2392 The article shows us the policy pur- sued by Canada. Lettuce and tomatoes may be imported into Canada from any source under open general permits, effective November 1, 1948, according to an announcement of the Cana- dian Minister of Finance in Ottawa, on October 19. Later in the winter similar gen- eral permits will be authorized for cabbage, carrots, celery, and spinach. I ask Senators to note carefully what follows: These latter relaxations will be timed so as not to prejudice the normal marketing of Canadian produce. We should consider that carefully, Mr. President. I read further: Imports of each of the commodities will be authorized only when advancing prices or short supplies indicate depleted domestic stocks. Mr. President, if that is good policy for Canada, why is it not good policy for the United States? If the Canadians have the intelligence to protect their own agricultural economy, why have not we here in the United States? The Pres- ident exhibited that intelligence a year ago when he took steps to stop this in- undation. I am wondering whether the curious inaction of the administration in the face of these mounting surpluses, with the inundation from Canada threat- ening our own economy, is a result of stupidity, is a result of ignorance, or is a result of a calculated determination to accentuate the potato problem for the benefit of those who are advocating solutions of our agricultural problem other than the one we have been seek- ing to pursue. If this was a deliberate attempt to sabotage the existing farm program, it could not be better calcu- lated to accomplish that objective. So, Mr. President, Senators on either side of the aisle who suggest that we must not under any circumstances stop the importation of Canadian potatoes, because that is the only way by which the Canadians can get United States dollars, may well take a lesson from our Cana- dian cousins, who recognize that their primary responsibility is to the people and the industries and the agriculture of their own area. Mr. President, I read further: For specified periods during the summer months, imports of cabbage and carrots were permitted under general permit. Lettuce, celery, tomatoes, and spinach, however, have been prohibited importation since November 18 of last year. There we have it operating. I note the very interesting report on their own economy and their own farm income: For the fourth quarter of 1948, import quotas for citrus fruits, fruit juices, pota- toes, onions, and apples— I call the reference to apples to the especial attention of my good friends the Senators from Virginia— have been increased from the present 50 per- cent to 70 percent of imports during the base year, July 1, 1946, to June 30, 1947. In other words, all the commodities about which our friends cxpress so much CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE concern are under automatic restrictions and quotas in respect to what can be sent into Canada. I commend the Ca- nadians for their wisdom and foresight and patriotic self-protection. I read further: Also for the last quarter, grapes— I think they have been mentioned in connection with California— which have been wholly prohibited importa- tion, may be imported under quota on the basis of 70 percent of the dollar value of each importer’s base year imports. All the above products will be subject to maximum mark-up controls under the Ca- nadian wartime prices and trade regulations. Mr. President, so much for the ques- tion of whether we have a right and a duty to restrict importations, if we fol- low the Canadian policy, inasmuch as the Canadians are under the same trade agreement that we are. Now let us look at the record in respect to how this is operated for the Canadian farm income. I read further: A cash return of approximately $974,212,- 000 was realized by Canadian farmers from the sale of farm products during the first 6 months of 1948, according to preliminary estimates of the Dominion Bureau of Sta- tistics. This amount compares with cash returns of $620,1938,000 and $732,704,000 dur- ing the corresponding periods of 1946 and 1947, respectively. In other words, their income was rising to maximum heights. I read further: With the inclusion of supplementary cash payments ({.e, cash payments made under the provisions of the Prairle Farm Assistance Act in 1946, 1947, and 1948; the Wheat Acre- age Reduction Act of 1946 and 1947; and the Prairle Farm Income Act in 1946), cash re- ceipts during the first 6 months of 1948 amounted to $989,572,000— Practically a billion dollars— as compared with $742,628,000 for the corre- sponding period a year agc and $636,244,000 ix the first half of 1946. Mr. President, I shall not read further figures; but the article also states: The rising return from the sale of farm products is paralleled by the upward trend in prices received by Canadian farmers for agricultural products. The index of farm prices registered a new high of 260.8 (1935- 89=100) during the month of July as com- pared with 248 6, the previous high, recorded in June 1948, and 203.1 in June 1947. In other words, the Canadians not only are conducting their own affairs pru- dently, with regard to their international trade relations, but also they are dem- onstrating their success by the results in terms of their own farm income. So I earnestly hope the appropriately drawn amendment of the Senator from Nebraska will receive the support of the Senate, and that we will tell the Presi- dent in no uncertain terms that there is no reason for buying 10,000,000 bushels of Canadian potatoes, while at the same time dumping 10,000,000 bushels of American potatoes. Certainly, Mr. President, he who runs may read the significance of that. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, let me inquire how much time I have remaining. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Nebraska has 5 minutes remaining. FEBRUARY 27 Mr. WHERRY. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished junior Senator from New York [Mr. Ives]. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from New York [Mr. Ives] is recognized. Mr. IVES. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly in behalf of the amendment which has been offered by the able Sena- tor from Delaware (Mr. Wri.tams], in behalf of himself, the Senator from Mas- sachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL], the Sena- tor from New Jersey [Mr. Henprickson], and myself. That amendment would make effective immediately the flexible price support provision in the Agricul- tural Act of 1949, Mr. President, I listened with consid- erable interest while the able Senator from South Dakota was questioning our colleague, the Senator from Delaware. In that connection, I point out that the great problem with which we in the Northeast are faced, when it comes to the cost of grain, is the problem confronting the dairy industry, and only in part the problem confronting the poultry indus- try. The price of grain has become so high that the cost of production of milk is completely out of line with what the producers of milk are now receiving for it. That comment also applies to the present situation in the poultry industry and to the prices that poultry producers are now receiving. I do not think the Senator from South Dakota was in the Chamber when the Senator from Delaware read the tele- gram from Mr. J. A. McConnell, general manager of the Cooperative GLF Ex- change, Inc. I wish to read a couple of statements appearing in that telegram, as follows: Position of dairymen, poultrymen, and other Northeastern farmers ts rapidly de- teriorating under present price squeeze. Grain prices supported at artificially high levels in the face of falling milk and eggs are making an intolerable situation. Mr. President, I happen to know that the farm conditions in the Northeast are worse today than they have been at any time for at least 15 years. That is how badly this price support situation is af- fecting the Northeast. It is unfortunate that in formulating the agricultural bill last fall, we stopped where we did, or perhaps that we went as far as we did, depending upon how one desires to view it. In this connection, I am constrained to quote in part from my remarks during the debate on that bill, as some may remember, was passed by the Senate on October 19. I read the following from the speech I made in the Senate at that time: There is not a Member of the Senate who believes that this bill fs a fair bill. We all know that it {is not. There is not a Member of the Senate who does not know that it has serious defects. ° ° s s e I would be strongly in favor of this con- ference report or any other bill of this type, for that matter, if it were only to provide high prices for the producers. But, much as this bill may conform to that require- ment, there is much more to it than that. If that were all there were to it, our prob- lem would be a very simple one, This bill may provide high prices for pro- ducers. That is expected. That is its pur-
1950 pose. But at the same time it means even higher prices for consumers. It means ever higher governmental expenditures. * * . * * It is high time for us to take stock of our position and to come down to earth and con- sider cxisting conditions. We want as high prices as reasonably can be obtained for the producer, but at the same time we must recognize the rights of the consumer and the taxpayer, as well as the rights of the American people generally. All these rights are not being recognized in this particular piece of legislation. This legislation is not geared for the wel- fare of all the American people. It is not even geared for the ultimate welfare of those in ugriculture. As surely as we are in ses- sion here today, if this bill is enacted and left in force, Senators who support it * * * will be haunted by the action they are taking Mr. President, again I am constrained to cbserve that, verily, chickens do come home to roost, because if there is any- thing that is evident today, in the hgnt of what has happened, insofar as pota- toes are concerned or insofar as other creps are concerned, it is that the state- ment I made at that time was absolutely correct. Of such is my chief objection to the bill now before us. The VICE PRESIDENT. The time of the Senator from New York has ex- pired. Mr. IVES. May I have two more minutes? Mr WHERRY. Iam glad to yicld the Senator from New York two more min- utcs. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from New York is recognized for 2 min- utes more. Mr. IVES. This legislation, Mr. Pres- ident, is going to make the conditions which I have cited even worse, if such a thing ke possible. There is no cure for anyuning in the pending measure. It seems to me that we should now be tak- ing action to correct conditions and not to make them worse. This is why I feel so strongly that the amendment pro- posed by the Senator from Delaware is so much in order. I do not say the amendment, in and of itself and alone, provides a complete solution to the prob- lem; but very definitely, any solution, if there is ever to be one, must lie in the direction toward which .che amendment points. For that reason I am especially glad to give it my wholehearted support. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President—— Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, it scems to me the arguments we have been lis- tening to from the Senator from Dela- ware and New York demonstrate very clearly the fact that we do not presently have adequate farm legislation in the Anderson bill. With that I concur com- pletely. It is a piece of legislation which removes from the statute books the Hope-Aiken bill, which I thought was exceedingly bad legislation, which was passed in the hurly-burly hours of the closing days of the Eightieth Congress, and which I opposed and voted against. The amendment offered by the Sena- tor from Delaware and other Senators associated with him would put us right CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE back where we were, with the Hope- Aiken bill, plus 10 percent, because it would drive down the prices of certain commodities, especially in the middle- western area and certain regions of the South, to 75 percent of parity. The Hope-Aiken bill theoretically would have permitted them to fall to €5 percent of parity. So it puts us back to the Hope-Aiken level, plus only 10 percent, and, with or without the 10 percent, and with the formula devised under the Hope- Aiken bill, with its low production floors, there might be precipitated a na- tional crisis and a world-wide depres- sion. If we start tampering with the economy of America, resting as it does upon farm prices and farm prospcrity, by casually adopting in the middle of a dcbate on potatoes an amendment which will revolutionize the entire farm program, under which the country has been operating for more than a decade, we are then flirting with a fate which may be far beyond the boundaries of anything envisioned by the two fine eastern Senators, with their interests, and their understandable interests, in the chicken farmers and the dairy farm- ers of the Northeast. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MUNDT. I yield. Mr. WILLIAMS. The Senator will agree with me, will he not, that in 1952, January 1, the same bill will go into ef- feet, and if it is such a dangerous piece of legislation that it is going to bring all the dire circumstances the Senator hes just described, how does he account for the fact that we are going to operate as propcsed in 1952? Mr. MUNDT. Iam glad the Senator raised thai question, because I have ad- dressed a letter to the chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, who is on the floor, suggesting that as one Senator I feel that the Sen- ate Committee on Agriculture and For- estry should bring forth a new bill, new lesislation which will better provide for a farm program than the Anderson bill. I have received a nice letter from the chairman, indicating that the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry is giving the idea some thought and con- sideration, thus at least affording some hope that that kind of legislation is go- ing to be forthcoming from the commuit- tee before the present session of the Con- gress adjourns. Mr. IVES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MUNDT. In a moment. I hope, however, it will reccive more consideration, as I am assured, than a revolutionary approach to the farm pro- gram, tossed into the debate in the mid- dle of a Monday afternoon on what to do about potatoes in Maine, Idaho, South Dakota, and a few other potato- rajsing States. I now yield to the Senator from New York. Mr, IVES. Mr. President, the Sena- tor recognizes, however, does he not, that the crisis among northeastern farmers is, as the Senator from New York has indicated, and that the crisis has been brought about largely because of the 2393 present farm law, particularly that por- tion relating to farm prices? Mr. MUNDT. I recognize that there is a crisis, I do not think the Senator has put his finger on the cause of it, because in testimony recently given be- fore the House committee Secretary Brannan pointed out that about 50 per- cent of all the consumers pay for the products of the dairying business and egg business of the East is added to it after it reaches the limits of the cities in which they are distributed. I think there is a considerable amount of correction to be done in the processes by which milk, eggs, and butter are distributed in the eastern cities. Mr. IVES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? The VICE PRESIDENT. Dces the Senator from South Dakota yield to the Senator from New York? Mr.MUNDT. Not at the moment, be- cause I do not want the two Senators to believe that it is only the farmers of the East who are in difficulty, or the consum- ers. I quote now from a statement re- cently made by Secretary Brannan in testifying before the House Committce on Appropriations, requesting appropria- tions for agriculture for 1951. Says the Secretary of Agriculture: Farmers have been making less every year for the past few years. Lest year they had less than four-fifths as much as in 1947. Next year they may have only two-thirds as much as in 1947, Since 1047 gross farm cash income has fallen more than 82,009,000,0C0, and cash expenses have gone up by more than $1,000,600,C00. The statement of the Secretary bears out the fact I was stating a little earlier in my collcquy with the Senator from Delaware, that the farmer of the great agricultural area of the Middle West is caught between a very vicious pair of mill stones, cne of which is constantly raising against him the pressure of prices going higher on the things he has to buy; the other, the pressure pushing down against him from people wanting to sell his products at less than 20 percent of parity; yes, at less than 85 percent of parity, down as low now as 75 percent of parity; abruptly changing in the course of a few months a situation which he is envisioning as coming along by 1952, and which he and many of us hope to correct befcre that time, a situation which would precipitate the farmer into chaotic conditions as of 1959. Mr. IVES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MUNDT. I yield. Mr. IVES The Senator from New York would like to point out at this time to the Senator from South Dakota that those conditions do exist now to a sub- stantial extent in the dairy industry arca of the Northeast, and in part for the rea- sons the Senator has pointed out. The real difficulty is that the cause is due largely to the high prices which are required to be paid by those farmers for the feed that must be fed to the cattle and poultry. It is not a matter of dis- tribution that the condition is largely attributable, not at all. The Senator from New York has had considerable
2394 experience going into that subject. Ef- forts have been and are being made to curtail those costs of distribution. They are being curtailed. But when it comes to the minimum point of distribution costs, below which it is impossible to go, the dairy farmers and the poultry farm- ers of the Northeast are still out of luck, due to the high costs of feed. The VICE PRESIDENT. The time of the Senator from South Dakota has ex- pired. Mr. MUNDT. May I have two addi- tional minutes? Mr. WHERRY. I yield five more min- utes to the Senator from South Dakota. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized for five more minutes. Mr. MUNDT. I thank the Senator. I should like to say it is unquestion- ably true that some progress is being made in reducing the costs and the com- plications of distribution, but a greater amount of correction is still to be done in that area, and certainly it cannot be expected if the grain-producing farmers of the Middle West are going to have to operate consistently at a loss, in order to correct a situation existing in the dairying and egg-producing region; all of which it seems to me tends to build up an argument for the consideration by this body of new farm legislation, which is comprehensive, which ts equit- able, which recognizes the farmers’ right to a full parity price, certainly for that portion of his crop which is domestically consumed. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr.MUNDT. Before yielding further, I should like to point out a few more melancholy facts revealed by the Secre- tary of Agriculture concerning the farmers of the country. He said: Last year— That was 1949— farm operators had about 614,000,000,000 after paying production expenses. This was 15 percent less than they had in 1948, and at least 20 percent less than in 1947. I should like to call attention in pass. ing, and particularly the attention of Republican Senators, to the fact that in this testimony before the House Appro- priations Committee, Secretary Brannan appeared in the rather unusual and novel capacity of a great witness in support of the kind of prosperity existing under the Republican Eightieth Congress, be- cause he says that consistently and with- out exception the farmer has been get- ting worse treatment steadily since the adjournment of the Jast session of the Eightieth Congress. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yicld? Mr. MUNDT. Before yielding, I want to continue with a few more facts from the testimony of the Secretary of Agri- culture: The farm-family purchasing power, in terms of 1947 dollars, dropped about #2,000,- 000,000 in 1948, and about $2,000,000,000 more in 1949. It could drop another $2,000,000,- 000 in 1960 or another 15 percent if farm prices aren't improved. Farm living expenses, of course, are not coming down as fast as net income. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE So the farmers of the great farming area confront the inevitable fact that the prices of everything they buy are stead- ily rising, in part because, out of con- sideration for a vast portion of the popu- lation on the eastern coast, people who are naturally and understandably con- cerned about the 75 percent wage min- imum, the farmer has had to have that additional burden shouldered upon him. It is simply impossible for him to con- tinue to pay more and more money for a tractor, More and more money for an automobile, more and more money for the combines and other machinery he needs, and at the same time have his prices pushed lower and lower. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MUNDT. I yield. Mr. WILLIAMS. A few minutes ago the Senator described the amendment which is now pending, the amendment offered by the Senator from New York, the Senator from Delaware, and other Senators as being revolutionary in char- acter, I point out to the Senator from South Dakota that there is nothing revo- lutionary in our proposal. The flexible provisions which we are proposing to ad- vance, effective immediately, were acted upon after lengthy hearings last year by the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. The Senate voted on the measure. The pending proposal is ex- actly the same as that which the Senate has approved, effective immediately. However, when the bill came back from conference last year the provision had been eliminated. Mr.MUNDT. MayI point out the rea- son for its having gone to conference? Mr. WILLIAMS Both political par- ties have endorsed the flexible provisions. So has the Farm Bureau, the grcatest farm organization in the country. Mr. MUNDT. If I may point out the reason why it went to conference, in the first instance, it was because, by the help of the Vice President, a tie votc was broken and there was written a firm parity floor under farm prices. The bill went to confercnce, and when it came back it contained again the old sliding parity formula, which locked so bad that even its sponsors said, “While we ask Senators to vote for it, we cannot possibly expect them to go home this summer and explain it. We cannot hope the farmers are going to accept it. We think it is so distasteful, so unworkable, we do not want to put it into effect until 1950 or 1951. It would immediately dis- rupt the whole farm program, including the farm price-support program.” Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MUNDT. I cannot yield at the moment, because I have already given my good friend a greater percentage of my 10 minutes than he gave me. I want to keep the thing equitable. The Secretary of Agriculture, testify- ing through his assistants, pointed out that the farmers today are not the fine, privileged characfers they have been de- scribed, but that they have less stay-on- the-farm income, less money for them- selves, than they received in 1947, 1948, or for a long time prior to that. The FEBRUARY 27 testimony points out that most of the farm commodities are bringing less than parity—— The VICE PRESIDENT. The time of the Senator from South Dakota has ex- pired. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I yield one more minute to the Senator from South Dakota. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MUNDT. I cannot yield if I have only 1 minute. Prices are now unfairly low. Prices have dropped 23 percent since the high point in January 1948, and 12 percent in the past year. Let me point out how illogical we shall appear before the farming population of America if, in the middle of a debate to solve an urgent problem regarding pota- toes, we should casually adopt an amend- ment which would change the whole pro- gram under which the farmers have been operating since 1938. I urge Senators to reject emphatically the amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware [Mr. WiLu1AMs] for him- self and other Senators. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. President, a parliamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. much time do I have remaining? The VICE PRESIDENT. Eight min- utes. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. I yield 1 minute to the junior Senator from North Carolina. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I should like to ask the able senior Senator from Georgia what his attitude would be re- garding the peanut amendment which would permit the growers of the Vir- ginia type of peanuts, which are raised in North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and South Carolina, to have increased acreage allotments so that the produc- tion would mect the market demand. Mr. GEORGE. I would not oppose it, because I believe in permiting our farm- ers to meet the actual demand for their own products. The amendment does not increase acreage at all. It merely per- mits the sale of the product from excess acrcage at the market price. No subsidy is involved. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. I yield the remainder of my time to the ma- jority leader, the senior Senator from Illinois. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I have listened rather attentively to the debate on the various farm problems which we have been discussing in the Senate for the past week. I am somewhat disturbed at the trend which the debate has taken and by the convictions which have been expressed by a number of Senators with reference to different commodities in which their sections of the country are vitally interested. We find coming over from the House a joint resolution which seeks to increase the acreage of peanuts. The resolution which is before the Senate seeks to in- crease the acreage of cotton, and there is justification for that increase, because it has been definitely stated before the committee that under no circumstances Mr. How
