Слике страница

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. Iyield.

Mr. CARLSON. I commend the Senator from Louisiana, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, for pointing out that, despite the fact that the wheat program has cost $14 billion over the period of time he mentions, a large portion of it applies to Public Law 480, Food for Peace, and school lunch programs. All those are charged to agriculture. The substantial part is charged to wheat.

I thank the Senator for calling that to the attention of the country.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

Mr. AIKEN. Only a small portion of the wheat has been given for relief purposes, not a major part. The major portion is sold for the currency of the recipient country, and that currency is then turned over to the State Department and the armed services, to use in carrying on their programs.

Mr. ELLENDER. Before I agreed to yield to my friend the Senator from Kansas, I was going to enlarge on the question asked by the distinguished Senator from Tennessee.

It is absolutely correct that the major portion of the $9.517 billion charged to wheat under Public Law 480 was sales by our Government for soft currencies of other countries. I would say over two-thirds of the wheat costs represents sales for foreign currencies.

Mr. AIKEN. Yes.

Mr. ELLENDER. About 60 percent of those soft currencies, when we received them, were then loaned or granted to the recipient countries. Interest charged on the loan was at a very low rate. About 40 percent was used by the United States to carry on projects of its own, including needs of the Military Establishments.

Mr. AIKEN. And building embassies.

Mr. ELLENDER. Building embassies and things of that kind, and even to pay the salaries of some of the employees at our various embassies. So although the amount of $9.5 billion looms high, a good deal of that was used in lieu of cash.

Often, in this Chamber and before the committees that have dealt with foreign aid, I have made the plea that more and more of our food surpluses be used instead of cash. But what did we do? We gave the cash, and thus more or less used the food surplus program only as a supplement to the foreign aid program that we conducted.

Mr. GORE. Does not the Senator feel that it would be well, in order to complete the presentation, to recall that though grain is sold for local currencies, the restrictions upon the use of such currencies have been such, in many instances, that we have foreign currencies stacked in bales not worth as much as our own cotton sacking in which the currency is contained?

Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator is correct. The unfortunate thing is that in the early part of the operation of Public Law 480, the program was more or less

considered on the basis of getting rid of our surpluses, and letting anybody have them on any terms they desired.

Lately, however, we have been able to tighten up on that program. We worked in that direction when Public Law 480 was extended last year, or 2 years ago, when we provided in the contracts for the sale of these commodities, that the money thus obtained might be used for any purposes desired within the country making the purchase.

For example, many of our ships go through the Suez Canal. As the Senator has said, we had many Egyptian pounds there that we could have used to pay the toll for our ships going through the canal. But there was objection by the Egyptian Government. Although we had millions of their pounds, we had to use cash in order to be able to pay the tolls through the Suez Canal.

Mr. GORE. U.S. cash, dollars.

Mr. ELLENDER. Yes; U.S. dollars, not the pounds of Egypt. Egypt would not permit us to use those pounds, and that was written into the contract. Of course, our own people agreed to such terms.

Mr. GORE. Yet this is charged as a cost of the farm program.

Mr. ELLENDER. It is. I have indicated all along.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

Mr. CARLSON. I believe this is a good place to get into the RECORD the fact that during the past year, we exported 730 million bushels of our wheat. Of that vast amount, only 165 million was sold for dollars. That amounts almost to giving it away, because most of it is exchanged for other purposes.

Mr. ELLENDER. That is very true. I hope that from this time forward, the administrators of our programs abroad, particularly in respect to the operation of Public Law 480, will follow the laws that are now on the statute books, and not bargain away these precious resources without the United States receiving a fair return.

This is also true with respect to interest charges. We have found instances in which some of our commodities were sold at world prices, on which we took a tremendous loss, yet in such in— stances the interest rate was as low as 1/2 to 11/2 percent. There have been instances in which sales were made at currency exchange rates far less favorable than those available to tourists.

For example, take Poland. The tourist there receives 51 zlotys for a dollar. When we sold wheat there, we got about 18 to 21 zlotys. We lost going and comIng.

