the Congress a full report each year on all aspects of the operation of the agreement, including full information with respect to the general level of prices of coffee, the section of the bill giving him authority to require the rendering to him of relevant information by the trade does not make any mention of his right to require information on prices. Certainly he should have that express authority if he, in turn, is to report to the Congress on this vital phase of the agreement's operations.

The international agreement is intended to achieve a stable floor under prices at about 1962 levels. However, we have a right to fear that under unforeseen circumstances, quota restrictions could also lead to a sharp rise in prices well above 1962 levels. So we have a right to know-the President has a clear duty to find out-what is happening to prices at any time during the life of our participation in the agreement.

Now the question might be asked, Mr. Chairman, why it should be any problem for the President or any one else, to ascertain the prices of coffee. Presumably any one could find out by reading the financial journals each day, or looking at the published daily information from the New York Coffee and Sugar Exchange. But it is not that simple.

As my Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs of the House Banking and Currency Committee has learned in connection with our study of sugar, the published daily spot price of a volatile commodity is not necessarily not at all necessarily the actual price at which importers are buying the commodity. The spot price represents only the price at which some sugar, for instance, comes into the country on a particular dayor will come in some weeks or months hence. But huge quantities are purchased on a fixed price basis which just does not show up in the published daily quotations.

Coffee futures are gyrating now in response to rumors, expectations, possibilities, and a great deal of speculative fever. A seat on the Coffee and Sugar Exchange sold a few days ago for $8,500, up $1,400 from the last previous sale. Futures speculation can certainly influence price as we found out earlier this year in sugar-but it does not necessarily set the price at which most of the commodity is actually sold. Incidentally, this is not a federally regulated exchange.

Mr. Chairman, in carrying out his responsibilities to Congress and to the American people under the International Coffee Agreement, the President of the United States should have the clear-cut authority to obtain full and exact information, rather than be restricted to the bits and pieces of price information which may be fed out by the trade to suit its own purposes. This amendment gives him that authority. I urge its adoption.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs. SULLIVAN] or the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. -1373

CIX

MILLS], what is meant by "general level of prices"?

And, let me add to that by saying, Who is going to decide what prices are fair to the consumers, and this with respect to each and every one of the nearly 300 different types of coffee?

What is meant, first, by "general level of prices"?

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

to trade U.S. wheat for coffee. We are giving wheat to them, or peddling it to them for their currency which we cannot take out of the country. He threw up his hands and said that this would not work at all. The answer, in effect, was: "We have got to have your dollars. We cannot trade our coffee for your wheat."

I say again, Mr. Chairman, by this legislation you are compounding a felony

Mr. GROSS. Yes, I yield to the gen- on the American consumers who are also tleman from Arkansas.

Mr. MILLS.

American taxpayers. I plead with the House to either recommit or defeat this bill.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, will the

Where does the gentleman find that language? Is it in the report or in the bill? Mr. GROSS. It is in the bill at line 10 gentleman yield? on page 3.

Mr. MILLS. It is the general commercial usage that we intend to apply here. It is the general level of prices of coffee; that is, the general prevailing level of prices of coffee, as that term is understood in the trade.

Mr. GROSS. Who is going to decide that?

Mr. MILLS. What we are talking about in that connection, if the gentleman will yield, is the requirement that the President submit to the Congress an annual report. In that report he must set forth certain information, including information with respect to the general level of prices of coffee.

Now, the Department of Commerce the Bureau of the Census-and the Department of Labor and, perhaps, some other department of Government, presently accumulate information of that sort.

Mr. GROSS. Who did the gentleman say accumulates this information?

Mr. MILLS. The Department of Commerce does, and it is my information that the Department of Labor does also.

Mr. GROSS. If you are going to rely on the Department of Commerce, you should have had some testimony from that source as to how provisions such as this will be carried out, and whether the price formula to be established will be based on the pricing of every one of the 300 different types of coffee.

Mr. MILLS. We are not imposing this burden on the Department of Commerce. We are saying in our report that the President has to give us the information.

Mr. GROSS. How is the President going to get it?

Mr. MILLS. We do not spell that out. It is left to his discretion as to where to obtain it.

