Page images
PDF
EPUB

lution amending the International Wheat Agreement Act of 1949.

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, it is the view of the committee that the most logical and fair basis would be the pattern of trade. A decision on this question will have to be made by the International Wheat Council later this month, and I believe it would be well that the Senate affirm the view that the pattern of wheat trade with the United Kingdom be taken into account when the decision is made. It would be unfair to the United States to make the adjustment on a pro rata basis.

If it develops that the decision reached by the Wheat Council in this matter is unfavorable to the United States, there is provision in the agreement which would permit the United States to withdraw from further participation. I refer here to article XXII, which provides that an exporting country may withdraw if it considers its interests to be seriously prejudiced by the nonparticipation of an importing country responsible for more than 5 percent of the guaranteed quantities.

However, at this time, it is the unanimous opinion of the Committee on Foreign Relations, of the executive agencies concerned with the agreement, of the farm groups in the United States, of the grain trade, and of others who testified before the subcommittee that the United States should ratify the agreement even though the United Kingdom is not a party.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point, as a part of my remarks, a statement made by Mr. Gus F. Geissler, assistant to the president, National Farmers Union, in support of ratification of the renewed International Wheat Agreement, before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on June 26, 1953.

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

INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT SHOULD
BE RENEWED

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I appear today in support of Senate ratification of extension of the International Wheat Agreement. National Farmers Union supported ratification of the tentative agreement that was worked out in 1948. We again supported the agreement that was worked out and ratified in 1949 and is now expiring.

The proposed extension of the International Wheat Agreement has been negotiated with the tentative approval of all signatories to the existing agreement except the United Kingdom. The International Wheat Agreement, which expires on June 30 of this year, is an outstanding example of international cooperation among nations by conscious application of intelligence in building international institutions to introduce an element of stability into world trades, in this case wheat. This agreement served to overcome many of the hardships to producers and consumers of the different nations that would otherwise have been caused by critical shortages of wheat. If circumstances had been different, the agreement would have provided similar protection against hardships caused by so-called surpluses. existing agreement has served its purposes well. An extension on the basis negotiated after months of patient international deliberation will provide a similar measure of stability in the uncertain years ahead.

The

The International Wheat Agreement is essentially quite simple, it assures exporting nations of a market for wheat at equitable and stable prices and assures access to a supply of wheat to importing nations at stable prices.

The IWA extension that has been negotiated provides for a 3-year extension of the present agreement that was entered into in 1949. Under the negotiated extension, which is now before the Senate for ratification, the 4 signatory countries that produce wheat for export, including the United States, undertake to deliver an agreed-upon quantity of wheat to the importing countries at a price of not more than $2.05 per bushel. This maximum price is 25 cents per bushel higher than the maximum price under the present agreement. The importing countries in turn are required to buy all agreed-upon amounts at a price not less than $1.55, this is 35 cents per bushel higher than the minimum price under the present International Wheat Agreement this year. There is no fluctuating minimum price as was included in the previous agreement.

The United Kingdom declined to sign the agreement. This does not constitute a justifiable reason for not ratifying the renewed agreement. The British refusal to sign means of course, a readjustment of the quotas of exporting members. However, it is not to be expected that this readjustment will have as serious an effect upon United States exports under the agreement as might be thought from simple application of arith

metic formulas. This is because Canada and Australia obviously will continue to supply wheat to their historic customers in the

United Kingdom. Therefore, they will not, probably, have available sufficient wheat above their exports to United Kingdom to desire additional quotas under the revised agreement.

While this absence of United Kingdom from the agreement, and the possibility of its later accession, introduces an element of

uncertainty, we should not in our judgment allow this factor to jeopardize the early ratification of the renewed agreement. The cost to the United States of operations under the agreement will be determined more importantly in the years just ahead by other factors than the presence or absence of United Kingdom, in the Wheat Agreement. Even without the participation of the United Kingdom, however, the renewed International Wheat Agreement will cover 420 million bushels or more than 40 percent of world trade in wheat.

