1959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 6241'

.Alexander L. ~~vich, _Eas~ . Chicago, Ind., Victor R. Munzlinger, Monticello, Mo., in PENNSYLVANIA in place of F. S. Dubczak, deceased. place of R . .L. West, retired. Gerald C. Stough, Grapeville, Pa., In place ·Lloyd Goodwin, Edwardsport, Ind., 1n James F. Barham, Portageville, Mo., :i.n of H. W. Stough, retired . . place of M. F. Shepard, retired. place of E. S. Workman, resigned. Steve Olen, Lyndora, ·Pa., in place of M. S. J. Clyde Garretson, Roanoke, Ind., in place Isaac McKay, Steele, Mo., in place of J. 0. Karlitsky, removed. of H. G. Shearer, deceased, · Weaver, resigned. · Ernest H. Wiltrout, Maxatawny, Pa., in IOWA MONTANA place of W. H. Fegely, retired. R. Garth Mann, Dallas Center, Iowa, in Helen C. Heringer, Lambert, Mont., in Steward H. Hartman, Mechanicsburg, Pa., place of L. E. Myers, resigned. place of A. H. Klempel, resigned. in place of G. C. Dietz, transferred. James C. Overholtzer, Grand River, Iowa, Jack Thomas Beck, Jr., Monessen, Pa., in in place of A. A. Daughton, retired. NEBRASKA place of E. F. Januszewski, retired. E. Glenn Kennedy, Lewis, Iowa, in place Harlan F. Zimm:erman, Nelson, Nebr., in Robert W. Stahl, Mount Pleasant, Pa., in of H. W. Cohrs, resigned. place of 0. C. Myers, retired. place of Clark Queer, resigned. Delmar Armstrong, Pomeroy, Iowa, in place Lester I. Heist, Robesonia, Pa., in place of of C. E. Hudson, retired. Edna J. Grisso, Cedar Brook, N.J., in place B. M. Kintzer, retired. KANSAS of M. E. ·O'Rourke, retired. Matthew Spiranac, Smock, Pa., in place of Bessie Havlichek, retired. Lynn C. Hill, Goddard, Kans., in place ot ·John J. Gearhart, Convent Station, N.J., M. E. Carpenter, retired. in place of M. M. McKenna, removed. RHODE ISLAND Alvin E. Scranton, Hill City, Kans., in place ' Mary L. Wuest, Mount Royal, N.J., ~n place Raymond A. Piccolo, Bradford, R.I., in of Marie Mildrexter, resigned. of S. J. Billig, deceased. place of T. F. Eldridge, deceased. Helen E. Carty, New Gretna, N.J., in place Robert L. Roberts, Kansas City, Kans., in SOUTH CAROL IN A place of J. F. Coyle, deceased. of N. P. Maurer, resigned . . _John W. Walker, Udall, Kans., in place of Jesse W. Landon, White House Station, ·Marguerite B. Carr, Meggett, S.C., in place W. H. Lawrence, transferred. N.- J., in place of w. W. Lance, retired. of L. B. O'Conner, retired. Hugh Morgan, Jr., Yemassee, S.C., in place KENTUCKY of J. L. Sheppard, removed. William Clyde Sanders, Burnside, Ky., in Alfred F. Cook, Baldwin, N.Y., in place of place of V. L. Stigall, removed. J. V. Mahony, retired. SOUTH DAKOTA Perry M. Day, California, Ky., in place of Jesse T. Van Doren, Chaumont, N.Y., in Ray H. Woods, Colome, s. Dak., in place of C. F. Nordwick, retired. place of H. G. Shepard, retired. J. R. Knapp, retired. · Elizabeth G. Keeling, Willisburg, Ky., in John A. Dilg, Jr., Hewlett, N.Y., in :>lace of Bertel W. Bertelson, Marvin, S. Dak., in place of C. R. Ash, transferred. A. C. Longworth, retired. place of M. P. Dunlop, removed. : ·George J. Schneider, Jr., Mill Neck, N.Y ., John K. Farmen, Veblen, S. Dak., in place of A. A. Twite, transferred. Glyndywr Oldfield, Avon, Mass., in place in place of F. J. Donnelly, retired. of F. H. Nolan, retired. Francis P. Secor, Otego, N.Y., in place of Raymond W. Wilson, Charlemont, Mass., in R. A. Southard, declined. Howard F. Newell, Harrison, Tenn., in Angeline M. Rose, Roosevelt, N.Y., in place place of W. E. Hallahan, retired. place of L. G. Wilson, resigned. Daniel F. McAuliffe, Holden, Mass., in place of 0. L. Healy, deceased. of J. C. Kelleher, retired. Aida M. Decker; Tahawus, N.Y., in place Edward R. O'Hara, West Peabody, Mass., in of D. 0. Miller, resigned. ·Harold S. Roberts, Andrews, Tex., in place place of R. M. Durkee, retired. NORTH CAROLINA of M. M. Burkett, retired. Esma A. Kingston, Fluvanna, Tex., in place MICHIGAN William R. Burleson, Marion, N.C., in place of J. M. Sims, resigned. · Kenneth S. King, Cassopolis, Mich., in of J. A. Finley, deceased. · Clyde T. Hull, Milford, Tex., in place of place of 0. J. Breece, retired. · Charles M. Taylor, Winnabow, N.C., in place L. A. Wright, retired. Oscar A. Ohman, Gladstone, Mich., in place of J. J. Henry, resigned. Cecil A. McFarlin, Valley View, Tex., in R. of B. Micks, retired. OHIO place of 0. L. Lowry, retired. · Evelyn A. Greenwood, Croswell, Mich., in place of A. V. Morgan, transferred. Richard E. Hasenfiue, Birmingham, Ohio, UTAH Carl T. Redding, North Adams, Mich., in in place of L. A. Andrews, retired. Lorenzo Hawkins, Blanding, Utah, in place place of B. F. Taylor, retired. ·Raymond V. Korby, Burton, Ohio, in place of D. J. Black, resigned. of E. H. Lillibridge, retired. Ernest L. Hofacker, otsego, Mich., in place VERMONT of E. !I. Snow, retired. _ Walter A. Luse, Loudonville, Ohio, in place ·Albert W. Balfour, St. Clair, Mich., in place of J. F. Church, deceased. ·wnson L. Grant, Chelsea, Vt., in place of of J. C. Chamberlin, retired. George E. Pfeil, Mount Sterling, Ohio, in A. H. Bailey, deceased. MINNESOTA