road property only, no value being assigned to waterline facilities.

For the fixed assets which include 22 tugboats, 268 barges (82 of which are in whole or in part uninsurable), the railroad (18 miles in length), docks, terminal facilities, etc., we are receiving $9 million, payable over a 10-year period. The Government retains The Government retains the present net working capital totaling approximately $2,700,000, and the buyer contracts to provide new working capital in the amount of $1 million.

The Government takes a mortgage on all the property and equipment and there is further provision for a continuation of substantially the services offered by Inland Waterways Corporation.

In connection with the services, it is important to note that there are adequate default provisions enforceable in case this service is not maintained. These default provisions involve a penalty of $2,500 for each trip not made (and the number we call upon the purchaser to make is spelled out in the contract). If 50 percent of the trips are not made, then there is total default under terms of the contract.

There is further provision that less than barge load service be provided and penalties for failure to provide it. This is of tremendous importance to small shippers in the area served by the lines.

Additionally, security for the performance of the contract is provided by provisions as to the disposal of net income after taxes. This may be used-in the order named-to keep up working capital, make payments on the purchase contract, on such loans as may be outstanding and on rehabilitation of the property and facilities, and it is further provided that no dividends shall be paid until the contract payments have been fully completed.

This has been a difficult contract to work out largely because of the statutory provisions about the continuation of service. Obligations under this provision have handicapped the sale heretofore, but the purchaser, as outlined above, has by the terms of the contract indicated his readiness to carry on the service and give the shippers who have used the line the same facilities which have been offered by the Government up to this time.

In addition to the approval of the President, the sale has also been reviewed and approved in the usual manner by the Bureau of the Budget, the Department of Justice, and other agencies which have a collateral interest however remote.

In summary we believe those who use the line will be well taken care of by the purchaser and we think the Government is well protected and well out of the business. Trusting the above will be of interest and helpful to you.

Most sincerely yours,

SINCLAIR WEEKS, Secretary of Commerce.

INVESTIGATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, on July 7, 1953, I introduced Senate bill 2308, the purpose of which was to spell out affirmatively that the Department of Justice would have the right and responsibility to investigate alleged criminal violations on the part of any Government employee in any Government agency. I emphasized, when I introduced the bill, that I did not intend to cast any reflection on the integrity of the heads of any of these agencies, but I pointed out how, during the past 2 years, the exposure of corruption and

the prosecution of those guilty had been severely handicapped by the refusal of the Treasury Department to recognize the right of the Department of Justice to investigate or prosecute employees of the Treasury Department without first obtaining the consent of the Secretary of the Treasury. That consent was refused.

To prevent a recurrence of such arbitrary action by a future Cabinet officer, 20 Senators joined with me in the introduction of S. 2308, and hearings were scheduled.

Yesterday the Attorney General suggested that the bill be held over until the next session, on the ground that the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department might be able to compose a slight difference of opinion regarding the application of the law. With his letter the Attorney General enclosed a memorandum, outlining the present present agreement between the two departments, and also reaffirming their position, that while agreeing to the postponement, they still thought the bill should be considered at the next session of Congress.

I was very much interested in having the bill enacted at this session. How ever, in light of the apparent effort of the two Departments to work out an agreement, I shall defer to their request to withhold consideration of the bill until the next session of the Congress.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD the letter of the Attorney General, dated July 23, 1953, together with the memorandum attached thereto.

There being no objection, the letter and memorandum were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Washington, D. C., July 23, 1953. Hon. JOHN J. WILLIAMS,

United States Senate,

ments can be made to reinsert in its appropriation acts the language customarily used in them before the passage of Public Law 79 to authorize the Secret Service to perform its traditional functions.

The Department of Justice prefers to have this entire problem disposed of by legislative action of the Congress and fully approves S. 2308 for that purpose. It is now willing to have any action on this bill held over by the Congress until its next session and to try, during the interval, by agreement with the Treasury Department to have a working understanding that will fully provide for the proper functioning of the FBI in investigating any case of suspected criminal misconduct on the part of Treasury personnel.