Provision has been made whereby other countries can come into the agreement. It is to be hoped that the United Kingdom will join the agreement at some later date. Neither U. S. S. R. nor Argentina participated in the present agreement. Nor have they indicated a desire to participate in the renewed agreement.

The International Wheat Agreement is a treaty requiring a two-thirds vote in the Senate for ratification. It is in the nature of a contractual arrangement between the governments of certain importing and exporting countries involving the annual trade of wheat over a period of 3 years, within the fixed range of a maximum price of $2.05 a bushel and the minimum price of $1.55 per bushel.

The agreement provides that an exporting country may be relieved of part of its obligation in a particular crop year by reason of a short crop. An importing country may

be relieved of its commitment for a particular crop year by reason of the necessity to safeguard its balance of payments on its monetary reserve. The release of any country from its commitments must be approved by a majority vote in the IWA council. Any country which considers its national security to be endangered by the outbreak of hostilities may withdraw from the agreement.

Each nation in the agreement has a specific guaranteed quantity for purchases or sale. These quantities are the same for each year of the agreement. Final allotment of national quotas will be dependent upon how many nations finally give formal approval to the agreement.

If the world trade price of United States wheat is at any point between the agreed upon minimum and maximum of $1.55 and $2.05 per bushel there is no obligation of any country in the agreement. The IWA in standby arrangements whose contractual commitments come into play only when the world price drops below the specified minimum price or rises above the specified maximum price in the Agreement.

The International Wheat Agreement does not set either maximum or minimum prices for the United States farmer. That is not its purpose or effect. The price received by the United States farmer is determined by world demand conditions, the supply of wheat, and the nature of domestic United States farm-price support program for wheat. The International Wheat Agreement contributes to the United States wheat-price support programs by providing an assured market for the agreed-upon quantity of exports under the agreement.

If the United States market price is above the maximum price in the agreement, or if the world price of United States wheat, is lower, the specified quantity of exports will be subsidized by the Federal Government to the extent of the difference.

During the 4 years of the present agreement this subsidy has averaged about 62 cents per bushel or a total of about $565 million.

Every country taking part in the agreement belongs to the International Wheat Agreement Council. Every country has a vote in proportion to its quota. This puts the United States at the top position among exporters. Since important decisions can be made only by two-thirds majority of exporters and of importers, voting separately, this gives the United States a large measure of assurance.

One of the most important and significant results of the International Wheat Agreement has been that it has kept Western European nations relatively independent of wheat exports from Iron Curtain countries by reason of the assured IWA supplies available to them.

The following table indicates planted acrefor age selected years since 1927-28 and United States production and exports for the same years.

Wheat facts-What this means

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

lose the export market for wheat, our acreage would have to be reduced approximately

26 million acres.

At $2.06 per bushel, the average price farmers received for wheat in May 1953, the average export sales of wheat represent a return to farmers of approximately $814 million.

This would be money farmers would not have to spend for the products of our mines and industries-the equivalent of at least 250,000 jobs. At least another 200,000 men now employed in handling and marketing wheat in export trade would be out of jobs. North Dakota farmers, for example, planted almost 9.5 million acres of wheat on the average of the last 12 years; loss of exports of wheat would require an acreage reduction (using 1945-52 average ratios) of approximately 3.2 million acres in the North Dakota wheat acreage.

The International Wheat Agreement is a man-made international institution that would put a little certainty into an otherwise highly uncertain situation. World wheat supply has been increasing rapidly, 25 percent in the past year. United States exports this year are down. We shall be lucky to export as much as 300 million bushels of wheat during the year ending June 30, 1953. The International Wheat Agreement United States quota of 253 million bushels was a big factor in preventing exports from falling even further. The absence of a new agreement would mean trouble-bad trouble.

Failure to ratify the proposed agreement may result in the later renegotiation of a less favorable agreement as was experienced in 1949 compared to the agreement not ratified in 1948. We respectfully urge the ratification of the proposed agreement.

Mr. LANGER. During the life of the agreement of 1949 there was not a single occasion where penalties had to be applied by the council. I think that is a tribute to the good faith of all the parties.

