1954 congressional record- senate - Congress.gov

I

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 118~

1917, he left Gibraltar ·with 3 members of his staff overland through · Spain for Paris. After a short conference trip to London, he reported on November 1, 1917, for duty as commander, United States naval forces on the French coast, with headquarters at Brest. He continued in this duty until on January 15, 1918, he was appointed commander, United States naval forces in France, U. s. S. Prometheus, flagship. He so served during the remainder of the war and until January 30, 1919; During this period all naval sea, shore and aviation activities in France were under his com-mand. -

His paramount mission was escorting troop and storeship convoys to and from France. It is especially noteworthy that not one passenger was lost by enemy action either inbound or outbound in his area of command. This is a distinct tribute to his skill and leadership, for for many months the available escort vessels were inadequate in size, speed and numbers. For example, he had no true combatant type ship capable of escorting the Leviathan. The adopted alternative was to depend on her speed and run her in convoy with the Great Northern and Northern Pacific, which could maintain position on her at high speed. Such enforced makeshifts were usual.

Another striking accomplishment of the Navy in France was the building of 15 United States naval aviation stations along the French coast. These stations were erected by men of the United States naval forces; were completed and operating in 10 months.

One of his most widely known and difficult decisions made during this period was the one accepting the responsibility for the press dispatch, sent without his prior knowledge, which promulgated the false armistice a few days before the true armistice was signed on November 11, 1918.

For his outstanding wartime services, Admiral Wilson was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal with the following citation:

For exceptionally meritorious service in a duty of great responsibility as Commander Patrol Forces Atlantic Fleet, and as Commander, United States Naval Forces in France, in successfully coordinating with the French Navy and in expeditiously operating transports and cargo ships in French ports and war zones.

SENATE WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1954

(Legislative day of Friday, January 22, 1954)

The Senate met at 12 o'clock meridian, on the expiration of the recess.

The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown Harris, D. D., offered the following prayer:

Our Father God, who, in the toils and troubles of time, hath set vistas of eternity in our hearts: In a world that lieth in darkness, swept by the chill winds of despair and doubt, we pause at this

He also was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal by the War Department, and in addition received foreign decorations as follows: Grand Officer of the Legion of Honor, by France; Grand Cordon of the Sacred Treasury, by Japan; Commander of the Order of St. Maurice and St. Lazarus, by Italy; and Grand Official of the Military Order of A via, by Portugal.

On February 15, 1919, he returned to the United States, his flag in the U. S. s. New Mexico, for duty as commander, Squadron 4, Division 8, Atlantic Fleet. In June 1919 he was designated Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet, and hoisted his flag in the U. S. S. Pennsylvania, of which he had been the first Commanding Officer. Upon mobilization of the Atlantic and Pacific Fleets for Fleet maneuvers at the Pacific end of the Canal Zone, he assumed command of the combined forces as Commander in Chief, U.S. Battle Fleet. He was detached from this command in June 1921, and reported the following month for duty as Superintendent of the Naval Academy. He served as Superintendent until transferred to the Retired List of the Navy on February 23, 1925, his 64th birthday.

During the three and three-fourths years of his incumbency, the Naval Academy passed through the greatest transformation since its beginning in 1845-a transition from a training school to the University it still is. Though classed as a training school in 1921, it had by the time of his retirement, and largely through his efforts, become a full-fledged member of the Association of American Universities and had qualified for the subsequent authorization to award the degree of bachelor of science to its graduates. The entrance requirements had been raised to compare favorably with those of the better Engineering Colleges. The certificate method of admission had been strengthened to its present unchallenged position. The midshipmen's service uniforms had been changed to conform in general to those the graduates would require as officers of the Navy. The policy of rotating midshipmen officers to give a wider spread of command experience and responsibility among all members of the first class had become a fixture. A text book on Naval Leadership had been especially prepared and introduced into the curriculum. .More privileges, though

sheltered sanctuary of Thy grace to make sure that the light within is not dimmed. We would lift our soiled and shadowed faces to the one true Light, knowing that if we keep our hearts with Thee there is no darkness from without which can quench the light that is within.

In this desperate hour, when the world's hope of a brighter tomorrow is committed to our frail hands, join us to the valiant company of unconquered spirits who in evil times have stood their ground, preserving the heritage of man's best, and whose flaming faith has made their lives as lighted windows amid the encircling gloom. We ask it in the everblessed Name of that One who is the Light of the world. Amen.

in limited degree, had been allowed the first class on the theory that the transition from midshipman to officer would be smoother and more efficient if less abrupt than in the past. Throughout his entire tenure he emphasized what he called the "Eternal Worth of Character," for without it no naval officer can succeed. He also emphasized the need for smartness in person and dress, and taught this daily by precept and example. He promulgated a mission of the Academy, which started thus: "To mold the material received into educated gentlemen, thoroughly indoctrinated with honor, uprightness, and truth." That theme of honesty and integrity was kept before the midshipman constantly.

His tour at the Academy was marked, as was his entire naval career of 48 years, by his particular interest in the development and training of personnel. The first class to graduate under his command was the class of 1002. The members dedicated their Lucky Bag-class book-to him with the following lines:

To our Superintendent, Adm. Henry B. Wilson, United States Navy, the class of 1922 respectfully dedicates this number of the Lucky Bag-inspired as we have been by his devotion to the Navy and his continued efforts to make us better material for officers, it is our hope that our future success may, in some small degree at least, reach the heights which his has attained, and that we may occasion in our subordinates that same spirit of cooperation which he has inspired in us.

