Слике страница

continues to provide the services until the project is terminated or there is no further need for their continuation.

In other situations, a Government agency such as the Department of Defense, NASA, the Atomic Energy Commission, or other agency has an immediate need for services or information which is clearly the responsibility of the Bureau to provide on a continuing basis, not only for the particular agency immediately requesting the service but for the whole scientific and engineering community. This type program would be clearly in the province of the Bureau to continue for a number of years.

The amendment as proposed here would provide a means through which major new research programs which are basically the responsibility of the National Bureau of Standards but which have become an unforeseen development in the program of another agency may nevertheless be accommodated in the Bureau's fiscal program for future years by the transfer of such appropriations. This is not new, this is not unique. The authorization bill of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration contains a provision that such funds may be transferred to other Government agencies. This is an example of such a situation as would come under this proposed amendment.

The third amendment is a change to section 11 of the Organic Act of the Bureau which would allow the Bureau to accept gifts and bequests to be used for certain purposes for which appropriated funds may not be used. The National Bureau of Standards is in many ways comparable to a university laboratory or a research foundation in its relationships with scientists and scientific societies. An informal relationship is established which is of great benefit to the Bureau in the performance of its mission. However, that informal relationship is hampered by some of the normal restrictions on Government expenditures.

The Bureau believes that these restric

tions are, by and large, appropriate, but it would welcome some relief from their rigid application. Recognizing that Government funds cannot be used to provide coffee and food, for example, when the Bureau is host to scientific meetings it does not provide them, although this is a failure to reciprocate in such amenities received by Bureau representatives at meetings elsewhere. A moderate relaxation of the restriction would serve an extremely valuable purpose, promoting informal interchange and cooperative activities.

The proposed legislation would amend the existing authorization to allow the acceptance of gifts and bequests to aid the work of the Bureau, permitting the use of certain gifts for purposes for which appropriated funds may not be used. It would also clarify the status of royalties and honoraria received by the Bureau.

I might say that there is nothing unusual regarding this entertainment fund, for the heads of most of the Government agencies have such a fund. Indeed, in nearly every case in my knowledge, the fund is far in excess of the $1,000 sought

by this amendment. These are not ap-
propriated funds; therefore, they should
not, in my opinion, be hampered by the
restrictions that cover the expenditure
of appropriated funds.


The final amendment proposes to amend section 3 so as to clarify the authority of the Bureau to perform its functions for international organizations to which the United States belongs and for friendly foreign countries and their laboratories.

This amendment clarifies the Bureau's authority to sell samples and provide certain calibration and standard services to these friendly foreign countries and to the international organizations. Although the Organic Act of the Bureau of Standards does not contain express language authorizing these services on an international level, it is implied that the Department of Commerce, acting through the Bureau, has such authority from the broad authority of the Department of Commerce "to foster, promote, and develop the foreign and domestic commerce."

The sales of standard samples and the services performed by the Bureau are not controversial; the materials are not strategic nor classified in nature.

I have here a descriptive list of the prices of standard samples as prepared and issued by the Bureau of Standards. Here is standard sample No. 349, which is a steel alloy containing some 17 component parts, the primary parts being nickel and cobalt. This is a sample of a high-temperature steel alloy used in making such things as jet engines or other items subject to very high temperatures.

And this is standard sample No. 1180, a white cast iron standard for X-ray spectroscopic analysis, with a list of its component elements.

Such sales and services would remain subject to the policy review of the Departments of Commerce and State, and obviously they would be subject to applicable export control regulations.

This amendment is certainly not a
drastic, sweeping change in policy.
They have engaged in such services as
the sale of samples under the implied
power of the Department of Commerce
for many years through the means of
cooperating with National Standard
Laboratories in other nations and
through the International Bureau of
Weights and Measures.

As a matter of fact, the sale of these
samples to foreign countries now
amounts to about 30 percent of the
Bureau's total activity in this area.
Under this amendment the sales and
services authorized would be for friendly
countries, which generally consist of
countries with which the United States
maintains diplomatic relations. Some-
times there
times there may be countries with
which we have diplomatic relations
which are not considered friendly under
our foreign policy.
our foreign policy. In the event of
doubt regarding their status, the De-
partment of Commerce would consult
with the Department of State before
filling orders for samples or services.