The Treasury Department believes that, within the broad agreement of principle that exists between the two Departments concerning the proper function of the FBI in investigating any such case of suspected criminal misconduct on the part of Treasury personnel, the exact details can best be worked out on a case by case basis, and that it might be unwise to attempt to define the relationships by statute.

Accordingly, the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department are placing in effect immediately a working agreement standing that consideration will be given concerning this matter with the underduring the next session of the Congress as to whether and to what extent legislation may be necessary or desirable. The Treasury Department and the Department of Justice are therefore recommending the postponement of consideration of S. 2308 during this session of the Congress. The Department of Justice expressly reserves the position that legislative action as provided in this bill should be enacted by the next Congress.

ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION OF

THE CALENDAR TOMORROW Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on tomorrow the calendar be called from the beginning for the consideration of bills to which there is no objection.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KNOWLAND. For the information of the Senate, we would not contemplate, in calling the calendar, going beyond the last number shown on the calendar. We would begin at the beginning, starting with Order No. 19, and run through Order No. 632.

I wish to thank the Senate. I think I have exceeded my time approximately 2 minutes.

ACTIVITIES OF ADVISORY COUNCIL TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for not to exceed 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Kansas? The Chair hears none, and the Senator may proceed.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, much concern and a great deal of interest is currently being expressed regarding the activities of the Advisory Council to the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee on postal matters appointed April 1, 1953, pursuant to Senate Resolution 49, approved by the Senate March 6, 1953.

Senate Resolution 49, which is similar to the language contained in the postalrate bill of the 82d Congress, which authorized the appointment of a joint committee and received the unanimous endorsement of both Houses of Congress, provides that the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service report on January 31, 1954, on the results of the studies and recommendations of this group. However, because of the interest in the activities of this Advisory Council, I desire to now give a short statement in the nature of an interim progress report in an attempt to outline some of the things this group has done and some of the objectives during the next 6 months.

On April 1, 1953, I appointed a group of 10 outstanding citizens comprised of industrial, labor, and civic leaders, and widely known representative large users of the various mail services with a vast amount of valuable experience to assist the Senate committee in this very complicated problem of trying to improve the efficiency and the service of the Post Office Department to the American public and to reduce the deficit that has been steadily mounting in recent years. Many meetings of this Advisory Council have been held in Washington and a number of subcouncils have been established in an attempt to break the study down into different segments considered important in arriving at a solution in the short period of time allotted to the committee to complete its study.

One of the subgroups composed of outstanding businessmen is currently preparing recommendations to be presented through the Senate committee which, if adopted, might well save approximately $100 million annually in transportation costs alone. Another subgroup is busily engaged in a study of the cost ascertainment system now being used by the Post Office Department. As most Members of this body well know, when the Senate has had to consider postal-rate increases in the past many charges have been made concerning the validity of the cost ascer

tainment system when used for rate

making purposes. One of the things we hope to do is to establish a postal ratemaking formula which will be more equitable and acceptable to all mail users and which may be used by the Congress as a sound basis when consid

ering future proposals in mail rates. When the Post Office Department was established, Congress delegated itself the authority to set and adjust rates. This problem has become so complicated that the Congress must now establish the necessary machinery to guide it in establishing such rates.

The Advisory Council has initiated, with the approval of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, a contract with the National Education Association for a special study to ascertain the value to the Nation of the numerous educational provisions of the United States postal service. This study will proceed on this thesis:

A segment of postal service concerns activities having to do with education and particularly adult education. Books, magazines, newspapers, films handled through the mail, correspondence instruction, and mail of all classes has to do in the broadest way with

education. Does the value to the Nation of this education use justify a decision that a portion of this cost should be regarded as Government service to its citizens as is the case with other Government departments?

