Page images
PDF
EPUB

for the wheat agreement. How many years does that cover?

Mr. LANGER. Four years.

Mr. FREAR. We have concluded a 4year agreement at a cost of more than half a billion dollars. What is the anticipated cost for the next 3 years?

Mr. LANGER. It will be considerably less. It will probably be about $100 million a year.

Mr. FREAR. For a total of 3 years? Mr. LANGER. For a total of 3 years. Mr. FREAR. Does the Senator think that the United States can afford to subsidize wheat production in this country without limitation to the tune of either $600 million or $150 million, or whatever the cost may be, to the exclusion of other producers in the agricultural field or producers in the industrial field?

Mr. LANGER. My answer is that I believe we cannot afford not to do it. We cannot afford to allow other nations, such as Argentina and Russia, supply the demand, thus causing the American farmer to be caught with a mountain of wheat.

I think we are the luckiest people in the world to be able to participate in a wheat agreement negotiated for 3 years. The importing countries said, "We will buy the wheat, but we want a 3-year contract. To get it at this particular price, we will raise the price 40 cents a bushel." I think that was a mighty fine achievement.

Mr. FREAR. I do not deny what the Senator has said regarding the people who were interested in bargaining for a wheat agreement on behalf of the United States; I have the greatest admiration for them. Perhaps they have obtained the best agreement they could for the benefit of the economy of the United States and the farmers of the country. I want the Senator to know, too, that I have much sympathy for the farmer who produces wheat, just as I have for the broiler industry in the State of Delaware, and of producers of other agricultural products, not excluding any segment of the agriculture of the United States. There are many other segments of agriculture in the United States. I admit that wheat is basic, and I favor protecting wheat, but also I do not wish to exclude other segments of our agricultural economy.

Mr. LANGER. We are very anxious to have Missouri sell all the mules it can possibly sell, and to have Delaware sell all the broilers it can sell. But there is an enormous surplus of wheat, and a good agreement is needed, one which will afford us an opportunity to dispose of 270 million bushels a year. I think we have made a good deal, and I think we ought to take advantage of it.

ties. It is used to help export them and I do not think that would be logical. I to support prices.

Mr. FREAR. I understand that, but the Senator will also agree that if the $100 million were not used for wheat, it could be used for other purposes. Mr. YOUNG. For perishable commodities.

Mr. FREAR. That is correct.

I should also like to direct a question to either the Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON] or the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. LANGER]. I shall not delay the Senate much longer.

We are overproduced at the present time so far as the consumption of wheat in this country is concerned. We shall either have to reduce the production of wheat or suffer from further surpluses. If nature does not take care of the situation we shall have to establish controls or find greater export markets, either for cash, give-away, or some other method, because our storage facilities are now breaking at the seams and we are frantically looking for places-even ship bottoms-in which to store this year's wheat crop.

Suppose the producers of the country other than the producers of wheat-perhaps the producers of corn or cotton, so far as agriculture is concerned-were to find themselves in the same position. What would be the position of this body in regard to those people?

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

Mr. FREAR. I yield.

Mr. CARLSON. This year the wheat producers will be forced to take a reduction based upon an order already issued by the Secretary of Agriculture. The order, which was issued on June 29, calls for the reduction of wheat acreage in the United States. Congress will determine in the next day, I hope-because the time expires on July 15-the policy with respect to establishing a national wheat quota and acreage allotments, and the extent to which the reduction shall go. In my opinion there will be at least a 20-percent reduction. That is quite a reduction to ask every farmer who produces more than 15 acres of wheat to take.

They are going to take it. They must take it in order to get advantage of the guaranteed loan price.

I am most sympathetic toward producers of other commodities which are in surplus. I am interested not only in wheat, but in other commodities. A moment ago the distinguished Senator from Delaware asked whether we could afford this program, the cost of which has been $565 million. A serious question is, Can we afford not to do it?

It might be logical to say, "Let us quit producing wheat for 2 or 3 or 4

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

Mr. FREAR. I yield.

