HOUSE KILLS FARM BILL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 36
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 8, 2005
• Sequence Number: 9
• Publication Date: June 22, 1962
• Content Type: PERRPT

proved e V NGWeS $ Al 34oUA RE R LY
Weehly Report
VOL. XX
PAGES 1049-1081
No. 25
House Kills Farm Bill
Page 1049
THE
AUTHORITATIVE
REFERENCE ON
CONGRESS
AND POLITICS
REPRODUCTION
PROHIBITED
IN WHOLE
OR IN PART
COPYRIGHT 1962
BY
CONGRESSIONAL
QUARTERLY
INCORPORATED
1156 Nineteenth St., N. W.
Washington 6, D. C. A
FEderal 8-4660
House Sugar Bill ............... 1050
Welfare Innovations ............ 1059
Appropriations Feud ............ 1061
Youth Employment ............. 1065
HR 3 Reappears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to7o
Trade
Policy
Page 1063
WEEK ENDING JUNE 22, 1962
Renegotiation
Act
Page 1066
COURT REAPPORTIONMENT ACTIONS
Page 1071
SECTION INDEX
Congressional Boxscore.... ii Political Notes ........... 1071
Floor Action ........... 1049 ... Presidential Report... ... 1074
Around The Capitol ....... 1057 House Vote Chart ........ 1080
Committee Roundup........ 1068 Week In Congress ........ iv
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP64BOO346R000300100009-3
Congressional Boxscore
Party Line-up
MAJOR LEGISLATION IN 87th CONGRESS
Dem. GOP Vacancies
As of June 22, 1962
House Line-up 263 174 0
Senate Line-up 64 35 1
BILL
HOUSE
SENATE
STATUS
Welfare Revision (HR 10606)
R orte
3e0/62
Passed
3 15 62
Re orted
6/1 4/62
Medical Care for the Aged (HR 4222)
(S 909)
Hearings
Completed
Public Works (HR 10113)
(S 2965)
Reported
6/2/62
Re orted
45/62
Passed
5/28/62
Manpower Retraining (HR 8399)
(5 1991)
'87,0/61 orted
Passed
2/28/62
Reported
7/31/61
Passed
8/23/61
PL 87-415
3/15/62
Youth Employment (HR 10682)
(S404)
Reported
39/62
Reported
7/2/61
Literacy Test Restriction (HR 10034)
(S 2750)
Hearings
Completed
Hearings
Completed
Debate
Suspended
Aid to Education (HR 8890)
(S 1021)
Rrted
,7o 96 ]
Rejected
8/30/61
Reported
4/1 2/61
Passed
5/25/61
College Aid (HR 8900)
(S 1241)
Re orted
829/61
Passed
1/30/62
Reported
95/61
Passed
2/6/62
In
Conference
Medical School Construction (HR 4999)
(S 1072)
Re orted
3/24/62
Hearings
Completed
Postal Rate Increase (HR 7927)
Reported
8/7/61
Passed
1/24/62
Hearings
Underway
Federal Pay Raise (HR 10480)
Hearings
Underway
Hearings
Underway
Conflict-of-interest (HR 8140)
Re rted
7/61
Passed
8/7/61
Hearings
Completed
Omnibus Farm Program (HR 11222)
(S 3225)
Reported
5/16/62
Recommitted
6/21/62
Reported
4/27/62
Passed
5/25/62
Urban Affairs Plan (Plan No. 1)
Re orted
25/62
Disa proved
2/21/62
Hearings
Completed
Welfare-Pension Plans (HR 8723)
(S 2520)
Re ported
8 8/61
Passed
2/7/62
Re orted
98/61
Passed
2/7/62
PL 87-420
3/20/62
Mass Transit (HR 11158)
(S 3126)
Approved by
Subcommittee
Approved by
Subcommittee
Wilderness System (S 174)
Hearings
Completed
Re orted
727/61
Passed
9/6/61
Tax Revision (HR 10650)
orted
36/62
Passed
3/29/62
Hearings
Completed
Corporate, Excise, Travel Taxes (HR 11879)
Reported
5/24/62
Passed
6/6/62
Reported
6/18/62
Civil Defense (HR 10262)
Hearings
Completed
Reciprocal Trade Program (HR 11970)
6/12/662
Foreign Aid Authorization (HR 11921)
(S 2996)
Reported
6/7/62
Reported
5/28/62
Passed
6/7/62
UN Bond Issue (HR 9982)
(52768)
Reported
3/13/62
Passed
4/5/62
Sugar Act Extension (HR 11730)
(S 3290)
Reported
6/15/62
Passed
6/19/62
Hearings
Underway
Communications Satellites (HR 11040)
Reported
4/24/62
Passed
5/3/62
Re orted
62/62
Debate
Underway
CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY SERVICE
The standard refer.nce as the U.S. Congress for editor., scholar. and ref.r.nc. nbracan.. "
Editor and President: Henrietta and Nelson Poynter. Executive Editor: Thomas N. Schroth
Senior Writers: Elizabeth J. Brenner, William A. Karns, Carolyn Mathiasen, Helene C. Monberg, Neal R. Peirce, Spencer A. Rich.
Research Writers: Margaret Carroll, Stephen Chatrnuck, Launelia B. Elliott, John Andrew Hamilton Jr., Ruth Hussey, Elizabeth M. James, Leon Lederer, David C.
Niblack, David R. Tarr, Wayne Walker. Editorial Assistants: Anne Lora, Charles D. McCamey, Roberta E. Russell, James C. Whittemore.
News Editor: Robert C. Keith CQ Almanac Editor: Georgianna F. Rathbun
Publisher: Buel F. Weare. Business Manager: Walter E. Thomas. Production Supervisor: Walter W. Conklin,Jr.
Copyright 1962 by Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1156 Nineteenth St., N.W., Washington 6, D.C. All reproduction rights, including quotation, broadcasting and publication, ar
reserved for current editorial clients. Second rights are reserved, including use of Congressional Quarterly material ' paig supplements, advertisements and handbooks without
special permission. Rate ApprovedmFor release t2bbS ?64IY3' tli-VbPP6f8Ob346R000'31YO1OO009t-3 D.C.
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
8
Floor Action
48 DEMOCRATS JOIN GOP TO KILL PRESIDENT'S FARM BILL
By a 215-205 roll-call vote the House June 21 sent
back to the House Agriculture Committee, and in effect
killed, the President's bill (HR 11222) embodying supply-
management controls for wheat, corn and other feed
grains. (For voting, see chart p. 1080)
Voting for recommittal were 167 Republicans and
48 Democrats while 204 Democrats and only one Re-
publican, Phil Weaver (Neb.), voted against the motion.
Of the Democrats who voted against the bill, 31 were
from Southern states, and 17 were from Northern and
Western states: Southerners -- Texas (9); Mississippi
(5); Virginia (5); Louisiana (3); Florida (3); Tennessee
(3); Oklahoma (2); South Carolina (1). Northerners --
New York (3); Maryland (2); Pennsylvania (2); New
Mexico (2); California, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts,
Nevada, Ohio, Rhode Island and West Virginia (1 each).
Following recommittal, White House Press Secre-
tary Pierre Salinger issued a statement calling the action
a "staggering setback." He said that Republicans would
have to bear responsibility for the "continuing chaos"
resulting from failure to adopt the Administration pro-
posals. The President had urged bipartisan support of
the farm bill at his June 14 press conference. (Weekly
Report p. 1074)
The vote came as a surprise, for Administration
leaders had been predicting they would get enough votes
for passage. Prior to recommittal the House had turned
back, on a 122-224 standing vote, a substitute for the
feed grains and wheat controls section offered by Charles
B. Hoeven (R Iowa). The substitute would have extended
the current temporary wheat and feed grains programs
(which pay farmers who agree to reduce their planted
acreage), allowed wheat and feed grains farmers who
did not plant any of such crops to buy wheat or feed
grains from the Commodity Credit Corporation at low
prices for use or resale, and extended the conservation
reserve soil bank program, under which the Govern-
ment pays farmers to retire cropland and put it to con-
servation uses (such as tree cover).
The House also agreed by a 267-151 roll-call vote
to a committee amendment permitting the Secretary of
Agriculture to exempt deficit feed grains areas (which
consume more than they produce) from having to cut
acreage below the 1959-60 level. Such farmers, how-
ever, would not have been eligible for price supports.
In addition to the proposed permanent supply man-
agement controls for wheat and feed grains, HR 11222
contained one other commodity program -- incentive
payments to dairy farmers who voluntarily reduced their
sales of milk and dairy products. The bill also con-
tained: a long-range program of cropland retirement
under which the Government would assist farmers through
payments and loans to retire land and develop recrea-
tion and conservation facilities, such as lakes, picnic
areas and hunting reserves, as alternative sources of
revenue; authority for the Government to buy crops not
in the inventories of the Commodity Credit Corporation for
donation to needy foreign countries under the Food for
Peace program of economic assistance; and authority
to expand long-term credit sales of surplus commodities
in CCC stocks to foreign countries through private trade
channels.
However, the controversy over the bill centered on
the permanent controls programs, which would have of-
fered farmers a choice in a referendum between supply-
management controls and a free market in any year.
(Two-thirds of those voting would be required to effectu-
ate controls.)
In an avowed effort to attract enough votes to pass
HR 11222, the floor manager of the bill, Harold D. Cooley
(D N.C.), accepted a number of amendments designed to
liberalize controls on feed grains, and to offer sliding
supports between 50 percent of parity and zero in any
year farmers rejected controls in a referendum. The
amendments generally brought the controls in line with
those in the farm bill passed by the Senate May 25.
(Weekly Report p. 922)
Republicans charged that the bill was being "written
on the floor," then offered a steady stream of amendments
in an effort to gut or cripple the commodity programs.
Shortly before recommittal a Robert P. Griffin (R Mich.)
amendment to require that employees of the Department of
Agriculture must never outnumber farmers in the United
States was accepted by voice vote, then rejected by a 171-
230 standing vote hastily ordered by Democratic leaders.
BACKGROUND -- HR 11222 was reported May 16 by
the Agriculture Committee by a vote of 18-17. (Weekly
Report p. 884) The final vote was postponed three times
before Cooley was able to muster a majority for approval.
Floor debate was originally scheduled to begin June
12. However, House leaders June 11 postponed the debate
in order to round up more votes. Secretary of Agricul-
ture Orville L. Freeman said June 11 that the outcome
might turn on a single vote. He added that the American
Farm Bureau Federation "and certain segments of the
cattle industry" were using "concentrated pressure, big
money, resources and intimidation" to defeat the bill.
Freeman personally visited more than 50 Congressmen
to ask for their votes, prior to June 21.
(The Farm Bureau is generally opposed to strict
controls, favoring a return to a free market for agricul-
ture. Livestock growers feared that the bill would raise
the cost of feed grains and consequently of livestock and
might lead to controls on the livestock industry.)
The House Republican Policy Committee June 12 an-
nounced it was "unalterably opposed" to HR 11222, which
it termed "extremely bad legislation."
The House Governmental Operations Subcommittee
on Intergovernment Relations, investigating the Billie Sol
Estes case (see p. 1068), revealed June 15 that a letter
written in late 1961 by Martin Sorkin, a consultant to
Commercial-- Solvents Co. and former employee of the
Department of Agriculture under Republican Secretary
Ezra Taft Benson (1953-1961), said that a Republican
strategy meeting on farm legislation had decided that "it
was not the responsibility of the Republican party to offer
alternatives but to attack the Administration whenever
feasible." According to the letter, Sen. Barry Goldwater
(Continued on p. 1079)
Approved For Release 20051047?x" 62`.? CVR -'RDM4960'3 b603 0J 0v - 962 -- PAGE 1049
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA=RpP64B00346R000300100009-3
HOUSE APPROVES NEW QUOTAS, EXTENDS SUGAR ACT
The House June 19 passed by a 319-72 roll-call vote
and sent to the Senate a bill (HR 12154) extending the
expiring Sugar Act through 1966, and setting new quotas
for domestic and foreign sugar producing areas. (For
voting, see chart p. 1080)
HR 12154 was a committee bill, differing widely
from Administration requests in its provisions for
obtaining sugar from foreign countries. The Administra-
tion had recommended gradual elimination of country-by-
country quotas (and the premium prices paid to producers
in quota countries), and replacement by a global quota
under which producers in friendly nations could bid for
a share in the U.S. market. The sugar was to be bought
at the lowest price available. HR 12154, by contrast,
set quotas for more countries than in the current Act (see
chart p. 1052) and continued the premium rate of pay-
ments. Harold D. Cooley (D N.C.), chairman of the
House Agriculture Committee which reported the bill,
said during debate June 18 that the Committee was
better qualified to allocate foreign quotas than was the
State Department, which "would be primarily interested
in foreign policy."