To close such loopholes, the last time Public Law 480 was extended, the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and the Congress made efforts to put the program more or less on a business basis. If that were done, perhaps our allies would like us better.

That is what

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. Iyield.

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Yes

terday I noted an editorial in one Wash

ington, D.C., newspaper placing the cost of the cotton program sponsored by the Senator from Louisiana at something like $3 billion. Of course this is a gross exaggeration, and is similar to the cost figures that have been used for wheat.

In arriving at these figures, the entire cost of the Public Law 480 program, which is a little more than a billion dollars, is added to the cost of the wheat price support program.

As the Senator knows, this includes wheat for famine relief and food packages distributed by CARE and church organizations. It is absurd to charge things like that to the cost of the farm price support program.

The average person looking at these statements believes that farmers are getting a check from the Government for this kind of relief. This is something that I hope we would be doing anyway, whether we had a price support program or not.

The same thing is true of wheat that is sold for foreign currency. This is the best part of our foreign aid program, Mr. President, and I am sure that we make many more friends in this way than we do by throwing our money around the world.

I am happy that the Senator from Louisiana has made a point of this situation.

Mr. ELLENDER. Inasmuch as I mentioned wheat, I believe I might as well mention other commodities also. Let us take corn and feed grains. That program has cost a good deal. It has cost $9,682 million. Of that huge sum, $1,052 million went through Public Law 480. That is a very small amount compared with wheat.

The greatest expense in the corn and feed grain program occurred during the past 4 years under the voluntary program about which I have been complaining, as the Senator from North Dakota knows.

The cost of the direct payments on this program have been large in contrast with what we expected. These payments now amount to $4,038,200,000. In the past 4 years we have spent in excess of $5.4 billion by way of supporting the feed grain program. All of that has occurred since 1961.

As the Senator knows, we tried in committee to do something about that. I believe we are amending the law in such a way that if the Secretary of Agriculture will use the authority, it might reduce the cost.

I shall go into greater detail in this program a little later.

The rice program has cost $1.4 billion. However, the Public Law 480 program amounted to $993 million of that, or more than two-thirds of the cost of the entire program.

The tobacco program has cost only $349 million, and most of that went by way of Public Law 480.

The upland cotton program cost $4.601 billion. Almost $2 billion of that amount went through Public Law 480.

The dairy products program has cost a total of $4.492 billion. Of course, we must add to that about $300 million be

cause we appropriated that amount directly from the Treasury to buy milk for the special milk program.

Mr. President, I shall come back to these costs later in my remarks. In my

- discussion later I shall cover these points

in detail. I ask unanimous consent to place in the Racoan at this point the complete table to which I have been referring.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Program results, Oct. 17, 1933 to June 30,
[In millions of dollars]
Corn and feed grains:


Price support costs 1 __________ __ 4, 591. 9 Public Law 480 ______________ __ 1, 052. 1 Direct payments _____________ -_ 4, 038. 2 Total ____________________ __ 9, 682. 2 Wheat: Price support costs 1 __________ __ 3, 168. 3 Public Law 480 ______________ __ 9, 517. 1 International Wheat Agreement- 1, 464. 6 Direct payments _____________ -- 453. 4 Total ____________________ _- 14, 603. 4 Rice: Price support costs 1 __________ __ 407. 3 Public Law 480 ______________ -_ 993. 0 Total ____________________ _ _ 1, 400. 3 Tobacco: Price support costs 1 _________ __ 43. 0 Public Law 480 ______________ __ 306. 5 Total ____________________ _.. 349. 5 Cotton, upland: Price support costs 1 _________ __ 2, 228. 8 Public Law 480 ______________ __ 1, 823. 8 Direct payments _____________ __ 548. 8 Total ____________________ -_ 4, 601. 4 Dairy products: Price support costs 1 _________ __ 4, 183. 7 Public Law 480 ______________ -_ 308. 6 Total ____________________ __ 4, 492. 3 Oils and oilseeds: Price support costs 1 _________ _- 665. 1 Public Law 480 ______________ __ 933. 9 Total ____________________ _ _ 1, 599. 0 Potatoes: Price support costs __________ __ 478. 6 Public Law 480 _______________ __ 1. 8 Total ____________________ __ 480.4 Wool: Price support costs ___________ __ 116. 0 Direct payments _____________ __ 468. 5 Total ____________________ __ 584. 5 All other commodities: Price support costs 1 __________ __ 164. 3 Public Law 480 _______________ _- 282. 7 Total ____________________ __ 447. 0 Total, all commodities_____ 38, 239. 8

1 Price support costs include price support losses, export subsidies, and other costs reimbursed 000 through appropriations to restore capital impairment.