1950 would there be more ,than 21,000,000 acres planted to cotton. On that theory I supported the cotton amendment. We now find an amendment offered by the two distinguished Senators from Colo- rado increasing the wheat-acreage allot- ment by approximately 4,000,000 acres, which, according to the Secretary of Agriculture, on an average of 16 bushels to the acre, would cost the Treasury of the United States approximately $60,- 060,090, assuming that the wheat yicld will be the same as it was last year. Last weck the Senate of the United Staves decided that 1t was not advisable to save $60,000,000 with respect to the potato farmers, after a rather lengthy debote the Senate defeated the amend- ment offered by the senior Senator from Illinois which would have eliminated price supports until marketing quotas were in effect. This action demonstrated that those Senators who are particularly interested in the potuto farmers are more interested in seeing that those farmers gel what they think they are entitled to, rather than in saving many millions of dollars for the taxpayers of the coun- try Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I have only 5 minutes, but I shall yield to the distinguished Senator from Colorado. Mr. MILLIKIN. The Senator from Illinois just stated that the amendment offered by the Senators from Colorado would increase by approximutely 4.000,C00 acres the wheat-acreage allot- ment. Mr. LUCAS. That is one estimate, and it has also been stated that it would increase the acreage approximately 1,000,000 acres. Mr. MILLIKIN. The Secretary of Agriculture is incorrect in his estimate. Mr. LUCAS. I may say to my good friend trom Colorado that even if it is only a million acres there can be no question that it is another increase in the acrcage allotment, so far as wheat is concerned. The Farm Bureau Federa- tion and the Secretary of Agriculture are both against the amendment. Mr. President, I repeat what I pre- viously said, that I am disturbed when I sce Senators from various sections of the Nation asking for more acreage on which to raise certain commodities, when we have all the acreage we can take care of at the present time, when it comes to disposing of the surpluses erown on this acreage. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment? Mr. LUCAS. I cannot help yielding to iny friend, because I have great af- fec.ien for the distinguished Senator 20m Colorado, My. MILLIKIN, The junior Senator from Colorado is disturbed about these conditions, but he is also disturbed about the pli¢ht of farmcrs in western Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Idaho, and Colo- redo who will be out of business if they do not receive an equitable share of the whole alloiment. Mr. LUCAS. The same argument was made last year by the distinguished Sen- ator from Colorado. So far as I am concerned, I am willing to have the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE amendments go to conference and let the conference wrestle with them, Iam merely trying to point oui to the Con- gress what we are doing with the present agricultural program, I am greavly dis- turbed about the proposed increases in acrecges of the various basic commod- ities. I was certainly disturbed by our failure to take vigorous action on pota- toes a few days ago. Most of the 43 votes against my amendment were cast by Senotors who are the first to cry “social- ism.” They are the ones who arc the most vecal in their denunciation of Gov- ernment subsidies, and in their protests against Federal spending. They justi- fied their stand on continuing the potato subsidy by declaring that there was an implied contract for the 1950 crop. That argument was answered, to all intents and purposes, by the able Senator from Missouri |Mr. DonNnEeLL] during the de- bate. Despite this fact, the supporters for more potato subsidies said, “We must go on giving this subsidy to the potato growers of the country at the expense of the taxpayers of the Nation.” The VICE PRESIDENT. The time of the Senator from Illinois has expired. Mr. LUCAS. The Senators who cry “economy” and then vote for another agricultural subsidy of $60,000,000 or more will have difficulty justifying their actions to the taxpayers of America. Mr. WHERRY. Mtr. President, those who cry “economy” on one hand and then vote and continue to vote against the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska are just as inconsistent if not more so, because the majority leader is against the amendment which would prevent surpluses caused by imports of foreign nations in which there are no restrictions or marketing quotas, from being dumped on to the markets of the United States of America. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska is now the pending question, and it will probably be voted upon first. I say once again that it has nothing to do with reciprocal-trade agreements. It has not a thing to do with peril points, There is a provision under article XI, subsection (c), para- graph 2, which provides for the very thing asked in the amendment of the jumior Senator from Nebraska. Last year the Secretary of Agriculture was in favor of the amendment. This year he is not in favor of 1t. We reccive conflicting stories with reference to the State De- partment not agrecing with the Agricul- tural Department. I shall not go to Ne- braska and talk to the potato farmers and tell them J was willing to vote mar- qeting restrictions against them and, at the same time, permit those who pro- duce potatoes in a foreign country to send them to our market without any quotas or restrictions and reeeive the complete bencfit of price supports about which the majority leader has been speaking. The amendment I have offered is completely consistent with the Recip- rocal Trade Agreements Act. It 1s only a temporary measure; 1t is not a per- manent measure. Regardless of the estimate given by the junior Senator from Virginia | Mr. ROBERTSON], the Department of Aericul- ture advises me that the imports of Irish 2395 potatoes this year, if they should con- tinue at the present rate, will be 15,000,- 000 bushels. That is more than one- third of the entire surplus about which we are speaking. If we are going to start to do anything about eliminating surpluses, certainly the place to start is with importations from nations which impose no restrictions and no marketing quotas but are able to take advantage of our markets under price supports. The VICE PRESIDENT. The time of the Senator from Nebraska has expired. All time for debate has expired. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sccre- tary will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: Brewster Hill Millikin Bricker Hoey Morse Bridges Humphrey Mundt Butler Hunt Myers Byrd Ives Neely Cain Jenner O'Conor Chapman Johnson, Colo O'Mahoney Chavez Johnson, Tex. Robertson Connally Jonnston,8 C Russell Cordon Kerr Schoeppel Darby Kugore Smith, Maine Donnell Knowland Smith, N J. Douglas Langer Sparkman Dworshak Leahy Stennis EKastland Lehman Taylor Ecton Lodge Thomas, Okla, Eliender Long Thomas, Utah Ferguson Lucas Tobey Frear McCarran Tydings Fulbright McCarthy Watkins George McClellan Wherry Green McKellar Whiley Gurney McMahon Williams Hayden Magnuson Withers Hendrickson Malone Hickenlooper Maybank The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is present. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. WHERRY], which will be stated. The Curer CLerK. It is proposed to add at the end of the committee amend- ment the following new section: That whenever the supply of Irish pota- toes in the United States is, or is prac- tically certuin to be, in excess of the goal of production or national production al- lotment set by the Secretary of Agriculture, pursuant to section 401, Public Law 420, Eighty-first Congress, the President shall proclaim that fact, and thereafter, until such time as the President may determine and proclaim that such a surplus no longer exists, no Irish potatoes or products thercof shall be imported into the United Statcs. Mr. WHERRY. I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk called the roll, Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico {Mr. ANDER- sonJ, the Senator from Tennessee | Mr. Keravver], the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McFarianp], and the Senator from Florida [Mr, PEPPER] are absent on pub- lic business. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BenTon] and the Senator from Mon- tana [Mr. Murray] are neccessarily absent. The Senator from California [Mr. DowneEy] 1s unavoidably detained on official business. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. GuiL- LErvE], and the Senator from Florida
2396 (Mr. Ho.ianp] are absent by leave of the Senate on official business. The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON] is paired on this vote with the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Kem). If present and voting, the Senator from New Mexico would vote “nay,” and the Senator from Missouri would vote “yea.” The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Benton] is paired on this vote with the Senator from Pennsylvania {[Mr. Mar- TIN]. If present and voting, the Sena- tor from Connecticut would vote “nay,” and the Senator from Pennsylvania would vote “yea.” The Senator from Florida [Mr. Hot- LAND! is paired on this vote with the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Youna]. If present and voting, the Senator from Florida would vote “nay,” and the Senator from South Dakota would vote “yea.” If present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Kerauver] would vote “nay.” Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. ArKxen], the Senator from Missouri [Mr, Kem], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. San- TONSTALL], the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. THYE], and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Youna] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Indiana [Mr. CaPE- HART] and the Senator from Pennsyl- vania [Mr.*MarTIN] are absent on of- ficial business. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. FLANDERS], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Tart}, and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. VANDENBERG]! are necessarily absent. The Senator from Missouri |Mr. Kem] is paired with the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON]. If present and voting, the Senator from Missouri would vote “yea,”’ and the Senator from New Mexico would vote “nay.” The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Youna] is paired with the Senator from Florida {[Mr. Ho.tianp]. If present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota would vote “yea,” and the Senator from Florida would vote “nay.” The Senator from Pennsylvania {Mr. Martin] is paired with the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Benton]. If present and voting, the Senator from Pennsy]- vania would vote “yea,” and the Senator from Connecticut would vote “nay.” The Senator from Ohio (Mr. Tart] is paired with the Senator frcm Minnesota (Mr, Toye]. If present and voting, the Senator from Ohio would vote “yea” and the Senator from Minnesota would vote “nay.” The result was announced—yeas 31, nays 46, as follows: YEAS—31 Brewster Gurney Mundt Bricker Hendrickson Schoeppel Bridges Hickenlooper Smith, Maine Butler Ives Smith, N J. Cain Jenner Tobey Cordon Langer Watkins Darby McCarran Wherry Donnell McCarthy Wiley Dworshak Malone Williams Ecton Millikin Ferguson Morse NAYS—46 Byrd Connally Ellender Chapman Douglas FPrear Chavez Eastiand Fulbright CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE George Knowland O'Conor Graham Leahy O'Mahoney Green Lehman Robertson Hayden Lodge Russell Hin Long Sparkman Hoey Lucas Stennis Humphrey McClellan Taylor Hunt McKellar Thomas, Okla. Johnson, Colo. McMahon Thomas, Utah Johnson, Tex Magnuson Tydings Johnston, 8.0. Maybank Withers Kerr Myers Kilgore - Neely NOT VOTING—19 Aiken Holland Saltonstall Anderson Kefauver Taft Benton Kem Thye Capehart McFarland Vandenberg Downey Martin Young Flanders Murray Gillette Pepper So Mr. WHERRY’s amendment was rejected. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I offer my amendment lettered H, which I send to the desk and ask to have stated. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment will be stated. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. At the proper place in the bill it is proposed to insert the following: Sec. —. For the crop year of 1951 and thereafter no price support shall be made available for any Irish potatoes unless mar- keting quotas are in effect with respect to such potatoes. Mr. ELLENDER. On that amend- ment I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordcred, and the roll was called. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDER- son], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER!, the Senator from Arizona {Mr. McFarLanp], and the Senator from Florida [Mr. Perrer] are absent on pub- lic business. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BentTon] and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Murray] are necessarily absent. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Gu- LETTE] and the Senator from Florida \Mr. HOLLanD] are absent by leave of the Senate on official business. If present and voting, the Senator New Mexico [Mr. AnpErson], the Sena- tor from Connecticut [Mr. Benton], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. GILLETTE], the Senator from Florida [Mr. Ho.tanp], and the Senator from Tennessee |Mr. Kerauver! would vote “yea.” Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. ArKEN], the Senator from Missouri |Mr. Kem], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sa.- TONSTALL], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. THYE], and the Senator from North Dakota |[Mr. Youna] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Capg- HART] and the Senator from Pennsyl- vania {[Mr. MarTINn] are absent on official business. The Senator from Vermont [ Mr. Fran- pERS], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Tarr], and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. VANDENBERG] are necessarily absent. The result was announced—yeas 64, nays 14, as follows: YEAS—64 Byrd Connally Douglas Cain Cordon Downey Chapman Darby Eastland Chavez Donnell Ecton FEBRUARY 27 Ellender Kerr O'Conor Ferguson Kilfore O’Mahoney Frear Knowland Robertson Fulbright Leahy Russell George Lehman Schoeppel Graham Lodge Smith, N. J. Green Long Sparkman Hayden Lucas Stennis Hickenlooper McCarthy Thomas, Okla. Hill McClellan Thomas, Utah Hoey McKellar Tobey Humphrey McMahon Tydings Hunt Magnuson Watkins Ives Maybank Wiley Jenner Millikin Willtams Johnson, Colo. Morse Withers Johnson, Tex. Myers Johnston, 8.C Necly NAYS—14 Brewster Gurney Mundt Bricker Hendrickson Smith, Maine Bridges Langer Taylor Butler McCarran Wherry Dworshak Malone NOT VOTING—18 Alken Holland Pepper Anderson Kefauver Saltonstall Benton Kem Tait Capehart McFarland Thye Fianders Martin Vandenberg Gillette Murray Young So Mr. ELLENDER’s amendment was agreed to. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from New York [Mr. Ives], the Senator from Massachu- setts [Mr. SatTonstaL.L], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Henpricxson] and myself, I offer the amendment lettered H, which I send to the desk and ask to have stated. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment will be stated. The Cuier CLerk. At the appropriate place in the bill it is proposed to insert the following: That paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (d) of section 101 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (Public Law Numbered 439, Eighty- first Congress) are hereby repealed. Mr. WILLIAMS. On this amendment I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. HICKENLOOPER (when his name was called). On this vote, I have a pair with the senior Senator from Ohio | Mr. Tart]. I am informed that if he were present and voting, he would vote “yea.” If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote “nay.” I withhold by vote. The roll call was concluded. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from New Mcxico [Mr. ANDER- son], the Senator from Tennessec (Mr. KEFAUVER], the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McFarzanp], and the Senator frcm Florida [Mr. PEPPER] are absent on pub- lic business. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BENTON] and the Senator from Montana [Mr. Murray! are necessarily absent. The Senator from Texas [Mr. Con- NALLY] is unavoidably detained on offi- cial business. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. GIL- LETTE] and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Houianp] are absent by leave of the Senate on official business. The Senator from Florida (Mr. HoL- LAND] {s paired on this vote with the Sen- ator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTON- sTaLL]. If present and voting the Sena- tor from Florida would vote “nay,” and
1950 the Senator from Massachusetts would vote “yea.” If present and voting, the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. AnpERSON], the Sena- tor from Connecticut (Mr. Benton], the Senator from Texas [Mr. Connat.y], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grurette], the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Keravuver], and the Senator from Montana [Mr, Murray] would vote “nay.” Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Kem], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SAL- TONSTALL!, the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Toye], and the Senator from North Dakota {Mr. Youna] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Indiana [Mr. CaPE- HART] and the Senator from Pennsyl- vania [Mr. Martin! are absent on official business. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Frianpers], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. TartTl, and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. VANDENBERG |! are necessarily absent. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Tarr] is necessarily absent and his pair has been announced previously by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER }. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] is paired with the Senator from Florida [Mr. HoLianyp]. If present and voting, the Senator from Massa- chusetts would vote “‘yea” and the Sena- tor from Florida would vote “nay.” The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Kem] is paired with the Senator from Minne- sota |[Mr. THYE]. If present and voting, the Senator from Missouri would vote “yea” and the Senator from Minnesota would vote “nay.” The result was announced—yeas 17, nays 59, as follows. YEAS—17 Bricker Hendrickson Smith, N J. Bridges Ives Tobey Byrd Knowland Tvydings Cain Lodge Watkins Ferguson O'Conor Williams Frear Robertson NAYS—59 Brewster Hocy Malone Butler Humphrey Mavbank Chapman Hunt Millikin Chavez Jenner Morse Cordon Johnson, Colo Mundt Darby Johnson, Tex. Myers Donnell Johnston, 8.C Necly Douglas Kerr O'Mahoney Downey Kligore Russell Dworshak Langer Schocppel Fastland Leahy Smith, Maine Ecton Lehman Sparkman Eliender Long Stennis Fulbright Lucas Taylor George McCarran Thomas, Okla. Graham McCarthy Thomas, Utah Green M-Clellan Wherry Gurney McKellar Wiley Hayden McMahon Withers Hill Magnuson NOT VOTING—20 Aiken Hickenlooper Pepper Anderson Rolland Saltonstall Benton Kefauver Taft Capehart Kem Thye Connally McFarland Vandenberg Flanders Martin Young Gillette Murray So the amendment offered by Mr. Wiliams, on behalf of himself and other Senators, was rejected. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I of- fer and send to the desk an amend- XCVI——151 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ment, on behalf of the Senator from New York (Mr. Ives], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL], the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Henprick- son], and myself, to repeal paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (d) of section 101, effective January 1, 1951. I ask that the amendment be stated. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment will be stated. The Curer Cierk. At the appropriate place in the bill, it is proposed to insert the following: That paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (ad) of section 101 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (Public Law No. 439, 8ist Cong.), are hereby repealed effective January 1, 1951. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware (Mr. WiL- L1aAMS] on behalf of himself and other Senators. Mr. WILLIAMS and other Senators re- quested the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. HICKENLOOPER (when his name was called). On this vote, I have a pair with the senior Senator from Ohio | Mr. Tart!