place of J. L. Bricker, transferred. VIRGINIA W. Stanley Sevaldson, Albert Lea, Minn., in Ralph C. Hershberger, Shanesville, Ohio, A. Lee Williams, Clover, Va., in place of place of H. C. Day, retired. in place of E. C. Shie, retired. W. E. Crews, transferred. Henry J. Maertens, Wabasso, Minn., in Elsie L. Bitner, Vandalia, Ohio, in place of Evelyn H. Morgan, Green Bay, Va., in place place ofT. C. Franta, resigned. R. W. Beverley, deceased. of R. H. Morgan, deceased. MISSISSIPPI OKLAHOMA WASHINGTON Tommy V. Dillard, Stonewall, Miss., in Ida M. Doyle, :3-edrock, Okla., in place of Kenneth G. Draper, Palouse, Wash., in place of A. F. Zachry, retired. J. B. Searle, retired. place of W. A. Young, removed. MlSSOURI OREGON WEST VIRGINIA Joseph E. McDowell, Herculaneum, Mo., Juanita L. Hagen, Government Camp, Frances D. Rowe, Wolf Summit, W. Va., in in place of R. G. Simpson, resigned. Oreg., in place of 0. T. Brunner, resigned. place of J. L. Gerrard, resigned.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

Address by Hon. Estes Kefauver, of Ten­ the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a speech National Independent .Dairy Association. I which I delivered last Tuesday before the eagerly accepted because, as I told him, I nessee, Before the National Inde­ National Independent Dairy Association, had always liked lusty and growing young­ sters and that I had also always liked birth· pendent Dairy Association at its meeting in Washington, D.C. day parties. There being no objection, the speech Mr. Daniel is an old friend of mine. He is EXTENSION OF REMARKS was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, a native Tennessean, an excellent lawyer, OF as follows: and well qualified by education and expe­ rience to serve you. He is~ real fighter, .and ADDRESS OF SENATOR ESTES KEFAUVER, DEMO• small businessmen need real fighters. HON. ESTES KEFAUVER CRAT, OF TENNESSEE, BEFORE NATIONAL INDE• OF TENNESSEE I want to congratulate all of you on the PENDENT DAIRY ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, magnificent progress you have made in such D.C., APRIL 14, 1959 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES a short time. It speaks volumes for the man· Friday, April17, 1959 In asking me to come here today and talk agement of independent dairies, for their ob· to you, Mr. Daniel, your executive secretary jectives, and for their leaders. In the true Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, I ask and general counsel, told me that the meet­ spirit of the occasion, I most sincerely wish unanimous consent to have printed in ing would mark the second birthday of the for you many happy returns of t he day. 6242 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE April 17 That this day will return most happily advantage over others. In thfs connection, these made in good faith to meet competi­ many, many times seems almost certain. the applicability of section 5 of the Federal tion and those on account of differences in small businessmen in your industry, as in Trade Commission Act should also be con­ quantity. others, need to speak with the full power of sidered as well as the Clayton Act because of Efforts of the to all of their voices. You are that voice. That price discriminations and payments for pro­ enforce section 2 ·of the Clayton Act turned voice must speak not only with power but motional service involved in the Adams out to be almost wholly ineffectual. One· also with knowledge, with dignity, and with operations. difficulty was that price discriminations the public interest as a guide. Your voice Stating that the record was being sent to which hurt only one or a few competing pur­ has spoken in such a way. Continue as you _ both the Federal Trade Commission and the chasers were held not to threaten substantial have begun, and the years will not only add Department of Justice, the report concluded lessening of competition in a line of com­ to your age but also to the respect in which that a failure by these agencies to find any merce. A second was that any difference in you are held. violation of existing laws would suggest that quantity was held to justify any difference The unfair methods of competition and such laws are ineffective. Neither agency in price even though there was no corre­ monopolistic practices prevalent in your in­ has yet reported that it has found any sponding difference in the seller's costs. dustry, which you so diligently strive to re­ violation. Finally, and of paramount importance, meet­ move, are fairly representative of those which I am satisfied that many small business­ ing of competition in good faith was so continue to undermine the structure of the men, including some of you, are convinced broadly interpreted as to be readily .demon­ competitive system generally. that existing antitrust laws are inadequate strable, with the result that the exemption Such methods and practices, both as they both from the point of view of their coverage it provided was virtually as broad as the prevail in your