Mr. YOUNG. I do not believe this proposal would operate to the exclusion of all other agricultural products. The Senator knows that all the duties and tariffs which are collected go into a fund known as the section 32 fund. It amounts to a little more than $100 million a year, which is used to help the producers of perishable farm commodi

Even if we could stop wheat production in the Nation for several years, we would immediately destroy our economy, and the good people of the Senator's State would be looking for work the next morning if such a thing were to happen.

Mr. FREAR. Mr. President, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the Senator says. I do not believe we could tell the farmers of Kansas that they are not to produce wheat for an entire year.

would not want the Senator to tell me that I could milk my cows only 6 days a week, and let them rest on the seventh, even though I believe in Holy Writ.

I realize that there are certain parts of the economy which cannot be unseated for a particular advantage to any one group or any one nation, or any group of nations. Let me say with all the stress I can place upon the statement that I am not in disagreement with the principle of a wheat agreement. The only thing I am trying to say is that we should extend it for 1 year instead of 3 years, in the light of all we have said and done in this country, and all the commissions we have appointed to study problems, not only with respect to farm products, but with respect to other products. We have appointed committees and commissions and boards to study our total imports and exports. After the reports of commissions come before us we may be in a better position to decide whether we want to extend the agreement for 1 year, 3 years, or 5 years.

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

Mr. FREAR. I yield.

Mr. CARLSON. The distinguished Senator from Delaware suggest that he would be very much opposed to any order or regulation which would permit us to milk our cows only 6 days in the week. I remind him that if we could do that, it would no doubt relieve the butter surplus in a hurry.

Mr. FREAR. I must correct the Senator slightly. I did not say anything about an order being issued. I said I would object if the Senator told me I I could not milk my cows more than 6 days a week. I still believe that the farmers are free, and if they do not want to sign the wheat-acreage allotment agreement or enter into the control program, they do not have to do so.

Mr. CARLSON. Certainly that is correct.

Mr. FREAR. If they do not sign it, they can produce as much wheat as they like.

Mr. CARLSON. With respect to the rules, regulations, and orders which restrict production, the wheat-acreage allotment which will be submitted to the farmers of the Nation must carry by a two-thirds vote, not merely a majority. If two-thirds of the wheat growers do not vote for the wheat-acreage allotment reduction of 20 percent, there will be no wheat-acreage allotment, and loans will go to $1.05 a bushel next year.

Mr. FREAR. I think the Senator from Kansas is strictly in accord with that provision of our Controls Act.

Mr. CARLSON. I am very definitely in favor of acreage allotments and controls when we have guaranteed prices. In fact, that is the only way we can control surpluses.

Mr. FREAR. I am very happy to hear the Senator say that, although I think he has said it before, and I think I have known previously his views on that question. We cannot economically continue to give price supports unless we have some method of controlling the produc

tion of the product whose price we seek to support.

Mr. YOUNG. The International Wheat Agreement, in effect, gives us a Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will two-price system for a part of our wheat the Senator yield?

Mr. FREAR. I yield.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I should like to say to the distinguished Senator from Delaware that so far as his objection to the 3-year extension is concerned, the American delegation did try to obtain a shorter period for an extension of the International Wheat Agreement. Unfortunately, the great majority of the nations concerned agreed to a 3-year extension. Some of them wanted a 5-year extension. At the present time this particular agreement is before the parliaments of most of the countries, and it would be almost an impossibility now to consider a 1-year extension. If we were to do so, the entire agreement would have to be rewritten.

Another thing I should like to bring to the attention of the Senator from Delaware is this: There is no reason why, in the United States, other agreements cannot be worked out covering other prod

ucts. I understand that is one of the objections which the Senator has to the pending proposal.

While I am on my feet, I will say that the chairman of the subcommittee handling this particular measure, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota

[Mr. LANGER] did a magnificent job in the hearings. He certainly tried to protect the interests of all concerned in the course of the proceedings covering this

particular agreement.

It is the hope of the committee that this agreement which is the best we can do at this time, will be ratified as soon as possible, so that under this agreement we can get our share of the world market. The agreement gives us a great deal of security with respect to our surplus wheat. The agreement establishes both a ceiling and a floor, and gives us that much in the way of protection, which otherwise we would not have.

