Mr. MONDALE.

As I understand, it is the view of the Senator from Iowa that the present law exempts producerhandlers.

Mr. MILLER. No, I have not said anything to that effect at all.

Mr. MONDALE. Is it the Senator's view that present law is such that the producer-handler is regulated?

Mr. MILLER. It is my understanding that the Secretary of Agriculture has interpreted the present law as the Senator from Wisconsin stated it to be interpreted. If that is so, I cannot follow the Senator from Minnesota, when he says that to take this language out will make a difference in what we have right

now.

We shall automatically have opened the bill up to something new.

Mr. PROXMIRE. If he is handling someone else's production, that is perfectly all right. He is not a producerhandler to that extent. So long as he is not handling his own, there is an arm's length situation in which he is dealing with a farmer-producer, and I do not believe that that situation should necessarily be covered.

Mr. MILLER. Perhaps it should not be, but this is by no means clear in the present state of the law. I am advised on good authority that a person who is a producer-handler uses his own production; but if, suddenly, he runs short during a certain period and goes out and

Mr. MILLER. I yield.

Mr. MONDALE. Does the amendment of the Senator from Iowa seek to exempt producer-handlers from the order system regulation?

Mr. MILLER. No. It seeks to leave the law exactly as it is now, as I think it should be, until the Food Marketing Commission submits its recommendations.

So long as the Senator from Minnesota has raised this point, let me make this statement: The language of the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin reads:

The provisions authorized under this subparagraph may be made applicable to a regulated handler's own production of milk.

What about a regulated handler who is not using his own production of milk but is using someone else's production to make up a deficiency? What would the Senator propose to do in a situation like that? To answer that question, one would probably have to go through the briefs of a good many cases. That is what happens when language like this is placed in a bill in an attempt to play around with existing law. I suggest it is premature and unnecessary to have such a provision. I do not know why the Senator from Wisconsin persists in retaining it.

Mr. PROXMIRE. I understand the Senator's point. I believe a strong argument could be made that the law already specifies what is contained on page 5 of my amendment, lines 13 through 15. If that is so, why take it out? Why change

it?

Furthermore, I agree with the policy of the Secretary of Agriculture. I believe it is right. I believe in the family farm. I have seen what has happened to the family farm in the broiler industry. I do not want to see it happen to the dairy industry. I think it is important to the family farm that this language should remain.

Mr. MILLER. If this language is left in the bill, we shall not quite be doing what the present law requires, because we shall have written into the bill:

production, in order to make up a deficiency, the area becomes a fuzzy one.

This is not clear. By putting this language in the bill, the Senator has autoguage in the bill, the Senator has automatically laid a foundation for more difficulty on this very point.

I believe that the amendment and the reasons for the amendment have been adequately explained. I do not wish to take any more of the time of the Senate. If the Senator from Wisconsin is ready to yield back the remainder of his time, I am ready to yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Iowa to the

amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE].

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

to the desk an amendment and ask that Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask that it be stated.

OFFICER. The

The PRESIDING amendment will be stated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. It is proposed, on page 2, line 2, to insert the following: before the word "providing": in any marketing area in which, during a representative period determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, the highest use classification sales of milk for the area covered by such order, or proposed order, was or, in the case of new or merged areas, would have been less than 50 per centum of the total producer deliveries of milk in such area,”.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, the reason for my amendment is to restrict coverage to those few areas which I think erage to those few areas which I think probably all of us would agree are in a

tion of milk is concerned, by limiting, serious situation so far as overproduction of milk is concerned, by limiting, cation of the Proxmire amendment to as my amendment would do, the application of the Proxmire amendment to their milk for class I milk. areas which use less than 50 percent of

What shall we do about a regulated handler who handles not only his own production, but somebody else's, as well?

marketed as class I milk. In the Puget Sound area, 45 percent of their milk is marketed as class I milk.

I do not believe any of us know how this proposal would work. It may work

and it may not. If it does not work, I believe that the fewer areas where it might not work that we provide for, the better.

If it does work out and it can be shown that it will work out, I am quite satisfied that the Senator from Wisconsin will have no difficulty in presenting the Senate with the results of how it has worked out.

This can be extended to other areas. Perhaps it should not be only 50 percent. Perhaps it ought to be 55 or 60 percent. However, it seems to me that it would be reasonable to take cognizance of the three areas which are in the most serious difficulty.