Mr. GROSS. He is going to get it from sources that you should have heard from before you brought the bill to the floor of the House. of the House. This bill ought to be recommitted or it ought to be defeated, and in the interim, before bringing new legislation to the House, the President ought to appoint a committee or use qualified personnel in the Department of Commerce to go down to South America and find out how much surplus coffee there is there and other pertinent information before trying to sell us this bill of goods.

When the Finance Minister of Brazil was before the Inter-American Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I asked him why it was not possible

Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is making a very fine point. I would add to that I regret our hearings were not broad. They were quite limited. Perhaps there should be a little airing of this, and we should have some witnesses come before us.

Mr. MILLS. The gentleman asked the gentlewoman from Missouri or the chairman to answer his question. The gentlewoman from Missouri calls my attention to the fact that the Bureau of Census does gather figures on coffee prices, both retail and wholesale. They are available to the President. The Bureau of the Census is in the Department of Commerce.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs. SULLIVAN]. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HALPERN The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. HALPERN: Page 2, after line 23, insert the following: "In connection with the exercise of the authority granted to him by this Act, the President shall take such action as may be necessary to protect domestic consumers of coffee against undue increases in the price of coffee and to insure that the general level of coffee prices does not rise to a point higher than 5 cents a pound above the general level of such prices in 1962. If the general level of coffee prices rises above such point, the President shall immediately notify the Congress of that fact and shall also inform the Congress of the steps which he has taken and proposes to take (whether by voluntary withdrawal from the International Coffee Agreement, 1962, or otherwise) to protect the domestic sumers of coffee."

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to propose an amendment to this bill which I think will solve a difficult problem which has been much discussed ever since the world coffee agreement treaty was first before the Senate for ratification. I refer to the problem of protecting the American consumer from excessively high prices as a result of the operation of the coffee agreement.

This problem of a lack of definite protection for the U.S. consumer was discussed when the treaty was before the Senate for ratification, and I believe that a number of our colleagues in the other

body, who normally support legislation to assist our friends in Latin and South America, voted against the treaty because they felt our American consumers were not adequately protected.

My amendment, Mr. Chairman, would protect the American consumer by setting a reasonable ceiling on the price of coffee under the agreement, just as the basic agreement protects the Latin American, Asian, and African coffee producers by proposing a floor under the coffee price.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have two interests here which are both desirable, but somewhat in conflict. That is the interest of our Latin American friends in keeping coffee prices from falling disastrously, and the interest of the consumer in America from having the price rise disastrously.

We certainly want to assist the economy of South America. Accordingly, we have signed this world agreement setting a floor under coffee prices, which floor is based on the 1962 world price. This guarantees that coffee prices will not drop too extremely for our Latin American friends and allies.

So we have taken care of half the coffee price problem-the half that concerns the world producers.

But what about the other half of the problem-protection of our U.S. consumers, the housewives whose purchase of coffee is an important part of their food budget.

Here I believe the basic agreement is deficient, and I believe my proposed amendment will cure this deficiency. The basic treaty, and the bill before us contains no ironclad protection for the American consumer. The closest it comes is in giving this country a nearveto, but not a complete veto against decisions of the World Coffee Board in London. Also, the agreement provides that we can withdraw from the arrangement on 90 days' notice, and the entire plan would then collapse, since we consume over half the world's coffee exports.

But, the important thing is that no standard is placed in the agreement or the bill to guide the President in deciding when we should exercise our near-veto, or right to withdraw. In short, even though the agreement says that the price of coffee should not drop below the 1962 world price, there is nothing in the agreement or bill that tells the President what to do if the price of coffee should rise to double or triple the present market price.

I propose that we remedy this situation by putting a standard in the bill, and directing the President to act if the standard is violated.

The standard which I propose is a ceiling price on coffee which would be 5 cents per pound higher than the 1962 world price, and my amendment calls on the President to take action if the world prices rise above this level. The amendment says that the President shall take such action as is necessary to protect the consumer against unreasonable price rises, which are defined by a definite standard of 5 cents per pound above the 1962 world price.