Mr. FREAR. I believe that what the Senator from Montana has said is true. I also say to the Senator from North Dakota that I believe that when he is conducting the affairs of the subcommittee or the committee at all times he is fair to those who present their problems to him as well as to his colleagues in the

Senate.

I do not wish my statement to be considered as any reflection on the ability of the Senators with whom I have had debate. I am quite confident that their ability is of the highest, and that their motives are to do what is best for the farmers of the country. I will go even further than that. I believe that they would not give the farmers any undue advantage over other elements of our society. I think they would be fair to the entire economy, including the farmers. I believe they are perfectly sincere in the attitude they have taken in the hearings and in the proposal they have brought before the Senate for ratification.

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

Mr. FREAR. I yield.

exports. That is very similar to the trade programs or practices carried on by almost every other nation in the world. The Canadians, in the wheat pool, establish an arbitrary and higher price for domestic consumption, and a lower price for export. That is the practice of Argentina, Russia, Argentina, Russia, and almost every other country of the world which exports wheat. I do not know of any other way American wheat producers could compete in foreign markets. I hope some day we can get down to a self-financing program for a two-price system so that we can meet competition from other nations of the world.

Mr. FREAR. I should like to ask another question of the Senator from North Dakota. If the free world market price of wheat or if the free market price in this country falls below $1.55 a bushel, does it have any bearing on the cost?

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. At the present

time cash wheat is selling for as much as 65 cents a bushel below the support level of $2.21 per bushel. many markets in the United States in

There are

which wheat could be purchased and actually a profit made on the purchase. Therefore, at present cash market wheat

prices there would be practically no loss

whatever for international wheat program operations. Of course, prices can go up, too.

Mr. FREAR. Yes. The reason I asked

made very intelligent answers to my questions, and they have sought to do justice to their convictions. I am sure it is unfortunate that the junior Senator from Delaware cannot wholeheartedly agree with their opinions.

Mr. President, I wish to commend again the courage which the representatives of the foreign nations have exemplified in the meeting on the wheat agreement, and I should also like to pay tribute to the representatives of our Government.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names:

[blocks in formation]

Capehart Carlson Case Chavez Clements

Cooper

Cordon
Dirksen
Douglas
Duff

Dworshak

Eastland
Ellender

the question was that the distinguished Ferguson

senior Senator from North Dakota

stated it might cost the Government $100 million over a period of 3 years. I asmined on the basis of the cash wheat sume the figure may have been deterprice in this country, because if the cash price went up the only thing that could affect it would be the loan agreement wheat on which we would have to pay a subsidy, so to speak. In that event, if the price went up 40 cents a bushel, it would amount to more than $100 million.

Mr. YOUNG. If the cash price went up, it would be much more. The agreement in the pact called for $1.80 a bushel.

In the future the price is $2.05 a bushel, which is 25 cents a bushel more than last year.

Mr. FREAR. I realize the sincerity of the sponsors of the agreement, and I realize the sincerity of those who fought for the best interests of the United States in the meeting of the nations when the proposed agreement was entered into by the representatives of the 45 countries.

However, I wish at least to be on record as having expressed myself somewhat in opposition, and as being alarmed, perhaps, in view and in light of what the Senate has done in extending the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act for 1 year, and also with reference to the participation that is expected of members of this Government with other governments in regard to other commodities within the next 12-month period.

It is certainly not my intention to delay action on important bills before the Senate.

I wish to thank the Senators who have answered my questions. They have

Flanders
Frear

George
Gillette

Holland Hunt

Ives

Jackson

Jenner

Potter

Purtell

Robertson

Russell

[blocks in formation]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present.

resolution of ratification. [Putting the The question is on agreeing to the question.] Two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein, the resolution of ratification is agreed to, and the agreement is ratified.

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume the consideration of legislative business.

resumed the consideration of legislative There being no objection, the Senate

business.

