the free flow of goods, instead of this eternal Government planning? Government planning is part and parcel of socialism-communism, which is our dedicated enemy. And I think that needs to be said, because under any quota system, you would be going along with those people who believe in Government control rather than free trade. And Government trade is exactly what the Socialists and the Commies are doing all the time. Finally, there is the matter of administrative cost that is involved. This is another Federal program involving increased administrative cost. I happen to be for less administrative costs, not more.

As to the matter of foreign policy, we are threatened that if we do not take this, we might indeed be undercutting our State Department and the agreement that they have worked out. For myself, I think it would be salutary and not too dangerous if we expressed ourselves here, as the representatives of the people, as in disagreement with our State Department and the various treaty arrangements that we have had in recent months, because they are not working in the best interests of the United States. I know there are a great many people in this country who feel the way I do, and I would like us to check on this foreign policy of our country. To me it does not look as though the State Department officials have been trying to look after America, but rather, trying to look after everybody else in the world at U.S. taxpayers' expense.

In other words, I do believe I am among those who feel that this is unwise legislation, even if it is to implement a treaty. I do not think it is right. Therefore, I am so stating and shall so vote.

Here I want to include some background material from our Ways and Means staff research which supports the

views I have stated:

BACKGROUND OF INTERNATIONAL COFFEE

AGREEMENT

1. ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF COFFEE
AGREEMENT

The agreement is essential to arrest the persistent downward trend in coffee prices. Since 1955 the average price of Brazilian coffee has declined from 57 cents a pound to 33 cents, a decline of 42 percent. Current prices are at their lowest point since 1949. The decline has cut sharply into export earnings of the 35 coffee-producing countries of Latin America, Africa, and Asia which depend on coffee earnings to finance their economic development. Coffee exports account for more than 70 percent of Colombia's export earnings, 60 percent for Guatemala and El Salvador, more than 50 percent for Brazil, and 25 percent on the average for the 15 Latin American coffee-exporting countries. Five African countries obtain more than 40

percent of their foreign exchange earnings from coffee. In Latin America more than 12 million persons depend on coffee for their livelihood, and perhaps 20 million for the world as a whole. The overwhelming majority of coffee farms in the world belong to small farmers cultivating less than 5 acres of land. It should be noted that a 1-cent drop in the price of green coffee means a decrease of about $50 million in the foreign exchange receipts of the Latin American countries. In fact, the virtual stagnation of Latin American export receipts (from $9.3 billion in 1956 to $9.6 billion in 1961) during

the last several years of rapid expansion in world trade resulted largely from deterioriation in world coffee prices. Since 1955, Latin American coffee exports increased about 12 percent in quantity but fell by almost 30 percent in value from approximately $2 billion to less than $1.4 billion.

The disequilibrium between coffee production and coffee consumption is so great that it can be corrected only by international cooperation. To rely on normal market forces alone would mean a disastrous drop in prices, bringing panic in its train. In fact, the situation had reached the point where cutthroat competition, injurious to all producing countries, threatened the market.

2. POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF COFFEE
AGREEMENT

Our efforts to help the low-income countries help themselves are frustrated by adverse developments on world commodity markets, and losses from declining prices often more than offset our development aid. In announcing the Alliance for Progress, the President assured the countries of Latin America of our full cooperation in efforts to correct on a case-by-case basis the instability and price erosion of recent years. We repeated this assurance at Punta del Este.

The Latin American countries want to be able to earn their way through trade and not rely on aid alone. Through participation in the coffee agreement, we can help sustain Latin America's export earnings, revitalize and strengthen the Alliance for Progress, and give concrete substance to our assurances. Coffee, as the single most important agricultural commodity in the trade of the developing countries is a test case. The good faith of this administration and the credibility of our efforts to help the low-income countries raise their living standards is involved. 3. WHAT THE IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION IS FOR

The Senate has recognized the economic and political significance of the coffee agreement and has given its advice and consent to ratification. The agreement, however, is not a wholly self-executing treaty. Two provisions of the agreement require implementing legislation: (1) An obligation placed on

importing members to require that all coffee be accompanied by a certificate of origin as a condition of entry into their markets, and (2) an obligation to limit imports of coffee from nonmember countries. The implementing legislation now before the Congress provides the necessary authorization. The initial authorization is limited to a period of 2 years to assure congressional review after a reasonable period of experience with the operation of the agreement.