Program results, Oct. 17, 1933 to June 30, 1965—Continued

[In millions of dollars] Other costs:

Strategic and critical materials__ 1, 387. 3 Offshore procurement premiums- 1. 7 Other ________________________ __ 3. 6 Ocean transportation on see. 416- 307. 2 Storage facilities _____________ __ 13.0 Research expenses ____________ __ 7. 8 Accounts and notes receivable--- 15. 9 Interest expense ______________ -_ 3, 822. 9 Operating expenses ___________ __ 855. 8 Disease eradication ___________ -_ 218. 8 Wartime consumer subsidy_____ 2, 102. 3

Total ____________________ __ 8, 736. 3

Total, all costs ___________ __ 46, 976. 1

Source: 000. All data subject to minor adjustment.

Mr. ELLENDER. This table is a vivid picture of the cost of the whole program, showing the various amounts spent through price support, direct payments, and the Public Law 480 costs for each commodity.

There is another point that I wish to emphasize. Although the costs to which I have referred seem large, there is not a country in the world whose inhabitants spend less of their income to purchase food than the people of the United States.

This process of reduced food costs has been going on for some time. I have the figures to show what has happened since 1954. In 1954 consumers spent 22.4 percent of their disposable income for food. That cost has gradually been going down from year to year, until in 1964 it required only 18.5 percent of the income to buy all the food necessary.

Let us compare that with England, where consumers must spend more than 30 percent of their income to purchase food. Compare it with Russia, where it requires 50 percent of the income to buy food. Here in the United States, because of our great abundance, we have been able to make it possible for our people to be well fed, and for the cost of the food in proportion to the income received to go down.

When I first came to the Senate, it required 421/2 million acres of land to produce the cotton that can now be grown on 16 million acres. The same thing holds true for practically all commodities. The only difference is in the degree. Take the case of tobacco. We produce as much tobacco on 1 acre today as was produced on 2% acres only 20 years ago.

When the first wheat bill was enacted, back in 1938, the yield of wheat was 11.6 bushels per acre. Today it is 27 bushels per acre.

In connection with the cost of food to the consumer, I had the stafi, through the Department, estimate how much more the consumers would have had to spend for food in 1964, had they spent 22.4 percent of their income as they did in 1934. If consumers still had to spend 22.4 percent of their income for food the total food bill would have been increased by about $18 billion. This means a total savings to the consumers of $18 billion.

By reason of the fact that there has been a gradual percentage decrease in

the amount necessary for food, families were able to spend $18 billion for purposes other than food.

Another interesting comparison is that the spendable earnings from factory work will buy more of most food items than they would have bought 10 years ago. The figures for some of the items are as follows:

White bread: 1954, 9.7 pounds; today 10.9 pounds.

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I am

interested in the figures the Senator is giving. I believe that what is true of wheat is true of most other farm commodities.

Today wheat is selling for less than it did in 1947-49, yet the cost of operation is two or three times as high as it was then. I believe this is true of most other farm commodities. No other segment of our economy has become more efi’icient in the production of its commodities than farming.

Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator is correct. The figures I am citing prove that to be so.

In 1954, 1.8 pounds of round steak could be purchased for 1 hour's work; today the amount is 2.2 pounds. Chickens, 3.1 pounds; today, 6 pounds for an hour's work. Milk delivered in quarts, 7.2; today, 8.6. In 1954, an hour's work could buy 2 pounds of butter; today it is 3.2 pounds; bacon, 2 pounds, in contrast with 3.4 pounds. Today, 4.2 dozen eggs can be bought, whereas in 1954, only 2.8 dozen eggs could be bought for an hour's work.

