agricultural commodities be substituted for economic aid wherever feasible.

The Senate adopted an amendment by the senior Senator from Arkansas, Mr. MCCLELLAN, which authorized a complicated arrangement whereby the funds appropriated for military assistance under this bill could be converted into local currencies of recipient countries-pounds, lire, francs, etc. The dollars those countries got would be spent by them in this country to buy surplus agricultural commodities which they needed; and their local currencies which we got in exchange for our dollars, would be used by us to buy military end items in their countries.

They would get dollars to spend in this country for farm products; we would get their pounds, francs, lire, to spend in their countries for military hardware. We were told that the plan would be very difficult, if not almost impossible to administer.

Previously bills had been introduced in the House by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. BURLESON] and myself, and in the Senate by Senator SCHOEPPEL, of Kansas seeking to work out a program whereby we could use our surplus agricultural commodities as capital, if you wish, "to expand free world economies by promoting trade and increasing production in friendly nations." These are the long-term ways to deal with the problems presented by underproduction and underconsumption in other lands alongside our production of commodities in excess of our domestic needs.

While the Senate was considering this bill the President sent a message to Congress to the two Committees on Agriculture, requesting legislation authorizing him to grant surplus agricultural commodities to any friendly nation in order to meet famine or other urgent relief requirements of such nation. understand the committees plan to hold hearings on the President's request.

I

Thus, the conference had before it a series of proposals, all dealing with one phase or another of the same general problems; how to use the surplus agricultural commodities which have been or must be bought and paid for by the Commodity Credit Corporation, in ways that will further the purposes of this act, assist friendly countries in need, help expand their economies, their production, their trade, and help promote the security of the free world and thereby our own proper interests.

The proposal submitted by the President was promptly thrown out on a point of order, although I was in favor of such legislation if properly limited and safeguarded. It was already beyond the scope of the conference committee whose sole job is to resolve differences between the House bill and the Senate bill. It involved use of additional commodities, which means additional appropriations. The conference has no authority to authorize additional appropriations. There was nothing like it in either bill, and a similar bill offered as an amendment by my colleague from Minnesota, Senator HUMPHREY, had been rejected by the Senate 54 to 12. Besides, the President already has broader authority to use up to $20 million for aid of any sort

he wants, to any one country, even an unfriendly country, if he determines such aid to be of direct importance to the security of the United States. I presume his offer of food to East Germany yesterday comes under that provision of existing law.

But, with considerable effort and with the help of the Mutual Security Agency, the Bureau of the Budget, the Agriculture Department, the State Department, and the Commodity Credit Corporation, we were able to work out this amendment which you find on page 9 of the conference report, section 706 (h), which I believe establishes a basically new, constructive, and sound policy for using agricultural surpluses in support of our foreign policy and a more prosperous world economy.

Let me give just an outline of its main provisions. It authorizes the President to use agricultural products that have already been bought or will have to be bought by the Commodity Credit Corporation, in lieu of dollars for providing both economic and military aid needed by friendly countries. The President must use these commodities in such a way as to increase production in other countries-agricultural, industrial, and otherwise; to expand trade between them and between them and ourselves; to produce expanding economies in such countries, an expanding world economy, and thereby expanding markets for United States products.

How will it do these things? First, it requires the President to use not less than $100 million and not more than $250 million to finance the purchase of our surplus farm commodities and, second, to sell them in friendly countries, accepting in payment the local currencies of those countries for the account of the United States.

Now, I doubt that he will be able to use $250 million for this purpose because it is a self-limiting thing. It is not a giveaway. He is to sell these commodities and he can sell only where people will and can buy. That is the crux of the matter. I doubt that enough countries will buy them this first year to get up to $250 million. But lest somebody be apprehensive, we wrote in that ceiling. Second, it authorizes him, I repeat, to sell our surplus commodities in friendly countries for local currencies which are not convertible into dollars, and to deposit those currencies to the account of the United States.

Third, he is to use these local currencies to increase the security of the United States and to promote its foreign policy by giving military and economic and technical assistance to friendly countries. Some of the means are:

First. To provide military assistance to eligible countries or mutual-defense organizations.

Second. To purchase goods and services in such countries. It may be that a particular country A does not have the funds to buy something it needs from country B. We can use the local currency we obtain by selling grain to country B in that country or to buy commodities to furnish to country A. Or, we can use the currency to develop agriculture or industry in country B and culture or industry in country B and

then ship its products to country A to the extent that B does not need them.

