Page images

effect as to seriously erode the value of the $1.2 billion military pay raise just enacted, and add billions of dollars to the already high military budget. The Department of Justice, which opposes the bill along with the Department of Agriculture, has hitherto said it would cost consumers $1 billion a year.

Nevertheless, and inspite of being turned down by three previous Congresses, the bill has been renamed quality stabilization— fair trade having got too bad a name—and has been approved by the House Commerce Committee, whence it has gone to the Rules Committee, which has given it rough treatment in the past.

The quality stabilization bill-which has no more connection with quality stabilization than the fair trade bills had with fair trade is a new and especially oppressive Hitherto the propoform of price fixing. nents of this legislation have been content with suspending the Federal antitrust laws to enable States to adopt price-fixing statutes. But most of the resulting State laws were either invalidated or rendered unenforcible by the courts, and the current bill would bypass the States by making sales at less than fixed prices a Federal offense. Missouri, whose legislature has repeatedly given fair trade proposals short shrift, and which has never been burdened with a pricefixing law, would no longer have a choice.

Fair trade, or quality stabilization, is a depression baby and its results are depressive. Its philosophy is that of getting the highest return from a fixed market instead of using price competition to expand the market. We hope Congress will dispose convincingly of this proposed incubus to commerce.

[From the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, Oct. 3,


FAIR TRADE FEATHERBEDDING Alarming reports come out of Washington that should give consumers of the Nation the shivers. For the first time since the initial measure was introduced way back in 1914, a so-called "fair trade" bill is given a chance of being passed by Congress.

If it is, a Justice Department study indicates, it would "cost the American consumer billions of dollars and have a powerfully inflationary effect."

If it is, the Defense Department estimates it will just about wipe out the benefit of the $1,200 million pay raise voted for men in the armed services for boosting prices in post exchanges.

The measure which has been approved by the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee isn't being called a "fair trade" bill by its proponents this time. Perhaps because that well-worn term has long been exposed as a phony. The new label is "quality stabilization."

Whatever the name, however, the purpose remains the same.

By making it a Federal offense for wholesaler or retailer to sell merchandise below the price set by the manufacturer, propoments would make price fixing-usually regarded as unlawful-mandatory at higher levels.

For whose benefit? Small merchants scattered throughout the Nation.

No matter how small and inefficient their operation, this law would enable them to compete pricewise with the biggest and most successful stores.

The price would remain the same on branded goods, whether the merchant sold 10,000 refrigerators, washing machines or whatnot a year, or only 1.

A better name for this price-fixing business-as Dr. Joseph M. Klamon, Washington University marketing professor and long-time foe of price fixing under any guise, suggests-is "economic featherbedding."

Seeking to repeal the law of supply and demand, trying to eliminate competition in the marketplace, this legislation is intended to provide a profit for the most incompetent and most inefficient persons trying to do business under what is supposed to be a free enterprise system.

[From the Kansas City Star, Sept. 24, 1963] PRICE-FIXING BILL: BODY BLOW AT CONSUMERS

A price-fixing bill by any other name is still a price-fixing bill. Don't be fooled by the euphemism, "quality stabilization bill." It is the old fair trade proposal in a new false face. Should the pressure groups succeed in ramming it through Congress, it would cost American consumers billions of dollars a year. By act of Congress, you could be forced to pay higher retail prices. By act of Congress, the spirit of competition that is the essence of the free enterprise system could be hamstrung.

We recognize the problems of small merchants who have been behind this drive. And there are known evils in the practices of reckless price cutting. But this way of approaching the problem strikes at the very heart of free enterprise.

It strikes us as a matter that you might want to take up with your Congressman or Senator. If he is one of the lawmakers who wants to slap you with big price increases, you ought to know about it. And soon, before it is too late.

The fair trade drive picked up its momentum in the depression of the 1930's and in time all but three of the States followed the route. Missouri, to its credit, was one of the three. It remained a peculiar outpost of free enterprise and competition. Under the weight of court decisions, fair trade laws have been falling by the way in several States. Several years ago, the pressures shifted to Capitol Hill, and they have been relentless. This year the bill has reached the House Rules Committee with the blessings of the Commerce Committee.

In all its simplicity, the newly named quality stabilization bill would permit a manufacturer of a brandname or trademark commodity to fix the wholesale and retail prices on a wide range of items that make up the greater part of the normal competitive system. Missouri and all the other 49 States would be affected. It clearly would be another intrusion of Federal authority and, we believe, a totally unwarranted intrusion.

We do not dismiss lightly the concern for the small merchant in this country. There is a trend toward bigness but we do not see how it would be ended by such a price-fixing law. Many small merchants have succeeded, and in Missouri, too, despite the absence of a fair trade law. The personal services that the small merchant can give, and the friends he can make, are an answer to bigness. Success depends on principles of sound business, not on a price-fixing law.

