Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois further yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield. Mr. BRICKER. What the Senator What the Senator from Ohio meant to say was that it is not an admission of the charges leveled against a defendant, or an admission of guilt. It means that he does not intend to contest the case. That is the full meaning of it. It is not an admission of the charge leveled by the Attorney General.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The defendants did not contest the correctness of the charge. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield. Mr. LANGER. I had an experience a few years ago in my State where we advertised for tires for the State housing department. There were different kinds of signs advertising tires at $17.20 or $19.02, but the companies bid identical prices. The result was that we rejected every bid.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank the Senator. In the past, from all the evidence that we can find, there was a very close understanding on prices.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. LONG. With reference to a plea of nolo contendere to a criminal charge-the antitrust laws have certain criminal provisions-if someone pleaded nolo contendere, the judge could sentence him to jail if the crime carried a jail sentence.

Mr. DOUGLAS. That is correct.

Mr. President, here we have the Big Four-and-a-Half in control of 71 percent of the end product productive capacity of the Government's copolymer facilities, and in the case of butyl rubber the Standard Oil Co. is in control of 2 plants, the Standard directly controlling 1 and its subsidiary, the Humble Oil Co., operating the other. DISPOSAL UNDER BILL MAY STRENGTHEN CONTROL OF RUBBER INDUSTRY BY A FEW

What I am very much afraid of is that through this bill, in view of the favored position of these big operating companies, we shall not get competitive bidding for the plants, and that instead they will be transferred to the existing operators at prices below their fair value and under circumstances which will increase monopoly or control by a few of the raw products used by fabricators. In effect, we will strengthen monopoly by the sale unless there are careful safeguards.

DISPOSAL TIMETABLE NEEDS REVISION

I think, therefore, that we should try to get as much competitive bidding as we can secure. I know it is difficult, because the little fish do not like to challenge the big fish. But one essential is to provide more time than is provided for in the bill drafted by the majority. In the report of the minority, on pages 38 and 39 of the committee report, the time schedule which was apparently contemplated by the majority in the bill is set out. We can work backward from the fact that the commission has to make and submit a plan to Congress by June 1, 1954. Prior to that, they are given a 30-day period, during which they can prepare the report of their plan after negotiat

ing with the companies. This would place the end of the period of negotiation back to the first of May. There will be a 6-months' period for negotiation, which would put the final date for bids back to November 1, 1953. The period for bidding is to be only 45 to 90 days. It could not be 90 days, because that would bring the opening to the first of August, and the commission must be set up and staffed and a plan developed and advertised before bids can be received. An allowance of 45 days for bidding would bring the beginning of the bid period to the 15th of September.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I should like to ask the Senator from Illinois how many Senators signed the minority views?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Five Senators.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Would the Senator mind giving their names?

Mr. DOUGLAS. They were the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. MAYBANK], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT], the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN], the Senator from New York [Mr. LEHMAN], and myself.

My own feeling is that in all probability the final date for bidding, under the bill submitted by the majority, would be the 1st of November, or only a little more than 3 months from now.

LIMITATION ON FACILITIES TO BE SOLD TO BIG FOUR IS ALSO ESSENTIAL

The second point which I should like to take up is the necessity of diffusing the ownership of these plants. We believe in the free-enterprise system, but we also believe in a free competitiveenterprise system. I personally believe that control of an industry by one firm or by a few firms is fundamentally uneconomic, that it results ultimately in more restriction of output and higher prices than would occur under a more competitive system. Eventually, it creates an uneconomic social situation.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield, so that we may take up a privileged matter; namely, the conference report on the civil-functions appropriation bill? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its clerks, announced that the House had passed, without amendment, the bill (S. 2399) to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, as amended.

The message also announced that the House had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 5376) making appropriations for civil functions administered by the Department of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, and for other purposes, and that the House had receded from its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate numbered 6, 8, 24, and 25 to the bill, and concurred therein.

I desire to pay tribute to the distinguished chairman of the committee for frankly saying on the floor of the Senate this afternoon that he recognizes the fact that this time is inadequate, and that he is willing to extend it.