|. If he were present and voting, I am informed that he would vote “yea.” If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote “nay.” I withhold my vote. The roll call was concluded. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDER- son], the Senator from Tennessee | Mr. Keravuver|, the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McFaruanp], and the Senator from Florida [Mr. PrEpprer] are absent on public business. The Senator from Connecticut (Mr. EEnTON! and the Senator from Montana [Mr. Murray! are necessarily absent. The Senator from Texas [Mr. Con- NALLY | is unavoidably detained on official business. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. GiL- LETTE] and the Senator from Florida |Mr. HoLuanp] are absent by leave of the Senate on official business. The Senator from Florida [Mr. Hot- LAND | is paired on this vote with the Sen- ator from Massachusetts {Mr. SALTON- STALL]. If present and voting, the Sen- ator from Florida would vote “nay,” and the Senator from Massachusctts would vote “yea.” If present and voting, the Senater from New Mexico [Mr. Anverson], the Senator from Connecticut |Mr. BrEn- tron], the Senator from Texas [Mr. Conna.LLy], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. GILLETTE], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Kerauver], and the Senator from Montana [Mr. Murray] would vote “nay.” Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Arxen], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Kem], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sa.- TONSTALL], the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Txye], and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Youna] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Indiana [Mr. CaPeHart!) and the Senator from Penn- 2397 sylvania [Mr. MarTINn] are absent on offil- cial business. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Franpers], the Senator from Ohio [Mr Tart), and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. VANDENBERG] are necessarily absent. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Tarr] is necessarily absent and his pair has been announced previously by the Sen- ator from Iowa [Mr. HIcKENLOOPER]. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SaLTONSTALL] is paired with the Senator from Florida [Mr. Hotuanp]. If present and voting, the Senator from Massachu- setts would vote “yea,” and the Senator from Florida would vote “nay.” The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Kem] is paired with the Senator from Minne- sota, [Mr. THE]. If present and voting, the Senator from Missouri would vote “yea,” and the Senator from Minnesota would vote “nay.” The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ma- LONE] is detained on official business. The result was announced—yeas 20, nays 55, as follows: YEAS—20 Bricker Hendrickson Robertson Bridges Ives Smith, N. J. Byrd Knowland Tobey Cain Ledge Tydings Cordon McCarran Watkins Ferguson Morse Williams Frear O'’Conor NAYS—55 : Brewster Hoey Maybank Butler Humphrey Millikin Chapman Hunt Mundt Chavez Jenner Myers Darby Johnson, Colo. Neely Donuell Johnson, Tex O’Muhoney Douglas Johnston, S.C. Russell Downey Kerr Schoeppel Dworshak Kilgore Smith, Maine Eastland Langer Sparkman Ecton Leahy B8tennis Ellender Lehman Taylor Fulbright Long Thomas, Okla. George Lucas Thomas, Utah Graham McCarthy Wherry Green McClean Wiley Gurney McKellar Withers Havden McMahon Hill Magnuson NOT VOTING—21 Alken Hickenlooper Murray Anderson Hol'and Pepper Benton Kefauver Saltonstall Capehart Kem Taft Connally McFarland Thye Flanders Malone Vandenberg Gillette Martin Young So the amendment offered by Mr. WitLiams, on behalf of himself and other Senators, was rejected. Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, I send forward an amendment, which I have modified, and ask to have read. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will state the amendment. The Cuier Cuerk. At the end of the Joint resolution it is proposed tc add a new section, as follows: Src. 8. (a) That section 359 of the Agricul- tural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, is amended by adding the following new sub- sections: “(g) Beginning with the 1950 crop of pea- nuts, payment of the marketing penalty as provided in subsection (a) will not be re- quired on any excess peanuts which are de- livered to or marketed through an agency or agencies designated each year by the Sec- retary. Any peanuts received under this sub- section by such agency shall be sold by such
2398 agency (1) for crushing for ofl under a sales agreement approved by the Secretary; (li) for cleaning and shelling at prices not less than those established for quota peanuts under any peanut diversion, peunut loan, or peanut purchase program; or (iii) for seed at prices established by the Secretary. For all peanuts so delivered to a designated agency under this subsection, producers shall be paid for the portion of the lot con- stituting excess peanuts, the prevalling mare ket value thereof for crushing for oll, less the estimated cost of storing, handing, and ecll- ing such peanuts. Any person, who, pure suant to the provisions of this subsection, acquires peanuts for crushing for ofl and who uses or disposes of such peanuts for any purpose other than that for which uc- quired shall pay a penalty to the United States, at a rate equal to the marketing pen- alty prescribed In subsection (a), upon the peanuts so used or disposed of and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon convic- tion thereof shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned tor not more than 1 year, or both, for each and every offense. Op- erations under this subsection shall be car- ried on under regulations prescribed by the Secretary. ‘(h) For the purposes of price support with resrect to the 1950 and subsequent crops of peanuts, a ‘cooperator’ shall be (1) @ produccr on whose farm the acrea¢e of pea- nuts picked or threshed does not exceed the farm acreage allotment or (2) a producer on whose farm the acreage of peanuts picked or threshed exceeds the farm acreage allotment provided any peanuts picked or threshed in excers of the furm marketing quota are de- livered to or marketed through an agency or agencies designated by the Secretary }.uw- suant to subsection (g) in accordance with reguiations prescribed by the Secretary “(i) The provision of this section shall not apply with respect to any crop when mar- keting quotas are in efiect on the corre- sponding crop for soybeans" (b) That the second sentence in para- graph (d) of section 356 is amended to read as follows’ “Any acreage of peanuts har- vested in excess of the allotted acreage for any farm for any yeur shall not be consid- ered in the establishment of the allotment for the farm in succeeding years.” Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President—— Tne VICE PRESIDENT. For what purpose Goes the Senator ask to be recognized? Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma, I ¢ k unanimous consent that I may make a statement of one sentence respecting the pending amendment. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the reaucst of the Senator from Oklahoma? The Chair hears none. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. The House joint resolution carries a provi- sion resdvecting peanuts, and the com- mittee has no objection to the pending amendment, because the question will be considered in conference, anyway. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question {fs on the amendment of the Senator from Georgia |{Mr. Greorce]. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator wil] state the inquiry. Mr. TOBEY. Could this be charac- teriz-’d as peanut politics? (Laughter.] CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The VICE PRESIDENT. That is not a parliamentary inquiry. [Laughter.] The yeas and nays having been ordered, the clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. ANDER- son], the Senator from Tennessee | Mr. ELEFrauveER!, the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McFarianp], and the Senator from Florida [Mr Prprer!] are absent on public business. The Senator from Connecticut |Mr. Benton !, and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Mounray! are necessarily absent. Toe Senator from Delaware IMr. Freik! is unevoidably detained. The Senator from Iowa |Mr. Gi1- LETTE], and the Senator from Florida [Mr Ho.tanp] are absent by leave of the Senate on official business. Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the Senator from Vermont IMr. ArKEN], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Kem, the Senator from Massachusetts |Mr, Sat- TONSTALLJ, the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. THYE], and the Senator from North Drkota |Mr. Youna! are absent by leave cf the Senate. If present and voting, the Senator from Vermont |Mr. Alken] and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. THYE!] would vote “nay.” The Senator from Indiana [Mr. CaPE- Hart! end the Senator from Pennsyl- vama |Mr. Martin |, are absent on official busmess. If present and voting, the Sen- ator from Pennsylvania |[Mr. Martin] would vote “nay.” The Senator from Vermont I[Mr. FLANDERS], the Senator from Ohio IMr. Tartl, and the Senator from Michigan {My. VANDENBERG|! are necessarily absent. If present and voting, the Senator from Vermont (Mr. FLANDERS! would vote “nay.” The result was announced—yeas 49, nays 28, as follows: YEAS—49 Byid Hunt Millikin Chapman Johnson, Colo. Myers Chavez Johnson, Tex Neely Connally Johnston, $.C O’Conor Douglas Kerr O’Mahoney Downey Kilgore Robertson Eastland Leahy Russell Eciton Lehman Schoerpel Ellender Long Sparkman Pulbright Lucas Stennis George McCarran Taylor Graham McClelian Thomus, Okla. Green McKellar Thomas, Utah Hayden McMahon Tydings Hull Magnuson Withers Hoey Mnulone Humphrey Maybank NAYS—28 Brewator Gumey Mundt Bricker Hendrickson Smith, Maine Bridges Hickenlooper Smith,N.J. Butler Ives Tobey Cain Jenner Watkins Cordon Knowland Whoiry Darby Langer Wiley Donnell Ledge Williams Dworshak McCarthy Ferguson Morso NOT VOTING—19 Aiken Holland Saltonstall Anderson Kefauver Taft Benton Kem Thye Capehart McFarland Vandenberg Flanders Martin Young Frear Murray Gillette Pepper FEBRUARY 27 So Mr. Geocrcs’s amendment was agreed to. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Pres- ident, I call up my amendment No. 16. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sccre- tary will state the amendment. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I under- stand the Senator in charge has no ob- jection to the amendment’s going to con- ference. The VICE PRESIDENT. Debate is not in order. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK, At the ena of the joint resolution it 1s proposed to add the following new section: Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provi- sion of law, the tarm acreape allotment of wheat for the 1951 crop for any tarm shall not be less than the larger of— (2) 50 percent of— (1) the acreage on the farm seceded for the production of wheat in 1949, and (2) any other acreage secded for the pro- duction of wheat in 1948 which was fallowed and from which no crop was harvested in the calendar year 1949, or (b) 50 percent of — (1) the acreage on the farm seeded for the production of wheat in 1948, and (2) any other acreage seeded for the pro- duction of wheat in 1947 which was fallowed and from which no crop was harvested in the calendar year 1948; adjusted in the same ratio as the national seeding for the production of wheat during the calendar yea. 1950 (adjusted for abnor- mal weather conditions and for trend in acre- ae) bears to the national acreage allotment for wheat for the 1951 crop; but no acreage shall be included under (n) or (b) which the Scerctary, by appropriate regulation, de- termines will become an undue erosion hrz- ard under continued farming Notwith- standing the foregoing, no allotment in- ereaced by reason of the provisions of this section shall exceed that percentage ol tho 1950 allotment for the same farm which (1) the acicage allotted in the county to farms which do not receive un increase under this section is of (2) the acreage allotted to such farms in 1950 To the extent that the allotment to any county is insufiiclent to provide for such minimum allotments, the Secretary shall allot such county such addi- tional acreage (which shall be in addition to the county, State, and national ncreage allotments otherwise provided for under the Agricultural Act of 1938, as amended) as may be necessary in order to provide tor such minimum farm allotments. Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, o par- liamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, would it be in order to ask unanimous consent to include in the Recorp at this point a telegram received from the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Younc] ? The VICE PRESIDENT. If it is in the nature of an argument for or against the joint resolution, it would not be in order. Mr. GURNEY. I am not asking to read it; I am asking that it be printed in the Recorp at this point. I ask unani- mous consent that that may ke done. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, a point of order. Would it be in order by unani- mous consent? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thinks it would be in order.
1950 Mr. GURNEY. Then, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the tele- gram be printed in the REcorp. There being no objection, the telegram was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Lamoure, N. Dak., February 27, 1950. Senator CHAN GURNEY: I believe Senate approval of Millikin- Johnson amendment would be serious blow to whole wheat support program and may well lead to another surplus situation which the same as we now have with respect to potatoes If we are to maintain present price support, production must be reduced and not by favoritism to any particular area. Pres- ent legislation adequate to permit Secretary of Agriculture to make necessary adjust- ments. Secretary has 4,507,000 acres to make adjustments between States. Colorado re- celved from this pool 789,225 acres, North Dakota 300,000 acres, South Dakota 243,856 acres, Historically, Colorado ranks lower in production of wheat than either North or South Dakota. There is widespread dis- satisfaction in spring wheat area now on part of wheat farmers. They feel, and right- fully so, they are being discriminated against. Acreage this area has remained ap- proximately constant for many years, while other areas have increase. Extension of Mil- likin-Johnson amendment as contained in Public Law 272 would make our producers in spring whent area bear an unreasonable share of necessary reduction while other areas would be given increased base. Most rell- able authorities here predict that if MUlli- kin-Johnson amendment is approved, at least 25 percent of farmers in spring wheat area will not comply with acreage reduction requirements This area already bearing brunt of reduction program and in greater need of special legislation than most other areas Millikin-Johnson amendment was not presented to Senate Agricultural Com- mittee. Did hold hearings, but refused to take a permanent action. Hope you can make this telegram a part of records. Regards. MILTON R YOUNG, United States Senator. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment No. 16, offered by the Senators from Colorado. Mr. LODGE and other Senators asked for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDER- son], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Humpurey], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Keravver], the Senator from Ari- zona {[Mr. McFarLanp], and the Senator from Florida [Mr. PEPPER] are absent on public business. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BENTON] and the Senator from Montana {Mr. Murray] are necessarily absent. The Senator from Delaware (Mr. Frear] and the Senator from Illinois [Mr, Lucas] are unavoidably detained. The Senator from Iowa |Mr. QGiL- Lette] and the Senator from Florida (Mr. HoLuanp] are absent by leave of the Senate on official business. If present and voting, the Senator from Florida | Mr. HoLianp] would vote “nay.” Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Arken], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Kem], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SaL~ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE TONSTALL], the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. THyYE], and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Younc] are absent by leave of the Senate. If present and voting, the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Kem], and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Younc] would vote “nay.” The Senator from Indiana |Mr. CapE- HaRT!, and the Senator from Pennsyl- vania [Mr. Martin] are absent on official business. If present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania [M1. Mar- TIN] would vote “nay.” The Senator from Vermont [Mr. FLan- DERSJ, the Senator from Ohio [Mr Tart], and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. VANDENBERG] are necessarily absent. If present and voting, the Senator from Vermont [Mr. FLanpers] would vote “nay.” The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Cor- DON] and the Senator from Indianu [Mr. JENNER] are detained on official business, The result was announced—yeas 49, nays 24, as follows: YEAS—49 Brewster Hayden Mundt Bricker Hendrickson Myers Butler Hill Neely Cain Hoey O’Mahoney Chapman Hunt Russell Chavez Johnson, Colo Schoeppel Connally Johnson, Tex. Sparkman Darby Kerr Stennis Downey Long Taylor Dworshek McCarran Thomas, Okla. Eastland McCarthy Thomas, Utah Ecton McClellan Tydings Ellender McKellar Watkins Fulbright Magnuson Wherry George Malone Withers Graham Maybank Gurney Millikin NAYS—24 Bridges Johnston, 8. C. Morse Byrd Kilgore O’Conor Donnell Knowland Robertson Douglas Langer Smith, Maine Ferguson Leahy Smith, N J. Green Lehman Tobey Hickenlooper Lodge Wiley Ives McMahon Williams NOT VOTING—23 Aiken Holland Murray Anderson Humphrey Pepper Benton Jenner Saltonstall Carehart Ketauver Taft Coidon Kem Thye Flanders Lucas Vandenberg Frear McFarland Young Gillette Martin So the amendment offered by Mr. Jounson of Colorado and Mr, MILLIKIN was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. If there be no further amendments, the question is on committee amendment as amended. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, I call up my amendment which has been sent to the desk. The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will state the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 7, at the end of section 2, it is proposed to add the following: “Provided, That the Sec- retary of Agriculture is authorized and directed to offer for sale at the point of storage any potatoes produced in sur- plus areas and now in the possession of the Commodity Credit Corporation to wholesalers, jobbers, retailers, or con- sumers, for distribution and consump- 2399 tion in deficit areas, at prices per bushel which will return to the said Commodity Credit Corporation its total investment in such potatoes, including handling and carrying costs: And providec further, That the Secretary is authorized to de- fine surplus areas with respect to the production of potatoes and also deficit areas where such potatoes may be dis- tributed: And provided further, That this proviso shall be complied with prior to either giving away or the destruction of any potatoes now in the possession of the said Commodity Credit Corpora- tion.” (On request of Mr. THomas of Okla- homa, and by unanimous consent granted earlier during the course of today’s debate, the following letter, ad- dressed by Mr. Tuomas of Oklahoma to the Secretary of Agriculture, was ordered to be printed at this point in the REcorp: ) UNrtTEep STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, February 24, 1950. Hon. CuHar.es F BRANNAN, Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr SEcRETARY: During the hearings and consideration of the so-called Ander- son farm bill, I made two suggestions which did not meet with the approval of your Department. The first suggestion was that an Assistant Secretary be provided for the express pur- pose of devcloping and supervising a mar- keting department for the disposal of com- modities taken over under the COC loan and purchase program. The second suggestion was that in com- munities where surplus commodities have been or are being taken over, that such com- modities should be made available to citl- zens in the deficit areas At the present time potatoes have heen or are being taken over at approximately 61 per bushel, while the average price re- ceived by farmers throughout the entire country is some 81 percent of parity, or $136 per bushel. In some parts of the coun- try potatoos are selling as high as @285 per bushel, as in Florida, and 8245 per bushel in Mississippi; such prices are being received by farmers. Insofar as I can learn, potatoes are not being sold at any point in the United States at a figure as low as the Government's sup- port price. To me this means that with a little effort the potatoes on hand could be distributed throughout the United States and sold in deficit areas at such a price as would enable your Department to either make a profit or lose but little money in the handling of such commodities. The argument against this policy hereto- fore has been that if the Government initi- ated a policy of distributing its surplus com- modities, that such commodities would come in direct competition with like products produced locally and that such a policy would, in effect, defeat the over-all price- support program. If my information is correct, I do not believe this argument is sound. In the past we have taken over great quantities of cot- ton and later the Government has disposed of such cotton locally and, in many cases, at a substantial profit. I understand that the CCC is now selling corn and other products taken over under loans at prices below the loan or support price. My motive for making this suggestion with respect to potatoes is to try to check an obvi- ous uprising of criticism against our entire