Although program costs have been high, the facts show that consumers have greatly benefited from the abundance of food and fiber grown on our Nation’s farms.

I wonder how much it would have cost the people if they had not had large supplies of food during and after the war. They would have had to pay through the nose. Fortunately, laws had been enacted to assist farmers to grow more and better foods for our needs.

I will not say that the situation today is aggravating, but is seems to me that it ought to be possible to enact legislation to reduce expenses further and to produce the food necessary for our requirements, instead of storing it.

There is a widespread misunderstanding about the relationship between farm prices and food prices. Many people seem to think that the rise in retail food prices during the past 10 years has been caused by rising prices received by farmers. Just the opposite is true. Relatively low prices received by farmers have been an important factor in keeping the advance in food prices within reasonable bounds.

In 1964, the retail cost of the farmfood market basket was $1,015, $82 more than in 1954. The farm value of the foods in the market basket was $373, $25 less than 10 years earlier. The fannretail price spread was $642, $107 more than in 1954. The farmer's share of the retail food dollar was 37 percent in 1964; in 1954, it was 43 percent. This is clear from the next table:


Take the case of bread. As the next table shows, the average retail price of a


Farm ‘Farmers 1-pound loaf of white bread in the Year Retail Farm retail share United States was 16.3 cents in 1954. Of C05‘ "we Sgg‘ifd (Wm) this, the farmer got only 3.3 cents for ' all the ingredients he furnished. Last 1% -------1831;? $333 ‘g l 3; year, this price had risen to 20.7 cents. """" ’ , The farmer got only 3.2 cents, but the Change i manufacturers and distributors from the from 1 1954 to I farmer to the consumer got 4/; cents 1964----.. +82 -25 +107 , --6 more_ l Farm value Farmer's share Retail _ Farm- ' ___ Year price retail 1 All in- Wheat spread All in- Wheat 1 gredients 1 gredients Cents Cents Cents Cents i Percent Percent 1954 __________________________________ _- 16.3 3.3 2.7 13.0 l 20 1964 __________________________________ -_ 20.1 3.2 2.5 I 17.5 ‘ 15 12


1 Beginning July 1964 includes value of domestic marketing certificate.

Many people forget that farm programs make an important contribution to the life of our whole economy. Several independent studies agree that in the absence of price support and acreage diversion programs, realized net farm income would have averaged about $6 billion a year, less than half the current level.

Such a decline in farm income would be an unmitigated disaster whose ramifications would spread throughout the entire economy. The $6 billion level of farm income would support a value of farm real estate of only about a fifth of its current value. A large number of defaults and foreclosures of farm real estate debts would be inevitable. The resources of country banks would suffer a severe shock. Farmers’ ability to purchase nonfarm production goods such as farm machinery, petroleum products, and fertilizer; to hire labor; and to pay taxes and interest would be drastically reduced. The tax base of many State and local government units would be seriously impaired.

Agriculture contributes substantially to the well-being of our national economy. Farmers are good customers.

The farmer spends $28 to $29 billion a year for goods and services to produce crops and livestock; another $15 billion a year for the same things that city people buy—food, clothing, drugs, furniture, appliances, and other products and services.

Each year the farmer's purchases include $3.1 billion in new farm tractors and other motor vehicles, machinery, and equipment. About $1 billion was spent in 1959 by the primary iron and steel industry for equipment and new plants; $3.3 billion for fuel, lubricants, and maintenance of machinery and motor vehicles. Farming uses more petroleum than any other single industry; $1.6 billion for fertilizer and lime; products containing 320 million pounds of rubber—about 9 percent of the total used in the United States, or enough to put tires on nearly 6 million automobiles; 28 to 30 billion kilowatthours of electricity—or more than 4 percent of the Nation’s total, or more than is needed annually by Baltimore, Chicago, Boston, Detroit, Houston, and

Washington, D.C.; 5 million tons of steel in the form of farm machinery, trucks, cars, fencing, and building materials. This is one-third as much steel as the automotive industry uses.