I had hoped that the time would be extended another year or 15 months. I had hoped that the possible bidders might have until the 1st of September 1954 to make their bids. I do not think that would be an excessive amount of time. It would not hurt the Government, because, in the meantime, these plants are making profits. I should like to have a longer period of time than that which the Senator from Indiana conceded; namely, he would extend the period to a minimum of 6 months until possibly the 1st of June 1954. That is the final date for bids under the amendment he is apparently willing to accept. I think that is the way the timetable works out. I still think it is not time enough. Perhaps this question can be settled during the progress of the debate. It is absolutely essential to give more time for bidding in order to give the independents a chance to come in and get a knowledge of the properties and arrange for their financing.

BILL, 1954-CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 5376) making appropriations for civil functions administered by the Department of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent for its present consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GOLDWATER in the chair). The report will be read for the information of the Senate.

The report was read.

(For conference report see House proceedings of July 21, 1953, pp. 9426–9429.) The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the report?

There being no objection, the report was considered and agreed to.

SALE OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED RUBBER-PRODUCING FACILITIES

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 2047) to amend the Rubber Act of 1948, as amended, to provide for the sale of Government-owned rubberproducing facilities, to repeal and modify certain of its provisions affected thereby, and for other purposes.

Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield?

Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President Mr. DOUGLAS. Does the Senator Does the Senator from Indiana desire to make a statement?

Mr. CAPEHART. I wish to correct a statement I made previously in error, because I desire to have the correction appear in the RECORD as close as possible to the mistake I made.

Mr. CAPEHART. A few minutes ago I made a statement to the effect that the Attorney General or his representative appeared before the Committee on Banking and Currency and said that the Attorney General did not wish to make a conclusion or a finding. Through his representative, Mr. Jacobs, the Attorney General objected very strenuously to that proposal, and offered a suggestion, which I wish to read.

Mr. JACOBS. It is essential that the machinery should exist to enable the Attorney General through the disposal agent to obtain this information.

That means information which the Attorney General would obtain if he were a member of the Disposal Commission. It was the Attorney General's view that the information should be made available to him without his being a member of the Commission.

Mr. Jacobs continued:

Section 9 (f) (1) should, in our opinion, require the disposal agent within a reasonable time prior to the conclusion of the negotiation period, to request formally the views of the Attorney General as to whether the proposed disposal would tend to create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.

I merely wished to correct the error I had made earlier. I thank the Senator from Illinois.

DIFFUSION OF OWNERSHIP, AND CONTROL IS NEEDED

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, control of an industry by one firm or by a few firms is fundamentally opposed to economic efficiency and to political democracy. Control by one firm or by a few firms-that is, monopoly or what is called oligopoly-will result in prices higher than would exist under more perfect competition, and lower production than there would be under more perfect competition, and also would put small fabricators more or less at the mercy of big processors.

So if lower prices and increased production are to prevail, and if we wish to make certain that small fabricators can get all the raw material or all the synthetic rubber on which they depend, in my judgment it will be necessary to have a greater diffusion of ownership than there is likely to be under the bill, because if the present operators buy the plants they are now operating, which in all probability they will do, unless great care is used they will be in control of 71 percent of the synthetic rubber industry, and small fabricators will be largely at their mercy.

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

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

plan is sent to Congress. The President asked for this legislation. Likewise, it was requested by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and other top-level officials.

However, I wish to make the record perfectly clear that I understand the perfectly clear that I understand the question of proper disposal will be cleared question of proper disposal will be cleared up by the commission the President is to appoint. I am not taking issue with the distinguished Senator from Illinois. As ranking minority member of the committee, I am only adding to the record some of the points which must be cleared up, because rubber is a very valuable material to the American population and the American economy. I know what the rubber plants have made. Last year they made $62 million. I did not suggest that the rubber plants be sold. Do not misunderstand me. But the bill is gefore the Senate at the request of the President. As my colleague on the Committee on Banking and Currency knows, the only thing I could do, and the only thing the minority could do, was to try to put some safeguards around the disposal plan. I am for every safeguard we can put around it.

Mr. HUNT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. HUNT. Not being a member of the committee, I am not familiar with the testimony. I have not read the bill in its entirety. However, the Senator from Illinois made reference to a decrease in the price of rubber from 80 cents a pound to 23 cents a pound. I am familiar with the plants from the standpoint of studies made by the preparedness subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services.

