2284 Mr, AIKEN. It should not make the same mistake three times in succession. I am advised that the Department is allocating an acreage which it is ex- pected will produce 335,000,000 bushels of potatoes, some 17,000,000 bushels less than would normally have been required in the year 1949. There was in the Agricultural Act of 1948 a provision which was continued in the Agricultural Act of 1949, as follows: Compliance by the producer with acreage allotments, production goals, and marketing practices prescribed by the Secretary may be required as a condition of eligibility for price support. That was intended to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to require com- pliance with marketing agreements, and orderly marketing of the potato crop if the grower expected to benefit from a support price guaranty. This provision of the law was not en- forced last year. I understand that the Department felt that there was not time to put it all into effect last year, and, further than that, certain commercial areas of the country, particularly, one out in California, as no doubt the Senator from Florida [Mr. Hoxiuanp] recalls, re- fused to enter into a marketing agree- ment. Although there was authorization for the Secretary to require marketing agreements last year as a qualification for price support for potatoes, yet for various reasons that was not done. I am advised that had marketing agree- ments been in effect it would have been possible to save at least two-thirds of the cost of the potato program at this time. Mr. MILLIKIN. Madam President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. MILLIKIN. What was the rea- son assigned for not doing it? Mr. AIKEN. I understand the De- partment said that there was not time to get these agreements into effect and en- force them last year. I have not had any discussion with the Secretary directly on this subject. Furthermore, California refused to come in. At that time it was felt by the Department that the crop might be short, or at least not much more then was needed—in the middle of September the estimate was only 363,000,000 bushels—and thet those who did not enter into the agreement would profit by reason of the support price which was being given to those who did enter into it. Mr. BREWSTER. Madam President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. BREWSTER. I quote from the statement made this year on the 1950 crop: Eligibility for price support will be condl- tioned on having appropriate marketing agreements and orders in effect and in operation. It goes on to say: It should be possible for all such areas to have programs in operation for 1950. I take it that answers the question why they did not feel it was necessary last year, but do feel, and have so de- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE clared, it is necessary for this year. The report was issued in November 1949, Mr, AIKEN. I believe the Depart- ment felt it was not feasible to put the program into operation effectively last year. I believe also that at least during the early part of the season the Depart- ment felt 1t was not going to be needed. They are going to carry it out this year. The amendment which I shall offer a little later will strengthen the hand of the Department of Agriculture by mak- ing the requirement for marketing agree- ments mandatory instead of simply per- missive for the Department. There is no use considering the sup- port program in terms of Maine potatoes or Florida potatoes, because, as a matter of fact, they are all in the same boat, Fiorida cannot blame Maine for the trouble. Maine cannot blame Florida for the trouble. With the situation as it is now, most of the surplus which would be destroyed is left in the State of Maine and on Long Island. If, instead of supporting the price, the potatoes are taken off the mar- ket and the Government says, “Put them all on the northern markets’— and they are Al _ potatoes—I am afraid that the price for the early Flor- ida potatoes would be subjected to a disastrous drop. On the other hand, the situation could be reversed. So we should not consider the problem in terms of Florida, Maine, Idaho, Minnesota, Winconsin, or Illinois, with its hundred bushels to the acre. That does not enter into the picture at all. It should be con- sidered in terms of the potato situation throughout the United States, the needs ef the growers and the needs of the con- sumers. The Senator frora Illinois has pro- posed an amcndment, which was ap- proved by the committee last week and is printed in the pending bill. It provides that no support can be given to potatoes which are not already planted at the time of the enactment of the bill. That means that we would probably have sup- port for all of potatoes as far north as Virginia, with the possible exception of western North Carolina, Kentucky, and the neighboring area, but no support for the pctatoes north of that latitude. As has been admitted by the Senator from Tihnois, that 1s just plain discrimination against northern potatoes. - However, he said he would take care of the matter by having hearings promptly and by enacting a quota law which would bring all potatoes within a quota requirement. That is a mechanical impossibility. Mr. TAYLOR. Madam President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. TAYLOR. I called the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture this morning relative to hearings on the bill to establish potato quotas, and he said there was no prospect of an early hear- ing. SoT believe that instead of talking about immediate hearings, in order to hurt nobody we had better talk to the chairman of the Committee on Agricul- ture. It is utterly ridiculous to say that we should let potato growers force hear- ings. Who can better force hearings than the majority leader and the chair- man of the Committee on Agriculture? FEBRUARY 23 I believe the talk about putting the re- sponsibility on the potato growers and passing the buck to them by cutting all supporis off from under them so that they will do something, is hot air. Mr. AIKEN. I believe the Senator from Idaho is entirely correct. I do not see any more indication of a hearing on the potato quota bill in the near future than therc has been in the last 6 months since the bill was introduced. I think the President might well plan to sign the potato quota bill as an act of this session on the same day that he plans to sign the anti-poll-tax bill into law, be- cause there is just about the same like- lihood of getting it through in time to affect this year’s potato crop. Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina, Madam President—— The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. SmitH of Maine in the chair). Does the Senator from Vermont yield to the Sen- ator from South Carolina? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina, I should like to call the attention of the Senator to the fact that in the com- mittee, in the discussion of the bill which has been introduced by tne majority leadcr, I think it was the consensus, on the part of the chairman and others present, that we would immediately have hearings on the bill. Is not that a fact? Mr. AIKEN. That was discussed, but there was no assurance that there would be early hearings, and certainly the time which might be denominated “immedi- ately” has already passed, as that hap- pencd a week ago, and there still has been no move to call for any hearings on the potato quota bill. I think we should at an early date consider a potato quota bill, but I do not think it is possible to enact one into law and get it into opera-. tion until at least three-fourths, if not all, of the 1950 potato crop has been planted. Then what do we do? We require those who have already planted their potatoes to comply with quotas. We can- not require those who have already dug their potatoes to comply with them, because those potatoes have gone on the market under the old law. What do we do then? We require those who have planted more than their quota to destroy the crop at their own expense—or what? The situation is so complicated we can- not put any new law on the subject into effect this year. Madam President, I think we should hold hearings on the subject and get some kind of law, if it appears advisable, before the end of the present session, to take effect next year. But potato growers have to know in the fall what they are going to do about their crop in the fol- lowing year. In fact, the Senator from Tilinois knows the potato-quota bill con- tains a requirement that the allotments or allocations shall be made by Septem- ber—either the lst or the 30th—of the previous year. We cannot go back to last September now and determine how many potatoes each State shall have for its quota or each grower shall have for his quota. It is simply a mechanically impossible proposition which the major- ity leader is putting up to us,
1950 I should like to make one other com- ment respecting the remarks of the Sen- ator from Illinois. He said that if we do not do something about the potato program, even repudiate it, it would break down the whole farm-support pro- gram. I maintain that the repudiation of an agreement by the United States Government with the producers of a cer- tain crop will do more than anything else to destroy the confidence of the farmers of the country in their Govern- ment. If we repudiate an agreement with the potato growers, can the wheat grower or the cotton grower or the psa- nut grower or the tobacco grower or the egg producer or the honey producer or the wool producer or any other producers who are guaranteed support prices by the Congress and by the executive branch of the Government, depend upon the Gov- ernment to carry out its agreement with them? I should like to have those beguiled advocates of the Brannan plan to take note of what is going on here today, and seriously consider whether they want to depend for their income upon a check from the Government contingent upon an appropriation by Congress, when the majority leader of the Senate advocates the repudiation of the price support promised the potato growers. Mr. TAYLOR. Madam President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. TAYLOR. The Senator from Ver- mont doubtless is familiar with the con- siderable uproar which arose recently when the House of Representatives failed to vote funds for Korea. He will recall that there was a great outcry made that we had a moral commitment to Korea. Does not the Senator think that a moral commitment to our own citizens, namcly the potato growers in this instance, 1s as important as a moral commitment to Korea? Mr. AIKEN. The Senator from Ver- mont has always believed that the word of the United States Government should be as good or better than the word of the best of its citizens. We do have that moral commitment, and we have no right to break an agreement. I admire the courage of the Depart- ment of Agriculture in taking the stand it is taking. Frankly, I thought the amendment was offered to take the De- partment off the hook. I hear that the Department 1s very much provoked that, Congress should require them to break a contract with the farmers in the middle of the season. Mr. TAYLOR. I think the Senator will agree that the integrity of the Govern- ment 1s a priceless asset, and that any government which becomes corrupt and whose word is no longer good, cannot long exist. We certainly have a splendid example of that before us in the case of the government of Chiang Kai-shek. His government was corrupt, and look where it is now. I think this is a very late date for our Government to start breaking its word, even though it may be with only a small unfortunate group of potato growers, not even with all the potato growers, but simply with a part XCVI——144 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of them. I think we had better keep our word with them. Mr. AIKEN. I will say to the Senator from Idaho that it is just as important for the United States Government to keep its word with a small group of po- tato growers as it is to keep its word with the next-greatest nation on the face of the earth. We must maintain the in- tegrity of our Government. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, what was the document from which the Sena- tor read a while ago, which represented, I believe, in his opinion, a promise from the Department of Agriculture to the farmer? Mr. AIKEN. It is a document released by the Department of Agriculture on November 16, 1949. USDA ANNOUNCES 1950 POTATO PRICE-SUPPORT PROGRAM A 1950 price-support program for Irish potatoes, continuing price support at the 60-percent-of-parity level in effect this year and setting a lower national commercial acreage allotment of 1,137,800 acres for 1950, was announced today by the Production and Marketing Administration. These steps, taken in recognition of de- creased potato consumption and increased yields per acre— That answers the question asked by the junior Senator from Virginia a mo- ment ago— are designed to effect a better balance be- tween potato production and requirements. I have only this to say in reference to the two amendments which are now be- fore us, the committee amendment sponsored by the Senator from Illinois, which would prohibit supports for any potatoes except those already planted, and to which I am opposed, and the amendment proposed by the Senator from Delaware [Mr, Wiiu1ams], which would prohibit supports for any pota- toes not already harvested. So far as I know the only ones harvested so far are in southern Florida and perhaps in the extreme lower coast portion of some of our other States. I feel a good deal like the Senator from Ilinois does about the amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware. If we repudiate our agreement with half the potato growers, it is only fair to re- pudiate it with all of them. But after the amendment of the Senator from Delaware has been acted upon I will offer an amendment which is printed and on the desks of all Senators, and which reads as follows: On page 7, strike out lines 11 through 14, and insert in lieu thereof the following: ‘Src 2. No price support shall be made available for any Irish potatoes planted alter the enactment of this Joint resolution unless marketing quotas hereafter authorized by law, or marketing orders under the Agricul- tural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, are in effect with respect to such potatoes.” As Senators have heard, the Depart- ment of Agriculture intends to exercise its authority in that respect. I think it will have a very beneficial effect if the Congress backs up the Secretary of Ag- riculture in his effort by making use of the marketing agreements providing for the orderly marketing of potatoes and 2285 keeping the cheap grades off the market when they are not needed. I think that will make it mandatory instead of sim- ply permissive. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. MILLIKIN. In the opinion of the distinguished Senator would that amendment, if agreed to, and if it be- came law, together with the other re- strictions which have been suggested by the Department of Agriculture, keep the situation clean this year? Mr. AIKEN. I think it would, and I believe the Department thinks that if it can enforce marketing agreements— and I admit there is going to be a job in policing any potato program or any other crop program—and if the growers can keep within their acreage alloca- tions, which they have done for many years, and with the lower support price, dropping from $1 08 to 96 cents a bushel eliminating certain production in very high-cost areas, that the potato program should somewhere near break even this year. I do not know how we can be sure of having enough potatoes in any year without asking for a few more than we think we are going to need, because sometimes we will have a bad crop year. We had just about the finest year for growing potatoes last year that the country has ever seen. We obtained an unexpectedly large crop, even where im- proved production methods were not in effect. Even the Senator from Vermont planted a bushel of potatoes and got enough for himself and the neighbors. Mr WHERRY. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Is it the Senator’s opinion that if the amendment he pro- poses to offer is agreed to it will be neces- sary for the Department of Agriculture to go further than simply enforce mar- keting agreements? I understand the Senator provides not only for marketing agreements, but also for maiketing quo- tas. But what is the judgment of the Senator as to whether the Department of Agriculture could accomplish the pur- pose we seek? Mr. AIKEN. I personally think the Department of Agriculture has enough authority to accomplish the purpose of control, of jurisdiction over marketing agreements and orders and marketing practices. When we were considcring the Agricultural Act of 1948 representa- tives of the Department of Agriculture asked for inctusion of that provision in the law, which we put in for them for this very purpose. That was continued in the Agricultural Act for 1949. Mr. WHERRY. Is it the judgment of the Senator that if that is done next year it will be unnecessary to put a pro- gram of marketing quotas into effect? That to me would seem to involve a much more difficult program, and enforcement, and all that goes with it. Mr. AIKEN. I have always believed that the exercise of this authority would control the marketing of the potato crop so that the expense of the taxpayers would be reduced to a minimum or io a
2286 negligible amount. If it does not suc- ceed, then I think the entire potato pro- gram ts definitely jeopardized. But I be- lieve it will succeed. That is why I sup- ported the provision for the last 3 years. Mr. WHERRY. I wish to ask the Sen- ator one more question. Does the Sen- ator feel that if the marketing agree- ments had been in full force and effect during the present year—and the Sen- ator said the Department of Agriculture has authority to enforce such agree- ments—the situation in which we now find ourselves could have been averted? Mr. AIKEN. I am advised by some of the persons in the Department that they think if it had been in effect last year, the cost could have been reduced by about two-thirds. It could not have been completely eliminated, because the enormous crop, due to the perfect grow- ing season, could not have been exactly foreseen. Mr. WHERRY. Let me ask this final question: In view of the Senator’s ex- perience and in view of the statements just made, if the Department of Agri- culture would use the authority it now has relative to marketing agreements, and with the average production we are supposed to have, is it the Senator’s opinion and judgment that, everything included, the purpose relative to the sur- plus of potatoes could be accomplished? Mr. AIKEN. I believe that to be a fact. I would also say that we have spent only $24,000,000 or $25,000,000, to date, on the potato program. The rest of the expenditure is anticipated, from now on. The Government could, if it saw fit to do 50, push the potatoes of the 1949 crop on the market, and could pay the loss on the 1950 crop of southern potatoes. I do not think that would be the wise thing to do. Nevertheless, the Government could carry over a great deal of the ex- pense from the 1949 crop to the 1950 crop if it wished to operate in that way. That is what I had reference to when I said we cannot consider this matter in terms of Florida, Maine, Louisiana, and Idaho, but we must consider it in terms of the potato crop of the entire United States. Mr. DONNELL. Madam President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. Will the Senator tell us what marketing orders under the Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 are in- cluded? Mr. AIKEN. Marketing agreements, as I understand, are agreements entered into between the Secretary and handlers in a particular marketing area, whereby it is agreed to .narket the crop in an orderly manner and to kcep the second- grade production off the market, unless the market demands it; and whatever marketing order is issued by the Secre- tary as a result of the agreement must be approved by the producers. I am informed that all potato-growing areas in the United States now have marketing agreements, or have them practically completed. One county in California, as I have said, rejected the marketing agreement last fall; but I am advised that they have informed the Department that they wish to vote over CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE again on that matter, and that they will approve the marketing agreement, 80 that all potato-growing areas in the United States will undertake the orderly marketing of their crop. Mr. ELLENDER. Madam President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr, ELLENDER. Iam sorry I did not hear all the discussion that took place; I was serving on one of the committees just now. The Senator does not contend, does he, that under a marketing agreement the Department can curtail acreage this year? Mr. AIKEN. No; but the same pro- vision of law which permits the Depart- ment to require compliance with the marketing agreements also gives the Department the right to announce pro- duction goals and acreage allotments. That is under the same provision of law. Mr. ELLENDER. But, as to the pro- duction goals which are announced, there is no way by which the acreage can be controlled, is there? Mr. AIKEN. Not unless we adopt the amendment of the Senator from Illinois. Mr. ELLENDER. Does not the Sena- tor from Vermont think that is the most effective way to control production? Mr. AIKEN. Ido not think the repu- diation of an agreement with the potato growers which was made on November 16 is the most effective way of handling this situation. In other words, if we were to do so, we would say, “We are going to let your crop fall apart and go to pieces, with no support at all.” That is what it amounts to. Let me reconsider the statement I have just made, and say that what the Senator from Illinois has proposed would doubtless be an effective way, but it would not be a very honorable way. Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator from Vermont is familiar with the efforts put forth by the House of Representatives in order to get the pctato growers to adopt an arrangement whereby acreage could be controlled, is he not? Mr. AIKEN. I am not familiar with the efforts the House of Representatives has made in that respect. Mr. ELLENDER. For the past 3 years, efforts have been made by the House of Representatives to secure the enactment of such legislation, and to put potatoes in the same category with cotton and other basic crops in so far as acreage controls are concerned. But the only answer the House received from the po- tato growers was, “Let us look a little further into it.” They never have been able to get together on it, apparently. Mr. AIKEN. But what is done by the House of Representatives does not excuse the Senate. Mr, ELLENDER. I grant that. But, as I have always contended before the Senate committee, it strikes me quite forcefully that no farmer should expect this Government to protect his crops by price supports unless at the same time he is willing to enter into an agreement to curtail production by reducing the acre- age. The only way I can see that this matter can be handled is by forcing the issue, FEBRUARY 23 Mr. AIKEN. But the law already per- mits the Secretary of Agriculture to re- duce the acreage, and he has done so. Mr, ELLENDER. However, there are just a few noncooperators who will not abide by the marketing agreements; and they usually plant all they can plant. Both the cooperators and noncooperators use more fertilizer than they should and they plant their potatoes closer, al! of which results in greater yields. The first thing we know, there is a very large sur- plus which affects adversely those who have entered into the marketing agree- ments. Mr. AIKEN. Let me point out that the noncooperating areas have, as I un- derstand, agreed to cooperate this year; and the Secretary has served definite notice on them that if they do not co- operate, they will not get any price sup- port at all. Mr. ELLENDER. They should obtain no support, unless they do cooperate. I am sure the Senator will concede that under the marketing agreements, how- ever entered into, the only thing the Department can do is to try to prevent those who enter into the agreements from selling their culls; otherwise, insofar as the sale of potatoes on the market is concerned, no effort is ever made to prevent that. Mr. AIKEN. The marketing agree- ments entered into by the producers in different commercial areas have to be approved by the Department of Agricul- ture. Mr. BREWSTER. Madam President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. BREWSTER. This year the mar- keting agreement for our State excludes No. 1 potatoes up to 2% inches in size. Those are not culls at all. But we have excluded them, under the marketing agreements. We also have complied with the acreage quotas in every in- stance; in fact, we are away under the acreage quotas. Mr, ELLENDER. Madam President, will the Senator from Vermont permit me to ask a question of the Senator from Maine? Mr. AIKEN. Yes; if Imay have unan- imous consent for that purpose. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator from Maine has stated that all growers in Maine have complied with the market- ing agreement. Have all of them agreed to it? I was informed differently. Mr. BREWSTER. The compliance in Maine with the acreage quotas is the highest in the country. It is between 85 and 90 percent. Mr, ELLENDER. In other words, in Maine there are from 10 to 15 percent of the farmers who have not complied, but who are growing potatoes to the extent of their ability? Mr. BREWSTER. Yes. Mr. ELLENDER. And of course that situation necessarily adversely affects the potato growers who cooperate. Mr. BREWSTER. But only in a very small way. The production is away down. We have reduced our total pro- @uction this year by 10 percent, which is