But the interest of the consumers-of all Americans-should be paramount. Statistically, it has been determined that people in States with still operative fair trade laws pay from 19 to 27 percent higher prices than do consumers in States without such laws.

The President has indicated that he probably would veto the quality stabilization bill. It is questionable whether it would survive a court test. But the place to stop this one is in Congress and the time is now. Dolled up in new wrappings, the quality stabilization bill is still aimed at the pocketbooks of the American people and at the basic strength of free enterprise.

THE AMERICUS, GA., CASE Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Mr. President, a three judge Federal court is

meeting today in Georgia on the Americus case. To its shame, the Department of Justice is not represented in the hearing.

The negative and, to me, inexplicable position of the Department of Justice in this case is made clear once again in the reply I have received from Assistant Attorney General Burke Marshall in reply to my latest inquiry.

I am deeply disappointed about the continued reluctance of the Department of Justice to move in the Americus, Ga., Mr. Marshall speaks of "apparent injustice" in the prosecution of these four young men on a capital charge. The Georgia solicitor general who brought the charge has now stated in court, according to the press reports, that:

The basic reason for bringing these charges was to deny the defendants, or to ask the court to deny them bond. We were in hopes that by holding these men, we would be able to talk to their lawyers and talk to their people and convince them that this type of activity ** is not the right way to go about



His statement is not new, but rather is only confirmation of what had already appeared several times in the press. That is, that he deliberately looked through the lawbooks for a charge on which the youths could be held without bail.

The only change in the Department's position seems to be broadening of the investigation from charges of police brutality to the possibility that the purpose of the prosecution was to discourage voter registrations by Negroes. This has been apparent from the start. Further, it is now 3 months since the initial arrests were made. Surely an investigation could be concluded within that period.

The attitude of the Department remains inexplicable to me in a case which involves constitutional rights and which so clearly and deeply affronts the basic principles of law and justice.

The text of Mr. Marshall's letter is as follows:

DEAR SENATOR CASE: The Attorney General has asked that I reply to your letter of October 17, 1963, in which you again request that this Department take action to obtain the release of Donald Harris and three others from jail in Americus, Ga.

I can well appreciate your concern with the apparent injustice in the prosecution of these four young men on a capital charge. There are obstacles, however, to establishing that the purpose of the prosecution was to discourage voter registration by Negroes. Nonetheless, we have instituted and will continue our investigation to determine if such is the case. If the necessary evidence is obtained we will, of course, take appropriate action in court.

I understand that the question of the legality of the custody of these four young men has been raised in private litigation instituted on their behalf in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. I would hope that these court proceedings speedily resolve the legal questions relating to their custody.


BURKE MARSHALL, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division.

Mr. President, since I prepared this statement, the wires report that the 1871 Georgia insurrection law under which the youths have been held so long has been held unconstitutional by the court. This is good news, indeed, but it is no thanks to the Justice Department. While I have not seen the details of the decision, the case appears far from over. The Department still has an opportunity, I believe, to redeem itself in the eyes of the American people.


Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, on October 22 I made extensive remarks concerning the interest equalization tax, an administration proposal now before the House Ways and Means Committee, a proposal with which I disagree. In the course of the same discussion, I have outlined in great detail, an alternative which I consider far more desirable and effective a capital issues committee. This committee would be an advisory committee of banks, investment houses, and brokers around the country. It would be established only for the duration of the emergency and could be dismantled at will. This would not be the case with the interest equalization tax, which would remain in effect for several years whether needed or not, and could not be abolished until repealed by lawwhich, as we know, sometimes takes a long time. The capital issues committee is a tried and true operation in major financial centers abroad, whereas the interest equalization tax is completely new and untried. Such a committee would do everything that the proposed tax would do and would do it in a much better way and in a more businesslike manner, more agreeable to the investment community of the United States and the world. It not only has widespread support among members of the financial community, but has also gained the editorial support of such outstanding newspapers as the New York Times. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from the New York Times of September 1 and the Washington Post of October 28, be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.

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

[From the New York Times, Sept. 1, 1963]


The huge outflow of dollars that took place in the first 6 months of this year has reportedly been reduced since President Kennedy proposed a tax on American purchases of foreign stocks and bonds. This stanching of the drain, however, is unlikely to be permanent. Prospective foreign borrowers are simply holding off, waiting to see whether Congress will approve the administration's interest equalization tax. If it does, the hemorrhaging appears bound to resume, for this means of halting the outflow is an ineffective tourniquet.

The tax is difficult to reconcile with President Kennedy's frequent assertions that the present tax structure must be simplified and trade barriers relaxed. The addition of the tax would complicate the tax structure and would establish a tariff on capital, putting into effect a two-price system for funds. And

despite the administration's claims that the tax will not interfere with the workings of the free market, it is clearly a form of control.

