« PreviousContinue »
lution amending the International Wheat The International Wheat Agreement is Each nation in the agreement has a speAgreement Act of 1949.
essentially quite simple, it assures exporting cific guaranteed quantity for purchases or Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, it is the
nations of a market for wheat at equitable sale. These quantities are the same for view of the committee that the most supply of wheat to importing nations at and stable prices and assures access to a each year of the agreement. Final allotment
of national quotas will be dependent upon logical and fair basis would be the pat- stable prices.
how many nations finally give formal aptern of trade. A decision on this ques- The IWA extension that has been proval to the agreement. tion will have to be made by the Inter- negotiated provides for a 3-year extension of If the world trade price of United States national Wheat Council later this month, the present agreement that was entered wheat is at any point between the agreed and I believe it would be well that the into in 1949. Under the negotiated exten- upon minimum and maximum of $1.55 and Senate affirm the view that the pattern sion, which is now before the Senate for $2.05 per bushel there is no obligation of any of wheat trade with the United King- produce wheat for export, including the
ratification, the 4 signatory countries that country in the agreement. The IWA in dom be taken into account when the United States, undertake to deliver an
standby arrangements whose contractual
commitments come into play only when decision is made. It would be unfair to agreed-upon quantity of wheat to the im- the world price drops below the specified the United States to make the adjust-porting countries at a price of not more than minimum price or rises above the specified ment on a pro rata basis.
$2.05 per bushel. This maximum price is 25 maximum price in the Agreement. If it develops that the decision reached cents per bushel higher than the maximum The International Wheat Agreement does by the Wheat Council in this matter is price under the present agreement. The im- not set either maximum or minimum prices
for the United States farmer. That is not unfavorable to the United States, there porting countries in turn are required to
buy all agreed-upon amounts at a price not is provision in the agreement which less than $1.55, this is 35 cents per bushel
its purpose or effect. The price received by
the United States farmer is determined by would permit the United States to with higher than the minimum price urder the world demand conditions, the supply of draw from further participation. I refer present International Wheat Agreement this wheat, and the nature of domestic United here to article XXII, which provides that year. There is no fluctuating minimum price States farm-price support program for an exporting country may withdraw if as was included in the previous agreement.
wheat. The International Wheat Agreement it considers its interests to be seriously
The United Kingdom declined to sign the contributes to the United States wheat-price prejudiced by the nonparticipation of an
agreement. This does not constitute a justi- support programs by providing an assured fiable reason for not ratifying the renewed
market for the agreed-upon quantity of eximporting country responsible for more
agreement. The British refusal to sign means ports under the agreement. than 5 percent of the guaranteed quan
of course, a readjustment of the quotas of If the United States market price is tities.
exporting members. However, it is not to above the maximum price in the agreement, However, at this time, it is the unani- be expected that this readjustment will have or if the world price of United States wheat, mous opinion of the Committee on For- as serious an effect upon United States ex- is lower, the specified quantity of exports eign Relations, of the executive agencies ports under the agreement as might be will be subsidized by the Federal Govern.
ment to the extent of the difference. concerned with the agreement, of the thought from simple application of arith
metic formulas. This is because Canada and During the 4 years of the present agreefarm groups in the United States, of the
Australia obviously will continue to supply ment this subsidy has averaged about 62 grain trade, and of others who testified
wheat to their historic customers in the cents per bushel or a total of about $565 before the subcommittee that the United United Kingdom.
United Kingdom. Therefore, they will not, million. States should ratify the agreement even probably, have available sufficient wheat Every country taking part in the agreethough the United Kingdom is not a above their exports to United Kingdom to ment belongs to the International Wheat party.
desire additional quotas under the revised Agreement Council. Every country has a Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- agreement.
vote in proportion to its quota. This puts sent to have printed in the RECORD at
While this absence of United Kingdom the United States at the top position among
from the agreement, and the possibility of exporters. Since important decisions can this point, as a part of my remarks, a
its later accession, introduces an element of be made only by two-thirds majority of exstatement made by Mr. Gus F. Geissler,
uncertainty, we should not in our judgment porters and of importers, voting separately, assistant to the president, National
allow this factor to jeopardize the early rati- this gives the United States a large measure Farmers Union, in support of ratifica- fication of the renewed agreement. The of assurance. tion of the renewed International Wheat cost to the United States of operations under One of the most important and significant Agreement, before the subcommittee of the agreement will be determined more im- results of the International Wheat Agreethe Senate Committee on Foreign Rela- portantly in the years just ahead by other ment has been that it has kept Western Eu
factors than the presence or absence of tions on June 26, 1953.