The sale of standard samples is on a
cost basis. The calibration services of
the Bureau are on a cost-reimbursable

basis. This proposed legislation does not alter this procedure. There would be no additional cost to the United States.

The procedure authorized under this amendment is clearly consistent with the many governmental policies and practices aimed at increasing U.S. leadership in science and technology, and the authority would be subject to existing rules and regulations and to such other rules and regulations as the Secretary of Commerce may publish.

Mr. FLYNT. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count. [After counting.] Fifty-three Members are present, not a quorum. The Clerk will call the roll.

The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed to answer to their names:

[blocks in formation]

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. ALBERT) having assumed the chair, Mr. DIGGS, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee having had under consideration the bill, H.R. 5838, and finding itself without a quorum, he had directed the roll to be called when 350 Members responded to their names, a quorum, and he submitted herewith the names of the absentees to be spread upon the Journal.

The Committee resumed its sitting. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. MILLER].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. ALBERT) having assumed the chair, Mr. DIGGS, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5838) to amend the act of March 3, 1901 (31 Stat. 1449), as amended, to incorporate in the Organic Act of the National Bureau of Standards the authority to make certain improvements of fiscal and administrative practices for

more effective conduct of its research and development activities, had come to no resolution thereon.



Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to inform the Members that I have again urged the Committee on Ways and Means to expedite consideration of meaningful legislation to provide medical care for our senior citizens. Time is running out for a whole generation of Americans. We must act speedily on medicare.

I believe this legisation is as necessary as our maintaining the thrust and purpose of Western civilization, as necessary as our maintaining our national pride and self-respect, and as necessary as defending ourselves against military aggression.

Few other bills have evoked as much response from the general public, and particularly those for whom the legislation is intended. The central point is that the need is very great, and the vast majority of our older people do not have the means to care for themselves. This "vast majority" of which I am speaking is made up of retired people who struggle through their working lives to set aside money for their nonearning later years. But the forces of inflation, particularly in the area of medical expenses, have far too often resulted in the necessity of expending a family's life savings for one illness. In addition, the cost of private hospital insurance has spiraled to such an extent that payment of further premiums has imposed an impossible financial burden. Further, many private insurance companies have an age limit to their coverage, and hundreds of thousands of those who have carried insurance over a period of years have been notified at age 65, or even less, that such policies are being canceled by the insuror. Most of these people find they are not accepted by another insuror.

Some people who agree that the need is obvious in this field, nevertheless argue that some new procedure should be utilized to solve the problem. It seems to

me the most efficient and economical procedure should be the one which is already in operation, the one with which we are already familiar-the social security system.

Admittedly, we cannot be absolutely positive that the costs of this plan are precisely anticipated, or that the tax rates set out in the bill will prove perfectly adequate to balance the costs. But these are details that can be perfected with experience and do not, in my opinion, justify further delaying institution of this important program.

Mr. Speaker, I have some very vivid memories, very personal memories, of the controversies that raged when the first social security bill was put forward.

There were predictions of dire consequences, breakdowns in the moral fabric of America, and expressions indicating little faith in the American people. All of these fears have proved to be without foundation, and the social security principle has proved a sound one.

It has been frequently said that the longest journey must begin with a first step. Manifestly, Mr. Speaker, if the King-Anderson bill is enacted promptly, our journey will begin with a giant step. So let us move with dispatch to pass this bill, in order that at least provision will be made for paying the hospital bills where major medical disasters strike.

The Congress can, and I believe will, then move on to the next step, which is to raise the incomes of our impoverished elder citizens. This is the way to make it possible for our senior citizens to pay the doctors, to have private medical insurance, and to have a sufficiency of the other services and goods one must have if he is to spend his declining years in some comfort and dignity.

To encourage attention to this important facet of the problem, I have introduced two bills during this 88th Congress which would have an immediate mitigating effect in this area. H.R. 8826, introduced last fall, would produce the introduced last fall, would produce the most far-reaching result by raising penmost far-reaching result by raising pensions under the Social Security Act to sions under the Social Security Act to provide an income equal to the minimum wage, on a 40-hour week basis. At the present minimum wage, this would provide a minimum monthly income of $216.50 for all qualified retired persons $216.50 for all qualified retired persons at the age of 62, for the blind, and for the totally and permanently disabled.