The subsidy is not excessive in terms of the good that will result, and private trade should flourish under the agreement. There has been no opposition to the agreement. Indeed, the flour interests and grain trade have now changed their original opposition to support. Adequate provisions are made for escape from embarrassing situations, and testimony before the committee makes clear that agricultural groups believe that prices set up under the agreement are fair and equitable.

Finally, Mr. President, the Committee on Foreign Relations voted out its own resolution. Senate Joint Resolution 97 is designed to implement the new agreement by extending the implementing legislation covering the 1949 agreement so that it will cover the new agreement. The committee recommends that the Senate approve the International Wheat Agreement and pass Senate Joint Resolution 97.

Before closing my statement, Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the distinguished Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON], who testified before the committee. He was perhaps as well informed regarding the contents of the International Wheat Agreement as was any member of the subcommittee. He testified in favor of the adoption of the agreement. He made it clear that he knew from the experience he had had

with the farmers of Kansas who raise wheat that they were overwhelmingly in support of the proposal.

I wish to thank him, as I thank the members of the subcommittee. When the meeting was called every one of them was in attendance and listened to all the testimony; and every one of them, so far as I can remember now, asked questions. When this agreement came to the attention of the full committee, the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. GEORGE], although his State is not concerned with wheat-raising problems, nevertheless spoke in behalf of the joint resolution, and voted for it. As one who comes from a State in which wheat is raised, I desire to pay tribute to the distinguished Senator from Georgia, who, although as I have said, represents a State in which wheat is not raised, nevertheless felt that agriculture as a whole will be benefited by the passage of the joint resolution.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Dakota yield to me?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FLANDERS in the chair). Does the Senator from North Dakota yield to the Senator from Kansas?

Mr. LANGER. I yield.

Mr. CARLSON. I wish to commend the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, the chairman of the subcommittee that conducted the hearings on this important measure. I think the Senate and the country are indebted to the members of the full Committee on Foreign Relations which reported this agreement, and are indebted to the Members of Congress and the representatives of various farm groups and the representatives of the State Department who served in working out the agreement, which I believe to be a very fair and very good one.

If I correctly understood the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, the result will be not only to increase the bushel allotment for the United States, but also to increase the price which will be paid.

Mr. LANGER. Yes; it is estimated the price will be increased from $1.80 to $2.05.

Mr. CARLSON. Do I correctly understand that the subsidies under the new International Wheat Agreement should be considerably less than the ones we have been paying during the past 4 years?

Mr. LANGER. Yes; it is estimated by the Department of Agriculture that the subsidy will be approximately 40 cents a bushel, in contrast to the average of 62 cents a bushel under the old agreement.

Mr. CARLSON. I think that is very important, because we have been spending considerable sums of money for subsidies in connection with the shipment of wheat in international trade. The reduction of the subsidy from 62 cents a bushel to 40 cents a bushel not only will be welcomed by the taxpayers of the United States, but I am sure also will be very much welcomed by the wheat growers of the Nation, who will be most happy

to learn that they can enter the export market at a lower subsidy.

I should like to ask whether there was any discussion or consideration of Russia or Argentina as signatories to the agreement.

Mr. LANGER. Of course, they did not sign the agreement.

Mr. CARLSON. Do I correctly understand that the United States, Canada, Australia, and France are the four countries that are engaged in exporting wheat?

Mr. LANGER. That is correct.

Mr. CARLSON. Do I also correctly understand that, aside from Great Britain, the countries which were signatory to the last treaty or agreement are signatory to the new one?

Mr. LANGER. Yes. In fact, more countries have signed the new one.

Mr. CARLSON. I am very happy to learn that. I regret sincerely that Great Britain has refused to sign the new agreement. I hope that as time passes she will have a change of heart and will sign the agreement.

I understand that the reason why Great Britain refused to sign the agreement was because of the difference between $2 a bushel and $2.05 a bushel.

Mr. LANGER. That is correct, and that difference would have cost Great Britain $8,500,000.