4. PROTECTION OF DOMESTIC CONSUMERS AND INDUSTRY

The domestic coffee industry worked closely with the administration in developing the coffee agreement and fully supports the agreement. The stated price objective of the coffee agreement is a modest one: To stabilize prices at a general level no lower than that in 1962 when they were lower than at any time since 1949. One would be hard put to find other items in the housewife's budget that cost less today than 14 years ago. Moreover, the U.S. consumer is protected

against unwarranted price increases not only by the existence of tremendous stocks of green coffee, equal to approximately 12 years exports, now held in Brazil and Colombia, and by the fact that current production is running approximately 25 percent ahead of consumption, but also by provisions in the agreement. Under the agreement, the level of export quotas controls the amount of coffee that may be marketed and that directly influences price. All decisions on the setting and adjustment of export quotas require a distributed two-thirds majority vote; i.e., a concurrent two-thirds of the importers

and exporters voting separately. Since the United States has 400 out of 1,000 votes held by the importers, we have virtually a veto power over decisions affecting quotas. (To make the veto effective, we would need only one other importing country voting with us because the agreement provides that one country alone cannot exercise a veto.) Other provisions of the agreement provide for protective action in the event of marked price rises or falls within a brief period. Finally, in the unlikely event that the agreement operated against the interests of the U.S. consumer, the United States could withdraw from the agreement by giving written notice. Such withdrawal would become effective 90 days after notification. The agreement could not operate without U.S. participation.

5. IMPORTANCE OF IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION

The agreement entered into force provisionally on July 1, 1963, when an adequate number of importing and exporting countries had signified their intention to seek ratification or had deposited their instruments of ratification.

The United States signified its intention to seek ratification after the U.S. Senate gave its advice and consent on May 21, 1963. The U.S. letter of notification states that implementing legislation will be necessary and

that until such legislation has been enacted, "the United States does not assume any of the obligations for which such legislation is necessary.”

The agreement will expire on December 31 of this year if it has not been fully ratified

by an adequate number of participants (20 exporting countries having at least 80 percent of total exports in 1961 and 10 importing countries having at least 80 percent of total imports in that year). It is urgent, therefore, that implementing legislation be enacted so that the United States can deposit its instrument of ratification and so that other governments which have deferred action until the United States ratifies can similarly deposit their instruments before the end of this year.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSs).

like at the outset to ask the chairman Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I would of the committee how many witnesses were heard with respect to this legis

lation?

Mr. MILLS. We had no public hearings on the bill.

Mr. GROSS. I am asking the gentleman how many witnesses were heard by the committee.

Mr. MILLS. We had no public hearing. All information sent to the committee was made available in executive session. There were no witnesses who were heard. The National Coffee Association wrote us in behalf of the bill, for example. They did not request to be heard.

Mr. GROSS. Let me say to the gentleman that I have a letter in my files from one who knows the coffee trade and who says he asked to be heard on this legislation, and was denied that opportunity.

Mr. MILLS. I have no recollection of anyone being denied the opportunity to be heard.

Mr. GROSS. The gentleman's committee had no witnesses at all?

Mr. MILLS. We had no public hearings.

Mr. GROSS. You had no State Department and no Treasury Department witnesses?

Mr. MILLS. Will the gentleman let me answer?

Mr. GROSS.

Certainly.

Mr. MILLS. So far as this legislation is concerned, the purpose and the intention and the expected result is to stabilize prices at that level.

Mr. GROSS. Yes. I have heard that story from others, so many others, but it does not work out that way, and the gentleman knows it.

Mr. Chairman, I say again that this is a brandnew foreign aid program that is to be financed out of the pocketbooks of housewives and consumers. We have again heard the old, old story this afternoon of "what do you think the foreigners will think of us if we refuse to pass this bill." I hope the day will come soon when the citizens of this country will tell Congress in words and deeds that they have had enough of this dancing to the tune of foreigners, whether in South America or elsewhere. I am opposed to this bill because I will not approve the organization of an international cartel. I am opposed to this bill because of the violence it does to the citizens of this country.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. DEROUNIAN].