HR 12154 was debated June 18 under a semi-closed
rule (H Res 691) granted on the same day by the House
Rules Committee -- swift action resented by some Repre-
sentatives. A motion to consider the rule was agreed
to on a 262-32 roll call. The rule permitted two amend-
ments to be offered to the bill: one -- sponsored by
Thomas G. Abernethy (D Miss.) -- would have required
the Secretary of Agriculture to set a national sugar
quota based on a minimum per capita consumption of
100 pounds of sugar; the other -- sponsored by Bob Dole
(R Kan.) -- proposed to eliminate special payments to
the Dominican Republic authorized in the bill. Both
amendments subsequently were rejected.
Before passing the bill the House rejected a motion
by Dole to recommit the bill to the Agriculture Com-
mittee with instructions to strike the provision authorizing
payment of $22,755,153.67 to the Dominican Republic.
This was the amount of import fees imposed by the
Executive Branch in 1960-61 on imports of "non-quota"
Dominican sugar -- sugar authorized to enter the United
States under the Cuban quota but assigned to other
countries on a year-to-year basis pending resumption of
friendly relations with Cuba. The roll-call vote of
174-222 closely followed party lines, with a majority of
Democrats voting against the Dole motion.
In debate on the Dole amendment, Cooley said that
failure to pay the money might lead to the collapse of the
Dominican government or expropriation of U.S. property.
Dole responded that Congress should not intervene in a
case which was before the courts. He said that the
Government-owned Dominican Sugar Co. and the
American-owned South Puerto Rico Sugar Co. were suing
the United States for return of the fees, and that the
Justice Department planned to contest the suit. Paul C.
Jones (D Mo.) said that the State Department had "indi-
cated it is going to give $22 million in aid" in any event.
Albert H. Quie (R Minn.) said the Republican leader-
ship had turned down his plan to offer, in a recommittal
motion, a substitute bill representing a compromise be-
tween the Administration bill and HR 12154, including a
modified version of the Administration's global quota
scheme.
Two other objections raised against HR 12154 were
that it did not afford domestic sugar producers -- par-
ticularly beet sugar producers - - a large enough share of
the market, and that the supply-management features of
the Act kept prices artificially high by "rigging" the
market.
Delbert L. Latta (R Ohio) said that the quotaassigned
to domestic beet areas -- 2,650,000 short tons -- could
lead to acreage controls on the 1963 crop, because
current beet production was approximately 2.8 million
tons. (Under the expiring Act domestic beet areas
were making up deficits caused by the inability of the
domestic offshore cane areas -- Hawaii, PuertoRicoand
the Virgin Islands -- to fill their quotas.) Latta added
that the 50,000 tons which HR 12154 set aside for new
growers was a "relatively small" reserve.
Background
U.S. sugar legislation is based on the Sugar Act of
1948, which was revised and extended in 1951, 1956, 1960
and 1961. In 1960 Congress authorized the President
to suspend the Cuban sugar quota, and to redistribute
it as "non-quota" sugar to countries which were capable
of supplying a part of it. It extended the Sugar Act for
three months, through March, 1961. In 1961 hurried
Congressional action resulted in a 15-month temporary
extension, through June 1962. (1961 Almanac p. 208)
In his budget recommendations for fiscal 1963 Presi-
dent Kennedy Jan. 18 asked Congress to enact a revision
of the Sugar Act which would permit the Government to
impose a variable sugar import fee equal to the difference
between the domestic market price for raw sugar and the
lower, world market price. This would have the effect
of "withdrawing" from foreign sugar producers pri-
vileged to sell to the U.S. market the amount above the
world market price -- called the premium -- which they
currently received.
Following the President's request, Administration
spokesmen said that country -by-country sugar quotas
could be dropped once the import fee was imposed
(removing the incentive to obtain a guaranteed share of
the U.S. sugar market), and a "global quota" installed
under which any friendly country could supply sugar at
the prevailing world market price.
According to State Department officials the "global
quota" would have a beneficial effect on the world market
price of sugar -- which was abnormally low during the
last quarter of 1961 and the first quarter of 1962 -- by
discouraging the uneconomical production of sugar. (They
said some countries had expanded their production in
order to qualify for a share of the Cuban quota.) In
addition, they said that the "global quota" would be in
line with the Administration foreign economic policy of
doing away with economic "zones of influence" in the
free world. Finally, they said, the "global quota"
would relieve the United States of having to decide which
countries to give quotas to.
Administration officials added that the receipts from
the variable import fee would be used to finance economic
aid to Latin American countries. (For Fact Sheet on
sugar legislation, see Weekly Report p. 800)
The Administration's sugar bill (HR 11730) was
introduced by Cooley May 14. (Weekly Report p. 858)
PAGE 1050 -- Wee4 ed T4 2-46 20O'5ta4p~',3,'."CIAdYRI Dp64B00346R000300100009-3
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
It proposed to retain quotas for all 11 countries which
currently have them, but to introduce the import fee
over a five-year period. All sugar brought into the
country to replace Cuban sugar (called "non-quota"
sugar) would become immediately subject to the full fee,
however. The Philippine quota was exempted from the
import fee. In addition, the Administration billproposed
to increase the share of the total market enjoyed by
domestic sugar producers.
The House Agriculture Committee June 15 reported
HR 12154, (H Rept 1829) by a vote of 28-5. Cooley had
introduced the bill on the same day. (The Committee
had held hearings on the Sugar Act May 15-25 -- Weekly
Report p. 937) Although the Committee adopted Ad-
ministration recommendations respecting the quotas for
domestic producers -- reached after months of negotiation
with the domestic industry -- it completely abandoned
the proposed import fee. In addition, it granted quotas
to 15 new countries (see chart).
The Committee also reduced the quota reserved for
Cuba from the 2.5 million tons proposed by the Adminis-
tration to 1.5 million tons (under the expiring law, the
Cuban quota was approximately 3 million tons), and re-
served the right to decide each year which countries
would receive "non-quota" allocations of this sugar,
pending resumption of diplomatic relations with Cuba.
The report said that "in making the temporary alloca-
tions after 1963 to other nations...the Congress will.. .take
into consideration" purchases of agricultural commodi-
ties from the United States. The Committee recom-
mended extending the Sugar Act through 1966.
The Committee adopted two other major amendments:
One, introduced by Charles B. Hoeven (R Iowa), authorized
the President to suspend the quota of any country which
nationalized or expropriated American-owned property
and did not make appropriate compensation within six
months.
The other, introduced by W.R. Poage (D Texas),
vice chairman of the Committee, authorized the Presi-
dent to suspend the quota of any country which denied a
fair share of its quota to American-owned sugar com-
panies producing in such countries.
(On Feb. 16, 1962 the Brazilian state of Rio Grande
do Sul expropriated property belonging to the Inter-
national Telephone and Telegraph Co., an American
corporation, culminating a long-standing disagreement
between the state and the company over rates and
franchise. To date, no settlement has been made. Both
the Senate and House foreign aid authorization bills
contain a clause authorizing the President to suspend aid
to countries expropriating American property without
making adequate compensation within six months. Weekly
Report p. 1009)
The Committee voted against permitting importation
of any of the 375,000 tons of refined sugar which had
formerly been included in the Cuban quota. The Adminis-
tration had proposed to allow entry of 250,000 tons.
The Committee rejected 10-22 a motion by Paul
Findley (R Ill.) to strike from the bill Section 18, inserted
by Cooley, which authorized payment to the government
of the Dominican Republic of $22,755,153.67. The amount
was intended to restore to the Dominican government and
to two private sugar companies, the American-owned
South Puerto Rico Sugar Co. and the Dominican-owned
Porcella Vicini Co., fees collected by the U.S. Govern-
ment between September 1960 and the end of March, 1961
on "non-quota" sugar imported from the Dominican
Republic. The import fee had been assessed in coopera-
tion with action taken by the Organization of American ~i
States against the regime of Dominican dictator Raphael
Leonidas Trujillo y Molina. However, no fee was charged
against Dominican sugar entering under regular quota.
The "non-quota" sugar had been assigned to the Domini-
can Republic under a formula for redistributing the Cuban I
quota which was laid down by Congress in 1960. On!
March 1961 Congress authorized a complete embargo on
imports of Dominican sugar. Trujillo was assassinated
in May 1961. Following resumption of diplomatic rela-
tions with the new government, the Administration lifted
restrictions against imports of Dominican sugar in Janu-
ary.)
The Committee report said that the money would go to
the Dominican government, which would return to the
South Puerto Rico Sugar Co. $6.8 million in Dominican
currency and approximately $1 million to the other private
company, on condition that they use the money (after taxes)
in accordance with the objectives of the Alliance for Pro-
gress, by distributing part of the profit to small farmers
and by using the rest for social and economic programs,
such as housing and roads. The report said that the
Dominican government would use the balance for the
benefit of the Dominican people." Finally, it said, the
South Puerto Rico Sugar Co. and the Dominican govern-
ment-owned firms currently seeking return of the fees
through the U.S. Court of Claims would abandon their
suits. The amendment was requested by the attorney for
the U.S.-owned firm.
In additional minority views attached to the report,
Rep. Bob Dole (R Kan.) said that the Department of Agri-
culture had written him that the fees were legally im-
posed, and that the Department of Justice had written that
it intended to offer a defense against the claims. Dole
said, "There is no apparent legal justification why Con-
gress should preempt the Executive and Judicial Branches
of Government in this instance."
Before approving HR 12154 the Committee rejected
by voice vote a substitute bill, offered by Albert H. Quie
(R Minn.), which would have set the Cuban quota at 2
million tons and authorized entry of a similar amount of
"non-quota" sugar under the import fee proposed by the
Administration, but only from countries agreeing to buy
surplus U.S. farm commodities in exchange. The remain-
ing amounts of the old Cuban quota (approximately one
million tons) was to be distributed to Western Hemisphere
countries. No import fee was to be charged against sugar
entering under country quotas. Quie outlined his proposal
in opposing views attached to the report. He said that HR
12154 denied "flexibility in administration of the Sugar
Act" and prohibited the President from "exercising his
responsibilities in our foreign policy."
Five other Republican members of the Committee
filed separate views on HR 12154: Findley, Delbert L.
Latta (Ohio), Don L. Short (N.D.), Catherine May (Wash.)
and Ralph Beermann (Neb.). Except for Findley, who op-
posed the whole supply-management framework of the
Sugar Act, the others said that domestic growers should
have been granted larger quotas and that foreign quotas
should have been tied to agreements to buy U.S. farm
products. Mrs. May and Short opposed assigning deficits
of domestic areas to foreign countries and favored assign-
ing them to other domestic areas, as under the current
COPYRIGHT 1962 CONGRESS IONA E OVARTER`Y I NC. Week ending June 22 1962 - - PAGE 1051
Reprodaction prohibited in whole arin part except by editorial clianis R
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64BOO346ROO0300100009-3
Postulating a total U.S. annual requirement of 9.7
million short tons of raw value sugar (the amount of
sugar currently estimated by the Department of Agricul-
ture as necessary to fulfill domestic needs while main-
taining stable prices), domestic sugar growing areas
were permitted to supply 5,186,500 short tons (53.5 per-
cent) under the expiring law. HR 12154 would increase
this to 5,810,000 short tons (59.89 percent) divided as
Expiring Law
Mainland beet sugar
2,110,627
2,650,000
Mainland cane
649,460
895,000
Hawaii
1,177,936
1,110,000
Puerto Rico
1,231,682
1,140,000
Virgin Islands
16,795
15,000
TOTAL
(While the mainland quotas were increased, the offshore
area quotas, which had proved to be too large under the
expiring Act, were decreased.)
Domestic producers would also receive 63 percent of
increased consumption above the proposed base figure of
9.7 million short tons, which would be prorated only to the
mainland cane and beet sugar areas. However, if an off-
shore domestic area produced more than its quota, the
area's quota in the next year would be increased - - at the
expense of the quotas for foreign countries except the
Philippines -- but to a level no higher than was in effect
immediately prior to enactment of HR 12154.