AMENDMENT OF INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT ACT OF 1949

Mr. LANGER. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 97, to amend the International Wheat Agreement Act of 1949. The joint resolution is brief, was reported favorably by the committee, and will make applicable to the new International Wheat Agreement the legislation which applied to the International Wheat Agreement of 1949.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PAYNE in the chair). The joint resolution is open to amendment.

If there be no amendment to be proposed, the question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.

The joint resolution (S. J. Res. 97) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed, as follows:

Resolved, etc., That section 2 of the International Wheat Agreement Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 945) is amended by inserting before the parenthesis at the end of the first sentence thereof the following: "and the agreement revising and renewing the International Wheat Agreement for a period ending July 31, 1956, signed by Australia, Canada, France, the United States, and certain wheat-importing countries."

SEC. 2. Reference in any law to the International Wheat Agreement of 1949 shall be deemed to include the agreement revising and renewing the International Wheat Agreement.

CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD POLICIES IN RELATION TO INDEPENDENT CARRIERS

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, last Saturday, when I was giving my weekly report as the representative of the Independent Party, I postponed a brief discussion of certain policies of the Civil Aeronautics Board, stating that I would take up that subject at a later date.

On Saturday afternoon, at a later hour, the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN] inserted in the RECORD a speech he had prepared on the subject of irregular air carriers. His speech will be found in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on page 8572. I am happy to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Alabama on this subject.

Earlier today the Senator from Missouri [Mr. HENNINGS] delivered a brief speech on the general subject matter of the policies of the Civil Aeronautics Board in relation to the so-called independent carriers. At this time I wish to continue that discussion for a few minutes.

Mr. President, during the last few weeks the Civil Aeronautics Board has once again revealed its naked desire to uproot and destroy any seed of competition in the civil aviation field. As I understand it, the chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, the Sentor from Minnesota [Mr. THYE], transmitted to the Civil Aeronautics Board, on June 9, an urgent request that it postpone its enforcement actions against the large irregular carriers until such time as the Senate Small Business Committee has been able to prepare its report and give to Congress and to the Civil Aeronautics Board a constructive solution.

The Board evidently responded to the Senator's suggestion not with words, but with a resounding slap. On the 16th of June, the Board issued an order refusing to dismiss or postpone its move to revoke the operating authority of the North American aircoach system-the model independent operator in the country. In its statement the Board said that it "would proceed with the enforcement of existing requirements in the usual manner." In other words, the Board proposes to follow its pattern of suppressing and exterminating every enterprise which dares to offer common-car

rier service to the general public at low cost-in the interest of protecting the so-called grandfather carriers. Parenthetically, I may say that, in 1938 there were 16 certified grandfather carriers. There are, in 1953, 13 certificated carThere are, in 1953, 13 certificated carriers. It may well come to pass that during the next couple of months, through merger, there may be only 11 certificated companies carrying passengers on the main trunk routes of the Nation.

We have yet to witness the Civil Aeronautics Board issuing one certificate of convenience and necessity in the common-carrier field for trunkline service between two major cities.

We have yet to see an enforcement proceeding against a nonscheduled operator in which there was any doubt whatsoever as to the technical violations of the company involved-and as to the outcome of the proceeding. It would be impossible for any operator to fly large aircraft on the basis of irregularity and infrequency and still maintain any kind of adequate public service. A traveler must know in advance when a plane is going to depart, when it is going to arrive, where he can buy his ticket, and from what place he can collect his baggage. These things cannot be done if the operation is conducted on a trampsteamer basis. The Civil Aeronautics Board knows this better than anyone else. Yet it has designed a series of snares, traps, tightropes, and pitfalls in the guise of economic regulations. If one can run their gauntlet and not be tagged he will discover new rules and new obstacles are immediately contrived to take away the fruits of success.

Its

The regulations which the Board is invoking against the nonscheduled operations in the current proceedings were adopted without any hearings. The Board adopted so-called economic regulations with the avowed intent to put the new enterprises out of business. intention is revealed in written memoranda which were exposed during the recent Senate Small Business Committee hearings when Oswald P. Ryan, Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board, acknowledged the authenticity of the documents which proclaimed the Board's plan to eliminate the nonscheduled operations by erecting economic regulations, adherence to which spells bankruptcy, and violation of which spells prosecution.

