EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT OF PUBLIC LAW 480

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 38
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 12, 2014
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: August 20, 1959
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

\Z1,
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7 DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
25 Aug. 1959
TO:
STAT
ROOM r422, 5
East
REMARKS:
FROM: OGC/LC
STATtzi
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy A"pred for Release @50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7 ?
BUILDINGEast
EXTENSIOIs
; ?
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12:
IA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE'
F
consideration of the bill or bills and roll-
calls will be postponed until Wednesday
of next week.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mas-
sachusetts?
There was no objection.
CORRECTION OF ROLLCALL
Mr. FOUNTAIN. Mr. Speaker, on
rollcall No. 137 I was recorded as being
absent. I was present and answered to
my name, and I ask unanimous consent
that the RECORD be corrected accordingly.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from North
Carolina?
There was no objection.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Mr. FOUNTAIN. Mr. Speaker, on
rollcall No. 117 on July 27 on the passage
of the bill (H.R. 7072), to provide for the
participation of the United States in the
Inter-American Development Bank, I
was on official leave of absence. Had I
been present and voting I would have
voted "yea."
CLARIFYING TYPES OF ARREST-
MENT PROHIBITED WITH RE-
SPECT TO WAGES OF U.S. SEAMEN
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's desk the bill (S. 1958) to amend
title 46, United States Code, section 601,
to clarify types of arrestment prohibited
with respect to wages of U.S. seamen,
with House amendment thereto, and
agree to the conference requested by the
Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from North
Carolina? [After a pause.] The Chair
hears none and appoints the following
conferees: Messrs. BONNER, GEORGE P.
MILLER, ZELENKO, TOLLEFSON, and RAY.
EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT OF
PUBLIC LAW 480
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the further con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 8609) to
amend the Agricultural Trade Develop-
ment and Assistance Act of 1954,as
amended, by extending the authorities
of titles I and II, strengthening the pro-
gram of disposals through barter, and
for other purposes.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the House- resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill H.R. 8609, with
Mr. BOLLING in the. chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Corn-
mittee rose on yesterday there was pend-
ing the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from New York [Mr. KEOGH].
Without objection, the Clerk will re-
port the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from New York.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
'Amendment offered by Mr. KEOGH: On
page 8, following line 23, insert a new section
14 reading as follows, and renumber suc-
ceeding sections to conform:
"SEC. 14. Such Act is further amended by
adding at the end of title III the following
new section:
'SEC. 306. Shipments of surplus agricul-
tural commodities destined to foreign coun-
tries, exported under titles I, II, or III of this
Act, shall be delivered directly to the export
vessel at a United States port. For the pur-
pose of this section "export vessel" shall mean
the ocean vessel transporting the surplus
agricultural commodities from the United
States port of landing to foreign port of
discharge.'"
Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, it is my hope to make
it plain that this amendment is not ?a
committee amendment: This amend-
ment is not directly a part of the leg-
islation that is before you. The legisla-
tion before you does involve however the
shipment of substantial quantities of
agricultural commodities. _
Mr. KEOGH. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. POAGE. I yield to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. KEOGH. Your opening remarks,
I trust, were not predicated on any rep-
resentation by me or anyone else' that
this was a committee amendment?
Mr. POAGE. No. And I want to
make it plain that I am for the amend-
ment. I want the gentleman from New
York to understand that I am for the
amendment, not as a member of the
Committee on Agriculture, but as a
Member of the Congress charged with
the responsibility of trying to do sub-
stantial justice to all sections of our
country. This amendment simply seeks
to see that all sections of the country are
treated equitably.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear
that my reason for rising is to try to ex-
plain that this is not being done to help
any agricultural product. It has no
bearing upon agricultural products as
such except as to the cost that is in-
volved on the part of the United States
of America. The taxpayers pay the bill.
We want to see every section treated
fairly. There were those yesterday who
said, "Why, you don't want the Great
Lakes to carry their share of the ship-
ping." I want the Great Lakes to ship
anything in the world they can. I want
the Great Lakes, I want the Pacific coast,
I want the gulf coast and the Atlantic
coast to ship anything in the world they
can. I want these commodities to move
just as cheaply as they can, because by
doing so we save the taxpayers of Amer-
ica extra cost. But, I want the cost to
be equitably spread between each section
of this country.
Now, we have on the books, and our
committee is not seeking to take it off,
what is known as the 50-50 shipping
clause. Fifty percent of all the commod-
ities that are bought by the Government
must be shipped in American bottoms:
August 20
The Congress passed that law some years
ago. It adds tremendously to the cost,
but we did it with the idea that we were
benefiting an American industry, one
which America needed. We did it to
subsidize American shipping', because we
think we need Ameridan shipping. But,
it costs the taxpayers that much more
money, there is no getting around that.
It cost two to three times as much to ship
in American bottoms as it cost to ship
in some foreign tramp Ship. Some of
those ships are now going into the Great
Lakes. There are no American ships
going into the Great Lakes to load out
with wheat or other agricultural prod-
ucts, moving them to destination at a
European port. It is the foreign ships
that are moving that grain.
? It is also insisted that we should not
only allow the foreign ships to move out
of the 'Great Lakes, but that we should
ship down to Montreal, either by rail or
by lake steamer or by oxcart or any way
you want, to Montreal; and then reload
the grain on a ship which may or may
not have lever been in the Great Lakes.
This ship would probably be a foreign
ship. There is no substantial American
shipping in Montreal. ' Practically all of
the ships going into Montreal are of for-
eign registry. If this grain, which is the
primary thing that is involved, is all
shipped out of Montreal or from the lake
ports, it is practically all going to be
shipped in foreign bottoms. About one-
half of the grain of the United States
might be expected to move through the
Great Lakes. I have not any objection
at all to its so moving. I want it to move
through the Great Lakes if that is the
cheapest way of moving it and comply-
ing with the 50-50 Shipping Act. But,
if they are going to move half of the grain
moving from the United States in foreign
bottoms through the Great Lakes, that
means that every other bushel that
moves from an Atlantic port, a gulf port
or a Pacific port has got to move in
American bottoms.
The CHAIRMAN. .The time of the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. POAGE] has
expired.
(Mr. POAGE asked and was given per-
mission to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. POAGE. Let me repeat. If half
of the grain of the United States moves
through the Great Lakes in foreign bot-
toms, every other bushel that moves from
an Atlantic port, a gulf port, or a Pacific
port has got to move in American bot-
toms. That is the only way you can
apply the 50-50 clause. That means
that shipping through Atlantic ports,
through Pacific ports and gulf ports is
going to cost 2 V2 to 3 times what it is
going to cost through the Great Lakes.
This is true because the shipment
through the Great Lakes will be in for-
eign ships while that through the other
ports will of necessity all be in American
ships.
Are you willing to put the burden of
this extra cost on the Atlantic, Pacific,
and gulf ports, and give to the Great
Lakes ports the right to ship at a greatly
subsidized rate, at a rate merely a frac-
tion of what those of us who are shipping
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
der the American flag will have to
ay? And yet, unless you vote for this
4anendment, unless you require Ameri-
can inspection in American ports and not
in foreign ports, you are going to estab-
lish a foreign merchant marine control-
ling the Great Lakes and to establish a
foreign port that will actually be the
terminal of Great Lakes shipping. Your
Great Lakes shipping is going to be 100
percent foreign shipping unless you
adopt the Keogh amendment.
Mr. ANFUSO. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. POAGE. I yield to the gentleman.
.Mr. ANFUSO. Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman from Texas is making a great
deal of sense in what he is saying. Is it
not a fact that American taxpayers are
paying for this program and, if so, why
shouldn't these shipments be made
through American ports?
Mr. POAGE. I think the people of the
Great Lakes are fair enough that they
should be willing, and I think they will
be willing, to agree that at least half of
all the lake shipping should be in Amer-
ican bottoms. But if you do not adopt
this amendment it is all going to be
foreign shipping.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the Representa-
tives of the Great Lakes ports, Are you
willing to agree to an amendment which
would require 50 percent of all of this
shipping through the lake ports to move
on American ships?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who just
spoke [Mr. POAGE] is a great American
but what he proposes is not in the in-
terest of a greater America. The pend-
ing amendment, offered by the gentle-
man from New York [Mr. KEOGH], in
spite of all the protestations we have
just heard, is nothing more nor less ehan
a thinly veiled effort to reopen the bat-
tle of the St. Lawrence Seaway, a battle
that we thought had been won several
years ago.
The gentleman proposing this amend-
ment, while cloaking their efforts in
Fourth of July oratory, are actually try-
ing to prevent grains grown by mid-
western farmers from moving over the
most economical routes.
It is common knowledge that large
oceangoing vessels cannot move in the
St. Lawrence Seaway when fully loaded
with grain. This means that any re-
striction on the -shipment of grains to
Montreal to be used for topping off par-
tially loaded ships before they cross the
ocean is the same as closing off the sea-
way to the movement of midwestern
grains.
This is analagous to a proposal by
horse-and-buggy advocates that no one
be allowed to ride in an automobile un-
less it is pulled by a horge?in this case
a horse draped with the Stars and
Stripes.
At House hearings on this matter be-
fore the distinguished Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries it was
made perfectly clear that sectional eco-
nomic forces are at work to hamstring
the use of the St. Lawrence Seaway as a
natural commercial waterway for grain
and other midwestern commodities in
order to force use of southern and east-
ern port facilities regardless of the cost
to the American people.
Last week the Nation was treated to
the spectacle of a smooth-working po-
litical coalition that cut across party
lines on the fundamental issue of labor-
management relations. -
Today we have a new kind of coalition,
a marriage of convenience between the
port of New York and the port of New
Orleans.
A rate study by the Department of
Agriculture completed in April of this
year shows that grain moving over the
St. Lawrence Seaway from 17 States to
Rotterdam is shipped at an average of
17 cents per bushel less than by other
shipping routes.
Surely the gentleman from eastern and
southern ports do not want the people
of the United States paying them a toll
of 17 cents a bushel merely to fatten
the bank accounts of a few shipping cor-
porations.
And this after the American taxpayers
have paid out half a billion dollars to
build the seaway so that we could avoid
these needless shipping charges.
Mr. Chairman, there is another impor-
tant aspect of this matter that should
not be overlooked. We are engaged in
an intense trade competition with the
grain producers of Canada. They have
a number of advantages in any such
trade competition, some of which -have
been made possible by aggressive assist-
ance to Canadian producers on the part
of their government.
Why should we hand Canadian pro-
ducers an additional competitive ad-
vantage by permitting them to use the
St. Lawrence Seaway with the resulting
savings to their shippers and deny the
same advantage to our own businessmen
and farmers?
When we lose the opportunity to move
grain into foreign markets at 17 cents
per bushel less, than it would cost us
through other shipping routes, we yield
a price advantage to Canadian producers
and shippers that will be of tremendous
consequence. I cannot believe that our
friends from New York and other ship-
ping points would really want to place
the American farmer and the American
shipper at such a severe competitive dis-
advantage with Canadian exporters.
I urge the defeat of this amendment be-.
cause it is antiagriculture, antibusiness
and antifree enterprise.
Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
(Mr. SHORT asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, before
emotions become too aroused on this bill,
I would like to take a few minutes of
your time to try to clarify as well as I
am able to the mechanics of this St.
Lawrence Seaway grain transportation
operation so that you will understand a
little better what the problems are that
are involved here. I want to say also as
a Representative from the State of
North Dakota, as my colleague, the gen-
tleman from South Dakota: pointed out,
that this seaway can provide a savings
of as much as 17 cents on every bushel
15185
of wheat transported through that
facility.
Now that the St. Lawrence Seaway
has begun operation and been dedicated
to the benefits Of the United States as
well as Canada, it would be folly to try
to erode away the benefits to our coun-
try by not permitting shipments of sur-
plus agricultural commodities under
U.S. Government programs to fully
utilize its facilities.
A brief examination of some of the
problems in initiating use of these new.
facilities for our farm products will be
helpful in understanding the problem.
Shipment of our farm products out of
other U.S. areas and ports, particularly
those moving under Government pro-
grams, are often subject to controls over
quality through inspection regulations.
This entails certain problems when the
shipments are through the St. Lawrence
Seaway.
The route from the head of the Great
Lakes through the new seaway cannot
handle full loads on oceangoing vessels.
If it could, the inspection problems
would not be great. A full cargo could
be loaded at a lake port, -inspection
? made, and a certification of grade issued
without any change in the content of
the load through the seaway and on to
the foreign port of final destination
where the grain is unloaded.
It is not so simple as that, however,
because full ocean cargo loads cannot
move through the entire route. The 27-
foot channel does not permit a full load.
Instead of a full ocean cargo of, say,
10,000 tons, the loading at lake ports for
seaway shipping is limited-, to smaller
cargoes, possibly around 6,000 tons. Of
course, it would not be practical to run
vessels as a rule to foreign ports of desti-
nation with only 60 percent of normal
loads. Under present conditions an
oceangoing vessel can take advantage of
as much of a load as the lake route will
permit and, further along the seaway,
beyond where there are no channel lim-
itations fill the remaining capacity with
U.S. grain stored at another point. At
that part ? of the seaway, however, the
port is a Canadian port.
This practice of completing a load or
"topping off" is made possible by putting
the U.S. grain in storage at the Canadian
port after hauling it through the part of
the seaway route where fully loaded
oceangoing vessels cannot be handled.
The Canadian officials cooperate in pre-
serving the identity of the U.S. grain
when it is unloaded and stored in the
Canadian port.
At the time the grain is moved out of
the U.S. port in the Great Lakes, the
grain is inspected and graded and U.S.
inspection certificates are issued on it.
It is not practical to obtain separate
space for each such inspected shipment
to preserve its identity. Furthermore,
all the steps in the transshipment and
storage operation could result in a ma-
terial change in quality. In that event,
the original certificate of inspection
would not actually represent the quality
finally loaded for ocean shipment.
The Canadian Government, of course,
does not want the responsibility for des-
ignating or controlling quality of U.S.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
15186 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?140USE
grain. On the other hand, the United
States feels that preservation of the in-
tegrity of quality certification on grain
exported is most necessary in maintain-
ing our competitive position in the for-
eign grain markets of the world. With
the world competition so keen, buyers
for foreign areas will obtain their re-
quirements from other exporting coun-
tries, including Canada, if they are un-
able to obtain U.S. grain with assurance
as to quality through inspection certifi-
cates. On cash sales, therefore, the
United States has no choice but to meet
the Competition by requiring and fur-
nishing inspection of U.S. grain that will
be stored in Canadian ports along the
seaway and will be used to top off out-
going vessels.
The shipments under the barter pro-
gram of the Commodity Credit Corpora-
tion obviously have to be kept on a com-
petitive basis, and those sales made for
foreign currencies under title I of Pub-
lic Law 480 move all the way through the
commercial stream and, therefore, must
be competitive or change the entire,pro-
gram. There is no good reason why any
other Government programs should be
required to pay an additional penalty or
subsidy for failing to make use of more
efficient transportation facilities. Ship-
ments financed with foreign aid funds by
the International Cooperation Adminis-
tration should not be separated out and
treated preferentially like cash dollar
sales. The commercial movements
through barter and foreign currency
sales should not be penalized with in-
? creased costs by refusing their use of the
new beneficial St. Lawrence Seaway
facilities.
Mr. Chairman, my State of North Da-
kota has a great potential benefit from
the St. Lawrence Seaway. We have
been told that our wheatgrowers will
receive a benefit of as much as 10 to 12
cents per bushel on wheat exported from
our State to foreign countries. I do not.
think we should be denied this benefit
from a facility that has been built and
is now in operation.
I certainly hope that this amendment
will be defeated.
Mr. MACHROWICZ. Mr. Chairman,
I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. MACHROWICZ to
the amendment offered by Mr. KEOGH: Add
the following: "Provided, however, That the
provisions of this section shall not apply to
shipments of surplus agricultural commodi-
ties originating in American ports and ship-
ped through the St. Lawrence Wateiway."
Mr. MACHROWICZ. Mr. Chairman,
I offer this amendment in all sincerity,
particularly after the very persuasive
argument of my very genial friend from
New York [Mr. KEOGH], who assured us
yesterday that the last thing he desires
is to do anything to injure the ports of
the Great Lakes, and particularly also
after the argument of the gentleman
from Texas, a member of the committee
[Mr. POAGE], today, who said it was his
desire that all ports throughout all sec-
tions of the country have equal access
to the transportation of these agricul-
tural commodities.
Mr. Chairman, as it has already been
said several times, several years ago we
completed the Thirty Years' War on the
St. Lawrence Seaway; many, many years
before that we completed the War Be-
tween the States. I thought both those
wars were over and forgotten, but evi-
dently they are to be resurrected again
today.
I have followed the leadership of my
friend from New York for the 10 years
of my service here with one notable ex-
ception, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
Seaway. I would like to follow him again
today. If he is sincere in his statement
that he has no desire to injure the ports
of the Great Lakes, and if the member
of the Agriculture Committee, the gen-
tleman from Texas [Mr. PoAuE] , is sin-
cere in his desire that the ports of the
Great Lakes be not injured, then cer-
tainly they will rise hastily to accept my
amendment, and I will be very glad then
to support the Keogh amendment.
Seriously, Mr. Chairman, all of us
know that if the Keogh amendment as it
now stands were to be adopted it would
? be to the advantage of the other ports
and add 17 cents per bushel to the cost of
transportation of these surplus grains.
I do not think anyone wants that. I
think the gentleman from Texas was
right, that this amendment has nothing
to do with the bill we are discussing. I
agree with him 100 percent. It is an
issue which has been brought to bear
which has nothing to do with the origi-
nal matter we had before us and was
intended only to start another sectional
battle between the States. I might say
in passing that I deplore statements
made by anyone that one side is pro-
American and the other anti-American;
this is strictly an interstate battle.
Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MACHROWICZ. I yield.
Mr. SHORT. Would the gentleman's
amendment permit ships to be topped off
by grain hauled to Montreal by truck or
train?
Mr. MACHROWICZ. No; it refers
only to shipments made through the St.
Lawrence waterway by ship.
Mr. SHORT. So all the grain would
have to originate in American ports ?
Mr. MACHROWICZ. Yes.
Mr. Chairman, if all these proponents
of the Keogh amendment are sincere,
and if they really mean they do not wish
to do any harm to the Great Lakes ports,
I sincerely hope they will support my
amendment.
Mr. BREEDING. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the pro forma
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to voice my
opposition to the proposed amendment.
It is my belief that adoption of the
amendment would seriously injure efforts
now being made to increase the exports
of wheat. The effect of the amendment
would be to force the exporter to forego
use of the St. Lawrence Seaway and ship
August
wheat grown in Kansas and other MI
western States to ports on the Atlanti,
or gulf coasts for loading onto ocean.=
going vessels.
There is no doubt that if the amend-
ment prevails the cost of shipping wheat
from my area will be increased substan-
tially. The St. Lawrence Seaway is the
natural outlet for this wheat. The arti-
ficial barriers which this amendment
proposes to erect will force the wheat to
travel long distances before it can be
shipped by water.
The amendment would completely dis-
rupt normal shipping procedures on the
St. Lawrence Seaway. For example, a
vessel is now loaded at an American
Great Lakes port. It proceeds through
the seaway to a point on the St. Law-
rence River where a deep sea channel
is available. Then the vessel is topped
off by loading more wheat, enabling the
vessel to carry its full cargo.
Under the amendment, this topping
off process?which, incidentally, uses
American-produced wheat?would be
stopped. Great Lakes vessels could not
carry a full load. They would have to
increase their rates for carrying wheat.
This amendment poses a threat to the
future of the St. Lawrence Seaway. It
seeks to stop the natural flow of traffic
to the seaway. Members of this House
who worked so long for the of,
of the seaway should be alert to this
danger. If artificial barriers to the free
movement of traffic to the seaway are
approved in this one instance, then sim-
ilar steps can be taken on other com-
modities. The real danger is that the
St. Lawrence Seaway will be legislated
out of enjoying full benefit of greattY
increased traffic which was envisioned at
the time of its approval.
The adoption of the amendment would
not result in the increased use of Ameri-
can ships to export wheat under the
Public Law 480 program, U.S. vessels use
the St. Lawrence Seaway and they would
be affected the same as foreign flag
ships. The law already requires that at
least 50 percent of all shipments be made
in U.S. vessels.
The net effect of the amendment would
be to make the use of the St. Lawrence
Seaway for shipping wheat uneconom-
ical. We would force shippers to use long
hauls, thereby ?adding to the cost of
wheat shipped overseas.
We would be hurting-the efforts of the
Kansas Wheat Commission, the growers
and other producer-supported groups,
who have been working long and hard
to increase the export of wheat.
We would be erecting artificial barriers
to penalize the St. Lawrence Seaway
ports and to help ports in other areas.
The amendment is not needed. I hope
it is defeated.
Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Keogh
amendment, because in effect it tells the
people of the Great Lakes region now
that the St. Lawrence Seaway has been
built, you cannot use it.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
.7,1A-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --- HOUSE
_minds me of an old nursery
1, with some additions:
Mother, may I go in to swim?
Yes, my darling daughter;
Hang your clothes on a hickory limb
But don't go near the water.
Mother, may / have a boat?
Yes, my darling daughter;
You may have a seaway, too,
But don't go near the water.
Mother, may I ship some wheat?
Yes, my darling daughter;
Let the farmers fill your bins,
But don't go near the water.
Mother, can't I use my boat?
No, my darling daughter;
You're not from the South or East
And so you hadn't oughter.
Mr. LEVERING. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the pending amend-
ments.
(Mr. LEVERING asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. LEVERING. Mr. Chairman, with
the advent of the St. Lawrence Seaway
we saw the creation of the eighth sea
of the world and our fourth seacoast,
giving to the farmers, manufacturers,
workers, and everyone living in this
great area of the Middle West the golden
opportunities for which enlightened
citizens of America and our loyal and
trusted friends of Canada have prayed
and planned for, hundreds of years.
Through many decades, the advisability
of U.S. participation in the construction
and operation of the St. Lawrence Sea-
way was debated on the floor of the
House, and in the U.S. Senate. During
all the years of that debate, certain
shipping interests in this country strove
with might _and main to prevent U.S.
participation in this great undertaking.
Yet, as the country grew and as the
mighty industries west of the Allegheny
Mountains expanded, it became more
and more evident that the St. Lawrence
Seaway was absolutely necessary to the
full economic development of our coun-
try. It probably was not fatal to our
economic development that it was de-
layed, but it would have been fatal to
have delayed the St. Lawrence Seaway
much longer. In any case, the Congress
finally voted full participation in the
St. Lawrence Seaway, and, indeed, only
a few weeks ago, President Eisenhower
and Queen Elizabeth II of the British
Commonwealth of Nations, in impressive
ceremonies, dedicated the seaway to the
cause of mankind. At that time it was
believed this inaugurated a new eco-
nomic era in the history of America.
Today, in a backdoor approach, or
something similar to the Trojan horse
techniques of another era, the remnants
of the opposition to the St. Lawrence
Seaway are rallying around this amend-.
ment to the Public Law 480, which
makes possible our "food -for peace"
program, so vital to our farmers and so
vital to the cause of peace. This
amendment, if adopted, would strike a
crippling blow at the use of the St:
Lawrence Seaway. Of course, it
wouldn't be a fatal blow. The seaway
is well accepted and its usefulness is too
apparent for anyone to think that he
No. 143-14
ever could destroy it now. It is there,
and it is being used. It ought to be
utilized to the fullest.
If this amendment were adopted, it
would restrict the movement of surplus
agricultural products over the seaway,
by making it impossible for them to go
through ports on the seaway itself.
Thus it would- be a hampering factor?
and, in my judgment, a wholly unneces-
sary move. Certainly, it would cause
greater expense to the taxpayer, who
already is burdened with costs involved
in Goyernment procurement and trans-
port due to antiquated methods of
shipping in some instances and restric-
tive laws in others.
This is not the time to add more ex-
pense to transporting of these vital agri-
cultural products. This amendment, if
adopted, certainly would add such costs
to the already-harassed taxpayer.
But Mr. Speaker, there is another vi-
tal factor involved in our consideration
of this amendment. It is the friendship
of our great neighbor to the north, the
Dominion of Canada. There is no ques-
tion in my mind but that, in spite of
more than 100 years of close and peace-
ful relations with Canada, our Canada-
United States relations have deterio-
rated in the past several years. This is
due to economic factors over which none
of us have control, perhaps, but some of
it is due to diplomatic factors, in my
judgment, and to tra7de policies. Rather
than straining our relations further with
our northern neighbor, I deeply believe
that in this time of tension, we should
build toward greater solidarity with this
wonderful country.
We should learn, as a Government and
as a people, that everything we do, in
relation to shipping and to our activities
which impinge upon other countries, is
important in building friendship, and, of
course, is a factor in a just and lasting
peace, or survival itself in case peace
is not possible with soine of our enemies
in the world. Certainly, it is no time
for us to offend one of our most loyal
friends and our closest neighbor.
Who would be helped by adoption of
this amendment? A few shipping in-
terests involved in shipping into and out
of the gulf , coast and east coast ports.
They may be numbered in the hundreds,
at the most. But who would be hurt by
the adoption of this amendment?
First, the taxpayer would be hurt, be-
cause the Government would find it more
costly to ship these commodities in
abiding by the terms of this amendment.
Second, the farmer would be hurt.
Anything that increases the cost of ship-
ping these commodities can jeopardize
the program itself, which is so vital to
our farmers these days.
Third, the people of the lands across
the seas, who need this food, would be
? hurt.
Fourth, the Canadian ports 'through
which this foodstuff is shipped, would be
hurt.
Fifth, the St. Lawrence Seaway would
be hurt. It is a self-liquidating project
and if it does not obtain enough busi-
ness, it will be more costly to all con-
cerned in its financing in the long run.
15187
Sixth, our relations with our great,
friendly ally to the north would be dam-
aged.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that these
six reasons are valid and sound reasons
why I must vote against the amendment
and why I can, in good justice and hon.-
esty, urge my colleagues to reject it over-
whelmingly in thennterests of not only
the people of the middle United States
but of the whole Nation.
Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. LEVERING. I yield to the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KEARNS. I want to join with my
neighbor. from Ohio, having the great
port of Erie in my district, and tell him
I support him most heartily in his posi-
tion with reference to this amendment.
"Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct
an inquiry to the chairman of the com-
mittee. We have written into the law
over a period of time the so-called 50-50
rule whereby at least 50 percent of these
cargoes must move in American bottoms.
The justification for that rule has been
that it is the policy of our Government?
and I think a sound policy?to encourage
an American merchant marine. These
are public cargoes owned by the tax-
payers of the United States.
Now, would the effect of failure to
adopt the Keogh amendment be that
the non-50-50 cargoes would move
through the Great Lakes and the others
would move through the other ports?
Mr. COOLEY. I think, as was pointed
out by the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
POAGE], the natural result would be that
the foreign ships would operate in the
Great Lakes and the American ships
would operate in the other ports of the
country, the west coast, the easecoast,
and the gulf coast. In other words, if
you ship a bushel of wheat out of Gal-
veston or New Orleans, it is 50-50.
? Mr. BOGGS. But that movement on
the Great Lakes would be practically all
on tramp ships..
Mr. COOLEY. That is what I under-
stand.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BOGGS. I yield to the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. The St. Lawrence Sea-
way was just opened up to ships, so how
can you make a statement like that?
Mr. COOLEY. We had information
that foreign ships were loading 45,000
tons with American ships standing by
wanting cargo which was not available.
Mr. YATES. Do you not think it would
be well to let the seaway operate for a
while before you make a statement like
that? "
Mr. BOGGS. I can well understand
where any of us would be reluctant to
adopt any language which would be dis-
criminatory against any section of our
country. And, I agree with the gentle-
man from rilinois that since we have
built the St. Lawrence Seaway, we should
give it a chance to succeed. But, I do
not think we should discriminate against
the American ports in favor of the Ca-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
15188 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
nadian ports. If the bill as now drawn,
Without the Keogh amendment, is to
mean that Baltimore and New York and -
Philadelphia and Galveston and Houston
and New Orleans and the other ports in
that area get all of the high-priced ship-
ping and the Great Lakes get all of the
cheap shipping, that is discriminatory
against us.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. BOGGS. I yield.
Mr. YATES. May I Point out to the
gentleman from Louisiana that in our
subcommittee of the Committee on Ap-
propriations we have just authorized cer-
tain subsidized voyages for the St. Law-
rence Seaway, for oceangoing vessels-
1960 will be the first year?for regular
trade routes of oceangoing vessels to the
seacoast ports, but it is unfair to use the
statistics we have been using and to draw
the conclusion that you have been draw-
ing before?we give the seaway a chance
to operate.
Mr. KEOGH. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. BOGGS. I yield.
Mr. KEOGH. Let me read this follow-
ing quotation from the New York Times
of July 25:
American-owned vessels are being squeezed
out of Great Lakes grain market, the Lake
Cargo Carriers Association said today. The
total grain shipments in June climbed to 16
from 15, but only 29 of 247 cargoes were
hauled by U.S. vessels. A total of 165 car-
goes were moved by vessels of Canadian regis-
try and 53 by foreign ships. ,
.This, Mr. Chairman, is the Lake Cargo
Carriers Association.
Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BOGGS. I yield to the gentleman
from Ohio.
? Mr. ASHLEY. I would like to answer
the gentleman from New York by saying
that of course this was the report of the
Lake Cargo Carriers Association, Amer-
ican lake carriers. However, the grain
that was referred to there was privately
owned grain. This had nothing to do
with shipments under titles I, II, and III,
which the gentleman's amendment refers
to.
Mr. KEOGH. I do not agree with that
statement.
Mr. BOGGS. I cannot yield any
further.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Louisiana has expirid.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to proceed for 1 min-
ute additional.
? The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
object. -
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I was greatly surprised
on yesterday listening to the debate to
hear the gentleman from the State of
Iowa [Mr. HOEVEN] say that this was an
anti-American proposal, when he was
referring to the Keogh amendment. I
understand from the gentleman today
that he has decided to remove that from
the permanent RECORD. I was also great-
ly surprised listening to the debate later
in the evening to hear the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. YATES] say
that the Keogh amendment would be like
tossing an atomic bomb into the St. Law-
rence Seaway. And then, too, this morn-
ing the gentleman from South Dakota
[Mr. McGovERN] said that the proposal
was wrapped up in an American flag,
Which is just more of this idea that when
you are against something, you try to
tag it 'as un-American instead of offer-
ing reasons why you are against it.
I would suggest to the gentleman from
South Dakota [Mr. McGovzsic] that he
might well give consideration to remov-
ing that kind of remark from his speech.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAILEY. I yield.
Mr. McGOVERN. I want to make it
clear, Mr. Chairman, that there was
nothing in my remarks that questioned
the Americanism of anyone. I think the
gentleman would agree that it is entirely
possible to say that a proposal is against
-the best interests of America without ac-
cusing the person advocating it of being
an un-American individual.
Mr. BAILEY. But that is exactly what
the gentleman is doing; he is implying
that.
Mr. McGOVERN. Everything we dis-
cuss on this floor is evaluated in terms
of the national interest, whether it is for
the best interests of America or against
the, best interests of America. I .do not
doubt the Americanism of any Member
' of the Congress, but I do submit that the
amendment before us is not in the best
interest of America.
Mr. BAILEY. I think he Should have
a better argument than to tag it as un-
American.
Mr. Chairman, let us remember, if you
will, that I am the man who led the fight
against the seaway some few years ago.
At that time one of the major arguments
against it was that it would be to the
benefit of a group of foreign-owned
tramp steamships. At that time I was
offering as one of my reasons why the
seaway should not be constructed, what
It would do to ports like Boston, New
York, Baltimore and other Atlantic and
Gulf ports. I was not aware that as it
appears today things would be in reverse
in reference to shipments moving out of
those ports. I was interested in trying
to save those ports, save the business that
was coming into this country through
those ports, that we were diverting away
from American shipping to tramp ships
that come into the Great Lakes.
Mr. Chairman, let me remind you that
the first ship that came through the
Great Lakes was a Dutch tramp steamer
and 40 percent of the cargo carried by
that steamer was plate glass made in the
city of Antwerp, Belgium.
What about American manufacturers
of plate 'glass? What about the Pitts-
burgh Plate Glass Co. which has 16
plants from western Pennsylvania to
Oklahoma? What is going to happen to
them? Half of those plants will be
closed within the next 3 years because
they will not be able to meet the com-
petition from Belgium, whose companies
do not.have to transship their shipments
Aug
of glass through the port of Bad
or New York or Boston.'
Mr. Chairman, we have lost our 4.
markets as a result of the seaway. Ca
ada battled to get the lowest possibl
rate they could on shipments because o
their heavy shipments of grain. The3
cut down the toll in the seaway.
One gentleman here acknowledged
that the American.Government had al-
ready invested half a billion dollars in
the construction of the seaway. I was
told when I opposed the seaway that the
$110 million that we voted, or authorized
the issuance of bonds for, would be the
total cost of American participation.
Right now there is pending before the
Army engineers a proposition to deepen
the seaports of the Great Lakes, costing
over half a billion dollars.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr.
BAILEY] has expired.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike 'out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct
a couple of questions, if I may, to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. KEOGH]
and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
MACHROWICZ].
First, Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will
state it.
Mr. SPRINGER. Under the rules of
the House, may the gentleman from New
York [Mr. KEOGH] accept the amend-
ment of the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. MACHROWICZ].
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. BOLL/NG). The
amendment would have to be voted on.
Mr. SPRINGER. Let me ask this
question, then, will the gentleman from
New York state whether or not he would
accept the amendment?
