regarding peanut farms in Bastrop County. Bastrop County has 346 old grower peanut farm allotments and 69 new grower peanut farm allotments. The committee believes that the average producer cannot afford to economically grow less than 8 acres of pea- nuts. In Bastrop County 96 old grower farms received an allotment of less than 8 acres, and 69 new grower farms received less than t. 8-acre allotment, There are 63 old grower farms that received less than 2 acres and 69 new grower farms that received less than 2 acres. It is esti- mated that 80 percent of the producers on the farms receiving less than 2 acres will cease to grow peanuts and 560 percent will cease to farm for themselves. There were 73 applications for new grower allotments and 69 received allotments. New grower farms received 51.56 acres from the State committee reserve. Allotments rangod from 0.1 to 1.5 acres, Respectfully, Norman U. Novosap, Administrative Officer, Bastrop County PMA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION, Allendale, §. C., June 1, 1950. Mr, Lrnotey Beckworrn, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Beckwortu: I am listing below the information requested in your letter dated May 18, 1950: 1, What is the least number of acres an average farmer can afford to grow or eCo- nomically grow: 6. 2. How many producers received allot- ments less than the number of acres shown in 1: 186. 8. How many peanut producers received allotments less than 2 acres: 76. 4. Of the number of pennut farmers re- ceiving allotments of less than 2 acres, how many will cease to grow peanuts: 50 percent. 6. Approximately how many will cease to farm for themselves: None. 6. How many new producers applied for peanut acreage this year (1960): 9. 7. How many acres were distributed to them: 18.6. 8. Approximately how much did each receive: 2. Very truly yours, Hewry B. BARKER, County Administrative Oficer, PMA. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRopUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Thomasville, Ga., June 30, 1950. Mr, LINDLEY BeCxKWORTH, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. BeckwortH: This is in reply to your letter dated May 17, 1950. Peanut producers in Thomas County. 988 Peanut producers who received less than 5 acres...----.----- wawnneee= 567 Peanut producers who received lesr than 2 acres....---.---- wewnnneane = 164 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Peunut producers who ceased to grow peanuts in 1949__.-..2--- ee 28 New producers who applicd for pea- nut acreage in 1950........--..... "4 Generally, in thinking of the average farmer, 5 acres of peanuts is the least num- ber of acres he can afford to grow eco- nomically. One hundred seventy-four and one-tenth acres were distributed to the 74 new produce ers. This averaged approximately 3.2 acres per producer. We cannot yet determine the number of producers who will cease io grow peanuts in 1950. Very truly yours, Epwin Z. STERLING, County Administrative Officer, Thomas County PMA Committee. — DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND, MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Crawfordville, Fla., May 29, 1950. Hon. LINDLEY BECK WORTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Sm: In compliance to your letter dated May 12, 1950, we are furnishing you with the following information: Number of peanut producers in county.....~-.-.---------- ee eee 18 Least number of acres producers can economically grow....----.-------- 5 Number of producers that received al- lotments less than the number of acres given in immediate previous questiton.._._--------------------- 4 Number of producers that received al- lotments leas than 2 acres....-..--- 16 Of the number of producers receiving allotments of less than 2 acres, how many will cease to grow peanuts... 8 Approximately how many will cease to farm for themselves.___...----.--~ 5 How many new producers applied for peanut acreage in your county this year—1950 _......----- pee nen e eee 18 How many acres did you have to dis- distribute to them-._.--..-------~- 31.8 Approximately how much did each receive... 22.2. ne ee ween www 2.9 Yours very truly, Kennetu A, SrrRicKkianp, Administrative Officer, Wakulla County, Fla. — DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Wellington, Tex., May 31, 1950. Hon, LINDLEY BEcKWoRTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Deak Mr. BeckwortH: In reply to your letter of May 16, 1950, with reference to the peanut-acreage allotment for our county: 1, We have 109 farms with peanut allote ments, 2. Producers In general should have at least 15 acres per farm in order to grow them economically. 3. There are 78 farms in the county that have an allotment of less than 15 acres, 4. We have 15 farms with less than 2-acre allotments. 5. All farms with less than 2-acre allot- ments will cease to grow peanuts, 6, Probably none of these producers will cease to farm for themselves, but will have to grow other crops for a Hvelfhood. 7. We have 21 producers who applied for new-grower allotments. 8. A total of 27.8 acres were allotted to new growers of this county by the State committee. 9, On an average each new grower received 1.3 acres. 11425 Trusting this supplies the information re- quested. Yours truly, Mittagp P. Brown, Seerctary, Collingsworth County PMA. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Quincy, Fia., May 26, 1950. Mr, Linoiey Beck worth, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. BeoKwortH: In reply to your letter of May 12, 1980, we have 175 peanut producers in Gadsden County. The least number of acres a farmer can grow econome ically 1s usually & acres; 89 of these allot- ments are under 5 acres; 39 received less than 2 acres, Nearly all of these will quit growing peanuts for harvest, We have no way of knowing how many farmers will cease to farm for themselves on this account. It will cause some to do so. Seventeen new growers applied for peanut acreage this year—-1950. We had 17.4 acres to distribute to them. These range from 0.5 to 1.7 acres. Trusting this is the information you de- sired, I am, Yours truly, Bernarp H. CiakK, Administrative Officer, Gadsden County PMA. —< DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Inverness, Fla., May 22, 1950. Mr. Linpiry BeckwortH, Member of Congress, Washington, D.C. Dear Sm: We have one farmer producing peanuts in Citrus County, Fla., on allotment. In growing these peanuts to be dug it is not economically profitable to grow less than about 30 acres, since no other growers in the county are growing peanuts for digging, and it is not possible to rent a picker, etc. This one producer has an allotment less than he can produce economically. No producer received an allotment of less than 2 acres. None will cease to grow peanuts or to farm for themselves because of allotments of less than 2 acres. No new producers applied for allotments for 1960 because no allotment was available for distribution to new growers in this county. Yours very truly, E. A. Zeuunm, Chairman, PMA County Committee. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Arapaho, Okla., May 31, 1950. Congressman Linoter Beck worrTt, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Howonaste BrcxwortH: In reply to your letter of May 18 we wish to advise that we are a very small peanut-producing county. In fact we have only two allotments, both of which are about 20 acres. They are both group I or old grower allotments. We received approximately 30 applications for 1950 new grower peanut allotments. Wo ‘were unable to give any of these new grower allotments because the county reserve for new grower allotments was zero. This was due to the fact that our county allotment was approximately 40 acres and 1 percent of our county allotment would be less than one-half acre for new grower farms, Hoping this information will be helpful to you, we remain, Yours very truly, Russet. E. Dr, County Administrative Officer.
11426 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRoDUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Greenville, S. C., June 2, 1950. Hon. Lrna.ey Beck wortH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. BeckwortH: In reply to your let- ter dated May 17, 1950, we wish to advise that Greenville County is not a peanut county and has only 5 peanut-allotment farms with a total of 12.4 acres. The least number of acres the average farmer and pro- ducer can afford to grow is 10 acres. All allotments in the county are less than 10 acres, and three allotments are less than 2 acres, and none of these will cease to grow peanuts or farm for themselves. We did not have any applications for new-grower allot- ments. We hope this information will be of help to you, and at any time we can furnish you any information we will be glad to do so. Very truly yours, T. Ltoyp Garrett, County Administrative Officer, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BUREAU oF AGRICULTURAL EcoNoMICs, Little Rock, Ark., June 1, 1950. Hon. Linotey Beckworrtu, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. BecKwortH: We have forwarded your letter of May 26 to the extension service for reply, as their farm management spectal- ist says he hag some information which may be useful to you. Several other persons were contacted, but did not know how large an acreage of peanuts is needed to support a family that depends on peanuts as their pri- mary money crop. Inasmuch as a question of this kind in- volves farm management and sociology, and also since I have not raised peanuts, it was believed best to refer the matter to the extension service, Sincerely, MILES McPrex, Agricultural Statistician, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Quitman, Tex., May 29, 1950. Hon Linpiry BeckwortH, New House Office Building, Washington, D. C. Dear ConcressMaN: This ig in reference to your letter, dated May 13, 1950, to the Wood County PMA Committee. We have approximately 400 peanut pro- ducers in the county. The least number of acres each producer can afford to grow is 2 acres. We have about 150 producers who re- ceived allotments of less than 2 acres, Of those growors having allotments of less than 2 acres, there will be about 25 or 50 who will cease to grow peanuts. I do not believe there will be any cease to farm for themselves. The number of new producers were 35 and the number of acres distributed was 21.4 acres and the average to each was 0.6 of an acre, The exccss acreage (for oil) up to the 1947 picked and threshed will help at least 150 or 200 producers in Wood County. Hoping the above is the desired informa- tion, Iam Yours yery truly, Roy E. Baknert, Secretary, Wood County PMA Committee. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Quitman, Tex., April 10, 1950. Hon. Ltnpiry BECK WORTH, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. Dear CONGRESSMAN: This is in reference to your letter of April 5, 1960, to the county committee. (1) The number of farmers receiving 5 acres of cotton or less was 1,248. (2) The number of new producers of that applied for allotments were 340. (3) The acreage that was available to distribute among the new producers was 800. (4) Each producer re- ceived from 1 to 1.1 acres. (6) The number of zero allotments were 10. (6) The percent of new producers regarded as genuine farmers was 88 percent (300) applications, The number applications left from item 2 less item 5, less item 6, consisted of 20 ap- plications that did not meet the necessary eligibility requirements. Tf you desire further information, please advise. Yours very truly, Roy E. Barnett, Secretary, Wood County PMA. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Stillwater, Okla., June 23, 1950. Hon. LINDLEY Beckwortx, Member of Congress, Washington, D.C, Dear CONGRESSMAN BeckwortH: Attached is a list, by counties, of the number of 1950 Peanut acreage allotments in Oklahoma. We do not know the exact number of pea- nut producers in each county; however, the attached list of allotments will represent ap- proximately the number of producers in each county. This information is being submitted in compliance with your communication of June 9, 1950. Very truly yours, CHarLes T, CaMERON, Chairman, Oklahoma State PMA Committee, Number of 1950 peanut allotments in Oklahoma JULY 31 Logan... 2... eee eee 81 Love... 20 eee ene eo enn enn ene 627 McClain. ...0.-..----- nee nn ene ene 278 McCurtain... 878 McIntosh... Pittsburg......--.-----.------------- 933 Pontotoc... wn nnn ee eee ene eee - 694 Pottawatomie......-....------------ 993 Pushmataha.......----..----------- 328 Seminole... one ee ene 1, 483 Stephens_.._.-....--...----------- = 7168 Tulsa... ene 38 Wagoner.....--.---- n-ne e ene 11 Washita......----------.----------. 101 2 0) ¢:) 24,237 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Richmond, Va., June 12, 1950. Hon, Linptey Beckwortu, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. BeckwortH: This will acknowl- edge recoipt of the return of our letter of June 8 with attachment of summary of 1950 peanut acreage allotments for Virginia. We note that at the bottom of this letter you have requested that we give you county-by- county the number of producers in each county. For your information, under the 1950 al- lotment regulations, all farms on which pea- nuts were produced in any year of the 3- year period 1947, 1948, and 1049, are eligible for allotments and should have been issued allotments. In addition, the instructions provided for issuing “new farm” allotments to certain farms on which peanuts will be produced in 1950 but on which poanuts were not produced in the past 3 years. There- fore, allotments have been issued to all farms producing peanuts in each county and the number of producers should be identical with the number of allotments shown in our tab- ulation. It is, of course, true that on many farms tenants are involved who might be considered peanut producers and the num- ber of allotments as shown in our tabulation would include only one producer for each farm. However, all our contacts are with the farm operators and we have no record of the number of tenants involved on various farms on which peanut allotments have been issued. As requested, we are returning herewith your letter and the attached tabulation of 1950 peanut allotments. Yours very truly, R. B. Brmorortrn, Chairman, Virginia PMA State Committee. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Richmond, Va., June 8, 1950, Hon. Linpiey Becxwortn, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. BeckwortH: This will acknowl- edge your letter of May 29, 1950, requesting
1950 certain information on peanuts produced in Virginia. I regret the delay in replying to your letter, which was occasioned by my ab- sence from the city. For your information I am enclosing a tabulation showing by counties the number of peanut allotments established and the acreage allotted for 1950. The remaining information requested by you would require a great amount of time and clerical help in making a compilation, and because of the pressure of other work in our office at this time, I do not believe we will be in @ position to furnish the other in- formation until a later date. As soon as our work will permit us to gath- er this information, we will be glad to fur- nisb it to you. Very truly yours, R. B. Brrocrortn, Chairma.z, Virginia PMA State Committee, Enclosure. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Summary of 1950 peanut acreage ellot- ments—Virginia Dinwiddie, ... Elizabeth City. QGreensville_... 4 Gloucester. . 12.3 Isle of Wight. 21, 224. 0 James City __.. 82 4 King and Quee 11.1 Lamnenburg.. 188 Mecklenburg 262. 2 Middlesex. 15.3 Nansetnon 20, 086 5 New Kent 815 Norfolk... 340 7 Nottoway_.... 5. Prince George. 5, 413.5 Princess Anne. 15 Southampton. ®), 575.4 Surry _...... - 11, 216 3 BUBSCX . eee ee nee ne eee ene eee 20, 045. 5 State totala......2-....-.- 140, 300. 7 11427 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PaoDvucTIoNn 4ND MaRKETING ADMINISTRATION, Stillwater, Okla., July 19, 1950. Hon. Lrnpiry Beck worn, Member of Congress, Washington, D.C. Dear CoNGRESSMAN BecKwortH: Enclosed is a tabulation showing, by counties, the 1950 peanut acreage data which you have request- ed from each of the peanut counties in Okla- homa. This data is being sudmitted in compliance with your request in our recent telephone conversation, The data in columns 2, 5, and 6 are neces~- sarily based on estimates. Where dashea ap- pear in these columns, we were unable to secure an estimate from the county commit- tee. We hope that the enclosed tabulation will serve your purpose and that you will call on us for any additional information which you think will be helpful, Very truly yours, Caries T. Camunon, Chatrman, Oklahoma State PMA Committee, Smnileat’ | Number of j Number of Number of | Number of Average Number of | _ &¢reaee producers | producers | producers im { producers producers of “new a peanut which can with allot: one ' column 4 who will ho at plied Frower” IR .€ Brown mest. Joss men cease to for allotment trict County prodacers | cconomi- | than that in| under farm for |"‘new grower} ®otment per cally column 2 2ncres [grow peavuts| thomaclves j allotment producer @) @) 2 2 CC REE | 0 85 7 6 48 eoeee| ~yarrmenETe ee ] Dewey_---- Q 6 Woashita.....-- 22-2. ------- one eee eee e enone 0 6 Total district 50 [| ee | eee TO 6 | Canadian 4“ 50. 0 Creok. 2... 120 2.8 Grady_. 80 24 Lincoln 61 3.0 Tegan... 2 0 MeCini 38 6.5 Okfuske 122 6 Oklahoma, 20 8.0 Payne. a 30 Seminolo...-.cccssscccccsseseeeceeeeeeeeene-{ 479f 0 BY BBD a PG 133 58 7304 860 Jew. CESS SS 6 Haskell ween ee ne cee n eae cron ew en nmr ncaa seen enone a 4 H ughes......--- . Melntosh...... 62 1.8 Muskogec.... 80 3.7 Okmulgee... 105 2.0 Pittsburg. .....-.--.------- 205 4.8 Total district 803) 826 je evnasmmasercaa Semassesaveas 7 275 1.6 19 1.5 0 0 a 40 BIBf BT fee 8 108 67 2.8 207 281 5.0 40 a2 4.0 61 22 30 1” 26 5.5 31 8 8.0 1 50 2.5 17 4 44 18 72 103 & 0 0 «0 30 7.0 54 49 4.9 664 20 os Pn