We are also negotiating for a study to be made by the National Industrial Conference Board to explore the relationship of the Post Office Department to our national economic structure, particularly its contribution to American business. In addition the committee has been able to secure the services of one of the outstanding cost accounting firms of this Nation to assist it in its accounting surveys.

For the first time in many years all of the organizations representing the postoffice employees have been given the opportunity to sit down around the table and pool their resources in one common objective, that of improving the efficiency of the Post Office Department at less cost to the taxpayer. Many meetings of this personnel group have been held and much progress made. I am confident from this reservoir of knowledge gained through many active years of postal service and representing the postal employee before the committees postal employee before the committees of Congress that recommendations will be made which will result in far greater efficiency and economy to the Department and to the people of this Nation.

Mr. President, I feel confident that when the work of this study group has been completed there will be made recommendations which, if approved, will save the Post Office Department and the taxpayers of the Nation several hundred million dollars. I am firmly convinced that we are proceeding along the correct path.

Department of Agriculture. DEAR MR. SERCETARY: I am greatly concerned about the adequacy of storage facilities for the coming wheat harvest in Montana. I have a number of communications from growers telling me the situation looks very serious, that there will be a considerable shortage of space which might be worsened if commercial elevators hold space for their own purchases, or if the railroads are unable to move wheat either as a result of shortage of cars or blocked terminal facilities. They advise me that they are unaware of anything being done in the area to meet the situation.

As you know, the intent of Congress and of the price support laws is nullified if farmers are forced to dispose of their grain below support levels for lack of space to store their crop. I understand that there is already a record spread between cash wheat prices and support in many areas.

This is written to urge your Department, if it has not already done so, to take every possible step to assure availability of adequate storage for the northern wheat harvest. I understand that you have some bins on order, but they are for corn. I urge that as many as necessary be diverted and erected immediately in the northern wheat States, including my own, where storage shortage is likely.

I also urge that steps be taken now to assure the construction of adequate, permanent elevator facilities to handle our crops. Wheat farmers tell me there is major need for elevator space, preferably on rail sidings, where wheat can be efficiently handled, kept in condition, and moved to market regardless of storms which sometimes make haul

FACILITIES

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for 10 minutes on the subject of grain storage facilities.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection? The Chair hears none, and

the Senator from Montana may proceed.

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, earlier this week I wrote the Secretary of Agriculture urging him to take immediate action to prepare for storing the wheat harvest in the northern States.

even months at a time in the northern areas. While it is too late to provide such permanent type storage for the current harvest season, it is not too soon to start work to see that there are adequate facilities in 1954. Sincerely yours,

JAMES E. MURRAY, United States Senator.

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have been in communication with farmers and elevator men in the area since the letter was dispatched. They tell me they have been waiting days for some relief, but there are no signs either of the Commodity Credit Corporation moving its grain out of the terminals or of providing new storage facilities to relieve the distress that now appears inevitable when the harvest starts.

area.

Sometime ago the Montana Commission of Agriculture made an effort to get responsible agencies at work on the storage emergency. He called a meeting at Helena of Federal officials, the grain trade, and railroads to consider what might be done.

printed at this point in my remarks an editorial from editorial from the Bozeman (Mont.).

Chronicle relative to this meeting.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to have printed at this point in the RECORD the text of my letter to Secre

as follows:

THE STATE'S WHEAT STORAGE PROBLEM Heavy wheat crops, such as that presently in prospect in Montana, cause transportation

and storage problems and irritations that stubbornly resist solutions at the time. This matter was discussed in Helena at a meeting called by Albert H. Kruse, State commissioner of agriculture. Mr. Kruse invited in Federal officials and representatives of the grain

trade and railroads to consider what could be done if the harvest this year should exceed the facilities now available to handle it.

The consensus was that the only practical answer was for the farmers themselves to provide the additional storage on their farms. These experts said that commercial storage at terminals is already being clogged as wheat pours in from areas already harvesting and as some of the carryover from last year moves to market. As to the matter of providing the necessary number of cars to move the crop - out of Montana elevators to the terminals, railroad men contended that it does no good to get cars if there is no place to unload them. Also in the picture is the Federal price support situation and the effects it will have on the marketing of the grain.