Here is an example. India has textiles she wants to sell abroad. She needs our grain. We can sell her our grain for her Indian rupees with which we buy her Indian textiles, which we then use for the refugee Arabs in the camps in the Near East. Thereby we need to spend fewer dollars for relief of the refugees.

Again, we can use the currencies of some of these countries, received in payment for our surplus agricultural products, to pay the ocean freight in Greek ships or in Indian ships to ship grain to Pakistan.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JUDD. I am sorry, I would like to finish my statement.

Mr. GROSS. I thought that the New England textile industry was having a bad time.

Mr. JUDD. It is, but the Arabs cannot buy New England textiles. Their currency, even if they had enough, will not be accepted by the New England textile manufacturer. Neither will the Bombay manufacturer accept their currency, but the Bombay producer of textiles will take Indian rupees which we receive in payment for our grain.

Mr. GROSS. Maybe the Egyptians or the Israelites can use them?

Mr. JUDD. If you can find countries that have dollars or currencies that can be converted into dollars, then our problem of granting aid or selling for local currencies will be lessened to that extent.

Mr. GROSS. Yes, but you are going to preclude that.

Mr. JUDD. No. The President sells our surpluses for local currency. With it he may purchase goods in that country or in other countries where the currency can be used, to provide commodities needed in that or other friendly countries which it is in our interest to aid.

Third. The local currency received in a country can be used for loans through regular banking channels or otherwise to increase production of goods and services needed in that country or in other friendly countries.

Fourth. It can be used to develop new markets on a mutually beneficial basis.

Fifth. It can be used for grants in aid to increase production for domestic needs in friendly countries.

Sixth, it can be used to purchase materials for United States stockpiles.

Let me stress the safeguards the amendment provides. First, the President cannot sell these products where it would mean the substitution or displacement of usual American market. It means additions to normal marketings.

Second, he may not sell them at less than maximum world prices prevailing for like commodities of similar quality. This, of course, is to avoid dumping.

Third, he must make sure the purchasing countries will not resell or transship to other countries without the specific approval of the President.

Here is an example of that. Japan's stability is important to our security. Japan has a food deficit. We have surplus wheat. We could send it to Japan,

but the Japanese do not like to eat wheat. However, there is rice in Pakistan that the Pakistanis would like to sell in exchange for wheat which they prefer. So what happens is that by prior arrangement our aid to Japan in the form of wheat is shipped to Pakistan and Pakistan ships her rice to Japan. In that way Japan gets what she wants and Pakistan gets what she wants, and the United States helps both by one shipment of a surplus. But such resale can be arranged only with the approval of the President.

Fourth, to the maximum extent practicable, the President must use private trade channels in carrying out this program.

In summary, this amendment is an effort to help countries in need; to help them with the surpluses which exist in our own country; to help them expand their production and trade as a longterm way to deal with their shortages and our surpluses; and to use our surplus farm products, that are already paid for, as capital in lieu of dollars in the process of helping develop those countries which are underdeveloped in many respects.

Mr. FULTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JUDD. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. FULTON. The question has come up on the use of agricultural surpluses in the program. In this previous fiscal year there was $283.6 million worth of agricultural products used, surplus to this country. That was from July 1, 1952, through May 6, 1953.

$250 million. $250 million. They did not want a higher ceiling because they felt that if any larger amount of the total funds authorized in the bill were used to buy agricultural commodities, it would reduce too much the amount available for military hardware, the furnishing of which is the primary objective of the bill. Much of the military equipment and materials cannot be produced in adequate quantity in other countries and must come from the United States.

Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, there are mainly three schools of thought in schools of thought in America regarding expenditures for foreign aid, foreign rehabilitation, and foreign military assistance. The one opposes any further appropriations for these purposes, the second favors the most liberal expenditures in the foreign field, and the third takes a middle-ofthe-road position between the two.

In the light of definite failures, shortcomings, and noncooperation of our allies with regard to basic foreign policy, I can well understand the viewpoint of those who are unwilling to vote for additional expenditures. It is far more diffiIt is far more difficult for me to understand the viewpoint of those who, despite the known mistakes, despite the clear and tragic failures, despite the general attitude of fence-sitting, appeasement, and worse demonstrated by some of our allies, have still been anxious to vote huge tax levies on the American people to carry out lavish and clearly unjustified foreign spending programs.