Worst of all, there is little evidence that this masked control will work. It is not the

low cost of capital but the ready availability of funds that attracts foreign borrowers to the United States. Interest costs would be a deterrent if they were put up high enough, but the administration is not going to an extreme. Moreover, it has granted an exemption to Canada, the largest of all foreign borrowers, so that the amount that may be saved is hardly worth the cost of the new tax.

With the drain of dollars caused by foreign borrowing having run at an annual rate of $2 billion during the first half of the year, the administration is right to contemplate specific action to curtail the flow. Its proposal, however, would bring new leaks. If controls are to be used, the one sure method to stop the drain is to establish a capital issues committee, charged with limiting the number and amount of foreign issues as long as the emergency exists. This is the only way immune to loopholes and not involving an artificial price for funds. It is, moreover, a de

vice well known and trusted by Europeans.

It might be possible to get by without any specification. But if the administration is bent on reducing the drain created by foreign borrowing, it should fashion an effective tool.

[From the Washington Post, Oct. 26, 1963] AN INEFFECTIVE MEASURE

In July when President Kennedy proposed that an interest equalization tax be levied on the purchase of foreign securities by residents of the United States, this news

paper gave the measure its qualified support. So long as the country continues to run large balance-of-payments deficits, direct controls must from time to time be imposed in order to reduce outflow of long-term capital. The alternative would be a restrictive monetary policy which is clearly at variance with the domestic goals of high employment and output. But in the course of hearings before the House Ways and Means Committee, it has become apparent that the administration's measure cannot expeditiously end the capital outflow.

Proponents of the tax have argued that it would involve a minimum of governmental inference with the market mechanism. President Kennedy, in his message of July 18, said


"Under this alternative, the allocation of savings for investment will continue to be the result of decisions based on market prices. There will be no limitations on the marketings of foreign issues and no governmental screening of borrowers. Reliance will be placed on price alone to effect an overall

reduction in the outflow of American funds."

But immediately after these words were uttered, an outcry from the Canadians compelled this Government to exempt them from the provisions of the act. And continuing protests by the Japanese make it perfectly clear that the decisions to include some countries and exempt others involve acts of discretion.

Nor is it by any means certain that the tax will in fact result in an equalization of interest rates. If interest rates in Europe rose and foreign securities were offered to Americans at sufficiently large discounts, the tax might not prove to be an effective deterrent to sales in this country.

The interest equalization tax is administratively complex and needlessly broad in its scope. It would be levied upon both new and outstanding foreign issues, when in fact, it is the new issues largely floated by foreign governments, which have been responsible for most of the portfolio-investment outflow in recent years.

Rather than rely upon a tariff on the importation of foreign securities, the effectiveness of which would be contingent upon interest-rate differentials, a capital issues committee should be established. Such a

body, consisting of representatives of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve Board, and representatives of the investment banking industry, could operate in a flexible manner, withholding certification from certain foreign issues when balance-of-payments pressures were severe and relaxing the restraints at other times. Policies such as this are pursued in all other financial centers of the world, and they are well understood in investment-banking circles.

The United States is the only major industrial country with a free capital market, and interference with its operation should be countenanced only if it advances the national interest. The interest equalization tax would disrupt that market and create complicated administrative problems without a reasonable prospect of success. A capital issues committee, combining compulsion with moral suasion, would accomplish its objective with a higher degree of certainty while doing no more-and perhaps less-violence to the principle of free markets than an ineffectual tax.


Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, Mr. Ben Segal, director of the Education and International Affairs Department of the International Union of Electrical, Radio, & Machine Workers, has recently returned from a study mission to British Guiana. Mr. Segal has had a close Working relationship with the trade union movement in this country over a period of years. He has frequently visited British Guiana and has maintained a special interest in its affairs.

Recently, Mr. Segal authored an article entitled "British Guiana: A Land in Turmoil." I have found the article to be a stimulating and perceptive analysis of contemporary problems and prospects in this significant corner of Latin America.

I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed at this point in the RECORD. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

BRITISH GUIANA: A LAND IN TURMOIL (By Ben D. Segal, Director, Education and International Affairs Department, IUEAFL-CIO)

British Guiana is a land in serious trouble

politically, economically, and racially. This strife-torn country-until recently on the threshold of independence is split down the middle between the East Indians and the Negroes, and this split affects every aspect of life in British Guiana.

The recent general strike plus earlier widespread rioting have divided the country in two. Outside of Georgetown, where the overwhelming population is East Indian, Cheddi and Janet Jagan, Premier and Minister of Home Affairs respectively and their political party, the PPP (Peoples' Progressive Party) have control. Inside Georgetown, where the majority of the 148,000 population is Negro, the PNC (Peoples' National Congress) led by Forbes Burnham, is in control. A third and smaller party in the field is the United Force, which is headed by Peter d'Aguiar. This is primarily a conservative businessmen's party, consisting mainly of Portuguese and mixed racial groups.