1950 the same as the national quota. If it had not been for the very fine growing season and for the 15,000,090 bushels of potatoes being brought in from Canada, we would not have had any problem at all. Those are the only two factors which have caused the problem this year. Mr. AIKEN. Madam President, the very amendment I offer will require the 10 to 15 percent of growers to come under the marketing agreement; otherwise, they will not get any support at all. Mr. ELLENDER. How will the Sen- ator’s amendment accomplish that? Mr. AIKEN. By providing that com- pliance with marketing agreements or marketing quotas, if established by Jaw at a later date, shall be a requisite for price support. Mr, ELLENDER. But only as to co- operators. Mr. AIKEN. There are thousands of noncooperators who are exempt from any of these programs atall. Those who produce less than 3 acres are not cov- ered by any of the programs, as I under- stand. I said earlier today that they are, in part, responsible for the surplus we have this year. Mr. ELLENDER. Suppose the Sena- tor’s amendment were to be adopted— would the 10 to 15 percent of Maine growers who have not—— Mr. BREWSTER. Madam President, if the Senator will permit an interrup- tion, let me say that I find I must cor- rect the statement I made a few mo- ments ago. I have just been handed the official figures, which ore that 93 pes- cent cooperated on acreage and 100 percent cooperated on the marketing agreements. My, AIKEN. I think the Senator per- haps would be correct if he stated that from 10 to 15 percent of the total grow- ers of the country have not done so, Mr. BREWSTER. Iam sorry I was in error 1n my previous statement. Mr, AIKEN. When we give the per- centages, we should consider that the crop Jast year was approximately 10 per- cent larger than was needed. Mr. ELLENDER. I wish to ask the Senator this question: Regardless of when we should do it, docs the Senator not believe that the ory cffective remedy we can provide is to pass a marketing- quota law giving the Secretary of Agri- culture the same power that he now has with respect to cotton and other basic crops, in an effort to control potato production? Mr. AIKEN. That may be true not only with respect to potatoes but with respect to every other crop. Mr, ELLENDER. That is correct. Mr. AIKEN. But as to whether it would be effective, only experience can tell. As I said a little earlier in my remarks, it will be a terrific job to police any pro- gram of this nature, and probably will be more difficult in the case of potatoes than, let us say, in the case of cotton, which goes through a certain number of bonded warehouses, or in the case of wheat or similar crops. It will be diffi- cult to police any kind of a potato pro- gram. However, I think what I am proposing 4a the best thing to try this year. What CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE I object to is a repudiation of the agree- ment the Government has made with the potatc farmers, and I understand the Department of Agriculture does not want to have it repudiated in the middle of the season. I think what is proposed will bring any cost to a minimum, if not to the vanishing point. If it does not, than I shall be perfectly willing either to abandon the program altogether, or to have a strict quota law put into effect for the 1951 crop. Mr. ELLENDER. In the Senator's amendment, I notice that he suggests that no price supports shall be made available to farmers unless marketing quotas hereafter authorized by law are established. Mr. AIKEN. Or marketing agree- ments. Marketing agreements can be put into effect for this year. Mr. ELLENDER. So far as I am con- cerned, and judging not onl; from the expericnce I have had in my own State, but also from what I have read and heard, I do not believe the marketing agreements will do the job. We might just as well discard it so far as produc- tion of potatoes and probably quite a few other commodities is concerned. But the question I want to address to the Senator is this—— Mr. AIKEN. I want to answer the Senator's first question, first. If mark- eting agreements and the control of marketing practices do not do the job, then the Department of Agriculture did not know what it needed in order to do the job when it asked for that provi- sion of law. Mr. ELLENDER. That may be true. I want to ask the Senator this: He says that no price support should be made available unless quotas hereafter au- thorized by law are established. Mr. AIKEN. Or marketing agrcc- ments. Mr. ELLENDER Dors the Senator want to introduce a bill to that effect, or will he support a bill during this ses- sion of the Congress, so that the De- partment of Agriculture can effectively carry out the program? Mr. AIKEN. I may say to the Sen- ator from Louisiana, I have keen fa- vorably inclined toward providing quota provisions, not only for potatoes but for other crops which may come undcr the price-support program. But I am opposed to repudiating in the middle of the season an agreement already made, particularly when it leaves part of the crop, let us say 30 percent of it, already planted, and the other 70 percent not planted, and therefore excluded from the support program. Mr. ELLENDER. Would the views of the Senator be tempered in the event the law provided for the 1951 crop and omitted this year’s crop? Mr. AIKEN. The views of the Sen- ator from Vermont would be very much tempered, but he would still be opposed to the amendment of the Senator from Illinois, which cuts off the support for two-thirds of the potato growers of the country in the middle of the season. Mr, ELLENDER, I thank the Sen- ator. 2287 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. The Senator has re- ferred a number of times to marketing agreements. I notice in his amendment the term employed is “marketing orders.” Are the terms “marketing agreements” and “marketing orders” synonymous? Mr. AIKEN. Marketing orders must be approved by the producers. The Senator is probably familiar with the marketing agreements and marketing orders in the case of fluid milk, but in that case the Department of Agriculture actually sets the price of the product from month to month, usually under the terms of a formula which has been ar- ranged for the particular area involved. Mr. DONNELL. In noting the con- tents of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, I observe that there is a reenactment of certain sec- tions, namely, section (b)—that is to say, of the Agricultural Adjustment Act—which is described in the Agricul- tural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 as “relating to market agreements.” There is then a reenactment of section 8 (c), which is described in the Agricul- tural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 as “relating to orders.” I was wondering whether the term “marketing orders,” as set forth in the Senator’s amendment No. 15, of Febru- ary 20, 1950, means the same as the marketing agreemcnts, in view of the dis- tinction made in what I very hastily ob- served in the Agricultural Markcting Agreement Act of 1937. Mr. AIKEN. As the Senator from Missouri knows, I am not a lawyer and not too familiar with legal terms, but I understand the marketing orders are made under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. The Senator will recall that the first Marketing Agreement Act, which was passed along about 1934 or 1935, was declared invalid in part by the Supreme Court. As a result, the price of milk in my State went down to a little over 1 cent a quart, and something had to be done and done in a hurry. In the early part of 1937 the Agricultural Marketing Agree- ment Act was enacted, which met the objections of the Supreme Court, and which has worked effectively in most of the fluid-milk centers since that time. As to the term “marketing orders,” and its relation to the marketing agreements, these two provisions augment each other. Usually the agreements are the terms agreed upon, and the orders put teeth into the agreement. The orders must be approved by the producers. Mr. DONNELL. I may say to the Senator I am not asking this question from any mere technical aspect, but I want to be sure I understand, in consid- ering the Senator's amendment, just what marketing orders are. Mr. AIKEN. May Isay to the Senator from Missouri the amendment has been considered by lawyers who are familiar with this type of law, and they have ad- vised me, who am no lawyer at all, that the wording is proper,
2288 Mr. DWORSHAK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, AIKEN. I yield. Mr. DWORSHAK. The Senator from Vermont has advised the Senate that the Secretary of Agriculture already has authority to impose upon the potato- growing industry marketing practices or agreements. Mr. AIKEN. That is correct. Mr. DWORSHAK. Will the Senator from Vermont advise us whether under the existing law the Secretary has au- thority to impose marketing quotas upon the industry? Mr. AIKEN. No; only in terms of acreage allotments. He cannot impose them in terms of bushels marketed, ex- cept as required under a marketing agreement. Mr. DWORSHAK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. DWORSHAK. Under the amend- ment offered by the Senator from IIli- nois, it is stipulated that marketing quotas must be in effect before there can be any further price supports. Can the Senator tell us about how long it would take to put into effect a system imposing marketing quotas upon potatoes? Mr. AIKEN. I think the 1950 crop un- doubtedly would be 90 percent planted before it is possible to get that type of legislation passed. ‘There have been bills before the Senate for the past 5 or 6 months, and no action has been taken on them and no move made to hold hear- ings on them. Senators on the floor were advised this very afternoon that the chairman of the committee said, so far as he knew, there was no date in the immediate future which had been set for a hearing on the marketing-quotas bill, although I may say I think we should hold hearings before long. Mr. DWORSHAK. Then, in effect, the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois goes far beyond what we may now believe, when it requires the imposition of marketing quotas, because it would require several months to per- fect such a program. Is that not cor- rect? Mr. AIKEN. I think it would take a considerable length of time even to set up the machinery to invoke marketing quotas even after a bill is passed. Mr. DONNELL, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. Again I want the Senator to understand that this question is not asked from any captious or tech- nical aspect, but I want to be sure whether the right words are being used. After all, if we adopt the amendment, we want to know that it is going to accom- plish what the Senator from Vermont sincerely desires {t to accomplish. I no- tice in Public Law 320, Seventy-fourth Congress, an amendment to the Agricul- tural Adjustment Act, that section 8 (c) seems to be the one applicable to so- called orders, and as I mentioned a mo- ment ago, it appears, as I read, very hastily, and possibly mistakenly, the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1957, there is a distinction between marketing agreements and orders recog- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE nized by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. The amendment, Public Law 3820, Seventy-fourth Con- gress, amending the Agricultural Ad- justment Act, describes orders in this way. ORDERS Src. 8 (c) (1) The Secretary of Agriculture shall, subject to the provisions of this sec- tion, issue, and from time to time amend, orders applicable to processors, associations of producers, and others engaged in the handling of any agricultural commodity or product thereof specified in subsection (2) of this section. Such persons are referred to in this title as handlers. Such orders shall regulate, in the manner hereinafter in this section provided, only such handling of such agricultural commodity, or product thereof, as is in the current of interstate or forelgn commerce, or which directly burdens, ob- structs, or affects, interstate or foreign com- merce in such commodity or product thereof. Iam wondering just what it is the Sen- ator has in mind as being covered by the marketing orders to which his amend- ment refers. Mr. AIKEN. I may say to the Senator from Missouri that perhaps the Senator from Vermont could answer captious questions better than technical ones. Mr. DONNELL. I did not mean the questions in either sense. Mr. AIKEN. I believe it is the type of wording which the Department of Agri- culture will use. Whether the sugges- tion originally came from that source, I do not know, but I will undertake to re- assure the Senator from Missouri as to the wording, within the next 15 or 20 minutes. If it is not exactly what we mean to provide for, it will be changed so that it will mean what I think it now means. I think it is the proper wording, but I shall find out and reassure the Sen- ator from Missouri. Mr. DONNELL. I thank the Senator. I very much appreciate his courtesy. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, before he takes his seat? Mr. AIKEN. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. WHERRY. Does the Senator not think that for the record it would be well to restate the two differences be- tween the terms as used in the amend- ment in the phrase “this joint resolu- tion unless marketing quotas hereafter authorized by law, or marketing orders under the Agricultural Marketing Agree- ment Act of 1937, as amended.” For the record, what is the difference be- tween marketing quotas and marketing orders? Mr. AIKEN. The marketing quotas would have to come under a Jaw which does not exist. Mr. WHERRY. That fs correct. Mr. AIKEN. Marketing agreements are in existence. The Department con- templates requiring the use of them this year, and the amendment would back up the Department in requiring the use of them and make mandatory the provision which has been permissive up to this time. I see the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has come into the Chamber. Perhaps he can tell us more about the plans for hearings on the marketing-quota legislation. FEBRUARY 23 Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Madam President, if the Senator from Vermont will yield, I should like to make a very brief statement. Mr. AIKEN. With the unanimous consent of the Senate, I shall be glad to yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER, The Chair hears no objection. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. * The committee knows, and I think the Mem- bers of the Senate know, that I am for high prices for farm products. I am for high prices because it is necessary to have high prices for farm products as well as to have high wages and high salaries, in order to build up a large national income so that the people can make enough money to pay the enormous taxes which they must pay. That is the basic reason why I am for high prices for farm products. On that basis I am for a support-price program for pota- toes, but the present program has not operated very well. In order to get a better support-price program the amend- ment which is now before the Senate was placed in the joint resolution in order to serve notice on those persons interested in potatoes that they must help us work out a program which we can support. Mr. AIKEN. The Senator from Okla- homa recalls that all but two members of the committee voted to approve this amendment. I do not understand that they bound themselves to support it word for word, but they believed it should be brought before the Senate for action at the earliest possible date. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. That fs exactly what happened in the committee. There is before the committee at the present time a bill proposing to provide money for the Commodity Credit Cor- poration. We have not acted on it offi- clally. I hope that within the next few days we can report that bill. The next bill that is to be considered, from my viewpoint, {f the members of the commit- tee will go along with me, is a potato bill which was introduced by me in the last session, and was introduced in this ses- sion by the majority leader. If the pend- ing amendment {fs adopted, those Sena- tors interested in potatoes will be inter- ested in coming before the committee and helping us work out a program which we can all support. That is what I shall work toward. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Is it the intention of the distinguished Senator from Okla- homa to include a provision which will establish marketing quotas for potato growers as well as the growers of other crops? Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma, On po- tatoes, especially, I want to establish a support price, provided there shall also be established not only fair controls, but mandatory and enforcible controls. Otherwise, I shall not go along with a support-price program. We cannot sub- ject the Treasury to demands for money for support prices unless we give power to the Secretary to impose controls and power to enforce them. I think we should raise enough of the basic com-
1950 modities to supply the domestic demand and the export demand, and then we should have a carry-over. Perishable products cannot be carried very long. Mr. WHERRY. Madam President, will the Senator yield for one more ques- tion? Mr, AITKEN. I yield. Mr, WHERRY. Can that be accom- plished with only marketing agreements which the Senator from Vermont says we now have, or would it require addi- tional legislation? I am very much in- terested in the Senator’s reaction to that question. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma _- Person- ally, I hope for limited production based on a limited acreage. Mr WHERRY. [In the final analysis, would the Senator care to state, if he is ready to make a statement, that the legislation should carry a provision for establishing marketing quotas in addi- tion to what the Senator has just said? Mr, THOMAS of Oklahoma _ I would be for that if I could get the committee to go along. I want to have megid con- trols I want the farmers to raise all the potatoes they can, to be sold at a fair price FI want enough to export and enough io have a carry-over at least during the ycar. Mr WHERRY. malketing quotas. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma, correct Mr WHERRY. That involves a ques- tion which has always confronted me. How are we going to enforce market- ing quotas? Tt is a very broad field. Mr THOMAS of Oklahoma’ That is a matter which must be worked out. Mr WHERRY. If the Senator will permit me to make this last observation, I should hke, 1f it can be done under marketing agreements, to have support prices paid in the market place, which, it seems to me, would be much more sat- isfactory Mr AIKEN. I should like to say to the Senator from Okluhoma that before he entered the chamber I expressed to the Senator from Louisiana [Mr ELlEen- DER] sympathy toward a marketing- quota bill, but expressed doubt, and even opposition, with regard to attempting to impose a marketing quota on potatoes this year, knowing full well that most of the potatoes would be planted before we could get such a bill enacted into law. Therefore, I thought if the Department requres compliance with marketing agreements and orders for this year’s crop, we can see how it works. There could still be a marketing-quota bill on the hooks, and the Secretary not be re- quired to use it if the other provisions work In reply to the question ask-d a few minutes ago by the Senator trom Mis- souri [Mr. DonNELL] as to the difference between a marketing agreement and a marketing order, I have a communica- tion from my assistant, which reads as follows: A marketing agreement mty be entered into betwecn the Secretary anl the handlers of a commodity following public hearings. If the Secretary finds such agreement will effectuate the purpose of the act, an order is issued by the Secietary which controls all That necessitates That is CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE handlers subject to it. The order must be approved by two-thirds of the producers of a@ commodity. This two-thirds vote of producers is the same as for marketing quotas. So marketing orders, which ore accepted by producers—aend I understand the com- mercial] potato producers have expressed their willingness to accept them—would virtually have the force of a marketing quota, at least for this year. Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Missouri asked a question a moment ago on which I might be able to shed some light by reason of the fact that I par- ticipated on two occasions in connection with hearings dealing with marketing agreemenvs affecting cilrus fruit in the peninsula of Florida. As I understand the law and the procedure which would be followed under it, this is what occurs: If the Secretary feels that a marketing agreement would tend to bring about the results which are desired under the act, namely, more effective regulation of the flow of the product and a better distribu- tion and a better and fairer price, he calls hearings, and at those hearings the affected parties, both producers and handlers, are given an opportunity to ap- pear and state their views. The hear- ings generally are rather extended and are held in various parts of the area af- fected When they fet close to the end there may be a final hearing in Wash- ington. After the agrecment has been worked out in a form that seems to be most acceptable to the industry affected and is also in such form that it can be approved by the Secictary, he 1educes it to a fixed formula, an agreement between the pai ties, himself, and the persons who shall sign it, the handlers The handlers are given the opportunity to sign that agreement Inthe case ot Florida citrus fruit producers—and I would not pre- tend to make my statement apply to other products because there may be other provisions applicable to other products—the requirement was that not Jess than two-thirds of the growers by number of growers, or growers who pro- duce not Jess than two-thirds of the fruit, should by referendum vote appiove the proposed agreement wiih the Secretary of Agriculture. It was also the requirement that 50 pereent of the handlers should exccute the agreement. However, that was not the entire prerequisite, as I remember it. The approval by not less than two- thirds of the growers by number of growers, or who produced not Icss than two-thirds of the volumc, was an abso- lute prerequisite. In other words, demo- cratic rule was provided for, in that a two-thirds majority of the growers was 1equircd to approve the provisions cm- bodied in such an agreement, as a condi- tion prerequisite to placing that agree- ment in effect or issuing an order based upon it. Naturally the agreement would affect only the parties to it, that is the handlers actually signing it. But the next step provided by the Agricultural Marketing Act was that in order to make effective the terms of the agreement and make them applicable to and cnforcible 2289 against the dissident handlers, the Sec- retary of Agriculture could and did issue marketing orders in exactly the same form as the marketing agreements. The marketing orders became enforcible as against all persons in the industry, whether or not they were signers of the marketing agreement. Under the terms of the two marketing agreements which have been in effect with reference to Flolida citrus fruit, we have had two different types of control. First, as I recall, was a volume control. It fixed the volume which might move in interstate commerce. The volume was allotted at certain fixed period by govern- ing committees which made recommen- dations, on which the Secretary of Agri- culture acted. In that way the move- ment of only a sufficient quantity of fruit to supply the markets at reasonable prices was permitted, Distribution of loss of the surplus was effected within the industry. The other agreement, the present one, which has been in force now for some years, controls the grades and sizes of fruit which may be moved in interstate commerce from week to week, or over periods of weeks. In that way both the flow of fruit and the quality of the fruit are controlled In each case the marketing agree- ments were supported by orders, which were enforced by the maintenance of an inspection service, not only through the transpoi tation companics—the railroads, and the ships—but at various Key bridges and places on the highways, so as to con- trol the movement by truck out of the peninsula of Florida. The flow of fruit was accurately controlled and this proved highly effective in bringing about better conditions in the industry. As the junior Senator from Florida understands, the amendment proposed by the Senator from Vermont, which is identical with the first amendment pro~ posed on this subject in the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Mr AIKEN. I may say that the Sen- ator from Florida is the author of the wording which I have in my amend- ment. I did not recall it until the Sen- ator explained the marketing agree- ments. Mr. HOLLAND The amendment as proposed by the Senator from Vermont makes no reference to marketing agree- ments, but only to marketing orders. It is the understanding of the junio: Sen- ator from Florida that the existence of maiketing agreements is a prerequisite to the existence of marketing orders, which will adopt the same form. Much as the Senator from Florida would hke to see the problem dealt with effectively through marketing agreements and or- ders, as it undoubtedly could be, pro- vided the industry cooperates, it still is his view that dissidcnt areas in which the growers rcfused to approve proposed marketing agreements or to subject themselves to ordeis, could rather effec-~ tively break down any proposed control. It was for that reason that the Senator from Florida felt that the quota con- Gitions should be stated in the pro- Rosed amendment, as well as the mar- keting order conditions.
