2328 understood the junior Senator from Ne- braska. Mr. MAYBANK. Oh, I certainly did. Mr. WHERRY. I do not sanction, certainly, the practice referred to by the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Lone]. I agree with him 100 percent. The diffi- culty has arisen because of the admin- istration of the act. The point I am making is simply this: Is it not fair, con- sidering the way in which the act was administered and is being administered now, that the applications which have been on file for months at least should be processed? That is all I am asking. Mr. MAYBANK. I thoroughiy agree with the Senator from Nebraska that the applications which have been on file for a@ reasonable length of time should be processed. I refer to applications which were filed in an effort to beat the dead- line. That was my point, COTTON AND PEANUT ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution (H. J. Res. 398) relat- ing to cotton and peanut acreage allot- ments and marketing quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I should like to make an announcement. We are now on the so-called cotton and pea- nut acreage allotment resolution, House Joint Resolution 398. It is the desire of the Senator from Illinois and of Sena- tors on the other side of the aisle to finish action on the jotnt resolution this afternon, even though it may necessitate a night session. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, does the majority leader mean that in the event the joint resolution is not finished by 5 or 6 o'clock, there will be a night session? Mr. LUCAS. That is correct. Mr. WHERRY. I assure the distin- guished majority leader that the minor- ity will cooperate. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I shall ask recognition for the purpose of speaking on the pending amendment to House Joint Resolution 398. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Virginia yield to the Sena- tor from Minnesota? Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield. REPORTS BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON REDUCTION OF NONESSENTIAL FED- ERAL EXPENDITURES Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I should like to bring to the attention of the Senate a report presented on Feb- ruary 14, 1950, for printing in the body of the ConcreEsstonaL Recorp, a report of the Joint Committee on Nonessential Federal Expenditures. It is my belief that the press release pertaining to this report, as well as the report itself, pre- sents a distorted picture of Federal em- ployment. The joint committee's press release, seeking to create the impression that Federal employment is increasing, states in its first paragraph: Federal employment in civilian agencies of the executive branch turned sharply up- ward during December with over-all increases avelaging more than 143 a day. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE However, Mr. President, in the third paragraph of the same release, the joint committee states that: The net decrease of 4,808 in the executive branch as a whole brought total employment down to 1,981,156, which. again in Decem- ber, was a new low since 1942. This type of presentation, Mr. Prest!- dent, is typical of the type of report filed by this joint committee. I am also forced, Mr. President, to pro- test the statements made in the same release concerning the Post Office De- partment. Again I quote: Such reductions as were made in other civillan agencies of the Government were largely nullified by the steady addition of permanent employees in the Post Office De- partment. In the decade since 1939 average employment by the Post Office Department has increased by more than a quarter of @ million, from a 1939 average of 297,191 to an average over the past 6 months of 629,735, an increase of 78 percent. Mr. President, during this same pe- .Yiod, 1939 through 1949, the weight of the mail carried by the Post Office De- partment increased 104 percent, special services increased 70 percent, and the number of pieces of mail handled 64 percent. As a member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, I must protest this type of presentation. Mr. President, in view of the nature of the report, I wish to send to the desk a bill, which I ask be properly referred. Also, I ask that I may make a brief state- ment in reference to the bill, in order to explain its purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I introduce for appropriate reference a bill to repeal title VI, section 601 of the “Revenue Act of 1941,"" Public Law 250, Seventy-seventh Congress, This title established, in 1941, a com- mittee to investigate Federal expendi- tures, which has since become known as the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures, or the Byrd committee. The legislation creating the Joint Committee on Reduc- tion of Nonessential Federal Expendi- tures, provided that— It shall be the duty of the committee to make a full and complete study and investi- gation of all expenditures of the Federal Gov- ernment with a view to recommending the elimination or reduction of all expenditures deemed by the committee to be nonessential. Under the Legislative Reorganization Act, approved in 1946, exactly the same duties were assigned to the House and Senate Committees on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, as standing committees, that is, ‘studying the opera- tion of Government activities at all levels with a view to determining its economy and efficiency.”’ Therefore, since 1946, the Senate and House have each had two Expenditures Committees, with over- lepping and duplicating functions. Let us now look at the intent of Con- gress in passing the Legislative Reorgan- ization Act of 1946. The prime objec- tives of that act were to reduce the myriad of committees, and to clearly de- fine their duties and responsibilities so they would not have overlapping and FEBRUARY 24 duplicating activities. In effect the Con- gress superseded the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Ex- penditures by the creation of the Com- mittee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, with all expenditures func- tions vested in these standing commit- tees. The Eightieth Congress took cog- nizance of this situation by refusing to further appropriate for the joint com- mittee. However, the joint committee did secure funds in the Eighty-first Con- g-ess in the First Deficiency Appropria- tion Act. Dr. George Galloway, an outstanding authority on legislative reorganization, supported the abolition of the joint com- mittee at hearings held by the Senate Expenditures Committee considering amendments to the Legislative Reorgan- ization Act of 1946, in February 1948, when he stated that the functions of the joint committee duplicated the func- tions allocated to the Committee on Ex- penditures. I quote, Mr. President, from his statement before the committee: In the second place, I suggest that the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessen- tial Federal Expenditures be discontinued. This committee was established by section 601 of the Revenue Act of 1941 “to make a full and complete study and investigation of all expenditures of the Federal Government with a view to recommending the elimina- tion or reduction of all such expenditures deemed by the committee to be nonessen- tial. Dr. Galloway continued, saying that— Its function overlaps that of the Commit- tee on Expenditures in the Executive De- partments, which, having been rejuvenated by the Legislative Reorganization Act, are now equipped to assume their historic responsibilities in this field. Therefore, the continued existence of the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures is a violation of the spirit of the Legislative Reorganization Act, as well as a waste of the taxpayers’ dollar, I bring to the attention of the Senate the fact that here is a committee which, supposedly, by its title, is created to re- duce expenditures and to eliminate waste, but I charge that it is a waste of the taxpayers’ money and is a funda- mental violation of the purpose of the committee. The only reports which this joint com- mittee has produced are monthly person- nel statistics, which are prepared largely at the expense of the executive agencies themselves, and the cost of preparation has been estimated at a quarter of a mil- lion dollars for an 8-year period. Recalling that its function is spelled out as “making a full and complete study and investigation of all expenditures of the Federal Government with a view to recommending the elimination or reduc- tion of all such expenditures deemed by the committee to be nonessential,” we find that it has devoted itself almost ex- clusively to personnel statistics, and that without any justification whatsover it has regularly issued general statements calling for blanket reductions in Federal personnel, Even the most naive man- agement engineering firm would never think of making recommerndations con- cerning personnel reductions without
1950 submitting detailed reasons for such re- ductions consistent with disclosed facts, and indicating where they should take place. Yet, Mr. President, the Joint Commit- tee on Nonessential Expenditures in the Federal Government has not submitted a detailed documented statement as to why it believes the Federal employee rolls should be reduced. It merely makes a blanket charge, in the name of what it calls economy, that there should be a drastic reduction in personnel. I also submit, Mr. President, that these blanket charges are often given the notoriety of newspaper headlines, indi- cating to the American electorate that the reductions are essential and that there is great waste going on in the Fed- eral Government. To be sure, there may be some waste, but the charge of waste should be fully documented, and the doc- umentation, I submit, has not been pre- sented by reports of the Joint Commit- tee on Nonessential Expenditures. Mr. President, I submit that the con- tinued existence of the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures is a wanton waste and ex- travagance, and that the expenditure of, first, over $100,000 in appropriated funds; second, $250,000 worth of time and effort of the executive branch of the Government in compiling the joint com- mittee data; and, third, undetermined additional funds for printing, is unwar- ranted, and stands as the No. 1 example of waste and extravagance which the joint committee itself should have rec- ommended be eliminated. It is my firm conviction that this com- mittee serves no useful purpose, and is merely used as a publicity medium. It deals only in generalities and violates the purpose for which it was created by wast- ing public funds rather than conserving them. Its demands on Federal agencies for monthly detailed personnel data is a heavy expense that must be borne by the executive branch with no return being made for the time and funds consumed in the compilation of such reports, It is high time that certain elements in the legislative branch abandon their punitive attitude toward executive de- partments and agencies, and in turn that the executive departments and agencies develop a conscientious, cooperative at- titude toward the legislative branch. Since coming to the Senate just about a year ago I have been invited many times to indulge myself in one of two very popular indoor sports currently practiced by Members of the Congress and the executive branch. To date I have refused to become a participant, and today I shall assume the role of critic of these sports. The first sport is known as persecute and prosecute, and is indulged in by legislators when dealing with members of the executive branch. This is strictly a punitive game with everyone concerned the loser, the legislator, the executive, and the department or agency. The other sport is known as button, button, who has got the button, and is indulged in exclusively by members of the executive branch, as a defense CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE mechanism against the punitive methods of the legislative branch. This is a game of concealment, containment, evasion, and misrepresentation, and again every- one is generally the loser, and no one the winner. Mr. President, may I suggest that in the interest of better government, and particularly in the interest of better rela- tions between the legislative and execu- tive branches that these sports be for- ever barred from use, and that since the Joint Committee on Reduction of Non- essential Expenditures is one of those that has most frequently indulged itself in one of these sports, that it also be barred from participation by dissolve- ment. The continued existence of the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessen- tial Federal Expenditures is not con- ducive to the success of our efforts for the reduction of Federal expenditures, to which many Members of this body are committed, and I cannot urge too strongly that this jomnt committee and its wasteful activities be abolished. I hope that other Senators will join with me in protesting the allocation of further funds for this joint committee, and in the passage of the bill I have introduced providing for its abolition. Mr. President, I ask that the other Members of this great body join with me in strengthening the standing com- mittee rejuvenated by the act of 1946 which would have the responsibility for watching over whatever waste or ex- travagance there may be in the Federal Government and bringing to the atten- tion of the Congress of the United States means and methods of economy and efficiency of operation in the legis- lative and executive branches of the Government. Therefore, Mr. President, I send to the desk a bill and ask for its appropriate reference. It provides for the repeal of section 601, title 6, of the Revenue Act of 1941, pertaining to a committee to investigate Federal expenditures, and for other purposes, and I ask that the bill be given, as quickly as possible, consid- eration by the appropriate committee. Let those who talk so muck about econ- omy and do so little about it make the first all-important move toward econ- omy by abolishing a committee which has no right to exist, a committee which has merely existed because no one has spoken up to ask that it be dissolved, a committee which violates the Reorgan- ization Act. I ask that it be done in the name of economy, so we can positively say we have really made a start on economy. I ask that it be done in the name of sound legislative practice, whereby standing committees of the Senate perform the duties assigned to them. The bill (S. 3116) providing for the repeal of section 601, title VI, of the Revenue Act of 1941, pertaining to the Committee to Investigate Federal Ex- penditures, and for other purposes, in- troduced by Mr. Humpurey, was re- ceived, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Expendi- tures in the Executive Departments, 2329 TRANSFER OF PLANES TO CHINESE COMMUNISTS Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I desire to ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the Recorp certain newspaper articles regarding the award to the Chinese Communists yesterday by the British Hong Kong court of 71 air- planes belonging to the company oper- ated by Gen. Claire Chennault. The first insertion is an article from the New York World-Telegram dated February 23. The second is a dispatch from Hong Kong by the noted New York Times world correspondent, Burton Crane, dealing with the same subject. The third is an article which appears in today’s Washington News entitled “China Reds Can’t Wait To Grab Chen- nault’s Planes,” by Oland D. Russell, and an editorial which appears on the oppo- site side of the same paper under the headline, “How can we win?” I also wish to have included a press dis- patch which has just come over one of the tickers in our lobby. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from California? There being no objection, the matters were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Hone Kona.—Chinese Communist officials began taking over Nationalist property in Hong Kong today on the strength of a su- preme-court decision granting them 71 for- mer Natlonalist airplanes. A small vanguard moved into the offices of the Central Trust, an organ of the Na- tionalist Government, and began examining records. Other Nationalists’ properties scheduled to be taken over by the Communists include a number of banks, a shipping line with about 800,000 tons of ships in operation, and the Nationalist consular offices. A Communist spokesman said the 71 planes granted them yesterday will be used to establish regular air service between Hong Kong and Communist China shortly. [From the New York World-Telegram of February 23, 1950] REDS AWARDED CHINESE AIR LINE Hona Kona, February 23.—The Hong Kong Supreme Court, dismissing a claim by Maj, Gen. Claire L. Chennault, today granted the Chinese Communist government possession of 820,000,000 in Chinese Nationalist air lines’ equipment. The equipment included some ground equipment and 40 transport and passenger planes owned by the China National Aviation Corp. and the Central Air Transport Corp. General Chennault claimed the planes for his Civil Air Transport Co. on grounds he had bought up all Hong Kong assets of the two Nationalist companies when they transferred operations to Formosa last fall. CLAIMED BY REDS General Chennault, wartime commander of the Flying Tigers, recently petitioned the court to appoint a receiver for the two air lines’ property in Hong Kong. The planes were taken over by the Hong Kong court last fall after a number of air crews of the CNAC and CATC defected and flew 11 planes to Communist territory. The Chinese Communist regime at Peiping claimed the remainder of the planes on grounds they belonged to the Chinese people
2330 and should be turned over to the Chinese Communist administration. Pro-Commuuist air-line employees, antici- pating the court's decision, have been paint- ing red flags on the ships’ fuselages and over- hauling the engines during the past few weeks. It was expected they would be flown into Communist China within a few days. The two Nationalist air lines fied Hong Kong last November in fear that Chinese Na- tionalist property here would be turned over to the Communists by the Hong Hong court. Today's decision was the first in a number of pending cases. Other Nationalist prop- erty still in Hong Kong includes banks and shipping. {From the New York Times of February 24, 50} Hone Kone Court Gives Reps PLaNes—-DeE- NIxs RECEIVERSHIP PLEA OF UNITED STATES CONCERN For 03 FoRMER CHINESE NATIONAL- Ist CraFt—INJUNCTIONS ARE LirtEp—'‘'Sov- EREIGN IMMUNITY” CiTeD BY BENCH—ONLY REcistrRY Bars SHIPs’ FLIGHT TO PEIPING (By Burton Crane) Hone Kone, February 23.--Under Hong Kong Supreme Court decision today, 93 planes, paid for largely by United States tax- payers, are being turned over to the Chinese Communist government. Despite the decision, which denled a re- ceivership application and vacated two Iin- junctions granted last autumn, the Chinese Communists are unable at present to fly the planes to thetr territory. They are not reg- istered under Hong Kong laws Thus some time remains for possible action from Wash- ington or elsewhere [According to the Associated Press, 6 spokesman for one of the air lines involved said the plancs would be flown to Peiping, seat of the Chinese Communist government, Probably within a week.| The case concerned three corporations. The largest was the China National Avia- tion Corp., a prewar subsidiary of Pan American Airways. It was reincorporated in 1946, with the Chinese Nationalist Govern- ment taking 83 percent of the stock by virtue of its contribution of planes and equipment it received from the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, the Eco- nomic Cooperation Administration. Lend- Lease, and other forms of United States aid. The second concern, the Central Air Trans- port Corp., was owned 100 percent by the Nationalist Government's Communications Ministry. When the Communists began to overrun China toth companies removed their plancs to the Kaitak Airport in Hong Kong. Eighty percent of the Chinese employees of both air lines defected to the Communists last November 9 and flew away several planes. The two corporations asked the protection of the British Government, which then still recognized the Chinese Nationalist regime. The corporations were told they would get protection if they first applied for an infunc- tion, according to Richard Heppner, one of the lawyers representing Nationalist and United States interests 1n the case. Mr. Heppner was wartime head of the Office of Strategic Services in China and a law partner of Maj. Gen. William J. Donovan, retired, over-all head of the O8S. The two Nationalist Government air lines asked and got an injunction forbidding the defecting employees to touch the planes, which include four Skymasters and six Con- vairs. Shortly thereafter the Communists got an injunction preventing Nationalist sympathizers from going near the equip- ment. Mr. Heppner declared tonight that the Americans and the Chinese Nationalist in- volved in the case had ab; strongly because only the second injunction ever was enforced. Communists were permitted to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE work on the planes and service them, he said, and the British refused to withdraw the airfield passes issued to the Communists as employees even though they had an- nounced they were no longer connected with the two concerns. Early last November, the Nationalist Gov- ernment attempted to extricate itself from this dilemma by selling all planes of both air lines to Civil Air Transport, Inc., a Dela- ware concern formed for that purpose by Maj. Gen. Claire L. Chennault and his as- sociate, Whiting Willauer. Civil Alr Trans- port declared in court that it had paid 83,- 900,000 for the planes of the first two com- panies On January 6 Britain recognized the Chi- nese Communist Government shortly after inspectors from the United States Civil Aero- néutics Authority appeared with an an- nouncement that the former Central Air Transport and China National Aviation planes had been registered by Civil Alr Trans- port with the United States Government. They said they wished to inspect the p'anes and place Jnited States markings on them British authorities refused to allow them to tamper with the planes. Civil Air Transport then filed applications with the Hong Kong courts tor the appoint- men. of receivers for both companies Today, Sir Leslic Gibson, Hong Kong's chief justice, handed down a decision de- claring that the “doctrine of sovereign im- munity operates to prevent the ccurt from entertaining an application to appoint a re- ceiver” He also declared that all proper parties were not before the court and that the plaintiff corporation had not established a@ sufficiently strong case “I have held that the assets are in pos- session of the Central People's Government (Communists),” he said. ‘If lam wrong tn this, then, in my opinion, they are clearly in possession of the corporation (China Na- tiona’ Aviation) Neither the Central Peo- ple’s Government nor the corporation is a party to these proceedings or has consented to the appointment of a receiver ” The Chief Justice dismissed the American contention that the Communist government had got possession only through infringing the November injunction and declined to admit the validity of the minutes of China National Aviation of December 31, approving the sale to Civil Air Transport The court ordered the plaintiffs to pay @8,000 as costs. According to the Nationalists’ intelligence, possession of the planes will triple the Com- muniast air force. [Prom the Washington Daily News of Febru- ary 24, 1950] Curina Reps Can’t Wart To GraB CHENNAULT PLANES (By Oland D. Russell) The Chinese Communists were expected to lose no time in flying out of Hong Kong the 70-odd transport planes which have in effect been handed over to them by the supreme court in the British crown