Under HR 12154, the foreign quotas would be calcu-
lated as follows: First the Philippines would be assigned
a quota of 1,050,000 short tons (but no percentage of
market growth). Then Canada, the United Kingdom, Bel-
gium and Hong Kong would be assigned a total of 1,332
tons (but no growth). The total of these allocations, plus
the total amount assigned to domestic producers, would
be subtracted from the total U.S. sugar requirements.
The remainder would be purchased from other foreign
countries according to the formula provided in HR 12154.
The following chart gives the percentage assigned
under HR 12154 to each of these countries and the amount
of each quota at 9.7 million tons, compared to the amount
proposed by the Administration and the amount in the
expiring law (in short tons, raw value). Countries which
received allocations of non-quota sugar in the distribution
of the Cuban quota in 1961 and 1962 are marked by an
asterisk (*). (One such country - - Ireland - - did not
receive a quota under HR 12154.) Countries which would
receive a share of the U.S. sugar market for the first time
are underlined.
Act. Beermann urged that the penalty for expropriation
of American property be made retroactive to January.
The House Rules Committee June 18 granted a-closed
rule that, however, allowed two amendments to be offered
to HR 12154. The Committee refused to let the Quie
proposal be offered on the floor.
PROVISIONS -- As passed by the House, HR 12154,
the Sugar Act Amendments of 1962:
HR 12154
Adminis-
Expiring
Country
Percent
Tonnage
tration bill
Low
Philippines*
--
1,050,000 980,000
980,000
Cubal
52.8%
1,500,000 2,584,277
3,208,425
Peru*
7.04
200,000 108,490
108,517
Dominican Republic* 7.04
200,000 96,274
96,307
Mexico*
7.04
200,000 79,986
80,109
Brazil*
6.69
190,000
British West Indies*
3.52
100,000
Australia*
1.76
50,000
Formosa*
1.58
45,000 4,072
3,802
French West Indies*
1.41
40,000
Colombia*
1.23
35,000
Nicaragua*
1.06
30,000 15,706
15,749
Costa Rica*
1.06
30,000 4,072
3,792
India*
1.06
30,000
Ecuador*
1.06
30,000
Haiti*
0.88
25,000 7,562
7,641
Guatemala*
0.70
20,000
Argentina
0.70
20,000
South ica
0.70
20,000
Panama-
0.53
15,000 4,072
3,802
El Salvador*
0.35
10,000
Paraguay*
0.35
10,000
British Honduras
0.35
10,000
Fiji Islands*
0.35
10,000
Netherlands*
0.35
10,000 4,072
3,940
Mauritius
0.35
10,000
Canada
--
631 631
631
United Kingdom
--
516 516
516
Belgium
--
182 182
182
Hong Kong
--
3 3
3
84
84
I When the Cuban quota is suspended by the President, a like amount is al.
located as "non-quota" sugar to specified countries.
2Included in total for British West Indies.
Non-quota sugar. Under HR 12154, the Cuban quota
would be redistributed as non-quota sugar to the follow-
ing countries:
Country
Philippines* 10. %
150,000 short tons
Peru * 10.
150,000
Dominican Republic* 10.
150,000
Mexico* 10.
150,000
Brazil* 10.
150,000
British West Indies* 10.
150,000
Australia* 10.
150,000
Formosa* 10.
150,000
India * 6.67
100,000
South Africa 6.67
100,000
Mauritius 6.66
100,000
(Countries which formerly received non-quota alloca-
tions are starred.)
Extended the Sugar Act through Dec. 31, 1966.
Provided a new formula for determining the price
level of sugar in the United States, under which the Secre-
tary of Agriculture would set the sugar requirements of
the nation at a level which would yield a relationship be-
tween the price for sugar and the parity index comparable
to the relationship that prevailed in 1957-1959. (The
parity index shows the relationship between prices paid
for farm and non-farm goods.)
PAGE 1052 -- Week ending June 22, 1962 R.Fmd ?P ~R; oh`b edz;, h elio55^?- by di-i
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64BOO346ROO0300100009-3
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
Set new quotas for domestic sugar producing areas,
the Philippines and other foreign areas. (See chart.)
Authorized the President to suspend the quota of any
country with which the United States had broken off diplo-
matic relations, and provided a formula for redistributing
such quotas through 1963. (See chart of "non-quota"
sugar)
Provided that if a country could not fill its non-quota
allocation the deficit would be prorated to the other au-
thorized countries first, or if necessary, to any foreign
country.
Required that all "non-quota" sugar be imported in
raw form, unless it were not "reasonably available."
Required the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce the
quota of any country, with a quota or non-quota allocation
of more than 10,000 tons, which failed to meet its quota
by more than 10 percent during a year in which the world
price for sugar at any time exceeded the domestic price,
unless he determined that the failure was due to crop
disaster or force ma.eure, or that the reduction would be
contrary to the objectives of the Act (to maintain a steady
supply of sugar at stable prices). The reduction would
equal the amount of the country's deficit.
Prohibited imports of sugar from countries which
themselves imported more sugar than they exported to
countries other than the United States and required quotas
to be filled with locally grown sugar.
Provided that deficits caused by the inability of any
area to fill its quota be proportionately divided between
the Philippines and other foreign quota holding countries,
and provided a formula for obtaining the sugar if such
countries were unable to supply it.
Made the sugar content of any product or mixture
that did not have a history of importation during three
years between 1955 and 1960 subject to the quota re-
strictions of the Act, at the discretion of the Secretary.
Established formulas governing the amount of refined
sugar which could be imported from Hawaii and Puerto
Rico, and permitted import of 56,000 tons of refined
sugar under the Philippine quota annually.
Eliminated the provision in the current Cuban quota
allowing entry of 375,000 tons of refined sugar.
Established a formula governing entry of refined
sugar from other foreign countries, limited to those
with quotas of 20,000 tons or less.
Established a new quota for liquid sugar (molasses)
imported from foreign countries.
Prohibited imports into the Virgin Islands of any
sugar not produced on U.S. territory.
Authorized the Secretary of Agriculture, when de-
termining proportionate shares for sugarbeet or sugar-
cane farms (for any year in which he determined it
necessary to hold down production), to take into account
past production and the capacity of the farm, or the
farmer's production history, except in states where the
history was not used prior to 1962 for establishing pro-
portionate shares.
Required the Secretary to set aside each year from
the national sugarbeet requirement the acreage (about
20,000 acres) required to produce 50,000 tons of sugar.
The reserve would be distributed to "new and small
producers" in order to provide acreage for "growth and
expansion of the beet sugar industry." (The reserve
would be distributed among new growers in old areas,
new growers in new areas, and old growers in areas
which did not have enough acreage to support a process-
ing plant.)
Floor Action - 5
Gave the President discretion to suspend the quota
of any country which divided its quota so as to discriminate
against U.S. citizens.
Required the President, unless he determined it in-
consistent, with the national interest, to suspend the quota
of any country which expropriated, nationalized or seized
control of property belonging to United States citizens,
or which imposed on U.S. property or citizens discrim-
inatory taxes or restrictive maintenance or operational
conditions, and which had not taken "appropriate" steps
to redress its action.
Required the President to pay to the Dominican Re-
public a sum equal to the fees collected on non-quota
sugar purchased from the Dominican Republic between
Sept. 26, 1960 and March 31, 1961, provided that claims
against the Government for the amounts were dropped,
and provided the private firms involved agreed to use the
funds to "further the economic or social development of
the Dominican Republic."
AMENDMENTS REJECTED
June 18 -- Thomas G. Abernethy (D Miss.) -- Re-
quire the Secretary of Agriculture to set a minimum na-
tional sugar quota equal to 100 pounds of sugar per capita
plus normal carryover stocks. Voice vote.
Bob Dole (R Kan.) -- Delete the requirement to re-
store to the Dominican Republic fees collected on non-
quota Dominican sugar that entered the U.S. between
Sept. 26, 1960 and March 31, 1961. Standing, 74-92;
teller, 77-95.
TEXTILE IMPORTS
The Senate and the House June 14 by voice votes
agreed to the conference report on a bill (HR 10788 --
H Rept 1817) extending the President's authority to regu-
late imports of textiles and agricultural products.
As signed into law (PL 87-488) June 19, HR 10788
amended Section 204 of the 1956 Agricultural Act, which
authorized the President to negotiate agreements with
foreign governments regulating trade in such commodi-
ties. The new grant of authority permitted the President,
whenever a multilateral agreement existed between the
United States and countries "accounting for a significant
part of world trade" in given commodities, to regulate
imports of the commodities from countries which were
not party to the agreement.
BACKGROUND -- HR 10788, an Administration bill,
was designed to close loopholes in an international agree-
ment reached Feb. 9 at Geneva, Switzerland, by 19
nations representing 90 percent of free world trade in
cotton textiles. Under the terms of the agreement the
United States could "freeze" the imports of any country
at a certain level, and then allow small annual increases.
(Under a similar interim agreement concluded in 1961,
the United States had obtained voluntary restraint on
exports to the United States from Spain and Japan, and
had acted to restrict excessive imports from Hong Kong.)
The bill had strong backing from cotton textile interests.
(For background of the cotton textile agreement, see
Weekly Report p. 279.)
HR 10788 passed the House April 11 by a 312-80
vote and the Senate May 17 by an 80-3 vote. Critics of
the bill charged that it was "special interest legislation"
and part of a "deal" to gain support for Administration
trade and tax measures. Prior to passage, both the
Senate and the House rejected amendments which would
COPYRIGHT 1961 CONGRESSIONAL OUARi ERLY INC.
R.pmd-., p,,hlbIt.d h whd.-1 In Pnrl ea bp, by.dIE0 MAN Week ending June 22, 1962 -- PAGE 105
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
have required the President to negotiate agreements
restricting imports of meats -- particularly lamb -- be-
fore enforcing provisions of the cotton textile agreement.
However, the Senate adopted an amendment to authorize
the President to take steps to similarly limit imports of
livestock, poultry, dairy and timber products "when in
his judgment such imports seriously affect domestic
producers."
The conference report on HR 10788 was issued June
12. The House managers said that the conference had
rejected the Senate amendment because "the conferees
did not want to interfere in any way with the textile nego-
tiations conducted under Section 204." They held that
the President already had ample authority under Section
204 to undertake any necessary steps to protect meat,
dairy and timber products and urged him to assist any
such commodity adversely affected by imports.
The conferees also dropped a Senate amendment
which required that action taken under the bill be consist-
ent with Trade Agreements Acts policy, because the pro-
viso "would appear to create an indefinite rule and its
effects could not be foreseen."
SMALL BUSINESS LOANS
The Senate June 14 passed by voice vote and sent to
the House an amended bill (S 2970) to increase by $250
million the authorization for the Small Business Adminis-
tration's revolving fund. The new authorization would be
$1,450,000,000. The Senate rejected an amendment by
William Proxmire (D Wis.) to reduce the increase by $24
million and adopted an amendment by Leverett Saltonstall
(R Mass.) to require the SBA to report to Congressional
committees expenditures in excess of specific amounts.
S 2970 combined in a single revolving fund SBA's
disaster loan authority and its regular business loan and
prime contracting authority which were merged in 1961.
The new combined fund would have an authorization of
$1,109,000,000 for loans outstanding. The bill also made
a $16 million increase, to $341 million, in the authoriza-
tion for the Small Business Investment Corporation
(SBIC) programs under the Small Business Investment
Act of 1958. Total SBA authorizations thus would be
$1,450,000,000.
The bill also changed the method of computing in-
terest that the SBA pays the Treasury for funds advanced
for its lending programs. This and other technical
changes were supported by both agencies.
Pooling of regular business and disaster loans was
intended to increase the flexibility of the SBA. The dis-
aster fund has seldom been fully used while the demand
for regular loans often has exceeded the authorization.
Saltonstall said his amendment for Congressional review
of expenditures would prevent possible depletion of funds
available for disaster loans.