It is of considerable interest that when the class of 1922 held its thirtieth reunion at the Naval Academy last year, they still saw fit to thank Admiral Wilson for the inspiration he had been to them as midshipmen. His health, unfortunately, did not permit him to accept the invitation of the class to be their guest.

Admiral Wilson and his wife, Mrs. Ada Chapman Wilson, have two children: a daughter, Ruth, wife of the Honorable Patrick J. Hurley, Secretary of War in the Hoover administration; and a son, Henry B. Wilson, Jr., who is an oil company executive. There are six grand· children.

The service he rendered to his country and the patriotism he displayed throughout his entire life will ever be an inspiration to everyone who has had the privi· lege of acquaintanceship with him.

THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. KNOWLAND, and by

unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Tuesday, February 2, 1954, was dispensed with.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

Messages in writing from the President of the United States were communicated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre

sentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its clerks, announced that the House had

1188 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE February 3

passed, without amendment, the bill <S. 373) to extend the time for filing claims for the return of ·property under the Trading With the Enemy Act.

The message also announced that the House h ad passed the bill <S. 2175) to amend tit le VI of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, with respect to the retirement of employees in the legislative branch, with an amendment, in which it requested the concurrence of the S enate.

The message furthe r announced that the House had passed the following bills, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:

H . R. 758. An act for the relief of Harry C. Barney;'

H . R. 1647. An act for the relief of Mrs. Sylvia Mae Smith;

H. R. 2235. An act to authorize the Secret ary of the Interior to construct the Santa Maria project, Southern Pacific Basin, Calif. ;

H. R. 2616. An act for the relief of Generosa Bonet;

H. R. 2617. An act for the relief of Guillermo Morales Chacon;

H. R. 3041. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to t ransfer to Frederick W. Lee the right, title, and interest of the United Stat es in and to a certain invention;

H. R. 4340. An act for the relief of Charles J. Abarno and others;

H. R. 4551. An act to amend the Reclam ation Project Act of 1939 removing authorization of projects by the Secretary of the Interior;

H . R. 4881. An act to amend the Canal Zone Code in reference to the survival of things in action;

H . R. 5025. An act for the relief of Paul G. Kendall;

H. R. 5572. An act for the relief of Lt. Comdr. Cook Cleland;

H . R. 6452. An act for the relief of Mrs. Josette L. St. Marie;

H. R. 6698. An act for the relief of Alexei Frank;

H. R. 6808. An act for the relief of Col. Samuel J . Adams, and others;

H. R. 7395. An act to amend the definition of "airman" in the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, and for other purposes;

H. R. 7398. An act to repeal the requirement of section 3921 of the Revised Statutes that postmasters report to the Postmaster General failure to cancel postage stamps; arid

H . R. 7399. An act to authorize the sale of postage-due stamps for philatelic purposes.

ENROLLED JOINT RESOLUTION SIGNED

The message also announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the enrolled joint resolution <H. J. Res. 354) amending Public Law 207, 83d Congress, and it was signed by the President pro tempore.

ORDER FOR TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the quorum call there may be the customary morning hour for the transaction of routine business, under the usual 2-minute limitation on speeches.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The S ecretary will call the roll.

The Ch ief Clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the call of the roll be rescinded, and that f urther proceedings under the ca ll be dispensed with.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, i t is so ordered.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the following letters, which were referred as indicated : REPORT ON SPECIAL ASSISTANTS EMPLOYED BY

D EPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

A letter from the Attorney General, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on special assistants employed by the Department of Justice, for the period July 1, 1953, to December 31, 1953 (with an accompanying report) ; to the Committee on Appropriations. TERMINATION OF ENLISTMENT CONTRACTS IN

CERTAIN CASES

A letter from the Secretary of the Navy, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to provide that the enlistment contracts or periods of obligated service of members of the Armed Forces shall not terminate by reason of appointment as cadets at the United States Military Academy or as midshipmen at the United States Naval Academy or as midshipmen in the Naval Reserve or as cadets at the United States Coast Guard Academy, and for other purposes (with an accompanying paper); to the Committee on Armed Services. REPORT OF UNITED STATES ADVISORY COMMIS

SION ON INFORMATION

A letter from the Acting Chairman, United States Advisory Commission on Information, Washington, D. C., transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of that Commission, dated J anuary 1954 (with an accompanying report) ; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. REPORT ON LIGNITE RESEARCH LABORATORY,

GRAND FoRKS, N. DAK.

A letter from the Secretary of the Interior, reporting, pursuant to law, on the activities of, expenditures by, and donations to the Lignite Research Laboratory, Grand Forks, N. Dak. , for the calendar year 1953; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. REPORT ON BACKLOG OF PENDING APPLICATIONS

AND HEARING CASES IN FEDERAL COMMUNI

CATIONS COMMISSION

A letter from the Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on backlog of pending applications and hearing cases in that Commission, as of December 31, 1953 (with an accompanying report> ; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. COMPULSION OF TESTIMONY UNDER CERTAIN

CONDITIONS

A letter from the Attorney General, favoring the enactment of the bill (H. R. 6899) to permit the compelling of testimony under certain conditions and to grant immunity from prosecution in connection therewith (with an accompanying paper); to the Committee on the Judiciary.