Three out of every ten jobs in private employment are related to agriculture.

Ten million people have jobs storing, transporting, processing, and merchandising the products of agriculture.

Six million people have jobs providing the supplies farmers use.

Here are a few examples from the 1958 Census of Manufactures:

Meat and poultry, including meatpacking, prepared meats, and poultry dressing plants—311,758 employees and a payroll of nearly $1.5 billion.

Dairy, including fluid milk, concentrated and dried milk, natural cheese, creamery butter, ice cream, and special dairy products—293,802 employees and a payroll of more than $1.3 billion.

Baking, including bread and related products and biscuits and crackers— 301,296 employees and a payroll of more than $1.3 billion.

Fruits and vegetables, canned, frozen, and processed as pickles and sauces-— 166,711 employees and a payroll of $545 million.

Cotton broadwoven fabrics industry-— 243,419 employees and a payroll of $724 million.


One hour of farm labor produces more than five times as much food and other crops as it did in 1919-21. Crop production is 75 percent higher per acre. Output per breeding animal is 92 percent greater.

Productivity of the American farmworker in the 1950’s increased by 5.4 percent a year. Output per man-hour in nonagricultural industry increased by 2.1 percent a year.

One farmworker produces food, fiber, and other farm commodities for himself and 28 others.


In 1963—

Farm real estate taxes totaled $11/2 billion.

Tax on personal property on farms was another one-third of a billion dollars.

Federal and State income taxes paid by the farm population amounted to $1.5 billion.

Net taxes paid by farmers on motor fuels were $450 million.

Motor vehicle license fees and taxes paid by farmers were about $175 million.

Sales taxes totaled about $350 million.


The United States is the world‘s largest exporter of agricultural products.

Sixty-three million acres of our 300 million harvested acres produce for export. The land producing for export represents about the same acreage of cropland as that harvested in Nebraska, Iowa, and Kansas.

Some $5.6 billion in farm products were exported in 1963.


American agricultural abundance is a powerful force for world peace. Our food and other farm products are helping to relieve hunger and to promote economic growth in the newly develop— ing countries of the world. Our wheat is providing an additional 5 billion loaves of bread a year for the people of India.

We accept foreign currencies from countries that need our farm products but are short of dollar exchange. We also barter or trade our agricultural products for essential foreign goods and services—more than $1.6 billion worth since July 1, 1954.


Each of us in 1963 consumed these and other products of farm and ranch: 171 pounds of beef, veal, pork, lamb, and mutton; 38 pounds of chicken and turkey; 175 pounds of fruits—fresh fruit equivalent; 230 pounds of vegetables— fresh vegetable equivalent; 634 pounds of dairy products—whole milk equivalent; 100 pounds of potatoes and 6 pounds of sweetpotatoes—fresh equivalent.

We can choose from as many as 6,000 different foods when we go to market-— fresh, canned, frozen, concentrated, dehydrated, ready-mixed, ready to serve, or in heat-and-serve form.


In 1963, we used 4 billion pounds of cotton, or more than 21 pounds per person—that is the equivalent of about 23 house dresses, or 34 dress shirts, for every man, woman, and child in the Nation: 412 million pounds of apparel and carpet wool, more than 2 pounds per person: and research has given these natural fibers new qualities. Specially treated cotton resists everything from wrinkles to fire. Wool can be treated to keep it from shrinking when it is washed to retain pleats in skirts and creases in trousers.


It takes 1 acre of healthy forest 20 years to grow the lumber for a 5-room frame house.

Farmers and other small woodland owners control 54 percent of the Nation's commercial forest; three out of four forest owners are farmers.


Paper. About 400 pounds of paper per person is used each year. This requires the net annual wood growth from about three-quarters of an acre of commercial forest. A large New York paper uses the equivalent of the net annual growth from 6,000 acres of commercial forest land for its Sunday issue, or the net annual growth from 500,000 acres every year.


And the day of the wood-burning rocket may arrive. Nitrocellulose, derived mainly from woodpulp, is a major ingredient of some solid-fuel propellants of rockets.