As a matter of economics the evidence is abundant that most of the beneficiary nations are currently enjoying higher social and fiscal standards than ever before. Some have been able to balance their budgets with the aid of the funds we provide.

Mr. FULTON. I notice in the con-. ference report that there is a limitation on the maximum that may be used in section 550 (a) of $250 million for surplus United States agricultural commodities.

Mr. JUDD. That is right.

Mr. FULTON. May I call this to the gentleman's attention? If $283.6 million worth of surplus agricultural products were used in 10 months, that would mean $330.9 million worth of agricultural products used in this foreign-aid program in the full fiscal year 1953, just expired.

I want to make sure that you are not putting a limitation of $250 million on the use of these surplus commodities, which would reduce the amount almost one-third, below my amendment in the House, which said that wherever feasible, United States agricultural surpluses should be substituted where they could be used.

Mr. JUDD. Your figure covered grants. This amendment does not. We were told by the Department of Agriculture and other experts that they did not believe this program of selling for local currencies, as contrasted with grants, could possibly run to as much as

They have higher rates of economic prosperity than before World War II prosperity than before World War II and their people are relatively better off.

principle and friendship in order to increase their foreign trade and the evidence shows that they have traded with the enemy-an enemy that is engaged in killing American boys and in a lesser degree killing their own boys.

On the military side, while I do not propose to discuss the question at length, despite our most substantial help, the despite our most substantial help, the NATO nations have not built up as contemplated and are not currently engaged in building up as contemplated that minimum defense force in Europe officially deemed necessary by the experts cially deemed necessary by the experts who were to stave off Communist aggression until the free world can marshal its defenses and move to check this aggression. The testimony of our own military experts is incontrovertible on the point that the NATO effort up to this time is disappointing and inadequate. There are reasons for this. European nations are not anxious to draw ropean nations are not anxious to draw down the ire of the Soviets. They act under a pall of fear. They dread their nations may become atomic battlegrounds not only on the ground but in the air. They all too often leave the job of stopping Russia to the American Air Force and to be sure this force combined with our large storehouse of atomic bombs have furnished the great

deterrent to the Soviet. If it had not been for our Air Force and the atomic bomb, Western Europe would have been overrun long ago. Be that as it may, if nations do not possess the will and purpose to defend their own territories and liberties, certainly no other nation like our own can help them materially. If they lack the morale to protect their own country, if they will not contribute their manpower for common defense against communism, if they will give lip service, but few men and guns to the U. N. campaigns against the Soviets in Asia or in Europe, this Nation is quite limited as to how it can help them. The natural reaction and possibly the best policy in such a situation is to make sure above all that our own Nation is equipped and prepared to face every contingency, prepared for any new Pearl Harbor, prepared to repel any attack against our shores and Territories.

I am convinced that the soft policy toward Russia which we have been and are now following in Korea and elsewhere will lead us to the brink of disaster. No one favors or has worked for peace more earnestly than I. But the road to peace does not lie down the pathway of appeasement. Washington, and not 10 Downing Street, should determine American foreign policy. After all our great and invaluable contributions to victory, as well as rehabilitation, in the light of all our great sacrifices of blood and treasure, we have a moral right to expect wholehearted cooperation from our allies, just as we have always most generously extended it to them. But the plain fact is we have not received that cooperation from those who are most obligated to give it. Instead, we have been confronted with their appeasement of the Soviets and trading with the enemy. emy. There is no moral code and no ethical policy that can justify this kind of conduct, but some of our allies simply say, "We have no policies, we have only interests, and we might as well realistically face the fact that we are dealing with practical materialists who talk world peace and brotherhood and freedom and democracy and voice all the high-sounding shibboleths of the free way of life and its spiritual roots, and then unabashedly give themselves over to crass and sordid materialism and, worse, to the appeasement and aid of Marxism. We will, in my opinion, have greatest difficulty in reconciling ourselves to such a position, and it is time to recognize it. International cooperation, properly implemented, could be the greatest hope of the world. Perverted, it will afford naught save an ironical, cruel hoax upon the gallant dead, the wounded, and their families, and upon the people of America who are paying most of the freight.