Mr. DEROUNIAN. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this legislation. While we are discussing the price of coffee, I recall when Mr. Brodie from the Department of State was testifying before our committee in closed session, the newspapers that morning announced increases in the prices of both regular ground and powdered coffee.

Unlike some Members of this body, I do not have coffeegrowers in my district, but we grow a lot of consumers and, like some previous speakers, I owe a duty to them, and that is why I am here today opposing this bill.

We have been told we must pass this legislation because not to do so would be casting aside a treaty that was signed by the United States.

I am getting a little bit sick and tired of some of our executive branch going to foreign countries and committing us in advance-like Secretary Dillon did to the extent of $10 billion for the Alliance for Progress-and then coming back to us and saying "Take it. We need it, you have to do it."

It would be wise, in the future, to have these executive representatives come to the appropriate committees of Congress to get our feelings and suggestions before they go to these foreign countries.

What would happen if we did not pass this legislation today? Catastrophe? Of course not.

Henry Brodie, Director of the Office of International Resources, Department of State, who was the principal witness before our committee, said that if this implementation were not passed then we could not deposit our instrument of ratification by December 31, 1963, which would mean this agreement would then expire, because apparently we have a provisional agreement in force, effective as of July 1, 1963, which, if not ratified

I asked Mr. Brodie, who came before our committee, whether or not, if Chase & Sanborn, Maxwell House, Savarin, and other coffee companies had entered into an agreement, with the powers we are to give the President under this legislation, that would be a violation of law, and he said, "Yes." In other words, Bobby Kennedy is prosecuting companies for doing what the President of the United States is to be given the power to do under this legislation.

Then Mr. Brodie in his statement had a very warming sentence on page 2, where he said:

The political and economic significance of the agreement, its bearing on the success of the Alliance for Progress, and its meaning in human terms for the millions of families who depend on coffee for their livelihood

cannot be overstated.

I asked Mr. Brodie this: "I am interested in the peasant in Latin America who picks the coffee bean. Can you assure me that if we pass this bill his income would be increased?" And he very frankly said no, he could not.

So what is going to happen? The peasant is still going to be a peasant with low income. The coffeegrower is going to get richer and the coffee manipulators around the world are going to get richer. Why are they going to get richer? Because the President can with his own authority, as is indicated in the bill, regulate the entry of coffee for consumption, or withdraw coffee from warehouses for consumption. In other words, he turns the faucet on or turns it off, and speculators have ways of knowing when it is going to be turned on and off.

We hear a lot about the President's letters. This is getting to be a favorite gimmick in the New Frontier. We all recall President Kennedy's letter on the tax bill. He said, "Yes, the administration was dedicated to holding down expenditures." Just yesterday before the Senate Finance Committee Dr. Heller, the Chief Economic Adviser, had to admit to Senator BYRD that the expenditures were going to be much higher next year, that spending was going to be much higher next year, despite the fact that higher next year, despite the fact that we were going to be reducing taxes at the same time. So I do not put too much faith in letters from President Kennedy.

For all of these reasons I am opposed to this bill, because it does not play fair to this bill, because it does not play fair with the American consumer, who pays high taxes and who pays high prices under our farm programs, and is expected to pay higher prices for coffee under this legislation.

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

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington.

There was no objection.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, this bill to authorize procedures under the International Coffee Agreement in essence is foreign aid legislation. It sets a quota

on the importation of coffee and it is difficult to accept the statement that the result will not be an increase in the cost of coffee to the housewives of America.

Of course, there is overproduction of coffee in certain countries including Brazil and Colombia, and I am not opposed to a program of trying to help stabilize the economies of certain countries who depend mostly on coffee to sustain their economies. An international agreement with such an objective, if it does not raise prices to the consumer, might well invite support.

However, Mr. Chairman, once again we find our Government actively engaged in implementing a program to help foreign peoples. Here we impose a quota on imports to benefit other nations.

When it comes to a quota to help a segment of our own American economy, however, it is a different matter. For example, our fishing interest is suffering from foreign imports. But does the administration support a quota system for

the benefit of the American fisherman? To the contrary, we continue to allow unrestricted imports of low-cost foreign fish products.

Mr. Chairman, through the Trade Extension Act, our State Department has moved toward reducing tariffs on substandard low-wage fish products from other nations.

I would point out that always we practice charity abroad while American citizens must suffer under a policy of indifference for our own people.