2290 Mr. AIKEN. Does not the Senator from Fidrida understand that all the commercial potato areas have now in- dicated their willingness to come under marketing agreements? I realize that that will leave probably 500,000 or 600,- 030 acres of potatoes, grown in small quantities throughout the country in small fields, which will not come under any program. Mr. HOLLAND. I have no informa- tion on the subject, but I did see in the press, a day or two ago, an article ema- nating from Bakersfield, Calif., stating that one very important producing area there wanted no continuing control or support program. Whether the article properly related the attitude of that im- portant producing area the Senator from Florida 1s unable to say. Mr. AIKEN, The Secretary of Agri- culture has served notice that anyone who does not come under the marketing agreements and orders will not get any support. He is within the law in doing that. Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Florida believes that 1t would be effec- tive if all the large-growing areas weuld come under marketing agreements and orders. If two-thirds of the growers of a great separate production area, highly competitive with the rest of the indus- try, declined to come in, it might break down the whole program. Mr. AIKEN. I will say frankly that if such an area refuses to come in, feel- {ng it would cash in under the price sup- ports given to other areas, the entire potato price support program will have to go, if it cannot be controlled. Mr. LEHMAN. Madam President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. LEHMAN. May I ask the Senator whether the procedure which he has in mind for marketing orders for potatoes is similar to the successful procedure being followed in the New York milk- shed in connection with the marketing of milk? Mr. AIKEN. In general, I would say that they are similar. I think it would differ in this respect, that in the case of milk the Secretary of Agriculture ac- tually names a price to be received from month to month, although the price whick he names is arrived at under a formula which represents the consensus of agreement in the area as to what a good formula should be. In the case of marketing agreements, he has to ap- prove the marketing methods. Mr, LEHMAN. As I recall, the milk- marketing agreement had to be approved by two-thirds of the dairy farmers in the New York milkshed Mr. AIKEN. That is correct. It is also true of any marketing orders for fruits and vegetables. Mr. DONNELL. Madam President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. First, I should like to thank both the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Arken! and the Senator from Flor- fda {Mr. HoLtanp] for taking the time and giving careful attention to answer- ing my questions. I should lke, if I may, to have the attention of the Sen- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ator from Florida for a moment to ask him if there are marketing orders, as he understands them, which may be made without marketing agreements. In that connection I invite his attention to the heading above section 9 of Public Law 322, Seventy-fourth Congress, which is an act to amend the Agricultural Ad- justment Act, which heading reads “Or- ders with or without marketing agree- ments.” Mr. HOLLAND. I understand that that is the case in some industries. As to which industries, I am unable to say. That was not true in connection with the citrus industry. I have had no ex- perience whatever with orders independ- ent from marketing agreements, and certainly they would depart entirely from the theory which has been used in the citrus industry, where there has been required first united effort, cooperative effort, by a great controlling majority of the industry, that is, two-thirds of the growers and more than half of the handlers as a basis for any order. Irre- spective of the attitude of the handlers, however, I believe that an order can be entered if two-thirds of the growers have given their approval Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator again for his kindness. Mr. AIKEN. Madam President, if I still have the floor, I yield to the Senator from Nebraska Mr. WHERRY. Madam President, I should like to ask a question, because up to this point no one, to my mind, has made a clear-cut statement of what a marketing agreement is. As I understand marketing quotas, they have reference to amounts that can be sold, bushels, or heads of livestock, or heads of cabbage. Mr. AIKEN That is correct. Mr WHERRY. Marketing agree- ments usually run to restricted acreages. Mr. AIKEN. As used in the case of potatoes, I am sure the term “marketing quota” refers to the number of bushels which may be marketed. The Secretary already has authority to set the number of acres which can be grown. Mr. WHERRY. That is the point I was about toraise. The contention of the distinguished Senator from Vermont is that under the present act, the marketing agreements, if carried through, would restrict acreage. Is not that true? Mr. AIKEN. The Secretary has al- ready allocated the acres. Mr. WHERRY. Then what are we providing in this legislation which the Sccretary docs not already have author- ity to do? Mr. AIKEN. Weare making the use of that authority mandatory, and backing up the Secretary in the use of it. Mr. WHERRY. Are we making man- datory that he can use marketing quo- tas under some order before we pass the legislation? Mr. AIKEN. No. Mr. WHERRY. We have not passed marketing quota legislation to apply to potatoes yet. have we? Mr. AIKEN. He cannot require the use of marketing quotas, because there is no legislation to that effect. Mr. WHERRY. What fs the use of in- cluding that in the amendment, then? FEBRUARY 23 Mr. AIKEN. That isin anticipation of the proposed marketing quota law being enacted before the end of this session. Mr. WHERRY. If that is the under- standing, I suppose there can be no ob- jection, but there is much difference be- tween a marketing quota and an agree- ment the producers and handlers arrive at themselves. Mr. AIKEN. I might also point out that the Secrctary is trying to control the production of grain crops this year though acreage allotments. In the case of wheat, there was a 17-percent cut in the acreage. However, the indication as of January 1 was that the crop would not be very far below last year’s crop, due to the fact that when acres are cut, growers discard their poorest acres, and try to raise more on the acres which are left. The Secretary has the power, under the law, but he evidently hopes not to have to use it, and there has bcen talk to the effect that if acreage allot- ments fail, then quotas will be neccssary in the case of grain crops next year. Mr. WHERRY. Bcfore that is done, legislation will have to be enacted. Mr. AIKEN. In the case of potatoes, that is true, but not in the case of such grain crops as wheat and corn. Mr. WHERRY. Will the Senator yield for another question? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. The additional au- thority in line 4 that the Scnator from Missour1 has been talking about, and I refer to the words “or marketing orders” authority which the Secretary does not now have? Mr. AIKEN. He has it now, and I un- derstand he intends to use it this year. Mr. WHERRY. So that is not a new authority. That is an authority he already has? Mr. AIKEN. Yes. Before I take my seat, Madam Presi- dent, I should like to state that the State of Vermont last year raised 100 percent, exactly, of the amount of potatoes al- located to the State by the Secretary of Agriculture. There were four States in the Union which raised the exact amount which was expected of them. Others raised more. Others raised less. South Dakota, for instance, raised only 50 per- cent of the amount its farmers weie en- titled to raise, because of a poor crop year. But South Dakota was almost the only State that had such a miserable year for raising potatoes. Mr. LUCAS. Madam President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. Does the Senator agree with me that marketing agreements are wholly voluntary? Mr. AIKEN. They have to be approved by two-thirds of the growers, and mar- keting quotas have to be approved by two-thirds of the growers. Mr. LUCAS. Yes; but we do not have any law upon that subject. The agree- ments are voluntary. Mr. AIKEN. No; we do not have a law on potato quotas. But if we did have, the consent of two-thirds of the growers would be required to put it into effect.
1950 Mr. LUCAS. In the case of potatoes the only control we have is through vol- untary agreement at the present time, which I understand was attempted, and some success was had with it last year, Mr. AIKEN. No; they are not volun- tary. The acreage plantings are not vol- untary. The Secretary of Agriculture can put into effect acreage allotments, and he can issue marketing orders, and if they are not approved by the growers, he can deny price supports to those com- mercial areas which do disapprove them. Mr. LUCAS. I do not understand that the Secretary has anything to do with acreage allotments, unless they are voluntary upon the part of the grower himself. Mr. AIKEN They are voluntary to this extent: The Secretary denies sup- port price to those who fuil to comply with them. ‘ Mr. LUCAS. Of course. Mr. AITKEN. And they do comply with them. There has not been a year since 1943, that the over-all planting of pota- toes has not been less than the amount requested by the Secretary. Mr. LUCAS. I should like to ask the Senator from Vermont one more ques- tion. Does the Senator agree with me that the Secretary, under tne marketing agreements and orders which have been issued pursuant to the Agriculiural Ad- justment Act, has succeeded in bringing only 55 percent of the 1949 crop under marketing agreements? Mr. AIKEN, That might have been true lust year. However, he did not make compHance with marketing agree- ments a qualification for price support last year. Had he done so, no one knows how many would have agreed to come under marketing orders. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator knows that certain sections of the California growers have dcfinitely said that they would not come under marketing agreements? Mr AIKEN. Yes, last year. Mr. LUCAS. I have telegrams in my office from farmers in a large section in Pennsylvania who voted on the refer- endum question, who refused to come under the agreement. Mr. AIKEN. But may I ask the Sena- tor if that vote was not taken last year? And is it not true that the California areas have indicated to the Department that they would like another vote on the marketing orders, and indicated their intention of coming under them? Mr. LUCAS. That I cannot say. Mr, AIKEN. And the Secretary has also informed them that if there is no compliance with marketing orders, there will be no support price for 1950. I think he has acted very properly in that case. Mr. LUCAS. Does the Senator agrce with me that his amendment, if it is adopted by the Senate, would have no effect whatsoever, but would leave us just where we are? Mr. AIKEN. Ido not, Mr. LUCAS. I cannot agree with my distinguished friend. I think that is ex- actly what it means, and that is what he Secretary of Agriculture says it ‘ould mean. Mr. AIKEN. I remind the Senator from lllinois that this provision of the lavy was requested by the Secretary of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Agriculture for the very purpose for which I think he should have used it last year. If he had done so I am told he might have cut out more than $50,000,- 000 for the expense of supporting the 1949 potato crop, and he would not have had any more than the poor people in the institutions of this country could have used had he made it possible for them to secure the surplus crop. Mr. LUCAS. That is a _ conclusion the part of the Senator from Vermont, and I cannot confirm it or deny it. Mr. AIKEN. The Senator from Ver- mont thinks it is a correct conclusion. No sufficient effort was made to move the surplus potatoes, either through in- creascd consumption in the ordinary channels of trade or by making them available to poor people or to nonprofit institutions. Mr. LUCAS. But the Senator from Vermont, as I understand, wants to con- tinue this situation as it is at present, regardless of what 1s the attitude of the Secretary of Agriculture. Mr. AIKEN. The Senator from Ver- mont wants to require the Secretery of Agriculture to use this provision of the law, which he did not use last year, The Senator from Vermont further understands, while we are discussing the desires of the Secretary of Agriculture, that the Secretary of Agriculture is not at all in favor of the amendment of the Senator from Illinois, and has put in writing that he does not belicve we should chanse this program after the agreement with the farmers has been made. Mr. LUCAS. I have stated before, if I may reply without violating the rules of the Senate too much, that I have offered this amendment upon my own responsibility. The Secretary of Agri- culture did not know anything about it. Mr. AIKEN. I understand he did not know about it, and that he even does not approve it. Mr. LUCAS. And the opinion of the Scretary of Agriculture does not change my opinion at all as to the merits of my amendment. Mr. AIKEN. And the Secretary of Agriculture has had very much less suc- cess in changing the opinion of the Sen- ator from Vermont. Mr. LUCAS. But the Senator from Vermont has been quoting what the Sec- retary of Agriculture says, and has been standing upon it when he has had to stand upon it to make his point. Mr. AIKEN. I may say to the Sen- ator from Illinois that we both quote the Secretary of Agriculture when it serves our purposes to do so. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator can speak for himself along that line, because I did not bring up that subject first. Mr. AIKEN. The influence on the Scnator from Illinois 1s obvious. Mr. LUCAS. It apparently has not had much influence on the Senator from Vermont, because the Senator from Ver= mont insists that we go on with the po- tato program regardless of what the cost may be. Madam President, it does not make any difference what the Secretary of Agriculture should have done last year, or what he should do under the amend- 2291 ment proposed by the Senator from Ver- mont. The truth of the matter is if we do not get a bill in the present session of Congress dealing with this program, and dealing with price supports under rigid controls, acreage allotments, marketing agreements, marketing quotas on bush- els or bags of potatoes, the program will continue as it is now, and as the Secre- tary of Agriculture said it should con- tinue, which will cost in the neighbor- hood of $50,000,000 or $60,000,000 or $70,000,000 more than it ought to cost or would cost if we would adopt the sim- ple amendment I have offered, and finally secure adequate legislation respecting the potato program. I do not know whether the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry suid on the floor of the Senate that he was ready to hold hearings at once and report a bill, but he came to the Senate floor for that purpose. I left the Chamber fora moment. He told me definitely that he was ready to go into the question and hold hearings and re- port a bill and get some action at the present session of Congress. Mr. AIKEN. The chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry did appear in the Senate Chamber and gave as his opinion that we should hold hearings, and that in the not far future, but not the immediate future; that there would be hearings upon a bill providing marketing quotas for potatoes. There are two bills before the Com- mittee on Agriculture and Forestry. One was introduced about the middle of last year by the Senator from Oklahoma, the chairman of the committee, and one was introduced more recently by the Senator from Illinois. -There is one marked difference be- tween the two bills, asI understand. The bill introduced by the Senator from Okla- homa would grant authority for com- pensatory payments, whereas the bill offered by the Senator from Illinois would not grant authority for compensa- tory payments. I am sure the Senator from Illinois will agree that when wit- nesses and the committee members en- gage in a discussion as to whether com- pensatory payments which are now played up as the backbone of the Bran- nan plan come under discussion, that the discussion is not likely to be brief either in the committee or on the floor of the Senate or on the floor of the House. For that reason we cannot ex- pect to have a potato quota law enacted. I advised the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLenpeR] while the Senator from Illinois was off the floor, that I would look sympathetically on such a law. We cannot expect to get it passed before most of this year’s potato crop is planted. Mr. LUCAS. Is the Senator in favor of putting the potato growers under rigid controls? Mr. AIKEN. I stated during the ab- sence of the Senator from Illinois that if the proposal which I am making now fails to control the potato situation this year, that I would either favor aban- doning the support program altogether or adopting rigid marketing controls. Mr. LUCAS. Madam President, will the Senator further yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield.