ropean nations relatively independent of United Kingdom, in the Wheat Agreement, wheat exports from Iron Curtain countries There being no objection, the state
Even without the participation of the United by reason of the assured IWA supplies availment was ordered to be printed in the
Kingdom, however, the renewed Interna- able to them. RECORD, as follows:
tional Wheat Agreement will cover 420 mil- The following table indicates planted acreINTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT SHOULD lion bushels or more than 40 percent of age for selected years since 1927–28 BE RENEWED world trade in wheat.
and United States production and exports Provision has been made whereby other
for the same years. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I appear today in support of Senate ratification of countries can come into the agreement. It
Wheat facts—What this means extension of the International Wheat Agree
is to be hoped that the United Kingdom will
United United ratification of the tentative agreement that
States States in the present agreement. Nor have they was worked out in 1948. We again supported
planted produc- exports the agreement that was worked out and indicated a desire to participate in the re
tion (net) newed agreement. ratified in 1949 and is now expiring. The proposed extension of the InternaThe International Wheat Agreement is a
Million Million Million tional Wheat Agreement has been negotiated treaty requiring a two-thirds vote in the
bushels bushels with the tentative approval of all signaSenate for ratification. It is in the nature of 1927-28.
142 tories to the existing agreement except the
135 United Kingdom. The International Wheat ernments of certain importing and export
103 Agreement, which expires on June 30 of this ing countries involving the annual trade of
21 year, is an outstanding example of interna
100 tional cooperation among nations by con
389 scious application of intelligence in building bushel and the minimum price of $1.55 per
397 international institutions to introduce an bushel.
502 element of stability into world trades, in this
297 case wheat. This agreement served to over- country may be relieved of part of its obli
354 come many of the hardships to producers gation in a particular crop year by reason of
443 a short crop. An importing country may 1952-53..
77 and consumers of the different nations that
1, 291 be relieved of its commitment for a par
76 Average, 1945–53..
1, 163 would otherwise have been caused by criti
395 cal shortages of wheat. If circumstances ticular crop year by reason of the necessity had been different, the agreement would have to safeguard its balance of payments on its
Wheat exports from United States under International provided similar protection against hard- monetary reserve. The release of any coun- Wheat Agreement extension if United Kingdom enters ships caused by so-called surpluses. The try from its commitments must be approved agreement, 270 million bushels. existing agreement has served its purposes by a majority vote in the IWA council. Any As indicated by the above table, the average well. An extension on the basis negotiated country which considers its national secur
planted acres for the United States during after months of patient international delib- ity to be endangered by the outbreak of
the last 8 years has been 76 million acres, eration will provide a similar measure of hostilities may withdraw from the agree- a total production of 1,163,000,000 bushels stability in the uncertain years ahead. ment.
and exports of 395 million bushels. If we
lose the export market for wheat, our acre- with the farmers of Kansas who raise to learn that they can enter the export age would have to be reduced approximately wheat that they were overwhelmingly market at a lower subsidy. 26 million acres. in support of the proposal.
I should like to ask whether there was At $2.06 per bushel, the average price
I wish to thank him, as I thank the any discussion or consideration of Russia farmers received for wheat in May 1953, the
members of the subcommittee. When the or Argentina as signatories to the agreeaverage export sales of wheat represent a return to farmers of approximately $814
meeting was called every one of them ment. million.
was in attendance and listened to all Mr. LANGER. Of course, they did not This would be money farmers would not the testimony; and every one of them, sign the agreement. have to spend for the products of our mines so far as I can remember now, asked Mr. CARLSON. Do I correctly underand industries—the equivalent of at least questions. When this agreement came stand that the United States, Canada, 250,000 jobs. At least another 200,000 men to the attention of the full committee, Australia, and France are the four counnow employed in handling and marketing the distinguished Senator from Georgia tries that are engaged in exporting wheat in export trade would be out of jobs.