The result is that in British Guiana a political stalemate exists. In the last election, the Jagan's PPP won the election with

42.7 percent of the vote, at the same time getting 20 seats in the legislature. The PNC, which received 41 percent of the vote won only 11 seats, and the United Force with 16 percent of the vote won 4 seats. In effect, this means that because of the sharp racial divisions neither one of the major parties has sufficient strength to effectively rule the country.

The question has been raised why all this concern about British Guiana-a country which is thousands of miles away, undeveloped, and up to now relatively unimportant in world events. A glance at the map shows that British Guiana borders two key Latin American countries-Venezuela on the west and Brazil on the south. Economically as well as politically British Guiana has a crucial position; within the borders of its 86,000 square miles it is one of the largest producers of bauxite, essential to the production of aluminum (and indirectly steel) in the world.

There are many signs that the country under the Jagans is moving more and more openly into the Cuba-Communist orbit. Close commercial and cultural ties with Cuba are being extended. The government has set up the Guiana Import-Export Corp. (known as Gimpex), as a front for channeling goods and money from Cuba and reputedly other Communist countries into British Guiana.

A large number of PYO members, the Jagan party youth group, have been sent on junkets and on scholarships to Cuba and various Iron Curtain countries. A number of PPP cabinet members, including Janet Jagan, have made visits to Cuba, Red China, and other Communist nations.

Through the Mirror, the PPP daily newspaper, increasingly violent attacks are launched against the United States and President Kennedy. Typical was a Mirror editorial on August 25, 1963, accusing the United States of "glaring insincerity," "perfidy," and "dishonesty." The same editorial states "that under the aegis of the AFL-CIO and with the blessing of the Pentagon, large sums of U.S. money have been poured into this country to support a political strike, the only purpose of which was to overthrow the democratically elected government of Dr. Jagan."

The country's democratic trade unions are one of the main hopes for staving off a totalitarian state in British Guiana. Long identified with the anti-Communist ICFTU (International Confederation of Free Trade Unions), they have been in opposition to the Jagan government because they cannot forget the past efforts of the Jagans to impose restraints designed to weaken the labor movement. Earlier this year when the government sought to enact legislation imposing government control over organized labor, the unions conducted a successful 80-day general strike.

Determined to snuff out their major antiCommunist opposition, the Jagans are now accelerating their efforts to take over the trade union movement by setting up rival unions. The Guiana Agriculture Workers Union, which is headed by a Jagan PPP member of the legislature, has been set up in the sugar industry to destroy the MPCA (Man-Power Citizens' Association), the established anti-Communist union in the field.

This rival union has been organized on an outright racial and political basis. Since the large majority of workers on the sugar estates are Indian, the Jagan union is making considerable headway. A recent report shows that the MPCA has lost more than 20 percent of its membership. This struggle among the sugar workers is crucial since cane growing and processing is the major industry and the employees form the largest union in the country. The MPCA membership of 20,000 represents over 40 percent

of the country's entire trade union membership.

To further illustrate the motives and objectives of the Jagans, another rival union has been set up for civil service and Government workers. This, too, is predominantly Indian, organized and led by Jagan henchmen who are attempting to force the Indian workers out of their own free government employees' union and into more docile organizations.

The racial divisions are very sharply obvious in the union picture. While the president of the Trades Union Council and the MPCA, Richard Ishmael, is Indian, the vast majority of TUC leaders are Negro. The TUC's main strength is in Georgetown. The significance of this was manifest during the general strike when the overwhelming majority of Negro workers supported the strike and the majority of Indian workers did not.

The racial issue is paramount not only in the labor movement but in all other institutions. A number of Indian businessmen with whom I talked said that if they had to choose between Marxism (referring to Jagan) and hooliganism (referring to the looting and violence that had taken place in Georgetown), they would choose Marxism. Actually, the records show that there has been violence on both sides. During the general strike four East Indians and seven Negroes were killed.

The opposition parties accused the PPP of exploiting the racial issue and cite the slogan used by the Jagans among the East Indians in the 1957 elections, "apan jhaat," which means, "vote for your own.” While there is no doubt that all political parties have capitalized on the racial issue, the Jagan Party has the most to gain from this political perversity. The East Indians have a majority, and their birthrate is increasing at a more rapid rate than all the other racial groups in the country. Out of a total

national population of approximately 600,000, the East Indians comprise 47.8 percent and the Negroes 32.8 percent of the population.

All this has generated a pervasive atmosphere of fear in British Guiana. The Indians fear the Negroes, the Negroes fear the Indians, and the Portuguese fear both groups. All those with whom I talked during a recent visit, were discouraged and pessimistic about any possible resolution of this deep racial schism. When I interviewed Forbes Burnham, the PNC head and opposition leader, he expressed deep concern over this racial division. As he put it: "We have to find ways and means of coexistence or we will have no existence." He believes that proportional representation is essential, and argued eloquently that without proportional representation, the PPP will win the election, as it did 2 years ago, and after independence from Britain is consummated will proceed to turn the country into a Communist and totalitarian state.

