1957

with a special price support to cover this production. Under this plan, cotton for the world market would be grown on additional acreage, with or without a specific allotment, depending on existing conditions as to the amount of surplus cotton on hand. Because it included these sound, basic features, last year I spoke in favor of and supported the Russell amendment to the 1956 agriculture bill.

With the passing of time, the necessity for a new approach to the problem becomes clearer and clearer. In considering and working on this problem over a period of many months, I have prepared a bill, and I present it to the Senate for consideration. Mr. President, I introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill which has the following as its main features, all directed to meeting the pressing problems confronting the American cotton farmer:

First. Provision is made for a national acreage allotment equal to the acres required to supply estimated domestic consumption, plus estimated production for exports, which for 1958 would be approximately 20 to 21 million acres. This acreage would be allotted to the States, counties, and farms on the basis of the present formula, with a domestic allotment and an export allotment for each farm. A price support of 95 percent of parity would be given on cotton produced under the domestic allotment, and a price support of 75 percent of parity on that produced under the export allotment. A Government loan would be available at 75 percent of parity, and cotton producers would receive an adjustment payment on the domestic allotment equal to the difference between 75 percent and 95 percent of parity.

Second. The bill further provides that the farmers shall vote whether they prefer to operate under the present flexible support system or under this combination domestic export allotment plan.

Third. The bill provides that any unused part of the soil bank funds for 1958 shall be used to meet a portion of the cost of this domestic export allotment plan.

Fourth. Special consideration is also given to our small farmers with an allotment of five acres or less by providing a support price of 95 percent of parity for all cotton produced on such acreage.

The estimated cost of this program to the Federal Government for the first 2 years will be less than one-half of the cost of the present program.

Mr. President, I believe the foregoing program is a scund approach toward meeting the primary problems of giving better protection for farm income, restoring stability and confidence to the cotton economy, and objectively meeting competition. Certainly, we do not have an adequate program now. This critical problem should be fully studied by the Committees on Agriculture in both the House and Senate, as well as by all interested parties with the purpose of developing a sound, long-range cotton program. I hope this bill and the points I have raised here will stimulate constructive thinking on this highly important subject. I believe these major considerations will prove to be the founda

tion for sound, constructive legislation on the subject.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. THURMOND in the chair). The bill will be received and appropriately referred, and, without objection, the bill will be printed in the RECORD.

The bill (S. 1924) to establish the level of price support for the 1958 and subsequent crops of upland cotton, and for other purposes, introduced by Mr. STENNIS, was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That, subject to the provisions of section 2 of this Act, beginning with the 1958 crop production adjustment and price support programs for upland cotton shall be carried out by the Secretary of Agriculture in accordance with provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, and the Soil Bank Act except that

(1) The national marketing quota shall be a number of bales equal to the estimated domestic consumption plus exports of cotton for the marketing year beginning in the calendar year in which such quota is proclaimed. The percentage of the national marketing quota for domestic consumption shall be determined by dividing the total of such estimates of domestic consumption and exports into the estimate of domestic consumption, and the percentage of the national marketing quota for exports shall be determined by dividing the total of such estimates of domestic consumption and exports into the estimate of exports. The percentages so determined shall be referred to herein as the "domestic percentage" and the "export percentage";

(2) The domestic percentage and the export percentage shall be applied to each farm acreage allotment established pursuant to section 344 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, to obtain the farm domestic allotment and the farm export allotment;

(3) The level of price support to cooperators for any crop of upland cotton for which producers have not disapproved marketing quotas shall be 75 percent of the parity price for upland cotton as of June 1 of the calendar year in which such crop is pro

duced;

(4) The Secretary shall make equalization payments to cooperators on the farm normal yield multiplied by the farm domestic allotment (or, in the case of a farin having a farm cotton acreage allotment of five acres or less, by the farm cotton acreage allotment). Such payments shall be at a rate equal to the amount by which 93 percent of the parity price for upland cotton as of June 1 of the calendar year in which the crop is produced exceeds (A) the average farm market price for upland cotton for the first three months of the marketing year, or (B) 75 percent of such parity price, whichever is larger; and

(5) Funds available for cotton payments under the Soil Bank Act which are not required for such payments shall be used to make the equalization payments provided for in this section, and, insofar as such funds are insumclent for such equalization payments, the Secretary is authorized to use funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation for making equalization payments.