[Mr. GEORGE), although his State is not wheat? North Dakota farmers, for example, planted concerned with wheat-raising problems, Mr. LANGER. That is correct. almost 9.5 million acres of wheat on the
nevertheless spoke in behalf of the joint Mr. CARLSON. Do I also correctly average of the last 12 years; loss of exports
resolution, and voted for it. As one who understand that, aside from Great Britof wheat would require an acreage reduction (using 1945-52 average ratios) of approxi
comes from a State in which wheat is ain, the countries which were signatory mately 3.2 million acres in the North Dakota raised, I desire to pay tribute to the to the last treaty or agreement are sigwheat acreage.
distinguished Senator from Georgia, natory to the new one? The International Wheat Agreement is a who, although as I have said, repre- Mr. LANGER. Yes. In fact, more man-made international institution that sents a state in which wheat is not countries have signed the new one. would put a little certainty into an other raised, nevertheless felt that agriculture Mr. CARLSON. I am very happy to wise highly uncertain situation. World
as a whole will be benefited by the pas learn that. I regret sincerely that Great wheat supply has been increasing rapidly, 25 percent in the past year. United States exsage of the joint resolution.
Britain has refused to sign the new
Mr. CARLSON. ports this year are down. We shall be lucky
Mr. President, will agreement. I hope that as time passes to export as much as 300 million bushels of the Senator from North Dakota yield to she will have a change of heart and will wheat during the year ending June 30, 1953. me?
sign the agreement. The International Wheat Agreement United The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. I understand that the reason why States quota of 253 million bushels was a
FLANDERS in the chair). Does the Sen- Great Britain refused to sign the agreebig factor in preventing exports from falling
ator from North Dakota yield to the ment was because of the difference beeven further. The absence of a new agreeSenator from Kansas?
tween $2 a bushel and $2.05 a bushel. ment would mean trouble-bad trouble.
Mr. LANGER. Failure to ratify the proposed agreement
Mr. LANGER. That is correct, and may result in the later renegotiation of a Mr. CARLSON. I wish to commend that difference would have cost Great less favorable agreement as was experienced the distinguished Senator from North Britain $8,500,000. in 1949 compared to the agreement not rati. Dakota, the chairman of the subcom- Mr. CARLSON. It seems to me that fied in 1948. We respectfully urge the rati- mittee that conducted the hearings on is a very small amount to constitute a fication of the proposed agreement.
this important measure. I think the basis for Great Britain's refusal to enter Mr. LANGER. During the life of the Senate and the country are indebted to into the agreement, which will not only agreement of 1949 there was not a single the members of the full Committee on be of assistance to the international occasion where penalties had to be ap- Foreign Relations which reported this trade in wheat, but also will be in furplied by the council. I think that is a agreement, and are indebted to the Mem- therance of international good will. tribute to the good faith of all the bers of Congress and the representatives Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the parties.
of various farm groups and the repre- Senator from North Dakota yield to me? The subsidy is not excessive in terms sentatives of the State Department who Mr. LANGER. I yield. of the good that will result, and private served in working out the agreement,
Mr. CASE. In the opinion of the distrade should flourish under the agree
which I believe to be a very fair and very tinguished Senator from North Dakota, ment. There has been no opposition to good one.
what will be the effect of Great Britain's the agreement. Indeed, the flour inter- If I correctly understood the distin- failure to sign the agreement? ests and grain trade have now changed guished Senator from North Dakota, the Mr. LANGER. It will mean that our their original opposition to support. result will be not only to increase the quota will be reduced. The report conAdequate provisions are made for escape bushel allotment for the United States, tains a table showing how much the from embarrassing situations, and testi- but also to increase the price which will quota of each one of the exporting counmony before the committee makes clear be paid.
tries will be reduced. that agricultural groups believe that
Mr. LANGER. Yes; it is estimated Mr. CASE. Is there a possibility that prices set up under the agreement are the price will be increased from $1.80 to Great Britain will reconsider; and does fair and equitable. $2.05.
the agreement make provision for future Finally, Mr. President, the Committee Mr. CARLSON. Do I correctly under- participation by other countries, in case on Foreign Relations voted out its own
stand that the subsidies under the new Great Britain does have a change of resolution. Senate Joint Resolution 97 International Wheat Agreement should mind? is designed to implement the new agree
be considerably less than the ones we Mr. LANGER. I understand the nement by extending the implementing have been paying during the past 4 gotiations still continue, and we have legislation covering the 1949 agreement years?
hope that Great Britain will sign the so that it will cover the new agreement.
Mr. LANGER. Yes; it is estimated by agreement. So a way has been left open The committee recommends that the the Department of Agriculture that the for Great Britain to sign the agreement, Senate approve the International Wheat subsidy will be approximately 40 cents and we hope she will do so. Agreement and pass Senate Joint Reso
a bushel, in contrast to the average of Mr. CASE. Do I correctly understand lution 97.