The Board's regulations have been so arbitrary and divisive that carriers have been compelled to violate them in order to stay in business. One may term this type of noncompliance "compulsory violation." The Senate Small Business Committee Report of 1951 condemned the CAB's record in enforcement cases against the nonscheduled operations as being "confused and devious." The report further stated that the committee "finds itself in strong disagreement with the Board's admitted policy of banishing all large irregulars on the grounds that they are 'willful violators' of a regulation that seems clearly unreasonable."

Repeatedly, the North American group petitioned the Board for hearings on the regulations in question, and repeatedly such hearings have been refused. Recently the company filed a petition

with the Civil Aeronautics Board asking that it expedite a hearing on the subject of the regulations on which the current proceedings are based. It is interesting to see the basis on which the CAB rejected this petition on July 1, 1953. The Board states:

The question whether the challenged regulation revoked in part the "license" authority of respondent air carriers can better be determined following the compilation of the factual record herein than at the present time. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition be and it hereby is deferred.

In other words, the Board says, "We will try you first and, after we through trying you, we will then take a look at the regulations to see whether they have any validity." Of course, the Board is proceeding on the certainty that it can establish violations of regulations that may be invalid in the case. It will then be in a much stronger position to establish the relevancy of the regulations. Any normal and logical procedure would defer the trial and first examine the validity and basis of the charges. There seems to be an intemperate thirst on the part of the Board which can apparently be satisfied only if this company, the North American Line, the leader of the independent industry, is liquidated.

I know the history of the North American group, and I know the crime with which it is charged. On the record it is charged with having flown too frequently and too regularly. In fact, the North American aircoach system is guilty of having flown too many people, too often, too cheaply, and at the same time made money without public subsidy.

I now apply the statement I made a while ago in regard to the subsidies the Government is paying to the ship industry, to the subsidies it is paying to the aircraft industry, that they should be looked into. If we want to save money for the American taxpayers, let us look into the subsidies. If we want to bring to an end an unwarranted handout, in part, let us take a look at the aircraft subsidies.

The American people are being bilked. The North American Line, given the cooperation of the Civil Aernautics Board, could fly many people at greatly reduced rates, fly them safely, and make a profit, without a subsidy handout. The airlines do not like that suggestion. It would be a bad example. It would encroach upon the retention of the subsidy handout.

Mr. President, I am perfectly willing to have the Government grant reasonable subsidies for carrying mail; but I am just a little tired of hearing all the political baloney about creeping socialism when we are seeking to help the farmers of America, and to protect the consumers of electric power from a galloping monopoly, but do not hear a word about socialism when the shipping interests, and railroad interests and aircraft interests plunge deeply, year after year, into the pockets of the American taxpayer to take what I am satisfied any investigation would show to be an unreasonable amount of the people's money, in the form of subsidy.

That is why I say, Mr. President, to the Civil Aeronautics Board, "If you are bent upon liquidating the nonscheds, take a look at the whole subsidy program of the aircraft industry."

All similar companies who dare to overthrow the encrusted and archaic doctrines of air monopoly are not in the favor of the CAB. I do not think that the large "grandfather" carriers are worried in the slightest over what they call diversion of traffic to the independents. They have recently enjoyed their most successful 2 years-thanks to having been driven into the aircoach business by the example of the independents. They really cannot meet the peak demands of the traveling public. So it is not fear of losing business which motivates their frenzied antagonism to the independents. They are bothered and bewildered by the fact that upstarts, young pilots who actually flew planes in the service of their country during the war, should come into their private domain-the sky over America-and have the audacity to make a success out of air transportation without one cent of Government subsidy. And when I say without one cent of Government subsidy, I include without any subsidy sugar-coated as mail pay whereby the certificated carriers are still nourished at the public trough, although the record would indicate that they received nothing from the Treasury except a compensatory settlement for services rendered. The fact is that the compensatory mail pay is approximately double the rate charged for carrying regular commercial freight for identical handling and is as neat a giveaway as ever was disguised as a legitimate payment. Some weeks ago the distinguished junior Senator from Illinois quoted the old English epigram:

The law is hard on man or woman
Who steals a goose from off the common,
But turns the larger rascal loose
Who steals the common from the goose.