Mr. CARLSON. It seems to me that is a very small amount to constitute a basis for Great Britain's refusal to enter into the agreement, which will not only be of assistance to the international trade in wheat, but also will be in furtherance of international good will.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Dakota yield to me? Mr. LANGER. I yield.

Mr. CASE. In the opinion of the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, what will be the effect of Great Britain's failure to sign the agreement?

Mr. LANGER. It will mean that our quota will be reduced. The report contains a table showing how much the quota of each one of the exporting countries will be reduced.

Mr. CASE. Is there a possibility that Great Britain will reconsider; and does the agreement make provision for future participation by other countries, in case Great Britain does have a change of mind?

Mr. LANGER. I understand the negotiations still continue, and we have hope that Great Britain will sign the agreement. So a way has been left open for Great Britain to sign the agreement, and we hope she will do so.

Mr. CASE. Do I correctly understand that ratification of the agreement at this time will not make it impossible for Great Britain to join in the agreement if, upon reconsideration, she should decide to do so?

Mr. LANGER. That is correct.

Mr. CASE. I thank the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, in view of the fact that I come from the great wheat-producing State of Montana, I am very anxious to have the agreement approved by the Senate.

The decline of farm income, which is still unchecked, is one of the most serious threats in our economy today.

Farm prices have dropped further and faster than the prices of other commodities. Farmers are in a pinch between low prices for what they sell and relatively higher prices for what they must buy. The parity ratio, reflecting the relationship between prices received and prices paid by farmers, stands at 94.

Last week, Mr. President, we passed a wheat-allotment bill, bill, now in conference. That bill proposes a minimum acreage allotment next year approximately 10 percent under the 67 million acres of wheat being harvested this year. While I hope that allotment figure may be raised somewhat as a result of the conference with the House, there undoubtedly will be a reduction from this year's acreage. In my opinion, allotments will be accepted by the farmers in referendum, although it will mean further reduction in total agricultural income, not reflected in the parity ratio, for it involves amount of production, rather than price.

The present extremely serious situation would be greatly worsened if the Senate were to fail to give consent to the International Wheat Agreement. Our export markets for agricultural products has been declining. The agreement agreement gives the United States a tentative export quota of 270 million bushels of wheat a floor under wheat exports for the next 3 years, which will help to stabilize prices in the markets. Inasmuch as it assures such exports, and stabilizes the markets for wheat, it slows the increasingly serious recession in agricultural prices and income, and is of benefit to the economy of the whole Nation.

I hesitate to think, Mr. President, what may happen in the markets tomorrow if the Senate withholds its assent from this agreement, which is considerably more favorable than the 1949 agreement in terms of price. The maximum is $2.05 per bushel-up 25 cents from the expiring agreement. The minimum $1.55 is 35 cents per bushel higher than the effective minimum of the expiring agreement.

Much of our favorable export position in recent years has been accounted for by our foreign-aid programs. In the fiscal year 1948-49 about two-thirds of our agricultural exports were financed by various economic funds. By fiscal year 1951-52, only about one-fifth was so financed. This stimulus to export is still shrinking. Wheat exports declined one-third last year, helping to bring on the necessity for the allotments which we voted last week. We are approaching the time, obviously, when there will be little or no stimulus to exports through our aid appropriations.

The fluctuations, the lack of stability, in the United States export market has historically plagued farmers with alternate shortages and surpluses of some agricultural commodities, and with alternate ups and down in prices.

The following table indicates the wide rangements to make excess food-producvariations in export sales: ing capacity useful in a war on want.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

The International Wheat Agreement, Mr. President, represents an effort to bring some stability to our export market and at the same time assure importing nations a stable supply of this foodstuff at relatively stable prices.

If the wheat agreement is not ratified, and if this minimum export market is not assured, I see no alternative in the years ahead but for American agriculture to adjust to considerably smaller wheat acreages-to a "safe" production based on minimum exports which, in my opinion, would be deplorable for both practical and policy reasons.

The reduction of agricultural income would have serious economic quences within agriculture and for the whole country. It would be a depressing factor.