11428 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 1950 peanut data—Oklahoma—Continued JULY 31 Smallest | Number of | Number of} Number of | Number of | Number of Average Number of | _8¢Teaee producers | producers | producers in | producors producers of “new peanut which can | with ailot- we t column ¢ who will who applied wer crower Dis- grown ment less | allotmen who w cease lor allotmen trict County producers | cconomi- | than that in er cense to farm for {new grower”| 4llotment per cally column 2 2acros |grow peanuts| themselves | allotment producer (5) (9) 9 | Choctaw. 3.0 Latimer. . 0 Le Flore... 3.3 McCurtain... 3.0 Pushmataha........sccecnnsceecceserveennerees| BAP BE A Bf 2 Jee eee 4.0 Total district DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Propuction AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Nashville, Tenn., June 13, 1950. Hon. LINDLEY BECKWORTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear ConcressMAN BECKWORTH: In reply to your letter of May 29 requesting informa- tion in regard to peanut production in this State, we are enclosing a tabulation which will furnish you with most of the informa- tion you desire from the questions which you have asked in your letter. In regard to your question as to what is the least number of acres a producer can afford to grow or economically grow, this is a question which 1s very difficult to answer in this State for there are so many variable factors involved, such as the size of the farm, other crops and livestock on the farms, and since peanut production in this State is a minor crop. We do not have very many farmers that depend solely upon peanuts for a living for himself and family. The number of peanut allotments of less than 2 acres established in this State is 277. The number that will cease to grow less than 2 acres is estimated at 50. The number that will cease to farm for themselves is estimated at none. We have in this State a number of farms which produce less than 1 acre of pea- nuts and these farms do not have an allot- ment established for them, under the present regulations for peanuts. Trusting this is the information you desire and assuring you that it has been a pleasure to have served you tn this instance, I am Very truly yours, Cart Fry, Chairman, State PMA Committee. 1950 peanut allotments o 3 hd 2. |Number 8 3 be g2\——| 84 |2a| 2 2s\,]¢| ab lag S38 County and code | ag 8 a as ~8 E S| Go |Gs| 5 44/4 es |g] aa pe & ie) o 18 |e] & 5 ° BH 1O|zia Je ja 93} 84] 9) 8160) 4.6) 521.5 8} 7] (1) 182) 64) 18.6 6) 8} «1 683.0) .6F 633.6 1} 1 0 -510 7) 87) 79) «8 4436.5) 6.8) 443.3 10} 10) O] 10.5) 0 10.5 2) 2) «#+O} «(16,51 0 16.5 5} 3 3.2) .7 3.9 7 60} (384.1) 0 34.1 BA] 62) 3] 100.7] .0) 101.6 63-43. Humphreys.| 367) 332) 35/1, 602. 7/20. 3/1, 623. 0 63-050, Lawrence....} 22} 38} 4) 20.3)2.8) 321 63-051. Lewis......-. 183) 180; 3} 205.5] 1.4) 266.9 63-057, Madison..... yy 0 6.410 6.4 68-068. Perry........ 195] 173] 22) 939.4] 3.6) 043.0 @3-031. Stewart... 2) 0 2.3) 0 2.3 68-01. Wayne. $2) 30; 2) «71.7; 3 2) 75.0 Qiles.... Lo. yl 3.7) 0 3.7 Hardeman.. 44 1) 3} 13.8)3.8) 17.1 Total...... 1,020; 938] 01/4, 104. 9/48. 6/4, 163. 5 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Paris, Tez., May 29, 1950. Hon, LINDLEY BECKWORTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Sir: In complying with your letter of May 16, 1950, please find below the infor- mation you were seeking. Number of peanut producers in Lamar County: 393. What is the least number of acres he can afford to grow or economically grow: 1 acre. Number of producers in county that re- ceived less allotment than mentioned in above question: None. How many peanut producers received al- lotments of less than two acres: 80, Of the number of peanut farmers receiving allotments of less than two acres, how many will cease to grow peanuts: None. Approximately how many will cease to farm for themselves: None. How many new producers applied for pea- nut acreage in your county this year, 1950: 24. How many acres did you have to distribute to them: 78 acres. Approximately how much did each receive: 1.5 acres. Very truly yours, Roy P. Mason, Secretary, Lamar County PMA. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Cross City, Fla., May 31, 1950. Hon, LINDLEY BECK WoRTH, Congressman, Third Congressional District of Texas, Washington, D.C. Dear CONGRESSMAN: Reference is made to your letter of May 12 relative to peanut pro- ducers in Dixie County, Florida. Dixie County is primarily a livestock county and most of the farmers produce peanuts for hog feed. However, we do have some 20 farmers who grow peanuts for digging. Of these 18 have less than two acres allotment. It is the general thinking of the average farmer that they cannot economically dig and pick less than 5 acres, Of the number of farmers having less than two acres allotments none will cease growing peanuts but about 75 per- cent of them will not dig. We had no new producers applying for acreage this year but the reason for this was that when told the probable size of new grower allotments those that were interested decided that it would not be worth the trouble of filling out the forms. Trusting that this is the information that you desire, I am, Very truly yours, CuaRENCE L. DICKINSON, County Agent, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Fairfield, Tez., June 6, 1950. Congressman LINDLEY BECK WORTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DeaR CONGRESSMAN BECKWORTH: Appre- elate receiving your recent letter regarding peanut producers in our county; however, at the present time we are so busy with measuring peanut and cotton crops, that we do not have a clerk available to secure the necessary information you requested. Yours very truly, Norman H. Lampert, Secretary, Freestone County PMA. Strate or New MExIco, Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, N. Mez., June 8, 1950. Mr. LINDLEY BecKworTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Sir: Reference is made to your letter of May 26 relative to the number of acres of peanuts required to support a family. It is my opinion that in the section of east- ern New Mexico where peanuts are raised successfully that from 5 to 7 acres of peanuts in good irrigated land is sufficient to support a family nicely. Yours very truly, E.uiotr 8. BARKER, State Game Warden, NortH CaROLina, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Raleigh, June 7, 1950. Hon, Linpitey Beck worrtnH, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. Dean CoNGRESSMAN BeckworTH: In reply to your letter of May 26, 1950, this is to inform you that the number of acres that e family of a man, wife, and three or four children need for a primary money crop is from 8 to 10 acres of Virginia-type peanuts. I mention the Virginia-type peanuts as this ig the only variety grown on a commercial scale in this State. The above estimate of acres is based on a yearly average of from 1,000 to 1,100 pounds per acre, and also on the basis of the present support price. Very truly yours, L. Y. BALLENTINE, Commissioner, DEPARTMENT or AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, De Ridder, La., June 1, 1950. Dear Sir: Please find enclosure for your attention. Yours very truly, T. SHELBY Oakzs, Parish Administrative Officer, County Committee of Beauregard County.
1950 21. Cotton producers in Beauregard Partah......-2.-...-----------.. 307 2. Farmers receiving 5 acres or less of cotton.....2 02 ee 272 8. New producers applied for acreage... 150 4. Acreage to distribute emong new producers... nce e ewww n nen 418 6. Acreage each received............. 2-3.4 6. Farmers receiving zero acreage..._. 13 7. Percent of new producers regarded as genuine farmers... ...-.-..--- 90 8. a. Acreage the new cotton amend- ment helped new producers_. b. Old ones_...-.---------------- 9. Number of producers recetving less than 5 acres that will probably grow no cotton....-..... wnwnnne 15 10. Number of farmers that will cease to farm for themselves......... ..... DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, De Ridder, La., May 22, 1950. Mr. Lrnviey BECKWORTH, Washington, D. C. Dear CONGRESSMAN BECKWORTH: In refer- ence to your letter of May 18, 1960, listed be- low is a tabulation to your questionnaire. Thank you for your interest in peanut and cotton farmers. Very truly yours, v. SHELBY OAKES, Administrative Officer, Beauregard Parish Production and Marketing Admintstration. Peanuts, 1950 None None Number of peanut producers....--..--. 67 Number of peanut acres he can economi- cally grow--...-....---------------- 6 Number of producers received allotment less than 6 acres....-----.-----~----- 60 Number of producers received allotment less than 2 acres....--.-.--.-------- 47 Number of producers received less than 2 acres that will cease to grow pea- Ot 25 Number of producers that will ‘cease to farm for themselves.......-..-.---- oon Number of new producers applied for al- lotment in 1950......-..---. How many acres did you have to distrib- Approximately how much did they re- ceive (all 3) ..--.-----~----. owen nee ne 5.9 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ANMINISTRATION, Troy, N. C., May 26, 1950. Mr. Linptry BECKWORTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. BeckworktH: Questions requested in letter dated May 18, 1950: 1. Number of peanut producers: 1. 3. Least number of acres he could econom- toatiy grow: 16. 8. Producers that received allotments less than 16: None. 4. Producers that received allotments less than 2: None. 5. Number of peanut farmers to receive allotments less than 2: None. 6. How many will cease to grow peanuts: None. 7, Approximately how many will cease to farm for themselves: None. 8. How many new producers applied for peanut acreage this year: None. 9. How many acres did you have to dis- tribute to them: None. 10. How much did each receive: None. Very truly yours, Davy McALIsres, Sccretary, Montgomery County PMA. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Propucrion any Marketing ADMINISTRATION, Junction, Tez., May 24, 1950. Hon. Lowrey Beckworts, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dean HONORABLE BecKwortm: In reply to your letter of May 18, 1950, please find the following information: 1, Number of peanut producers in your county: 10. 2. Least number of acres of peanuts farm- ers and producers can afford to grow or grow economically: 15. 3. Number of producers in your county re- ceiving allotments less than the number of acres we mentioned in answer to the im- mediate previous question: 1. 4. How many of your peanut producers re- ceived allotments of less than 2 acres: 1. 5. Of the number of peanut farmers re- cetving allotments of less than 2 acres, how many will cease to grow peanuts: 1. 6. Approximately how many will cease to farm for themselves: 1. 7. How many new producers applied for Peanut acreage in your county this year, 1950: “8. How many acres did you have to dlis- tribute to them: 4.8. 9. Approximately how much did each re- celve: 2.4. Yours very truly, Mivprep M. SNEAD, Secretary, Kimble County PMA Committee. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Jackson, Tez., June 7, 1950. Mr. Linney Beck worth, Congressman, Third District, Texas, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. BeckwortH: In answer to your letter relative to peanut allotments in Jack County. We believe the least acreage allotment to the farmer should be not less than 10 acres since special equipment is needed in harvest- ing the crop. We have only six old growers who have an allotment of less than 2 acres which I believe was caused by not planting their allotment and maintaining their history. Jack County had 15 applications for new- grower peanut allotments for 1950. I believe the law limits the State to 1 percent of the Btate allotment for new growers. Due to heavy work tn the county this year the State office asked that we send the new-grower applications to them to figure. The 16 were allotted 14.3 acres but not many will plant their allotment of less than 1 acre. We had so many in 1949 that didn’t plant their allotment that we sent cards to all of our peanut growers asking that they return the card stating if they would or would not plant their 1950 peanut allotment. Then if they said they would not plant their allot- ment the county committee took all the allotment they were permitted to and dis- tributed it to other growers. We are more of a livestock county than farming but we do have 648 allotment farms: Wheat, cotton, and peanuts. We do appreciate your interest {n the small farmer who must be cared for in the market- ing-quota program because there are chil- dren to be fed, clothed, and sent to school besides some soll- and water-conservation work to do, Everyone should feel their responstbility on goil and water conservation since it affects everyone. Very respectfully, Wiutam E. Yows11, Administrative Officer, Jack County PMA. 11429 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Dade City, Fla., May 29, 1950. Hon. LinpLey BeckworrH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear ConcarssMAN BeckwortH: Your let- ter of May 12, regarding peanut producers in this county, is hereby acknowledged. Please be advised that we have only two peanut allotments in this county, with both receiving allotments in excess of 2 acres. These two allotments are 17.4 acres and 2.4 acres, respectively. They were not affected by the new regulations. Very truly yours, Caay P, Dean, Administrative Officer, Pasco County PMA Committee. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Saluda, Va., June 1, 1950. Hon, Linptey Beck wortH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. BecxwortH: With reference to your inquiry of peanut producers in Middle- sex County, we wish to advise that there are only two peanut growers in our county. One of these farmers maintains an allotment of approximately 10 acres, which is the least acres that the producer can afford to grow economically. The other producer now has an allotment of 2.7 acres, which we do not believe justifies him to grow peanuts. There were no producers applying for new peanut allotments this year. These farmers farm for themselves and we believe they will continue to do so. This we hope will give you the desired information, since we are not a peanut-producing county. Yours very truly, Frorence G. WiLLaForp, Secretary, Middlesex PMA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Conway, 8. C., May 29, 1950, Mr. Linrtey BeckworruH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dean Mr. BeckwortH: With reference to your letter of May 17, 1950, the following information from Horry County, 8. C., is supplied herewith: 1. The average farmer in this county feels that the least number of acres of peanuts that he can afford to economically grow would be 2.5 acres. 2. There are 339 peanut producers with allotments in Horry County. Of this number 287 have allotments less than 2.5 acres. 8. 279 farmers in this county have received allotments of less than 2 acres. 4. It is not believed that any producer who ia interested in peanut production would cease to grow peanuts this year because his allotment is less than 2 acres. 5, Bince this is primarily a flue-cured tobacco county, no farmer will cease to farm for himself because of his small acreage of peanuts. 6. There were not applicants for new grower peanut allotments in this county for this year, the reason being that there is hard’, any probability of a person receiving over a l-acre allotment. Yours very truly, Bren N. Kre, County Administrative Officer.