As a final desperate alternative it was suggested at the Helena gathering that farmers could dump their wheat on the ground. It was said that, contrary to the prevailing opinion, dumping grain on the ground does no substantial damage to the cereal if the weather is not too wet. This is a point on which we do not feel competent to comment, except to say that dumping wheat on the ground has been generally considered an unsafe procedure.

Conclusions at the Helena

conference

might be summed up in the assertion that an abnormal wheat crop is like water backing up behind a dam. For obvious reasons, commercial facilities do not exceed much more than normal demands, and when an emergency comes and the elevators are filled to the brim, the answer has to be sought elsewhere. On their part, the railroads do not feel justified in having a reserve of grain cars that normally would be idle.

The storage situation which may confront Montana this year is not novel. It has long been recognized that farm storage is a desirable solution. But the farmer can hardly be blamed if he objects being not only the one who grows the wheat but also the one expected to keep the grain, free from spoilage or deterioration, until the grain trade is able to absorb it. And yet whether the farmers like it or not, many of them have recognized for quite a while that is largely up to them.

There was a Federal farm-storage program a few years back which did produce some good results and would have been even more satisfactory if it had not been dragged into politics. This should not be a political issue, for raising grain, be it wheat in Montana or corn in Iowa, is vital in feeding the Nation and some other parts of the world.

Mr. Kruse deserves commendation for acting as he did in anticipation of a not improbable emergency. It is unfortunate that the experts called in to consider the outlook seemed so helpless in proposing a solution other than tossing the problem into the laps of the farmers.

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, the important point in the editorial is that the officials attending that meeting offered no solution, except possibly for farmers to dump their grain on the ground.

Department of Agriculture officials took the same position at the Montana meeting they took in a Des Moines, Iowa, storage meeting recently, namely, that "this is the farmers' problem; let them solve it."

I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD an

account of the Des Moines meeting, which was published in the Des Moines Register.

I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an article about the Des Moines meeting, written by a staff correspondent of the Wall Street Journal.

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Des Moines Register of June 3, 1953]

UNITED STATES TO QUIT STORING GRAINWOULD LEAVE IT TO FARMERS-PLAN DISCLOSED HERE IN SIX-STATE MEETING

(By B. G. Thrailkill)

The Federal Government plans to get out of the grain-storage business.

That was made known Wednesday by Under Secretary of Agriculture True D. Morse who, with other Government officials, was in Des Moines to consider critical problems connected with corn loans and corn storage. "We are moving forward on the premise that grain storage should not be run by the Government," Morse said.

"It should be stored by farmers on the farm and when it leaves the farm it should be handled by commercial people."

How this program will be put into effect is the $64 question.

Iowa, one of the six States represented at the meeting at Hotel Savery, is considered the critical State as far as corn storage is concerned.

BUMPER CROP?

Marvin L. McLain, chairman of the Iowa Production and Marketing Administration (PMA), reported to Morse that under the best conditions 42 million bushels of corn can be stored on Iowa farms.

An additional 80 million bushels can be stored in bins and elevators. This leaves 47 million bushels for which storage space must be found this fall.

This makes a total of some 169 million bushels, the amount of corn now under loan or purchase agreement in Iowa.

Another bumper corn crop this year-and prospects for it are good-would further complicate the storage problem.

It means that officials must provide more storage space than ever before has been

available.

COMMERCIAL ELEVATORS

Morse said the storage problem will be taken up with commercial elevator operators Thursday in Omaha, Neb.

John H. Davis, president of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), and Elwood Chase, special assistant to Davis, will attend the Omaha meeting. They were with Morse in Des Moines.

Morse said the storage problem is tremendously important.

"The quick and easy suggestion would be more CCC bins," he said, "but this is not good business for farmers. We shouldn't put the Government deeper in the grain business.