SEC. 2. The foregoing provisions of this Act shall become effective only if a majority of those voting in a referendum, which shall be held by the Secretary not later than December 15, 1957, of farmers engaged in

5967

the production of the 1957 crop of cotton, vote to approve the program set forth in such provisions.

SEC. 3. Section 303 of the Agricultural Act of 1956 is amended by changing the first sentence of subsection (e) to read as follows: "The amendments made by this section shall be effective with respect to the 1957 and succeeding crops."

SEC. 4. Section 377 of the Agricultural AdJustinent Act of 1938, as amended, is amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 377. In any case in which, during any year for which acreage planted to such commodity on any farm is less than the acreage allotment for such farm, the entire acreage allotment for such farm shall be considered for purposes of future State, county, and farm acreage allotments to have been planted to such commodity in such year, but only if the owner or operator of such farm notifies the county committee prior to the thirtieth day following the beginning of the marketing year for such commodity of his desire to preserve such allotment. This section shall not be applicable in any case in which the amount of the commodity required to be stored to postpone or avoid payment of penalty has been reduced because the allotment was not fully planted. Nothing herein shall be construed to permit the alotment to any other farm of the acreage with respect to which notice is given under this section."

AMENDMENT OF PUBLIC-ASSISTANCE PROVISIONS OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACT-ADDITIONAL CO

SPONSOR OF BILL Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, on April 4, 1957, the Senator from Minnesota Mr. HUMPHREY), for himself and the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE), introduced the bill (S. 1793) to amend the public-assistance provisions of the Social Security Act to eliminate certain inequities and restrictions and permit a more effective distribution of Federal funds. The bill remained on the desk until the close of business on April 15, and several additional cosponsors added their names. The name of the junior Senator from Oregon (Mr. NEUBERGER] should have been added to the list of cosponsors, but was inadvertently omitted.

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY) is absent today on official business, but as the sponsor of S. 1793, he has asked me to make the cosponsorship of this bill by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. NEUBERGER] a matter of record. At such time as the bill is reprinted, the name of the Senator from Oregon should appear as an additional cosponsor.

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

AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION OF CHEMICAL ADDITIVES IN FOOD ADDITIONAL COSPONSOR OF BILL Under authority of the order of the Senate of April 16, 1957, the name of Mr. SPARKMAN was added as an additional cosponsor of the bill (S. 1895) to protect the public health by amending the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the use in food of chemical additives which have not been adequately

5968

tested to establish their safety, introduced by Mr. HILL (for hiniself and Mr. SMITH of New Jersey) on April 16, 1957.

ADDRESSES, EDITORIALS, ARTICLES, ETC., PRINTED IN THE RECORD

On request, and by unanimous consent, addresses, editorials, articles, etc., were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

By Mr. MANSFIELD: Address delivered by him before the Executives Club on Friday, April 12, 1957.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF FURTHER HEARINGS BY SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROAD RETIREMENT

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, I wish to announce the resumption of hearings on May 1 by the Subcommittee on Railroad Retirement. Three days of hearings have been held on S. 360. S. 945, and S. 1313. Since the recess of hearings, two additional bills have been introduced, S. 1630 and S. 1651.

As chairman of the subcommittee I announce hearings on May 1, 2, 3, and 6 to complete the testimony on all of these bills by the carriers, the Railway Labor Executives Association and the Railroad Retirement Board.

NOTICE

CONCERNING CERTAIN NOMINATIONS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, the following nominations have been referred to and are now pending before the Committce on the Judiciary:

Francis Everett Van Alstine, of Iowa, to be United States attorney for the northern district of Iowa for a term of 4 years. He is now serving in this office under an appointment which expires May 21, 1957.