62 cents a bushel under the old agree- that ratification of the agreement at this
ment. Before closing my statement, Mr. Pres
time will not make it impossible for ident, I wish to pay tribute to the dis
Mr. CARLSON. I think that is very Great Britain to join in the agreement tinguished Senator from Kansas [Mr. ing considerable sums of money for sub- cide to do so?
important, because we have been spend if, upon reconsideration, she should deCARLSON], who testified before the com
sidies in connection with the shipment Mr. LANGER. That is correct. mittee. He was perhaps as well in
of wheat in international trade. The Mr. CASE. I thank the Senator from formed regarding the contents of the
reduction of the subsidy from 62 cents a North Dakota. International Wheat Agreement as was
bushel to 40 cents a bushel not only will Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, in view any member of the subcommittee. He
be welcomed by the taxpayers of the of the fact that I come from the great testified in favor of the adoption of United States, but I am sure also will be wheat-producing State of Montana, I am the agreement. He made it clear that very much welcomed by the wheat grow. very anxious to have the agreement aphe knew from the experience he had had ers of the Nation, who will be most happy proved by the Senate.
The decline of farm income, which is The following table indicates the wide rangements to make excess food-producstill unchecked, is one of the most serious variations in export sales:
ing capacity useful in a war on want. threats in our economy today.
I should like to see this Nation a partFarm prices have dropped further and
ner to permanent arrangements, cover
Net exports faster than the prices of other commod
consumption ing all food and fiber, to carry on the ities. Farmers are in a pinch between
crusade for freedom from want, one of low prices for what they sell and rela
Million Million the freedoms which Franklin D. Roose. tively higher prices for what they must
velt set as a postwar goal for the vic1927-28
680 buy. The parity ratio, reflecting the re- 1932-33
725 torious democratic nations of the world. lationship between prices received and 1938-39.
717 The International Wheat Agreement 1946–47
771 prices paid by farmers, stands at 94.
is a step in that direction, a short step, Last week, Mr. President, we passed a
but a worthwhile step. It signifies Amer1949-50.
683 wheat-allotment bill, now
ica's willingness to cooperate with other ference. That bill proposes a minimum 1951-52
678 nations in this field. I sincerely hope 1952-53.
692 acreage allotment next year approxi.
that in consideration of our own well mately 10 percent under the 67 million
being and our international goals the acres of wheat being harvested this year. The International Wheat Agreement, Senate will consent to the agreement by While I hope that allotment figure may Mr. President, represents an effort to a very large majority. be raised somewhat as a result of the bring some stability to our export mar- Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I thank conference with the House, there un- ket and at the same time assure import- the Senator from Montana for his condoubtedly will be a reduction from this ing nations a stable supply of this food- tribution to the debate. He has always year's acreage. In my opinion, allot- stuff at relatively stable prices.
been a warm and sincere friend of agriments will be accepted by the farmers in If the wheat agreement is not ratified, culture. We have always counted upon referendum, although it will mean fur- and if this minimum export market is him as being one of the best friends the ther reduction in total agricultural in- not assured, I see no alternative in the farmers of our State have had. come, not reflected in the parity ratio, years ahead but for American agricul- Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I sugfor it involves amount of production, ture to adjust to considerably smaller gest the absence of a quorum. rather than price.
wheat acreages-to a "safe" production The PRESIDING OFFICER. The The present extremely serious situa. based on minimum exports which, in my clerk will call the roll. tion would be greatly worsened if the opinion, would be deplorable for both The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the Senate were to fail to give consent to the practical and policy reasons.
roll. International Wheat Agreement. Our The reduction of agricultural income Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I ask export markets for agricultural products would have serious economic conse- unanimous consent that the order for has been declining. The agreement quences within agriculture and for the a quorum call be rescinded, and that gives the United States a tentative export whole country. It would be a depressing further proceedings under the call be quota of 270 million bushels of wheat, factor.
dispensed with. a floor under wheat exports for the next
It would restrict and draw back our The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 3 years, which will help to stabilize prices production of a vital defense material in objection to the request of the Senator in the markets. Inasmuch as it assures a critical preparedness period. Unfor- from Kansas? The Chair hears none, such exports, and stabilizes the markets tunately we still have no assurance that, and it is so ordered. for wheat, it slows the increasingly seri, at almost any time, we may need ex- The Senate has before it for ratifica. ous recession in agricultural prices and panded wheat production instead of re- tion the agreement revising and renewincome, and is of benefit to the economy duction to meet the requirements of a ing the International Wheat Agreement of the whole Nation. shooting war.