Should the price rise above this ceiling, the President is not only directed to take

whatever action may be necessary to bring it down, including possible withdrawal of the United States from the agreement, but is directed to immediately notify Congress of the situation and the steps he is taking.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment. The whole purpose of the coffee agreement is to prevent the wide fluctuations in coffee prices which have in the past ruined Latin American grow

The agreement and bill proposes to end these wide fluctuations by setting a floor under the price of coffee. I suggest that a price ceiling is just as necessary as a floor if we are really going to prevent fluctuations and protect both the producers and the consumers in this country.

My amendment establishes this ceiling, and accordingly I recommend it to my colleagues.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. MILLS).

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, having had the opportunity to read the amendment, I will not press the point of order that I had reserved against the amendment.

this bill can lead to a lot of other results and consequences that none of us would want because those who say that this is too much control already ought to be very cautious about bringing into this industry complete control from the time that the coffee enters the United States until it is consumed by the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the gentleman while certainly well motivated in trying to prevent the price levels from rising, indeed, points out the very sickness of this legislation. I am among those who are not for price control at all. This, of course, would be definite price control at the level of no more than 5 cents above present prices. Indeed, I would think the gentleman could have rephrased his amendment if he believed we should put some limit on this by just simply replacing the floor by the word "ceiling" and not giving any increase above 1962 level of prices.

But my appeal to my colleagues is that you cannot have any Government price

taking away the finest price arrangement

Mr. Chairman, this bill, as I pointed out, and as others who have spoken on it have pointed out, is not a price fixing and a rationing type of bill and it does not involve those aspects of the coffee business. But, Mr. Chairman, if we do adopt the amendment such as the gentleman from New York proposes, unnecessary as it is-because appropriate action can be taken whether the amendment is in the bill or not-the amendment leads to a chain of undesirable events and consequences because it does mean a ceiling on wholesale as well as retail prices here in the United States. It means the type of controls, not only to protect against increases to the consumer, but to provide against windfall profits that might otherwise occur to the industry. Then it means probably a rationing of supplies here in the United States to those people who are in the coffee roasting business. It means, in addition, if it is carried to its ultimate, that we perhaps will ration the supplies of coffee to the consumer. This is all unnecessary because there is within the legislation before us the implicit direction to the President and to those who administer the program to protect us against precipitous price increases and unreasonable prices for coffee. I would remind my colleagues again that this program we are talking about here is for 2 years and the people who administer it as well as those people in foreign lands who produce the coffee are going to be called to account if they try to gouge us and take advantage of us and if they do not fully protect our American consumers.

Mr. Chairman, I say that this amendment is not necessary for the accomplishment of the very objective that my friend, the gentleman from New York, has in mind. Rather its injection into

of the free market. In this way there is a chance to lower prices rather than to make them higher. I think the gentleman's amendment, commendable though it is, to try to hold down the price level is telegraphing a punch by suggesting an increase in price of 5 cents a pound. This, of course, is more of the same control that some are interested in bringing about; but is contrary to the gentleman's intent of protecting the consumer. I believe that lower prices can be brought about by free competition and not by Government control.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ALGER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GROSS. This would mean, it seems to me, almost automatically a $150 million increase in the cost of coffee to consumers of this country based upon 5 cents a pound increase.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ALGER. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. MILLS. I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Texas on this point, which he makes quite well and very forcefully.

I take it that if we put this in, we open the door and say, "All right. Our consumers can take an increase of 5 cents a pound more in coffee without anything being done by us."

Mr. ALGER. Amazingly enough, I find myself in total accord with the chairman on this point.

Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Chairman I repeat that this amendment is extremely desirable for the protection of American consumers from rising coffee prices. It is the crux of every important point made here today. The contentions made against this amendment are entirely erroneous. I emphasize, it protects the consumer. It is a device to

keep prices from rising. If speculation causes a fluctuating market, the price will not be permitted to go down under the act, but what assurances do we have that they cannot go up? There is no protection in this act to prevent a spiral. That is why I am offering this amend ment. It provides a brake-a warning signal. It does not fix prices and it does not authorize a rise of a single cent. the contrary, it is the only assurance we will have to keep prices down. And, it sets forth a definite standard for us to pull out of this agreement if a decisive rise develops. It would nip it in the bud.