GRANTING OF APPLICATIONS FOR PERMANENT

RESIDENCE FILED BY CERTAIN ALIENS

A letter from the Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, copies of orders granting the applications for

permanent residence _ fil~~ bY. cert~in aliens, together with a statement of the facts and pertinent provis~ons of law as to each alien , and the reasons for granting such applications (with acc'ompanying papers); to the Committee on the Judiciary.

SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION OF C ERTAIN ALIENS

A letter from the Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, copies of orders suspending the deportation of certain aliens, together with a statement of the facts and pertinent provisions of law as to each alien, and the reasons for ordering such suspension (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on the Judiciary. REPORT ON TORT CLAIMS PAID BY HOUSING AND

HOME FINANCE AGE NCY, ETC.

A letter from the Administrator , Housing and Home Finance Agency, reporting, pursuant to law, on tort claims paid by that Agency, the Home Loan Bank Board, the Federal Housing Administration, and the Public Housing Administration; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

ESTABLISHMENT OF A SOLDIERS' HOME AT FRAMINGHAM, MASS.RESOLUTIONS OF GENERAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my colleague, the junior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY], I present for appropriate reference, and ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD, resolutions of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, relating to the establishment of a soldiers' home under Federal jurisdiction, at Framingham, Mass.

There being no objection, the resolutions were received and referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and, under the rule, printed in the RECORD~ as follows: Resolutions memorializing the Congress of

the United States to talre the necessary steps for the purpose of establishing a Soldier's Home under Federal jurisdiction at Framingham Whereas there is no soldiers' home in our

Commonwealth under Federal jurisdiction and, although Massachusetts has constructed and operates two excellent soldiers' homesone in Chelsea and one in Holyoke-the primary responsibility for the care of veterans rests with the Federal Government; and

Whereas there are many federally operated soldiers' homes in various parts of the United States, especially in the southern and western parts, to care for ill and elderly former servicemen in their declining years, the nearest federally operated soldiers' home to Massachusetts being located at Togus, Maine; and

Whereas the Department of Defense and the Veterans' Administration have indicated that they do not intend to continue the operation of the facilities now known as the Cushing Hospital at Framingham, Mass.; and

Whereas the facilities at Cushing Hospital are ideally suited for a soldiers' home and could be converted at small cost tor that purpose: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the General Court of Massachusetts urges the Congress of the United States to take the necessary steps, together with the appropriate Federal department to establish a soldiers' home, under Federal jurisdiction, at the present location of the Cushing Hospital, at Framingham, Mass.; and be it . further

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 1189 Resolved, That copies of these resolutions

be sent by the secretary of the Commonwealth to the President of the United States, the Members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives from Massachusetts, the Secretary of Defense, and the Administrator for Veterans' Affairs.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate resolutions of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, identical with the foregoing,-which were referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

TAX EXEMPTION OF STATE AND MUNICIPAL BONDS-LETTER FROM WATER AND LIGHT DEPARTMENT, BRAINERD, MINN.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter which I have received from the Water and Light Department of the City of Brainerd, Minn., concerning the tax exemption of State and municipal bonds be printed in the RECORD, and appropriately referred.

There being no objection, the letter was referred to the Committee on Finance, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

CrrY oF BRAINERD, WATER AND LIGHT DEPARTMENT,

Brainerd, Minn., January 29, 1954. Han. HUBERT HUMPHREY,

Senator, Washington, D . C. DEAR SIR: The Council on State Defense

advises that a new attack has been presented on the tax exemption of State and municipal bonds in the form of a proposal by private utility interests to eliminate the tax-exempt status of municipal bonds issued for what are termed "proprietary" purposes. This is only the first step in the drive to make the interest on all State and municipal bonds subject to Federal taxation. This is in addition to the plan's attempt to impose a 13-percent Federal tax on public-power systems.

The water and Light Board of the City of Brainerd are alarmed at both of these threats that will jeopardize future financing of needed municipal improvements and will

cause an additional tax burden on the people of this community. They therefore request that you oppose these measures for the best interests of our city and State.

Yours truly, A. H. THON,

Secretary.

INCREASE IN FEDERAL TAX EXEMPTION- RESOLUTION OF LOCAL 257, BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY CLERKS, ST. PAUL, MINN.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a resolution adopted by Local 257. Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, St. Paul, Minn., in support of an increase in the Federal tax exemption from $600 to $1,500 be printed in the RECORD, and appropriately referred.

There being no objection, the resolution was referred to the Committee on Finance, and ordered to be printed in the REcORD, as follows:

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,

St. Paul, Minn., January 27, 1954. Senator HUBERT HUMPHREY,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR HUMPHREY: The mem·bership of this lodge, Local 257, Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, adopted the following motion at our last regular meeting held on January 5, 1954:

"A unanimous motion was made that this lodge, Local 257, Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, favors an increase in the Federal tax exemption from the present $600 rate to a $1 ,500 rate."

The membership feels that big business is constantly requesting tax relief and receiving certain tax relief under many loopholes, but the worker still has to carry the full load; therefore, some consideration should be given the worker.