I know that the Senator from Wisconsin can say, "Why worry about it? It will not go into effect in any marketing area unless they vote 2 to 1 to put it in." I am not sure that is the com

plete answer. I am not sure that I want to vote to allow a vote of 2 to 1 to put it into effect in some areas in which there is no difficulty.

I would rather walk before I run. We are dealing with a very important area of food commodities.

I believe that by limiting it, as my amendment would do, it would give the program a fair chance to work in areas it works there, we can vote to extend it. in which there is a serious problem. If Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized for 1 minute.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I object to this amendment. It would mean that my amendment would apply to four States, according to the statement of the distinguished Senator from Iowa. The other 46 States would be out of it. I submit that it is not fair. It does not make sense. It seems to me that in any State in which two out of three farmers want this provision, it should apply. My amendment would provide that, without this Miller amendment.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I say to my friend the Senator from Wisconsin that he is dead wrong when he says it would apply in three or four States. It would apply in all 50 States, as his amendment would apply in all 50 States, if the conditions arise.

The Senator in his colloquy with the Senator from Vermont said that his amendment would apply to 50 States. I believe it was pointed out that only 17 States are covered by marketing orders. I grant that there may be only three or four States in which there is such an amount of overproduction of milk that less than 50 percent is marketed as class I milk. However, that does not mean that my amendment would not apply in some other State-New Mexico, Missis

sippi, Florida, or any of the 50 States—if those conditions arise.

I should like to make it clear that my amendment is as applicable to the 50 States of the United States as is the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New York.

Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Mr. President, I am going to vote for the amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE], but I want to make clear the basis on which I am doing so.

The base-excess idea for the dairy industry is not at all new. It has been advanced for some years and has always been the subject of great debate within the dairy industry and among dairy economists. Even today there are almost as many different opinions about it as there are experts on dairy matters. If the Proxmire amendment and the somewhat different version which the House included in H.R. 9811 directly legislated the two-price plan into existence, I would have considerable doubts about supporting it. I would hesitate to support any plan which is widely doubted in the industry that it is designed to help, the industry which knows most about it.

However, both the Proxmire amendment and the House version contemplate that a referendum will be taken among the farmers. If the farmers in a particular milkshed feel that the plan will be beneficial to them, they can vote for it and put it into effect. If not, they can vote it down and that will be the end of the matter.

There is considerable support for the plan among dairy farmers around the country. It would be unfair to deny them the chance to vote on it. In my judgment, then, basic fairness suggests that we should authorize a referendum on the two-price experiment. It is on that basis that I am voting for the Proxmire amendment.

There are certain differences between the version offered by the Senator from Wisconsin and the version passed by the House. The guarantee of free access to markets which is contained in the Proxmire version appears to be more desirable for the dairy industry in the Northeastern States. The provisions in the House bill protecting producer-handlers seem to be more desirable than the comparable aspects of the Proxmire version. These matters will have to be worked out in conference. At the present, I support the Proxmire amendment so that we can give Senate conferees a mandate to include a dairy provision in the bill as it finally emerges from conference.

I realize that there is opposition to this plan, even within my own State, but there is also great support for it, and I think it is only fair that the farmers be allowed to vote on this matter themselves. That is why I support Senator PROXMIRE'S amendment.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes on the bill to the senior Senator from New York.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, in October 1963, when this question was first considered, I voted against the Proxmire plan. I intend to vote against it again today. My reasons today have been very well stated by the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN]. As a Senator from New York, the second largest producer of class I fluid milk in the country, I have had a special concern and deep interest in the provisions of this amendment. Along with almost all other Senators on both sides of the aisle from the Northeastern portion of the country I voted against this proposal in the form of S. 1915 on October 10, 1963. The amendment would establish a class I base for each dairy producer in a Federal order market and would enable the producer to receive a higher price for milk consumed in fluid form on a specified quantity of his production in lieu of a blended price on total production used for fluid consumption and for manufacturing into butter, cheese, powdered milk and other milk products. Excess production would be priced at a lower price to encourage reduced production.

The dairy farmers in my State are very much divided with respect to this proposal. Of the four largest organizations, two favor the base excess plan proposal and two strongly oppose it. There appears to be equally marked lack of consensus behind the bill nationally. The administration expressly did not include any diary plan in its farm message this year and has not enthusiastically supported any proposal. On April 5, 1965, Clarence Girard, Deputy Administrator, Regulatory Programs, Consumer and Marketing Service of the Departand Marketing Service of the Department of Agriculture, testified before the Subcommittee on Dairy and Poultry of the House Agriculture Committee that— the House Agriculture Committee that

There is substantial disagreement within the dairy industry itself as to what sort of legislation they would support *** and we have not been able to get general substantial agreement among the industry representatives on any particular proposed legislation.