colony. The planes, including communications and maintenance equipment, belong to an Amer- ican corporation, headed by Maj. Gen. Claire L. Chennault, of Flying Tiger fame. They make up the biggest air fleet in China and for months have been sought by the Chinese Communists. They can be used to ferry military supplies to China from Ruesia, for dropping parachutists into Indochina, or for an amphibious assault on Formosa. The Hong Kong court invoked sovereign immunity in deciding it could not take the planes under its protection by appointing a receiver for tham. ‘The court took the view that since the British had recognized the Communists, the Petping regime was the legal and sovereign ruler of China and could not be disturbed from its possession of the planes. FEBRUARY 24 ALREADY, RED FLAGS Though the American owners and repre- sentatives of the Civil Aeronautics Authority have been denied the access to the planes, pro-Communist employees of the two former Nationalist air ines have been permitted to board them at Kaltak Airfleld where they are impounded, Anticipating a court deci- sion in favor of the Communists, those for- mer employees already have painted Red flags on the ships and have been overhauling the motors in preparation for a quick get~ away. British authorities in Hong Kong have been trying for 83 months—even before Lon- don recognized the Red regime—to find a legal way of turning over these two com- pletely equipped air lines to the Chinese Communists Communist pressure on the local British authorities has been great and the British themselves have not been unmindful of the trade benefits and good will that might ac- crue to them if they handed over the planes to the Commies. Still other pressures have been exerted on the Hong Kong British by the London foreign office and the United States State Department. for recognition of General Chen- nault’s legal title to the planes. GODOWN SHOW-DOWN The show-down came this week Accord- ing to word received here, the Communists got word to the Hong Kong court that for every plane denied them, one British bust- ness establishment in Communist-occupied Shanghal would be taken over. “A godown (warehouse) for every plane.” as the Reds tersely put it. Facing this situation realistically, the Hong Kong court yielded to the Commu- nists, taking advantage, according to ob- servers here, of the British election follow- ing Washington's Birthday when communil- cations with London and Washington would be at a minimum effectiveness. The court in effect washed its hands of th> whole affair, dumping a ticklish ques- tion on the London foreign office, but by choosing the holiday and election day pe- riod, it gave some time leeway to the Com- munists to get the planes away from Hong Kong. If any restraint is now to be used, it will have to be done on ordera from London for some sort of executive action. AMEBICAN REPRISALS At stake now is whether American dip- lomatic power can be used effectively tu prod London into measures which still might save some or all of the planes from falling into Communist hands. The State Department has, through representations and notes, backed the Chennault claim to title of the Planes and has insisted that the Hong Kong court conduct a trial to establish legality of this title. But Washington consistently has refused to get tough about it, with the result that the Communists have slugged it out—and apparently have won—in the Hong Kong courts. Some demands were heard here yesterday for American reprisals against the British through the ECA. It was pointed out that the British by letting planes and equipment valued at 20,000,000 be grabbed off by the Communists, in effect have given an Amert- can alr fleet to the Reds topping in value what the British will get in atr equipment from the ECA. [From the Washington Daily News of Februrary 24, 1950} How Can We Wire? Now that the United States and Britain have recognized the French-sponsored Bao Dai regime in Indo-China, French military circles are asking for a common western
1950 policy in the Far East, as well as immediate military aid, A list of the equipment wanted, including light tanks, Jeeps, reconnaisance cars, and small-arms ammunition, has been given to our Government, with an additional request ior a $100,000,000 economic rehabilitation oan. Since we are here being asked to buy into a war, it will be well to get all the facts on the table. We ought to know what we're getting into, and just what chance, if any, we have towin From this distance, the chance looks dim. The French, having had an army of 160,000 men in the field for 3 years, have inflicted no serious injury to Ho Chi-minh’s Com- munitst forces, Now, according to a Paris report to the New York Times, “an effective blockade of Communist China” Js regarded as one of the essentials if victory is to be achieved. The idea of a blockade of Communist China can be discarded, now that the Brit- ish court in Hong Kong has awarded the Red Government at Peiping 70 transport and passenger planes which Major General Chennault had purchased from the Chinese Nationalists. That decision probably spells the doom of Formosa, as well as killing any prospect of saving Indochina trom the Reds. Some heads should be examined in the State Department and the British Foreign Office Britain recognized the Chinese Reds, and now has given them the planes they need to continue their campaign of aggression. The United States has recognized the Bao Dai forces 1n Indochina, and now is asked to put up the money and the arms to defeat the forces of Ho Chi-minh, which are said to have the active support of the Chinese Reds. Russia, of course, is backing both Red forces. How can the West hope to win under this kind of lendership? Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I wish to call to the attention of Members of the Senate the fact that this is one of the greatest blows to the non-Communist world that has been delivered in that part oi the globe. The granting of these 71 planes, which in equity belong to the firm of General Chennault, and before that belonged to the Nationalist Government of China, furnishes the Communists the tools which they can later use for an at- tack upon the island of Formosa, for an air-borne attack upon southeast Asia, and ultimately perhaps for an attack upon the islands of Japan or the Philip- pines. I think that if the Government of Great Britain does not recognize its re- sponsibility in this matter, and take im- mediate administrative steps to prevent those 71 planes, which are American planes, from getting into the hands of the Communists, the Government of the United States must itself take drastic ac- tion in that regard, in the way of repre- sentations to the British Government. The British can no longer expect assist- ance from us to help to stop communism in Europe while the British Government, by their recognition of the Communist regime, and by this latest action of turn- ing over 71 planes, actually accelerate the spread of communism in Asia. Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the Recorp an article appearing in Time magazine for February 27 dealing with the situation in Formosa. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Cuina Brrore Storms AND WINDS Along south China’s invasion coast, facing the Nationalist islands of Formosa and Hainan, Communist generals are drilling a million men, assembling thousands of junks and sampans for amphibious assault. How firmly will Nationalist China hold out in her island remnants? Last week Time Corre- spondent Wilson Fielder surveyed Fomosa’s defenses. His report: “In the foothills of southern Formasa’s terraced mountains, youthful soldiers shout ‘Sha! Shal’ (Kill! kill!) as they lunge at practice dummies with bayonets. The huge military training camp at Fengshan echoes with machine-gun chatter, and squads of in- fanitrymen work under live ammunition fire, Fengshan's combat course is modeled after the training system used in the United States in World War II, and the camp's officers call it “the cradle of the new Chinese army.” “From the training camp, troops graduate to the volcanic black sand beaches not far away. There, facing the mainland, they bulld concrete pillboxes, string barbed wire, drill endlessly to repel the invasion from the sea. In thelr off-duty hours, the soldiers sing a new army song: “‘The fields of the Motherland are calling, The blood of 600 million is throbbing, Let storms and winds buffet us, The goddess of Liberty is smiling, We are the vanguard of antiaggression.’” FROM VMI The morale of the new Nationalist Army seems to be good, and officers credit the im- provement to the work of trim, greying Gen- eral Sun Li-jen, 49, who learned the elemen- tary facts about soldiering at the United States’ Vi ginia Military Institute. Sun served ably against the Japanese at Shanghal ard later in Burma, where he commanded the snappy, United States trained Thirty-cighth Division As one of the Nationalists’ top commanders in Manchuria after VJ-day, he beat the Communists consistently. In 1947, Chinese clique politics led to his transfer to Formosa and the Fengshan training camp. The islanders soon learned that Sun was no carpetbagger. He set up six “don'ts” for his troops. “Don't molest the populace; don’t go to prostitutes, don’t gamble; don’t ‘squeeze’, don't be false; don’t be lazy.” He asked Formosans to help enforce discipline. Villagers still talk about the lieutenant who walked the streets of the small towns near Fengshan carrying a big sign lsting his crimes. Sun learned more than discipline at VMI. He has an American zest for sport. Recently he took part in a Fengshan soccer game, told the other players: “On the playing field, I’m no general.” An enlisted man bowled him over with a well-executed block. The general rose groggily. “Guess I'm not as young as I used to be,” he said, but he insisted on finishing the game Last month the Nationalist Government Offered 4,500 young Formosans a chance to serve in the island's defense, and thousands of volunteers were turned away. General Sun was heartened. With the troops he had already trained and those in training (well over 100,000), he feels that he can stand off at least the first waves of a Communist inva- sion. He has shaken up the officer corps, though too much deadwood still remains. He needs more matériel and more parts for vehicles. But he insists that his “boys are working like beavers because they know now what they are fighting for.” AGAINST DISAFFECTION The Nationalists’ 300-plane air force, com- manded by amiable Gen. Chou Chth-jou, could be Formosa’s most effective defense (so far, the Reds have fought without planes), but until recently Chou was plagued with disaffection among his airmen. Last week in Taipeh, Chou opened a lengthy “self-examination” meeting where airmen 2331 could talk over their personal worries with top brass. He ts also promoting better hous- ing for their families, now thinks that the morale problem is on the way to being solved. Disaffection has also considerably weak- ened the Nationalist Navy. Following the lead of turncoat airmen, sailors have surren- dered at least 12 ships (including the navy's only cruiser, the Chungking, formerly the British Aurora) to the Communists. To combat disloyalty chubby Admiral Kweli Yung-ching has clamped eeveral senior cap- tains in irons. He has also promoted rela- tively liberal pay raises, hopes that what is left of his navy 1s loyal. CRUCIAL FRONT Beyond its shaky defenses the specter that haunts Formosa is economic collapse. If Nationalist military expenditures cannot be held within the limits of Formosa’s produc- tive capabilities, the Communists might just 8 well be invited to come on over unopposed. As Gencral Sun says, “If prices double, we get just half the food we need for our men. What do you think will happen if we can't feed our men and their families?” The commander on the economic front is indefatigable, Princeton-trained Gov. K. C. Wu, former mayor of Shanghai. To set a good example, Chain Smoker Wu gave up cigarettes because “cigarettes are smuggled into Formosa, and represent, therefore, a drain on our financial structure.” Since he became Formiosa’s governor last December Wu has stopped speculation with govern- ment pay rolls by military and civilian bu- reaucrats. He has tried resolutely to tap wealth. Automobiles have been classed as luxuries, and their owners must now buy a certain amount of war bonds; residents ap- plying for passports must purchase bonds equal to the amount of their transportation costs; taxes on restaurant meals and motion pictures have been upped from 20 to 60 percent. The real Key to a stable economy is indus- trial expansion, In this fleld Wu is pressing as hard as he can with the limited means at his disposal. Formosa’s power plants have reached the peak levels of production achieved under the Japanese. Cement pro- duction has surpassed the best Japanese mark, The island’s meager foreign exchange has been reinvested in irrigation projects for richer crops. But even the most enthusiastic Mationalist admits that all of this will even- tually come to naught unless Formosa re- ceives more financial and technical aid from the United States. Like other Nationalist leaders, honest Gov- ernor Wu is conscious that the United States Government, to put it kindly, ts impatient with Nationalist shortcomings. He answers, “When your heart js for reform, you must sometimes be patient.” And if the Reds take Formosa as they have taken China, what price reform? COTTON AND PEANUT ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution (H. J. Res. 398) relating to cotton and peanut acreage allotments and marketing quotas under the Agri- cultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, there are pending before the Senate sev- eral amendments to the pending reso- lution, and I desire at this time to offer another amendment to the so-called potato amendment, and ask that the clerk read it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment for the information of the Senate. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 7, line 12, it is proposed to strike out “the
2332 enactment of this joint resolution” and insert “March 15, 1950.” Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, the amendment which I have offered amends the same Hine of the bill which the pending amendment of the Senator from Delaware EMr. WitiiAms] pro- poses to amend. I assume, therefore, that the Senate will vote first on the amendment proposed by the Senator from Delaware. However, I have sent my amendment to the desk and asked that it be read, in order that Senators may have before them at the time they vote on the Wiliams amendment an al- ternate proposal. I make parliamentary inquiry as to which of these amendments takes pri- ority. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Dela- ware. Mr. ROBERTSON. would be the case. Mr. President, I wish now to invite the attention of the Senate to the fact that the so-called Lucas amendment to the pending cotton joint resolution is aimed at partially correcting a most unfortun- ate situation growing out of the bill pro- viding price support for potatoes. As I stated on the floor yesterday, when the Senator from Dlinois was kind enough to yield to me, his amendment creates some inequalities, plus some additional diffi- culties of administration. So there are pending before the Senate now, Mr. President, four different pro- posals. First, there is the Lucas amend- ment, which provides that there shall be no support for any potatoes planted after the joint resolution becomes law. We do not know exactly when that will be. When we pass the joint resolution it will go to the House. We may assume that the House will not accept the Senate amendments, and will ask for a confer- ence. The House will appoint conferees, and the Senate will appoint conferees. The conferees will meet. After several days of deliberation, perhaps, they will agree on a report. The report will go back, first to the body in which the bill originated. In this case the House would vote first on the conference report. If adopted by the House, the conference re- port will come to the Senate, and the Senate will vote on it. If the Senate adopts the report, it will go to the White House for the signature of the President. He will have 10 days in which to have the Department of Agriculture, and any- body else he might think should be ad- vised with, consulted about proposed changes in the general farm-support program. So it is quite difficult to say when the joint resolution will become law. It is fair to say, however, that it might ersily be 2 weeks—and perhaps longer—before tt will become law. How- ever, the very minute it becomes law, under the Lucas amendment no potatoes planted the next minute can get any support. We have pending before us an amend- ment offered by the distinguished Sena- tor from Delaware [Mr. Wri.iams], which provides that no potatoes har- vested after the joint resolution becomes Jaw shall have any support. That ig- nores the fact, apparently, if we are to I assumed that CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE try to do complete justice to the whole situation, that potatoes have been in the markets from Florida since early Jan- uary, and by the time the joint resolution becomes law the bulk of the Florida crop will have been harvested. The so-called Williams amendment unintentionally draws a cut-off line fust north of Florida. The Lucas amendment draws a cut-off line about 25 miles south of Chesapeake Bay, leaving out that great and wonder- ful potato-producing area in Norfolk and Princess Anne Counties on the Virginia side, and Northampton and Accomack Counties on the peninsular, or Eastern Shore side, of Virginia. Those counties surround Chesapeake Bay. But the Lucas amendment cuts a little south of them, and does a nice job for North Car- olina and everything south of North Car- olina. But it leaves this particular po- tato area out of the picture. I admit, Mr. President, it is not an easy thing to find a perfect solution for the potato problem. In fact, it is but a part of a much larger problem for which we do not have an adequate solution. There is one solution of the farm prob- lem to which we in the United States must eventually give more consideration. When the Marshall plan ends in the fiscal year 1952 our American farmers are go- ine to lose an export market of more than $1,000,000,000 a year. Everyone knows that we have not worked out ae satisfactory solution of the farm problem even with the give-away program of the ECA. Of course, the people of those for- eign nations could have eaten all our surplus potatoes, and would have been very glad to have obtained them, but ap- parently we did not have the shipping necessary, and the transportation of the potatoes might have required the use of refrigerator ships. I do not know what the problem was by reason of which the Secretary of Agriculture said that about 50,000,000 bushels of a very wonderful food had to be destroyed. In fact, it is the type of food which is eaten practi- cally all over the world, although in some of the southern countries they use a ttle different variety, which we call the sweetpotato or the yam; but potatoes of some kind seem to be pretty nearly a world-wide food in civilized countries. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield? Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield. Mr. BREWSTER. Is the Senator from Virginia informed that since that an- nouncement, whenever it was made by the Secretary of Agriculture, a very large yolume, amounting to thousands of tons of the surplus potatoes, has already been taken by our foreign friends in Portugal, {n Spain, in Greece, in Morocco, and other countries? Therefore it seems as though a very large proportion will be utilized in one manner or another rather than to be dumped, which I think is a matter of gratification to everyone. Mr. ROBERTSON. Of course, there is so much hunger and distress in the world it is most repugnant to every American to see food needlemly destroyed and wasted. I have read in the newspapers that some of these nations were willing, at the nominal price at which the pota- toes had been offered for sale, to buy a considerable quantity, but the delivery FEBRUARY 24 was dependent upon their securing ocean transportation, and apparently there was some doubt about the quantity of potatoes which could be delivered before the weather became so warm they would spol, Mr. BREWSTER. The ships are now coming to the Atlantic coast to take these potatoes. It is quite practical to ship potatoes from the northern ports for another month or two. Mr. ROBERTSON. That, of course, fs somewhat encouraging, because it means all the potatoes will! not be lost. Mr. President, I think I should now mention the substitute for the three pending amendments, which would come to a vote when either the Williama amendment or my amendment is adopted or rejected. Then we would come to the substitute for the whole measure, offered by the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Arwen]. That substitute provides that instead of having @ cut-off date or a cut- off line here, there, or yonder, all pota- toes will come under the program, pro- vided the Department of Agriculture will put in a compulsory form of acreage con- trol and marketing agreements. Mr. ATKEN rose. Mr.ROBERTSON. Iyield to the Sen- ator from Vermont if he wants me to do so. Do I understand from the suthor of the substitute that its provisions have been correctly stated by me? Mr. AIKEN. I just came into the Senate Chamber. Mr. ROBERTSON. I stated that the Senator's substitute provides that all po- tatoes this year, regardless of when planted or when harvested, would come under the support program provided the Secretary of Agriculture put into effect a compulsory allotment and marketing control. Mr. AIKEN. That ts correct. Mr. ROBERTSON. I have stated the four proposals which are before the Sen- ate. I feel that in the interest of fair- ness and justice to my constituents, I owed it to them, before action was taken on the Lucas amendment and on the Williams amendment, to offer the amendment which I sent to the desk, and on which I will ask for a vote as soon as the Senate has voted on the Wil- NMams amendment. My amendment strikes ouf the language of the Lucas amendment in line 12 on page 7 which provides that potatoes which are planted after the joint resolution becomes law shall be out, and inserting the provision that potatoes planted after March 15, 1950, shall be out. In this connection I wish to call to the attention of the Semate that during the past year the Government lost very little on the early potatoes, and at the present time, of course, is not losing anything on the Florida new potatoes. Yet I frankly admit that if the Government had not taken up the Maine and Idaho potatoes and other thick-skinned winter potatoes, rather than having them dumped on our southern markets at whatever the market would pay, the Flor- {da producers would not have secured cost of production for what they were selling, because the other potatoes would have been so much cheaper, even though some people like the little marblelike