Trusting that you will give your support to any bill giving relief to the average wageearner and attempt to introduce such legislation at the earliest opportunity, I remain,

Sincerely, ALFRED B. BROAD,

Recording Secretary, B. of R. C., Local257.

REPORT OF A COMMITTEE

The following report of a committee was submitted:

By Mr. AIKEN, from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry:

S. 1386. A bill to amend section 2 of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, relating to the meaning of the word_ "commodity"; without amendment (Rept. No. 929).

VOICE OF AMERICA-REPORT OF A COMMITTEE <S. REPT. NO. 928)

Mr. McCARTHY, from the Committee on Government Operations, submitted a report on Voice of America, which was ordered to be printed.

ADDITIONAL REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE ON REDUCTION OF NONESSENTIAL FEDERAL EXPENDITURES-CIVIL EMPLOYMENT IN EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as chairman of the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures, I submit an additional report on civilian employment in the executive branch of the Federal Government for the month of December 1953, and, in accordance with the practice of several years' standing, I request that it be printed in the body of the RECORD as a part of my remarks, together with a statement by me.

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

PERSONNEL AND PAY SUMMARY 1

(See table I)

According to monthly personnel reports for December 1953 submitted to the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures:

Civilian personnel in executive branch Payroll (in thousands) in executive branch

Department or agency In Derern ber In November numbered- numbered-

TotaL •• ----------------------------- __ ----------------_----- ______ -----------_ 2,357, 294 2,367,330

1. Agencies exclusive of Department of Defcnse.·------------------------------------- 1,177, 760 1,182,189 2. Department of Defense------------------------------------------------------------- 1,179, 534 1,185,141

Within the Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense----------------------------------------------- 1,834 1,852 Department of the Army _______ ------------------------------------------------ 459,389 464,894 Department of the Air Ji'orce __________________________________________________ _ 288, 9l9 288, 587 Department of the Navy------------------------------------------------------- 429,392 429,808

Table I breaks down the above figures on employment and pay by agency.

Tables II, III, and IV break down the above employment figures to show the number inside continental United States, outside cont~nental United States, and the number in the so-called industrial categories. This further breakdown in tables II, III, and IV does not include pay figures because payroll reports submitted to the committee by some a3encies are inadequate for this purpose.

INSIDE CONTINENTAL UNrrED STATES (See table TI)

Federal personnel within the United States decreased 8,933 from the November total o! 2,190,018 to the December total oi 2,181,085.

Exclusive of the Department of Defense there was a decrease of 3,489 from the November figure of 1,120,966 to the December figure of 1,117,477.

Total civilian employment within the United States for the Department of Defense for December was 1,063,608, a decrease of 5,444 from the November figure of 1,069,052.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense decreased 23 from the November figure of 1,801 to the December figure of 1,778.

The Department of the Army civilian personnel within the United States decreased 5,119 from the November figure o! 414,861 to the December figure of 409,742.

The Department of the Air Force civilian personnel within the United States increased

Increase C+) In November In October Increase C+> or de- was- was- or de-

crease(-) crease(-)

-10, 036 $757,788 $787,889 -$30,101

-4,429 390,958 401,616 -10,658 -5,607 366,830 386,273 -19,413

-18 912 965 -53 -5,505 129,329 138,351 -9,012

+332 90,742 94,494 -3,752 -416 145,837 152, 4{;3 -6,626

245 from the November figure of 252,840 to the December figure of 253,085.

The Department of the Navy civilian personnel within the United States decreased 547 from the November figure of 399,550 to the December figure of 399,003.

OUTSIDE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES (See table m)·

Outside continental United States Federal personnel decreased 1,103 from the November total of 177,312 to the December total o! 176,209.

1 Exclusive of foreign nationals shown in table VL

1190 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE February 3

A decrease of 940 was reported by the departments and agencies other than the Dep artment of Defense, from the November figure of 61,223 to the December figure of 60,283.

Total civilian employment outside continental United States for the Department of Defense decreased 163 from the November figure of 116,089 to the December figure of 115,926.

Industrial employment in the departments and agencies other than the Department of Defense decreased 568 from the November figure of 25,912 to the December :figure of 25,344.

The Department of Defense decreased its total industrial employment 4,404 from the November figure of 681 ,674 to the December figure of 677,270.

skilled, skilled, and supervisory employees paid by the Federal Government who are working on construction projects, such as airfields and roads, and in shipyards and arsenals. It does not include maintenance and custodial employees.

MUTUAL DEFENSE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

(See table V)

The Office of the Secretary of Defense reported 56 in overseas civilian employment, an increase of 5.

The Department of the Army reported a decrease of 386 in overseas civilian employment from the November figure of 50,033 to the December figure of 49,647.

The Department of the Army reported a decrease of 3,983 from the November figure of 233,922 to the December figure of 229,939. Inside continental United S tates Army industrial employment decreased 3,776 and outside continental United States Army industria l employment decreased 207.

Table V shows personnel counted in tables I , II, III, and IV who are assigned to the Mutual Defense Assistance Program by the State Department, Foreign Operations Administration, and the component units of the Department of Defense together with their pay.

The Department of the Air Force reported an increase of 87 in overseas civilian employment from the November figure of 35,747 to the December figure of 35,834.