H.R. 4328, introduced shortly after the beginning of the first session would probeginning of the first session would provide a 20-percent across-the-board invide a 20-percent across-the-board increase in benefits, would reduce from 72 to 70 the age at which deductions cease to be made from benefits on account of outside earnings, and would further provide for Federal Government participation in additional contributions. Please permit me to urge your consideration of these bills at the earliest opportunity.

President Johnson has made a magnificent declaration of war on poverty in the United States. Certainly in this kind of war the first and foremost attack kind of war the first and foremost attack must be made where we know the greatest concentration of the enemy to bepoverty among the aged.

In the Economic Report of the President, just released, the Council of Ecodent, just released, the Council of Economic Advisers has given us a superb description of the anatomy of poverty. As the report shows, poverty has many faces. It is found among the poorly educated, among our nonwhite citizens, among the city slums and the rural slums-North, East, South, and West.

But most of all, poverty is a disease of the aged. Fully one-third of all the poor families in the country are those whose family heads are 65 or older. These number some 3,200,000 families having money incomes of less than $3,000 a year. Another 2,790,000 persons 65 or over who live without family, but not in institutions have money incomes of less than $1,500 a year. What a tragedy-in a nation with so much idle productive capacity and so many idle productive capacity and so many unemployed.

Using the definition of "poverty” adopted in the President's report, my computations show that it would take an average of only $1,190 per family—or a total of $3.8 billion-to raise the incomes of these families up to $3,000 per year; and it would take an average of only $604-a total of $1.6 billion-to raise the money incomes of these unrelated individuals up to $1,500 per year. In other words, a total cost of $5.4 billion a year to eliminate poverty among our citizens 65 years old and over. Looked at realistically in terms of our productive capacity and our problem of consuming what we can produce, this is indeed a small price to pay; and it is a price which would set in motion forces that would be beneficial to the whole country.

The President's report tells us that the Nation's output of goods and services would be increased by $30 billion a year if unemployment were only reduced to a rate of 4 percent, instead of the present rate of 5.6 percent of the labor force. The report also tells us that only $11 billion would be needed to raise every family in America up to a level of living of at least $3,000 a year.

I have no doubt that the battle plans for the war against poverty must, as has been suggested, call for action on many fronts. To give the young and the middle aged a fair opportunity for productive work in the age of automation, we must have better education, better health, less discrimination against the minorities, better work in retraining, and several other courses of human improvement.

But it does seem to me that we should act promptly to raise old-age pensions to provide an income at least equal to the minimum wage, on a 40-hour week basis. This will permit our senior citizens to live with a modicum of dignity and freedom from fear.

It is very sad to realize, Mr. Speaker, that the prospect of further automation and the prospect of peace are both widely regarded as threats to the stability and workability of our economy. It is thought, and with some reason, that a reduction of Federal spending for armaments will cause a shrinkage of jobs, and so, too, will the further adoption of laborsaving devices.

Yet in truth what we are threatened with is an opportunity for peace and plenty, a condition that previous societies have dreamed of from the beginning of time. Let us seize on this opportunity. And let us begin by making it possible for our impoverished older citizens to better share in the plenty that threatens to overwhelm us.


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

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

There was no objection.

Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, I think the immediate adoption of the pay bill is strongly indicated by all the circum


It seems to me that the 1,700,000 faithful, capable, Federal employees are abundantly and richly entitled to the increases which the bill provides, and I will not belabor the arguments on that point. Clearly, on a comparable basis, Federal employees have been behind employees in similar, or comparable private positions in the rest of the country in receiving deserved pay increases. They should have them now.

To my mind, they are entitled at this time, late as it is, to have the benefits of this legislation, late as this also is. I also believe that congressional salaries, and salaries for the executive department, and the judiciary, should be increased as is proposed by the bill.

The Randall Committee was comprised of some of the ablest, most dedicated leaders of the Nation, embracing practically every field of endeavor. The bill represents the strong recommendations of this committee, coming from a source outside the Government and outside the Congress that has impartially, diligently, and expertly studied these salary questions and has come up with answers that reflect the needs of the Federal employees, Congress and other branches of the Federal service for higher pay schedules, the comparability factors which so strongly justify them, and the great desirability of taking action now before the current injustices are compounded.