It would restrict and draw back our production of a vital defense material in a critical preparedness period. Unfortunately we still have no assurance that, at almost any time, we may need expanded wheat production instead of reduction to meet the requirements of a shooting war.

Third, it would reduce our production of one of our best weapons for peacefoodstuffs that are desperately needed by two-thirds of the peoples of the world.

On March 11, Mr. President, I introduced on behalf of a bipartisan group of Senators a joint resolution aimed at the creation of an international food reserve, a permanent agency to take surplus food production wherever it exists and make it available to peoples who are ill-clothed and ill-fed.

I believe very strongly that we should create such an agency to wage an offensive with food and fiber for peace in the world.

At that time I quoted Norris E. Dodd, Director General of the World Food and Agriculture Organization, as follows:

Believe me, it's a dangerous business. Hungry people are likely to follow any leader who comes along and promises more to eat and a little better conditions of living. It used to be that people just lay down and starved to death dumbly, as I have seen cattle freeze to death huddled together against a drift fence when one cow could have led them through. People don't do that any more. They figure they might better be slaves to a dictator than die of starvation.

It will be an extremely serious day when news goes abroad to the hungry people of the world that the United Wheat has particularly suffered from States has idled millions of acres or has these ups and downs. refused to cooperate in international ar

I should like to see this Nation a partner to permanent arrangements, covering all food and fiber, to carry on the crusade for freedom from want, one of the freedoms which Franklin D. Roosevelt set as a postwar goal for the victorious democratic nations of the world.

The International Wheat Agreement is a step in that direction, a short step, but a worthwhile step. It signifies America's willingness to cooperate with other nations in this field. I sincerely hope that in consideration of our own well being and our international goals the Senate will consent to the agreement by a very large majority.

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for his contribution to the debate. He has always been a warm and sincere friend of agriculture. We have always counted upon him as being one of the best friends the farmers of our State have had.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. clerk will call the roll.

The

The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for a quorum call be rescinded, and that further proceedings under the call be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Kansas? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

The Senate has before it for ratification the agreement revising and renewing the International Wheat Agreement of 1949.

If there be no amendment to be proposed, the agreement will be reported to the Senate.

The agreement was reported to the Senate without amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution of ratification will be read.

The legislative clerk read the resolution of ratification, as follows:

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of Executive H, 83d Congress, 1st session, a certified copy of the agreement revising and renewing the International Wheat Agreement, in the English, French, and Spanish languages, which was open for signature in Washington, April 13 to 27, inclusive, 1953, and was signed during that period on behalf of the Government of the United States of America and the governments of 44 other countries.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution of ratification.

Mr. FREAR. Mr. President, just a moment. Is the Senate about to vote on the question of ratifying the agreement?

[blocks in formation]

Mr. FREAR. Mr. President, I should like to ask 1 or 2 questions of the sponsor of the resolution, who, I understand, is the distinguished senior Senator from North Dakota [Mr. LANGER].

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from North Dakota yield to the Senator from Delaware for the purpose of interrogation?

Mr. LANGER. I shall be glad to answer any question I can.

Mr. FREAR. For how many years is the agreement intended to be operative? Mr. LANGER. For 3 years.

Mr. FREAR. Of the major countries, how many of them have ratified the new agreement?

Mr. LANGER. Forty-five importing and 4 exporting countries are in the process of ratifying it. The Senator will find the names of those countries in the report. The list includes four large wheat-exporting countries, namely, the United States, Canada, France, and Australia.

Mr. LANGER. It would include all the countries with available dollars. Mr. FREAR. In the event a country does not have the dollars, what then? Mr. LANGER. In that case, it would not be required to take the wheat.

Mr. FREAR. If they do not have the dollars and do not take the wheat we shall not sell the 270 million bushels.

Mr. LANGER. They undoubtedly will take it, because the agreement has been in effect since 1948. Every country has met its obligation up to the present time.

Mr. FREAR. I understood the distinguished Senator from North Dakota to say that the United Kingdom is now withdrawing for a particular reason, namely, that it thinks it can get wheat at a lower price. If that be true with respect to the United Kingdom, why are we in the wheat agreement?