Mr. Girard also testified:

We believe this improvement in income position of some fluid milk producers can be achieved without adversely affecting the income of other dairy farmers.

He stated that favorable action on a base excess proposal such as S. 1915 "would represent a small step toward an improved dairy program." This is hardly the type of support that one would hope for a major agricultural program costing the Federal Government approximately $360 million per year. In 1963 Under Secretary of Agriculture Murphy testified before the Senate committee that the base excess proposal, without the assistance of a direct payment plan, would be of little help to dairymen.

I am most sympathetic over the serious need for improving the income of our dairymen. With sustained drought conditions and prolonged burdens of increased production costs, the dairyman creased production costs, the dairyman in the Northeast has sustained a heavy burden. I have tried to ease this burden by working to obtain feed grains at reduced prices from the Department of

burden.

Agriculture and haying and grazing privileges on land taken out of production. I have worked to obtain the Department's consideration of emergency price adjustments for hard pressed areas. The Department of Agriculture has provided important aid in many of these areas. However, I do not believe it is in the best interest of our dairymen or the consumer to impose tight production quotas on them. The curtailment of productive incentive for a sustained period will not in my judgment provide the best method of improving dairy income. The imposition of production quotas based on periods of past production places regulation on the producers which may prove very disadvantageous. With each marketing order being voted on, by bloc vote rather than individual voting, it is possible that certain parts of the country will be regulated by tight production quotas while other areas will not.

It is also possible that under the referendums provisions which do not permit voting by the individual membership that production quotas may be set by one group in approving an order and imposed upon another in the minority. The imposition of a production limitation upon one dairyman by his fellow dairyman is a situation raising many questions as desirability.

The Senate Agriculture Committee by an overwhelming vote chose to eliminate the base excess plan from the farm bill. This decision reflects the views of a very substantial number of dairymen in the Northeast. Senators from the Northeast area reflected this attitude in October 1963 when the base excess plan was acted upon by the Senate. I believe they will reflect this view again today.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. DIRKSEN (when his name was called). On this vote I have a pair with the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL]. If he were present and voting he would vote "nay." If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote "yea." I withhold my vote.

The rollcall was concluded.

Mr. INOUYE. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. BYRD], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. RIBICOFF], the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. TALMADGE], and the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] are absent on official business.

I further announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. McCARтHY], and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON] are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. BYRD], and the Senator from

Connecticut [Mr. RIBICOFF] would each vote "yea."

On this vote, the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG] is paired with the Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON]. If present and voting, the Senator from Louisiana would vote "nay," and the Senator from Virginia would vote "yea.”

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT] is absent on official business of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.

The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOTT] is absent on official business.

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL], and the Senator from Texas [Mr. TOWER] are detained on official business.

If present and voting, the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT] and the Senator from Texas [Mr. TOWER] would each vote "yea."

The pair of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] has been previously announced.

Who yields time?

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I should like to ask the majority leader about the business for the remainder of the day and also the schedule for to

morrow.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, in response to the question which has been raised, it is my understanding that the distinguished Senator from Maryland [Mr. BREWSTER] is about to call up his amendment which has to do with the payment of subsidies on the basis of a $10,000 income and that I understand it all depends upon who obtains recognition. This will be followed by an amendment to be offered by the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT], and in turn perhaps an amendment by the Senator

So Mr. PROXMIRE'S amendment to the

Mr. President, the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] also has an amendment.

Mr. President, perhaps there will be other amendments. All this will be for tomorrow, not tonight. There will be no further votes on amendments because of a number of conditions with which Senators are confronted.

It is understood, of course, that the unanimous-consent agreement is still in effect, and that immediately upon conclusion of the prayer, debate will begin on a time limitation basis on the amendment to be offered by the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BREWSTER].

That is about it.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, one other question. Assuming that we finish the bill tomorrow, is it still the intention of the majority leader to call up the socalled highway beautification bill, or bills?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Either that, or the immigration bill, whichever is ready, but those will be the next two bills to be considered. Of course, in the meantime, there will be conference reports and other matters to attend to.

Mr. DIRKSEN. But there will be no further votes tonight?

Mr. MANSFIELD. There will be no further voting tonight.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I move that the vote by which the amendment to the amendment was agreed to be reconsidered.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

TOMORROW

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 11 o'clock tomorrow morning.