This little jingle dates back to the 18th century, at the time when there was the bitter battle in England over the enclosure of the common pasture.

Mr. President, I submit that the common pasture in the 20th century is the sky. This is the area in which radio, television, and aviation are just beginning to break through the barriers of the unknown. The new frontier of our age lies in the sky. Yet I am shocked and astonished to discover that we have already enclosed this frontier, wrapped it up, sealed it, and delivered it to a few companies in complete violation of the original intention of the Civil Aeronautics Act and certainly in direct opposition to any fair estimate of the public interest.

Mr. President, having mentioned television in the series of business groups

that are seeking to enclose the air, as the old Common of England was enclosed or attempted to be enclosed, because of a selfish view, let me by way of digression for a moment say that in my judgment, Congress had better proceed without delay to a charitable examination of the whole question of protecting educational television. We had better look

into it not only from the standpoint of its use as an educational medium, but we should look into it also from the standpoint of protecting pure politics. If we do not do something about that aspect of television, exercising as it does now a powerful campaign force, which, no doubt, will be greater in the future, candidates for office are going to be at the mercy of powerful economic forces which control politics. Conditions have reached such a point now that poor men can hardly afford to run for office. There are many who feel, although I have not completely come to share this point of view as yet, that television is now the most important factor in a campaign. Whether or not it is, I think we can take judicial notice of the fact that it is a very important factor.

It is important from the standpoint of the political freedom of the American people that they be not shut off from free campaigns. When I use the word "free" in that sentence, Mr. President, I mean free in the sense that candidates for office will have the media of the sky through which they can speak to the people without first losing their political freedom.

Mr. President, if I were to write a chapter on American politics as it is practiced today, and be limited to one chapter, I think I would select the subject "Campaign Contributions and Donations and Political Slavery," because men are not going to remain for long free to exercise an honest independence of judgment in American political life if we do not maintain open for them a free medium. That is why I believe the people have the right to look to their elected representatives to adopt precautionary procedures now to assure that television will be used as a force for political enlightenment during a campaign,

rather than as a clever device for censorship or the dissemination of one-sided political information during a campaign, because of the fact that poor men running for office will not have the funds with which to put on a television campaign.

That is why, in my opinion, serious consideration should be given, and at a very early date, to the whole subject of the public's responsibility in financing political campaigns, at least from the standpoint of television time, because every Senator, whether we agree with the man running for office or not, has a vital interest in the position which candidates for office take on the issues.

We shall do great damage to representative government if we permit the general domain of the sky to be taken over by selfish economic groups to the exclusion of the public generally. Once the licenses are granted, once the channels have been marked, once the decisions for channelizing the air become established and legal rights are vested, it is much more difficult to adopt the regulations which should be adopted. I am convinced, Mr. President, that this is one of the most serious problems facing the American people, so far as free elections are concerned. There will be no free elections in America, if we ever come to the time when poor men running for office do not have available to

them the television media at an expense cost they can afford to pay.

That problem is also somewhat related. to the main subject matter I am discussing today in connection with the air rights of the nonscheds. Let it be clearly understood that I hold no brief for any air company, scheduled or nonscheduled, which does not conform to the strictest of safety practices. But the bugaboo raised by the scheduled lines against the nonscheduled lines is a psychological argument which they have a hard time establishing. I refer to the question of air safety. There is no reason in the world why nonscheduled airlines cannot meet every safety requirement of scheduled airlines. But once the safety factor is taken care of, I am not in favor of cutting up the skies over America into pieces of economic pie and handing them out to so-called grandfather companies, because I take the position that, in a very real sense, the sky is not ours out of which to make economic pie. The sky ought to be subject to availability for use by individuals, companies, and the Government, in whatever manner is necessary to promote the general welfare.

I feel that in making these criticisms of the Civil Aeronautics Board and of its policies and procedures, I am making an argument focusing attention on the need of protecting the general welfare, which, in my judgment, the present policies of the Board are not doing.