Mr. LANGER. Because we are satisfied that every one of the other 45 nations will take their quota at the maximum price. Any time the United States wants

Mr. FREAR. Has the United King- to do so it can withdraw. dom agreed to it?

Mr. LANGER. No.

Mr. FREAR. Will the distinguished Senator tell us why, in his opinion, the United Kingdom has not agreed to it?

Mr. LANGER. The objection is to paying $2.05 a bushel, which, it is claimed, is 5 cents too much. I call attention to the testimony on this subject, particularly that of Mr. Stevens, vice president of General Mills, of Minneapolis, who is an expert and who has been heard as a witness for 29 years. Mr. Stevens attended all the negotiations in 1948, and again this year. It is his belief that the United Kingdom refused to ratify the agreement in the hope that it will be able to buy the wheat at dumping prices.

Mr. FREAR. How much are the wheat exporters of this country guaranteed?

Mr. LANGER. They are guaranteed from $1.55 to $2.05 a bushel.

Mr. FREAR. And for how bushels?

many

Mr. LANGER. That will depend upon what England does. The reduction in quotas resulting from nonparticipation by the United Kingdom would be, on the 4-year average of sales, 177 million bushels. The 1949 agreement called for a total of 577 million bushels; the revised agreement calls for 595 million bushels.

Mr. FREAR. But we are guaranteeing the American producers of wheat a total exportation of how many bushels? Mr. LANGER. They are guaranteed They are guaranteed a total of 595 million bushels, 177 million bushels less if England does not sign the agreement.

Mr. FREAR. Am I correct in my understanding that the quota for the United States, under the revised agreement, would be 270 million bushels, for the duration of the agreement?

Mr. LANGER. That is correct, for each year.

Mr. FREAR. And there is a guaranty of $2.05 a bushel. Is that correct? Mr. LANGER. That is correct.

Mr. FREAR. Is there any guaranty as to what countries will be the recipients of our 270 million bushel of wheat?

Mr. FREAR, At any time? Mr. LANGER.

Yes.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. FREAR. Does not the Senator think the time prescribed in this agreement is too long a period when the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act has been extended for only 1 year?

Mr. LANGER. The United States tried to get an agreement for 1 year. Canada, on the other hand, wanted an agreement for 4 years. The period of 3 years was arrived at as a compromise.

Mr. FREAR. Is it the Senator's personal opinion that a 1-year extension of the agreement might be timely, inasmuch as we have extended the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act for 1 year?

Mr. LANGER. I would be in favor of 1 year, and the American representatives at the conference were in favor of 1

year.

Mr. FREAR. Would the Senator accept on behalf of his committee an amendment extending the agreement for 1 year?

Mr. LANGER. No, because it would ruin the entire agreement. It would have to be resubmitted to all the other nations involved, and it must be ratified before the 15th of July.

Mr. FREAR. Then I take it that the representatives of our Government have already signed, so far as their ability to do so is concerned, depending upon ratification by the Senate?

Mr. LANGER. That is correct. Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Delaware yield? Mr. FREAR. I yield.

Mr. CARLSON. I hope no effort will be made to reduce the period to 1 year, for the reason that it is very difficult to get 46 or more nations together to make an agreement. We have recently concluded a 4-year agreement. This is a 3-year agreement. I think 3 years is a sufficiently short time. sufficiently short time. There is a provision whereby nations can withdraw by resolution. I am in sympathy with the wishes of the Senator from Delaware, but in this case I think 3 years is not inappropriate.

