Parity is that price for farm products which will return to the farmer today a buying power comparable to that which his production had during the base period-generally July 1, 1909, through June 31, 1914. In other words, parity relates the present value of the farmer's products to the cost of things he has to buy. It goes up when farm costs go up; it comes down when the general level of prices comes down. It is not a fixed amount in dollars and cents, but is intended to retain a maximum degree of stability in farmers' buying power. That's all the "flex" I want to see.

costs have involved nonbasics-and most of his losses have been under flexible programs. How stupid can we get? Here we abandon the cheapest and most effective support program we have yet devised and substitute a program which has proven to be both costly and ineffective. Does anyone think flexibles kept us from growing excessive surpluses of potatoes?

Another widespread fallacy which has received general acceptance in recent months is the belief that lower farm prices would, of themselves, eliminate our surplus problem. A lot of people seem to believe if you will but lower the price of farm products you will materially reduce farm production without any governmental controls. Mr. Benson points to the evils of large surpluses and then, without one scintilla of proof, assumes that if we would lower the price of our basic commodities we would automatically reduce our surpluses. There never was a more fallacious conclusion presented to the American people. If you do not control the production of agricultural commodities, lowering the price will simply result in the production of more and more of the things you do not need, until everyone goes broke together.

Let me illustrate this with the example of cotton. In 1937 we produced our largest cotton crop. At that time we had supports of 53 percent of parity. The farmers knew their product would bring a smaller amount of money per unit of production. They reacted as farmers always have and always will react; they tried to make up in increased units of production what they stood to lose in price. With 53 percent supports they grew our largest cotton crop. How can anyone seriously believe 75 percent supports would control production?

Do not tell the American people you will restore the farmer's freedom if you destroy his livelihood. You do not restore anybody's freedom by making him an economic slave. The latest statistics show that even now all farmers, including the most prosperous, in our rich Texas blacklands just barely make 75 cents per hour for their labor. The Republican Party wants these farmers to work for less than the legal minimum wage for industry, and for less than onehalf of the actual average industrial wage.

The farmer will work in the face of seemingly insurmountable difficulties to provide for his family. If he has to grow twice as much to receive the money necessary to pay his obligations, then he will attempt to grow such an amount, and our surplus problem is only aggravated. Of course, the present administration's program will bring about a reduction of surpluses in time-after it has bankrupted enough farmers. What American wants that kind of production control?

The Republicans speak of a flexible program as opposed to what they call the rigid system which is now in effect. Let me point out that we have no rigid system, and that just as parity in itself is flexible so is 90 percent of parity.

I am of the opinion that agriculture is still the basis of our entire economy. History has proven that any time we let the price of the basic agricultural commodities drop to as low as 75 percent of parity, our country has suffered a devastating depression. From past experience we know that jackrabbit stew and other such dishes do not compare very favorably with the meals of prosperity we have enjoyed during the past 20 years of Democratic administration. In fact, when the farmer cannot buy and a depression comes, it is likely to be more difficult to catch a jackrabbit in Pittsburgh than in Punkin Center. Many of our great labor organizations have realized this fact, and I have been heartened to see them take a firm stand for national prosperity against the Eisenhower-Benson policy of creepunemployment.

We have heard a lot of talk about principle in connection with the farm price support program. I have listened to some very tear-jerking speeches about "I stand above petty politics" and "I base my stand on principle," and "I am for 75 or 822 percent of parity supports because it would be wrong in principle to get 90 percent."

Now let us be sensible. What is the difference in principle between 90 and 75 percent? It is merely a question of arithmetic. True, it is a matter of tremendously important economics, but there is no principle involved in the choice of figures. It is pure hogwash to tell the American people that the level of support is a matter of principle.

I think it is a sound principle to give price supports to the American farmer when he cooperates by accepting controls to bring his production in balance with consumptive demands. I think such supports should be high enough to keep the farmers' children in shoes, and maybe to invite Santa Claus to visit the farm home at Christmas. I am for that principle. The Democratic Party, and 19 idependent acting Republican Cóngressmen are for that principle.