Unemployment which has hovered around 20 percent for many years is on the increase as a result of recent developments. Conservative estimates indicate that one out of every four or five workers is unemployed and one out of nine is underemployed. In contrast to my previous visits, I heard no talk about ways and means of attracting new industry. Instead, the talk was whether present industries could be kept in the country. It is an open secret that money is being sent out of the country, some businesses have closed and a number of businessmen and experts have left. A saving feature in the economic situation is that sugar, the main prop of the economy, is having an exceptionally good year because of the U.S. boycott of Cuba, reduced crops in other suggar-producing countries, and the high world market price.

British Guiana is a modern day national tragedy. Here is a country that badly needs

foreign aid. Yet the Jagan's authoritarian political ideology, the increasingly close political and economic intercourse with Cuba, makes it a decided risk for U.S. financial assistance. Long time observers and the trade union leaders believe that the United States should make clear that our opposition is not to "socialism" (as Jagan is trying to get his people to believe), but to the alliance with Castro and the potential for Latin American subversion that this represents.

In considering possible solutions and alternatives to the present chaos in British Guiana, the people with whom I talked agreed that it would be a mistake for the British to postpone independence. They felt that independence should be linked with adequate guarantees and protections for the opposition parties. In effect, this means proportional representation which would guarantee a vigorous anti-Jagan bloc and necessitate a coalition government.

Burnham makes clear that his party, the PNC, is a democratic socialist party. He points out that capitalism, U.S. style, will not work in an underdeveloped and undeveloped economy such as British Guiana. Summing up his party's position, he said: "We are Socialists; we are Democrats and aim at a system which recognizes in precept and in practice the dignity, worth, and ability of the ordinary man. We are for a social and political democracy."

Small as it is, approximately the size of Minnesota, British Guiana today is a firebrand, already half ignited. It is a firebrand that has the potential to set aflame not only Latin America but even the entire globe. But the Communists show no inclination to withdraw the torch which may give them a second outpost in the Western Hemisphere and a strategic entry into the South American continent.

MAJOR SPEECHES DELIVERED BEFORE THE SOUTH DAKOTA FARMERS UNION ANNUAL CONVENTION Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, on October 15 the members of the South Dakota Farmers Union heard two excellent addresses delivered by our colleague, the junior Senator from Missouri [Mr. LONG] and by Mr. James Patton, president of the National Farmers Union.

Senator LONG devoted the major portion of his address to the domestic problems of American agriculture. Mr. Patton centered his discussion on the relationship of agriculture to our position in world affairs. I think that Members of Congress will find these two addresses both perceptive and instructive.

I ask unanimous consent that they be printed at this point in the RECORD.

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

NOTHING FOREIGN ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY (An address by James G. Patton, president, National Farmers Union, to the annual convention, South Dakota Farmers Union, Huron, S. Dak., October 15, 1963)

A speech on foreign policy connotes, to most people, something alien, and they prepare themselves to be disinterested, unconcerned. My friends, let me say to you quite frankly that there is nothing foreign about foreign policy.

From the founding of this country-from the years of President Washington to the Second World War-to the years of President Roosevelt, this Nation lived an isolated existence. Through most of our history we were an unalined, uncommitted, neutralist country. We were unalined by geography, uncommitted by doubt, and neutral by de

sire. We had felt we could live behind our Monroe Doctrine and within our two oceans in peace and with plenty, comfortably away from the rest of the world.

I doubt that very few of you here tonight do not recall such an educational upbringing. But the day of the covered wagon and model T, and all they meant, is gone forever. The end of isolationism was the inescapable result of economic growth, the inevitable result of cultural maturity and, unfortunately, the unavoidable result of military expansion.


We have come a long way in adopting in a short time the obligation of world involvement. And the strain of involvementwhether displayed by forced disinterest or compelled unconcernment-is a strain which must be healed and quickly forgotten if we are to succeed and survive in the real world of today.

"not only be abandoning America's influence in the world, (but) we would be inviting a Communist expansion which every Communist power would so greatly welcome."

I have talked of foreign policy in only one sense thus far and could continue on the same theme by discussing U.S. efforts in Laos and Cuba, Congo, and Berlin. But, here again, because of the energetic, diplomatic, and farsighted policies of our current administration, war clouds have dissipated and peace is continuing to break out.


I, therefore, want to spend the remainder of my time relating our agricultural abundance and knowledge to our foreign policy.

In this spectrum we have made a beginning, but there is much left to be done. The important thing is that we have started.

The challenge which faces us as the leader of the free world to abolish hunger and poverty is truly magnanimous and we

I repeat-there is nothing foreign about have no choice. Two out of three people foreign policy.

Recognizing fully the extent of our involvement in world politics, what course to national security, what path to peace and plenty do we take? The basic policy, maintained since the mushroom cloud rose over Hiroshima, that the United States is best served by maintaining a world of diversity in which no power or group of powers can threaten our security, is the best policy. We can ill afford to have the balance of power tip in the wrong direction.