I wish to ask the distinguished Senator from Illinois whether the committee gave any consideration to retaining, in toto, one full, complete facility, so that in the future there might be a yardstick or a check with reference to the cost of production and the price of rubber.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The Rubber Act of 1948, passed by the 80th Congress, which was controlled, as this Congress is controlled, by the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle, is against a governmental yardstick. It looked to disposal of all the Government facilities. Perhaps we of the minority were somewhat cooperative in this respect. We were willing to have the plants sold, provided the Government received a fair price, and provided there was assurance of competition, in the belief that competition would serve to keep the price down, But if we cannot get adequate assurances of competition, I am frank to say I shall vote against the bill.

Mr. HUNT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. HUNT. In view of the fact that all of us have some fear and some doubt about competition in the rubber industry in the future, does not the Senator agree with me that having the Government maintain one plant for yardstick purposes would perhaps accomplish for us exactly what keen competition would accomplish, if it were not lacking?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I certainly would not be opposed to that.

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

Mr. LANGER. I am a little curious I have become chairman of the Commitabout the matter of competition. Since tee on the Judiciary, I have made an investigation of the antitrust laws. I should like to have any Senator name one person who, since 1891, when the antitrust laws were first adopted, has ever been sent to jail for a violation of those laws.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not know of any.

Mr. LANGER. Whether Republican or Democratic administrations have been in office, the so-called antitrust statutes have been on the books, and the big boys have been running wild. Every once in a while, after they have fleeced the public of millions of dollars, the Government catches up with them, they plead nolo contendere, and get off with a fine of a few thousand dollars.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The fines in these rubber cases amounted in 1942 to a total of only $50,000.

Mr. LANGER. So when the distinguished Senator from Illinois speaks about competition, I wonder how it will be obtained.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator from North Dakota has touched on a very good point. That is precisely why I think all the pious language that can be placed in a bill about wanting to promote competition and obtaining the approval of the Attorney General, however well intentioned, will be ineffective.

The only way to do it is to restrict the proportion of the properties which can be sold to the Big Four or the Big Fourand-a-Half, and to insure that the other properties get into the hands of small producers. producers. That is the purpose of the

amendments which I intend to offer—to restrict the number of plants the Big Four or Big Four-and-a-Half can buy.

Mr. LANGER. Why not adopt the suggestion of the distinguished Senator from Wyoming [Mr. HUNT] that the Government retain one of those plants?

Mr. DOUGLAS. That is perfectly all right with me. I am surprised at my own moderation and conservatism. It shows the conservative nature of the liberal bloc in the Senate. We did not proWe sim

pose Government ownership. ply wanted the Government to get fair value out of the sales and to develop a competitive private-enterprise system. If the moderates in this Chamber want to propose Government ownership, I shall certainly not take issue with them, with respect to retaining a single plant,

although I do not believe in it as a general proposition.

National Security Resources Board and later as Administrator of the Reconstruc

Mr. TOBEY. What is the Government going to charge for these plants?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not know. That is the great question. I want to see the Government get a good figure. To reproduce the plants would cost probably $1 billion. If we adopt that as the standard, as the utility companies like to do in valuation proceedings, the reproduction cost would be around $1 billion. Mr. TOBEY. I thank the Senator. Mr. NEELY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. NEELY. Does the Senator from Illinois not think that we should specify a price below which these plants should not be sold?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not feel competent to say how much these properties should sell for. I am willing to have the price negotiated by a commission, provided we can get competition, and provided that the plan comes back to us not merely for us to review it as a unit, but with the power of Congress to veto specific sales which we think may be at too low a price.

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

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. MAYBANK. That is the one issue I have been trying to emphasize. I have been trying to delay the sales until 1955, so that everyone would have an opportunity to bid on these plants. Prospective purchasers should be able to bid on them by January 1955. I believe the distinguished Senator from Illinois and I have agreed on an amendment.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I have not quite agreed. I hope to obtain a longer time.

Mr. MAYBANK. The Senator, of course, believes that the sale should be delayed until September 1955. However, I believe it would be well if it could be postponed until March 1955, when the new Congress will be in session. With my colleagues, including the Senator from Illinois and the distinguished Senator from Alabama and other Senators, I had achieved a sort of major victory, because I do not believe these plants should be sold in this short time.