2400 support price policy. I have been in my State recently and everywhere I went I was con- fronted with this potato problem. The people are unable to understand why they have to pay 3% to 6 cents per pound for potatoes at a time when our Government has millions of bushels on hand and is seeking a way to destroy the product, rather than try- ing to distribute the potatces among the peuple who are in need and want such product. I am advised that the CCC has recently made a contract with the Pennsylvania Ratl- road Co. wherein such railroad company has granted a substantial reduction in freight rates on shipments of potatoes sold and de- livered to the Publicker alcohol plant located at Philadelphia. I am further advised that the Publicker plant is receiving the potatoes at the cost of 1 cent per hundredweight, plus the reduced freight rate that has been se- cured by the CCC. Of course, I think it better to dispose of the potatoes as indicated rather than to de- stroy them, however, such program cannot be explained satisfactorily to the people who are having to pay rather high prices for this commadity Further, it is my opinion that under the Agriculture Act of 1949 you have the avthority to dispose of these potatoes either by destruction or by sale at a nominal price, or at any price you can get for such commadity. Under gectlon 407 of such act the CCC may sell any farm commodity owned or controlled by it at any price not prohibited by said section Under subdivision (D), it is provided that “sales of commodities which have substan- tially deteriorated in quality or as to which there is a danger of loss or waste through deterioration or spoilage”; which means, as I understand the law, thut there is no restric- tion against the sale of such commodities at any price that may be obtained for same. If my interpretation of the law is correct, then the issue resolves itself into a question of policy, and inusmuch as the Government has heretofore sold and distributed commod- itles domestically, it occurs to me that such @ policy should be worked out and carried into eect with respect to potatoes I submit the foregoing suggestions to you for such consideration as they merit. Yours most cordially, ELMER THOMAS. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Tuomas]. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma and other Senators requested the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Icgisletive clerk called the roll. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDER- son], the Senator from Minnesota | Mr. Humpurey], the Senator from Tennes- see |Mr. Kerauver], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McFaruanp], and the Sen- ator from Florida [Mr. Prprer] are ab- sent on public business. The Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Benton] end the Senator from Mon- tana iMr. Murray] are necessarily absent. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Git- LETTE] and the Senator from Florida [Mr. Houianp] are absent by leave of the Senate on Official business. If present and voting, the Senator from Florida [Mr. Ho.ianp] would vote “yea.” Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], the Senator from Missouri {Mr. Krem], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sau- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE TONSTALL], the Senator from Minnesota {Mr. Tuye], and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Younc] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Capr- HART] and the Senator from Pennsyl- vania [Mr. MarTIN] are absent on of- ficial business. The Senator from Vermont I[Mr. FLanpErs!, the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Tart], and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. VaNDENBERG] are neccssarily absent. The result was announced—yeas 71, nays 6, as follows: YEAS—71 Brewster Hendrickson Maybank Bricker Hickenlooper Millikin Bridges Hail Morse Butler Hocy Mundt Byrd Hunt Mycrs Cain Ives Necly Chapman Jenner O'Conor Chaves Jchnson, Colo O'Mahoney Connally Johnson, Tex Robertson Cordon Johnston,S C Russell Darby Kerr Schoeppel Douglas Kilgore Smith, Maine Downey Langer Smith, N J. Dworshak Leahy Sparkman Eastland Lehman Stennis Ecton Lodge Thomas, Okla ‘orguson Lucas Thomas, Utah Frear McCarran Tobey Fulbright McCarthy Tydings Geo1ge McClellan Watkins Graham McKellar Wiley Green McMahon Williams Gurney Magnuson Withers Hayden Malcne NAYS—6 Donnell Knowland Taylor E.Jender Long Wherry NOT VOTING--1¢ Aiken Humphrey Sultonstall Anderson Kefauver Taft Benton Kem Thye Capehurt McFarland Vandenberg Flanders Murtin Young Gillette Murray Holland Pepper So the amendment of Mr. TrromAs of Oklahoma was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the committee amend- ment as amended. The committee amendment as amend- ed was agreed to. The amendment was ordered to be cn- grossed anc the joint resolution to be read a third time. The joint resolution was read the third time. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion now is, Shall the joint resolution pass? Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma and other Scaators asked for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordercd, and the legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico |[Mr. ANDER- son!, the Senator from Minnesota |Mr. Humpurey], the Senator from Tennessee \Mr. Kkerauver], the Senator from Ari- zona {Mr. McFaruanp!, and the Scnator from Florida [Mr, Pepper] are absent on public business. The Senator from Connecticut IMr. Benton] and the Senator from Montana [Mr. Murrayl are necessarily absent. The Senator from Iowa [Mr, GILLETIE] and the Senator from Florida | Mr. Hou- LAND] are absent by Icave of the Senate on official business. If present and voting, the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Anprrson], the FEBRUARY 27 Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BEnTon], the Senator from Iowa |Mr. GriLteTTe!, the Senators from Florida |Mr, HoLiany and Mr. Pepper], the Senator from Min- nesota |[Mr. Humpurey], the Senator from Tennessee |[Mr. Kerauver}, the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McFarranp], the Senator from Montana {Mr. Mur- Ray] would vote “yea.” Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Arxen], the Senator from Missouri |Mr. Kem], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sat- TONSTALL], the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. TuyE|, and the Senator from North Dakota |Mr. Younc] are absent by leave of the Senate. If present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota |Mr. Younc] would vote “nay.” The Senator from Indiana [Mr Cape- HARTI and the Senator from Pennsyl- vania (Mr. Martin] are absent on official business. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Fianvders], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. TartTi, and the Senator from Michigan iMr. VANDENBERG] are necessarlly absent. The Senator from Massachusetts | Mr, SALTONSTALLI is paired with the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Martin]. If present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts would vote ‘‘nay,” and the Senator from Pennsylvania would vote ‘yea.” The Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN] 1s paired with the Senator from Missouri |Mr. Kem]. If present and voting, the Senator from Vermont would vote “nay” and the Senator from Mis- souri would vote “yea.” The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. THYE] is paired with the Senator from Vermont [Mr Fuanpers!. If present and voting, the Senator from Mrnnesota would vote “yea”? and the Senator from Vermont would vote ‘‘nay.” The result was announced—yeas 53, nays 24, as follows: YEAS—53 Byrd Hunt Mundt Chapman Johnson, Colo Mycis Chaves Johnson, Tex Neely Connally Johnston, 8.C O'Conor Darby Kerr O'Mahoney Donnell Kilgore Robertson Douglas Leahy Russell Downey Lehman Schceppel Eastland Long Smith, Maine Ellender Lucas Smith, N J. Fulbright McCarran Sparkman George McClellan Stennis Gruham McKellar ‘Taylor Green McMahon Thomas, Okla Hayden Magnuson Thomas, Utah Henarickson Ma'one Tydings Hill Maybank Withers Hoey Millikin NAYS—24 Brewster Ferguson Lodge Bricker Frear McCarthy Bridges Gurney Mcrse Butler Hickenlooper = Tobey Cain Ives Watkins Cordon Jenner Wherry Dworshak Knowland Wilcy Ecton Langer Williams NOT VOTING—19 Aiken Humphrey Saltonstall Anderson Kefauver Tait Benton Kem Thye Capehart McFarland Vandenberg Flanders Martin Young Gillette Murray Holiand Pepper
1950 So the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 398) was passed. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary be authorized to make the title conform to the text of the joint resolution. The VICE PRESIDENT, Without ob- Jection, it is so ordered. The title was amended so as to read: “Joint resolution relating to farm acre- age allotments for cotton and wheat un- der the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and to price support for potatoes and peanuts.” Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution, as passed, be printed at this point in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. Resolved, That the joint resolution from the House of Representatives (H. J. Res. 398) entitled “Joint resolution relating to cotton and peanut acreage allotments and marketing quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended,” do pass with the following amendments: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: “That section 844 (f) of the Agricultural Ldjustment Act of 1938, as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: “(4) Any part of the acreage allotted to individual farms in any county under the provisions of this section which will not be planted to cotton in the year for which allotted and which {s voluntarily surrendered to the county committee shall be deducted from the allotments to buch farms and may be reapportioned within the State in amounts determined by the Secretary to be fair and reasonable, preference being given to other farms in the same county receiving allotments which the Secretary determines are inadequate and not representative in view of their past production of cotton. Any transfer of allotment under this para- graph in any year shall not operate to reduce the allotment for any subsequent year for the farm from which acreuge is transferred; except in accordance with paragraph (1) (B) and the proviso in paragraph (2) of this subsection: Provided, That any part of any farm acreage allotment may be permanently released in writing to the county committee by the owner and operator of the farm and may be reapportioned in the manner set forth above “«(5) Notwitastanding any other provision of this section and without reducing any farm acreage allotment determined pursuant to the foregoing provisions of this subsection, ench farm acreage allotment for 1950 shall be increased by such amount as may be neces- sary to provide an allotment equal to 60 per centum of the average acreage planted to cotton (or regarded as having been planted to cotton under the provisions of Public Law 12, Seventy-ninth Congress) on the farm in 1946, 1947, and 1948; but no such allotment shall be increased by reason of this provision to an acreage in excess of 40 per centum of the acreage on the farm which is tilled an- nually or in regular rotation, determined in the same manner and with the same exclu- sions as provided for by paragraph (2). De- termination 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 evi- dence as may be submitted by the owner or operator, and shall be subject to review by the State committee. An increase in any 1950 farm acreage allotment shall be made pursuant to this paragraph only upon appli- cation in writing by the owner or operator of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the farm within such time as may be pre- scribed by the Secretary, and the amount of any such increase shall not exceed the amount requested in such application. The acreage allotment computed in accordance with paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this subsection (f) for each year subsequent to 1960 for each farm receiving an increase in its 1960 acreage allotment pursuant to this paragraph shall be increased by such amount as may be necessary to provide an allotment equal to its allotment for the preceding year increased or decreased, respectively, in the same proportion that the county acreage allotment ts greater or leas than the county acreage allotment for the preceding year; put no allotment shall be increased by reason of this provision to an acreage in excess of the largest acrenge planted (or regarded as planted under Public Law 12, Seventy-ninth Congress) to cotton on such farm during any of the preceding 3 years, To the maxti- mum extent possible, the Secretary, and State, and county committees shall carry out the provisions of this paragraph in 1051 and subsequent years by use of the acreage re- served under sections 344 (e) and 344 (f) (3) and by reallocated acreage under paragraph (4) of this subsection. The additional acre- age required to be allotted to farms under this paragraph shall be in addition to the county, State, and national acreage allot- ments and the production from such acreage shall be in addition to the national market- ing quota. “*(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section and without reducing any furm-acreage allotment determined pursu- ant to the foregoing provisions of this sub- section, in the case of any State with an allotment for 1950 amounting to less than 3,000 acres, the allotment for such State shall be increased by an additional acreage of 2,000 acres to be used for establishing allot- ments for new farms in 1950 The addi- tional acreage required to be allotted under this paragraph shad] be in addition to the county, State, and National acreage allot- ments and the production from such acreage shall be in addition to the national market- ing quota’ “Sec. 2. No price support shall be made available for any Irish potatoes harvested after the enactment of this Joint resolution unless marketing quotus hereafter authorized by law, or marketing agreements and mar- keting orders under the Agricultural Mare keting Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, are in effect with respect to such potatoes: Provided, That the Secretary of Agriculture 4s authorized and directed to offer for sale at the point of storage any potatoes produced 4n surplus areas and now in the possession of the Commodity Credit Corporation to whole- salers, jobbers, retailers, or consumers, for distribution and consumption in deficit areas, at prices per bushel which will return to the said Commodity Credit Corporation 4ts total investment in such potatoes, tnclud- ing handling and carrying costs Provided jurther, That the Secretary is authorized to detine surplus areas with respect to the pro- duction of potatoes and also deficit areas where such potatoes may be distributed: And provide further, That this proviso shall be complied with prior to either giving away or the destruction of any potatoes now in the possession of the said Commodity Credit Cor- poration. “Src, 3. For the crop year of 1951 and there- after no price support shall be made avail- able for any Irish potatoes unless marketing quotas are in effect with respect to such potatoes. “Src. 4. (a) That section 359 of the Agri- cultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, is amended by adding the following new subsections: “*(g) Beginning with the 1950 crop of pea- nuts, payment of the marketing penalty as provided in subsection (a) will not be re- 2401 quired on any excess peanuts which are de- livered to or marketed through an agency or agencies designated each year by the Secre- tary. Any peanuts received under this sub- section by such agency shall be sold by such agency (i) for crushing for oil under a sales agreement epproved by the Secretary; (1}) for cleaning and shelling at prices not less than those established for quota peanuts under any peanut diversion, peanut loan, or peanut-purchase program; or (ili) for seed at prices established by the Secretary. For all peanuts so delivered to a designated agency under this subsection, producers shall be paid for the portion of the lot constituting excess peanuts, the prevailing market value thereof for crushing for oil, less the estimated cost of storing, handling, and selling such peanu.3. Any person who, pursuant to the provisions of this subsection, acquires peae nuts for crushing for of] and who uses or dis- poses of such peanuts for any purpose other than that for which acquired shall pay a pen- alty to the United States, at a rate equal to the marketing penalty prescribed in subsec- tion (a), upon the peanuts so used or dis- posed of and shall be guilty of a misde- meanor and upon conviction thercof shall be fined not more than 81,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both, for each and every offense. Operations under this sub- section shall be carried on under regulations prescribed by the Secretary. ““*(h) For the purposes of price support with respect to the 1950 and subsequent crops of peanuts, a “cooperator” shall be (1) & producer on whose farm the acreage of pens nuts picked or threshed does not exceec the farm acreage ellotment or (2) a producer on whose farm the acreage of penuuts picked or threshed exceeds the farm acreage allotment provided any peanuts picked or threshed tn excess of the farm-marketing quota are de- livercd to or marketed through an agency or agencies designated by the Secretary pursu- ant to subsection (g) in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary. “d) The provision of vhis section shall not apply with respect to any crop when marketing quotas are in effect on the corre- sponding crop for soyberxns’ “(b) That the second sentence in para- graph (d) of section 358 1s amended to read as follows: ‘Any acreage of peanuts harvested in excess of the allotted acreage for any farm for any year shall not be considered in the establishment of the allotmen. for the farm in succeeding years.’ “Sec, §&. Notwithstanding any other provi- sion of law, the farm-acrenge allotment of wheat for the 1951 crop for any farm shall not oe less than the larger of-— “(a) 60 percent of— (1) the acreage on the iarm seeded for the production of wheat in 1949, and “(2) any other acreage seeded for the pro- duction of wheat in 1948 which was fallowec and from which no crop was harvested in the calendar year 1949, or “(b) 60 percent of— “(1) the acreage on the farm seeded for the production of wheat in 1948, and “(2) any other acreage seeded for the pro- duction of wheat in 1947 which was fallowed and from which no crop was harvested in the calendar year 1948, adjusted in the same ratio as the national seeding for the production of wheat during the calendar year 1950 (adjusted for abnor- mal weather conditions and for trend in acreage) bears to the national acreage allot- ment for wheat for the 1951 crop; but no acreage shall be included under (a) or (b) which the Secretary, by appropriate regula- tions, determines will become an undue erosion hazard under continued farming. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no allotment increased by reason of the provisions of this section shall exceed that percentage of the 1950 allotment for the same farm which (1) the acreage alloted in the county to farms
2402 which do not receive an increase under this section is of (2) the acreage allotted to such farms in 1950. To the extent that the allotment to any county is insufficient to provide for such minimum allotments, the Secretary shall allot such county such addi- tional acreage (which shall be in addition to the county, State, and national acreage allotments otherwise provided for under the Agricultural Act of 1938, as amended) as may be necessary in order to provide for such minimum farm allotments.” Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. I move that the Senate insist upon its amend- ments, request a conference with the House thereon, and that the Chair ap- point the conferees on the part of the Senate. The motion was agreed to; and the Vice President appointed Mr. THomas of Oklahoma, Mr. ELLENDER, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hoey, Mr. Arken, Mr. Younc, and Mr. THYE conferees on the part of the Sen- ate. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Because of the importance of the joint resolution which has just been passed, and the in- terest in it which is prevalent through- out the country, I ask that as many copies as the Secretary of the Senate may deem proper be printed for use of the Folding Room and the Document Room. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. COMMUNISTS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE— FIRST REPORT OF THE FOREIGN RE- LATIONS COMMITTEE Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of the Senate for two or three minutes. It will be recalled that a few days ago the Senate adopted Scn- ate Resolution 231, dealing with charges as to loyalty of employees in the State Department, and so forth. The Foreign Relations Committee met on last Satur- day and authorized the chairman to ap- point asubcommittee. The Senator from Texas, as chairman of the committee, ap- pointed the Senator from Maryland | Mr. Typinces!, the Senator from Rhode Is- land [Mr. Green], the Senator from Connecticut |Mr. McManon], the Sena- tor from Iowa [Mr, H1ckENLOOPER], and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. LoncE] to be members of the subcom- mittee. The subcommittee met today and for- mulated a statement which it desires the chairman to make on the floor of the Senate. Isend the statement to the desk, and ask that it be read at the desk. The VICD PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the statement will be read. The Chief Clerk read as follows: FIRST REPORT OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTION 231 The Senate Committee on Foreign Rela- tions, pursuant to Senate Resolution 231, herewith makes its first report. 1, The committeo met Saturday, February 25, and appointed the following subcom- mittee to pursue the work encompassed in said resolution. The subcommittee is as follows: Senator Typ1Ncs, of Maryland, chair- man; Senator Green, of Rhode Island; Sen- ator McManon, of Connecticut; Senator HICKENLooPER, of Iowa; Senator Lopce, of Massachusetts, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 2. In order that the subcommittee and the full committee may discharge their task in accordance with sald resolution, the sub- committee was instructed as follows: “To make a full and complete study and investigation of all Government employees now in the Department of State and former employees of the Department of State now in other agencies of the Government against whom charges are made in order to deter- mine whether or not sald employees are or have been disloyal to the United States, and to use the power of subpena whenever necessary.” 3. It was further resolved by the subcom- mittee and later by the full committee that the scope and procedure outlined above bo brought to the attention of the Senate. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield for a ques- tion? Mr. CONNALLY. Yes. Mr. FERGUSON. Does the second paragraph of the report purport to fol- low the terms of the resolution under which the committee was directed to act? Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield to me? Mr. CONNALLY. I yield to the Sen- ator from Maryland, the chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. TYDINGS. I should like to say, first, that the subcommittee was unani- mous, and the full Committee on For- eign Relations was unanimous in mak- ing this report. The subcommittee made it for the reason that, as Senators will understand if they read the first scc- tion of the resolution adopted by the Senate, we did not know how far back we should go. We could go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson, and, of course, no One assumed that the Senate would want the committee to go back that far. The resolution provides for an investigation of all charges made against Persons who are now employed or who have been employed by the State De- partment and have gone to another agency of the Government. The com- mittee instructed the subcommittee to do that, though it was not necessary, so as to try to inform the Senate that we were going to do what the debate seems the Senate wanted us to do, al- though the resolution, in the ambiguous way 1n which it was drawn, might leave us under the impression that we were to do things the Senate did not have in mind when it adopted the resolution. Mr. FERGUSON. Myr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CONNALLY. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. I was on the floor at the time of the adoption of the reso- lution and was present during the de- bate on it and I offered an amendment to the resolution. In view of that fact, the Senator from Michigan cannot see how the report complies with the resolu- tion itself, One amendment was offered to extend the language from “then in the employ of the State Department” to “or have been in the employ of the State Department,” for the specific reason, as was said in the debate, that charges have been made against persons who have been in the employ of the State Depart- ment and who have been discharged. FEBRUARY 27 Under the present interpretation by the committee, it is apparent that if an em- ployee left the Department before the date of the adoption of the resolution— even the day before—he or she would not be investigated, under the interpre- tation by the committee, unless he or she went to another department. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, CONNALLY. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. Is it the purpose of the Senator to have us investigate per- sons who are not now in the employ of the State Department, who are not em- ployed by any other agency of the Gov- ernment, and who have been out of the Department for 10 or 15 years? Mr. FERGUSON. No. Mr. TYDINGS. Then, what length of time shall we consider? The resolution does not specify any length of time. That is the point. If the Senate wants us to investigate all persons charged who have left the Department, and who are not now employed by the Government, or have not been within a 5-year period or a 3-year period or a 10-year period or @ 25-year period, we can do that. But as It stands we do not know whether we ought to go all the way back, as I have said, to the time of Thomas Jefferson, or where we ought to start. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CONNALLY. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. It was clear by the language of the last amendment adopted that investigation should be made of all persons against whom charges were made or against whom charges had been heard. Charges were placed in the rec- ord of the Senate by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. McCartuy! against numbcrs rather than particular persons. As I understand, the Senator from Wis- consin indicated that he will give to the committee the names of all those per- sons. It was the intention of the Senate, as I read the resolution, that all persons against whom charges were made were to be investigated, whether they then were in the State Department, in other agencies, or were out of Government. Mr TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CONNALLY. I am elad to yield. Mr. TYDINGS. Since the Senator from Michigan offered the amendment, and since that is what he expected to be accomplished by the adoption of the amendment, and since the amendment was adopted without calling the commit- tee together, I think I can say to the Senator on behalf of all the members of the committee that whatever charges the Senator from Wisconsin brings against present or past employees of the State Department, irrespective of where they are now, will be investigated even though not physically included in the charges. presented to the Senate. Mr, FERGUSON, I think that is a fair explanation. Mr. TYDINGS. Ionly wanted to bring to the attention of the Senate this mat- ter which I submitted to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, that there ought to be some limitation, and