Why should we accept 822 percent of parity next year? Why should we accept 75 percent of parity the following year? The proponents of the administration have not told us. They have talked in generalities about the evils of the present program. They have talked about the immorality of 90-percent supports. The freedom about which Mr. Benson talks will not be restored by this cut in farm income, because even Mr. Benson admits we will

have to maintain exactly the same controls which we have today. We will still have acreage allotments. We will still have marketing quotas. We will still have surpluses. We will still spend tax money to move these surpluses; but we will have less tax money because there will be less income. We will retain every evil, but we will lose most of the benefits of the present program.

We will not get lower prices for the consumer. The producer of basic commodities always gets a very small part of the consumer's dollar: about 22 cents out of a 17-cent loaf of bread, about two bits out of a $3.99 shirt, possibly half a cent out of a 21-cent box of cornflakes. Actually, the price of wheat has dropped 10 to 15 percent since this administration came into office, but the price of bread has gone up by a like percentage. If Mr. Benson is able to cut the farmer's price of corn by 25 cents per bushel, how much do you believe that will reduce the price of grits? The only reduction in the price of food will be the result of lessened consumer buying power, as unemployment increases.

In the final analysis, you get neither a reduction of surpluses nor an increase in freedom for the farmer. You get neither lower prices to consumers nor any saving to the taxpayer. The only thing you do get is less income for the farmer, less buying power in farm areas, and a lesser degree of prosperity throughout the entire country. This Republican plan for flexible supports is nothing more than the revival and expansion of a system which has already failed. It proposes that you burn the house down because you cannot afford a new living room carpet, and that you move the family out and live under the trees. I think we had better remember that those trees will shed their leaves, come winter.

Priest Rapids Mess Good for a Chuckle Says Wenatchee World

EXTENSION OF REMARKS ΟΙ

HON. WARREN G. MAGNUSON

OF WASHINGTON

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the RECORD two editorials. The first is from the Wenatchee Daily World of July 28, 1954, and the second from the Grand Coulee Star of July 29, 1954.

Both editorials comment on the controversy which has developed over construction of Priest Rapids Dam. As of the date the editorials were written, the State power commission was in competition with Grant County public utility district to become the licensee. Both editorials deplore the fact that the State commission has seen fit to take action which may cause a delay in getting this project under construction.

Under legislation recently passed by Congress, the so-called "local interests"

a pipe to turn a wheel by which you can make electricity, it's socialism. Silly, isn't it?

We hope the power commission can laugh

There is an additional comment in the Wenatchee editorial which I call to the Senate's attention, as follows:

If you take water and run it through a pipe for drinking purposes, it's real Americanism. If you run the same water through a pipe and raise crops with it, that's fine, too. But if you run the same water through a pipe to turn a wheel by which you can make electricity, it's "socialism."

Silly, isn't it?

We hope the power commission can laugh at its own predicament.

We'd be awfully embarrassed.

It's this:

Why are the forces who have been shouting creeping socialism each time the Federal Government attempts a new power project or each time a public group seeks to expand its service through democratic process, now suddenly, hurriedly and enthusiastically embracing socialism by putting the State in the power business?

We get a real chuckle out of the commission rushing pellmell into the socialistic public power field, calling a secret meeting and doing other hurry-up behind-the-scenes maneuvering, to keep Grant County Public Utility District from going socialistic and building Priest Rapids Dam before the commission can.

Of course, we don't look upon development of waterpower resources by the people as anything but the healthiest kind of democracy, just as is the formation of irrigation districts and cooperative groups.

This hollering of socialism also provides us with a laugh in another instance.

Hells Canyon Dam, a project as fine as Grand Coulee Dam, has been called everything in the book, but the most frequently heard charge is that it's socialistic.

Now we find the people who've been saying this, including the Governor of Idaho, advocating another dam in the same stretch of the river, known as Mountain Sheep. (It just so happens that it doesn't interfere with Idaho Power Company's three-smalldam plan of partial river development.) | Thus, you see socialism is a geographic thing, too. At Hells Canyon, a Federal dam is socialism. A similar dam 60 miles downstream at Mountain Sheep site is nothing to worry about.