2292 Mr. LUCAS. In all fairness does not the Senator from Vermont, capable and able and efficient as he is, feel that the potato grower in this country has had quite a fair trial as to matters dealing with the growing of potatoes? Mr. AIKEN. I think the Department of Agriculture has had an even fairer trial and an even better opportunity to profit from the experience of the potato programs of the past few years. The overestimate of the amount required, and an underestimate of the yield, plus certain other mishandled phases of the program, have placed us in our present position. As late as September 1949, the Department of Agriculture estimated the potato yield at 363,000,000 bushels. That was after potatoes had been dug in two- thirds or three-fourths of the States of the Union, Yet in December they found the yield to be 402,000,000 bushels—just a slight error of 39,000,000 bushels in es- timating the crop. Mr. LUCAS. Madam President, will the Senator further yield? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. I think it is utterly un- fair to place the responsibility upon the Secretary of Agriculture in view—— Mr. AIKEN. No. Mr. LUCAS. Will the Senator permit me to conclude? Mr. AIKEN. The responsibility rests upon him. The Department is responsi- ble for the application of the law. Mr. LUCAS. The Secretary is re- sponsible for the application of the law, but I cite to my good friend from Ver- mont the testimony that was given here the other day by the distinguished Sen- ator from New Mexico |[Mr. ANDERSON], when he read into the Recorp several letters which he wrote when he was Sec- retary of Agriculture, calling upon the Congress of the United States to pass effective laws dealing with potatoes, and we completely ignored his request. Mr. AIKEN. But the Senator from Vermont was ready to undertake to re- view the potato laws at the time. Mr. LUCAS. But the Senator just now told me that he was not in favor of a law which would provide another chance to find whether the marketing agreements or marketing orders would operate effectively. Mr. AIKEN. Let me say that is not what the Senator from Vermont said. The Senator from Vermont said he would look sympathetically upon a _ potato- quota law. He would not only look sym- pathetically upon it, but he would oppose putting a potato-quota law into effect this year, after most of the crop has already been planted. After the potato growers have gone to the extent of purchasing fertilizer and seed and planting their crop under the agreement made with the Department of Agriculture, I would not require them then to be forced to destroy part of their crop which has already been planted at their own expense. Mr. WHERRY. Madam President, will the Senator yleld? Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. I have just one more question, The Senator from Vermont CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE had me convinced that this amendment was the proper one, and I was ready to vote on it. I was convinced on the state- ment which was made that the Senator is not asking for any additional author- ity, but only that the present statute shall be mandatory and that the Secre- tary will have to use it. Mr. AIKEN. That is correct. Mr. WHERRY. As the Senator said, if he had used it this year, two-thirds of the cost would have been eliminated. Mr. AIKEN. I understand that about two-thirds of the cost would have becn eliminated if the agreements had been effectively enforced. Mr. WHERRY. So the Senator from Vermont is telling us that he wishes to make the present authority obligatory upon the Department of Agriculture. Is that correct? ‘ Mr. AIKEN. That is correct. Mr. WHERRY. And if that is done with the marketing agreements, those agreements in themselves will go a long way toward solving the situation, if not completely solving it; is that correct? Mr. AIKEN, I said that if that fails, I will be in favor of abandoning the sup- port program altogether or else imposing rigid marketing controls. Mr. WHERRY. So the responsibility rests squarely upon the Secretary of Agriculture for not making the statute mandatory or at least for not using it in 1949. Mr. AIKEN. He had the authority he asked for. Mr. WHERRY. And because he did not use it, we find ourselves in this situ- ation. Is that correct? Mr. AIKEN. But in fairness to him, I think it should be said that last year he did encounter considerable resistance which is not being put forward now. Mr. WHERRY. But he could have used it, regardless of that. Mr. AIKEN. Yes; he could have used it, resistance ur no resistance. Mr. WHERRY. That is correct. I am convinced. BUDGETARY PROBLEMS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT Mr. MORSE. Madam President, I hold in my hand a speech delivered by Mr. E. C. Sammons, president of the United States National Bank of Portland, Oreg. It was delivered by him before the Credit Policy Commission of the American Bankers’ Association, at Chi- cago, lll., on January 25, 1950. Madam President, this is one of the best speeches dealing with problems concerning the budget of the United States Government that I have read in many a day. It is such an able discussion of the budgetary problems of our Government and of what Mr. Sammons thinks the American people and the United States Congress should do about them, that I ask unani- mous consent to have his speech printed in the body of the Recorp, at this point, as apart of myremarks, I wish to make several comments on the speech, if I am given permission to have it published in the body of the Recorp. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? FEBRUARY 23 There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: SPEECH BY E. C, SAMMONS, PRESIDENT, THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK OF PORTLAND, OREG., BEFORE CREDIT POLICY COMMISSION, AMERICAN BANKERS’ ASSOCIATION, CHICAGO, ILL., JANUARY 25, 1950 The late humorist, Will Rogers, once said 1f all the economists in our country were laid end to end in a straight line, their opinions still would point in all directions. This year's prophecies are not that way. They all seem to be alike in pointing in one direc- tion—toward good business. Frankly, I am not an economist—don’t pretend to be one— never have studied the technique of an econ- omist—I am just one of the rank and file bankers of the country, and I am going to talk to you from that point of view. You have already heard excellent discus- sions here itn this mecting on various sub- jects of vital interest to all bankers. My assignment is Banking Credit in 1950. The topic is so broad it gives me plenty of lati- tude to discuss almost anything, and while it is a little early in the day to talk about food, I am going to give you a little “verbal hash”’—a “little of this and a little of that!” If you will listen to at Icast one phase of it, I know you will be better off, and so will the country Banks in America as a whole prospered in 1949, there were plenty of opportunitics to lend funds—to individuals or corporations at fair returns, or to segments of Govern- ment at lower rates. I think the same op- portunities will prevail this year. While we had somothing of a shake-out in business the first half of 1949, the recovery wns substantial in the second half of the year, and closed with a pretty fair tone. Business is entering 1950 with a good deal more confidence and with fewer troubles than it had a year ago. You will recall that at this time last year, when we met in this room, sa downturn was beginning to make itself felt, and there was naturally consid- erable anxiety over the probable depth and its duration. Unemployment was rising and a cautious consumer-public was begin- ning to hold back on its spending. The out- come was not bright. The inventory reces- sion of 1949 was getting under way. No such worries are in evidence today. Business Is enjoying a healthy rebound in conse- quence of the settlement of the coal and steel strikes. The strikes created steel shortages which will take some time to over- come Purchasing power will be increased by the veterans’ insurance refunds of 62,- 800,000,000 during the first halt. Continued Government expenditures for national] de- fense, foreign aid, and public works will also be stimulants to business activity during the first half. I have read a good many prognostications during the past 80 days on the part of bank- ers, cconomists, business executives, and editors, and they all point to but one con- clusion—good business ahead for the near term. Seldom has there been such unity of opinion on the business prospect for any given period. President Truman and his advisers must have been reading the samo prognostications, for they seem notably op- timistic. Business for the year as a whole just can- not be as good as predictions indicate, and I am sure the banking fraternity as rep- resented at this meeting recognizes the pos- sibility of moderate contraction later in the year; and will make their loans on a con- structive if moderately restricted basis. There should be good opportunities neverthe- less for banking volume and bank profit, during the year. It seems reasonable to be- Neve that expenses of banks, which have
1950 been trending upward for some time, will be at a less rapid rate in 1950. These things are on the credit side; but I wish to talk to you in the next few minutes on some things that are not quite so rosy. I want to dis- cuss our public financing. There ig a “cock-eyed” idea which seems to have gained much momentum in this country—and that is that “the Government can spend itself rich.” This thought has reached dangerous proportions and I believe the bankers of America must do something about it. I further believe they can do some- thing about it, and I am going to conclude this brief dissertation of mine with some concrete suggestions and recommendations. But, first, I should like to analyze with you, as some of the previous speakers have, what has been going on Our budget surplus has now disappenred and the Director cf the Budget indicates a deficit of $5,500,000,000 for the 1950 ficecal year; and the present program of the Gov- ernment calls for continuing large deficits for the 1951 fiscal year. Constantly increasing expenditures are demanded by Government bureaus in amounts greater than the popu- lation should be asked to pay in taxes; and as far as J can detect from reading Govern- ment statements, there is no thought of cutting back, despite the definite knowledge that there is a great deal of waste in Gov- ernment operations Iam not alarmed by temporary deficits, but our Government has been running at a deficit for 17 out of the lust 21 years With the exceptions of the years 1929, 1930, 1947, and 1948, we have been in the red. Natu- rally we can understand the reason tor defi- cits during the war years, but we can and should become alarmed about huge deficits in these postwar years It is the momentum of Government spending that presents the biggest dangei In the 12 nonwar years in this 21-year period, our Federal debt in- creased more than $57,000,000,000, and it ts intended to add still further to this vast debt. T think it is time that our people make it plain to the Government that deficit in these prosperous years should be avoided It our people do not do so, wo can have sericus doubts as to whether we will eve: again see & balanced budpet It ecems periectly ohvi- ous now that the budget ts cut of control. Theie isn’t a banker in this room who would let his bank’s budget get out of control, so let’s examine fo1 a few minutes some of the detalls of your Federal Government—tor it is your Government—and my Government, You and I are stockholders in our Govern- ment, and we have a right and a duty to see that the managers of our corporation handle our business properly. It is time to ask. “Is our Government well organized and economical?” The Hoover Commission finds that we sre paying heavily for confusion, overlapping, and waste. Here are some more facts woth considering about the Hoover report In an effort to organize the executive branch of the Government to relieve the President of a part of a superhuman burden, the Congress—upon recommendation of President Truman—created by unanimous vote, a Commission to Organize the Execu- tive Branch of the Government. This occurred in July 1947. The Commis- sion was bipartisan, with six members from each party. It was but natural that the chairmanship should fall to Herbert Hoover, Always rated among the ablest administra- tors of all time, he alone of the 12 appointees knows intimately the problems which con- front President Truman. The Hoover Commission made a character- istically thorough approach to its mighty task. It began by defining some 24 of the principal problems of Government manage- ment Having thus cut its cloth, it created special research committees called task forces These comprised 300 leading re- searchers, some Of the most eminent spe- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE clalists available in each field. After periods of 10 to 14 months, these task forces returned to the Commission with their findings, The result was the most imposing collec- tion of facts, figures, and opinion on gov- ernment that has ever been assembled—some 2,500,000 words of basic data of the most valuable sort. From this massive bulk, the Commission carved out its model of a stream- lined modern government. Herbert Hoover and his associates have presented the American people with a blue- print for good government. This is of the utmost significance, since, as a@ people, we have reached the point at which the size and cost of government can oasily impair the effectiveness of our economy and lower our standards of living. When Mr Hoover was President, the Gov- ernment employed 600,000 persons, and cost $4,000,C00,000 a year to operate. Today the budget is more than $42,000,000,000 and the Government employs more than 2,000,000 persons, and comprises a maze of depart- ments, bureaus, sections, divisions, and what-have-you—consisting of 1,816 differ- ent organizations. Manifestly, no President can carry a responsibility for personal di- rection of this establishment and have any time left for the broader duties of his office. I crave your indulgence while we cxamine a few phases of the Hoover Commission re- port of Government inefficiency. First, let's go back to Wheeling, W. Va, on October 19, 1932, and hear Franklin D Roosevelt talking. This is what he said: ‘Tf this Nation wants to know what is wrong with its National Government, I will pive them the answer in one word. That word is ‘mismanagement '” Well, he was talking about four billions a year and 600,000 employees Imagine the situation today as revealed by these facts regarding the 1950 budget: The Army asked for funds to buy 838,000 tropical worsted uniforms at $129 each— enough tor all enlisted men tn the Army and then scine. How many of you ale wearing sults that cast you $129? The Air Force requested funds to build 910 homes for families in Alaska that would have cost §58,350 each, without any land cost, aud on the island of Guim they asked for 828 family houses at a cost of 48,000 each The present budget of the armed forces represents about $100 per capita for the Nation, as contrasted with some §2 25 before the First World War. Our task force reports that the current preliminary budget esti- mates of the three military departments for the fiscal year 1950 were for more than $30,- 000,0C0,000. Such a budget would be justt- fiable only if the Nation were actually in- volved in wurfaie. It would require a sharp reduction in production for civilian cone sumption, precipitate the need tor controls over the economy, and enormously increuse inflationary pressures. It reflects a lack of realistic understanding by the three military departments of the economic and social fac- tors of national security. Moreover, mili- tary budgets are not drawn with careful consciousness of cost factors. For example, an examination of the 1950 budget revealed estimates requesting modernization of 102 more tanks of a certain type than the Army actually possessed In another case, a mis- placed figure added some $30,000,000 to budget estimate. This year you will help pay a loss of $500,- 000,000 by the Post Office. It 1s possible to cut $200,000,000 of this loss by the use of modern methods and equipment and rates to help hard-working postal employees The Bureau of Indian Affairs employs one person for each 32 of the 393,000 Indians under its care. The Veterans’ Administration takes five times as long to settle insurance claims as private companies—uses four times the man- power per policy. 2293 The Government owns three and one-half typewriters for each employee using these machines. Afver dismantling a $16,000,000 camp in Alaska, the Army shipped the resulting lum- ber to Seattle. The Department of the In- terior took over the lumber and shipped it back to a point 10 miles froin where it origi- nally stood. There is so much duplication in the Dee partment of Agriculture that a farmer re- celved conflicting advice about fertilizer from five different units of that Department. To prevent the flocding of Cherry Creek, © small stream near Denver, the Army engi- ne2rs tore down a dam which local engineers considered adequate and duilt a 815,000,000 dam, 3 miles long and 140 feet high. Some Government bureaus are stocked up with supplies 60 years in advance. The Gov- ernment owns $27,000,000,000 of supplies and materials There is no central inventory of this vast property. We can live on this fat a long time. Federal jobs are £0 frustrating that 500,000 persons quit the Government each year; yet it often takes months to secure the resigna- tion of unsatisfactory employees The Hoover Commission also found that 40 Federal agencies rendered medical serv- ices; that half of the agencies of the Federal Government conduct medical or health ac- tivities of some kind, all competing for doc- tors and money, that the Federal medical activities cost $2,000,000,000 in the last fiscal year, or 10 times more than in 1940; that these activities are utterly devoid of any central supervision. They found also that it cost the Government up to 851,000 per bed to build hospitals, whereas the average cost of private hospital construction is §16,000 per bed; that the Government is so con- eerned with building hospitals and providing treatment that only 4 percent of its medical funds are used cn research to prevent illness, Herbert Hoover, in a speech at the Shore- ham Hotel on December 12, last, reported that as an indication of waste, there already existed in Federal hospitals at the time of the Hoover task force investigation, beds for 225,009 patients and only 155,000 were occu- pied. Yet Congress had made appropriations for, or authorived, hospitals with 50,000 ad- ditional beds, desvite the fact that 70,000 are empty. The cost of the additional hospi- tals is estimated at 81,300,000,000 Picsident Truman canceled out $°000,000,000 of this progiam, but Congress restored the authority. I have mentioned the Army and medical situations. Let's take one look at the Navy, whose Bureau cf Ships is financed from 27 different appropriations; and the task force that studied that division tells us the Navy cannot even tell how much {t costs toruna ship. How long do you think your business could survive such practices? Let us remember that Government is your business, that you are paying for it, and it is within your power to help bring about re- forms. While it was impossible for the Hoover Commission to investigate all the work in the agricultural division, they did claim that it is a loose confederation of inde- pendent bureaus and agencies. A_ spot check disclosed that there were 47 agents from 7 separate services working with 1,500 farmers in one cotton-producing county in Georgta; there were &8 agents working among 3,400 farmers in 1 county in Mary- land. Since we bankers work closely with farmers, we can safely say that the farmer would be twice blessed by the adoption of the Hoover report, for he would find his dealings with Federal agencies much less confusing and irritating and he would share with all othor taxpayers in the benefits of reduced Government costs. I will dramatize the vastness of the Fed« eral budget. I hold in my hand a current