In taking this position, I am not speaking for myself alone, or in my own interest alone.

In fact, if my own interest were the only element concerned in my decision, I might well take a different view. But I feel that on all the evidence that has been presented here that Members of Congress and of the judicial branch should not be expected to make sacrifices that not only relate to them but to their families.

What is perhaps more important is the need for making congressional salaries truly comparable to those that obtain so generally throughout our economy for services of a similar and comparable nature.

As measured by our responsibilities, the increasing burdens we now carry, the special aptitudes and experience required of us, the many exacting demands made upon our time and energies, the case for increased pay is persuasive and irrefutable in my judgment.

Of course, if there are those here who do not believe that their services are worth the amount of the proposed increase, that must be their decision. They may stand by it.

So far as I am concerned, having in mind the urgency of encouraging people of commensurate training, ability, experience, idealism, and dedication to remain in, or come into, our national public life, it is of greatest significance and consequence to the best interests of the Nation and the perpetuation of this Government to pass the pay bill.

To continue a situation where honest, faithful, capable, well-trained, and wellexperienced people must choose between continuing their services at a loss and a sacrifice, or leave the service alto

gether, seems to me to involve totally unacceptable and needless alternatives.

To have underpaid people in the Congress and in executive government positions and the Federal Judiciary at this time, when we have reached the highest economic peak in the history of our Nation and civilization in economic development, strikes me as being entirely unjustified as well as unsound, unwarranted and unnecessary.

Of course, anyone who does not desire to accept the proposed congressional raise would be in a position to waive it. Those among us who cannot get along on their present pay without practicing personal and family austerity of a kind they would not have to undergo in private life present indeed a curious anomaly in our present day life.

I hope that the House will support the bill to do justice to our 1,700,000 faithful, deserving Federal employees. These employees come first. They have first claim on our consideration and favorable action and we must not let favorable action and we must not let them down. The House must pass the pay bill with all possible speed. Present delay is most regrettable. Let us act


Whether the congressional features of the bill are approved by the House or not, we certainly should not allow the bill to be finally acted upon without providing pay increases for Federal employees. That must be our first duty. Let us pass the pay bill now, primarily to do some measure of justice to them. This is overdue and must not be delayed.


Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, a very interesting name has cropped up in the political news in the last few days.

I refer to reports published in the New York Times of Wednesday, March 11, and in the March 12 Washington Post, regarding one Paul Corbin.

These reports relate to the resignation of Mr. Corbin as a special assistant to the Democratic National Committee and to speculation as to Corbin's possible role in the New Hampshire write-in campaign for Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy for the Democratic nomination for Vice President and in a current draft-Kennedy campaign in Wisconsin.

The New York Times article, written by that newspaper's Washington correspondent, Joseph A. Loftus, includes these statements regarding Corbin:

The recent departure of a Democratic National Committee employee was traced today to President Johnson's belief at one point that the employee had engineered the New Hampshire write-in for Mr. Kennedy for Vice President. The employee, Paul Corbin, a special assistant to the committee who had a reputation for outspoken, exclusive loyalty to the Attorney General, was allowed to resign.

One version of the tale said to have been carried to the President was that Mr. Corbin

not only generated the write-in but also that the Attorney General had put him up to it. Both the simple and embroidered versions of the tale appear to be wrong.

The Wisconsin development, however, raised new questions. Mr. Corbin's home is in Wisconsin and be has been in that State for the last few days. He could not be reached by telephone today.

His name was not overtly connected with the Wisconsin movement.

The New York Times' article further states:

bin's departure recently, and the reputed reason for it, he called Mr. Corbin to check it. Mr. Corbin assured the Attorney General he had not set foot inside New Hampshire.

When Mr. Kennedy heard about Mr. Cor

The belief prevails that Mr. Corbin, in an excess of zeal, made one or more telephone calls to New Hampshire. However, Mr. Corbin's contacts in New Hampshire are slight.

Aquaintances of Mr. Corbin said he was attached to Robert Kennedy even more than he was to President Kennedy. He could articulate this with impunity while President Kennedy was alive. Thereafter, his zeal was deemed indiscreet at the national committee, where President Johnson's man, Cliff Carter, is now the de facto chief.