I hope the Administrator will move to cope more realistically with the factors in the foreign field I have mentioned and seek to find some way except spending, appeasement, and slaughter of American boys by which international cooperation can be conducted and assured.

In my opinion, sizable cuts should be made in current foreign expenditures. I do not agree that cutting these funds

Miller, N. Y.

Morano

would be either dangerous or unwise. In fact I think that course would be both safe and wise. There are persuasive grounds for ending these expenditures Javits at a comparatively early date. However,

I am willing in the light of our current commitments and the feeling that this continued program will be helpful in our foreign relations to vote for their continuance in substantially limited and restricted form during the next year. I do this with full realization of the gross failures of many parts of the program and only in the hope that they may be brought to an early end.

There is a limit to the capacity of America to provide economic substance and military security to all the nations of the free world. That limit has long since been reached. Let us now revaluate our entire foreign policy and program and put it on a sound basis, economically, militarily, and spiritually, so that our own fiscal position, our own military needs, and our own spirit and morale for the preservation of our freedom may be supported and assured.

And let us, even as we work and pray for peace, yield to no nation in our will and determination to defend our own liberties against Russia or anyone else. Mr. VORYS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the conference report.

The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on the conference report.

Jarman

Johnson

Jonas, N. C. Jones, Ala. Jones, Mo.

Holmes Holt

Jackson

Murray Norblad

Selden

Shelley

Oakman

Sheppard

O'Brien, Ill.

O'Hara, Ill.

Jones, N. C. Judd

O'Neill

Osmers

Ostertag

Patman

Pelly

Perkins

Pfost

Pilcher

Pillion

Poage

Polk

The question as taken; and the Speaker announced that the "ayes" had it. Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that rum is not present.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will count. [After counting.] One hundred and sixty-five are present, not a quorum.

The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll. The question was taken; and there were-yeas 222, nays 109, not voting 100, as follows:

Bennett, Mich.
Bentley
Bentsen
Berry
Bishop
Bow

Brooks, La.
Brown, Ohio
Brownson
Budge
Burdick

Bush Carlyle

Cederberg

Chenoweth

Church
Clardy

Clevenger
Cole, Mo.

Colmer
Coon

Crumpacker

Dague

Addonizio

Preston

Price

Priest

Prouty

Rabaut

Radwan

Rains

Ray

Rayburn

Reams

Richards

Sadlak

Dowdy

Ellsworth

Fisher

Gavin

Gentry

The Clerk announced the following pairs:

Mr. Wigglesworth with Mr. Delaney.

Mr. Bender with Mr. Harrison of Virginia. Mr. Hill with Mr. Keogh.

Mr. Shafer with Mr. Celler.

Mr. Latham with Mr. Hébert.

Mr. Weichel with Mr. Fine.
Mr. Kearney with Mr. Fogarty.
Mr. Sheehan with Mr. Klein.

Mr. Taylor with Mr. Heller.

Mr. Betts with Mr. Sikes.

Mr. McVey with Mr. Dollinger.

Mr. Dolliver with Mr. Addonizio.

Mr. Miller of Nebraska with Mr. Rodino. Mr. Velde with Mrs. Kelly of New York.

Mr. Becker with Mr. Buckley.

Mr. Morano with Mr. Green.

Mr. Fino with Mr. Granahan.

Mr. Golden with Mr. Chudoff.

Mr. Reed of Illinois with Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Westland with Mr. Powell.

Mr. Hyde with Mr. Lanham.

Mr. Ayres with Mr. Lane.

Mr. McConnell with Mr. O'Brien of New York.

Mr. Coudert with Mr. Winstead.
Mr. Cretella with Mr. Multer.
Mr. Patterson with Mr. Roosevelt.
Mr. Phillips with Mr. Sieminski.
Mr. Hand with Mr. Hart.
Mr. Bray with Mr. Howell.
Mr. Carrigg with Mr. Hardy.
Mr. Hruska with Mr. Durham.
Mr. Hope with Mr. Cooley.
Mr. Horan with Mr. Bailey.
Mr. Stauffer with Mr. Barden.

Mr. August H. Andresen, with Mr. McCarthy.

Mr. Bosch with Mr. Kluczynski.

Mr. Scherer with Mr. Morgan.
Mr. Riehlman with Mr. Patten.

Mr. James with Mr. Philbin.