"A prosperous Iowa was not build on selling corn. The basis of Iowa's prosperity is hogs, beef, and poultry. So, corn should be

held on the farm where it is used."

SHOULD BE INTERESTED

LOANS AVAILABLE

"If we team up and succeed," Morse said, "it will be a service to everyone, but first to the farmers who produce."

How to get the program into effect?

Morse said it would take the cooperation of farm organizations, the agricultural extension service, the PMA, bankers, farm managers, bin material companies, the press, and radio.

Eighty percent loans for constructing new storage facilities are available to farmers, who have 4 years in which to pay off the loans at 4 percent interest.

If banks will not make such loans, the CCC will, Morse said.

OFFER FEES

To encourage farmers to reseal corn on their own farms, the CCC is offering a storage fee of 13 cents a bushel for keeping it another year.

During Wednesday's meeting, PMA representatives from the six States, were to give reports detailing how much corn there is and how much storage space is available.

[From the Wall Street Journal of June 4, 1953]

CORN STORAGE CONFERENCE-MIDWEST'S 65 MILLION BUSHELS OF 1952 CROP FACE EVICTION, BUT FARMERS ARE LUKEWARM TO PROPOSAL THEY BUILD BINS

(By John S. Cooper)

DES MOINES, IOWA.-About 65 million bushels of 1952 crop corn now stored on Midwestern farms will be homeless this fall when the new crop comes in unless emergency facilities are built either by the farmers or by the Government.

This was the conclusion reached yesterday at an emergency conference on storage problems of more than 200 farm leaders of 6 corn-belt States, sponsored by the Department of Agriculture.

About 45 million bushels of the surplus corn is in Iowa, 15 million in Minnesota and 5 million in South Dakota.

Under Secretary of Agriculture, True D. Morse, suggested to the meeting that it would be "good business" if the farmers themselves built the storage facilities on their own farms to handle the surplus corn with the aid of Government 4-year 4 percent loans covering 80 percent of the cost.

He warned: "This is not apt to be a temporary situation. We have 90 percent of parity loans scheduled for the 1953 and 1954 crops. And I don't see much evidence of either party in Congress lowering this rate very much. The added problem of farm mechanization has put farmers in the grain storage business for good.

"We have been offered the quick and easy suggestion that John Davis (president of Commodity Credit Corporation) go out and buy bins for 50 million or 60 million bushels and put them up out here. That would be the quick and easy way, with the Treasury and all the money of the Federal Government behind us. But we don't believe that is the constructive approach."

He then added: "I fear that if the Government must resort to buying bins and putting them up to store corn, we will have to look at them in the future as monuments to the failure of free enterprise.

The Under Secretary's remarks got a lukewarm response from the farm leaders. Before the session was over even some Government Production and Marketing Administration officials indicated they thought the

Government would have to go into the bin

building business again to take care of the surplus grain.

Howard Hill of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation told Mr. Morse: "I think your program is ideal. But I have reservations

that you will be able to persuade farmers to do the job. If all this surplus corn is going to be taken care of in Iowa this year, I think you Federal fellows had better be letting the orders for bins, and right now. As for Federal bins being new monuments, they more likely will be monuments too high to support prices."

Charles Schumann of the Illinois Agricultural Association said that the Government would have difficulty selling its farm-storage program to farmers, particularly in cashgrain areas, where more corn is produced

than is needed for livestock feeding.

Most of these areas already have facilities for storing a year's crop now, and are not interested in building more storage, he said. Joe Rimdahl, Production and Marketing Administration county chairman from

Boone County, Iowa, said:

"Our problem is that most of the Government corn on farms is sealed by tenants. They don't know whether they will be working on the farm next year and so aren't inclined to put up more storage, and, besides, it is the landlords who have all the money and they don't want to spend any more of it than they have to."

Ralph Hanks, State PMA chairman for Nebraska, said his State has a property tax on grain that discourages construction of facilities for carrying over crops from one year to the other.