What does the farmer receive for food? Thirty-seven cents of each $1 spent for food; 2.5 cents for the corn in a 28-cent box of corn flakes; 56 cents of each $1 spent for choice beef; 2.5 cents for the wheat in a 22-cent loaf of white bread. About 11 cents from a 25-cent quart of milk.

For clothing? About 28 cents for the cotton in a man’s $4 business shirt.

For shelter? About 25 cents stumpage for each $1 worth of pine lumber produced from his woods.

Income from his labor and capital?

Farm people in 1963 received $36.2 billion in sales of crops and livestock, over $10,000 per farm; with a net income for farm operators of $12.3 billion from farming, $3,400 per farm; $1,480 of personal income per capital—$970 from farm sources and $510 from nonfarm sources. Per capita personal income of nonfarm people was $2,515 from all sources; $1.01 an hour income for farmwork. By contrast, 1 hour's work in a factory averaged $2.46, and hourly earnings in food marketing averaged $2.17.

In terms of an hour's work: 1 hour's work in a factory buys more food today than it did 20 or 30 years ago. Pay for 1 hour's factory labor would buy—

Round steak: 2.3 pounds in 1963; 2 pounds in 1942; 1.5 pounds in 1932; or

Bacon: 3.6 pounds in 1963; 2.2 pounds in 1942; 1.8 pounds in 1932; or

Milk: 9.5 quarts in 1963; 5.7 quarts in 1942; 4.1 quarts in 1932; or

Oranges: 2.7 dozen in 1963; 2.4 dozen in 1942; 1.5 dozen in 1932; or

Bread: 11.4 loaves in 1963; 9.8 loaves in 1942; 6.3 loaves in 1932.

As compared with other products: Food costs have risen less since 1947-49 than most other consumer items in the cost-of-living index. For all items on the list, the increase in cost to 1963 was 31 percent. For all food, the increase was 24 percent. For rent, it was 47 percent, and for medical care, 69 percent.

The farmer gets none of the increase in cost for the food he produces. In fact, he receives 15 percent less for the farm food market basket than he did in 194749. The total cost of farm-grown food has risen only 15 percent, although processing and marketing costs have increased 44 percent since 1947-49.

Earlier this year the committee held hearings for more than a month, and a thorough study was made of all the testimony introduced. After the bill that is now being considered was passed by the House, the committee spent about 2 weeks, day after day, reviewing the various proposals that were made to the committee, and, of course, the bill passed the House.

In some instances, the bill passed by the House followed the administration's view, particularly with respect to corn and other feed grains. To a certain extent, it followed the administration's proposal as to cropland adjustment.

But the House committee saw fit to strike from the bill the title dealing with rice which was recommended by the administration.

The administration bill contained no provision for cotton. The House bill provides a cotton section.

When the measure came before the Senate committee, we considered the administration’s bill, as well as the House bill and all other bills before the committee. It was quite a task to study those complicated bills and from them present to the Senate a bill which I believe should be supported by every Member of the Senate. It is true that there were differences of opinion as to what ought to be done as to various commodities. We had quite a hassle on cotton with my good friend, the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. RUSSELL], who is now presiding over the Senate.

We did not have too much trouble with wheat, but I wish to stress the view that what the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry sought to do was to protect the producer of the commodities, and not those who used the raw products by way of manufacture, such as the flour mills. The bill represents an effort to assist the producers of these commodities to keep them in business. That is what we sought to do.

When the administration bill was sent to the House and Senate, let us say, in the case of wheat, there was no guarantee of any kind in that bill which would fully protect the wheat farmer. Much was left to the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture. As we all remember, the wheat provision advocated by the Department would never have passed the House in the form as introduced, because it was stated that an attempt was made to transfer some of the cost of the program to the consumer, instead of letting the Treasury pay the cost as in the past.

What the House did as to the wheat provision was to provide farmers with full parity on the wheat necessary for domestic consumption, which is approximately 500 million bushels, or approximately 45 percent of their production. The blend price received by the farmers for that wheat—that is, the 500 million bushels, plus what they would receive for the rest of their wheat on sale on world markets—was in the neighborhood of $1.81 a bushel.