Mr. KEOGH. No; it is not possible
in the form that the amendment has
been offered to my amendment to accept
it. I personally think the objective of
the amendment is fine and is in conso-
nance with the objective of the main
amendment. But they are seeking here a
specific exclusion of the waterway. We
do not want it excluded. We do not
want it debarred. We just want the
natural, regular order to prevail and
when the seaWay is completed and when
it is as good as the proponents have for
30 years been saying it would be, this
amendment would actually protect the
lake ports just as much as all the other
ports of the country.
Mr. SPRINGER. May I ask the gen-
tleman this question? In the meantime
though, while the full implications have
not been realized of the seaway as yet,
will it not be the effect of your amend-
ment standing alone as a practical mat-
ter to exclude lake ports from the bene-
fits of this particular Public Law 480.
That is, in fact, what it would do. It
seems to me, now is the time, to accept
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Michigan while the waterway is not
able to achieve its full prospects of ship-
ping from a port on the Great Lakes
to any port in the world.
?
Mr. KEOGH. The gentleman is, in
effect, asking me whether it is all right
to move into a' house before it is coin-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12:
1A-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
.)1eted. I think it would depend entirely
upon the situation. The St. Lawrence
Seaway will be completed. Oceangoing
vessels will reach Chicago and Duluth.
Then they will be qualified to be pro-
tected by the objective of this amend-
ment. This device that has been en-
gaged in, under serious questionable
legality, is a device which, in my opinion,
win delay the completion of the seaway
and will add the expense to the American
taxpayers who are now paying the
freight and would be a further subsidy
not only to foreign-flag ships but to our
fine, gracious, lovable, amiable and
somewhat solvent neighbors to the north.
Mr. SPRINGER. May I say in reply,
Mr. Chairman, that the Machrowicz
amendment could have been a solution to
this problem, giving the? Great Lakes
ports their chance now while they? are
not able to receive the deep draft ocean-
going vessels and they would have the
advantage of going ahead with this pro-
gram without any roadblock. As it
looks now, with the gentlethan from
New York not being willing to accept
this amendment, his purpose seems to me
to be clear to exclude at this time the
chances of the cities on the Great Lakes
to take advantage of shipping under the
provisions of this act.
? Mr. MACHROWICZ. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRINGER. I yield.
? Mr. MACHROWICZ. That is exact-
ly the point I want to pinpoint through ?
my amendment. The gentleman from
New York says my amendment to the
amendment seeks to exclude the Great
Lakes? from his amendment. Actual-
ly, what I am trying to do is to avoid
exclusion of the Great Lakes ports from
the benefits which should be available to
all ports of the United States. To make
clear what my amendment provides, it
provides merely this. That the pro-
visions of the Keogh amendment will not
apply to any shipments originating in
any American port and, of course, I
have in mind the Great Lakes ports, and
proceeding through the St. Lawrence
waterway even though they have to re-
load at Montreal or elsewhere.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. KLIICZYNSKI moves that the Com-
mittee do now rise and report the bill to the
House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken out.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman, /
am sorry I had to object to the exten-
sion of time of the gentleman from
Louisiana. It hurt me to do that, and
I know the gentleman understands my
position. But it is necessary because of
the limited time that the Members who
are waiting to address the House be
-given the opportunity to do so. The
motion will be made in a few minutes,
to shut off debate. I an sorry I have
to oppose my very good friend Mr.
KEOGH of New York on this amendment.
Mr. KEOGH. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. No; I cannot
yield.
Mr. KEOGH. / just want the gentle-
man to know there is nothing personal.
. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
decline to yield.
-Mr. Chairman, it was only yesterday
that this gentleman had given .me 3
minutes of his valuable time. I have
served in Congress 9 years. I, the son
of a Polish immigrant sent to Congress,
am proud of the honor to talk 3 minutes
to the gentleman, a talented legislator
from New York, EUGENE KEOGH. I ap-
preciate his kindnesses to me. I hope
this debate in opposition of his amend-
ment will not be the cause of a loss of our
friendship, but I hope to regain our mu-
tual feelings in a month or so when I
invite him as my guest, to the World
Series in Chicago.
This amendment is aimed at the
cities on the Great Lakes. The effect of
this amendment would be to eliminate
transshipment of export surplus agri-
cultural commodities under this act in
Canadian ports such as Montreal and
Baie Comeau. It means, in effect, the
United States and Canadian lake car-
riers could not take grain to eastern
Canadian ports as a return cargo for
iron ore brought back into the lakes.
As this is the most economical means
of transportation for both grain and
iron ore it will impose a penalty on the
Great Lakes transportation system. It
will have the additional effect of confin-
ing exports of surpluses under the act
from Great Lakes ports to foreign-flag
vessels and tramps.
I have supported Public Law 480 in the
past, and I would like to support it now.
But I am sorry to say that if the Keogh
amendment which would harm lake car-
riers is adopted I will vote against H.R.
8609.
The amendment now being considered,
Mr. Chairman, should be defeated.
Mr. THOMPSON of Texas. Mr. Chair-.
man, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is tragic that we have
come to the frame of mind where every
issue, large or small, is apt to stir up
emotionalism and unnecessary heat.
There is nothing whatever in the subject
matter before us that should not be
calmly considered and decided.
To say that anyone is trying to put the
St. Lawrence Seaway out of business is,
of course, perfectly absurd. That water-
way is established and is on its way to
becoming one of our important arteries
of ocean traffic, and nothing that any of
us in this Congress could do would affect
it in the least.
The question before us in the Keogh
amendment is simply whether American-
owned surplus grain shall be -handled at
our expense through a foreign port. It
is just as simple as that.
The Department of Agriculture pro-
poses to transship surplus wheat through
a foreign port at what is, in effect, a sub-
sidy of that port. Involved in the sub-
sidy is also the construction and the op-
eration of grain handling facilites, some
of which?possibly all of which?are
American owned. In any event they
would be built and developed and from
the time they start operation, they will
be in competition with American ports.
The question before you is whether you
want to subsidize a foreign operation in
that manner. If it is necessary to do so,
15189
it has no business being made a part of
the cost of handling American surpluses,
which will ultimately be blamed one way
or another on the American farmers.
I urge that the amendment be agreed
to.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMPSON of Texas. I yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield for one observation?
Mr: CASEY. Yes; if the gentleman
will make it short.
Mr. THOMPSON of Texas. I yield.
Mr. BOGGS. The point I tried to
make but was not able to?incidentally,
it was because of my yielding to oppo-
nents of the amendment that most of
my time was taken up; unless we support ?
the Keogh amendment the other ports
will be discriminated against.
Mr. CASEY. That is right. I am a
minor leaguer. I have not been here 9
years as has the gentleman from Chi-
' cago; I have been here only 9 months,
but I will say to the gentleman that while
I was one of the Members who wanted
to introduce this amendment, yet know-
ing, as you do, the rules of seniority
around here, I bowed to seniority, and
the gentleman from New York took the
ball.
I am glad the gentleman from Ohio
pointed out a while ago about the amount
of private grain that was carried in the
month of June.
What are we talking about? We are
talking about grain that every taxpayer
of this country has money in. Some of
it we are going to give away and even
load it on the boats at Government ex-
pense.
What city is going to be the pearl of
the St. Lawrence seaway? Is it going
to be Chicago? I was up in Chicago in
May and I took a boat and rode around
Your fine waterways, and I saw a model
of your ambitious plans. They are fine
and I think you are going to make a
great success of them. Is it going to
be Milwaukee? Is it going to be Duluth?
Is it going to be Detroit? Is it going to
be Cleveland? The fact is that Montreal
is working very diligently to assume this
role of leadership and control shipping
on the waterway, and unless you -vote.
for the Keogh amendment you are aid-
ing Montreal in her ambitious plans.
It has been pointed out to you that the
foreign-flag ships are taking the busi-
ness away from the American-flag Great
Lakes ships. I am sure that each of you
is interested in the prosperity of the
shipping companies that operate from
your home ports on the Great Lakes.
The foreign-flag ships and the foreign-
grain operators have taken your shirt
and your pants, and now you are fixing
to give them your underwear.
I urge support of the amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON of Maryland. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMPSON of Texas. I yield.
Mr. JOHNSON of Maryland. Mr.
Chairman, the Department of Agricul-
ture has recently announced that begin-
ning on September 1 of this year it will
modify its long-established policy with
respect to the shipment of surplus com-
modities under Public Law 480 and in-
Declassified in Pari - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
15190 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
dicated that it would permit the expor-
tation through Canadian ports of grain
moving under this law.
It is quite obvious that the recent de-
cision by the Department of Agriculture
to honor subsidies on grain, under Pub-
lic Law 480, moving through Canadian
ports, and to provide an inspection serv-
ice in Canadian ports to perform neces-
sary inspection of such grain is detri-
mental to all the ports of the United
States. I endorse the proposal to amend
Public Law 480, to restrict movement of
subsidized grain exclusively through
U.S. ports. I believe it is not to the in-
terests of the U.S. economy to use tax-
payers' dollars to subsidize any grain
movement through a foreign port when
all the facilities required for such move-
ment, such as transportation, labor, ele-
vators, together with experienced person-
nel are now in existence and have been
for many years, to handle such moVe-
ment through U.S. ports.
? The port of Baltimore and the rail-
roads serving this port have witnessed
over the years several actions, spon-
sored by our Government, that have di-
verted grain export business away from
Baltimore. Now, the Department of Ag-
riculture wants, the subsidization of
grain movement through Canada.
There is yet another ominous feature
in the recent Department of Agriculture
decision.
All initial grain inspections are now
provided by federally licensed inspec-
tors who are in the employ of individual
State agencies or quasi-public trade or-
ganizations such as the Baltimore Cham-
ber of Commerce. The Department of
Agriculture examines, licenses, and pro-
vides overall supervision of these in-
spectors in the interest of maintaining
a uniform inspection system through-
out the country. The Department also
provides a service wherein an inspec-
tor's grade may be appealed, should
anyone feel his grain has been graded
improperly. The Department has not
been able to perform the function of
maintenance of grain uniformity sat-
isfactorily, due simply to the lack of
qualified personnel within the Depart-
ment. Yet, in a hasty decision, the? De-
partment has taken on the additional
task of operating a full-fledged Canadian
' service, breaking all precedents, and this
in the face of an offer by the Buffalo
Corn Exchange to provide the service
of initial inspections from their more
than ample present staff.
I unequivocally support the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from
New York [Mr. KEOGH].
(Mr. THOMPSON of Texas asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mrs. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CHURCH. Briefly. I have been
waiting for recognition yesterday and
today. Of course I will yield to the gen-
tleman.
(Mr. WEAVER asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.) ?
Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise
In opposition to the amendment offered
by the distinguished gentleman from
New York [Mr. KEOGH]. Frankly, Mr.
Chairman, I was not surprised to see
this amendment offered. I had known
for more than a week that it was com-
ing; indeed, I have known for several
years that this type of discriminatory
legislation was in the works.
Ever since the St. Lawrence Seaway
started to emerge as a fact, some on the
eastern and gulf seaboards of our great
country have been trying to devise means
to scuttle ?this worthy project For a
generation they have fought successfully
to prevent it from becoming a reality.
When that failed, they turned their at-
tention to efforts to make the accom-
plished fact a useless thing. ?
I am not speaking today against the
amendment only because I represent a
farm area or a Midwest district. I am
speaking, too, in behalf of the consumers
of this country who will suffer and in be-
half of the taxpayers of this nation who
will suffer, too, if this amendment is
adopted.
This amendment is being offered
purely and simply as a sectional amend-
ment to increase the prosperity of the
great seaports of the eastern and gulf
coasts. I do not oppose their prosperity,
indeed, I am pleased that they are pros-
pering.. But I do not like to see the
American taxpayer shell out from his
pocket the increased transportation costs
that this' amendment would impose just
to add to their prosperity. I do not like
to see, in the future, higher transport
costs to American consumers for goods
raised or manufactured in the Middle
West, because of the selfish attitude of
some on the east coast. These results
are inevitable if the amendment is
passed.
Looking around me, Mr. Chairman, I
see many Members of this House who
have voted consistently?and for this I
thank them?to improve the rivers and
waterways of the middle continent.
They have time and again supported
such legislation on public works. In
this they have shown a remarkable fore-
sightedness. Now I see some of these
same fine gentlemen who are ready to
support the proposed amendment by the
gentleman from New York, and I wonder
to myself what has changed their posi-
tion. Why -do these same '.gentlemen
support the proposals to build waterways
feeding into the Great Lakes region, and
then at the first opportunity support a
Measure that will make those same
waterways useless and a series of white
elephants which the American taxpayer
can ill afford.
Also, Mr. Chairman, and this I do not
mean to be critical, I find many who are
upporting this amendment who, in the
past have consistently and vigorously
opposed farm legislation which contains
any form of a subsidy to American ag-
riculture. It is my hope that this pres-
ent stand by some of my eastern and
southern friends means a change of
heart because, Mr. Chairman, this
amendment is nothing more nor less
than a subsidy for the ports of Galves-
August'
ton, Mobile, Baltimore, New York, arm
Beston, and to the ports in between.
The amount of added costs hidden in
the amendment may not strike the
Members of this House as great in it-
self. But I would caution them to think
of the future when the same practice
could be adopted in the form of amend-
ments to every bill that comes before the
House. If this amendment carries,
then, I believe, efforts will_be made to
attach similar language to every pos-
sible bill. The costs will mount and
mount. The ultimate loser will be the
taxpayers and consumers of America. ?
In closing, I might point out one or
two very important facts. One is that
the St. Lawrence Seaway is an accom-
plished fact. It was built by the people
of Canada and the United States as an
expression of the will of the people. This
amendment is an effort to thwart the
will of the people and to destroy through
a process of nibbling away a great struc-
ture in which they have invested many
millions of dollars, valuable time, and
much effort. To me an amendment such
as this is somewhat like building a gi-
gantic superhighway, and then, saying
that nothing can be carried except by
oxcart. The St. Lawrence Seaway was
a great and progressive step forward in
our Nation. It is my hope that no- ac-
tion we take here today will help to de-
stroy that progress.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman
from Illinois is recognized.
Mrs. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, It is
not difficult to recognize this amendment
for what it is, an amendment discrimi-
natory and insidious, and certainly
damaging to Great Lakes ports.
Mr. Chairman, I am one of those who
helped fight the long battle for the St.
Lawrence Seaway. This amendment is
a vital blow to its progress: Anyone who
attended the recent festivities at the
opening of the seaway realized that
what had been accomplished was the
realization of a long dream, but a dream
based on sound economic reasoning and
.on sound hope for the major develop-
ment of the most productive section of
this country.
The question of 50-50 shipments does
not really enter as an essential part of
this debate. I have supported that
principle and I will vote for it as long
as I am a Member of Congress. But
there is no ground to argue that that
principle would or could be violated if
this amendment fails. What I protest
is the introduction of an amendment
which would militate against the suc-
cess of the St. Lawrence Seaway. To
me it is ridiculous to argue that that
great section of our country, the wheat
and other grainland section, should be
penalized into accepting less economical
methods of shipping its products, nor
am I willing to admit that a seaway can
be judged in its initial steps.
Mr. Chairman, I expect to see the
day when we will have oceangoing Amer-
ican boats calling at every port in the
Great Lakes area.
I hope that the House will reject this
amendment. I will, of course, support
the amendment offered by the gentle-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
ibu coNGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE
man from Michigan, but I would rather
see the Keogh amendment defeated in
order to keep the issues clear.
? Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CHURCH. I yield to the gentle-
man from rilinois.
Mr. YATES. I thank the gentle-
woman from Illinois. She is making an
excellent statement, and I think the
point she has made should be expanded
to make clear that the financial stability
of the St. Lawrence Seaway depends on
the tolls that a!re taken from the.ships
that traverse the seaway. This amend-
ment may very well result in a drastic
curtailment of the seaway's income.
Mrs. CHURCH. I thank the gentle-
man for pointing that out, and I-would
*make one further point: It is being made
to appear that only those interested in
?the Great. Lakes are opposing the
amendment. I would like to remind you
that it is not the Great Lakes area only
which is paying for the seaway. The
investment in the St. Lawrence Seaway
comes from all of America, and certainly
any attempt to penalize the seaway,
any attempt to reduce its revenues, any
attempt to set a precedent which would
further destroy its usefulness, should be
defeated.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
(Mrs. KELLY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I feel
that the sponsor of this amendment is
not interested in starting any war, be-
tween the States nor is anyone interested
in a war between the east coast ports
and the great urban communities on the
Great Lakes.
What is the problem involved in this
situation? To me it is a replacement,
Mr. Chairman, of the responsibility in
one agency for traffic management, su-
pervision of rates and distribution.
Congress expressed itself on this very
point in the Federal Property Adminis-
tration Act of 1949?Public Law 152?
which gave this authority to the General
Services Administration but under that
act, in section 201(a) the Secretary of
Defense was given the right to exempt
agencies of Government for distribution
and transportation of anything that
would affect the Department of Defense.
Under 205 of that same law the
President of the United States had the
right to issue certain Army regulations.
How do I become involved in this? I
have endeavored to change section 413
of the Mutual Security Act. Under sec-
tion 413 of the Mutual Security Act it is
stated:
ENCOURAGEMENT OF' FREE ENTERPRISE AND
PRIVATE PARTICIPATION.? ( a) The Congress
recognizes the vital role of free enterprise in
achieving rising levels of production and
standards of living essential to the economic
progress and defensive strength of the free
world. Accordingly, it is declared to be the
policy of the United States to encourage the
efforts of other free nations to increase the
flow of international trade, to foster private
initiative and competition, to 'discourage
monopolistic practices, to improve the tech-
nical efficiency of their industry, agriculture
and commerce, and to strengthen free labor
unions; and to encourage the contribution of
U.S. enterprise toward economic strength
of other free nations, through private trade
and investment abroad, private participa-
tion in the programs carried out under this
act (including the use of private trade chan-
nels to the maximum extent practicable in
carrying out such programs), and exchange
of ideas and technical information on the
matters covered by this section.
Private trade channels need to be de-
fined and regulations established.
What is happening is that control of
5 percent of that which is sent abroad,
and this includes agricultural products,
is involved in our discussion today, but
95 percent of the total of anything
shipped abroad, whether it is agricul-
tural products or for defense, is excluded
by our action here today.
I have discussed this problem with
many agencies of Government but I feel
the enclosed letter from General Floete
explains the problem better than any
other explanation I received, and I insert
at this point in the RECORD the following
letter:
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
- Washington, D. C., July 16, 1957
Hon. EDNA ;Ed? LY,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR MRS. KELLY: Reference is invited to
your recent telephone request for the com-
ments of GSA on a portion of a letter for-
warded to you by Dr. E. -A. FitzGerald, dep-
uty director of the International Cooperation
Administration, discussing a proposed state-
ment to be made in the report of the Com-
mittee on Foreign Affairs.
The statements in Dr. FitzGerald's letter
with respect to GSA's role in ICA transpor-
tation matters are substantially correct.
Due to section 602(d) (2) of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of
1949, as amended, GSA does not supply poli-
cies and procedures to ICA with respect to
transportation and 'traffic matters as it does
in connection with the majority of the agen-
cies which it serves. With respect to ICA
transportation and traffic matters, GSA
serves only as an agent and policy and oper-
ational controls are retained in ICA.
During the past fiscal year, ICA reim-
bursed GSA in the amount of $285,000 for
the .traffic management services it received
and thg represented about 35 employees on
GSA's staff. The savings in transportation
costs which resulted from that work
amounted to approximately $1 million.
As noted in Dr. FitzGerald's letter, approx-
imately 95 percent of ICA's programs in this
field are handled through nongovernmental
channels and only approximately 5 percent
of the services are performed by Government
agencies. This 5 percent at present is di-
vided between the Department of Agricul-
ture, Bureau of Public Roads, CAA and GSA.
Having several such agencies in a field re-
quiring negotiation among fiercely competi-
tive elements substantially minimizes op-
portunities for obtaining sizable reductions
in the costs of transportation. This division
produces possibilities of the Government bid-
ding against itself, precludes consolidation
of shipments, efficient use of carrier equip-
ment, prevents use of the large tonnage in
negotiation for the benefit of the Govern-
ment, and otherwise increases the costs of
transportation.
Moreover, our experience has clearly indi-
cated that with respect to the 5 percent
Which is now dispersed among the four
agencies, a consolidation into a central agen-
cy would result in economies. This has
been demonstrated by our experiences with
approximately 140 other agencies which we
now serve. Further, in the event policy and
15191
operational decisions were made by GSA
with respect to transportation of the 5 per-
cent, additional economies could be effected.
In any event? funds are required by ICA in
order to reimburse GSA for the serviees it
performs.
With respect to the 95 percent of ICA's
traffic handled in nongovernmental chan-
nels, problems have arisen with respect to
administration of the Cargo Preference Act
or so-called 50-50 law. It would seem
probable that centralization of control into
a single agency would produce more effective
coordination and compliance with that Act.
We believe' that the continuation of the-
Office of Transportation of ICA would be
needed to serve as liaison in behalf of the
programs of that agency even if substantial
responsibility for transportation and traffic
management were to be assumed by GSA.
That office would undoubtedly also be re-
quired to supervise the transportation activi-
ties of ICA consultants dealing in airfield
and highway construction and kindred con-
struction projects in cooperating countries.
GSA has undertaken, as you may know, a
comprehensive survey of traffic activities of
the executive agencies and one is now being
performed in connection with ICA. GSA's
traffic survey could well form the basis for
ICA to reexamine its traffic management pro-
gram .both with respect to GSA and as to
the delegation to recipienecountries of the
95 percent of traffic activities involved in
ICA procurement. This would permit an
executive agreement to be reached between
our respective agencies to produce more effi-
cient and economical operations.
In any event, GSA would not have budgeted
funds available to permit the fulfillment of
the transportation functions related to ICA's
mission, or the development of a coordinated
program with ICA.
Sincerely yours,
FRANKLIN G. FLOETE,
Administrator.
They admit they do not have any
control over 95 percent of the distribu-
tion of products.
How does this work? When the United
States notifies a government that to give
them X number of dollars in commodi-
ties, we give to that country, the im-
porting country, the right to decide who
their importer is going to be. The im-
porter-thus completes and carries out the
contract. It is up to him to make all
agreements on the commodity or mate-
rial to be shipped. In other words,
foreign ships are used and thus there is
no control over the 50-50 law called the
Cargo Preference Act. Thus, your prob-
lem involved today, in my estimation,
and that which we are seeking to do,
should be a request that the President
of the United States issue a directive or
Executive order to establish a central
agency to control, supervise rates and
distribution of all these commodities.
The President could direct that the Gen-
eral Services Administration have the
right to regulate, supervise, and admin-
ister anything and every item shipped
out of the United States, whether it is
that involved in the Defense Act, the
Mutual Security Act, or Public Law 480.
Mr. CURTIS of Massachusetts. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. KELLY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Massachusetts, because he and
I endeavored in the Mutual Security Act
this year to revise and change section,
413 of that law.
Mr. CURTI'S of Massachusetts. I de-
sire to commend the gentlewoman for
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
15192 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
bringing up these matters, because the
Committee on Foreign Affairs *has a
direct interest here, owing to the pro-
vision in the mutual security law re-
quiring that $175 million of surplus agri-
cultural commodities shall be financed
under the provisions of that act. So, it
is the duty of that committee to see that
these supplies are shipped with due re-
gard to economy, because otherwise the
cost to the taxpaying public, who pays
for mutual security, would be increased.
Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the Keogh amendment.
The Department of Agriculture has an-
nounced that effective September 1, 1959,
it will permit the exportation of grain
moving under Government programs?
Public Law 480?through Canadian ports
on the St. Lawrence, providing it passes
U.S. Government inspection. To accom-
plish this, U.S. inspection stations will be
established at such Canadian ports.
Heretofore, the Department of Agri-
culture has specified that grain and other
"surplus U.S. farm products for overseas
delivery had to be handled through U.S.
ports and it was only in U.S. ports that
grain inspection service, which is essen-
tial for export grain, was provided.
This means that U.S. ports will lose
much of this traffic to Canadian ports.
It also means that American business
will lose because ships purchased their
stores, oil, coal, and so forth, at the last
port of loading which will be in this case
a Canadian port. It means that Ameri-
can stevedores will lose their jobs and
that American railroads will lose- vitally
needed freight traffic.
This grain is Government owned?
Public Law 480?grain subsidized from
_start to finish by the U.S. taxpayers. If
any possible benefit can be derived from
the freight which is paid for shipping of
this grain, the wages paid to labor for
handling of these surplus commodities
it should be made to benefit American
labor and American industry.
The movement of U.S. Government
grain will have the effect of building up
Canadian ports while U.S. ports and the
huge investments therein will not be
sufficiently utilized and will lie idle.
If the Department of Agriculture is
permitted to ship American grain
through foreign ports soon all other sur-
plus agricultural commodities will also
be permitted through foreign ports.
Among these surplus agricultural com-
modities would be dried milk, cheese,
butter, rice, tobacco, and so forth.
It is interesting to note that the Ca-
nadian Government does not permit one
single bushel of Canadian grain to be
shipped through U.S. ports. Some
thought must be given to whatever
benefit might be derived?from these pro-
grams to American labor, American in-
dustry, and established ports which
normally handled and are equipped to
handle this traffic.
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to see if we cannot agree on time to
,close debate. Mr. Chairman, I ask unan-
imous consent that all debate on the
pending amendment and all amend-
ments thereto close in 30 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
Mr. ASHLEY. I object, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move
that' all debate on this amendment and
all amendments thereto close in 40 min-
utes.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that I may yield my
time to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
YATES].
Mr. RHODES of Arizona. I object,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that I may yield my
time to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
HOEVEN].
Mr. RHODES of Arizona. I object,
Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. Quin].
(Mr. QUIE asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. QUIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the proposed amendment
to Public Law 480 which, in effect, would
practically prohibit exports of our sur-
plus agricultural commodities from
other than U.S. ports:
On the surface this effect does not
appear important. But beneath the sur-
face this bill would be a disservice to the
American farmer and the American tax-
payer. For one thing, the proposed
amendment would prevent the St. Law-
rence Seaway from being used for the ex-
port of U.S. surplus farm products to the
extent contemplated when the Congress
approved the project. The question of
exports of our surplus agricultural prod-
ucts through the St. Lawrence Seaway
should not be controversial. The Sea-
way is now in operation and we should
not refuse to let it be utilized to what-
ever extent is possible in carrying out
our export program.
The St. Lawrence Seaway promises
great things for American agriculture.
But this proposed amendment would
nullify much of the good that it prom-
ises. This is because much of our sur-
plus agricultural commodities, including
such products as wheat, corn, barley,
rye, soybeans, and flaxseed, move from
our producing areas to our ports on the
Great Lakes and then to Canadian sea-
way ports in the sequence of getting
together cargoes of oceangoing size.
The entire lakes-seaway route will not,
of course, take a full ocean cargo vessel
and therefore it is necessary to limit the
loading at lake ports to a smaller cargo.
Therefore, in practice the smaller vessels
take cargoes of surplus farm products
through the limiting part of the Seaway
to a Canadian seaway port. From there
large oceangoing vessels can be loaded
and go on their way to other world ports.
This proposed amendment would pre-
vent our surplus farm production from
going to those Canadian ports, as is cus-
tomary now.
The proposed amendment would mean
more business for certain railroads and
August
certain export facilities in our Atlantic,
coast ports, but it would be at the ex-
pense of the American farmer or the
taxpayer. The amendment in prevent-
ing surplus farm commodities destined
to foreign countries from going to a
Canadian port on the seaway and then
being transshipped would mean higher
shipping ?costs and therefore lower re-
turns to our farmers or higher costs to
taxpayers in the disposal of surplus farm
products.
There is no -reason why the U.S. Gov-
ernment should go to the expense and
difficulty of assisting in building the St.
Lawrence Seaway and then take such
action as is proposed by this - amend-
ment. It would be the height of incon-
sistency to adopt legislation limiting use.
of the Seaway for U.S. Government ex-
port programs. It does not make sense
to increase the burden of the U.S. tax-
payer in order to build the Seaway and
then increase his taxes further to pay
a subsidy not to use it.
I cannot believe that the American
farmer or the general public would con-
done such a proposal once its full im-
plications were understood.
I earnestly urge that the proposed
amendment not be adopted.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Qum]
has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Maine [Mr. McINTIRE]
Mr. McINTIRE. Mr. Chairman, I
asked for this time in order to direct a
question to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. KEOGH]. But I do not see him
on the floor at the moment and I shall
put My question in the way of an obser-
vation. It is my understanding in con-
nection with the full use of the seaway
that it is the purpose of the Department
of Agriculture on September 1 to estab-
lish inspection service available at Mon-
treal or Baie Comeau in order that there
may be grain shipped from Great Lakes
ports under United- States grades and
standards. It is my interpretation of
this amendment that it would not direct
itself to any prohibition of the establish-
ment of inspection service at Canadian
ports points for the establishment of
grades and standards on grains shipped
under regular commercial transactions,
but is restricted specifically to the trans-
actions under titles I, II, and III of this
act.
May I yield to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. COOLEY] if he will
comment on that?
Mr. COOLEY. I think the gentle-
man's statement is accurate. The order
that goes into effect September 1 pro-
vides for the inspection and it is pur-
suant to publication in the Federal Reg-
ister as of July 28, 1959.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Maine [Mr. McINTIRE]
has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from California [Mr. GEORGE P. MILLER].
(Mr. GEORGE P. MILLER asked and
? was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE P. MILLER. Mr. Chair-
man-,,I rise in support of the amend-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12:
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
1959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
ment offered by Mr. KEOGH, of New York.
I have a wire from the manager of the
I Northern California Ports and Termi-
nals Association which consists of the
ports of San Francisco, Oakland, Sacra-
\mento-Yolo Port District, Encinal Ter-
minals, Howard Terminal, which reads
in part as follows:
Request your strong support H.R. 8609,
to amend Agricultural Trade Development
3,nd Assistance Act of 1954, requiring ex-
portation of agricultural products through
U.S. ports. Under current law possible for
westem cotton to be exported through En-
senada, Mexico, and grain through Van-
couver, Canada, thereby depriving local ports
of cargo.
J. H. McAnglow,
General Manager, Northern California
Ports and Terminals Bureau.
Members are Port of San Francisco, Port of
Oakland, Sacramento-Yolo Port, District En-
cinal Terminals, Howard Terminal. ?
Reference has been made to the 50-
50 law. Under its provision 50 percent
of federally owned products must be
carried in American owned ships.
This law was put on the statute books
to protect the American merchant ma-
rine against the cutthroat competition
of foreign shipping. The substandard
wages and inferior accommodations on
many foreign-flag vessels allow them to
make rates that we cannot meet. It is
cutthroat competition under which we
cannot maintain the high standard that
has been adopted for American seamen.
Ever since this law has been on the
statute books the State Department and
the Department of Agriculture have done
everything in their power to circum-
vent it. They do not like the law and
they accepted it grudingly.
Our merchant marine is the fourth
arm of our defense. It is essential that
we maintain a merchant marine, not
only for defense purposes but in order
to be assured the markets of the world
are not closed to the American products.
The merchant marine includes more
than just the ships that go to sea. The
ports, terminals and tugboats and other
facilities all go to make up the inte-
grated system of transportation that we
refer to as the merchant marine.
Again, may I Say with emphasis, all
we are asking is that one-half of these
publicly owned cargoes are garried in
American ships. If you have followed
the recent history of the merchant ma-
rine you will know we cannot compete
without this law.
West coast ports are interested in the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York because of more favor-
able rail freight rates in effect to the
port of Vancouver in British Columbia
and because of the cheaper rates by
which our cotton can be taken to En-
senda, Mexico. Labor conditions being
different, these ports can handle com-
modities cheaper than our own ports.
Yet we cannot allow our ports to deteri-
orate if we are to maintain an American
merchant marine.
What we are now doing is creating an
atmosphere that will make the port of
Montreal the biggest port on the Amer-
ican Continent. We will destroy Our
own and build up a Canadian port. I
have no prejudice against Canada but I
believe that charity begins at home and
we should take care of our own ports be-
fore contributing to the development of
a foreign port.
I have always voted for the St. Law-
rence Seaway since I have beemin Con-
gress and I worked for its passage. I
want to see ports on the Great Lakes
developed that can handle products of
'America's heartland. .
I encouraged my friends from the
Great Lakes region to introduce legisla-
tion that will allow deepening of the
canal so that large, fully loaded ships
can pass out into the Atlantic. ' If such
legislation is introduced, I shall vote
for it and work for its passage.
I earnestly request that the amend-
ment by the gentleman from New York
be adopted in the interest of the Ameri-
can merchant marine.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from California has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Iowa [Mr. HOEVEN].
(Mr. HOEVEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
. Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Chairman, I
voiced my opposition to the Keogh
amendment on yesterday. This amend-
ment would practically prohibit exports
of our surplus agricultural commodities
from other than U.S. ports. On the sur-
face this effect does not appear impor-
? tant, but beneath the surface of this it
would be a disservice to the American
farmer and the American taxpayer.
I am quite intrigued by the Machro-
wicz amendment to the Keogh amend-
ment. Everything else _being equal, I
would be inclined to accept it. But I
note with interest that the gentleman
from New York [Mr. KEOGH] was re-
luctant, in fact refused to accept the
amendment, which makes me a little bit
suspicious. I think what we should do
in this case is to vote against the Keogh
amendment even as amended, and erase
it entirely from the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Iowa has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Assrrrl
Mr. ABBITT. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to yield my time to
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
GAII1VIATE].