Richard Phillips of Iowa State College remarked that farmers are concerned with deterioration of corn stored on their farms.

and are afraid of their corn ending up as No.

5 grade instead of No. 1 or No. 2.

George Bradley, CCC director for the Chicago area, who has been assigned the responsibility of disposing of old corn in Government-owned bins dating back to 1948, gave a discouraging report about the clearing space there for new-crop corn.

He told the State PMA officials: "I don't believe there is any hope for you for more space from us. The only answer seems to be for the Government to build additional space."

Mr. Bradley said he is marketing about a million bushels of 4- and 5-year-old corn a week through the Chicago office, and that 25 million to 30 million bushels of additional old corn is deteriorating so rapidly that it should be put on the market as soon as possible.

"If corn is not deteriorating, there is nothing we can do about moving it out of Government-owned space. There is no private space available and we can't unload it on the

find nothing whatever that has been done to provide one additional bushel of new storage space for wheat.

Mr. President, it matters little whether the farmer is forced to sell at far below support level because some elevator man is withholding available space from him, or because the Commodity Credit Corporation has the elevators filled up and plugged tight with its wheat, a situation which is general in the northwestern wheat area right now.

The Department of Agriculture and the Commodity Credit Corporation have the necessary authority-and they have had it during the past 6 months of inactivity-to provide storage facilities. I have requested in my letter that they divert as many of the 90 million bushels of grain as possible, and immediately erect bins in the wheat area, to meet the current crisis. I am advised bins can be supplied and erected in 6 weeks, or less, if a real effort is made.

I do not want to take advantage of the Midwest corn producers. Commodity Credit Corporation should order more bins, and order them at once, to meet the corn storage problem. There is time, if there is no more holding back at the Department of Agriculture.

At the same time, the Department of Agriculture should drop its doctrinaire opposition to Federal storage and get under way an adequate program for permanent-type storage for our agricultural products.

These products can be of incalculable value to us as weapons either for defense

or for peace. It is shameful that they should be dumped on the ground at great

risk. I would like to see this Nation with a great stockpile of wheat, and a

great stockpile of corn, insuring us and our allies throughout the world against flood, drought, and disaster. I would like to see an international food reserve, of which our supplies would be a part, which would become the foundation of freedom from want, one of the essential freedoms if there is to be peace in the

world.

the market. Therefore, for the big corn areas of Illinois and Iowa, I can give no assurance at all of any extra space this fall."

Finally, Mr. MORSE returned to the speak

ers' stand and said: "I don't want to be a party to any Government effort to overequip any of your farms with unnecessary storage space. If it develops that we still will have to buy Government bins, then I am going to vote for buying them."

Mr. MURRAY.

These stories make it clear, Mr. President, that the new team at Agriculture are doctrinaire foes of an adéquate Federal storage program. It is clear that they are opposed to and have resisted provision of adequate space, and that, even when confronted with the insistence of farmers on pro

vision of more adequate capacity, they

have shaved and trimmed.

The Department has now ordered just under 90 million bushels of new storage bin capacity, and that is for corn, not wheat. It happens to be the amount estimated to be needed in Iowa alone this fall, but it is being distributed to eight States. Up to this moment, I can

with a storage problem, shrug and say, "Let the farmers worry about it. Let them dump it on the ground." Wheat is the "staff of life," figuratively and literally. It should not be gambled or wasted away, nor should corn or any other food product.

I sometimes wonder if the present "team" at the Department of Agriculture realizes the seriousness-the poten

tial human tragedies-involved in their decisions, their actions, or their lack of

action.

The newspapers reported some time ago, and some Senators then discussed on the floor, the fact that Under Secretary Morse and Assistant Secretary Davis, head of Commodity Credit Corporation, felt that it would be good to squeeze some of the farmers off the land because there are too many.

That is precisely what they will do if they continue to pursue their present course on storage, either deliberately or for lack of ability and initiative to meet the crisis.