Roy L. Stephenson, of Iowa, to be United States attorney for the southern district of Iowa for a term of 4 years. He is now serving in this office under an appointment which expires May 21, 1957.

John F. Raper, Jr., of Wyoming, to be United States attorney for the district of Wyoming for a term of 4 years. He is now serving in this office under an appointment which expired April 16, 1957. Roland A. Walter, of Iowa, to be United States marshal for the southern district of Iowa for a term of 4 years. He is now serving in this office under an appointment which expires May 21, 1957.

On behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary notice is hereby given to all persons interested in these nominations to file with the committee, in writing, on or before Friday, April 26, 1957, any representations or objections they may wish to present concerning the above nominations, with a further statement whether it is their intention to appear at any hearings which may be scheduled.

AMENDMENT OF ROBINSON-PAT

MAN ACT, RELATING TO EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, on Friday, April 12, I received unanimous

consent to have inserted. in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a list of persons and organizations who were opposed to S. 11, a bill to amend the Robinson-Patman Act. More than 56 such persons and organizations were listed in opposition; 18 persons and organizations were listed in favor of S. 11.

The list of persons and organizations against S. 11 continues to grow-indicating a far greater interest in S. 11 this year than was shown in 1956. I ask unanimous consent that a list of organizations and persons who have indicated their opposition to S. 11 be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE SUBMITTED A MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO S. 11

Illinois Bar Association, Manufacturers Chemist Association (Henry Fowler), Bernard L. Majewski, American Bakers Associa tion, the Empire State Petroleum Association, William Simon, Ohio Petroleum Marketers Association, A. G. Stone, M. C. Junkin Corp., of Charleston, W. Va., Drug-Chemical and Allied Trades Section of New York, Milton Handler, professor of law, Columbia University, American Hard Rubber Co.. Formed Steel Tube Institute, National Retail Lumber Dealers Association, Alabama State Chamber of Commerce, National Beet Growers Federation, the American Mining Congress, National-American Wholesale Lumber Association, Earl J. Hurd, attorney, Albert E. Scherm, United States Rubber Co., the Universal Cray Products Co.

Clayton Mark & Co., Evanston, Ill.; Hill Transformer Co., Inc., California; Henrite Products Corp., Ohio; R. B. Lautner, West Virginia; E. J. Carter, New York; T. D. Higgins, Jr., Ohio; Gardner Board and Carton Co., Ohio; Berkshire Papers, Inc., Chicago; John D. Conner, Monsate Chemical Company for Chicago, Ill., and St, Louis, Mo.; International Minerals & Chemical Corp.; Otis H. Ellis, attorney: Barrett Division, Allied Chemical; Bestwall Certain-teed Sales Corp.; Blue Diamond Corp.; Cardiff Gypsum Co.; Celotex Corp.; Connecticut Adamant Plaster Co.; Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.; Samuel H. French & Co.; Grand Rapids Plaster Co.; Kaiser Gypsum Co.; National Gypsum Co.; The Ruberoid Co.; Union Gypsum Co.; United States Gypsum Co.; R. Barraclough, Petrolia, Pa.; M. L. Courington, Jr., Park Forest, Ill.; J. J. Nowicki, C. Reiss Coal Co.; A. H. Eustis, Boston, Mass.; V. A. Romito, General Chemical Division, Marcus Hook, Pa.; Donald MacLean, California & Hawaiian Sugar Refining Corp.; Frank L. King, Washington, D. C.; T. C. Fogarty, Continental Cau Co., Inc., New York; M. D. Griffith, New York Board of Trade, Inc.; Thomas Jefferson Miley, Commerce & Industry Association, New York; M. A. Varela, Chicago; S. B. Taylor, Parker Appliance Co., Cleveland, Ohio; R. G. Jeter, B. F. Goodrich Co., Akron, Ohio; Edward E. Bohnsack, Independent Ol Co., Davison, Mich..; Hal Barich, Sea:nless Rubber Co.. New Haven, Conn.; F. M. Morton, Chester, N. J.; John T. Huels, Fairfield, Ala.; George W. Geyer, Geyer Lumber & Coal Co., Chambersburg, Pa.; Townsend M. Gunn, Metal's & Controls Corp., Attleboro. Mass.; O. A. Amidon, Fair Lawn, N. J.; A. Hanchett, New York; J. A. Mcrse, Barrett Division, Toledo, Ohio; G. L. Walter, Baton Rouge, La.; Herbert Levy, Lone Star Bag Bagging Co., Houston, Tex.; John C. Esher, Staten Island, N. Y.; Harry B. Hilts, Empire State Petroleum Association, New York.