11430 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Henrietta, Tez., June 1, 1950. Lrnptey BEcKWworTH, Washington, D.C. gar Mr. BEcKworRTH: There are 42 peanut producers in Clay County. About 3 acres 1s the leust number of acres a farmer can afford to grow. There were 13 producers in this county that received allotments of less than the 3 acres mentioned above. There were 6 producers that received allotments of less than 2 acres. Peanut farmers receiving allotments of less than 2 acres, will cease to grow peanuts commercially but will grow some for home use. None will cease to farm for themselves. There were 13 new pro- ducers that applied for peanut acreage in Clay County in 1950. New grower reserves were retained in the Statc office. All new growers received a total of 13.4 acres, Yours truly, _ Ermon "). WILLIAMS, Secretary, Clay County PMA. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Burgaw, N. C., May 26, 1950. Hon. Linptey Beckworru, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear HONORABLE BEcKworTH: This is in re- ply to your letter of May 18, 1950. The fol- lowing is a list of the questions and an- swers requested in your letter: 1, The number of peanut producers in Pender County: 335. 2. Number of acres of peanuts a producer can grow economically: 5. 8. Number of allotments less than 5 acres in county: 185, 4. Number of allotments in county less than 2 acres: 56. 5. Number of allotments in county less than 2 acres which will not be planted: None. 6. Approximately how many will cease to farm for themselves: None, 7. Number of producers who applied for new allotments in Pender County in 1950: 11. 8. How many acres did we have to dis- tribute to them? We did not have any acre- age to distribute to them as the distribution of acreage is done in Raleigh for new growers. 9. How many acres did the new growers receive in Pender County: 3. Very truly yours, T. W. Garriss, Secretary, Pender County PMA. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Lampasas, Tex., May 27, 1950. Mr. LinpLey BeckwortTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. BecKkwortH: In answer to your letter of May 13, 1950, we give the following information. There are 24 peanut producers in Lampasas County, and 20 acres is the least number of acres that he can afford to grow or econom- ically grow. Twelve producers in our county received allotments less than the number of acres mentioned above, There were no pro- ducers who received less than 2 acres. One new producer applied for peanut acreage in our county this year, 1950. We had 4.5 acres to distribute to them. Hach one received 4.5 acres since there was only one new pro- ducer, Yours truly, WiLiiaM W. WILSON, Secretary, Lampasas County PMA, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Burnet, Tez., May 29, 1950. To: Hon. Linpiey Beck worrH, House of Rep- resentatives, Washington, D. C. From: Raby A. Alford, secretary, Burnet County PMA. Subject: Information requested in letter of May 13, 1950. Information as requested is listed below: What is the least number of acres average peanut producer can afford to grow: 5. How many producers received allotments less than acreage mentioned above: 7. How many of your peanut farmers re- ceived allotments of less than 2 acres: 2. How many of this number (receiving allot- ments of less than 2 acres) will cease to grow peanuts: 2. How many will cease to farm for them- selves: None. How many new producers applied for pea- nut acreage in 1960: 2. How many acres did you distribute to them: 4.7. Approximately how much did each re- ceive: 1.6 and 3.2. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. BeckwortTH] has expired. Mr. COOLEY. I would like to observe that this amendment is objectionable just as the other amendments offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. BEcK- worRTH] have been objectionable, and I urge defeat of the pending amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas |[Mr. Beckworru]. The amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any fur- ther amendments to section 9? Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Pace: Page 20, after line 5, insert a new section 11 reading as follows: “sxc. 11. The first sentence of section 363 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, is amended to read as follows: ‘Any farmer who is dissatisfied with his farm marketing quota may, within 15 days after mailing to him of notice as provided in sec- tion 362, have such quota reviewed by a local review committee composed of three farmers from the same or nearby counties appointed by the Secretary.’” Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment relates to the appointment of review committees. It is simply a clarifying amendment. Mr. PHILLIPS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PACE. I yield. Mr. PHILLIPS of California. What is the use of review if the bill has already limited him to the amount of increase to which he may be entitled? What is the purpose of this review? Mr. PACE. In most every case, if a cotton grower is dissatisfied with his cot- ton allotment, he can file an application with a review committee. That is the general law. This amendment simply clarifies the appointment of those com- mittees. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Pacer]. The amendment was agreed to. JULY 381 The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule the Committee will rise. Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. Rooney, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 9109) to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended; the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allot- ment Act; Public Law 74, Seventy- seventh Congress; the Agricultural Act of 1949; and for other purposes, pur- suant to House Resolution 728, he re- ported the same back to the House with sundry amendments adopted in Com- mittee of the Whole. The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered. Is a sepa- rate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will put them in gross. The amendments were agreed to. The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time. Mr. BRAMBLETT. Mr. Speaker, I of- fer a motion to recommit, The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op- posed to the bill? Mr. BRAMBLETT. I am, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. The gentleman qual- ifies, The Clerk will report the motion. The Clerk read as follows: Mr. BRAMBLETT moves to recommit the bill H. R. 91098 to the Committee on Agriculture, with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith, with the following amendment: On page 1, strike out line 3, and all that follows down through line 6 on page 2, and insert in lieu thereof: “That sec- tion 344 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act” and renumber the following sections ac- cordingly. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to recommit, Mr, BRAMBLETT. Mr. Speaker, on that I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were refused. The question was taken; and on a di- vision (demand by Mr. BraMBLETT) there were—ayes 10, noes 70. Mr.BRAMBLETT. Mr. Speaker, I ob- ject to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not pres- ent. The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant-at-Arms will notify ab- sent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll. The question was taken, and there were—yeas 120, nays 179, not voting 131, as follows: [Roll No. 219] YEAS—120 Addonizio Arends Bennett, Mich. Allen, Calif, Auchincloss Bentsen Allen, Tl. Baring Biemiller Angell Bates, Mass, Bishop
Harden Havenner Herter Heselton Hoffman, Mich. Abbitt Abernethy Albert Andersen, H. Carl Andresen, August H. Andrews Aspinall Barden Bates, Ky. Battle Beckworth Bennett, Fla. Blatnik Bolling Bolton, Md. Bonner Bosone Boykin Brooks Brown, Ga. Bryson Buchanan Buckley, Ill Buckley, N. ¥, Burdick Burleson Burton Byrne, N. ¥. Cannon Carlyle Ca Horan Jackson, Calif. Jackson, Wash. Javits Jenison Jenkins Jensen Judd Keating Kilburn Kunkel LeFevre Lovre McConnell McCulloch McDonough McGrath McKinnon Mack, Wash. Meyer Michener Miller, Calif. Miller, Md. Mitchell Multer Murdock Nicholson Nixon O'Here, Minn. O’Konskt NAYS—179 Feighan Fernandez Fisher Flood Fugate Garmata Gary Gathings Gossett Granahan Grant Green Gregory Gross Guill Haray Harrison Hart Hays, Ark. Heffernan Herlong Hill Hobbs Hoeven Holifield Holmes Hope Howell Hull Jacobs Jones, Ala, Jones, Mo. Jones, N.C. Karsten. Kearns Kelly, N. ¥. Kennedy Kerr Kilday King Kirwan Eruse Lanham Larcade LeCompte Lin d Linehan Lucas McG McMillan, 8. C. McSweeney Mack, Tl. Magee Marcantonio Marsalis Marshall Martin, Iowa, Miles CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Patten Phillipe, Calif. Potter Poulson Reed, Ill. Reed, N. ¥. Ribicoff Rich Riehiman Rodino Rogers, Mase. Saylor Scott, Hugh D., Jr. Scrivner Scudder Secrest Shafer Shelley Short Smith, Wis, Stockman Taber Tauriello Tollefson Van Zandt Velde Vorys Wagner Weichel Werdel White, Calif. Wickersham Wigglesworth Wolcott Wolverton Mills Monroney Morris Noland O’Brien, Til. O'Hara, I, O'Sullivan O'Toole Pace Passman Patman Peterson Philbin Pickett Poage Polk Preston Price Rabaut Rains Rankin XOT VOTING—131 Allen, Le. Hand Patterson Anderson, Calif, Hare Perkins Batley Harris Pfeifer, Barrett, Pa. Harvey Joseph L. Barrett, Wyo. Beye. Ohio Pfeiffer, Beall Hébert Willlam L. Blackney Hedrick Phillips, Tenn. Boggs, La. Heller Plumley Bolton, Ohio Hinshaw Powell Breen Hoffman, 01. Priest Brehm Huber Quinn Bulwinkle Irving Ramsay Burke James Redden Burnside Jennings Rees Camp Johnson Robeson Carnahan Jonas Sabath Case, N.J. Karst Sadlak Chiperfield Kean Badowski Christopher Kearney 8t. George Cooper Kee Sanborn Coudert Keefe Scott, Hardle Davenport Kelley, Pa. Sheppard Davis,Tenn. Keogh Simpson, Pa. Dawson Klein Smith, Kans. Dingell Lane Smith, Ohio Dolliver Latham Staggers Eaton Lichtenwalter Stanley Eberharter Lodge Sutton Elston McCarthy Taylor Engel, Mich. McGregor Towe Evins McMillen, Tl. Underwood Fenton Miller, Nebr. Vinson Fogarty Morgan Vursell Forand Morrison Wadeworth Prasier Morton Welch Furcolo Moulder Whitaker Gavin Murphy White, Idaho Gillette Murray, Tenn. Widnall Gilmer Murray, Wis. Willis Golden Nelson Winstead Gordon Norblad Woodhouse Gore Norrell Woodruff Granger Norton Young ‘ O'Brien, Mich. Zablocki Edwin Arthur O'Neill So the motion to recommit was rejected. The Clerk announced the following pairs: In this vote: Mr. Coudert for, with Mr. Stanley againat. Mr. Hand for, with Mr. Boggs of Louisiana against. Mr. Towe for, with Mr. Miller of Nebraska against. Mr. Case of New Jersey for, with Mr. Evins against. Mr. Kean for, with Mr. Davis of Tennessee against, Mr. Widnall for, with Mr. Golden against. Mr, William L. Pfeiffer for, with Mr, Stag- gers against. Mr. Gavin for, with Mr. Carnahan against, Mr. Eaton for, with Mr. Hedrick against. Mr. Lichtenwalter for, with Mre. Wood- house against. Mr. Latham for, with Mr. Keogh against. Mrs. St. George for, with Mr, Winstead against. Mr. Hardie Scott for, with Mr. Hébert against. Mr, Simpson of Pennsylvania for, with Mr. Joseph L, Pfeifer against. Mr. Taylor for, with Mr. Priest against. Mr. James for, with Mr. Whitaker against. Mr. Kearney for, with Mr. Murphy against. Mr, Fenton for, with Mr. Klein against. Mr. Plumley for, with Mr. Morrison against. Mr. Smith of Ohio for, with Mr. Heller against. Mr. Sheppard for, with Mr. Cooper against, Mr, Anderson of California’for, with Mr. Young against. Mr. Gillette for, with Mr. Willis against. Mr, Hinshew for, with Mr. Gilmer against. Mr. Pogarty for, with Mr. Franier against. Mr, Elston for, with Mr. Burke against, Mr. Johnson for, with Mr. Karst against. Mr. Patterson for, with Mr. Perking against, Mr. Sadlak for, with Mr. Redden against. 11431 General pairs until further notice: Mr, Eberharter with Mr. Beall. Mr. Dingell with Mr. Smith of Kansas. Mr. O’Brien of Michigan with Mr. Wood- ruff, Mr, O'Neill with Mr. Jennings. Mr. Barrett of Pennsylvania with Mr. Hoff- man of Illinois. Mr. Davenport with Mr. Edwin Arthur Hall. Mr. Moulder with Mr, McGregor. Mr. Welch with Mr. Morton. Mr. Vinson with Mr. Murray of Wisconsin, Mr. Harris with Mr. Rees, Mr. Hare with Mr. Wadsworth. Mr. Hays of Ohio with Mr. Vureell, Mr. Gordon with Mr. Phillips of Tennessee. Mr. Zablock! with Mr, Norblad. Mr. White of Idaho with Mr. McMillen of Niinois. Mr. Huber with Mr. Barrett of Wyoming. Mr, Irving with Mr. Chiperfleld, My. Morgan with Mr. Dolliver. Mr. Sadowski with Mr, Engel of Michigan. Mr. Lane with Mr, Brehm. Mr. Murray of Tennessee with Mr. Black- ney. Mr. Forand with Mrs. Bolton of Ohio. Mr. Breen with Mr. Harvey. Messrs. Hats, Bentsen, Manon, Jupp, ANGELL, AUCHINCLOSS, and WOLVERTON changed their votes from “nay” to “yea.” The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. The doors were opened. The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill. Mr. WHITE of California. Mr. Speak- er, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were refused. The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes ap- peared to have it, Mr. WERDEL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. ‘The Chair just counted 297 Members, A quorum is pres- ent. Mr. WERDEL, Mr. Speaker, I ask for @ division, The House divided; and there were— ayes 160, noes 85. So the bill was passed. tatt motion to reconsider was laid on the e, The SPEAKER. Without objection, the Clerk will be authorized to correct section numbers. There was no objection. WHERE ARE WE? WHY? WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, if Good Old Joe’s purpose— President Truman’s characterization—is @ desire to establish communism throughout the world, we are now in world war IIT, a war declared by the United Nations, not by your Congress. Assuming, as we may, that the North Korean Communists’ attack on the Re- public of South Korea was instigated, and is carried on, by order of Stalin, there is reason to believe that he will, when he deems it expedient, bring about similar attacks ih Indochina, Greece, Turkey, Yugoslavia, and in Germany. It is more than probable that these attacks
11432 will be first made, not by Russian sol- diers, but by the troops of Stalin’s satel- lite governments. In Germany, undoubtedly he will use the large, well-trained, well-equipped army which he has created under the guise of establishing a police force in Eastern Germany. That force will be strengthened by the Red armies of coun- tries whose governments Stalin controls. Where are we? Fighting the first battles of world war III. Why are we in world war III? Because, after our armed forces and those of our allies had beaten Hitler’s armies and our fighting men, without Russia’s help, had beaten Japan, those in authority, not desiring to offend Stalin, ordered our soldiers to stay out of Berlin and Eastern Germany; gave to Russia jurisdiction over a large part of China; authority over several hundred million people in Asia. Because of the fears of France and Britain, we adopted the Mor- genthau plan, which prevented the Ger- man people from becoming self-sustain- ing, rebuilding their nation as a barrier against Russian aggression; gave Russia part of Berlin, control over eastern Ger- many and the opportunity to establish communism there and in the adjoining countries. We aided Russia in taking Manchuria, establishing there a Com- munist army of around a million men. It now threatens Korea. Our contributions of dollars and ma- terial and our concessions to, and ap- peasement of, Joe Stalin made him so powerful that now he has brought on world war III and actually threatens our national security, either through direct armed force, or by entrapment into wars on so world-wide a front as to exhaust us. The program of the internationalists may result in the end of our Republic, the enslavement of our pepole; the im- position upon us of the obligation to fur- nish the armies and the munitions nec- essary to carry on from generation to generation wars which they deem expe- dient, either for world peace or for the fulfillment of their own plans or am- bitions. Where do we go from here? That question cannot be answered by anyone until we know what the admin- istration, that is, Mr. Truman, intends to do, Secretary of State Acheson, who has been so friendly to, so afraid of offending, Stalin, while stating that, for our own security, we must and would “maintain armed forces in Japan, Okinawa, and the Philippines,” said on January 12, 1950, that it would be “a foolish adventure” to attempt to defend Formosa. He made it absolutely clear to the Rus- sions that, so far as he was concerned— and presumably he was outlining our foreign policy—we would defend neither Formosa nor Korea, When, on May 5, 1950, Senator Con- NALLY, chairman of the Senate Commit- tee on Foreign Relations, was asked whether we were seriously considering abandoning South Korea, he said, “I am CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE afraid it is going to happen, whether we want it or not,” and he added that Ko- rea was not “greatly important.” Yet, when the Communists of North Korea, reinforced and directed by the Russian Communists who came to power in Manchuria under a policy established by Acheson and others, invaded South Korea, Mr. Truman, without consulting Congress, at the request of the Security Council of the United Nations, without authority declared war. Mr. Truman had no such power, On October 29, 1945, Dean Acheson asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the President be given a free hand in ordering the use of our troops when- ever United Nations Security Council so voted. But the Senate rejected the