Our farm price-support programs and the loan programs were designed, among other things, to make it unnecessary for farmers to sell their grain at harvesttime when markets are lowest. It was intended that the grain might go into storage and loans taken out on it so the farmer could sell it on a more favorable market later or let the Government take it at the support loan.

The whole purpose of the program is nullified if storage is not available. The whole intent of this Congress is defeated if the storage end of the program is not sustained on an adequate basis.

We gave the Department of Agriculture authority to provide storage because it is essential to make the farm programs work.

I am informed the spread between the wheat price-support level and cash prices is already running from 50 to 75 cents a bushel.

When a farmer is unable to find cover for his wheat, he has no alternative but The Departto sell at what he can get. ment of Agriculture has authorized loans for wheat on the ground for 90 days in some areas, but they are below normal support, and they do nothing to meet the need for storage-they only postpone the emergency a little and incur the risk of serious damage from wet and humid

weather.

I observe in the press that President Eisenhower has by Executive order established a permanent Agricultural Commission to study farm problems.

We have had an interim committee or commission in existence for about 6 months studying farm There are at least a dozen commodity problems. committees studying special problems.

There is a growing belief in the farm

ing areas that we have had about enough

study, enough committees and commis

sions, and that it is time to quit studying and do something. There is an idea prevalent that when men take over national programs they are supposed already to know something about them, not just to be starting to study.

It is no consolation to a farmer facing bankruptcy to be told that a national commission will hold an autopsy over the corpse of his farming enterprise, that his case will be studied by such commission.

autopsy, why they went broke. What Farmers will know, without benefit of they want is not more study but more storage bins, and have Commodity Credit to get its wheat out of the normal storage facilities of the Northwest wheat

farmers.

ment should get out fewer questionThere is a feeling that the Departnaires and more storage bins.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I am glad the Senator from Montana [Mr. MURRAY] has brought up a subject of the most critical importance to farmers of the Midwest at the present time. I concur most emphatically in what he has said.

Our storage situation in Minnesota is serious. We are going to have trouble taking care of the corn harvest, because adequate preparations have not been made.

Minnesota has a total Government storage capacity of about 43 million

bushels at this time. We now have 23 million bushels of corn in Government bins-from the 1948 and 1949 crops. There are about 43 million bushels of 1952 corn under crop loan on the farms or under purchase agreements. These loans run out on July 31; with 60 days' grace to the Government, it means this corn must be moved by September 30. That is only about 2 weeks prior to corn picking.

Yet as the situation now stands, we have room for taking care of only 20 million more bushels in the Government bins. I understand that the Department of Agriculture is hoping to get 10 million bushels resealed by farmers, and then intends providing about 10 million bushel capacity in new bins to take care of the rest.

I must warn that I do not think that even last-minute expansion of storage facilities is going to be adequate. I do not think Minnesota farmers are going to reseal 10 million bushels of 1952 crop corn. Interest rates on the 1952 crop loans have been raised from 3 to 32 percent; it will be 4 percent on the 1953 crop. The 13-cent-per-bushel storage fee simply will not cover this higher interest and the possible loss from spoilage.

Minnesota farmers have built some additional storage space this summer, but it is mainly to meet 1953 crop needs. Faribault County alone needs 1 million bushels additional storage space

This is typical of the southern Minnesota counties.

Unfortunately, the handwriting is on the wall as to what will happen under such circumstances. The corn will be dumped on the market. We have seen that happen before, and know that price support is useless protection without adequate storage.

Failure to anticipate and provide for storage needs can wipe out effectiveness of price protection just as surely as repealing the price-support laws now on the books.

The most vital part of our program to get fair prices for grain farmers is adequate storage facilities.

If there is enough storage space, farmers do not have to sell their grain crops, such as wheat, barley, oats, and corn immediately after harvesting them, when prices are at their lowest point of the year.