1950 potatoes which can be boiled. They would have used the winter-grown pota- toes, because price is a factor. So the whole problem, I submit, ts closely inter- related. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield. Mr. BREWSTER. I wonder if the Senator from Virginia is informed that the Government is buying Florida pota- toes at the present time to the extent of several thousand bushels a day in order to support the market? That, I think, affords an interesting observation on the situation. Mr. ROBERTSON. I was under the impression that the Government was not buying the Florida potatoes at the pres- ent time. Mr. BREWSTER. The Government has been buying them for some time. Mr. ROBERTSON. I may be misin- formed. The Senator from Maine, of course, is a potato expert, and I do not claim to be one. No doubt he has kept in closer touch with the situation than I have. If he says that the Government is now buying Florida potatoes, far be it from me to say that he does not know what he is talking about. But I say it can be seen how palpably unfair it is, if the Government is now buying Florida potatoes, for the Lucas amendment to be adopted, since it says, “We will add to the other potatoes the Carolina po- tatoes.” And if the Mississippi potatoes, or Georgian potatoes, or wherever else in that region potatoes are grown, are in- cluded, the potatoes grown in the area up to Chesapeake Bay will be taken in, but potatoes will be cut off at that Ches- apeake Bay line. I say I do not see the justice of such action. Let us include them up to the March 15 period. That will do what? It will take care of the early spring potatoes, even those in California, which really have given us in Virginia sharp compe- tion. The California potatoes come on the market at the same time as our Vir- ginia potatoes do. The California pota- toes are a little larger, but more watery than ours. However, they are packaged and well graded, and they give us tough competition. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, ROBERTSON. I yield. Mr. BREWSTER. Does the Senator not realize that the sun moves north, and does not recognize any geographical boundary at all? I certainly appreciate the force of the argument made by the Senator from Virginia, who does not want Virginia potatoes eliminated. That reminds me of the story of the farmer who said he didn’t want very much land; he just wanted what “j’ined”’ his. I am sure the people just north of Vir- ginia will be equally interested because in the latter part of March and in the early part of April potatoes will be planted in Maryland and further north. Mr. ROBERTSON. But I remind my colleague of the fact that in Aroostook County, Maine, the farmers grow 4 thick- skinned potato which can stand adver- sity. Our little thin-skinned potatoes XCVI——147 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE cannot take as much rough treatment. They do not keep very long. Aroostook potatoes raised and harvested the previ- ous fall can even be sent down to us in March as seed potatoes to be planted for our fall potatoes. There is this much more. We evi- dently have to work out a general farm program. Mr. BREWSTER. Yes. Mr. ROBERTSON. Let us be frank about the matter. We cannot go ahead with a 90-percent support program and practically unlimited production, with surplus piling up, and a potentiality of two or three or four billion dollars a year of support by reason of surpluses we do not know what to do with. This is the most acute part of the situation. We do not have a full remedy, but I am offering a very minor amendment to the pending amendment which I think, pending a more permanent and better adjustment, would at least do justice and be fair to the early crop of potatoes clear across the board from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean. My amendment would take them all in. Then I shall be glad to join with my distinguished col- leagues from the colder area to work out a program to take care of the whole sit- uation. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield. Mr. BREWSTER. The Senator from Virginia did not intend to leave any im- plication that potatoes were receiving 90 percent support now, did he? Mr. ROBERTSON. No. I was talking about the 90-percent support provision which was adopted over my protest and over my vote at the time of adjournment Jast October, which was continued on the insistence of the House for another year on certain basic crops. That could amount to a very large sum of money. But that was for only 1 year. Mr. BREWSTER. But potatoes came under the 60-percent support program last year, and we are still operating under the 60-percent program. Potatoes are the only major crop—I do not say basic crop but major crop—as to which that is true. Mr. ROBERTSON. The potato grow- ers tell me that at current prices they do not receive the cost of produc- tion, in view of the present price of fer- tilizer and the high cost of living. If they were to get $2 a hundred pounds, they might come out all right. Last year, when they got $2.40 a hundred pounds, I am informed they made a little profit on the potatoes they sold to the Govern- ment. However, the present support price merely serves to minimize the po- tato farmer's loss. That is the situation in Virginia. For some reason—I do not know whether it is because there is better land in Maine or whether the Maine farmers are smarter, or what the reason is—in Maine more potatoes are produced to the acre than in Virginia. I think the Sena- tor from Maine knows that is true. I think there are cases in Maine, particu- larly in Aroostook County, where the production is four times as great as it is in Virginia; and that situation makes a considerable difference, 2333 Mr. President, I do not wish to delay the Senate further on this matter. The amendment is simply stated, but of course some of our simplest problems are the hardest to solve. I confess I do not know the real answer. However, I am offering an amendment which in my opinion will make the Lucas amendment, should it be the will of the Congress, fairer than it is at the present time, for my amendment will apply clear across the country, from the Atlantic to the Pa- cific, on the March 15 date, which will take care of every farmer who raises po- tatoes which come on the market in June. Mr. HOEY. Mr. President—— The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tay- tor in the chair). The Senator from North Carolina is recognized. Mr. HOEY. Mr. President, I wish to make a few brief remarks in connection with the farm program. There has been much discussion of the farm support program and the impres- sion has been created that this is cost- ing the Government a tremendous sum of money, and many questions have been raised as to the advisability of continu- ing price support for farm products generally. I think {it would be well to get a clear picture of just what has happened in connection with the farm support of prices. As to the benefit which the farmers have reaped from this program, I need only say that the total income of the farmers in America in 1933 was only $7,000,000,000, in round figures, whereas in 1948 it amounted to $35,000,000,000. The prosperity of the country depends in a very large measure upon the pros- perity of the farmers, and the money spent by the Government in support of farm prices has been returned manifold to the Government in taxes paid by farm- ers and in the general contribution made by farmers to the total prosperity of the Nation. The present measure relating to the allotment of cotton acreage is both nec- essary and essential, and it is impor- tant that it be passed without delay. It is an emergency measure; and for that reason, I favored considering it on its own merits, without having the issue confused by injecting into the consider- ation of this measure the potato amend- ment or amendments touching other farm products It will be recalled that last year the cotton-acreage allotment bill provided for the reduction of cotton acreage from 27,000,000 to 21,000,000 acres for 1950. That was a very decided cut, but one that was fully justified; and the cotton farmer has made no objection to this re- duction in acreage, but has agreed to accept it as a necessary protection for preventing the accumulation of an un- necessarily large surplus. When the allotments were made, how- ever, the Agriculture Department pro- ceeded upon the basis of its Bureau of Agricultural Economics report as to the acreage planted to cotton in the various States and in the counties of the sev- eral States. That report was not ac- curate. As a result of that and other provisions in connection with acreage al- lotments, a great many inequalities and injustices resulted, so that many farmers
2334 suffered a reduction of 40 percent, 50 percent, and sometimes nearly 100 per- cent in their acreage, whereas the across-the-board reduction was supposed to be around 20 percent. This measure is for the purpose of cor- recting some of these inequalities and in- justices. Unless it is passed, many farm- ers will be denied their just rights, by virtue of the method in which acreage allotments have been made. This meas- ure does not give as much increased acre- age for the purpose of adjusting these inequalities as was proposed in the House measure, but it will afford substantial re- lief, and will not add more than prob- ably six or seven hundred thousand acres to the total, and will still leave the number of acres actually planted to cot- ton below the 21,000,000 authorized in the allotment bill last year. In this connection, I think it should be known that this price-support pro- gram for cotion has been in effect for about 16 years; and during this entire period, up to December 31, 1949, the en- tire cotton support-price program has not cost the taxpayers a single cent. Instead of the Governments losing money on the cotton program, it made a net profit, as of the first of the year, of $236,359,485. In view of these facts, no one could have any just complaint about the small measure of relief this measure will give the cotton farmers. In this connection, I may say that an- other very important crop which has benefited from Government price sup- port, and which likewise has not cost the taxpayers a single cent during the 16 years it has been administered, is the to- bacco program. Instead of the Govern- ment’s losing any money on the tobacco program, which has been one of the best administered programs in the entire farm schedule, there was a net profit, for the Government, as of De- cember 31, 1949, of $5,295,280. Of course, other farm-support pro- grams have lost money, and the tax- payers have suffered as a result; but these losses have not been anything as great as the public has been led to believe. For instance, the total loss on the wheat program up to December 31, 1949, for the whole period that this price- support has been in effect, was $40,597,- 175. On peanuts, the Government has lost $57,988,756 for the entire program, over the years. The big loss has been in the potato program, and this is the one which has caused so much popular resentment. Up to December 31, 1949, the total loss on this program was $346,498,858. It is generally admitted that the potato program has not been well handled. Many things have entered in to compli- cate this problem, The heaviest loss oc- curred last year. It arose because the crop was underestimated; and because of weather conditions, an exceptionally large crop developed. I realize the ne- cessity of remedying this situation and of taking drastic action to prevent a re- currence of the waste which has de- veloped by virtue of the destruction of so many potatoes for which the Govern- ment paid the support price. The chief criticism results from the fact that instead of giving these potatoes CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE to charitable organizations and making them available for use by relief agencies, hospitals, and other institutions, they have been permitted to go to waste or be destroyed or be sold for a penny a bushel and fed to cattle, although there was so much human need in the world. There is no defense for this situation. The question now confronts us as to what remedy should be applied. I am going to support the Aiken amendment because I think it will enable the Agri- cultural Department to meet the present situation, and I do not believe we should take the proposed drastic action of re- pudiating the Government's contract with the farmers in the midst of the planting of their crops. I regard a con- tract with the Government as being as vital and as binding as a contract with an individual. This Government would not permit an individual to repudiate a contract with his Government, and therefore I do not believe the Govern- ment should repudiate its own contract with its citizens, We must maintain the integrity of the Government, even though some loss in dollars might occur as a result thereof. I am definitely in favor of the legisla- tion proposed for a strict and rigid po- tato control program for the future, but I think we should adopt the Aiken amendment now, and then follow it by the enactment of a control program that will give reasonable price support to the farmer and at the same time will lessen the cost to the Government and will make available to the relief agencies and other charitable organizations, both at home and abroad, the surplus potatoes, so that they may be utilized for human consumption, and not again have the spectacle of waste and extravagance which has been manifest in the present and past year. Iam very happy to say that the potato situation in North Carolina has resulted in very little, if any, loss to the Govern- ment, because our growers have strictly complied with the marketing agreements of the Agriculture Department and have sought to make the program work suc- cessfully. Our farmers have not over- planted. They have observed all the re- quirements in connection with the opera- tion of the total potato program. As to peanuts, it is gratifying, likewise, to know that the peanuts produced both in North Carolina and Virginia, known as edible peanuts, have cost the Govern- ment practically nothing in the way of support by prices. These have been sell- ing above the support price practically all the time. Only about 15 percent of the cost of the peanut program has been atiributable to peanuts grown in North Carolina and Virginia, which constitute the bulk of the edible peanuts produced in the United States. Peanuts grown in other sections are known as the oil-pro- ducing peanuts, and they sell at a lower price; and the loss in the operation of the program has occurred in connection with the marketing of these peanuts. Upon the whole, the farm program has been a great success, and the price supports have enabled the farmers to realize a profit on the farm. Thus we have buttressed the prosperity of the FEBRUARY 24 Nation and have maintained our econ- omy at a high level. Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Mr. President, House Joint Resolution 398, which now is before the Senate, is proposed legislation of an emergency nature, as I see it. In a very few weeks the farmers of South Carolina and of the entire Cotton Belt will be ready to plant their 1950 crop. In some States it will be even sooner. This measure can mean the absolute livelihood of many farmers in the south- eastern section of the United States. There is no question in the minds of the farmers as to the value of this bill. It will not cure all the inequities, but in my opinion, and in the opinion of the other members of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry it will cure many more inequities than even the House joint resolution, because it uses a different method of determining the amount of acreage which was actually planted in the years 1946, 1947, and 1948, rather than taking without question the statistics of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The purpose of the pending joint resolution is to take care of the situ- ation only where gross inequities now exist. Last year when the present cotton- acreage allotment program went into ef- fect, my office was flooded with mail. The cotton growers in South Carolina told me that their cotton allotments had been cut as much as 60 and 70 percent in some cases. Last year in my State the cotton crop was almost a 100-percent failure due to excess rainfall which brought on the boll weevils. As for the farmers who depend on cotton as their sole money crop, they were left in desti- tute circumstances, Many of them had borrowed money to buy fertilizer for the 1949 crop which failed to produce. Mr. President, today there are farmers in my State and in every State in the Cotton Belt who are wondering how they will be able to operate this year. During the first session of the Eighty- first Congress, Public Law 38 was en- acted, which set up a revolving fund for the Department of Agriculture to make disaster loans to farmers whose crops had been lost due to unpreventable conditions. Last year the entire State of South Carolina was included in the disaster area. This has been a tre- mendous help. This will help provide the farmers with money to buy fertilizer, but what good will fertilizer do if the farmers only have 5 or 6 acres allotted them in 1950 for cotton planting. Mr. President, I well realize that we must have strict acreage control if the Government is to sponsor high-price support for cotton or any other com- modity. I am for cotton support, but I want to remind you that cotton support is to assure the farmers of this Nation of a livelihood. Twenty-one million acres have been allotted throughout the Nation under the present program. The Department of Agriculture estimates that under the existing law there will be planted ap- proximately only 19,000,000 acres. If House Joint Resolution 398, contain- ing the Lucas amendment, is passed, the
1950 Department of Agriculture estimates that an additional 800,000,000 acres will be added, but some have estimated that it will be much smaller than that amount. However, if it is passed, it will wipe out some of the gross inequities which are now in the program. One of the main reasons for these in- equities is the BAE figure which has been used in determining a farmer's allot- ment. It is known by the Department of Agriculture, the farmer, and by us that these figures are incorrect. They never should have been used in the first place. The way in which the BAE figures were obtained is in a great many in- stances responsible for the incorrectness of the figures. In my State 159,000 let- ters were sent to the farmers. Answers were received to approximately 20 per- cent of the letters. That percentage which was received were multiplied by 6, and the allotment was determined in that manner. In certain counties, of course, only the big farmers replied; in other counties the small farmers replied in big numbers, As a result of this hit and miss and guess on the part of the BAE, some of the farmers were cared for, while many others were not properly allotted acreage for the future. The farmers should have been per- mited a chance to prove his cotton acre- age history for the past 3 years. I refer only to those who have suffered gross inequities. Mr. President, this joint resolution would give less than 800,000 additional acres to the Nation and these extra acres will go where they are justified and badly needed, It has been predicted by the Department of Agriculture that the total amount of cotton planted in the United States in 1950 including the extra acre- age provided by this bill will fall short of the 21,000,000-acre national allotment. What I am pointing out is that many farmers have been treated unjustly in the program. The bill being consid- ered today, while adding very little to total national production, will correct many of the gross inequities. Every cotton grower who deserves it will be able to plant enough cotton for his tenants and his own family, too. I call attention to the fact that it will assist the many very small farmers. A few moments ago I said it might be a matter of 5 or 6 acres. Some of them have bee: cut less than that. It will be said, “How can that be done when the joint resolution states that a farmer shall have 5acres?” The answer is easy. Where the farmer-owner has tenant farmers under him, and in some in- stances can ration only 2, 3, or 4 acres to the tenant farmer. The joint resolution will assist many people, who now have allotted to them 3,4,and 5 acres. It will give them probably 1, 2, or 3 acres addi- tional, and will re their salvation during the coming year. The Agricultural Committee has re- ported the joint resolution, as amended, by unanimous vote. This amendment was first introduced in the Senate under joint sponsorship of Senators EastLanp, MCcCLELLAN, HILL, STENNIS, and myself, and the substance of it now replaces the bill as passed by the House of Repre- sentatives. The American Farm Bureau CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Federation and the National Cotton Council support the provisions of this bill. Mr. Walter L. Randolph, presi- dent of the Alabama Farm Bureau Fed- eration, said in his testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee that the provisions of this bill would give suffi- cient relief to the cotton farmers while the House bill goes too far and does an injustice to the majority of those farm- ers who would not benefit from the ex- tra acreage proposed in the House bill. It should be clear in your minds that this bill is necessary for the economy of the farmers. We in the Senate Agricul- ture Committee, by the adoption of the Senate version of the cotton-acreage allotment bill, have cut the extra acre- age from 1,400,000 acres to less than 800,000 acres. Another advantage in this bill is that it can be worked in the years to come. If the joint resolution, as amended by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, is no. passed, we shall have the same prob- lem in the future. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I will be glad to yield to the able Sena- tor from Mississippi. Mr. EASTLAND. I am glad the Sen- ator from South Carolina has brought out the fact that the Senate bill is an attempt at a permanent solution to the cotton-acreage problem. As the Sena- tor well knows, the permanence of this proposed legislation, which he has worked on s0 diligently and faithfully on the Senate Committee on Agricul- ture, is one of the best aspects of it. Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I agree with the Senator from Missis- sippi. Mr. EASTLAND. I am glad also the Senator from South Carolina has pointed out the aid and assistance that this amended bill gives to the small farmer. As he has so pointed out, in many areas of his State there are many farmers who grow less than 5 acres of cotton. Under the bill as passed last fall, small farmers who have one or two tenants on their farms and grow in excess of 5 acres of cotton were so dis- criminated against that many of their tenants were forced to move and seek employment elsewhere in his State. The Senator has just ably presented this subject, but I wanted to voice my con- currence and point out that the same situation which exists in South Caro- lina also obtains in my State. I want to take this occasion to express my sincere thanks to the Senator from South Car- olina for the earnest and hard way in which he has worked to be helpful to the small farmers of his State and to other States with identical problems. The very able Senator from South Car- olina has been particularly helpful in bringing this controversy to a success- ful and quick conclusion, for the Sena- tor knows that both in his State and throughout the Cotton Belt the farmers will have to start planting their cotton very soon, Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina, Yes; it is so close to planting time that I think we ought to stay here in the Sen- ate all night if necessary to get this bill 2335 passed and to send it to conference so that it can become law within the next few days. Mr. EASTLAND. I certainly agree with the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. As the very able Senator from Mississippt has pointed out, if the amended joint resolution can be enacted, it will be a great step, not only toward the relief of the cotton growers but toward a better program for next year and years to come. If we find that we want to reduce the acreage, we probably can do it. The easy way to do it is on a percentage basis The continual debate about cotton acreage will be eliminated to a large extent. The farmers will benefit each year from the provisions of this bill and the cotton-acreage-allotment program will be set forth to the Department of Agriculture, and it will be a problem solved to a very large extent in the years to come, Hundreds of tenant farmers have been asked to leave by the land owners. These people have no place to go. This bill, which would only in a very small way, if any, impair the cotton support and control program in the years to come, means the absolute existence of many families in the Cotton Belt. Planting time is just around the cor- ner. It is very important to farm econ- omy that this bill be enacted at the earliest moment. This is true because the farmer, whether landlord or tenant, must pre- pare now for the planting of the cotton; he must make arrangements to borrow money with which to finance him during the year. The House joint resolution containing the Lucas amendment is, in my opinion, an emergency piece of Iecgis- lation, and a good one, and should be passed immediately. DISPLACED PERSONS Mr. STENNIS obtained the floor. Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the distin- guished Senator from Nevada. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the body of the REcorp at this point, as part of my remarks, certain communications, newspaper articles, and resolutions bear- ing on the subject of displaced persons. There being no objection, the commu- nications, newspaper articles, and reso- lutions were ordered to be printed in the REcorpD, as follows: GENESEE MILK PRODUCERS’ Cooperative, INC., Batavia, N. Y., February 21, 1950 Hon. Senator Patrick D. McCarran, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear SENATOR: I read with particular in- terest in the February 19 issue of the Roches- ter Democrat and Chronicle, your stand on the entry of displaced persons into this coun- try as written by Sigrid Arne of the Asso- ciated Press I agree wholeheartediy with your view- point. Out of 10 cases in this vicinity, in- cluding our own experience, only one seems to appreciate the opportunity offered by this country. I could furnish in detail facta referred to in the article such as coming here under