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Mr. Chair-
man, I object.
Mr. ABB=. Mr. Chairman, 'I yield
to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
GARMATZ].
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GARMATZ. I yield.
Mr. FALLON. Is it not true that
what has been said on the floor of the
floor of the House during this debate is
the same thing that was said time and
time again when we were considering
the construction of the St. Lawrence
Seaway? That Montreal would be the
greatest terminal port in the world and
that the .Seaway would have many times
the amount of foreign ships than
American ships when completed.
*
15193
Mr. GARMATZ. That is correct.
When the foreign flagships come from
foreign ports, they will stop at Montreal
and save 5 days transportation to Chi-
cago and 5 days coming back, which
means probably a saving of $15,000 or
$20,000. So you can see that they are
not going to go to Chicago.
Mr. Chairman, to retain for the U.S.
economy its proper share in the com-
merce and business generated by trans-
actions authorized under Public Law 480,
there is only one thing that I suggest we
do, and that is to adopt the Keogh
amendment.
In this instance, I believe, Mr. Chair-
man, we are not only justified but we are
morally obligated to put the interests of
our own economy first.
Secondly, it is very important that we
maintain the American Merchant Ma-
rine which is our fourth arm of defense.
You know what it means in time of an
emergency. The foreign ships are not
at our command, but the American ships
which are manned by American seamen
are at our command in time of an emer-
gency. Anyone who has been in the
service knows how important it is that
we have a good American Merchant
Marine ready at all times.
- The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
POAGE].
Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, I would
simply call the attention of the member-
ship once more to the fact that the
Keogh amendment in no wise takes any-
thing away from anybody. It does not
take a thing away from the lake ports
that they have today. It simplf pre-
vents the lake area from taking away
from the rest of the Nation. It simply
prevents the going into effect of a dis-
criminatory regulation that they do not
have today. They are asking an unfair
? advantage. Of course, everybody, I sup-
pose, likes to get an advantage, but are
we going to take American commodities
from American ports? We -passed the
50-50 amendment on the theory that we
were interested in maintaining American
shipping. If we turn down the Keogh
amendment, you are going to have a
situation where you will have 10G percent
foreign-flag ships in the lake ports.
Everybody ?knows that. You are going
to develop a foreign trade in Montreal
instead of the American ports on the
lakes. Itis true that there are those who
stick their heads in the sand, but they
do not thereby escape the logic of the
facts, and the facts are that lake ship-
ping is at present almost 100-percent
foreign shipping. If you build up Mont-
real, then you are not building up Amer-
ican ports. And of what value is it to
build up an American merchant fleet if
we build up no American ports? Are
these American ships to serve foreign
ports? Or are we to build up American
ports on the lakes. The Keogh amend-
ment will build Up American lake ports.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Dom] .
(Mr. -DORN of New York asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
15194 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. DORN of New York. Mr. Chair-
man, the amendment of the gentleman
from New York seeks to retain the his-
toric attitude of the Congress with refer-
ence to the use of Canadian ports. We
have always been against diverting our
commerce to Canada. Twenty years
ago the House passed unanimously a res-
olution asking the Secretary of State,
the Secretary of Agriculture, the U:S.
Shipping Board and the Interstate
Commerce Commission to investigate
in cooperation with each other the
factors which were contributing to the
diversion of commerce from the ports of
the United States to Canadian ports.
The Department of Agriculture now is
diverting commerce from the United
States to Montreal contrary to the spirit
of that resolution. As the gentleman
from California pointed out a moment
ago, this is just a start. If the Depart-
ment of Agriculture can send 'U.S. grain
through Montreal, they can just as
quickly send grain from the west coast
using the port of Vancouver instead of
our U.S. west coast ports on the ground
of economy.
I urge you to vote for the Keogh
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
ASHLEY].
Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think
it is well to remember that the prevailing
depth of most of our Great Lakes ports
is 25 feet. If the Keogh amendment is
adopted, it will require that surplus com-
modities loaded at those ports be trans-
ported directly to their foreign destina-
tions. In other words, it will limit the
shipmttnt of surplus agricultural corn-
modities via the Great Lakes to ships
having a draft of 25 feet or less. Now
what about the gulf and Atlantic coast
ports? Will there be any such prohibi-
tion on vessels transporting surplus com-
modities for those ports? Why, certainly
not. As to the draft vessels plying the
Atlantic and gulf ports, they are vessels
having a draft of 35 feet and 30 feet.
This is the economic advantage that is
being sought through the Keogh amend-
ment. There is no question about that.
Mr. Chairman, the generous nature of
the gentleman from New York and the
universal esteem in which he is held
suggest almost to a certainty that he did
not mean by the introduction of his
amendment to scuttle, to strangle, to
throttle, and to otherwise block the
Great Lakes ports and the St. Lawrence
Seaway; but bear in mind that that is
the effect of his amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let us look into the
background of the Keogh amendment.
On July 23, 1959, the Department of
Agriculture announced that, effective
September 1, 1959, it would be permissi-
ble for U.S. grain to be exported under
Public Law 480, title I, via the St.
Lawrence Seaway, either direct from U.S.
ports or with transshipment from Ca-
nadian ports. In the case of transship-
ment, U.S. inspection at such Canadian
ports, according to the directive, would
be mandatory, pursuant to existing pro-
gram requirements.
-This announcement has caused a
storm of Protest from Members of Con-
gress representing Atlantic coast and
Gulf shipping ports, and from certain
railroads, steamship companies, port au-
thorities and other economic interests. -
At House hearings on Thursday, August
6, considerable pressure was put upon a
Department of Agriculture official to
postpone effective date of the directive
pending thorough inquiry. This effort
was not successful but a further hearing
on the matter, is scheduled for 2 p.m.,
Monday, August 10, before the House
Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries.
- The nature of last Thursday's hear-
ing strongly suggests that sectional eco-
nomic forces are at work to curtail the
use of the St. Lawrence Seaway as a
natural commercial waterway for grain
and other midwestern products in order
to force utilization of southern and east-
ern port facilities regardless of cost.
In light of this fact, it is essential for
those interested in the legitimate devel-
opment of the Seaway to understand
the basis and background of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture directive as well as
the arguments of those who oppose it.
In recent years the USDA has ad- -
ministered four principal subsidy pro-
grams involving the export of grain and
other commodities. These programs in-
clude, first, the sale of CCC owned grain
on credit at export price; second, the
barter of CCC owned grain at export
price for 'materials produced abroad;
third, the payment to exporters of sub-
sidy in kind of the difference between
the U.S. domestic price and the export
price on sales made by exporters from
free stocks -of grain; and, fourth, the
title I, Public Law 480 program under
which free stocks of grain are sold for
foreign currencies with the United States
providing the dollar exchange and taking
back the foreign currency equivalent for
use in military and ecOnomic assistance
programs and other U.S. Government
operations abroad. The payment in kind
subsidy also applies under this program,
thus reducing the amount of dollars re-
quired to finance the program and allow-
ing the sales to be made at 'prevailing
export prices:
Of the four subsidy programs just
enumerated, transhipment via Canadian
ports has been possible in all except
Public Law 480, title I which is gov-
erned by a separate USDA regulation.
The purpose of the directive, according
to agriculture officials, is simply to?bring
Public Law 480 into line with the other
programs and to conform with the con-
gressional directive that the program
utilize normal trade channels and prac-
tices.
Prior to completion of the St. Law-
rence Seaway, it was impossible for any
except small, shallow-draft vessels to
navigate into the Great Lakes. Be-
cause as a general rule it was not eco-
nomically feasible for these vessels to
take on grain at a Great Lakes port for
delivery abroad, it became customary for
the small amount of U.S. grain shipped
via the Great Lakes to be stored at a
Canadian port for shipment abroad by
larger vessels. This practice simply fol-
lowed our policy of allowing the normal,
August 20
free flow of commerce without gov,ern-
mental interference.
U.S. grain for export under our barter,
cash, and credit programs has thus been
moved via -the Great Lakes for trans-
shipment from Canadian ports for a
number of years pursuant to U.S. policy
and pursuant to the letter and spirit of
the statutory language governing CCC
operations.
However, no U.S. grain has yet been
shipped via the Great Lakes under Pub-
lic Law 480, title I. But with completion
of the seaway and with deeper draft
shipping now possible, there has been a
natural interest on the part of exporters
to utilize this avenue os commerce to the
extent that it is economically advan-
tageous to do so.
With respect to the export of U.S.
grain .under Public Law 480, title I, via
the Great Lakes and with transshipment
from a Canadian port, there is nothing
in the statutory language of the act re-
quiring shipment of the grain from a
U.S. port direct to the foreign country
purchasing such grain. Some of those
who have registered opposition to the
Department's directive reply on the lan-
guage of section 102(a) of the act which
states that "the CCC shall make avail-
able for sale hereunder at such points
in the United States as the President
may direct surplus agriculture comm6d-
ities heretofore or hereinafter acquired
by the Corporation in the administration
Of its price support operations."
This provision obviously relates to the
sale- by CCC of grain owned by it and
not to the sale by a private exporter of
grain owned by him. Any grain trans-
shipped through the seaway would be
owned by the private exporter from the
time of movement from Great Lakes
ports until he sells it to a foreign buyer.
The USDA has never proposed the
moving of CCC grain through the sea-
way to Canadian ports and holding it
there for sale under the program.
It is noteworthy that the sale of con-
signed stocks of cotton owned by a U.S.
exporter and shipped abroad by him,
either from free stocks or after pur-
chase from the CCC, has been authorized
under the program since 1954. This has
been with full knowledge and without
objection by those now complaining
about use of the seaway. Obviously
there is a purpose behind the attempt
to so distort the language of section
102(a) as to now prohibit for grain what
has been done for 5 years for cotton.
The purpose, clearly, is to curtail or
choke off the use of the St. Lawrence
Seaway for midwestern commodities to
the advantage of other areas of the coun-
try and the economic-financial groups
which .have a vested interest in these
areas.
Not only is there considerable prece-
dent for transshipment dating back many
years but there is also precedent for
official inspection of U.S. commodities at
foreign ports in accordance with law.
Opponents have also contended that
the Department's directive will add to
the cost of administering Public Law 480,
title I, because of the greater distances
from United States and Canadian ports
to other world ports. This reflects a mis-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12:
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12:
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
1959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
understanding of the operation of the
law and a sketchy concept of geography.
The important point is that the statute
provides specifically that the President
shall "take appropriate steps to assure
that private trade channels are used to
the maximum extent practical both with
respect to sales from privately owned
stocks and from stocks owned by the
-2,CC."?Pub1ic Law 480, title I, section
104(b).
The Department in all of its export
subsidy programs has provided for sale
Ind exportation of the commodities
through the private trade. It is these
private exporters and their foreign buy-
A's that determine the routing of the.
surplus commodities for export and it
goes without saying that such decisions
axe based entirely on free market corn-
Finally, opponents of the directive con-
tend that transshipment via Canadian
ports may involve violation of the cargo
preference provisions of Public Law 664;
83d Congress, which provides in sub-
stance that at least 50 percent of the
gross tonnage of commodities shipped
under such programs as Public Law 480,
title I, shall be transported on privately
owned U.S-flag commercial vessels.
To answer this point it is necessary to
consider the three following situations:
First. Where U.S. grain sold for export
under Public Law 480 is loaded at a
Great Lakes port for shipment direct to
a foreign port. In this situation it is
clear that the 50-50 act can be applied _
without difficulty and that at least half
of such grain must be transported on
American vessels.
Second. Where U.S. grain sold for ex-
port under Public -Law 480, is at the
time of sale, stored at a Canadian port.
In this situation it is also clear that the
50-50 act can easily be applied to ship-
ment from such Canadian port to the
foreign country of destination.
Third. Where U.S. grain is shipped
from a Great Lakes port to a Canadian
port to await transshipment and then is
sold under title I, as in the second situa-
tion above.
In this situation a question arises as
to whether the 50-50 law must apply
retroactively to the .initial shipment
from the Great Lakes port. In this con-
nection, a further question might arise
as to whether the Great Lakes ships used
for transshipment are ocean vessels,
within the meaning of the 50-50 act.
Even if answers to these queries are ac-
corded the strictest possible construc-
tion, there is no reason why there should
be any violation of the cargo preference
requirement. If the exporter knows in
advance that grain held at Canadian
ports can be sold under Public Law 480,
title I, only if the 50-50 act is complied
with from the point of loading at Great
Lakes ports, he is in a position to assure
that at least 50 percent of any quantity he
might want to sell under the program
moves from lakes ports on U.S.-flag ves-
sels. If he did not do so, he simply
could not sell the grain under Public
Law 480.
The fallacy of the argument that there
would be violation of 50-50 is clearly
shown by the fact that consigned cot-
No. 143-15
ton located in foreign countries is sold
under this same program and that the
USDA applies the 50-50 requirement
to the shipment when made from the
United States. In short, such cotton is
eligible under the program only if at
least 50 percent had been shipped from
the United States on American vessels.
This same rule would apply to grain if
it is determined that the 50-50 act ap-
plies to shipment on the lakes.
In light of the above the conclusion is
inescapable that (a) the USDA direc-
tive of July 23, 1959, is not only proper
but in strictest keeping with both con-
gressional intent and the letter and
spirit of the statutory language govern-
ing CCC operations and the Cargo Pref -
ence Act, and that (b) opposition to this
directive is actually motivated by sec-
tional and economic interests which
stand to gain in direct proportion to the
extent to which the St. Lawrence Sea-
way can be curtailed as a commercial
waterway.
It is therefore well for Members of
Congress and others interested in the
legitimate utilization of the seaway to
understand that continuous vigilance
and a readiness to defend the proper
interest of the area served by the sea-
way are essential if the aspirations for
this great new commercial waterway are
to be realized.
(Mr. ASHLEY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
GRoss] .
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his -re-
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, several
times in this debate I have heard it stated
that hearings were held by the Merchant
Marine and Fisheries Committee on this
subject.
? I am a member of the Merchant Ma-
rine and Fisheries Committee, and to my
certain/knowledge no invitation was ever
extended to me to attend a hearing on
this subject. By way of the grapevine I
understand that a meeting was held a
few days ago in the Merchant Marine
and Fisheries Cdmmittee room in con-
nection with this matter, ttended by
certain members and representatives of
private interests.- That is perfectly
proper, but I do not want the House to
get the idea that any formal hearing was
held at any time to which all members
of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries
Committee were notified to be in attend-
ance.
Mr. GEORGE P. MILLER. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield.
Mr. GEORGE P. MILLER. I know of
no immediate meeting that was held on
this subject or to which I was invited.
About 4 years ago we held exhaustive
hearings on the use of American ships in
connection with the 50-50 law. A for-
eign government sent its agent to the
meeting who recommended not only re-
peal of that law but abandonment of the
American merchant marine in favor of
letting what he termed the maritime na-
tions handle all of the world shipping.
15195
Mr. GROSS. lam speaking of the re-
cent past.
Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. ChairmanTwill the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield. ,
Mr. ASHLEY. The gentleman is quite
correct, there were no regular hearings.
Meetings were held in some secrecy and
at those meetings the only interests rep-
resented were the gulf and Atlantic
ports and the railroads.
Mr. GROSS. It is perfectly proper as
far as I am concerned to hold meetings
in the committee room; I have no objec-
tion to that, but I do not want anyone
to get the idea that formal hearings were
held on this subject by the Merchant
Marine and Fisheries Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Pucinsicr].
(Mr. PUCINSKI asked and was given.
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the Keogh amend-
ment because it would: First, make the
St. Lawrence Seaway totally ineffective
in one respect; second, it would impose
additional costs on this'country for help-
ing feed the hungry people of the world.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the state-
ment made here earlier today that only
foreign tramp steamers are serving Great
Lakes ports tortures the truth. I am
advised by Mr. Maxim Cohen, general
manager of the Chicago Regional Port
District, that the following American
lines are now in operation: The Isbran-
seri Lines, and the Waterman Steamship
Lines, both serving North Europe; the
Grace Lines, serving the Caribbean; and
the American Export Lines, serving the
Mediterranean, out of Chicago and other
Great Lakes ports.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that if this
amendment is adopted we are going to
impair the effectiveness of the St. Law-
rence Seaway in the very beginning of
its operation. It will kill this newborn
baby before it gets out of its swaddling
clothes.
There is no question in my mind that
within the next few years, American
ships will be operating from every port
along the Great Lakes to all parts of the
world. This restrictive amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York
would, in effect, start a precedent which
eventually would place every large city
on the Great Lakes in a straitjacket
regarding further development of its
port facilities.
I hope the House will reject the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
PoPr].
Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I vigor-
ously support the Keogh amendment.
In order to understand its purpose, effect,
and justification, it is necessary to re-
view the actions which precipitated the
problem.
On July 28,1959, the U.S. Department
of 'Agriculture published an announce-
ment in the Federal Register that official
grain inspection services were being
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12:
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
15196 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
established on Canadian soil. While the
announcement referred to. statutory au-
thorization, it is doubtful that any au-
thorization exists in law. Indeed, such
action violates the spirit if not the letter
of the U.S. Grains Standard Act and is
? in discord with the stated objectives of
the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946.
The Grain Inspection Service came
into existence under an authorization in
the Grains Standard Act which doesnot
and could not have any foreign or extra
territorial effect. As a matter of fact,
the Grains Standard Act is a criminal
statute, the jurisdiction of which is con-
fined to the geographical limits of the
United States and to nationals of the
United States. It has been argued that
Canada can consent to jurisdiction.
However, it is well established that such
consent by a -foreign sovereign does not
cOnfer upon a Federal agency jurisdic-
tion or powers not conferred by statu-
tory enactment.
Notwithstanding the lack of statutory
authorization and the jurisdictional de-
ficiency, the Department of Agriculture
proposes to permit the exportation of
Public Law 480 commodities through Ca-
nadian ports on the St. Lawrence ef-
fective September 1, 1959. The purpose
and effect of the pending amendment is
to countermand that proposal and re-
quire shipments of such commodities to
be delivered to the export vessel at a
port of the United States where the in-
spection officers will have both the juris-
diction and the responsibility to dis-
charge their duties under the Grains
Standard Act. .
- The justification for the amendment
should be obvious to those who are con-
cerned with the legitimate protection of
domestic U.S. industry and U.S. labor.
Ships which currently load cargoes of
surplus agricultural commodities at U.S.
ports will begin to load at Canadian
POTIS. Inescapably, this will mean a
substantial loss of business to port ter-
minal interests in the United States, to
U.S. ships, to overland carriers in the
United States and to U.S. merchants who
supply fuel, ships' stores and ships' serv-
ices. In turn, this will mean a loss of
wages if not a loss of jobs to those who
work for such concerns.
The argument that the proposal of the
Department of Agriculture will result in
a saving is ill considered. Any saving
which might temporarily result will be
more than offset by the loss of tax reve-
nue from U.S. corporations and wage
earners.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of
the Keogh amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
COAD].
Mr. COAD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New York [Mr.
KEOGH]. I think it is not in the best
interest of the American taxpayer or
farmer. I have an announcement in
my files from the Canadian Government
? that it will be its policy to rebate savings
to their farmers which will amount to
about 15 cents a bushel which accrue
from the use of the St. Lawrence Sea-
way. So we can see what this is going to
amount to to the American taxpayers if
this amendment is adopted. I believe it
was universally felt that the Seaway
would result in savings to our people but
if this kind of amendment is adopted it
whl set a pattern for the future and
we can see that American taxpayers and
shippers are going to suffer continuously.
(Mr. COAD asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
SPRINGER].
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I do
not desire to be selfish in this matter,
but I can say in view of the fact that I
export more corn out of my district than
any other Congressional district in
America, as well as soy beans, that we
are hurt by this amendment. Right at
the very moment that the. Seaway is
getting underway we are put under
the greatest handicap we could be, espe-
cially to the farmers of my own partic-
ular area. In addition, we have spent
over $500 million getting the seaway
rotite to serve the farmers and the pro-
ducers of the Middle West. We are
now penalized with an amendment
which would in effect make it almost
mandatory that all of those goods be
shipped out of ports along the ocean,
and that would be too much for us to
bear.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRINGER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. Will this amendment
not add to the cost of the program by
requiring increased rail shipments which
would add to the transportation cost?
Mr. SPRINGER. There is no doubt
about that, there would be a substantial
added cost if we had to ship that pro-
duce out of my Congressional district in
the way this amendment provides.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
YATES].
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the sea-
way has been open for only 2 months;
yet the proponents of this amendment
glibly attempt to convince the House
by quoting figures and Statistics which
are not pertinent at all. There can be
no valid comparison for any purpose at
this time between the shipping that
serves the gulf and east ports and
the shipping on the Great Lakes as com-
parable. The seaway has not been open
long enough. I say to the gentlemen,
give the seaway a chance to operate for a
reasonable period before you make such
comparison. As a matter of fact, the
Subcommittee on Appropriations, of
which I am a member, has just completed
its appropriation bill for the Department
of Commerce which authorizes 75 voy-
ages from Great Lakes ports, the first
time in the history of the wartime sub-
sidy legislation to authorize oceangoing
vessels to come under the subsidy from
Great Lakes ports.
The effort to make the comparison
of the proponents of this amendment
is an attempt to pull wool over the eyes
of the Members of this House. The day
will come when such a comparison will
41.
August 20
be proper. More and more American
ships will come regularly to the Great
Lakes ports through the St. Lawrence
Seaway. The day will come, and the
opponents of the seaway must realize it,
when ports on the Great Lakes will grow
with the Nation and take their place
as important world communities. This
will mean taking shipping away from the
seacoast ports but this is progress. The
world moves forward and that is what
they are trying to stop?a gesture like
that of King Canute ? in attempting to
halt the rising tide by commanding it to
stop.
This amendment should be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from PennsylVania
[Mr. VAN ZANDT].
(Mr. VAN ZANDT asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VAN ZANDT., Mr. Chairman, I
would like to direct a question to the
gentleman from 'texas [Mr. POAGE].
Will he tell me if my understanding of
this bill is correct; that is, unless the
Keogh amendment is adopted, wheat
traffic will be diverted from American
ships and American railroads?
Mr. POAGE. I think there will un-
questionably be some movement diverted
from the American railroads and there
might be some from American ships.
Mr. VAN ZANDT. Unless the Keogh
amendment is adopted, the American
railroads will lose their wheat cargo?
Mr. POAGE. I do not think there is
'any doubt about that. The wheat will
move to Montreal, a foreign port, prob-
ably by foreign ships rather than over
American railroads to American ports.
Mr. VAN ZANDT. My position, then,
of course, is in support of the Keogh
amendment. I represent a railroad com-
munity on the main line of the Pennsyl-
vania Railroad. During a certain period
of the year thousands upon thousands
of tons of wheat in freight cars use this
main line. These freight cars make up
trains and provide jobs for enginemen,
Aremeh, trainmen, maintenance-of-way
men, and so forth. Therefore, my posi-
tion is in support of the Keogh amend-
ment because it protects the jobs of
American workmen.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
WOLF].
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to go back to this question asked the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. POAGE], and
see if he can state the actual amount
of money that is involved; for instance,
the amount of loss to the railroads.
Mr. POAGE. It would be impossible
to estimate the actual amount of loss. As
has been stated, the seaway is just get-
ting underway, and there is no answer?
definite answer?at this time.
Mr. WOLF. That is a good answer.
Mr. POAGE. The gentleman must
recognize the fact that from the stand-
point of the American railroads, the
total diversion, whatever it may be, is a
loss to foreign shipping.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
a
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12:
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
1 1959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. WOLF. The record is clear, the
gentleman says there is no answer.
I would like to say that-I am present-
ing a different reason than some Mem-
bers for opposing the Keogh amendment.
I am going to 'be sectional about this.
My district has about 450,000 people.
The majority voted to send me to Con-
gress, and I am going to represent those
folks from Iowa here. They want us to
use the Great Lakes, and I am going to
support that position. Of those Members
who are waving the American flag are not
kidding me, who may live along the sea-
coast. You are doing it for your folks
back home, too. We have eight Mem-
bers from Iowa, four Democrats and
four Republicans, all agreed on this thing
because we want to see the Great Lakes
and its ports used to transport the pro-
duction of Iowa.
In Iowa we have a great many in-
dustries that are just beginning to de-
velop. Many of these are manufacturing
products for oversea distribution. These
industries will be giving more and niore
business to the railroads. As our whole
national economy expands they are going
to get more and more business. In
Cedar Rapids alone more than 1 out of
10 people work at the manufacture of
products for foreign sales. Is there any-
thing wrong With having an active Great
Lakes seaway? I cannot see anything
wrong with that. I do not see how this
weakens the Atlantic ports. I cannot see
how we weaken one part of America by
the sheer act of strengthening the
Middle West. We have a great but grow-
ing country. We have recognized that
need by the opening of this tremendously
vital St. Lawrence Seaway. Now we must
not become involved in a controversy
over what will be shipped through this
important water leg of inland America.
I hope this amendment is defeated:
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Oregon [Mr.
PORTER].
(Mr. PORTER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to know where the Pacific coast
stands in this war between the, States,
and, therefore, I would like to ask a ques-
tion of anyone who has the facts. I
Would like to ask anyone who will answer
this question affirmatively to give me
some facts. Will the Keogh amendment
have any important effect on Public Law
480 shipments through west coast ports?
Can anyone answer that affirmatively
and then give me some facts?
Mr. _ GEORGE P. MILLER. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. GEORGE P. MILLER. Only the
other day I received a telegram from the
Northern?
Mr. PORTER. Is your answer "Yes";
that it will?
Mr. GEORGE P. MILLER. Yes; it
will?
Mr. PORTElt. On shipments through
west coast ports?
Mr. GEORGE P. MILLER. They can
divert cotton to Ensenada, Mexico. They
can divert wheat to Vancouver.
Mr. POR 11R. Who says this, if I may
inquire?
Mr. GEORGE P. MILLER. This is a
study by the manager of the Northern
California Ports Association. I know it
of my own knowledge from hearings that
we have had, and from my own investi-
gation. This is one of the reasons that
the Pacific coast is interested.
Mr. PORTER. Has anyone else any
facts on this subject? I would be glad
to hear if there would be any effect on
the ports of Oregon or Washington, hav-
ing to do with the number of bushels
shipped through those ports.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. LANE].
Mr. LANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the Keogh amendment. I
feel it is fair, just, and equitable. Does
anyone presume that the best interests
of all sections and areas of the country
are not of major interest to every Mem-
ber of Congress? Let it be pointed out
that whoever would object to the amend-
ment of H.R. 8609 offered by the gentle-
man from New York [Mr. KEOGH] is
lacking in the basic realization that the
St. Lawrence Seaway was built not by
any particular section of the country
but cost over a half billion dollars of the
money of the taxpayers of all America.
The greatest burden of this cost was
borne not by the taxpayers of the area
within the benefits of the seaway but by
those Americans who stand to profit
little if anything in the nature of re-
gional or direct benefit. Yet, the ex-
penditure was not begrudged. It be-
hooves us all to be concerned over the
prosperity and welfare of every corner
and section of this country and there-
fore, the St. Lawrence Seaway was built.
But, it behooves us not at all, to turn the
United States into a dumping ground for
the surpluses of other nations in the
guise of stockpiling.
The amendment is designed to protect
the economy of this country and if the
opponents of the amendment are alert
to the times they will know that the
amendment protects the ports of the
Great Lakes. Do the opponents know
that in anticipation of their shortsighted
eagerness of a seeming advantage, those
who have no concern or are not 'charged
with the duty of safeguarding the eco-
nomic welfare and security of this coun-
try are preparing to fatten on America's
gullibility and generosity?
I refer you to page A5535 of the Ap-
pendix in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Of
June 26, 1959, and direct you to read for
yourself the proposal made by Senator
Pratt of Newfoundland during debate
,in the Canadian Senate for the estab-
lishment of a seaway transfer point on
the south coast of Newfoundland for
warehousing American agricultural
products. I refer you to the construction
of a 10-million-bushel grain storage ele-
vator northeast of Quebec by the Cargill
Corp. for the storage of wheat and
other American grains for shipment
when the St. Lawrence is frozen over.
I further say that there is no savings in
allowing American grains to be trans-
shipped over foreign ports. In fact the
Federal Government stands to lose and
15197
when the Government loses everyone
loses.
Mr. Chairman, the Keogh amendment
is only for the best interest of the entire
United States. I charge rabid sectional-
ism to those who would not support the
amendment. I fervently maintain that
the welfare of our own American institu-
tions is of paramount importance and if
foreign nations need our assistance they
have only to ask for it and no foreign
nation is asking for it in this form. The
amendment is of material assistance to
all the country, including the ports. of
the Great Lakes.
? (Mr. LANE asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Maine [Mr.
OLIVER].
(Mr. OLIVER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. OLIVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the Keogh amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there has been much
concern expressed here today over the
adverse effects of the adoption of the
Keogh amendment on our relationships
with Canada. Perhaps some under-
standing of the detrimental effects of
Canadian discrimination against the
port of Portland over the past 30 or more
years may be pertinent in the present
debates.
For years the port of Portland in my
congressional district served as the win-
ter outlet for foreign shipping from
Montreal, Canada. There was an active
and healthy exchange of traffic both ex-
port and import. The Grand Trunk
Railroad, which was ,later nationalized
and organized as an important operation
under the governmental owned and op-
erated Canadian National Railway sys-
tem, constructed railroad terminals,
grain storage elevators, and dockside
facilities for handling this healthy and
economic operation.
But, some 30 or more years ago po-
litical pressure of the maritime Provinces
was brought to bear on the Dominion
Government and as a result the port
of St. John was expanded and modern-
ized to such a degree that all Canadian
traffic through the port of Portland dried
up as a victim of governmental subsi-
dized railroad and port operations.
? Today, here, in this House we have
a somewhat comparable situation. Pub-
lic Law 480, which is being considered
for renewal and extension, is a U.S. gov-
ernmental subsidized program to help
dispose of our huge surpluses of basic
commodities to the hungry people of the
world. This is a publicly supported pro-
gram and should be operated in the best
interests of our own people. Our good
friends and neighbors of Canada should
not complain or feel discriminated
against if this -House, Mr. Chairman,
should adopt the Keogh amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to
protect the ports of the United States.
Our taxpayers have paid for these com-
modities which Public Law 480 seeks to
give away to hungry people over the
world. In so doing, our ports and our
workers should derive all possible bene-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12:
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
15198 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
fits from this public operation. urely,
we in Maine objected strenuously when
Canada served its own interests by tak-
ing its traffic away from us. But there
was no attention paid to our complaints.
Today, Canada cannot expect us to
subordinate our shipping and port inter-
ests to Montreal and St.. John or any
other Canadian port.
When the St. Lawrence Seaway was
authorized, our port-conscious citizens
in Portland and in Maine generally,
suspected that we would suffer as a re-
sult. The resistance which my good
friends from the Middle West and par-
ticularly those from the Great Lakes
area are staging against the Keogh
amendment will, if effective, discrimi-
nate against American ports in favor of
Montreal and other Canadian ports.
Consequently, our attitude of opposition
to this alliance of our colleagues with
the interests of the port of Montreal can
be well understood. We only ask for
the favorable considerations of our
Middle West friends that the seaway,
which is destined to make a great ship-
ping area for your States, should not be
used as a further "stab in the back" of
the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific ports
which mean economic setbacks of major
proportions for us.
Certainly, taxpayers' dollars which
provide the subsidies for surplus basic
commodities would get some small break
from the use of American ports for the
shipment of these commodities to for-
eign lands.
Mr. Chairman, I plead with my col-
leagues to treat us fairly and equitably.
Do not give away this earning factor to
the ports of Canada, the earning factor,
which is wrapped up in the Keogh
amendment and to which American
ports are entitled. This is a public pro-
gram with public funds and American
public interests should be served. Let
private traffic go where it will but let us
use American taxpayers' dollars where
they will best serve American taxpayers'
interests and in this matter that inter-
est can only be found in the use of Amer:-
ican ports.
I urge adoption of the Keogh
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from North Dakota
[Mr. BURDICK].
(Mr. BURDICK asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
reinarks.)
Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise
In opposition to the Keogh amendment.
Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BURDICK. I yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio.
Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, a great
deal has been said here today about fa-
voritism to foreign shijapers if the Keogh
amendment is not adopted. I want to
point out the fact that ocean freight
rates have been offered from foreign-
flag vessels direct from Duluth to Rotter-
dam at $9.25 per ton of Wheat. Mont-
real to Rotterdam, on the other .hand,
have had rates as low as $3.25 per ton.
This means that ocean-going vessels
have been charging $6 per ton for the
Duluth-Montreal portion of the through
transportation. This comes to 17 cents
per bushel for this leg of the trip.
American lakes shippers, on the other
hand, have been charging 13.5 cents-per
bushel, 3.5 cents per bushel less than the
foreign carriers for this transport. This
comes to almost $1.20 a ton saving if the
Great Lakes seaway is Used. The fact
is, Mr. Chairman, that no foreign ship-
per can effectively compete with the
huge Great Lakes carriers on the Du-
luth-Montreal portion of the shipment.
They can move with grain to Montreal
and return with Labrador ore.
. If you want to help American ship-
ping and American Great Lakes ship-
pers, you must defeat the Keogh amend-
ment. This is the only way in which the
Great Lakes shippers can provide ship-
ping at lower cost to the taxpayer and to
the benefit of everyone else who is the
beneficiary of Public Law 480.
Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. VANIK. I yield. .
' Mr. GARMATZ. Does it cost the
farmer himself one penny more?
Mr. VANIK. No. Great Lakes ship-
ping would save $1.20 a ton in shipping
charges.
