August 12, 1964
Page 19160
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I shall take only a brief time to explain the amendment. I believe it will be accepted by every Member of the Senate. I have discussed it with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT]. He indicated that he is willing to accept the amendment. I have also discussed it with the leadership and with numerous other Members of the Senate, and they support the amendment.
In effect, the amendment authorizes the appropriation of $50 million under the authority of the foreign aid bill now before the Senate for the purchase of domestically produced beef, poultry, and other meats and meat products, dairy products, rice, and other high-protein foods which are in adequate supply in the United States for donation to school lunch and similar programs in foreign countries which are eligible for assistance under the bill.
I believe the amendment is a perfect combination of our domestic self-interest with the most solid kind of humanitarian program.
We have heard much discussion in the Senate during the past few days about some of the inadequacies of our foreign aid operations. There are inadequacies. There are some parts of the program that should be corrected.
But one aspect of our oversea aid program that should bring pride to every Member of Congress, and to every American, is our oversea school lunch program. We are now feeding about 40 million schoolchildren every day through our food for peace program. The results of that program have been most inspiring, not only in terms of the remarkable improvement in health on the part of the youngsters who receive the food, but also in terms of improved school attendance and improved academic performance.
Some years ago, Prime Minister Nehru, of India, stated that one cannot talk of God to a starving person. By the same reasoning, an effective job cannot be done of educating boys and girls who are hungry, who are too weak and lethargic to sit through classroom instruction. Amazing results have been achieved by the feeding of youngsters in some 80 countries.
One of the limitations of the program has been the lack of high protein food. Under existing authority, we have not had the power to purchase beef and other meat products or the high protein foods that are desperately needed. There is no single lack in the world today that undermines human health more than the lack of protein foods.
There is an extremely critical shortage of such foods all across Africa, Asia, large parts of Latin America, and the Middle East. In fact, some authorities say that almost no child on the entire Continent of Africa escapes the ravages of protein deficiency. There is a terrible disease known as kwashiorkor, which is another name for protein deficiency. It is this tragic lack of protein in the diets of the youngsters of Africa and in most of the other underdeveloped parts of the world that causes the skinny arms and legs, the distended bellies, and the gaunt faces of the children we see when we visit underdeveloped countries.
The only way to correct that condition is by providing additional protein foods, as would be authorized by this amendment.
We should also consider the amendment I have offered from the standpoint of our own interests.
The amendment will be of great value to American producers. We all know that American livestock producers have been in serious economic trouble for more than a year. This amendment offers an opportunity to take off the market some of the surplus beef that is produced in this country. The amendment provides that the beef to be used must be domestically produced and used for the relief of boys and girls overseas through school lunch and similar programs.
Our dairy producers and some of the other producers who would be assisted by the amendment have also had problems of surpluses, which this could help relieve.
At the present time, I am advised that our stocks of nonfat dried milk are quite low. We had only 123 million pounds uncommitted July 24 compared to 472 million pounds at the same time last year. The voluntary agencies, which have asked for 850 million pounds this year, have been assured only 400 million. It would be tragic if this commodity, which is the backbone of some of our school aid projects abroad, should be suddenly cut off or drastically cut back and we should abandon millions of children to want and hunger again.
I do not know of any program in our entire farm aid operation that deserves our support more than does the effort to contribute to the improvement of the health and well-being of schoolchildren in the developing countries.
During the past week, the country has marked the 90th birthday of former President Herbert Hoover. Mr. Hoover is known around the world, not so much because he was President of the United States, important and significant as that honor was, but because he brought America's agricultural abundance to bear on the solution of the problems of world hunger. It is no accident that former President Hoover has devoted a good part of his recent years to the writing of a four-volume work on our oversea food programs. It is a high tribute to President Hoover that he handled that program with the broad vision and deep sense of humanity that he manifested, both in the years during and after World War I and again after World War II, when he was asked by President Truman to direct or advise on the feeding of the hungry people in the war-torn countries of Europe and in Japan.
One of the most remarkable of our post World War II efforts was the school lunch program directed by Gen. Douglas MacArthur in Japan, a program which is paying great dividends to the people of Japan and the people of the United States. The health and well-being of a whole generation of Japanese young people were greatly strengthened by the oversea school lunch programs that were directed by General MacArthur in the postwar period. It is one of the great achievements in the life of that renowned general. Today, thanks in part to that program, Japan is the biggest commercial, hard-money purchaser of American agricultural commodities in the world.
Mr. President, this is a hardheaded program. The schoolchildren we help today with the school lunch program, who learn to enjoy and benefit by American milk, American meat, and American agricultural products, will be our customers tomorrow. This program is definitely in the interest of American agricultural producers. It is in the interest of people who are trying to assist overseas. In the best sense of the word, it is food for peace in action.