The Departm ent of the Air Force reported a decrease of 116 from the November figure of 164,817 to the December figure of 164,701. Inside continental United States Air Force industrial employment increased 220 and outside continental United States Air Force industrial employment decreased 336.

FOREIGN NATIONALS

(See table VI)

The Department of the Navy reported an increase of 131 in overseas civilian employment from the November figure of 30,258 to the December figure of 30,389.

INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT

(See table IV) Total industrial employment during the

month of December 1953 decreased ~.972 from the November total of 707,586 to the December total of 702,614.

The Department of the Navy reported a decrease of 305 from the November figure of 282,935 to the December figure of 282,630. Inside continental United States Navy industrial employment decreased 374 and outside continental United States Navy industrial employment increased 69.

The term "industrial employees" as used by the committee refers to unskilled, semi-

Table VI is included in this report for the first time. It shows foreign nationals working under United States agencies overseas who are not included among personnel counted in any other table in this report and who are excluded from usual Federal personnel reporting because of the nature of their work or the source of the funds from which they are paid. In this and future personnel reports by the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures they will be regarded as Federal employees to be counted along with but separate from regular employees.

TABLE I.-Consolidated table of Federal personnel inside and outside continental United Stales employed by the executive agencies dU1·ing December 1953, and comparison with November 1953, and pay for November 1953, and comparison with October 1953

Pay (in thousands of dollars) Personnel D epartment or agency

October November Increase Decrease November December Increase Decrea e

Executive departments (except Department of Defense): Agriculture 1 ________ _ _______ _ _______________ _ ____________ ___ -------- _

Commerce 2 3 _ ______ _______ ___ _ _ -------------------------------------Health, Education, and Welfare ____________________________________ _ Interior __ --------- ___ - --- ______ ------- -_--- - -- - --------------------- -Justice ____ ---------------------------------------------------------- -Labor ____ - ---------------- __ -------- ---- -- ----------- : --------------Post Office _________ ___ -----------------------------------------------State ______ -------- __ --- --------------------------- ____ ----_--------_ Tr('-SSury ___ ___ _____ -- - -- - --------------------------- - ------------- --

Executive Office of the Pre ·ident:

~24, 078 18, 650 1~. 701

$20, 236 13, 080

2, 308 161.349 •6,977 31,386

$23, 143 17,388 12,330

$18,680 12, 121

2, 087 161, 533

6, 610 29,933

----------- - $935 ---------- -- 1, 262 ----------- - 371 ------------ $1, 556 ------------ 959 --------- --- 221

$184 -------- -- - -- ------- -- - - 367 ------------ 1, 453

White House Office-------------------------------------------------- 130 122 ------------ 8 Bureau of the Budget.-- -------------- - - ---------- ------------------- 259 242 -- ------- - __ 17 Council of Economic Advisers.--- ------------- ----------- ---- ------ - 13 17 4 ------------Executive Mansion and Grounds____ ___ _______ _________________ ____ _ 25 25 --- ------- -- ------------National Security Council 6------------------------------------------ 16 16 -- --------- - ----------- -Office of Defense Mobilization_ ___ ____ ___ __ __ ____________ _______ ___ __ 191 176 - --------- -- 15 President's Advisory Committee on Government Organization _____ _ - ----------- ---------- -- ---------- -- ------------

Emergency agencies: Defense Transport Administration___________________________________ 23 19 - ---------- - 4

70,262 "5, 459 36.238 52,367 30.172 5, 237

506,584 '20, 428

81,104

247 420

22 127 28

395 6

38

67, 610 44,203 36,247 51.769 29, 944

5, 176 507, 615 20,106 80,873

249 417 28

128 28

386 a

----------- - 2, 652 -- ------ --- - 1, 256

9 ------ --- - -------------- 598 ------------ 228 -------- - --- 61

1, 061 --------- -- ------------- 322 ----------- - 231

2 ---------------------- -- 3

6 ------------1 ------------

9 3

36 ------------ 2 Economic Stabilization Agency 6------------------------------------- 30 -------- - -- - ------------ 30 --- ----- ---- ------------ ------------ -- ----------Federal Civil Defense Administration_______________________________ 396 372 ------------ 24 Foreign Operations Administration_________ ____________ __ _________ __ 2, 200 2,173 ------------ 27 N ational Security 'l'raiuing Commission________ ____________________ _ 5 6 1 ----- -- -----R enegotiation .Board __________ --- - --------------- -- ----------------- - 399 393 ------------ 6

698 6, 634

10 699

693 ------------ 5 6, 691 57 ------------

10 ------- -- - -- ------------712 13 ------------

Small Defense Plants Administration 7------------------------------- 326 153 -- --------- - 173 Subversive Activities Control Board_________________________________ 19 18 ------------ 1 --- ------31- ---------31- :::::::::::: ::::::::::::

Postwar agencies: War Claims Commission-------------------------------------------- 61 58 ------------ 3 160

Independent agencies: American Battle Monuments Commission___________________________ 91 93 2 -- ---------- 447 Atomic Energy Commission. ---------------------------------------- 3, 008 2, 862 ------------ 146 6, 404 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System_---- ----- --- -- --- 256 246 ------------ 10 583