Mr. Kennedy has been embarrassed by Mr. Corbin's reported zeal and has sought to assure the President that he has given it no support.

An extended version of the recent tales about Mr. Corbin is that the Attorney General had placed him on the staff of the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., Foundation.

As of today that had not happened. But it would surprise no one if Mr. Kennedy befriended Mr. Corbin with a harmless nonpolitical post.

Following are the references to Mr. Corbin in an article by Edward T. Folliard, staff reporter for the Washington Post, in the March 12 issue of that news


He [Mr. Kennedy] and the President did talk about one aspect of the New Hampshire primary. Their talk concerned Paul Corbin, at that time special assistant to John M. Bailey, chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Mr. Johnson had heard that Corbin was encouraging the write-in campaign for the Attorney General in New Hampshire, and evidently he did not like it. Corbin "resigned" from the National Committee on February


The Attorney General is amused when it is suggested that he had Corbin work for him in New Hampshire. Why should he assign Corbin when he could call on some of the most brilliant politicians in the country to take on the chore? Besides, he has been told that Corbin never went to New Hampshire that the most he could have done was to make some telephone calls.

The reappearance of Mr. Corbin's name in the political news is, as I have said, interesting.

On October 1, 1962, the House Committee on un-American Activities released testimony by and concerning Paul Corbin which had been received during a series of executive hearings held between September 6, 1961, and July 2, 1962.

This testimony is available in full in published hearings of the committee.

Also a résumé of the committee hearings may be found in the "Annual Report for the Year 1962" of the House Committee on un-American Activities,

which was ordered printed March 28, 1963.

This annual report contains, in its own words, "a brief summary of some of the contradictory sworn testimony received in the course of these hearings."

The truth is that the testimony in these hearings is replete with contradictions. To date, these contradictions are unresolved.

For example, Joseph C. Kennedy, president of a publishing company in Cedar Falls, Iowa, who admitted under oath that he was a former member of the Communist Party, testified that Corbin had told him in personal conversations that he-Corbin-was at that time a member of the Communist Party. Corbin, testifying at his own request, declared under oath that he had never been a member of the Communist Party and denied categorically that he had ever told Kennedy he was a member of the Communist Party.

Another witness, Perry E. Wilgus, of Marion, Ind., also an admitted former Communist Party member, testified that in 1943 he was informed by a Communist Party functionary in Chicago that Corbin was "acting up" and that he was asked to, "see what you can do about it." Wilgus said he met Corbin two or three times but could not recollect their conversations or what results were obtained from his visits with Corbin.

Corbin testified that he recalled having conferred with Wilgus on one or two occasions, but that the conversations related to union organizing activities. Corbin said he never knew Wilgus was a Communist and that he never knowingly accepted Communist discipline in regard to his union organizing efforts.

A particularly interesting example of contradictions in the record related to conversations between Corbin and a Rockford, Ill., police detective in connection with detention of Corbin by Rockford police. In a sworn affidavit, this former police detective, now a retired Army colonel, flatly contradicted Corbin's testimony on four points. The text of this affidavit will be found on page 1395 of the hearings and it is also referred to on page 67 of the "Annual Report for the Year 1962."

The enigma of the unresolved contradictions in this testimony is all the more striking because the hearings were initiated in consequence of various statements appearing in the press subsequent to Mr. Corbin's appointment as a special assistant to the Democratic National Committee. These published statements alleged that Mr. Corbin had been active, in prior periods, in the Young Communist League in Canada and the Communist Party of the United Statesallegations which, as I have pointed out, were denied under oath by Mr. Corbin. In this connection, it is worthy of note that Edward S. Kerstein, a reporter for the Milwaukee Journal, appeared as a witness November 27, 1961, and submitted affidavits he had acquired from three individuals in regard to Corbin's alleged membership in, or statements about, the Communist Party. Kerstein also testified as to information he had gathered, as a part of his research, regarding Wisconsin unions and publica

tions which had been Communist dominated or infiltrated and which were subsequently "cleaned out" in union antiCommunist drives. Kerstein stated that "Paul Corbin was a member of some organizations which the rightist elements of labor had cleaned out" and that Corbin "had associated and participated in activities in which known Communists had participated." Kerstein stated that he had no "personal observations of "personal observations of [Corbin's] participation in Communist activities."

The foregoing is only a partial citation of the conflicting testimony in the hearings on Paul Corbin.

The reappearance of Mr. Corbin's Corbin's name in the headlines once more calls attention to the impasse which so far confronts the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities.

I am speaking solely on my own responsibility and with no criticism, overt or implied, so far as my colleagues on that committee or the committee staff are concerned.

I am completely unwilling to accept this impasse as the conclusion of the Corbin matter. I believe the unresolved contradictions in the record of these hearings add up to a commission of perjury on the part of one or more of the witnesses.

How familiar is the Attorney General with these unresolved contradictions and has the Department of Justice exhausted all possibilities of resolving them? At this point I do not profess to know.

Have any of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, including Mr. Corbin himself, any interest in further efforts to resolve these obvious conther efforts to resolve these obvious contradictions in sworn testimony and do they have any further information which can clear up the enigma? I do not profess to know.

My one clear conviction is that the entire matter is presently left in a most unsatisfactory status. So far as I am concerned it is an important matter of unfinished business.

Especially, in view of the reported new political activities of Mr. Corbin, I am totally unwilling to regard the subject as closed.

[blocks in formation]

to the request of the gentleman from Kansas?

There was no objection.

Mr. SHRIVER. Mr. Speaker, despite the continuing insistence of the Congress and the experienced recommendations of the U.S. Air Force, there is growing evithe U.S. Air Force, there is growing evidence that the present leadership in the Department of Defense intends to go its own way in regard to our manned bomber forces.

This morning's press dispatches quote former Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell L. Gilpatric stating that if present relations with the Soviet Union continue, the United States could eliminate all its strategic bombers and cut defense spending 25 percent by 1970.

In Geneva, our disarmament negotiators again have proposed the joint destruction of the United States and Soviet bombers.

We all look forward to the time when we can reduce defense expenditures and the peoples of the world can live together without fear of war or surprise nuclear attack. attack. However, until that day comes our best deterrent to war lies in a policy of firmness and strength.

It is disturbing to find the administration making conciliatory proposals to the Soviet Union at the same time that American American airmen are being held by Communist authorities after their plane was shot down by a Soviet fighter.

It is disturbing to find former administration officials suggesting the elimination of all strategic bombers despite the recommendations of the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force that there is an urgency to develop a follow-on bomber for the aging B-52.

Only last month the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee confirmed that SAC bomber strength will drop from about 1,300 today to 935 by June 1965 as a result of the deactivation of all but five B-47 wings.

The B-52 production lines have been closed since October 1962.

The B-58 production lines have been closed since October 1962.

We do not have a replacement either in the design or production stage today.

Congress, upon the strong recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has authorized $52 million for the development of a follow-on bomber. But there is no assurance that civilian leaders in the Pentagon will use these funds.

Mr. Speaker, time and again we have heard assurances that this Nation will continue to have a proper mixture of missiles and bombers in its defense system. However, public pronouncements and actions indicate otherwise.

The Air Force has a continuing program of modification and maintenance to keep our aging B-52 fleet operational and safe. Sooner or later we know they will wear out. What do we have to take their place? Nothing at the moment. Unless we get started on a follow-on aircraft, it is very possible that this Nation will be faced with a "bomber gap" by


We cannot afford to gamble with the security of our Nation. Time is of the essence.


Mrs. MAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend my remarks, and to include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Washington?

There was no objection.

Mrs. MAY. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced in the House of Representatives a bill to increase the amount of domestic beet sugar and mainland cane sugar which may be marketed during 1964, 1965, and 1966.

The State of Washington, as you know, historically produces beet sugar, and this is a vital crop. Unless the basic beet sugar quota in the Sugar Act is increased, Mr. Speaker, established sugarbeet growers will be faced with a 40-percent cut in acreage. A beet sugar quota increase of 750,000 tons is necessary and this is why a number of my colleagues from sugarbeet producing areas and I are introducing similar legislation.

A very large number of sugar producers are unanimously agreed on the provisions of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, and under leave to extend my remarks, I include a statement agreed to by these sugar producers and growers, together with a list of all those supporting the statement.

It is my hope that we will have the support of all of my colleagues in this body who are interested in allowing our American farmers to grow the crops they have so effectively demonstrated they can and desire to, if only given the opportunity by the Congress and the administration.