To

Mr. Chairman, let me be sure we all understand this point. In the interest of the American consumer, the President, under this amendment, would have a specific criterion to exercise his nearveto authority or to withdraw the United States from the pact if it turns out that the Coffee Council in London uses its control over export quotas to cut the supply to the United States to such a point that coffee prices soar. I trust the amendment will prevail, and for the sake of the American consumer, I fervently urge its adoption.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. HALPERN]. The amendment was rejected. Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have been entertained by the debate. I have felt at times that it has gone into the mountain and at times it has gone into the valley, and at times the real issue had been buried in the mud. I would like to simplify the matter by asking the chairman a few questions.

Do I understand that this is an agreement between the coffee-producing nations and the consumer nations?

Mr. MILLS. The gentleman is correct. Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. How many nations produce coffee, roughly?

Mr. MILLS. I have a list of the countries that exported coffee in 1961, and there are about 45 countries.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Does that include the coffee-producing countries of Africa as well as Latin America?

Mr. MILLS. Oh, yes. This is 100 percent of the coffee which is exported that I read here. Some 45 countries.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. And how many coffee-consuming nations are there?

Mr. MILLS. There are more than that. The list is available here. I have it in front of me.

cessity agree to the quota as well as the exporting countries before it can go into effect. We have 40 percent of the total vote, I might say, so that no quota could be imposed with respect to the export of coffee that did not meet with our approval. We, alone, have more than onethird of the votes.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Then it merely provides for an equitable distribution of the imports of coffee-producing countries to the coffee-consuming nations?

Mr. MILLS. What we tried to do, again, is adjust the quotas through this council to practically equal the demand that the consuming nations have said they would have for coffee during that same period of time. Our representatives are right now in the process of going to London through the council to get an increase in the quotas of coffee of about 1 million bags and that will be obtained sometime next week or the week after, because some countries have not quite been able to export as much as they were entitled to export.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Then, may I ask the chairman, is there one iota of price control in this legislation?

Mr. MILLS. Not at all. Not at all, I assure the gentleman.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. FINDLEY

First let me say to the gentleman from Illinois that we on the Committee on Ways and Means certainly can understand the gentleman's concern and desire to do what can be done through this legislation or otherwise to protect the American consumers from unreasonable price increases, not only for coffee but for any other commodity that is necessary for them to purchase. I join the gentleman in that expressed desire and hope.

But let me point out to the gentleman just how impossible it would be for the President to operate under the amendment that he suggests. In the first place this organization will expect about 20 percent of its total operating cost to come from the United States, and we so limit the use of Federal funds to not to exceed 20 percent. That would not be in excess of $100,000 a year for each of these 2 years.

The gentleman says that we cannot make that appropriation for that purpose until the President first certifies by publication in the Federal Register that the International Coffee Agreement will not result in increased coffee prices to U.S. consumers.

I do not know whether you mean, and I do not know whether he would know whether you meant increased prices for 1 day, or 1 month, for 2 months, or a general increase, or an average increase, or is intended you mean under this, be

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. FINDLEY: On page 3, line 19, after "1962" strike the period, and add a semicolon and the following: "Provided, however, That no sums may be appropriated under this Act until the President, by publication in the Federal Register, first certifies that the International Coffee Agreement will not result in increased coffee prices to the United States consumers.”

Mr. FINDLEY. The U.S. consumer can with good justification be concerned over the language of the communication from the President in which he stated that one of the purposes of the International Coffee Agreement was to prevent a sharp drop in coffee prices. As we are an importing nation for coffee, the consumer certainly has something at stake here.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. It is a large It is a large list. How many nations consume or import coffee?

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Then, do I understand that this is merely an agreement that the coffee-producing nations will establish a quota of imports from the producing coffee countries and that the importing nations will abide by that quota?

Mr. MILLS. It takes two-thirds of the votes of the council to establish an export quota for any country, so that some of the consuming countries must of ne

of an authorization bill. It is quite proper that we consider amendments to an authorization bill which will protect the interests of the consumers. This amendment of mine would simply require that the President clarify by publication in the Federal Register his judgment the International Coffee Agreement would not result in increased coffee prices for U.S. consumers.

have to take it this way literally-if the price of coffee went up one one-hundredth of 1 percent per pound to the consumer, or he knew, or thought, it was going to, or there was any possibility that it was going to, he could not afford to certify that it would not go up. I think that the gentleman has drawn too tight a rule here for application to the President or to the Congress in providing for this appropriation.