Perhaps it can be best summed up like this:

If you take water and run it through a pipe for drinking purposes, it's real Americanism. If you run the same water through a pipe and raise crops with it, that's fine, too. But if you run the same water through

[From the Grand Coulee Star of July 29, 1954] POWER COMMISSION OUT OF BOUNDS IN INTERFERENCE WITH PRIEST RAPIDS DAM It is deplorable that the State of Washington which is so heavily dependent upon public power has a State administration which consistently endeavors with marked success to foul up the development of new projects which could greatly benefit industrial growth.

The latest blunder has been pulled by the State power commission which is sticking its unwanted nose into the Grant County Public Utility District planned development of the Priest Rapids site on the Columbia River. The State body's action in filing for a temporary permit to construct the dam is clear out of line.

The public utility district has done all of the preliminary planning to date, even to the point of getting the necessary legislation through Congress. Now the State body steps in and through its action may delay the project indefinitely. This looks like a "sour grapes" action more than anything else and much bitter feeling is going to result.

The State power commission, which was originally slated to be something of an advisory group and not a dam-building agency, could very well pick out some other site and promote a project of its own inception. Instead, this group sits back and lets another agency lay all of the groundwork and then enters the scene to stir up unnecessary delay

and dissention.

This is an excellent example of the type of leadership this State enjoys in the field of public power. If as much effort and State finances had been used by the State adminiseration to discover and promote an original power project as was squandered in opposing Hells Canyon, for instance, there could conceivably be another development of this type underway. The Ice Harbor project would be a dandy for the State to build if it is sincerely interested in promoting power dams. On the basis of the record to date, we are frankly dubious of the commission's value toward development of the State's re

sources.

Hate Mail

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. LAURENCE CURTIS

OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. CURTIS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, during the closing days of the session a report on the subject of hate mail from the Postmaster General was received by the chairman of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. This report resulted from the initiative of our colleague, Representative JACOB K. JAVITS, of New York, who has filed a resolution requesting it.

law, and brotherly human consideration which have been foundation stones of our American civilization since the days of our Founding Fathers.

This type of propaganda is bad enough during ordinary times; but it is unbearable during a period of cold war when cunning adversaries are seeking every means to infiltrate, subvert, and divide the American people.

The time has come to find a way of curbing this evil. That must be done without encroaching upon time-honored American freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights, and particularly freedom of the press. Here is another example where purveyors of division use the cloak of American constitutional freedom in order to undermine those very freedoms. Constitutional protections were never intended to serve as a cloak for such activities. A way must be found within the framework of the Constitution to put some limit on this type of activity, and I believe it can be.

There is general aversion in this country to certain willful purveyors of falsehood concerning racial and religious groups whose one object seems to be to divide class against class and group against group, and hold up to contempt the ideals of liberty, equality before the

Existing law is inadequate to restrain this menace. That fact was spelled out in detail in the above-mentioned report from the Postmaster General. He said:

The Congress has, over the years, prescribed what may or may not be transmitted through the mails. Section 1717 of title 18, United States Code, provides that circulars, postcards, prints, newspapers, etc., which contain matter advocating or urging treason, insurrection, or forceful resistance to any law of the United States are nonmailable. This same section also provides that

matter in violation of a number of other sections of title 18 is likewise nonmailable. It should be noted, however, that these sections do not expressly provide for the exclusion from the United States mails of matter attacking a particular religion, religious group, or race. It is, of course, regretted that the postal facilities are employed for the dissemination of material of this type. However, in the absence of authority to exclude it, the Postmaster General has no alternative but to accept the material and deliver it to destination.

This report from the Postemaster General came too late in the session to make possible the drafting and mature consideration and enactment of legislation at the present session. However, this deficiency in our laws must be remedied, and I have therefore filed a bill which, during the adjournment of Congress, will be available to Members and to the many persons and organizations interested in this subject.

It is clear that there are principles of law which can be relied upon to provide some measure of remedy to the intolerable abuse above referred to. The Supreme Court of the United States has many times held that even freedom of speech is not unlimited.