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

THE THIEF HAS A KEY TO YOUR CAR Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, law enforcement officials in California and and across the country have recently become alarmed about the indiscriminate, unregulated traffic in master keys. At

least six companies in the United States advertise that for sums ranging from $3 to $20, sets of keys may be ordered by mail which will unlock automobiles of any domestic make. On March 25, 1965, the Chicago's American reported the apprehension of an auto thief carrying 17 master keys which would open almost any Ford car. Police concluded that the thief had obtained the keys from a mail order supplier. The Los Angeles Police Department reports that nine recent bank robberies in the Los Angeles area were accomplished by a bandit who used General Motors master keys to steal his getaway car. The National Automobile Theft Bureau has information that the operator of one of the six principal master key suppliers has a past record of auto theft.

Police Chief Thomas Cahill, of San Francisco Police Department, has called the master keys "the answer to an auto thief's dream." Chief Cahill also reports that nearly one-third of the cases of residential burglaries were by the use of a key or device which readily opened the lock without a resort to force. New York City License Commissioner Joseph C. DiCarlo has noted this problem and has said that mail order firms are sending master keys for cars to anyone with the money to pay for them, including thieves and addicts.

In an editorial on July 25, 1965, the San Francisco Examiner expressed shock that criminals should have such easy and inexpensive access to master keys. The editorial remarked that "disturbed citizens may well wonder why locksmiths and keymakers are not regulated and licensed, and required to register both keys and buyers."

The report to the 1965 General Session of the California Legislature from the Assembly Interim Committee on Governmental Efficiency and Economy stated:

At present locksmiths may obtain lock picks by mail. No official records are kept of keys made, and no identifying number is required on keys, to help in crime detection. I am happy to say that the California Legislature has not been unmindful of this problem. A very able assemblyman, the Honorable Richard J. Donovan, of the 77th Assembly District introduced in the last session a bill which would deal with this matter effectively. The Donovan bill sought to establish a licensing scheme for locksmiths and provided that master keys would be sold to or duplicated by licensed locksmiths only. It required that keys manufactured or duplicated would bear a number which identified the manufacturing locksmith. It also required that the locksmith maintain a record of persons to whom keys are delivered.

I have given very careful consideration to the possibility of a Federal licensing system for master key manufacturers and dealers. In view of the severity of such a proposal, I am introducing instead a companion bill to one introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman LIONEL VAN DEERLIN, of San Diego, who has given much thought as has Assemblyman Don

portation, the key will be received or possessed by any person prohibited by the law of the jurisdiction within which such receipt of the jurisdiction within which such receipt or possession occurs from receiving or possessing master keys.

(b) Any person who violates any prohibition contained in subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year or both.

The editorial presented by Mr. KUCHEL is as follows:

ovan to this matter. This proposal provides that no master key shall be shipped in interstate commerce to a person prohibited by State law from receiving or possessing master keys. The bill will prevent State licensing laws, such as the one now under consideration in California, from being circumvented by interstate traffic in master keys. Not only will this proposal put teeth in State regulations, but it will encourage those States which do not now regulate the sale of master keys to consider establishing controls. I am today sending to my and homeowners too, to disclosure in the friend, the distinguished Senator from Connecticut [Mr. DODD], chairman of the Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, a letter requesting that hearings be held on this bill at an early date.

A reasonable regulation of master keys will safeguard the legitimate uses to which they may be put. Master keys are indispensable to automobile dealers, locksmiths, and police agencies. By correcting the abuses which now exist we will at the same time insure that the legitimate interests are protected. I do hope that this bill will receive the careful attention it deserves.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an editorial from the San Francisco Examiner on July 25, 1965. It is appropriately titled "The Thief Has a Key to Your Car." I also ask unanimous consent that the bill as introduced be printed at this point in the RECORD and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received, and, without objection, the bill will be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and the bill and editorial will be printed in the RECORD.

The bill (S. 2524) to prohibit the transportation or shipment in interstate commerce of master keys to persons prohibited by State law from receiving or possessing them, introduced by Mr. KuCHEL, was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That for the purposes of this Act

(1) The term "interstate or foreign com

merce" means commerce-

(A) between any State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any territory or possession, or the District of Columbia and any place outside thereof;

(B) between points within the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or within the same State, but through any place outside thereof; or

(C) within or between points within the District of Columbia or any territory or possession.

(2) The term "master key" means a key which will operate all the locks in a given group of locks each of which can be operated by a key which will not operate one or more of the other locks in such group.