Here and now, I want it to be crystal clear that such a policy and situation can be maintained with a reduction of 20 percent in our immense Military Establishment. I supported with all my energy the signing and ratification of the nuclear test ban treaty and believe the year 1963 will be historic in that the pages of history will show this event began the world's march to peace and freedom.

Some, especially those who can be cataloged as belonging to the radical right, opposed ratification of this treaty. Why? Had they bothered to look at the true destructive force of the atom today and what we and the Soviet Union could do to each other and the world in 1 hour or 1 day? A nuclear holocaust could remove 300 million men, women, and children from the face of the earth in 24 hours.

Senator BARRY GOLDWATER, of Arizona, who I will let us know of his presidential aspirations in January, was one of the handful of Senators who voted against banning nuclear tests. His opposition surprised no one, and, so far as I was able to observe, persuaded no one. But it was necessary for him to oppose the treaty since he is committed to a policy of initiating the use of force in the struggle with communism. Let me read certain key sentences from the concluding chapter of Senator GOLDWATER'S book entitled, "The Conscience of a Conservative": "Our strategy must be primarily offensive in nature * * * we must always try to engage the enemy at times and places, and with weapons, of our own choosing. We should withdraw diplomatic recognition from all Communist governments including that of the Soviet Union. *** We mustourselves-be prepared to undertake military operations against vulnerable Communist regimes."


* *

Now I am not here to discuss Senator GOLDWATER'S views, opinions and candidacy, if he is to be a candidate. I am, however, going to make this blank statement. It is not possible to adopt such all or nothing, black and white foreign policies without making our interests subservient to our annoyances. If we were to call for the resumption of atmospheric nuclear testing, terminate foreign aid and assistance to needy nations, resign from the United Nations, we would, in the words of President Kennedy,

in the world today fight a constant and marginal battle against poverty, ill health, ignorance and hunger.

I indicated we have only started. The next steps should include expansion of the foodfor-peace program, formation of a world land bank, and stimulation of our exporttrade program.

Public Law 480, the food-for-peace program, is an imaginative and successful start in attempting to narrow the gap between abundance and starvation. Much credit for this progress must go to your able, earnest junior Senator, GEORGE MCGOVERN who, as President Kennedy's initial director of the White House Office of Food for Peace, established by the second Executive order of his administration, made this the humanitarian program it is today. Through the donation phases of the food-for-peace program we are not only helping to feed more than 92 million of the world's hungry people, but are waging war on economic backwardness and developing future commercial markets for our agricultural products.

Since Public Law 480 was enacted in 1954, we have moved more than 100 million tons of agricultural commodities overseas-equivalent to three 10,000-ton ships a day, every day for 84 years. Not only did this save us $667 million in storage costs last year alone, but it paid 1 year's foreign U.S. bills estimated to be $271 million.

As successful as Public Law 480 has been, I believe we can be even more effective by extending and expanding the overall concept to

1. Make available applicable farm tools, equipment, and machinery to the countries desperately trying to get over the nutrition threshold. This equipment could be supplied as part of the credit pattern in already developing land reform programs;

2. Provide developing countries with heavy machinery which can perform the gigantic tasks of earth moving, dam construction, and massive lifting. Projects in housing, land clearance, flood control, development of power resources and many others could be multiplied many times if the necessary heavy equipment could be made available;

3. Provide machine tools by means of which their own newly created industrial and machinery plants could begin to meet their own tooling needs;

4. Provide the amounts of steel necessary to service these beginning self-help plants and equipment. It is significant that the U.S. steel companies have operated profitably at a far greater reduced capacity than our American agricultural plant during the past 10 years.

Another point to consider before we leave the food-for-peace concept is that this type of program should be made multilateral. Let all nations who are producing more than they are consuming aid in the battle

against malnutrition, hunger, and starvation.

Briefly, my proposal for a world land bank involves the financial development, reclamation, consolidation, and cultivation of land of small or family sized farmers in all developing countries to increase the agricultural production of such nations.

To begin with, I suggest that the United Nations special fund should allocate $250,000 for a worldwide survey to appraise country by country where needed, the costs of developing new lands and new agricultural institutions to accomplish such a program. It is a fact that more often than not develop

ing nations have such limited credit and

financial resources that land reform and the development of family farm agriculture cannot be adequately funded.

Once the land bank is established it could be capitalized from the sale of subscriptions to creditor nations of the world, as well as bonds sold locally in those developing countries receiving credit benefits of the bank.

I spoke of this possibility several months ago when I attended the inauguration of the Peruvian President and just 2 weeks ago received a letter from that nation's First Vice President in which he said, and I quote:

"We consider the creation of this type of bank a positive step toward the solution of agrarian problems that presently face Peru and the majority of Latin American countries.