2294 issue of the Sears, Roebuck catalog. It con- tains 1,877 pages; you can see the size of tt The Federal Budget is 241 pages larger than this Sears, Roebuck catalog; it is 1,618 pages. As to its size in dollars, the com- bined amount of the budget 1s $43,297,000,- 000, so the average expenditure for each page of the Federal Budget 1s more than 826,- 000,000,000. Assuming that a million dollars of the budget could be checked and ap- proved each hour, a Senator or Congress- man working 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, would be at the task for 21 years 7 months 20 days. That gives you a slight idea of how much of our money js being spent to run the Government. David Lawrence, in an article dated De- cember 12, says this: “Democracies cannot spend their way out of trouble. Sooner or later they have to realize that there 1s no such word as ‘cannot’ when reduction of expenses becomes imperative. The slogan of the future is not going to be the New Deal or the Fair Deal but one that will meke its appearance soon—the Honest Deal. This means that the person who puts a dollar in the bank should be able to get back somewhere near a dollar in purchasing power in future years when he draws it out or when the life-insurance policies he now is paying for are paid to his beneficiaries.” Inefficient government apparently at one stage of his career was uppermost in the mind of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, because in his address in Sioux City, Iowa, Septem- ber 29, 1932, he said: “I accuse the present administration of being the greatest spend- ing administration in peacetime in all our history. It is an administration that has piled bureau on bureau, commission on commission, and has failed to anticipate the dire needs and the reduced earning power of the people. Bureaus and bureaucrats, com- missions and commissioners have been re- tained at the expense of the taxpayer.” If what he said was true then, what of the situation today when we have 1,816 bu- reaus, commissions, and other segments of Government, manned by approximately 2,- 100,000 bureaucrats? On March 10, 1933, Mr. Roosevelt, in his message to Congress said: “Too often in re- cent history liberal governments have been wrecked on rocks of loose fiscal policy.” If he was right then—and the people thought he was, judging by thetr votes and thelr support—think how much more im- perative it is now to look at our fiscal policy. Two weeks ago last Tuesday, 3,296 share- holders, either in person or by proxy, re- elected our board of directors to tell me, as the pilot of their ship, how they wanted their property managed. Ali of you in this room had similar experiences within recent weeks, and I want to call your attention to the fact that you and I, and each and every one of us are shareholders in the greatest corporation in the world—the United States of America. We elect directors to manage our properties—but call them by different names; we elect Congressmen for 2 years; we elect another group called Senators for 6 years; but how many of us attempt to guide them in their handling of our prop- erties? Mighty few of us, but we have got to begin to do it, and this is the challenge I leave with you and our fellow bankers over America—we ought to do something about the consequences of a loose fiscal policy. There isn't a one here who would permit our lending officers to advance money to customers, corporations, partnerships, or to any type of business if those individuals or businesses attempted to spend themselves rich. And we have got to make the citizens of America “at the grass-roots of America” understand the forces of inflation if we are to survive. And, speaking of politics, an analysis shows that 76 out of the 06 Sena- tors—79 percent—are elected by rural ma- jorities, and that 54 percent of the Repre- eentatives represent more rural counties CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE than urban counties. For the purpose of the study, a rural county was considered to be one in which there is no community with more than 10,000 population. The point I make ts that in spite of the growth of cities, this is still a grass-roots country. People on the farm, in the villages, and in the small municipalities have the dominant voice when it comes to electing the men who make our laws. The future of America is in their hands, and I urge the country bank- ers in this audience to be as alert and as vociferous as any banker. Our colossal public debt and our tremen- dous budget cost reminds me of a wisecrack made by a8 chef in Portland, Oreg. He was asked how he would cook an elephant. He said, “I would cut it up in small pieces and cook it a little at a time.” Well, our public debt and our budget are like that elephant— we will have to cut tt into small pieces and work on those pieces. The piece that we should cook first is the Hoover organization plan. If the heads of the 15,000 banks in Amer- ica would each undertake to talk to one group of citizens a week through the rest of this year, I believe we could alert the populace—at least the thinking portion of it—to the dangers of increasing Government spending. As a starting point, we can all talk abcut the importance of getting the Hoover report adopted tn its entirety. It is now but 20 percent approved. A lot more than that must be done, but at least that would be a start In the right direction. There {s no reason why it should not be done—President Truman asked for the Com- mittee, asked for the study to be made; Con- gress voted for the report unanimously; the facts are available, and I believe if put before the people clearly, the people will respond. Of course this program is political, but this is your country and mine, and we should eay our say in support of it “You cannot have your cake and eat it too’ and yet so many politicians kid the public into bellev- ing they can. For instance, during the most recent elections, we saw many platforms which called for greater unemployment bene- fits, greater pensions for the aged, more sup- port for farm prices, more aid to public works, added support for schools, greater veterans’ budget, and of all things, “a fight against inflation, and lower taxes.” People who present such platforms are either fools or Hars. This whole program is like a dlamond—it has many facets. I have merely presented one or two of them. The appeal I make to you, my fellow bankers, is that you study the problem by procuring the data furnished by the Hoover Commission and follow up on that program. Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in his ad- dress at Pittsburgh on October 19, 1932—‘I have sought to make two things clear: First, that we can make savings by reorganization of existing departments, by eliminating func- tions, by abolishing many of those commis- sions, which, over a long period of years, have grown up as a fungus growth on Amer- ican Government. These savings can prop- erly be made to total many hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.” He spoke of thousands of dollars; the Hoover report talks of millions of dollars. Now to summarize—the American people delegate to one man in the White House and to 531 men and women in Congress the Job of running America, which in turn means the job of maintaining peace in a troubled world. But these elected representatives do not exercise absolut* power as in a dictator- ship—the sovereign power is public opinion. They constantly watch public opinion. Fortunately within the huge mass of peo- ple there is an intelligent class of men and women who really care what goes on in Gov- ernment, who manifest their interest not only by thetr votes on electton day but by their constant alertness to what goes on every FEBRUARY 23 day. This intelligent class ie an active group of great influence and great power. It com- prises those American men and women who make or unmake public opinion on Vital issues, irrespective of which party ts in power. These people furnish the leadership in our American system; they even affect the ebb and flow of world-wide tides of eco- nomic power. They are the active leaders in business, in labor, in agriculture, in industry, in education, in the church, in the profes- sions, in finance, and even in the Govern- ment itself. ‘We have been considering in this meeting, and particularly in this speech, the question of the Federal budget—so have many others, For instance, Tom McCabe, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, in his appearance be- fore the Douglas Committee of Congress on Fiscal Monetary and Credit Policy, gave this testimony, and I quote: “There is no antidote to inflation equal to the development of a budget surplus, and the use of that surplus to retire debt.” So you can see that if we become vociferous on the subject, we are in very good company. I wish to be more specific as to how to do this job of alerting the people. Ask those in your audience to write personally to their Senators and Congressmen; tell them also that the most important thing ts to get their wives interested, and get them to write letters personally. Get the subject discussed at such groups as the League of Women Voters, chapters of the Association of University Women, and other groups of business and professional women. That's the way public opinion 18 formed; it’s the only way it is formed. Pressure groups of other kinds are working to get more money for spending— we should bring pressure in the direction of economy and lower taxes. In the Preamble to the Constitution—of this, the greatest country the world has ever seen—our forefathers referred at the very outset to “we the people.” And at its rebirth at Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln, the savior of the people, again referred to “The Govern- ment of the people, by the people, for the people.” This is our Government—it belongs to the people and we (you and I) are part and parcel of that phrase “we the people” and by our action we shall, as Lin- coin also said, “either nobly save or meanly lose the last best hope on earth.” We as bankers should accept our unde- Miable responsibility and take our proper part in forming and guiding public opinion, and help stimulate the people into action to reverse these dangerous trends. We thereby will have strengthened the base for bank credit in 1950. But if we sit passively by and “let George do it,” we shall get into trouble. Collectively, the banks of the Na- tion have 44 percent of all assets invested in Government bonds which will waste away in value under continued deficit spending However, their value can be preserved by a sharp and prompt reversal of present Gov- ernment financial policies. Our patriotic ob- gation is to work earnestly to that end. Mr. MORSE. Madam President, I should like to commend a reading of the speech of Mr. Sammons particularly to my Republican colleagues in the Sen- ate. The Republican Party, acting through an appropriately appointed committee selected from the Republicans of the Senate and the House of Repre- sentatives, in conjunction with a com- mittee selected from the Republican Na- tional Committee, issued, a couple of weeks ago, what I thought was an ex- ceedingly able statement of general Re- publican policy which would be presented by the Republicans to the American people in the congressional campaigns of 1950. I thought it was a remarkable statement, Madam President, because to
1950 the extent that we can accomplish a de- gree of party unity by way of issuing pol- icy statements or platforms. I thought that the recent Republican policy state- ment augured well for bringing about a remarkable degree of harmony among the various groups within the Republican Party. As we Republicans join forces in another congressional election this year I hope that we will be able to point to specific legislative proposals imple- menting our policy statement which the REcorD will show we tried to get passed into law by the Eighty-first Congress in its second session. Regarding the statement of policy the Republican Party enunciated a couple of weeks ago, through the committee I have just mentioned, I wish to point out that it is an implementation of the great, progressive platform the Republican Party adopted at the convention in 1948. I think it needs to be read and in- terpreted in light of the party’s official platform of 1948. I think the recent statement of Republican policy, Madam President, must be read as an interpre- tation, effectuation and implementation of the Republican platform of 1948. Mr. BREWSTER. Madam President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. Not just at the moment; I shall yield before I get through. Mr. BREWSTER. I wondered whether the Senator had read the statement. Mr. MORSE, I not only have read it, but I have digested it very carefully. I have given a series of speeches across my State in support of the statement. Mr. BREWSTER. It uses the word “supplementing.” Mr. MORSE. Let me say to the dis- tineuished Senator from Maine, who also is chairman of the Republican sen- atorial clections committee, that in those speeches across my State, I point- ed out what I considered to be the very fine provisions of the recent policy state- ment. I pointed out that within the statcment itself it is perfectly clear that it was enunciated for the purpose of making clear that we propose to carry out our platform of 1948. Mr. BREWSTER. We distinctly said “supplementing the 1948 platform,” in order to avoid any question of repudia- tion. Mr. MORSE. Madam President, I am not raising any question of a repudia- tion of the 1948 platform. I am trying to point out, if the Senator from Maine will bear with me, that what the new policy docs is to implement and effectu- ate the 1948 platform; and those are stronger words than “supplementing.” Mr. BREWSTER. That is correct. Mr. MORSE. I would even prefer to add the word “effectuate” and have it put into the statement. But I started to say, Madam President, that although I think the recent Repub- lican policy statement is a very fine one to submit to the American people, in the 1950 congressional campaigns, neverthe- less we must relate it to the 1948 plat- form by offering specific legislation in this session of Congress aimed at keep- ing the promises of the 1948 platform. I am offering this very able speech on the budgetary problems of the United States Government, delivered by Mr, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Sammons, in Chicago, on January 25, 1950, as my exhibit A, today, of some of the specific things which I think the Re- publican Party needs to do about econ- omy in government. When? Right now, at this session of Congress, in both Houses of Congress, in order to make perfectly clear to the American people that we mean political business when it comes to carrying the fight to the Dem- ocrats in the campaign of 1950, in put- ting into practice the principles and recommendations of the 1948 platform. Thus, Madam President, this after- noon, on the basis of the points made by Mr. Sammons in his able speech of Jan- uary 25, 1950, I offer once again to my party, by way of specific recommenda- tions for legislative action at this ses- sion of Congress—the second session of the Eighty-first Congress—the follow- ing proposals: First, the adoption of the major rec- ommendations of the Hoover Commis- sion reports for the reorganization of the exccutive branch of our Government, and for the bringing about of some true economy in the administration of the affairs of our Government. I ask my Republican colleagues, what is wrong with making the Hoover Commission re- ports not only the recommendations of the Republican Party, as intimated, may I say, in the policy statement of 1950, but what is wrong with making those reports the legislative policy of the Re- publican Party in terms of‘specific legis- lative proposals during this session of Congress? Madam President, this has been the position of the junior Senator from Oregon ever since the Hoover Commis- sion reports were issucd and ever since the Senator from Oregon had an oppor- tunity to study them. I wish to say that if we would take the major recommendations of the Hoover Commission reports and, as a party, would put them into legislative form, we would be keeping faith with the pledges and the promises we made in the Re- publican platform of 1948 and in our supplementary statement, as the Senator from Maine calls it—and rightly so, of 2 weeks ago, when again we made clear that the Republican Party is going to the country in 1950 on a program of true economy. If Senate hearings show that the facts warrant making some changes in the Hoover Commission rec- ommendations I am willing to consider those changes. However I think it should be agreed that a presumption fa- vors the adoption of the Hoover recom- mendations as submitted unless a clear showing of a need for amendments is made. There ‘should be some Iegislation in- troduced in the Senate and House of Representatives effectuating the Hoover economy recommendations and then a determined fight, in my judgment, on the part of the united Republican side of the aisle, to show that we mean po- litical business in trying to pass those recommendations in the interest of a sound budget for the country. As Mr. Sammons says in this very able speech, the budget has to be balanced. I con- sider it an outrage that we have a deficit of over $5,000,000,000 in our present 2295 budget, Madam President, and I do not share the view that the deficit cannot be eliminated from the budget. On the contrary, I happen to hold to the point of view that if the Republicans in this session of the Congress will use both ends of the lead pencil, a sharp pencil point, and a good eraser on specific item after specific item, we could carry such a hot fight to the Democrats on the other side of the aisle that they could not escape the force of the logic of our position in support of sound economy. The budget can be and should be balanced in this session of the Congress. To do it, we must do more than issue policy statements. To do it, we must offer legislation which will accomplish it, and as a united Republican group we must stand behind such legislation. So, on this first point, I ask again, What is wrong with making the major recom- mendations for economy in Government of the Hoover Commission reports the specific legislative proposals of the Re- publican Party in the second session of the Eighty-first Congress? In taking that position, Madame President, the junior Senator from Oregon does not vary from the consistent position he has taken ever since the Hoover Commis- sion reports were released to the Ameri- can people. He repeats this afternoon what he has said elsewhere. Those re- ports constitute the most scholarly, the most scientific, the most authoritative reports on Government economy ever presented to a Congress of the United States. The second recommendation I offer in supplementing the platform of the Re- publican Party of 1948, implementing and ecffectuating the platform, is the major tax recommendations of the Com- mittee for Economic Development, which have been before the Senate of the United States now for more than 3 years. For more than 3 years some of us on the Republican side of the aisle have taken the position that the problem of taxes in this country is not a problem of tax reduction or of tax increases at all, but the problem which confronts us in the field of taxation is a problem of tax revision. Our tax problem is basically one of tax revision aimed at getting the gross inequities out of the existing tax structure, so we can accomplish—what? So we can accomplish an expanding of our economy. Without that expansion of our economy there is in my judgment no hope at al] for mecting the fiscal problems confronting the country. We must deal with the gross inequities .1 the tax structure of the country, and that is exactly what the tax revision report of the Committce for Economic Develop- ment is aimed at. I have yet to hear in all the debates on the floor of the Senate a single word of substantial criticism or condemnation from either the Demo- cratic or Republican side of the aisle, against the tax revision program of the Committee for Economic Development, a program which has been before us for over 3 years, Madam President. I ask again, Why do we not do some- thing about it? I ask my Republican colleagues, What is wrong with it? I ask my Republican colleagues to point out wherein the junior Senator from
2296 Oregon is in error when he says that this side of the aisle, the Republican side, ought to put into legislative form and give support to the tax recommendations of the Committee for Economic Devel- opment. Some of us have put these rec- ommendations into legislative bills and they have been here on the floor of the Senate for over 3 years. I think it only fair for the American people to ask the Republican Party what is wrong with the tax-revision program of the Com- mittee for Economic Development. The outstanding business leaders of America are for it. The outstanding tax authori- ties in America are for it. In fact, Madam President, those who have come to study the tax problems of the country invariably point to the recommendations of the Committee for Economic Develop- ment as constituting the first steps in the legislative reform of taxes that the Con- gress of the United States should take. I am satisfied that a majority of the Re- publicans in this country—in fact, I am satisfied that a majority of my colleagues here in the Senate do not quarrel with me at all on the need for a tax-revision program. I am satisfied they do not quarrel with me when I say the tax-revi- sion program offered by the Committee for Economic Development ought to be the starting point for any tax legisla- tion adopted by the Congress. Across the land, in the 1948 campaign, when I spoke night after night under the spon- sorship of the Republican National Com- mittee, before audiences in that cam- paign which, I may say, many times were not overwhelmingly friendly to the Re- publican cause, I talked in terms of the need for a thorough-going tax-revision program. What was the response? A response of enthusiastic acceptance of the principle. I would say to my Repub- lican colleagues today, I think the No. 1 domestic issue facing the American peo- ple, and the No. 1 domestic issue on which they want action in this session of the Coneress, is the issue of tax reform. I am satisfied that the Republican Party in this session of the Congress has the ability and the foresight and the cour- age to go forward with legislation in the tax-revision field. If we do not, we are going to play into the hands of the Dem- ocratic Party, with its program of con- tinued deficit spending and its program of adopting a “soak the rich” tax policy. The tax policy of the Democrats seems to be the false economic theory that all that needs to be done to meet the fiscal problems of the country is to impose higher taxes on existing wealth. Where will that program. lead us? It will lead us into an out-and-out state economy. In the 1950 campaign the junior Sen- ator from Oregon will be heard to say that what the Republican Party must do in order to meet the tests of constitu- tional liberalism for which the junior Senator from Oregon is constantly plead- ing is not to adopt the type of tax pro- gram which the Democrats are offering, namely, a soak-the-rich program, which involves placing higher taxes on existing wealth, but to eliminate those gross in- equities from the present tax structure which are discouraging business incen- tive, It is those gross inequities which are an impediment to an expansion of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE our economy. They are making it im- possible for us to develop the wealth we need from which we can obtain the new tax dollars with which to meet the ob- ligations of our budget. I close with a third recommendation, which is that in this session of the Con- gress the Republican Party should con- sider all issues from the standpoint of doing what is best in the interest of Winning the peace. We should not, Madam President, consider a single one of the major pieces of legislation facing us in this session of the Congress without relating that legislation to the question of peace. I probably should not confess it, but I confess, Madam President, a growing pessimism on the state of world affairs. I confess a pessimism in regard to the trend of the cold war. I do not see in the cold war at the present moment a trend of victory for the United States. I think things are going badly for the United States in the cold war. I think this matter of winning the peace is su- perior to and should supersede in our consideration every other issue which confronts us. We Republicans should not let the American people forget that the greatest defense weapon America has is a sound economy at home. There- fore, as we proceed to consider questions as to what we should do in order to turn the tide of the cold war from one of de- feat to one of victory in winning the minds of men around the world in sup- port of democratic ideals and freedom of choice, which is the essence of democ- racy, I suggest that the Republicans at least keep their eyes on the importance of a sound economy. I am one who has come to the conclusion that our domes- tic economic problems must be solved in the interests of a sound economy if we are to be in a strong enough position to meet Russia in case the cold war should turn into a hot one. I am just pessimistic enough to believe, Madam President, that it will turn into a hot war whenever Russia believes we have so weakened our domestic economy that we cannot beat her in a hot war. The time has come for us to meet the question of a balanced budget, the ques- tion of a sound tax-revision program, not in terms of talk, but in terms of votes on the floor of the Senate in support of specific pieces of legislation. I recom- mend that my Republican colleagues start with two, the Hoover Commission recommendations for economy in gov- ernment, and the recommendations of the Committee for Economic Develop- ment with reference to the tax-revision program, in the field of taxation. AMERICAN POLICY IN THE FAR EAST Mr. LEHMAN. Madam President, some time ago I introduced into the Con- GRESSIONAL REcorRD an exchange of letters I had with the Secretary of State con- cerning our policy in the Far East, spe- cifically with regard to Formosa and China. I have recently received a letter from a Mr. H. G. McNeary, of Hong Kong, China, who, although he has been in China the greater part of 30 years, is one of my constituents. His.family home js at Cornwall on the Hudson. Mr, McNeary FEBRUARY 23 writes to me suggesting that one of the positive courses we could follow in China would be to encourage a spirit of resist- ance to communism among Chinese stu- dents in America. He also suggests that action groups could be founded among the Chinese workers and merchants in the United States, some of whom might aid in the resistance movement in China. Such activities, Mr. McNeary points out, would also have the advantage of counteracting the work of Communists and Communist agents among the Chinese in this country. Obviously, much of this program would need to be inspired by the Chinese themselves, but the United States Government could cer- tainly encourage and aid these move- ments. I am merely citing this as one worth-while suggestion for the consid- eration of the State Department. Mr. McNenry also sent me two edi- torials, one from the Hong Kong Sunday Herald, and the ather from the China Mail, also published in Hong Kong, deal- ing with the far-eastern situation. These editorials give, in my judgment, a sober evaluation of the situation by per- sons who are on the scene and who know what they are talking about when they talk about China. The views set forth in these editorials correspond with some of the conclusions which I have reached without the bene- fit of the intimate knowledge and the facts available to these writers. I invite the I ‘embers of the Senate and the country at large to read these edi- torials, not because they necessarily re- flect absolute truth, but because they represent an informed opinion. I also commend to the attention of those interested the proposal I have cited by Mr. McNeary. I ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to insert into the Recorp at this point the editorial from the Hong Kong Herald and the editorial from the China Mail. There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: [From the Hong Kong Sunday Herald of February 12, 1950] DESTINY CAN WAIT AWHILE Time was when we all had plans and pro- grams for China. We were all as busy as could be, in all sorts of different ways. The Japanese got busy in Manchuria, and the Lytton Commission went in to see what busi- ness they had to be so busy. There were Boxer fund commissions, parliamentary dele- gations, tariff commissions, mediation com- missions, alphabetical bodies, military ad- visers, plans, representations and what-not. Now all that is ended. We are on the out- side looking in, and nobody quite knows what to do about it. Washington has retort- ed to the childish little jibe about her al- leged reluctance to carry out the withdrawal of the consuls by naming dates for those remaining to go out. It is certainly a vast change compared with 2 years ago, and none are more acutely conscious of it than the Americans. It is a sort of great western withdrawal, A few years ago half the Continent of Asia was occupied by the Japanese. The Al- lied forces overwhelmed them and capitula- tion alone saved Japan herself from in- vasion in force. The west came to the east in such panoply of power as was undreamt of @ decade before. Caesar in all his glory was never arrayed Uke MacArthur and Mount-