Most of the debate on the bill was directed to the
amendment by Sen. Proxmire to reduce the $250 million
increase proposed by the Senate Banking and Currency
Committee. Proxmire, chairman of the Committee's
Small Business Subcommittee, said the Senate should
"take a look at the way the SBA is operating and the way
it has expanded." Since 1959 the regular loan program
had expanded from $290 million to $735 million. He esti-
mated that $2.5 billion would be required by the end of
1967 for regular and SBIC loans. "Only approximately
25,000 of the 4% million small businesses in America
have ever received a small business loan," he said, and
many loans were being made in areas where ample bank-
ing facilities exist. The Senator also argued that much
of the loan money was allotted to a few big loans, that
some 40 percent of the loans were not to expand business
but to refinance existing debts and that many loans were
for enterprises that contribute little to growth and ern-
ployment, such as bowling alleys and motels.
In support of the higher authorization, Sen. John J.
Sparkman (D Ala.), chairman of the Select Committee
on Small Business, said the Proxmire amendment was
"a shortsighted approach to the problem which has
plagued the Small Business Administration in recent
years." The SBA has been in "an awkward situation"
when demands on its loan funds unexpectedly increased,
he said. The SBA must first obtain an authorization and
then an appropriation of more funds, thus requiring time-
consuming justifications before four committees. The
recommended increase, he said, provided a "cushion
against emergency demands upon the SBA" but would not
necessarily be appropriated in a lump sum.
AMENDMENT ACCEPTED
June 14 -- Leverett Saltonstall (R Mass.) -- Require
the SBA to report promptly to the Appropriations and
Banking and Currency Committees of both houses when-
ever the aggregate amount outstanding on regular business
and prime contract loans exceeds $1,012,200,000 and on
disaster loans exceeds $96,800,000. Voice vote.
AMENDMENT REJECTED
June 14 -- William Proxmire (D Wis.) -- Reduce by
$24,000,000 the total authorization ceiling for loans by
the SBA. Voice vote.
BACKGROUND -- President Kennedy and the SBA
originally requested that the ceiling on loan authoriza-
tions be removed entirely. Hearings on S 2970 were held
April 12 by the Subcommittee on Small Business of the
Committee on Banking and Currency and the bill was
reported (S Rept 1542) June 5. (For a summary of last
year's action on the SBA, see 1961 Almanac p. 487)
The House Banking and Currency Committee June
16 reported a bill (HR 12121 -- HRept 1830) dealing with
the SBA authorization that was considerably different than
the Senate version. The bill would increase the over-all
authorization ceiling to $2.6 billion and empower the SBA
to make loans to firms injured by imports as provided in
the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (HR 11970), currently
pending before the House. (Weekly Report p. 1028) In
addition, the bill would consolidate the loan ceiling for
regular business and prime contracts (already merged
in 1961 legislation) with the ceiling for the SBICs estab-
lished under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958.
The fund for disaster loans would remain separate but:
would be increased from $150 million to $160 million.
The import injury fund would be financed by annual
appropriations but not by additions to the revolving fund.
The bill expressly provided that "this authority is in
addition to and separate from its (SBA's) authority to
make loans under the Small Business Act." The SBA
could make loans with maturities up to 25 years to firms
of all sizes and without restriction on amount.
The substantially larger $2.6 billion ceiling of the
House bill resulted from the Committee's desire to place
the SBA authorization on more than a year-to-year basis.
Increased SBA lending plus the necessity in recent years
for annual expansion of loan authorization for the re-
volving fund prompted the Committee to recommend a
figure "sufficient on the basis of current SBA projected
estimates to last through June 1966."
PAGE 1054 -- Week ending June 22, 1962..,~_Z_h;,5d;'?h ;RsS^?"" ?~.R,ER Y INC.
Approved For Release 2005/04/1 1 :F C:TA bP64B00346R000300100009-3
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITES
The Senate June 14 began debate on a bill (HR 11040)
to provide for the establishment, ownership and operation
of a commercial communications satellite system. The
bill, passed May 3 by the House, embodied President
Kennedy's proposals for a privately owned corporation.
In addition, it contained committee amendments to
strengthen the regulatory provisions of the bill. (Weekly
Report p. 1027)
As debate on the bill opened, Democratic opponents
pursued their fight against private ownership of the sys-
tem.. It was defended by Sen. John O. Pastore (D R.l.),
floor manager of the bill, who said "the whole operation
involving communications in the United States is a
private enterprise."
The lead-off opposition speaker, Russell B. Long (D
La.), charged that the bill had been "drawn on the basis
of...premature pressure, which for the most part had
emanated from... the American Telephone and Telegraph
Co...." He said June 18 that "we have been subjected to
lobbying the like of which the Congress has not seen
recently" and passage of the bill would result in a give-
away to AT&T.
Long said domination of the system by AT&T would
preclude competition from other companies and might
prevent development of the most efficient system. He
said it "might easily be to the advantage of AT&T to place
into orbit a low altitude system which would prove to be
impracticable and could become obsolete even before it
went into full operation." He said AT&T was "not anxious
to see the synchronous system go into operation," and it
would be "to the immediate profit advantage" of AT&T
to "see to it that the system did not make money for
years to come." (For description of proposed systems,
see Weekly Report p. 752)
Long said he was "not opposed to private ownership,
eventually, of a communications satellite system," but
was against "giving a satellite system or the right to
establish one to any particular corporation before we
know what we are doing, before we have it, and before we
are in a position to assure ourselves that maximum com-
petition for the benefit of the public will be available."
Pastore said the legislation had been "tightened...up
so much to protect the public interest that the FCC will
have the right to scrutinize every charge that is made,"
and to supervise competitive bidding for building terminal
stations. He said AT&T would not dominate the corpora-
tion unless the FCC allowed it to do so. Long replied that
the FCC said "that in 24 years it has never been able to
state what the rate base is" for AT&T or whether or not
it was reasonable.
Answering charges that the leadership was trying to
rush the bill through Congress, Pastore said June 19 it
would be "a terrible thing to postpone this bill until next
year." Other nations were working to put communica-
tions satellites into orbit, and "the big question is, who
will get there first?" He warned that "there are only so
many frequencies. available for use in space, and if a
country should preempt those frequencies before we do,.
we will be in a very unfortunate position."
Pastore invited opponents of the bill, who included
Estes Kefauver (D Tenn.) and Ralph W. Yarborough (D
Texas), to take their case to the White House. "It's the
President's. bill, not mine," he said. Long said the
President should submit a new bill for a truly compe-
titive private system.
ALL-CHANNEL TELEVISION SETS
The Senate June 14 passed by voice vote a bill
(HR 8031.) authorizing the Federal Communications Com-
mission to require television set manufacturers to equip
all sets for sale in interstate commerce to receive the 70
ultra high frequency (UHF) channels in addition to the 12
very high frequency (VHF) channels most sets now pick
up. The bill was returned to the House. for action on a
Senate committee amendment stipulating that all sets must
be capable of "adequately receiving all channels" instead
of just "receiving all channels" as under the House bill.
It was estimated that all-channel sets, when mass pro-
duced, would cost approximately $20 more than the cur-
rent price of VHF-only sets.
Before passage of the bill Minority Leader Everett
McKinley Dirksen (R I11.) offered an amendment to pro-
hibit the FCC from instituting deintermixture proceed-
ings without Congressional consent. (Under deinter-
mixture proceedings the Commission deletes the VHF
channel in an area which can receive only one VHF
channel but many UHF channels.. The aim is to increase
the number of television stations -- the same object as
HR 8031. See Fact Sheet, Weekly Report p. 667) Dirk-
sen withdrew the amendment on the assurance of Sen.
John O. Pastore (D R.I.) that the Commission would notify
Congress before it took any further deintermixture
action but found such an amendment "a little too
restrictive."
BACKGROUND -- HR 8031 was reported (S Rept 1526)
May 24 by the Senate Commerce Committee. It was
passed by the House May 2 on a 279-90 roll call-vote.
(Weekly Report p. 935)
EQUAL PAY ACT
The House June 15 postponed, for an indefinite
period, action on a bill (HR 11677) to require companies
engaged in interstate commerce and employing more than
25 persons to pay equal wages to men and women doing
comparable work. A rule for debate on the bill was
adopted by voice vote June 14 but the Democratic leader-
ship June 15 called off scheduled debate when it learned
that Republicans proposed to call up 10 or more amend-
ments to the bill.
Rep. Herbert Zelenko (D N.Y.), floor manager of the
bill, said he wanted to study the amendments before pro-
ceeding with the bill but he opposed suggestions that the
bill be recommitted for further study.
HR 11677 was reported (H Rept 1714) May 17 by the
Education and Labor Committee. (Weekly Report p. 881)
In brief debate on the rule June 14, Rep. Katharine
St. George (R N.Y.) said, "I do not see how anyone would
dare be against (the bill). It would be like being against
motherhood." She and several other Congresswomen
expressed hope that enactment of the bill would stimu-
late adoption of a constitutional amendment guaranteeing
equal rights to women.
Rep. Phil M. Landrum (D Ga.), however, said the
bill was "disguised in a lot of sweet-scented kimonos,
with a lot of tricks and...pitfalls in it that can wreak
havoc with women in employment and can work untold
harassment on the employers of this country." He said
it would. nullify 22 states' equal pay laws and, by its
grants of discretionary authority, make a "czar" of
the Secretary of Labor..
COPYRIGHT 1962 CONGRESSIONAL OUARTERLY INC. Week ending June 22, 1962 -- PAGE 1055
UR,.dcclion prohibited in whole ., in parr .xcept by ,di-1.1 H-,
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
SENATE RULE AMENDED
The Senate June 14 by voice vote adopted-a resolu-
tion (S Res 37) amending Senate Rule XIX to require that
the presiding officer must rule on whether one Senator
has spoken disparagingly about another during the course
of Senate debate and must therefore take his seat. The
ruling would be subject to appeal by either Senator.
Under the former Rule XIX, a Senator who felt he had
been spoken of disparagingly could raise a point of order
and require that the speaker take his seat without any
ruling by the chair or the Senate.
There was no debate on the change in the rule, which
was sponsored by Sen. Joseph S. Clark (D Pa.). However,
at a June 16, 1961 hearing by the Senate Rules and Ad-
ministration Committee's Subcommittee on Standing
Rules of the Senate, Clark said the existing rule had
"become a deterrent to frank and free debate" and was
frequently abused. The Rules and Administration Com-
mittee favorably reported S Res 37 May 23, 1962 (S
Rept 1521).
This was one of nine rules changes sponsored by
Clark. The other eight were reported unfavorably May
23, 1962 by the Subcommittee, and the full Committee the
same day accepted the Subcommittee's recommendations.
Clark's other proposals were:
S Res 9 -- Require that a majority of Senate con-
ferees on a bill must have voted in favor of it and must
concur with the majority of the Senate on provisions
over which the House and Senate disagree.
S Res 10 -- Permit Committees to meet while the
Senate is in session unless a majority of the Senate or the
committee itself bars the committee from meeting. Under
existing rules, unanimous consent is required to permit
a committee meeting during a Senate session, and con-
sequently the objection of one Senator can block a meeting.
S Res 12 -- Require a majority vote for a readingof
the Journal of the previous day. Under existing rules,
unanimous consent is required to dispense with the read-
ing of- the Journal. Although unanimous consent is almost
always obtained, anyone desiring to delay Senate busi-
ness can require the reading of the Journal.
S Res 13 -- Provide that while the Senate is con-
sidering any measure, any Senator may move that all
further debate be germane to the subject under considera-
tion and that if the motion is approved by the Senate, no
irrelevant subjects may be brought up. Under existing
rules, a Senator may obtain the floor during a debate on,
say, foreign aid, and give a three-hour speech on a recla-
mation project in his state or any other matter he chooses.
S Res 14 -- Permit a majority of any committee to
convene meetings of the committee, consider any matter
within the jurisdiction of the committee, and end com-
mittee debate on a given measure by moving the previous
question.
S Res 35 -- Permit a Senator to have his remarks
printed in the Congressional Record in large type, whether
or not he actually delivered them. Under existing rules,
remarks not actually delivered are to be printed in small-
er type. Clark June 14 said the rule should be changed
because even under the existing rules a Senator could
read only a few lines of a speech, but the entire speech
would be printed in large type. "The way we administer
the present rule is a fraud on the public," Clark said.
S Res 36 -- Provide that when any Senator had held
the floor for more than three consecutive hours, a Senator
could object to his continuing to hold the floor, and he
would have to yield. "If one cannot make his argument in
three hours, he has not an argument worth listening to,"
Clark said.
