Слике страница
PDF
ePub

which would make U.S. wheat and flour competitive without disrupting world prices.

Sixth. Issuance of export marketing certificates to producers at the end of the marketing year on a pro rata basis. The value of such certificates would be based on the total amount received from exporters less the total amount of wheat export subsidies paid to exporters.

The maximum cost of certificates to processors would, as in the committee bill, be not more than the difference between the loan level and $2 for 1966, with discretionary authority in the Secretary to increase it up to the difference between the loan level and parity in subsequent years if bread prices rose.

The amendment also strikes out the provision in the committee bill which would have permitted the Secretary to suspend the requirement that processors acquire certificates.

Mr. McGOVERN. The Senator is cor

rect.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, as

chairman of the committee, I had a full

discussion on the matter before the com

mittee and went into every phase of these payments. I have no objection to agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN. Again I express appreciation to the chairman of the committee for his consideration throughout the hearings, not only on the wheat section, but on other complex sections of the legislation. No one could have possibly been more thoughtful and considerate toward the other members of the committee than was our chairman, the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER]. So I very much appreciate his support of the proposed amendment.

Mr. President, if there are no further comments, I move the adoption of the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MCGOVERN], as modified.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.

The amendment (No. 437), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

On page 64, line 12, after the period, add the following: "Whenever a wheat marketing allocation program is in effect for any marketing year the Secretary shall determine (1) the wheat marketing allocation for such year which shall be the amount of wheat he estimates will be used during such year for food products for consumption in the United States, and (2) the national allocation percentage for such year which shall be the percentage which the national marketing allocation is of the amount of the national marketing quota for wheat that would be determined for such marketing year if a national marketing quota for such year had been proclaimed less the expected production on the acreage allotments for farms which will not be in compliance with the requirements of the program. Each farm shall receive a wheat marketing allocation for such marketing year equal to the number of bushels obtained by multiplying the number of acres in the farm acreage allotment for wheat by the projected farm yield, and multiplying the resulting number of bushels by the national allocation percentage."

On page 68, strike out lines 10 through 17, and substitute the following:

"(1)(a) price support for wheat accompanied by domestic certificates shall be at 100 per centum of the parity price or as

near thereto as the Secretary determines practicable, but in no event less than $2.50 per bushel, (b) price support for wheat not accompanied by marketing certificates shall be at such level, not in excess of the parity price therefor, as the Secretary determines appropriate taking into consideration competitive world prices of wheat, the feeding value of wheat in relation to feed grains, and the level at which price support is made available for feed grains."

On page 68, beginning with line 18, strike out down through line 21 on page 69 and substitute the following:

"(2) The level of price support pursuant to paragraph (1) (a) multiplied by the number of bushels for which domestic marketing certificates are issued to producers, plus the level of price support pursuant to paragraph (1)(b) multiplied by the number of bushels of wheat for which domestic marketing certificates are not issued, plus diversion payments for diverting acreage under subsection (a) of section 339, plus the proceeds from export marketing certificates shall, when averaged over the projected yield of the national acreage allotment, be not less than $1.90 per bushel."

On page 67, beginning with line 9, strike out down through line 4 on page 68 and sub"(f) Section 379e of such Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, Commodity Credit Corportion shall sell marketing certificates for the marketing years for the 1966 through the 1969 wheat crops to persons engaged in the processing of food products at the face value thereof less any amount by which price support for wheat accompanied by domestic marketing certificates exceeds $2 per bushel; except that if the Secretary determines that the average price of bread in the United States has increased following enactment of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965 and prior to the beginning of such marketing year, the Secretary may increase such price to an amount not exceeding the face value of such certificates. The exception contained in the preceding sentence shall not be applicable to the marketing year for the 1966 crop.'"

On page 72, after line 25, insert the following:

amended by striking out 'only with respect "(2) Amendment (13) of section 202 is

to the crop planted for harvest in the calendar year 1965' and substituting 'with respect to the crops planted for harvest in the calendar years 1965 through 1969'."

On page 65, strike out lines 12 through 23. On page 72, beginning on line 24 change the semicolon to a period, and strike out down through line 25.

On page 63, lines 8 to 10, strike out "by striking out 'not accompanied by marketing certificates,' and substituting 'under section 107(1) of the Agricultural Act of 1949,' and (3)".