A shortage of storage always causes a spread between the support level and the market level, with the farmer taking a licking. As of June, with harvest in full swing, the market price in many areas was reported running 50 to 75 cents a bushel, a half or a third below the support price, adding up to millions and millions of dollars lost by all farmers on all grain crops during the year.

That is why we must fight for adequate storage just as vigilantly as we fight for price support laws. One is of little use without the other.

The Senator from Montana has done

a service to agriculture in focussing the spotlight on the seriousness of this situation.

I have been watching the situation closely and hopefully, but I regret to say the administration's record has been a

shameful example of neglect, a sad case of "too little, too late.”

I know that career employees in the Department of Agriculture endeavored to impress the new Secretary with the serious nature of the problem ever since he took over last January.

Yet the administration delayed any action until harvest was on top of many farmers, and their prices were already depressed. I have kept close track of this storage story this year, and I know that the complaint from the Senator from Montana is well founded. As evidence supporting that protest, I should like to have appear in the RECORD a chronology of just what has taken place-the whole story to date, taken from grain trade reports and official Department of Agriculture press releases. I ask unanimous consent that these reports in their chronological order, be printed in the RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks.

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

CHRONOLOGY OF THE GRAIN SHORTAGE
(All dates are in 1953)

*

Chicago the loan rate is $2.53 a bushel and the market is $2.02. * Usually the drop occurs after the new crop has started to come in, but this year the decline took place in advance. A most unusual situation." (Richard Uhlmann, president, Uhlmann Grain Co., Chicago.)

"Here in the Midwest we are going to have a big crop ** * and our red wheat is proving strictly a dog on the market. Nobody wants to buy it and you just can't find any storage around here for loan wheat." (E. J. Kazmarek, Illinois Grain Corp., Chicago.)

"Our crop looks big *** but everyone is concerned about the storage problem. Terminal elevator space in Ohio suitable for wheat is not estimated over 4 million bushels, and the millers, who have their own space, won't bother with Government storage. It naturally is to their interest to buy at the depressed market prices, far below loan." (Walter See, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation.)

To these quotes from grain experts, the Journal added:

"If and when the Commodity Credit Corp. specialists are able to solve the aweinspiring problem in wheat storage logistics, they face the prospect of an even worse problem in corn.

"With Midwest wheat on a semi-distress basis, the price decline here has dragged down prices all over the national producing belt."

JUNE 3

"United States to quit storing grain-would leave it to farmers-plan disclosed here in 6-State meeting

"The Federal Government plans to get out of the grain storage business." (Des Moines Register news story about the Department's storage meeting in that city.)

"I [Under Secretary Morse] fear that if the Government must resort to buying bins and putting them up to store corn, we will have to look at them in the future as monuments to the failure of free enterprise." (Wall Street Journal story about the same meeting.)

JUNE 4

"I wish to take this opportunity to protest the lack of storage facilities for grain that will be harvested during the next few weeks in my area. The lack of storage facilities creates a decided hardship for the small farmers in that they have no place to store their grain. * * * In other words, they find it necessary to sell their grain on the market for the market price thus losing the difference between the guaranteed price and the market price.

"This problem has been known for several months and no action has been taken by the Kansas City office until just recently. * * I feel that our small farmers are entitled to the same benefits that others who can secure storage facilities are entitled." (Letter to the Department of Agriculture from Congressman JEFFREY P. HILLELSON, the Republican who represents Harry S. Truman's district in Missouri.)

JUNE 6

"Delay on CCC bins

"As this issue * ** goes to press, the Commodity Credit Corporation Board has not yet ordered the purchase of the new bins needed. *** Why the delay? Most of the PMA and CCC officials see the problem. But there are other folks in the Department of Agriculture who dislike the corn loan, object to Government handling of storage, and who keep hoping that something will happen to get them off the hook without their actually buying more bins." (Wallace's Farmer and Iowa Homestead.)

JUNE 7

"Worst Grain Storage Squeeze LoomsUnited States To Require Space for a Billion Bushels of Wheat and Corn." (Headline in the New York Times.)