industry and in industry or interpretation and of their enforcement. prohibition. generally are, therefore, the concern of the The Antitrust Subcommittee is trying to do With an antiprice discrimination statute Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust something about both of these aspects of the full of loopholes, the practice of price dis~ and Monopoly, of which I have the honor problem. As an example, I should like to crimination thrived as did its beneficiaries. of being chairman. tell you briefiy what it is trying to do about Investigations by both the Federal Trade This subcommittee operates under a Sen­ price discriminations, one of the monopolis­ Commission and congressional committees ate resolution which authorizes it "to make tic practices present in the Adams case and showed, for example, that large chains not a complete, comprehensive, and continuing which I know you are trying to destroy. only paid prices materially lower than their study and investigation of the antitrust and I refer, of course, to S. 11 which I intro­ small retail competitors but sometimes even antimonopoly laws of the United States and duced in the 84th and 85th Congresses and lower than wholesalers. As a result the their administration, interpretation, opera­ which I have again introduced in this, the giant retailers prospered at the expense of tion, enforcement, and effect, and to deter­ 86th Congress, on behalf of myself and sev­ their smaller rivals to the extent that during mine and from time to time redetermine eral colleagues. a relatively few years their sales increased the nature and extent of any legislation This bill would amend the Robinson-Pat­ from less than 2 percent to more than 25 which may be necessary or desirable for ( 1) roan Act, enacted in 1936 to amend section 2 percent of total retail sales. clarification of existing law to eliminate con­ of the Clayton Antitrust Act which became The public interest demanded that some­ fiicts and uncertainties where necessary; (2) law in 1914. In each of these three Con­ improvement of the administration and en­ thing be done, and in response Congress in gresses Representative WRIGHT PATMAN, of 1936 enacted the Robinson-Patman amend­ forcement of existing laws; (3) supplementa­ Texas, coauthor of the Robinson-Patman tion of existing law to provide any additional ment to eliminate the defects in the anti­ Act and a lifelong friend of small business, price discrimination section of the Clayton substantive, procedural, or organizational introduced a similar bill (H.R. 11) in the legislation which may be needed for the at­ Act. The amended statute retained, of House of Representatives. By a special pro­ course, the prohibition of price discrimina­ tainment of the fundamental objects of the vision in the bill the existing law applicable laws and the efficient administration and tions where the effect in any line of com­ to freight absorption is not altered or af­ merce may be substantially to lessen com­ enforcement thereof." fected. It was under this charter that in March petition or tend to create a monopoly, but 1958 the Antitrust Subcommittee made an Briefiy, the bill would change the statute it went further and also condemned price investigation of milk marketing by the as interpreted by the Supreme Court by pro­ discriminations where the effect may be to Adams Dairies in Missouri, Illinois, and Ken­ viding that meeting in good faith the equally injure competition with the seller, or the tucky. The results of that investigation are low price of a competitor is not a defense favored buyer, or the customers of either of contained in a report of the subcommittee to price discriminations which are affirma­ them. Thus the law was amended so that dated November- 15, 1958, entitled "Case tively proved by the Government to have individual competitors as component ele­ Study of Incipient Monopoly in Milk Dis­ the probable effect in any line of commerce ments of a line of commerce were protected tribution." of substantially lessening competition or as well as the line of commerce itself. The The Adams companies sell milk to Safeway tending to create a monopoly. Such meet­ old provision which wholly exempted dis­ Stores, Inc., the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea ing of a competitor's price would, however, criminations on account of quantity was Co., and Kroger Co., and in concert with these continue to be an absolute defense to any changed so as to permit differentials on ac­ three great chain organizations, Adams price discrimination which was proved to count of quantity to the extent of the actual worked in various communities to· capture have only the probable effect of injuring saving.s in cost to the .seller. In this manner the market. competition among competitors. The basic efficiency properly became the basis of quan­ The five main characteristics which made thought underlying the bill is that price dis­ tity differentials. the Adams scheme of operation profitable to criminations which substantially lessen