On page 75, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

"Section 379d (b) is amended by striking out the second sentence and substituting the following: "The cost of the export marketing certificates per bushel to the exporter shall be that amount determined by the Secretary on a daily basis which would make United States wheat and wheat flour generally competitive in the world market, avoid disruption of world market prices, and fulfill the international obligations of the United States.'

"Section 379c (a) is amended by striking out everything in the next to the last sentence beginning with the words 'United States' and substituting the following: and substituting the following: 'United States. The Secretary shall also provide for the issuance of export marketing certificates to eligible producers at the end of the marketing year on a pro rata basis.

[blocks in formation]

Mr.

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, in the Washington Daily News of Thursday, September 9, 1965, there appeared an article written by Mr. John Herling, commenting on what is known as section 703 of the Food and Agriculture Act as recommended by the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, which sets forth certain figures on the cost of wheat, designed to indicate that the U.S. 50percent shipping requirement is not a factor in the sale of American wheat. I was surprised to read these figures, because I had never heard them before. I checked them carefully with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, agricultural service, and find on proper analysis, that they prove the point of those of us who have charged that this restriction prevents the sale of American wheat rather than improves it.

I ask unanimous consent that the

article by Mr. Herling, together with my analysis with respect to it, be printed in the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the article and analysis were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

SOVIET WHEAT RHUBARB

(By John Herling)

A great storm has been whipped up in the Wheat Belt over the alleged bullheadedness of the American maritime unions on the subject of wheat shipments to the Soviet Union.

According to some farm State Senators, notably Senators GEORGE MCGOVERN, Democrat, of South Dakota, and WALTER MONDALE, Democrat, of Minnesota, more than a quarter billion bushels could be sold to the Soviet Union were it not for the blocking tactics of the American labor movement.

It appears that the American unions insist on sticking to the agreement brought about in 1963 by President Kennedy and nailed down under President Johnson. This calls for the export of U.S. wheat on a 50-50 shipment basis: at least half to go in U.S. ships and the rest in foreign-flag ships.

Because of the superior wage scales and employment conditions on U.S. ships, U.S. shipping costs are higher than those charged by foreign-flag ships. While U.S. unions would be ready to ship wheat abroad, they believe that it should not be done at the expense of hard-won U.S. living and working standards. They also maintain that shipment of more than 50 percent grain in foreign-flag ships could prove another blow to the diminishing U.S. maritime industry.

In the meantime Senators MCGOVERN and MONDALE have introduced an amendment to the farm bill which calls for the relaxation

of the foreign-flag restrictions as applied to wheat shipments.

Union spokesmen express puzzlement not so much about the concern of farm State Senators for their constituents which they regard as natural-but about the nature of the attack on the labor position.

First of all, say the AFL-CIO spokesmen, the issue here is not the sale of wheat but the size of the profit which the Continental and the Cargill grain companies want to make on the export deal. Already the Russians have bought from Canada for $2.21 a bushel the same quality of grain which the exporters can buy in Galveston for $1.74. With an export subsidy of 50 cents a bushel, this brings the cost down to $1.24. At this point a series of charges are added: 3 cents a bushel for loading, 54 cents a bushel for U.S.-flag ships and 30 cents for an export certificate-which brings the export price up to $2.11 a bushel, as compared with the $2.21 paid by the U.S.S.R. for Canadian wheat. Even if all the wheat were shipped in U.S. vessels, the wheat exporters would still be making a good profit. If the wheat is shipped 50-50 between foreign-flag ships and U.S. ships, under the Kennedy-Johnson agreement, the wheat exporters would be making a handsome $41 million profit. But if the agreement were scrapped and the wheat were shipped in foreign-flag ships alone, the export companies would harvest a $60 million profit.

At the same time, the AFL-CIO spokesmen declare the unions are not arbitrary or inflexible on the whole issue. But so far, they say-contrary to the impression created by a spate of stories on the subject-neither President Johnson, Vice President HUMPHREY, Commerce Secretary Connor, Labor Secretary Wirtz, Agriculture Secretary Freeman, or even the Senators involved, have talked to AFL-CIO President George Meany. Nor, says the AFL-CIO, has any proposition been placed before the Maritime Advisory Committee, which was set up in 1964 to handle such problems, following a similar crisis on wheat shipments.