Mr. GARMATZ. It would be less un-
der the Keogh amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of ?the
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr.
BURDICK] has expired.
The Cnair recognizes the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. VANIK].
Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, at this
time I yield to my colleague from Cleve-
land, Mr. FEIGHAN, Of Ohio.
Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am
opposed to the Keogh amendment be-
cause it is designed to lessen the effec-
tiveness of the St. Lawrence Seaway and
also to deprive American flagships ply-
ing their trade from the Great Lakes
to points in Canada under the provisions
of Public Law 480, at a saving to the
taxpayers. I urge defeat of the Keogh
amendment.
Mr. VANIK. I thank my distinguished
colleague.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. VANIK. I yield.
Mr. YATES. The gentleman from
Texas declared that lake shipping is for-
eign shipping. Is the gentleman aware
of any law passed by the Congress or
any change in the Constitution which
has read the lake cities out of the Union?
Mr. VANIK. I do not know of any.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Ohio has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. COOLEY] to
close the debate.
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am
not speaking now, on this proposition,
as Chairman of the Committee on Agri-
culture but as a Member of the House.
It occurs to me that the Keogh amend-
ment is a good amendment and should
be adopted. I think the matter has been
thoroughly covered by those who pre-
ceded me. I have no further observa-
tion to make other than I shall support
the amendment.
a
August 20
Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. CO_OLEY. I yield.
Mr. GARMATZ. I should like to ask
the Chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture will the Keogh amendment
cost the American farmer 1 penny more?
Mr. YATES. Of course it will.
Mr. COOLEY. I do?not think it will,
because I think what we are doing here
is saving some money for the taxpayers
on freight rates.
Mr. YATES. What about the ques-
tion of transportation costs?
Mr. COOLEY. The farmer does not
pay that.
Mr. YATES. Who pays it?
Mr. COOLEY. The shipper pays it.
The American taxpayer pays it. I do
not see why the American taxpayer
should ship in foreign ships.
Mr. YATES. Even if it costs more
money?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
COOLEY] has expired.
The question is on the amendment of-
fered by the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. MAcmtowiczl to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York
[Mr. KEOGH].
The question Was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. SPRINGER) there
were?ayes 71, noes 108.
So the amendment to the amendment
was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New York [Mr. KEOGH].
The question was taken; and the
Chairman announced that the noes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I de-
mand tellers.
-- Tellers were ordered, and the Chair-
Man appointed as tellers Mr. KEOGH
and Mr. HOEYEN.
The Committee divided, and the tellers
reported that there were?ayes 134, nays
142.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. McINTIRE. Mr. Chairman, I of-
fer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. McINTIRE: On
page 8, lines 16 and 17, after the word
"stocks", strike out "disposed of" and insert
in lieu thereof "donated abroad."
Mr. McINTIRE. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment is to a section of the bill
that was proposed by the gentleman
from Tennessee [Mr. BAss] and relates
itself to the labeling of commodities
which are donated. In order that it be
clear that the language of this bill and
this section is intended to apply to the
labeling of commodities donated abroad,
I have proposed this amendment to
clarify the language in the bill.
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield? -
Mr. McINTIRE. I am happy to yield
to my chairman.
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have
no objection to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN.. The question is on
the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
r
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
1959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. LATTA: Page 6
line 19, insert the following:
"SEC. 12. Section 303 of such Act is amend-
ed by striking out the fourth sentence of
such section and inserting in lieu thereof
the following: 'The Secretary shall permit
and encourage barter for materials processed
in the United States providing the agri-
cultural commodities to be bartered for
such materials be exported to friendly for-
eign countries.'"
? Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, section
303 was stricken out of the bill 'yester-
day. This amendment which I propose
was adopted unanimously in the. Com-
mittee on Agriculture, and I think, it
should be adopted unanimously here to-
day.
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. LATTA. I yield.
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have
no objection to the amendment. The
gentleman has accurately stated the
situation. I accept the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Ohio.
, The amendment was agreed to.
Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I of-
fer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. SULLIVAN: On
page 8, after line 23, insert the following new
section 14 and renumber succeeding sections
to conform:
"SEC. 14. Title III of the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as
arnended, is further amended by adding at
the end thereof the following new section:
" 'SEC. 306. (a) In order to promote the
general welfare, raise the levels of health and
of nourishment for persons whose incomes
prevent them from enjoying adequate diets,
and dispose in a beneficial manner of food
commodities acquired by the Commodity
Credit Corporation or the Department of
Agriculture in carrying out price support
operations or diverted from the normal chan-
nels of trade and commerce under section
32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, as amended,
the Secretary of Agriculture (in this section
referred to as the "Secretary") is hereby au-
thorized to promulgate and put into opera-
tion as quickly as possible, a program to
distribute to needy persons in the United
States through a food stamp system such
surplus food commodities.
" '(b) In carrying out such program, the
Secretary shall?
" ' (1) distribute surplus food made avail-
able by the Secretary for distribution under
this program only when requested to do so
by a State or political subdivision thereof;
"'(2) issue, or cause to be issued, pur-
suant to subsection (c) ,. food stamps re-
deemable by eligible needy persons for such
types and quantities of surplus food as the
Secretary shall determine;
(3) distribute surplus food in commer-
cially packaged form, preferably through
normal channels of trade;
"'(4) establish standards under which,
pursuant to subsection (c), the welfare au-
thorities of any State or political subdivision
thereof may participate in the food stamp
plan for the distribution of surplus foods to
the needy;
?(5) consult the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare, and the Secretary
of Labor, in establishing standards for eligi-
bility for surplus foods and in the conduct
of the program generally to assure achieve-
ment of the goals outlined in subsection (a)
of this section; and
"'(6) make such other rules and regula-
tions as he may deem necessary to carry out
the purpose of this sectibn.
" '(c) The Secretary shall issue, to each
welfare department or equivalent agency of
a State or political subdivision requesting
the distribution of surplus food under sub-
section (b) (1), food stamps for each kind of
surplus food to be distributed, in amounts
based on the total amount of surplus food
to be distributed and on the total number of
needy persons in the various States and
political subdivisions eligible to receive such
food. The food stamps shall be issued by
each such welfare department or equivalent
agency to needy persons receiving welfare
assistance, or in need of welfare assistance
'but ineligible because of State or local law,
and shall be redeemable by such needy per-
sons at local distribution points to be de-
termined by the Secretary under subsection
(b) (3). 1
" '(d) Surplus food distributed under this
section shall be in addition to, and not in
place of, any welfare assistance (financial or
otherwise) granted needy persons by a State
or any political subdivision thereof.
"'(e) In any one calendar year the Sec-
retary is authorized to distribute surplus
food under this section to a value of up to
$1,000,000,000, based on the cost to the Fed-
eral Government of acquiring, storing, and
handling such food.
" (f) For the purposes of this section, a
needy person is anyone receiving welfare as-
sistance (financial or otherwise) from the
welfare department or equivalent agency of
any State or political subdivision thereof,
or who is, in the opinion of such agency or
agencies, in need of welfare assistance but
is ineligible to receive it because of State or
local law.
" '(g) The Seeretary of Argiculture, in con-
sultation with the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare and the Secretary of
Labor, shall make a study of, and shall re-
port to Congress within six months after
the date of enactment of this section, on the
feasibility of, the costs of, and the problems
involved in, extending the scope of the food
stamp plan established by this section to in-
clude persons receiving unemployment com-
pensation, receiving old-age and survivors
insurance (social security) pensions, and
other low-income groups not eligible to re-
ceive food stamps under this section.
"'(h) There are hereby authorized to be
appropriated, out of any money in the Treas-
ury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as
may be necessary to carry out the purposes of
this section.'"
Mrs. SULLIVAN (interrupting the
reading) . Mr, Chairman, I ask unani-
mous consent that the further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with
and that it be printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of 'the gentlewoman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order that the amendment
is not germane to the extension of Pub-
lic Law 480, as incorporated in the bill
HR. 8609.
The amendment proposes to establish
a new distribution system within the
United States. H.R. 8609 contains no
such provision to which this proposed
amendment is germane.
In addition, the proposed amendment
would suspend the operation of section
416 of the Agricultural Act Of 1949, as
amended, which is not before us.
15199
The bill, H.R. 8609, contains only one
reference to section 416, but this provi-
sion deals only with the labeling of sur-
plus foods, not with the system of dis-
tributing, these commodities.
This is an amendment which is en-
tirely foreign to the legislation now un-
der discussion and as presented is not
germane to the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle-
woman from Missouri desire to be heard
on the point of order?
Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to be heard on the point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear
the gentlewoman from Missouri. .
Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman,
Public Law 480, title III, under "General
Provisions," states:
In order to prevent the waste of commodi-
ties acquired through price support opera-
tions by the Commodity Credit Corporation
before they can be disposed of in normal
domestic channels without impairment of
the price support program or sold abroad at
competitive world prices, the Commodity
Credit Corporation is authorized on such
terms and under such regulations as the
Secretary may deem in the public interest:
To donate such commodities to the Bureau
of Indian Affairs and to such State, Federal,
or private agency or agencies as may be
designated by the proper State or Federal
authority and approved by the Secretary, for
use in the United States in nonprofit school
'lunch programs, in nonprofit summer camps
for children, in the assistance of needy per-
sons, and in charitable institutions, includ-
ing hospitals, to the extent that needy
persons are served.
I further state, Mr. Chairman, that
H.R. 8609 is a bill to amend the Agricul-
tural Trade Developrint and Assistance
Act of 1954, as amended, extending cer-
tain authorities provided for in that law,
and for other purposes. The Agricul-
tural Trade Development and Assistance
Act of 1954, as amended, known as Pub-
lic Law 480, contains provisions not only
for the foreign sale, barter and donation
of surplus food, but it also contains the
relevant provisions of law authorizing
domestic donations of surplus food to
our own needy. This is contained in
titles II and III of the law.
The bill before us amends titles II and
III in several respects. The bill before
us furthermore contains language clear-
ly applicable to the dorfiestic distribu-
tion of surplus foods. For instance, on
page 8, beginning at line 14, it states that
Commodity Credit Corporation stocks
disposed of under title II of Public Law
480 and under section 416 of the Agri-
cultural Act of 1949, as amended, shall
be marked and indentified in a way that
the recipients would recognize these as
gifts of the people of the United States.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I know
that the chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture agrees with me, not only on
the germaneness of tylis amendment to
HR. 8609 but on the merits of it as
an amendment to Public Law 480.
I make one further point in contest-
ing the point of order. "Cannon's Prece-
dents," volume VIII, section 2941, states:
An act continuing and reenacting an exist-
ing law is subject to amendment modifying `
the provisions of the law carried in the act.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7 .
15200 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE August 20
Mr. Chairman, we are enacting Pub-
lic Law 480 programs. This amendment
is germane in that it would modify the
terms of Public Law 480 dealing with
the distribution of surplus food to our
own needy, establishing an additional
and effective means of distributing such
food to our needy.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bommro) . The
Chair is prepared to rule.
The bill presently before the Commit-
tee provides in two sections for amend-
ments to title III, the general provi-
sions title of Public Law 480. The re-
cently adopted Latta amendment is to
the second section involved, and the sec-
tion cited by the gentlewoman from Mis-
souri, page 8, section 13, is the first one.
The language cited by the gentlewo-
man from Missouri of section 302 of .the
basic law, Public Law 480, is very much
to the point, and the Chair will repeat it
for the purpose of the RECORD:
SEC. 302. Section 416 of the Agricultural
Act of 1949 is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 416. In order to prevent the waste
of commodities acquired through price-
support operations by the Commodity Credit
Corporation before they can be disposed of
in n6rmal domestic channels without iin-
pairment of the price-support program or
sold abroad at competitive world prices, the
Commodity Credit Corporation is authorized,
on such terms and under such regulations
as the Secretary may deem in the public
interest: (1) upon application, to make such
commodities available to any Federal agency
for use in making payment for commodities
not produced in the United States; (2) to
barter or exchange such commodities for
strategic or other materials as authorized by
law; (3) in the case of food commodities
to donate such commodities to the Bureau
of Indian Affairs and to such State, Federal,
or private agency or agencies as may be des-
ignated by the proper State or Federal au-
thority and approved by the Secretary, for
use in the United States in nonprofit School-
lunch programs, in nonprofit summer camps
for children, in the assistance of needy per-
sons, and in charitable institutions, includ-
ing hospitals, to the extent that needy per-
sons are served."
Furthermore, on June 20, 1957, a com-
parable amendment was offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. THOMP-
sorr] , and in making his ruling the
Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union,
Mr. Hays of .Arkansas, said as follows:
The act which the bill proposes to amend
aid extend contains a provision relating to
the subject matter and, as pointed out, is
sufficiently broad and does cover the material
offered in this amendment. The language is
specific that notwithstanding the foregoing
the Corporation on such terms and condi-
tions as the Secretary may deem in the pub-
lic interest shall make available any farm
commodity or product thereof owned or con-
trolled by it in relieving distress.
The Chairman then held the amend-
ment germane and overruled the point
of order. The present occupant of the
chair, for the reasons stated, holds the
amendment germane and overrules the
point of order.
A MORE INTELLIGENT SYSTEM OF DISTRIBUTION
' OF SURPLUS FOOD TO OUR OWN NEEDY
Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment consists of the food stamp
bill, H.R. 1359, which has been approved
by the Committee on Agriculture as a
separate bill.
It belongs on this bill, however, as
part of the overall program of surplus
food disposal here and Overseas. If you
want to see a food stamp plan in opera-
tion in this country, with all of our own
needy getting regular allotments of
good, nourishing food, including the
perishables?fruits, vegetables, fresh
eggs instead of powdered eggs, fresh
milk insteid of milk powder?if you
want to see such a program in effect?
operating out of the neighborhood gro-
cery stores?then this amendment to
this bill represents your best hopes of
achieving that.
Standing by itself, my bill might be
vetoed. The Republican members of the
Committee on Agriculture solidly oppose
it?every one. Mr. Benson says he ,does
not want it.
SECRETARY WON'T ACT UNLESS LAW IS ENACTED
He already has the authority to insti-
tute a food stamp plan such as called for
in this amendment, but he won't initiate
it on his own authority. He has told
Congress?he told us in a formal report
on this matter 2 years ago?that if the
Congress wants him to-run a food stamp
program, it must enact legislation call-
ing for such a program. Placing such
legislation on this bill is the best way to
comply with that demand, and establish
a more intelligent system of distributing
surplus food to our needy.
ISSUE FULLY CONSIDERED AND APPROVED BY
AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE
We argued this issue Out here on the
House floor on June 20, 1957, and again
on August 18 last year, when a majority
of the Members supported my bill. As I
said, the House Agriculture Committee
has approved this proposal. I would
rather see the food stamp program be-
come law as part of Public Law 480, how-
ever, than have my own bill, H.R. 1359,
passed only to be vetoed. The chairman
of the Committee on Agriculture, I am
happy to say, agrees with me, and tried
to tack this bill on to H.R. 8609 in com-
mittee.
GETTING SURPLUS FOOD TO THOSE WHO NEED IT
IN' UNITED STATES
Mr. Chairman, what would this
amendment do? It would use our sur-
pluses?More of them?to help our own
needy. We are sending billions of dol-
lars worth of food overseas in gifts to the
needy of other countries. In compari-
son, we are doing very little for our own
needy. In many cities, we give them
some cornmeal, some flour, some dried
skim milk, some rice, once a month?in
big packages these poor people have to
drag home clear across town?many of
the recipients old people who have a
difficult time getting the stuff home.
When they eat it, they have a completely
unbalanced diet. Yet farmers are in
trouble financially beCause of surpluses.
How good and how bad is the present
food distribution system? Read the
Committee on Agriculture's report on
H.R. 1359?House Report No. 907. Cop-
ies are at the pages' desk. You will see
how the program operates in your State,
if you are not already aware of the short-
comings of food distribution to our own
needy. Ask any Member who comes
from an area where they are giving out
this food at the present time.
FRESH FOODS INSTEAD OF POWDERED AND
DEHYDRATED ONES
Every little bit of additional food helps
the hungry. But can we not use these
mountains of surplus in a more humane
manner? Can we not include fruits and
vegetables and meats and poultry and
eggs when they are in surplus? Under
a food stamp plan we can?and should.
REACHING ALL OF OUR CERTIFIABLY NEEDY
This would be done mostly through
section 32 funds. Why not distribute
some pork to the needy, if we are going
to spend $150 million to help the hog
raisers? Are we going to ship that pork
to the poor of every other country in
the world, and pay the ocean freight be-
sides? Or distribute it to our own
needy?
Operating through the stores, a food
stamp plan could cover and include all
of our certifiably needy?all on public
assistance, all of the cases we know need
this help. Get House Report No. 907,
on H.R. 1359, and see the extent of need
in your State. I am sure that all of the
Members on the Democratic side, cer-
tainly, and even some of the Republicans
will support this amendment if they only
look over the committee report on my
bill, look at the tabulations and facts it
contains, and see the solution presented.
In a limited time here I cannot detail
all of the provisions of the bill. The
committee report on H.R. 1359 spells it
out in detail. Please read it. And you
will see that even in the hardest hit re-
cession areas of this country?the de-
pressed areas?many counties cannot
now participate in food distribution. It
is tragic that in helping to feed the whole
world, we let many of our own go hun-
gry. In county after county with from
6 to 12 percent unemployment?or
worse?very little food is given out, or
none at all. Just see the report on that
on pages 9 to 16 of House Report No. 907,
the report by the Agriculture Committee
on H.R. 1359. The information referred
to comes from the Department of Ag-
riculture itself.
Mr. Chairman, under normal circum-
stances, we would have several hours of
general debate and a separate debate on
the rule if we were taking up H.R. 1359
under the regular order. There would
be full opportunity to explain every fea-
ture of the bill. Since that opportunity
will not be available today, in consider-
ing the bill as an amendment to H.R.
8609, I am including as part of my re-
marks the opening pages of the report
by the Committee on Agriculture, which
outline in detail the purposes of this
-proposal, how it would operate, what it
would or might cost, and why it is
needed, as follows:
EXCERPTS FROM REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON
AGRICULTURE ON H.R. 1359
PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES
The purposes of the bill are to provide
clear-cut legislative authority to the Secre-
tary of Agriculture to institute a nationwide
food stamp plan for the distribution of sur-
plus food to the needy, preferably through
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
1959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
the normal channels of trade; to include in
such a food distribution program not only
storable commodities in CCC stocks but
other foods, including perishables, which
are or which should be diverted from the
market under various price-support opera-
tions of the Department of Agriculture; and
to authorize any necessary additional ap-
propriations not already authorized by law
to carry out such a program.
The objectives of the bill are as follows:
1. To enable all Americans at the lowest
income level, not now able to purchase even
a minimum diet for proper nutrition, to
obtain on a regular basis a wider variety of
foods from among the food commodities
produced in such abundance on the Nation's
farms.
2. To replace, wherever practical the pres-
ent system of direct distribution to the
needy with a more flexible plan better geared
to the needs of the recipients for additional
foods.
3. To utilize in ,a practical manner the
food distribution skills and know-how of the
American food industry in the distribution
of surplus food to the needy, preferably
utilizing neighborhood stores in which the
recipients of surplus food customarily make
their normal food purchases.
at/
4. To aid the Nation's farms by providing
a substantially expanded outlet for food
commodities regularly, periodically, or sea-
sonally produced in such surplus as to de-
press market conditions and lower the price
received by the farmer to less than a fair
and reasonable return.
NEED FOR LEGISLATION AT THIS TIME
It IS the conviction of many members of
the Committee on Agriculture that the Sec-
retary of Agriculture at present has all of the
legislative authority he requires to institute
a food-stamp program such as called for in
H.R. 1359, and that with a will and a desire
to establish a broader and more benefitial
system of surplus food distribution to the
needy, the Secretary and his aids could place
such a program into effect at any time.
Previous Secretaries of Agriculture have
used the authority of section 32 of the Agri-
culture Adjustment Act of 1935 as the basis
for various programs of surplus food distri-
bution, including, in the period 1939-43, a
much more elaborate food-stamp plan than
is envisioned in H.R. 1359.
Thus, while conceding the fact that a
very elaborate food-stamp plan was insti-
tuted in 1939 under the broad language of
section 32, and while conceding that such
language still remains part of the basic law
applying to his Department, the Secretary
has consistently maintained that if Congress
wants a food-stamp plan placed in operation,
it must enact legislation specifically directed
to such a program, defining objectives and
scope of operations, and providing adminis-
trative guidance and safeguards.
This committee would prefer to see the
Secretary utilize with much more imagina-
tion and sympathy the authority he already
possesses to help the small farmer and the
needy consumer, by instituting a more effec-
tive method of surplus food distribution.
However, in view of his insistence that Con-
gress must first enact legislation specifically
directed to this type of program, the Com-
mitted on Agriculture wants to remove any
possible doubt in the mind of the Secretary
of Agriculture as to his full authority to
establish an effective food-stamp program.
It also wants to make clear the congressional
intent as to the scope and objectives of such
a program.
SCOPE OF AID INTENDED
An effective food-stamp distribution sys-
tern should assure that as broad a variety of
surplus foods as is practical is distributed
to needy Americans in preference to having
such foods spoil in warehouses, or rot in the
fields for want of harvest. Thus, such a pro.
gram should be concerned with disposing not
only of surplus storable food commodities
but also of perishables in temporary surplus,
including fresh fruits and vegetables, fresh
milk, fresh eggs, poultry, etc. In this way,
a food-stamp' plan can be of substantial
benefit to the Nation's farmers by providing
an expanded outlet for the products of our
farms.
An effective food-stamp distribution sys-
tem, furthermore, should include as bene-
ficiaries needy people in all parts of the
United States. At present, surplus food dis-
tribution is concentrated in areas of high
unemployment, because political subdivi-
sions in such areas, faced with a desperate
situation of mass distress, have been willing
to appropriate emergency funds to cover the
high costs of dihributing food in their locali-
ties. But a person on old-age assistance or
a family surplus in want in any other area
of the country?rural or urbah?is just as
much in need of the assistance which could
be provided by surplus food distribution 'as
a person or family in similar financial cir-
cumstances but living in a depressed labor
area.
Under H.R. 1359, all persons on any form
of public assistance, thus all of those not on
public assistance but certified by State or
local welfare authorities \as being in need.of
assistance but ineligible by reason of State
or local law, would automatically be eligible
for participation in the food-stamp program.
An estimated 7 million Americans at pres-
ent are receiving public assistance help. De-
pending upon local economic conditions,
millions of additional Americans are periodi-
cally in need of assistance but unable to
obtain it because of residence requirements,
age of the people involved ("too old to get
another job, too young for social security
or old-age assistance" is a common protest),
absence of a general assistance program in
their State, or State prohibitions against the
granting of public assistance to any family
in which there is an employable person. All
such needy persons would be eligible for
participation in a food-stamp - plan under
HR. 1359.
Some of the bill submitted to the Com-
mittee on Agriculture dealing with expanded
food distribution proposed including in any
food-stamp plan all persons on unemploy-
ment compensation or old age and survivors
insurance (social security). While many, if
not most 'such persons no doubt could bene-
fit from the help provided by a food-stamp
plan, the fact that they receive unemploy-
ment compensation or OASI benefits does
not in itself prove they are needy.
Nevertheless, because most recipients of
such benefits are undoubtedly experiencing
great difficulty in making ends meet at to-
day's high prices of necessities, H.R. 1359
provides that the Seeretary of Agriculture,
the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare shall make
a joint study and report to Congress within
6 months after the enactment of this bill
on the feasibility of, the costs of, and the
problems involved in extending the scope
of the food-stamp plan to include those on
unemployment compensation' and social se-
curity, and other low-income groups.
LIMITATION ON COSTS SET AT $1 BILLION AN-
NUALLY INCLUDING VALUE OF FOOD USED FROM
? GOVERNMENT STOCKS AND COSTS OF FOOD DIS-
TRIBUTE? THROUGH REGULAR STORES
The bill establishes a maximum authoriza-
tion of $1 billion a year for all costs asso-
ciated with the distribution of surplus food
under a food-stamp plan, including the cost
to the Federal Government in acquiring,
storing, handling, and processing food cora-
modities distributed from Government stor-
age and all other costs under the bill.
While H.R. 1359 provides for distribution
of up to $1 billion worth of food annually,
it does not, of course, entail additional Fed-
15201
eral expenditures of $1 billion or of an
amount even roughly approximating $1 bil-
lion. Most of the food distributed would
be food purchased by the United States
through the operation of the price support
activities of the Department of Agriculture.
Funds for this purpose are already budgeted,
including .CCC acquisitions, plus $238 mil-
lion of section 32 funds for the current fiscal
year, plus the $300 million carryover in sec-
tion 32 funds available from customs receipts
in previous years. .
Operation of a food-stamp program under
HR. 1359 undoubtedly would mean greater
book-value donations of foods from Govern-
ment-owned stocks, and in that sense would
represent an apparent increase in Govern-
ment costs. But much of this food must be
disposed of in one way or another in any
event. .
There would, of course, also be additional
Federal expenditures under the food-stamp
program. There would undoubtedly be addi-
tional use of section 32 funds already budg-
eted. Also?and these would have to come
from new appropriations?there would be
some additional administrative expenses for
the Department for distribution activities
and any expenditures made to the food in-
dustry in connection with use of the regular
stores for distributed foods, including re-
demption of the stamps either through an
exchange of food stocks or in currency, or
both.
The committee has made repeated efforts
over the past several years to obtain from
the Department of Agriculture reasonably
accurate estimates of the added costs Which
would be involved in a food-stamp program
such as called for under H.R. 1359, but the
Department has failed to provide such fig-
ures. Instead, it has used a rule-of-thumb
yardstick based on this assumption: If a
food-stamp program is to be effective in help-
ing to alleviate surpluses, it would have to
provide at least $100 worth of additional food
a year to each person participating in the
distribution.Prising as a minimum 6 million
people who would be immediately eligible
(based on the estimated number of public
assistance recipients in 1950 such' a pro-
gram, the Department states, would cost $600
million. But this is a figure pulled out of
thin air and is in no sense a breakdown of
the actual additional cost of H.R. 1359, par-
ticularly since as noted, most of the food
the Department contemplated distributing in
connection with that $600 million estimate
was food already owned and paid for by the
Federal Government.
The only other relevant figures?submitted
to the committee concerned the experience
of the city of Detroit in arranging for the
distribution of surplus food to the needy
through a number of participating stores.
'These stores charge the city 15 cents per
person for making the distribution of food
provided to the city by the Department of
Agriculture.
If HR. 1359 is enacted, it would be up to
the Department of Agriculture to justify to
Congress whatever appropriations would be
necessary to arrange for food distribution by
the regular stores participating in a food
stamp program. These might include the
costs of exchanging food stocks or redeem-
ing food stamps in currency, depending
upon 'the methods agreed to by the Depart-
tient and the food industry. It is the opin-
ion of the committee that the Nation's food
industry would welcome the opportunity to
participate in a meaningful program of help-
ing to provide supplementary food to the
Nation's needy and would be glad to sit down
with representatives of the Department of
Agriculture to work out such an arrange-
ment at reasonable cost to the taxpayers.
Spokesmen for various segments of the food
industry have, from time to time, informed
the committee of their interest in such a
plan, particularly if it would mean better
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
15202 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
diets for the lowest income families and the
elimination of present disposal practices
which in effect compete with the regular
food stores In areas now distributing sur-
plus foods.
PRESENT SURPLUS mon DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
The present system of surplus food dis-
tribution to the needy grew in the wake of
the serious recessions of 1953-54 and 1957--
59. Members of Congress from coal mining
area were primarily responsible for persuad-
ing the Department of Agriculture to begin
distributing to States and localities some of
the storable commodities to be repackaged
for distribution to needy families. Subse-
quently, legislation was reported out of this
committee and enacted by Congress to pro-
vide for processing by CCC of some surplus
corn into cornmeal, and of some wheat into
flour, for such distribution. Later,' the Con-
gress authorized the Department to package
many of the surplus items into family-sized
containers for more convenient local distri-
bution.
Throughout the period since the program
started, however, all of the responsibility for
local distribution of the surplus commodities
has rested upon the States and communities
participating. The Federal Government
ships the commodities into the States in
carload lots to central receiving points. It
is then transported at State or local expense
to distribution depots.
Because of the extent of unemployment,
particularly in the chronically depressed la-
bor market areas, the costs of food distribu-
tion have been undertaken gladly by many
localities in appreciation for even the limited
help these few free commodities could pro-
vide to families in dire need in their com-
munities. But one after another of the
communities which now participate have
voiced strong criticisms of the program in
operation-the lack of variety in the kinds
of food made available; the high costs to
localities of warehousing (and refrigeration
for butter and cheese when watilable) as car-
loads of food arrived on such an erratic
schedule that distribution dates had to be
planned on a monthly basis in order to ac-
cumulate enough foods to warrant summon-
ing needly eligibles to a central depot. s
Despite such criticisms from the very
start of the direct distribution system in the
1953-54 recession, the Department of Agri-
culture has maintained from the beginning
that its program is adequate, efficient and
"of least cost" of any of the various pro-
grams of surplus food distribution which
has been suggested, including a food stamp
plan. And the Department has opposed all
legislation submitted to this committee to
improve the direct distribution system, cit-
ing inevitably the matter of "cost."
This committee is acutely conscious of the
costs of legislation it recommends. It is de-
termined to scotch the myth which has
grown up over the years that legislation to
help the farmer is extravangantly costly. It
has opposed lumping in under so-called farm
subsidies programs operated by the Depart-
Jnent of Agriculture which are not part of
any specialized farm program but are of
benefit to all Americans, and programs op-
erated by the Department overseas as part
of our foreign policy responsibilities.
Nevertheless, we cannot condone the fail-
ure of the Department to utilize effectively
in behalf of the Nation's many needy per-
sons the abundance of food already in Gov-
ernment possession, and other foodstuffs in
surplus, merely because of the alleged cost
of an effective distribution system.
This committee wants our surplus food'
used to help feed the hungry. The present
distribution system Is not meeting that
requirement.
ONLY A THIRD OF COUNTIES, AND A THIRD OF
PERSONS ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE ARE NOW
COVERED IN THE SURPLUS DISTRIBUTION PRO-
GRAM
While it Is true that many Americans
are receiving gifts of surplus food in areas of
high unemployment, facts presented to this
committee show that the program is not
operating in about two-thirds of the Na-
tion's counties, and that about two-thirds
of the people on various forms of public wel-
fare in the United States are not receiving
any of this food-largely by accident of
geography.
The deficiencies of the present distribution
program in terms of reaching the majority
of our neediest Americans are clearly demon-
strated in the following State-by-State
breakdown submitted to this committee by
Representative SULLIVAN:
TABULATION PREPARED BY REPRESENTATIVE SUL-
LIVAN SHOWING STATE-BY-STATE PARTICIPA-
TION IN PRESENT FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM
BY PERSONS ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
The following figures and percentages are
rough approximations based on monthly
estimates from the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare and on periodic re-
ports from Department of Agriculture.
There may be some variation from month
to month:
State
-.
,
Number
on assist-
ance
?
Number
on assist-
ance
receiving
food
Approxi-
mate
percent- .
age wel-
fare class
receiving
Alabama
207, 000
46, 000
. . .
: .
'..- ? ..-
. . ,
1:ale'504'2.02r.tr'08F,1;155-4"0.0rn?00-.0$0.'PWB
00000 0.0000 000 000 00000 00000000 00000 0 0 .0000 0
Alaska
. ' 6,410
0
Arizona
46, 000
21,000
Arkansas
98,000
89; 000
California
622, 000
20,000
Colorado
93, 000
20,000
Connecticut
58, 000
SOO
Delaware
13,000
0
District of Columbia_
20,000
20,000
Florida
185, 000
- 0
Georgia -
182,000
13,000
Hawaii
16,000
0
Idaho
16,000
0
Illinois
114,000
58,000
Indiana
91,000
49,000
Iowa
80, 000
45, 000
Kansas
62,600
12,000
Kentucky
150,000
75, 000
Louisiana
251, 000
0
Maine
44,000
26,600
Maryland
50, 000
22,000
Massachusetts
168,000
4,000
Michigan_
316, 000
220,000
Minnesota
109,000
27,600
Mississippi
175, 000
100,000
Missouri
245,600
35, 000
Montana
24,000
235
Nebraska
35,000
0
Nevada
8,000
" 853
New Hampshire
15, OM
4,600
New jersey
96,000
14,000
New Mexico
39, 000
- 29, 000
New York
509, 000
262,000
North Carolina
179, 000
0
North Dakota
- 18,000
769
Ohio
345, 000
61,600
Oklahoma
181,000
113, 000
Oregon
58,000
0
Pennsylvania
362,000
271,000
Puerto Rico
239, 000
400,000
Rhode Island
36,000
8,600
South Carolina
85, 000
0
South Dakota
24,000
13, 500
Tennessee
147, 000
36,000
Texas
368, 000
47,000
-Utah
28,000
18,000
Vermont
15, 000
4, 700
Virgin Islands -
1,700
0
Virginia
66,000
6,900
Washington
139,000
6,000
West Virginia
109,000
85,000
Wisconsin
107,000
17, 000
Wyoming
8,800
5,000
I Estimates of persons on public assistance from HEW;
estimates of persons on public assistance receiving sur-
plus food from Department of Agriculture.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I submit
now as part of My remarks, the state-
ment I delivered on this bill before the
August 20
House Committee on Agriculture, as fol-
lows:
AIDING THE FARMER BY PROVIDING MILLIONS OF
NEW CUSTOMERS FOR NUTRITIOUS FOODS
THROUGH A FOOD STAMP PLAN
(Testimony of Congresswoman LEONOR K.
SULLIVAN, Democrat, of Missouri, before
House Committee an Agriculture at open-
ing of hearings on H.R. 1359, by Mrs.
SUL-
LIVAN, and related bills, for establishing a
food stamp plan for distribution of surplus
food to the needy, Thursday, July 30,1959)
Chairman COOLEY and *members of the -
committee, I am grateful to the chairman for
scheduling full committee hearings on this
legislation. In the three previous Con-
gresses in which I have introduced this bill-
or one very much like it-the hearings were
usually conducted by subcommittee and I
found afterward that the committee mem-
bers who -opposed the plan most vigorously
in committee or on the House floor were
almost always those who had not partici-
pated in the subcommittee hearings and
thus, perhaps, were not fully aware of the
opportunities provided in this legislation not
only to help our needy but to help the
farmer, too.
HR. 1359, by the way, is the same bill
which a majority of the members of this
committee voted for last year and which a
majority of the Members of the House of
Representatives also supported in. a rollcall
vote on August 18, on which the tally was
196 to 187. As you know, the bill was con-
sidered under suspension of the rules re-
quiring a two-thirds majority, so the bill
did not pass despite majority support.
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS HAVE INADEQUATE:
DIETS
This year, I trust we can finally see it
enacted. Many of those on the Republican
side of the House who opposed the bill last
August are no longer in Congress and their
successors, I trust, will support this kind of
bill to assure a better diet for the 7 million
or more Americans not now able to afford
_ minimum levels of nutrition.
We are now sending frozen chickens to the
United Arab Republic, and other foods of
all kinds to Yugoslavia, Poland, 'India, and
-other countries all over the world-yet for
our neediest here, we can provide only some
cornmeal or wheat flour, some powdered
milk, and that's about all. We should be
ashamed of ourselves for permitting this
situation to exist, in the midst of such
abundance of food-a blessing from God.
The surplus is such that we are desperately
trying to give it away and dump it all over
the world and are in effect ,paying some
countries to take it away. We even sub-
sidize the shipping in some cases-pay the
ocean transportation costs.
INCLUDE BILL IN PUBLIC LAW 480
This committee has just completed exten-
sive hearings on Public Law 480, the basic
legislation for foreign distribution of sur-
plus American food. We have spent many
billions in. giving food away overseas in
these past 5 years. I am not against aid-
ing the people of other nations, sharing our
abundance with them, promoting peace by
helping to feed the hungry. I merely want
to point out that we also have hungry
people here. And we are not doing, in pro-
portion, nearly as much for them as we are
for the underprivileged and undernourished
of other lands. The figures prove it. More
surplus food is sent as a giveaway overseas
than is donated to the needy in the United
States-even including the gifts of food to
the school lunch program.
FIRST PRIORITY ON SURPLUS FOR OUR OWN
NEEDY
Since Public Law 480 includes in Title III,
authority for domestic distribution of sur-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
IA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
1959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
plus food to our needy, and since Public Law
480 will shortly have to come before the
House for renewal and extension, I would
like to suggest now that H.R. 1359 be written
into Public Law 480 as an additional pro-
gram. The language for accomplishing that
could be worked out easily and quickly, and
we would thereby achieve two important
purposes: one, we would assure that the first
priority on distribution of foods in surplus
go to our own needy rather than to the
needy of other countries?under present law,
the Department of Agriculture apparently
contends it is not permitted to give away
some surplus items here if any foreign coun-
try wants to arrange to obtain those same
Items under Public Law 480; and secondly,
we would assure prompt House considera-
tion of this plan as a logical provision of
legislation dealing with the whole question
of surplus distribution. We saw last year
how H.R. 13067 was locked up in the Rules
Committee so that it could come up for a
vote only under the suspension of the rules
procedure which led to its demise.
I believe Chairman COOLEY agrees with me
that this bill now. belongs as part of Public
Law 480, and I earnestly urge that it be so
Included.
HARD CORE OF 7 MILLION NEEDY
Now, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, let
me tell you why I think this legislation is so
vital not only to our own needy but to the
American farmer as well. We have, as I
said, more than 7 million Americans not now
able to buy even the barest minimum diet.
These are the people on various forms of
public assistance. They are?most of
them?in dire need in either good times or
bad. They form a hard core of the needy
aged, the needy disabled, the blind, the fam-
ilies without incorne except what comes from
public agencies or private charities. 'Their
monthly checks do not cover minimum
needs. In addition, in bad times?in reces-
sion?the ranks of the needy are swelled by
millions more temporarily without jobs who
may have used up their unemployement
benefits?or who were not eligible for un-
employment compensation. Many of them
cannot get on Public assistance regardless of
need, in certain States, if they are employ-
able. Nevertheless, they still have to eat.
Here in Washington, in the Nation's Cap-
ital, Eve Edstrom of the Washington post did
a heartrending series of articles a year or
so ago about hungry children rooting in
garbage cans for something to eat. Out of
this came a surplus distribution program
here and a movement to provide more school
lunches. But the problem Eve Edstrom
Wrote about in Washington was not an iso-
lated one?it can be duplicated in cities all
over America.
PRESENT DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM A FAILURE
We have the food. We have, as I said,
such an abundance of food, it is now con-
sidered by Mr. Benson to be a great calamity.
It could be a great blessing if properly
used. It is not now properly used to help our
own needy?that is clear and undeniable.
True, We have a surplus distribution pro-
gram in operation in this country. But it
is a very inadequate program. Only one-
third of our counties participate in it be-
muse of its cost. And the figures show,
too, that only one-third of our public assist-
ance recipients throughout the country re-
ceive any of the food-21A million out of
7 million. If you take into account another
fact, the statistics are even more discourag-
'ng?of the 21/3 million relief recipients re-
aeiving surplus food, 400,000 are in Puerto
..tico, one-quarter million each are in New
York and Permsylvania and Michigan. An-
other 175,000 are concentrated in Missis-
sippi. For the rest of the States, therefore.
in most cases anyway, far fewer than one-
third of the relief recipients receive any sur-
No. 143-16
plus food. For instance, in the chairman's
State of North Carolina, there are nearly
180,000 people on various forms of public
assistance, but none of them receive any
surplus food. In South Carolina there are
85,000 on public assistance, but none of
them receive surplus food. It is not dis-
tributed to the public assistance people in
Oregon, Nebraska, Louisiana, Idaho, Florida,
or Delaware, to name a few. In my State,
Missouri, only about 15 percent of the people
on public assistance receive surplus food;
In Texas and Wisconsin it is about the same;
in California it is about 3 percent; in
Georgia about 8 percent; in Massachusetts
about 2 percent; in North Dakota about 4
percent; the same in Washington State, and
SO on. Of course, some of the States do
much better than that, but on the whole it
is a very spotty program as to coverage, and
a completely unsatisfactory program in op-
eration. I can give you these figures for
your own States following my statement,
or I can put it in the record. It is a cruel
hoax?a fraud?an illusion.
Any member of this committee who would
disagree with me on that has just not
bothered to go down to the distribution cen-
ters in the cities of our country and see
this program in operation?not just in the
distressed mining areas, but in any large
City participating. People?old people,
crippled, undernourished people?stand in
long lines once a month or so to obtain big
bags of flour or corn meal and some dried
skim milk they cannot carry. There used
to be some cheese and butter?but not now.
Once, years ago, there was some canned beef.
That was disposed of in one vast splurge--
and then it was gone and there was never
any more.
NO VARIETY Or FOODS
When you investigate this present distri-
bution system in places like Kentucky, West
Virginia, the mining areas or Pennsylvania
and Ohio and elsewhere, or talk to Members
of Congress from those areas, you find it is
a scandal?a crime against humanity. The
costs of distribution far outweight the value
of the food. There is no variety.
These are strong words, and I mean every
one of them. I don't care how fine?how
pious and decent?Mr. Bension and his aids
may be in their personal lives?in this pro-
gram they are participating in a cruel and
Inhumane thing when you stop to consider
how much good?how much real good?could
be accomplished with this surplus food.
Even the Chairman of the Republican Na-
tional Committee concedes its is woefully
inadequate. Of course, he blames the law
for that; I blame the administration of the
law.
Let me point out something that every
one of you knows better than I?that the
farmers of this country?most of them?are
in real difficulty. You have struggled to de-
vise legislation which can help the farmer,
and you have received precious little help
from the administration. And now you find
that the House Members from city districts
like mine are looking more and more ask-
ance at your proposals for aiding agriculture.
CITY FOLKS SEE NO RELATION TO FARM
PROGRAMS
Why? Not because we are against the
farmer. We know the farmer must be pros-
perous if the goods we make in the cities
are to be sold. A prosperous farmer is a good
customer for city industry.
But if I may say so, I would point out that
most?nearly all?legislation you bring for-
ward to aid the farmer neglects completely
to tie your objective of reasonable farm
prices into the companion problem of help-
ing us to assure an adequate diet for all of
our citizens. A food stamp program would
establish that bond. It would provide at
least 7 million new customers?regular cus-
15203
tomerS?for the output of the average farm.
Can you devise any better legislative device
for increasing the consumption of farm
commodities than by bringing in more cus-
tomers?regular customers-,--for food items
those people are not now buying?
FOOD STAMPS WOULD COVER ALI. FOODS IN
. SURPLUS SUPFLY
As I have set up the program under HR.
1359, the food stamp plan would provide for
distribution through the stores of not just
the storable surpluses but of the kind of
foods, too, which can be acquired under sec-
tion 32. We all know the Department has
not used section 32 authority as Congress
intended it to be used to help the farmer.
We have had to force its greater use in the
school lunch program, for instance.
There is no reason?no good reason?why .
fresh fruits and vegetables, and meats, when
they are in such surplus as to cause market-
ing difficulties and depressed farm prices,
cannot be utilized in season in a good stamp
plan. There are hundreds of millions of dol-
lars set aside each year from customs re-
ceipts-30 percent of customs receipts--for
use in removing farm surpluses from the
market. We have the maximum permissible
annual carryover of $300 million in this
fund, plus the additional $200 million or
more made available each year?much of
which is never used.
IS SECTION 32 WORTH CONSIDERING?
This raises the question: .If section 32
funds are not to be used both to help the
farmer and the needy, then why continue
section 32? By what right should this
money be made available each year just to
help the farmer, if no one else gets any
benefit from it? If we cannot use it both ,
to help the farmer and the needy in our
cities, by providing more variety in the diets
of our 7 million at the bottom of the eco-
nomic ladder?people who go without the
kind of food they need?then it seems to me
that the usefulness of the section 32 pro-
gram is over as far as the average citizen
and taxpayer is concerned.
We all pay tariffs on imported goods, and
the fanner no more so than anyone else.
This fund has in it 8500 million right now
which could be-used to reduce the national
debt, if it is not going to be used to help
those who need help. A food stamp plan,
on the other hand, would provide a real in-
centive to the full use of the section 32
funds and authority.
DIRECT FARM PAYMENTS EXuha.0 $1 BILLION
YEARLY
One last point and then I will try to an-
swer your questions:
It has been suggested by some of the
members of this committee that relief?
public welfare?is not the job of the De-
partment of Agriculture. That is true. But
it seems to me that in first accumulating
billions upon billions of dollars worth of
food, then in dumping billions of dollars
worth of food overseas for currencies we
will probably never use to any significant
extent except to give it back to the countries
involved, and now in paying out more than
$1 billion a year in direct cash payments
to farmers, and another billion a year just
to store our surplus food?there should also
be room?there must be room?in such a
program to aid the farmer by getting him
more customers-7 or 8 million more regu-
lar customers each week for fresh eggs and
fresh milk and fresh bread and an occa-
sional half pound of bacon, or some fresh
fruits and vegetables in season, or some
Viickens?all items at present well under
parity.
WHY POWDER EGGS AND MILE?
We now buy up milk and eggs and powder
them and give the powdered milk and
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12:
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
15204 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
powdered eggs away. Why not give out fresh
milk and fresh eggs? Eggs are only at 58
percent of parity. We seem to be able to
send chickens to Egypt but we can't provide
them to our poorest here even though the
price to the farmer is at 56 percent of parity.
Apples here are at 53 percent of parity. Cit-
rus fruits go up and down?they're up now?
but often they are way down. Why not dis-
tribute some surplus oranges or grapefruit
in season to our provable needy? A food
stamp plan provides the machinery for using
our surplus?not storing it or dumping it.
I do not agree with some. Members who
believe the surplus distribution program
should be switched over to the Department
of Health, Education, and Labor. It would
mean complete duplication in two separate
departments of surplus food distribution
systems?one for the needy, another for the
school lunch and other programs. The re.-
sfoonsibility for using this food properly?
effectively?lies in the Department of Agri-
culture, although my bill also includes con-
sultation with Health,' Education, and Wel-
fare, and also Labor. The Agriculture De-
partment has failed to use its authority to
institute any effective food distribution pro-
gram. Congress must force it to be done.
FOOD STAMP PLAN SAFER FROM VETO IN PIM=
LAW 480
The only effective way of accomplishing
that now would appear to be through the
Inclusion of a food stamp plan as part of Pub-
law Law 480. I am not unmindful of the
fact that a veto could stop my food stamp
bill much more effectively standing by itself
than as part of Public Law 480, which the
administration wants and needs. I ask your ?
help, therefore, in working it out in this
fashion.
And I sincerely believe that such a step
would be one of the most effective things
you could do at this point to help the hard-
pressed small farmer?who raises the variety ?
of foods needed for an adequate diet. Add-
ing 7 or 8 million. Americans to the number
of his customers able to obtain a decent
diet would be a tremendous help in boosting
farm sales and farmers' income.
Thank you.
(Mrs. SULLIVAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I cer-
tainly do not want to minimize the im-
portance of the pending amendment,
but I appreciate the fact that most of
the Members of the House are entirely ,
familiar with the subject matter.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that all debate on the pending
amendment close in 15 minutes after
the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. HOEVEN],
has been recognized and has finished his
remarks.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
Mr. McINTIRE. Mr. Chairman, I
object.
Mr. COOLEY. _Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on the pending amend-
ment close in 25 minutes after the gen-
tleman from Iowa [Mr. HOEVEN] has
been recognized and has completed his
-remarks.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the motion 'offered by the gentleman
from North Carolina.
The motion was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
HOEVEN].
(Mr. HOEVEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Chairman, in gen-
eral debate on yesterday I advised mem-
bers of the committee that the extension
of Public Law 480 was considered must
legislation, and that it would have to be
extended before this session of Congress
adjourned. I want to speak to you as se-
riously as I can and voice a one-man
opinion that if this amendment is in-
corporated in the bill it will not be en-
acted into law.
This amendment has an interesting
history. It was offered last year under
suspension of the rules and was defeated:
A separate bill was reported out of the
Committee on Agriculture a few days
ago, the bill being authored by the gen-
tlewoman from Missouri, and known as
H.R. 1359. It had the unanimous op-
position of all the minority members of
the committee and our minority report
speaks for itself.
That bill was presented to the Com-
mittee on Rules and on August 19 the
Committee on Rules, a majority of the
members of which are members of the
gentlewoman's political party, adopted
a motion to lay the bill on the table. So
we are only doing some more shadow-
boxing here today.
This amendment would not make any
more needy people eligible for surplus
food. It would impose a system of dis-
tribution which has proied inefficient
and wasteful.
The Secretary of Agriculture has the
authority to put a food stamp plan into
operation. It was only done once on a
national basis and that was during the
time of a depression when we had some
22 million people unemployed. Today
we have about 21/2 million, perhaps 3
million, unemployed and the situation is
entirely different from what it was then.
Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOEVEN.- I yield to the gentle-
man from Illinois.
Mr. ARENDS. The gentleman stated
that the Secretary of Agriculture had
the power to put this into effect. Has
not that been true for a number of years,
other Secretaries have had the same
power?
Mr. HOEVEN. The gentleman is cor-
rect.
The Secretary already has the author-
ity to establish a food-stamp plan under
clause 2 of section 32 of the act of Au-
gust -24, 1935. The original stamp plan
was set up under this authority by Sec-
retary Wallace during an extreme de-
pression. It was discontinued under
Secretary Wickard. Neither Secretary
Anderson, nor Secretary Brannan, nor
Secretary Benson chose to operate an-
other food-stamp plan. There is no de-
pression today and no justification for
this legislation.
This bill would put the Department
of Agriculture squarely into the welfare
business. This is ?a proper function of
HEW. The Department has neither the
facilities nor- the personnel for such an
activity.
It is the "foot in the door" toward more
complex and broad stamp plans which
August 20
would run anywhere from $600 million to
$21/2 billion per year. While it is very
difficult to estimate the cost of this bill,
the stated purpose is to have the Federal
Government pay all the costs of distrib-
uting surplus foods. The city of Detroit
spends over $4.6 million a year. You can
imagine what the cost -would be if Uncle
Sam paid the cost for every city in the
United States.
"Backdoor spending" is the heart of
this bill. The appropriations would not
come through the regular process. The
money would come from impairing the
capital stock of the Commodity Credit
Corporation and by using' section 32
funds which are derived from tariffs on
agricultural imports. The entire cost
would be assessed against the farm pro-
gram and would be very great, especially
in view of the fact that there would be a
' duplication of operations by the De-
partment of Agriculture and the De-
partment of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
This bill stands as an unwarranted
invasion into State and local rights and
responsibilities. We thoroughly endorse
the principle that welfare programs
should be a State and local responsibil-
ity. This bill would make the Federal
Government solely responsible for a
large portion of welfare activity. It
would not be long before the program
was operated from Washington rather
than from the county courthouse.
The needy would not benefit from this
bill. If enacted, States and local com-
munities would inevitably be tempted to
reduce or hold steady already low and
sometimes inadequate public assistance
because the Federal Government was
assuming all the cost of food distribu-
tion.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me
say that I would be the last to say our
present system is perfect. It can be im-
proved; we all know it; but three very
important points should be borne in
mind concerning the present arrange-
ment of food distribution:
First. Any State can now get all the
surplus food it wants and needs for its
welfare activities simply by asking for it.
Second. Any State or community can
now set up a stamp plan if it so desires.
The fact is that no State has chosen to
do so. There is only one city, Detroit,
which has a stamp plan, as far as I
know. Philadelphia tried it, but re-
jected it as impractical and too costly.
Third. We have been steadily increas-
ing the number of needy people receiv-
ing food. In fiscal 1953 only 100,000
needy people in family units received
surplus food. In the first half of fiscal
1959 over 5.2 million received this food.
The latest figures show over 5.7 million,
Counting school lunch and needy people
? in institutions, we are contributing food
to over 20 million people'in this country,
as compared with 10.7 million people in
fiscal 1953. In addition, we distributed
over 2.2 billion half pints of milk last
year under the school milk program:
The amendment should be defeated.-
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair rec-
ognizes the gentleman from New York
[Mr. SANTANGELO] .
?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
.01A-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7 ?
1959, I CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
(Mr. SANTANGELO asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SANTANGELO. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Mis-
souri [Mrs. SULLIVAN]. I commend the
gentlewoman for her gallant fight to re-
duce the bulging bins in our food ware-
houses by feeding the needy people of
our country. As a member of the sub-
committee on appropriations for agricul-
ture, I can state that we have more than
sufficient food to take care of the needy.
We have warehouses piled high with
butter and eggs. We lis,ve poultry in
surplus. We have milk in surplus.
What do we do with these products?
We let them go to waste and we spend
millions for their storage. We refuse to
take care of the people of our country
while we are seeking to spend $1,800
million for the needy people all over the
world? Let us take care of our own
first; let us realize that charity begins at
home. The food provided for in this
amendment is in addition to the small
amount of help that people on relief now
get. This surplus food will provide a
balanced diet to those receiving public
assistance. I trust that this amendment
will pass.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Maine [Mr.
MCINTIRE] . -
(Mr. McINT1.1-ZE asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. McINTIRE. Mr. Chairman, I ap-
preciate that a strong appeal is being
made on the humanitarian interest in-
volved in this issue. I am equally in-
terested to call for the needy but we
ought to be frank and realistic. The
pulese of this amendment is to begin
on program which is very broad in
purpose. Let us be responsible enough
to put the administration of this pro-
gram, into the hands of the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare. Let
that Department come to the Committee
on Appropriations for the necessary
funds so that the people of this coun-
try can know exactly the costs involved.
This cost should not be loaded on to the
Department of Agriculture then in the
minds of the people be charged to the
'farmers.
Food acquired by price stabilizing pro-
grams of USDA can be transferred and
cost covered out of appropriations to
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
While we are caring for our needy let
us be honest with ourselves and those
we represent and do the job forthrightly
and not by backdoor financial operations.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
ASHLEY] .
Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply
want to express my congratulations and
my regard for the gentlewoman from
2.1.-issouri and commend her for the devo-
tion and hard work that she has put in
on this amendment and on the bill which
incorporates the same subject matter. I
want her to know that the director of
relief in Lucas County, Ohio, has spoken
to me on this subject on many occasions
and urgently supports the food stamp
plan. I must tell the gentlewoman from
Missouri that she is, indeed, a heroine
in his eyes and I am sure in the eyes of
many who are in want of bread in our
country.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from North Dakota
[Mr. SHORT] .
Mr. SHORT. I believe the issue in-
volved in this amendment is simply this:
Shall we make the Department of Agri-
culture responsible forrn the Nation's wel-
fare programa?
As far as food assistance for the needy
is concerned, the Department of Agricul-
ture is now doing all it should properly
do in this field. It makes available to
every State and Territory the surplus
foods it has for donation to schools and
needy persons. Its staff is available to
help the State get started and its rules
and regulations are no more than are
needed to protect the Federal investment.*
Because of its sensible approach and its
reasonable requirements, more than 5
million needy people in family units are
now certified as eligible to receive avail-
able surplus foods.
In the past 6 V2 years, over. 4 billion
pounds of surplus food, valued at $1.2
billion, - has been made available to
schools and needy persons in this coun-
try. I think that is a tremendous record
of moving surpluses into constructive
use. The entire cost of this program has
been charged against agriculture, even
though our children and needy people are
a welfare problem rather than one of
agriculture.
This amendment is an effort to make
the Department of Agriculture respon-
sible for the welfare of every needy per-
son in this country. Of counrse, the foods
available do not make up a complete diet.
They are not intended to. The basic food
requirements of, the needy should be met
under State or local welfare assistance
program. The Federal surplus foods are
supriosed to be a desirable and valuable
supplement?when, how, and if they are
available.
The Department of Agriculture has its
hands full right now dealing with agri-
cultural problems. Let's not make it take
on welfare responsibilities by passage,of
this amendment.
(Mr. SHORT asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from New York
[Mr. PIRNIE ] .
(Mr. PIRNIE asked And was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. PIRNIE. Mr. Chairman, in June
of this year, a total of 43 States, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Ameri-
can Samoa, and the trust territories
were distributing surplus foods to needy
people in family units. A total of 5.7
million people were certified to receive
the Federal foods and distribution
actually was made to 4.7 million people.
This distribution is being accomplished
under a plan whereby the Department
and the States share program responsi-
bility and costs. This, I feel, is a very
sound basis of operating.
15205
The Department finances necessary
processing and packaging costs and ships
the commodities?on a freight-paid
basis?to central receiving points within
the various States. States are responsi-
ble for developing a method of certify-
ing applicant families and for making
arrangements with their counties and
communities for the storage and han-
dling of the donated food and for the
operation of a distribution center where
recipients receive the food. In a few
instances, chiefly metropolitan areas,
local arrangements have been worked
out to distribute surplus foods through
retail stores-. This is the system that
the amendment contemplates would be
used on a nationwide basis, with the
Federal Government picking up the bill
for all the costs.
I believe the present syste1ti. has sev-
eral important advantages and we
should oppose a system that would shift
to the Department of Agriculture the
full cost and responsibility for direct
distribution. By requiring an agency'
of the State government to assume over-
all responsibility for the program, the
Department of Agriculture can be as-
sured that the food donation program
will be operated in a manner that is con-
sistent with the policies the State fol-
lows in the administration of its basic
welfare assistance programs. Under the
present arrangement, delivery costs
within a State can be held to a practical
minimum through the use of State,
county, or municipal food storageand
handling facilities and?in some cases?
with the use of volunteer labor. In ad-
dition, such a system maintains suffi-
cient flexibility to permit the scope of
the program to be adjusted to changes
in the need for such a program or hi
the volume of surplus food available for
donation.
The present program is working effec-
tively in those cases where the State and
localities will do their fair share. I do
not feel we should ask the Federal Gov-
ernment to assume responsibilities and
costs that are more properly placed
within the States.
In 1953, only 100,000 needy people
were benefiting from Federal surplus
foods. Now, the figure is close to 5 mil-
lion. In March of this year, a Depart-
ment of Agriculture tabulation showed
that surplus foods were being distributed
in 72 of the 74 major labor surplus areas
and in 100 of the 193 smaller areas with
substantial labor surpluses. This shows
that the present program can work?if
States and localities want it to work. .
I urge that we reject this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from South Dakota
[Mr. McGovErusi] .
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr: McGOVER14. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the amendment offered
by the gentlewoman from Missouri.
I think one of the most disturbing
paradoxes in American life today is the
presence of enormous quantities of sur-
plus food in a country where there are
still 17 million Americans who do not
have an adequate diet.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
15206 CONGRESSIONAL' RECORD HOUSE-
? This is a proposal that goes a long way
in the direction of resolving that em-
barrassing paradox.
I would? like to take this opportunity
to inform the House that in conjunc-
tion with the distinguished gentleman
from Massachusetts in the other body,
Senator KENNEDY, I have introduced leg-
islation to transfer the administration
of all food distribution programs to the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare where it properly belongs.
I intend to push for approval of this
legislation early next year. It is I be-
lieve vastly superior to the present food ?
distribution plan. I support the amend-
ment offered by the gentlewoman from
Missouri [Mrs. SULLIVAN] as a most
worthwhile step in the direction of a
truly practical and humanitarian use of
our farm abundance. -
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. Qurz].
(Mr. QUIE asked was given permission
to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. QUIE. Mr. Chairman, the ad-
ministration has really been doing an
effective job of distributing surplus
commodities, as the gentleman from
New York [Mr. PIRNIE] stated. At the
present time approximately 5,700,000
people in family units are receiving sur-
plus food at the present time. Added to
that are those in institutions and chil-
dren in school. That means that some-
thing like 20-million people are already..
receiving surplus food.
Any State or local welfare agency in
the country can receive all of the sur-
plus food it needs right now. If they
think it is best to have a food stamp plan
to distribute it they can set up a food
stamp plan, since they have not to any
extent, it proves such a plan should not
be instituted on the Federal level, ad-
ministered by the Secretary of Agricul-
ture. Secretaries of Agriculture Wick-
ard, Anderson, Brannan, and the present
Secretary of Agriculture, Benson, have
all seen fit not to initiate such a pro-
gram.
Section 32 funds would be used to ad-
minister this welfare program. This is
wrong. Section 32 funds are for the
purpose of taking surplus stocks out of
the market to increase the price to
farmers. Health, Education, and Wel-
fare is the place where this type, of a
program belongs, not the Department of
Agriculture.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
LEVERING].
Mr. LEVERING. Mr. Chairman, I am
shocked by the fact that under existing
law foreign peoples have priority over
hungry Americans when it comes to
sharing our overabundance of food. '
Mr. Chairman, I listened with great
interest to the statement of the gentle-
woman from Missouri [Mrs. Sum.rvAil]
when she testified before our Committee
on Agriculture and pointed out that in
my State of Ohio there are some 345,000
persons on public assistance roles and
that of this number only 18 percent are
receiving surplus foods.
I applaud the manner in which this
amendment would make it possible for
thousands of American citizens to get
fresh fruits and vegetables through the
regular retail outlets of the country.
This N*ould serve to provide an adequate
diet to those, who through no fault of
their own, cannot afford to buy foods
other than those that just keep them
alive.
I am also pleased by the way it saves
many, many thousands of dollars of the
taxpayers' money in ?the handling of
surplus commodities.
I hope the amendment will be
adopted.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Utah [Mr.
DIXON].
(Mr. DIXON asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I oppose
this amendment because the plan has a
history of failure.
I sat in- the subcommittee meeting
'after meeting and heard the abuses to
which this plan was subjected. It is
no wonder that former Secretaries of
Agriculture have discarded it.
People are entitled to all the surplus
foods they can use. If they do not re-
ceive it, it is the fault of the State.
If they had more food than they are
getting many States would simply take
away just that much cash from those
people or reduce the State effort.
It would take an army of people to
operate a food stamp plan. Secretary
Wallace had people who were on relief
do the work. Now we would have to pay
from $600 million to $1,800 million to
operate it.
Our Rules Committee tabled the food
stamp bill day before yesterday. Here
it comes out as a surprise amendment to
a good bill Public Law 480 which I must
support. I do not like legislative pro-
cedures of that type.
Mr. Chairman, the present food distri-
bution system through which the Depart-
ment sends foods by the car loads to
the States has been found to be far su-
perior to the food stamp plan.
Take the case, for example, of poultry
or pork, which has been raised by the
proponents. The Secretary of Agricul-
ture under Public Law 32 could buy these
commodities in bulk, send them to dis-
tressed areas and meet the need far
quicker and more effectively than he
could administer it through a compli-
cated food stamp plan.
Again this bill robs States of their
right to take care of their own welfare
people. They can do it far more cheaply
and far more effectively than can the
Federal Government.
Why, I ask you, Mr. Chairman, should
the Government pay the retail grocery
stores retail prices for food and place
possibly $1.8 billion extra load on the tax-
payer, when under the present whole-
sale system we deliver it in bulk and
the States distribute it?
How in the name of heaven is the
Secretary of Agriculture going to replace
on the shelves of the thousands of our
grocery stores what could be millions of
articles of food? It is no wonder Secre-
tary Wickard abandoned the plan and
Secretaries Anderson, Brannan, and
Benson have refused to operate it.
Aitgust'26
Mr. Chairman, the Rules Committee
tabled this bill the day before yesterday.
There is actually no need for it. The
States have the authority to institute it
if they want to. The Federal Govern-
ment has the authority to institute the
program, so the amendment is completely
redundant. Of course our public might
be confused into thinking that those who
are against this bill are against the poor
and those who are for this bill are for
the poor, but I have enough confidence
in the inteliigence of the public to feel
that they will frown upon political dema-
goguery and actually criticize those who
_ advocate spending $1.8 billion for a
method of distributing foods that is in-
ferior to the method that is now in use.
I urge the defeat of the food stamp
amendment.
- The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
RANDALL] .
(Mr. RANDALL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of H.R. 1359 for the establish-
mentof a food stamp plan.
. The objectives are most clearly and
fully explained in the report which has
been filed to accompany this bill. I shall
not take any time to dwell on those
things, rather I shall try to make two or
three points in the brief time allotted to
me. First, there certainly is a problem.
There must be a problem so far as the
CCC and its huge surpluses are con-
cerned, or else we would hot be here
today considering the extension of Public
Law 480. Now this bill, 1359, as I see it,
simply constitutes an amendment to
Public Law 480, be it be extended. -
I do not see how any Member can sit
through this last spring and early sum-
mer as we considered the appropriations
for the Department of Agriculture and
hear about the huge storage costs which
we are now paying and say there is no
problem. The fikure has become so siz-
able and so much a principal component
in our overall cost of the agricultural
program that the fixed Costs of carrying
these surpluses in storage was even an
important item of debate during discus-
sion to raise the debt ceiling limitation.
I definitely do believe in our agricultural
price support program?but the problem
of these surpluses is here and also there
is the other everexisting problem of pro-
viding the bare level of subsistence for
hundreds of thousands of old people. I
mean those fine old people drawing old-
age assistance.
But today we are presented with a con-
crete proposal to start to do something
about the solution of our surplus problem
and too, at the same time, as a by-
product, give much sorely needed addi-
tional food materials to these old under-
nourished people who are trying to get
along on $50 to $60 a month old-age as-
sistance.
This would-not simply benefit the old,
but those receiving aid to dependent
children. Now let us consider these
children. We talk a lot about juvenile
delinquency and what we are going to do
about it. Well, maybe this bill will not
solve all the phases and facets of the
juvenile delinquency problem, but cer-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12:
DIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
?959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE
tainly where there is a large family who
has been abandoned by a father, there
is going to be a Much larger chance?
much larger reason, for these young
juveniles to become delinquents, simply
by taking or stealing something to eat?
and thereby taking their first step to
being marked, labeled, or tagged as a
"juvenile delinquent."
I think instead of commenting gen-
erally on what all this bill will or can
accomplish, I should like to turn back to
the minority report from page 29 on
of the report and not so much to en-
gage in a rebuttal for the arguments
against this plan, but to use this minor-
ity report as a guide for my ? very brief
further discussion. The minority report
states how the present plan operates and
.then devotes a full paragraph to in-
vasion of local rights and responsibili-
ties. I want to digress a little for a
moment and say I have had some per-
sonal experience in this matter as late
as January or February of this year,
and during the summer'and fall of 1958.
Our metropolitan area was very definite-
ly described in the labor statistics in the
unpleasant terms of having a "surplus
of labor." What they meant to say was
that the recession had hit us pretty
hard out there.- Now this minority re-
port speaks of the local subdivision as-
suming the responsibility. I want to say
there are other States like the State of
Missouri, that because of a peculiarity of ?
their State constitutions, find their tax-
able levy and general fund purposes at a
fixed limitation. Ours is 35 cents per
$100 valuation. The local government
cannot change that; even the legislature
cannot change that. That can be
changed only by a two-thirds affirma-
tive vote of all citizens of the State. I
suspect that our local government was
no different from some of yours. We
received a few carloads of these surpluses
which were shipped in. They were en-
tirely inadequate. We had no money,
no regular personnel to handle even
these. What we did was to set up a
sort of duty-roster. We picked two from
the auditor's office, two from the county
clerk's, two from the recorder's office,
two from the collector's office, two from
the engineer's office, and so on, around
the departments of the county govern-
ment, taking men from their regular du-
ties to make sure there would be some-
One there to distribute this surplus food.