Certainly I could not, if I were the Chief Executive, certify to the Congress that under this, in the course of a year for which this appropriation applied, make a flat certification that it would not go up or down one-half of 1 cent or any such amount. You cannot do that, and because you cannot do it you cannot certify it to the Congress and you cannot make the appropriation. Maybe the organization could operate without the U.S. 20-percent share, and maybe somebody would say that this would be a pretty good deal because we paid more than our share in some other organization; I do not know. But certainly I do not expect that we could make an appropriation here for this purpose next year if this particular amendment were agreed to. I do not believe we would want to put any Chief Executive in the position of being required to certify to something in advance that neither he nor anyone else can appropriately predict. Here we are saying, "Certify that there will be no increase, not even one one-hundredth of 1 cent in the price of coffee."

agreement or do not have it.

I would urge, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment of the gentleman be defeated because on the basis of the price to consumers in this year, if you took the price level of coffee in March at 68.7 cents, that price has risen between then and September to the consumers, by less than 1 cent, to 69.6 cents.

Now, those are fluctuations that occur any and every year. Perhaps, if one will look at the situation between 1954 and 1962, one will find a drop in the import prices of green coffee from 65.7 cents down to 30.4 cents. That is not just a small fluctuation.

But, Mr. Chairman, what I was talking about initially are fluctuations in price that occur every year in the prices of coffee, regardless of whether you have an agreement or not. Here under this amendment you are requiring the President to certify to something that he or no other human being can possibly predict.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield Delaney back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FINDLEY).

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. FINDLEY) there were-ayes 59, noes 81.

Denton
Dingell
Donohue

Downing

Dulski

Edmondson Edwards Elliott Evins Farbstein Fascell

Jones, Mo.

Karsten

Kilgore

Kirwan

Lankford

Leggett

Lesinski

Finnegan Fisher Flood

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the requisite number of words.

of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 8864) to carry out the obligations

I would like to point out that the amendment relates to prices as a result of the International Coffee Agreement. This bears on the point that the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSs] was trying to bring out that the Committee on Ways and Means did not-and I think this is proper criticism-avail itself of the knowledgeable people in the coffee field in an effort to gain information as to what these price levels might be.

Now, in the President's letter which is set out on pages 3 and 4 of the committee report, the President refers to putting a floor under these prices at the general level prevailing in 1962. Now, we know what those are. We also have a pretty good idea of how much coffee is in stock in the warehouses. It is considerable. It is certainly within our judgment capabilities to estimate prices in 1963. If this coffee agreement is to do what the President says he wants to do, to try to stabilize prices, and to some degree I suspect it would because it is putting a control over supply, then indeed the President has some judgment or can exercise some judgment with intelligence as to whether the International Coffee Agreement would or would not result in increased coffee prices to the United States consumer, relating to his letter and the prevailing prices in 1962.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is good discipline to put in the act and I hope that we will adopt it and in a small way we will have insured some protection to the consumer.

Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

tional Coffee Agreement, 1962, signed at New York on September 28, 1962, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 559, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole. The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.

Fraser

Monagan

Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will put Hardy them en gros.

The amendments were agreed to. The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?

Mr. ALGER. I am, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. ALGER moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to recommit.

The motion to recommit was rejected. Mr. SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Perkins

Philbin

Bennett, Mich. Hutchinson

Horton

Jensen

Joelson

Johansen

Berry

Betts

Bolton,

Frances P.

Jonas

Bolton,

Oliver P.

Bow
Bray
Bromwell
Broomfield
Brotzman
Brown, Ohio
Broyhill, N.C.
Broyhill, Va.
Bruce
Cederberg
Chamberlain
Chenoweth

Cleveland

Colmer

Conte
Corbett
Cunningham
Curtin

Derounian
Devine

Dole

Dowdy Dwyer Ellsworth

Kastenmeier

Langen

Lennon

Lindsay

Lipscomb

Long, Md. McDade

McIntire

McLoskey

McMillan

MacGregor

Marsh

Michel

Montoya Moore Morton

Ford

Foreman

Fulton, Tenn.