ANALYSIS

In yesterday's Washington Daily News, a column by John Herling puts forward the dubious thesis that the American bottoms requirement is not preventing wheat sales to Russia at all. The author quotes some figures which, he argues, show that even if all our grain were shipped in American vessels to Russia, our wheat exporters could still make a sizable profit at existing prices.

Unfortunately, the figures Herling uses are simply inaccurate. He quotes the price of $2.21 a bushel paid by the Russians for wheat they bought in Canada, and argues that, using U.S.-flag ships, we could sell wheat abroad for $2.11 a bushel. Unfortunately, he apparently does not realize that the $2.21 price he uses for Canadian wheat is really a price in Canadian dollars. At the August 12 exchange rate of 92.78, this would translate to a price of roughly $2.06 in U.S. dollars. This means that the relevant comparison is between $2.06 a bushel for Canadian wheat, and $2.11 a bushel for American wheat in American bottoms.

Mr. Herling's article also demonstrates some other unfortunate misunderstandings. He writes as though the issue concerns all of American wheat shipments abroad, or all of American cash wheat sales. In fact, no one is questioning the 50-percent bottoms requirement for Public Law 480 grain sales, and there has never been a 50-percent a 50-percent restriction on commercial sales to countries other than those in the Soviet bloc.

I think it is important to get the real facts The latest Foreign Agricultural Service figures estimate that the No. 3 Manitoba wheat sold by Canada to the Russians has a

delivered price, at Odessa, of $76.82 a metric ton. The comparable American grade is No. 1 Heavy Northern Spring, 15-percent protein. This wheat, on September 1, 1965, had a delivered price, at Odessa, of $79.12 a ton, when sent 50 percent in American bottoms.

Latest Department of Agriculture estimates indicate that the extra cost per ton of sending wheat in 50 percent American bottoms is about $3.

If we subtract this from the present delivered price of American wheat to Odessa, $79.12, we can conclude that, if it were not for the American bottoms requirement, we could supply wheat to the Russians at Odessa for $76.12, about 70 cents less than the Russians are paying the Canadians for equivalent wheat.

It seems to be alleged in Mr. Herling's article that the high present American price $79.12 a ton delivered at Odessa in 50 percent American bottoms-includes excessive profits for the American wheat export companies, and that they could afford to provide wheat at much lower cost. I do not believe there is very much substance to this argument. Wheat exporting is a very competitive business, and this fact tends to drive profits down. According to exports in the Grain Division of the Foreign Agricultural Service, a profit of $1 per ton is a very good one on such large scale sales, and such sales are often made on profits very much smaller than this, even less than 25 cents a ton.

Thus any claim that the difference between the present delivered prices of comparable American and Canadian wheat roughly $2.30 a ton-is due to profit margins of wheat exporters simply does not make very much

sense.

Mr. MCNAMARA. Mr. President, much has been said today-both for and against the requirement that 50 percent of the wheat shipments authorized under this act must go in American bottoms. What concerns me is the fact that little if anything has been said concerning the obligations of the American merchant marine.

A substantial number of our shipping lines receive Government operating subsidies the purpose being to enable the American flags with their higher operating costs to compete with the foreign flag lines. The theory behind such a flag lines. The theory behind such a program is excellent. However, the actual experience is much more sobering.

The experiences which I have in mind relate specifically to the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway, and may be unique to this area.

However, as this Great Lakes area comprises the heartland of American manufacturing and farming, as well as being one of the largest taxpaying areas of our country, I firmly believe that it is entitled to fair and equal treatment, especially by those shipping lines reespecially by those shipping lines receiving Government operating subsidies. The opposite, I am sad to say, is true.

The St. Lawrence Seaway owes much of its remarkable progress thus far to the efforts of the foreign-flag shipping lines who have been primarily responsible for the development of this fourth seacoast.

It seems that the American-flag lines, knowing they automatically must receive 100 percent of military cargoes and 50 percent of all other cargoes shipped under Government programs, are satisfied to wait and, therefore, force the cargoes to come to them at tidewater

ports of their choosing. Many of these lines, I might add, are subsidized.

In theory, it should be cheaper to ship directly to Europe from the Great Lakes area where products are manufactured rather than transport those products overland to tidewater ports and then ship them to Europe.