Mr. Chairman, I urge legislation to put a quota on imports of fish if we are going to enact legislation along the lines of this coffee bill. Meanwhile let me assure the Members of this House that the fishermen in the First Congressional District of Washington State will be drinking plenty of imported coffee and I hope under this bill the price of this coffee will not go up under legislation such as this.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. TAFT].

Mr. TAFT. Mr. Chairman, as I have been sitting listening to this debate many questions have arisen in my mind that certainly have not been answered. At the same time that we are considering taking action here which apparently is designed to strengthen the economies of our neighbors in Latin America, and indeed this is a most worthy objective, we read in the papers that numerous of them are considering without any proper compensation confiscating some of our own interests in this area.

We read also the balance-of-payments situation in which the United States finds itself today is continuing to be a serious one. We have heard no discussion of what effect this might have on the balance of payments if we continue to raise or keep high our coffee prices and thereby cause ourselves additional foreign exchange.

But, particularly there is one question that I have really taken this time today to discuss. There is one question which I certainly had a lot of doubt about in my mind as the chairman of the committee talked first on the bill. This is the point which was made by the chair

man relating to the treaty obligation in effect and the argument that we would be going back on our obligation if we did not go ahead and enact this legislation. Yet, I read in the report apparently that the treaty obligation itself is conditioned, and I think it properly should have been so conditioned, upon the passage of this very legislation which is before the Congress. Now I would like to know if the chairman of the committee would be so kind as to comment on it; do we have a treaty obligation here which is forcing us to vote for this legislation or do we not?

Mr. TAFT. What does the report mean then by saying, we are party to the treaty as a provisional member upon enactment of appropriate legislation?

Mr. MILLS. We are a provisional member until we finally do this last thing-of signing and depositing the instrument of ratification with the Council.

Mr. TAFT. Well, the word "proWell, the word "provisional" to me, in my language, means that there is a condition and that condition has not been met so we are not bound by a treaty.

Mr. MILLS. There is no condition

Mr. TAFT. I am glad to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. MILLS. The formal instrument of ratification of the agreement has not been deposited. That has to be deposited by the end of this year. It has not been deposited because it is necessary for us to be able to require certificates of origin, and so forth in order to carry out the commitments we have made under the treaty. The treaty itself is not conditional, but our participation is provisional-provisional on us having the capacity to carry out our commitments and that is what is involved in this legislation. But our word But our word has gone out and the Senate has ratified that word.

Mr. TAFT. Am I correct in understanding then that the treaty document itself contains no reservation which makes our participation dependent upon the action on this legislation before this body today?

Mr. MILLS. I am sorry, but let me see if I can answer the gentleman's question in this way. The arrangement has been made-advice and consent to ratification has been given. Everything has been done with respect to that treaty except our final handing over of our instrument of ratification to Council, That has not yet taken place and it is not done until a country is fully qualified in all respects to carry out its part and its commitments. This involves our ability to do the things we commit ourselves to do; namely, limiting imports of coffee from the countries that are signatory to this agreement. Now we have to keep records in order to know that; and that is what is involved here.

Mr. TAFT. Do we or do we not have a treaty obligation at this time?

Mr. MILLS. Oh, yes, we have a very definite treaty obligation and that is what the gentleman from Missouri and I talked about earlier. We here have our commitment. If we do not carry through on our commitment, I do not know what the consequences may be in our relations with other peoples.

Mr. TAFT. Is our commitment, however, not conditional upon the enacting of the bill or the legislation before us here today?

Mr. MILLS. Our commitment is not conditional. Our ability to carry out our commitment is, of course, conditional upon us having the machinery with which we can carry it out. But our commitment is not conditional.

the treaty; there is none.

Mr. TAFT. I thank the gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. QUILLEN] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee?

There was no objection.

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I join with my colleague from Tennessee and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means [Mr. BAKER], in urging passage of the bill before us today, H.R. 8864, to carry out the obligations of the United States under the International Coffee Agreement of 1962. The President and the Department of State have given assurances that the purpose of the treaty is not to raise prices of coffee but to assure an adequate supply. I trust H.R. 8864 will be approved by the House. Mr. BECKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BAKER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr.