I repeat, I mention this local dircum-
stance, only for the reason that I suspect
this spectacle was repeated over and over
again in many cities, in many States. It
just should not be necessary that a sit-
uation of this kind should have to ob-
tain.
Then the minority report speaks, "No
help to the farmers, taxpayers, or
needy." Well, of course, the entire par-
agraph is simple doubletalk because if
we can reduce these surpluses we do
help the farmer. If we can provide food
to these poorly fed people, it does help
the taxpayers; because everyone of us
in this Chamber today knows how hard
pressed the local community chest or
united fund organizations are when you
try to raise your quota each fall. There
is no place for these needy people to get
this help?over and above their old-age
assistance or funds received for depend-
ent children?except from such volun-
tary community contributions. Yes, this
does aid the taxpayers, and there is little
doubt about it. To those who signed this
minority report, I think they know it
does./
Then at the end of that paragraph,
the minority says something like this:
"If H.R. 1359 were passed, it would be
an inevitable temptation for State and
local governments to reduce public as-
sistance." Now my colleagues, that is
about the most ridiculous argument I
have ever found in any of the reports I
have read this session. These needy peo-
ple are wards of the State and local sub-
divisions that are going to have to be
provided for someway?,somehow; from
some fund?somewhere.
Now let us just look at this tempta-
tion. To say that a local subdivision of
government would be foolish enough to
reduce their contributions to these needy
people merely because better machinery
and just a little more efficient working
system is provided to distribute these
surpluses, would then turn around and
reduce the payments to these needy peo-
ple is just about as ridiculous as to say
it is a temptation to walk by the Ser-
geant at Arms bank; it is just about as
ridiculous as to say that when we leave
this Chamber today we are going down
the west stairs and clear around to some
devious route just because we cannot
stand the temptation of walking by that
bank for fear we might go in and draw
out some money that belongs to us. The
analogy iS a little clearer than it may
seem at first because we as Congressmen
are going to have to provide for ourselves
and resist the temptation to be extrava-
gant. If we do not have the funds in
the Sergeant at Arms bank, we are go-
ing to have to get means from some
other source. The same is true of the
local governments. These people must
be provided for. Certainly, there can be
no temptation to reduce the already sub-
marginal level of subsistence payments,
because if they do, the difference is going
to have?to be made up from some other
fund, whether the community chest,
united fund, or these poor people going
to their neighbors asking and begging
for enough to supplement their assist-
ance should this suggested temptation to
reduce payments actually be carried out
by State and local communities.
One of the most shallow arguments
is interposed at the end of the minority
report when they speak of the unfeasi-
bility of this legislation just because it
puts the Department of Agriculture in
the welfare field. Well, is not that just
too bad. Right now they are doing the
very same thing by shipping surplus
goods into these various States. Maybe
they call this an invasion of the States.
But why should not the Department of
Agriculture carry on and see that these
foods are properly processed, made
edible, preserved by adequate refrigera-
tion to where they will have value and be
usable to the- ultimate recipients for
which shipments were originally in-
tended. If I am not completely in error,
we have already heard on the floor not
so long ago that the Department of Agri-
culture was engaged in a lot of opera-
15207
tions overseas. Then surely there is no
reason why this same Department should
worry about engaging in just a little ac-
tivity that might constitute a possible
overlapping of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, to help under-
nourished needy.
? The President has recently said a lot
about calling a conference for the study
of the aged. I think this is a fine worth-
while objective, but I think long before
this, and right now, he should 'call a
conference with his Secretary of Agri-
culture in order to do something' con-
crete and substantial instead of theo-
retical and philosophical for these old
people drawing old-age assistance at the
average of $64.80 a month. Let us think
of it a moment. That is not a week?it is
a month?and that is all they get. You
and I know that on a monetary subsist-
ence of that amount, many of these old
people do not ever have the means for
regular transportation to one central
city distribution point, and what do they
do? They go hungry, or else continue to
exist on these filler diets. The mechanics
for this plan may not be perfect, it may
need a change after it is given a trial.
No one can predict in advance how well
it will work. But it has been wisely
provided that the Secretary of Agricul-
ture and the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, and the Secretary of
Labor shall make a joint study and re-
port to the Congress in 6 months the
problems involved, the cost, and the
feasibility of this program. There, if
you please, is the built-in safety valve, or
to make it even stronger, a built-in gov-
ernor within this bill.
We are considering today two problems
that are going to be with us a long while,
and this one bill is a valiant effort at
solution of both of these. Neither of
these problems will just evaporate in
the foreseeable future. First, it is un-
likely that surpluses will cease to exist;
and second, it is not unlikely that the
number of recipients of old-age assist-
ance will diminish, and of course, it is
impossible for the need to? completely
cease to exist. Certainly this problem of
caring for the aged will always be with
us. All of us will get old. Many of us
will be feeble. Some may have to look
for outside help someday. I cannot say
why there are so many needy people.
It just must be that the good Lord loves
poor people because he made so many of
them.
Finally, I say that the details of this
plan may not be perfect, but it provides
in the bill that after a 6 months' study
there will be a report to the Secretary of
Agriculture, the Secretary of Labor, and
the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
It attempts to solve two problems in-
volving our surpluses, and to provide a
better diet for these undernourished peo-
ple. This bill tries to meet these needs.
Let us give it a try.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
LATTA].
(Mr. LATTA asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I think
we should examine this amendment
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
15208 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE August 26
from a practical standpoint to see how
it is going to work. A person would get
these stamps and go down to the grocer
and pay the retail price for agricultural
products which are then in surplus.
Proponents of this amendment point out
that such a plan would save us millions
of dollars in storage, handling, and
transportation charges in addition to re-
ducing our agricultural surpluses. For
some reason unknown to me they have
completely overlooked that fact that the
retail price to be paid to the grocer will
include all of these costs plus the addi-
tional profits of the middlemen and the
retail merchant. In other words, pro-
ponents of this amendment would place
these additional costs on to the backs of .
our already overburdened American tax-
payers. Yes, and without ever touching
or reducing the present stocks of the
Commodity Credit Corporation as these
purchases would be made through regu-
lar commercial channels. Furthermore,
the idea suggested here that you are
going to get fresh eggs and fresh vege-
tables all the time is not quite correct.
The only time you are going to be able
to purchase fresh vegetables and eggs
with stamps is when those items are in
surplus. If they are not in surplus, you
will not be able to purchase them.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this
amendment as it is too costly, would be
too difficult to police and would not
reduce our CCC stocks. The present
program would work, however, if the
redtape involved in the present program
was reduced to encourage participation
by the local welfare agencies.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California
[Mr. ROOSEVELT].
(Mr. ROOSEVELT asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman, I
heartily support the amendment offered
by the gentlewoman from Missouri. I
think it is well to reiterate that those
who want to say this should not be-
adopted because it ought to go to a dif-
ferent department fail to emphasize
the fact that the Secretary of Agricul-
ture himself has said that "The experi-
ence of the Department in the opera-
tion of that program indicates that, if a
stamp plan were to be authorized, legis-
lation specifically directed to such a pro-
gram should be enacted, which would
define the objectives and scope of opera-
tion and provide safeguards for the ad-
ministration and enforcement of the
program." This the bill clearly accom-
plishes.
I have no farms in my district. But
I cannot help believing that while of
course it is a proper thing to help the
wheat farmers, the cotton farmers, and
other farmers, it would be of tremen-
dous assistance to those who raise vege-
tables, livestock, and dairy cattle to do
something to enable the Secretary under
section_ 32 of the Agriculture Act of
1935 to help those growers also.
This proposal would limit its benefits
to those on public assistance. But it
also envisions that, if successful, the
program may later be extended to those
receiving social security and in need of
this assistance. If charity begins at
home, certainly our first responsibility
is to our, own citizens. I hope the
amendment will be adopted and become
law.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentlewoman from Washing-
ton [Mrs. MAY].
Mrs. MAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs.
SULLIVAN], and this is not easy for me to
do because she is a highly respected col-
-league and I share her concern over the
needy citizens of our Nation. But I
would point out that this amendment
will not benefit our needy citizens. It is
based on an assumed availability of Gov-
ernment-owned surplus foods that simply
does not exist. The Secretary of Agri-
culture is authorized to distribute "food
commodities acquired by the Commodity
Credit Corporation or the Department of
Agriculture in carrying out price-support
operations or diverted from the normal
channels of trade and commerce under
section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935,
as amended." That is what he is now
doing.
This amendment adds not a single
additional commodity to those already
being distributed. As Secretary Benson
said in his testimony before the House
Agriculture Committee:
The Commodity Credit Corporation is not
a supermarket bulging with a fabulous
variety of foods. I have seen articles and
speeches citing the fruits and vegetables, the
meats and fresh eggs we presumably have
on hand. You know and I know that we
have none of these items In our inventory.
* * * Better than 85 percent of our surplus
inventory consists of the so-called basics?
corn, cotton, wheat, rice, peanuts, and
tobacco.
You cannot distribute what you do not
have. It is possible that, from time to
time, supplies of certain foods may re-
quire a surplus removal operation with
section 32 funds. When this happens, as.
is the case with dried eggs right now, the
present system moves these foods to
school lunch programs and the needy.
? All the proposed amendment des is to
relieve States and local governments of
any costs in the physical delivery of these
surplus foods. Right now under present ,
law the Federal Government offers these
foods free to States, packages them,
ships them to receiving points the States
designate. That seems like a pretty
generous offer to me.
But, the sponsors of this amendment
say that this is not enough. The Federal
Government should also plan and finance
the delivery right down to the individual
needy family. Ladies and gentlemen,
that is asking too much of Uncle Sam.
I urge the defeat of this amendment.
(Mrs.. MAY asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend her re-
marks.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
GRAY].
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, did you
ever feel when you were walking up a
gangplank that there was no ship there?
That is the way many hungry people in
America feel. We take care of thousands
of people overseas and neglect our peo-
ple back home. It is high time, in my
opinion, that we pay a little attention
to our own hungry people. I have thou-
sands of people in my district receiving
Government surplus food. Let us stop
and analyze the situation. Many are coal
miners, people who are forced on wel-
fare rolls not of- their choosing but be-
cause there are not job opportunities in
the community in which they live.
Let us stop going down the road of
destitution and make an effort to march
up the road of hope and happiness so
far as these people are concerned. Let
us support the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs.
SULLIVAN] and give the hungry people of
our own land some encouragement.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. ANDEaSEN].
Mr. ANDERSEN of Minnesota. Mr.
Chairman, it is my understanding that
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
LAIRD] will shortly offer an amendment
providing for periodic review of this pro-
posed food stamp program by the Com-
mittee on Appropriations, and if that
amendment is approved I intend to sup-
port the amendment offered by the gen-
tlewoman from Missouri [Mrs. SULLI-
VAN] to authorize the food stamp pro-
gram.
I have a few things to say in behalf
of the principles of the food stamp
amendment, but first I would like to say
a word or two in behalf of the amend-
ment to be offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. LAIRD]. There are sev-
eral reasons, and very important ones,
why this amendment should be approved.
In the first place, Mr. Chairman, I am
fundamentally opposed to any and all
blank check programs. There is neither
a floor nor a ceiling on this food stamp
amendment. In my judgment, we need
both and the way to arrive at that is by
annual review on the part of the Com-
mittee on Appropriations.
I say that with plenty of experience
to back me up. All of us know that
the Secretary of Agriculture is a man of
strong viewpoint. Sometimes we agree
with him and other times we do not.
Perhaps all of us are in error when we
fail to properly appraise his accomplish-
ments, but very few of us fail to criticize
him when we disagree with what he does
or does not do. In the final analysis,
the responsibility rests right here in the
Congress and we should in the enactment
of any far-reaching legislation such as
the food stamp plan before us provide,
as a minimum, an effective means of con-
gressional review. The Committee on
Appropriations is, in my judgment, best
equipped to conduct such review and
make its recommendations to the Sec- .
retary and to the Congress.
From more than 20 years of experience
in this greatest legislative body on earth,
I would be the last person in the Nation
to contend that Congress has the wis-
dom and the foresight to anticipate and
provide for all eventualities. If we had
such capacities, our work would be
quickly done and those following in our
paths could take it easy. On the con-
trary, we find in virtually all new pro-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
? ?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
, 1959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE
grams that mistakes are made; that
abuses creep in where loopholes exist;
that language in the authorizations
needs to be reinterpreted; and that con-
stant review is required on the part of
Congress if our legislative intent is to
be fully and properly reflectet in admin-
istrative action.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Laird
amendment will be approved and that
after we have shown our responsibility
in that respect we proceed to the favor-
able consideration of this proposed food
stamp plan which has much to commend
it.
Mention has been made today of the
fact that we are already sharing our
blessings of abundance with less fortu-
nate people all over the world through
the workings of the Public Law 480 pro-
gram. Within reasonable and proper
limits and subject to periodic review by
the Congress, I fully subscribe to the
basic principles of Public Law 480.
For many years I have campaigned
for programs which would make our
surplus agricultural commodities a vital
instrument of our foreign policy. Since
I first saw hunger written indelibly on
the faces of less fortunate people in
lands beyond the seas, I have been dedi-
cated to the principle that surely a
merciful providence must have intended
that we share our abundance with those
suffering human beings.
Although I do not favor the wholesale
distribution of American tax dollars all
over the world in the name of foreign
aid, I most wholeheartedly favor the
sharing of our surplus food with hungry
people both at home and abroad.
As has been said, we are doing a good
job abroad. But I personally believe
that charity begins at home and much
as I like to see our surpluses made avail-
able to others, I must say that we should
take care of our own first.
With billions of dollars worth of sur-
plus agricultural commodities bulging
warehouses all over the Nation, we
should not rest until every deserving
American is assured of an adequate diet.
There are today, and unless we do some-
thing about it there probably always will
be, deserving children and physically
handicapped and aged people in this
land who do not have enough of the
right kind of food to eat. Although we
may not all believe that the amendment
before us is perfect in every respect, at
least let us do what we can to perfect it
and then give this food stamp plan a
chance to show what good it can do.
If the Laird amendment is adopted to
provide 'for what I consider an abso-
lutely essential review of the program,
I intend to support the amendment of-
fered by the gentlewoman from Missouri
[Mrs. SULLIVAN].
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
BROWN].
(Mr. BROWN of Missouri asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, I am very much in favor of the
pending amendment. We have surplus
milk, cheese, and butter in this inven-
tory. We also have some corn, we have
some rice, and We have some people to
eat these products.
We have some 530 counties in America
where unemployment exceeds 5 percent
of the population, yet in less than 50
percent of those counties are they getting
any of our surplus foods at this time.
Get this report, the establishment of a
food-stamp plan and read it.
There is one county in my district
that has not had a penny's worth of these
surplus foods. We bogged down. This
food-stamp plan will give us a better
*ay to test it. It is high time we acted
on it. In Detroit they administered a
program for less than 10 percent of the
total cost. There is $400,000 worth of
administrative cost to ket rid of $4 bil-
lion worth of surplus food. Let us vote
for this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. LAIRD].
Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. LAIRD to the
amendment offered by Mrs. Sta.trvAN: On
page 2, line 7, strike out the period and
Insert, "in such amounts as may be speci-
fied from time to time in appropriation
acts."
Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to remind the House that under the
terms of the Sullivan amendment $1
billion is authorized to be expended on
a nationally administrated food distribu-
tion program. This authorization does
not include the cost of administering,
processing, or policing this program
which would add many more millions to
the cost of the new Federal program.
This is a blank check authorization.
The Committee on Appropriations is re-
quired to reimburse the Commodity
Credit Corporation for the cost of the
program in each yearly agricultural ap-
propriation bill. This program needs
and deserves to be reviewed on an an-
nual basis before funds are expended.
It Would be better to start this pro-
gram on a pilot operation as recom-
mended by .the National Milk Producers
Association. I cannot support this
amendment without the assurance that
the Federal distribution will be reviewed
on a yearly basis by the Congress through
its Committee on Appropriations.
I do not believe the House should ap-
prove this blank check authoriza-,
tion for back-door financing, opening
up a very costly operation at the very
time every effort must be made to bal-
ance the Federal budget.
It does not assure a new and better
program with more benefits for needy
People. It may just mean a more cost-
ly way of distributing surplus foods and
a way of shifting all of this bigger cost
to the Federal Government. This is the
reason for my amendment requiring an-
nual review.
What are the costs involved in a stamp
plan? The title of the bill upon which
this amendment is based talks about $1
billion. The Department of Agriculture
has estimated the lowest annual cost of
a stamp plan at $600 million and that
a full scale program could run to $21/2
billion a year.
15209'
We already have developed a method
of distributing surplus foods that is ef-
ficient and economical.
Over 20 million schoolchildren and
needy people are benefiting from Fed-
eral surplus foods. And' more people
could, if State or local governments felt
there was a need for such a program in
their area.
The Department of Agriculture does
nottinsist that every county participate
in this program. It is the purpose of
this bill to impose this program on
States and counties, whether they want
to participate or not. Before we com-
pletely reject present Methods of dis-
tribution let us insist that the new
stamp plan be subjected to annual re-
view by this Congress. I hope my
amendment is adopted.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs.
PFosT].
Mrs. PFOST. Mr. Chairman, I rise
In support of the amendment.
We in the House today have an in-
valuable opportunity to strike a blow
against malnutrition among millions of
our fellow Americans. At the same time-
we would be paving the way to dispose
of mountains of surplus food commodi-
ties in a constructive manner.
I refer, of course, to the food stamp
amendment which has been offered to
Public Law 480 dealing with the dis-
posal of our food surpluses abroad in
exchange for foreign currencies.
Under this food stamp plan, the Sec-
retary of Agriculture would issue food
stamps to State and local welfare de-
partments desiring to participate in the
program. The stamps then would be
given by the welfare departments to
those receiving public assistance, as well
as to other needy persons. They, in
turn would exchange the stamps for
surplus food commodities at designated
outlets, preferably through normal trade
channels. The bill provides that the
details are to be worked out by the Sec-
retary of Agriculture. The Department
already has the manpower and the
know-how. The details cannot be spelled
out in a law, but is an administrative
matter.
It is important to note that the sur-
plus food would be in addition to, and
not a substitute for, any welfare assist-
ance, financial or otherwise, now receiv-
ed by the needy.
The plan is simple and workable and
would be put into operation as early as
possible. In addition, the Secretary of
Agriculture, together with the Secretary
of He'alth, Education and Welfare, and
the Secretary of Labor, is directed under
this amendment to make a study and
report back to the Congress on the
feasibility of extending the food stamp
plan to include persons receiving unem-
ployment compensation, social security
pensions, and other low-income groups.
It has been said that a healthy people
make a strong country. And physical
fitness has always been one of this Na-
tion's prime objects and boasts. Yet
there are nearly '6 million men, women,
and children whose inadequate public
assistance payments prevent them from
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12:
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
15210 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE.
enjoying the basic minimum diet essen-
tial to good health.
We pride ourselves on our abundant
economy which has filled our granaries
and storehouses to overflowing with
wheat, rice, cheese, butter, beans, non-
fat dry milk, and other foodstuffs. But
millions of our citizens are struggling to
survive on a bare subsistence level.
Surely, the spectacle of want and
hunger in the midst of plenty should dive
us pause. How can we justify spending
more than $1 million daily?nearly half
a billion a year?just to store food while
permitting our own fellow Americans to
go hungry?
America is synonymous with generosity
throughout the world. Wherever there
has been fire, flood, and famine, there
has been prompt and speedy assistance
by an openhearted American people.
But what greater disaster is there than
Americans lacking sufficient food while
surpluses are locked up in warehouses?
When snowstorms and floods isolate large
sections Of the Nation, our Government
comes to the aid of stranded cattle by
parachuting food to the starving animals.
Are we going to continue to refuse to ex-
tend the same assistance to our fellow
human beings who are stranded by age,
or physical disability, or unemployment
and thus are prevented from sharing in
this abundance of which we boast?
Let me give you the average incomes on
which these people are trying to exist.
These are figures which I have obtained
from the Departmet of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare as of May 1959.
In the old-age asistance category, only
$64 per month average went to about 2%
million people 65'years of age and over.
Aid to dependent children averaged
only $28.80 per child. Seven hundred
and eighty thousand families fell into
this category covering 2.2 million per-
sons.
Next, we have 109,000 blind receiving
an average of $69.19 per month. Then,
there are the 337,000 totally disabled re-
ceiving an average of $64.10 a month,
and finally, the 413,000 receiving gener-
al assistance with an average of $67.21
a month.
In these days of inflated prices it is
obvious that such payments are entire-
ly inadequate to buy nourishing, whole-
some food for these Americans.
? Now, let us look at what we have
in storage. According to the Agricul-
ture Department, as of May 31, this year,
we had $6.1 billion worth of surplus food
commodities stored away. Included were
Ll billion bushels of wheat; 5.3 million
pounds of beans; 900 million pounds of
rice; 53 million pounds of butter; 13 mil-
lion pounds of cheese, and 125 million
pounds of nonfat dry milk.
This is incredible. Mountains of food
on the one hand, and undernourished
American citizens on the other. This is
something we cannot and must not tol-
erate longer.
A food stamp plan would - not only
overcome this paradox of poverty in the
midst of plenty; it would also be a major
step forward in disposing of our sur-
pluses.
Secondly, a food stamp plan would be
tremendously useful and helpful in
guiding food consumption along lines
that will improve diets. And third, a
food stamp plan would make it possi-
ble to extend assistance to those who are
in need but who are ineligible because?
of technical provisions of laws govern-
ing the granting of such aid.
I urge the House, .therefore, to 'ap-
prove the amendment before us so we
can meet the food needs of people in
distress, while developing simultaneous-
ly a program that will bring security and
dignity to all our citizens at home.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
WoLv].
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I, too, in-
troduced a food stamp bill, and I am
happy to join-the gentlewoman from
Missouri [Mrs. SULLIVAN] today in sup-
port of her amendment.
I would like to quote no less a person-
age than the Secretary of Agriculture
being in favor of this program when he
appeared on behalf of such legislation
in 1944 in hearings before the Senate
Agriculture Committee. At that time he
endorsed and recommended to the com-
mittee the views of the National Council
of Farmer Cooperatives:
We commend the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture on its food-stamp plan which pro-
vides an effective mechanism for moving
agricultural surpluses into consumption
among groups of low purchasing power in a
manner that is highly beneficial to the re-
cipient, and we think effectively utilizes the
normal channels of distribution. We urge
national extension of the plan as early as
possible.
That was the Secretary of Agriculture,
Mr. Benson, speaking. Let us give the
Secretary the program that he has pre-
viously favored. By SO doing we prove
that charity begins at home.
I sincerely hope for the sake of hun-
gry Americans the food stamp plan wins.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
PRICE].
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I strong-
ly favor this proposal and I hope the
House will approve the amendment
offered by. the gentlewoman from Mis-
souri [Mrs. SULLIVAN].
I have sponsored legislation for several
years on this usbject and I am happy
that once again we have an opportunity
to indicate the House membership's sup-
port of a stamp plan for the distribution
of surplus comrriodities for our own needy
persons.
(Mr. VANIK asked and was given per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. VAMK. Mr. Chairman, I am in
hearty support of the amendment of the
gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs. Sin-
LivAw] to provide for the institution of
a nationwide food stamp plan for the
distribution of surplus food to the needy
from surplus stocks.
If we can afford to spend billions of
dollars to provide essential food com-
modities to the needy people of foreign
countries, we certainly should make some
effort to provide for the needy people-of
our own country.
August 20
I was astonished to learn that of the
345,000 Ohioans receiving public assist-
ance, only 61,000 or 18 percent are receiv-
ing surplus commodities in some form.
It is regrettable that my State of Ohio
-has not been able to effectively use the
surplus food program on the present
basis.
I think that 'the food stamp plan
should be attempted in an effort to in-
crease the domestic use of surplus com-
modities in order to maintain the nutri-
tional standards of needy American peo-
ple. It is my hope that the food stamp
plan will be adopted.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from West Virginia
[Mr. BAILEY].
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, the
tragic situation that exists in West Vir-
ginia and some 13 other of our States,
because of the unemployment situation,
is the best answer for the adoption of
this amendment.
Let me say to you that our situation
has been considerably worsened by the
steel strike in that 35 percent of our West
Virginia coal goes into the manufacture
of steel. Consequently, since the strike
, is on, and 35 percent of our coal produc-
tion is down, it results in unemployment
of several thousand additional laboring
men in our State. They have furloughed
over 1,100 railroad men, because there is
no coal to haul. So, we are faced with
the situation where, if this amendment is
adopted, it could very well be useful in
West Virginia.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. WIER].
Mr. WIER. Mr. Chairman, it has been
my pleasure to be associated with this
program for some time. I want to pay
tribute to the gentlewoman from Mis-
souri [Mrs. StaxivAN] for this amend-
ment.
Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WIER.. I yield.
Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to correct the figures given by
:the gentleman from Iowa concerning the
city of Detroit. It cost the city of De-
troit $392,000 to give away more than $4
million worth of food. I would like also
to point out that the city of Detroit has
more than 146 distribution points; be-
cause of the generoSity and the coopera-
tion of their grocers they have one of the
best systems in the country, but it is not
a stamp plan program.
The CHAIRMAN.' The time of the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Wiss]
has expired.
(Mr. WIER asked and was s given per-
mission to revise, and extend his re-
marks.)
[Mrs. GRIFFMIS addressed the
Committee. Her remarks will appear
hereafter in the Appendix.]
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California
[Mr. GEORGE P. MILLER].
Mr. GEORGE P. MILLER. Mr.
Chairman, I am In full support of the
amendment by Mrs. Staxrviusi and I
yield to the gentlelady from Missouri
[Mrs. SULLIVAN].
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
4
11959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE
Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate the courtesy of the gentleman
from California in yielding to me under
the time limitation in effect so that I
can say that I cannot accept the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin. There will, of course, be
some expenses to the Department of
Agriculture in this program, such as in
printing up stamps, and making ar-
rangements with the food industry on
distribution, and all of those costs are,
of course, subject to the review of the
Appropriations Committee. But I point
out that the stamps will be issued for
food already owned by the Government
under the CCC program, as well as food
purchased under section 32 of the Agri-
culture Act of 1935. This is food owned
by the Government, and which must be
disposed of. The discretion for distribu-
tion would be entirely in the hands of
the Secretary of Agriculture. He says
we must give him a bill, if we want him
to establish a food stamp plan, and this
is the bill to make him act. The amend-
ment to my amendment is innocent
sounding but the program as proposed
already has any necessary safeguards
built in.
(Mr. GEORGE P. MILLER asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
CARNAHAN].
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the amendment of-
fered by the gentlewoman from Missouri
[Mrs. SULLIVAN] and to commend her
for the consistent and effective work
she is doing. While sharing our abun-
dance with people throughout the world,
I believe we should develop a more effec-
tive method of sharing our surpluses
with the needy among our own people.
Our food surpluses are mounting with
every harvest. Also costs of storage and
the overall problems in connection with
handling our surpluses are growing. A
food stamp plan as proposed by the
pending amendment is needed. I urge
support of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
DINGELL].
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, we
have heard a great deal of talk about
section 32 under which this program
was carried out previously. Under the
distinguished Secretary Benson, section
32 money has been permitted either to
return to the Treasury or has been
used for the purchase of horse food for
distressed cattle and animals during
periods of drought and blizzard and
natural disaster throughout the West.
I favor feeding hungry animals, it is
humane, but only after we feed people
who are hungry and in need. These
section 32 funds were used by a previous
Democratic administration to feed
hungry peeple through a food stamp
program. This benefited the farmers,
too.
Let me tell the gentlemen on the Re-
publican side of the aisle there is plenty
No. 143-17
of food being shipped overseas under
Public Law 480 that is being denied to
our hungry at home right now. Vast
quantities of lard, milk, cheese, butter,
butter oil, other dairy products, beef,
pork products, poultry, fruits, dried and
frozen, dried edible beans, potatoes, and
other food substances which are denied
to our hungry at home are given away
abroad for worthless currencies. If you
do not believe it, look at the report of
the committee on page 37 where the
amounts are chronicled. The only thing
the hungry of America get for this is a
large shipping bill, costing millions each
year, and stacks of worthless, blocked,
soft frozen currencies at best earmarked
for waste, dissipation, and ultimate for-
giveness to the countries in which they
originate.
Charity is fine, on a global level it is
splendid, but charity begins at home.
Let us feed our own hungry first.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from West Virginia
[Mr. SLACK].
(Mr. SLACK asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. SLACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the amendment and at this
time I yield to the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania [Mr. DENT].
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I just
want to give the latest 'figures from the
State of Pennsylvania which arrived this
morning. There are 900,000 citizens of
the State of Pennsylvania now receiving
surplus food. The State has ordered
extras and in the month of October, due
to the strike and other situations, we
expect to feed 1,350,000 worthy citizens
of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
from surplus food.
I should like to be allied with the gen-
tlewornan from Missouri in support of
her amendment.
(Mr. DENT asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, in keeping
with this subject and the bill before us,
Public Law 480, I would like to call to
the attention of the membership the
peculiar situation we find ourselves in.
At this point I want to present a .press
release from my office on this subject:
Congressmen JOHN H. DENT and ELMER J.
HOLLAND today introduced legislation that,
If passed, would assist the more than 6 mil-
lion now unemployed and on our relief rolls
to get more adequate food.
Their bill would require the Government,
through the Commodity Credit Corporation,
to set aside and process and package for hu-
man consumption, peanuts, red beans, and
oats.
Congressmen DENT and HOLLAND pointed
out that we do not hesitate to support pro-
grains that will feed and nurture the under-
privileged children throughout the world, a
program with which they are in accord. But
they feel that we should also take care of our
own people as well.
"Out of every 10 pounds of peanuts, we can
have 9 pounds of peanut butter, a good nour-
ishing food. Out of every 2 pounds of oats,
1 pound of rolled.oats can be processed. The
red beans need only to be packaged.
"We feel the time is certainly here when
we should care for our own people and add
these items to those now on the surplus food
lists," said both Congressmen.
15211
This bill is the result of a series of confer-
ences held by the two western Pennsylvania
Congressmen with various groups including
representatives of unemployed steelworkers,
Paul Hilbert, director of district 15, United
Steelworkers of America, and John Connelly,
staff representative.
Although most of us have beth the
political and Christian solicitude for
our needy foreign neighbors, it seems
a rarity to find in our midst any out-
spoken friends for the needy of our own
country.
Later on I will introduce an article
on the subject of migratory labor camps
and anther one on the surplus food
needs of the out-of-work steel strikers.
In the article on migratory farmwork-
ers lies buried one of America's long-
standing eyesores.
How can any nation talk about the
underprivileged in other nations.
How can any nation talk about giving
away millions of tons of farm com-
modities to needy people without restric-
tions and yet drawn tight and narrow
lines around the need of our own Na-
tion?
These questions bring up other quer-
ies. How many Americans lmow that
actually the foods given under Public
Law 480 to foreign nations is paid for by
loans made to these nations by our
Treasury and not paid back to the
United States except under the strangest
set of loan arrangements ever con-
ceived.
As an example, let us take a follow
through on a shipment of foodstuffs.
There are three methods for giving
food to foreign countries.
Title 1. authorizes the sale of surplus
farm commodities into export for the
local currency of the purchasing com-
pany and stipulates the uses such local
currencies can be used for. The United
States cannot take the money owed to
us out of the foreign country except by
purchases of certain items. The foreign
nation owing the United States money
can use this money for cultural ad-
vancements, schools, and so forth, it can
use the money for financing industrial
expansion, building public utilities and
facilities or it can loan this money with
our consent to other needy countries,
or for advancement of agriculture.
This is not all bad nor is it all good.
Some of the countries actually do repay
the money in goods and services but
the important thing is that it can be
used to build up competitive enterprises
which in turn compete against us in
the world market. Since 1954 this has
amounted to $63/4 billion.
Title 2 authorizes donations of sur-
plus commodities for relief of famine
or other relief requirements. This has
amounted to $800 million.
Title 3 authorizes the barter of-surplus
commodities for strategic and other
materials of value to the United States.
This has amounted to $11/8 billion.
My point in calling your attention to
this is to bring home the fact that al-
though we subsidize the surplus produc-
tion of these commodities out of general
taxation, much of it never gets back to
the very people who help pay the bills..
If we are so mindful of the needs of .
peoples, let us look in our own backyards
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
?CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
15212 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
for some place to put some of the food-
stuffs we have in surplus.
It is of small matter as to why a per-
son is hungry. The important thing is
that if we can feed the hungry we should
do it both domestic as well as foreign.
Not passing Public Law 480 is not the
answer at this time. The answer is to
make certain that we are doing what is
right, right for our own Nation primar-
ily. With the need as shown by all the
figures available being what it is I be-
lieve the following articles are of utmost
importance to a well-meaning Congress.
Migratory workers seem to be the for-
gotten peoples of our Nation. It seems
to me that we could provide better living
Conditions and better health conditions
for these millions of workers who are an
important cog in-the wheel of food pro-
duction.
The following timely article on the
surplus food situation, and especially in
my State of Pennsylvania, gives even
more logic to my plea for the passage
of H.R. 8609 dealing with the processing
of certain surplus commodities.