But because the American-flag lines have jacked up the Great Lakes to Europe freight rates so high on cargoes with military potential, direct shipments from Great Lakes ports to European destinations have been virtually eliminated.

As I said earlier, the Federal Government pays subsidies to U.S.-flag lines to enable them to compete with foreignflag lines. But in the case of the Great Lakes this purpose has not been realized.

For example, on military-type items being shipped to Europe, the ocean rates from tidewater ports for all lines, foreign and domestic, and the foreign-flag lines rates from the Great Lakes to Europe, are almost identical.

But American-flag line rates from the lake ports to Europe, despite the Federal subsidy, are 65 percent higher than via foreign-flag ships. This same situation generally holds true for most other cargoes originating in the Great Lakes area.

Under the law, 100 percent of military cargoes must be shipped in American bottoms. However, military cargoes shipped from Great Lakes ports have dropped from a high of 151,000 measurement tons in 1962 to an estimated low this year of only 45,000 measurement tons.

What is the reason for this?

Well, when it comes time to ship these military products manufactured in the Great Lakes area, as required by law in American bottoms, American ships mysteriously just are not available at Great Lakes ports. And so the cargoes must be transported overland, at greater cost, to tidewater ports, where American line ships are available to carry them.

However, in this instance, the Defense Department must share an equal portion of the blame.

For example, in 1964, 89.5 percent of all military cargoes carried on ships chartered by the Defense Department came from the Great Lakes area, but were actually shipped via tidewater ports.

This action is contrary to a study made by the Defense Department in 1961 in which the use of controlled ships was recommended to take advantage of the lower landed costs via lake ports.

Whatever the outcome of the vote on section 703, I firmly believe that serious consideration should be given by the Senate toward taking whatever action it deems necessary to insure that the Government is getting a fair and just return for its subsidy dollar.

This should include, I believe, a study into the current method of subsidy payments. Further, it should result in the development of a method whereby all areas of the country would share in the benefits of the American-flag line subsidies, for which we all pay.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I have been giving some thought to section 703, about which there has been discus

sion on the floor of the Senate on yesterday and today. May I say, in all frankness, that I am in favor of the proposal advanced by the distinguished Senator from Minnesota [Mr. MONDALE], the distinguished Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MCGOVERN], and others, and I am delighted we have had this chance to discuss the matter out in the open so a better understanding could better be achieved.

I do not feel wheat should be penalized at the expense of every other commodity. If we are going to penalize wheat, why do we not penalize all the other commodities which are sent abroad without any of the burdens and drawbacks that are applicable in the case of wheat?

In other words, I join with my colleagues from the wheat-producing States in saying all we want is the same kind of fair deal for wheat that other commodities are given when they are sold

overseas.

I am aware of the fact, as are other Senators, that some days ago a resolution was introduced by the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. McGOVERN] and the Senator from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON],

seeking to investigate an additional ramification of this existing requirement with respect to the shipments of wheat abroad. That resolution is now in the Committee on Foreign Relations. Just today I had a talk with the distinguished acting chairman of that committee, the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN]. He told me hearings had been scheduled on the McGovern-Symington resolution for Monday next.

Therefore, if Senators would agree, and most especially those from the same area that I come from, the wheat-producing area, I would like at this time, on my own initiative, because of the fact that a hearing will be held on Monday and the resolution will in all likelihood be reported out-I repeat, on my own responsibility at this time, even though I favor it-to move to strike section 703. I am of the opinion that the Committee on Foreign Relations will agree that the existing policy is unwise and when the resolution returns to this Chamber for consideration, we will have the benefit of the considered judgment not only of the Committee on Agriculture but also the Committee on Foreign Relations. Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I am delighted to yield.

Mr. MONDALE. I believe the discussion and debate that have been engendered by section 703, and as contained in the committee report, have already been most useful in creating a broader public understanding of what is involved. The section was unanimously approved by the Agriculture Committee

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

Mr. MONDALE. Iyield.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I am delighted the Senator has emphasized the fact that section 703 was unanimously approved by the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. When the matter is investigated thoroughly the wisdom of the

proposal by the distinguished Senator from Minnesota [Mr. MONDALE] is clear. Mr. MONDALE. I thank the Senator very much. I think it is significant, in terms of expressing the unanimous feeling, that after a substantial discussion of the committee, it was felt that the 50percent limitation was very unfair to the percent limitation was very unfair to the agriculture economy, denied improveagriculture economy, denied improvement in the international balance-ofpayments situation, and did not hurt the Communist bloc in any way, shape, or form whatever. It simply gives us 50 percent of nothing.