S Res 38 -- Write into Senate rules the customary
three-minute limit on Senators' remarks during the
"morning hour," the time set aside before the beginning
of each legislative day for Senators to make brief re-
marks, place items in the Record, etc., but not for the
consideration of legislation. Clark pointed out in testi-
mony before the Subcommittee that the "morning hour"
usually lasted two hours and that Senators frequently
exceeded the three-minute limitation.
In a June 14 Senate speech outlining his proposals,
Clark said he believed that "Congress has clung to out-
moded customs and prerogatives which should have dis-
appeared before World War I. and that became not only
antiquated but dangerous with the advent of the atomic
bomb.... Its machinery is cumbersome and its legislative
structure old and creaky.... I suggest that there would
be very little talk about Presidential grab for power or
Supreme Court usurpation of power if Congress were on
its toes and exercising its powers as the Founding
Fathers expected the Legislative Branch of the Govern-
ment to do."
MONETARY FUND LOAN
The Senate June 14 passed by voice vote and sent to
the White House a bill (HR 10162) to authorize the United
States to lend up to $2 billion to the International Mone-
tary Fund as part of a $6 billion standby currency stabili-
zation pool. The bill was approved without amendment as
recommended by the Foreign Relations Committee.
(Weekly Report p. 855) The House passed the bill April
2. (Weekly Report p. 542)
Discussion of the measure was limited to an expla-
nation by Sen. J.W. Fulbright (D Ark.), chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee. The outstanding feature of
the bill, Fulbright said, was that the U.S. would be the
primary beneficiary of the proposal. "A member does
not, of course, draw its own currency but the convertible
currencies of other nations, for the purpose of bolstering
reserves and increasing confidence in its monetary posi-
tion," he said. Although the Fund held sufficient U.S.
dollars and pounds sterling at the beginning of the year, it
had rather low reserves of convertible European curren-
cies which the U.S. would need if it used the Fund. Thus,
acceptance of the plan would make available an additional
$3 billion of the kinds of currencies the U.S. might need,
Fulbright said. He emphasized that the U.S. does not an-
ticipate drawing on the Fund. He said also that it was
"highly unlikely" the U.S. would have to contribute its
$2 billion pledge "in the foreseeable future." The pledge
of money was necessary, he argued, because (1) benefits
of the plan "will be confined to those nations which accept
responsibility in terms of the loan schedule," (2) the other
members would participate only on the basis of "strict
reciprocity," (3) the U.S. had to show it was ready to help
other participants if they developed balance-of-payment
problems in the future. The participating nations are:
Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the
Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the U.S.
PAGE 1056 -- Week ending June 22, 1 2 C ^RIGHT 1967 CONGRESSIONAL GUARTERLV INC.
Approved For Rere asd? 'Ob'Sh1Y41"i'3"' C1'A=RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
Around The Capitol
LABOR DISPUTES
The Kennedy Administration played an active role
in three current labor-management disputes:
? FLIGHT ENGINEERS -- Secretary of Labor Arthur
J. Goldberg June 21 announced that an agreement had
been reached by Trans World Airlines and the Flight
Engineers International Assn. ending a strike threat by
the union. Goldberg had met with negotiators for the
airlines and the flight engineer's union in nearly con-
tinuous session since June 18 in attempts to avert a
strike. President Kennedy in his June 14 press conference
urged the union not to strike and warned that a strike
would "seriously damage" the economy. He pointed out
that the Government had actively sought to help the union
and airlines reach agreement for 17 months. (For text
of press conference, see p. 1074)
The dispute involved the Flight Engineers union and
three airlines: Trans World, Pan American World Air-
ways and Eastern. The major issue revolved about a
planned reduction in jet cockpit crews from four to three
men. The Flight Engineers wanted the third man to be a
flight engineer represented by their union; the Air Line
Pilots Assn. wanted him to be a pilot (with a flight en-
gineers' certificate) to be represented by their union.
The Flight Engineers opposed any plan calling for a
merger of the two unions. Goldberg said the June 21
agreement was obtained by "genuine collective bar-
gaining" and assured the continued identity of the Flight
Engineers Union. However, the Flight Engineers Pan
Am and Eastern chapters the same day said the TWA
agreement was unacceptable.
?? AMERICAN AIRLINES -- President KennedyJune20
created a Presidential emergency board under the Rail-
way Labor Act to investigate a wage dispute between
American Airlines and the Transport Workers Union.
The Board will have 30 days to investigate and report
its findings; a strike can not be called until 30 days after
the report is issued.
?IREPUBLIC AVIATION -- Federal District Judge
Walter Bruchhausen June 20 ordered an 80dayinjunction
halting a strike against the Republic Aviation Corp. in
Farmingdale, L.I. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy
in an affidavit filed with the court said the strike af-
fected a substantial part of the nation's tactical fighter
production industry and imperiled national safety.
COURT LABOR DECISIONS
The Supreme Court June 18 in a 5-3 decision ruled
that federal courts do not have the power to halt strikes
called in violation of no-strike provisions of collective-
bargaining agreements. Justices William J. Brennan,
William O. Douglas and John Marshall Harlan dissented.
The majority stated that provisions in the Norris-
LaGuardia Act of 1932 were not repealed by the Taft-
Hartley Act of 1947. Under the 1932 law, federal courts
have no jurisdiction to issue injunctions "in any case in-
volving or growing out of any labor dispute." Under the
1947 law, either party to a collective bargaining agree-
ment can sue in federal court over violations of contract.
Unions can obtain orders to compel employers to abide
by arbitration clauses and employers can collect damages
from unions for violating no-strike clauses. (The current
ruling in effect means that unions can be sued for dam-
ages if they strike in violation of no-strike agreements,
but federal courts cannot issue injunctions against such
strikes.)
Justice Brennan in dissent said the decision "deals
a crippling blow to the cause of grievance arbitration."
In a separate decision, the court unanimously ruled
that employers cannot collect damages from individual
employees as agents for the union as well as from the
union itself in suits filed for violation of no-strike agree-
ments. Justice Byron R. White, in his first written
opinion, pointed out that the Court was not ruling on
whether individuals would be liable for damages if work
stoppage was their own - and not the union's - doing.
ATOMIC TESTS
The United States June 20 failed for the second time
within a month to detonate a high-altitude megaton-plus
nuclear device as part of the current high atmosphere
nuclear explosion test series. The destroyed device was
to have provided new information about the Van Allen
radiation belt and its association with radar and radio
communications. (Weekly Report p. 82~, 663)
The device was purposely destroyed following a
malfunction of the missile. The previous megaton-plus
high altitude test attempted June 4 was aborted when the
missile tracking system failed to operate adequately.
In both instances the debris fell into the Pacific Ocean.
The Atomic Energy Commission said there was no
danger to human life and no hazardous levels of radio-
activity were established in the ocean.
During the current test series, begun April 25, the
U.S. had successfully exploded 21 lower level devices.
MIGRANT WORKERS
Labor Secretary Arthur J. Goldberg in a June 15
letter to House Speaker John W. McCormack (D Mass.)
urged House passage of five Senate-passed bills to aid U.S.
migrant farm workers. He said the bills, which were
endorsed Jan. 17 by President Kennedy, would "do
much to improve the welfare of migratory farm workers
and their families."
Two of the five bills (S 1123 and S 1126) have been
reported by the House Education and Labor Committee
and currently await House Rules Committee action. S 1123
would, except under certain circumstances, bar employ-
ment of children under 14 in agriculture; S 1126 would
require federal registration and licensing of labor con-
tractors who supply migrant workers to farmers. The
remaining three bills -- to improve educational oppor-
tunities for migrants (S 1124) to improve health facili-
ties for migrants (S 1130) and to set up an advisory
council on migratory labor (S 1132) --await House Com-
mittee action. (Weekly Report p. 882)
COPYRIGHT 1962 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.
R.P",hIcli-p,.hi6II.d in A.I. or In po,. except by .dlmri.l ~Il.~,. Week ending June 22, 1962 -- PAGE 1057
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
RECESSION UNPREDICTED
Commissioner of Labor Statistics Ewan Clague June
19 in an Atlantic City speech said that historical eco-
nomic trends suggest that another recession may occur
in 1963. (Weekly Report p. 1014) The following day, after
talking with Secretary of Labor Arthur J. Goldberg, Clague
issued a statement saying that his remarks "should not
be interpreted as predicting a possible recession in 1963.
Rather I was explaining that historic trends, which show
a downturn in the economy every three to three- and- one-
half years, when projected, indicated an economic peak
might be reached sometime in 1963 which might be
followed by a business downturn. It does not follow, of
course, that there will be a recession, and the basic
economic situation at the present time shows no signs
of such a downturn."
Clague was quoted in his speech, delivered in Atlan-
tic City, as saying that a recession had been expected
for next year even before the stock market fell. "The
only question has been exactly when it is coming," he
was quoted as saying.
What's Ahead?
-0
Committee Hearings
June 25 -- AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM (Hit
10519), House Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
Health and Safety Subc.
June 26 -- PROTECTION OF THE GOLDEN EAGLE
(S J Res 105), Senate Commerce, Special Subc.
June 26 -- AIR AND RAIL TRANSPORTATION LEGIS-
LATION (HR 11583 and HR 11584), House Interstate
and Foreign Commerce.
June 27 -- INVESTIGATION OF BILLIE SOL ESTES,
Senate Government Operations, Permanent Subc. on.
Investigations.
July 10 -- AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 315 OF THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT, Senate Com-
merce, Communications Subc.
Political Events
CAPITOL BRIEFS
LABOR UNION ASSETS -- Labor Secretary Arthur
J. Goldberg June 14 reported that U.S. labor unions had
net assets of over $1.3 billion. He said the wealthiest
union was the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, with assets of $111,311,000.
STATE DEPARTMENT SPEECHES -- Sen. Hubert
H. Humphrey (D Minn.) June 15 suggested that State
Department officials should "talk to the whole Senate
and House from time to time." He said "everybody who
wants to vote responsibly on foreign affairs, or be able
to explain it intelligently, ought to have the opportunity
to understand it fully."
ATLANTIC COMMUNITY -- A Congressionally-
appointed citizens commission June 18 recommended a
program to strengthen the Atlantic Community. Included
in its recommendations were: creation of a permanent
high council, establishment of a high court of justice,
and development of the NATO Parliamentarians Con-
ference into a consultative Atlantic Assembly "to re-
view and debate questions of concern to the Atlantic
Community."
STEVENSON DEFENDS UN-- UN Ambassador Adlai
E. Stevenson June 19 defended the UN Charter provision
which grants equal voting rights to all UN member.
He said the greatest influence would always be exerted
by "that great power whose basic purposes harmonize
with the majority of members," regardless of voting
rights. (House and Senate Republicans June 7 issued a
statement proposing a change in the Charter "to reflect
population disparities among member states and to
recognize relative ability and willingness to meet the
obligations of the Charter," See Weekly Report p. 984)
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS -- The Commerce De-
partment June 20 reported the U.S. balance of payments
deficit declined to an annual rate of $1.9 billion in the
first three months of 1962, representing a sharp improve-
ment over the annual rate of $5.6 billion recorded in
the fourth quarter of 1961. (Weekly Report p. 838)
June 26 -- IDAHO RUN-OFF PRIMARY.
June 26 -- NORTH DAKOTA PRIMARY.
June 30 -- REPUBLICAN POLICY MEETING, Gettysburg,
Pa.
July 13-14 - - CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATIC NOMINAT-
ING CONVENTION, Hartford.
July 28 -- LOUISIANA PRIMARY.
July 28 -- UTAH DEMOCRATIC STATE CONVENTION.
July 31 -- ARKANSAS PRIMARY.
Other Events
June 26-30 -- RESERVE OFFICER'S ASSN., 36thNational
Convention, Las Vegas, Nev.
July 1-4 -- U.S. GOVERNORS CONFERENCE, Hotel
Hershey, Hershey, Pa.
July 9-17 -- MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
(AFL-CIO), annual convention, Netherland Hilton
Hotel, Cincinnati, Ohio.
July 9-13 -- MASTERS, MATES & PILOTS INTER-
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION (AFL-CIO), Annual con-
vention, Cleveland, Ohio.
July 17 -- STOVE MOUNTERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
(AFL-CIO), annual convention, St. Louis, Mo.
Aug. 16-22 -- AMERICAN BAKERY AND CONFEC-
TIONERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
(AFL-CIO) -- annual convention, Washington, D.C.
Aug. 19-25 -- DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS --
annual convention, Atlantic City, N.J.