BECKER).

stability as possible at the 1962 level into the price of coffee. We have no assurance, however, that that can be done. We frankly do not know. We do not know what may transpire from this. As people have said, we think we know, but we cannot be sure.

The gentleman knows this is for a 2year period, this implementation. The people who are producing coffee, I want to make it eminently clear, are on trial in this 2-year period that they not try to take advantage of the American consumer. If they do, we will not continue the agreement. You know that and I know it. know it. Our own people who are administering this program are on trial in that they must see in this 2-year period we are not taken advantage of and that our consumers are not required to pay more than reasonable prices for coffee.

Mr. BECKER. Let me say that I have the greatest respect for and trust in the gentleman I am addressing now, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, but the President in his letter to the committee, to you, states that he is putting a floor under the ceiling. Mr. MILLS. Would the gentleman yield further?

Mr. BECKER. I yield.

Mr. MILLS. I did not write the letter. I would not have said we are putting a floor under coffee prices, because I do not think we are. I think what we are trying to do is to prevent disastrous price declines and certainly at the same time we have to prevent disastrous price increases, and through this process of preventing the declines and increases bring about stability.

Mr. BECKER. Then, the gentleman is not subscribing to the statement in the President's letter where he says we are putting a floor under these prices?

Mr. MILLS. I do not subscribe to the statement that we are trying to put a floor under a price at all. No, sir.

Mr. BECKER. This is what the letter from the President said to the gentleman.

Mr. MILLS. What I subscribe to is that we are trying to balance supply and demand with the purpose of preventing prices from falling below the general level prevailing in 1962-to the extent this is possible. That is all it is.

Mr. BECKER. Mr. Chairman, I want to get a question to the chairman of the committee, because there is so much confusion about this. At one point we say fusion about this. we have an agreement to which we are obligated because we have ratified it, and this legislation is implementing that agreement. At the same time, the chairman, in answering the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSS], said there is no price fixing involved in this. Yet in the President's letter here to the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, he does state that this will put a floor under prices and will permit the growers of coffee to increase their earnings. If that statement of the President is not plain English, I do not know what is. Will the gentleMr. MILLS. The President is always man please answer the question? charged with the responsibility of carryMr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, will the ing out treaties, as my friend knows, but gentleman yield?

Mr. BECKER. May I say the carrying out of this agreement, its implementation, will be in the hands of the President and the State Department, and it is his position, which is contrary to the position of the gentleman, as he has just stated it.

I do not want to say for the record if Mr. BECKER. I yield to the gentle- you vote for this legislation you have man from Arkansas.

this is quite simple and it is very clear in Mr. MILLS. My own interpretation of my own mind, let me say to my friend from New York. There is no price fixing in this whatsoever. What is being attempted, through this arrangement this international agreement is to set up machinery that will bring stability and knock out the peaks and knock out the valleys and try to bring as much

accomplished the objective of putting a think we can say that any more than I floor under the price of coffee. I do not think the other gentlemen who made the point are right that it means an increase in the price of coffee. I do not think that is the situation. What we are trying to do is avoid these disruptive ups and downs. There will be fluctuations over a period of 12 months because of the way coffee comes in and because of the way

coffee is made available in world trade. It may be higher one month than it is the month afterward, but on the average what we are trying to do is average this thing out in relation to the 1962 prices. Mr. BECKER. I appreciate the kindness of the gentleman.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I take this time to state that so far as I am concerned, and I believe it is the opinion of the Committee on Ways and Means and this Congress, this bill should not be used as a device to permit an unreasonable increase in coffee prices, but just the contrary should be taken into account in administering it.

Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the provisions of H.R. 8864 because it would establish an international cartel which would limit the amount of coffee which would limit the amount of coffee produced. produced. Production controls would provide price controls. Furthermore, the managers of the cartel would have the power to exercise further restrictive authorities on coffee producers such as arbitrary quality controls which could operate in favor of the large producer and ultimately force the small producer out of business.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to agree completely with the final statement made by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. BAKER]. I think that the objective the gentleman announced must be achieved; that every effort must be made not only by the people here who are to represent us in this International Coffee Council, but the people who produce coffee throughout the world must recognize that we are not in this business to bring about the gouging of the American consumer by any artificial operations that they may engage in to bring about higher prices for coffee. We do want to be of such assistance as we can to bring to their economies perhaps a greater degree of stability than has existed in the past, but we are not going to do it through a process of allowing them to gouge us here at home.