Mr. FREAR. I do not think there is a Member of the Senate who comes from a finer State than is the State of Kansas, and I have very great confidence in the ability of the Senator from Kansas to think clearly, but, inasmuch as we have extended the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act for 1 year and have established a commission to study the situation, I do not know that we are doing the right thing if we extend this agreement for 3 years. If we do so, I think we shall be bound to extend other agreements for 4 years. Conferences have been held regarding rubber, copper, and other commodities produced in other parts of the world, and we shall be asked to enter into some type of agreement concerning them. Such an agreement has not yet been presented to us. If in the case of wheat we enter into an agreement for a 3-year period, we may be setting a precedent which will cause difficulty. Since we have extended the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act for 1 year and have established a commission to study and make representations to the legislative body, it appears to me that we may be going out of our way in making this 3-year agreement. I believe there have been conferences with respect to cotton and other agricultural items. This agreement pertains only to wheat.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the position which

the Senator from Delaware has taken, As he knows, I, too, am greatly interested in the study which is to be made of our international trade policies. It is important, if such a study is made, that agricultural products be included in the study. This agreement has nothing to do with tariffs. It has a great deal to do with international trade. There was some thought of trying to write a 1-year agreement, but the countries that have subscribed to this International Wheat Agreement refused to consider the matter on a 1-year basis. They want to know definitely for years to come where they can expect to get their wheat. To them it is more important than it is to the United States.

Mr. FREAR. I do not know that I would think any differently than the importing countries think as to this agreement. But we as an exporting nation are agreeing to export 270 million bushels of wheat. I agree with that. I know we have to export that amount of wheat if we are going to continue to produce wheat as we are now doing, but we are tying ourselves down to a commitment with respect to wheat which may result in other commitments affecting every article we have to export or import. If we have to depend upon the executive

branch of the Government to take care of our exports and imports, and if we are laying down a policy as to wheat, can we expect anything different in the case of other commodities? If we are establishing a guide and saying we are going to do this for wheat, are we not obligating ourselves with reference to many other commodities we may want to export or to import.

Mr. CARLSON. In view of the competition we are receiving from Canada and Australia, we shall be fortunate if we can conclude a 3-year agreement for exporting 270 million bushels of wheat. France is a party to the agreement. Argentina and Russia are not parties to it. It is important that we try to make sure, if possible, an exportation of 270 million bushels of wheat. It is It is important from our own standpoint because we will have on July 1, 1954, a surplus of 750 million bushels of wheat.

Last Saturday the Senate passed a bill to provide for an acreage allotment of 61 million acres of wheat in the United States. It has gone to conference, and the conference report will probably be submitted tomorrow. That bill provides for an acreage reduction of approximately 20 percent. That is a large reduction to ask any producer to take, but I think it is in the interest of good Government economy. Under this agreement the subsidy will be reduced from 60 cents to 40 cents a bushel. I think it is a very good agreement.

Mr. FREAR. I thank the Senator, and again I must say that I have great admiration for the fine wheat-producing State of Kansas. I desire to protect the farmers to the maximum extent, but I cannot let this agreement be ratified without expressing some fear as to what it will do. It may have repercussions on other parts of our economy.

If what the Senator says is true-and I know it is-in July 1954 we shall have a surplus of 750 million bushels. I believe the crop report for this year predicts somewhat over 1 billion bushels of wheat. The normal human consumption of wheat in this country is probably only approximately 500 million bushels, if it is that much. If we have a billion bushels, plus 750 million bushels, we shall have nearly 2 billion bushels of wheat, which represents 4 years of normal human consumption in the United

States.

The Senator will say that that is a strong argument why we should export 270 million bushels of wheat. I admit there is a fair basis for that argument but I believe we cannot overlook all the other features of our economy, even though it might be thought best to have a wheat agreement.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. FREAR. I yield.

Mr. YOUNG. I wish to comment on the figures the Senator from Delaware has used. The Senator said the human requirements would be about 490 million bushels. Beyond that amount, however, there are other requirements which must be met for feed and seed. The basic requirements are about 690 million bushels.

The countries to which the United States The countries to which the United States is exporting wheat need it badly. They must have some assurance of future supply. I think the least that can be done is to try to work out an arrangement with the various nations of the world as to the amount of wheat they can expect from this country or some other country, and how much the United States plans to export.