8:;tl ~ee:~~ud~~~~~r;---~~=== =::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: :::: ::: 1, ~~~ 1, ~g~ :::::::::::: ~ 4, ~ Commission on Foreign Economic PoliCY--------------------------- - 6 13 7 - ----------- 64 Commission on Intergovernmental Relations ____ -------------------- 1 2 1 ------------ 9 Committee on Retirement Policy for Federal PersonneL____________ _ 7 7 - ----------- - --------- -- 18 Export-Import Bank of Washington__________ ___ _________ ___________ 74 68 ------------ 6 129 F arm Credit Administration~--------------------------------------- ------------ --------- -- - --------- --- ------------ - -----------F ederal Coal Mine Safety Board of Review__________________________ 3 4 1 ------------ 8 Federal Communications Commission__________ _____________________ 527 509 - -------- -- - 18 1, 103 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation------------------------------ 444 431 ------------ 13 1, 032 Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service___ _______ ____ ___ ________ 236 222 ------------ 14 373 Federal Power Commission_____________ _______ ______________________ 321 308 ----------- - 13 663 Federal Trade Commission. ----------------------------------------- 342 291 - - - -------- - 51 582 General Accounting Office------------------------------------------- 2, 466 2, 344 ---------- -- 122 5, 956 General Services Administration------------------------------------ ; 8, 743 8, 403 ------------ 340 Zl, 821 Government Contract Committee-----------------------~----------- 3 2 ------------ 1 11 Government Printing Office_________________________________________ 2, 777 2, 684 - ---- ------ - 93 7, 088 Housing and Home Finance Agency _____________ : _________________ __ 4, 773 4, 479 ------------ 294 11,065 Indian Claims Commission__ __________ ________ __________________ ___ _ 9 9 --------- -- - - ----------- 14 Interstate Commerce Commission_- -- ------------------------- - ----- 636 810 174 - ----------- 1, 814 National Adv isory Committee for Aeronautics__________ _________ ____ 2, 956 2, 829 - ---------- - 127 7, 301 N ational Capital Housing AuthoritY--------------------------------- 112 106 ------------ 6 343 N ational Capital Planning Commission______________________________ 9 9 ------------ ------------ 20 National Gallery o! Art---------------------------------------------- 96 94 ------------ · 2 320

• Revised on the basis oflater information.

157

4.52 6, 371

583 541

4, 477 47 20 17

127 786

8 1, 126 1, 029

358 663 576

5, 927 Zl, 622

13 7,073

11,041 14

1, 826 7, 264

335 20

317

a 5 ------------

--- --------- 33

------------ 1 ----------- - 10 ------------ 7

11 - ---------------------- - 1 - ------- - - -- 2

786 ---------------------23- :::::::::::: ------------ 3 ------------ 15 :::::::::::: -----------6 ------------ 29 ----------- - 199

2 --------- -- ------------- 15 --- -------- - 24

12 ---------- - ------------ - 37 - ----------- 8 :::::::::::: -----------i

t The Farm Credit Administration, formerly under the Department of Agriculture, became au independent agency effective Dec. 4, 1953, pursuant to Public Law 202, 83d Cong.

1 Exclusive of personnel and pay of the Central Intelligence Agency. • Ceased to exist Oct. 31, 1953.

2 December figure includes 867 employees of the Business and D efense Services Administration, an increase of 22 from the November figure of 845.

1 December figure includes 2,522 seamen on tbe rolls o! tbe Maritime Administra-tion and their pay. . .. .

7 Transferred to Small. Business Administration under Presidential directive d~ted Aug. 8, 1953, unde; Public Law 163, 83d Oong.

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - · SENATE 1191 TABLE I.-Consolidated ·table of Federal personnel inside and outside continental Um'ted Stales employed by the executive agencies during

December 1953, and comparison with November 1953, and pay for November 1953, and i:ompan:son with October 1953-Continued

Pay (in thousands of dollars) Personnel D epartment or agency

Decrease November I December Increase October November Increase Decrease

Independent agencies-ContiPued National Labor Relations Board____________________ ______________ __ _ $624 $587 --- -------- - $37 1, 254 1, 250 National Mediation Board____ ________________ _________ ____ __________ 75 74 ------------ 1 112 110 National Science Foundation___________ _____________________________ 73 73 ------------ ---- ----- -- - 170 200 Panama CanaL__________________ ________ ___________________________ 3, 958 3, 459 -- ---------- 499 17, 091 16, 9-!4 R a ilroad Retirement Board-------- ----- ~ -------------------- -------- 753 711 - ----------- 42 2,104 2,114 Reconstruction Finance Corporation------------------ ----- "--------- 77G 599 -------- -- -- 177 1, 235 1, 214 Rubber Prorlucing Facilities Disposal Commission____ _____ ____ ___ __ 1 4 3 - -------- --- 5 20 Securitirs and Exchange Commission________________________________ 403 372 -- --------- - 31 732 727 S!'lective Servi('C System ___ ------------------------------------------ l, 702 1, 573 -- ---------- 129 7, 313 7, 327 Small Business Administration______________________________________ 18 101 83 ----------- - 34.9 415 Smithsonian Institution __ ------------------------------------------- 177 172 ------------ 4!l8 500 Soldiers' Home ____ _ ------------------------------- ----------------- - 150 149 ----------- - 1 776 777 'J'a riff Commission ________________ __________ ,_____________ ___________ _ 103 100 ------------ 3 195 193 'I'a.x Court of the United Rt.at~s---- --------- ------------------ ------- G9 fl7 - ----------- 2 137 136 'l'ennessee Valley Authority __ --------------------------------------- 9, 718 ' 9, 048 . ------ - ___ _ 670 22, 905 22. 79fi U . S. Information AgenCY------------------------------------------- 2,398 2.51.0 112 --- -- --- ---- 9,919 9,351 \'eterans' Administration______________ ___ ________________________ ___ 55,804 54,962 ·----------- 812 181, 841 181,911