SEC. 2. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, offer for sale, transport, or ship a master key in interstate or foreign commerce, knowing that such key is a master key, if, upon the delivery of such shipment or the conclusion of such sale or trans

THE THIEF HAS A KEY TO YOUR CAR Severe shock is the response of car owners,

Examiner of the easy and inexpensive access criminals have to master keys that make any lock an open invitation to dishonest entry. For a total expenditure of $11 the criminal can equip himself with keys unlocking almost any car of American manufacture. At still less cost he can have the key to any home in the country, and to any door.

The purchase and sale of such keys involve no broken laws. Similarly, the reproduction of keys may be accomplished cheaply and legally in numerous shops.

Disturbed citizens may well wonder why locksmiths and key makers are not regulated and licensed, and required to register both keys and buyers; as in the case of small arms dealers. They should be; but with full awareness that there would be only partial answer at best to the problem in this. Criminals subvert most laws; are mainly deterred by law, not circumvented.

We have laws penalizing owners for leaving keys in cars on the street-useful in keeping juveniles out of temptation's way. But these laws are useless against the professional thief who can open a car as easily as its owner. It is preposterous that $3 can buy the key giving a criminal possession of an automobile for which the owner has paid thousands of dollars.

Final responsibility here rests on car makers, not key makers. Automobile manufacturers every year, probably daily, solve greater problems than the development of a lock that only the owner can manipulate. A numbers combination might be the answer. If there are better answers it is the business of the industry to come up with them.

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ACT OF 1965

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 9811) to maintain farm income, to stabilize prices and assure adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, to reduce surpluses, lower Government costs ernment costs and promote foreign trade, to afford greater economic opportunity in rural areas, and for other

purposes.

AMENDMENT NO. 446

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the desk on behalf of myself and the Senator from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS), and ask to have it printed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be received and printed, and will lie on the table.

AMENDMENT OF TITLE V OF THE INTERNATIONAL CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1949

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the unfin

ished business be temporarily laid aside, and that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 684, Senate bill 1826.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title for the information of the Senate.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (S. 1826) to amend title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 relating to certain claims against the Government of Cuba.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations, with amendments, on page 1, after line 9, to strike out:

(2) by striking out the last sentence thereof.

On page 2, after line 6, to insert a new section, as follows:

SEC. 3. Section 505 (a) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 1643d) is amended by adding a new sentence at the end thereof as follows: "A claim under section 503 (a) of this title based upon a debt or other obligation owing by any corporation, association, or other entity organized under the laws of the United States, or of any State, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico shall be considered, only when such debt or other obligation is a charge on property which has been nationalized, expropriated, intervened, or taken by the Government of Cuba."

At the beginning of line 17, to change the section number from "3" to "4"; and, at the beginning of line 22, to change the section number from "4" to "5"; so as to make the bill read:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 501 of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 (22 U.S.C. 1643) is amended

(1) by striking out "which have arisen out of debts for merchandise furnished or services rendered by nationals of the United States without regard to the date on which such merchandise was furnished or services were rendered or”; and

SEC. 2. Section 503 (a) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 1643b(a)) is amended by striking out "arising out of debts for merchandise furnished or services rendered by nationals of the United States without regard to the date on which such merchandise was furnished or services were rendered or".

SEC. 3. Section 505(a) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 1643d) is amended by adding a new sentence at the end thereof as follows: "A claim under section 503 (a) of this title based upon a debt or other obligation owing by any corporation, association, or other entity States, or of any State, the District of Coorganized under the laws of the United

lumbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico shall be considered, only when such debt or other obligation is a charge on property which has been nationalized, expropriated, intervened, or taken by the Government of Cuba."

SEC. 4. Section 506 of such Act (22 U.S.C. 1643e) is amended by striking out ": Provided, That the deduction of such amounts shall not be construed as divesting the United States of any rights against the Government of Cuba for the amounts so deducted".

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I should like to yield to the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BREWSTER], provided that in doing so I shall not lose my right to the floor.

Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama. Mr. President, I wish to call up my amendment No. 441 and ask that it be stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.

The Senate will please be in order. There is a bill pending under the unanimous-consent agreement. Will the Senator withhold his request temporarily? Mr. BREWSTER. I certainly shall.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, if I

may proceed, I do not believe that it will take more than a moment to dispose of the pending bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the first committee amendment.

The first committee amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Calendar No. 684, S. 1826, be withdrawn at this time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second committee amendment.