Mr. Miller of New York with Mr. Donohue. Mr. Hinshaw with Mr. Dodd.

Mr. UTT changed his vote from "yea" to "nay."

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

The doors were opened.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

HELEN W. RUSSELL

Mr. LECOMPTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of a resolution (H. Res. 335) providing a gratuity for the widow of the late Sergeant at Arms, William F. Russell, which resolution was introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GRAHAM].

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa? There was no objection.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House to Helen W. Russell, widow of William F. Russell, late Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, an amount equal to 1 year's salary at the rate he was receiving at the time of his death, and an additional amount not to

exceed $350 toward defraying the funeral expenses of said William F. Russell.

The resolution was agreed to, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

AMENDING RAILROAD RETIREMENT АСТ

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 336, Rept. 776) which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 356) to amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, as amended. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and shall continue not to exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

PROPAGANDA AGAINST ROBINSON

PATMAN АСТ

The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PATMAN] is recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual for a small-business man to be overpersuaded by big business propaganda against his own interests. It is not unusual for little fellows over the country to be misled and clamor for the repeal of a law that serves his best interests. We are all susceptible to such clever and devious methods that are used to deceive us. Oftentimes, we do not have information on the other side that would save us from falling into a trap, and having only one side, and it sounds logical and reasonable, we are inclined to believe it and go along with what is advocated.

I have just received a letter from a company in Dallas, Tex., that indicates there is a nationwide effort to fool the independent merchant, since I have received other letters from other sections of the country along the same line. The letter sounds very reasonable, and if the gentleman, Mr. B. R. Hoover, who wrote the letter, is correct, there is a

Now, let's take an example. A store in the town of Mineral Wells, Tex., an independent drygoods retailer with one unit is confronted with a J. C. Penney Store with more than 1,500 units. Anyone with any business sense whatsoever can readily understand that this one-unit store can never hope to buy his goods at prices that will enable him to meet customer retail prices extended by the Penney store.

Now, if this independent store bands together with a number of other single-unit stores to create buying power to enable him to meet this chain competition, your Robinson-Patman Act says that this sort of deal is illegal and is operated in restraint of free trade.

It is my desire to clear this matter up once and for all, as I feel very strongly that the small, independent store is entitled to be given aid instead of restraint in his ever-increasing battle to retain his business from these multiple-chain stores.

I think that it will be best for us to band these independent stores into a group, buy newspaper pages to let the public know how their so-called knights of protection are protecting their interest.

At any rate, I would like very much to have your ideas on this. Are you in favor of allowing these multiple-unit chains squeeze out the one-store owner entirely? If you are not, why not make it possible for them to at least have some ammunition to battle back?

Very truly yours,

B. R. HOOVER.

It will be noticed that the foundation for his charges is based upon an allegation that the Robinson-Patman Act says that it is illegal for independent merchants to band together for the purpose of cooperative buying and advertising to enable them to meet chain store competition. There is nothing in the Robinson-Patman Act that makes such a combination illegal, and how in the world this gentleman received this information and was so easily convinced by it, I am at a loss to understand. The truth is independents are banded together in every major city in the United States for the very purposes Mr. Hoover outlined. They are very successful groups. They are rendering a great service to themselves, which enables them to render a great public service.

Now then, let me discuss for a moment about the chain store competition. It is true that Penney can possibly get a small discount based upon a saving in a quantity purchase due to savings in the cost of maintenance, sale, or delivery. However, this amount is much smaller than is generally supposed and is not enough to cripple the independent merchant as long as the difference in price that Penney pays is no less after these proper deductions. The Penney organization must maintain warehouses just

like wholesalers have to maintain ware

that he expresses. However, the premise upon which he bases his letter is unfounded and incorrect. The letter is as follows:

H. & S. Co., Dallas, Tex., July 10, 1953. The Honorable WRIGHT PATMAN,

Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I notice that you are very much against the Capehart act to allow retailers to meet the chainstore competition and I cannot understand your attitude as you claim to act in favor of the so-called small-business man.

functions to be performed between the manufacturer and the retail outlet, and these functions cannot be dispensed with by any chain organization. Every chain must perform and account for the cost of these functions. Independent merchants and independent wholesalers can compete with the biggest chain organizations in America if the chains are not favored by receiving unjustified lower prices through secret discounts and secret rebates.