----- - ------ 4 --- ----- ---- 2

30 ----------- -- -------- --- 147

10 --- -------- ---------- --- 21

15 ------------------ --- --- 5

14 ------------66 ------------

2 --- --------1 ------------

--- --------- 2 - ----------- 1 ------------ 109 -- ---------- 568

70 -- -------- --

Total, <'Xcluding Department ofDefensc _______ ____________________ 4{)1, 616 390.958 -- 572 ---n, 230 -~: 182,189-- 1, 177, 7601 2, I!l6 6,625 Net decrease, excluding Department of Defense ____________________ ------------ -- ---------- 10, ,65S ----=--"'-=-=--=-=- l =-=-=--=-=--=-=-=--=-=~=-===4='=fi=29====

D epartment of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense Q----------------------------------- I, 834 965 912 ------------ 53 1, 852 18

5,119 386

Department oi the Army: Ins ide continental United States________ ________________________ _ 409, 742 Outside continental United States__ _____________________________ 49,647

124, 984 11 6,016 ------------13,367

8,968 414,861 13,323 ------------

D epartment of the Air Force: 44 50,033

Inside continental United States_________________________________ 253,085 Outside continental United States_ ----------------- ------------- 35,834

86,328 82, 765 ------------ 3, fi63 252,840 245 - -----------87 - -----------

D epartment of the 1'\avy: 8,166 7, 977 ------------ 18fl 35, 'i47

Inside continental United States____ ___ ___ _______________________ 143, 509 137,314 ----------- - 399. 003 6,195 399,550 ------------ 547 Outside continental United States_ ------------------------------ 8. 954 8, 523 ------------ 30.389 431 30,258 131 --- ------ -- -

Total, Department of Defense __ ______ _____ ______________ ______ 386,273 3G6, 830 ___________ _! 1,17!l, 534 19,443 1, 185,141 4@ I 6, o1o 5, 607 Net decrease, Department of Defense _____________________ _____ ------------ ----- ------- 19.443 ------------ ------------

Grand total, including Department of Defense_________ ____ ____ 787,889 757,7881 57320,

1

1101

30, 673, __ 2_,_3_6_7_,_3_3_o __ l--2-,_3_5_7_,_29 __ 4 __ Net decrease, including Department of Defense ______________ __ - ----------- - --------- --

2, 659 j===12=, =69=5 10,036

I a Includes $98,662 retroactive pay increases paid in November. ~Includes 255 employees assigned to the Cataloging, Standardization, and Inspec-

tion Agency and 43 employees assigned to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

T ABLE !I.-Federal personnel inside continental United Stales employed by execut.ive agendes during December 1953, and comparison with November 1953

Novem- Decem- In- De-bcr ber crease crease

Novem- Decem- In- De-ber ber crease crease

Department or agency Department or agency

---------------------------------l-------l-------------l------ll -------------------------------- 1-~---l·------------------Executive departments (except Department ·

of Delense): Agriculture t_ -----------------------------Commerce 2 3------------------------------Health, Education, and Welfare ______ ____ _ Interior _____ ____ __ ______________ ----------Justice __ _ ------------ ____ ------------- ___ _ Labor _____ ------------ - -------------- ____ _ Post Office_ ----------------------------- __ State _________ ___________ _________________ _ Treasm·y ______________________ ------------

Executive Office of the President: Wb1te House Office __ --------------------Bureau of the Budget__-------------------Council of Economic Advisers ______ ______ _ Executive Mansion and Grounds ___ ______ _ Nation!ll Security Council4 _________ _____ _ Office of Defense Mobilization ____________ _ President's Advisory Committee on Gov-

ernment Organization ___________ ---- ----Emergency agencies:

Defense Transport Administration _____ __ _ Federal Civil Defense Administration ____ _ Foreign Operations Administration ____ __ _ National Security Training Commission __

· :~b~~~!f;!i~c~~il~~s con-t~o1-:Boarci~===== Postwar agencies:

\Var Claims Commission _______________ __ _ lndepend<>nt agencies: · Ameriean Battle Monuments Commission_

Atomic Energy Commission_---- --- --- --Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System _______________ -------------------Civil Aeronautics Board ________ ________ _ _

· Civil Service Commission ________________ _ ' Commission on Foreign Economic Policy_ Commission on Intergovernmental Rela-tions ____ _______ ____ _______ ___ ___ _______ _ Committee on Ret.irement Policy for

68,790 42,324 35,693 46,389 29.653

5,120 504,246

6,096 80,103

247 420 22

127 28

395

6

38 698

1,448 10

699 31

15 6,391

583 534

4,470 54

9

Frderal PersonneL______________________ 18 Fx!'lort-Import Bank of Washington______ 129 Farm Credit Aclmini~tration t _____________ ------ ----Federal Coal Mine Safety Board of Re~iew ____ _____ --------------------- - __