Aug. 20 -- NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POST OFFICE
MOTOR VEHICLE EMPLOYEES (AFL-CIO) --
national convention, Chicago, Ill.
Aug. 20-23 -- NATIONAL ASSN. OF POST OFFICE AND
GENERAL SERVICES MAINTENANCE EM-
PLOYEES, national convention, Washington, D.C.
Aug. 23-25 -- NATIONAL POSTAL TRANSPORT ASSO-
CIATION (AFL-CIO) - - national convention, Chicago,
Ill.
Aug. 26-Sept. 1-- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER
CARRIERS (AFL-CIO) -- national convention, Den-
ver, Colo.
Sept. 3-7 -- AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERN-
MENT (AFL-CIO) -- national convention, Olympic
Hotel, Seattle, Wash.
PAGE 1058 -- Week ending June 22, 1962 paa??o Ri prohibl%2CONw,.,;, parr NAL ..ceb oupA RYE0.LY INC.
.dlrori,I cliears
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
iff
On Welfare Changes
Fact
Sheet
'PREVENTIVE' WELFARE BILL MOVES TOWARD ENACTMENT
Little noticed in the 87th Congress amidst the con-
troversy surrounding many key Administration proposals
has been the quiet, uncontroversial progress of HR 10606,
the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962. Yet HR 10606
is not an old and familiar proposal, but one designed by
the Kennedy Administration to give new direction to fed-
eral welfare programs.
According to Health, Education and Welfare Secretary
Abraham A. Ribicoff existing welfare programs, which
were given their direction by the problems and laws of
the 1930s, now concentrate too much on determining
eligibility for welfare assistance or on doleing out funds
for uncreative, subsistence living. HR 10606 is intended
to meet new problems of the relief recipient of the 1960s
by emphasizing prevention (for the first time funds are
provided for services to prevent potential welfare clients
from having to go on to welfare rolls) and rehabilitation.
HR 10606 was reported (H Rept 1414) March 10 by
the House Ways and Means Committee and passed by the
House March 15 on a 319-69 roll-call vote, (For com-
plete provisions, see Weekly Report p. 427) It was
reported (S Rept 1589) June 14 by the Senate Finance
Committee, where it was approved after a two-day exe-
cutive session, and should pass the Senate easily. In its
progress through Congress the omnibus bill has lost only
one important Administration provision and the one re-
strictive amendment adopted in the House was dropped
by the Senate Committee.
This fact sheet discusses factors which led the
Kennedy Administration to call for redirection of the
welfare program and explains the provisions of HR 10606
specifically designed to revise the federal approach to
welfare problems.
Changing Conditions
In transmitting the Administration draft of HR 10606
to Congress Feb. 1, 1962 President Kennedy said: "The
times, the conditions, the problems have changed -- and
the nature and objectives of our public assistance and
child welfare programs must be changed, also, if they
are to meet our human needs." At the time Ribicoff's
nomination was before the Senate, the Secretary had
announced that the Department would conduct an extensive
review of federal welfare laws in light of such changing
conditions and submit legislative proposals to meet new
problems.
To conduct the review, HEW set up an Ad Hoc Com-
mittee on Public Welfare composed of 20 leaders in
public and private welfare. It was headed by Sanford
Solender, executive vice president of the National Jewish
Welfare Board with Rutgers University Graduate School
of Social Work Dean Wayne Vasey as chief consultant.
In its September 1961 report to the Secretary, the Com-
mittee made legislative recommendations which were
embodied in HR 10606. It discussed trends which had
made those recommendations necessary:
? Large numbers of people have changed geographic
location, often moving to a totally new kind of com-
munity to which adjustment is difficult.
? Industries have decentralized, shifting from one sec-
tion of the country to another, often with profound effects
on community economy.
? Technological change has demanded new work skills
in industry and agriculture, led to increased unemploy-
ment and sudden lay-offs.
? More children are born and desertion and divorce
have increased.
Speaking of these trends in supporting HR 10606 Feb.
7, 1962 before the House Ways and Means Committee,
Ribicoff said, "All of these factors have thrown onto our
welfare rolls a different kind of human burden. The
dependents now among us are often quite unlike those
produced by the Great Depression of the thirties. They
still include of course, the lame, the halt and the blind
we all want and need to help. But there are some who
are quite different. Deprived of opportunity, bowed down
under a bewildering array of new problems, suspect by
their fellows, they are devoid of hope in the midst of a
society providing abundantly and well for most of us."
Ribicoff Dec. 11, 1961 announced administrative re-
visions in the welfare program which included: an effort
to reduce the "small number" of persons receiving wel-
fare funds through willful misrepresentation; allowing
dependent children to save money for education, employ-
ment or medical needs without having the amount deducted
from public assistance grants (previously such money
had to be reported for deduction); increased coordination
of agency welfare work; and changing the name of the
Public Assistance Bureau to the Bureau of Family Serv-
ices. In announcing the revisions, Ribicoff denied that they
had been prompted by the Newburgh, N.Y. July 15, 1961
actions of denying Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) aid
to unmarried mothers who bear another illegimate child
and placing a three-month limitation on relief. Ribicoff
said the Newburgh approach of cutting off aid without
providing self-help measures was "destructive" and
"solves nothing." He said the time was over for giving
attention "to every demagogue who comes down the pike",
and that the administrative proposals represented a new
"constructive" approach to welfare. He said the actions
were the first part of a broad action program for revi-
sion of the welfare laws.
President Kennedy Feb. 1, 1962 sent to Congress a
draft bill accompanied by a special message on the wel-
fare program -- the first message dealing exclusively
with welfare ever transmitted by a President. The Pres-
ident praised the administrative welfare revisions but said
that they alone were not enough, that new legislation was
necessary to provide welfare programs to "meet modern
needs." The new "far reaching" proposals, he said,
would help meet such needs while stressing" the integrity
and preservation of the family unit." Following is a
summary of the new proposals.
R. Week ending June 22, 1962 -- PAGE 1059
R. d OP Pd~6iedZ,COnleRcrinOpar^taOeUp T ~d~." C.
Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
Werfare changes . 2
New Proposals
Prevention and Rehabilitation. Under existinglaw,
the Federal Government pays one-half of the cost of
administrative and service costs incurred by the states
in operating welfare programs. HR 10606 would amend
this to provide that while the Federal Government would
still pay one-half of administrative costs, it would sepa-
rate out and pay three-quarters of the state rehabilita-
tive and service costs. It stipulated that for the first time
service funds would be used for rehabilitation of possible
welfare clients, to prevent their entrance onto we- flare
rolls, as well as for existing welfare recipients. The
HEW Secretary was authorized to specify the minimum
services a state would have to provide for rehabilitation
if it was to receive three-quarters federal sharing.
In a letter accompanying the draft bill, Ribicoff said
the three-quarters sharing provisions were designed to
assure that public welfare programs, while recognizing
day to day needs, emphasized the return of individuals
to the highest possible degree of self-sufficiency. It
was estimated the prevention and rehabilitation provisions
would cost $40.8 million in the first year.
Increased Personnel Training. HR 10606 authorized
$3,500,000 in fiscal 1963 and $5 million annually there-
after for grants to the states for training welfare per-
sonnel. The bill stipulated that the personnel would be
trained primarily to provide services for work with
families with an unmarried or deserting parent.
Social welfare leaders have long felt that a major
problem in federal welfare programs stemmed from the
fact that many social caseworkers are underpaid and
untrained, often lacking a high school degree. Ribicoff
in an Oct. 24 speech said "the social worker or more
often the untrained caseworker, fantastically overworked
and underpaid, has become a mere conduit for public
funds, unable to devote time to the prevention, rehabilita-
tion, and protective services that they know are neces-
sary.-Increased training funds were also proposed by the
Eisenhower Administration. The Kennedy Administration
in 1961 requested $3,500,000 forwelfare personnel train -
ing in the Labor-HEW Appropriation bill (HR 7035) but
the request was denied. (1961 Almanac p. 162)
Day Care. HR 10606 for the first time provided
a specific authorization (the excess of $25,000,000
appropriated annually for child welfare services up to a
maximum of $10,000,000) would be earmarked for the
provision of day care under a state child welfare services
plan. The funds would be used for the establishment of
child day care centers for children of working mothers.
Ribicoff May 14, 1962 said currently only 185,000
children were cared for in day care centers and that there
was "an urgent need" for day care expansion to insure
that "the well-being of children in need of day care would
no longer be jeopardized through inadequate provision
for their care and protection."
Community Work Programs. HR 10606 authorized
federal financial participation, through the Aid to Depend-
ent Children program, in payments made to parents on
the basis of work performed on community projects or
participation in training programs.
The Ad Hoc Committee on Public Welfare report said
such provisions would help combat joblessness, and would
enable unemployed workers to "maintain morale and pre-
vent attrition of skills and erosion of self-respect."
A fifth innovative provision of HR 10606 was dropped
from the bill by the House Committee. The provision
would have prohibited states from requiring more
than one year's residence as a condition of eligibility
for adult welfare grants and would have provided in-
centive payments of one-half of 1 percent of the federal
matching grant for states which completely removed
residence requirements for all federally aided pro-
grams.
In recommending such a provision, the Ad Hoc Com-
mittee on Public Welfare said restrictive residence re-
quirements were in conflict with the freedom of movement
which is essential to economic progress. It said it was
inconsistent to impose state residence requirements for
services financed largely with federal funds.
Other Provisions. In another major provision, HR
10606 as reported to the Senate also permitted a state
welfare agency, between Oct. 1, 1962 and June 30, 1967,
to make payments in up to 5 percent of ADC cases, to
persons concerned with the welfare of a family receiving
an ADC grant when the family failed to manage funds
properly. As passed by the House, the bill had also
permitted the welfare agency, when ADC funds were not
being managed properly, to take any action permitted by
state law short of withholding funds, and to make voucher
payments directly to landlords, grocers etc. Both of
these provisions were opposed by the Administration
during Senate Finance Committee hearings as the only
backward measures in a forward-looking bill, and were
deleted by the Committee. The report said the provi-
sions were "neither necessary nor desirable" and the
protective payment provision ("a new concept in public
assistance") would deal satisfactorily with the problem of
misuse of ADC funds.
HR 10606 also extended or made permanent existing
welfare programs. It extended for five years the 1961
amendment to the Social Security Act which made children
of unemployed fathers eligible for ADC grants; and it
made permanent a 1961 amendment which authorized
continued federal sharing in ADC grants for children
removed to foster homes by court order.
As passed by the House, the bill increased the max-
imum amount of federal sharing for each Old Age
Assistance recipient and aid to the blind and disabled
recipient to $70, effective July 1, 1962. The Administra-
tion had asked that that a temporary increase to $66 be
made permanent and opposed the House action. The Senate
Finance Committee, in its only other major amendment
to HR 10606, retained the $70 increase but made it
effective Oct. 1, 1962.
HR 10606 also contained provisions to unify state
welfare programs to reduce administration duplication
of effort and to set up an Advisory Council on Public
Welfare to make recommendations on public welfare
programs.
In reporting HR 10606, the Senate Finance Com-
mittee said the bill was designed to improve rehabilita-
tive aspects of public assistance programs, particularly
by stimulating services designed to help individuals attain
self-sufficiency. It said that HR 10606 would provide
increased services by more highly trained welfare
personnel "to relieve the undesirable effect on the com-
munity of a large and growing number of persons now
on assistance."
PAGE 1060 -- Week A d i n t Jed dr Kefbg? COPYRIGM 1962 y, `(?0' f(94`113,:P ~C1' ? I P64B00346R000300100009-3
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
Fact
Sheet
On Appropriations
SENATE-HOUSE FEUD HALTS APPROPRIATION BILLS
A feud between the Senate and House Appropriations
Committees led by two Congressional octogenarians has
held up final passage of appropriation bills to finance the
operation of Government departments for fiscal 1963
(beginning July 1) and of a supplemental appropriations
bill providing funds for 28 Government agencies to meet
expenses in the current fiscal year.
This CQ fact sheet traces the development of the
feud and looks at some of its immediate effects.