[From the Wall Street Journal, Aug. 19,
1959]
STEEL STRIKERS DIG DEEPER INTO FEDERAL FOOD
SURPLUS HOARD?PENNSYLVANIA LEADS LIST
, BUT DULL MENU LIMITS DEMANDS?HOW
STATES HANDLE HANDOUT
WASHINGTON.?Memo from Ezra Taft
Benson to David J. McDonald: "Dave, keep
your steelworkers on strike for another 5
or 10 years and our farm surplus problem
is solved."
This playfully forged message is the last
thing in the world Mr. Benson would ever
send. But Mr. McDonald's idle steelworkers
are becoming a big new outlet for Uncle
Sam's surplus food. The strikers, of course,
would have to stay on the grocery dole a
long, long time to eat Mr. Benson out of
official house and home.
With the steel strike in its 5th week, Agri-
culture Department officials in Charge of
passing out food from the enormous Federal
pantry report there's now a pickup in the
normal summer volume of applications.
"We're beginning to feel the additional
load," says Howard Davis, deputy director
of the Department's food distribution di-
vision.
FLOUR, RICE AND EGGS
The strikers are signing up for gifts of
flour, cornmeal; rice, powdered milk, and
powdered eggs. This is not exactly a mouth-
watering array, and the dull menu is un-
doubtedly holding down the applications.
"Everyone wants to know if they can get
butter, cheese and meat," says Marvin
Sandstrom, another distribution deputy.
Mr. Sandstrom tells inquirers that no dona-
tions of these' items are planned. "Maybe
our stuff will look better to them after
they've been on strike a little longer," ob-
serves another busy official down the hall.
Under the distribution setup, the Agri-
culture Department parcels out foods to the
State relief agencies. State officials decide
which citizens are eligible according to
State definitions of "need." Technically,
the steelworkers must meet the same stand-
ards of destitution as anyone else, and can't
get food just because they're on strike.
Expecting a strike-swelled "caseload,"
Pennsylvania welfare officials already have
asked Washington for a sizable boost in
food shipments. Already dispatched or on
the way are 25 extra carloads of flour, 10
carloads of powdered milk, 9 carloads of corn-
meal and 9 carloads of rice. These ship-
ments are over and above Pennsylvania's
earlier estimates of August needs.
Officials think the strike potentially could
boost Pennsylvania's food applicants by as
much as 450,000, depending on how long the
walkout lasts. This would be a 50-percent
increase from the prestrike number of Penn-
sylvanians receiving food in June, although
it's doubtful that all the new applicants
actually would be certified as "needy."
No increased food orders have been., re-
ceived here from other States yet, but some
strikers are known to be signing applications
In Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Colorado, Wash-
ington, and New York.
At last count in June, there were 4.7 mil-
lion needy persons on State relief rosters
receiving Federal food. Normally, the num-
ber of recipients declines during the heavy
summer employment season. Last year's
recession, however, erased this seasonal dip,
and officials think this summer's strike
might do the same.
NUMBER IS BOUND TO GROW
No one will predict at this point how many
strikers eventually will become certified by
their States as needy, but the number is
bound to grow as financial distress increases.
All of the 43 States dispensing. Federal food
(.not participating: Alaska, Florida, Idaho,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Oregon) re-
quire that an applicant's income must have
fallen below a certain level.
In Ohio and Indiana, professional social
workers investigate and judge the poverty of
applicants. But other States use a fairly
mechanical formula. In New York, for ex-
ample, a breadwinner for a wife and two
children must make less than $245 a month
to meet the first eligibility test.
By themselves, these rules would make
strikers eligible as soon as their paychecks
stop. But most States also require a person's
liquid assets?bank accounts, savings bonds,
common stocks?to fall below a stipulated
sum. A New York family of four must have
less than $735 in liquid assets to qualify
as needy; in Michigan, the maximum is $795.
"Most States don't require you to exhaust
your life's savings just to get something to
eat," says a Federal official. This is not true
everywhere, however. In Alabama, food re-
cipients must be almost completely broke.
The Oklahoma regulations count pigs and
chickens as liquid assets; these must be sold
or eaten before a rural applicant can turn
to Uncle Sam.
I would of course like to see the addi-
tion of substantive foods such as butter,
cheese, and meats, but the Commodity
?Credit Corporation states that there are
no surpluses available.
I have asked for and hope to receive
a report on the shipment of these items
under Public Law 480 to check on
whether some of these products can be
made available for domestic use.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr.
MEYER].
Mr. MEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the amendment and would
like to say to the gentleman from Iowa
who is concerned that the Secretary of
Agriculture would have to do some wel-
fare work for the American people, that
that is all right; he does not do any-
thing for the welfare of the American
farmer anyhow. This would give him
an opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, they raise the flag
of veto on the other side , of the aisle.
I say on this side of the aisle, let us
raise the flag of humanitarianism, corn-
A-ugust' 20
monsense and proper use of our surplus
agricultural products.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
SMITH].
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman,
on the farms of Iowa in this day and
age, we would not think of raising pigs
without giving them a balanced diet.
Yet, we have thousands and even mil-
lions of children who do not have either
a blanced diet or an adequate diet in
this country. I think, perhaps, there
are. better ways of accomplishing the
objective of this amendment, but they
are not before us in legislative form. I
say now is the time to do something to
help distribute surpluses to hungry and
low-income people by adopting this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California
[Mr. Consr..Awl.
(Mr. COHELAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask the gentlewoman from
Missouri if she would comment on the
possibility of abuses such as have been
suggested by Members opposed to the
amendment.
Mrs. SULLIVAN. The only thing I
can say to the gentleman is that every
law that is enacted is abused in some
way or other. But, for the few people
who might misuse these stamps, I do not
think we should deprive the great num-
bers of hungry and needy people who
are on public assistance from receiving
the benefit of the food stamp plan.
Mr. COHELAN. I thank the gentle-
woman and I support the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from North Caro-
lina [Mr. COOLEY] to close debate.
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I real-
ize I cannot make a very convincing
speech in 50 seconds. Therefore, I shall
not attempt to do so.
Mr. chairman, I do want to say I am
sincerely in favor of the amendment of-
fered by the gentlewoman from Missouri
[Mrs. SULLIVAN]. I hope it will be
adopted. I congratulate and commend
her on the splendid manner in which
she has presented this entire proposition
to our committee from time to time. It
is a strange thing to me, when we are
dealing with poverty-stricken people and
surplus commodities, that we must see
this split along party lines. Every Re-
publican member of our committee
signed this minority report, and it is all,
it seems to me, prompted by the theory
that Mr. Benson can do no harm and
should be supported.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Wisconsin [Mr. LAIRD] to the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from Missouri [Mrs: SULLIVAN].
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment
be reread by the Clerk.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Mississippi?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
1959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
There was no objection.
The amendment was again read by
the Clerk.
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. ANDERSEN of
Minnesota), there were?ayes 70, noes
104.
So the amendment to the amendment
was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The question, is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
woman from Missouri [Mrs. SULLIVAN].
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Chairman, on that
I demand" tellers.
Tellers were ordered, and the Chair-
Man appointed as tellers Mrs. SULLIVAN
and Mr. HOEVEN.
The Committee divided and the tell-
ers reported that there were?ayes 156,
noes 96.
So the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I of-
fer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. WHITTEN: On
page 2, line 25, after the word "use" insert
the following: "In such amounts as may be
specified from time to time in appropriation
acts."
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman,' I
have a second 'amendment of a similar
nature. I ask unanimous consent that
it be reported and that the two be con-
sidered en 'bloc.
The CHAIRMAN.' Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Mississippi?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Wm-17EN: On
page 3, line 18, before the word "strategic"
insert: "In such amount as may be speci-
fied from time to time in appropriation
acts."
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, the
purpose of the amendment is to give to
the Appropriations Committee an an-
nual review of foreign currencies in these
Particular fields. Certainly since these
foreign currencies will be in excess of
that required for good use, there would
be no attitude on the part of our com-
mittee to in any way restrict it. If there
is to be an annual planning and an an-
nual reporting, it will lead to better plan-
ning, better handling, and to more re-
sults.
I am in hopes that the gentlemen on
the committee might be able to Accept
the amendment.
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, while I
have no authority to accept this proposi-
tion on behalf of the Committee on
Agriculture, I have examined the amend-
ments and I personally have no objec-
tion to the amendments and hope they
will be adopted. _
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. 'WHITTEN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. HOEVEN. The gentleman from
Mississippi was kind enough to show me
these two amendments and there is no
objection as far as I am concerned. ,
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendments offered by the gentle-
man from Mississippi [Mr. WRITTEN].
The amendments were agreed to.
Mr. WH1'.r.LEN. Mr. Chairman, I of-
fer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. WHITTEN : On
page 2, line 2, strike out the figure "$1,500,-
000,000" and substitute "$1,250,000,000."
(Mr. WHrriTIN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
. Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, as I
? have pointed out many times, the basic
law provides for the acquisition of CCC
commodities, and under existing law the
Secretary of Agriculture has to obtain
those commodities. Once they are ob-
tained, there are several things that can
be done with them, but the first and fore-
most is that the law authorizes and con-
templates that they sell them for dollars
in the normal way in a competitive
market.
I have voted for Public Law 480 with
misgivings from the start. Largely be-
cause of 480 sale for foreign currency
for many years our Government got by
with refusing to use its authority to sell
in world trade competitively for dollars.
After supplies on hand had reached $6
billion we finally got started on competi-
tive sales, which after all is the way to
regain markets. This year we find that
the Department once again is not fully
utilizing its authority to sell for dollars.
Certainly, in offering this amendment I
Agree that we must move commodities
to the full extent that is provided in this
bill. I do believe, however, that Public
Law 480 has to a great degree retarded
action by the Department in selling for
dollars. Whatever the merits and bene-
fits of this Public Law 480 program may
be to foreign countries or to people in
foreign countries, it,shows up as a dead
dollar loss to the Commodity Credit Cor-
poration. Though the Secretary recom-
mends this bill, he will use the cost, as
will the press, to attack all agriculture
programs. On the other hand, if the
Secretary were to sell these commodities
in world trade for dollars, as he is au-
thorized to do, and as he should do, we
would get a substantial recovery in
dollars which would lessen greatly the
amount of capital restoration that you
make to the Commodity Credit Corpora-
tion. If this amendment is adopted, we
should direct by law that the Secretary
sell that much more through normal
channels for dollars.
Like opium, we got stuck with "dis-
posals" instead of sales. We will have
to taper off. We must, however, dry up
this means of outlet for Commodity
Credit Corporation stocks and put more
and more emphasis on sales through
normal channels, because, after all, that
is the only place where you are going to
really regain markets.
Really, we will help foreign people or
Governments far more by making our
production available, year in and year
out, at competitive prices. This would
help them, the American farmer, and the
taxpayer. We refer to needy people in
foreign countries, both in this bill and in
mutual security. However, in actuality
and almost without exception, through
the main provisions of mutual security
and under this bill the commodities are
15213
practically given to foreign governments
which, in turn, sell such commodities to
their people. The Department of Agri-
culture this year was unable to tell us
after a 6 months' check, just what price
foreign governments were charging their
own people for these commodities in
various countries. Our own investigat-
ing staff discovered the fact that in one
country they were adding 70 percent
markup to the price they pay "in their
currency" when they sell these com-
modities to their own people. It is hard
to believe this increases use in foreign
countries.
May I say again, if this amendment is
adopted, we must direct the Department
of Agriculture not only to maintain our
exports at present levels but to increase
them by giving extra emphasis on sales
for dollars through regular channels at
competitive prices.
This program was started to get rid of
surpluses. Instead of that it has led to
them.
It Was started on the basis that it
would help needy people. The people
have to pay through thd nose to their
? own government. ?
Mr. Chairman, our trouble is that we
are overproducing, though I may say
we are refusing to regain and hold our
normal markets through competitite
sales for dollars. We must Strengthen
our efforts to force real sales.
This sale for foreign currencie'S has
grown like "Topsy." It is destroying us
in the long run, necessary perhaps at
the start, necessary perhaps now on a re-
duced basis, yet I know it leads us in the
wrong directions. I know that period-
ically we should reduce this approach
and, in turn, push the Department fur-
ther and further into regaining our
markets through normal channels. My
amendment is along that line.
Mr. Chairman, it would be so Much
better here today fOr the farmer, the
taxpayer, and yes, people in foreign
countries, if this were a bill requiring
the Secretary to increase his sales for
dollars by 20 percent. Remember, he has
the authority.
One nation cannot support world
prices. Our country has tried. This bill
is the result. One billion five hundred
million more dollars will be used by the
Secretary and the press to attack our
farm programs.
We must quit trying to sweep the
surplus tinder the rug. We must quit
this drug. My amendment is a step. in
the right direction.
Mr. Chairman, having served as chair-
man of the Appropriations Subcommit-
tee for Agriculture for A number of
years reviewing actual operations of the
program, I Would like to give my analysis
of the farm situation, with suggested
cures. Certainly this effort to "dispose
of", by sweeping under the rug?with
everybody looking on, fooling no one?is
no solution.
CAUSES OF FAILURE OF PRESENT LAWS
Existing price support laws were for
the purposes of providing a fair price
at the market place. We have had some
trouble in the past, but during the last
6 years the situation has become really
bad, primarily for the following reasons:
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
15214 - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
First. Notwithstanding authority to
sell competitively, our Government held
U.S. production off world markets in
1953, 1954, and 1955. Cotton was held
off the world market again this year.
Thus, Government investment in price-
supported commodities was built up from
?? .$2.5 billion on January 1, 1953 to more
than $8.7 billion on January 1, 1959. The
result was to hold an umbrella over for-
eign production. At the same time, 743
Anierican agricultural representatives
were paid to teach foreign people how
to increase their agricultural output.
Second. The law which provided for
controls on domestic production by lim-
iting acreage has failed. The law worked
reasonably well in the horse and mule
days, but with mechanization, hybrid
seed, and the more extensive use of im-
proved fertilizer, acreage limits not only
have? not worked, but actually have
served as an incentive to increase pro-
duction.
Third. With a control program that
nb longer works, efforts to force reduced
production by lowering support prices
have had the opposite effect.- Farmers
simply have grown more units in order'
to make up for the reduction in prices.
Fourth. With perishable commodities,
instead of moving in promptly to sta-
bilize prices as soon as a surplus likely
to depress prices became apparent, the
Department consistently has waited until
after prices broke, thereby greatly in-
creasing costs to the Government and
minimizing benefits to producers.
WHAT CONGRESS SHOULD DO
Present laws need to be changed to set
up a more workable program and to
guarantee that the program will be ad-
ministered in accordance with the intent
of Congress. Here are some suggested
actions:
A. BASIC OR STORAGE COMMODITIES
First. Provide price protection on the
farmer's share of the .domestic market
tied to costs of what the farmer must
buy so as to keep a balance with labor
and industry.
Second. Make price protection on
storable commodities contingent upon
the farmer holding his production in line
with domestic and foreign markets. To
accomplish this, we must require that
the farmer agree to limit his produc-
tion?not acreage?to his share of the
domestic and foreign market in order to
be eligible for price protection. He
might be permitted to apply any over-
production against his next year's allot-
ment.
Third. Require the Department of Ag-
riculture to use its authority to sell com-
petitively in world markets in order to
insure that, this country maintains its
share of such markets. Thus, by limit-
ing each farmer's production to his
share of domestic and foreign markets,
he will be in a position to get a fair price
for his share of ,the domestic market in
the marketplace.
Contrary to claims, selling agricul-
tural commodities competitively in world
markets need not jeopardize' domestic
industry. Existing law authorizes Amer-
ican , processors to purchase at world
prices such: quantities of U.S. commodi-
ties as are needed to maintain exports
-of finished goods. Moreover, present law
authorizes the President to protect do- ?
mestic processors from foreign competi-
tion, eithell by tax or flat prohibition.
Fourth. Require the Government to
completely isolate from the market such
reserves of storable commodities as are
considered essential for national de-
fense and are needed for protection
against possible shortages- in bad years.
This is necessary to prevent needed re-
serves from depressing prices in domestic
and foreign markets.
Fifth. Make available part of any re-
maining surplus to farmers who hold
their production below their share of do-
mestic and foreign markets. This
should help to dispose of costly surpluses
already built up.
B. PERISHABLE COMMODITIES
Excess production of a perishable com-
modity in any given year usually will
not have a significant effect on markets
in the following year. However, even a
small surplus during any given year may
depress prices disastrously for all of that
year's production. Generally, sufficient
authority is available under present law
to handle such situations if it is used
properly. The following actions are
suggested:
, First. Require that the Department
of Agriculture announce price-stabiliza-
tion programs as soon as the likelihood
of surplus becomes apparent. Require
that Government purchases be made
promptly and in sufficient quantity, and
that the commodities so acquired be di-
verted to school lunch and other deserv-
ing programs.
Second. Provide the funds needed for
such purchases and the costs of diver-
sion.
If these suggestions are followed, mar-
kets for perishables will be stabilized and
the producer will be able to get a fair
price in the marketplace. Moreover,
costs to the Government actually will be
greatly reduced.
The key, however, is to require that
purchases be made before the market
breaks. This cannot be emphasized -too
much. To wait until after the market
breaks simply will not work. After a
break occurs, "all the king's horses and
all the king's men can't put Humpty-
Dumpty back together again." Past
history has corroborated this again and
again.
Farm income should come from the
marketplace. In the long run, it must.
Do not be misled by those who want to
grab part of the farmer's share of the
consumer dollar and force him to look
annually to the Treasury for a remedy.
, I hope, for the long-range benefit of
the American farnier, the American tax-
payer, our customers abroad, including
foreign people who need our commodi-
ties, that my amendment will be
adopted.
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the
officials of the executive branch of ' the
Government, charged with the respon-
sibility of administering this program,
are in a raf better position to fix the
?k"
?
- August 20
volume of the program than we are here
on the floor of the House.
Now, this surplus disposal program is
gigantic, and our surplus problem is
becoming more complex and more ag-
gravated every harvest season.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Oklahoma.
Mr. ALBERT. Was not the matter of
.a limitation to this extent or any other
extent explored in the long hearings
that our committee held on this sub-
ject?
Mr. COOLEY. The gentleman is
exactly right. Our committee, after
^having long hearings and investigations,
,concluded that we should follow the
recommendation.of the Department and
fix the authorization at $1,500 million,
and that is what I hope this House Will
do.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further, everyone
'hope to See dollar sales, but this matter
'has been worked out by the Department
and by the committee, and it seems to
me we should go slow about making a
change of this magnitude on the floor of
the House.
Mr. COOLEY. It-seems to me that
the gentleman from Mississippi could
very well have appeared before our com-
mittee and presented the amendment at
that time, where we could have .dis-
cussed' it with the Secretary of Agri-
culture and his assistants. I know that
the gentleman from Mississippi is sin-
cere in his desire to have the surplus
disposed of, and I agree with him that
we should sell for dollars wherever pos-
sible to sell for dollars, and the Secre-
tary has no moral or legal right to sell
for foreign currencies where he can sell
for dollars.
Mr. WHITTEN, Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. COOLEY. ,Yes, Iyield.
Mr. WHITTEN. I like very much and
always enjoy visiting with the gentle-
man's committee. I am busy, too, and
had no knowledge that the hearings
were going to be had at the time they .
'were. But, may I say this, it is hard for
me to conceive, as the chairman has
said and as my friend from Oklahoma
has said, that you have placed in this bill
a figure of $1,500 million without even
exploring whether it could have been re-
duced, where it is deadweight on the
?Treasury.
Mr. COOLEY. It is not deadweight
on the Treasury. It is a direction for
'him to use up $1,500 million worth of
these commodities.
Mr. WHITTEN. Does not the gentle-
man realize that next year our commit-
tee will have to come in and ask for dol-
lars for restoration of these dollars, $1,500
million?
Mr. COOLEY. On all impaired capi-
tal of CCC, that is true. But I say it is
necessary for us to exert every effort
to dispose of this surplus. Just a few?
years ago we had a $2,500 million surplus.
Now it has reached a figure of about $9
billion, and in the meantime we have
lost about $5 billion.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
1959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. BELCHER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Oklahoma.
Mr. BELCHER. Was there any evi-
dence before our committee that any
part of this program replaced dollar sales
in any country in the world? ?
Mr. COOLEY. Only one suggestion
was made, and we explored that sugges-
tion, and destroyed it and dissipated it,
and we have no evidence that any trans-
action under this bill has displaced dol-
lar transactions anywhere on this earth,
and we do have information as to trans-
actions which have taken place all over
the world.
I want to repeat again, that the pro-
gram has been remarkably free from
criticism, and so far as I know, abso-
lutely free from corruption and fraud.
I hope that this amendment will be de-
feated and that this bill will be passed
by this House and sent on to the White
House.
I want to conclude by saying with ref-
erence to the food stamp amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Mis-
souri [Mrs. SULLIVAN] and which was
adopted, that there is nothing manda-
tory in it.
By my own amendment the commit-
tee struck out the word "directed" and
put in the word 'authorized." So the
Secretary of Agriculture is not directed
to put into effect any food stamp pro-
gram. He is merely authorized to put
it in. And I take that to mean that
the President would not veto a bill mere-
ly because we authorized one of his Cab-
inet officers to do or not to do a cer-
tain thing, leaving it in his discretion
whether to do it or not.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the bill
will be passed here and go on to the
other body and finally to the White
House and be enacted during this session,
although it might very well be delayed
until the next session.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, Will the
gentleman yield for a Unanimous con-
sent request?
Mr. HOEVEN. I yield.
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on
the pending amendment close in 5 min-
utes, .at the conclusion of the remarks
of the gentleman from Iowa.
The CHAIRMAN. Is 'there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
There was no objection.
? Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Chairman, I join
my chairman in opposition to the Whit-
ten amendment. As he has so correctly
pointed out we have about a $9 billion
investment in surplus agricultural com-
modities. Throughout the years we have
been trying to do a good job in getting
rid of it. As I said in the general debate
we are doing a magnificent job in that
regard.
This program that we are talking about
started with an original authorization
of some $700 million and we are now op-
erating at about $1.5 billion per year.
Throughout our hearings there was am-
ple justification for the $1.5 billion.
There was no evidence whatsoever that
the authorization should be cut one dol-
lar. I think it would be a mistake in
view of the surplus situation that we
should deny the Department whatever
is justified.
So I urge that the amendment be de-
feated.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by ?the gentle-
man from Mississippi.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time for the
purpose of addressing the question to the
distinguished chairman of the Commit-
tee on Agriculture, the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. COOLEY]. It is a
brief question.
The gentleman, through his long ex-
perience with Public Law 480 is well ac-
quainted with the list of commodities
which are disposed of under the terms
of Public Law 480 either by being named
specifically in the statute or by adminis-
trative interpretation. Can the gentle-
man assure me that there is no language
in the bill before us at the present time
which would eliminate any commodity
presently disposed of under the terms of
Public Law-480 or is there any intention
on the part of the committee to elimi-
nate any commodity presently sold or
disposed of in that way?
Mr. COOLEY. I am afraid I do not
understand clearly what the gentleman
has in mind.
Mr. GUBSER. May I restate the ques-
tion?
Mr. COOLEY. I wish the gentleman
would.
Mr. GUBSER. Is there any language
In this bill or is it intended by the com-
mittee that any commodity which is
presently sold or disposed of under the
terms of Public Law 480 would be no
longer disposed of under the bill we have
before us, if passed?
Mr. COOLEY. You mean whether or
not any commodity or producers of com-
modities are being discriminated against
in any way in this bill, I assume?
" Mr. GUBSER. Simply if this bill were
passed would we still be able to dispose
of every commodity which we are dis-
posing of today in the same way we al-
ways have?
Mr. COOLEY. I am certain that is
true.
Mr. GUBSER. I thank the gentleman
very much.
Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr: Chairman, the purpose of my
rising today is to put on the RECORD, so
we shall have it in the future, both for
the conference on this bill as well as for
future action by the House in relation
to the St. Lawrence Seaway, the follow-
ing.
I want to comment particularly on the
agreements between the United States
of America and Canada effected by the
exchange of notes signed at Ottawa on
August 17, 1954, entered into force Au-
gust 17, 1954, as well as an exchange of
notes signed at Washington June 30,-
1952, and entered into force June 30,
1952. They supplement previous trea-
. 15215
ties between Canada and the, United
States affecting shipping* on the St.
Lawrence River and canals, particularly
article I of the Boundary Waters Treaty
of 1909.
I would call attention particularly to
the fact that on anything that might
limit the shipping of agricultural com-
modities over the St. Lawrence Seaway
we are bound by an agreement on the
exchange of notes between L. B. Pearson,
Secretary of State for External Affairs
of Canada and Don C. Bliss, Charg?
d'Affaires, ad interim, for the United
States at the Embassy of the United
States of America at Ottawa. That says
specifically:
.6. (a) It is recognized that it is of great
importance to Canada and the United States
that the St. Lawrence Seaway be used to
the maximum extent required by the needs
of commerce. It is understood therefore
that bah Governments will use their best
endeavours to avoid placing* unreasonable
restrictions on the transit of passengers,
shipping or trade in the international sec-
tion of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
(b) It is further agreed that each Gov-
ernment will consult the other before it en-
acts any new law or promulgates any new
regulations, applicable in the respective na-
tional' parts of the international section of
the St. Lawrence River, which might affect
Canadian or United States shipping, of ship-
ping of third-country registry proceeding to
or from Canada or the United States re-
spectively.
(c) Similarly, with respect to any laws or
regulations now in force in either country
which affect the shipping interests of the
other country in the international section
of the St. Lawrence River, pie government
affected may request consultation concern-
ing such laws or regulations and the other
government shall accede to requests for con-
sultation.
(d) The foregoing undertakings are in ad-
dition to the treaty obligations now in force
between Canada and the United States af-
fecting shipping in the St. Lawrence River
and canals,. particularly article I of the
Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909.
Don C. Bliss in ,his note in the third
from the last paragraph says:
The U.S. Government agrees with the re-
quirement of consultation between the two
governments set forth in paragraph 4(b) and
6 and agrees to relieve Canada of its obliga-
tion.
So we have specifically in the United
States entered into an agreement that
before we restrict in any way the opera-
tion of shipping in the St. Lawrence Sea-
way by either regulation or statute that
we will 'first have consultation between
the Government of the United States
and the Government of Canada. I hope
in the future we will not in this Con-
gress, without prior notice to our good
friends north of the border try to put on
by amendment actions that limit this
seaway. -I must say to you, I voted
against it, but once it was put into effect
and the seaway is put into operation,
want it used in full under the agreement.
So I want to point out, any future
amendinents are subject, because this
is the superior law of the land being a
U.S. treaty and an executive interna-
tional agreement, subject to a point of
order and ,could have been subject to a
point of order. But I wanted to hear
the Keogh amendment discussed.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
?
15216 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FULTON. I yield.
Mr. COOLEY. The gentleman is
aware of the fact that the amendment
he is talking about was defeated; is he
not?
Mr. FULTON. I do and that is why I
did not put this in as a point of order.
I wanted it decided on its merits and I
am glad to see the Keogh amendment
was defeated.
Mr. COOLEY. I do not think the
Keogh amendment would have imposed
any restrictions on the St. Lawrence
Seaway.
Mr. FULTON. I thought it would,
and I wanted this in the REcomi in case
the question oomes up. May I close on
this point. I feel when we have part of,
the canal and the St. Lawrence Seaway
in our country, and part exclusively In
Canada, if we turn the back of our hand
to our good Canadian neighbors, that is
one thing we had better watch because
Canada can shut off her part of the
canal or her part of the St. Lawrence
Seaway and effectively close that water-
way to us in the United States. I hope
we cooperate further.
Mr. QUIE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
'Amendment offered by Mr. QUIE : on page
1, line 8, after the words "December 31"
strike out "1960" and insert "1961".
On page 2, line 2, after the figure "1,500,-
000,000" insert "annually".
On page 2, line 18, strike out "1960" and
insert "1961".
On page 6, line 12, strike out "$1,100,000,-
000" and insert "$1,400,000,000".
On page 6, line 18, strike out "198.0" and
insert "1961".
(Mr. QUIE asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. QUIE. Mr. Chairman, this will
not be too difficult to explain because
this provides for a 2-year extension of
title I and title II of Public Law 480.
Title I and title II are the only titles
that expire. Title III never expires. So
the reason I am offering this amend-
ment is to enable us next year to go
through this process of working on agri-
cultural legislation without bringing
up Public Law 480. We seem.to get into
a hassle on Public Law 480 each year.
So at least we can go by 1 year with-
out bringing it up.
The amendment so far as the funds
are concerned does not change the au-
thorization. Presently, there is a $1,500
million authorization for title I for next
year. With a 2-year extension, it would
provide the same amount .of money for
the year/after.
The same thing would apply-to title II.
The request here is for an additional
$300 million, bringing it from the old
law of $800 million to $1,100 million.
This would then make the same amount
of money available for the year after
that.
I think this is an excellent thing to
do in order that the people who are
looking to us for food, when we have
plenty of surplus food, and when we
have on hand $9 billion worth in stor-
age at the present time, can be plan-
ning not on the $1,500 million Q.vailable
for next year only, but also for the year
after that.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. QUIE. I yield.
Mr. McGOVERN. I think there is a
great deal of good sense in the proposal
that the gentleman from Minnesota is
making. Would this 2-year extension
enable the people both on our side and
the people in the receiving countries to
do a little more planning and to bring
about a little more order in the program?
I think it has that advantage as well as
to save our time here ih the Congress
in renewing a program that may be re-
newed automatically, but which alviays
raises- a period of doubt and insecurity
each year in the minds of people that
are participating in the program.
Mr. QUIE. The gentleman is abso-
lutely correct. This would be not only
a benefit to our taxpayers but also to the
people overseas, especially in the matter
of their planning.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. QUIE. I yield.
Mr. HOEVEN. I think the gentle-
man's amendment is excellent and I ex-
pect to support it.
Mr. QUIE. I thank the gentleman for
his support.
? Mr. SHORT.' Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. QUIE. I yield.
Mr. SHORT. I desire to associate my-
self with the gentleman's amendment
and urge its support.
Mr. QUIE. I thank the gentleman
from North Dakota for supporting my
amendment. I think it is unreasonable
to have to go through this long process
of extending Public Law 480 each year.
Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. QUIE. I yield.
Mr. HAGEN. I would like to Point
out that we adopted this amendment
once in the Committee on Agriculture.
This program was designed to get rid
of surpluses. We are going to have sur-
pluses for at least 5 years in the future.
If the extension of the program for 1
year is justified, then it is equally justi-
fied to extend it 2 years. The other body
adopted a 3-year extension. Is not that
correct?
Mr. QUIE. From what I hear the
gentleman certainly is correct.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield? .
Mr. QUIE. I yield.
Mr. HOEVEN. The gentleman from
California stated it correctly. The bill
as passed in the other body provides for
a 3-year extension, so it is reasonable
to assume that a 2-year extension
would .be supported in conference.
Mr. COAD. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. QUIE. I yield.
Mr. COAD. .I,clesire to associate my-
self with the gentleman's remarks and
urge support of his amendment.
Mr. QUIE. I had originally intro-
duced a bill for a 5-year extension of
Public Law 480 because for at least 5
years we will have surpluses that must
August 20
be distributed overseas because we can-
not keep them in storage and pay high
storage costs here. To get this program
on a, little longer basis than 1 year I am
offering this amendment for a 2-year
extension. I think it will be of great
benefit, not only to the taxpayers of
this country, but also it has been pointed.
out to the people of foreign countries as
well.
I urge you to support this amendment.
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
I wonder if the Republican Members
of the House realize that their' Secre-
tary of Agriculture, Mr. Benson, asked
for only a 1-year extension? Are
they now going to repudiate their own
Secretary's recommendation?
Furthermore, the committee upon
which the gentlernan serves with great
ability and distinction has rejected this
amendment.
We feel that this program is important
enough to justify and warrant a review
annually. Moreover, if the gentleman's
amendment is adopted it 'All go out to
the country that you have doubled the
size of this program. The bill we have
before us is for a little more than a bil-
lion and a half. If the amendment is
adopted it will be a $3,600 million bill.
That is a thing we discussed in com-
mittee. I do not want this adopted. I
hope the amendment will be rejected.
Mr. QUIE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. COOLEY. I yield.
Mr. QUIE. I have not worried about
what the Secretary of Agriculture said.
Mr. COOLEY. I know, but I worry
about it all the time.
Mr. QUIE. It seems that the gentle-
man usually does not care what the
Secretary says, but if the Secretary .of
Agriculture is in favor of and supports a
1-year extension there is nothing to pre-
vent our extending it for two years. We
look at all these laws each year.
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on
the pending amendment close in 3.min-
utes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the amendment.
(Mr. HAGEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to speak in favor of this amendment.
It was presented in the committee and
adopted. We then voted to reconsider
on a subsequent day and reversed our
position, because, I am satisfied, certain
people want to play politics with a pro-
gram that everyone who deals directly
with it supports.
The simple fact is that this program
exists to get rid of surpluses, and no one
is so foolish as to say we will not have
surpluses for 4, 5, or possibly 6 years.
If a program is good for 1 year, it is far
better for 2 years, because then, better
planning and programing can be done
with the disposal of these surpluses.
There is a new program in this bill on
a 10-year basis yet we are asked to be-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
.7,1A-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
1939 - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
lieve that a 2-year extension of estab-
lished programs is somehow unwise.
How can anyone object to a 2-year ex-
tension of title I which provides for sales
for soft currency and title II of the bill?