of 1949. I hesitate to think, Mr. President, what Third, it would reduce our production If there be no amendment to be promay happen in the markets tomorrow if of one of our best weapons for peace- posed, the agreement will be reported to the Senate withholds its assent from this foodstuffs that are desperately needed the Senate. agreement, which is considerably more
by two-thirds of the peoples of the world. The agreement was reported to the favorable than the 1949 agreement in
On March 11, Mr. President, I intro- Senate without amendment. terms of price. The maximum is $2.05 duced on behalf of a bipartisan group of The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resper bushel—up 25 cents from the expir. Senators a joint resolution aimed at the olution of ratification will be read. ing agreement. The minimum $1.55 is creation of an international food re- The legislative clerk read the resolu. 35 cents per bushel higher than the serve, a permanent agency to take sur- tion of ratification, as follows: effective minimum of the expiring plus food production wherever it exists
Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators presagreement. and make it available to peoples who are
ent concurring therein), That the Senate Much of our favorable export position ill-clothed and ill-fed.
advise and consent to the ratification of Exin recent years has been accounted for
I believe very strongly that we should ecutive H, 83d Congress, 1st session, a certiby our foreign-aid programs. In the fis- create such an agency to wage an offen- fied copy of the agreement revising and recal year 1948–49 about two-thirds of sive with food and fiber for peace in sive with food and fiber for peace in newing the International Wheat Agreement,
in the English, French, and Spanish lanour agricultural exports were financed the world. by various economic funds. By fiscal
At that time I quoted Norris E. Dodd,
guages, which was open for signature in
Washington, April 13 to 27, inclusive, 1953, year 1951–52, only about one-fifth was Director General of the World Food and
and was signed during that period on behalf so financed. This stimulus to export is Agriculture Organization, as follows: of the Government of the United States of still shrinking. Wheat exports declined Believe me, it's a dangerous business. America and the governments of 44 other
countries. one-third last year, helping to bring on Hungry people are likely to follow any leader the necessity for the allotments which who comes along and promises more to eat
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The and a little better conditions of living. It we voted last week. We are approachused to be that people just lay down and
question is on agreeing to the resolution ing the time, obviously, when there will starved to death dumbly, as I have seen
of ratification. be little or no stimulus to exports through cattle freeze to death huddled together Mr. FREAR. Mr. President, just a our aid appropriations.
against a drift fence when one cow could moment. Is the Senate about to vote The fluctuations, the lack of stability, have led them through. People don't do that on the question of ratifying the agreein the United States export market has any more. They figure they might better be
ment? slaves to a dictator than die of starvation. historically plagued farmers with alter
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The nate shortages and surpluses of some It will be an extremely serious day Chair will state for the information of agricultural commodities, and with al- when news goes abroad to the hungry the Senator from Delaware, who has ternate ups and down in prices.
people of the world that the United just entered the Chamber, that the quesWheat has particularly suffered from States has idled millions of acres or has tion is on the ratification of the agreethese ups and downs.
refused to cooperate in international ar- ment.
Mr. FREAR. Mr. President, I should Mr. LANGER. It would include all Mr. CARLSON. I hope no effort will like to ask 1 or 2 questions of the spon- the countries with available dollars. be made to reduce the period to 1 year, sor of the resolution, who, I understand, Mr. FREAR. In the event a country for the reason that it is very difficult to is the distinguished senior Senator from does not have the dollars, what then? get 46 or more nations together to make North Dakota (Mr. LANGER).
Mr. LANGER. In that case, it would an agreement. We have recently conThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the not be required to take the wheat.
cluded a 4-year agreement. This is a Senator from North Dakota yield to the Mr. FREAR. If they do not have the 3-year agreement.
3-year agreement. I think 3 years is a Senator from Delaware for the purpose dollars and do not take the wheat we sufficiently short time. There is a proof interrogation?
shall not sell the 270 million bushels. vision whereby nations can withdraw by Mr. LANGER. I shall be glad to an- Mr. LANGER. They undoubtedly will resolution. I am in sympathy with the swer any question I can.
take it, because the agreement has been wishes of the Senator from Delaware, but Mr. FREAR. For how many years is in effect since 1948. Every country has in this case I think 3 years is not inapthe agreement intended to be operative? met its obligation up to the present time. propriate. Mr. LANGER. For 3 years.