pro- posal, Public Law 264, which was approved December 20, 1945, expressly provided that, before placing any troops at the dis- posal of United Nations, the President must obtain the approval of Congress. The only modification of that law was the amendment of October 10, 1949, which authorized the President to assign no more than 1,000 Americans to United Nations to serve strictly in a “non-com- batant capacity.” Nor can Mr. Truman justify his ac- tions under the North Atlantic Treaty. Article 5 reads: The parties agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered as an at- tack against them all. Korea is in neither, How can anyone stand behind a Pres- ident, as we are being asked to do, when we do not know from day to day where he stands nor what he intends to do next? As your Congressman here in Wash- ington, the only things that I know the President is certain about is that he wants more money to carry on the war effort—and that he will get; he wants additional billions for his socialization program, more power to use arbitranly for his own and his party’s political ad- vancement. Oh yes; one thing more he wants—a subservient “rubber stamp” Congress. Mr. Truman is in clear over his head. The Congress, particularly the Senate, should take him in hand, outline a for- eign and a domestic policy which has as its objective the welfare of this coun- try; then, regardless of the advice of the Achesons, see that the administration adheres to that policy. Where do we go from here? Like many others who will not admit it, I know little, if anything, about military science or world affairs, But is it permis- sible to inquire whether, instead of car- rying on, for 5 or 10 or more years, a war all over the world and by so doing com- pletely exhaust ourselves, destroying our ability to defend ourselves here at home, assuming that Joe Stalin and the Com- munists intend to destroy us and world celvilization—if our air offensive is what we have been told it is; if the atomic bomb is as powerful as we have been JULY 31 led to believe, we should not, without delay, use both on Stalin, in Russia, where it will hurt the most, and bring peace? Cruel and murderous, do I hear you say? Yes. But when was war anything but just that? How many times have we been told by those in authority that Stalin intends to bomb us when he has the ability? Why sit around, waiting for him to destroy us? Would you rather have our wounded, with their hands tied behind them, when captured, shot? Would you rather have your boys pris- oners of war, made the slaves of bar- barous Korean, Chinese, or Russian Communists in Siberia? War is hell. I have done my best to keep our Nation out of it, but the more decisively and the sooner it is ended, the quicker will peace come to us and to the world. GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to extend their remarks on the bill just passed. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? There was no objection. ESTABLISHMENT OF ASYSTEM OF PRIOR- ITIES, ALLOCATIONS, AND REQUISITION OF MATERIALS AND FACILITIES Mr, LYLE, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 740, Rept. No. 2763), which was referred to the House Calen- dar and ordered to be printed: Resolved, That immediately upon the adop- tion of this resolution it shal] be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R 9176) to establish a system of priorities and allocations for matertals and facilities, authorize the requisitioning thereof, provide financial assistance for ex- pansion of productive capacity and supply, strengthen controls over credit, regulate speculation on commodity exchanges, and by these measures facilitate the production of goods and services necessary for the national security, and for other purposes, and all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 day, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Bank- ing and Currency, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 56-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any point of order the sub- stitute committee amendment recommended by the Committee on Banking and Currency now in the bill, and such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be con- sidered under the 5-minute rule as an original bill. At the conclusion of such con- sideration the Committee shall rise and re- port the bill to the Houge with such amend- ments as may have been adopted, and any Member may demand & separate vote in the House on any of the amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the pill or committee substitute. The previous ques- tion shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
1950 without intervening motion except one mo- on to recommit, with or without instruc- ons, AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ACT OF 1949 Mr. MADDEN, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 741, Rept. No. 2764), which was referred to the House Calen- dar and ordered to be printed: Resolved, That immediately upon the adop- tion of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the Btate of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R, 9129) to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, and for other purposes. That after general debate which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Expenditures in the Ex- ecutive Departments, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 65-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments there- to to final passage without intervening mo- tion except one motion to recommit, FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN MAJOR DIS8- ASTERS Mr. DELANEY, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following privi- leged resolution (H. Res. 742, Rept. No. 2765), which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed: Resolved, That immediately upon the adop- tion of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 8396) to authorize Federal assistance to States and local governments in major disasters, and for other purposes. That after general debate which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Public Works, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 65-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the pill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments there- to to final passage without intervening mo- tion except one motion to recommit. FEDERAL AID IN FISH RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PROJECTS Mr. HART. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent for the immediate consid- eration of House Concurrent Resolution 249, relating to the enrollment of H. R. 6533. The Clerk read the concurrent reso- lution, as follows: Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Clerk of the House of Representatives, tn the en- rollment of the bill (H. R.. 6583) to provide that the United States shall ald the States in fish restoration and management projects, and for other purposes, is authorised and directed to strike out paragraph (c) of sec- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE tion 2 and to insert in lieu thereof the fol- lowing: “(c) the formulation and adoption of plans of restocking waters with food and game fishes according to natural ereas or districts to which such plans are applicable, together with the acquisition of such facts Q8 are necessary to the formulation, execu- tion, and testing the efficacy of such plans;", The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the concur- rent resolution? There was no objection. The concurrent resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. ALEXANDER STEWART Mr. WALTER. Myr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H. R. 1991) for the relief of Alexander Stewart, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ments, as follows: Page 1, line 8, after “alien”, insert “which are based upon the same facts upon which such warrants or orders were issued.” Page 1, line 12, after “1947” insert “upon payment of the required visa fee and head tax.” The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. The Senate amendments were con- curred in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. WILLIAM B. BUOL Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H. R. 2225) for the relief of William B. Buol, with a Sen- ate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ment, as follows: Page 2, line 1, after “States”, insert “, upon payment of the required visa fee and head tax.” The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. ' The Senate amendment was concurred in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. JOHN MICHAEL ANCKER RASMUSSEN Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker’s desk the bill (H. R. 3464) to record the lawful admission for perma- nent residence of alien John Michael Ancker Rasmussen, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ment, as follows: Page 1, line 10, after “laws”, insert “upon payment of the required visa fee and head 11433 The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn~ sylvania? Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, who is the recipient of the payment? Mr. WALTER. These are amend- ments made necessary because the fiancées have become brides since the House passed the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. The Senate amendment was con- curred in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. YUK ONN WON Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H. R. 3805) for the relief of Yuk Onn Won, with a Sen- ate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ment, as follows: Line 9, after “alien.” The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. The Senate amendment was con- curred in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. DR. FERDINANDO SCHIAPPA Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker’s desk the bill (H. R. 4188) for the relief of Dr. Ferdinando Schiappa, with a Senate amendment thereto and concur in the Senate amendment, The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ment, as follows: Line 4, after “tax”, insert “and visa fee.” The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. The Senate amendment was concurred “natural-born”, insert: A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. DR. FRANCESCO DRAGO Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker’s desk the bill (H. R. 4806) for the relief of Dr. Francesco Drago, with a Senate amendment thereto, and con- cur in the Senate amendment. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows: Line 4, after “tax”, insert “and visa fee,” The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. The Senate amendment was concurred
11434 A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. MRS. VIRGINIA DALLA ROSA PRATI Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H. R. 5016) for the relief of Mrs, Virginia Dalla Rosa Prati and her minor son, Rolando Dalla Rosa Prati, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ment, as follows: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: “That, for the purposes of the immi- gration and naturalization laws, Mrs. Vir- ginia Dalla Rosa Prati and her minor son, Rolando Dalla Rosa Prati, shall be held and considered to be lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence as of the date of their last entries into the United States upon payment of the required head taxes and visa fees. Upon the enact- ment of this act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper quota-control officer to deduct the required numbers from the ap- propriate quota for the first year that such quota is available.” The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? ‘There was no objection. The Senate amendment was concurred in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. DR. AGOSTINO DeLISI Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H. R. 5566) for the relief of Dr. Agostino DeLisi, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ments, as follows: Line 5, strike out “June 26, 1948” and in- sert “June 27, 1948." Line 7, after “residence”, insert “upon the payment of the required visa fee and head tax.” The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. The Senate amendments were con- curred in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. CHENG SICK YUEN Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H. R. 6066) for the relief of Cheng Sick Yuen, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. ‘The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ment, as follows: Strike out all after the enaeting clause and insert: “That, for the purposes of the immi- gration and naturalization laws, Cheng Sick Yuen, the minor adopted child of Keung Jack Cheng, a citizen of the United States, shall be considered as eligible for admisston to the United States under the provisions of sections 4 (a) and 9 of the Immigration CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Act of 1924, if otherwise admissible under the immigration laws.” The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. There was no objection. The Senate amendment was con- curred it. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. SUN YIP CHIN AND CHUNG LUM Mr WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H. R. 6173) for the relief of Sun Yip Chin and Chung Lum, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ment, as follows: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: “That for the purposes of the immigra- tion and naturalization laws Sun Yip Chin and Chung Lum (Lum Chung), the minor children of Lan Bow Chin and Lee Lum (Lum Lee), respectively, who are citizens of the United States and honorably discharged vet- erans of World War II, shall be deemed to be eligible for admission into the United States under the provisions of sections 4 (a) and 8 of the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended, if otherwise admissible under the immigration laws.” The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. ; The Senate amendment was concurred n. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table, MRS. AIMEE HOYNINGEN-HUENE Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker’s desk the bill (H. R. 6225) for the relief of Mrs. Aimee Hoyningen- Huene, with a Senate amendment there- to, and concur in the Senate amend- ment. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ment, as follows: Page 1, line 7, strike out “1947" and insert “1946.” The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. The Senate s>mendment was concurred A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. JIRINA ZIZKOVSEY Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker’s desk the bill (H. R. 6461) for the relief of Jirina Zizkovsky, with Sen- ate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ments, as follows: Line 7, after “date” inaert “upon the pay- ment of the required head tax and visa fee.” Strike out lines 8, 9, and 10 and insert; “Sec, 2. Upon the enactment of this act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the JULY 31 proper quota-control officer to deduct one number from the appropriate quota for the first year that such quota js available.” The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn-~ sylvania? There was no objection. The Senate amendments were con- curred in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. MRS, DAVID MUNSON OSBORNE Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H. R. 6505) to legalize the entry of Mrs. David Mun- son Osborne (nee Janet Mary Tole), a native of New Zealand, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows: Line 7, after “York”, insert “upon payment of the required head tax and visa fee.” The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. The Senate amendment was concurred ‘A motion to reconsider was laid on the table, RUBY THAW AND HLA SEIN Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker’s desk the bill (H. R. 6758) for the relief of Ruby Thaw and Hla Sein, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ment, as follows: _ Line 8, after “Massachusetts”, insert “, up- on payment of the required visa fees and head taxes.” The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. ' The Senate amendment was concurred n. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. MRS. MASA IYOKI Mr. WALTER. Mr, Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H. R. 7071) for the relief of Mrs. Masa Iyoki, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows: Line 9, after “citizen”, insert “If other= wise admissible under the immigration laws, Mrs. Masa Iyoki shall be held and considered to be a returning resident under the provi- sions of sectign 4 (b) of the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended.” The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn. sylvania? There was no objection. ' The Senate amendment was concurred n,