Since the discussion on this matter has come up time and time again, there has come up time and time again, there has come to attention the existence of a come to attention the existence of a memorandum from the legal section of memorandum from the legal section of the State Department indicating that 30 the State Department indicating that 30 existing laws are probably being violated in principle by the 50 percent American bottom requirement. In line with that, bottom requirement. In line with that, the hearings by the Foreign Relations the hearings by the Foreign Relations Committee, set for next Monday, on the resolution by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON] and the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MCGOVERN], are well in order.

I am 100 percent enthusiastically in favor of section 703, but in line with that information, and because further information will strengthen that view, I therefore do not oppose the motion.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I appreciate the understanding shown by the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. I know how much this means to him, and how interested he is in this particular section. I have discussed with him the value of adding the consideration and deliberations of the Foreign Relations Committee to the existing arguments so ably developed and articulated by him.

I note that since we started the colloquy the distinguished acting chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee has returned to the floor. I wish to repeat, so he may either confirm or deny the statement I made, that it had been his intention to hold hearings on the McGovern-Symington resolution on Monday next in the Foreign Relations Com

[blocks in formation]

that the Foreign Relations Committee may take a little stronger action than we did, because section 703 simply states that it is the sense of Congress that such and such be done.

All this came about, Mr. President, when the late President John F. Kennedy agreed to sell wheat to Russia. One of the conditions he imposed by Executive order was that at least 50 percent of the wheat sold to Russia be shipped in American vessels.

There is no law at all on the statute books with respect to that problem. As the majority leader has stated, why should we restrict the shipment of wheat when, as a matter of fact, there is no restriction whatever on any other commodity sent abroad to countries who desire to buy from us?

I am hopeful that if the Committee on Foreign Relations takes up this matter, they will come in with something of substance upon which the Senate may act as quickly as possible.

I think we have sufficient protection in the law at present, as regards the shipment of wheat and other surplus commodities, under the Public Law 480 program. That restriction has been with us for a long time, and since that wheat is more or less used to effectuate our foreign policy, there has never been any serious objection to the requirement of 50-50 shipment in American bottoms under Public Law 480.

But in relation to the sale of other commodities which we sell for dollars in the regular course of trade, to impose restrictions on wheat-or in fact on any commodity-I think is wrong, no matter to whom the commodity is sold. All commodities should be treated similarly. I again express the hope that if, as and when the Foreign Relations Committee deals with the subject, it does not put it in the sense of Congress, but makes it legal.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I shall certainly not oppose the motion made by the distinguished majority leader [Mr. MANSFIELD] in regard to removing section 703.

I, too, am somewhat disappointed that we do not get action immediately, but on the other hand, I am a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as is the distinguished Senator from Montana. Our ranking majority member on the committee, the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN] has just stated that the committee will begin hearings Monday.

This is an issue upon which we should get action, and I sincerely hope we can get action this session of Congress. I realize that any action coming from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the form of a resolution would probably not only have to pass this body, but the other body on the other side of the Capitol, in order to become law. But it is a matter that should be resolved, and I hope we can get early action.

For that reason, I shall certainly not oppose the removal of the section, but sincerely hope for early action on some such resolution.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to the Senator from Montana for the action he has taken. I think it points up the degree of interrelationship which seems to exist-and sometimes it is unfortunate between the State Department and the Department of Agriculture.

It strikes me that since this issue affects so many different branches of our Government and so many facets of our foreign relations, nothing could be better than to get it before the Committee on Foreign Relations, so that they may consider it at some length. I am happy to support the motion.

Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. President, I simply wish to state that I subscribe completely to the views of the Senator from Montana, the distinguished majority leader, and with those of the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], the chairman of our committee, and the others who have spoken.

I think the route now proposed is the most practical one for us to take. The case has been made on the Senate floor, it seems to me, in a very compelling fashion. There seems to be some indication that on the administration side, in maritime circles, and elsewhere, there is willingness to take a careful and thoughtful look at this restriction, which is helping no one and hurting many parts of our economy, and which may in fact be in open violation of some of our sacred treaty obligations.