1950 batten. The volume of power and the dis- tances covered were alike without parallel. We mention it just in case it has been forgotten—and because the contrast today is almost incredible. But then, so was the con- trast between 1945 and 1942. Great tidal Waves have been moving across the Conti- nent. Changeless Asia has become wpreemi- nently the world focus of change. The end of it is not yet, whether one thinks of such gigantic units as China or India. Nor is any- body certain just what will be the shape of events to come in Japan. There are @ number of very vocal people who went to do something about this sud- den reduction of the west to the modest role of mere spectators in China. And some of the things they want to do are pluin silly. Some want armed intervention, direct or in- direct. Some say the day {+ lost throughout Asia from the Indian Ocean eastward, and that the best thing to do would be to get out of these areas and let the Communist ‘wave sweep over them. The American Socre- tary of State is hardly a happy men these days, but he hes kept his head amid all the counsel und criticism to which he has been subjected In his exchange of lettei1s a fow days ago with Senator LeHman, the former head of UNRRA, Mr, Acheson emphasized that hasty or ill-considered action might do irreparable harm = He fully understood the public un- easiness over the fact that no posttive course lor the United States to follow within China sugves*s itself But he ugreed with the Sen- ator that there was a positive course, and in the long run, @ most important one The United States, he said, should seck to main- tain the trienditest relations with the pro- ples of Aslu, und to show the Chinese people that its desire, as always, was the advance- ment of their welfare and interest. “It is for us during this perlod to extend with tact and undeistanding a helping hand where we can, and a guiding hand where this will not be resented, and above ull to see that the peoples of Asia have a true pice ture of us and a true picture of Soviet: com- munism and « clear understanding of what each stands for In a sense, we are thus on trial before the peoples of Asiu.” Americans Ike red-blooded policies. There ale none available in this period. There is Httle beyond pussyiooting to be done Just now except in propaganda It may be exasperating, but it is true just the same. The case for the west was never better-- the facilities for direct influence on events never worse They were made still worse by the impetuous decision to withdraw all the consuls The provocation was acute, but the decizion delighted those whose provocation was specifically directed to this end. The British decision went the other way, and we are convinced it was a better decision It was better morally, however slow practical results mwy come. And it was better polit- jeally, for all the taunts about loaded go- downs in Hong Kong. It is probable Mr. Acheson thinks so too, but he has been badg- ered into defensive tactics when others would have given more promise. Happily, a stronger Hne in southeast Asia seems to be foreshadowed in Dr. Jessup’s statements. In Singapore, he sucgested that the United States might give military as well as economic and political aid to help the peoples of that area to resist communism. That is certainly a lot better than interven- tion in China, or defeatism in southeast Asia, or looking to Japan as the sole potential saviour of Asia. [From the China Mail, Hong Kong, of Feb- ruary 15, 1950] CLEARING THE DECKS The conference of American diplomats on the Far East has opened in Bangkok. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have concluded their CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tour of the Pacific and Japan and have pre- sented their report on American defenses in these areas. At the same time, reports from Moscow indicate that the protracted nego- tiations between the Chinese Communist leaders and the Kremlin may be about to end. From these three major sources, there- fore, the material will soon be available on which the administration can frame its de- tailed policy. In these days, policy has to be global in scope, but that does not mean it cannot be flexible. Just as in war, strategy and tactics cannot be quite the same on every front, though there is fundamental agreement on the principle of containment of aggression. We regained the initiative in Berlin and in the West generally as a result of the pur- poseful policy of the pust year. In the Far East we had the initiative after the war, but have now lost it in the larger sense. Mr Dean Acheson however, has cut his way through much deadwood to first prin- ciples In these days of raucous and vocifer- ous confusion that at least is sornething to be thankful for. He at least knows where he stands, even if neither he nor anybody else— pending the slow untolding of events in China —knows precisely where we go from there, or when. That will have to be considered in the hght of facts and the recommenda- tions of the experts. Meanwhile, Mr. Acheson has made his way through the mists of con- fusion in one of the most remarkable series of statements any American statesman has ever mode. He has dealt #s faithiully with those with a pain in the neck as with those shuddering with a pain in the heart. His long silence before the recent uprour over Taiwan leit the fleld almost wholly to the Republican critics That has since been remedied, at least in the tactical battle for public opinion. The critics know their own mind, of course, and whet they would do. Senutor KNOWLAND hus just laid down a five-point program, Under this, there would be no recognition of the new regime in China. General MacAr- thur would coordinate all far eastern aflairs, A military commission would go to Taltwan to play the same role there as in Greece. Conditions are completely different now, however sunilar they might have been when the Chinese Communists, Ike the Greek Communists, were mere guerrillas and not in occupation of the entie mainland The Far Exustern Division of the State Department would be reorganized, because of its Alger Hiss influence A demand would be lodged with the Communists that all American na- tionals be liberated at once, with an Amer- ican naval blockade of the coust if it were icjected The objectives seern much too limited for the risks entailed. The plan does not restore influence on cvelts in the mainland; if any- thing it removes all that remains, or that muy develop in a measurable distunce of time Its political content is shrill, not tough And toughness is the supreme need, If any synthesis is possilsle between this pro- gram and the general principles of Ameri- can policy-—always its greatest asset— it will have to be based on the purcly strategic ideas of the Chiefs of Staff. There is, too, another aspect of the battle for public opinion, It relates to the reaction to the atomic bomb, and now the hydro- gen bomb. A few days ago Mr. Acheson again got down to first principles on this, He declared bluntly that no fresh approach was being made. It was open to the Russians to accept the Baruch plan for control or to suggest reasonable modifications, One such suggestion that has again been made is that is should be removed altogether from the domain of national sovereignty. But, said Mr. Acheson, atomic agreement is not the fundamental question. What comes first is the establishment of friendly understanding between the countries. On 2297 this the State Department has not given up hope. Continuing attempts were being made to extend the area of possible agreement with Russia. Once this is sufficiently wide, it should be possible to lay down this fact in black and white. “Time after time we have seen that agree- ments with Russia are useful when they register facts which exist, and that they are not useful when they are merely agreements which do not register existing facts. An arrangement which meets the interests of both parties will stand. It will be founded on fact, Anything else will sooner or later be proved to be waste paper.” In other words, it is essential to take the psychological mainsprings of Soviet policy jnto account—and play from strength. Soviet policy was a mixture of ideology and imperialism, and all in all it was income patible with world peace and the freedom of peoples. At the same time the Soviet Government was highly realistic and could adapt itself to facts So in matching real- ism with realism Mr Acheson's policy is based on an analysis of Soviet psychology. And realism consists in building situations so strong that their strength would be recog- nized by the Soviet Government. And in Asia no less than in Europe. COTTON AND PEANUT ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution (H. J. Res. 398) relat- ing to cotton and peanut acreage allot- ments and marketing quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended. Mr. WHERRY. Madam President, may I inquire what is the pending ques- tion? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware [Mr. WiLiLrams]. Mr. WHERRY. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask that it be printed and lie on the table. I expect to call it up at the proper time in the course of the debate on the potato question. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its read-~ ing clerks, announced that the House had disagreed to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 4406) to pro- vide for the settlement of certain claims of the Government of the United States on its own behalf and on behalf of Amer- ican nationals against foreign govern- ments; asked a conference with the Sen- ate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr, Keg, Mr. Ricwarbs, Mr, Rrstcorr, Mr. Eaton, and Mr. Vorys were appointed Managers on the part of the House at the conference, The message also announced that the House had disagreed to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 5839) to facilitate and simplify the work of the Forest Service, and for other purposes; agreed to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr, CooLey, Mr. Pace, Mr. GRANGER, Mr. Hope, and Mr. August H. ANDRESEN were appointed managers on the part of the House at the conference. : The message further announced that the House had passed a bill (H. R. 4453) to establish a Fair Employment Practice Commission and to aid in eliminating
2298 discrimination in employment because of race, creed, or color, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. INTERNATIONAL CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1949 The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs, Smairy of Maine in the chair) laid before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives announcing its disagree- ment to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 4406) 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 foreign governments, and requesting a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon. Mr. CONNALLY. I move that the Senate insist upon its amendments, agree to the request of the House for a conference, and that the Chair appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate. The motion was agreed to; and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. GREEN, Mr. McManon, Mr. FoLsRIcHT, Mr. Witey, and Mr. HicKENLoopPER conferees on the part of the Senate. REHABILITATION OF NAVAJO AND HOPI TRIBES OF INDIANS The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 2734) to promote the rehabilitation of the Navajo and Hopi Tribes of Indians and a better utilization of the resources of the Navajo and Hopi Indian Reservations, and for other purposes, which were on page 8, line 12, strike out “expended” and insert “of contributions by the State toward expenditures”; on page 9, line 6, strike out “chairman thereof” and in- sert “President of the Senate’; and on page 9, lines 9 and 10, strike out ‘“‘chair- man thereof” and insert “Speaker of the House of Representatives.” Mr McFARLAND. I move that the Senate disagree to the amendments of the House, ask a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that the Chair ap- point the conferees on the part of the Senate. The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. McFar- LAND, Mr. ANDERSON, and Mr. ECTON con- ferees on the part of the Senate. HOUSE BILL PLACED ON CALENDAR The bill (H. R. 4453) to establish a Fair Employment Practice Commission and to aid in eliminating discrimination in employment because of race, creed, or color was read twice by its title and or- dered to be placed on the calendar. RECESS Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I move that the Senate stand in recess until 12 o’clock noon tomorrow. The motion was agreed to; and (at 5 o’clock and 54 minutes p. m.) the Sen- ate took a recess until tomorrow, Friday, February 24, 1950, at 12 o’clock meridian, CONFIRMATIONS Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate February 23, (legislative day of February 22), 1950: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE In THE ARMY APPOINTMENTS IN THE REGULAR ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES The nominations of Victor Z. Gomez et al., for appointment in the Regular Army of the United States, which were confirmed today, were received by the Senate on February 6, 1950, and appear in full in the Senate pro- cedings of the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp for that day under the caption “Nominations,” be- ginning with the name of Victor Z. Gomez and ending with the name of Marcus L. Whitfield, on page 1510. UNITED STATES AIR FORCE The nominations of Clement Anthony Biwinski et al., for promotion in the United States Air Force, under the provisions of sections 502 and 509 of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947, which were confirmed today, were received by the Senate on February 16, 1950, and appear in full in the Senate pro- cedings of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD under the caption “Nominations,” beginning with the name of Clement Anthony Siwinski, which appears on page 1867, and ending with the name of Elizabeth M Nichols which is shown on page 1868 The nominations of the following-named oMcers for promotion in the United States Air Force under the provisions of title V of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 and title III of the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948. To be licutenant colonels Della Josephine Angst, AL80067. Martha Leola Cross, AL80206. Mary Lois Kersey, AL80016. Kathleen McClure, AL80200 Virginia Justin Phelps, AL8002) Marie Louise Ray, AL80119 Emma Jane Riley, AL80056. Margaret Johanna Steele, AL80199. To be majors Pauline Estelle Abell, AL80053. Evaline May Absalom, AL60041. Margaret Andrews Bacchus, AL80031. Laurie Marie Ball, AL80047 Ruth Lucile Blind, AL80033. Anna Lee Briggs, AIL80052 Margaret Goodman Brown, AL80063 Charlotte Gage Butterfield, AL80050 Lucile Caldwell, AL80027. Virginia Christina Dietz, AL80030. Kathryn Grace Ecke, AL80062. Mary Elma Elrod, AL80054 Anna Marie Frost, AL80061 Wilma Rebecca Hague, AL&0034. Elizabeth Tunstall Hickson, AL80231, Marjorie Ostrander Hunt, AL80049. Racheel Ann Johnstone, AL80037. Kathryn McConnell Ludlow, AL80044. Dorothy Page Martin, AL80028. Margaret Elizabeth McEnerney, AL8C051. Gladys Emma McManimtle, AL80040 Mary Elizabeth McPherson, AL80224. Willa Mae Mizell, AL80058. Jacquelin Mozelle Mooneyham, AL80043 Gladys Myrabelle Nelson, AL80494. Genevieve Kelly O'Brien, AL80213. Helen Emeline O'Day, AL80068. Maimie Pauline Oliver, AL80488, Rose Ethel Panowski, AL80223. Bernice Cecelia Philipps, AL80032, Margaret Louise Philpot, AL80048, Bertha Pinckes, AL80038. Elizabeth Ray, AL80214. Myr! Dean Stiles, AL80482, Marion Eliza Swan, AL80046. Mildred Elsie Thomas, AL80036. Edith Margaret Toffalett!, AL80479. Janna Tucker, AL80039. Frances Works Van Pelt, AL80029. Kathryne M. Walls, AL80495. Margaret Mary Werlein, AL80045, To be captains Jean Doris Armstrong, AL80106. Joan Elizabeth Bennett, AL80004, FEBRUARY 23 Virginia Marie Blanchard, AL80086. Carolyn Elizabeth Boatwright, AL80083. Madelen Cassidy, AL80105. Alberta Marie Courchene, 480080, Elizabeth Narcissus Cox, AL80082. Doris Dee Diamant, AL80109. Elsie Ovedia Ellingson, AL80097. Harriet Marion Fivenson, AL80099. Mary Elizabeth Flannagan, AL80104. Virginia Spence Gary, AL80107. Elizabeth Guild, AL80096. Alice Hoyt Hartley, AL80079. Verdia May Hickambottom, AL80084. Bonnie Turnbull Martin, AL80190. Virginia Eloise Martin, AL80075. Ruth McCraw, AL80078. Murtal May Moran, AL80103. Shicley Theone O'Dell, AL80093. Rita Elizabeth O'Donnell, AL80085. Frances Oppenheimer, AL80076. Viola May Peschel, AL80087. Ruth Ramee, AL80100. Lillian Tombacher Robinson, AL80691. Cora Edra Sharon, AL80081. Albina Helena Shimkus, AL80088. Mary Ellen Shull, AL80095. Flora Mary Smothers, AL80101. Mary Helene Strong, AL80092 Ruth Ellen Vorkoeper, AL80090. Ruth Lamar Williams, AL80089. Jean Smollen Wilson, AL80102. ({Nore.—Dates of rank will be determined by the Secretary of the Air Force.) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tururspay, FEBRuaArRY 23, 1950 The House met at 12 o’clock noon. Father Joseph G. O'Rourke, St. Joseph’s Church, Marshall, Tex., of- fered the following prayer: Almighty and eternal God, with our whole soul we thank Thee for the great gift of the holy year. Heavenly Father, Thou who seest all things, who search- est and dost guide the hearts of men, make them responsive, in this time of grace and salvation, to the voice of Thy Son, May Thy grace enkindle in all men love for the many unfortunate peo- ple, whom poverty and misery reduce to a condition of life unworthy of human beings. Arouse in the hearts of those who call Thee Father a hunger and thirst for social justice and for fraternal char- ity in deeds and in truth. Grant, O Lord, peace in our days—peace to souls, peace to familics, peace to our country, peace among nations. May the rainbow of peace cover with the sweep of its serene light the land sanctified by the life and passion of Thy Divine Son. God of all consolation, deep is our misery, grave are our faults, countless our needs. But greater still is our trust in Thee. Conscious of our unworthiness, we lov- ingly place our lot in Thy hands, uniting our weak prayers to the intercession and the merits of the most glorious Virgin Mary and all the saints. Grant to the sick resignation and health; to young men, the strength that is born of faith; to young girls, the gift of purity; to fa- thers, prosperity and holiness for their families; to mothers, success in their mission of rearing their children; to orphans, affectionate protection; to the refugees and prisoners, their fatherland; and to all men Thy grace, in preparation and in pledge of the unending happiness of heaven, Amen,