1950 A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. KAZUKO KAMADA Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H. R. 7228) for the relief of Kazuko Kamada, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ment, as follows: Page 1, strike out all after the enacting clause down to and including “Force:” in line 11 and insert: “That the provisions of the immigration laws relating to exclusion of aliens inadmissible because of race shall not hereafter apply to Kazuko Kama, the Japa- nese fiancée of Sgt. Ralph S. Merithew, and that the said Kazuko Kamada may be eligible for a visa as a nonimmigrant temporary visi- tor for a period of 3 months:”. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. . The Senate amendment was concurred in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table, MARTHA APORTA STRICKLAND Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H. R. 7812) for the relief of Martha Aporta Strickland, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ment, as follows: Page 1, line 9, strike out “(c)" and insert “(e) ad The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. The Senate amendment was con- curred in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. YOSHIKO EMORY Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker’s desk the bill (H. R. 8117) for the relief of Yoshiko Emory, with a Sen- ate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ment, as follows: Line 9, strike out all after “veteran,” down to and including “residence"’ in line 11 and insert: “and that the sald Yoshiko Emory may be eligible for a nonquota immigration visa if she is found otherwise admissible under the immigration laws.” The SPEAKER. Is there objection té the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. The Senate amendment was con- curred in. . A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . DR. ALESANDRO RIZZO Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Speaker’s desk the bill (H. R. 8245) for the relief of Dr. Alesandro Rizzo, with a Senate amendment thereto, and con- cur in the Senate amendment. The Clerk read the title of the bill. ‘The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows: Line 7, after “States”, ineert: “upon the payment of the required head tax and visa ee.” The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. The Senate amendment was con- curred in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. NOAE KAWASHIMA Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker’s desk the bill (H. R. 8440) for the relief of Noae Kawashima, with Sen- ate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ments, as follows: Page 1, line 6, strike out “Noae”’, and insert “Nace.” Page 1, line 7, strike out ‘‘Noae”, and insert “Naoe.” Amend the title so as to read: “An act for the relief of Naoe Kawashima.” The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. The Senate amendments were con- curred in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. TOSHIKO KIKYO AND FRANCIS KIKYO Mr, WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H. R. 8655) for the relief of Toshiko Kikyo and Francis Kikyo, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment, The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ment, as follows: Page 2, strike out lines 15 and 16 and Insert “them as of the date of their last entry into the United States upon payment of the required visa fees and head taxes.” The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentieman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. The Senate amendment was con- curred in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. PERMANENT RESIDENCE TO CERTAIN ALIENS Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker’s desk the resolution (H. Con. Res. 181) favoring the granting of status of permanent residence to certain aliens, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.‘ t The Clerk read the title of the resolu- fon 11485 ‘The Clerk read the Senate amend- ments, as follows: Page 1, after line 9, insert: “ A-6843526, Forostyna, Lidia Maria.” Page 1, after line 9, insert: “A-6159596, Fortunescu, Radu Constan- tine.” Page 1, after line 18, insert: “A-6801070, Gyarfas, John Erving.” Page 1, after line 13, insert: “A-6901767, Hasek, Joseph Karel, Joseph Karel Jisa.” Page 2, after line 3, insert: “A~6935908, Lazlo, Ervin.” Page 2, after line 3, insert: “A-C935909, Lazlo, Mary.” Page 2, after line 4, insert: “A-6372118, Marinescu, Mihail, or Mihal Z. Marinescu.” The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. The Senate amendments were con- curred in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. alias KOREAN LEGISLATION Mr. McGUIRE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Connecticut? There was no objection. Mr. McGUIRE. Mr. Speaker, on be- half of our fighting forces in Korea I have introduced two bills which I hope will be acted upon without delay. Both bills ex- tend the authority of the War Claims Commission to cover our current strug- gle to contain the totalitarian army of North Korea. One bill would authorize the War Claims Commission to award up to $10,000 to the widow, children or parents of a member of our Armed Forces who, as a prisoner of war, was illegally killed by the Government of North Korea. Newspaper reports attest daily to the cruel treatment handed out to our soldiers when they are captured by the North Koreans. While we hope and pray that our enemy will soon subscribe to the rules of warfarc, we must, neverthe- less, do something for our boys and their families under these ruthless practices. The second bill I have introduced will amend the War Claims Act of 1948 by authorizing the Commission to compen- sate prisoners of war held by the North Koreans and any of our soldiers hiding in Korea to avoid capture by the North Koreans. SIGNING OF ENROLLED BILL Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwith- standing the adjournment of the House until tomorrow noon the Speaker be authorized to sign the enrolled bill H. R. 7273, to provide a civil government for Guam, and for other purposes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection, HOUR OF MEETING ON WEDNESDAY Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the
11436 House adjourns tomorrow it adjourn to meet at 11 o’clock on Wednesday next, The SPEAKER, Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection. MRS. EVELYN M. HRYNIAK Mr. BYRNE of New York. Mr. Speak- er, I call up the conference report on the bill (8S. 2655) for the relief of Mrs. Evelyn M. Hryniak, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the man- agers on the part of the House be read in Meu of the report The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. The Clerk read the statement. The conference report and statement are as follows: CONFERENCE Report (H. REPT. No. 2749) The committee of conference on the dils- agreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (8. 2655) for the relief of Mrs. Evelyn M. Hryniak, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed-to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the Senate recede from its disagree- ment to the amendment of the House, and agree to the same with an amendment as fol- lows: In lieu of the sum passed by the House insert $6,250; and the House agree to the same, WrrtiaM T Byrne, Winrretp EK, DENTON, Managers on the Part of the House. Haritry M. Kr.oore, ALEXANDER WILEY, Warren G. Magnuson, Managers on the Part of the Senate. BraTEMENT The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (8. 2655) for the relief of Mrs. Evelyn M Hryniak, submit the following statement in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the conferees and recommended in the accompanying confer- ence report: The bill as passed the Senate appropriated the sum of 87,500 to Mrs. Evelyn M. Hryniak for personal injuries, pain and suffering, permanent disability, and loss of earnings sustained by her and arising out of an acci- dent which occurred at Gudensberg, Ger- many, on October 21, 1948. The bill was re- duced by the House to $5,000 and at the con- ference the sum of €@6,250 was agreed upon. WituiaM T. Byrne, WinrrexwD K. Denton, Managers on the Part of the House, The conference report was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. MRS. GLADYS J, SENYOHL McCARTHY Mr. BYRNE of New York. Mr. Speak- er, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H. R. 2234) for the relief of Mrs. Gladys J. Senyohl McCarthy, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amend- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ments, and ask for a conference with the Senate. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? [After a pause.) The Chair hears none, and appoints the following conferees: Messrs, Byrnr of New York, Denton, and Kearina. LOUIS J. MARX Mr. BYRNE of New York. Mr. Speak- er, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H. R. 4528) to confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear, determine, and render judgment upon the claim of Louis J. Marx, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ment, as follows: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: “That, notwithstanding the provisions of title 28, United States Code, section 2680, jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the United States District Court for the South- ern District of New York to hear, determine, and render judgment upon the claim of Louis J. Marx, New York, N. Y., against the United States on account of personal injuries sustained allegedly as a result of an assault by a soldier in the United States Army. “Src. 2. Notwithstanding any statute of Mmitations or lapse of time, sult upon stich claim may be instituted within any time of 1 year of the enactment of this act. In any such sult brought pursuant to this act pro- ceedings shall be had and the liability, if any, of the United States shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of law ap- plicable in the case of tort claims against the United States (U. 8. C., title 28, sec. 1346 (b)): Provided, however, That nothing in this act does or shall constitute an admission of Mability on the part of the United States.” Amend the title so as to read: “An act con- ferring jurisdiction on the United States Dis- trict Court for the Southern District of New York to hear, determine, and render judg- ment upon the claim of Louis J. Marx.” The SPEAKER, Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. \ The Senate amendment was concurred In. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table, JOHN G. ESSENBERG Mr. BYRNE of New York. Mr. Speak- er, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H. R. 4628) for the relief of John G. Essenberg, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ment, as follows: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: “That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $5,000 to John G. Essenberg, of 436 Aixty-eighth Street, Brooklyn, N. ¥., in full settlement of all claims against the United States arising out of his peraonal injury in an accident, involy- ing a United States Army truck, which oc- curred on the West Side Elevated Highway JULY 31 between Forty-ninth and Fiftieth Streets, New York, N. Y¥., on March 20, 1944: Provided, That no part of the amount appropriated in this act in excess of 10 percent thereof shall be paid or delivered to or received by any agent or attorney on account of services ren- dered in connection with this claim, and the same shell be unlawful, any contract to the contrary notwithstanding. Any person vio- lating the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $1,000.” The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. The Senate amendment was concurred ‘A motion to reconsider.was laid on the table. PATUXENT DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. Mr. BYRNE of New York. Mr. Speak- er, Task unanimous consent to take from the Speaker’s desk the bill (H. R, 6363) conferring jurisdiction on the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, to hear, deter- mine, and render judgment upon certain claims of the Patuxent Development Co., Inc., with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment, The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ment, as follows: Strike out all after the enacting clause, and Insert: “That jurisdiction Is hereby conferred up. on the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina to hear, determine, and render judgment upon the claims of the Patuxent Development Co, Inc., of Southern Pines, N. C, against the United States for damages, if any, sustained by reason of the allegedly tortious use and occupancy between August 17, 1943, and August 381, 1948, inclusive, of the Pine Needles Hotel property, at Southern Pines, N. C., by the Army Air Forces Technical Training Command under contract No. W202 eng-16862, dated March 8, 1942. “Src. 2. Notwithstanding any statute of limitations or lapse of time, suit upon such claim may be instituted at any time within 1 year after the enactment of this act, In any such sult brought pursuant to this act proceedings shall be had and liability, if any, of the United States shall be deter- mined in accordance with the provisions of law applicable in the case of tort claims against the United States (28 U.8 C., sec. 1346): Provided, however, That nothing in this act does or shall constitute an admis. sion of liability on the part of the United States.” The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. The Senate amendment was con- curred in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. MAJ, ROY 8B. BEVEL Mr. BYRNE of New York. Mr. Speak- er, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H. R. 6458) for the relief of Maj. Roy £. Bevel, with a Senate amendment there-
1950 to, and concur in the Senate amend- ment, The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ment, as follows: Page 1, line 9, strike out all after “pay.” ner a? and including “paid.” on page 2, ne 3. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. The Senate amendment was con- curred in, A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. IN THE FISCAL YEAR WHICH ENDED LAST MONTH SECRETARY OF DEFENSE JOHNSON DID MANAGE TO MOVE $2,000,000,000 FROM THE REAR ECHE- LONS TO FRONT LINE SERVICE AND COMBAT—HE DID THIS BY SEEMINGLY TRIVIAL REFORM—HOLMES ALEXAN- DER Mr. BOYKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks and include two state- ments. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama? There was no objection. Mr. BOYKIN. Mr. Speaker, again I wish to tell of the innumerable calls, let- ters, and telegrams that I have received with respect to the statement in which I told of the magnificent job that Louis Johnson is doing and has done since the very day upon which he became the Sec- retary of Defense. This morning's mail brought to me a copy of a special article written by one of America’s most conservative, and cer- tainly one of our best nationally known columnists, Mr. Holmes Alexander. This article, headed “The Washington Scene,” clipped from the Worcester (Mass.) Tele- gram—makes it crystal clear that Mr. Alexander did not jump at any conclu- sions at which he arrived, but as he him. self wrote: He has spent some time and considerable shoe leather in digging up the facts. As usual, Holmes Alexander fs totally disinterested and unbiased, impartial, and so palpably fair in giving credit where credit 1s due that it is for me as great a pleasure as I deem it a privilege and duty to direct it to the attention of my colleagues in this House. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last our Secretary of Defense appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee and there made a statement of tremendous current interest, not alone to the Mem- bers of both Houses of Congress, but to every citizen in these United States, and particularly to the men, the families, and the friends of those in the forces now fighting to their death in Korea. Mr. Speaker, because of that interest and the further fact that this statement. will not be printed in the hearings of the Senate Appropriations Committee and thus become available for distribu- XCVI-——720 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE tion for some weeks to come, I ask unani~ mous consent to insert the same into the Recorp. What follows, Mr. Speaker, is the column of July 26, the Washington Scene, as written by Holmes Alexander and clipped from the Worcester (Mass.) Telegram together with a statement made that same day by the Honorable Louis Johnson, Secretary of Defense, be- fore the Senate Appropriations Com- mittee: THE WASHINGTON ScENE (By Holmes Alexander) THE MILITARY DOLLAR WasHINGTON, D C, July 26~—There are no neutrals in the war of Louis Johnson, now raging over the cocktails and inkpots of this stirred-up Capital Ranged against the Secretary of Defense are some who held great personal affection for the late James Forrestal, whom Johnson replaced, some who vere disemployed or “‘dis- combobulated” by Johnson’s economy wave which engulfed over 170,000 useless civilian workers, and some who believe the locker- room rumor that Johnson has beached the Navy, dissolved the Marine Corps, grounded the Air Force, and depopulated the Army. On Johnson's side are his personal friends and a discouragingly small number of thoughtful persons who know what the Sec- retary is trying to do, Since I intend to support the Secretary in this column, I ad- mit to liking him personally and to have spent some time and shoe leather in digging up facts. I frankly embrace the theory that Johnson, regardless of his ambitions and heavy-handed methods, has greatly improved the country's ability to fight world war III and to live under the long-term war econ- omy which now seems to be our fate. No amount of rhetoric, of course, will prove these points, but I shall soon give some case histories for that purpose. In broad terms, Johnson has created a climate of economy amcng the services, causing Federal dollars to go much further than in the past. This will not seem intportant to those who assume that Federal dollars are limitless or that desk- borne generals and admirals shouldn’t bo forced to pinch pennies. But in the fiscal year which ended last month Johnson did manage to move $2,000,000,000 from the rear echelons to front-line service and combat. He did this by seemingly trivial reforms, such as: EVERY MAN HIS OWN SHIRT In the Army and Air Force, the enlisted perzonne!l used