It is to that latter question that my resolution which will be heard before the Foreign Relations Committee on Monday is directed.

So I am happy to support the motion of the distinguished majority leader.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend

ment of the Senator from Montana.

The amendment to the committee amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate reconsider the

vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

or (2) there have been changes in the operations or managerial control of a noncomplying farm which would tend to negate the offsetting compliance provisions for either spouse."

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, my amendment, on its face, seems ridiculous. Stated very simply, it permits a man and wife to live together in the same household and still comply with the farm program.

We hear a great deal about the family farm and keeping the farm family together, but all I seek to do with this amendment is to make it possible for a legally married couple-who owned property individually, previous to their marriage-to live in the same dwelling and still participate in the farm program.

Here is what actually happened in a case with which I am familiar:

A lady whose husband passed away in 1948 purchased a quarter section of land in 1951 and later remarried. Her second husband also owned land. She operated her quarter section of land on her own through all the years from 1948 to 1965, and still does. Her second husband operated his land, but was informed last year that he would have to give up his wheat program benefits because his wife overseeded her wheat allotment. He was in compliance on his land, but the USDA ruled the land must be treated as a unit.

I would agree if they each own an interest in the land, or share in the profit, the land should be considered one unit, and this is provided in the amendment.

The Department in its letter dated August 17, 1965, stated:

Therefore, we hold the opinion that husbands and wives, as well as minor children, who share the same household may not be considered as separate producers in determining the compliance of one family memment of the feed grain and wheat program.

In this particular case, the State ASC office granted relief this year, but it is about seeding time again, and according to the ruling of the Department of Agriculture, it will be necessary for Mrs. X to live in another household in order to be in compliance with these orders. If this were done, they would be able to Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I call operate their farm separately and par

The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 428

up my amendment No. 428.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.

The legislative clerk proceeded to state

the amendment.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment will be printed in the RECORD at this point.

The amendment ordered to be printed in the RECORD is as follows:

On page 44, line 8, after the words "wheat so stored", strike out the period and quota

tion mark and insert the following: ", and a married producer shall be deemed to be in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless the Secretary finds: (1) Managerial control of a noncomplying farm by either husband or wife is shared by the spouse,

ticipate or not in the present wheat pro

[blocks in formation]

I have also received a letter from a county agent in a large wheat-producing county, in which he mentions similar situations. There are only a few of them, but this sort of thing certainly discredits the farm program in the Wheat Belt and in every State in which wheat is grown. I sincerely hope that the Senator from Louisiana will take the amendment to conference. If there were something wrong with it, I would not offer it. I be

lieve it should be adopted in order to clear up situations like this, and to similar situations from developing.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I am told by our counsel that the proposed

amendment would not do what the Senator from Kansas believes it would do. An amendment will be proposed by the distinguished Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON], which deals with the same subject matter. The only difference between the amendment to be offered by the Senator from Washington and the proposal now before us by the Senator from Kansas is that the Magnuson amendment deals with State lands which are leased to various farmers.

If one farmer fails to live up to the contract, all other farmers who obtain lands through lease from the State suffer. The Department now has authority to deal with the problem. The Senator stated a moment ago that the subject was dealt with last year by the Department, and I presume in a way that was satisfactory to the individuals involved. I ask my good friend the Senator from Kansas to permit us to consider the amendment on Monday. I should like to consult with the Department and give the representatives of the Department an opportunity to point up the implications involved in both the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas and the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON]. I stated to the Senator from Washington that I would consider his amendment, and since both amendments deal with the same problem, though in a different way, it might be well for that procedure to be followed.

I do not see any objection to the amendment. At least, I see no objection to what the Senator seeks to do. But whether the language he has proposed would do that is something I question. For that reason, if my good friend will withdraw the amendment, we shall consider the subject on Monday. Meanwhile I shall have something done about it by the Department so that we can accomplish what the Senator seeks to do. Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, as usual, our distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry [Mr. ELLENDER] is most generous in his desire to be helpful. I have but one desire, and that is to avoid not only the problem about which we have spoken, but

a great deal of criticism which results in discrediting a farm program. When people in a rural community discuss the subject, they say that they do not understand people in Washington when they write this kind of language and laws like this. I am anxious to cooperate with the chairman, and sincerely hope that

we can work out something together. I have no pride of authorship in the amendment. I am merely trying to relieve a situation that I believe should be corrected. On that basis I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. ELLENDER. I am sure we can

probably get together on some language.

