Special Message to the Congress on the Sugar Quota of the Dominican Republic.

To the Congress of the United States:

The meeting of foreign Ministers of the American Republics at San Jose, Costa Rica, has just completed its deliberations on the charges made against the Dominican Republic by the Government of Venezuela, as well as on the flagrant violation of human rights by the Trujillo regime. The foreign Ministers voted unanimously to condemn the Dominican acts of aggression and intervention against Venezuela, culminating in the attempt on the life of the President of that country, and resolved to (1) break diplomatic relations with the Dominican Republic, and (2) interrupt partially economic relations with that country beginning with a suspension of trade in arms and implements of war, with the provision that the Council of the Organization of American States shall study the feasibility and desirability of extending this trade suspension to other articles. The United States joined with the other American Republics in approving these measures.

Some 322,000 short tons of the sugar not being purchased from Cuba pursuant to the reduction in the Cuban quota is, under the July amendment to the Sugar Act, to be allocated to the Dominican Republic. This allocation is in addition to the Dominican Republic's 1960 quota amounting to approximately 130,000 tons. Since total imports of sugar from the Dominican Republic in 1959 amounted only to about 84,000 tons, the statutory allocation would give that country a large sugar bonus seriously embarrassing to the United States in the conduct of our foreign relations throughout the hemisphere.

In view of the foregoing considerations, the Government should have discretion to purchase elsewhere the quantity apportioned to the Dominican Republic pursuant to the July Amendment to the Sugar Act. I therefore request legislation providing that amounts which would be purchased in the Dominican Republic pursuant to the July Amendment need not be purchased there, but may be purchased from any foreign countries without regard to. allocation.

I would also remind the Congress that the Sugar Act's present termination date of March 31, 1961--only three months after the reconvening of Congress next January--could cause a serious gap in supplies, because it often takes as much as one or two months after purchase for sugar from distant areas to reach our refineries. Thus an extension of the Sugar Act beyond its present termination date is necessary at this session in order to protect consumers in the United States against the possibility of unreasonable prices for sugar next February and March.

I request that the Congress give urgent consideration to and take favorable action on the proposed legislation.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER