Слике страница

Mr. Tollefson, Mr. Rogers of Florida, and (d) utilize more effectively our agricul- for being a friendly nation I can't answer. Senator Lausche, of Ohio.

tural productive capacity to improve the That would be for the State Department, Later in 1961 the House established a diets of the Nation's needy persons;

which handles officially all international reSelect Committee on Export Control,

(e) recognize the importance of the family lations and negotiations.

farm as an efficient unit of production and Question. Will you follow the declaration chaired by our former colleague, the gen

as an economic base for towns and cities in of policy through? tleman from North Carolina, Mr. rural areas and encourage, promote, and Secretary HODGES. Let me say this about Kitchin. That committee worked with strengthen this form of farm enterprise; the declaration of policy: We have not rediligence on the overall problem, and (f) facilitate and improve credit services ceived in the Department of Commerce any partly through its efforts the administra to farmers by revising, expanding, and clari request for a license to ship anything abroad, tion's policy was reversed.

fying the laws relating to agricultural credit; and nothing has been done.

(g) assure consumers of a continuous, The Secretary of State and I, as you may THE LATTA AMENDMENT

adequate, and stable supply of food and recall—the release is available on August 4 In July 1961, the "Agricultural Act of fiber at fair and reasonable prices;

stated that because of the negotiations1961" was being debated on the floor of (h) reduce the cost of farm programs, by reading between the lines—so that we might the House. The distinguished gentle

preventing the accumulation of surpluses; keep ourselves flexible there would be no and

change at the present time in what we were man from Ohio (Mr. LATTA) an outstand

(i) use surplus farm commodities on hand going to ship or not ship, but that we reing member of both the Committee on

as fully as practicable as an incentive to re served the right to change at any moment. Agriculture and the Select Committee on duce production as may be necessary to Now, as quickly as Dean Rusk gets back, Export Control, offered an amendment bring supplies on hand and firm demand in I am going to sit down with him, and I'd to the declaration of policy section of balance.

rather reserve an answer until we have a the pending bill. That amendment

chance to talk it out together.

Section 107 of Public Law 480, 83 stated in unequivocal terms the policy Congress, provides:

Question. Well, while we're on this subof Congress that our Government should

ject, Mr. Secretary, would you explain to us

SEC. 107. As used in this Act, "friendly nanot sell, make available, or subsidize the

why about 6 weeks or so ago the Department tion" means any country other than (1) the ruled that subsidized commodities may be export of surplus farm commodities to U.S.S.R., or (2) any nation or area dominated sold to Soviet bloc countries provided the the Soviet Union or any area or Nation or controlled by the foreign government or sales are for convertible currencies? That controlled by world communism.

foreign organization controlling the world was a change in the direction of more trade The amendment was adopted by the Communist movement.

I think. House. It was retained in conference

During the floor debate on the amend

What was the reason for that? with the Senate and was part of the posi- ment on July 27, 1961, I expressed my

Secretary HODGES. What was the reason tive law included in Public Law 87–128 support for the amendment by saying:

for doing it at that time? signed by President Kennedy on August

Question. Yes.
I think it is a very good amendment. It is

Secretary HODGES. Because the various de8, 1961.

timely and appropriate at this very critical partments of the Government felt like it was The Agricultural Act of 1961 carries

time in world history. I think we should something they could do properly, but dethe Latta amendment in section 2(c) make our voices heard and be very specific velopments in the last 6 or 8 weeks have which you will note follows the enacting in dealing with the Communist countries. almost turned the situation around as far clause.

as Berlin is concerned.

I then pointed out that the amendment PUBLIC LAW 87–128, 87TH CONGRESS, S. 1643, pertained only to the policy section of

Question. You mean you're thinking of

rescinding that ruling?
AUGUST 8, 1961
the bill. The Attorney General has

Secretary HODGES. Whether we will rescind An Act to improve and protect farm prices taken that one sentence of mine out of the ruling or not I can't answer. It's en

and farm income, to increase farmer par. context to sustain his contention that the tirely possible that that will be the effect ticipation in the development of farm Latta amendment did not apply to the of it. programs, to adjust supplies of agricultural commodities in line with the require- present situation. That, Mr. Speaker, is ments therefor, to improve distribution a complete distortion of my position and Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to and expand exports of agricultural com- the entire legislative history that went note that since July 1961 no export limodities, to liberalize and extend farm into the adoption of the amendment. censes have been granted for the sale of credit services, to protect the interest of After President Kennedy signed Public subsidized U.S. farm commodities to the consumers, and for other purposes

Law 87–128, the administration quietly Communists. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of dropped its new policy on subsidized ex The President has made a point of the Representatives of the United States of ports to Red nations. Apparently the fact that our country has been selling the America in Congress assembled, That this

President agreed with the Congress in Russians and the satellites unsubsidized Act may be cited as the "Agricultural Act of

1961 and chose to follow the declared farm goods for some time. That is true 1961".

public policy of section 2(c) because he DECLARATION OF POLICY

on a very modest and limited scale. But, SEC. 2. In order more fully and effectively signed the bill and there was a change i submit, it is one thing to sell to the to improve, maintain, and protect the prices in Executive policy to conform with the Communists at the full U.S. price and and incomes of farmers, to enlarge rural

statute. He did not veto the bill which, quite another to sell to them at subsipurchasing power, to achieve a better bal of course, he could have done if he had dized prices. ance between supplies of agricultural com objected to the change in policy.

The President stated that he considmodities and the requirements of consumers In a press conference held by the Sec ered the Latta amendment before he therefor, to preserve and strengthen the retary of Commerce on Tuesday, August chose not to follow it. He stated his structure of agriculture, and to revitalize

8, 1961, the following colloquy was held: opinion that the sense of the Congress and stabilize the overall economy at reasonable costs to the Government, it is hereby

PRESS CONFERENCE OF HON. LUTHER H. has changed since the Berlin crisis in declared to be the policy of Congress to

HODGES, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, OFFICE July 1961. But has it? Speaking for (a) afford farmers the opportunity to

OF THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COM the representative of the people of the achieve parity of income with other economic


Sixth District of Iowa, I, for one, told groups by providing them with the means 8, 1961.

the President that my intent had not to develop and strengthen their bargaining The press conference was convened at 2:30

changed. Perhaps others have changed power in the Nation's economy; p.m.

their minds. Perhaps some who sup(b) encourage a commodity-by-commodity Question. Mr. Secretary, the farm bill approach in the solution of farm problems declaration of policy states that Congress be

ported the amendment are no longer in and provide the means for meeting varied lieves agricultural commodities should be Congress. and changing conditions peculiar to each sold only to friendly nations. Do you in But, I submit, that is not the consticommodity;

tend to follow that? Do you regard Poland tutional way to change public policy. (c) expand foreign trade in agricultural and Yugoslavia as friendly nations?

The President should not follow policy commodities with friendly nations, as de Secretary HODGES. I didn't get the last part when it is convenient to his interest and fined in section 107 of Public Law 480, 83d of your question, sir.

then ignore it when it is not. The ConCongress, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1707), and in Question. Do you regard Poland and Yugo

gress should have been consulted when no manner either subsidize the export, sell, slavia as friendly nations? or make available any subsidized agricul Secretary HODGES. Well, let's put it this

a change in policy was contemplated. tural commodity to any nations other than way: In the technicality of discussion of

The precedent set by the President in such friendly nations and thus make full those nations they are more friendly than this instance is indeed a serious one. use of our agricultural abundance;

the Soviet, but whether or not they qualify Since he has chosen to ignore subsection

[ocr errors]


2(c) of Public Law 128, he is now free to in a subsequent statute the Agricul- of statutory interpretation. Caminetti v. ignore the other provisions of policy in tural Act of 1961.

U.S. 242 U.S. 470 (1916) which held: “Where section 2.

Before getting further in the matter, the language is plain and admits of no He may now say it is not the policy of let us just look at the four Supreme tation does not arise and the rules which

more than one meaning the duty of interpreCongress to work for parity of income Court cases cited by the Attorney Gen- are to aid doubtful meanings need no disfor farmers; it is not public policy for a eral. The first two cases (Yazoo R. R. cussion.” See also Hamilon v. Rathbone 175 commodity by commodity approach; it is Co. v. Thomas, 132 U.S. 174, 188 (1889) U.S. 414 (1899); Armco Steel Corp. v. State not our policy to improve the diets of and Price v. Forrest, 173 U.S. 410, 427 Tax Commission 221 Md. 33 (1959). needy people; the family farm is not im (1899)) involve the construction of pre

The argument is also presented that portant; Congress does not seek to facili- ambles to State and a Federal statute.

Congress had several opportunities to tate and improve rural credit services; In both statutes the preamble appeared amend the basic statutes to prohibit consumers are no longer entitled to a before the enacting clause and as such subsidized sales to the Reds but failed to continuous, adequate and stable supply were not part of the positive law.

do so. This is a foolish argument, Mr. of food; and payment in kind will not be It is well established that preambles

Speaker. Why should Congress do a fuused when practicable to balance supply are not part of the statute unless they tile thing? The Latta amendment was and demand. follow the enacting clause. Sutherland,

law. The policy had been reversed. Following this Kennedy rationale, the section 1805, states as follows on this Every lawyer knows it is wise to cease President need not follow the resolutions point:

arguing after the judge has decided in of Congress on Formosa, Berlin, captive

The enacting clause, however, must pre your favor. nations, labor relations or a host of other

cede the purview of the statute for no mate The Attorney General also relies on areas of law. He need not do so, accord- rial preceding the enacting clause may be the general constitutional doctrine that ing to this precedent, that is, unless it treated as law (Barton v. McWhinney, 85 Ind.

the President is supreme in areas of is expedient and the President is assured 481 (1882)). Thus the purview of an act is

foreign policy and therefore need not of a minimum amount of congressional

said to be the enacting part of a statute in
contradistinction to the preamble (State v.

follow congressional mandates. Withand public opposition. Well, Mr. Reynolds (108 Ind. 353 (1886)); State v. Ives

out engaging in an extended discussion Speaker, I, for one, am opposed to such

(167 Ind. 13 (1906)); Frank v. City of De of constitutional law, I believe it would be a philosophy and I think that Congress catur (174 Ind. 388 (1910)); Payne v. Con appropriate to just recite article I, secand our country are too. We must all be ser (3 Bibb 180 (Ky. 1813)); In re Wiley's tion 1, of the Constitution of the United opposed to this power grab or representa- Guardianship (239 Iowa 1225 (1948)); Sun

States, which reads: tive government in America has come to shine Dairy v. Peterson (183 Ore. 305 (1948)).

All legislative powers herein granted shall mean nothing but a rubber stamp of the The other two cases (Lauf v. E. G. be vested in a Congress of the United States Executive.

Shinner and Co. (303 U.S. 323, 330 which shall consist of a Senate and House THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S BRIEF (1938)), and (Sinclair Refining Co. v.

of Representatives. So far, Mr. Speaker, I have directed Atkinson (370 U.S. 195, 202 (1962)), both Congress, not the President, makes the my remarks to the President's arguments deal with the interpretation of a labor laws of this Nation and Congress, not in justification of his action in ignoring dispute under the Norris-LaGuardia Act. the President, should change these laws. the policy of Congress in the Agricul- That act contains both a declaration of Congress said in the Latta amendtural Act of 1961. The President's legal policy section and a specific definition of ment: position was fortified by his brother, the “labor dispute," and the Supreme Court

No subsidized sales to the Reds. Attorney General. very logically reasoned in both cases that

The President and his brother disaI think it would be appropriate to exthe declaration of policy did not narrow

gree, but rather than let Congress change amine that fortification because I do not the specific definition set forth in the

the law, they flaunt it and say: believe it will withstand a logical legal

act. assault.

There will be subsidized sales to the Reds. I urge you to read these cases and see

ARE THERE ADVANTAGES? The Attorney General's brief covers

if you can find any application whatsothe Johnson Act—where a “credit” is held ever to the situation at hand. They are

So much for the procedural side of this

issue. Now let us discuss the merits, or not to be a "loan”-the Battle Act interesting cases, to be sure, but are not

more properly, the demerits involved in where the congressional declaration of at all on the point. The Latta amend

the President's decision to sell surplus policy section is cited to support his po- ment expressed the law of the land

U.S. wheat to the Communists. sition—the Export Control Act which is clearly and without ambiguity. found to be no prohibition and the

The section in Sutherland cited by the

The President presented seven basic

arguments in support of his decision. Latta amendment to the Agricultural Attorney General provides as follows: Act of 1961. The Attorney General lays

Section 4820. In place of a preamble it

Let us examine each of these claimed

benefits: down an interesting rule of law when has become common, particularly in Federal he states:

legislation, to include a policy section which First, surplus removal: While it must

states the general objectives of the act in be conceded that this deal will reduce our Declarations of policy in legislation, like order that administrators and courts may inventory of wheat, we may properly ask preambles and other introductory material, know its purposes. do not alter specific operative provisions of significance where the enforcement of the modity Credit Corporation now owns

This is frequently of by how much. Recalling that the Comlaw. act depends principally upon administration

over 1 billion bushels of wheat, a ComHe then cites four Supreme Court and the administrative officers have not parcases and Sutherland Statutory Con

ticipated in the preparation of the legisla- munist purchase of 100 to 300 million tion.

bushels represents only 10 percent to 30 struction, third edition. After citing

The policy section like the preamble is percent of present stocks. This is not these four cases, he then lays down his available for the clarification of ambiguous to say that such a purchase is not sigown rule which is pure dictum and is un provisions of the statute, but may not be nificant, but it does not represent a supported by either case law or legal au used for the creation of ambiguity.

solution to the wheat surplus problem. thority. He states:

As can be seen by simply reading it,

Second, balance of payments: I think This rule is particularly relevant where, the citation is not pertinent to the point we all realize the existence of a balanceas here, the declaration of policy was not at issue here. This section of Suther- of-payments problem which is currently contemporaneous with the enactment or

land speaks only about ambiguous stat, in the magnitude of $2 billion annually. amendment of any of the basic pertinent utes, which section 2(c) of the Agricul- A multimillion-dollar wheat deal with statutes.

tural Act of 1961 most clearly is not. the Soviets will no doubt help ease this Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General did The more appropriate rule is set forth by problem, but let me submit that other not cite a case for his actual ruling that Sutherland in section 4502 as follows: problems facing our Nation are more in the exercise of power under discre

serious than balance of payments. For tionary statutes-the Export Control

The most common rule of statutory interpretation is the rule that a statute clear

example, we would have no balance-ofAct, as amended, and the Commodity and unambiguous on its face need not and payments problem if it were not for the Credit Corporation Charter Act, as cannot be interpreted by a court and only Communists who force us to expend bilamended—the President may ignore and those statutes which are ambiguous and of lions of dollars annually on oversea violate the clear public policy expressed doubtful meaning are subject to the process military installations and foreign aid.


Third, consume Soviet foreign ex say, “You must not help Castro-he is a could buy U.S. wheat products at 50 to change: This argument should be tem- Communist” ? What do we say when 60 cents per bushel cheaper than could pered with the thought that the Soviet's they ask us, "Are there not any Commu an American housewife. The English capacity to purchase internationally will nists in Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ru are at least our allies in the cold war. not be materially depleted by U.S. wheat mania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Lith Now a Russian housewife will be able purchases. The Soviet Union is a tra- uania, Estonia, and Latvia ?”

to do so unless that great humanitarian, ditional wheat exporter. Recently she I believe it is generally recognized that Nikita Khrushchev, collects for himself canceled her export commitments to the the Soviets have a great deal of trouble and the Soviet Communist Party the bloc nations and to Scandinavia. The controlling their European captive na profit from the resale of the U.S. wheat wheat we will sell to Russia may well be tions where there is deep-rooted opposi

tions where there is deep-rooted opposi- in Russia where internal wheat prices reexported to these nations, thus restor tion to the Communist system of land are much higher than in the United ing the Soviet's foreign exchange and tenure.

tenure. This wheat deal, I submit, will States or in the world market. solidifying their control over the captive also ease the pressure within these cap Where, then, does the U.S. taxpayer nations of Eastern Europe.

tive nations for more private ownership fit into the picture? Secretary Freeman Fourth, propaganda effect: My only of land, thus postponing further the day has ventured a guess that total U.S. question concerning this claimed advan of their independence and freedom. wheat exports might go to a billion tage is whether it will be used. If this How do we justify a foreign policy bushels as a result of the Kennedy-Rusdeal is to reduce tensions, as has been position advocating freedom for the cap sian deal. argued by its proponents, I seriously tive nations of Eastern Europe when we Since our normal wheat exports are doubt that the administration will ag trade extensively with the Soviet Union? from 600 to 700 million bushels, this gressively pursue the propaganda effects When a country trades with the enemy means that the Secretary thinks the of the sale. And let us remember that for the expressed purpose of monetary Communists will buy 300 to 400 million propaganda is, to a great extent, just gain, the hope for freedom of the many bushels of U.S. subsidized wheat. Since words. It alone will not harm the Communist-dominated peoples of the the export subsidy—or loss to taxpayCommunists. world fade away into despair.

erscurrently averages 56 cents per Fifth, a step to world peace through How can we insist that our allies take bushel, U.S. taxpayers will be paying humanitarianism: I question seriously

seriously a hard line against the Reds if we take from $168 million to $224 million for whether we will ever be able to have real a soft one ourselves?

the privilege of providing wheat to the peace with the Soviets as long as they Second. Is not this a "bail out" for man who is dedicated to the burial of persist in perpetuating the delusions of Khrushchev who is facing his own prob our Nation, our Government, our system, Marx and Lenin. This transaction is not lems at home? The Chicago Tribune our families, and us. for feeding hungry people. It is for put the situation very succinctly re Fourth. How do we prevent transbuilding up Red reserves and for meeting cently when it published a cartoon show shipment of wheat to the Asian Commutheir export commitments. Khrushchev ing Khrushchev with an empty bread nists or to Cuba? While it might be and the Soviet Government actually basket and asking Uncle Sam for wheat possible to extract reliable promises from stand to make a profit on this deal since while saying:

our free world allies that they would not the internal Russian wheat price of $2.50 I'll bury you if you'll sustain me until I resell to Russia, how can we depend on per bushel is well in excess of both the get my strength back.

the Soviets to keep a promise on transworld and the U.S. price for wheat.

No matter how momentarily helpful

shipment? Sixth, improved economic activity in

And even if they did keep their word, to our wheat surplus problem and our the United States: I have no doubt, Mr.

the new supply of American wheat could balance-of-payments dilemma, selling Speaker, that speculators have enjoyed a wheat to the Russians would undeniably

easily and simply displace Canadian or field day on the wheat markets since

their own wheat which might be transstrengthen them where they are weak; the Kennedy-Russian deal came into

shipped. to wit, shortage of grain.

Have we being. The effect on our economy is yet

Fifth. The precedents established by waited all these years in the cold war for to be seen and I noticed that Secretary

this deal are indeed most serious. Aside this weak spot only to now rush in to Freeman himself held out very little

from the legal precedent of ignoring the fill it without demanding anything in prospect of improved wheat prices in

Congress, the President's decision opens return except the price of the wheat it1964 as a result of this deal.

the door for these events: broadened self? If the deal is to be consummated, Seventh, present policy not realistic:

agricultural trade involving other U.S. why does not the Kennedy administraThe argument most often heard in justi

farm commodities; broadened trade tion demand concessions such as the fication of the Kennedy-Russian wheat withdrawal of all Russian troops from

involving U.S. industrial goods; trade deal is that the Canadians are trading Cuba or the destruction of the Berlin

with Red China, North Korea, North with them, so why do not we? Let me

Vietnam, and Cuba; and diplomatic Wall? point out first that Canada also trades

recognition of each of these Red nations.

Third. The Communists will be rewith Red China. Is that now a reason

In regard to our China policy, let me ceiving U.S. surpluses at a subsidized for us to do so, too? The fact is, Mr.

point out that despite the current proprice. Mr. Khrushchev will buy AmeriSpeaker, that the entire East-West trade

tests that Red China is not to be in on can wheat at the world price of $1.77 relationship is unrealistic and should, as

the present Kennedy-Russian wheat per bushel at Galveston, Tex. The the distinguished gentleman from Min

deal, many persons in the administration U.S. price is currently 56 cents a bushel nesota [Mr. QUIE] has suggested, be re

actively advocate trade with China. more at that port. The United States viewed from top to bottom. In the mean

support of this statement let me quote taxpayer will pick up the 56-cent differtime, the Kennedy administration most

from the following remarks of April 5, ence. assuredly should be able to prevent the

1962, by the gentleman from Louisiana

I realize that a fancy argument in transshipment of wheat from our allies

[Mr. HÉBERT), as appearing on page semantics can be made as to how export A2678 of the daily RECORD of that date: to Russia since they claim that they can

subsidies are paid, how the Kennedynow prevent transshipment of wheat

Mr. HÉBERT. Of particular interest to me from Russia to Cuba, China, North VietRussian deal will be from replenished

is the forthright action taken by the Chairstocks, and how the American farmer is nam, and North Korea.

man of the Select Committee, Mr. Kitchin, the recipient of the subsidy. I think we and

esteemed Speaker when they A MISTAKE FOR AMERICA

all recognize the fact that export sub learned of the efforts by a west coast firm The real disadvantages involved in this sidies are actually paid by the U.S. Goy to obtain this Government's approval to extransaction lie more in the areas of for ernment to grain companies which are port wheat valued at $400 million to North eign and national policy than in areas of wheat exporters and are the result of Korea and Communist China. All freedomfarm and fiscal policy. the price support program designed to

loving people, I am sure, were happy to learn

of the rejection of the application. First. Our Nation's foreign policy will help U.S. farmers. But the indisputable be in a most awkward position from now and undeniable fact remains that the The news article is as follows:

Let us take Cuba for example. How foreign purchaser receives the benefit GRAIN FOR CHINA: Two SOLONS BLOCKED IT can we ask our South American friends of the lower world price.

(By Robert S. Allen and Paul Scott) to help us isolate Cuba? When they ask In the past, we have tolerated a sit WASHINGTON.—The vigorous opposition of us why, what do we say to them? Do we uation whereby an English housewife two influential Members of Congress played


a major role in stopping the sale of $400 upon a request from the government con There is a complete embargo on shipments million worth of grain to Communist China cerned. It is rejected.”

of American goods and produce to the two and North Korea.

This statement was drafted by Secretary countries. However, the Commerce DepartThe huge grain shipment was barred by Ball and Dr.

Rostow. They prepared it to ment at least considered making an excepPresident Kennedy after he learned that keep the door open for future sales to Com tion to the rule in this case. Speaker JOHN MCCORMACK, Democrat, of munist China. Their argument is that sur President Kennedy was asked at a recent Massachusetts, and Representative A. Paul plus grain can be used to temper the Chi news conference about reports that a grain Kitchin, Democrat, of North Carolina, chair nese Communist hostilities toward the deal with Communist China, which has been man of a special House investigating sub United States.

suffering from agricultural failures, was becommittee were opposed to the sale and were

ing considered.

POLICY REVIEW ready to light a congressional bonfire if it

The proposed shipments would have exwas approved.

The United States does not recognize either

tended over 3 years. Communist China had EXPLOSIVE Communist China or North Korea, and has

wanted 6 million tons of grain while North Word of this explosive legislative opposi

a tight embargo against trade with both Korea had ordered 4.5 million tons.

countries. tion was given the President by Commerce

Informed sources said that International Secretary Luther Hodges during a White

At the President's request, Dr. Walt Ros Trading Corp., in negotiating for the sale of House meeting called to determine whether

tow has begun an overall review of our policy the grain, dealt with a private businessman a private export license for shipment toward Communist China. This review is

in Hong Kong and had no contact with the grain should be granted.

based on a State Department policy paper actual purchasers in Communist China and International Trade Corp., a Seattle,

stating that Sino-Soviet relations are deteri North Korea. Wash., firm, had applied for the license to orating so fast that the United States should

WHAT TO DO? ship 6 million tons of wheat and barley to adopt a flexible China policy to take advan

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would Red China and 4.5 million tons to North tage of the alleged split.

like to remind the House that 2 years Korea over a 3-year period.

This view of a Russia-China split is chalThe refusal of the license was announced lenged by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Cen ago there was a Berlin crisis marked by by the Commerce Department in a two-sen

tral Intelligence Director John McCone. the construction of the infamous wall. tence statement issued last Friday. It made They hold that the rift is not nearly as deep One year ago there was a Cuban crisis no mention of the following dramatic White

as claimed in the official State Department marked by the prospect of an imminent House meeting during which the legislators' paper.

nuclear rocket attack on our Nation. intervention tipped the scales against the

As you can see from the news story, Two weeks ago Russian forces in Gersale, the Speaker was quoted as follows:

many refused to allow American and TWO FAVORED

British troops to enter West Berlin. Under Secretary of State George Ball and

Speaker McCORMACK took the position that Dr. Walt Rostow, Chairman of the State Dethe sales would serve to bolster a sinking

Two days ago the Reds again began to partment's Planning Commission, had just

Communist government at a time when we harass our troops in Germany. Yet in finished a vigorous argument supporting the

should be taking steps to hasten its down spite of all this experience, our Govern

fall. grain sale when the President, turning to

ment is now going to allow the sale of Secretary Hodges, asked for his views, stat

wheat to Russia. What fate holds in

Secretary Hodges was quoted as saying: ing:

the future is uncertain, but no one should "Luther, since it is your responsibility to

be surprised if 1 month or 1 year from grant or deny this license, let's hear from

Kitchin was very blunt. He threatened a you.” full-scale investigation.

now we are engaged in another show

down somewhere in the world with the "Before giving you my own position,"

The President was quoted as saying: Communists. When we do reach that Hodges replied, "I would like to present the views of Speaker MCCORMACK and Represent

There are good arguments on both sides, point we may look back with chagrin on ative Kitchin who is chairman of a House

however, my decision is that we can do noth October 1963 when our Government desubcommittee investigating the sale of ing to jeopardize the trade bill.

cided to bolster up the economies of our strategic materials to the Communist bloc.” "Have they expressed themselves?” inThe news article then goes on to state potential enemies.

Four times since 1954 there have been quired the President.

that a terse statement denying the re“Quite vigorously,” said Secretary Hodges. quest was issued after being drafted by quest was issued after being drafted by attempts to allow subsidized sales to the

Reds. Three times before those efforts "They called me personally and expressed Dr. Rostow and Secretary Ball who prevery strong objections to the sale. They re pared it to keep the door open for future

failed. The fourth time now looks probquested that I make their views known to sales to Communist China.

able unless Congress and the people stop you.”

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this

it. If Congress does not take immediate "On what grounds are they opposed?" story, but I do know that the Interna

action, the decision of President Kenasked the President.

nedy which was conceived in violation of "Speaker McCORMACK took the position tional Trade Corp. of Seattle, Wash., did that the sales would serve to bolster a sink- seek to sell subsidized wheat to Red

seek to sell subsidized wheat to Red the law of the land and which is now ing Communist government at a time when China last year and was refused permisChina last year and was refused permis- being executed to the detriment of all of

us will, I sadly predict, become one of we should be taking steps to hasten its down- sion to do so. I was as happy then to see fall,” reported Hodges. "He warned that that result as I am unhappy now to see

America's most tragic mistakes in this approval of the shipment of grain to Peiping

decade. a wheat sale to the Russians. would touch off a major foreign policy de

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. bate in Congress that could easily endanger March 23, 1962, reported the rejected

The Washington Evening Star of passage of your trade program.” March 23, 1962, reported the rejected Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOEVEN. I yield to the gentlesale as follows: KITCHIN BLUNT

man from California. "What did Representative Kitchin say?"

[From the Washington Evening Star,

Mr. MILLER of California. I may say, questioned the President.

Mar. 23, 1962]

Mr. Khrushchev changes his mind quite Kitchin was very blunt,” replied Hodges. U.S. REJECTS GRAIN REQUEST FOR RED ASIA

frequently nowadays. Recently we have "He threatened a full-scale investigation." A Seattle trading firm's request for per had a lot of publicity in this country that

"What is your recommendation?" the mission to ship $400 million of grain to comPresident asked. munist China and North Korea was rejected his effort to send Russian cosmonauts to

has led us to believe he is begging off in "As you know," said Hodges, "I have been today by the Government. opposed to granting the license from the

Secretary of Commerce Hodges announced

the moon, but to a group of American outset unless you should rule it in the na the denial of export license applications

businessmen yesterday, he reasserted tional interest to permit such sales. This from the International Trading Corp.,

that the Russians were very definitely in legislative opposition reinforces my position." Seattle, for sales of wheat and barley to the the race, and they were going on. It is “There are good arguments on both sides,” two Communist nations in Asia.

the same question of consistency showsaid the President in summing up.

A brief announcement said "there was no ing here, and I hope we are not going to ever, my decision is that we do nothing to

evidence that the order held by ITC was jeopardize the trade bill. We can't afford to based upon a request from the Governments

be misled and accept Mr. Khrushchev's have that important legislation mixed up in concerned.”

leadership under all the circumstances. a China policy debate."

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the gentleman
Officials indicated this was a roundabout
way of saying that the proposed grain ship-

for his comment. Moscow-Washington

are Later, the President called Hodges and ment had been subject to discussions between

taking the usual directed him to reject the license and issue the Commerce Department and the Interna course. Having won the first big cona terse statement, reading:

tional Trading Corp., and did not involve any cession, the U.S. offer to supply the “There was no evidence that the order talks with the Governments of Red China wheat, Khrushchev at once started held by International Trade Corp. was based and North Korea.

to whittle away at the "firm conditions".

which President Kennedy had laid down. by the wheat that he will ship to Com- not suit the convenience of the executive Moscow will not agree that all wheat munist Cuba or to Mr. Castro.

branch. The Attorney General also reshipments must be transported on U.S. Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the gentleman lies on the general constitutional docvessels. Moscow refuses to guarantee for his timely contribution.

trine that the President is supreme in that the grain is “for delivery to and use Mr. JENSEN. Does the gentleman areas of foreign policy and need not folin the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe agree with me?

low congressional intent. Without enonly," as the President stated. Khru Mr. HOEVEN. I agree with the gaging in an extended discussion of conshchev has declared "If the Americans, gentleman wholeheartedly. Of course Istitutional law I believe it would be apin selling wheat, attach any discrimina- do.

propriate for us to recite what it says. tory conditions, then we will make no Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, will the Section 1 of the Constitution of the purchases in America,” which all con gentleman yield?

United States reads: firms the ticker-tape report I just men Mr. HOEVEN. I will be glad to yield

All legislative powers herein granted shall tioned.

to the gentleman from Ohio, the author be vested in a Congress of the United States, Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. Mr. Speak- of the Latta amendment.

which shall consist of a Senate and House er, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATTA. Is it not a fact that the of Representatives. Mr. HOEVEN. I yield to the gentle administration was adhering to this

So Congress, not the President, makes man from Indiana.

policy established in the 1961 Agricul- the laws of this Nation and Congress, Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. I want to tural Act? Is that true?

not the President, should change the compliment the gentleman on his very Mr. HOEVEN. That is right.

law. Congress, in effect, said in the timely statement that he is making and Mr. LATTA. So actually there was

Latta amendment: particularly with reference to the intent not any need for the Congress to take

No subsidized sales to the Reds. of the Congress. I think it is important any position, since the administration to recognize also that the Trade Expan- had followed it for a period of 2 years. The President and the Attorney Gension Act of the 87th Congress carried a Mr. HOEVEN. The administration eral disagree, but rather than let Conprovision which distinctly stated that had followed it as the gentleman says. gress change the law they flaunt it and Communist-dominated nations such as The President signed the law and we had say in substance, “There will be subPoland and Yugoslavia should not con every right to assume that he agreed, sidized sales to the Reds.” tinue to receive the most-favored-nation and approved the policy statement. Now Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, will the treatment. This was very definitely set he says Congress should have taken the gentleman yield? forth in the act, but it has not been initiative if it wanted to change the Mr. HOEVEN. I yield. followed by the administration. It seems policy. The fact of the matter is that