Mr. FREAR. I understood the dis- Mr. FREAR. I do not think there is Mr. FREAR. Of the major countries, tingzished Senator from North Dakota a Member of the Senate who comes from how many of them have ratified the new to say that the United Kingdom is now a finer State than is the State of Kansas, agreement?
withdrawing for a particular reason, and I have very great confidence in the Mr. LANGER. Forty-five importing namely, that it thinks it can get wheat at ability of the Senator from Kansas to and 4 exporting countries are in the a lower price. If that be true with re- think clearly, but, inasmuch as we have process of ratifying it. The Senator will spect to the United Kingdom, why are extended the Reciprocal Trade Agreefind the names of those countries in the we in the wheat agreement?
ments Act for 1 year and have estabreport. The list includes four large Mr. LANGER. Because we are satis- lished a commission to study the situawheat-exporting countries, namely, the fied that every one of the other 45 nations tion, I do not know that we are doing United States, Canada, France, and will take their quota at the maximum the right thing if we extend this agreeAustralia.
price. Any time the United States wants ment for 3 years. If we do so, I think Mr. FREAR. Has the United King- to do so it can withdraw.
we shall be bound to extend other agreedom agreed to it?
Mr. FREAR, At any time?
ments for 4 years. Conferences have Mr. LANGER. No.
Mr. LANGER. Yes.
been held regarding rubber, copper, and Mr. FREAR. Will the distinguished Mr. FREAR. On how much notice? other commodities produced in other Senator tell us why, in his opinion, the Mr. LANGER. There is a provision parts of the world, and we shall be asked United Kingdom has not agreed to it? whereby the wheat council takes a vote, to enter into some type of agreement
Mr. LANGER. The objection is to and England can come in if it wants to concerning them. Such an agreement paying $2.05 a bushel, which, it is come in.
has not yet been presented to us. If in claimed, is 5 cents too much. I call at
Mr. FREAR. I have understood that the case of wheat we enter into an agreetention to the testimony on this subject, at any time within the 3-year period the
ment for a 3-year period, we may be particularly that of Mr. Stevens, vice United Kingdom could come in.
setting a precedent which will cause president of General Mills, of Minne
Mr. LANGER. That is correct.
difficulty. Since we have extended the apolis, who is an expert and who has been
Mr. FREAR. Did we not recently pass Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act for heard as a witness for 29 years. Mr. in the Senate a measure which had pre
1 year and have established a commisStevens attended all the negotiations in viously been passed by the House extend
sion to study and make representations 1948, and again this year. It is his be
ing the Reciprocal Trade Agreements to the legislative body, it appears to lief that the United Kingdom refused to Act?
me that we may be going out of our ratify the agreement in the hope that it
Mr. LANGER. That is correct.
way in making this 3-year agreement. will be able to buy the wheat at dumping
I believe there have been conferences
Mr. FREAR. Does not the Senator prices.
with respect to cotton and other agrithink the time prescribed in this agreeMr. FREAR. How much are the
cultural items. This agreement perwheat exporters of this country guaranment is too long a period when the Re
tains only to wheat. teed? ciprocal Trade Agreements Act has been
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I apMr. LANGER. They are guaranteed
extended for only 1 year? from $1.55 to $2.05 a bushel.
Mr. LANGER. The United States tried preciate very much the position which
the Senator from Delaware has taken, Mr. FREAR. And And for how many
to get an agreement for 1 year. Canada, bushels ? on the other hand, wanted an agree
As he knows, I, too, am greatly inter
ested in the study which is to be made Mr. LANGER. That will depend upon
ment for 4 years. The period of 3 years what England does. The reduction in was arrived at as a compromise.
of our international trade policies. It
is important, if such a study is made, quotas resulting from nonparticipation
Mr. FREAR. Is it the Senator's per
that agricultural products be included by the United Kingdom would be, on the sonal opinion that a 1-year extension of
in the study. This agreement has noth4-year average of sales, 177 million the agreement might be timely, inasmuch
ing to do with tariffs. It has a great bushels. The 1949 agreement called for
as we have extended the Reciprocal Trade deal to do with international trade. a total of 577 million bushels; the reAgreements Act for 1 year?