to turn in worn-out clothing and draw new garments. Now all three serv- ices are under tle Navy system which gives cash allowance for clothing. The money incentive has made the men’s clothes last a lot longer, and in 1951 the Army and Air Force will have a purse of $140,000,000 to spend on other items, presumably battlefield hardware. BACK TO THE FLIGHT LINE Until recently the Air Force assigned 150 men and 72 vehicles to the cops-and-rob- bers game of apprehending stragglers and deserters. At the suggestion of Johnson's office this job is now done by the FBI and local cops. The personnel (equivalent to more than a dozen heavy bomber crews) and the machines (enough to serve a wartime squadron) have been assigned to more essen- tial duties. LESS JHIPS, MORE MEN For many years the Navy has conducted reservists sea training in a flotilla of smail craft. By moving the trainees to fewer but latger vessels, as suggested by the Secretary’s 11437 management committee, the Navy increased the training capacity from 86,000 to 46,000 reservists @ year—and also saved $2,090,000 per annum to spend elsewhere. Navy avia- tion, by grounding some desk officers and cutting nonessential skylarking, got an addi- tional 700,000 hours of combat-training time out of its planes, GET IT FOR YOU WHOLESALE All three armed services were separately converting their communications to ultra’ high frequency waves when Johnson's office brought everybody in for consultation. By revising the specifications and pooling the orders, each service purchased 2 years of radio supplies with a 1-year budget. All such savings must become visible on paper before they become tangible in the battlefield. Contrary to much miainforma-' tion on the subject, none of the money saved, goes back into the Treasury. All of it gets to the battle area. ; In terms of the 1951 budget, still before Congress at this writing, the Navy traded ite savings for three attack carriers, three car- rier air groups, one cruiser, four marine fighter squadrons, and six marine bat-' talions. The Army got an extra division and $51,000,000 worth of heavy material, largely artillery and engineering equipment, now very useful in Korea, ' These are only a fistful of examples, but they show the pattern of what Johnson is trying to do. Largely because of his 16- month concern with pinch-penny details, the Federal dollar will buy us more front-line fighting than ever before. That's something to think about in & nation that may be under arms for a generation to come, STATEMENT OF SECRETARY OF Derense LovIs JOHNSON BEFORE THE SENATE APPROPRIA= TIONS COMMITTEE, JULY 26, 1950 Mr Chairman and members of the com- mittee, the last time I appenred before this committee was April 26, 2 months before the Republic of Korea was invaded. At that time I said: “The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, as a working committee of the National Security Council * * * have also appraised recent events which make it entirely possible that appropriations in ex- cess of those which have been requested for the current year wlll be required in suc- ceeding years, not only for our own military forces but also for the military aid program. Just as it is possible that in future years this Nation will have to devote an increased percentage of its total budget to these Items, it is also possible that our partners in tho North Atlantic Pact will be required by the force of events, and by the force of collective planning as well, to take similar action The events to which 1 allude include the Soviet atomic explosion, the fall of China, the serl- ous situations in southeast Asia, the break in diplomatic relations with Bulgaria, and deteriorating relations with other satellite countries, the Soviet assumption of control over the armed forces of Poland, Soviet naval expansion, the increased Soviet pressures in Germany, the recent attack on a naval aire craft tn the Baltic, and the recent Soviet de- mands relative to Trieste. “None of this presents a happy prospect; but the cold war is not a happy circum» stance. The only satisfaction that I can per= sonaliy derive from the situation lies in the fact that our own Military Establishment is well on the road to becoming a stronger and more powerful organization, and one which, ag circumstances require, can utilize in- creased appropriations in a manner which will provide substantially increased combat effectiveness, whereas, even as recently as 1 year ago, large sums of money out of ary
11438 increased appropriations would have been drained off in the form of unnecessary over- head. It is particularly tmportant that the Armed Forces maintained by the United States shall at all times provide a sound base on which can be built a military establish- ment of increased size, should circumstances so require.” Gentlemen, circumstances do so require. That is my reason for being here today, in support of supplemental appropriations in the amount of 810,500,000,000. I know that all of you are familiar with the contents of President Truman’s message of last Wednesday. That document pre- sents, better than anything I might say, the reasons for our request for this supplemental appropriation. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee of the House, the Hon- orable CARL VINSON, said of the President's message that It was a “firm message which will be heartening to all Americans.” In making this statement, Chairman VINSON added: “I want especially to say that I am de- lighted to know, from the President’s mes- sage and from my own contacts with the Defense Department, that what has been recommended has the complete and unstint- ed support of all the civilian and military leaders of the Defense Department. This is a splendid example of teamwork and effi- ciency in the Defense Department.” Iam extremely grateful to Chairman Vin- s0N for his generous support. It is entirely accurate to state that this supplemental appropriation has the unanimous approval and support of the civillan and military leaders of the Department of Defense. The appropriation problems with which this committee, the Congress, and the De- partment of Defense have had to deal in re- cent months have not been easy ones. I know of no better summation of these prob- Jems than the one which Chairman Grorcr MAHON of the Armed Services Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee made on the floor of the House in support of that committee's recommended budget for 1950. You will recall that on that occasion, Chairman MaHon said: “If war comes soon, we are appropriating too little. If we have miscalculated the dangers, if the threat of war is just a deceptive mirage on the horizon, we are appropriating too much. The dilemma described by Chairman MAHON was a dilemma which confronted not only this committee and the Department of Defense, but also the President and the people of the United States, It was not a new dilemma. My predecessor as Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal, outlined this dilemma very aptly in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 21, 1948, about a year prior to the time that I became Secretary of Defense on March 28, 1949. On that occasion, Secretary Forrestal quoted the following excerpt from s memo- randum he had received from the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “Based solely o:. military considerations, it {a the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Stef that the administration should advocate a balanced Military Establishment commensu- rate with the 70-air-group program for the Air Force, * * * The Joint Chiefs of Staff recognize, however, that the phasing (of this balanced Army, Navy, and Air Force pro- gram) must be made responsive to such other factors as the capability of the aircraft industry to expand, the impact of the cost of the program or the national economy, and the calculated risk which can be accepted in the light of changing world politico-military situations.” After quoting the foregoing memorandum from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary For- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE restal then went on to make the following statement: “T think that I can say to you, therefore, that the President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretaries of Army, Navy, and Air Force—as well as the Benate and House of Representatives, I feel sure—are all in agreement, as a military mat- ter, on the desirability of what the Joint Chiefs have described as a balanced Military Establishment commensurate with the 70- air-group program. “The Joint Chiefs * * * have also re- ported to me that a force of the recommend- ed size would require, In fiscal 1949, addl- tional appropriations in excess of €9,000,000,- 000. * * * ' “In my opinion, the Joint Chiefs were en- tirely correct in addressing themselves ex- clusively to the military considerations. That is their job. But they were equally correct in pointing out that other considera- tions—the impact of the coat of the pro- gram on the national economy, for exam- ple—are factors which the Pesident and the Congress must consider, “The impact on the economy of an addi- tional @9,000,000,000 program is a matter that deserves—and will, I am sure, receive— the most careful attention by both the Pres- ident and the Congress. “My insistence, throughout the considera- tion of these matters, has been that they must be considered in a rational and or- ganized manner—and not on a basis of emo- tional reaction. * * ¢ “If the Congress and the President should ultimately decide that the military consid- erations, at this juncture in world history, outweigh the fiscal considerations then we should, by all means, embark on the $9,000,- 000,000 additional program. But if the Con- gress and the President should ultimately de- cide that a program of somewhat lesser mag- nitude is required—in the interest of na- tional solvency and In the interest of avold- ing, 80 far as possible, allocations, rationing, price controls, and a host of other restric- tions—then we should proceed in such a manner that we will get the most national security for each dollar we spend. * * * “Bearing in mind over-all considerationa such as those I have just been discussing, and after receiving the Joint Chiefs’ $9,000,- 000,000 recommendation of April 14, 1048, I asked the Joint Chiefs this supplementary question: Granted the military desirability of the $9,000,000,000 program, what program would the Joint Chiefs recommend—in the general vicinity of $3,000,000,000—as the most effective military program within the limits of the funds that will probably be available to us? “Yesterday, I received the unanimous reply of the Joint Chiefs—and I again emphasize the unanimity of the reply. Their specific recommendation—on the more limited basis envisioned by my more recent question— was that the $3,000,000,000 program should be increased by $481,000,000, * * “The program I am here discussing, there- fore, 1s & program which would increase the original 1949 budget request by $3,481,000,- The 68,481,000,000 which Secretary For- restal recommended, when added to the 1949 budget as originally submitted, gave a total recommended military budget of §13,507,- 000,000 for the fiscal year 1949, In other words, the dilemma presented by the com- peting military and economic considerations was resolved at the $13,500,000,000 level. The President, his advisers in the execu- tive branch of the Government, and the Con- gress solved the dilemma at that time by deciding that the fiscal considerations were equally as important as the military. The JULY 81 substance of that decision has been repeat- edly ratified by the President, his advisers in the executive branch of the Government, and the Congress, all of whom reflected the will of the people of the United States. At the outset of my remarks today, I quoted from my testimony of April 26. You will recall that my concluding remarks on April 26 dealt with the same dilemma I have Just been discussing. On that occasion, I said: “This year’s budget for the Military Estab- lishment, with very little variation, has re- ceived the approval of the Executive Office of the President, the Seoretary of Defense, the Appropriations Committees of the Congress, and other responsible persons such as Gen- eral Eisenhower, In other words, there has been substantial unanimity of opinion on a vital point—namely, the fact that the world in which we live requires military expendi- tures of approximately the amount which the President submitted to the Congress last January. Consider for a moment how un- usual it is to find that all of the responsible authorities who have spoken to this subject have been in complete agreement on more than 95 percent of the military budget. The House Appropriations Committee has sug- gested some reductions; Genera] Eisenhower has suggested the possibility of some jn- creases. But even taking the maximum of these suggestions—both on the minus and on the plus side—there has been no sug- gested variation which would affect the mill- tary budget in an amount greater than 4 percent. I call this fact to your attention * © © pecause I think that it constitutes the best argument that I could possibly pre- sent as to the fundamental soundness of the budget.” One month ago the Republic of Korea was invaded. The action of the United Nations, supported by the United States, called for the use of troops, ships, and aircraft to repel this criminal aggression which threatened the peace of the world and the security of our own country. In the light of the actual fighting that is now in progress, we have reached the point where the military con- siderations clearly outweigh the fiscal con- siderations. However, in our efforts to get the most efficient use of our military appropriations we have not had to deal with the same sort of competing considerations as those I have just been discussing. For all of us were equally determined to get maximum pre- paredness out of every dollar appropriated— and this determination to get the maximum return on the defense dollar will continue to govern our actions. In enacting the National Security Act amendments of 1949, the Congress added lan- guage specifically addressed to this point, and required the Becretary of Defense to submit to the Congress, twice each year, “itemized statements showing the savings of public funds and the eliminations of un- neceasary duplications and overlappings that have been accomplished pursuant to the pro- visions of this act.” Carrying out this congressional mandate has been the steadfast policy of the Depart- men‘ of Defense, and @ prime condition of our efforts in this regard has been the elimi- nation of unnecessary overhead, with a simultaneous improvement in the combat potential of the Armed Forces, Indeed, the over-all combat potential of our Armed Forces was at a higher level on June 26— the day the Republic of Korea was invaded— than had been the case at any time since postwar demobilization was completed. T realize that the foregoing sentence could be regarded as a fine, glittering generality, #0 I would like to make it concrete. For that purpose, I will use specific illustrations,