A hundred years ago, when the battle of the railroads was taking place, it was easy for the public to see what was going on. The township sites of vast and rich

properties which were turned over to the railroads could be seen by everyone. It took a relatively short time before the public became indignant and aroused. The battle of the public versus the railroad monopolies helped to create the populist movement, the progressive movement, the nonpartisan movement, the farmers' labor movement, and the great liberal farm organizations which swept the prairies and engulfed the West a generation ago.

But the business of taking the air is a much subtler and neater trick. The

public cannot see a certificate of convenience and necessity, an exclusive route in airspace, or a chosen instrument. The air is being cut up and carried away in the portfolios of lawyers, lobbyists, and pliant politicians who deal in such intangibles as franchises in the sky. Enclosing the air over America for private monopoly is the neatest trick of the 20th century.

Because of the very invisible nature of the air, we must have a regulatory agency which is independent of the industry it is charged with regulating, which has no bonds, harnesses, or lead strings to the industry, a body which is never submissive, obedient, or servile to any group or any special interest in aviation. Yet the Civil Aeronautics Board is a classic example of a regulatory agency moving along a course directly in line with the interests of large certificated carriers. By its servility, the CAB has shown that it is the chosen

instrument of the ATA, the Air Transport Association, the trade association of the monopoly-minded carriers.

The Board's handling of the independent nonsubsidized segment of the industry appears to be but one manifestation of bad regulation on the part of this administrative agency. I have had called to my attention recently the opinion of the Board in a case known as the General Passenger Fare Investigation. This case was started early in 1952 on the basis of tariffs filed by the domestic trunkline mail carriers. These tariffs, in a period of high prosperity and highest profits in the airlines industry, proposed two types of passenger fare increases. They proposed, first, a dollar increase in every passenger fare; and, second, they proposed to eliminate the 5-percent discount on round trips.

To get some idea of the amount of money involved, I might point out that the dollar increase alone would result in an increase of revenues, accompanied by no additional expense whatsoever. In fact, with the immediate approval of the Board, which was had without any hearing or investigation, it did so result. A total of $16 million for the trunkline carriers was extracted from the public by this device. Fortunately, the Board members split in such a way on the elimination of the 5-percent discount that it did not go into immediate effect, but instead was set for hearing.

As a justification of their proposed increase in fares, the carriers and at least one member of the Board made speeches, published articles, and generally publi

cized dire financial forecasts for the entire industry-this in spite of the fact that, as events have proved, and as one Board member, Joseph P. Adams, declared at the time, profits would inevitably increase with inevitable tremendous growth in air transportation. At about the time when the matter was coming up for hearing this year, every trunkline mail carrier filed a petition with the Board to dismiss the proceed ing, because by that time airline profits were so high that it was obvious that if there should be a general fare investigation it could only result in a reduction in fares.

As has been published in the newspapers, the newest member of the Board, Harmar Denny, apparently unaware of the influences of the industry, decided that the fare investigation should go forward in spite of the fact that it would likely result in a reduction of fares for these carriers. Within 10 days thereafter, this member reversed himself, he being the member who could swing the Board one way or the other because of a 3-to-2 split. This member disclosed to a reporter that he had changed his mind after a discussion with the general counsel of the Air Transport Association. In this fashion the industry managed to kill an investigation into the general level of passenger fares, an investigation which could only result in a reduction of those fares to the benefit of air transportation generally, to the benefit of the taxpayers, and to the benefit of the traveling public. With one hand the Civil Aeronautics Board seems to be executing those carriers who originated low fare air coach.

With the other hand the Civil Aeronautics Board is taking those precautions which will keep the scheduled fares at the highest rates possible.

With both hands the Civil Aeronautics Board seems engaged in keeping civil aviation in the grasp of the chosen few. We are well on our way to complete monopoly of the air.