1950 the Senator from Michigan has marked out the area which I will be glad to pur- sue. I think the Senator will see that without this discussion, however, the committee might conceivably have been charged with bad faith in not going back beyond the McCarthy charges. Mr.FERGUSON. No. I think the de- bate clearly indicated that the resolu- tion meant to include persons against whom charges have been made. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield? Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield to me for & moment before he yields to the Sen- ator from California? Mr. CONNALLY. I yield first to the Senator from Maryland. Mr. TYDINGS. I will say to the Sen- ator from Michigan and to others who are interested, that all the charges pre- ferred by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. McCartnry], whether the employees are now in the Department, whether they have left the Department and are not employed by the Government, or whether they have gone to some other agency, will be fully investigated. I do not want, however, to leave the resolution with no bottom, because the first paragraph is so general that the committee was afraid there might be an ambiguity, which it wanted cleared up before it launched its investigation. Mr. WHERRY and other Senators ad- dressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Texas yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. CONNALLY. I yield first to the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I wish to ask the distinguished Senator whether he will yield for the suggestion of the absence of a quorum. I believe it is most important that the Senator from Wis- consin [Mr. McCartuy | be present. Mr. TYDINGS. ‘The Senator from Wisconsin knows about this. Mr. WHERRY. I should like to have him present. If a quorum call is had, I shall be glad to have the order for the calling of the roll rescinded if the Sena- tor from Wisconsin comes to the floor. We have sent for him. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, if the Senator from Nebraska will withhold the suggestion of the absence of a quorum for a moment—— Mr. CONNALLY. Just a moment, Mr. President; I have the floor. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield to me? Mr. CONNALLY. There are other Senators, in addition to the Senator from Michigan, who have requested that I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I have asked the distinguished Senator from ‘Texas whether he will yield to permit the suggestion of the absence of a quorum. Mr. CONNALLY. I do not do so at the moment. I think we probably can get one. Mr. WHERRY. Very well. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President—— Mr. CONNALLY. I yield to the Sena- tor from Illinojs. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I am en- deavoring to find in the Recorp the de- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE bate I had with the distinguished Sena- tor from Michigan last Monday, as I recall, when I called to his attention the very point which has been raised by the Senator trom Maryland. At that time I asked whether the committee would be compelled to go back 50 years in making the investigation. The Senator from Michigan replied “No.” As I recall he said the question as to how far back the investigation would go would be left to the discretion of the committee. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan also said in the debate that he was including in the language of the amendment the words “against whom charges have been heard,” and at least those persons were to be investigated. Mr. CONNALLY. Those words are in the resolution, Mr. FERGUSON. The same applies to the subpena. The language of the reso- lution, as adopted by the Senate, is that— The committee is directed to procure, by subpena, and examine the complete loyalty and employment files. And in the language submitted in the first draft of the resolution, we find the words: To use the power of subpena whenever necessary. The debate on the floor of the Senate irdicated that subpenas were to be is- sued, and not wherever the committee thought it necessary to do so. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield, to permit me to interrupt the Senator from Mich- igan? Mr. CONNALLY. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. Suppose I were to ask the Secretary of State or any other official to give our committee the loyalty files, and suppose he were to do 50. Would the Senator from Michigan then want us to issue a subpena anyway, not- withstanding that what we had requested was presented to us? Mr. FERGUSON. No; if the Senator had the loyalty files, I would not expect him to issue a subpena. Mr. TYDINGS. That is what I have said. In other words, we would expect to use a subpena wherever necessary. Of course, if we make the request and the material is presented, there is no sense in issuing a subpena. Mr. FERGUSON. ButI do not under- stand that is the language which has been used. Mr. TYDINGS. Oh, yes; that is the language. Mr. FERGUSON. If that is what the Senator has in mind, namely, that the request will be made first, and that if the files are not delivered, then a sub- pena will be issued, in the regular course, to obtain the files—— Mr. TYDINGS. Of course; but we do not wish to start out by issuing a sub- pena when it is not necessary to do so, At least we should submit a request to the head of the Department and should obtain either an adverse or a favorable answer. We do not want to take the position that they will not give us what we ask for. I take the position that they will give us what we ask for. 2403 Mr, FERGUSON. If that is the inter- pretation of the language, I think it conforms to the resolution. Mr. KNOWLAND. MY. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CONNALLY. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. On the point raised by the Senator from Michigan—and I think it should be very clearly understood here on the floor—let me say that the resolution as adopted by the Senate provides that— In the conduct of this study and investi- gation, the committee 1s directed to pro- cure, by subpena, and examine the complete loyalty and employment files and records of all the Government employees in the Department of State and such other agencies against whom charges have been heard. That is the language of the Senate resolution by which the committee was directed to make the investigation. Are we now to understand that in con- formity with the resolution adopted by the Senate, the committee is first going to request of the Department the com- plete loyalty and employment files of all Government employees in the Depart- ment of State—in other words, that the committee is not merely going to request a portion of them—a portion which the Department might present—but that the committee is going to request, in con- formity with the Senate resolution, all the files? If they are not forthcoming, are we to understand that the committee then is going to proceed, under direction of the Senate resolution, to subpena them, so that the net effect will be that, either by request or by subpena, the com- mittee will get all the records outlined in the Senate esolution? Is that correct? Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CONNALLY. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. Insofar as the Sena- tor from Maryland has any voice in con- ducting the investigation, he is going to assume in advance that any reasonable request made by the committee will be honored pronto, and that would include @ request for everything the committee needed, whether it is within the purview of the resolution or beyond it. But the Senator from Maryland thinks he can be a gentleman without being a criminal persecutor and prosecutor at one and the same time. So I would first make a request, in proper phraseology, for the full and com- plete files on any individual against whom charges have been made. If the request were not acceded to, I would then employ the power of subpena. But I certainly would not feel like in- sulting Government officials unnecessar- ily by having them summonsed or hav- ing them subpenaed duces tecum, to bring the files in question, without first making a@ request in proper language. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at this point? Mr. CONNALLY. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. I may say that the Senator does not need to feel affronted by the question raised by the Senator from California. I probably would not have raised the question if the news- papers had not carried stories to the effect that at a White House conference
2404 the President of the United States said the Senate was not going to get the loyalty files. Inasmuch as that state- ment was made at a press conference by the President, I think the question is a perfectly pertinent one to raise on the floor of the Senate. I am very happy if the Senator now has information that the President has reversed the position—— Mr. TYDINGS. Just a moment, Mr. President; I have no information. The Senator should not attempt to put words into my mouth. Mr. KNOWLAND. Then, judging from the press conference held by the Presi- dent at the White House, it appears that & subpena will be necessary in order to get the information the Senator’s com- mittee has been directed to get. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CONNALLY. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. All I can say to the Senator from California and to all other Members of this body is that the Senator from Maryland—and he thinks he can speak for all other members of the com- mittee—will do a full and complete job of investigation and will employ every power necessary, whether provided for in the resolution or not provided for in it, to make that kind of an investigation. It is not going to be a witch hunt or a whitewash or be made a partisan foot- ball. So far as I can control it—and I be- lieve the members of the subcommittee can control it—we are going to be fully on guard, in carrying out the evident and expressed intent of the Senate, in pursuing the objectives set forth by the resolution. I have raised this point and have asked the chairman of the committee to bring this matter before the Senate simply be- Cause we wish to start with a full com- prehension of exactly what we are going to do. Now that the Senator from Michigan has pointed out what seems to be an area which should have been encom- passed, I think I can say to him that we will take care of the matter he has suggested. Mr. FERGUSON. I thank the Sen- ator for his explanation. Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I yield the floor. REARMAMENT BY THE ARAB NATIONS Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, less than 12 months ago, the sound of battle ended on the shores of the eastern Medi- terranean, and a succession of agree- ments was signed between the Arab states and the new Republic of Israel. Those agreements were instruments of armistice. Since then, the government of Israel and the individual governments of the Arab nations have been holding conversations looking toward the nego- tiation of peace treaties. Those con- versations have not been fruitful. The relations between those countries are still in the nature of an armistice. While the struggle through which the people of Israel maintained and estab- lished their sovereignty was going on, the sccurity council of the United Na- tions voted an embargo upon the ship- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ment of arms to any of the belligerents. On August 9, 1949, that embargo was lifted, despite the fact that the relations among the nations involved continued to be that of simple armistice. But in recognition of this circumstance, the security council declared that shipments of arms by the great powers to the mid- dle eastern countries should not exceed “those necessary for the purpose of main- taining law and order by the govern- ments concerned.” The American rep- resentative of the security council, the Honorable Warren Austin, said at the time that these arms shipments should be “strictly limited to such arms as are within the scope of legitimate security requirements.” . Today, and for the past several months, there has been going on a large- scale rearmament of the Arab nations most heavily involved in the fighting against Israel, namely, Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan, and Syria Egypt, above all, according to authoritative reports, has been acquiring destroyers, corvettes, heavy tanks of the General Sherman type, and heavy bombers. The 1949- 50 budget of the Egyptian Government provided roughly $200,000,000, or one- third of the entire national budget, for armament. Mr. President, it does not seem to me that such an expenditure for armaments is necessary to maintain internal order in Egypt. Internal order might be bet- ter assured in that country—though I am not presuming to give advice to Egypt on the ordering of her internal affairs— by expenditures for economic programs to raise the standard of living of the im- poverished people of that country. But, Mr. President, the point is that these arms are being furnished to Egypt and these other Arab countries largely by Britain, while Britain is, at the same time, turning to the United States for more arms. I am wholly in accord with the program of helping to arm Britain and our other allies in Europe and to make Europe better able to resist aggres- sion from any quarter. But I am not willing to help arm Britain or any other country in order that such a country may arm Egypt to renew warfare against Israel, which is the focus and the center of the new democratic order in the Near East. Today’s newspapers, Mr. President, report that the Isracl Government has asked the United States Government for permission to purchase additional arms in this country. Now the Government of Israel, so deep!y absorbed with eco- nomic problems, must turn its attention to rearmament. This is the traditional pattern of the armaments race, produc- tive of nothing but waste and war. Mr. President, the simple facts appear to be about as follows: First. During the past few months, Egypt has steadily increased her air power, originally consisting only of Spit- fires, to include modern jet fighters and heavy bombers in considerable number. Second. Egypt’s ground forces are be- ing reequipped with heavy mobile units. Egypt’s surface forces have bcen vastly enlarged by the addition of heavily gunned destroyers, corvettes, and frig- ates of recent design. FEBRUARY 27 Third. The armed forces of Iraq, Syria, and the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan have undergone less substantial, but still significant transformations into better- equipped and efficiently trained groups. Fourth. The equipment involved in this rearmament program has come al- most exclusively from Britain through the arms-assistance treaties which the United Kingdom has with Egypt, Iraq, and Jordan. These are the facts. They are not denied either by the Arab Governments, by Britain, or by our own State Depart- ment. These facts must be weighed in connection with the further circum- stance that some officials of tle very gov- ernments which are being armed have recently been making statements of an increasingly warlike nature. The press of the countries neighboring upon Israel has again begun to be marked by its in- flammatory tone, whipping up popular sentiment for a resumption of hostilities against Israel. Nor can these facts be denied. The attention of our own State Depart- ment has been called to these circum- stances. Secretary Acheson has replied that although the facts are largely as alleged, the State Department does not interpret them as indicating any new danger of an outbreak of hostilitics against Israel. Although our Government originally took the position that no arms should be shipped to these countries in excess of the needs for internal security, the State Department is now taking the position that this rearming of the Arab countries may be considered as part of the program for strengthening these countries against Soviet aggression. Our State Depart- ment thus recognizes the fact that this rearmament is in excess of the needs of these countries for internal law and order. Mr. President, no one is more deeply committed than I am to the strength- ening of all nations against the threat of Soviet aggression or of Communist subversion. But I do not see how, in view of all the facts, we can blind our- selves to the much greater threat of re- newed aggression against Israel. The geographical and strategic factors are very clear and simple. There is no more imminent threat of a Soviet thrust across the Mediterranean into Egypt than there is a threat to Libya or to Saudi Arabla. The much more immediate threat is to Israel. Until the Arab nations make peace with Israel, and until the Middle East is stabilized as to the nations which comprise that region, the continuation of large-scale armament of the Arab states can only brew trouble and war. In that trouble and in that war lie the only immediate hopes which the Kremlin may have for successes in the Middle East. I admit that the interpretation of these events is a matter of judgment and that the opinion of our State Depart- ment officials on this subject may be superior to that of others here and abroad who fear that these military preparations are directed at renewing the war against Israel. But in my view, the evidence at hand to support the war theory is weighty indeed,