2336 false pretenses, have had little or no farm training and were unwilling to stay on such jobs, kicking about wages, and being told too rosy a story about living conditions in the United States. It is my contention that American people should have some rights; that displaced per- sons who come to this country under false pretenses and who will not make good citi- zens should be deported. I believe that entry of displaced persons should be halted until a law has been made to that effect. I am glad to know that there is one Sen- ator who is aware of the danger of these dis- satisfied displaced persons and ts taking a definite stand about it. Very truly yours, Cuartes B. BROOKS. ALTADENA, CALIF , February 20, 1950. Hon. PATRICK McCarRRAN, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. Dear SENATOR McCarran: A great many of us want to send thanks to you for your able handling of the DP situation. If you could keep all of them out for several years, that would be a great benefit in many ways. Frankly, while it may be true that we might find some desirable people in the many that might come in, we feel that you are absolutely right, very right, that too many undesirables are coming in. In a re- cent shipment of over 300 that came in here, practically all of them were Usted as gar- deners. That was the joke, because they were dancers and writers and actors for the movie center in Hollywood, and most of them had plenty of money, buying properties here and paying cash. The first part was from the papers giving their pictures and their true activities, the latter part from real- estate dealers. We feel and believe that most of these people have low standards of morality and do not make good citizens. We judge of all that from their statements. And from what little we hear of your hearings, you have already found that out. Is it possible to obtain a copy of the pro- ceedings of your committee? Would appre- ciate a copy when the hearings are finished. You are doing a great job. Keep it up. Sincerely yours, L. W. ScHERER. P,8.—Another thing, these DP’s are tak- ing jobs away from veterans who are unem- ployed, and they are taking houses that veterans and others would be glad to have. There is a whole subdivision near Long Beach, Calif., that was started as a rental section shortly after the war, and now the tenants have to move as the houses are being sold at about double their worth. Who gets them? Ha! Past DEPARTMENT COMMANDERS’ NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Sons oF UNION VETERANS OF THE CIVIL War, Easthampton, Mass., February 20, 1950. Hon. Pat McCarran, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. Dear Sir: I have just received a copy of your address in the Senate on January 6, 1960, regarding the displaced persons and the problems that have arisen in connection with their being admitted into this country. I sincerely hope that your several investi- gations will prove beyond a doubt to your colleagues in the Senate that House bill 4567 should not be enacted by your august body. We who love America and its many advan- tages do not want to jeopardize our national and natural way of living by the admittance of those who will be trained to destroy all we hold as truly the American wey of life. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE May I take this opportunity to thank you for a copy of this address and that your efforts will not go unrewarded. Sincerely yours, JouHN W. Emery, National President. BROOKLYN, N. Y., February 17, 1950. Deak SENATOR McCarran: Thought you might be interested in the letter, Report on DP's, in the current issue of the Tablet, Catholic weekly of Brooklyn and Long Island. Sincerely, JoHN L SCANLAN. [From the Tablet, Brooklyn, N. ¥., February 18, 1950] FIGURES ON DP’S Dear Sir: From its office at 80 Centre Street, New York, N Y., the New York State Com- mittee on Displaced Persons has issued an information bulletin of some 22 pages. Its contents covers the characteristics of DP’s settling in New York State from October 1948 to October 1949. There is full information concerning the marital status, sex, age, coun- try of birth, size of family, schooling, occu- pations, and assurances of these new immi- granis, Undoubtedly many of your readers will be interested in this report which can be had for a penny post card. I should like to point out what appears to me to be significant omission of char- acteristics, namely, that of religion. Most of us average citizens will recall the campaign waged against the 1948 DP law, not by pet- sons like myself who favor limiting immigra- tion, but rather by those who say they want to liberalize this law and our general immil- gration laws. It was said again and again, by leading names of all political parties in our State, by other important persons, and most of the press that the 1948 law discrim- inated against Catholics and Jews. Perhaps it some day will be realized that the originat- ors of this vicious campaign of falsehood and vilification were none other than the Com- munists and fellow travelers. In view of the above, maybe some of our State legislators can tell us why the “religious characteristics’ were omitted from the re- port In view of rising popular sentiment against communism, I think the citizenry of our State would be interested in knowing how many God-fearing people are among our new settlers. Of the 100,000 DP’s who entered our coun- try during the above period, 28,041, or ap- proximately 29 percent, came to this State. Of our total, 7,168 settled up-State and 21,773 settled in New York City. As I stated in my letter which was published in the Tablet of September 11, 1948: “Furthermore, one of the reasons for the disastrous housing situa- tion is the fact that too many refugees and displaced persons already have settled in New York City ” I think It’s about time to call a halt. JoHN L. SCANLAN. FEBRUARY 21, 1950. SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: I would like to enter a protest against DP’s being admitted to our country during these unsettled times. My husband was born and raised in this country and yet it 1s impossible for him to get a job. He has been unemployed since October 15, 1949, In one instance, I know he could have a job, if it were not for two DP’s who are working there. We have been living on unemployment insurance and also on our savings of a few hundred dollars, which was to have been @ down payment on a home this spring. I have a son who just graduated from high school and can’t get a job. I say keep the DP’s out and take care of our own people first. FEBRUARY 24 My husband and I were married the year of the depression—we struggled through that period and raised a famlly—and now, when our goal was in sight, it has been swept away again. I realize I am not the only one in this situation, but I want to get on my own two feet and stay there. It’s up to you gentle- men in the Senate to help Americans first. Yours truly, (Mrs.) Marre BANNAN. Woonsivz, N. Y. JAMES DISTILLERY, INC., Baltimore, Md., January 23, 1950. Senator Par McCarran, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR McCarran: Copy of the statement, made by you regarding displaced persons, received. I am enclosing copy of a letter which I sent to our Maryland Sena- tors and which 1s self-explanatory. I applied for two families of displaced persons the latter part of 1948 to work on my farm, Goldsborough Hall, Kent Island, Md. The tenant houses provided for the families are well furnished and have all mod- ern conveniences. My farm manager did all possible for their welfare and content- ment. Consequently, I feel certain that they planned to stay only long enough to become acclimated to our country and then seek employment in the city. The situation is unfortunate, when you consider the ex- pense in preparing for them. Respectfully, Fruix V. GOLDSBOROUGH. JANUARY 23, 1950. Dear Senator: If Iam not mistaken, there is a bill now pending in Congress to increase the number of displaced persoys to entry in our country. I want to vigorously protest the passage of this measure unless the meth- od in assigning these families is entirely changed. The families should be properly culled, so that when one applies for a farmer he will not get a shoemaker, and conversely. What is happening now, people are being sent to farms that know nothing of farm life, and do not want to know about it. Their only thought seems to be to stay long enough to gain sufficient information to know how to make a change. This is not right as far as the displaced persons are concerned, and it certainly ts not proper treatment for those of us who are willing to take them In, giving them a home with all comforts and going to the expense of teaching them how to farm, only to learn, later, that they are dissatisfied and preparing to leave. As an illustration, I have two families of displaced persons—the first family came on February 3, 1949, and are preparing to leave the Ist of this February. The reason, the son and daughter, who are 17 years and 16 years, respectively, desire to come to the city. Their father, who is a good worker, seems to have little or no control over them or his wife, who is equally as guilty in her desire to create discontentment. The second family, who came to me on March 10, 1949, seems to be very much more contented, although the first family is doing everything possible to create discontentment. In the tenant houses that I had recondi- tioned for their comfort they have bath- rooms, electricity, gas ranges, and even a radio, and are well furnished. So I have gone to considerable expense. Now, in addi- tion to the necessity of having them properly placed, or culled, there should be some plan whereby they would spend at least 2 years with the ones to whom they are assigned, unless it could be shown that they were not getting proper treatment. This family is leaving me to come to Balti- more in the hope of getting suitable employ- ment. I think all will agree that the labor
1950 situation here, for our own people, is none too good, and they, apparently, will have to be a burden to someone, to say nothing of the fact that if they do get employment, they will be taking the place of others. I merely bring al! of this to your attention because I believe it ts a serious situation, and I do not believe that those of us that have been willing to open our doors to these dis- Placed persons should be subjected to such treatment. Respectfully, Patix V. Gotpssornovan. THE AMERICAN LEGION, DEPARTMENT OF MARYLAND, INC., Baltimore, Md., January 24, 1950. Hon. Pat McCargan, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear SreNaror McCarran: We have received your letter and separate enclosure of dis- Placed-persons statement. We have brought this matter to the atten- tion of our posts and at this very moment are conducting an intensified campaign tied in with the recent suicide of a veteran in this city. It is our hope that this tragic circum- stance will bring home to our citizens the inequities caused by the displaced-persons program. With kind regards, I am, Sincerely, Danie. H. BURKHARDT, Department Adjutant. Jamaica, N. Y., January 25, 1950. Hon. Herbert LEHMAN, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. Dear Sir: J am keenly aware of the bill be- fore the Congress that would permit increas- ing the number of displaced persons to be brought to this country during 1951. As a New Yorker yourself, you are un- doubtedly well aware of the fact that there is an acute housing shortage in the city. There are many thousands of unemployed and sev- eral hundred thousand people on the relief rolls here tn New York and all of these fac- tors are not improving. On the contrary there has been a marked increase of unem- ployment benefits, more people going on relief, and the housing situation is becom- ing more critical. From a common-sense point of view I cannot see the wisdom of bringing more and more of people who will need a place to live, @ job, etc., when we cannot take care of those already here. A great many of these dis- placed persons have quite large families and this only adds substantial sums when these persone are given relief. If our distinguished representatives in Washington do not know these facts—the same conditions as exist here in New York exist throughout the country—then I think it is high time they made a down-to-earth survey before passing legislation detrimen- tal to the interests of the people who sent them to our Nation's Capital to serve as our representatives. I should be pleased to know what you think of my views on this very tmportant subject. Very truly yours, (Mrs.) HEeNRicTra Caarr. Passaic, N. J., February 7, 1950. Dear SENATOR McCarran: The Senate Ju- dictary Committee is doing good work in in- vestigating the workings of the Displaced Persons Commission in giving preference to Communists and admitting them to the United States. But you should also investigate the work- ings of the IRO, especially the review board in Gentva, and fleld offices, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Enclosed ts a clipping, which shows re- jecting honest people and admitting crimi- nals, I know of these cases, because I am sponsoring the entry of the honest man, Michael Marincak, to the United States. The criminal, General Ferjencik, was admitted under the pretense that no witnesses against were available. The clipping will tell you why. Regarding Michael Marincak I wrote a let- ter to the IRO office in Washington dated January 28, addressed to Mr. Stone, revealing how the board of review in Geneva works. A letter dated January 7, I sent to the IRO office in behalf of Imrich Stolarik, whose entry to United States I am also sponsoring, as I found out that he is an honest man and his family. It is important for your investigation that you go through the files of the IRO office (1346 Connecticut Avenue) to find out about the IRO in Geneva. There is the case of ousted Communist high officials of the Benes regime in Czechoslo- vakia who were kicked out because they tried to be included in the Marshall plan. They all were elected to office with Commu- nist approval, then were kicked out in Jan- uary 1948 and admitted to the United States. This shows how Czech Communists get in easily because they have some pull at the IRO. I am glad you took up this investigation and wish you much success. L. Kozaa. {From the Falcon of December 21, 1049] Forcinc AHEAD We received letters of appreciation for our Forging Ahead columns of November 30 and December 7, with the encouragement to keep up the hot stuff. It makes us feel better when we get rec- ognition for our presentation of facts on cur- rent events. But it is significant that we did not recelve any denunciations of our stand against in- justice perpetrated by those who are in power, They could easily accuse us of not presenting true facts. Our friend suggests that we all write to our Congressmen (Senators and Representa- tives) about the topics presented in the Forg- ing Ahead column pertaining to social im- provements and adjustments. Many indtviduals among us have a super- ficial knowledge about our struggles for jus- tice here and abroad. Many of us want to be isolated, to refrain from mixing in troubles of @istant countries. They do not realize that our isolation and detachment led us into the second war. Therefore, everybody who has a deeper knowledge of causation, should spread his knowledge to others. A letter from a Slovak refugee in Austria discloses that he was excluded from the In- ternational Refugee Organization with in- sufficient explanation for the cause. Last January he applied again for admis- sion and in October was given a hearing in Linz, To his surprise he was asked about his tobacco factory. He explained that he conducted a little store, and not a factory, where he sold tobacco among other mer- chandiese. After the hearing he was notified from headquarters in Geneva about his rejection. Some excuse was given in German, some- thing about a eignature—whatever that meant. He sent us the original of this re- jection and we could not determine the meaning of the excuse, although we know a little German. He informed us that the witnesses were Germans and Communists, This is IRO in action—against honest people. A Communist, General Ferjencik, applied for admission to the TRO and was readily admitted, no pertinent questions asked and 2337 was recommended for passage to the United States. In New York some public-spirited citizens were informed about his past activities, and caused his detention, resulting in a hearing. The judge wanted testimony of eyewit- nesses, To procure testimony against a Commu- nist general is a hard task, because the eye- witnesses were killed off behind the iron curtain and those who are here would not testify, because the Communists would kill their relatives left behind the fron curtain. Consequently, the culprit was set free con- ditionally. If a witness would be wilting to testify against him, he would be summoned to another hearing. This is an example of how easy a Commu- nist may enter the United States when he carefully wipes out all disagreeable testimony. There ts much speculation about the future movemerts of the Russian anarchists. The Germans, under Allied control in west Germany, should be armed so they could readily defend their country, if attacked by the Russtan anarchists. The military problem of western Europe is the counteraction against the Soviet Army, which is considered to be stronger than the combined armies of western Europe. Western Germany, mobilized, would con- siderab!.’ increase the strength of the Allied army and the Russian terrorists would not start war against such big odds. The French are much afraid of an srmed Germany, but they should consider that the Germans would get the necessary ammuni- tions and armaments from the Allies. The manufacture of arms and ammunition would be under control of the Allies. Any weapon is useless without ammunt- tion and if the Germans do not get ammuni- tion for their rifies and cannons, they cannot do any harm. All this considered, the Germans in west Germany should be armed, so that they may hold the Soviet Army in check and eventually drive them back to their own country— where they belong. PorTLAND AMERICANIZATION COUNCIL, Portland, Oreg., January 27, 1950. The Honorable Par McCargan, United States Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENaTOR: It has come to the atten- tion of this council that House Resolution 4567 is now under consideration in the Unitea States Senate and, after careful study of the effects of this resolution, should it be- come a law of our land, we feel it would cause & great deal of hardship and lowering of the standard of our American way of life. There- fore, we earnestly seek your active support in defeating this resolution. Our National Government has already ap- propriated and spent billions of dollars for re- habilitation and relief under the Marshal) plan in order that the countries involved, or so covered, could take care of all groups, in- cluding displaced persons, and the tirne has now arrived when our Congress and National Government must recognize the needs of our own people by rejecting the provisions of House Resolution 4567. We most respectfully request that you carefully analyze the following reasons for opposing House Resolution 4567: 1. We now find over 15,000 World War II vetcrans are and have been unemployed in the last 6 months in the State of Oregon. 2, The datly press informs us that the un- employment rate among all types of crafts- men has reached the highest peak since 1939, which {fs a further indication that House Resolution 4567 would be detrimental to the econamy in this Nation. 8. The birth rate of the United States dur- ing the past 5 years has reached an all-time