I am much pleased that the distinguished senior Senator from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON], who is a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and who has traveled widely and observed these programs in various parts of the world, has joined me as a cosponsor of the amendment.
I hope the Senate will adopt the amendment.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, it is a privilege to be a joint sponsor of the amendment with the distinguished Senator from South Dakota [Mr. McGOVERN). Not only will the amendment help the people whom we intend it to help under the foreign aid program, It will also help the American farmer.
The fact that we reduced the foreign aid bill last evening by several hundred million is the only reason why we did not include a considerably larger figure for this worthy cause. Nevertheless, I am gratified to know, as I know my able friend from South Dakota is, as a result of the actions of the administration in recent days and weeks, that beef prices, which had been falling in a serious, if not critical fashion, have improved.
It is this type of program that I believe will make it possible for the cattlemen and those engaged in the poultry, dairy products, ricegrowing, and other high-protein food industries, to have a support program that will be, at the same time, not only in the best interest of the people of the United States, but also of the countries to which the Executive and Congress have decided to send this aid.
It is a privilege to be associated with the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, who, without question, is one of the strongest proponents of American rural life.
I urge the Senate to accept the amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I wish to comment on the point the Senator from Missouri made about the relationship of this amendment to our domestic livestock program. The Senator from Missouri has been working on this problem diligently.
Is it not true that this year, according to Department of Agriculture estimates, feed products rose 10 percent above last year, when we were really in serious difficulty?
Mr. SYMINGTON. That is true. What apprehension we had from the standpoint of prices later in the year was over the number of cows which would be slaughtered. In a program of this character, a minimum increase in the price of beef should be important in maintaining the price today, which is the minimum price from the standpoint of the capacity of the beef farmer to make any money out of his operations.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President I am advised that the production of all beef this year, exclusive of farm slaughter and veal, was 13 percent above last year during the first 6 months. The first 6 months figures were 7.8 billion pounds in 1963, and 8.8 billion pounds in 1964.
The Department of Agriculture anticipates that the year's production will run at least 10 percent over the 16.1 billion total last year, or between 17.5 and 17.8 billion pounds.
Fed steer prices have gone up substantially in Chicago this week for marketings, for the first time this year, dropped below a year ago. This will not continue in view of the overall supply outlook.
We have more than enough beef.
We can absorb about 3 percent increase a year without unreasonable depression of prices. I am sure that beef producers would welcome the export of a substantial quantity of the present oversupply.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I listened with interest to the Senator's presentation of his amendment. I note that he specifies domestic beef, poultry and other meats, and dairy products and other high protein foods. The language, "other high protein foods," suggests that the amendment would be broad enough to include fish. The Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT] of course is interested in this subject also, and I wonder whether my interpretation of that language is correct, in the opinion of the Senator from South Dakota?
Mr. McGOVERN. Let me say to the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], and also to the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT] who has taken a great interest in this problem over a long period of time, that there is no question in my mind that "other high protein foods' would include fish and fish products.
It is one of the best possible sources of protein. We have conducted a number of experiments in certain countries with the use of fish and fish products as an additive to the diets of children and adults suffering from protein deficiency, and it proved to be extremely valuable food. It would certainly be covered by the term "other high protein foods."
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator for his explanation.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield.
Mr. BARTLETT, I am very glad that the Senator from Maine asked that question, and I am particularly glad to get the answer from the Senator from South Dakota.
We all know that fish are almost literally bursting with protein. There is no better food protein than that which can be obtained from fish and fish products. I am glad to support the Senator's amendment. I am all the more happy to do so because the Senator has defined fish, in his opinion, as being one of the foods that would be included.
The junior Senator from California [Mr. SALINGER] is also interested in this subject, although at the moment Maine sardines and Alaska salmon are the fish products in surplus. I know that all too frequently California fish are likewise in surplus.
I thank the Senator from South Dakota for yielding to me.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SPARKMAN. I have not talked with the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT], concerning the Senator's amendment, but it is my understanding that he told the Senator from South Dakota that he would be willing to take the amendment to conference.
Mr. McGOVERN. The Senator is correct. He assured me that he would accept the amendment.
Mr. SPARKMAN. That is the word I had heard -- that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT ],chairman of the committee, would take the amendment to conference. I am prepared to carry out the promise which he made.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BREWSTER in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. McGOVERN].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, I submit an amendment which is at the desk, and ask that it be
stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Alaska will be stated.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 17, after line 7, it is proposed to insert the following:
SEC. 403. Section 106 of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of
1954, as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof a new sentence as follows: "When the Secretary of the Interior has determined that a domestically produced fishery product is a surplus agricultural commodity, as defined by this section, the President initiate the necessary actions for the sale of such products in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Washington and the junior Senator from Maine and I submit this amendment because we feel it is absolutely essential to do so. It appears, unfortunately, that the adoption of such an amendment is necessary if a provision we adopted last year is to be implemented. Last year the Senate added fish to the food-for-peace program. Section 403(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1963 added the following language to title I of Public Law 480:
For the purposes of this title and title IV, the term "surplus agricultural commodity" shall include any domestically produced fishery product (not including fish flour until approved by the Food and Drug Administration) if the Secretary of Interior determines that such product is at the time of exportation in excess of domestic requirements, adequate carryover, and anticipated exports for dollars.