1950 The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate, by Mr. McDaniel, its enrolling clerk, announced that the Senate had passed without amendment a bill of the House of the following title: H.R.7220 An act to expedite the rehabili- tation of Federal reclamation projects in certain cases. The message also announced that the Senate had passed a concurrent resolu- tion of the following title, in which the concurrence of the House is requested: S Con Res. 71. Concurrent resolution to print for the use of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare additional copies of the hearings on the national health program, 1939 CALL OF THE JOUSE Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not. present. Mr PRIEST. 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: [Roll No 64] Allen, La Gilmer Murray, Wis Bosone Hedrick Sadowski Bulwinkle Her ter Shelley Chatham Holifield Smith, Oblo Crosser Jones, Ala, Smith, Wis Davies, N Y. Jones, Mo Withiow Diwron Macy Wolcott The SPEAKER On this 1oll call, 410 Members have answered to their names, a quorum. By unanimous consent, further pro- ceedings under the call were dispensed with THE FEDERAL FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE ACT The SPEAKER The unfinished busi- ness 1s the reading of the engrossed copy of H. R. 4453. The Clerk will read, The Clerk read as follows: Be 1t enacted, etc, That this act may be cited as the “Fair Employment Practice Act ” FINDINGS AND DFCLARATION OF POLICY Src 2 The Congress hereby finds and declares— (a) That the denying of employment op- portunities to, and discrimination in em- ployment against, properly qualified persons by reason of physical disability, race, creed, political affillution, sex, or color is contrary to the principles of freedom and equality of opportunity upon which this Nation 1s bullt, deprives the United States of the fullest utilization of its capacities for production and defense, and burdens, hinders, and obstructs commerce. (b) That it is the policy of the United States to bring about the elimination of dis- crimination because of race, creed, political affiliation, or color in employment relations. FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE COMMISSION Sec. 3. (a) There is hereby created a com- mission to be known as the Fair Employment Practice Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission"”), which shall be com- posed of five members who shall be ap- pointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, One of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the original members shall be appointed for a term of 1 year, one for a term of 2 years, one for a term of 8 years, one for a term of 4 years, and one for a term of 5 years, but their successors shall be appointed for terms of & years each, except that any individual chosen to fill a vacancy shall be appointed only tor the unexpired term of the member whom he shall succeed. Not more than threo Commissioners shall be members of the same political party. The President shall designate one member to serve as Chairman of the Commission. Any member of the Commission may be removed by the Presi- dent upon notice and hearing for neglect of duty ot malfeasance in oMce, but for nu ovher cauce. (b) A vacancy in the Commission shall not. impair the right of the remaining members to exercise all the powo1s ol the Commission and three members of the Commission shall at all times constitute a quorum, {c) The Commission shall have an official seal which shall be judicially noticed (d) Each member of the Commission shall receive a salary at the rate of 812,000 a yeur, and shali not engage in any other business, vocation, or employment. (e) The principal office of the Commission shall be in the District of Columbia, but It may mect and exercise any or all of its powers at any other place and may establish such regional offices as it deems necessary The Commission may, by one or more of its mem- bers or by such agents or agencies as it may designate, conduct any investigation, pro- ceeding, or hearing necessary to its functions in any part of the United States. (1) The Commission shall have power— (1) To appoint such officers and employees as It decms necessary to assist it in the per- formance of its functions; 2) To cooperate with or utilize regional, State, local, and othe: agencies and to utilize voluntary and uncompensated services, (3) To pay to witnesses whose depositions are taken or who are summoned before the Commission or any of its agents or agencies the same witness and mileage tees as are paid to witnesses in the couits of the United States, (4) From time to time to make, amend, and rescind, in such manner prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act, such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act; (5) To serve process or other papers of the Commission, elther personally, by registered mail, or by leaving a copy at the principal office or place of business of the persons to be served, and (6) To make such technical studies as are appropriate to effectuate the purposes and policies of this act and to make the results of such studies available to interested Gov- ernment and nongovernmental agencies. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION Bre 4 (a) It shall be the duty of the Com- mission to bring about the removal of dis- crimination in regard to hire or tenure, teims, or conditions of employment, or unlon mem- bership, because of race, creed, or color— (1) By making compivhensive studies of such discrimination in different metropoli- tan distiicts and sections of the country and of the effect of such disciimination, and of the best methods of eliminating it; (2) by formulating, in cooperation with other interested public and private agen- cles, comprehensive plans for the elimina- tion of such discrimination, as rapidly as possible, in regions or areas where such dls- c1iimination is prevalent; (3) by publishing and disseminating re- ports and other information relating to such discrimination and to ways and means for eliminating it: (4) by conferring, cooperating with, and furnishing technical ussistance to employ- 2299 ers, labor unions, and other private and public agencies in formulating and executing policies and programs for the elimination of such discrimination; (5) by receiving and investigating com- plaints charging any such discrimination and by investigating other cases where it has reason to believe that any such discriml- nation is practiced; and (6) by making specific and detailed rec- ommendations to the interested parties in any such case as to ways and means for the elimination of any such discrimination. (b) After the filing of any written com- plaint, the Chairman of the Commission shall designate one of the Commissioners to make, with the assistance of the Commission staff, prompt investigation in connection there- with, and, if such Commissioner shall de- termine after such investigation that prob- able cause exists for crediting the allegations of the complainant, he shall immediately en- deavor to climinate the unlawful employment practice complained of by conference, con- ciliation, and persuasion (c) The Commission shall at the close of each fiscal year report to the Congress and to the President describing in detail the investigations, proceedings, and hearings it has conducted and their outcome, the de- cisions it has rendered, and the other work performed by it, and may make such recom- mendations for further legislation as may appear desirable. The Commission may make such othe: recommendations to the President or any Federal agency as it deems necessary or appropriate to effectuate the purposes and policies of this act. INVESTIGATORY POWERS Sec. 6 (a) For the purpose of all investi- gations, proceedings, or hearings which the Commission deems necessary or proper for the eaercise of the powers vested in it by this act, the Commission, or its authorized apents or agencies, shall at all reasonable times have the right tu examine or copy any evidence of any person relating to any such investigation, proceeding, or hearing. (b) Any member of the Commission shall have power to issue subpenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of any evidence relating to any investigation, proceeding, or hearing be- fore the Commission, its member, agent, or agency conducting such investigation, pro- ceeding, or hearing (c) Any member of the Commission, or any agent or agency designated by the Commis- sion for such purposes, may administer oaths, examine witnesses, receive evidence, and conduct Investigations, Piocecdings, or hearings (d) Such attendance of witnesses and the production of such evidence may be required, from any place within the area of the United States district court in which the hearing 1s held. (e) In case of contumacy er refusal to obey a subpena issued to any person under this act, any district count of the United States or the United States courts of any Territory or possession, or the District Court of the United States for the District of Co- lumbia, within the jurisdiction of which the investigation, procecding, or hearing ts car- ried on or within the jurisdiction of which suld person gullty of contumacy or refusal to obey is found or resides or transacts busi- ness, upon application by the Commission shall have jurisdiction to issue to such per- son an order requiring such person to appear before the Commission, its inember, agent, or agency, there to produce evidence if s0 or- dered, or there to give testimony relating to the investigation, proceeding, or hearing; any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by it as a contempt thereof. (f) No person ehall be excused trom at- tending and testifying or from producing documentary or other evidence in obedience
2300 to the subpena of the Commission, on the ground that the testimony or evidence re- quired of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture; but no individual shall be prosecuted or subject- ed to any penalty or forfeiture for on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concern- ing which he 1s compelled, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimina- tion, to testify or produce evidence, except that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying. (g@) None of the provisions of this act shall apply to employment by the Atomic Energy Commission or any contractor or licensee of the Atomic Energy Commission. DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SEc. 6. The Commission shall make a study and investigation of discrimination in re- gard to hire, or tenure, terms, or conditions of employment, in the departments and agencies of tho Federal Government because of race, creed, or color, and shall recommend to the Congress a specific plan to eliminate it and such legislation as it deems necessary to eliminate it. WILLFUL INTERFERENCE WITH COMMISSION AGENTS Sec. 7. Any person who shal! forcibly resist, impede, or interfere with, any member of the Commission or any of its agents or agencies in the performance of duties pur- suant to this act shall be punished by a fine of not more than 8500: Provided, That any person who is a member of an organization which has been cited by the Attorney General and/or by the Federal Bureau of Investiga- tion as a Communist organization or as a Communist-front organization is excluded from the provisions of this act: Provided, however, That the absence of tndividuals of a particular race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry in the employ of any per- son shall not be evidence of discrimination against individuals of such race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry. Src. 8 Nothing in this act shall mean, nor be construed to mean, that any person who lacks the qualifications necessary to fit one to perform the duties of the job for which that person may be applying, must be em- ployed in spite of his disqualifications. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts (in- terrupting the reading of the bill). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the bill be dis- pensed with and what it be printed in the Recorp at this point. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. Mr. BREHM. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit. The SPEAKER, Is the gentleman op- posed to the bill? Mr. BREHM. Iam, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will re- port the motion to recommit. The Clerk read as follows: Mr. BREHM moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on Education and Labor, Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, on that I move the previous question. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to recommit. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were—yeas 177, nays 238, not voting 15, as follows: {Roll No. 65) YEAS—177 Abbitt Evins Abernethy Fernandes Albert Fisher Allen, 11 Frazier Andersen, Fugate H Carl Gary Anderson, Calif. Gathings Andresen, Gore August H. Gossett Andrews Grant Angell Green Arends Gregory Aspinall Hardy Barden Hare Bates Harris Battle Harrison Beckworth Hays, Ark. Bennett, Fla Hébert Bennett, Mich. Herlong Bentsen Hobhs Boggs, La Hoffman, Mich. Bolton, Md. Huber Bonner Hull Bosone Jenison Boykin Jones, Ala. Brehm Jones, N.C. Brooks Karst Brown, Ga. Kelley, Pa Bryson Keogh Buchanan Kerr Burke Kilburn Burleson Kilday Burton Klein Camp Lanham Canfleld Larcade Cannon Lodge Carlyle Lucas Carroll Lyle Chelf McGrath Church McGregor Colmer McMillan, 8. C. Combs McMillen, Ill. Cooley Magee Cooper Mahon Cox Marcantonio Crawford Marsalis Crosser Mason Curtis Mills Davenport Monroney Davis, Ga. Morgan Davis, Tenn Morris Deane Morrison DeGraffenried Murdock Dollinger Murray, Tenn Doughton Nicholson Durham Norell Eaton Norton Eberharter Pace Elliott Passman Ellsworth Patman NAYS—239 Addonizilo Chudoff Allen, Calif Clemente Auchincloss Clevenger Bailey Cole, Kans. Baring Cole, N. Y Barrett, Pa. Corbett Barrett, Wyo Cotton Beall Coudert Biemiller Crook Bishop Cunningham Blackney Dague Blatnik Davis, Wis. Boggs, Del. Dawson Bolling Delaney Bolton, Ohio Denton Bramblett D'Ewart Breen Dingell Brown, Ohio Dolliver Buckley, Ill. Dondero Buckley, N.Y. Donohue Burdick Douglas Burnside Doyle Byrne, N Y. Elston Byrnes, Wis. Engel, Mich. Carnahan Engle, Calif. Case, N. J. Fallon Case,8 Dak. Felghan Cavalcante Fellows Celler Fenton Chesney Flood Chiperfield Fogarty Christopher Forand Patten Peterson Pfeifer, Joseph L. Pickett Poage Powell Preston Priest Rains Rankin Redden Reed, Ill. Reed, N.Y Regan Rich Richards Rivers Rogers, Fla Sadlak Sanborn Bikes Simpson, Ill Simpson, Pa Sims Smathers Smith, Va Spence Stanley Steed Stigler Stockman Sutton Taber Tuckett Teague Thomas Thompson Thornberry Trimbie Underwood Vinson Wadsworth Walter Wheeler Whitaker White, Idaho Whitten Whittington Wickersham Williams Willis Wilson, Okla Wilson, Tex Winstead Withrow Wood Woodhouse Woodruff Worley Ford Fulton Furcolo Gamble Garmatz Gavin Gillette Golden Goodwin Gordon Gorski Greham Granahan Granger Gross Gwinn Hegen Hale Hall, Edwin Arthur Hall, Leonard W, Halleck Hand Harden Hart Harvey Havenner Hays, Ohio Heffernan Heller Herter CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE FEBRUARY 23 Heselton McCulloch Rabaut Hill McDonough Ramsay Hinshaw McGuire Rees Hoeven McKinnon Rhodes Hoffman, 01. McSweeney Ribicoff Holifiela Mack, Ill. Riehlman Holmes Mack, Wash. Rodino Hope Madden Rogers, Mass. Horan Mansfield Rooney Howell Martin, lowa Roosevelt Irving Martin, Mass 8st. George Jackson, Calif Merrow Sasscer Jackson, Wash Meyer Saylor Jacobs Michener Scott, Hardie James Miles Scott, Javits Miller, Calif Hugh D,, Jr Jenkins Miller, Md. Scrivner Jennings Miller, Nebr Scudder Jensen Mitchell Secrest Johnson Morton Shafer Jonas Moulder Shelley Judd Multer Sheppard Karsten Murphy Short Kean Murray, Wis Smith, Kana Kearney Nelson Staggers Kearns Nixon Stefan Keating Noland Sullivan Kee Norblad Talle Keefe O'Brien, Ill Tauriello Kelly, N. Y O’Brien, Mich Taylor Kennedy O'Hara, Tl Tollefson King O'Hara, Minn Towe Kirwan O'Konski Van Zandt Kruse O'Ncill Velde Kunkel O'Sullivan Vorys Lane O'Toole Wagner Latham Patterson Walsh LeCompte Perkins Weichel LeFevre Pfeiffer, Welch Lemke William L Werdel Lesinsk! Philbin White, Calif Lichtenwalter Phillips, Calif. Widnall Lind Philips, Tenn Wier Linehan Plumley Wigglesworth Lovre Polk Wilson, Ind Lynch Potter Wolverton McCarthy Poulson Yates McConnell Price Young McCormack Quinn Zablockt NOT VOTING—15 Allen, La Hedrick Sadowsk}t Bulwinkle Jones, Mo Smith, Ohio Chatham Macy Smith, Wis. Davies, N Y¥ Marshall Vursell Gilmer Sabath Wolcott So the motion to recommit was re- jected. The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote: Mr. Gilmer for, with Mr Sadowsk! agalnst. Mr. Allen of Loulsiana for, with Mr. Davies of New York against Mr Jones of Missouri for, with Mr. Hedrick against Mr. Macy for, with Mr Wolcott against. Until further notice: Mr. Chatham with Mr. Vureell. Mr. Marshall with Mr, Smith of Ohio, Messrs. KEOGH, CROSSER, SPENCE, Boy- KIN, ANDREWS, and Batre changed their votes from “nay” to “‘yea.”’ Messrs. CELLER, BAILEY, and BLaTNIK changed their votes from “yea” to “nay.” The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill. Mr. McCONNELL and Mr. COLMER demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were—yeas 240, nays 177, not voting 14, as follows: Addonizio Allen, Calif. Angell [Roll No. 66] YEAS—24C Auchinoloss Bailey Baring Barrett. Pa. Barrett, Wyo. Beall
1950 Biemtier Bart Bishop Harvey Blackney Havenner Blatnik Hays, Ohio Boggs, Det. Heffernan Bollmeg Heller Bolton, Ohio Herter Bramblett in Breen Hill Brown, Ohio Hinshaw Buckley, 1), Hoeven Buckley, N.Y Hoffman, Ml Burdick Holifteta Burnside Hotmes Byrne, N.Y. Byrnes, Wis. Horan Canfield Howell Carnahan Hull Case,N. J. Irving Case.8 Dak. Jackson, Wash. Cavalcante Jacobs Celler dames Chesney Javits Christopher Jenkins Chudoff Johnson Clemente Jonas Cole, Kans. Judd Cole, N.Y. Karst Corbett Karsten Cotton Kean Coudert Kearney Crook Kearns Crosser Keating Cunningham Kee Dague Keefe Davis, Wis. Kelly, N. ¥. Dawson Keogh Delaney Eing Denton Kirwan Dingell Klein Dolliver Kruse Dondero Kunkel Donohue Lane Douglas Latham Doyle LeCompte Ellsworth LeFevre Etston Lesinski Engel, Mich. Lichtenwalter Engle, Calif. Lind Fallon Linehan Feighan Lodge Fenton Lovre Flood Lynch Fogarty McCarthy Forand McConnell Ford McCormack Fulton McCulloch Furcola McDonough Gamble McGregor Garmata McGuire Gavin McKinnon Gillette McSweeney Golden Mack, Mil. Goodwin Mack, Wash. Gordon Madden Gorski Mansfield Graham Martin, Iowa Granahan Martin, Mass. Granger Merrow Gross Meyer Gwinn Michener Hagen Miller, Calif. Hall, Miller, Md. Edwin Arthur Miller. Nebr. Hall, Mitchell Leonard W. Morton Halleck Multer Hand Murdock Harden Murphy NAYS—177 Abbitt Botton, Md. Abernethy mer Albert Bosone Allen, Tl, Boykin Andersen, Brenm EH. Cart Brooks Anderson, Calff.Brown, Ga. Andresen, Bryson August H. Buchanan Andrews Burke Arends Burleson Aspinall Burton Barden Camp Bates Cannon Battle Cartyle Beckworth Carrol] Bennett, Fila. Chelf Bennett, Mich. Chinerfield Bentsen Church Boggs, La. Clevenger XCVI-——145 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Murray, Wis. Nelson Nixon Noland Norblad Norton O’Brien, TM. O’Brien, Mich. O'Hara, Ill, O'Konski O'Neill O’Sullivan O’Toole Patten Patterson Perkins Pfeifer, Josep! Pfeiffer, William L, Philbin Philltps, Calif. Plomley Potk Potter Poulson Price Quinn Rabaut Ramesy Rees Rhodes Ribicoff Riehlman Roding Rogers, Mass, Rooney Roosevelt Tauriello Taylor Tollefson ‘owe Van Zandt Velde Vorys. Wagner Waish Weichel Welch Werdel White, Calif, Widnall Wler Wigglesworth Wilson, Ind, Withrow Wolverton ‘Woodhouse Yates Young Zablocki Colmer Combs Cooley Cooper Cox Crawford Curtis Davenport Davis, Ga. Davis, Tenn. Deane DeGraffenried. D'Ewart Doillinger Doughtan Durham Eaton Eberharter ElHott Evins Fellows McMillan, 8.0. Stkes Fernandes McMillen, Ill. Simpson, Hl, Fisher Magee Simpson, Pa. Frazier Mehon Stms Fugate Marcantonio Smathers Gary Marsalis Smith, Kans. Gathings Mason Smith, Va. Gore Miles Spence Gossett Mills Stanley Grant Monroney Bteed Green Morgan Stigler Gregory Morris Stockman Hale Morrison Sutton Hardy Murray, Tenn. Taber Hare Nicholson Tackett Harris Norrell Teague Harrison O'Hara, Minn. Thomas Hays, Ark. Pace Thompson Hébert Passman Thornberry Herlong Patman Trimble Hobbs Peterson Underwood Hoffman, Mich. Phillips, Tenn. Vinson Huber Pickett Vursell Jackson, Calif. Poage Wadsworth Jenison Powell Walter Jennings Preston Wheeler Jensen Priest Whitaker Jones, Ala. Rains White, Idaho Jones, N.C. Rankin Whitten Kelley, Pa. Redden Whittington Kennedy Reed, Il. Wickersham Kerr Reed, N. ¥ Williams Kilburn Regan Wihts Kilday Rich Wulson, Okla. Lanham Richards Wilson, Tex. Larcade Rivers Winstead Lemke Rogers, Fila. Wood Lucas Sanborn Woodruff Lyle Shafer Worley McGrath Short NOT VOTING—14 Allen, La. Hedrick Sadowski Bulwinkle Jones, Mo. Smith, Ohio Chatham Macy Smith, Wis. Davies, N. ¥ Marshall Wolcott Gilmer Moulder 8o the bill was passed. The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote: Mr. Wolcott for, with Mr. Macy against. Mr. Davies of New York for, with Mr. Gil- mer against. Mr. Sadowskt for, with Mr. Allen of Loul- siana against. Mr. Moulder for, with Mr. Jones of Mis- sour! against. Mr. Hedrick for, with Mr. Chatham against. Until further notice: Mr. Bulwinkle with Mr. Smith of Ohio. Mr. Marshall with Mr. Smith of Wisconsin. Mr. THomas changed his vote from “yea” to “nay.” Mr. Bucxiey of Illimots changed his vote from “nay” to “yea.” The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. The title was amended so as to read: “A bill to establish a Pair Employment Practice Commission and to aid in elimi- nating discrimination in employment be- cause of race, creed, or color.” A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. CORRECTION Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Speaker, in the bill which has just been passed there is language in an emendment which I offered that used the word “director” when tt should have been “chairman.” I therefore ask unanimous consent that on page 5, line 23, of the engrossed copy of the bill, the word “direetor” may be stricken from the bill and that the word “chairman” be substituted therefor in conformity with the rest of the bill, 2301 Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, 4 point of order. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. RANKIN. You cannot correct a bill after it has passed. If that is a Conoresagionar Recorp correction that is another matter. The SPEAKER. The gentleman is asking unanimous consent to make the correction. Mr. RANKIN. I doubt if you have a right to go back and change a bill that has already passed the House. The SPEAKER. Is there objection te the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. MILITARY CREDITS BILL FOF POST- OFFICE EMPLOYEES Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the majority leader when he wil} pro- gram House Resojution 87, the military credits bill for post-office employees? Mr. McCORMACK. I know the gen- tleman is very much interested in that bi]. Under his leadership a rule came out of the Rules Committee. I under- stand the gentleman would Hke to have me program the bill. Mr. DELANEY. As soon as posstble. Mr. McCORMACK. I shall program it. I apprectate very much the fact the gentleman made the inqutry of me and I will be only too glad to program ft for next week. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DELANEY. I yield to the gentle- man from California, Mr. MILLER of California. I want to Join the gentleman from New York in making that request. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DELANEY. I yield to the gentle- man from Mississippi. Mr. RANKIN. May I ask the majority leader about our hospital bill that ts bot- tled up in the Rules Committee? I understand we have a right to call it up next Monday. Is that on the program? Mr. McCORMACK. The matter of recognition on Monday is one that rests with the Speaker. In a few minutes I will announce the program as I have it, at which time I will answer the gentle- man’s ingutry. Mr. RANKIN. We have been waiting for months to get this hospital bill before the House. Members are appealing to me and veterans’ organizations all over the country are appealing to me to bring it up and get it passed. Iam gomg to use every parliamentary method I possibly can to get a vote on it next Monday. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from New York has expired.