"We understand that the bank would have sufficient financial resources to expropriate with prompt and adequate payment the large landed estates which are inefficiently farmed or organized in such a way as to avoid social obligations and will provide financial resources necessary to small farmers in order to develop their production, acquire seeds, equipment, fertilizers, and the necessary technical assistance.

"The Government of Peru, aware of the significance of this project, gladly offers its assistance to either the United Nations or the Freedom From Hunger Foundation, to conduct a feasibility study of the world land bank's operation in Peru, as one of two pilot countries to be selected, and therefore agrees that President Fernando Belaunde's proposal of creating an inter-American institution for territorial credit be substituted by a world organization destined to achieve the same aims on a much vaster scale. We feel sincerely that this is the country best suited for this study, as a thoroughgoing agrarian reform law has been presented to Congress and has the support of the organizations necessary to execute the provisions of this reform, even though they unfortunately lack sufficient resources to carry these out with the speed demanded by the country's urgent social needs.

"In Peru the poverty of the people and the backwardness of the small farmers and cattle raisers are due to the following causes: Low degree of productivity, defective distribution of property, unsatisfactory tenancy of land and lack of arable land in relation to the population.

"Our small farmers need lands, equipment, fertilizers, technical assistance and the credit necessary to produce more and raise their standard of living.

"It is, therefore, evident that the Bank will permit us to make a reality of agrarian reform, along democratic lines with a view to greater production."

I consider the support of President Belaunde a major breakthrough to the realization of this goal.

I believe a word is apropos here about the world food program, administered by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. This program, now on an experimental basis, should be expanded and made permanent. The United States is supporting, with food and funds, this $100 million, 3-year aid program as well as the FAO's

freedom-from-hunger campaign which is currently carrying on extensive technical assistance work in some 100 countries.

Another item not to be overlooked is that the lessons learned by our farmers and those of other advanced nations must increasingly be applier to the problems of primary producers of the less-advantaged areas of the world. It is to such farmers that free farm organizations, both general and cooperative, offer the best hope.

The general farm organizations and farmer cooperatives share equally the basic problem of assisting farm families to receive an adequate income for their effort and efficiency. In pursuit of a better income the American family farmer has found his interests are best served in a cooperative movement. In recognition of this farmer cooperative role our Government has encouraged producer effort to establish and operate cooperatives. Such lessons should be applied in the world's developing nations.

A firm step in this direction concluded just last week when 59 Latin American farm leaders concluded a 6-month study of our agricultural system and the way we use organizations and cooperatives to solve ruralfarm problems. As many of you know, the heart of this program was the 42 months these men spent living on farms-14 here on South Dakota family farms. This peopleto-people aproach which, incidentally, was conducted by National Farmers Union, is an unparalleled example of the communication needed to assist developing nations. Your outstanding president, Ben Radcliffe, and Miss Arlene Schley, your director of education, who spent several weeks in Latin America helping formulate this program, should be commended for their excellent work.

When I say there is nothing foreign about foreign policy, this especially holds true for our foreign aid program which you know is a key factor in our foreign policy. Few, if any, realize that 80 percent of our foreign aid dollars are spent right here in our own United States. The Agency for International Development has reported that during the first 7 months of this year 25 States received procurement orders in excess of $1 million each under the U.S. foreign aid program.

Private firms in 47 of the 50 States share in $175,398,616 worth of orders recorded during the period from January through July for 1963. The total represents procurement directly traceable to the State of production.

The orders cover a wide variety of industrial and agricultural products and materials purchased by developing countries for use in particular projects or promoting economic growth.

I am sure it will particularly interest you to know that your own State of South Dakota is among those States filling procurement orders through the foreign aid program. So you see, 80 percent of the foreign aid program is not foreign, but is dollars spent right here at home.

The Trade Expansion Act of 1962 gives the United States broad authority to develop liberalized trade in all expanses, including agriculture, and we could and should do better. Some would comment that our total exports, including farm commodities, of $21.6 million in 1962 was 17 percent of the free world total-the highest percentagebut actually we exported only 4 percent of our total gross national product-well down toward the lowest percentage.

Nor are we energetic from the standpoint of export growth rate. Free world exports increased 40 percent, compared with our 21 percent between 1958 and 1962. At the same time Western Europe logged a 41-percent increase and Japan increased a staggering 70 percent-obviously indicating we are nowhere near keeping pace.

The United States must move forward vigorously to turn purchasing power into purchases and I mean the world over. We should sell wheat to any country that can pay for it. Long before this Russian wheat thing came up I advocated a series of international trade agreements-and still do for all international commodities. We have a workable, reasonable International Wheat Agreement which will help keep the domestic price for wheat next year higher than it would be otherwise. We need international payments for feed grains and cotton as well as other commodities that enter importantly into world trade.

Foreign trade is crucial to U.S. agriculture. That is why I support economic integration such as is happening in the Common Market, as well as common banks, development groups, etc. If we want a world of peace and plenty we have no other choice but to concern ourselves with bettering the lot of the two-thirds of the people on this shrinking planet for whom a better life is possible and desirable.