The material referred to follows: WHY A BEET SUGAR QUOTA INCREASE OF 750,000 TONS IS NECESSARY


The basic beet sugar quota (sec. 202 (a) (1)) of the Sugar Act should be increased by 750,000 tons-from the present 2,650,000 tons to 3,400,000. The higher levels of production requested by the Government for 1963, 1964, and 1965 make an increase of this amount necessary. This increase is in the interest of U.S. sugar consumers, and is vital to American farmers who need sugarbeets as a cash crop and as an alternate or replacement for crops now in surplus production. Also it is important to the welfare of factory and field labor in the 25 States in which the beet sugar industry is now located.


To encourage "growth and expansion of the beet sugar industry" in new areas (sec. 302(b) (3)), the Congress in 1962 provided for erection of six new beet sugar processing plants in the 1963-66 period. And early in 1963, when the critical foreign sugar supply situation became alarming, the executive branch of Government turned to the domestic beet sugar industry as the quickest dependable source of greater production in the period ahead, and announced that there would be no acreage restrictions on sugarbeet planting in 1964 and 1965 as well as in 1963. The industry responded with immediate and substantial increases in production far above existing quota levels. 3. DRASTIC ACREAGE CUTS INEVITABLE UNLESS BEET SUGAR QUOTA INCREASED Unless the basic beet sugar quota is increased, established sugarbeet growers will be faced with a 40-percent cut in acreage. Moreover, authorization of additional new beet sugar factories would be out of the question. It would be grossly unfair thus to penalize present growers who have contributed so importantly to the national sugar supply, and to prohibit sugarbeet production

ter million tons of sugar this year—thus con-
tributing substantially to relieving the sup-
ply problem. Moreover, the beet sugar in-
dustry has significantly recognized its ob-
ligations to consumers under the Sugar Act.
In 1963 beet sugar sold from $1 to $3 a hun-
dred pounds less than cane sugar in the
same markets. Both the volume and price of
beet sugar helped keep U.S. prices of im-
ported raw cane sugar lower than any
other countries had to pay for the same

By saving millions of dollars for U.S. con-
sumers in 1963, the beet sugar industry was
continuing its tradition of serving consum-
ers: beet sugar never sells for more than
cane sugar, and usually sells for less. It
is significant that in the one section of the
country where only cane sugar is normally
available-the Northeast States-the basic
price for sugar has been the highest in the
United States for many years.

Recognition of the importance of domestic
sugar production for American consumers
was given by President Johnson on January
31, 1964, when he urged Congress to authorize
unlimited 1964 marketing of domestically
produced sugar.


The 750,000-ton increase in the basic beet
sugar quota could be made without dis-
turbing any of the present individual coun-
try quotas. The increase would come from
the so-called global quota. Under changed
world sugar supply-demand conditions it
would appear undesirable to continue a sys-
tem wherein a large quantity of U.S. supplies
is not specifically allocated.


The transfer of 750,000 tons from the global
versely affect the quotas of the other domestic
quota to the beet area quota would not ad-
producing areas-Mainland Cane, Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

Can sugar refiners had their position ma-
terially improved by 1962 amendments to the
Sugar Act. These added 450,000 tons to the
cane refiners' volume by prohibiting future

importation of that amount of foreign re-
This brought total volume of cane refiners
fined sugar authorized by the previous law.
to nearly 7 million tons, and left only 75,000
tons of foreign sugar which may be imported
as refined sugar. The slight increase in the
beet quota in 1962 was offset, in the cane re-
finers' favor, by the transfer of Hawaiian and
Puerto Rican deficits from domestic areas to

foreign countries, which were required to
ship the sugar in raw form.

It should be noted that 100,000 tons of
protected beet sugar expansion have already
been awarded to cane sugar refiners and that
cane refiners' interests have applied for an-
other 100,000 tons of the reserve. Thus,
cane sugar refiners are prime recipients of
the benefits of the beet sugar expansion au-
thorized by Congress.