2302 ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE UNTIL MONDAY NEXT Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet on Monday next. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, will the gentleman tell us what the pro- gram will be for next week? Mr. McCORMACK. I will be glad to. There will be no District bills on Monday However, Monday is discharge day and for the information of the membership the Speaker, as I understand, will recog- nize the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CroSsER] to call up H. R. 4846, the Na- tional Science Foundation bill. On Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday the following bills will be called up: I have been advised that on Tuesday a motion will be made to send the basing-point bill to conference, so that will be the first order of business. Then will follow H. R 2392, rural re- habilitation trust funds; H R. 331, state- hood for Alaska; H. R. 49, statehood for Hawaii. Then the next order of busi- ness will be H. R. 87, postal service, mili- tary service, that the gentleman from New York has just inquired about, and that the gentleman from California I Mr. MILLER] is interested in; H R. 3105, voca- tional education, Virgin Islands; and H R 874, library service demonstration bill Of course, conference reports may be brought up at any time. Mr CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I would hke to ask the distin- guished majority leader whether that program could be altered for the con- sideration of emergency legislation to deal with the national emergency that now exists in the coal fields? Today I have introduced a bill dealing with that matter; I am sure that other Members have also. A condition has developed in the country that if the President will not act, or if he needs some suggestion from the Congress, they should make those suggestions and point a way to meet the real threat that envelops the country today. Would it be possible in the pro- gram for next week to give prompt con- sideration for emergency legislation? Mr. McCORMACK. Of course, my friend is well aware that the gentleman from Massachusetts cannot very well program a bill that is not reported out of committee, and on which there is no rule. As a matter of fact, the mining bill that I stated would come up this week cannot be programed. [ understand that a motion to reconsider has been made in the Committee on Rules, and so far as I know it has not been passed upon, and therefore I am not program- ing it for next week. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. The gentleman from Massachusetts will re- call that in the case of a threatened rall- road strike we took very quick action, and almost too precipitant action here one day at the request of the President, However, the President in this situation seems to hesitate to act. If the situa- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE tion continues as it has, something must be done. Mr. McCORMACK. Of course, if anything develops, the program is al- ways subject to change with the proper notice to the House and to the leader- ship on the gentleman’s side. I am pre- paring a program, and I can only do it at this time based on the bills reported out of committee and the rules that have been reported out of the Committee on Rules. Mr. CASE of South Dakota I with- draw my reservation of objection, Mr. Speaker The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection. POTATOES Mr. PHILLIPS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Cali- fornia? There was no objection. Mr. PHILLIPS of California. Mr. Speaker, the subject of potatoes has hu- morously been referred to as a hot one these last few weeks. It is appropriately named and seriously named too. My col. league from Massachusetts |Mr. HESEL- TON] has given us a splendid speech on the potato surplus and the difficulties of distributing the surplus where it jis most needed, because of the complicated reg- ulations which were set up by the De- partment handling it. Iam glad to know that in the last day or two some of those complicated regulations have been re- moved. Because everyone in the coun- try is interested in food and because of the many well-founded complaints we are all receiving about the tremendous waste of food stuffs, I include with my statement the names of persons han- dling the distribution of surplus food, including potatoes, and dried eggs, and dried milk, in our Western States, Be- fore applying for this food a city must make a survey of needy familes or in- stitutions, report to the local welfare agency, which in turn should contact the person in charge of distribution for that State. The lst follows: California—three agencies: Mr. George E. Hogan, deputy superintendent, State depart- ment of education, Library and Courts Bulild- ing, Sacramento; Mr. J W. Hughes, manager, purchasing and stores department, county of Los Angeles, 1660 East Lake Avenue, Los Angeles; Mrs. M L. Johnson, buyer, Califor- nia State Purchasing Division, room 107, State Office Bultlding No. 1, Sacramento, Arizona—two agencies: Mrs. May B. Price, director, school lunches, State department of public instruction, 212 Capitol Building, Phoenix, Mr. George C. Wells, district super- visor Indian education, Office of Indian Af- fairs, 4120 Scattergood Place, Phoenix. Idaho: Mr, E. Marion Hoyt, school-lunch division, State board of education, Boise. Montana—two agencies: Mr, Leslie L. Brown, director, school lunches, State depart- ment of public instruction, Helena; Mr. Paul D. Golden, purchasing agent, State purchas- ing department, Capitol Bullding, Helena. Nevada: Miss Mildred Bray, superintend- ent of public instruction, State department of public instruction, Carson City. FEBRUARY 23 Utah: Mr. Rodney A. Ashby, director, sohool-lunch program, State department of public instruction, Salt Lake City. Wyoming: Mrs. Florence P. Lyster, direc- tor, school-lunch program, State department of education, Cheyenne. Washington—three agencies: Mrs. K. R. Larson, buyer, department of public insti- tutions, division of purchasing, Olympia. Mr G W. Van Horn, supervisor, school-lunch program, State superintendent, public in- struction, 20 Old Capitol Building, Olympia; Mr. VR. Farrell, administrative assistant, United States Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs, Alaska Native Serv- ice, 2400 Fourth Avenue, Seattle. Colorado: Mr. Charles W Burton, director, commodity distribution, department of pub- lic welfare, 1543 Wazee Street, Denver. New Mexico: Mr. R. B Darden, director of commodity distribution, department of pub- lic weltare, 1835 North Broadway, post-office box 1347, Albuquerque COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY Mr. SPENCE Myr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking and Currency may have un- til midnight tonight to file a report on the bill H R. 7402. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ken- tucky? There was no objection. SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. MANSFIELD asked and was given permission to address the House today for 30 minutes following any special or- ders heretofore entered. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr KELLEY of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp on the subject of the Fair Employment Practice Commit- ee, Mr. GORSKI asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp. Mr McGUIRE asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the REcorD and include an article appearing in the New Haven Register. Mr. TRIMBLE asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the REconp. Mr. MULTER asked and was given per- mussion to extend his remarks in the Recorp in four instances and include extraneous matter. Mr. TAURIELLO asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorp in regard to the Hoover Com- mission. Mr. MANSFIELD asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorp in two instances, Mr. KEOGH asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorp and include an editorial that ap- peared in the Brooklyn Eagle. Mr. ROOSEVELT asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the REcorpD. Mr. LYNCH asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp in two instances and include ex- traneous matter. Mr. HART asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include certain proposals of the Medical Society of New Jersey,
1950 Mr. PHILBIN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp in two instances and include cer- tain excerpts. Mr. RANKIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend the re- marks he made yesterday and include certain excerpts from the CONGRESSIONAL ReEcorp. Mr. DONOHUE asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp in two instances and Include ex- traneous matter. Mr. FERNANDEZ asked and was given permission to extend his remarks In the REcorD. NATIONAL EMERGENCY COAL ACT Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the Recorp and include a brief resolution which I introduced today on the coal- mine situation. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Dakota? There was no objection. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the fol- lowing bill: Be it enacted, etc., That the Congress finds a stoppage of coal production and a shortage of fuel at this time of the year have seriously and adversely affected the flow of commerce between the States and have created a na- tional emergency seriously endangering the national welfare, public health, and safety. Src. 2. The President is hereby requested to call upon all persons normally engaged in the production of coal immediately to re- sume their normal duties and to make a special effort to produce the coal needed to alleviate the dangers to public health and safety now existing and to restore the normal flow of interstate commerce. Sec. 8 The President is further requested to ask the governors of the several States to employ such components of the National Guard as may be necessary to afford full pro- tection to those workers, mine owners, and operators who seek to comply with the re- quests made pursuant to section 2 of this act. Sec. 4. The President is further requested to direct the Attorney General immediately to institute efforts to determine whether there is any concerted effort on the part of any persons or organizations to interfere with the production of coal in this emergency and to take such legal steps as may be neccssary to end such interference. Sec 6. The President 1s authorized and directed to name a Coal Mine Inquiry Board of five persons to look tnto all phases of con- ditions affecting the production or non- production of coal and to make & report of findings with recommendations to the Oon- gress not later than June 1, 1950. Sec. 6. The President ts authorized and directed tc utilise such facilities and per- sonnel of the executive agencies of the Gov- ernment as may be needed to carry out the purposes of this act. Sec, 7. The President ts hereby authorised as the agent of the Congress to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this act: Provided, however, That the emergency declared and the powers and duties created by this act shall expire not later than May 31, 1950, un- less as otherwise provided herein, or unleas Congress by joint resolution shall otherwise direct. Sxc. 8. This act may be cited as the Na- tional Coal Emergency Act of 1950. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE CAN WE LICK THE SURPLUSES? Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my re- marks at this point in the Recorp and include a short excerpt. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oregon? There was no objection. Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Speaker, on Feb- ruary 20 I discussed on the floor some of the phases of the fiscal policy of the United States and my remarks are found on pages 2010 to 2015 of the CoNGRES- SIONAL Recorp of that date. At that time I stated that a continuation of the unbridled and profligate spending of this administration means bankruptcy of the United States and spells doom for free enterprise and human freedoms. I called attention to the fact that Presi- dent Roosevelt in 1932 said: Any government, like any family, can for & year spend a little more than It earns, but you and I know that a continuance of that habit means the poorhouse I set forth a tabulation of the expendi- tures of all the Presidents of the United States to and including the first 6 years of the Roosevelt administration, which ageregated a total of $179,620,113,645, while President Truman from the fiscal year 1946 to September 30, 1949, spent the colossal sum of $191,081,394,191. In other words, the President in less than 5 years has spent more than all of the other Presidents to and including the first 8 years of the Roosevelt adminis- tration. Uncle Sam, it is later than you think. It is high time to stop, look, and listen and curb the orgy of wild and profligate spending both at home and abroad, oust the Communists and spendthrifts from our Government and places of authority, reduce the back-breaking tax load on the American people, end the war excise nui- sance taxes, balance the Federal budget, put an end to deficit spending, adopt the Hoover report economies, free the Con- gress from executive domination and thereby save free enterprise and human liberty in America. It is high time to invest some of the taxes thus saved in America for the upbuilding of our own country and the welfare of our own American citizens. It is time to adopt a Marshall plan or an ECA for the old peo- ple of America so that they may have social security giving them sufficient in- come from the wealth they have helped to create to provide food, shelter, cloth- ing, and medical care according to the American standards of living in their twilight years. Let us save the American system, free enterprise and human freedoms by fol- lowing the sound advice, often errone- ously attributed to Abraham Lincoln: You cannot bring about prosperity by dis- couraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weak- ening the strong. You cannot help small men by teering down big men. You cannot help the wage earner by pull- ing down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. 2303 You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. You cannot keep out of trouble by spend- ing more than you earn, We need an Abraham Lincoln today to lead us back to sanity and an abiding faith in the promises of a just God. With more faith in spiritual values and with a judicious handling of our govern- mental affairs, more common sense and less war and devastation, we would be able, from savings alone without increas- ing the taxes, to take care of our own people here in America, provide a decent living retirement for all of our old peo- ple, the widows, the injured, and the orphans, and still have billions of dollars left over for schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and for the upbullding and re~- habilitation of this great Republic. We are overlooking the admonitions of the Sermon on the Mount and the great spiritual values of life and placing our dependence on material things, the war engines of destruction, and the atomic bomb. For heathen heart that puts her trust In reeking tube and iron shard— All valiant dust that bullds on dust, And guarding calls not Thee to guard. Mr. Speaker, I also called attention to the hot half-baked potato program under which the administration has ex- pended $495,169,000, a little less than half a billion dollars of American-tax dollars for the period of 1943-49. Under the program the Government has ex- pended $30,000,000 on the 1949 crop of potatoes and contemplates buying 45,- 000,000 or 50,000,000 bushels more. When the Secretary of Agriculture an- nounced that he was ready to cause to be destroyed some 50,000,000 bushels of po- tatoes, I introduced on February 8 H. R. 7208, which would prohibit the Federal Government or any of its agencies from destroying edible foods purchased under the support program and would compel these Government agencies to make these surplus products available to wel- fare agencies, school-lunch programs, the needy under the welfare program, as well as to needy Indians and other needy persons. I also called attention to the fact that the Federal Government is holding 277,480 tons of surplus com- modities costing $265,000,000 in the cate- gories of dried milk, dried eggs, butter, cheese, prunes, raisins, edible dried beans, rice, turkeys, and canned Mexi- can meats. I now desire to read an article which appeared in the Farm Journal of Febru- ary 1950, as follows: CAN WE LICK THE SURPLUSES? (By Vernon Vine and Robert D. McMillen, in Farm Journal, February 1950) Tomorrow morning's breakfast—enough to fill a plate for every man, woman, and child in the United States—is buried in a limestone cave near Atchison, Kans. Sunk in that air-conditioned hole in the ground are 12,260,000 pounds of dried eggs, and 33,600,000 million pounds of dried prunes and raisins. This enormous hoard is only @ small] part of the vast stock of farm prod- ucts the Federal Government has bought while propping prices. Few will ever eat any of those eggs or prunes, unless the Goveri- ment gives them awey, or sells them at an enormous loss. And there are many other
2304 items in Uncle Sam’s stock pile that are filling caves and moth-balled Liberty ships, Can all of this go on forever? Taxpayers are getting fed up. City consumers are cone vinced that they are paying their grocery bills twice—once when they receive their food, and again when they pay taxes. Some- thing has got to be done soon, for those eggs in the Atchison cave are not moving, and the corn piled up in airplane hangars won't go away either. “Though the people support the Govern- ment, the Government should not support the people.’—Grover Cleveland. Mr. Speaker, when the Secretary of Agriculture announced that the Federal Government was ready to. destroy through its agencies some 50,000,000 bushels of edible potatoes I at once took up with the Secretary, as Chairman of the Board of the Commodity Credit Cor- poration, the fallacy of such @ program and urged that neither these potatoes, nor any other edible foods, be destroyed, but be made available to these needy persons whom I have described, and I protested vigorously against such de- struction particularly in the State of Oregon, a portion of which I have the honor to represent in the Congress, and urged that these food products be made available to the school-lunch program, welfare agencies, and others in need thereof in my congressional district and elsewhere in Oregon. I am advised that Roy W. Remington, purchasing agent, State board of control, 109 State Capitol, Salem, Oreg., is the distributor of surplus commodities in Oregon. Mrs. Laura P. Wells is director of the school-lunch program, State de- partment of education, Salem, Oreg. I have also commnicated with these officials, urging that surplus potatoes be made available in Oregon to our needy citizens. Up to this time I have not re- ceived definite information from any source as to whether or not these foods have been or will be made available to the thousands of persons in need thereof or whether they will be destroyed or al- lowed to spoil. It is my information that the latter part of 1949 the Portland schools did receive their proportion of the 186,000 sacks of potatoes distributed by the Government to Oregon schools and State institutions, which had been acquired under the price-support pro- gram, and that additional orders were placed for 1,080 sacks for the remainder of the school year which had not been received before the January ice and sleet storms blanketed much of the Oregon area, including the city of Portland, in my congressional district. I have urged the Committee on Agri- culture of the House to give immediate consideration to my bill, H. R. 7208, and to the other bills introduced on the same subject having for their objective the dis- posal of these surplus edible foods ac- quired under the support program to the needy in the various areas of the United States where such food products are held by the Federal Government. Many of my colleagues are joining in a common effort to secure early action on this legis- lation. Thus far, the leadership of the administration has given no assurance that the legislation will be given the green light as emergency legislation for early passage. In the meantime, the food CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE products are deteriorating and the hun- gry go unfed, THE FEPC BILL Mr. FURCOLO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. Mr. FURCOLO. Mr. Speaker, al- though debate on the Powell FEPC bill, H. R. 4453, is over, several Members have nevertheless suggested to me that I call the attention of the Congress to one section of that bill that may need to be amended in fairness to the employer, the employee, and the general public. The feeling of those Members to whom I have spoken is that perhaps the attention of the Senate and any possible conference committee should be directed to the mat- ter. Perhaps at that time the amend- ment I have in mind may be fully con- sidered. The amendment I plan to discuss had been filed with the Clerk when the Powell FEPC bill was being considered, but, due to the parliamentary situation that de- veloped, there never was an opportunity to present it to the House. Section 5 (a), on pages 5 and 6, of the Powell bill defines unlawful employment practices in detail. The words to which I wish to address myself are as follows: It shall be an unlawful employment prac- tice for an employer— *. o s s . (2) To utilize in the hiring or recruit- ment of individuals for employment any * © © labor organization * * "° which discriminates against Individuals because of their race, color, religion, or national origin. Everyone who is in favor of any FEPC bill believes that a provision to that effect should be included in the bill. However, in my opinion at least, an amendment is needed reading substan- tially as follows: Page 6, line 9, after the period, insert “Provided, That no employer shall be penal- ized under this act for utilizing in good faith any labor organization that has been duly certified and is acting as bargaining representative or agent under the terms of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended” If such an amendment is not adopted, both the employer and the employee may be seriously handicapped in their bargaining activities. Let me illustrate just how that could happen, Assume a union has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the representative to bargain for em- ployees with an employer. The employer must bargain with that labor organiza- tion or else run the risk of being brought before the Labor Relations Board for an unfair labor practice. The National La- bor Relations Act compels the employer to bargain with that particular labor union, Now the employer is also faced with an FEPC bill which subjects him to crim- inal penalties if he deals with a union that discriminates on grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin, Let us further assume that the particular FEBRUARY 23 union that the National Labor Relations Board has compelled him to recognize and deal with is discriminating against individuals because of their race, color, religion, or national origin. The employer is in this position: If he deals with that labor union, he will be punished under the FEPC law. If he does not deal with that union, he will be punished under the National Labor Re- lations Act. Under such conditions, the employer is compelled to violate either the National Labor Relations Act or the FEPC law, regardless of any good mo- tives or desire she may have to abide by the terms of both. He is whipsawed. Up to now I have been discussing an employer with the highest of motives. Let us assume in another illustration that we have an employer who wishes to use any possible excuse to avoid bar- gaining with the union. Such an em- ployer may refuse to bargain with a labor union on the excuse that the union dis- criminates on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin, and that such discrimination on the part of the union excuses him from bargaining further on the theory that continued bargaining with such a union is a violation of the FEPC law and that, under such circum- Ssiances, the National Labor Relations Board cannot punish him for a refusal to bargain. Even if such an argument on the part of the employer might not be valid and might not be sustained in any hearing before the National Labor Relations Board, I think all of us will agree that the National Labor Relations Board would be much more lenient in its pun- ishment of any such employer because the argument the employer presented— at least taking it at face valuc—was a justifiable excuse for refusing to bargain, Any lawyer can appreciate the great weight such a defense would be in miti- gation of an employer’s refusal to bar- gain. Such a situation is, of course, extreme- ly detrimental to the best interests of employees and the labor unions that represent employees. It tends to defeat the bargaining relationship and places the employees and the labor unions rep- resenting them at a tremendous disad- vantage. An employer who wanted to take advantage of such a situation to avoid bargaining could easily find one or more employees who would claim the union had _ discriminated—and that would give the employer his excuse for refusing to bargain on the theory that bargaining would subject him to punish- ment under the FEPC law. The situation could easily be disruptive to bargaining conditions throughout the Nation. It could work to the detriment of the employer, the employees and the general public. If many employers seized upon the excuse outlined above, it could well cause chaos in the industry of America. It seems to me that if the amendment I have suggested is added to section 5 (a) of the Powell FEPC bill so that— as far as the point we are discussing is concerned—that section would read sub- stantially as follows: It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to utilize any labor
1950 organization which discriminates against individuals because of their race, color, re- ligton, or national origin— Then adding my amendment— Provided, That no employer shall be penal- ized under this act for utilising in good faith any labor organization that has been duly certified and {s acting as bargaining representative or agent under the terms of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. That amendment does not change the FEPC law in any way, but merely tries to do this: First, protect an employer, who is in good faith, from being placed in a situation where he cannot avoid being punished by either the FEPC Jaw or the National Labor Relations Act, no matter how much he tries to live up to the terms of both; second, protect the labor union and the employees by insuring that the FEPC Jaw is not going to disrupt the bargaining relationship with the em- ployer; third, protect the general public by not allowing the FEPC law to be used as a means of causing chaos in industry through disruption of the relationship between the bargaining representatives of labor and management, It seems to me that, whether you are for or against any FEPC lew, you will be in favor of such an amendment. If the principle of FEPC legislation is good, this amendment in my opinion improves such legislation. If the principle of FEPC legislation is bad, this amendment in my opinion makes such legislation less bad If your interests lie with the employer, you should want to protect the employer from being placed in a position of double jeopardy. If your interests lie with employees or labor unions, you should want to protect them from anything that decreases their bargaining power. If you are interested in the welfare of the general public, I believe you will want the amendment for the protection that it is intended to give the general public from any industrial unrest. Before offering the amendment dis- cussed above, I took it up with members of the Labor Committee in charge of the FEPC legislation. While they must speak for themselves of course, I am of the belief that they intended to sup- port my amendment. I also discussed the amendment with several Members on both the Republican and Democratic side and they felt it should be included in any FEPC legislation. Some of those Members were in favor of FEPC, some were against—but they all favored the suggested amendment. I have outlined the above in the hope that it may be of some possible help to those who will be considering FEPC legislation from now on. FOREST SERVICE Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous censent to take from the Speaker’s desk the bill (H. R. 5839) to facilitate and simplify the work of the Forest Service, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, dis- agree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference requested by the Senate. The Clerk read the title of the bill. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? {After a pause}. The Chair hears none, and appoints the follow- ing conferees: Messrs. Coo.ry, Pack, GRANGER, Hops, and Avucust H. ANDRESEN. DEBATE ON FEPC BILL Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- {mous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my re- marks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to ie request of the gentleman from Flor- a There was no objection. Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, may I call the attention of the House to a matter that may not generally have been no- ticed. On yesterday and last night throughout that long and hard battle over FEPC there was very little of bitter- ness, very little of personal animosity, injected into the debate. It was a hard- fought battle, but it was marked with good humor and good sportsmanship. I think the House can well be proud of the way it conducted itself on that oc- casion. SPECIAL ORDER VACATED Mr. KEEFE asked and was given per- mission to vacate the special order grant- ed him to address the House for 1 hour on Monday next. EXTENSION OF REMARES Mr. GAMBLE asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an editorial from the New York Herald Tribune of Wednes- day, February 22, entitled ‘Middle In- come Housing.” Mr. LzFEVRE asked and was given permisston to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an article by Mark Bullivan. Mr. HOPE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a statement made by the Governor of Kansas, a former Member of the House, Hon. Frank Carl- son, before the Committee on Ways and Means of the House with reference to percentage depletion on gas and oil pro- duetion. NATIONAL EMERGENCY SEIZURE ACT OF 1949 Mr, JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and revise and extend my remarks, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, the ad- ministration is said by the press to be waiting for a seizure bill to be intro- duced in order to deal with the bitumi- nous coal emergency. I cal] their atten- tion to the fact that as far back as June 6, 1949, I introduced H. R. 5006, the Na- tional Emergency Seizure Act of 1949, especially to take care of just such na- tional emergencies as have now arisen. The five major points in this bill are: First. The property is not to be oper- ated on a strike-breaking basis, but is to be operated by the Government only to 2305 the minimum extent required to preserve the public health or security. Second. The employees—-those who choose to remain on the job—are to be paid not less than prevailing wages in the area, and a special board is to con- sider the wage scales during Government control. Third. The Government is to pay only just compensation for the value of its use of the seized property, and is not to operate for the account of the employer as if it were a going concern. Fourth. The property is to be restored to its owner when normal labor relations have been restored. Fifth. The President is given author- ity, not direction, and may act through an officer or department. I call on the Committee on Education and Labor to immediately hold hearings on H. R. 5006 as this is a practical— and indeed liberal—plan for dealing im- mediately and realistically with the emergency created for the Nation by the coal strike. It will be recalled that as far back as the original consideration of the Taft- Hartley law in 1947—which I was against—I offered amendments and ar- gued for just such national seizure pro- visions as are contained in my bill, I was convinced then as I am now that the security of the Nation was paramount to all other considerations and that this security required residual power in the community to continue to operate in the event of labor difficulty of a national emergency character, and that a plan for this purpose could be practicably ef- fectuated which neither made men work by injunction or force, or immobilized the Government from action. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from New York has expired. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. WOODRUFF asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include certain resolutions. Mr. BENNETT of Michigan asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks in the Record and include a radio speech. SURPLUS FOOD COMMODITIES Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my re- marks at this point in the Recorp. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa? There was no objection. Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Speaker, I am in- cluding a list of names and addresses of the several State offices in the Midwest who can approve applications by local boards of public welfare for surplus food commodities for distribution to needy people. This supplements the Hst sub- mitted by the gentleman from Massa- chusetts [Mr. Hrse.ton)], the gentleman from California [Mr, PuHiurps}, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. ANGELL]. SOUTHEAST District of Columbia: H. A. Gardner, Dis- trict of Columbia school-lunch program, is Wisconsin Avenue NW., Washington, West Virginia: W. Waggy, supervisor, State department of public welfare, State Capitol Building, Charleston, W. Va.