That amendment had the active support of many Senators. Some of them, naturally, represented the chief fishing States in the country -- others not. It was supported by the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. McGOVERN]. His interest was particularly aroused because of his former position as Director of the food-for-peace program. He knew what fish could mean to the program. He wished whenever possible and wherever possible to export fish products in order to supply protein to the nations of the world so urgently in need of it.
The present Director of the food-for-peace program, the Honorable Richard W. Reuter was and is enthusiastic about the proposal. All the great fish products with their high protein content should be made available on a wider scale to the emerging nations which participate in the food-for-peace program.
The amendment became law 8 months ago. At that time, there were in surplus some 200,000 cases of sardines packed in Maine. There was in surplus approximately 1,500,000 cases of pink salmon, most of which were packed in Alaska. Those surpluses were and are causing the warehouses to bulge, depressing the domestic market and discouraging our fisherman and fishing industry.
According to the terms of last year’s amendment, it is the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to declare which of our domestic fishery products are in surplus. We know that salmon and sardines are particularly in surplus. We do not know and we cannot determine why no declaration of a surplus has been made. On January 16 I wrote the Secretary of the Interior, asking him to declare pink salmon in surplus. On January 30 I received a reply in which the Secretary stated that there were strong indications that the salmon were in surplus and that he would develop the necessary commodity recommendations as soon as possible. Three months later nothing had happened. I again wrote he Department and was again assured hat a full report could be expected shortly. That was April 24. Nothing more has been heard. I consider this total failure of Secretary Udall a shocking miscarriage of the will of Congress.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska yield?
Mr. BARTLETT. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. We have had discussions with representatives of the Department of the Interior and the Budget Bureau, and Mr. Gordon himself. The fact is, on this question there has been no denial of the facts which the Senator from Alaska has just stated, as I recall, and no one disputes that there is a surplus in these canned fishery products.
Mr. BARTLETT. The Senator is absolutely correct. I am glad that the Senator from Maine brought that up.
The senior Senator from Washington, the junior Senator from Maine, and I met with the Director of the Bureau of the Budget and one of his assistants for over 2 hours off the the Senate floor 2 months ago. It was an amazing meeting at which the Director made it quite clear that he personally was of the opinion then that adding fish to the food-for-peace program would most likely hurt the fishing industry, not help it. Mr. Gordon was willing to substitute his judgment for that of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Food for Peace Administration, the fishing industry, Congress, and the President. As I said, I was amazed.
So far as we could determine, the Bureau thought that this was not a good program. So they did not propose to do anything about it. Whether that is so or not, it is surely a f act that nothing has been done.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield further?
Mr. BARTLETT. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. We have discussed briefly one of the criteria that were set out in the legislation last year. That is that there be a production in excess of domestic requirements. Two other criteria were laid down. One was that there be an adequate inventory carryover for the needs of the industry and the domestic market. The other was that we anticipated the possibility of developing exports for dollars.
We have met most of these tests on at least a prima facie basis, and I think on a stronger basis than that. Our facts in that connection have not been disputed by the Bureau of the Budget. And for all practical purposes, so far as we know, the Bureau of the Budget does not dispute that we have met the three criteria laid down under the act. Is that correct?
Mr. BARTLETT. That is absolutely correct. And long ago, at a point in time not too distant from the enactment of the bill last year, all of us concerned started to work -- or so we thought -- with the Bureau of the Budget and with the Department of the Interior. We worked under the assumption, which we thought we were entitled to entertain, that soon the program would be in effect.
I believe the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE) has a letter in his file, which he now holds in his hand, dated back in February, from an official of the Department of the Interior. The letter paints a rosy picture in regard to implementation of the program, and paints a gloomy picture in respect to the surplus that exists.
We thought that very shortly after that the Secretary of the Interior would declare these stocks to be surplus, as he is charged with doing under the law. We thought Secretary Udall would recommend to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, and any other agencies that had to be informed, that the program should be made effective.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BARTLETT. I am particularly glad to yield to the Senator from Alabama. Above all things, I think it is important that the understanding of the committee in regard to the program be made known. I have a feeling that the committee accepted this amendment last year with a notion, idea, hope, and belief that it would be operative.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I supported this amendment in the committee.