I believe that if we can get by until March 2, 1955, that will be at least a temporary victory. I believe my friend from Illinois and my friend from Alabama will agree with me.

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

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am very happy to yield to the distinguished junior Senator from Missouri, who, as head of the

learned more about this subject than did any other Member of this body. He made a magnificent record in that connection. He saved the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by breaking the high price charged by producers for natural rubber through getting the synthetic plants into operation.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois. I appreciate what he says. I do not believe it is deserved.

My colleague, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia [Mr. NEELY] has emphasized what to me is a very important point in this connection. I agree with the Senator from Illinois that the plants should be sold, if possible, provided the terms are proper.

tracts contain a national security clause which will assure the prompt availability of the rubber-producing facilities or facilities of like capacity for producing synthetic rubber and its components for a period of 10 years. In the event of war or threat to national security they have sought to protect the Government's interests. I think that should be said.

Mr. NEELY. That would indicate that the majority does not believe that private industry could, in the event of war, satisfactorily operate the rubber plants. Since they earned sixty-two million dollars for the taxpayers last year, why should they be sold during the present emergency? Generally speaking, I am opposed to government ownership. Therefore, I am in favor of selling these plants as soon as their sale can be safely made-but not before.

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

Mr. DOUGLAS. Let me reply first to the Senator from West Virginia.

that whoever gets these plants will without question-and I think the distinguished Senator from Illinois will agree with me-control the rubber market of

the world.

these plants have been heavily depreciated, down to $125 million or $150 million, as a guess, it would seem incredible lion, as a guess, it would seem incredible that we should simply sell them at whatever was offered for them. Because of the nature of this industry there will not be too many bidders. Who would want to sell the people's property at a depreciated value-say $125 millionwhen last year it earned $62 million?

Mr. DOUGLAS. After depreciation. Mr. SYMINGTON. After depreciation. Therefore I should like to support the suggestion made by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia [Mr. NEELY] and say that the law should specify, if possible, some criterion of sale-for example, a percentage of the estimated or actual after-accounting replacement value.

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

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. NEELY. Let me inquire of the distinguished Senator from Illinois whether it is a fact that the Government built these plants because private enterprise could not perform that service.

Mr. DOUGLAS. It was a risky venture.

Mr. NEELY. And it was a venture which private capital was not willing to assume at the time the plants were constructed. Is that not true?

Mr. DOUGLAS That is true.

Mr. NEELY. That being the fact, and the world being in unprecedented turmoil, is there any reason to believe that moil, is there any reason to believe that if the rubber plants were in the hands of private industry they could be operated so as to meet all the requirements of the government in the event of a third world war?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I must say, in all justice to the majority, that they have in the bill a provision which requires, as I remember. that all disposal con

I do not know whether it is wisdom or not, but I think I have learned not to

timent of this administration is for the disposal of these plants to private industry. I think that was, on the whole, the verdict of the people last November.

I wish any sale that is conducted to be a fair sale. I want to see that the GovI want to see the competitive system ernment gets what the plants are worth. strengthened. Unless the bill is amended so that those things are done, I shall vote against the bill. But if those things are done, I shall not vote for Government ownership of the industry, except possibly to the extent of following out the suggestion of the distinguished Senator from Wyoming [Mr. HUNT] to retain one plant as a yardstick, to see what the costs are in comparison with the prices charged.

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

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. HUNT. I should like to ask the distinguished Senator from Illinois a question. Does the bill contain any provision for the continued operation of the plants in peacetime?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not believe so. It provides that the Commission must sell plants which have a capacity to produce at least 500,000 tons. But I do not believe it contains any compulsion on the purchasers to produce 500,000 tons. I believe it would be very hard to write that into any law, because the right of private property extends to disuse as well as to use. However, I will say that while I was worried about this question for a time, I am not as worried about it now, for the reason that apparently synthetic rubber can be produced more cheaply than most of the natural rubber can be produced, and that to protect themselves against the high price of natural rubber, it is reasonable to suppose that the Big Four, and that the other private concerns also, will keep the plants in operation. I do not believe they will close the plants down, because it would be against their economic interest to close them down. The question is, what will be the price which they will charge for the synthetic rubber?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. MAYBANK. I only wish to remind the distinguished Senator from Wyoming [Mr. HUNT] that I agree with what the distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] is saying. However the vote on that point will come in February 1955, because the commission which the President will appoint will send its report to Congress at that time. We will be voting today on the disposition of the plants, and only on that point.