For 2 years I think we are perfectly justified in taking this program and in seeing what happens to it, because everybody is on notice about how it must work and what we expect of it. If at the end of that 2-year period this turns out to be not in the best interests of the American people this Congress will not extend this implementing legislation and if it is not extended at that time we cannot participate in it and we would have to get out of the treaty.

I think the gentleman from Tennessee would agree also with my statement and join me in expressing the hope that the House will pass this legislation, for I doubt that any of us want to be in the position of saying that we do not want at least to make this genuine effort within this period of time to accomplish these purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. BAKER].

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thoroughly agree with the Chairman that this bill must not be considered or taken by the administrating parties as a vehicle to permit increases in coffee prices; but on the contrary to protect our American consumers as well as to help stabilize the economy of these Latin American countries.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my friend from Tennessee completely.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "International Coffee Agreement Act of 1963".

SEC. 2. On and after the entry into force of the International Coffee Agreement, 1962, and for such period prior to October 1, 1965, as the agreement remains in effect, the President is authorized, in order to carry out the provisions of that agreement

(1) To regulate the entry of coffee for consumption, or withdrawal of coffee from warehouse for consumption, including (A) the limitation of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, of coffee imported from countries which are not members of the International Coffee Organization, and (B) the prohibition of entry of any shipment from any member of the International Coffee Organization of coffee which is not accompanied by a certificate of origin or a certificate of reexport, issued by a qualified agency in such form as required under the agreement.

(2) To require that every export or reexport of coffee from the United States shall be accompanied by a certificate of origin or a certificate of reexport, issued by a qualified agency of the United States designated by him, in such form as required under the agreement.

(3) To require the keeping of such records, statistics, and other information, and the rendering of such reports, relating to the importation, distribution, and consumption of coffee as he may from time to time prescribe.

(4) To take such other action, and issue and enforce such rules and regulations, as he may consider necessary or appropriate in order to implement the obligations of the United States under the agreement.

SEC. 3. As used in section 2 of this Act,

"coffee" means coffee as defined in article 2 of the International Coffee Agreement, 1962. SEC. 4. The President may exercise any powers conferred on him by this Act through such agency or officer as he shall direct.

SEC. 5. The President shall submit to the Congress an annual report on the International Coffee Agreement, 1962. Such report shall contain full information on the operation of such agreement, including full information with respect to the general level of prices of coffee. Such annual report shall be submitted not later than January 15 of each year. The first such report shall be submitted not later than January 15, 1965.

SEC. 6. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated from time to time such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provi

sions of this Act, including the necessary expenses and contributions of the United States in connection with the administration of the International Coffee Agreement, 1962.

Mr. MILLS (interrupting the reading of the bill). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?

There was no objection.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MILLS

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, I offer a committee amendment which is entirely clerical in nature.

The Clerk read as follows:

Committee amendment offered by Mr. MILLS: On page 2, line 12, strike out "or origin" and insert "of origin". And on page 2, lines 15 and 16, strike out "satistics" and insert "statistics”.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MRS. SULLIVAN Mr. Chairman, I

Mrs. SULLIVAN.

offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. SULLIVAN: On page 2, line 17, after the word "distribution" insert "prices".

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman from Missouri yield? Mrs. SULLIVAN. Yes.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, during the course of the general debate the gentlewoman from Missouri pointed out the fact that she would offer the amendment at the appropriate time. I advised the gentlewoman then, as I recall, that I would have no objection to the amendment and that I would urge it be adopted.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. Chairman, as I explained during general debate on the bill, H.R. 8864, as reported, calls upon the President to report annually to the Congress on the operation of the International Coffee Agreement, including, and I quote, "full information with respect to the general level of prices of coffee." Such reports are called for in order to give the Congress a basis on which to decide whether continued U.S. participation in the international agreement is to our national interest, and whether the consumer is being properly protected against unwarranted increases in prices.

Elsewhere in the legislation, in section 2, paragraph 3, the President is authorized to require the coffee trade to keep such records, statistics, and other information, and to render to him such reports, relating to the importation, distribution, and consumption of coffee as he may from time to time prescribe. However, it should be noted that whereas the President "shall" submit to