Mr. BARTLETT. I know that.
Mr. SPARKMAN. I supported the amendment on the floor of the Senate. I supported it in the conference; and it became law.
I say in the beginning that I hope the Senator will not insist on the present amendment. I believe we can take care of it in another way, by making the record crystal clear that the intent of Congress is that this program be implemented. And that is the trouble. The law is on the books. It just has not been put into effect. We did intend that it be put into effect. And we intend now that it be put into effect.
Let me say furthermore that I support what was said with reference to the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. McGOVERN] that we believe that under the wording of the amendment, fish and fish products would be included. It specifically states: "other protein products."
I am not an expert on these matters. But I believe that fish and fish products are recognized as possessing about as high a protein content as any category of food that we have. I am perfectly willing to say to the Senator that it was our intent to write this provision into the law and that it be activated. That is our intent now. I feel confident that had this matter been called to our attention, we would have made a strong recommendation in the committee report with reference to it.
I state here, as a matter of record on the floor of the Senate that we intended that it be activated. And we still do intend that.
Mr. BARTLETT. I am encouraged by what the Senator from Alabama had to say.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BARTLETT. I yield.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I associate myself with what the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], the
Senator from South Dakota [Mr. McGOVERN], and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT] have said. Surely all of us thought we did do something about this program when we enacted it into law. I, too, am alarmed by the lack of attention given to this fine program by the Bureau of the Budget and the Department of the Interior.
I hope that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN] uses his very great influence in this matter. He has great influence with those engaged in this program. I hope that other Senators use their influence also. If not, the Senator from Washington will have to suggest that when the foreign aid appropriation bill comes along, we designate x number of dollars for that purpose. It would be so much better if they were to do it and abide by the law, than if we were forced to do such a thing.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Washington that the better system, the better way, the orderly way would be to activate the program, as was very clearly the intent of Congress. I feel confident that that will be done.
I give assurance to all Senators that I shall be glad to do whatever I can to see that the program is activated. I cannot speak for the chairman. If I recall correctly, he was an active supporter of the program last year.
Mr. MAGNUSON. He is very active. I know he is very concerned and will be with us all the way.
Mr. SPARKMAN. He was active on the committee, on the floor of the Senate, and in the conference.
Mr. BARTLETT. That is correct. I talked with the chairman this afternoon. He did not have an opportunity to study the specific wording of the amendment, so he did not promise to support it. He did say that he was and is in favor of the program.
Mr. SPARKMAN. This is correct. I feel certain he will lend his support toward getting the proper officials to go ahead and do what they ought to do under the law now on the statute books.
Mr. BARTLETT. Then we shall have two powerful right arms helping us -- the right arm of the Senator from Alabama and the right arm of the Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BARTLETT. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I appreciate the reassurance of the Senator from Alabama. It is a restatement of what I know to have been his intent a year ago when this language was incorporated in the bill.
Constantly when we are considering amendments of this nature to a bill on the floor of the Senate, we are asked by administrators of agencies to use flexible language. And yet when we do use the flexible language, the language is used to flout the will of Congress. Here we have language that is flexible. But the intent is clear. It has been clear ever since the bill was enacted into law last year. An agency uses the flexible language not to implement the right of Congress, but to thwart it.
Mr. BARTLETT. The agency tries to overcome the will of Congress.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I believe we have made our intent even more clear today. I doubt that there is a single Senator who is opposed to it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BARTLETT. I am happy to yield o the Senator from South Dakota whose support meant so much to us from the inception of what we thought was going to be a worthwhile program. It will be such if we ever get it going.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, as the Senator knows, I supported this program and have supported it since its inception. I wholeheartedly agree with the Senator from Washington [ Mr. MAGNUSON], the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN], the Senator from ,Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT]. I believe this is an important matter.
There are not very many people in the world who are actually starving to death any more. But we have hundreds of millions of people who have very badly balanced diets and are suffering from malnutrition of one kind or another. The basic cause of that malnutrition is the lack of proper foods.
In most countries, people can find sufficient volume of food to eat, but they do not have the correct mixture. Adding even a modest amount of fish or fish products to a diet can perform almost miraculous results in terms of human health. On humanitarian grounds alone, aside from what the proposal might mean to our own domestic economy, we ought to implement it as quickly, and as effectively as we can.
Mr. BARTLETT. I thank the Senator. In view of what has transpired here today, I hope that the Secretary of the Interior within the next week -- it should not take until sundown tomorrow, in fact -- will declare these stocks of fish in surplus, as he should have done long ago under the law, and that soon thereafter the program will be put into effect.
In the light of what the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN] has said -- and I realize that the Public Law 480 is a discretionary program, but I did not realize it would prove to be quite as discretionary as it has -- and because of the fine support that he has given, I withdraw the amendment.