2338 high and, in just a matter of 15 years, these new American-born citizens will be in com- petition with the immigrants and their families, which will further reduce the standard of living within our country. 4. The rellef budget of the State of Oregon and various counties has reached such stag- gering proportions that it was necessary for the Governor of the State of Oregon to re- quest from the State emergency board an additional $11,000,000 to feed and clothe the needy of our State for the balance of this fiscal year. 5. The educational facilities in the State of Oregon are so overtaxed at the present time that school districts are at a loss to find the money necessary to take care of the pres- ent needs, let alone any further population expansion by opening our gates further to immigration. 6. According to the best reports, nationally and particularly in the State of Oregon, the lack of housing for families in the low- and medium-wage brackets is such that further admission of displaced persons would en- danger the home life of thousands of Oregon families. 7. Pressure groups are now being organized to insist on preferential employment of dis- placed persons who are coming within our State, to the detriment of Oregon veterans and laboring people in general. It has al- ready come to the attention of this council that certain city, county, and State officials have employed displaced persons in top posi- tions, while our own college and university graduates go begging for jobs. The executive board of the Portland Americanization Council, at a meeting held January 26, 1950, directed the undersigned to transmit the action of the council to you. Very truly yours, PORTLAND AMERICANIZATION Counc, By George E SANDY Mrs, D. E. NEWSOM. GerorcE J. CHURCH. Mase, SUMMERKAMP. VIOLA ORTSCHILD. Duta HOSPITAL, senor, N.C., February 16, 1950. Senator Pat McCarran, Senate Office Building, Washington, D C. Dear Senator McCarran: Thank you for sending me reprints on displaced persons I agree wholeheartedly with you in your attitude against H. R. 4567 and all its impli- cations. I feel very definitely that we can very easily destroy the whole way of life of America if we @o not carefully control immigration. I am reminded especially of the refugee doctors who came to our shores in flight from oppression and danger and who remained here to firmly establish themselves in more desirable medical practice than they could have had elsewhere, instead of returning to the fight against thelr oppressors. Once they arrived here it was no longer their battle, it was ours, and they took advantage of the patriotic doctors of this Nation who had gone forth to fight against the same oppressors from which these spineless arrogant beggars had fied Keep up your fight and do not let America be the haven for all those who are unwilling to fight the battle over there and yet who would just as willingly precipitate ug into just such a battle here. Yours very truly, Frep M, Duta, M. D. STEUBEN Society oF AMERICA, New York, N. Y., February 3, 1950. Dear SENATOR: I enclose herewith copy of an article dealing with the displaced-persons bill (H. R 4567), shortly coming before the Senate, which appears in the February issue of the Steuben News. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Will you be good enough to give the argu- ments set forth in the article your Kind and careful consideration. At the same time I call to your attention once again the testi- mony given by this society before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the problem of the expellees (displaced persons of German ethnic origin) on August 6. It Is the feeling of the membership of this organization that the benefits accruing to the expellees by virtue of section 12 of the pend- ing blll will be nullified by the provisions of section 13. As the 10,000,000 to 12,000,000 expellees in western Germany may well be- come in a short time a serious problem to the people of the struggling German Repub- lic, as well as to the American taxpaver via the Marshall plan, it 1s our considered judg- ment that a small percentage of farm Iabor- ers, skilled artisans, and others among these industrious people should be siphoned off the overflow and admitted to the United States of America under the displaced-persons legislation. I feel that the arguments against certain phases of section 13 have been set down most carefully, after a thorough study of the entire problem. May I ask you to judge our suggestions on their merits and to favor any changes and/or amendments during the coming debate on the Senate floor which might provide an equl- table solution of the expellee question within the framework of H. R. 4567. Thanking you for your Interest, I am, Sincerely yours, THEO. H HoFFMANN, National Chairman. [From the Steuben News for February 1950] THE SENATE DP BILL AND THE EXPELLEES— Tre AMENDED House Bit Witt Come Up For DEBATE IN THE SENATE VERY Soon— Spirit oF RETRIBUTION Stu. RAMPANT— Tur Osnoxious SEcTION 13—WHaAT ANY Goop CITIZEN CAN AND Must Do AsovurT IT—PromPr ACTION Is NEEDED A displaced-persons bill differing in sev- eral points from that which was passed by the House of Representatives on June 2, 1949, H R 4567, introduced by Representative EMANUEL CELLER, Democrat, of New York, in order to “liberalize” the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, has been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committce and will come to the floor of the Senate during the current session of Congress. Those who follow the workings on Capitol Hill closely will remember that the House- approved bill was “hottled up” in the Sen- ate Judiciary Committee, according to those who wanted rapid acilon and were unable to get tt during the last session of Congress, Quite some pressure was exerted on the Sen- ate, and finally, Just before it adjourned last fall and during the absence of Senator Pat McCarran, Democrat, of Nevada, the com- mittee chairman, in Europe, the upper House ordered the Judiciary Committee to report out a DP bill by January 25, 1950." Whatever the true merits of the House bill and of the Senate version, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Senate Judiciary Com- mittee has done a conscientious job in the face of many difficulties. MANY HEARINGS HELD During the first session of the Eighty-first Congress, there have been many, many hear- ings before the Senate committee, and, what- ever his personal attitude on DP legislation may be, no fair and unbiased person will entertain doubts as to the diligence and im- partiality of the Senator from Nevada. The record, which will be in print very soon, speaks for itself—representatives of many groups and organizations, as well as indi- viduals, were heard by the committee, and their testimony is reflected in the Senate bill. FEBRUARY 24 The chairman was trying scrupulously to hear every side of an extremely difficult argue ment, and more than once had to submit to violent attacks by witnesses and by news~ paper writers who seemed to be unable to lake questions of basic attitudes on imml- gratlon—and of geography—into considera- tion. Before comparing both bills in detail, it their testimony is reflected in the Senate bill. like the House bill, will not please everyone. In fact, it will please very few. It is the logical product of compromise and the just as logical result is that practt- cally everybody will find fault with it. Some people, after careful study, have even gone 80 far as to call it a typical case of political log rolling. TRYING TO PLEASE ALL With so much testimony on hand and sub- ject to the natural desire to please all those who have taken a special interest in dis- placed-persons legislation—pro and contra— it is well possible that the Senate Judiciary Committee, in the prihcipal issues of the pro- posed legislation, may not have satisfied any one. Certain changes made In one section of the rather long-winded bill, have been weakened or practically nullified in another section which fact caused an observer on the scene to remark pointedly: “The committee giveth and the committee taketh away.” This case of Senatorial log rolling, to a large extent, must be attributed to the fact that the displaced-persons legislation became a political football, last fall, during the elec- tion campaign. It stands to reason that the deliberations of the Senate on the bill, during the coming weeks, and the Joint committee sessions after passage in the upper House, will be held in the shadow of the extremely important 1950 congressional elections—a fact which will make clear-cut decisions on the true merits of this legislation more than illusory. THERE WAS NO DISCRIMINATION It is highly regrettable that even the Presi- dent of the United States attacked the legis- lation of 1948 as discriminatory on religious grounds, notwithstanding the well-proven fact that Jewish as well as Catholic displaced persons predominated among those ad- mitted here under the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 through November 1949. Only re- cently (January 10, 1950), a spokesman for the National Catholic Resettlement Council stated categorically that present legislation was not anti-Catholic, as has been charged by President Truman and others who had called the restrictive features of the Dis- placed Persons Act and anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic. The offictal figures of the State Depart- ment (up to and including November 1949) are as follows: Jewish, 33,479 (26 percent); Roman Catholic, 63,402 (41 percent); Prot- estant, 20,279 (16 percent); Greek Orthodox, 19,283 (15 percent); others and unknown, 1,423 (2 percent). The Senate Judiclary Committee further stated that under the President’s directive admitting displaced persons prior to the en- actment of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, 12 percent of the visas issued were to persons of non-Catholic and non-Jewish faith, while 88 percent of the visas issued were to persons of Catholic or Jewish faith. Any fair-minded person will agree with the committee’s opinion that these statistics flatly refute the charges which have fre- quently been made to the effect that the present law discriminates against the per- sons of Jewish or Catholic faith. Unfortunately, the bland assurance with which these persons in high places make their ill-founded statements for the sake of political expediency have already done im- measurable harm and will continue to-make their weight felt during the comjng deliber- ations In the Senate.
1950 WHERE THE BILLS AGREE These are the points in which the House bill and the proposed Senate bill generally agree: Both extend the cut-off date—the date be- fore which refugees must have arrived in the western zones of Germrany and Austria, to be considered eligible DP’s. Under the old date, December 22, 1945, many persons fleeing political or religious persecution in eastern Europe during 1946 and 10947, were excluded. Under the new date—January 1, 1948—they may be admitted to the United States. AND WHERE THEY DIFFER These are the points in which the House bill and the proposed Senate bill differ: The House bill repeals a provision of the 1948 act which required that 40 percent of admitted DP’s come from “areas which have been de facto annexed by a foreign power” (Baltic nations). The Senate version retains this provision. The House bill kills a provision that 30 percent of admitted DP'’s be farm workers. The Senate version retains the provision and strengthens it by requiring 2 years of farm experience The House bill, as originally presented, had changed the International Refugee Organi- gation’s (IRO) definition of ‘‘displaced per- sons” by making provisions for the expellees (Volksdeutsche driven from eastern Europe into rump Germany by the decisions of Yalta and Potsdam, endorsed by the late President Roosevelt and by President Truman). It had, however, preserved the authority of the IRO within the framework of the bill. The Senate bill goes further. It not only stipulates that half of the German and Austrian immigration quotas, until July 1, 1952, ‘tbe available exclusively to persons of German ethnic origin who were born in Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Rumania, Russia, or Yugo- slavia,” but it adds, “and areas under the control and domination of any such coun- tries,” and it furthermore stipulates that “the Secretary of State is hereby authorized and directed to tmmediately resume general consular activities in Germany and Austria to the end that the German and Austrian quotas shall be available for immigration visas pursuant to the immigration laws” and that “it shall be the duty of the com- mittee to make a full and complete investiga- tion of the problems of persons of German ethnic origin who were expelled from the country of their residence tnto Germany and Austria and are presently residing in those countries.” Finally the Senate version pro- poses a complete divorce from the activities of the IRO. Taken as a whole, the Senete bill would admit roughly 320,000 DP's as compared to the 339,000 provided for in the House Dill. About 125,000 have already been admitted under the 1948 act. These are the bare facts of the Senate provisions and of the bill passed by the House last June. CASE OF THE DP’S We have the fullest measure of compas- sion for those unfortunate people from the east who became Hitler's slave laborers during the war years. We want them to be treated justly and in accordance with the tradi- tional humaneness of this great Nation. We also feel strongly for those Poles, Greeks, and Czechosiovaks for whom the Senate bill makes special provisions. However, we feel Just as strongly for the ten to twelve million of expellees—those Volksdeutsche who had prospered and cul- tivated the soll for hundreds of years in eastern and southeastern Europe, and who were driven from their homes, with often less than the bare essentials on their backs, into a devastated Germany by the unilateral ac- tion of the victors, as pronounced at Yalta and at Potsdam—in one of the most brutal CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE and most stupid deeds ever committed by fellow human beings. It 1s with extreme bitterness that we state the seemingly unalterable fact that hu- man kindness as well as a minimum of self- enlightened self-interest are still subjected to hatred and a burning desire for retribu- tion—5 years after the end of the war. The acrimonious remarks of Representative EMANUEL CELLER, the constant drumfire of powerful pressure groups in Washington, and the mockery of the influential New York Times are united to kill all those provisions which might enable a very smal] proportion of those millions of unfortunate and de- pressed expellees—so highly skilled in farm labor, artisanship, forestry, and many re- lated professions—to enter this country un- der the Senate DP bill. THE FIGHT IN THE SENATE During the coming debate these forces have to be counteracted. Section 12 of the pending Senate bill favors the admission of DP's of German ethnic origin under the Im- migration Act of May 26, 1924, up to and in- cluding the deadline set for July 1, 1952. If this section stood by itself and, by the action of both Houses, would be made into law, just an infinitesimal percentage of the ten to twelve million expellees might find a new home in this country and serve their new nation, to the best of their rich abilities. But, in accordance with the age-old law to please everybody, section 12 of the bill Js followed by section 13, which might well make it impossible to admit a single one of these persecuted people into the United States. KILL SECTION 13 Section 13 states, first of all, that no per- son who is or has been a@ member of the Communist Party or (amended) a Marxist, may enter the United States. I agree fully and completely with the ban on the adherents of the Communist doctrine. But, I want to ask the distinguished Senator who introduced the amendment, “or Marx- ist,” whether he has studied this question carefully. I, personally, have an entirely dif- ferent outlook on political-economic affairs than that promulgated by those whom I want to call the classical Marxist theorist.” I am, however, reasonably sure that a Ger- man Social Democrat steeped in the theories of Marx and Bebel—or a Socialist of any other European nation—could contribute mightily to the cause of unionism and fair play between employer and employee in this country. Section 18, automatically, would exclude him—be he even a valiant fighter against Nazism who had to suffer the horrors of the concentration camps. This sentence, which may have grown out of the fear complex of certain people, will have to be changed in order to avoid dis- crimination and to leave the field wide open for any subaltern employee in any American consulate in Europe to interpret the law in accordance with his own whims and preju- dices. The same holds true—and much more so— for that paragraph in section 13 of the Senate bill which provides that any one shall be excluded who has borne arms against the United States or who has been a mem- ber of * * * any movement hostile to the United States or the form of government of the United States. TY MIGHT BE INTERPRETED This, again, may well be interpreted by a consular underling to halt all and any im- migration from Germany and Austria into the United States completely. There is good cause to believe that certain groups in this country are in favor of these paragraphs, as the most effective stop to the influx of immigrants of German ethnic origin under the new law. In all fairness, I wish to state that “major offenders" and all those who have been found 2339 guilty by allied and German courts to be Nazis, should be excluded from entry into the United States. But a rigid interpretation of the wording would make it impossible for all those who, at the outbreak of World War II, were called for service in the German Army or Navy, etc., or who, being civil-service employees, artisans, workers, etc., were forced to become members of one of the innumerable Nazl labor organizations, to ever enter the portals of the United States—piactically the entire population of the German Nation at war. Iam firmly convincec that this is not the purpose of the Senate bill. Most of the Ger- mans “who ran with the mob,” but did not participate actively, have been cleared by allied courts and fully restored to citizen- ship. They were frall human beings subject to pressure like anyone else and should not be subjected to an undeserved hardship which, if interpreted verbally, would eliminate Gere man immigration entirely. If it had been the purpose to kill German immigration, section 12 in itself would constitute nothing but an empty gesture, with no solid founda- tion behind it. Or, do the apostles of per- petual hatred enjoy such ar influence in the Senate Judiciary Committee that this “joker” was slipped in for a very definite purpose? It is hard to believe. If, however, such Is the case, I have ill forebodings for the future harmony and tolerance among the many groups and nationalities of this country. I also do not agree with the assertion of the United States High Commistsoner In Ger- many, John J. McCloy, and with the attitude of certain spokesmen in our own State De- partment that the “expellee’ problem is a problem to be solved by the Bonn govern- ment, exclusively. It is a problem to the solution of which the Government of the United States must contribute to a large extent and to the best of its knowledge. It 1s a problem primarily of our making; moreover, a problem which this nation will have to tackle under international law and the stipulations of the Hague Conventions which govern the duties of an occupying power. UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES RISE There are close to two million unemployed in the Bonn Republic and there are no signs of an improvement in the labor market. To siphon off at least a small percentage of the highly skilled expellees would undoubtedly help the infant German Republic and—the American taxpayer. Moreover, this, our Na- tion would benefit from the ingenuity, the industry, and the will to succeed of the Ger- man immigrant who has contributed so mightily to the growth of this land and of the United States for the past 275 years. The debate on the DP bill in the Senate will be bitter and prolonged. Mighty and ruthless adversaries will be at work to elimi- nate German immigration, altogether. But the record as laid down by religious, civic, labor, and patriotic organizations in the hearing files of the Committce on the Judiciary of the upper House, will speak for itself. It 1s the bounden duty of any one, with expellee relations in Germany or with the desire to see harmony restored to the western family of nations, to write, immediately and without reserve, to his Senators and to urge them to strike out section 13 of the amended bill H. R. 4567 completely or to amend It in such a way that the benefits of section 12 of the bill to the displaced persons of Ger- man ethnic origin (expellees) will not be completely nullified by the utterly vicious and obnoxious section 13 of that bill. The Members of the Senate will lMsten to the voice of the people. But it is vitally necessary that that voice be heard—promptly and decisively. J. H. MEYER,
2340 Curcaco, Int., January 23, 1950. Miss ADAMS, Executive Secretary, Senator Pat Mc- Carran, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. Dear Miss ApAMs: When I wrote Senator McCarkan about the DP bill last summer, I noticed you had signed the reply since the Senator was in Europe. I thought you might like to have this clipping from the Chicago Tribun. of this date to put in your files, since it represents the opinion of men who are in the employment field and in a posi- tion to know the conditions. Yours very truly, BuREN BouUNELL, (From the Chicago Daily Tribune of January 26, 1950] UNITED STATES ALLOWING DP'’s To SPONSOR Otter ReruGEES—CITIZENSHIP NoT a TBST, STATE DISCLOSES Displaced persons who have streamed into the United States from Europe during the Jast 16 months under the 1948 DP Act are being allowed by Federal authorities to act as sponsors for other refugees seeking ad- mittance to this country, an official of the Illinois Displaced Persons Commission dis- closed yesterday. Such sponsors—homeless and largely desti- tute themselves until they arrived from Europe—are finding it possible to sign vouchers for new refugees before the spon- sors themselves even have applied for first citizenship papers, 1t was explained. CITIZENSHIP NOT REQUIRED “There is nothing in the DP Act which specifies that the sponsor of a displaced per- son in Europe must be either an American citizen or the holder of first citizenship papers,” the Iilinols commission official said. “A resident displaced person can sponsor another refugee if he cnn guarantee the new refugee will be provided with a job and hous- ing without displacing an American citizen and can also guarantee that the new refu- gee will not become a public charge,” the official explained. Eight or ten cases, in which displaced per- sons settled in Illinois have filed sponsor- ship papers for refugees still in Europe, are pending before the I[llinots commission, 1t was said. More are expected in the future. ONLY TWO ON COUNTY STAFF It is the commission’s duty, in such cases of individual sponsorship of refugees, to de- termine whether the sponsor is financlally able to stand back of the guaranties he gives for the new refugee. Apparently, however, the commission makes no attempt to inves- tigate such sponeors thoroughly. “We have a staff of only two persons in Cook County,” it was explained. ‘‘Therefore we generally have to take the word of the sponsor that he 1s financially able to sponsor a new displaced person.” [From the Chicago Daily Tribune of January 23, 1950] CHANCES OF JoB FOR OLprr MEN Grow DIMMER—MANyY CLOSED TO THEM IN VARI- OUS FIFLDS What to do about the elderly but still cap- able job hunter is becoming a No. 1 problem of society, employment counselors here agreed yesterday. They referred to the man who has passed about 46 or 48 years of age and who, for this reason alone, finds many jobs closed to him; the man who may have had many years of experience in responsible positions and is still mentally alert and healthy, although he may be physically incapacitated for certain types of work; the men who may be ineligible for soclal-security benefits for one reason or another but is too proud to ask for charity, Agencies here estimated that 1 out of every 20 applicants today are in that cate- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE gory. Robert Bell, an official of one agency, said that the number was increasing rapidly “put we still find the doors of employers locked and sealed in our efforts to help them.” FEW SOLUTIONS SUGGESTED There are many explanations for the trend, but few solutions suggested. Bell suggested as a solution that charitable agencies devoted to the aged might be willing to help elderly people find jobs if they knew the need. For each man they helped get a Job, there would be one fewer potential in- mate of old folks’ homes or one fewer ha- bitue of skid row. Others, typified by Charles Leland, presi- dent of a counseling service specializing in executive positions, felt the solution was to convince management that age need not be a araw-back. “The reluctance of industry to use the ability of these men,” said Leland, “is becom- ing a serious problem. Too often their firet— and sometimes thetr only—question of an applicant is ‘How old are you?’ Many of them tell us they won't take anyone over 50.” WANT EXPERIENCE IN YOUNG “A great weakness of top management 1s that they are looking for a man with 50 years’ experience at the age of 35 They like to feel that they can count on a man’s usefulness for 30 years or 80, even though past experience has shown that the average tenure of a key man is no more than 6 years.” The experience of various agencies shows that it is easier for an elderly laborer to get a job as a laborer than for an elderly teacher or executive with valuable experience to get a job even as a clerk. Another obstacle is the high pension cost incurred by hiring older men The increasing number of elderly job hunt- ers was generally attributed to the Nation's increasing life expectancy, which increases the ranks cf the aged, Bell, in addition, placed some of the blame on immigration under the displaced persons law. “Too much latitude in administering the law,” he said, “has permitted DP’s to move away from the jobs for which they were ad- mitted and into others for which we already have a surplus of applicants, thus creating another job barrier.” [From the Washington Post of February 23, 1950] DP DANGER It has become smart and fashionable for cartoonists to lampoon American citizens who are opposed to the admission of dis- placed parasites as illiberal and bigoted, and for editors to denounce them as un-Ameri- can. The fact is that these Americans are putting the interests of the U. S. A. first, whereas the advocates of relaxed immigra- tion laws are putting first the interest of the DP’s. In one recent issue of a metropolitan dally there were: an editorial advocating admis- sion of more DP’s, a story of the water short- age in New York (and impending shortages in other regions, including Maryland), and a story of increasing unemployment in this country. These three items are closely re- lated, and all points to the inability of this country in coming centuries to support its population. More recently, Washington pa- pers carried the story of the failure of the DP program in Maryland, because of the un- willingness of the DP'’s to remain on the farms. The issue is simple. Our population, with further immigration, 1s increasing rapidly; our resources are being exhausted rapidly. Water is only one example but perhaps the most important. Our national unity is be- ing further diluted by the admission of racial and religious groups who have no loyalty to the United States. The claim that Commu- FEBRUARY 24 nists and undesirables are being screened out is patently absurd. If we cannot keep Com- munists and spies out of the State and Jus- tice Departments, how can we screen them out of a mob which will swear to anything to gain the haven of the United States? Be- cause Senator McCarRan is defending the in- terests of the United States against the in- terests of foreigners, he is being abused by the racial and religious pressure groups as if he were a traitor as virulent as Benedict Arnold. F. S. WiLson. CHEVY CHABE. COTTON AND PEANUT ACREAGE ALLOT- MENTS The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution (H. J. Res. 398) relating to cotton and peanut acreage allotments and marketing quotas under the Agricul- tural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Mississippi wishes to point out very briefly that the cotton section of the joint resolution now pend- ing before the Senate is, after all, a very conservative measure in the number of acres which will be involved in its ad- ministration, or the number of acres which will be added to the tota] number of acres which can be planted. It is es- timated that from 600,000 to 700,000 acres will be sufficient to take care of the provisions of the joint resolution. It is not a grab measure. It is not an at- tempt on our part to get all the extra acres wecan. Rather, it is a request for acres which are absolutely necessary in order to eradicate and eliminate, not all but some of the inequities which have arisen with reference to the application of the bill passed in 1949, the cotton acreage control bill, which, as a whole, in my opinion, is a very fine bill. It can be improved from year to year by legisla- tion, as all such matters can be, and the pending measure is one of the steps which I submit are necessary. It arises solely through the application of the 1949 act. I should further hke to point out that fair estimates, made by those in a posi- tion to know, are to the effect that even after the joint resolution becomes a law and the acreage is allowed, the total amount of acres planted for the 1950 crop wiJl not equal the 21,000,000 acres allowed by the 1949 law. In other words, Mr. President, it is fairly clear that there will be perhaps a million, a million and a half, or possibly 2,000,000 acres under the 21,000,000-acre allotment which will not actually be planted. The allotment has been made, but the seed will not be placed in the ground. So, even if we can add in the additional acres referred to, we shall still be within the limits of the 21,000,000 acres established in the 1949 act. There does not seem to be any contest about the facts with reference to that point. Mr. President, there is one statement which has been made on the floor of the Senate, and that is, that this resolution is mainly to take care of the larger proj- ects. I think it should be pointed out again, and, to borrow a phrase, it should be “underscored,” that this resolution is not simply for the purpose of remedying the situation with reference to the large mechanized ferms or the larger projects,
LYoU as that term is ordinarily understood. It is true that the 1949 law pretty well takes care of the small producer who owns his land. When I say “small pro- ducer” I mean the man who plants 6, 10, or 15 acres of cotton. He is a land owner, and the application has worked out fairly and he is taken care of. But the small man who has been injured by. these inequitable applications, in some counties, is the tenant farmer. He is a tenant on a farm of 50, 60, 75, 100, or more acres. He does not have control over the land. He does not receive a direct allotment under the terms of the law, whereas his neighbor, who owns the land on which he lives, receives an inde- pendent allotment and he has been taken care of. The actual operation is that the land- owner who has 40, 50, 60,75, 100, or more acres of cotton, who has been hit par- ticularly hard in the reductions, will re- ceive some extra acres, but that acreage will really accrue, in a large number of instances, to the small tenant farmer. He is the man who does not know whether he will be able to remain on the land. He does not know what the situ- ation will be this year. There are no acres available to apply to such farms in some of the counties, and the only way to reach his problem this year is to pass a measure along the lines of this resolu- tion. Therefore, to say this resolution takes care of the larger projects, and stop there, is to leave a misleading im- pression. A great part of the acreage under this resolution will actually be used in filtering down to the tenant farmers who would otherwise be left high and dry. It varies from county to county. From correspondence and information in the area in which I live and from other areas in the Cotton Belt, I am sure my facts are correct. I am further sure that the application of the resolution will meet the situation as to some of the tenants, not all, because some of them are going to have to move; but, after all, it is a cotton-acreage-reduction program and everyone engaged in cotton growing cannot be taken care of. Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I should like to ask the Senator from Mis- sissippi this question: Whether a man be a small or a large cotton grower, and has not been cut as much as 40 percent down to 60 percent over the average years 1946, 1947, and 1948, this resolu- tion would not affect him at all? Is not that correct? Mr. STENNIS. That is correct. Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. If he had tillable land, he could not plant more than 40 percent of it in cotton. Is not that a fact? Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is en- tirely correct. This resolution, it is true, without any named number of acres as a limitation, opens up the power to allocate new and additional acreage, without naming any number of additional acres which can be allocated. But there are two very effec- tive safeguards, as the Senator from CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE South Carolina has pointed out. There are two very effective safeguards which will keep any board, be it in Washington, on the State level, or on the local level, from running away with the bridle and bit, so to speak, in connection with the application of new acres. No owner, large, small, in between, or any other, under this resolution, can receive an al- lotment of acreage which exceeds 60 per- cent of his average acreage for cotton for the years 1946, 1947, and 1948. I am omitting last year. Another limitation and safeguard 1s that in no event can an operator, mid- dle-sized or large, receive more than 40 percent of his tillable acres. That means the total of all crops. So, with those limitations written into the resolution, and with scientific information at hand upon which they are based, we can as- sure the Congress, I think, that there is no way for it to result in a runaway proposition, with the piling up of acreage just for the sake of trying to make money out of it. Most of the acreage allowed under the resolution would be used in an effort to make a living and to get the necessities of hfe. A great part of the acreage will apply to the family- unit-size farms and will be for the bene- fit of the farmer. There is one further matter, Mr. Presi- dent, which I wish to mention. I should like to remind the Senate that it Is al- ready cotton-planting time, and beyond, in a great portion of the cotton-growing areas. It will take time to consider the resolution in conference. It will take time for the President to make a study of it. It will take time for it to become law, and it will take time for the De- partment of Agriculture to set it In mo- tion. It must work down to State level and then to the county level. Thousands of persons will be involved in the opera- tion of it. All of these matters take time. In addition to that, the land has to be prepared for planting. Fertilizer has to be obtained. This measure is long past due. It is a great pity it was not possible to reach the resolution earlier, but there were obstacles in the way. I want to thank the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry for its consid- eration of the mattcr. But time is run- ning out. We are burning daylight. I hope Congress will see fit to adopt the resolution immediately, because time is of the essence. Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, STENNIS. I yield. Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. In order to get clearly into the Recorp an interpretation of the resolution, I want to read one sentence and then to explain it briefly: Determination of the average acreage planted or regarded as planted on any farm in 1946, 1947, and 1948 shall be made by the county committee after consideration of such evidence as may be submitted by the owner or operator, and shall be subject to review by the State committee, Is it the opinion of the Senator from Mississippi that that language means they do not have to rely absolutely upon the BAE figures? Mr. STENNIS. That is my under- standing. It is put more or less on the 2341 basis of such evidence as may he brought to the committee from any source, and then the State committee has the final say. Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. That is also my impression. Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Sena- tor from Tennessee. Mr. KEFAUVER. I am glad to hear the observation of the distinguished Senator relative to the evidence which should be used for the purpose of estab- lishing a county quota. I have in mind one particular county in Tennessee, Lin- coln County, where there has been more complaint about the operation of the act than there has been in any other county, The BAE figure is considerably below what the committee ascertained to be the actual figure after getting the result of ginnings in the various gins which processed the cotton from that county. It would seem that in fairness to the cotton growers of that county, where they do present definite, substantiated evidence, which is not just guesswork, but where they have gotten actual figures, the county committce and the State com- mittee should consider and take those calculations, rather than the BAE fig- ures, which we all admit are more or less guesswork and are not held out as being absolutely accurate. Does not the Sen- ator agree that that should be done? Mr. STENNIS. I think the Senator from Tennessee is correct, except that, of course, it is a wise provision to have this added clause, ‘and shal) be subject to review by the State committee.” With that there is plugged up a loophole, so that if any county should become ar- bitrary, or should run away with the acreage, 50 to speak, then the State com- mittee, which is keeping an eye on the operation of these matters throughout all counties, could have those matters brought up before the State committee. Mr. KEFAUVER. I admit that that is a wise provision. Mr. STENNIS. I believe the procedure set up in the bill is very sound and workable. Mr. KEFAUVER. The Senator does agree with the Senator from South Caro- lina and the junior Senator from Ten- nessee that evidence other than that of the BAE should be taken into considera- tion, and if it is more accurate, should be adopted rather than the BAE calcu- lations? Mr. STENNIS. Absolutely. I think that is entirely correct, but I think the BAE evidence is worthy of consideration, In some areas I understand they do splendid work. Mr. KEFAUVER. I thank the Senator. Mr. STENNIS. I yield the floor. RESULTS OF AMERICAN FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN THE ENGLISH ELEC- TIONS Mr. KEM. Mr. President, American dollars bought the election yesterday in England. Without the constant rolling of American dollars into the empty tills of the British Socialist Government it would have collapsed long ago from its own wasteful extravagance.
2342 The English election results confirmed what many of us have long suspected: the hand-out state at the expense of somebody else is unbeatable. Our Brit- ish friends decided not to turn their backs on their American Santa Claus. Since the British Socialist Government came into power in 1945 it has squan- dered its way through more than $6,500,- 000,000 in American gifts. The Honor- able Clement Attlee, Sir Stafford Cripps, and their associates have used our dol- lars to finance experiments in socialism, one after another. American dollars made possible the Socialist subsidies on food, enabling British housewives to buy groceries for as little as one-fourth the price our housewives pay here at home for the same items. Amcrican dollars made possible the British program of so- cialized medicine—replete with free wigs and false teeth for all. American dollars—Marshall-plan dol- lars—made possible the Socialist acqui- sition or nationalization of 10 of Brit- ain’s most important industries. To have done this without American aid would have bankrupted the British Gov- ernment. More than $500,000,000 worth of Marshall-plan counterpart funds have been used to reduce the British national debt, swollen by the purchase, with Government bonds, of nationalized industries. American dollars made it possible for these nationalized industries to absorb staggering losses, which would otherwise have disrupted the British economy. The Government-owned transport sys- tem, for example, is running into the red at the rate of $1,500,000 every week. At least part of the losses of the socialized industries was covered by short-term borrowing. This, of course, also in- creased the British national debt, which we have taken under our wing, and which we are permitting to be reduced by Mar- shall-plan counterpart funds. American dollars have spared the Brit- ish people from the inevitable hardships which would have otherwise resulted from their Government’s attempt to put into practical operation the theories of Karl Marx. Socialist leaders in Britain have used our dollars to drug a majority of the British people into a state of happy ac- quiescence in the creeping destruction of their liberties. In short, as I have said before in the Senate, American dollars have been used as a great political slush fund to keep the Socialists in power. As Winston Churchill recently said: Fancy the Soclalist Government in England keeping itself alive economically and politi- cally by these large annual dollops of dollars from capitalist America. And is that Socialist Government grateful for the assistance we have given them? Again I quote Mr. Churchill: They— The Socialists— geek the dollars, they beg the dollars, they bluster for the dollars, they gobble the dol- lars, but tin the whole of their 8,000-word manifesto they cannot say “thank you” for the dollars. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. President, the Socialists in Brit- ain spared no effort to Insure that vic- tory would be theirs. In 1949 the Gov- ernment enacted a new election law se- verely limiting the activities of British candidates. Under the new law, a can- didate’s expenses during the campaign are limited to £450 sterling—about $1,- 260—plus a small stipend for each voter in his district. It is true that these lim- itations apply to Conservative and So- cialist candidates alike. But why should the Socialists worry about limitations on their candidates’ campaign expenses when the American dole was ready at hand? Since July 1, 1949, ECA made available more than $730,000,000 to the British Socialist Government. Mr. Pres- ident, let us understand that clearly. That money was made available, not to the British people directly, but to the British Socialist Government. During the past 7 weeks, a total of more than $120,000,000 was granted. I repeat, dur- ing the past 7 weeks, a total of more than $120,000,000 was granted. Shall we call this a last-minute campaign kitty? Is it any wonder, then, that the tide ran red in England when so many dollars were available for the Socialists to use, and which were uSed in so many ways to sweeten the otherwise unpalatable doses of their socialistic experiments? The Socialists did not see fit to ex- press a word of thanks for American aid in their party manifesto. They did not hesitate to bribe and to lull the Brit- ish electorate with promises of still more sweetness and light in the form of gifts from America. Sir Stafford Cripps, on January 9, 1950, pointedly remarked that he hoped a second round of dollar talks with the administration—that is, the Truman administration—would not be long delayed. Forelgn Secretary Bevin, only 4 days before the election, told a political audience in Croydon that his Socialist regime is discussing steps with the United States to get economic assist- ance when the Marshall plan ends in 1952. Mr. Bevin said at that time: We are already discussing with the United States the situation which may arise (when the Marshall plan ends) * * * We are working hard to see whether we can bring about a new payment scheme in exchange. Apparently the British electors were persuaded that a Socialist government would get the maximum cooperation from the present administration in the United States. Last year, when Mr. Hoffman appeared before the Senate Appropriations Com- mittee in his annual quest for additional funds, he expressed himself as convinced that the Marshall plan was the way to check the advance of socialism in Great Britain. He seemed to think that the Marshall plan would make the British so happy and contented that they would turn back from socialism. Well, the re- sults of the British election should serve to rid Mr. Hoffman of that one delusion, at any rate. Now, as a matter of course, the Social- ist government will carry out its plans to liquidate what remains of the British free-enterprise system. The all-impor- tant iron and steel industry will be na- tionalized on January 1, 1951, pursuant FEBRUARY 24 to a law enacted last year. The Social- ists have announced that they will also seize the sugar industry, the cement in- dustry, water works, wholesale meat, fruit, and vegetable markets, slaughter- houses, and all suitable mineral deposits. And unless the Congress decides other- wise, this socialization program will be financed by Marshall plan dollars. On Tuesday, last, Mr. Hoffman proposed that Congress authorize the expenditure of about $3,000,000,000 for the third year of the Marshall plan, Of this sum, the British Socialist Government, as usual, would receive the lion’s share, or more than $687,000,000. Mr, President, last year I submitted an amendment to the Marshall plan which would have prevented the alloca- tion of dollars to any Marshall plan country nationalizing additional basic industries. As I saw it, there was a press- ing need for such an amendment. A majority of the Senate thought other- wise at that time. But, in my opinion, yesterday’s development in Britain has thrown an entirely new light on the sit- uation. Ishall again submit this amend- ment when the Marshall plan authoriza- tion bill is brought to the floor of the Senate this session. The American people are tired of wet- nursing the Socialist regime in Britain. They want to halt the flow of free-enter- prise American dollars for British social- ism. They oppose any more dollar doles for Socialist doodling and dawdling. DISPLACED PERSONS LEGISLATION Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I have received o telegram from a _ biparti- san group of 10 eminent and distin- guished Americans, including Mrs. Elea- nor Roosevelt, Gen. Lucius Clay, Gen. William J. Donovan, and Mr. Fred Lazarus, on the subject of displaced persons and the displaced-persons leg- islation now pending before the Senate, I ask the unanimous consent of the Sen- ate to insert the text of this telegram, which is very brief, in the body of the Recorp at this point. There being no objection, the telegram was ordered to be printed in the RECorD, as follows: WasHINGTON, D. C., February 23, 1950. Hon, Herspert H. Lerman, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: As Americans we are deeply concerned that our country fulfill our moral obligation and international commitment to find new dem- ocratic homelands for the helpless displaced human beings under our care in Europe. Therefore we respectfully petition the Mem- bers of the United States Scnate to approve the substitute amendments to the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 presented by Senators Fercuson, GraHAM, and Kincore. It is our sincere and heartfelt conviction that with- out these amendments it is impossible for us to create a displaced-persons law that will enable our Nation to admit our share of displaced persons in a just, humane, and fair way. Gen. Lucius D. Clay, Mrs. Franklin D, Roosevelt, James A. Farley, Maj. Gen. William J. Donovan, James F. O'Neil, Judge Joseph Proskauer, James L. Kraft, Mark Ethridge, Fred Lazarus, Harry Bullls,