LOCAL GROCERIES COMPETE

In the grocery field, which is the most competitive retail field in the United States, local owners of grocery stores are competing with the greatest national chain organizations in the United States every day in the year in most of the cities of the United States under the RobinsonPatman Act. If this law is repealed, most of these independents do not have a chance. There are several bills pending that would destroy this law.

NOT AGAINST BIG BUSINESS

I personally cannot understand why any big-business man should object to competing fairly with the little man; that is all the little man is asking for, just a fair chance and an equal opportunity. I am not against the big man or big business. There is a place in America for both big and little business. I am not asking any special privileges for the little man. All I am asking for, and all the little man is asking for, is equality of opportunity which gives to him the same rights and benefits under the same circumstances as the big man receives.

ABILITY TO BUY

When you get right down to the question of what permits the little man in the retail field to succeed, you come to the discussion of one major point, and that is his ability to buy under fair and equal circumstances. If the supplier, whether he is a manufacturer or wholesaler, gives to the independent merchant the same price under the same conditions as he gives to the big man, who is the owner of the national chain, after allowing for proper deductions based upon differences in cost of manufacture, sale, and delivery, the little man is in a fine position to compete and can compete with the big man, but if you deny him this privilege and permit the big man to get secret allowances and special discounts as they received before the enactment of the Robinson-Patman Act in 1936, the little man will not have a fair chance.

CAPEHART PROPOSAL

The Capehart proposal, mentioned in the letter which is along the same line as many bills pending in both the House and Senate, is very misleading to a person who is not familiar with all the facts

This prosposal indicates that all that is desired is to give a supplier of goods an opportunity to lower the price to customer A in Podunk if customer A in Podunk had been offered similar goods

from a competing supplier at a lower cost; in other words, to permit the original supplier to meet the competition of his competitor by letting customer A in Podunk have a lowered price. This

sounds all right, and there is no objec

tion to it provided this same original supplier who lets customer A in Podunk have the lower price will also give his customers B and C, also in Podunk, the privilege of the same lowered price. There is where the main trouble comes in. Mr. Big Supplier wants to give customer A a lowered price on any excuse, fancied or real, that customer A has been offered a lower price by Mr. Big Supplier's competitor, but does not want to give Mr. Big Supplier's other customers in the same town-B and C-the benefit

of the same lowered price although they are in competition with customer A.

If the law is changed that way, it will give Mr. Big Supplier the opportunity to favor the large national chains without giving the competitors of the large national chains-who are also customers of Mr. Big Supplier-the same prices under the same circumstances.

Any little man who believes that he has a chance of getting a square deal under such a scheme or arrangement has evidently not thought this question through or he has a very high opinion of himself. Things just do not happen that way. Where the little man would get a nickel, the big man would get a quarter in discounts and rebates.

DIFFERENCES IN COST

The Robinson-Patman Act, which was Public Law 697, 74th Congress, approved June 19, 1936, has the following provision concerning differences in cost:

That nothing herein contained shall prevent differentials which make only due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which such commodities are to such purchasers sold or delivered.

MAY SELECT OWN CUSTOMERS

The act further provides:

That nothing herein contained shall prevent persons engaged in selling goods, wares, or merchandise in commerce from selecting their own customers in bona fide transactions and not in restraint of trade.

A manufacturer or supplier of goods to retail stores does not have to select

any person or concern to sell its goods at retail, but having selected its customers, who are the retailers, the act requires the supplier to treat its customers fairly and equally; in other words, it is perfectly all right under the act for a seller, who could be either the manufacturer or the supplier, to lower his price to either one of his selected customers so long as he gives his other customers who are in competition with this one who received the lowered price the same price under the same circumstances.

TREAT CUSTOMERS FAIRLY

It occurs to me to be a very reasonable provision in the law to require a concern to treat its customers fairly; that is all the Robinson-Patman law does. No one, a manufacturer or a supplier, is compelled to select any particular retail outlet as a customer, but having selected such a retail outlet as a customer, the supplier becomes duty bound under law not to discriminate against this customer so selected.

(Mr. PATMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include a letter.)