We are trying to put as many safeguards into the bill as possible, in order to protect the American taxpayer and the American consumer and the Government. However, we do not vote on the final disposal until 1955. We have already agreed on it. We set up the machinery for what will happen in 1955. There is no reason for jumping ahead of the issue. The vote will be held in February 1955 on the decisions of the Commission. I refer to the Commission which the President will appoint. I do not speak for myself alone, I speak for a number of other Senators with whom this question has been discussed.

The President of the United States has asked for this program. The Secretary of Commerce has asked for it. The Secretary of the Treasury has asked for it. That, of course, does not mean that I necessarily agree with them. I do not I do not want Senators to misunderstand me. What I am trying to do is put some safeguards in the bill. I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Illinois has permitted me to make these comments.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will

the Senator yield?

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

Mr. DOUGLAS. I shall yield again to the Senator from Wyoming. Then I shall be glad to yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. HUNT. Relative to the comment made by the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. MAYBANK], it is my understanding that in 1955 we will have an opportunity, if we wish to do what I have mentioned, to keep one yardstick and

Mr. MAYBANK. No; the Senator can vote the disposal plan up or down; that is all. It is the same kind of vote that is used on a reorganization plan. It can be voted up or down; that is all.

Mr. HUNT. Will we be able later to amend the bill?

Mr. MAYBANK. The bill can be amended now.

Mr. HUNT. Can we amend the bill so that the plants will not be disposed of or dismantled?

Mr. SPARKMAN. The bill can be amended now.

Mr. MAYBANK. That can be done now. The only vote that can be had in 1955 is a reorganization-plan form of vote. We either vote everything up or vote everything down. I believe I am correct in my statement, and I believe that answers the Senator's question.

Mr. HUNT. That answers my question.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator from South Carolina is exactly correct in his

ing bill. The Senator from Lousiana, however, has an amendment which permits Congress to accept certain portions of the disposal plan and to reject other portions of the plan.

Mr. MAYBANK. I did not say anything about that.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I hope very much that the Senator from Louisiana will offer his amendment and that it will be adopted, because we should be able to accept or reject portions of any plan. We should be entitled to be selective, and not be forced to vote en bloc.

Mr. MAYBANK. All I intended to say to my distinguished friend, the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. HUNT] and to the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON] was that I have studied this subject for the past 3 days, and I have been in meetings with the Senator from Illinois, as he knows, and with other Senators as well. If the pending bill is passed with my amendment and that of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPEHART], the Senate will have an opportunity to either vote a plan up or down, in a reorganization-plan vote. Am I correct in that?

Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator is correct. I hope the Senator from Louisiana will press his amendment and that it will be adopted.

Mr. MAYBANK. I did not talk about that. I talked about what is before us

Mr. TOBEY. Let the amendments come.

Mr. DOUGLAS. One of the amendments would limit to 1 plant the number of plants which any 1 company can buy, which would mean that the Big Four, who are now operating 8 plants, could buy only 4 plants, and the Standard Co., which operates 2 butyl plants, would be able to buy only 1 butyl plant. If I am beaten on that amendment, I shall fall back to my next line and propose that the Big Four shall not buy more than a total of 6 plants, which will mean that 2 of the plants they now operate would have to go into independent hands.

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG] has approached the same problem from the other end. Whereas I am trying to put a ceiling on the number of plants which the Big Four can buy, the Senator from Louisiana has proposed to place a floor under the number of plants a small man can buy.

I hope that later in the evening we can have a fusion of the two proposals and have both a ceiling and a floor.

Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

nois would incorporate in the bill the kind of plant? What kind of plant?

Mr. TOBEY. The Senator from Illi

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Certainly.

Mr. HOLLAND. I believe the Sen

ator is absolutely correct and has made a very telling point in his argument that the plants will surely be operated, when he calls attention to the fact that the operation of the plants has brought such a reduction in the price of the product. Is there not also another point which establishes that the plants must operate, in that the synthetic rubber volume which is now used to make manufactured products largely exceeds the volume of natural rubber which is used?