The most frequently cited limitation was that voiced by Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes when he pointed out that freedom of speech could not be construed so as to permit a prankster to shout "fire" while sitting in a crowded theater. Even more to the point is the decision of the Supreme Court in Beauharnais v. Illinois (343 U. S., p. 250), in which it upheld the provisions of an Illinois statute making it a crime to exhibit in any public place any publication which "portrays depravity, criminality,

It must be perfectly evident to anyone looking at the tremendous inventories of Government-owned farm products that we have not found the solution. With all our know-how in industry, in commerce, and in distribution, must we stand helpless in the presence of this problem? I do not think so. Much depends on how we approach this problem. Surely in our great inland States, which constitute the heartland of Ameri< ca, there can never be an acceptance of the idea of scarcity for we know that an abundant production is not only the natural course of a sound agricultural economy, but one of the greatest sources of the Nation's strength. We must always have sufficient plantings of food and fiber to meet our needs. It is inevitable that in some years, when all factors are favorable, including such an uncertain one as the weather, there will be surpluses. We must not allow the proportionately small surpluses of our Nation's farm economy to bring about a recession for our farmers. That is a major reason why I have advocated the need of dealing effectively with our surplus problem before we undertake to make drastic changes in the level of farm-price supports. It is such a well-established fact as to scarely need any restatement that if agriculture does not share fairly in the national income, or if the farmers suffer a depression, every other segment of the economy will sooner or later experience the same adversity.

Some of our best farm economists have said that the nature of the farm business, our superb soil resources, and our present stage of development in the world make farm surpluses for many years to come not only inevitable, but highly desirable. In fact, these surpluses can well be one of our greatest blessings.

maintained during the more recent defense build-up. Farming is by nature an industry, quite unlike manufacturing, where it is not possible to control or balance the units of production except over a considerable period of time.

If we look to the future we realize that there will be a need not for less but for greater production of food and fiber on our farms. Our prospective growth of population for the next quarter of a century is for an average of around 1.6 million a year, so that by 1975 we probably will have a national population of possibly 190 million, or 40 million more people than we now have.

We have used about 360 million acres of cropland each year since 1920, when we had approximately 4 acres of crops per capita. We have now 2.7 acres due to the growth of population. Yet during this period we have actually increased our total farm output by more than our population's grown-a feat unparallelled in the agricultural history of the world.

By 1975 we shall probably have to feed our people around 2.2 acres of cropland per capita. This would mean that yields per acre would need to be increased about one-fourth, and we would require a greater relative increase in output from livestock and pastures. This will seriously strain our capacity to expand production to equal the population's expansion-to say nothing of dietary improvement.

It is of no comfort today, when surpluses tend to overflow all reasonable storage capacity and we have yet to implement the solutions, to observe that 20 years from now we may have a critical underproduction, but no long-range farm program can fail to take note of these future needs. This is one reason why I personally have advocated a program for the use of diverted acres taken out of production that would encourage the planting of legumes and other soil-building crops against the day when there will be greater demands on our productive capacity.

As we consider our immediate surplus problem, we must not forget that our Amer-, ican farmers brought production to a high level during the war period to meet the needs of this country and its allies for food and fiber that were essential to winning the We must not forget that it was at the Government's urging and encouragement that a high level of production was

war.

It was only last fall, during the planting season of winter wheat, that the Government took steps to provide for acreage allotments for wheat, a program in which farmers by direct vote agreed to cooperate in order to reduce the surplus in this basic crop. It was only this past spring that similar programs for corn and cotton, two other basic crops, were inaugurated.

I do not regard acreage allotments as the final solution of the problem. They are at best a temporary expedient, but I believe they must be undertaken at this time in our effort to bring our surpluses into manageable proportions. And, as I have said, these arrangements must be coupled with a sound program for use of diverted acres that will provide for soil-building practices and that will avoid production of crops tending to create new surpluses in other commodities.

We have been regrettably slow in working out an effective program along these lines, for obviously here is a place where the Government must take the lead although the willing support and cooperation of the farmers themselves are essential to make the program work.

Other steps which represent parts of the solution involve a program of larger use of these commodities to improve the nutritional standards of the American people, to provide for increased distribution in welfare programs considering the needs of certain low-income groups, and to enlarge the benefits of the school-lunch program.

Up to this time we have certainly not made sufficient distribution of such surplus food on hand as dairy products, considering the need in certain lower-income groups or the objectives of the school-lunch program.