com­ Most importantly relevant to this discus­ the two dairy companies and which were petition or tend to create a monopoly are sion, section 2 of the Clayton Act as amended ardently supported by the chains were listed as detrimental to the public interest when by the Robinson-Patman Act no longer ex­ as follows: accomplished in good faith as they are when empted discriminations in price made in 1. An enforced differential between home done in bad faith. good faith to meet competition. The delivery and chainstore sale. The problem of price discrimination is not amendment introduced a new subsection 2. A guaranteed markup to the chains. new, but on the contrary is quite old. In 2(b) which provided that the seller could 3. The use of promotions to reduce the economic theory and in observed business show that his .lower price was made in good price. conduct, price discrimination is evidence of faith to meet the equally low price of a com­ ·4. The preference given to Adams by chains the existence and exercise of some degree of petitor merely for the purpose of rebutting in display space and promotions. monopoly power. Prohibition of price dis­ the preliminary or prima facie case made 5. Promotional allowances given to the crimination in rate making was one of the against the seller by the Commission. chains. necessary basic provisions of the first rail­ The meaning and effect of this change The effect of these practices was to rele­ road regulatory statutes in 1887. Price dis­ with respect to meeting competition is made gate the local dairies to supplying the ever­ crimination was also a favorite weapon of clear by its legislative history. The Robin­ diminishing home delivery market and serv­ the early trusts at which the Sherman Anti­ son-Patman Act was the product of a con­ ing as secondary suppliers to those retailers trust Act of 1890 was directed. The Sher­ ference committee of the Senate and the which still suffered them. man Act only became operative, however, House which reconciled the differences be­ The subcommittee noted that the effects when monopoly had been attained, and for tween the Robinson bill as passed by the of the Adams program "may have been to that reason in 1914 Congress passed the Clay­ Senate and the Patman bill as passed by the restrain trade or tend to monopoly and ton Act, in section 2 of which it was sought House. When introduced, neither of these should be considered in the light of the Sher­ to outlaw price discrimination before its bills even made any reference to meeting man Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, anticompetitive effects were so serious as to competition, but as passed by the Senate the an~ the Clayton Act, as amended by the bring the practice within the Sherman Act. Robinson bill contained the old exemption, Robinson-Patman Act." Section 2 of the Clayton Act prohibited dis­ and as passed by the House the Patman bill Regarding the Sherman Act, the subcom­ criminations in price in interstate sales of contained a section similar to the one finally mittee stated that the evidence leaves the like goods where the probable effect in any impression that Adams and the chains, act­ line of commerce was ( 1} substantially to adopted. In conference, the old exemption ing in concert, used their position to impose lessen competition, or (2) to tend. to create in the Senate bill was rejected, and the on local markets by such area price discrim­ a monopoly. The same section, however. H9use version was approved in the language inations a price structure injurious to com­ provided that certain price discriminations in which it was finally enacted. Referring petition and affording a continuing market were not prohibited and among them were to the old exemption incorporated in the 1959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 6243 Senate bill, the report of the House conferees The public· interest again demands that the session when unanimous consent was stated: · something be done to repair the damage. required to bring it up. "This language is found in existing law, S. 11 is a moderate effort to do just that. In the 85th Congress the bill was reported and in the opinion of the conferees is one The bill restricts but does not eliminate the to the Senate in modified form, but the of the obstacles to enforcement of the pres­ availability of the defense of meeting in Senate adjourned without having taken any ent Clayton Act. The Senate receded and good faith the equally low price of a com­ action. the language is stricken. A provision relat­ petitor. Where it is shown that the dis­ In the present Congress hearings have ing to the question of meeting competition, criminations may merely injure competition again been held on the bill, and the record intended to operate only as a rule of evidence between individual competitors, the defense is being prepared for the printer. We were in a proceeding before the Federal Trade continues to be absolute. Where, however, fortunate in having your counsel, Mr. Dan­ Commission, is included in st