Title III of the act already is on an
indeterminate basis. I think this is a
justified amendment, as indicated by the
judgment of the other body. They have
already acted in committee to extend
tities I and II for a 3-year period.
I hope that those of you who are in- "
terested in disposing of these moun-
tains of whea4 and bales of cotton and
corn we will have at the end of this crop
season will vote to establish a? logically
long range program for disposing of
these surpluses. Let me conclude by
saying 'that the motives of those who
would oppose a 2-year extension, or, per-
haps I should say the motives of some of
those who oppose such extension, are not
related to the merits of the question.
Their purpose is solely to use the 480
program as a pawn in next year's politi-
cal agricultural game. They are will-
ing to risk the continuation of a pro-
gram beneficial to all agriculture in pur-
suit of parochial commodity gains.
This, of course, poses danger to the ben-
eficiaries of 480 on the farm and also to
those city Congressman who-will again
be asked next year for a record vote on
a program, which although necessary,
under current programs of price support,
carries a big price tag on it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Minnesota [Mr. Qum].
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. Qum), there
were?ayes 69, noes 109.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. BOLAND, Mr. Chairman, in yes-
terday's debate on the amendments of-
fered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
HOEVEN], I supported his position that
Public Law 480 ought to be extended
and the barter program continued. But
I agreed with him that this program
should not be expanded to the point of
ridiculousness. And that is precisely
where we would arrive if this bill were
passed without the amendments of Mr.
HOEVEN striking out paragraphs in the
bill which tended to increase the folly
that now surrounds the national stock-
pile and its objectives.
I repeat that the stockpile of strategic
and critical materials totals some $8 bil-
lion and that this is $4 billion in excess
of the needs. As of March 31, 1959,
the acquisition cost of the supplemental
stockpile was $361,776,700 and the excess
cost to the objective totaled $346,224.600.
In addition acquisition cost of Commod-
ity Credit Corporation barter came to
$269,994,000 with the excess to the objec-
tive being $255,286,500. Both the sup-
plemental stockpile and CCC barter are
the direct result of operations under
Public Law 480.
Several minerals and metals were pro-
cured under this program that are not
even on the national stockpile list as
essential to our needs. Some 32 metals
and minerals were procured under this
program where the percent in excess of
the stockpile needs ran from the low
of 125 percent to a high of 400 percent.
With these facts in mind, the com-
mittee yesterday acted wisely in sup-
porting the amendments which will at
least assist in giving some semblance of
commonsense to the national stockpile
program.
Mr. TJLLMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the legislation now before
the Committee. I know of few programs
of greater importance than that author-
ized by Public Law 480 and I urge its
continuation through the adoption of
Ha. 8609.
The 480 program affords one of those
rare opportunities whereby accumulated
farm surpluses can be disposed of abroad
and, at the same time, U.S. foreign policy
objectives strengthened. Since its in-
ception in 1954, the program has done
much to substantially increase U.S. agri-
culture exports. Title I sales alone have
amounted to 843 million bushels of
wheat, 210 million bushels of feed grains,
4 ini11ioi bales of cotton, 3.6 billion
pounds ofT fats and oils, and substantial
quantitips of several other farm products.
The implementation of titles II and III
have also been of importance.
One reason for the success of title I
activities has been the work of organiza-
tions such as the Oregon Wheat League.
Far Eastern sales have been generated
by the league's- activities and new types
of wheat products geared to the tradi-
tional oriental diet have been developed.
The success of this development program
can best be illustrated by statistics show-
ing a 20-percent increase in Japanese
wheat consumption.
The 480 program has done much to
alleviate hunger both here and abroad.
Drought and flood stricken peoples
throughout the world have received aid
essential to their continued existence.
Foodstuffs donated pursuant to the pro-
visions of title III have permitted non-
profit voluntary relief agencies to carry
on their feeding programs abroad. Simi-
lar work of equal importance has been
carried on in this country/
Much more remains to be done, how-
ever. I am convinced that even greater
use of our abundant food supplies can be
effectively -utilized to insure a proper
nutritions diet for the needy. I strongly
support the Sullivan amendment for a
food-stamp plan for our own needy peo-
ple. How better can we use our surplus
commodities? The 480 program provides
the framework for this humanitarian
Work andTso I am pleased to vote for its
continuation.
Mr. BREEDING. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the amendment offered
by the gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs.
Strm.rvAx] to establish a food stamp plan.
First, I wish to commend the gentle-
woman for the fine job she had done
in presenting this matter to the House.
She appeared before the House Agricul-
ture Committee and her presentation was
most convincing.
I favor a food stamp plan for distrib-
uting surplus foods to needy persons.
Such a plan would result in a more or-
derly distribution of foods. It also would
protect the processors of wheat and other
foods on the surplus list and it would pro-
tect the neighborhood retailers.
15217
There is no doubt that wheii surplus
foods are shipped into a depressed area
for distribution normal trade channels
are disrupted.
The amendment offered by the gentle-
woman would, in my opinion, restore or-
derly distribution of the products and re-
sult in a better, more effiicent system.
I dm happy to support the amendment.
Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, I
commend the gentlewoman from Mis-
souri [Mrs. SULLIVAN] for her long-time
concern and consistent work on behalf ?
of a program to supplement the food -
supply of needy Americans, including
senior citizens and families in want in
both rural and urban areas and particu-
larly those not on public assistance but
certified by State or local welfare au-
thorities as being in need of assistance,
though ineligible under local statutes to
supplement their food supply by using
surplus crops which otherwise spoil in
warehouses or rot in the fields for want
of harvest.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I am
casting my vote for this bill after much
thought and with many misgivings. I
would not want my vote interpreted as
continued support for this program and
I reserve the right to vote against it the
next time it is presented for considera-
tion. I have consistently voted against
high fixed price farm support programs
and I was very much persuaded to vote
against this bill for the reason that it is
part of the total fixed price farm sup-
port program which is so unrealistic at
the present time. PerSiiading. me to the
contrary, however, is the knowledge that
even if this bill were not passed?and it
is obvious that it is going to be passed
the House?the surpluses would continue
to mount because the law requires the
Secretary of Agriculture to continue to
purchase farm products through the
CCC. Furthermore, this bill is useful in
small measure at least for moving some
of our surplus commodities and in feed-
ing the needy people of the world.
The answer, of course, lies in chang-
ing the basic farm legislation and cer-
tainly the Congress ought to act on that
with all dispatch.
Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise
to oppose the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York. The Great
Lakes seaway brought the seven seas to
the doorstep of North Dakota. The ad-
vantages which will flow from this new
artery of transportation to the great
wheat State of North Dakota are mani-
fold. This great project has been op-
posed for many years by voices similar
to those raised here today. If this
amendment were adopted, curtailment of
Great Lakes shipping would follow, and
costs to the Government under the Pub-
lic Lw 480 program would increase. I
urge my colleagues to defeat thii
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there is, however, an
amendment which will be offered by the
gentlewoman from Missouri to estab-
lish a food stamp plan in connection
with this law, which merits your support.
This would authorize the Secretary of
Agriculture to make our abundance
available to undernourished Americans
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12:
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
15215 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
and, at the same time, dispose of more
of our agricultural surplus. I urge your
consideration and approval of that
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. BOLLING, Chairman of the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union, reported that that Commit-
tee, having had under consideration the
bill (H.R. '8609) to amend the Agricul-
tural Trade Development and Assist-
ance Act of 1954, as amended, by ex-
tending the authorities of titles I and
II, strengthening the program of dis-
posals through barter, and for other
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution
346, he reported the bill back to the
House with sundry amendments adopted
by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any
amendment?
Mr. HOEVEN: Mr. Speaker, I de-
mand a separate vote on the Sullivan
amendment.
The SPEAKER. Is a separate vote
demanded. on any other amendment?
If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will re-
port the amendment upon *hich a sepa-
rate vote has been demanded.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. SULLIVAN: On
page 8, after line 23, insert the following new
section 14 and renumber succeeding sections
to conform:
"Sm. 14. Title III of the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as
amended, is further amended by adding at
the end thereof the following new section:
"'Sze. 306. (a) In order to promote the
general welfare, raise the levels of health and
of 'nourishment for persons whose incomes
prevent them from enjoying adequate diets,
and dispose in a beneficial manner of food
commodities acquired by the Commodity
Credit Corporation or the Department of
Agriculture in carrying out price support
operations or diverted from the normal chan-
nels of trade and , commerce under section
32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, as amended,
the Secretary of Agriculture (in this section
referred to as the "Secretary") is hereby au-
thorized to promulgate and put into opera-
tion as quickly as possible, a program to
.distribute to needy persons in the United
States through a food stamp system such
surplus food commodities.
" (b) In carrying out such program, the
Secretary shall?
" ' (1) distribute surplus food made avail-
able by the Secretary for distribution under
this program only when requested to do so
by a State or political subdivision thereof;
"'(2) issue, or cause to be issued, pur-
suant to subsection ( c) , food stamps re-
deemable by eligible needy persons for such
types and quantities of surplus food as the
Secretary shall determine;
" `(3) distribute surplus food in commer-
cially packaged form, preferably through
normal channels of trade;
" '(4) establish standards under which,
Pursuant to subsection (c) ; the welfare au-
thorities of any State or political subdivision
thereof may participate in the food stamp
plan for the distribution of surplus foods to
the needy;
?(5) consult the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare, and the Secretary
of Labor, in establishing standards for eligi-
bility for surplus foods and in the conduct
of the programgenerally to assure achieve-
ment of the goals outlined in subsection (a)
of this section; and
"'(6) make such other rules and regula-
tions as he may deem necessary to carry out
the purpose of this section.
" .(c) The Secretary shall issue, to each
welfare department or equivalent agency of
a State or political subdivision requesting
the distribution of surplus food under sub-
section (b) (1), food stamps for each kind of
surplus food to be distributed, in amounts
based on the total amount of surplus food
to be distributed and on the total number of
needy persons in the various States and
political subdivisions eligible to receive such
food. The food stamps shall be issued by
each such welfare department or equivalent
agency to needy persons receiving welfare
assistance, or in need of welfare assistance
but ineligible because of State or local law,
and shall be redeemable by such needy per-
sons at local distribution points to be de-
termined_ by the Secretary under subsection
(b) (3).
" '(d) Surplus food distributed under this
section shall be in addition to, and not in
place of, any welfare assistance (financial or
otherwise) granted needy persons by a State
or any political subdivision thereof.
" '(e) In any one calendar year the Sec-
retary is authorized to distribute surplus
food under this section to a value of up to
$1,000,000,000, based on the cost to the Fed-
eral Government of acquiring, storing, and
handling such food.
? " '(f ) For the purposes of this section, a
needy person is anyone receiving welfare as-
sistance (financial or otherwise) from the
welfare department or equivalent agency of
any State or political subdivision thereof,
or who is, in the opinion of such agency or
agencies, in need of welfare assistance but
is ineligible to receive it because of State or
local law.
"'(.g) The Secretary of Agriculture, in con-
sultation with the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare and the Secretary of
Labor, shall make a study of, and shall re-
port to Congress within six months after
the date of enactment of this section, on the
feasibility of, the costs of, and the problems
involved in, extending the scope of the food
stamp plan established by this section to in-
clude persons receiving unemployment com-
pensation, receiving old-age and survivors
Insurance (social security) pensions, and
other low-income groups not eligible to re-
ceive food stamps under this section.
"'(h) There are heieby authollzed to be
appropriated, out of any money in the Treas-
ury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as
may be necessary to cayry out the purposes of
this section.'"
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the amendment.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Speaker, on that
I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there
were?yeas 232, nays 127, answered
"present" 2, not voting 76, as follows:
[Roll No. 1411
YEAS-232
Adair
Addonizio
Albert
Alexander
Anderson,
Mont.
Andrews
Ashley
Aspinall
Bailey
Baker
Baling
Barr
Barrett Bray
Bass, Tenn. Breeding
Beck Worth Brewster
Bennett, Fla. Brock
Bennett, Mich. Brooks, La.
Blatnik Brooks, Tex.
Blitch Broomfield
Boggs Brown, Mo.
Boland Buckley
Bolling Burdick
Bonner Burke, Mass.
Boyle Byrne, Pa.
Brademas Carnahan
Carter
Casey
Celler
Chelf
Church
Clark
Coad
Cohelan
Conte
Cook
Cooley
Corbett
Daddario
Daniels
Delaney
Dent
Denton
Diggs
Dingell
Donohue
Dorn, NY.
Dowdy
Doyle
Dulski
Durham
Dwyer
Edmondson
Fallon
Feighan
Flood
Flynn
Foley
Forand
Fountain
Frazier
Friedel
Fulton
Gallagher.
Garmatz
Gathings
George
Giaimo
Granahan
Gray
Green, Oreg.
?Green, Pa,
Griffin
Griffiths
Halpern
Hardy
Hargis
Harmon
Harris
Healey
Hebert
Hechler
Hemphill
_ Hogan
Holifield
Holland
Holtzman
Huddleston
Hull
Ikard
Jarman
August -20
Jennings Pfost
Johnson, Calif. Philbin
Johnson, Md. Poage
Johnson, Wis. Porter
Jones, Ala. Price
Jones, Mo. Prokop
Judd Pucinski
Karsten Quigley
Karth Rabaut
Kasem Rains
Kastenmeier Randall
Kee Reuss
Kelly Rhodes, Pa,
King, Calif. Rivers, Alaska
Kirwan Roberts
Kluczynski Rodino
Kowalski Rogers, Colo.
Lane Rogers, Fla.
Lankford Rogers, Mass.
Lennon Rogers, Tex.
Lesinski Roosevelt
Levering Roush
Rutherford
Santangelo
Saund
Saylor
Sott
Selden
Shelley
Sheppard
Sikes
Siler
Sisk
Slack
Smith, Iowa
Smith, Miss.
Spence
Staggers
Stratton
Stubblefield
Sullivan
Teague, Tex.
Thomas
Thompson, N.J
Thompson, Tex.
Thornberry
Toll
Trimble
Ullman
Vanik
Van Zandt
Vinson
Walter
Watts
Whitener
Whitten
Wier
Willis
Withrow
Wolf
Wright
Yates
Young
Zablocki
Zelenko
Libonati
Loser
McCormack
McDowell
McFall
McGinley
McGovern
McMillan
Macdonald
? Machrowicz
Mack, Ill.
Madden
Mahon
Matthews
Metcalf
Meyer
Miller, Clem ,
Miller,
George P.
Mills
Mitchell .
Moeller
Montoya
Moore
Moorhead
Morris, N. Mex.
Morris, Okla.
Moss
Moulder
Multer
Murphy
Natcher
Nix ,
Norblad
Norrell ?
O'Brien, Ill.
O'Hara, Ill.
O'Hara, Mich.
O'Konski
O'Neill
Oliver
Patman
Perkins
Abbitt
Allen
Andersen,
Minn.
Mends
Ashmore
Auchincloss
Avery
Ayres
Baldwin
Barden
Barry
Bass, N.H.
Bates
Baumhart
Belcher.
Berry
Betts
Bosch
Brown, Ga.
Brown, Ohio
Broyhill
Budge
Burleson
Bush
Byrnes, Wis.
Cahill
Chamberlain
Chenoweth
Chinerfield
Coffin
Cramer
Cunningham
Curtin
Curtis, Mass,
Curtis, Mo.
Davis, Ga.
Derounian
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
NAYS-127
Derwinski Kitchin
Devine Lafore
Dixon Laird
Dorn, S.C. Landrum
Downing Langen
Everett Latta
Fascell Lindsay
Fenton McCulloch
Ford . McDonough
Forrester McIntire '
Frelinghuysen Mack, Wash.
Mailliard
Marshall
May
Meader
Michel
Milliken
Mumma
Murray
Nelsen
OstertS.,g
Pelly
Pirnie
Gary
Gavin
Glenn
Goodell
Grant
Gross
Gubser
Hagen
Haley
Harrison
Henderson
Herlong
Hess Poff
Hiestand Quie
Hoeven Ray
Hoffman, Ill. Reece, Tenn.
Hoffman, Mich. Reese, Kari.
Holt Rhodes, Ariz..
Hosmer
Irwin
Jensen
Johansen
Jonas
Kearns
Keith
Kilgore
King, Utah
Riehlman
Riley
Robison
St. George
Schenck
Scherer
Schwengel
Short
Simpson, Ill.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
1959? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE
Smith, Kans. Tuck Westland
Smith, Va. Utt Widnall
Springer Wallhauser Wilson
Thomson, Wyo. Weaver Younger
Tollefson Weis
ANSWERED "PRESENT"-2
Bentley Knox
NOT VOTING?'76
Flynt Pilcher
Fogarty Pillion
Powell
Preston
Rivers, S.C.
Rooney
Rostenkowski
Shipley
Simpson, Pa.
Smith', Calif.
Steed -
Taber
Taylor
Teague, Calif.
Teller
Thompson, La,
Udall
Van Pelt
Wainwright
Wampler
Wharton
Williams
Winstead
?
Abernethy
Alford
Alger
Anfuso
Becker
Bolton
Bow
Bowles .
Boykin ,
Burke, Ky.
Canfield
Cannon ?
Cederberg
Collier
Colmer
Dague
Davis, Tenn.
Dawson
Dollinger
Dooley
Elliott
Evins
`Farbstein
Fino
Fisher
Hall
Halleck
Hays
Horan
Jackson
Johnson, Colo.
Keogh
Kilburn
KildaY
Liscomb
McSween
Magnuson
Martin
Mason
Merrow
Miller, N.Y.
Minshall
Monagan
Morgan
Morrison
O'Brien, N.Y.
Osmers
Passman
So the amendment was agreed to.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On. this vote:
Mr. Bentley for, with .Mr. Wainwright
against.
Mr. Keogh for, with Mr. Simpson of Penn-
sylvania against.
Mr. Anfuso for, with Mr. Taber against.
Mr. Farbstein for, with Mr. Kilburn against.
Mr. Thompson of Louisiana for, with Mr.
Lipscomb against. -
Mr. Morrison for?with Mr. Van Pelt against.
Mr. Hays for, with Mr. Pilcher against.
Mr. Knox for, with Mr. Cederberg against.
Mr. Collier for, with Mr. Preston against.
Mr. Fino for, with Mr. Minshall against.
Mr. Morgan for, with Mrs. Bolton against.
Mr. Teller for, with Mr. Bow against.
Mr. Rooney for, with Mr. smith of Califor-
nia against.
Mr. Dollinger for, with Mr. Alger against.
Mr. Powell for, with Mr. Osmers against.
Mr. O'Brien of New York for, with Mr. Tay-
lor against.
Mr. Passman for, with Mr. Teague of Cali-
fornia against.
Mr. Burke of Kentucky for, with Mr. Becker
against.
Mr. Fogarty for, with Mr. Flynt against.
Mr. Steed for, with Mr. McSween against.
Mr. Wampler for, with Mr. Williams
against.
Mr. Evins for, with Mr-Winstead against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Johnson of Colorado with Mr. Halleck.
Mr. Rivers of South Carolina with Mr.
Pillion.
Mr. Davis of Tennessee with Mr. Miller of
New York.
Mr. Colmer with Mr. Merrow.
Mr. Elliott with Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Monagan with Mr. Horan.
Mr. Bowles with Mr. Dague.
Mr. Alford with Mr. Dooley.
Mr. Abernethy with Mr. Wharton.
Mr. Boykin with Mr. Martin.
Mr. Rostenkowski with Mr. Mason.
Mr. Magnuson with Mr. Canfield.
Mr. HARDY changed his vote from
"nay" to "yea."
Mr. SHELLEY changed his vote from
"nay" to "yea."
Mr. GOODELL changed his vote from
"yea" to "nay." .
No.143-18
Mr. BENTLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have
a live pair with the gentleman from
New York [Mr. WAINWRIGHT]. I voted
"yea." If he were present, he would
vote "nay." Therefore, I withdraw my
"yea" vote and vote "present."
Mr. KNOX. Mr. Speaker, I have a
live pair with the gentleman from Mich-
igan [Mr. CEDERBERG]. If he were pres-
ent, he would vote "nay." I voted
"yea." Therefore, I withdraw my "yea"
vote and vote "present."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The SPEAKER. ' The question is on
the engrossment and third reading of
the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time and was read the
third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
Mr. SHORT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman
opposed to the bill?
Mr. SHORT. I am.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman
qualifies. The Clerk will report the mo-
tion. ?
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. SHORT moves to recommit the bill
H.R. 8609 to the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question on the motion to
recommit.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion to recommit.
? The motion was rejected.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there
were?yeas 305, nays 53, answered
"present" 1, not voting 76, as follows:
[Roll No. 142]
YEAS--305
Abbitt Bolling Cook
Adair Bonner Cooley
Addonizio Boyle Corbett
Albert Brademas Curtin
Alexander Bray Daddario
Andersen, Breeding Daniels
Minn. Brewster Davis, Ga.
Anderson, Brock Delaney
Mont. ' Brooks, La. Dent
Andrews Brooks, TeX. Denton
Ashmore Broomfield Derwinski
Aspinall Brown, Ga. Devine
Auchincloss Brown, Mo. Diggs
Avery Brown, Ohio Dixon
Ayres Broyhill Donohue
Bailey Buckley Dowdy
Baker Budge Downing
Baldwin Burdick Doyle
Barden Burke, Mass. Dulski
Barr Burleson Durham
Barrett Bush Dwyer
Barry, Byrne, Pa. Edmondson
Bass, N.H. Cahill Everett
Bass, Tenn. Carnahan Fallon
Baumhart Carter Fascell
Beckworth Casey Feighan
Belcher Celler Fenton
Bennett, Fla. Chamberlain Flood
Bennett, Mich: Chelf Flynn
Bentley Chenoweth Foley
Berry Church Forand
Betts Clark Forrester
Blatnik Coad Fountain
Blitch Coffin Frazier
Boggs Cohelan Friedel
Boland Conte Fulton
Gallagher
Ga?rmatz
Gathings
Gavin
George
Giaimo
Glenn
Goodell
Granahan
Grant
Gray
Green, Oreg.
Green, Pa.
Griffin
Griffiths
Gross
Hagen
Halpern
Hardy
Hargis
Harmon '
Harris
Healey
Hebert
Hechler
Hemphill
15219
Lesinski Reuss
Levering Rhodes, !Ariz.
Libonati Rhodes, Pa.
Lindsay Riehlman
Loser Riley
McCormack Rivers, Alaska
McCulloch Roberts
McDowell Rodino
McFall Rogers, Colo.
McGinley Rogers, Fla.
McGovern Rogers, Mass.
McMillan Rogers, Tex.
Macdonald Roosevelt
Machrowicz Roush
Mack, Ill. Rutherford
Mack, Wash Santangelo
Madden Saund
Mahon Schenck
Mailliard Schwengel
Marshall Scott
Matthews Selden
May Shelley
Metcalf Sheppard
Meyer Sikes
Miller, Clem Slier
Simpson, Ill.
Henderson George P. - Sisk
Hoffman, Ill. Milliken Slack
Hoffman, Mich. Mills Smith, Iowa
Hogan Mitchell Smith, Miss.
Holifield Moeller Spence
Holland Montoya Springer
Holtzman -Moorhead Staggers
Huddleston Morris, N. Mex. Stratton
Morris, Okla. Stubblefield
Moss Sullivan
Moulder. Teague, Tex.
Thomas
Thompson, N.J
Thompson, Tex.
Thomson, Wyo.
Thornberry
Toll
Tollefson
Trimble
Tuck
Ullman
Vanik
Van Zandt
Vinson
Wallhauser
Walter
Watts
Weaver
Westland
Whitener
Whitten
Wier ,
Willis
Withrow
Wolf
Wright
Yates
Young
Zablocki
Zelenko
Hull
Ikard
Irwin
Jarman Multer
Jennings Mumma
Jensen Murphy
Johnson, Calif. Hatcher
Johnson, Md. Nelsen
Johnson, Wis. Nix
Jonas Norblad
Norrell
O'Brien, Ill.
O'Hara, Ill.
O'Hara, Mich.
O'Konskl
O'Neill
Oliver
Ostertag
Patman
Perkins
Pfost
Philbin
Poage
Poff
Porter
Price
Prokop
Pucinski
Quie
Quigley
Rabaut
Rains
Randall
NAYS-63
Allen Haley
Arends Harrison
Baring Herlong
Bates Hess
Bosch- Hiestand
Byrnes, Wis. Hoeven
Chiperfleld Holt
Cramer Hosmer
Cunningham Johansen
Curtis, Mass. Keith
Curtis, Mo. Kelly
Derounian Laf ore
Dorn, N.Y. Laird
Dorn, S.C. McDonough
Ford McIntire
Frelinghuysen Meader
Gary Michel
Gubser Murray
ANSWERED "PRESENT"-1
Dingell
NOT VOTING-76
Jones, Ala.
jones, Mo.
Judd
Karsten
Karth
Kasem
Kastenmeier
Kearns
Kee
Kilgore
King, Calif.
King, Utah
Kirwan
Kitchin
Kluczynski
Knox
Kowalski
Landrum
Lane
Langen
Lankford
Latta
Lennon
Pelly
Pirnie
Ray
Reece, Tenn.
Rees, Kans.
Robison
St. George
Saylor
Scherer.
Short
Smith, Kans.
Smith, Va,
Utt
Weis
Widnall
Wilson
Younger
Abernethy
Alford
Alger
Anfuso
Ashley
Becker
Bolton
Bow
Bowles
Boykin
' Burke, Ky.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
Canfield
Cannon
Cederberg
Collier
Colmer
Dague
Davis, Tenn.
Dawson
Dollinger
Dooley
Elliott
Evins
Farbstein
Fino
Fisher
Flynt
Fogarty
Hall
Halleck
Hays _
Horan
Jackson
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7
1522'0 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Johnsen, Colo. Morgan
Keogh Morrison
Kilburn O'Brien, N.Y.
Kilday Osmers
Lipscomb Passman
McSween ' Pilcher .
Magnuson Pillion
Martin Powell
Mason Preston
Merrow Rivers, S.C.
Miner, N.Y. Rooney
Minshall Rostenkowski
Monagan Shipley
Moore Simpson, Pa.
So the bill was passed.
The Clerk announced
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Wampler for, with Mr. Dingell against..
Mr. Preston for, with Mr. Lipscomb against.
Mr. Horan for, with Mr. Taylor against.
Mr. Cederberg for, with Mr. Osmers against.
Mr. Collier for, with Mr. Teague of Cali-
fornia against.
Mr. Wainwright for, with Mr. Simpson of
Pennsylvania against.
Mr. Keogh for, with Mr. Taber against.
Mr.-Dollinger for, with Mr. Kilburn against.
Mr. Anfuso for, with Mr. Van Pelt against.
Mr. Farbstein for, with Mr. Minshall
against.
Mr. Teller for, with Mrs. Bolton against.
Mr. Williams for, with Mr. Bow against.
Mr. Winstead for, with Mr. Sinith of Cali-
fornia against.
Mr. Colmer for, with Mr. Jackson against.
Mr. Rooney for, with Mr. Becker against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Davis of Tennessee with Mr. Alger.
Mr. Morrison with Mr. Wharton.
Mr. Thompson. of Louisiana with Mr: Pil-
lion.
Mr. Abernethy with Mr. Martin.
Mr. Hays with Mr. Halleck.
Mr. Johnson of Colorado with Mr. Fino.
Mr. McSween with Mr. Dague.
Mr. Monagan with Mr. 1VIerrow.
Mr. Bowles with Mr. Moore.
Mr. Morgan with Mr. Miller of New York.
Mr. Pilcher with Mr. Mason.
Mr. Flynt with Mr. Dooley.
Mr. Evins with Mr. Canfield.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a
live pair with the gentleman from In-
diana /Mr. WAMPLER3. I voted "no."
If Mr. WAMPLER were present, he would
vote "yea." Therefore, I withdraw my
"no" vote and vote "present."
Mr. AYRES changed his vote from
"nay" to "yea."
Mr. THOMSON of Wyoming changed
his vote from "nay" to "yea."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
Smith, Calif.
Steed
Taber
Taylor ,
Teague, Calif.
Thompson, La.
-Udall
Van Pelt
Wainwright
Wampler
Wharton
Williams
Winstead
the following
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
Mr. THOMPSON of Texas. Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days
iii which to extend their remarks at
such point as they may wish in the
RECORD.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection. ?
AMENDING COMMUNICATIONS ACT
OF 1934
Mr. 'HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
?
Speaker's desk the bill (S. 2424) to
amend the Communications Act of 1934
in order to provide that the equal-time
provisions with respect to candidates for
public office shall not apply to news and
other similar programs, and agree to the
conference asked by the Senate.
?? The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Arkansas. [After a pause.] The Chair
hears none and appoints the following
conferees: Messrs. HARRIS, ROGERS of
Texas, FLYNT, MOSS, BENNETT of Michi-
gan, YOUNGER, and AVERY.
ADJOURNMENT OVER
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 Mas-
sachusetts?
There was no objection.
LABOR-MANAGEMENT REFORM
LEGISLATION
(Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey (at
the request of Mr. McConmAcx) was
granted permission to extend his re-
marks at this point in the REcom)
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr.
Speaker, because of many requests from
Members of the House and Senate for
information as to the effects of the
Landrum-Griffin bill, Senator KENNEDY
and I have prepared the following analy-
sis of that bill's secondary boycott and
hot cargo provisions. The following
analysis sets forth the differences be-
tween the bills passed by the House and
Senate:
SECONDARY BOYCOTTS AND HOT CARGO
CONTRACTS
The House and Senate bills contain radi-
tally different provisions dealing with ac-
tivities often brought under the misleading
slogan "secondary boycotts." The phrase
"secondary boycott" has no exact meaning
today. The nature of the differences be-
tween the House and Senate bills can only
be understood by agreeing upon more exact
terminology and talking about specific kinds
of activities or contracts.
Historically a "primary boycott" is a re-
fusal to have dealings with an offending
person. To induce customers not to buy
from an offending grocery store would be a
primary boycott. To persuade grocery
stores not to buy Swift products would still
be a primary boycott. For plumbing con-
tractors not to buy the products of United
States Pipe Co. would be a primary boycott.
In each case the only economic pressure is
leveled at the offending person?in terms
of labor cases at the employer involved in
the labor dispute.
The element of "secondary activity" is in-
troduced when there is a refusal to have
dealings with one who has dealings with the
offending person. If housewives refuse to
deal with any grocery store which deals
with Swift & Co., there is a secondary boy-
cott. It is also a secondary boycott for mem-
bers of the Plumbers Union to refuse to ?
work for any contractor who buys pipe from
United States Pipe Co. Strictly speaking
only the grocery store case is a boycott; the
plumbers case should be called a secondary
strike. But both are called secondary boy-
cotts so that we can distinguish only by
Aztiguk- 20
calling the rust a "secondary consumer boy-
cott" and the second, a "secondary boycott"
without qualification.
In all cases of secondary boycotts two
eMployers are involved. The union brings
pressure upon the employer with whom it
has a dispute (called the "primary" em-
ployer) by inducing the employees of an-
other employer (called the "secondary" em-
ployer) to go on strike?or the customers
not to patronize?until the secondary em-
ployer stops dealing with the primary em-
ployer. Or the union may simply induce
the employees of the secondary employer
to refuse to handle or work on goods?or
the customers not to buy?coming from the
primary employer as a way of putting pres-
sure upon him.
The present law unequivocally, forbids
secondary boycotts in which a union in-
duces the employees of a secondary employer
to strike or refuse to perform their normal
duties as a? way of putting economic pres-
sure on a primary employer. Section 8(b)
(4) (A) provides:
"(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice
for a labor organization Or its agents?
(4) to engage in, or to induce or en-
courage the employees of any employer to
engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal
in the course of their employment to use,
manufacture, process, transport, or other-
wise handle or work on any goods, articles,
materials, or commodities or to perform any
services, where an object thereof is: (A)
forcing or requiring any employer or self-
employed person to join any labor 6r em-
ployer organization or any employer or other
person to cease using, selling, handling,
transporting, or otherwise dealing in the
products of any other producer, processor, or
manufacturer, or to cease doing businesS
with any other person."
There is no dispute, therefore, about the
prohibition of "secondary boycotts" in the
sense in which the term was used by Sen-
ator Taft in 194'7 and is used in this memo-
randum. As Senator Taft said, section 8(b)
(4) (A) forbids all these secondary boycotts.
There is ground for controversy, however,
about three separate issues:
(1) Whether there are "loopholes" in sec-
tion 8(b) (4) (A) which can and should be
closed without interfering with legitimate
labor activities;
(2) Whether certain other activities and
agreements which are outside the term
"secondary boycotts" are so similar in their
effect that they should be prohibited; and
(3) Whether secondary consumer boy-
cotts should be prohibited.
The Senate bill takes a step in this direc-
tion by prohibiting hot cargo agreements by
comtnon carriers. It is subject to the criti-
cism that it does nothing about true loop-
holes iii the present law.
The House bill takes many long steps in
these directions. It is subject to the criti-
cism that it curtails essential labor activities
which cannot be fairly classed with second-
ary boycotts..
It now becomes necessary to deal Indetail
With specific activities.
1. RAILROAD AIRLINE, AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
The NLRA definitions of "employer" and
"employee" exclude various special categories
of employees among them agricultural work-
ers, Government employees and employees of
railroads and airlines who are subject to the
Railway Labor Act. Since section 8(b) (4)
presently speaks of inducing "the employees
of any employer," it does not apply to these
groups.
The House bill extends the prohibition to
secondary boycotts by agricultural workers.
Government employees and employees of rail-
roads and airlines. Apparently the theOry
is that the omission was simply a mistake
in the original draftsmanship.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 :
CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120007-7