There was some thought of trying to vised agreement calls for 595 million
Mr. LANGER. I would be in favor of write a 1-year agreement, but the counbushels.
1 year, and the American representatives tries that have subscribed to this InterMr. FREAR. But we are guaranteeat the conference were in favor of 1
national Wheat Agreement refused to ing the American producers of wheat a year.
consider the matter on a 1-year basis. total exportation of how many bushels ?
Mr. FREAR. Would the Senator ac- They want to know definitely for years Mr. LANGER. They are guaranteed cept on behalf of his committee an
to come where they can expect to get a total of 595 million bushels, 177 million
amendment extending the agreement for their wheat. To them it is more imporbushels less if England does not sign the 1 year?
tant than it is to the United States. agreement.
Mr. LANGER. No, because it would
Mr. FREAR. I do not know that I Mr. FREAR. Am I correct in my
ruin the entire agreement. It would would think any differently than the im. understanding that the quota for the
have to be resubmitted to all the other porting countries think as to this agreeUnited States, under the revised agree
nations involved, and it must be ratified ment. But we as an exporting nation ment, would be 270 million bushels, for before the 15th of July.
are agreeing to export 270 million bushels the duration of the agreement?
Mr. FREAR. Then I take it that the of wheat. I agree with that. I know Mr. LANGER. That is correct, for representatives of our Government have we have to export that amount of wheat each year.
already signed, so far as their ability to if we are going to continue to produce Mr. FREAR. And there is a guaranty
do so is concerned, depending upon rati- wheat as we are now doing, but we are of $2.05 a bushel. Is that correct? fication by the Senate?
tying ourselves down to a commitment Mr. LANGER. That is correct.
Mr. LANGER. That is correct.
with respect to wheat which may result Mr. FREAR. Is there any guaranty Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will in other commitments affecting every as to what countries will be the recipients the Senator from Delaware yield?
article we have to export or import. If of our 270 million bushel of wheat?
Mr. FREAR. I yield.
we have to depend upon the executive branch of the Government to take care The countries to which the United States price down in order to help the people of our exports and imports, and if we is exporting wheat need it badly. They of Europe. The farmers of this Nation are laying down a policy as to wheat, can must have some assurance of future sup- went along with that program, we expect anything different in the case ply. I think the least that can be done
However, now, when we are looking of other commodities? If we are estab
If we are estab. is to try to work out an arrangement with to a future normal production of wheat lishing a guide and saying we are going the various nations of the world as to the and normal outlets for it, I do not think to do this for wheat, are we not obligat amount of wheat they can expect from
we can plan on a year-to-year basis; it ing ourselves with reference to many this country or some other country, and is necessary to plan further into the other commodities we may want to ex- how much the United States plans to future. port or to import. export.
Mr. FREAR. Perhaps the Senator Mr. CARLSON. In view of the com- There is considerable flexibility in the has misunderstood me. I do not say petition we are receiving from Canada agreement with respect to price. I be
we should plan on a year-to-year basis. and Australia, we shall be fortunate if we
lieve the price ranges from $1.55 to $2.05 My opinion is that the wheat agreecan conclude a 3-year agreement for ex- a bushel. Based on present cash prices ment might be extended for 1 year. porting 270 million bushels of wheat. of wheat in the United States, there will Perhaps after that it could be extended France is a party to the agreement. be practically no subsidy at all. At for from 3 to 5 years. Argentina and Russia are not parties present cash prices the cost now will be
All the Senator has said is additional to it. It is important that we try to between 5 and 10 cents a bushel, as
proof that the participating nations make sure, if possible, an exportation against about 60 cents a bushel a year
should have confidence in the United of 270 million bushels of wheat. It is ago.
States. They see now that we have important from our own standpoint be
Mr. FREAR. No doubt what the Sen
wheat, and they know we expect to have cause we will have on July 1, 1954, a surator has said is accurate, and the argu
wheat. We shall not let them starve, plus of 750 million bushels of wheat. ment is very logical. But I believe what
if they will permit us to ship the wheat. Last Saturday the Senate passed a bill he has said with respect to animal con
By the way, if they do not have dollars, to provide for an acreage allotment of sumption of wheat helps my side of the
if they cannot buy it with American 61 million acres of wheat in the United argument a little, because we must de
dollars, the United States will let them States. It has gone to conference, and pend on human consumption if 690 mil
have the wheat anyway. If we do not the conference report will probably be lion bushels of wheat a year are to be
enter into an agreement, we shall let used. submitted tomorrow. That bill provides
them have the wheat.