Long, La.

McClory

McCulloch

McDowell

Macdonald

Madden

Mailliard

Martin, Calif.

Martin, Mass.

So the bill was passed.

Smith, Va. Thompson, N.J. Thomson, Wis. Udall

Utt

Wallhauser Watson Watts Weaver Wilson, Bob

Mr. Hays with Mr. Shelley.

Mrs. Griffiths with Mr. Pilcher.

Mr. Fogarty with Mr. Watson. Mr. Burkhalter with Mr. Diggs.

Mr. Randall with Mr. Watts.

Mr. Roosevelt with Mr. Bass.

Mr. St Germain with Mr. Dawson.

Mr. Udall with Mr. Abbitt.

Mr. Everett with Mrs. Green of Oregon. Mr. Harding with Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin with Mrs. Kee. Mr. Scott with Mr. Smith of Virginia.

Mr. TAYLOR changed his vote from "yea" to "nay."

Reserve component.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. MACGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FINDLEY] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota?

There was no objection. Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, on my amendment offered to H.R. 8864-an amendment intended to protect the U.S. The Clerk announced the following consumer-it was my observation that pairs: the division vote showed solid support on the Republican side of the aisle. I watched carefully during the chairman's count, and I did not observe a single Member on the Democratic side rising in support of my amendment.

On this vote:

Mr. Latta for, with Mr. Bob Wilson against. Mr. Quillen for, with Mr. Miller of New Mr. Fulton of Tennessee for, with Mr. Utt

against.

Mr. Fallon for, with Mr. Martin of California against.

Mr. Sickles for, with Mr. Hoffman against. Mr. Karth for, with Mr. Cahill against. Mr. Duncan for, with Mr. Wallhauser against.

Mr. Fuqua for, with Mr. Minshall against. Mr. Long of Louisiana for, with Mr. Clancy against.

Mr. King of California for, with Mr. Del Clawson against.

Mr. Corman for, with Mr. Short against. Mr. McDowell for, with Mr. Fino against. Mr. Rodino for, with Mr. Laird against. Mr. Cameron for, with Mr. Knox against. Mr. Bonner for, with Mr. Avery against. Mr. St. Onge for, with Mr. Kilburn against. Mr. Sheppard for, with Mr. Schadeberg against.

My amendment would have required that the President certify that the International Coffee Agreement will not result in higher coffee prices for U.S. consumers before appropriation of sums for this legislation can be authorized.

GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
REMARKS

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members desiring to do so may be permitted to extend their remarks in the RECORD within 5 legislative days on the bill just passed.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?

There was no objection.

planned public works.

H.R. 8135, providing for the establishment and administration of public recreational facilities at the Sanford Reservoir area, Canadian River project, Texas.

S. 1868, amending the Adult Indian Vocational Training Act.

On Monday the 1964 appropriation bill for military construction will be called up for consideration.

On Tuesday the Private Calendar will be called and also the 1964 public works appropriation bill will be considered.

week, S. 777, to amend the Arms Control On Wednesday and the balance of the and Disarmament Act, which will be considered under an open rule with 2 hours of general debate.

This announcement is made subject to the usual reservation that conference reports may be brought up at any time and

any further program may be announced later.

DISPENSING WITH CALENDAR
WEDNESDAY

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order on Calendar Wednesday of next week be dispensed with.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?

There was no objection.

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY

NEXT

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House

Mr. ARENDS Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

There was no objection.

Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to ask the majority leader if he will advise us as to the program for next week.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, we have completed the legislative business for this Mr. Buckley with Mr. Byrnes of Wisconsin. week and it will be my purpose to ask Mr. Barrett with Mr. Brock. unanimous consent to go over until Mon

Monday next.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?

There was no objection.

BETTER LITERATURE FOR YOUTH WEEK

Mr. RYAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection.

Mr. RYAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, in Michigan, there is a movement among citizen groups and individuals to drive out the disseminators of obscene literature by promoting parent interest and