Here we have such an outstanding private enterprise as the North American Aircoach system. Did the Civil Aeronautics Board foresee the possibility of $99 transcontinental service back in 1945, or was it the management of the North American Aircoach system which inaugurated this type of transcontinental service? Was it the Civil Aeronautics Board that thought through and suggested high density seating, or was it the present management of the North American aircoach group that instituted this innovation? Was it the Civil Aeronautics Board which suggested and encouraged the experiment in backward seating arrangements which have just been inaugurated on the North American carriers as a measure of safety, comfort, and improved visibility? No; it was not the Civil Aeronautics Board which encouraged this significant experiment. Nor was it the Civil Aeronautics Board which ever did anything to facilitate the air-bus idea. This plan, now being developed by North American, will enable passengers to fly at 3 cents a mile, exactly half the current 6 cents a mile of the certificated carriers.

When North American sought to order two new DC-6B's from Douglas, and put this type of equipment into the aircoach service-an innovation heartily approved by the military as a valuable addition to our airlift capacity-did the CAB cheer this and help it? The CAB was the only Government agency to stand in the way and kill the priority for this order, and it was only through the cooperation of responsible agencies in the Government, such as the CAA, that the equipment was finally placed

on order.

We search in vain for any example

It

where the Civil Aeronautics Board has shown any leadership in improving and shown any leadership in improving and developing this Nation's aviation. has been quipped, in some justice, I believe, that the CAB is the greatest drag on aviation since gravity.

It is not pleasant to stand on the floor of the Senate and make the severe critiof the Senate in two succeeding sessions cisms which I have made, first of the

I would also have them keep in mind the fact that they are charged with a quasi-judicial responsibility, because they are also judicial tribunals in a very real sense. They have a solemn obligation to see to it, first, that their procedures are fair. I directed my attention to the unfair procedures of the Federal Power Commission on Saturday, and I direct my attention today to what I think has been a very unfair procedure by the Civil Aeronautics Board in handling the problem of the nonscheduled airlines.

Their responsibility, in the second place, is to see to it that they so conduct their investigations and hearings that the adversaries and parties litigant to those hearings are able to make the record on the merits of the position which they take on the issues involved.

Lastly, these administrative tribunals have the obligation of keeping in mind the fact that they sit there not as the servants of the litigants, but as judges between the litigants. They sit there as the servants of the American people, in keeping with the laws which created them. That means that they have the obligation of so administering those laws as to promote the general welfare.

Therefore, as the representative of the Independent Party today in the Senate, I serve notice not only on these two administrative tribunals, but on all administrative tribunals, of my growing concern under this administration with respect to certain policies by those administrative tribunals which apparently are becoming too prototype for the safety of the general welfare, as they proceed in many instances under the new appointees which this administration has added to them. I would have them keep in mind the fact that they are not the instrumentalities of American business. They are the instrumentalities of the American people to promote the general welfare; and whenever I find any administrative tribunal, whether it be the

Federal Power Commission, or in this instance the Civil Aeronautics Board, which starts following the course of ac

tion which those two tribunals have al

ready started to follow under this administration, I propose to take to the floor of the Senate and use this desk and this rostrum to warn the American people of a resulting infringement upon their rights.

I close today with the warning that if the Civil Aeronautics Board does not change its course of action there is great

Federal Power Commission on Saturday, danger that the sky is to be handed out

and of the Civil Aeronautics Board on

Monday. Those criticisms are the result of a very careful investigation which I have made of the procedures of those two administrative tribunals. As a lawyer I do not intend to stand by in the Senate and see administrative tribunals proceed with a policy and a procedural course of action which in my judgment cannot be reconciled with the general welfare.

I would have these administrative tribunals keep in mind the fact that they are not only arms of the executive branch of Government, but also arms of the legislative branch of Government.

to the "grandfather carriers" in the form of pieces of economic pie.

As a warning I would also have the Federal Communications Commission keep in mind the fact that some of us are watching it, too, with regard to the policies it follows in the distribution of television rights. We suggest that the Federal Communications Commission recognize that its responsibility is to see to it that channels are reserved for the educational purposes of television, so that television may become one of the greatest institutions of higher learning and education in our country, uncensored and uncontrolled by any combination of business or economic forces.

« PreviousContinue »