If we strive to plant good and healthy seeds, we shall reap a harvest of peace and security in the world. If we miss the opportunity; if we miss the planting season in the new and developing nations of the world; if we neglect the stomachs and minds of the world's struggling population, we will reap a far different harvest-one of discontent, despair and perhaps rebellion. Should we take that chance?


My good friends and fellow farmers, despite the notion apparently held by a good many people in the country-some of whom, unfortunately, are in the Congress-the family farm is not a deadweight on the back of our national economy. That is an undeserved reputation. It is the outcropping of a massive propaganda campaign designed to sell the idea that the only decent and efficient way to operate a farm is from behind a desk on Wall Street. But, my friends, on Wall Street, the only importance of changing seasons is that it is time to clip another batch of quarterly divided coupons. The "green" that inspires interest there is the "long green." Of course, that inspires interest among the farmers as well, but it has been all too long since much of that has been seen on the farm.

Such a distorted picture of the farmer would be easily formed if that was all you heard. Perhaps we farmers have been too busy just fighting for survival to do a proper public relations job-one that throws true light on the family farm.

It has been a long, long time since we have been in a position to tell our story as well as we are today. There can be little doubt about the dedication of Secretary of Agriculture Orville L. Freeman to fighting the congressional battles with the same Marine determination that was his strength on the bloody beaches and in the steaming jungles of Bougainville. I think that his recognition of the fact that there is a great lack of understanding between city and farm, along with meaningful actions to bridge that gap, will certainly be hallmarks of his services as the chief agricultural officer of this administration. He and his Department are pulling out all stops to see that the true picture of American agriculture gets through to New York's Times Square; to Chicago's Loop, and to the mushrooming suburbias that now dot our Nation. The story needs desperately to be told in these places, for they are the markets for the products of our labors-the crops we raise.

American agriculture is in the midst of one of the most trying periods of change any group has ever experienced. Changing also

is the public image of the farmer. The man who was once hailed as the benefactor of man, is now portrayed by uninformed and vociferous critics as a n'er-do-well who feeds in the trough of public subsidies. Such an outrageous injustice makes anyone interested in agriculture see red.

But change-and especially the kind of rapid transition that has caught up the farmer often creates misunderstanding. Even the farmer finds it difficult to adjust to them. So it is little wonder that his city neighbors, who more often than not get only a surface view of the problem compounded by false and misleading propaganda, can jump to the wrong conclusion.

Realizing that our public image suffers from lack of information, we as farmers can do most to combat it by forcefully painting the true picture. Railing against our critics serves little purpose in the long run. Fighting fire with fire is a precarious business. Bridging the understanding gap will best be done by telling the true story of American agriculture.

And what a story it is.

It has been the farmer who has provided the raw materials to forge a new nation from the wilderness. He financed and gave reason to the westward expansion of the railroads, without which we would still be huddled on the Atlantic seaboard. Your State and mine would be the uncharted frontiers. It was the farm that released the manpower needed to run the factories, develop the products and perform the services in such a great demand by our modern society.

The headline story that has been in many of the daily papers and on radio and television is that the Department of Agriculture's budget is now about $62 billion. But the real meat behind that story is that only about a third of that goes for direct farm programs. Four billion dollars of it goes for food distribution, foreign aid, for public services, such as meat inspection and pest control. Agriculture's budget also furnishes the funds to maintain, improve and conserve our forests and their recreational facilities, as well as to carry out the research that has been, and is of such great benefit to business and industry.

Among our problems, and possibly the greatest at this time, is the challenge of abundance. Yet, what is a problem to us would be a blessing to any other nation of the world. Today, we remain the only nation on the face of the earth whose agriculture meets-and exceeds-its demands.

Two years ago, I was on a Senate assignment overseas that took me to Asia and the Near East. There, millions upon millions of people continue to starve, or at best subsist, generation after generation. I saw some of these teeming millions. The swollen bellies of children who, from the instant of birth, have been hungry, and who have little hope of ever knowing the satisfaction and security of a full meal. The strained and bent bodies of men and women, old long before their years, from the never-ending effort to scratch out a few mouthfuls from an arid and hostile land. These are people who will know hunger all their lives. This is their way of life. This sort of existence isn't confined to Asia and the Near East. It prevails in virtually every part of the globe. This abundance is a problem for us to solve, but believe me, it is also a blessing.

Are we, the only adequately fed people in today's world, going to throw up our hands with the cry of despair that we can't solve our problem of abundance? Certainly not. Already, a direct assault on the problem has started-and God willing, it will continue to gather strength and momentum.

Oversupply in feed grains has vexed Congress for years. Three years ago, the market was glutted with a record 85 million tons of feed grains. There were 2 billion bushels of corn alone. Storage bins were creaking

« PreviousContinue »