1950 In the case of the Navy, what the fleet {s doing today would not have been possible 2 years ago. In March of 1948, just after the Communists staged a coup in Czechoslo- vakia, Secretary of Defense Forrestal was gravely concerned about the readiness of the active fleet. In a memorandum which he received on March 28, 1948, the following significant statement appears: “As of 22 March, there are 111 vessels of the active fleet immobilized and 66 reduced to limited operations (or a total of 177) by insufficient personnel. * * * In addition, most of the operating active fleet vessels are under peacetime allowance.” The situation was one of the factors which led Secretary Forrestal to request the sup- plemental appropriation of $3,481,000,000, which I have already discussed above. This situation was also one of the factors which has led the Department of Defense to advo- cate a grealer fighting strength for each ship, even at the expense of reducing the total number of ships in the active fleet. The ships we need are ships that can float and fight. A ship that only floats is a Mability instead of an aseet. On June 25, when the Republic of Korea was invaded, every ship in the active fleet was capable of getting underway and moving into action. Off the shores of Koren, we are being provided with dally illustrations of the readiness of the ships in our active fleet. In the semi-annual report which I recent- ly submitted to the Congress, I discussed the general situation I have been describing above in these words’ “Over-all, the readiness of the Navy has been improved and the active fleet is ‘ready to go’. It is manned at 67 percent of war- time strength with trained personnel who seek to make a career of the Navy. This rep- resents a substantial improvement over the situation 18 months ago when a larger ac- tive fleet in number of men and ships was manned at only 61 percent of wartime strength with many of the ships either im- mobilized or in a reduced operational status because of heavy turnover of personnel and a serious imbalance in the skills and occupa- tions represented.” In the case of the Air Force, there has been a substantial increase in our actual combat potential In chapter IV of the semi-annual report which I submitted to Congress last February, I discussed thts point in the fol- lowing words: “Tt is worth noting that on January 1, 1948, the Finletter Commission recom- mended 70 groups manned by 401,000 men, On that date the report also noted that the Air Force stood at 337,000 men for 56 pro- gramed groups. * band “The size of a ‘group’ is subject to change. As President Truman has pointed out, “The number of groups is 8 somewhat misleading measure of airpower since the character, size, number of aircraft, and other elements of the group are not fixed but constantly change as conditions require’, An example of the type of change to which the President referred is the programed size of each B-36 heavy bombardment group—which stood at 18 planes per group less than a year ago, and which stands at 30 planes per group today. In this connection it should also be noted that the programed size of nine groups which stood at 30 B-20's or B-50's per group 2 years ago, stand at 45 today. In addition, these groups include 20 B-29 type tankers which {ncrease the effective range of each indl- vidual bomber. “In our Air Force of today and as planned for 1951, we have 416,000 men manning 48 groups, but due to the organizational changes noted above, these 48 groups ac- cording to Air Force estimates, are equivalent to 5214 groups of the size envisaged in the previous concept of the 70 group program.” CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE I should also like to comment briefly on the situation with respect to the Army. In March of 1948, the Army's strength was 642,- 000. The Army’s budgeted strength for the current fiscal year was 630,000, prior to the supplemental request which the President submitted to Congress yesterday. In addl- tion to this increase in numbers, there has been a further increase arising out of the fact that proportionately more men are now in combat units, and proportionately less men are in noncombat categories. In my seminannual report, I pointed out that “this increase in combat effectiveness was made possible by savings in the use of undue num- bers of personnel for administrative and over- head purposes”, Between March 1948 and June 1950 the actual manpower strength of the Army’s mobile striking force in the con- tinental United States—the general Reserve— has increased by 165 percent. As this committee knows, all of the top officials of the Department of Defense—both civilian and military—have been seriously concerned lest even the increased strengths I have been describing should be inadequate to meet the needs of world conditions. In order to do everything possible to meet this situation, we set up a Defense Department Management Committee, immediately after the enactment of the National Security Act amendments of 1949. To assist this commit- tee in carrying out the recommendations of the Hoover Commission with respect to the Department of Defense, we employed the management engineering firm of Robert Heller and Associates. The first paragraph of the directive of the management commit- tee reads as follows: “Pursuant to the au- thority vested in me by the National Security Act of 1947 as amended, I have established a Defense Management Committee. The mission of the committee is to bring about progressively better use of defense dollars through elimination of nonessential expen- ditures, and through improved management,. in order to release tunds for increasing com- bat effectiveness, and to provide opportunt- ties to curtail over-all costs.” The expanded program which the President submitted to Congress Monday makes it all the more neccesary that we obtain the maxi- mum return for every dollar that we are in- vesting in our national defense. ‘This gives added point to a matter I mentioned here on April 26, when I said: “Our mobilization in time of emergency depends for its success upon the soundness of the forces in being which constitute our mobilization base”. The forces in being which make up our Army, Navy, and Air Force constitute a sound base, To that base, we recommend that you now add a total active duty strength in the neighborhood of 600,000 men—making a total of some 2,100,000 men. Earlier this year this committee considered requests for # program covering all activi- ties of the Department of Defense, approxi- mating $13,300,000,000. Monday the Presi- dent submitted a supplemental estimate in the amount of $10,500,000,000. The recom- mended revised budget, in the aggregate amount of $23,800,000,000, would accomplish the purpose of financing the costs of the Korean campaign, as well as providing for the earlier expansion of the military forces to cope with the present international situation. The supplemental estimate includes §3,- 063,000,000 for the Army, $2,649,000,000 for the Navy, 4,685,000,000 for the Air Force, and 240,000,000 for establishment-wide activi- ties of the Defense Department. About 59 percent of the supplemental re- quest, or $6,200,000,000, has been included for guns, tanks, ships, aircraft, ammunition, and other major procurement items. (Of this total about $3,344,000,000 is for aircraft— $40,000,000 for the Army, $620,000,000 for the 11439 Navy, €2,684,000,000 for the Alr Force—and $185,000,000 is for shipbuilding.) About 24 percent, or $2,500,000,000, would go for the operaiton and maintenance of the facilities and equipment for the regular op- erations of the Armed Forces, including the sharply increased demands for consumption- type matériel in the Korean campaign. (About one-half of the $2,500,000,000 would go for consumption-type matériel.) About 13 percent, or $1,350,000,000 would go for the pay and allowances of military personnel, including their food, subsistence, and travel. Of the balance, $174,000,000 is for military construction—@4,000,000 for the Army and 170,000,000 for the Air Force. Exclusive of costs for Guardsmen and Re- serves on active duty, $33,000,000 has been provided for the National Guard, Officers Re- serve Corps, and the ROTC program of the Army. One hundred and twenty million dollars has been included for research and develop- ment, $70,000,000 for industrial mobilization, and $50,000,000 has been allocated for con- tingencies. As the President stated in his message transmitting the supplemental request, cer- tain program changes will undoubtedly be necessary in order properly to prosecute tho campaign in Korea. For this reason author- ity is being requested to adjust by 10 percent any single appropriation by transfer from other appropriations, This would permit the necessary adjustments either in the Korean support or in the build-up phase contem- plated by these estimates. I have instructed Assistant Secretary McNeil to keep this com- mittee currently informed of all such actions which we find necessary. I want to emphasize that this is not a call for full mobilization. It 1s a call to increase our strength in being, in order to enable us to support the United Nations action in Korea and to build up our strength elsewhere to meet the threat to world peace. The supplemental request before you rests on two principal factors: First, the require- ments for land, naval, and air forces needed by General MacArthur successfully to prose- cute the campaign in Korea; and second, the need to build up the strength of our forces over and above those committed to the Korean campaign. The plans covering the build-up of our forces are based upon studies which began immediately after the President's announce- ment of the Soviet atomic explosion last Sep- tember, You will recall that I discussed these studies when I testified here on April Because of the events in Korea the mint{- mum desired forces which these studies showed to be required—normally a matter that would have been provided for in next year’s budget—are being requested at this time. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are in complete agreement and fully support the forces planned for the bulid-up in our strength, and are also in complete agreement as to the forces to be provided in support of the Korean campaign. The action in Korea is a battle of supply and the distances involved are great. As @ result, we must expect difficult problems and slow progress. The Military Establishment which we are asking you to expand, however, is & sounder mobilization base than the United States has ever had before. By reason of the groundwork laid by my prede- cessor and the efforts of officers and civilians in all the agencies of the Department of De- fense—the spirit of teamwork within the Department has grown tremendously. We have today a closely-knit team of land, naval, anJl air forces. The swift decisions during
11440 the past 4 weeks to coordinate the combat efforts of the Army, Navy, and Air Force in the Far East are striking examples of the benefits of unification in an emergency. Our military establishment haa been geared to provide a sound mobilization base and a swift striking force in case of a third world war. In addition, we have had to be prepared to meet, to the extent that we could, the first shock of an act of calculated local aggression, The latter test has been met with unprecedented speed in Korea. We are now in the process of backing our shock troops with the necessary reinforce- ments. We are asking you to supply the men and equipment to replace those being used in the Far East, and additional strengths to prepare for the possibility of future emergencies. I am sure that 41) of us will meet the challenge of the aggressor with the same undaunted spirit as that shown by our fighting men tn Korea. The witnesses who follow me will give the details of the program we recommend. It is @ program designed to bring the action in Korea to a successful conclusion; it is also a program designed to promote world peace by deterring further aggression. It is the sort of program to which I referred on April 12 this year when I gave the founder's day speech at my alma mater, the University of Virginia. Speaking in Charlottesville that day, T sald: “T have every confidence in our ultimate guccess. We shall face facts as they are and shall fit our defense plans and our manpower and munitions requirements to meet them. Qur defense plans, however, are not rigid. They are not the laws of Medes and Per- sians. They are flexible and adaptable to changing conditions. They are under con- stant study and review. If we become con- yinced that our present means are ineuffi- cient to meet the exigencies of the day and the probable threats of tomorrow, we shall not be too humble to ask for more; and if we find them more than adequate, we shall not be too proud to ask for leas. We shall al- ways seek the truth and we shall take fitting means to meet the truth.” Gentlemen, I shall be glad to attempt to answer any questions you may have. THE PHILIP SPORN PLANT Myr, JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my re- marks at this point in the Rrcorp. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago there was dedicated in my sec- tion of the country one of the largest steam-electric power plants in the world. T refer to the Philip Sporn plant directly across the river from Racine, Meigs County, Ohio. This plant has been con- structed by the Ohio Power Co., one of the subsidiaries of the American Gas & Electric Co. It has been constructed without one single dollar of Federal or public funds of any kind. We hear so much these days about the production of power by public owned and operated power plants. This Philip Sporn plant will produce more power than that produced by the great Hoover Dam. It will produce more than 6,000,- 000,000 kilowatt-hours a year, which is about a billion more than the annual generation at Hoover Dam. We hear so much from some sources about the wonderful production by the 36 plants that constitute the Tennessee CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Valley Authority. The Philip Sporn plant will produce 40 percent of that furnished by the whole 36 plants of the TVA. Mr, Speaker, this plant will be ex- panded so as to almost double its present capacity. This plant will guarantee a continuation of the progress that has been made in the Ohio Valley in the past few years. With plenty of water and plenty of power, the Ohio Valley will be one of the great manufacturing sections of the country. URGENT AND IMPORTANT—POLITICS, THAT IS Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa? There was no objection. Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that while American boys are fight- ing and dying on Korea, the Truman administration has delayed an all-im- portant meeting to stimulate a much needed minerals and metals production program so that a high Government offl- cial can travel around the country mak- ing political speeches. The Associated Press reports that In- terior Secretary Chapman has delayed from August 1 to August 3 a meeting of the Department’s Nationa] Minerals Ad- visory Council because Crow Girard Davidson, the Department's Assistant Secretary for Mineral Resources, is off on a political junket and will not be in Washington on August 1, Mr. Chapman notified the 44 members of the Advisory Council that the meet- ing is urgent and important. I agree that such a conference is urgent and important. But despite the urgency of the situation and the need for wartime speed up in the development of vital minerals and metals now needed on the Korean front, Chapman delays the meeting in the interest of politics, as usual. I believe that the Members of this House and the people of the Nation want Government officials, particularly those concerned with the war effort, to re- main on the job in Washington in these serious days. I believe the people of the country are getting sick and tired o* the double shuffling of the Truman Deal, fighting a war with one hand and playing politics with the other. A delay of 2 days in a program for the development of critical materials is not only shocking, it is criminal, The boys in Korea cannot take 2 days off from the bombs and the fire of the blazing Red tanks. They must stay on the job every second, fighting for the principles of freedom and liberty while the Washington bureaucrats delay the war effort with a political junket on the taxpayers’ time and money, speaking at Democratic rallies in Montana, Idaho, and other points. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Manon). Under previous order of the JULY 31 House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Puitirps] is recognized for 25 min- utes, (Mr. Puiturrs of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include two let- ters from the State Department.) THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE CONTINUES TO IGNORE ITS PLEDGE Mr. PHILLIPS of California. Mr. Speaker, it was just about a year ago now, August 8, 1949, to be exact, that I called the attention of the Congress to the unjustified treatment accorded the farmers of the Imperial Valley, Calif., by our Department of State. Today I rise again to say that another year has passed and the situation remains un- changed—the rights of these farmers are still being denied to them. For another year, the Department of State has failed to keep its word whereby Imperial irrigation district—the organi- gation of the farmers of the valley—may proceed to construct the Pilot Knob hy- droelectric power plant and operate the All-American Canal, the right to do which was granted by the Congress in the Boulder Canyon Project Act of De- cember 1928 and confirmed by the Fed- eral Government in its contract of December 1, 1932, with the district. Since 1944, the district has been trying to carry out this contract but has been prevented from doing so by the com- bined refusal of both the Secretary of State and Secretary of Interior to honor the contract. In my statement of a year ago I gave a brief description of the background of this matter which I will not repeat at this time. In November 1947 the district submitted a proposal to the State De- partment dealing with the operation of the All-American Canal, development of the Pilot Knob power site, by and at the expense of the district, and several al- ternatives as to properties of the dis- trict located at Andrade, Calif., to be used in connection with the carrying out of the water treaty with Mexico which became effective in November 1945. In August 1948 the State Department notified the district by letter that, as to its proposal dealing with the All-Ameri- can Canal and Pilot Knob power devel- opment, this was accepted in principle, subject to clarifying amendments, and that a draft of a proposed agreement would be submitted to the district at a reasonably early date. The record will show that this acceptance was made aft- er the State Department had consulted with the Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior. No such Graft of a proposed agreement has as yet been submitted to the district. Two years have gone by. As to the district's Andrade proper- ties, the letter of August 1948 stated that the Department of State had se- lected from the alternatives proposed, that of acquiring and operating them directly by the Federal Government since it was believed that such was re- quired by the treaty. It is interesting to ote that, in this connection, a bill is