By the same token perhaps we should for an acreage reduction of approxi
We should have an annual undermately 20 percent. That is a large relook at the whole picture and not make
standing. I believe foreign countries are duction to ask any producer to take, but an agreement affecting wheat alone, be
entitled to have some assurance, as the I think it is in the interest of good Govcause the United States will have to
Senator has said, but I believe our recdepend on imports of copper, lead, ernment economy. Under this agree
ord shows our sincerity with the people ment the subsidy will be reduced from zinc, and many other materials, fer
of the wheat-consuming nations of the 60 cents to 40 cents a bushel. I think it rous and nonferrous, and, of course, there
world. They will agree that when they are other agricultural products besides is a very good agreement.
have been in trouble we have come to wheat. Mr. FREAR. I thank the Senator,
So, in view of the proposal already ap
their assistance. When they have been I
short of dollars we have given them admiration for the fine wheat-producing proved by Congress to establish a commission to make an inquiry, it would ap
dollars. When they have needed our State of Kansas. I desire to protect the
other products from time to time we farmers to the maximum extent, but I pear to me that the countries participating in the wheat agreement should see
have come to their assistance so far as cannot let this agreement be ratified without expressing some fear as to what the position in which the United States possible. I should say on behalf of par
ticipating countries that, in many infinds itself and say, "Yes, we will give you it will do. It may have repercussions on
stances, they have come to our rescue. a 1-year extension of the agreement, to other parts of our economy. the end that you may study the problem.
So it is necessary to have mutual coIf what the Senator says is true—and we have had faith in you in the past. operation in the wheat agreement. I I know it is in July 1954 we shall have We know you have given us wheat in the
do not want any Senator to think that a surplus of 750 million bushels. I be. past when we have been hungry, and
I am opposed to an agreement such as lieve the crop report for this year prehave given us dollars in the past when we
has been proposed, or anything like it. dicts somewhat over 1 billion bushels of have been insolvent.”
I simply say that I believe this is not the wheat. The normal human consumption of wheat in this country is probably should give credit to the United States
I believe the participating countries proper time to extend the wheat agree
ment for 3 years, in the light of all the only approximately 500 million bushels for using good judgment and sensibil
things we shall have under observation if it is that much. If we have a billion ity in many instances, and say, "Yes,
during the next 12 months, which will bushels, plus 750 million bushels, we we will go along for 1 year.” After the
have to come before the Senate followshall have nearly 2 billion bushels of
whole problem has been studied, it might ing the submission of reports. wheat, which represents 4 years of norbe to the distinct advantage of many
After we have seen the reports, we mal human consumption in the United foreign countries which are buying from
may, as I have said, wish to extend the States.
us, as well as to ourselves to have a agreement for 5 years. Or we may not The Senator will say that that is a longer extension. After the program has
want a wheat agreement or a metal strong argument why we should export been developed we might then consider
agreement or any agreement with for270 million bushels of wheat. I admit a longer extension, I am not saying
eign countries at all. I do not know there is a fair basis for that argument there should not be a wheat agreement.
what the answer may be, but I believe but I believe we cannot overlook all the My position is that I doubt that this is
we have supplied a large number of dolother features of our economy, even the time to extend the wheat agreement
lars from our Treasury to continue the though it might be thought best to have for 3 years.
wheat agreements. May I inquire of a wheat agreement.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, will the
the Senator from Kansas or of either of Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
the Senators from North Dakota the Senator yield?
Mr. FREAR. I yield.
cost of past wheat agreement? Can the Mr. FREAR. I yield.
Senator from Kansas advise me the cost Mr. YOUNG. In the years following
to the Treasury ? Mr. YOUNG. I wish to comment on World War II, when there was an exthe figures the Senator from Delaware treme shortage of wheat and sugar, the
Mr. CARLSON. The senior Senator has used. The Senator said the human world wheat price was $5 or $6 a bushel.
from North Dakota can answer the quesrequirements would be about 490 million Prices were held down in the United
tion. bushels. Beyond that amount, however, States to around $3 or $3.50 a bushel. Mr. LANGER. It has cost $565 milthere are other requirements which must Farmers in the United States could have
lion. be met for feed and seed. The basic re- gotten $4 or $5 a bushel or more. But Mr. FREAR. It has cost $565 million quirements are about 690 million bushels. the United States Government kept the to the taxpayers of the United States