J. J. Porter, Pompton Plains, N. J.; W. H. Brumfield, Syracuse, N. Y.; Clark J. A. Hazelwood, McGraw Electric Co., Milwaukee; J. E. Shand, Upper Montclair, N. J.; James Ma

April 18

nacke, Ranco, Inc., Columbus, Ohio; C. P. Hackett, Syracuse, N. Y.; David M. Gooder, Illinois State Bar Association; J. F. Daly, National Aniline Division, New York; John D. Wallace, Morristown, Tenn.; L. I. Adams, San Francisco; O. A. Kitto, Fayetteville, N. Y.; Robert Roberts, Toledo, Ohio; Stanton N. Labare, Barrett Division, Norwood, N. Y.; Charles F. Lewis, Volunteer Portland Cement Co., Knoxville, Tenn.; Karl R. Zimmer, Zimmer Paper Products, Indianapolis; N. H Rudeen, Minneapolis, Minn.; Charles H. Jones, Milton, Mass.; G. W. Matthews, Elm Grove, Wis.; Raymond W. Hess, Buffalo, N. Y.; F. J. O'Connell, Garden City, N. Y.; A. C. Hobbie, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., Moorestown, N. J.; Clarence B. Hausmann, New York; R. Largent, Camillus, N. Y.; Ernest E. Duque, Los Angeles; O. H Schwanger, Elizabethtown, Pa.; Borden S. Chronister, Hopewell, Va.; Harry S. Fuguson, South Orange, N. J.; A. J. White, Kingsport Oil Co., Kingsport, Tenn.; L. S. Clark, Twin City Hardwood Lumber, St. Paul, Minn.; C. S. Parke, The Harshaw Chemical Co., Cleveland; James N. Grove, Detroit, Mich.

SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

Mr. MARTIN of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, at this time there is much discussion relative to the financing of schools, particularly school buildings. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the RECORD a very able discussion of this subject which appeared in an editorial entitled "Will We Trade In Our Old Schools?" The editorial was published in the Washington (Pa.) Ob

server.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

WILL WE TRADE IN OUR OLD SCHOOLS? Perhaps we're going to start trading in our old schools the way we do automobiles.

Schools being built in this State under the State Public School Building Authority plan are financed for 40 years, on a rental system which brings a deed at the end of that time.

But a lot of school buildings which approach that age are now considered obsolete, unless they are remodeled and modernized.

Are we going to be asked by State educational authorities to build new schools before the "obsolete" ones are paid for? If so, will the local districts which are "renting" these buildings get credit for their rental investment, or will it remain in the books of the authority?

Or, if "obsolete" but unpaid-for buildings must be modernized, will the "renting" district have to pay for the work, or will the Public School Building Authority do it? It's pretty certain that this question will be answered by the State rather than by the districts concerned.

Will present methods of financing new schools lead to the kind of financing done by those motorists who never really own their cars? It would seem so.

It would go a little farther, it would seem. For the financing Public School Building Authority and the State Council of Education would be the agencies which would determine when new schools must be built or the old ones modernized.

It still looks a bit as though the old method of financing new schools-through local barks and home agencies-might be more advantageous in the end.

But that wouldn't suit the politician who thrives on State control of institutions. It would be a blow to bureaucrats.

Perhaps in a lot of instances, however, necessary new buildings cannot be financed at home. But it's nevertheless true that financing through the State is the best of all ways to yield to the State a large part of