1950 COTTON AND PEANUT ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution (H. J. Res. 398) relating to cotton and peanut acreage allotments and marketing quotas under the Agri- cultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended. Mr. HOLLAND obtained the floor. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I sug- gest the absence of a quorum, The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Florida yield for that pur- pose? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will cali the roll. The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Alken Holland Neely Benton Hunt Robertson Bricker Kefauver Saltonstall Butler Kem Smith, Maine Cain Kerr Smith, N J, Capchart Leahy Sparkman Cordon Lucas Taft Darby McCarthy Taylor Donnell McFarland Thomas, Okla. Eastland Magnuson Thye Ellender Martin Tydings Green Maybank Wiley Hickenlooper Millikin Williams Hill Myers The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo- rum is not present. The clerk will call the names of the absent Senators. The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the names of the absent Senators. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, unless the Senator from Mississippi objects, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the calling of the roll be vacated. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ab- sence of a quorum has been disclosed, and the Senate cannot give such unani- mous consent at this time. The Chief Clerk resumed and con- cluded the calling of the names of the absent Senators; and Mr. BREWSTER, Mr. CHAPMAN, Mr. CHAVEZ, Mr. CONNALLY, Mr. Downyer, Mr. DworsHak, Mr. Ecron, Mr. Fercuson, Mr. FLANDERS, Mr. Frear, Mr. FULBRIGHT, Mr. GEORGE, Mr. GIL- LETTE, Mr. GurNry, Mr. Hayptn, Mr. HENDRICKSON, Mr. Hoey, Mr. HUMPHREY, Mr. Ives, Mr. JENNER, Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado, Mr. JoHNson of Texas, Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina, Mr. Ki1L- GORE, Mr. KNOWLAND, Mr. LANGER, My. LEHMAN, Mr. Lopce, Mr. LONG, Mr. Ma- LONE, Mr. McCarran, Mr. McCueE.ian, Mr. MCKELLAR, Mr. McManon, Mr, Morsk, Mr. Munor, Mr. Murray, Mr. O’Conor, Mr. RUSSELL, Mr. SCHOEPPEL, Mr. STENNIS, Mr. THOMAS of Utah, Mr. Tosey, Mr. WATKINS, Mr. WHERRY, and Mr. WITHERS entered the Chamber and answered to their names, when called. The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo- rum is present. The Senator from Florida has the floor. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. will the Senator yield? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield. Mr. ROBERTSON. I merely wish to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that the majority and minority Jeaders have put Senators on notice that, {f we do not complete action upon the joint resolution during daylight hours today, we are to be held in session President, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tonight. There are about 10 amend- ments to be voted on. Under the cir- cumstances, since the matter has been pending some time and since most of the Members of the Senate have, I as- sume, reached their conclusion as to what they are going to do, I hope we may have the cooperation of everyone to the end that we may finish the bill with- out a night session. Mr. BREWSTER. tor’s view. Mr, HOLLAND. Mr. President, I de- sire to speak briefly in opposition to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS] to the s0-called Lucas amendment, which ap- pears as section 2 in the printed joint resolution. I think it may be well to re- cite briefly the history of the so-called Lucas amendment, so that Senators may understand the action of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, and what, insofar as is known to me, was the in- tention of the committee in taking the action it did. Two meetings were held upon this particular measure, before it was reported; or, let us say, the two last meetings held upon it were the meetings at which the measure was discussed. In the first instance the Senator from Tli- nois, in conjunction with the junior Sen- ator from Florida and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], proposed at the first of the last two meetings the amend- ment which is now referred to as the Aiken amendment, which, if adopted, would replace the so-called Lucas amendment. For the purpose of the Recorp I read it, as follows: Sec. 2. No price support shall be made available for any Irish potatoes planted after the enactment of this joint resolution un- less marketing quotas hereafter authorized by law or marketing orders under the agri- cultural marketing agreement of 1937, as amended, are in effect with respect to such potatoes. At the adjournment of the first of the two meetings which I mentioned, it had been tentatively agreed in committee that the amendment should take that form. The committee requested the staff to draft the amendment in such form as to state clearly the intentions of the committee. The second of the two meetings, which was the last meet- ing held by the committee, took place the next day following the day I have just mentioned. On that day the exact text of the Aiken amendment, as it was then called, was produced for considera- tion by the committee. The Senator from Tllinois in the meantime had de- cided he felt it would be advisable to eliminate that part of the proposed amendment which had to do with mar- keting orders under the Agricultura] Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended. So the committee voted upon two measures. The first proposal was whether the reference to marketing agreements or marketing orders under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 should be omitted from the proposed or discussed amendment. Upon the vote on that proposal, the pro- vision relative to marketing orders was omitted. The Senator from Illinois then offered his amendment, which was attached to the bill, and now appears as I share the Sena- 2343 section 2 of the printed bill. For the REcorD, I read it, as follows: Src. 2. No price support shall be made available for any Irish potatoes planted after the enactment of this joint resolution un- less marketing quotas are in effect with respect to such potatoes. In other words, the action as taken by the committee, which finally passed upon the Lucas amendment, omits any reference to marketing orders, and in- stead attaches the Lucas amendment in the form in which it now appears as section 2 of the printed joint resolution. Mr. President. the fact of the matter is the discussion, which was a lengthy one, was on the method or manner of passing upon this matter in such a way as to assure as quickly as possible affirm- ative action by the Congress which would do away with the possibility of gross abuse, which had been sustained not only by the potato support-price program but by the agricultural price- support program in general, as a result of excessive production of potatoes. I think all members of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry who are pres- ent will agree that that was the objec- tive of the committee, and a majority of the committee finally decide’ that that result would best be produced by the adoption of the Lucas amendment, now appearing as section 2 of the printed joint resolution. I wish to call the attention of the Sen- ate, however, to the fact that when the amendment was adopted, and at all times in the discussion of the committee prior thereto, it was agreed that what we were trying to do was to insist upon action being taken within a minimum possible time, but not to bring about any condi- tion under which summarily and over- night producers who had relied upon the representation of the United States Gov- ernment made through the Secretary of Agriculture, that a price-support pro- gram would be effective as to their crops this year, provided they reduced their acreage in the figures stated by the Sec- retary of Agriculture would be cut off. There was no thought of depriving of price support producers who had pro- ceeded in complete good faith upon the strength of the representations and offer made by the Secretary of Agriculture in his release of November 1949. So I call particular attention to the fact that, as adopted by the committee, the Lucas amendment states that— No price support shall be made available for any Irish potatoes— And I call the attention of the Senate particularly to the words which follow— planted after the enactment of this joint resolution, It is to the words “planted after the enactment of this joint resolution” to which I want to address myself briefly. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield. Mr. WILLIAMS. Can the Senator from Florida tell us what methods the Department of Agriculture plans to use to determine whether a farmer in Vir- ginia, say, has or has not planted his potatoes directly after the enactment of the joint resolution? In other words,
2344 how would the Department plan to en- force the joint resolution if it is passed without the amendment I have offered? Mr. HOLLAND. I am unable to tell the Senator what would happen, but I may tell the Senator that I know from experience in programs of this kind that it is not a highly burdensome matter to have agents of the Department visit each field. For instance, in the tobacco industry, in which there are many more flelds and the plantings are much small- er, we had one year a requirement that leaves of a certain kind be not taken from the stock but be left on the stock, which required a check on the ground of every planting. Many of the plant- ings, as the Senator knows, are under 1 acre, and there was no difficulty at all in making the check. I think there would be no practical difficulty in the making of the check which the Secretary would be required to make under the joint res- olution, and which I think he would make without difficulty. Mr. WILLIAMS. I should like to point out to the Senator from Florida that there is no comparison between the two situations, the situation he has ex- plained and that of the potato farmer. As I see it, there is no way on earth by which, 3 or 4 months from now, the Secretary of Agriculture can determine whether John Jones or Joe Smith planted his potatoes in Virginia, let us say, after the enactment of the joint resolution, or whether he did it this morning. The only possible way it could be done would be to have a sufficient number of agents to go into the States which are planting potatoes overnight, and be there the following morning to see what is being done. It cannot be enforced. Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator wants information about the practical matter in connection with the administration of the act, and I would simply say I know it would not be difficult, in the present situation, with PMA and other agricultural agencies which are available and which have a very large number of employees, as the Senator knows, to make a spot check at any time, within @ very few hours. To proceed with the matter, it is cer- tainly completely clear that the amend- ment as suggested affords a period of time which the committee at least thought would be adequate to enable the Congress to enact legislation which will bring firmer terms into the potato price-support program. Whether this is in a form which the Senate would approve is still another question. The Senate might wish to follow the suggestion made by the Sen- ator from Virginia [Mr. Ropertson], to fix a definite cut-off date in the future. The Senate may prefer to follow some other suggestion. But the point I am making is that it was never for a mo- ment considered that the committee was recommending anything which would result overnight in the enactment of a Jaw which would cut off the support prices and the benefit of them to per- sons who had planted their potato acre- age under the terms of an express pro- posal made by the Secretary of Agri- culture, who was named by Congress as CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the agent of the Government to repre- sent it in the matter, particularly when that proposal involved, as it did, the reduction of acreage—when a grower had accepted that proposal and had reduced his acreage, planted it, ferti- lized it, cultivated it, and was actually harvesting it at the time of the pas- sage of the joint resolution. It was never for 28 moment contemplated that such action would be considered fair practice or moral practice, and it cer- tainly was not within the purview of the committee’s action to cut off the price-support program in that particu- lar way. Mr. President, so far as the potato growers of Florida are concerned, they have very little interest in the price-sup- port program. When the time comes, and I hope it will come soon, when we may have a vote on the complete discon- tinuance of the potato price-support pro- gram under terms that are fair and rea- sonable, it will be found that the Irish potato industry in Florida has affirma- tively taken the position that it does not care to have continued any longer the price-support program. In order that the record may be entirely clear on that point, I shall ask the Senate to indulge me for a moment while I read a letter from the Florida Potato Council, dated February 20, 1950, and addressed to me. I read as follows: Frioripa Potato Council, Orlando, Fla, February 20, 1950. Hon SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, Senate Office Building, Washington, D C. Dear SENATOR Hotiann’ The Florida Po- tato Council is an affiliate of the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Assoclation, and its di- reciorate 1s composed of members repiesent- ing the producers of more than 80 percent of the white potatoes produced in the State of Florida. On February 12 the board voted unanimously to authorize its chairman to advise the National Potato Council and the Members of the Congress that the council was in favor of the elimination of potatoes from the price-support program. This action was later considered by the Dade County Potato Growers Association, the North Florida Potato Growers Association, the Lee County Potato Growers Association, and a majority of the potato producers in the Lake Okeechobee area (whe1e more than 90 percent of Florida potatoes are produced), and in each instance the action of the board of directors was approved unanimously The letter means 90 percent of our production in the four areas mentioned. Objection to the price-support program is based on a number of factors, including (1) its fundamental unsoundness for per- ishable commodities; (2) the abuses that have arisen and which could not be avoided; (3) a conviction that the potato industry should solve its own problems rather than lean on Government; and (4) a sincere be- lief that the adoption of marketing quotas would result in the potato grower losing his independence and in his becoming a vassal of Government, entirely dependent on the whims of a Federal agency which has shown no aptitude for making such programs work. We trust you will use your good offices as a member of the Senate Committee on Agri- culture and Forestry to help potato growers to free themselves from price supports and the evils that accrue therefrom. Bincerely yours, La Monts Graw, Secretary-Manager. FEBRUARY 24 I have read that letter in detail into the Record, Mr. President, because I want to make it clear that at least the growers of one potato industry in the Nation which produced more than 5,000,- 000 bushels last year are not in accord with the price-support program, which, in their opinion, is not a reasonable pro- gram. They have stated their reasons in their communication to me. I glory in the spunk and independence of that particular group of potato growers, and I am happy to report to the Senate of the United States their position on this matter. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield to the Sena- tor from Maine. Mr. BREWSTER. Is the Senator aware that up to February 22 of this year 25,000 bushels of the present Florida crop had been bought by the Government at a price of $1.41 a bushel Mr. HOLLAND. Iwas coming to that. If the Senator will let me develop my re- marks and then ask me any questions he cares to ask, I should appreciate it, be- cause I want to go into the matter of the amount of help which the Florida potato farmers have had from this pro- gram, and since the Senator has three or four times referred to the Florida situation, I want to refer to the Maine situation, because it is clear that the po- tato growers in Maine have been the chief offenders, bringing the price-sup- port house down about the ears of the potato producers of the Nation. Mr. BREWSTER Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. HOLLAND. I had just said that I should prefer to conclude my remarks, after which I should be glad to yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER The Senator from Florida declines to yield at this time. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, while speaking on this point, I should like to place in the Recorp the figures given me yesterday by Mr. Claude S. Morris, of the potato section of the United States De- partment of Agriculture, giving the facts of the situation in Florida through February 20. I do not have the figures down to February 22, because yesterday afternoon this was the latest compilation available. Up to that date, Mr. Presi- dent, of the present crop of Florida po- tatoes the Department of Agriculture, under its price-support program in Flor- ida, had bought 11,221 sacks, which at 124 bushels to the sack, makes 18,702 bushels of potatoes, or a little less than 4 percent of the amount marketed up to that time. In order that the Recorp may show what was done with those po- tatoes and the affirmative fact that none of them had to be destroyed, here is a break-down of what was done with them: Nine hundred and fifty sacks were acquired by the school-lunch program. Eight thousand five hundred and seventy-three sacks were acquired for the feeding of livestock in areas closely adjoining the production area. One thousand six hundred and ninety- eight sacks went to penal institutions, Btate and local, close by. In each instance the sales represent f. o. b. sales, either to the school-lunch
1950 program or to the other recipients, with- out any added expense for the Depart- ment of Agriculture or for the people of the United States, but, to the contrary, with some nominal returns. The purchase of 11,221 sacks, or 18,722 bushels, represents, as I understand, a little less than 4 percent of that portion of the Florida crop which has been marketed since January 18 when the first purchase of this year’s crop was made, or in the period of January 18 to Febru- ary 20, inclusive. I would not have it appear that those figures represent the full purchases this year, because the marketing is still under way. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield to the Senator from Vermont. Mr. AIKEN, Does the Senator know whether the potatoes which have already been purchased in Florida, with the ex- Maine ... -. 22 nena nn nnn ene enn ene n nnn nnn eee men en ene n ee New York: Long Island. Up-State.... Pennsylvania. Michigan... Wisconsin. Minnesota. - Washington Oregan ....--- California (late)... New Hampshire.. Vermont..------ Massachusctts_-. Rhode Island. Missouri. Kansas... Arisona.......-. North Carolina... South Carolina. Tennessee... Alabama... Mississippt. Arkansas... Louisiana. - 0) a a Fiscal branch...._....--..--------------------------------- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ception of those furnished to the school- lunch program and those diverted to livestock feeding, were potatoes which could not be marketed under the market- ing order? Mr. HOLLAND. That would depend upon what the order required, Mr. AIKEN. The inference would be that probably the potatoes did not qualify for regular sales under the marketing order. Mr, HOLLAND. I do not believe a marketing order prevails at this time. Mr. AIKEN. I do not know. I was asking for information. Mr. HOLLAND. As to whether it would be affected by the terms of any marketing order would depend entirely upon the terms of the order. Mr. AIKEN. There are, as the Sena- tor from Florida knows, a great many good potatoes which are not put upon the market because of marketing orders but Potatoes: Surplus removal, 1945-48 a Percent of crop purchased Quantity purchased (in thousands of bushels) 2345 which are classed as No. 1, or No. 2 pota- toes. Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator ts cor- rect. Continuing on this subject, I think it would be informative to the Senate and to the Nation to have appear in the CONGRESSIONAL RecorpD a tabulation cov- ering the years 1945, 1946, 1947, and 1948, and the operation during those years of the potato price-support program by States throughout the Nation. This tabulation has been compiled, as I un- derstand, from the files of the PMA, F. and V., the Potato Division, and other branches of the Department of Agriculture, and is dated September 20, 1049. I offer it for the Recorp at this time. There being no objection, the tabula- tion was ordered to be printed in the Recogrp, as follows: 19, 631. 104, 780 107, 870 Commercial early production only in early and intermediate States Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, in order that there may be at least some discussion in the Recorp as to what is contained in this complete compilation, I want to advert, first, to the Florida sit- uation. It is shown that in the year 1945, no potatoes were purchased in Florida under the price-support program by the United States Department of Agriculture. It is shown that in 1946, 9 percent of the crop of that year was pur- chased, that in 1947, 3 percent of the crop of that year was purchased, and that in 1948, the last year covered by the compilation, less than a single percent of Florida potatoes were purchased under the program. That resulted in a total average of 3 percent, covering the 4 years of production of potatoes in the State of Florida, being purchased under the price- 1945-48 1945-48 1945 1046 average AVCTUgC -- 5, 999 36, 868 14, 310 24, 721 34 9, 306 30 weweeeeee---] 2, 082 J--2- oe ---- 12 TH 4 10 6 18 at 22 4 10 9 10 Me 12 weeweene---- i waeeeeen nee 16 maweneweneee v awww ne ee eens 6 weeeeneee «- 8 9 23 19 15 mn support program during those 4 years of operation. I should like to have that in the Rec- ORD, because I want it to be crystal clear that the area in Florida which produces Irish potatoes has not been an offender against the planning for the potato in- dustry which was laid dowr in Congress and which, through the price-support program, has offered assistance to potato