Mr. LATTA. Is it not well that we in this instance they have excused their this situation came up so suddenly that point out that the President did not tell unwillingness to follow the intent of the Congress did not have a chance even

the Nation all that they were supposed Congress, and to follow the law, in fact, to review the situation. The opinion of

to have been told or should have been by the same device that they have in this the Congress was not sought by the ad

told on this subject when he said: other instance which you have just ministration as to whether or not the cited. policy statements should be revised or

In short, this particular decision with

respect to sales to the Soviet Union which Mr. HOEVEN. I am glad to have the eliminated.

is not inconsistent with many smaller transcomments of the gentleman. They are Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, will the actions over a long period of time does not very helpful.

gentleman yield further on that point? represent a new Soviet-American' trade polMr. JENSEN. Mr. Speaker, will the Mr. HOEVEN. I yield.

icy. gentleman yield?

Mr. LATTA. Is it not true that the

Is it not a fact that this did establish Mr. HOEVEN. I yield to my colleague leaders of the Congress, including the

a new Soviet-American trade policy as from Iowa. gentleman now in the well, were called

it pertains to subsidized agricultural Mr. JENSEN. I want to congratulate to the White House to be informed that

commodities? the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. HOEVEN] the administration had already taken

Mr. HOEVEN. The gentleman is corfor the analysis and the explanation he this position; and they were not con

rect. It is a new policy. has given us relative to the laws which sulted on it, and their advice was not

Mr. LATTA. This statement does need Congress passed relating to this sub- sought? Is not that true?

some clarification on this point? It does ject. As everybody in the Congress

Mr. HOEVEN. The gentleman is corknows and as most every American rect. The gentleman now addressing

establish a new policy?

Mr. HOEVEN. I think the statement knows, you, Mr. HOEVEN, are the ranking you was called to the White House, with

is too broad, it is not specific, and it Republican on the Agriculture Legisla- others, and we were told what the ad

does establish a new policy. tive Committee of the House and you ministration was going to do. Our opin

Let us discuss the merits and more have been on the committee for many, ion was not sought; our advice was not many years. Now, it appears to me, we

sought. I may say that although it is properly the demerits involved in the are handing Mr. Khrushchev and his not a matter of record, I spoke out at President's decision to sell surplus U.S.

wheat to the Communists. Communist stooges not only a spade but this meeting and tried to uphold the a steam shovel to bury us with as he Congress in this regard. I said that con I think it is all covered in the statesaid he was going to do not too long ago, gress should have been consulted, be ment which I made shortly after this when he said he would bury the United cause we had declared the policy and had wheat deal was first proposed. I said,

, States of America. Here we have a situ written the law; and now all of a sudden

and I quote: ation where the farmers of Russia and we were confronted with a change in I strongly question the propriety of sellthe other satellite nations behind the policy that we had not been consulted ing American wheat to Russia. The proIron Curtain have apparently decided about at all.

posed deal would be just another concesthere is no particular point in them pro Mr. LATTA. If the gentleman will

sion or accommodation to the Soviet Union

in the cold war. It would be a unilateral ducing to the limit since they receive yield further, the gentleman further

proposition wherein the United States would compensation for their hard labors the pointed out the ridiculousness of the

grant the concession of supplying the Soviet same as those who sit around and do Attorney General's opinion on the sub with subsidized wheat at 60 cents a bushel very little work.

ject dealing with policy. Would not this below the price American consumers would So the production of crops in Russia in fact mean that every declaration of have to pay for the same wheat. No mathas been reduced materially this year policy, on every bill, would have to be ter how monetarily helpful to our wheat surand during past years. Therefore, Mr. reenacted every session of Congress if

plus problem and our balance-of-payments we were to follow this policy?

dilemma, selling wheat to the Russians Khrushchev is buying wheat from every

would undeniably strengthen them where place he can get it and, of course, some Mr. HOEVEN. That would seen to

they are weak, to wit, the shortage of grain. of that wheat will be shipped to Castro, be the logical assumption. I just made the Communist dictator of Cuba. If we reference to the fact that every policy Today, I say parenthetically that the sent our wheat there, without a doubt it enunciated by the Congress could be au weakest point in the Soviet economy towill be used to fill the void that is caused tomatically found not to apply if it did day is the lack of grain.

« ПретходнаНастави »