Mr. DOUGLAS. The figures which I have before me indicate that synthetic rubber forms about two-thirds of the total quantity of new rubber consumed in this country, the consumption of natural rubber being about 454,000 tons, and synthetic rubber being 807,000 tons. Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. TOBEY. Is it proposed to sell the Government-owned plants to the Big Four to which the Senator has referred?

Mr. DOUGLAS. No one will say that will be the result, but that is what I am afraid will result unless we are very careful.

Mr. TOBEY. Is it not within our province and is it not our job and our privilege to so circumscribe the proposal that the plants will be sold to the little fellows, or at least that the little fellows will be given a chance to buy some of the plants?

Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator from New Hampshire is talking right down my alley, because I shall propose a series of amendments to that effect.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I would limit the sale Copolymer is 77 percent butadiene and 23 percent styrene. In the case of the oil companies operating the butadiene plants, each company operates 1 of the butadiene plants, with the exception of Standard, which operates 2 plants, 1 through a subsidiary, the Humble Co. So the restriction I am proposing on the number of plants which a company can purchase will apply to the copolymer end product plants and the butyl plants.

Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, we hear so much talk about protecting the smallThe Senator from Illibusiness man. nois and I are devoted to his interests. I believe that sincerely. Let us prove it by our works, not by our talk.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator from New Hampshire is talking my language. Mr. TOBEY. I join with him.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I feel like saying amen.

Mr. TOBEY. I wish the Senator from Illinois would say it. It is a good Methodist saying.

Mr. HUMPHREY. How about hallelujah?

Mr. TOBEY. That will come later. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. LANGER. What would stop 1 corporation from buying 2 plants and another one from buying 2 plants, and in 3 or 4 years 1 of them selling the plants to the other corporation?

Mr. DOUGLAS. We cannot cast the future into an iron mold. That is perfectly true. What I want to do is to get more independents into the industry, in order to keep prices down and in order to make certain that the independent fabricator will get his materials, and also to diffuse economic power.

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

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. TOBEY. And get more independence in Congress as well.

Mr. DOUGLAS. desired.

That is greatly to be

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield to me?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BARRETT in the chair). Does the Senator from Illinois yield to the Senator from Alabama?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. SPARKMAN. The Senator from Illinois is making a very fine and able presentation. He has referred several times to the Big Four or to the Big Four and a Half. Perhaps we could count the "one-half" as a whole one, and thus say the Big Five.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I prefer to refer to the Big Four and a Half.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Is it not true that all the companies referred to by the Senator from Illinois are not only producers of rubber but also are producers of rubber products?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes. Mr. SPARKMAN. In other words, In other words, they fabricate rubber into various products, do they not?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Is it not almost certain that unless some safeguards are provided by this measure, including an amendment for diffusion of ownership, so as to make it possible for some of the independent companies to share in the process, the independent fabricators in the United States will not have an opportunity to obtain the rubber they need for the production of rubber products?

Mr. DOUGLAS. That is entirely correct. I think diffusion of ownership is necessary in order to insure that the small fabricating companies will be able to obtain the supplies of rubber they need. On the other hand, if ownership is concentrated, I believe that any language we may write into the bill, to the effect that the independent fabricators should obtain such supplies, will simply "go down the drain" in the next year or two, if for no other reason than that the Big Four or the Big Four and a Half

Mr. SPARKMAN. Let us call them the Big Five.

Mr. DOUGLAS. No; I prefer to call them the Big Four and a Half, because the General Tire & Rubber Co. is not really large enough to be classified with Firestone, Goodyear, Goodrich, United States Rubber-then "the Big Four and a Half" would have an oppor

and

tunity to increase the price of synthetic

rubber and to make their profits on the sale of synthetic rubber to the fabricators, just as the Senator from Louisiana pointed out earlier in the afternoon.

Mr. SPARKMAN. At the present time, does not the bill contain language which merely expresses the pious hope to which the Senator referred, namely, the hope that the independents will be taken care of?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, the bill does contain such language.