The PRESIDING OFFICER.

bill is open to further amendment.

The

[blocks in formation]

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

AMENDMENTS NOS. 433 AND 434

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I call

up my amendments Nos. 433 and 434. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator ask unanimous consent that the

amendments be considered en bloc?

Mr. CARLSON. I ask unanimous con

sent that the amendments be considered en bloc and that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendments will be printed in the RECORD.

The amendments are as follows:

Page 9, line 3, after the word "amount" strike the period and insert the following: ": Provided, That in no event shall the Secretary require any producer, as a condition of eligibility for conservation payments made pursuant to this section or price support loans or payments made pursuant to section 105 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, to increase the average acreage of cropland that was devoted during the base period to designated soil-conserving crops or practices (including summer fallow and idle land) to more than 50 per centum of the total cropland on the farm."

Page 33, line 14, strike the period after the word "reserve" and insert the following: ", but in no event shall the total average acreage of cropland that was devoted during the base period to designated soil conserving uses (including summer fallow and idle land) be more than 50 per centum of the total cropland on the farm."

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, the purpose of these two amendments is to correct an inequity in the present wheat and feed grain program in regard to its application to farmers in dryland areas where summer fallow is a necessary farming practice.

These amendments were not considered in the Committee on Agriculture in the House of Representatives, although my very good friend, Representative ROBERT DOLE, has discussed them

with me following that, because these amendments had not been called to the

attention of the committee.

Summer fallow is a farming practice under which farmers set aside a portion of their farms each year in order to preserve necessary soil moisture thereby insuring that any crops planted during the following year will be able to develop and grow.

It is a practice that must be followed if farmers in these areas will be able to produce a crop.

The present wheat and feed grains law both establish a requirement that when a farmer participates in these programs he must add additional acres to his soil conserving base. The soil conserving base is generally defined as permanent pasture, farm roads, timberland, and so forth, and summer fallow land during an established past period of time.

The idea behind the soil conserving base and the requirement that it must be increased if a farmer participates in the program is a sound one. The idea

is to prevent a cooperating farmer from idling some wheat or feed grain acres and then plowing up pastures or grassland and plant other crops, thus defeating one of the basic purposes of these programs, which is of course to hold down the overall production of crops.

This requirement, however, when applied to dryland farmers who must use plied to dryland farmers who must use survive, often results in a severe hardthe summer fallow practice in order to

ship on these farmers.

stantial portions of their farms each These farmers often must devote subyear to the summer fallow practice in order to keep their soil in a condition which will enable it to produce crops the next year.

Thus, the requirement that the soil conserving base be supplemented by additional retired acres frequently results in an individual farmer being unable to farm less than one-half of his farm.

The two amendments would provide that these farmers not be required to maintain over one-half of their farms in soil conserving and summer fallow practices.

In other words, these amendments would insure farmers participating in the wheat and feed grains programs that they could farm at least one-half of their farms.

This amendment is needed to alleviate a hardship applicable to the limited number of farmers who are in summer fallow areas.

As can be seen by the language of the wheat title of this bill there is already proposed a special reserve for cases of this nature. The proposed amendment would simply further clarify these pro

visions.

In the case of feed grains the amendment would allow participating farmers to receive all the program benefits, even though their soil conserving base would otherwise represent more than one-half of the total cropland of their farms.

Certainly our farm programs should allow cooperating farmers the opportunity to farm at least one-half of their farms. Certainly the present law and

the bill establish and perpetuate an inequity for summer fallow farmers. These amendments will help to correct these inequities, and I urge their adoption.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. RusSELL of South Carolina in the chair). The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I wish that I could agree with my good friend the Senator from Kansas, but the amendment would allow the farmers to plant soybeans, and almost any other crop they might desire, on the land that they are supposed to divert from planting anything on.

Therefore, I hope that the Senate will reject the amendment.

The PRESIDING PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON].

The amendment was rejected.

[blocks in formation]

The legislative clerk proceeded to read The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill sundry nominations in the United

[blocks in formation]
« ПретходнаНастави »