1950 In any case, the outbreak of war in this region would be a tragedy of world importance. We must not be respon- sible for such an event merely because of a mistake in judging the motives of na- tions that are openly and speedily re- arming. Therefore, I must ask the State De- partment to review this potentially dangerous situation as quickly as pos- sible in order to ward off the slightest chance of a renewal of the Palestine conflict. The best means of averting such a conflict would be to make representa- tions to the British Government to stop any further shipments of arms until a proper investigation of the entire arms situation in the Middle East is made by a United Nations committee. Mr. President, I am addressing these words to the Senate, and also to the Secretary of State. I am asking him to reassess his judgment of the situation as I am asking the American public to beware of complacency. Mr. President, we are about to consider amendments to our Displaced Persons Act. We are about to consider additional steps to help liquidate the tragic dis- placed-persons situation in Europe. But in the last year, Mr. President, the most dramatic contribution to the relief of that situation has been by the little Re- public of Israel which has received almost 150,000 of these unfortunate people, and is now involved in the heroic task of resettling and assimilating these and 200,000 more of the uprooted and dis- inherited people of Europe. Let us not strain at a gnat and swallow acamel, Let us not close our eyes to the real danger in this situation. Let us hold fast to our real allies. Let us warn those who would break the peace in the Middle East, as we continue to warn those who would break the peace in Europe. Let us advise our friends in Britain that they must not permit po- litical expediency and imperial diplomacy to lead them and us into a situation whose consequences would be tragic and intolerable. ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL FOR JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Mr. MYERS. I ask unanimous con- sent that the Senate proceed to the con- sideration of Calendar Order No. 1274, Senate Resolution 228. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator prefer to make the resolution the unfinished business? Mr. MYERS. No. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the request of the Senator from Pennsylvania? There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution (8. Res. 228) authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to employ additional per- sonnel from March 1, 1950, to January 31, 1951, and increasing the limit of expend- itures, which had been reported from the Committee on Rules and Adminis- tration, with amendments, on page l, line 8, after the word “subsection”, to strike out “(g) (2° (B)” and insert “(k) "3 in line 4, after the word “Senate”, to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE strike out “or any other duties imposed upon it” and insert “or by section 134 (a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946”; on page 2, line 1, after the figures “$80,000”, to strike out “in addition to any unexpended balance under Senate Resolution 177, Eighty-first Congress, first session, agreed to October 13, 1949”; and in line 5, after the word “commit- tee”, to strike out “or subcommittee, as the case may be”, so as to make the resolution read: Resolved, That in holding hearings, report- ing such hearings, and making investigations as authorized by subsection (k) of rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, or by section 134 (a) of the Legislative Reorganiza- tion Act of 1946, the Committee on the Ju- diciary, or any duly authorized subcommittee thercof, is authorized during the period be- ginning on March 1, 1950, and ending on January $1, 1951, to make such expenditures, and to employ upon a temporary basis such investigators, and such technical, clerical, and other assistants, as it decms advisable. Sec. 2. The expenses of the committee under this resolution, which shall not ex- ceed $80,000, shall be paid from the con- tingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the committee, The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the committee amendments. The amendments were agreed to. The resolution, as amended, was agreed to. DISPLACED PERSONS Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 1247, House bill 4567, a bill to amend the Dis- placed Persons Act of 1948. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will read the bill by its title. The LrecisLaTIve CuierK. A bill (H. R. 4567) to amend the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on the motion of the Senator from Nevada. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the Dill (H. R. 4567) to amend the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, which had been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, with amendments. INTERNATIONAL CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1949—CONFERENCE REPORT Mr. GREEN. Mr. President, I submit a conference report on House bill 4406, and ask unanimous consent for its im- mediate consideration. The VICE PRESIDENT. The confer- ence report will be read for the informa- tion of the Senate. The report was read as follows: The committee of conference on the dis- agreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 4406) to provide for the settlement of cer- tain claims of the Government of the United Btates on its own behalf and on behalf of American nationals against foreign govern- ments, having met, after full and free con- ference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the Senate recede from its amend- ment numbered 1. That the House recede from its disagree- ment to the amendments of the Senate num- 2405 bered 2, 8, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 14, and 15; and agree to the same. Turoporr Francis Green, BREN McMaHON, J. W. FULsricut, BourkKeE B. HICKENLOOPER, Managers on the Part of the Senate. Joun KEE, JAMES P. RICHARDS, ABRAHAM A. RIBICOFF, CHARLES A. EATON, Managers on the Part of the House. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the present consideration of the conference report? There being no objection, the report was considered and agreed to. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. MYERS. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business. EXECUTIVE MESSAGE REFERRED The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a message from the President of the United States submitting the nomi- nation of William A. Carroll, of New York, to be United States marshal for the southern district of New York, vice James E. Mulcahy, resigned, which was referred to the Committee on the Judi- ciary. EXECUTIVE REPORT OF A COMMITTEE The following favorable report of a nomination was submitted: By Mr. McCARRAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary: Charles F. McLaughlin, of Nebraska, to be United States district judge for the District of Columbia. The VICE PRESIDENT. If there are no further reports of committees, the secretary will state the nominations on the executive calendar. COLLECTORS OF INTERNAL REVENUE The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Ellis Campbell, Jr., of Dallas, Tex., to be a collector of internal revenue for the second district of Texas. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the nomination is confirmed. The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Oscar M. Jonas, of Milwaukee, Wis., to be a collector of internal revenue for the district of Wisconsin. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the nomination is confirmed. COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Craig Pottinger, of Nogales, Ariz., to be customs collector for customs collec- tion district No. 26. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the nomination is confirmed. The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Louis T. Rocheleau, of Woonsocket, R. I., to be collector of customs for cus- toms collection district No. 5. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the nomination 1s confirmed. UNITED STATES MARSHAL The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Stanford C. Stiles, of Texas, to be
2406 United States marshal] for the eastern district of Texas. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the nomination is confirmed. Without objection, the President will be immediately notified of all nominations confirmed today. RECESS Mr. MYERS. I move that the Senate stand in recess until 12 o’clock noon tommorrow. The motion was agreed to; and (at 5 o'clock and 49 minutes p.m.) the Senate took a recess until tomorrow, Tuesday, February 28, 1950, at 12 o’clock meridian. NOMINATION Executive nomination reccived by the Senate February 27 (legislative day of February 22), 1950: UNITED STATES MARSHAL William A. Carroll, of New York, to be United States marshal for the southern dis- trict of New York, vice James E. Mulcahy, resigned, CONFIRMATIONS Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate February 27 (legislative day of February 22), 1950: CoLLecToRS OF INTERNAL REVENUE Ellis Campbell, Jr., to be collector of in- ternal revenue for the second district of Texas Oscar M. Jonas to be collector of internal revenue for the district of Wisconsin. COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS Craig Pottinger to be collector of customs for customs collection district No. 26, with headquarters at Nogales, Ariz Louis T. Rocheleau to be collector of cus- toms for customs collection district No. 6, with headquarters at Providence, R I. UNITED STATES MARSHAL Stanford C. Stiles to be United States mar- shal for the eastern district of Texas. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monpay, Fesrvary 27, 1950 The House met at 12 o’clock noon. The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Bras- kamp, D. D., offered the following prayer: O Thou eternal God, grant us this day a vital and vivid experience of Thy pres- ence and power as we address ourselves to responsibilities which are far beyond our own wisdom and strength. May all our desires and decisions be a clear and commanding witness that we are striving to manifest the splendor and preserve the continuity of the Master’s ideals and principles. Give us the courage to believe that His kingdom of righteousness and peace, which we are called upon to seek and es- tablish, is emerging and that the day is dawning when our quest will be a con- quest and our hope a blessed reality. Hear us in His name. Amen. The Journal of the proceedings of Thursday, February 23, 1950, was read and approved. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate, by Mr. McDaniel, its enrolling clerk, announced that the Senate agrees to the amend- ments of the House to a bill of the Senate of the following title: S. 2328. An act to increase the number of examiners in chief in the Patent Office, and for other purposes. The message also announced that the Senate insists upon 1ts amendments to the bill (H. R. 4406) entitled “An act to provide for the settlement of certain claims of the Government of the United States on its own behalf and on behalf of American nationals against forcign governments,” disagreed to by the House; agrees to the conference asked by the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. Green, Mr. McManuon, My. FUut- PRIGHT, Mr. Witry, and Mr, HicKENn- Locrer to be the conferees on the part of the Senate. The message also announced that the Vice President has appointed Mr. JOHN- ston of South Carolina and Mr. LANGER members of the joint select committee on the part of the Senate, as provided for in the act of August 5, 1939, entitled “An act to provide for the disposition of certain records of the United States Gov- ernment,” for the disposition of execu- tive papers referred to in the report o? the Archivist of the United States, numbered 50-16. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of rule XI (2) (c), I call up House Resolution 321, which has remained in the Committee on Rules for more than 21 days without being reported. The Clerk read the follows: Resolved, That immediately upon the adop- tion of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee cf the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H_ R. 4846) to promote the progress of science; to advance the public health, peozperity, and welfare; to secure the na- tional defense; and for other purposes. That after general dcbate, which shall be con- fined to the bill and continue not to exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority mem- ber of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit. CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present. Mr. McCORMACK, Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered, resolution, as FEBRUARY 27 The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- lowing Members failed to answer to their names: [Roll No. 67] Allen, La, Hall, Murphy Bailey Leonard W. Murray, Wis. Barden Halleck Nixon Boges, Del. Fhrand O'Buien, Mich. Brocks Fart O'Toole Buckley, N Y, Havenner Pace Bulwinkle Tiays, Ohto Pielfer, Burton Hearick Joseph I. Byrnes, Wis. Heffernan Pfoifier, Canfield Heller William Yu, Carlyle Herlong Phillips, Calif, Curroll wu Poute Casc,S Dak, Hoffman, Ml Powell Chathonm Ho'tfield Redden Chudcff Jeckson, Calif. Regan Corbett Javits Roocevelt Coudert Jenison Sadlak Devies.N Y¥, Jones, N O, Sadowski Davis, Tenn. Judd St Geoige Dawson Kelley, Pa. Secrest Dingell Kennedy Shafer Dollinger Keogh Shelley Donohue Klein Sheppard Dougles Kunkel Smathers Engle, Calf, Lathim Smith, Ohio Feizghan Lesinsk! Taylor Gamble Lichtenwalter Walsh Gilmer McGrath Whitaker Golden McGuire White, Idaho Goodwin Murcantonio Widnall Granahan Morgan Woodhouse Grecn Morrison Yates Gwinn Multer The SPEAKER. On this roll call 336 Members have answered to their names, a quorum. By unanimous consent, further pro- ceedings under the call were dispensed with. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Mr. CROSSER- Mr. Speaker, in sup- port of the pending resolution, I desire to call attention to the long history of hearings and favorable actions taken by both Houses of the Congress with respect to National Science Foundation legisla- tion. In July 1946, during the Seventy- ninth Congress, a Science Foundation bill passed the Senate, but the House was unable, due to the pressure of business, to reach this legislation. During the first session of the Eightieth Congress both Houses of Congress passed a Science Foundation bill. This bill, however, died by pocket veto because of administrative objections that the President entertained. He expressed regret, because otherwise he was favor- able to the bill. During the second session of the Eight- ieth Congress the Senate again passed a Science Foundation bill, The House In- terstate and Foreign Commerce Com- mittee favorably reported such a bill to the floor, but due to the pressure of other business it did not receive consideration by the House. Finally, during the pres- ent session, the Senate passed unani- mously a Science Foundation bill, which is substantially identical with H. R. 4846 now before the House, which this reso- lution would bring up for consideration, Mr. Priest, chairman of the Subcom- mittee on Public Health, Science and Commerce of the Committee on Inter- state and Foreign Commerce, introduced this bill and presided over the hearings conducted by the subcommittee. He
1950 will explain in detail the provisions of the measure. I desire to urge very earnestly upon the House that the House vote favorably to consider House Resolution 321 in order that the House may have an opportunity to consider H. R. 4846, the National Sci- ence Foundation bill, to which I have already referred. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. WoL- VERTON]. Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Speaker, there is no legislation that has been, or will be, passed by the present Congress that is more important or far reaching ir. its scope and possibility of enhancing the welfare of our Nation and its people than the bill now under consideration, H. R. 4846, entitled “A bill to promote the progress of science; to advance the rational health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes.” It is generally known as the National Science Foundation Act. This legislation has been thoroughly studied by both Houses of Congress over the past 5 years. I think most of the Members are familiar with the purpose of the legislation and the provisions of the bill. However, there are many new Members in the House who have not had the opportunity to hear the discussions that have taken place on previous occa- sions. I trust that what is now said will be helpful to them, as well as refresh the minds of those who have heard previous discussions. The Congress has long been aware of the need for legislation of this type. It is my considered opinion that a National Science Foundation 1s more essential to the health, education, industrial prog- ress, and security of the Nation today than it was 5 years ago when Dr. Van- nevar Bush, then Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, and his aide, Mr. John H. Teeter, dis- cussed the problem with a small group in June 1945. It was my privilege to be one of that group. We gathered to- gether one evening and heard Dr. Bush review his report to the President known as Science, the Fndless Frontier. This document has been the basis of the Na- tional Science Foundation legislation in the ensuing years, The history of this legislation actually begins in November 1941 when Presi- dent Roosevelt wrote a letter to Dr. Van- nevar Bush, Director of the wartime Of- fice of Scientific Research and Develop- ment, asking him to prepare for him a report on a postwar science program. President Roosevelt, however, had passed away when the report was fin- ished in June 1945. When, in September of 1945, President Truman called Congress into special session to enact a 21-point postwar do- mestic program, one of the points urged the establishment of a single Federal research agency. Following the Presi- dent’s request, hearings were begun in both Senate and House on the various Science Foundation bills which were introduced, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE In the following year, the Senate com- mittee reported out 8. 1850, which would have made extensive changes in the pat- ent laws of the United States with re- spect to inventions made with the finan- cial support of the Federal Government. The bill also would have placed consid- erable control in the President of the United States. The House Committee on Interstate and Forcign Commerce late in 1946 held hearings on H. R. 6448, introduced by Representative Mitts. This was a re- vised version of his original Science Foundation bill. In July 1946 the Senate passed S. 1850 by a vote of 48 to 18. The House took no action and all bills dicd with the close of the Seventy-ninth Congress. During the Eightieth Congress S. 526 was sponsored by a bipartisan group of six Senators and the Housc had also be- fore it a number of Science Foundation bills. The Senate bill was passed by the Senate in May by a vote of 79 to 8. In the House, the Committee on In- terstate and Foreign Commerce, of which I then had the honor and priv- jlege of serving as chairman, held ex- tensive hearings, and, as a result of the hearings, H. R. 4102 was introduced by me as chairman, reported favorably by the committee, and passed by the House, its text being substituted for that of S. 526. S 526 and H.R 4102 then went to con- ference and both Houses approved the conference report. The bill died by pocket veto. President Truman stated in a memorandum of August 6, 1948, that he had vetoed the bill with great re- luctance for he was convinced of the urgent need for the establishment of a National Science Foundation, but he felt that the bill passed by Congress vested the determination of vital national poli- cles and the expenditure of large public funds in a group of individuals who would be essentially private citizens. This, the President stated, was a marked departure from the sound principles for the administration of public affairs to which he could not give his approval. In 1948, during the second session of the Eightieth Congress, new bills were introduced both in the Senate and in the House—S. 2385 and H. R. 6007 by me in the House. These bills were identical and constituted a compromise worked out following conferences between some Members of Congress and Presidential advisers. In May 1948 the Senate passed the new measure by a voice vote. In the House this committee held brief hear- ings and reported favorably H. R. 6007, which differed in a few respects from 8. 2385, passed earlier by the Senate. The bill failed to reach the House floor because the Rules Committee did not grant a rule for its consideration, and therefore, the Science Foundation legis- lation did not materialize during the Eightieth Congress. In the Eighty-first Congress, in the Benate, there was introduced 8. 247 which is identical with 8. 2385, the last Science Foundation bill passed by the Senate during the second session of the Eightieth 2407 Congress. This bill passed the Senate without amendment and in the House was referred to the Interstate and For- eign Commerce Committee. In the House seven bills were introduced which fall into three categories. Four of these bills were identical with H. R. 6007, re- ported favorably by this committee dur- ing the Eighticth Congress, which differ in some respects from S. 247, These bills are H. R. 12, H. R. 185, H. R. 311, and H. R. 2751. The second category consists of H. R. 1845 and H. R. 2308 which are in all re- spects identical with S. 247, The third category consists of a single bill, H. R. 359, which differs substantially from the bills in the first two categories with respect to the organization of the foundation and patent provisions. Although the 4-year history of rpro- posed legislation on this subject encom- passes over 1,200 pages of testimony by 150 of the Nation’s leading authorities in science, education, and medicine, the committee further reviewed the legisla- tion in public hearing, on March 31 and April 1, 4, 5, and 26, 1949. In the light of this additional information the com- mittee modified slightly the Science Foundation bill that it reported favor- ably during the Eightieth Congress. As a@ result, a new bill, H. R. 4846, was in- troduced by Mr. Priest, chairman of the subcommittee on Public Health, Science, and Commerce. Hearings were held and the full committee approved H. R. 4846, as amended, and reported the bill favor- ably to the House. It is now before us for consideration. It meets the objec- tions expressed by the President in his memorandum of August 6, 1948, with re- spect to S. 526, and, in form as well as content, provides a good workable law that should have the support of this House. PURPOSES OF THE BILL The bill provides for the establishment in the executive branch of the Govern- ment of an independent agency to be known as the National Science Founda- tion. The Foundation shall consist of a National Science Board and a Director and is authorized and directed— First. To develop and encourage the pursuit of a national policy for the pro- motion of research and education in the sciences; Second. To initiate and support basic scientific research in the mathematical, physical, medical, biological, engineering and other sciences, by maKing contracts, or other arrangements, including grants loans, and other forms of assistance; Third. After consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to initiate and sup- port scientific research in connection with matters relating to the national de- fense; Fourth. To award scholarships and graduate fellowships in the mathemati- eal, physical, medical, biological, engi- neering, and other sciences; Fifth. To foster interchange of scien- tific information; Sixth. To correlate the Foundation’s scientific research program with those undertaken by Federal Government