Background
The constitutional requirement that revenue bills be
initiated in the House of Representatives has become true
by tradition for appropriation bills. Such bills originate
in the House Appropriations Committee, a committee
consisting of 50 members and 15 subcommittees. Follow-
ing House passage, the bill goes to the Senate Appropria-
tions Committee, consisting of 27 members and 13 sub-
committees. The Senate has frequently amended the
House version by increasing the amounts included in the
House bill. The bill then goes to conference. The con-
ference is held on the Senate side of the Capitol and is
chaired by a Senate conferee. The final amount adopted
is usually a compromise between the Senate and House
figures. Appropriation legislation has been carried out
in this manner for some 180 years.
There are no set time limits on Congressional
action on general appropriation bills, but the federal
fiscal year begins July 1. Thus if appropriation legisla-
tion has not been completed by that date, it is necessary
for the two houses to adopt some kind of emergency
legislation or provisional financing to enable the Govern-
ment agencies to continue operations on a daily basis.
This is usually done by the passage of joint resolutions
(continuing resolutions) providing needed appropriations
until a specified date in the new fiscal year (by which
time it is assumed the appropriation bills will have been
finally passed). The amount adopted can be based on
the appropriation figure of the concluding fiscal year, or
on the lower figure in the House and Senate versions of the
appropriation bill for the new fiscal year. In 1949, six
such resolutions had to be passed, and an Army civil func-
tions bill was held up in conference for over four months.
The Feud
The contenders in the current feud are two Con-
gressional octogenarians: On the Senate side is Senate
Appropriations Committee Chairman Carl Hayden (D
Ariz.), 84; Hayden in Feb. 1962 became the first person
to serve as a member of Congress for 50 consecutive
years. He served in the House from 1912-27 and in the
Senate from 1927 to the present. On the House side is
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Clarence
Cannon (D Mo.), 83, who has served in the 68th and
succeeding Congresses (1923-present.)
The feud began in April when the House Appropria-
tions Committee adopted a resolution calling for a rotation
between the House and Senate sides of the Capitol as
sites for conferences on appropriation. bills. The Senate
Committee countered by proposing that the Senate be
allowed to originate half of all appropriation bills.
As a result of the dispute, conferees from the two
committees have met only once to consider an appro-
priation bill. On April 10, the two sides met on HR 10526,
a bill providing funds for the Treasury and Post Office
for fiscal 1963. (The Senate version passed March 29
provided $5,526,558,000, compared with the House version
passed March 6 providing $5,461,671,000. Weekly
Report p. 495)
The conferees did not meet at all on HR 11038, the
Second Supplemental Appropriation bill providing funds
for various Government departments and agencies for
the fiscal year'ending June 30. The House bill passed
April 4 provided $447,514,000 for 25 agencies and
departments, compared to the Senate version passed
April 16 providing $560,008,344 for 28 agencies and
departments. (Weekly Report p. 625)
The funds were to be distributed to independent offices
and to a variety of agencies and divisions within the
Agriculture, State, Commerce, Defense, Interior, Judi-
ciary, Treasury, Justice and Health, Education and Wel-
fare Departments. The bill included funds for the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Small
Business Administration and for disaster relief.
The delay in passing the Second Supplemental has
led to a situation whereby several of the Government
agencies have nearly run out of money. To meet this
emergency, the House June 14 passed a stop-gap resolu-
tion (H J Res 745) providing $133 million from the pro-
posed (but as yet undetermined) Second Supplemental
appropriation figure ($560 Senate version, $447 House
version). The resolution was then sent to the Senate
Appropriations Committee. Chairman Hayden June 15
sent a letter to Cannon informing the House Chairman
that it was the unanimous decision of the Senate Com-
mittee that H J Res 745 was "inadequate to meet the
pressing demands before the close of this fiscal year in
the public interest." He said that all the matters
included in H J Res 745 were included in HR 11038 and
therefore invited the House conferees to meet on HR
11038 with the Senate conferees in the Old Supreme
Court Chamber.
The Chamber room is approximately half-way be-
tween the House and Senate sides of the Capitol, and this
neutral location apparently satisfied the House demand
for a rotation of conference sites. But Cannon brought
out a new House demand: that in the future, the chair-
manship of the conferences be rotated between the House
and Senate conferees. In response, the Senate Com-
mittee reiterated its demand that half of all appropriation
bills be initiated in the Senate. At the suggestion of
House Majority Leader John W. McCormack (D Mass.),
seven representatives from each Committee met June 18
(in the Old Supreme Court Chamber) but they were unable
to resolve their differences.
The old formula for handling appropriation bills
has worked for some 180 years, and the question arises
COPYRIGHT 1962 CONGRESSIONAL OI/ARTERLY INC.
,.Prod-?-P,.hiblr.d in whole or Ia Part.... Pt by .dlrori,Iali.abWeek ending June 22, 1962 -- PAGE 1061
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
Appropriations - 2
as to why Cannon decided in 1962 to scuttle tradition.
The Administrative Assistant for a Republican member
of the Senate Appropriations Committee said he thought
the root of the current dispute lay in the September 1961
Senate-House conference battle over the First Supple-
mental Appropriation Bill (HR 9169) for fiscal 1962 (signed
PL 87-332 Sept. 30, 1961.) The Senate opposed a House
provision in that bill extending the use of the Congres-
sional franking privilege to letters addressed only to
"occupant" and a House deletion of a provision raising
the "basic" clerk-hire allowance for Senators by $3,000.
The House adjourned for the year before the Senate had
taken up the conference report leaving the Senate
with no alternative but to agree to the House version
on disputed provisions or let the bill die. (1961 Almanac
p. 183)
The Administrative Assistant for a Democratic
member of the Senate Committee told CQ that in
his opinion there was no "substantive issue" involved
in the feud, but that most of the trouble could be
traced to the personalities of the two contending
leaders.
Chairman Cannon indicated in statements to the
press that one reason for conducting the feud was
economy. After Hayden had turned down the House
request for a rotation of the chairing of conferences,
Cannon said "the importance of presiding" was that
"the chairman frequently decides what the compromise
will be and that puts us at a great disadvantage." He
said the House demand resulted from a desire to cut
appropriations: "Every bill we have passed for years
has been increased by the Senate. They put in everything
they can think of just because some Senator wants it
for his state." Cannon said: "If we could preside at
conferences half of the time, maybe we could cut out
half of these increases." (A look at appropriation bills
over the past few years substantiates Cannon's claim
that the Senate figure is usually higher than the House
amount. See 1959 Almanac p. 63, 1960 Almanac p. 75,
1961 Almanac p. 73.)
Effects
The picturesque sight of a legislative duel waged by
octogenarians Cannon and Hayden has not amused many of
the Government officials awaiting funds for their depart-
ments and agencies.
The Chief of the Secret Service, James J. Rowley,
June 16 sent a memorandum to some 700 Secret Service
personnel asking them "to volunteer without any pay
starting June 17." He wrote: "While I am not able to
guarantee that you will be reimbursed for this voluntary
service, I am confident that the appropriate authorities
will see to it that you are paid in full for your service."
It is illegal for a federal employee to work without
pay unless he has specifically volunteered to do so. A
representative of the Secret Service said this step had
been necessary because the Service was "out of money."
A representative of the Small Business Administra-
tion (which expects to receive $85-90 million from HR
11038) said that the Small Business Administration had
ceased making loans on March 9 in order to maintain
a sufficient amount in its revolving fund to meet emer-
gency requirements. State Department travel funds are
also held up by the failure to enact the supplemental bill.
When the two appropriations committees do settle
their differences, they will find at least two additional
appropriation bills awaiting consideration. The Senate
June 12 sent to conference HR 10802, the Interior
Appropriation Bill for fiscal 1963 (providing $922,560,820
compared to the House figure of $868,595,000 -- Weekly
Report p. 1009) and on June 13 sent to conference HR
11289, the Defense Appropriation Bill for fiscal 1963,
(providing $48,429,221,000 compared to the $47,839,-
491,000 voted by the House -- Weekly Report p. 1004).
Congressmen themselves may face pay-daydifficul-
ties if the stalemate continues. The House April 11
passed the legislative appropriation bill providing fiscal
1963 funds for Congressmen, but the Senate Com-
mittee has not yet reported the bill. (Weekly Report
p. 584).
STATUS OF APPROPRIATIONS, 87th CONGRESS, 2nd SESSION
Weekly
Report
Page No.
Requested
Agriculture
Commerce
Defense (HR 11289)
1004
$47,907,000,000 $47,839,491,000
$47,839,491,000
$48,429,221,000
$48,429,221,000
District of Columbia
Federal Payment
District Budget
Independent Offices
Interior (HR 10802)
1009
930,674,000 868,595,000
868,595,000
916,560,820
922
560
820
Labor-HEW (HR 10904)
494
5,284,831,000 5,170,788,000
5,170,788
000
,
,
Legislative (HR 11151)
584
114,078,425 113,733,890
,
113
733
890
Public Works
State-Justice-Judiciary
Treasury-Post Office, Exec. Offices (HR 10526)
495
5,575,386,000
,
,
Foreign Aid
Regular
Peace Corps (HR 10700)
Military Construction
2nd Supplemental, FY 1962 (HR 11038)
'
625
547,902,000 431,807,000
447,514,000
487,802
980
560
008
344
Veteran
s Administration Supplemental,
FY 1962 (HJ Res 612)
55,000,000
55,000,000
,
55,000,000
,
,
55,000,000 $55,000,000
PAGE 1062 -- Week ending June 22, 1962 UR.od RP bites OW. .,e.?," OUAERLY b, ; ~~H..,,
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
iff
On Trade Policy
Fact
Sheet
U.S. COMMON-MARKET POLICY FOUND IN TRADE BILL
The official United States desire to see Great Britain
and some other European countries join the "Six" in the
European Economic Community (Common Market) was
reflected in specific language in the Administration ver-
sion of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (HR 9900). A
"clean" bill (HR 11970), containing changes made by the
House Ways and Means Committee, was reported by that
group June 15. (Weekly Report p. 1028) It retained
virtually the same language in HR 9900 relating to the
EEC. Section 211 provides:
"...if...the President determines that...the United
States and all countries of the European Economic Com-
munity together accounted for 80 percent or more of the
aggregated world export value of all articles within such
category, he may" negotiate reduction of tariffs in any
category down to zero. The terms of the bill defined
the EEC as consisting of whatever members it has at the
time the authority is used. The key element here is that
the "80 percent clause" -- or "dominate supplier au-
thority" -- would be practically meaningless unless Bri-
tain is a member of EEC. This implied contingency in
the bill has provoked some Congressional criticism.
The current six EEC members are France, Germany,
Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg. Four coun-
tries -- Great Britain, Ireland, Denmark and Norway --
have applied for full membership in EEC. Greece, Tur-
key, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Austria, some of
which are committed to "neutralist" positions, have
sought "associate" membership in EEC,
The United States has strongly backed formation of
the Common Market, not only as an opportunity for
strengthening Europe economically but also as a vehicle
for greater political unity, eventually leading perhaps to
a "United States of Europe." The U.S. has pressed for
British entry into the EEC. Current negotiations for Brit-
ish membership are complicated particularly by Great
Britain's connections with the Commonwealth nations.
U.S. officials have discouraged the neutrals' attempt
to gain limited membership in EEC on the grounds that it
would slow up political development of the Community.
This has reportedly aroused considerable resentment in
Sweden, Austria and Switzerland, which engage in a large
volume of trade with the members of EEC but whose tra-
ditional neutralism -- statutory in the cases of Austria
and Switzerland -- prevents military and political asso-
ciation which many feel is implicit in development of the
Common Market.
'Dominant Supplier Formula'
In his testimony before the House Ways and Means
Committee March 12, Secretary of Commerce Luther H.
Hodges presented a list of 26 trade categories, led by
aircraft, to which the "dominant supplier authority" ap-
plied if it were assumed that five other nations --
Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Norway and United Kingdom
-- were in the Common Market with the present six
nations. This list is printed in the accompanying chart.
'80 Percent Categories'
Following are those commodity groups, listed by
Secretary of Commerce Luther H. Hodges for the
House Ways and Means Committee, of which exports
from the United States and the European Economic
Community (France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands,
Luxembourg and Belgium) and "five other possible
EEC members" (Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Norway
and United Kingdom) combined total 80 percent or
more of free world exports in 1960. Export value ex-
cluded exports from the European countries men-
tioned above to each other, and exports from free
world countries to countries in the Communist bloc
(including Cuba). (First column, figures are percent-
ages; all other columns, in millions of dollars.)