2346 growers, for which the potato growers should have been grateful. I believe that in most cases they have been grateful. The Senator from Maine has on three occasions made reference to what hap- pened in Florida. For that reason I think it is only fair that the Recorp should show what happened in Maine in these same 4 years under the price-sup- port program. In 1945 a total of 11 per- cent of the production in Maine was bought by the United States Department of Agriculture. In 1946, 46 percent of the Maine production was bought by the Department of Agriculture. In 1947, 23 percent of the Maine potatoes was so purchased. In 1948, 58 percent, or con- siderably more than half the production of Irish potatoes in Maine, was bought by the Department of Agriculture. For the 4 years in question, 1945, 1946, 1947, and 1948, the average of the pro- duction of Maine potatoes which had to be bought up by the Department of Agri- culture in pursuance of the price-support program, was 34 percent of the total pro- duction of potatoes in that very fine potato-producing State. I am told that the figures for 1949, when available, will even increase that figure. I do not state that of my own information, or from this compilation, because I do not have the latest figures on what happened in Maine in 1949, However, I do want it to be very clear that that is the comparative situation between these two States, which have had much cause to be grateful to a Gov- ernment which has been trying to let them down easy after the war increase, when in the interest of war production the potato growers of the Nation were urged to increase production, and later were given the benefit of the so-called Steagall amendment, and subsequently other legislation, in order to enable them to adjust themselves to postwar con- ditions. I shall not read the figures with ref- erence to any other State. They will appear in the Recorp. The whole com- pilation which I have mentioned has been introduced into the Recorp. Mr. President, I may say further that the Secretary of Agriculture, on his ap- pearance before the Committee on Agri- culture and Forestry with reference to certain of the late producing areas, in- cluding the State of Maine, said that the overproduction in the last year, which was very great—as I recall, about 15,000,000 bushels beyond what was cal- culated to be produced in Maine in 1949—resulted, at least in large part, from the fact that potato growers had increased the thickness of their plant- ing, by diminishing the width of the rows, and perhaps by stepping up the thickness of the planting in the rows, and likewise, by increasing the fertill- zation of the potatoes thus planted. So I want it to be very clear that not the potato industry as a whole, but particu- lar parts of it—and the potato industry in Maine is not the only portion which has offended against the program—in large measure are to blame for the troubles which have come upon the in- dustry. I want that statement to be in the Recorp immediately following the showing of the attitude of the Irish po- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tato industry in the State of Florida, which has said in so many words that it is sick and tired of the whole business and would like to see price supports en- tirely terminated. I now yield to the Senator from Maine. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, in the first place, I certainly regret any differences which may exist between the State of Florida and the State of Maine on this subject. Certainly I do not want the Recorp to show that the State of Maine was responsible for raising any such issue. The first mention I heard of it was in the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, when the Senator from Florida, in pursuance of his obvious re- sponsibility, raised the question regard- ing the State of Maine. Naturally, I was somewhat sensitive regarding it. Cer- tainly we are in accord in wanting an amicable solution of this problem. I should like to say—and I think the Sen- ator from Florida will confirm the cor- rectness of the statement—that last year the Nation as a whole reduced its potato production by approximately 10 percent. Is that correct, according to the Senator’s figures? Is it correct that the production was reduced from 450,- 000,000 bushels to 402,000,000 bushels? That was somewhat more than a 10- percent reduction. Mr, HOLLAND. I believe the Senator is correct. Mr. BREWSTER. Is it correct that the State of Maine reduced its produc- tion by approximately the same percent- age, from 72,000,000 bushels to some- thing in the neighborhood of 6€,000,000 bushels? In other words, that is ap- proximately a 10-percent reduction in the production of potatoes in the State of Maine. Mr. HOLLAND. If the Senator will let me state the figures, the Maine pro- duction was 174,305,000 bushels in 1948, and 67,065,000 bushels in 1949. Mr. BREWSTER. Which is approxi- mately 7,000,000 bushels less, or approxi- mately a 10-percent reduction. In other words, the State of Maine reduced its production of potatoes by almost ex- actly the same amount as the national average. I further point out that weather con- ditions, of course, affected the situation. Our growing season happened to be fa- vored by good weather conditions. South Dakota had bad weather conditions. So there is a certain latitude to be taken into consideration. I think it is also fair to have in the Recorp—although I real- ize the Senator from Florida has some mitigating circumstances to point out— that the State of Florida last year had increased its potato production from the preceding year by 40 percent. I realize the explanation which the Senator from Florida has as to that. However, that increase of between one and two million bushels was, of course, a factor in bring- ing about the present situation. It seems to me fair also to point out that the overproduction in Florida was approximately 169 percent, again un- doubtedly the result of favorable grow- ing weather conditions and the restricted production in the 1948 season. Mr. HOLLAND, Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine. The FEBRUARY 24 Senator from Maine himself, some days ago, brought in on the floor of the Sen- ate these figures affecting Florida, and I have not seen fit to make any reply until today, though I told the Senator privately what the explanation was, and he well knows what {t is. As a matter of fact, in the production year 1948, which included the winter of 1947-48, so far as Florida production was concerned, we were just coming out from under the water of the worst flood Flor- ida has ever had, and we had limited production that year, as the Senator well knows, not only in the field of potatoes, but in other fields. Therefore, there does appear the large increase in production of potatoes in Florida between the two years. However, I call the attention of the Senator from Maine to the fact that, in the first place, that is not the real meas- ure of the compliance with the program of 1949 exhibited by the respective areas. The program of 1949 reduced the acre- age of potatoes, and did so in the effort to reduce the production of potatoes, The figures calculated by the Depart- ment of Agriculture as to the prospective production from each State better show the goals to which cach area was pro- gressing. In the case of Florida, the goal ad- vanced by the Department of Agricul- ture, based on the average production in Florida over the years 1938 to 1947, was 4,240.00 bushels, whereas the actual pro- duction was 5,428,000 bushels, or, let us say, the actual production was up 1,200,- 000 bushels. In the case of Maine, the goal pre- sented was 52,758,000 bushels, whereas the actual production was 67,060,000 bushcls, up, therefore, 14,500,000 bushels from the goal which had been presented to Maine, and which was defeated, at Jeast in large part, by reason of the over- planting and the overfertilization to which I have already referred. Mr. BREWSTER. Will the Senator indicate the figures as to the amount of increase in each State in support re- ceived? Mr. HOLLAND. The actual figures indicate that at no time has the State of Florida impinged heavily on the support- price program. or realized heavily from it, or had to sell any large propor- tion under it. The figures show that for the 4 years the part of the Florida pro- duction which had to be supported by purchase by the Government was 3 per- cent, whereas the same figure for the State of Maine was 34 percent during the same period. As I stated to the Senator a few moments ago, my infor- mation is that when the 1949 history is written the figure may go up very heav- fly, even above the 34 percent. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, the Genator from Florida yield? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield to the Sena- tor from Maryland. Mr. TYDINGS. The Senator Is & very able and diligent member of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I am not a member of that committee, but, as a matter of information, if the Senator has available in his tables the figures as to Virginia and Maryland, comparing the 2 years, I should like to will
1950 know what the situation was, so that I might move, if we are in error, to help correct the error. Mr. HOLLAND. I shall be happy to furnish the Senator the compilation, which appears from a crop-production report as of December 1949 of the United States Department of Agriculture. If the Senator would like to have the fig- ures for Maryland, I shall be glad to give them. In the case of Maryland the 1948 pro- duction was 1.965.000 bushels. The 1949 Production was 1,587,000 bushels. The goal toward which Maryland was work- ing was 2,037,000 bushels. In other words, Maryland in 1949 is well under both its production goal and its produc- tion for the prior year, 1948. Does that answer the Senator's question? Mr. TYDINGS. The Senator has an- swered the question. I did not know what the figures were, but I am highly gratified to know that the potato farmers of Maryland have not contributed to the surplus which is costing so much money, and resulted in so many bushels of pota- toes going unused. I wonder if the Senator would likewise give me the figures as to Virginia, be- cause the potato-growing section in Maryland, the lower Eastern Shore, pri- marily, and much of the potato-grow- ing area of Virginia, abut. I was won- dering whether this cycle which the Sen- ator has defined for Maryland carried over into Virginia for the years men- tioned. Mr. HOLLAND. I will say to the Sen- ator, basing my statement upon the same crop report which J have just men- tioned, that a similar performance is shown in the Virginia Irish potato indus- try for the 2 years in question, 1948 and 1949, as shown in Maryland, and I give the figures as follows: the 1948 produc- tion in Virginia was 11,529,000 bushels. In 1949 it was 9,126,000 bushels. The goal which was presented, based upon the several years’ average preceding, and on the reduced acreage, was 8,808,000 bush- els. So that in the case of Virginia, Vir- ginia produced about 300,000 bushels more than the goal, but more than 2,000,- 000 bushels less than the production for 1948. Mr, TYDINGS. I thank the Senator. If the Senator will yield further, I should like to ask him if he knows, now that the planting part of the potato season is here, of any other way that we can ade- quately deal with the matter on an im- mediate basis so as to serve notice on the industry, other than in some such substantial form as the Senator from Illinois has proposed. Mr. HOLLAND. I may say to the Sen- ator that in the committee a majority of the members felt—and the Senator from Florida was one of that majority— that the proposal of the Senator from Illinois would serve notice, and afford an adequate period of time, for correc- tion of the situation by including the provision—and I quote from the Lucas amendment: No price support shall be made available for any Irish potatoes planted after the en- actment of this joint resolution. There is a considerable time elapsing, of course, between planting and market- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ing, and it was felt that that period of time was adequate to force the problem to an issue. But I say to the Senator again what I said before he came to the floor, that it was never for a moment contemplated by the committee, nor in the arguments advanced by the Senator from Illinois and others who supported the amendment, to have a fixed cut-off date at the time of the enactment of the new law so as to deprive persons who were then operating under the program of the chance of any benefits from the support for a period of weeks, or perhaps a couple of months, and then bring back the other producers of the Nation, after the corrective legislation was passed, un- der the terms of the price-support pro- gram. Such an idea never entered into the mind of the junior Senator from Florida, and never entered into the dis- cussion of the matter in the committee. Iam sure there was not a member of the committee who wanted it on that basis, because, to the contrary, the amend- ment, as voted, makes it very clear that this leeway, this warning, was given by exempting from the exclusion from price support, potatoes which had actually been planted before the enactment of the law, and including within the purview of the amendment, as proposed, potatoes which were planted after the enactment of the law. Mr. TYDINGS. I thank the Senator. I take it also that the great potato-pro- ducing areas of America are for the most part in the northern part of the United States. In other words, the areas from which potatoes are usually harvested are above rather than below the Potomac on a line running across the country. Is that observation correct? Mr. HOLLAND. No. The fact of the matter is that the State of California is one of the great producing areas. It has two areas—an upper and a lower area, I read for instance, just for the Recorp, the figures of production of the early potato area in California in 1949. It was 30,030,000 bushels. In the late potato area, 16,200,000 bushels. Or a total pro- duction of potatoes in that State in the year 1949 of 46,000,000 bushels of pota- toes as compared with the heaviest pro- duction of all, that of the State of Maine, 67,000,000 bushels. Mr. TYDINGS. However, while there were exceptions to the general observa- tion the Senator from Maryland made, is it not a fact that the upper half of the United States produces more potatoes than the lower half of the United States does, as shown by past history? Mr. HOLLAND. I think that is cor- rect, and it is certainly correct east of the Mississippi. Mr. TYDINGS. While I should like to see a policy that would not put one part of the country at any disadvantage compared to other parts of the country, I think we are on the horns of this dilemma. We must either look forward confidently to a repetition of what we have been complaining about, on the one hand, or making up our minds to deal instantaneously with it and correct as much of it as we can, upon the other hand. Certainly if we do not do any- thing to deal with the situation until another year, if we do not give notice 2347 to the industry which has not yet started its planting season, it seems to me that we will be open to a charge of bad faith if later on we tried to doit. And, in the second place, if we do not deal with the situation now, or later on, we will have a tremendous possibility of another large potato surplus, which will result in a great cost to the country. Many of the potatoes willrot. Is that wrong or right as shown by the evidence produced before the Senator’s committee? Mr. HOLLAND. The evidence before the committee showed that as to 1949 production too much of it is excess, and will either rot or be used for some incon- sequential purpose. Mr. TYDINGS. And for the possibili- ties of 1950, without the Lucas amend- ment? Mr. HOLLAND. Without the Lucas amendment, or without some amend- ment which would bring early correction of the situation into play. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I should like to ask one more question. I will be through in a moment. Mr. HOLLAND. I yield to the Senator from Maryland. Mr. TYDINGS. I wish to ask the Sen- ator the question because I know he is very well informed on the subject, We receive the impression that the evidence before the committee, which was adduced by the Department of Agri- culture and others interested in this pro- gram, is to the effect that the early potato is not as much of a contributing factor to the surplus as the potatoes which are grown later. Is that correct or not? Before the Senator answers I may say that we have formed that as- sumption upon the belief that when early potatoes come in there are not so many of them, and the consumption pretty well keeps up with the supply. But when the whole harvest comes in there is such a great amount of potatoes that that is the time when most of the surplus accumu- lates, since potatoes are not a commodity which can be stored for a long period of time. Is that correct? Mr. HOLLAND. I will say to the Sen- ator that in general his observations are correct, as I understand the facts. The facts, as shown by the compilation which I just placed into the Recorp, and which has gone to the reporters, soI do not have it before me, show that for the 4 years immediately prior to 1949 only 8 percent of the total production in Florida had to be bought by the Department of Aeri- culture under the price-support program. I am sorry I cannot give the figures for Georgia and Alabama, but they were very close to that. My recollection is that it was 4 percent in one of those States and 8 percent in the other. Mr. TYDINGS. So the conclusion, then, to flow from what the Senator has said is that the production there is almost immediately demandable and consum- able, wheras when we get the full harvest later on from the section which produces more than half, that is the time when we are confronted, rather than in the be- ginning of the season, with the surplus problem.
2348 Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator is cor- rect. Of course, there are two other fac- tors which enter into the matter. After people have gone through a hard winter, when they have the opportunity to obtain a fresh vegetable, particularly of the uniform excellence of Irish potatoes as produced in Florida, they simply cannot resist the temptation to buy heavily and to eat heartily. Therefore there is a good, firm, demand for a fresh product. But, with all inclination to claim that as the sole reason, I would have to say to the Senator that there is another very compelling factor in this matter, which is that those early potatoes are not sus- ceptible of being stored for long periods of time. They are quite succulent and quite watery, and they are theretore produced by an industry which knows that the pctatoes have to be consumed very promptly after they are harvested. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. I am sure the Senator from Florida will agree that the greater part of the cash expense in producing potatoes comes from the cost of seed and fertilizer, and that expense is in- curred a considerable time before the actual planting of the potato takes place. Undoubtedly at the present time the po- tato growers of the State of the Senator from Maryland have incurred the major part of their cash expense in producing their potatoes. Therefore, if the support were limited only to those potatoes which are planted at the time the joint resolution becomes. law, which probably could be the early part of next week, they would have in- curred the expense, and a few States along the southern tier of States would be guaranteed support, and all the States north of that, even though they had in- curred the expense, would not be in a position to receive the support. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HOLLAND. I will yield in a mo- ment. I desire to answer the Senator from Vermont. I think the Senator has overlooked the fact that he has included in his proposed amendment exactly the same factor that is in the Lucas amend- ment; that is: No price support shall be made available for any Irish potatoes— And I accent these words— planted after the enactment of this joint resolution. In other words, the Senator in the drafting of his amendment 1s following exactly the line of thought which pre- vailed in the committee. We were try- ing to fix a period of time in which we felt that a better situation could be brought about and enforced. I may say that I was with the Sen- ator from Vermont in his feeling that we should not limit ourselves to the enactment of new marketing-quota leg- islation, but we should give both the Sec- retary of Agriculture and, particularly, the industry—because it had this avail- able before, but did not accept it—the opportunity to come under marketing orders which would be entered, as I CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE understand, only after two-thirds of the producers in the area affected voted to do so. Therefore, Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont felt that we should have two procedures open, as follows: The One already open under the law; the other, the one to be approached under the law. I was in thorough agreement with that approach; but I called to his attention the fact that the time factor in the Lucas amendment, which will protect those who already had gone s0 far that they need protection, is iden- tical with that provided in the amend- ment of the Senator from Vermont. Mr, AIKEN. Mr. President, if the Senator will permit me to explain-—— Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, before the Senator from Florida yields to the Senator from Vermont, if he will per- mit me to comment on the Senator's observation as it affects my own State, I shall appreciate it. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yicld, in order to permit the Senator from Mary- land to make answer to the observation of the Senator from Vermont. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I sim- ply wish to say that the Senator from Maryland is aware of the fact that many potato farmers have bought their seed and have placed their orders for ferti- lizer, as the Senator has said; and it is regrettable that a few of them may be penalized in some degree by that circum- stance. But as I understand the propo- sition, the only way we can kcep the potato program going is to get for it the public support throughout the entire country that it must have if it is to survive. So we are confronted with the ques- tion of whether we shall injure to only a small degree the people in the potato seed and fertilizer fleld, on the one hand, or whether we are going to allow the situ- ation to fester to such an extent that public demand will be such that the pro- gram is likely to be swept away. The fertilizer the farmer has pur- chased will not be lost at all. There is no ground for assuming that the fertilizer he has bought cannot be used profitably on his farm. If he would reduce his acreage even one-tenth or one-twentieth, or whatever is required, by planting that much less seed, he would not lose all the seed, as is implied by the Senator’s ob- servation; on the contrary, he would lose only a small percentage of the seed. Therefore, it seems to me that what he would get by trying to meet the difficul- ties which now confront the Congress and the country, on the one hand, by the adoption of the program now under con- sideration would so far outweigh in its over-all benefits to him the very small mite that he would lose by helping to conform to the situation and to put the agricultural program in balance, that al- though the argument which has becn made in his behalf is one which should be considered and should receive some weight, I do not believe it is in the sphere of being really determinative, in the final solution, of this problem. Mr, HOLLAND, I thank the Senator, FEBRUARY 24 Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me, to permit me to reply? Mr. HOLLAND, I yield. Mr. AIKEN. In reply to the Senator from Maryland, I would remind him that the Secretary of Agriculture has already made an agreement with the potato farmers throughout the country and al- ready has set the price for the coming year at 96 cents a bushel, as compared with $1.08 last year. He already has lim- ited the number of acres they can plant, and that will constitute a reduction of 86,000 acres from the acreage allotment last year; and he already has advised the potato farmers that they must market their potatoes in an orderly manner, as approved by the Department of Agricul- ture, in order to qualify for any support at all. That should result in a reduction of somewhat more than 10 percent in the potatoes marketed—which the Senator from Maryland thinks would be a fair amount, Mr. TYDINGS. I think all those things are very fine contributing factors to limiting the difficulty in the future. But the fact remains, I should like to point out to the Senator, that I do not know of a small thing—I say that in a relative sense—that has so aroused the housewives and consumers in the towns and cities of the United States as the fact that we are appropriating more money to produce more food than can be consumed, and it is going to waste. People do not like that. Whenever we meet a situation of that kind, we are confronted with an actuality, not a the- ory. Unless that condition is remedied, there will be growing opposition to the entire agricultural program, much of which can be justified. I say now to the Senator that no one is attempting to pick out the potato in- dustry and sandbag it over the head and leave it lying prostrate in the road. But we must be fair enough to promulgate the policies which will keep the potato industry on a parity with other agricul- tural industries, and not at the same time bring down on its head the wide wave of justifiable criticism which has been encountered in view of the prac- tices followed in the past, and perhaps for the year to come. Mr. AIKEN. If the Senator from Florida will permit me to reply, let me say it is not difficult to agree with that statement of the Senator from Mary- land. But the position I would take, and I am sure it is the one the Senator from Maryland would take, is that once hav- ing made an agreement, the United States Government should not repudi- ate it with one segment of our people, any more than it would be justified in repudiating an agreement with a for- cign nation. An agreement which is made should be kept. Mr. TYDINGS. The Senator has a point there. Nevertheless, his other alternative is this: Would the potato farmer prefer to have his tentative and pending agree- ment abrogated to a small extent now, with the result that he could continue to have this beneficial agreement con- tinued in the future with the support of