Mr. SPARKMAN. However, is not that as far as the language of the bill

goes; namely, to express a pious hope? The bill does not contain provisions which, in that respect, would be in any way enforcible, does it?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not think the provisions of the bill in that respect would be enforcible. However, in order to give the Senator from Indiana the credit he deserves-and that is what I wish to do in connection with this matter-let me say the bill does contain a statement to the effect that the terms of sale shall be such that the independent fabricators will obtain a fair share of the material, and that a free, competitive synthetic-rubber industry is developed. Those statements appear on page 32 of the bill, in section 17, paragraphs (1) and (3). But I think those provisions will be ineffective unless diffusion of ownership is actually provided for.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Does the Senator from Illinois believe that such a provision is capable of implementation by means of the sales contracts?

Mr. DOUGLAS. No, I do not; it is merely a pious hope.

Mr. SPARKMAN. In other words, it would not be likely that the Government could follow through in order to see that that happened?

Mr. DOUGLAS. It would be almost impossible.

Furthermore, let me point out that in the case of a pending Federal Trade Commission suit, in connection with the charge that rubber companies were giving discounts in violation of law, the suit was taken to court; and a clipping from the New York Herald Tribune of July 17 indicates that the court of appeals recommitted the whole thing to the district court for a trial on the merits 19 months after the original Trade Commission order. The delays in the enforcement of antitrust and other fairtrade laws are great, and we cannot simply depend on those laws as a sufficient protection.

So, Mr. President, if we depend upon the Federal Trade Commission and the under a Republican administration, to Department of Justice, particularly check monopoly, we are leaning upon a very fragile reed, indeed, despite the fact that the Senator from Indiana has the best intentions in the world.

Mr. SPARKMAN. And also the Senator from New Hampshire; does not the Senator from Illinois agree?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes.

Mr. TOBEY. The Senator from Illinois has referred to "the big Four and a Half" companies. However, the Senator from Illinois knows, does he not, that

the Du Ponts own the U. S. Rubber Co.?

Mr. DOUGLAS. That is true. However, I do not condemn the Du Ponts for owning a strong, controlling interest in that company.

Mr. TOBEY. Neither do I; they are a great asset to the Nation.

Mr. MAYBANK. What harm is there in the company being owned by the Du Pont family?

Mr. TOBEY. There is no harm at all. I merely point out that that company is not the real boss, for the company is owned by the Du Ponts.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I point out that the first member of the Du Pont family to come to the United States came here at the invitation of Thomas Jefferson. That member of the Du Pont family was a revolutionist, and believed in the French Revolution, although after a time he had to flee from the French Revolution. The Federalist Party, which preceded the Republican Party, had the Alien Act passed in 1799 largely for the purpose of expelling Du Pont and others from the United States as dangerous revolutionists. He was saved by the Democratic Party, which came into power in 1800. I merely point out how extraordinary it is that such families forget the protection afforded to them in the past by the Democratic Party.

Mr. TOBEY. Let us not forget the Independent Party. [Laughter.]

Mr. NEELY. Mr. President, let me observe that during my long years in politics, the Du Pont family has not shown any unusual appreciation for what the Democratic Party did for it in the days of Thomas Jefferson.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I think that is true, although it must be said that each generation of the Du Ponts seems to have one dissenter. So there always seem to be in that family a minority which opposes the general predominance in the family as a whole.

Mr. President, I wished to give this little bit of history-which I think the Du Pont family themselves may have forgotten-in order to point out that the Du Ponts were nearly expelled from the United States, under the Alien Act which Alexander Hamilton and his group got through Congress in 1799; and the Du Ponts surely would have been expelled

from the United States it if had not been for the Democratic Party's victory in 1800 and the firm devotion of Thomas Jefferson, under the Democratic Party, to liberal principles.

Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield to me? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. MAYBANK. I think the Senator great victory, and that no family in the from Illinois agrees that that was a

United States has done more for our country than has the Du Pont family.

Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, I join the Senator from South Carolina in saying that the Du Ponts have been a great

asset to the United States.

Mr. MAYBANK. They certainly have. Mr. DOUGLAS. However, it is nevertheless a fact that the United States Rubber Co. is involved in that chain of

interest.

I am not attacking any group. I merely say it is unhealthy to have the rubber industry controlled by 4 or 42 companies.

Mr. NEELY. Mr. President, I join the distinguished Senators from South Carolina and New Hampshire in proclaiming that the Du Ponts have rendered outstanding service to the United States. But I nevertheless regret that they have not rendered the Democratic Party, at least a fraction of the financial service they have habitually rendered the Republican Party since a time that the memory of man runneth not to the