Commodity group
Percent
of free
world
exports
from
United
States,
EEC
and d
others
U.B.
exports
to free
world
U.S.
lm-
errs
.rem
free
world
U.B.
net
trade
with
free
world
EEC
and 6
others'
exports
to free
world,
exelud-
In
EEC
lus 6
Intra-
trade
U.B.
Im-
ports
from
EEC
and 5
others
EEC
nod 6
others'
im.
ports
from
United
States
Aircraft- -____--------------- ---
07
1,227
63
1,174
259
20
425
Photographic and cinematographic
suDpllos, except cameras ----- ...__
03
2
62
360
29
4
33
368
93
133
28
13
197
Coal, coke, and briquettes. ---------
Fur sklns----------- ----------------
.....
Road motor vehicles-. .........
mot
0
01
91
16
1,237
9
643
7
694
21
2,671
_....
8
808
6
76
-----
Margarine and shortenings----
R
90
47
1
40
42
38
ludinglessware._._______
a
89
34
64
-20
140
44
6
Pigments and paints---.-_-._-----
nd pa
88
77
4
73
117
3
20
Perfumery, "'mot !c% and clean-
s------------------
ing PrtPa
ing
88
74
8
BB
144
7
7
R
vehicles_______
hicle
87
126
1
126
157
1
Sugar confectionery and other auger
-.-__-___---____-_
propparat
ll
86
88
10
1
15
-5
1
37
13
12
1
-_
o haverages-------------
Noualooho
Metalworking meragesry__-_....___
88
362
36
318
388
27
9b
Road vehicles, excluding motor.----
86
24
33
-9
124
26
1
Agricultural machinery, Including
tractors___________________________
tracto
66
820
138
384
414
38
80
Musical Instruments, sound re-
s, and parts-------- --------
,
86
83
67
6
46
5
12
1
122
19
34
2
10
anutactures .:............
Leather
Or
ni
h
i
ls
82
266
64
212
324
26
176
__________________
ga
c c
em
ca
Power generating machinery, ox-
82
280
24
266
049
17
130
eludingelectrlo-------------------
Miscellaneous chemicals, including
i
i
l
81
862
40
642
622
20
188
des---_--_---
astics and insect
c
p
Mpaterials of rubber
81
8
8
42
0
__
01111w machinery-------------------
81
207
07
140
211
62
69
Industrial machinery, except power
i
t
l
ki
81
1, 817
170
1,647
1,968
92
340
wor
ng.
generat
ng and me
a
T
b
f
t
8D
97
1
96
66
1
11
ures ..............
acco manu
ac
o
Articles of rubber
80
162
47
105
229
25
13
................
Electric machinery_____
BO
1,060
264
782
1,636
122
216
Total, 80 percent and above
2
803
8
763
1
040
7
10
894
1
190
2,060
61
(
________
,
,
,
,
,
How the 80 percent figure was arrived at as the
appropriate level under the "dominant supplier formula"
has not been thoroughly explained. by the Administration.
One Administration trade expert told CQ: "The 80
percent is not a magic number. We had to find a figure
that had some appeal as representing a truly dominant
trade position. It could have been any other percentage
-- 75, 85, 90 -- as long as it was high enough so as to
reduce its vulnerability to attack on the grounds that it
applied to nations other than the U.S. and the Common
Market. We had to keep in mind the 'third country'
problem."
COPYRIGHT 1962 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC. Week ending June 22, 1962 -- PAGE 1063
Rapmducllon prohibited In whole or In port except by edlto,lol cllena Week ,
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
Reuss Criticism
The present wording of the "80 percent clause" of
the trade bill has come under criticism from a few Con-
gressmen, particularly Rep. Henry S. Reuss (D Wis.),
who claims that it is a club to force Great Britain into
EEC. He favors wording the "80 percent clause" so
that it would include the other countries of Europe even
if they did not become members of EEC.
"Should this bill be so written as to pursue the
foreign policy goal of getting Britain into the Com-
mon Market," Reuss asked, "or to attempt to develop
the widest possible trade among all free nations?"
Reuss' position goes beyond this specific criticism
of the wording of section 211 to concern that the Common
Market will become a high-tariff area which would
threaten free-world trade. In a May 17 speech in the
House, he asked this question:
"Should we now be concentrating our efforts on cre-
ating a huge and mighty new Western European Common
Market, protected at least at the outset by high tariffs
and other preferential arrangements on many important
trade categories? Or should we instead be striving, to-
gether with the other member countries of GATT (General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), to create the widest
possible free world community which would neither in-
clude nor exclude countries according to any precon-
ceived design?"
Reuss said that Hodges' list of 26 major categories
of trade would be reduced merely to aircraft unless the
United Kingdom and some other European countries do in
fact join the Six. "We cannot afford to wait while possibly
protracted negotiations are conducted by third countries
with the Common Market," he said, "Moreover, there is
always the chance that the EEC will not expand beyond its
present size.
"By delaying tariff negotiations with the Common
Market, we will also be subjecting the European neutral
nations to unnecessary hardship," Reuss said.
Sen. Jacob K. Javits (R N.Y.) has provided a broader
"dominant supplier formula" in his alternative proposal
(S 2840) with the provision that, in agreements with
"fully developed nations or areas," duties may be re-
duced by 100 percent.
Sens. Prescott Bush (R Conn.) and Paul H. Douglas
(D Ill.) are known to share in some degree Reuss' views
on section 211.
Administration Position
Administration spokesmen acknowledged that the "80
percent clause" would be practically meaningless unless
at least Great Britain joined the Common Market.
During hearings on HR 9900, Under Secretary of State
George W. Ball said April 11: "The authority provided
by section 211 would not be very great" if Britain did
not join.
Another official told CQ that the clause reflected
the fact that the U.S. has directed its foreign policy
toward a successfully expanded Common Market. "If
the Common Market carries full United States support,
it will become the development of the world trade
scene," he said.
"We didn't see any point to having looser authority,
not specifically tied to the Common Market," the Ad-
ministration spokesman said, "lest it be capitalized
upon by those in Great Britain who did not want to see
United Kingdom membership in the Market. If one viewed
membership purely as a commercial association, a
broader wording (of section 211) would have removed the
incentive to join." However, he said he felt that most
Britons had other, more idealistic motives for wanting
to join a united Europe.
He said that, with all the preparation needed, it
would not be until at least late 1964 before negotiations
could begin for lowering tariffs with the Common Market
and that, by that time, expansion of EEC should have
been accomplished.
While the Administration acknowledges Reuss' point
that section 211 is calculated to encourage British mem-
bership in the Common Market, they differ on whether
or not this is advisable. Reuss says no -- that Britain
and other European countries should be included in the
section 211 language whether or not they are Common
Market members. Reuss further says that the U.S. must
take "the alternative course -- to greater economic and
political integration on a free-world-wide basis" -- that
is, look beyond EEC.
The Administration's policy is geared to getting
Britain to join the Market and the language of the bill both
encourages and assumes such membership. Some ob.
servers suggest that the reason behind the Administration
policy is that it apparently feels that the U.S. is not
politically ready to go as far as Reuss and others sug-
gest. At any rate, its policy stops short of it.
Check your Congressional Quarterly Almanacs for additional details and background information on the
news of Congress appearing in the Weekly Reports. Published since 1945, the
CQ Almanac is fully indexed and cross referenced.
PAGE 1064 -- Week ending or eleasev'5/'0'41`1'3?': 'C1A-"F~INC.
t~P'64B00346R000300100009-3
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000300100009-3
Fact
Sheet
On Youth Employment
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT BILL AWAITS RULES COMMITTEE ACTION
When President Kennedy at his June 7 press con-
ference ticked off the bills he most wants enacted by
Congress before it adjourns this year, the Youth Em-
ployment Opportunities Act was among them. But even
with the President and a formidable array of lobby
groups behind it, the youth bill has many hurdles to
survive before Mr. Kennedy would have an opportunity to
sign it, and it is quite possible that the bill will never
reach his desk.
Both the House Education and Labor and the Senate
Labor and Public Welfare Committees have reported
bills along the lines of the President's proposals. But
they vary greatly in scope and expense, and this is part
of the difficulty.
The Administration in 1961 recommended pilot pro-
jects to establish a Youth Conservation Corps similar to
the Civilian Conservation Corps of the 1930s; and public
service programs manned by the young in urban areas.
(A third recommendation, on-the-job youth training, was
subsequently incorporated in the Manpower Development
and Training Act -- see below.) Both programs would
be administered by the Labor Department. The YCC pro-
gram would be run in close cooperation with the Depart-
ments of Interior, Agriculture and Health, Education and
Welfare, and would provide resource development and
conservation work for young men between the ages of 16
and 21. At least half the YCC trainees would be drawn
from areas of "substantial unemployment," and would
work largely on federal lands. The public service trainees
would engage in work in schools, hospitals, libraries,
public welfare agencies and in various private service
agencies such as the Boy Scouts and settlement houses.
The Senate Committee followed the lead of Sen.
Hubert H. Humphrey (D Minn.) and Sept. 12, 1961 re-
ported a bill (S 404 -- S Rept 976) authorizing a full-
scale, permanent Conservation Corps which would start
with 30,000 members and expand to an annual enroll-
ment of 150,000, costing $1.3 billion in the first four years
and $400 million in each year thereafter. The House
Committee approved only a pilot YCC, but did double the
Administration request by providing a group of 12,000 for
three years, at an annual cost of $50 million. Both
Committees approved similar programs for youth public
service, with an enrollment of 25,000 in the first year
and 33,000 in the next two years and costing $25 million
in the first year and $33 million in the next two. Unlike
the YCC, which would'be completely federally financed,
the urban service program would involve federal matching
on a 50-50 basis with local governmental units and the
non-profit service agencies.
The House bill was reported March 29, 1962 (HR
10682 -- H Rept 1540). The Committee had reported a
similar bill in 1961 (HR 8354), but replaced it with HR
10682 because the earlier bill had also contained provi-
sion for on-the-job training of youth. That provision,
which was also requested by the President in 1961, was
incorporated into the Manpower Development and Train-
ing Act of 1962, which was signed into law March 15
(Weekly Report p. 423). The training section had been
taken out of the Senate youth employment bill before it
was reported. (1961 Almanac p. 283)
The House bill is now awaiting clearance for floor
debate by the House Rules Committee. The Committee
held a hearing on granting a rule May 16, but was inter-
rupted by a House roll call, and there has been no action
on it since. Although Chairman Howard W. Smith (D
Va.) is reportedly against the bill, House sources say the
bill will probably receive a rule. The next hurdle will be
House passage. The bill's supporters predict House
approval, but acknowledge that opposition, particularly
by Republicans and conservative Democrats will be
strong. Their hope is to pick up sufficient votes from
urban Republicans to get the bill through. If the bill does
survive these two hurdles, it will then run into the highest
one of all -- Senate-House agreement on a final bill,
which will be made more difficult by the end-of-the-
session time squeeze which is approaching.
At the time the Senate bill was reported in late
1961, its backers decided to hold it up until the House
passed its counterpart. The reason usually given is that
Senate passage is assured, but the Senate should not be
put through an empty ritual. "We're getting tired of
passing bills, only to see them die in the House," says
one Senate source.
Another reason that has been given -- and a more
compelling one -- Is that the bill's backers fear that if
the Senate passed S 404 with its much larger and more
expensive YCC, "it might scare the House so much they
wouldn't act at all," in the words of one.
This strategy might help get the bill over the initial
hurdles of the Rules Committee and House floor, but the
problem of a final House-Senate compromise would re-
main.
The Controversy
The bill is designed to help young men and women who
do not finish school, do not have skills, and consequently
have great difficulty finding jobs. It would have the
secondary effect of providing manpower for understaffed
public service institutions and for conservation projects.
It is backed by a large number of conservationist and
social welfare groups.
Opposition to it is based on the federal expenditures
involved and a feeling that It is not needed, particularly
the urban youth employment section. House Education
and Labor Committee Republicans said in the report that
the kind of training to be received under this program
''offers so little in the way of opening doors to future
employment or in furnishing proper motivation." They
said that the manpower retraining act had made "a start
in the right direction," and that HR 10682 "would simply
be a detour down an old blind alley." Another objection
has been against supervision of the program by the De-
partment of Labor. It is argued that it is not sensible to
put conservation work under the Labor Department and
that the bill gives too much power to the Secretary to
determine the projects for the urban youth corps.
COPYRIGHT 1962 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.
R,prodallon prohlblmd In whole or in Port.x