The House did not intend that export certificates would be charged on shipments abroad. In other words, the wheat was left free to be sold at world prices. But domestic millers would still be required to purchase certificates just as they did last year and this year and at the same value. Producers would receive that 75-cent value plus 50 cents from the Government. This amount plus what they would receive on the world markets would give the wheatgrower about $1.81 a bushel.

The Senate attempted to improve the situation—that is, more or less provide a guarantee of $1.90 a bushel for the wheatgrowers. The Senate committee went a little further than the House did, insofar as compensating the producers of wheat was concerned. We had three proposals before us; namely, the House version, the version of the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YOUNG], and the version which I proposed.

Of course, we had the administration's proposal, which we discussed a moment ago, which gave considerable discretion to the Secretary of Agriculture without the guarantee of the Senate bill.

The aim of the committee as a whole was to make certain that the farmer had a guarantee of so much per bushel for his production. I believe that it should be the policy of the committee to take as good care of the producers as we can, in order to keep them in business.

The version which I proposed would have given to the farmers the same return, but in a different way. My proposal would have increased the number of certificates issued to producers—artificially, of course—a number of certificates on which the farmer would be paid a certain sum from 500 million bushels to 750 to 800 million bushels. Thus. the farmer would receive approximately the same amount under the proposal I made as he would receive under the House proposal.

After discussing all proposals, we finally concluded on following the proposal that was presented by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YOUNG].

His proposal makes a return to the farmer of $1.90 a bushel, 9 cents more than the bill which I proposed and which the House proposed.

The method followed by my good friend, the Senator from North Dakota, was to make $1.90 a bushel available on all wheat which was produced by those who participated in the program, which is purely voluntary. That method, of course, may be improved upon, but I sincerely hope that no effort will be made by the Senate to cut back on the returns of those upon whom we are dependent for food and fiber, because if we continue cutting back, there is no doubt in my mind that we will force those who produce our very lifeblood to gradually go out of business.

Mr. President, I am determined to see to it that the producers of these commodities receive a fair share of our prosperous economy. The only way that that can be done, as I see it, is through a continuation of some kind of parity support, and probably direct payments.

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr. President, will the Senator from Louisiana yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I am glad to yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I commend the Senator from Louisiana, the chairman of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, for the fair and accurate analysis of the wheat provisions now in the bill, and all the other proposals.

To me, it is almost unbelievable that the Senator could remember all the technical provisions of the various farm programs.

The Senator spent long hours, as chairman of the committee, presiding over the long markup hearings that would try the patience of Job. He listened to arguments and wrote a bill which I think, on the whole, is a very good bill.

The bill would extend the present program, with some simplifications and improvements.

The senior Senator from Louisiana is entitled to great credit for what he has accomplished thus far.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I thank my good friend the Senator from North Dakota.

I ask Senators not to pin me down to too much detail as to these bills. I am merely trying to explain what I understand to be the purpose of the bills.

I am sure that our staff agrees with what I said as to the purpose. However, we must depend largely on our lawyers to put the proper language in the bills so as to accomplish the purpose and intent.

I have read the bills over and over. I have been wrestling with the farm pro— gram for 29 years. I should know a little about the subj ect. The committee members have been most helpful.

I do not like to say this, but it is true. This year the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has become a trifle unpopular with new Members of the Senate. When I first came to the Senate in 1937. the prize committees in the Senate were the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and the Committee on Appropriations. They were the committees on which every Senator desired to serve. No one wanted to serve on the Committee on Foreign Relations, because there was nothing to it.

The Committee on the Judiciary had very few applicants.

I do not like to say it but it is true. No new Senators were asking for a berth on our committee, even though five vacancies existed on the committee this year. We had to draft Senators and ask them to serve.

I am glad to say that they enjoy the work. They do not find it as hard as they thought it was, though it might require a little more study and work than would be required on several of the other committees.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President. will the Senator yield? I want to make an observation.

