Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Foreign Economic Policy, Volume IV

303. Memorandum of Conversation⁰

October 29, 1959.

SUBJECT

• Domestic Sugar Industry Position on Sugar Legislation

PARTICIPANTS

• Richard W. Blake, Executive Secretary, National Beet Growers Federation
• Josiah Ferris, V.P., American Sugar Cane League
• Frank A. Kemp, President, Great Western Sugar Company
• Gordon Lyons, Executive Manager, California Beet Growers Association
• James Marshall, V.P., California & Hawaiian Sugar Refining Company
• Slator Miller, V.P., Hawaiian Sugar Planters’ Association
• Robert H. Shields, President & General Counsel, U.S. Beet Sugar Assoc.
• H. Malcolm Baldridge, General Counsel, U.S. Cane Sugar Refiners
• Dudley Smith, V.P., Association of Sugar Producers of Puerto Rico
• Everett B. Wilson, Director, Puerto Rican Trade Council
• ARA—R.R. Rubottom, Jr., Assistant Secretary
• REA—H.R. Turkel, Director
• CMA—E.E. Vallon, Deputy Director
• CMA—R. B. Owen, Cuban Affairs

Mr. Frank A. Kemp, acting as spokesman for the group, stated that it consisted of representatives of the entire domestic sugar industry with the exception of the Virgin Islands. He pointed out that the domestic industry representatives have given considerable thought to the problem of renewal of the Sugar Act and are meeting now in Washington to decide on a position. They feel that, as Congress convenes in two months’ time and the session will undoubtedly be a short one, we have to arrive at a position soon in anticipation of action by the Congress early in the next session.

Mr. Kemp said that the industry sees only two alternatives: (1) a simple extension for a short period of time—six months, a year or possibly two years or (2) a longer extension—possibly 4 or 5 years—with some modification in the present terms of the law. The domestic industry has worked closely with the Department in previous years on sugar legislation and it hopes that we will be able to cooperate again in the same effective fashion to formulate a position that will satisfy the interests of the industry and the Department.

Mr. Rubottom replied that, as many of the persons present are aware, both he and Mr. Mann have maintained an “open door” policy and have discussed this question with many of them. The Department while, of course, primarily concerned with the overall interests of the U.S. welcomes the views of the industry. Mr. Rubottom then pointed out that it has always been his firm belief that U.S. businessmen and U.S. business firms abroad are one very important facet of the image which foreigners have of the United States. He mentioned that he has made this point on many occasions publicly, most recently in speeches at Montgomery, Alabama and Dallas, Texas. He then reviewed the history of our relations with Cuba since January 1 stressing that we have tried to deal with Castro so that in the event of an economic or political collapse in Cuba the blame can only fall on the Cubans themselves and Castro’s deficiencies, and not on the United States. He emphasized that it is his firm belief that foreign relations cannot be conducted on the basis of expediency and must be guided by a set of principles which will give continuity to our actions and policies. He mentioned that he and Mr. Mann are in essential agreement that we should not take any action on sugar legislation which could be interpreted as punitive toward Cuba.

Mr. Kemp agreed that we must be guided by principle but that “times have changed” and in today’s world some flexibility must be provided, although in the case of sugar legislation he felt that it should eschew politics and concern itself solely with the needs of sugar producers and consumers. In this connection he stressed the need to assure an adequate supply of sugar to the U.S. consumer and the desirability of some action in the next session of Congress to provide such a guarantee. He then asked if the Executive Branch would decline authority to adjust foreign quotas.

Mr. Rubottom replied that the idea of giving the Executive Branch the power of adjusting quotas had been advocated by a number of people and it certainly merits consideration. He pointed out, however, that he was not prepared to give any indication of what the Department’s position on sugar legislation will be as any such position will be the product of considerable consultation by the many interested people in the Department. He stated that we realize the urgency of the matter and have set November as a target date for arriving at a position although we may not be able to do it that soon.¹

Representatives of the sugar industries of California, Hawaii and Louisiana then mentioned some of the problems peculiar to their areas and stressed their need to have a reasonable amount of security in the law as it takes about two years to bring a crop in from the time of planting.

Mr. Shields thanked Mr. Rubottom for seeing the group and said that the meeting of the industry representatives is continuing and they hope to come up with a specific proposal within a short time which they then would like to present to the Department.

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 811.235/10–2959. Confidential. Drafted by Richard B. Owen of the Office of Caribbean and Mexican Affairs on November 2.
1. In White House Staff Notes, No. 690, December 12, the following U.S. Government position on sugar legislation was reported to the President. (Eisenhower Library, Whitman File, Eisenhower Diaries)