1950 now before the Congress giving the au- thority for such acquisition. The record will show that Imperia] irrigation dis- trict has not only endorsed this bill but will cooperate in carrying out its pro- visions; Imperial will stand by its pro- posal despite the fact the State Depart- ment has failed, so far, at least, to make good on its acceptance of the district’s proposal. Mr. Speaker, the record will show that a draft of contract was prepared by the State Department and submitted for comment to the Secretary of the Interior in November 1948, and that, despite the fact he had previously endorsed the dis- trict’s proposal, he reversed his position, due no doubt to the strong political pres- sure adverse to the district’s interests brought to bear on him and refused, or at least failed to submit, comments on the draft. This same source of political pressure started to work on the then new Secretary of State and as a result the matter was taken up for review by the latter, That is where the matter rests today. At this point let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the outstanding feature of the oppo- sition from this source of political pres- sure is that no one knows or can deter- mine any logical reascn for such opposi- tion or what interest such opposition has in the manner one way or another. Not only had this continued refusal on the part of our Government to honor its word to its people been grossly unfair and caused damages amounting to many hundreds of thousands of dollars to my people in the Imperial Valley, but now our country is at war again. Mr Speaker, we need to conserve our petro- Jeum supply for war needs. This Pilot Knob power development, which the dis- trict is anxious to construct at its own expense, and which was endorsed and urged by the War Production Board in 1944 because of its minimum require- ments of strategic materials, should be in operation now. It is not in operation, and, as a result, over 250,000 barrels of fuel oil a year are being consumed to produce the electric power which the Pilot Knob plant should be producing. Mr. Speaker, I rise to remark that this is not a good example of conduct by our Government nor is it in the best interests of efforts to do all we can to win the war. As a matter of record, I wish, Mr. Speaker, to place in the Recorp at this point the letters from the Department of State. The first is the simple acknow)-- edgment of the receipt of a tear sheet from the ConcresstonaL Recorp of Au- gust 8, a year ago, which I sent the Sec- retary of State, after making my report to the Coneress on the delay in carrying out the Department’s prcmise to the farmers of the Imperial Valley. I shall, of course, send the Secretary of State a copy of the Recorp of today, calling his attention to the report I am now making to the Congress; that another year has passed without this promise being kept. Lhope, Mr. Speaker, this is not to become nual event. an annu Avaust 15, 1949. Hon. Jonn PHIirs, House of Representatives. My Dear Mr. Puriires: The receipt {s ac- knowledged of your letter dated August 10, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 1949, relating to the operation of the All- American Canal facilities by the Imperial irrigation district, This matter will receive prompt considera- tion and a further reply to your letter under acknowledgment will be made in the near future. Sincerely yours, Ernest A. Gross, Assistant Secretary (Fo: the Secretary of State). The second letter, dated October 5, 1949, goes into the matter more fully. I call attention to several sentences, Al- though the Imperial district’s proposals were submitted to the Department of the Interior, by the Department of State, on November 10, 1948, the Secretary of State says on October 5, 1949, that— No definitive reply has been received from the Department of the Interior. I also call attention to the fact that the Secretary of State discussed this matter, which is entirely a California matter, with the Senators from our neighboring State, Arizona, and agreed to discuss it with the Senators from my own State, California; but that to this date the California Senators and the Representative from the Twenty-second District are still waiting for the suggested conference. Ocrosrr 6, 1949. The Honorable JoHN PHILLIPS, House of Representatives. My Dear Mr. Prrt.urrs: Further reference {3 made to your letter of August 10, 1949, relat- ing to the operation by the Imperial irriga- tion district of the All-American Canal facili- ties. The views which you expressed and the summary of the situation which you gave before the House of Representatives on Au- gust 8, 1949, have been carefully studied. The summary of this matter which you gave is substantially correct. However, in respect to your statement that the Imperial irriga- tion district submitted its proposals pursu- ant to the request of the Department at the Los Angeles conference in September 1947, the record shows that it was as a result of a suggestion made by a representative of the Department of Justice that the district sub- mitted proposals for the operation by it of the All-American Canal facilities in conform- ity with provictons of the water treaty of February 8, 1944. The representative of the Department of State agreed that it would give consideration to whatever proposals the district might submit. The proposals were, of course, submitted in December 1947 and supplemented in January 1948. The Department, after consultation with the Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior, and the United States section, International Boundary and Water Commis- sion, United States and Mexico, reached the view that under the provisions of the treaty of 1944 a Federal or a State or a local agency might perform the actual operation and maintenance of the All-American Canal fa- cilities. In accordance with this view the Department replied to the district on Au- gust 4, 1948, to the effect that the propogals were acceptable in principle provided that certain clarifying amendments were made. Thereafter, following consultation with the United States Section of the Commission, the Department prepared a draft of contract amending, in keeping with the proposals of the district, the All-American Canal contract of December 1, 1932, to bring it In conformity with the provisions of the Water Treaty of 1944, This draft of contract, as you noted in your speech on August 8, was submitted on November 10, 1948, to the Sccretary of the 11441 Interior for comment. Under the same date this draft was also submitted to the Attorney Genera] for his views. : Since November 10, 1948, the Attorney Gen-~ eral has replied briefly, but no definitive reply has been received from the Department of the Interior. However, during the early part of this year it was urged upon the Department that the testimony of its representatives before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations when the Water Treaty of 1944 was before the Senate for advice and consent to ratification, supported the views that the facilities in reference were to be operated solely by the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior and that the Senate, in voting on the treaty, relied upon this interpreta- tion by the Department of State, Subsequently, Secretary Krug also indie cated his view that the statements of wit- nesses during the Senate hearings on the Treaty amounted to assurances to the Sen- ate that the Bureau of Reclamation would operate and maintain the facilities in ref- erence and, further, that as a practical mate ter it was not feasible for the United States to permit any agency except a Federal agency to operate and maintain the All-American Canal works. Pursuant to these representations, the Secretary personally reviewed the testimony and subsequent developments and aos a result he was impressed by several points. He agreed to discuss with Senators Haypen and McFartanp the procedure which should be followed by the executive branch before reaching a final decision in the matter. He has also agreed, at the request of Senator KNow.tanp, to confer with the Senators from California. The Secretary would, I am sure, welcome you toa meeting with the California Senators. No date has been set for such con« ferences and in the meantime action has been suspended. Because of his interest in the matter, we are transmitting a copy of this letter to Sen- ator KNowLanp for his Information. We shall be glad to keep you advised of further developments. Sincerely yours, Ernest A. Gross, Assistant Secretary (For the Secretary of State). The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Maron). Under previous order of the Houee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr, Mason} is recognized for 80 minutes. TAX THE UNTAXED BEFORE HEAPING ADDITIONAL TAXES UPON THE OVER- TAXED Mr, MASON. Mr. Speaker, President Truman has asked for an additional $10,500,000,000 to spend in tooling up for the war in Korea and to prepare for any other wars that soon may be in the cards for us—and this request will be granted. Senator Tarr has said that we should place the war in Korea on a pay- as-you-go basis, that we should raise whatever money we may need for war purposes by tax increases now. Pres- ident Truman recommends a $5,000,000,- 000 tax increase in a “quickie” or emer- gency tax increase bill, the balance needed, to be provided by passing a regular tax increase bill after January 1, 1951. Whether to raise the additional billions needed for war now, as Senator Tarr recommends, or part of it now and part of it later, as the President suggests, should be an easy question to settle. We know additional billions are needed; we know addition billions will b>
11442 spent; and we know the additional bil- lions must be raised in taxes sometime. I say we should do the Job now, and adopt a pay-as-you-go war program. , Speaker, in facing emergency war needs it is the duty of Congress today to see to it that every individual and every business is taxed at full rates and upon all earnings. There should be no exceptions. The war tax load should rest upon all alike and should be equi- tably spread. We failed to see that this was done in World War I, and also in World War I. So far as taxation was concerned, we played favorites in both those wars. Are we going to do the same again? When the emergency war tax bill is written, the American people expect— and they will demand—that the Con- gress write a tax bill that will require everybody and every organization to pay their just share of the tax load, including the present tax-exempts. This we should do. Neither political fears nor political threes must keep us from doing our duty in this respect. No one should be allowed to make a tax-free profit out of the war needs and the war emergency. It is our job to increase the tax burden to take care of the increased needs, and also to make sure that the increased tax burden is properly and equitably spread. This can be done by closing all present tax loopholes, whether legai or illegal loopholes. By closing all tax loopholes we can raise an extra billion dollars a year to help pay the war costs. Mr. Speaker, in 1916, just before World War I, co-ops were given their first legal tax exemption. The tax rate at that time upon business organizations was only 1 percent of their business profits. However, that 1 percent tax upon busi- ness profits was raised during and after the war until it was 12 percent by the end of the 1920’s, becoming a real tax advantage for the co-ops and a serious threat to taxpaying businesses. Now, Mr. Speaker, what about World War Il? Careful research by Mr. Homer E. Marsh of the National Associated Busi- nessmen of Washington, D. C., and by Mr. Lovell Parker, former Chief of Staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, reveals that during the four war years, 1942 through 1945, co-ops did a total volume of business amounting to $33,- 000,000,000, the profits of which, at war- time rates, would have paid into the Treasury—had they been taxed—$855,- 200,000. Their taxpaying business com- petitors had to pay taxes. The untaxed paid nothing and thereby profited enormously. The following table shows these figures broken down by years: Total business volume of co-ops: 1042... ne enn ennnne 85, 484, 000, 000 1043..-.--.-...--..... 7, 175, 000, 000 104¢....-..---------. —-. 9,615,000, 000 1046.20.22. 2a nnn 10, 818, 000, 000 Total during World War II... $2, 818, 000, 000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ‘The amount of income tax that was not paid on earnings by co-ops during those war years was as follows: 1942........ aecenecannen $195, 100, 000 1943 wan weennneececncennececes 197,200,000 1944. 2 nn ewme cee nnneennnenane 269, 800, 000 1948... ---n---nnneecenenene 268, 100, 000 TUtal...wneweceeee-ennnn 855, 200, 000 This total of unpaid taxes would have bought a lot of guns and tanks and planes at a time when our armies were fighting for thetr very lives. Mr. Speaker, since the war, tax-ex- empts have sprung up like mushrooms all over the country, Before World War Ti, no colleges were operating macaroni factories, pottery factories, or luggage factories. The sale and lease back of stores, wheat farms, cotton plantations, and other commercial properties to tax- exempt organizations as a scheme for avoiding the payment of taxes is a re- cent concoction. And the present giant ©O-Ops, co-ops organized like great hold. ing companies controlling and monopo- lizing whole industries, have just begun to be organized and to get established financially. It was the untaxed earnings of these co-ops during World War II, while other businesses were paying taxes up to 90 percent of their profits, that provided the funds for expansion and started their tremendous growth. Had they been re- quired to pay taxes like their business competitors, they would have had to turn over to Uncie Sam during the war years almost $1,000,000,000 in taxes, Instead, they were permitted to retain that amount to plow back into business ex- pansion or to buy out their taxpaying competitors. No wonder co-ops mush- roomed so rapidly during and since World War II. By 1948 the total volume of business done by co-ops had risen to $17,000,000,- 000 per year—and t is still growing rap- idly. The Nation needs the money that can be raised by taxing these organiza- tions; and, if the proposed 45 percent corporation tax rate is levied upon reg- ular corporation profits, there is no good reason why it should not be levied upon corporations organized as co-ops. Mr. Speaker, the following table indi- cates the handicap that corporations and taxable commercial enterprises have been laboring under because of the tax- free status of co-ops and the tax-free status of the unrelated activities of edu- . cational institutions, religious institu- tions, charitabie trusts, labor organiza- tions, and various other tax-free enter- prises, all competing with taxpaying ones: TAX RATES APPLICABLE TO CORPORATIONS AND TAX PAYING BUSINESS ENTERPRISES FROM 1916 TO THE PRESENT TIME—NOT APPLICABLE TO CO-OPS Nineteen hundred sixteen, 1 percent (year co-ops were exempted); 1918, 12 percent, normal tax rate upon profits; 1935, 12% to 15 peroent, normal tax rate upon profits; 1041, 40 percent, normal tax, plus 00 per- oent exceas-profits tax; 1945, 60 percent over- all rate (normal tax plus excess-profits tax); 1046, 38 percent, normal tax rate upon profits; 1050, 38 peroent, normal tax rate upon profits, JULY 31 Is it any wonder that taxpaying enter- prises—with a peak war tax load of 40 percent normal tax plus a 90 percent excess profits tax—have been losing ground, while their tax-free cooperative competitors have been expanding by leaps and bounds? Mr. Speaker, the question often arises concerning the extent that our economy has shifted to nonprofit ownership and to a tax-exempt or semi-tax-exempt status during recent years. Some idea ean be ascertained by a comparison of the total wealth of the United States with the resources of mutuals, coopera- tives, and other nonprofit organizations, including Government corporations and trust funds earmarked for special groups. A study made by the National Indus- trial Conference Board, New York City, placed the total wealth of the Nation in 1938 at $309,000,000,000. The value of the dollar has declined approximately 43 cents since that date. If we assume that the national wealth has increased proportionately, it would be approxi- mately $542,000,000,000 today. Of this total, $157,500,000,000 is held by the vari- ous tax-exempt and semi-tax-exempt organizations. This is 29 percent of our total national wealth. Their total re- sources are as follows: Life insurance companies... $50, 000, 000, 000 (Most all are mutuals and pay some income tax) Foundations -....-........ 2, 500, 000, 000 Mutual savings banka....... 20, 000, 000, 000 Building, savings, and loan associations ~..-....... -- 12, 000, 000, 000 Government pension trust funds .......-...-...-.. 35, 000, 000, 000 Educational institutions... 2, 500, 000, 000 Federal Government Cor- porations -.....-........ 28, 000, 000, 000 Cooperatives ....-----.---- 2, 500, 000, 000 Mutual fire and casualty in- SUrANCe ....~...----- eo 2, 000, 000, 000 State and local retirement funds .....-...--..----. 2, 500, 000, 000 Municipal and REA utili- 08 Wee pene n nen ne ne nee 2, 000, 000, 000 Postal saVINgS.---..------= 8, 500, 000, 000 Total__-....-.--...- 157, 500, 000, 000 Such a large part of the Nation’s wealth should not go untaxed. Now, Mr. Speaker, what about world war ITI? How long will it last? When will the conflagration break out in other Places besides Korea, Indochina, and Formosa? How much will it cost in money? In “blood, sweat, and tears’? Congressman VINSON SAYS; All the world is a tinderbox. Global war ean begin at any time. * * * In the in- ternational arena there is dynamite every- where. We can have @ world explosion at any time. No one knows what may bappen tomorrow. * * * It jis a aituation that demands the utmost concentration of effort, the greatest forbearance, the greatest will- ingness to sacrifice we have ever had. Mr. Vinson’s words present a grim picture. The picture is not overdrawn, ‘We must prepare thoroughly for what- ever is before us. As a part of that preparation we must—whether we like it or not—increase the tax load upon our people. In so doing Congress should see