There is considerable flexibility in the agreement with respect to price. I believe the price ranges from $1.55 to $2.05 a bushel. Based on present cash prices of wheat in the United States, there will of wheat in the United States, there will be practically no subsidy at all. At present cash prices the cost now will be between 5 and 10 cents a bushel, as against about 60 cents a bushel a year ago.

Mr. FREAR. No doubt what the Senator has said is accurate, and the argument is very logical. But I believe what he has said with respect to animal consumption of wheat helps my side of the argument a little, because we must depend on human consumption if 690 million bushels of wheat a year are to be used.

By the same token perhaps we should look at the whole picture and not make an agreement affecting wheat alone, because the United States will have to

depend on imports of copper, lead, zinc, and many other materials, ferrous and nonferrous, and, of course, are other agricultural products besides wheat.

there

So, in view of the proposal already approved by Congress to establish a commission to make an inquiry, it would ap

ing in the wheat agreement should see pear to me that the countries participat

the position in which the United States finds itself and say, "Yes, we will give you a 1-year extension of the agreement, to the end that you may study the problem. We have had faith in you in the past. We know you have given us wheat in the past when we have been hungry, and have given us dollars in the past when we have been insolvent."

I believe the participating countries should give credit to the United States for using good judgment and sensibility in many instances, and say, "Yes, we will go along for 1 year." After the whole problem has been studied, it might whole problem has been studied, it might be to the distinct advantage of many foreign countries which are buying from us, as well as to ourselves to have a longer extension. After the program has been developed we might then consider a longer extension. I am not saying there should not be a wheat agreement. My position is that I doubt that this is the time to extend the wheat agreement for 3 years.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. FREAR. I yield.

Mr. YOUNG. In the years following World War II, when there was an extreme shortage of wheat and sugar, the world wheat price was $5 or $6 a bushel. Prices were held down in the United States to around $3 or $3.50 a bushel. Farmers in the United States could have gotten $4 or $5 a bushel or more. But the United States Government kept the

price down in order to help the people of Europe. The farmers of this Nation went along with that program.

However, now, when we are looking to a future normal production of wheat and normal outlets for it, I do not think we can plan on a year-to-year basis; it is necessary to plan further into the future.

Mr. FREAR. Perhaps the Senator has misunderstood me. I do not say we should plan on a year-to-year basis. My opinion is that the wheat agreement might be extended for 1 year. Perhaps after that it could be extended for from 3 to 5 years.

All the Senator has said is additional proof that the participating nations should have confidence in the United States. They see now that we have wheat, and they know we expect to have wheat. We shall not let them starve, if they will permit us to ship the wheat. By the way, if they do not have dollars, if they cannot buy it with American dollars, the United States will let them have the wheat anyway. If we do not enter into an agreement, we shall let them have the wheat.

We should have an annual understanding. I believe foreign countries are entitled to have some assurance, as the ord shows our sincerity with the people Senator has said, but I believe our recof the wheat-consuming nations of the world. They will agree that when they have been in trouble we have come to their assistance. When they have been short of dollars we have given them dollars. When they have needed our other products from time to time we have come to their assistance so far as possible. I should say on behalf of participating countries that, in many instances, they have come to our rescue.

So it is necessary to have mutual cooperation in the wheat agreement. I do not want any Senator to think that I am opposed to an agreement such as has been proposed, or anything like it. I simply say that I believe this is not the proper time to extend the wheat agreement for 3 years, in the light of all the things we shall have under observation during the next 12 months, which will have to come before the Senate following the submission of reports.

After we have seen the reports, we may, as I have said, wish to extend the agreement for 5 years. Or we may not want a wheat agreement or a metal agreement or any agreement with foreign countries at all. I do not know what the answer may be, but I believe we have supplied a large number of dollars from our Treasury to continue the wheat agreements. May I inquire of the Senator from Kansas or of either of the Senators from North Dakota the cost of past wheat agreement? Can the Senator from Kansas advise me the cost to the Treasury?

Mr. CARLSON. The senior Senator from North Dakota can answer the question.

Mr. LANGER. It has cost $565 million.

Mr. FREAR. It has cost $565 million to the taxpayers of the United States

« PreviousContinue »