2408 agencies, by individuals and by public and private research groups; Seventh. To establish such special commissions as the board may from time to time deem necessary for the purposes of the act; and Eighth. To maintain a register of sci- entific and technical personnel. To carry out the purposes of the Foun- dation the bill provides that there shall be four divisions within the Foundation, as follows: First. A Division of Medical Research; Second. A Division of Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences; Third. A Division of Biological Sci- ences; and Fourth. A Division of Scientific Per- sonnel and Education. There shall also be within the Founda- tion such other divisions as the Board may from time to time deem necessary. WHAT THE ACT WILL ACCOMPLISH The Foundation provided for in this bill 1s intended to aid scientists and in- stitutions of science to contribute more rapidly and effcctively to the store of knowledge and = scientific principles needed as the foundation on which tech- nological developments, industrial growth, and enhancement of the na- tional economy rest It will aid in the development of medi- cal science and thus lead to improve- ment 1n the national health. lt will aid in the development of basic sciences on which the national defense will rest in the future. It will lead to the development of in- creased numbers of highly qualified sci- entists, engineers, physicians, dentists, and others who are essential to the ac- complishments of the above-mentioned aims. THE IMPORTANCE OF BASIC RESEARCH The work of the Foundation 1s in- tended to relate entirely to basic scien- tific research in the natural sciences as distinguished from applied scientific re- search. The latter is merely ascertain- ing the ways and means to make prac- tical use of the fundamental knowledge of natural laws resulting from basic re- search. Thus, basic research in elec- tronics made possible, first, new mndus- tries: radio, television, for greater pros- perity and pleasure; second, X-ray, elec- tron microscope, and so forth, for better health; third, radar, proximity fuze, and so forth, for greater national security. From these illustrations it can be readily seen that basic research adds to the stock pile of knowledge and under- standing from which applied research obtains the fundamental information needed to make the developments which determine our progress in industry, agriculture, health, and security. To the extent that basic research ceases or lags, applied reseorch is di- minished or stopped. It is necessary to keey up the stock pile of basic knowledge or otherwise applied research would in time exhaust the stock pile of basic knowledge and stagnate. Thus our progress in health, economic welfare, and nacional security depends upon the extent to which we increase our stock pile of basic scicntific knowledge. Thus basic research is the pacemaker of all CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE technological progress. As it explores new frontiers of knowledge it opens new possibilities for future progress and en- jJoyment of mankind. PRISENT SITUATION AS TO BASIC RESEARCH If time permitted a detailed study could be presented that would show the desperate need that exists today for basic research. Summarized it would show: First. That during the war basic re- search was reduced in favor of applied research to such an extent that about 3 years’ production of basic knowledge was lost so that our stock pile in 1947 was only what 1t would have been in 1944 without the war; Second. That production of basic scientific knowledge was also greatly cur- tailed in Europe by the war; Third. That, on the other hand, ap- plied research wes greatly stimulated by the war so that by 1947 annual expendi- ture for such research had increased to over three times that in 1940; Fourth. That as a result of the com- bination of greatly increased applied re- search and greatly culiailed basic re- search, both here and abroad, our stock pile of basic Knowledge has been scri- ously depleted, especially in certain areas; Fifth. That there is, therefore, urgent need for doubling the amount of basic research currently being done; and Sixth. That private enterprises and private institutions cannot be depended upon to increase basic research to the de- sired level. BASIC RESEARCH IN OTHER COUNTRIES In the past this country has depended largely on basic knowledge imported from other countries and has done less than its share of basic research. From Europe we imported most of tne funda- mental laws and discoveries in physics and chemistry upon which our tech- nological progress during the nineteenth ceniury and later has been based. Even such recent developments as the revolu- tionary sulfa drugs, penicillin, atabrine, and DDT had their beginnings in Ger- man, English, or Swiss laboratories; and the discovery of nuclear fission which en- abled us to develop the atomic bomb was made in Germany. The war greatly changed the situation in most European countries. Many of their laboratories were wrecked, many of their scientists were killed or dispersed, and they were Impoverished. It will take years for these countries to restore basic rescarch to the prewar level; moreover, resulis obiained in countries behind the iron curtain will largely not be available to us. Evidently, we can no longer de- pend upon Europe as the major source of new basic scientific knowledge. SHORTAGE OF BASIC KNOWLEDGE The increased amount of applied re- search since 1940 and the curtailed amount of basic research, strongly sug- gest that our stock pile of basic knowl- edge has been seriously depleted as a re- sult of the war but do not prove that this is true. As direct evidence that impor- tant applied research is now hampered by a shortage of basic knowledge we have the testimony of scientists who were closely associated with Government re- FEBRUARY 27 search during the war and are thorough- ly tamiliay with the present research sit- uation. Vannevar Bush writes: The tremendous effort in applied research exerted during the war has in many fields pushed the application of fundamental knowledge to the limit of that knowledge. Karl T. Compton, as Chairman of the Research and Development Board of the National Military Establishment, wrote that the Board more and more often meets problems the solution of which is retarded or temporarily prevented by lack of basic knowledge, and that this is true also in the research activities of other Government agencies and of indus- try. “We have literally exhausted the stock pile of fundamental knowledge in many ficlds,” he testified. According to Harry P. Hammond, a man from a very important laboratory at Wright Field stated that they were stalled in their at- tack on certain problems because of lack of basic knowledge. ‘‘We have seriously drained our storchouse of basic knowl- edge.” Lessons learned during the war period point clearly to the need for an appro- priately constituted agency of the Gov- ernment, to function in time of peace or war, to promote and foster fundamental research in the sciences which is not likely to be carried on privately because of the size and difficulty of the prob- lems and because of lack of immediate promise of commercial value. The committee is deeply impressed by the fact that while the United States has been for many years and still is eminent in the ficlds of applied research and cn- gineering development, it docs not oc- cupy a comparable prominent position in the field of fundamental or pure re- search. Dr. Vannevar Bush, the war- time head of the Office of Scientific Re- search and Development, in his final re- port entitled “Science: The Endless Frontier,” states as follows: Our national preeminence in the flelds of applied research and technology should not blind us to the truth that, with respect to pure research—the discovery of fundamental new knowledge and basic scientific prin- ciples-~America has occupied a secondary place. Our spectacular development of the automobile, the airplane, and radio obscures the fact that they were all based on funda- mental discoveries made in nineteenth cen- tury Europe. From Europe also came tor- mulation of most of the laws governing the transformation of energy, the physical and chemical structure of matter, the behavior of electricity, light, and magnetism In recent years the United States has made progress in the field of pure science, but an cxamination of the relevant statistics suggests that our cf- forts in the fleld of applied science have in- creased much faster so that the proportion of pure to applied research continues to de- crease. Several reasons make it imperative to in- crease pure research at this stage in our history. First, the intellectual banks of continental Europe, from which we formerly borrowed, have become bankrupt through the ravages of war. No longer can we count upon those sources for fundamental science. Second, in this modern age, moie than ever before, pure research is the pacemuker of technological progress. In the nineteenth century Yankee mechanical ingenuity, butld- ing upon the basic discoveries of European science, could greatly edvance the technical arts, Today the situution is different. Fu-
1950 ture progress will be most striking In those highly complex fields—electronics, aerody- namics, chemistry—which are based directly upon the foundation of modern science. In the next generation technological ad- vance and basic scientific discovery will be inseparable; a nation which borrows its basic knowledge will be hopelessly handicapped in the race for innovation. The other world powers, we know, intend to foster scientific research in the future. The field of pure or basic research has traditionally been left to institutions of higher learning. Private sources of support for these institutions have not kept step with the increased need for basic research. I urgently recommend the prompt enactment of this legislation. Nearly 5 years have passcd since the activities of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, the proposed Foundation’s wartime predecessor, was terminated. The need to establish a National Science Foundation is today more urgent than ever. No nation can long maintain its leadership without constantly renourish- ing its fund of basic scientific knowledge and its supply of scientifically trained manpower. The Nation’s preeminence in applied science remains unquestioned, but we have seriously drained our store- house of basic knowledge. Our national health, prosperity, and welfare, and, in- deed, our national defense, are dependent on pushing forward the frontiers of basic science. It is my sincere belief that few pieces of legislation have received more carcful study and scrutiny than has been the case with respect to the science founda- tion bill. The need for this legislation has not been seriously questioned in these 4 years of study and scrutiny. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to act favorably and promptly on this bill to create the National Science Foundation I do so because of the firm belief that it will promote the welfare of our citi- zens and our security as a Nation in an age where science, both in peace and war, takes on an importance that cannot and must not be ignored. THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE BILL There is nothing that emphasizes more forcibly the need for scicntific rescarch of the kind contemplated by the provi- sion of the bill than the great numbcr of national associations of scientists, en- gineers, physicians, educational institu- tions, labor, manufacturers, and others, a partial list which is as follows: SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZA1LONS American Association for tac Advancement of Science, represented bi Dr C. F. Ket- ering, president, Dr F R Moulton, per- manent secretary, and Dr Howard A. Mey- erhoff, secretary. American Documentation Institute, Dr. Watson Davis, president. Association of Oak Ridge Scientists (Man- hattan project), Dr. H. J. Curtis. Association of Los Alamos Scientists (Man- hattan project), Dr. Robert Wilson. American Council of Learned Societies, Dr. Mortimer Graves American Chemical Society, Col. Bradley Dewey, president-elect. Engineers Joint Council (representing the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Institute of Mining and Metallur- gical Engineers, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the American Insti- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE tute of Electrical Engineers, and the Ameri. can Institute of Chemical Engineers), Dr, Boris Bakhmetef.. National Research Council, Division of Biology and Agriculture, Dr. Robert Griggs. American Biological Society and Union of Biological Sciences, Dr. C. V. Taylor. Ecological Soclety of America, Alfred O. Redfield, president Society of American Bacterlologists Mycological Society of America, Dr. Frank D. Kern, president American Medical Association, Dr. ris Fishbein, secretary. American Council! on Rheumatic Fever, American Heart Association. Dr. David D. Rutstein. Physician Forum, Dr Henry B. Richard- son. American Pharmaceutical Association, Dr. Robert P. Fischelis Americun Osteopathic Association, Dr J. 8 Denslow EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS American Council on Education, Dr. George F Zook, president Guggenheim Foundation, Dr Henry Allen Moe, secretary-general Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities Engineers Council for Professional Devel- opment, American Society for Eigineering Educa- tion. Mor- OTHER NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Congress of Industrial Organizations, Philp Murray, president National Association of Manufacturers, R J. Dearborn, chairman of committee on patents American Federation of Labor, Lewis G Hines, legislative representative. Natioual Farmers’ Union, Russell Smith, legislative secretary. American Veterans’ Committee, Capt Or- ville Freeman Disabled American Mallsoff Veterans, Dr Harry GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (The official position held by the individual ut the time his testimony was given is listed) Vannevar Bush, president of the Carnegie Institution of Washington and wartime Di- rector of the Office o1 Sclentific Research and Development. Gen. H_ H. Arnold, Army Air Forces Kurl T Compton, chairman, Research and Development Board (representing the Na- tional Military Establishment). Maurice J. Tobin, Secretary of Labor John Studebaker, United States Commis- sioner of Education. Vice Adm. Ross T McIntire, Surgeon Gen- eral, Navy Department Maj Gen. Norman T. Kirk, Surgeon Gen- eral, United States Army Carroll L Wilson, general manager, Atomic Energy Commission. Charles F. Brannan, ment of Agriculture. Robert P. Patterson, Secretary of War. James V. Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy. Dr J. C. Hunsaker, chairman, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. Harold D. Smith, director, Bureau of the Budget. James E. Webb, director, Bureau of the Budget. Maury Maverick, chairman, Smaller War Plants Corporation. Paul A. Porter, chairman, Federal Com- munications Commission, Casper W. Ooms, Commissioner of Patents. A.N. Richards, Chairman of the Committee on Medical Research, Office of Scientific Re- search and Development. Watson B. Miller, Federal Security Admin- istrator. secretary, Depart- 2409 Sumner T. Pike, acting chairman, Atomic Energy Commission. Oscar L. Chapman, Under Secretary of the Interior. J. Donald Kingsley, acting administrator, Federal Security Agency. Ernest A. Gross, assistant secretary (for the Secretary of State). OUTSTANDING CITIZENS AND SCIENTISTS (Institutions listed as of the date of testi- mony before congressional committee) Bernard M. Baruch. Dr. Harold C. Urey, University of Chicago. Dr. E. G. Nourse, vice president, Brookings Institution. Dr. Irving Langmuir, associate director, General Electric Laboratories. Ralph McDonald, executive National Education Association. James Bryant Conant, president, Harvard University Robert E. Doherty, president, Carnegie In- stitute of Technology Charles E MacQuigg, Engineering College Research Association, dean of engineering, the Ohio State University, past president American Society for Engincering Education. A A Potter, executive director, Patent Planning Commission, dean of engineering, Purdue University, past president, American Society for Engineering Education, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, American Enineering Council Rover Adams, chairman, board of directors, American Chemical Society. H P Hammond, dean, Schoo! of Engineer- ing, the Pennsylvania State College, past president, American Society for Engineering Education Thorndike Saville, dean, College of Engi- neering, New York University, president, American Society for Engineering Education. Dr R J Oppenheimer, director, New Mexi- co Laboratories, Manhattan project. secretary, Dr. L A. DuBridge, direc or, Radiation Laboratory, Massachusctts Institute of Technology Bruce K. Brown, vice president in charre of development, Standard Oi] Company (Indiana) Edwin H Land, president ond director of rescarch, Polaroid Corp. R E. Gillmor, Aircraft Industries Associ- ation; president, Sperry Gyroscope Co. Dr. Henry DeW. Smyth, chairman, depart- ment of physics, Princeton University Dr I I Rabi, Columbia Radiation Labo- ratory, Columbia University Dr Abel Wolman, professor of sanitary ene gineering, Johns Hopkins University Dr Walter Rautenstrauch, professor of ine dustrial engincering, Columbia University. Dr Edmund E Day, president, Cornell Unie versity Dr John M Potter, president, Hobart ana William Smith College Dr Louis H. Weed, National Academy of Sciences. Dr. A N Richards, chairman, Committco on Medical Research, Office of Scienttfic Research and Development. Dr. Francis G. Blake, dean, Yale School of Medicine. Rev. J C S O'Donnell, president, Notre Dume University. Dr. L. C. Dunn, chairman, Department of Zoology, Columbia University. Dr. D. W. Bronk, director, Johnson Re- search Foundation, University of Pennsyl- vania (later president of Johns Hopkins University). Dr. Edmund W. Sinnott, director, Sheffield Scientific School, Yale University Dr. W. M Stanley, Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. Dr. Raymond Zirkle, director, Institute of Radiobiology and Biophysics, University of Chicago. Philip R. White, associate, Rockefeller In- stitute for Medical Research.
2410 Leonard Carmichael, president, Tufts Col- lege, former director, Roster of Scientific and Specialized Personnel. Ewing Cockrell, United States Federation of Justice. John T Cox, Jr., American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Engineers Joint Coun- ceil, George E. Folk, National Association of Manufacturers. Dael Wolfle, secretary, Intersociety Com- mittee for a National Science Foundation. M H. Trytten, director, Office of Scien- tific Personnel, National Research Council. Sidney D. Kirkpatrick, editor, Chemical Engineering, on behalf of the Assoclated Business Papers and the National Confer- ence of Business Paper Editors. Carl D Anderson, Nobel laureate; professor of physics, California Institute of Tech- nology. A G Christie, past president, American Society of Mechanical Engineers; professor of mechanical engineering, the Johns Hop- kins University. Paul R Elicker, executive secretary, Na- tional Association of Secondary School Principals. F. Malcolm Farmer, fellow and past presi- dent, American Institute of Electrical Engt- neers. Walter S. Rogers, Current World Affairs Robert L Stearns, president, University of Colorado. E. H. Volwiler, director of research, Abbott Laboratories. Warren Weaver, director, The National Sci- ences, Rockefeller Foundation. Robert E Wilson, chairman of board, Standard Oil Co. of Indiana. John H. Teeter, representing the American Cancer Society. R. G. Gustavson, chancelor, University of Nebraska. Dr. Hugh Wolfe, professor of physics, New York City College, Federation of American Scientists. The above is an imposing list of indl- viduals and organizations, leaders in their respective fields of activity, favor- able to this legislation. I know of no one of similar character and standing opposed to this legislation. This legis- lation represents as near as any legisla- tion can ever represent a unanimous opinion upon the part of those qualified to speak on this important matter. The bill is entitled to the support of this House. I earnestly and sincerely ask that you give it your support as a great forward step that will promote the wel- fare of our citizens and the security of our Nation. CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. Obviously a quorum is not present. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- Jowing Members failed to answer to their names: director, Institute of ’ [Roll No. 68] Allen, La, Burton Davis, Tenn, Andresen, Canfield Dawson August H. Carlyle DeGraffenried Bailey Carroll Dollinger Barden Chatham Donohue Blatnik Chudoff Douglas Boggs, De). Corbett Engle, Calif, Brooks Coudert Feighan Buckley, N.Y. Crawford Pugate Bulwinkle Davies,N. ¥, Gamble CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Gilmer Klein Ramsay Golden Kunkel Redden Goodwin Latham Regan Green Lichtenwalter Rogers, Fla. Gwinn McCulloch Roosevelt Hall, McGrath Sadlak Leonard W. McGulre Sadowsk! Halleck Marcantonio 8t George Hand Monroney Saylor Hart Morgan Sccrest Harvey Morris Shafer Hébert Morrison Shelley Hedrick Multer Short Heffernan Murphy Smathers Heller Murray, Wis. Smith, Ohto Herlong O'Brien, Mich. Smith, Wis. Hill O'Toole Steed Hinshaw Pace Stigler Hoffman, Tl. Pfeifer, Taylor Jackson, Calif. Joseph L. Welsh Javits Pfeiffer, Whitaker Jenison William L Wickeisham Jones, N C. Phillips, Calif. Widnall Kelley, Pa. Poage Withrow Kennedy Potter Yates Keogh Powell Young The SPEAKER. On this roll call 327 Members have answered to their names, a@ quorum. By unanimous consent, further pro- ceedings under the call were dispensed with. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. LANE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp in two sep- arate instances and in each to include extraneous matter. Mr. McDONOUGH a:ked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an editorial from the Hollywood Citizen-News. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks in the Recorp and include ex- traneous matter. Mr. MASON asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the REcorD. INTERNATIONAL CLAIMS SETTLEMENT Mr. KEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent that I may have until mid- night to file a conference report on the bill (H. R. 4406) the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from West Virginia? There was no objection. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordcred. The resolution was agreed to. Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 4846) to promote the progress of science; to advance the na- tional health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the con- sideration of the bill, H. R. 4846, the Na- tional Science Foundation Act of 1949, with Mr. THompson in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first read- ing of the bill was dispensed with. FEBRUARY 27 The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio I[Mr. Crosser] will be recognized for 1 hour and the gentleman from New Jerscy [Mr. WoL- veRTON] for 1 hour. The gentleman from Ohio is recog- nized. Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Ten- nessee | Mr. PRIEST]. . Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I believe that in the discussion of the rule the chairman of the committee and the ranking minority member have given very excellent and complete statements on the background to this legislation. In reality we may say that this legisla- tion started with the founding of the Republic, for George Washington, very early after he was inaugurated as the first President of the United States asked Dr. Benjamin Brush of Pennsylvania, if he did not believe, in the interest of the promotion of science for the Repub- lic, that there should be established a University of the United States. I shall not at this time attempt to trace down through the years since that pe- riod the development of this idea. The background for the present Iegislation has been very well developed by the gen- tleman from Ohio | Mr. Crosser!, and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. WoL- VERTON], I do want to call attention to the fact that this legislation, in very much the same form as the bill now before you, was passed by the Eyghtieth Congress. That bill, as you know, was vetoed or, rather, it suffered a pocket veto, largely because of an administrative feature of the bill which the President tound to be undesirable. Let me briefly mention this adminis- trative provision. In the bill passed by the Eightieth Congress provision was made that the director of this Founda- tion should be selected by the Founda- tion itself. This director, of course, would have considerable responsibility in the disbursing of public funds, whatever public funds might be made available for carrying out the work of the Founda- tion. He was not to be confirmed by the Senate. The President felt that from the standpoint of good administra- tion the director of such a Foundation and with such responsibilities should be appointed by the President and con- firmed by the Senate. Very reluctantly he allowed the bill to suffer a pocket veto because of that administrative pro- vision. Following the death of that bill by pocket veto a number of conferences were held. The distinguished gentle- man from New Jerscy [Mr. WOLVERTON] attended a great many of these confer- ences, in which discussions were held with the top-bracket scientists of the country and with members of the Sen- ate committee, the House committee, and the executive office of the President. As a result of these conferences there has been pretty general agreement as to the administrative provisions of the present bill. The need for this legislation has been stressed by the chairman of the com- mittee, the gentleman from Ohio {Mr.