Mr. ELLENDER. The Committee on the Judiciary involves a great deal of work. I do not know how much has been accomplished, but a great deal of work is done in that committee.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President. I make the observation that perhaps the reluctance of new Senators to seek a berth on the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry arises from the fact that they realize the great task which that committee performs and the difliculty of its per

formance by reason of the fact that one of the most brilliant and important Senators, my good friend, the senior Senator from Louisiana, has been unable, despite his many years of diligent service on that committee, to devise a bill which would solve all the problems of agriculture to the satisfaction of everybody concerned.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, if I were able to do that, I would not be in the Senate. I would be somewhere else.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. Iyield.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and the other members of the committee for a very fine piece of work in presenting the Senate with legislation which will, I hope, improve somewhat the income of the American farmers.

I do not believe that anyone can state that the farmer is receiving his fair share of the national income when parity is about 75 to 78 percent. I believe that the records will show that at the present time the distinguished chairman of the committee has correctly mentioned that agriculture is not only rendering service to the consumers of the Nation but is also entering into a program of assisting in our peace programs in the world. It is the lowest paid of any segment of the American economy.

Before I close, I desire to say that, coming from a wheat State that produces one-fourth of the winter wheat of this Nation, I am indebted to the committee, and particularly to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YOUNG], for the section in this bill which I understand is largely the section of the Senator from North Dakota.

I am proud of the fact that, early in the session, I cosponsored the measure with him. I believe that it will add much to the income of the wheat growers and the stabilization of the entire wheat section, based on a 4-year program.

There is only one way to bring about increased agricultural income. That is based on payments from a program or a direct increase in commodity prices, either a subsidy from the Treasury or commodity price supports. I hope that we can bring about increased agricultural income in the price field rather than by means of a subsidy from the Federal Government.

I appreciate the work done by this committee.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I hope that the time will come when that can be accomplished. That really is the aim of the committee. It may come when we have been able to cut back on the enormous surpluses that have been permitted to grow so large.

As the Senator knows, we shall deal with the feed grain program. That program was brought about through a special program in February 1961. There was a surplus of 84.7 million tons of feed grain on hand, when less than half of that would have been suflicient. In order to bring about a decrease in this enormous surplus, I reluctantly agreed to go along with the first bill that was

enacted on corn and other feed grain programs.

This was done in order to make it possible to reduce the surpluses by paying farmers not to plant.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. I join my colleagues in commending most warmly the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, who so brilliantly heads the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, for his long, arduous, cooperative, and successful work. I call attention to the fact that the Com— mittee on Agriculture and Forestry deals with much more than the problems of the producers.

I believe that new Senators who have not wished to serve on the committee have not been animated by any disregard of the able leadership of the chairman, but rather by the onerous duties that confront the committee, in addition to handling all the items of price support and the problems of production, marketing, and the like that affect agriculture directly.

I want the RECORD to show that the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry now has jurisdiction, to a large extent, of the problems involved in foreign policy. For example, under Public Law 480, there are four different branches of operation in connection with the disposition of our surplus food. There are sales for soft currency under one title. Under another title we have sales for cash or on long-term credits. Under another title we have the bartering of surplus commodities for strategic materials. Then, under another section, we have the supplying of our surplus commodities to bring famine relief to nations which need it.

All those objectives deal with the foreign policy of this Nation. Yet, they fall within the jurisdiction of this committee and have been most ably handled by the distinguished chairman of the committee.

I want the Rscoxn to show that no Senator has made greater contributions in these various fields than has the distinguished chairman of the committee. in visiting the countries which are utilizing our great agricultural production.

Second, in addition to the truly agricultural objectives which the committee serves, we have a great number of social and welfare programs, as members of the committee know, but which the general public does not know—for example, the food stamp program, the distribution of surplus commodities to welfare recipients and to public institutions, the school lunch program, and the school milk program. I have not even mentioned the International Wheat Agreement program, which is one of the programs that have to do with our foreign policy.

I want the Rscoxn to show that this committee is led by a most able and farseeing chairman. The committee has dealt with not only the problems of agricultural producers, but also substantially with many other problems in other fields.

The chairman, in particular, and the committee in great measure, deserve credit for having worked hard and dili

« ПретходнаНастави »