In a single year the Commodity Stabilization Service inventories have grown to a total of 270.6 million pounds of butter, 282 million pounds of cheese, and 469.6 million pounds of nonfat milk solids.

Yet for the fiscal year ending July 1, 1953, only 22.3 million pounds of butter went into the food-distribution program, 8 million pounds to institutions, and only 0.3 million pounds for welfare purposes, including distribution to needy Indian people.

The Department of Agriculture has stepped up the butter-distribution program for the present fiscal year to a total of 61 million pounds. It can be accelerated, not only for the good of agriculture but for the good of our people. If the distribution program is too cumbersome and restricted, other sound methods should be employed that will make these food products available to people who cannot afford to buy them on the market.

There is, moreover, a place for industryfinanced sales promotions. Per capita consumption of dairy products, for example, has dropped, although the dairy producer has one of the greatest foods that could be offered on the market. Fluid milk contains natural milk sugars and calcium that are essential in one's diet. The surpluses in dairy products would vanish if we undertook a real selling program in this country of this highly nutritive food.

In addition there are three foreign channels for use of surpluses in farm production in this country; namely, (1) normal commercial export markets, (2) sale of surpluses outside of these channels with acceptance of local currency for reinvestment in the purchasing countries, and (3) distribution of surpluses largely through church relief organizations, refugee organizations, and other nonprofit agencies.

declares it to be the policy of the Congress that this greater dissemination of abundance shall be managed to expand international trade, to promote the economic stability of American agriculture and the national welfare, and to further the foreign policy of the United States. It authorizes the use of $1 billion over the next 3 years to broaden the program for sale of food and fiber for the local currencies of other nations, and a program of barter for strategic materials needed by the United States.

Congress has recently had under consideration provisions of an act to increase the consumption of our agricultural commodities in foreign countries. This legislation

It permits the President, to the extent of $300 million in 3 years ahead, to furnish emergency assistance on behalf of the people of the United States to friendly peoples of other nations, to meet famine and other urgent relief requirements. It makes commodities available for relief distribution abroad by private nonprofit welfare organizations. It expands the availability of food for needy persons in the United States, for the school lunch program, and for other nonprofit uses.

This 3-year program is essentially a good one. In permitting exchange of commodities now in Government storage for foreign currency, goods, or services, the act provides a means by which we can acquire additional strategic materials, defray part of the cost of our military base construction program abroad or meet other overseas commitments. I believe there is a most constructive opportunity also for use of some of our surpluses for distribution among the needy people of our friends and allies, including such distribution by voluntary agencies which are well equipped to do the job on a basis that will give a maximum of benefit to persons who really need this help.

There have been occasions when gifts of food under crisis conditions have been proved a most effective stroke of diplomacy. Distribution of food packages in West Berlin and and the shipment of wheat to Pakistan are examples of generosity fully rewarded by payment in good will.

All of these steps which I have enumerated are essential in dealing with our surplus problem. It is apparent that the high fixed cost nature of the farm business and the uncertainties and hazards of farming make the effort for full production not only logical but necessary. Also, the rapid improvement of our knowledge, methods, and machinery insures a continued rapid increase in our productivity per man, per acre, and per head of livestock.

Vexing and troublesome though the result may seem to be, this is the American way. And so, until our population catches up, there will be surpluses. If we are wise and if we are forthright in our planning we will be able to manage them.

In the final analysis, this abundant production could well be the most powerful weapon of peace ever given to a nation. Let us use the surpluses to help feed hungry people, to help them gain strength so they can themselves become more productive. Let us use them as a far more potent destroyer of communism than is the hydrogen bomb, for communism has no greater ally than hunger, and democracy and freedom have no greater ally than a well-nourished people.

If these surpluses are allowed to waste, or are dumped onto the world markets to break normal markets, great discredit and ill will to us will be the result. On the other hand, if these surpluses are used to relieve hunger, to increase productivity and trade, and to establish new future demands without interfering with normal private trade, we can reap rich harvests of good will, of reduced costs of checking aggression, and of increased profitable future trade with friendly nations. Let us never forget that the great continued abundance of our food and fiberthe even full flow from our farms of the means of high standards of living-is one of the greatest factors in our Nation's greatness and of its leadership in the world.