The second committee amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending bill be temporarily set aside.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. out objection, it is so ordered.

With

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ACT OF

1965

The Senate resumed consideration of the bill (H.R. 9811) to maintain farm income, to stabilize prices, and assure adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, to reduce surpluses, lower Government costs and promote foreign trade, to afford greater economic opportunity in rural areas, and for other purposes.

AMENDMENT NO. 447

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I submit an amendment for printing and ask that it lie on the table.

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

AMENDMENT NO. 441

Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, I now call up my amendment No. 441 and ask that it be laid down and be the first order of business tomorrow morning, in accordance with the agreement entered into.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated for the information of the Senate.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. At the end of the bill add a new section as follows:

SEC. 707. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no producer shall be eligible for price-support loans or payments under any program or programs administered by the Department of Agriculture in any amount in excess of $10,000 for any one year. The foregoing dollar limitation shall include the fair dollar value (as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture) of any payment in kind made to a producer.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I had prepared an excellent speech giving many reasons why I shall vote against the farm bill, but I have lost the speech. If someone on the floor of the Senate finds a document replete with good thinking, he will know it is mine, and I ask him to return it.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I now yield to the Senator from Montana [Mr. METCALF]. In the meantime, if members of the staff find a document

Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, have that has been lost, we will see that it is I the floor?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes.

Mr. BREWSTER. At this point, I yield

to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my friend the Senator from Maryland for yielding to me.

Mr. President, last week I submitted an amendment to the bill to strike the so-called Mondale amendment and substitute in place a proposal of the joint

select committee. I understand that the Mondale amendment has been with

drawn. Mr. President, I therefore indefinitely postpone my amendment.

Mr. President, tomorrow, I shall submit a concurrent resolution to cover this

subject.

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

Mr. LAUSCHE and Mr. METCALF addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maryland yield to me? Mr. BREWSTER. I yield to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on further printing of Senate Concurrent Resolution 55, the names of the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HARTKE], and the Senator from New York [Mr. KENNEDY] be added as co

sponsors.

returned to the Senator from Ohio.

I ask unanimous consent that the

Senator from Montana [Mr. METCALF] be recognized without the time being charged to either side.

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

Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, each

time an agricultural bill comes up for debate, the fundamental purpose of our national policy on agriculture must be

clarified again.

Even in the Senate of the United States we find evidence of misunderstanding of a very simple policy.

Such is the case today. The Senator from Maryland has proposed an amend

ment to the farm bill which would strike at the very heart of our farm policy, and it is based upon a misconception of what our policy is.

Our agriculture is great, not only because of vast resources and the hard work and intelligence of our farm people but also because our national policy has made it great. From the very beginning of our Nation, our policy has been to keep the land and the tools of farm production in the hands of the people who till the soil. Our early leaders turned their backs upon the old-world system of landed aristocracy and subservient peasants. In much of the world then-and it is true even today-farmers had no chance to own the land.

The Founding Fathers recognizedand I hope we have not forgotten-that Mr. President, I civilization rests upon agriculture. No

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. BREWSTER. yield the floor.

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ACT OF OF 1965

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 9811) to maintain farm income, to stabilize prices and assure income, to stabilize prices and assure adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, to reduce surpluses, lower Government costs and promote foreign trade, to afford greater economic opportunity in rural areas, and for other pur

poses.

Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, will the Senator from Montana yield to me? Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, who has the floor?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if the Senator from Ohio will allow me, my the Senator from Ohio will allow me, my colleague [Mr. METCALF] came to me colleague [Mr. METCALF] came to me some time ago. He wishes to make some brief remarks on the pending amendment at this time, if he may.

nation can have industry or the arts or great institutions until many people have been freed from the necessity of hunting or cultivating the soil.

So from the beginning, we have used public funds to help create the kind of agriculture we wanted. As early as 1796 George Washington recommended to Congress the use of public funds to aid agriculture and the establishment of boards to collect and diffuse agricultural information. We were not providing relief to individuals. We were building the kind of agriculture we wanted-one that was destined to become fabulously productive; one of the wonders of the world.

Over the years, the Government sent out plant explorers to bring back new crops; distributed seeds; established a Department of Agriculture; passed a Homestead Act providing gifts of land to farmers; gave land from the public domain to support agricultural educastations and agricultural extension work Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I to foster scientific and profitable agriyield to the Senator from Ohio. culture and better living on the land.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, it will tion; created agricultural experiment take me only one moment.