1950 Crosser], and by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. WoLveRtTon]. In yes~- terday’s New York Times I found a story with this headline: “Nation faces short- age of scientists.” I shall not read the article, but it is fully in HMne with state- ments made by others who have spoken on the bill that insofar as scientists of the first rank are concerned, those with doctor’s degrees and those well trained in pursuing basic research, we do face a tremendous shortage. Some figures have been given you that in 1941 we had 2,000 scientists who received their doc- tor’s degree in that year. We have not yet anything like approached that num- ber since the war. The number has fallen off considerably. We have gained a few. But a recent survey indicates that it will be many years before we can reach 2,000 doctorates that were con- ferred in the fields of science in 1941. Mr. Chairman, the war taught us sev- eral important lessons. One thing we learned as the result of the war was that Wwe can no longer depend on Europe to do our basic research for us. I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that the whole emphasis of this particular legislation is on basic research rather than applied research. We have led the world, as it has been pointed out already, for generations in taking the discoveries of the laboratories, the basic discoveries, and doing some- thing with them in applied research. But, we have lagged far behind in the question of basic research. What has been done in this country for quite a number of years prior to the war in the fleld of basic research largely has been done by institutions supported by private funds. I think all of us are aware of the fact that the income from private funds has dwindled to such an extent that we can no longer depend on institutions supported by private funds to do the amount of basic research that we feel the security of our country re- quires. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I yield to the gentle- man from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. Will the gentleman tell us why these funds have dwindled? Mr. PRIEST. It is not necessary to belabor that point. Of course, we are all aware that income from private funds and endowments have dwindled consid- erably because of our present tax laws, made necessary to support the Nation, to support the Government, and to pay off a war debt that we had to make in order to remain free. I think that is the reason, and I would not belabor the point at all. I hope that answers the question. Now, Mr. Chairman, the testimony be- fore our committee indicates that there is likely to be a very acute shortage in the years ahead in the number of sci- entists who might well pursue basic re- search. In the remaining time I want to discuss just one or two other features in this bill that no doubt there will be some questions asked about later on. A great many Members have asked me in the last few days “What will be the cost of this bill?” In the 1950 budget— on the belief that this bill would become CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE legislation {n time for the 1950 fiscal year budget to be effective—an estimate was made of $2,500,000 of direct appro- priations and §12,500,000 in contract authorizations. However, in the 1951 estimate only half a million dollars is requested by the Bureau of the Budget. Now, as to the ultimate cost, the best estimate that anybody has been able to give on the subject of the ultimate cost of the legislation, is that it should level off in perhaps 5 years at a maximum of about $25,000,000 per year. Mr. TABER. Mr, Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I shall be very happy to yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. TABER. I wonder what would be the figure from which it would level off down to 25. Mr. PRIEST. It would never go above. I used the words “leveling off.” I in- tended to imply—and perhaps it was not the best phrase—that it would never go above that figure; that would be the ceiling, a maximum. May I say also to the distinguished ranking Member of the Committee on Appropriations that in two or three par- ticular places in the bill we have written in language that restricts any amount that can be expended to the amount of available funds so specified for such pur- pose in the appropriation. We did that in scholarships and in fellowships. The money is to be earmarked by the Com- mittee on Appropriations for these par- ticular expenditures. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has expired. Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman five additional minutes. Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. WHITTINGTON. I ask the gen- tleman in that connection, while you are restricting these expenditures in some respects, why it would not be well to put an over-all ceiling on this entire bill, because there is not any ceiling at all at the present time? Now, many Members are loath to vote for authori- zations where the sky is the limit. Mr. PRIEST. It has this language “such appropriations as may be neces- sary are hereby authorized.” Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is not any ceiling at all. Mr. PRIEST. No, that is not a ceiling. The ceiling I give is an estimate of the cost of it. There is no ceiling on the Atomic Energy Commission, so far as I know. We do not know what the future will bring. I think it would be unwise to fix a rigid figure of any amount as a ceiling in a bill of this sort. I think the legislative history will indicate that the cost is not expected to run beyond the $25,000 000, and always the Appropria- tions Committee is in charge in that respect. However, if the committee de- sires to limit the amount by language I shall not object. Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. 2411 Mr. FLOOD. I find on page 2 of the committee report, in subsection 5, under the subheading “Purpose of the bill,” this language: To foster the interchange of scientific in- formation among scientists in the United States and foreign countries. I am aware of patent interchanges and of the necessity for the interchange of scientific information generally. May I ask the gentleman what is the attitude of the committee with reference to this point, or whether it was discussed? Mr. PRIEST. Yes, I assure the gentle- man it was discussed rather consider- ably. It was felt, I am sure, by a great majority of the committee, that such an authorization would be very helpful in- sofar as interchange of information with those nations with which we have ami- cable relations—let us put it that way— are concerned, where there might be some mutual assistance going back and forth by exchanging the information. We felt the language in the bill was entirely safe insofar as safeguarding any information that we did not want to ex- change with some nation that might not be on such friendly terms. Mr. FLOOD. On the same point, did the committee direct its attention to the so-called Fuchs incident in connection with the atomic energy expose? Mr. PRIEST. May I say that the so- called Fuchs incident had not developed when the committee was working on this legislation. This bill was reported last August, I believe, and this incident had not developed at that time. Of course, no consideration was given to such an incident as such, but the whole general picture of the exchange of scientific in- formation was considered by the committee. Mr. FLOOD. On the same point, in view of the developments of the Fuchs incident with reference to the exchange of scientific information and scientists, will the gentleman address himself to any special measures that might have to do with security dealing with the inter- change of information or of scientists? What would be the gentleman’s opinion? What docs the gentleman think should be done with special provisions having to do with security on just this one thing? Mr. PRIEST. Does the gentleman mean with reference to this legislation or in a general way? Mr. FLOOD. No, this legislation and this particular section of it. Mr. PRIEST. If the gentleman will refer to page 15 of the bill he will find this language: The authority to cooperate in international scientific research activities as provided in subsection (a) of this section, shall be exer- cised only after consultation with the Sec- retary of State, to the end that such author- ity shall be exercised in such manner as 1s consistent with the foreign policy objectives of the United States. Mr. O’HARA of LiJinnesota. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I yield. Mr. O’HARA of Minnesota. I would call my colleague’s attention specifically to subsection (j) on page 20 of the bill which deals with that particular point. Mr.
2412 Mr. PRIEST. Yes; I was going to call attention to that provision in the bill. Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I yield. Mr. DURHAM. On page 9, subdivision (4) we find this language: A Division of Scientific Personnel and Edu- cation, which shall be concerned with pro- grams of the Foundation relating to the granting of scholarships and graduate fel- lowships in the mathematical, physical. medical, biological, engineering, and other sciences. Some of us are concerned about the limitation of this measure. Did the com- mittee try to confine this to the graduate level? Under this language you would go to the undergraduate Ievel in granting scholarships. What I think we are try- ing to get at here is to take scientists at the graduate level. Certainly I am in- terested in that. I think it is necessary. But in granting scholarships to under- graduates, it seems to me that you are getting into a mighty wide fleld with no limitation on the number of scholar- ships. Mr. PRIEST. May I say to the gen- tleman I do agree wit: his position. I want to make it part of the REcorp at this point that the emphasis is on gradu- ate scholarships. It was felt, however, that 1t might well be left to the Founda- tion without tying it so rigidly. Mr. DURHAM. But it 1s not confined to that. A man entering college could get a scholarship under this measure in his first year. Mr. PRIEST. Under the terms of the bill as written it is possible. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I yield. Mr. KEEFE. The gentleman asked @ question as to the possible cost of this undertaking. He indicated that there is at present in the budget $500,000 for 1951. Mr. PRIEST. That is correct. Mr. KEEFE. There was suggested $2,560,000 and $12,500,000 of contract authority, or a total of $15,000,000. He further stated 1t was expected it would level off at $25,000,000. I would call the gentleman’s attention to the fact, and ask whether or not it is true, that the cost he is referring to is In addition to all present research costs that are being carried on by the Federal Gov- ernment. Mr. PRIEST. Certainly that is true. Mr. KEEFE. And your report so states. Mr. PRIEST. There is no question about that. That is true. Mr. KEEFE. Therefore, when we are discussing costs on this thing it contem- plates that the present level of expendi- tures for research supported by the Fed- eral Government will be maintained and that this will be an ultimate $25,000,000 in addition. Is that not true? Mr. PRIEST. Insofar as the provi- sions of this bill are concerned, that is true. It is believed that by certain co- relation of scientific research provided in this bill some of the others might be reduced and some duplication eliminated, But so far as this bill is concerned the gentleman has stated the situation cor- rectly. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Now, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of those who may not as yet be familiar with the function and organization of the National Science Foundation, I want to outline briefly what H. R. 4846 pro- vides in this regard. The National Science Foundation would be established in the executive branch as an independent exccutive agency consisting of a National Science Board and a Director. The Board would consist of 24 members appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Director who is likewise to be appointed by the Presi- dent and to be confirmed by the Sen- ate would be a member of the Board ex Officio. Members of the Board must be persons eminent in the fields of the basic sciences, medical science, engineeringe, agriculture, education, or public affairs, and are to be selected solely on the basis of estab- lished records of distinguished scrvice. Moreover, appointments are to be made in such a way that scientific opinion in all areas of the Nation 1s fairly repre- sented. In making nominations for ap- pointment, the President is requested to give due consideration to any recom- mendations which may be submitted to him by scientitic and educational organ- izations. The functions of the Foundation are as follows: The Foundation is directed to develop and encourage the pursuit of a national policy for the promotion of basic research and education in the sciences. The purpose of such a policy is to encourage governmental and private research agencies and educational insti- tutions to adopt programs which will not conflict with each other and which will lie in the most fruitful fields. The Founda- tion will have no authority to exercise any dictation or control over research or education in the Nation. The Foundation is diiected to initiate and support basic scientific research in the mathematical, physical, medical, biological, engineering, and _ other sciences. It is to do this by making con- tracts or other arrangements, including grants, loans, and other forms of assist- ance for the conduct of such research. The Foundation is directed to award scholarship and graduate fellowships in the basic sciences. It is directed to fos- ter the interchange of scientific informa- tion among scientists 1n the United States and abroad. The Foundation is directed to evaluate scientific pro- grams undertaken by individuals and by public and private research groups, in- cluding programs of Federal agencies, and to correlate its own research pro- grams with the programs of these others. The Foundation 1s directed to establish from time to time special commissions as it may deem necessary for the pur- poses of the act. Finally, the Founda- tion is to maintain a register of scientific and technical personnel and in other ways to provide a central clearinghouse for information covering all scientific and technical personnel in the United States. The Foundation will be divided into several divisions, a Division of Medical Research, a Division of Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, @ FEBRUARY 27 Division of Biological Sciences, and a Division of Scientific Personnel and Ed- ucation. In order to increase the number of scientifically trained persons available to do advanced basic research, the Founda- tion, within the limits of available funds, is to inaugurate a scholarship and grad- uate fellowship program for scientific study at accredited nonprofit American or forcign inst:tutions of higher learn- ing. The selection of the institution is up to the recipients of the scholarships and fellowships. Only citizens of the United States are entitled to receive scholarships and fellowships and they are to be selected solely on the basis of ability. After extended hearings in three dif- ferent Congresses, the Committee on In- terstate and Foreign Commerce has become convinced that legislation of this character is essential to our security and general welfare. The committce has become dceply impressed by the fact that while the United States has for many years becn eminent in the field of apphed research and engineering devel- opment, 1t dces not occupy a comparable promunent position in the field of funda- mental or pure research. Finally, some explanation of the pat- ent provisions contained in H. R. 4846: First of all, let me stress that the im- portance of patents in connection with Science Foundation legislation has been greatly overemphasized. Few, if any, patents are expected to materialize in connection witi: research sponsored by the National Science Foundation, since this research 1s to be concentrated on the basic scicnces and patents related to the applied sciences rather than to the basic sciences. T'he patent provisions of H. R. 4846 have the support, among others, of the Commissioner of Patents, the patent adviscr to the National Association of Manufacturers, and four major engineer- ing societies The provisions are extremcly clear and simple. They direct the Foundation to insert in all research contracts provi- sions with respect to patents which will protect the interests of the Government as well as the equities of the individuals entering into research contracts with the Foundation. Employees of the Founda- tion may not secure patents for inven- tions made in the course of their em- ployment. The Foundation has the au- thority within the limits of available appropriations to acquire by purchase, lease, loan, or gift, personal property, and real property of all kinds necessary for the exercise of authority granted by this act. This authority would include the authority to acquire patents. How- ever, no authority is granted to the Foundation to acquire patents through the power of condemnation. In order to assure the fullest publicity with respect to all dealings of the Foun- dation in patents H. R. 4846 provides for the inclusion in the Foundation’s annual report of a full and complete statement of all of the Foundation’s activities with respect to patents. This explanation of the patent provi- sions of H. R. 4846 should allay any sus- picions which might be harbored in any- one’s mind that the Foundation might
1950 become a giant patent holding company or that the Foundation would be author- ized to condemn valuable patents to the injury of individual patent owners and to the detriment of our national patent system. In conclusion, I want to say that the creation of a National Science Founda- tion is indispensable in the interest of the national security and the national welfare. We cannot take the continuing satisfactory growth of our knowledge of basic scientific principles for granted. As Dr. Bush explained and as other scientists have emphasized, we have de- pended for such knowledge on the dis- coveries of European scientists. The European centers of science have been destroyed, or work under severe eco- nomic and political handicaps. There- fore, we must make a strenuous effort of our own to increase the stock pile of basic scientific knowledge in this country and toward this end the creation of a Na- tional Science Foundation can make an important contribution. Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, I yicld 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa |Mr. DOLLIVER]. Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. Chairman, this is one of those pieces of legislation about which a good case can be made on either side. I have argued with mysclf a good deal about this bill and have come to the conclusion that I must support it. I quickly recognize that there are certain aspects of the bill which can be and probably will be attacked on the floor of the House. Of course each Member of the House must make up his own mind as to how he proposes to vote. Alrcady some of those aspects have been alluded to. For example, the financial aspect. Under the provisions of this bill the only real limitation on the amount of expenditure is the limitation placed upon it by the Congress in making appropriations. Certainly the bill may be subject to criti- cism on that score. Likewise, there may be some criticism of this bill on the political basis. The Eightieth Congress passed a similar bill which was given a pocket veto by Presi- dent Truman, on the ground that he was not satisfied with the administra- tive provisions of the bill. Likewise, some very serious objections can be made, upon that basis, to the provisions of this bill, in that it places in the hands of the Executive tremendous power. The rationality that is behind my thinking on this bill goes beyond this. The last frontier in American life is the scientific frontier. Our forefathers came to this country, some of them 300, some of them 100, and some of them 5 ycars ago, perhaps. During the period of time that the North American Continent has been occupied by white people it has been conquered physically by them. The last remaining frontier for us is the scientific frontier, and unless we take all steps possible to enlarge our scientific frontier, inevitably, it seems to me, our kind of civilization must deteriorate. This bill applies specifically to the idea of basic scientific research as contrasted with applied science. Recently I had an opportunity to observe a number of in- stances of application of basic science XCVI——152 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE to industry; such as oil, coal, shale, natural gas, and aviation. A great many applications of basic science appear in all these industries, and in others as well. Basic science is being profitably used by industry in the United States teday. Of course that is their business. For example, the oil industry spends millions of dollars annually to apply to their industry the basic scientific knowl- edge which comes out of our scientific institutions. But the place where we lag in the United States today, as has al- ready been stated by Members who have spoken, is in the fleld of basic science; that is, into these esoteric areas:—those ideas which apparently have no practical application but may find practical ap- plication 20 years, 50 years, or 100 years hence. That is the field that this bill is designed to strengthen; and that is the fleld that is being neglected today in the American scientific world. There was a time, as I think the gen- tleman from Tennessee [Mr. PrirstT] pointed out, when in the universities in the Old World, Germany, Austria, Italy, England, and France, that basic knowl- edge was being accumulated. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa |Mr. DOLLIVER] has expired. Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr Chairman, I yield the gentleman two additional minutes. Mr. DOLLIVER Alas, that is no longer the case. Scientific research in the Old World is virtually at a stand- still, and the burden, therefore, comes upon us. Somebody says, ‘Why not do this in a different way? Why not go out and insist that private charity and private philanthropy take care of this field? It has already been discussed in the collo- quy between the gentleman from Ten- nessee [Mr, Priest] and the gentleman from Towa |Mr. Gross] on this floor. The reason that is not possibl today is because of the tax situation in this country. Thcre are no funds available today from private philanthropy to carry on this work, because we have taxed that kind of money out of exist- ence. The alternative, of course, is to revise the tax laws so that basic science may have some support. That is the question I struggled with. But I see no immediate prospect that tax revision or that reduction of the tax load would take place regardless of what party were in power. I now yicld to my colleague from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. I thought that the cor- porations today, in spite of taxes, were making greater profits than ever before in the history of the country. Mr DOLLIVER. Experience has been, and the evidence before our committee showed, that funds were not available from private sources for basic scientific research. There are ample funds from that source for applied scientific re- search, but not for basic science. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa has expired. Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. O’Hara]. Mr. O’HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chair- man, I come from the Second District 2413 in Illinois, where is located the great University of Chicago. From the dis- tinguished members of the faculty, the great scientists of the University of Chi- cago, I have received over 100 letters expressing approval of this bill. These men of learning who know the field of science and the requirements in that field tell me that there is no legislation pending that, in their opinion, is more necessary to continue the predominance of the United States in industry as well as in science, and to assure its security, as this legislation that we are now con- sidering; so to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle I bring this message from these men of learning who have no concern except that which will bring beneiit to America. They stand in sup- port of this pending legislation. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. colleague from Illinois. Mr. CHURCH. Iam very proud to say that in my district is located Northwest- ern University. I am proud to say that I have received only one or two letters from its learned professors advocating this bill. I come from a district and a university section where its people be- lieve that private enterprise can do as well as it has done heretofore and bet- ter if taxes are reduced, instead of in- creased as this bill will do. Today the main complaint over the United States is: “You are taking away the individual's freedom; you are taxing industry in this bill and denying it its freedom to spend money for basic science—taxing them to death.” So you ought not use more public funds for this kind of a bill. I am proud to have had not more than one or two letters from my great uni- Meataed pressing for the passage of this Mr. O’HARA of Illinois. In reply I say that I regret that my friend from Chicago is speaking for a school that I attended, Northwestern, has chosen this occasion to make a political speech. I shall be glad on another occasion when we have not such important legislation pending, to sit down with my friend and my colleague from Illinois and discuss these matters of politics. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yleld further, the gen- tleman knows I am making no political speech, and he will realize that when I tell him that I have no opposition at the present time. I am sorry the gen- tleman takes that position. If he has a hundred letters from his people, who is making the political speech? Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. O’HARA of Illinois, gentleman from Ohio. Mr. CROSSER. Does the gentleman know that the president of Harvard, the president of Cornell, the president of Columbia, and the presidents of any number of the other big institutions that rank with the institution to which the gentleman from Illinois referred have been begging for this legislation? Mr. O’HARA of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his contribu- tion in making {t perfectly clear that the great educators of the Nation are I yield to my I yield to the