AMERICAN OIL PRODUCERS VERSUS

IMPORTED OIL

The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SAYLOR] is recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, now that the Ways and Means Committee has reported favorably on H. R. 5894-a decision which merits the appreciation of everyone who is interested in protecting

American industry and labor from cheap foreign products-this would appear to be an opportune time to discuss briefly a booklet, Facts About Oil Imports, which has been circulated widely in Washington, especially on Capitol Hill. The publisher is the Nation's largest importer of petroleum products and, as might be expected, one of the principal propagandists for an unrestricted flow of foreign oil onto our shores regardless of its impact on the domestic economy.

Unfortunately, the hundreds of inde pendent oil producers and refiners in this country whose business and livelihood are jeopardized by the flood of imports are not financially able to make comparable investments in a beautifully designed and illustrated booklet of this type, but they nonetheless deserve to have their message brought to the attention of the Congress and of the American public. We who represent coalproducing districts know full well the extent of the damage that excessive oil imports can inflict upon our economy, and I welcome this opportunity to say a word in behalf of the independent oil people who are similarly suffering as a consequence of prevailing import policies. In today's high-gear economy there is ample room for both domestic oil and domestic coal, but there is not room for a deluge of petroleum products from refineries in lands hither and yonregardless of how cleverly the problem is handled in Standard Oil's impressive brochure.

To give a true and complete interpretation of the statements contained in the booklet, with its reckless use of statistics and its rationalized theories, would require a publication even larger than the attractive work prepared by the publicists and advertising men who beat the oildrums for Jersey Standard, so I shall direct your attention only to a few of the more glaring sophisms.

In the first place, the booklet states that we must have large imports of residual oil to supply demand in this country. It is interesting to note that before World War II the imports of this fuel were less than 9 percent of domestic demand, and there was little change in this proportion through 1948. But in the last 4 years-1949 through 1952 domestic production dropped from the previous average of 1,307,000 barrels per day to only 1,230,000 barrels per day; and imports went from 126,000 to 303,000 barrels per day. Percentagewise, our own production of heavy fuel oil has declined by 6 percent since the early postwar period, whereas imports have skyrocketed by 140 percent.

Were these imports needed as a result of the decrease in production here at home? Definitely not, regardless of the implication to the contrary in the Standard booklet. The truth of the matter is that imports of heavy fuel oil have been displacing domestic production in the same manner that they are displacing United States bituminous coal and anthracite. Let me point out here that the average posted price for heavy fuel oil on the gulf coast in 1947 and 1948 was $2.45 per barrel during the period when imports averaged only 10 percent of demand; yet in 1952, when imports

were at an unprecedented high, the price had actually dropped to $1.76 per barrel. And when imports were continuing to rise in the first quarter of 1953, the price was down in the neighborhood of $1.50 to $1.60 at the end of that quarter. In other words, while the general price index has been tending upward-especially in the case of higher-grade petroleum products-imports of residual oil have depressed domestic prices for this product to a point where the market has become demoralized for United States independent producers and refiners.

Here are National Petroleum Council figures showing refinery prices on residual oil as a percent of the crude prices since 1946:

The ratio of the price of residual fuel oil at the refinery to crude prices dropped from 96.4 in 1946 to 57.9 percent in 1949 and in recent years has hovered between 65.6 and 72.5 percent.

The price of residual fuel oil at New York harbor did not always sell at less than the cost of the crude. This is something that has largely come about in the postwar period when foreign oil started flooding the domestic market. It is persistent oversupply that has downgraded the fuel.

The Standard booklet states that the Jersey company believes that

The free world should move in the direc

tion of freer international trade as rapidly

as possible, consistent with keeping strong those industries necessary to our country's security.

That is a high-sounding statement of principle, but presumably the company

does not believe that a strong independent oil industry is necessary to the national security. Production of oil in the United States has been curtailed because of the displacement by foreign oil. Texas permitted only 62 days of proDrilling activity has been reduced and duction in the first 90 days of this year. there are many idle rigs. Refinery profits are being squeezed and some plants have closed down and others are on the verge of shutdowns.

As for Standard's attitude toward the coal industry's losses to foreign oil, coal witnesses before the Ways and Means Committee thoroughly disputed this phase of the so-called fact booklet published by the world's top importer. One sentence in particular, however, was an attempt to reflect on the intelligence of every person who lives in a coal community. Standard Oil's booklet stated:

Plainly, increased heavy fuel imports were no appreciable factor in the decline of markets for coal.

Over the past several months I have heard statements from numerous Members of Congress who are familiar with