Many changes have taken place in the
sugar world since Congress wrote the 2,650,-
000-ton basic beet sugar quota into the law
in 1962. No longer is there a world surplus.
World reserve stocks of sugar, large in mid-
1962, are now almost nonexistent. Even if
talked-of increases in foreign production are

in new areas where the crop is so urgently eventually realized it will take time and a



Consumers are benefiting materially from the beet sugar industry's response to the congressional intent and Executive requests. The industry produced a half million tons more sugar in 1963 than in 1962, and is in the process of producing an additional quar

vastly improved investment climate.

Nearly a third of world sugar production is under Communist control. Instability and political turmoil plague many of the other sugar-producing nations of the world. Therefore, in this uncertain atmosphere, it is in the public interest to rely on the domestic beet sugar industry for an additional 71⁄2 to 8 percent of our total sugar supplies

which a 750,000-ton increase in the basic
beet sugar quota, to 3,400,000 tons, would
achieve. Even after adding 750,000 tons to
the beet area quota, foreign countries would
still be guaranteed a third of the total U.S.
market of about 10 million tons.
MARCH 17, 1964.

The foregoing statement is supported by the present sugarbeet growers and beet sugar processors of the United States as well as organized groups of farmers and many others seeking allocation of sugarbeet acreage reserves for expansion of the sugarbeet industry into new areas, as follows:

Arizona: Arizona Sugarbeet Committee.
California: California Beet Growers Asso-
ciation, Ltd.; Spreckels Sugar Co.; Union
Sugar Division, Consolidated Foods Corp.;
Holly Sugar Corp.; American Crystal Sugar
Colorado: The Mountain States Beet
Growers Marketing Association of Colorado;
Southern Colorado Beet Growers Associa-
tion; the Western Colorado Beet Growers As-
sociation; the Great Western Sugar Co.;
American Crystal Sugar Co.; Holly Sugar
Corp.; the National Sugar Manufacturing Co.
Delaware: Delaware Sugar Corp.

Idaho: Idaho Sugarbeet Growers Association; Lower Snake River Sugar Beet Growers Association; Nyssa-Nampa Beet Growers Association; Amalgamated Sugar Co.; UtahIdaho Sugar Co.


Illinois: Wabash Valley Beet Growers AsJoint Industrial Development Commission of Adams County.

sociation; Paulding Sugar Beet Growers AssoIndiana: Wabash Valley Beet Growers As


Iowa: Mason City District Beet Growers Association; American Crystal Sugar Co.

Kansas: Ash Valley Beet Growers Association; Southwest Kansas Sugar Beet Growers tion; the High Plains Beet Growers AssociaCouncil; Tri-County Beet Growers Association.

Maine: Maine Sugar Beet Growers Association.

Michigan: Alma Sugar Beet Growers Association; Blissfield Sugar Beet Growers Association; Caro Sugar Geet Growers, Inc.; Croswell Sugar Beet Growers Association; Monitor Sugar Beet Growers, Inc.; Saginaw Sugar Beet Growers, Inc.; Sebewaing Sugar Beet Growers Association; Michigan Sugar Co.; Monitor Sugar Division of Robert Gage Coal Co.

Minnesota: Red River Valley Beet Growers Association; Southern Minnesota Beet Growers Association; Tri-County Beet Development Association of Minnesota; MidValley Beet Development Association; Minnesota-Dakota Beet Development Association; Mason City District Beet Growers Association; American Crystal Sugar Co.

Missouri: Western Missouri Beet Growers Association; Pemiscot-Dunklin-New Madrid Sugar Beet Growers Association.

Montana: Montana Wyoming Beet Growers Association: the Mountain States Beet Growers Marketing Association of Montana; Western Montana Beet Growers Association; Great Western Sugar Co.; Holly Sugar Corp.; American Crystal Sugar Co.

Nebraska: Central Nebraska Beet Growers Association; Nebraska Nonstock Beet Growers Association; Northwest Nebraska Beet Growers Association; Great Western Sugar Co.; American Crystal Sugar Co.

New Mexico: Texas-New Mexico Sugar Beet Growers Association.

New York: Finger Lakes Beet Growers Association, Inc.

North Dakota: Red River Valley Beet Growers Association; Lake Agassiz Sugar Corp.; Minnesota-Dakota Beet Development Association; Mid-Valley Beet Development Association; American Crystal Sugar Co.

Ohio: Buckeye Beet Growers Association; Findlay Beet Growers Association; Fremont Beet Growers Association; Paulding Sugar

« ПретходнаНастави »