Federal Communications Commission ___ _ Federal Deposit Insurance Corroration __ _ Federal Mediation and Conciliation

Service ___________________ ___ ------------Federal Power Commission _______ _______ _

8 1, 076 1,031

373 663

66,118 2,672 41, 119 1, 205 35,699 6 -----522 45,867 29,427 226

5,069 51 505,296 1,050

G,004 92 79,872 231

249 2 -------3 417

28 6 --------128 1 --------28 -------- --------

386

3

36 2 693 5

1, 429 19 10 ------ -- --------

7J2 13 --------31 ---- ---- --------

157 3

15 -------- ------33 6,358

583 -------- --------53-i -------- --------

4,460 10 47 7

20 11 --------17 1

127 ----775- 2 775 --------

8 -- --- --- --------1,100 24 -------3 1, 028

358 15 663 -------- --------

1 The Farm Crecli t Administration, formerly under the Department of Agriculture, became an independent agency effective Dec. 4, 1953, pursuant to Public Law 202, 83d Cong.

1 December figure includes 867 employees of the Business ami Defense Servioea Administration, an increase of 22 from the November figure of 845.

Independent agencies-Continued F ederal 'l'rade Commis<;ion ______________ _ General Accounting Olflce __ --------------General Services Administration _________ _ Government Contract Committee __ ______ _ Government Printing Office ________ ______ _ Housing and Home Finance Agency ___ __ _ Indian Claims Commission __________ ____ _ Interstate Commerce Commission ___ ___ __ _ National AdYisory Committee for Aero-

nautics ___________ __________ __ ------ -----National Capital Housing Authority ___ __ _ Nationa l Ca pita l Planning Commission __ _ Nat.ional G~lllery of Art __ --- ----- ---------National Labor Rrhtions Board __ ___ ____ _ National Mediation Board _-------------- -National Science Fotmdation _______ ______ _ Panama CanaL ___ _______ _ - -------------- -Railroad Rt'tirement Board_--------------Reconstruction Finance Corporation _____ _ Rubber . P~odu<>ing Facilities Disposal CommtSSlon ___ ___ _____ _________________ _ Securities and Exchange Commission ___ _ _ Selective Service System _______ __________ _ Small Business Administration __ _________ _ Sm itbsoni~•n Institution ____ ___ ---------- --Soldiers' Home __ _____________ ------------_ Tariff Commission __________ --- - - ---------rrax Court of the United States ___________ _ 'I'ennesSC'e Valley AuthoritY.------- ------United States Information Agency- - --- --Veterans' Administration __ ---------------

582 5,916

27, 717 11

7,088 10,925

14 1, 814

7,301 343

20 320

1 233 'u?. 170 538

2,104 1, 229

5 732

7,105 349 496 776 19fl 137

22,905 2,113

180,619

576 5.888

27,519 13

7, 073 10, 907

14 1,826

7, 264 335

20 317

1, 229 110 200 533

2,114 1, 208

20 727

7,120 415 498 777 193 136

22,796. 2,087

180.691

6 28

-------- 198 2 --- -----

15 18

-----12-===::::: 37

8

3 4

---- ---- 2 30 --------

-------- 6 10 --------

21

15 --- ---- -5

15 G6 --------2 -- ----- -1 --- -----

2 1

109 ------- - 26

72 --------

Total, excluding D epartment of Defense. 1, 120,966 I; 117,477 2,113 5,602 Net decrease, excluding Department of

Defense ____ -----------·---------------- ------ __ __ ----~----- 3, 489

Department of Defense: Office of the Ser.retary of Defense ____ _____ _ Department of the ArmY------------------Department of the Air Force ____ _________ _ Department of the Navy _______ ________ __ _

1, Rf'l1 414, 861 252,840 399,550

1, 778 23 409,742 -------- 5,119 253,085 245 ------ --309,003 -------- 547

Total, Department of Defense ___________ 1, 009,052 1, 003,608 245 5, 689

:::nd:c:::;· ::;:;:e;e::::::~f- ---------- ___ ___ ____ 5,4

1

44

Defense_------------------------------ 2, 190,018 2, 181,085 2, 358 11,291 Net decrease, including Department of

D efense _- ----------------------------- ---------- ---- ------ 8 ,13.3

a December figure includes 2,522 seamen on the rolls of the Maritime Adminis-tration. .

'Exclusive of personnel of the Central Intelligence Agency.


TABLE !H.-Federal personnel outside continental United States employed by the executive agencies during December 1953, and comparison with November 1953

D epartment or agency Novem- Decem- In- De-

her ber crease crease ----------·-----------1--------------Executive departments (except Department

of Defense): Agriculture 1-.----------------------------

Commerce .. ----------------- -------------Health, Education, and Welfare __________ _ Interior __ --------------------------------Justice . . ... ------------------------------Labor .. ----------.-----------------------Post Office .. ---------- .. -----------------State ... _ ... - ... ---------------------------Treasury ___ . . __ .----------------- -----_ •. _

Emergency agencies: Foreign Operations Administration ______ _

1, 472 3,135

545 5, 973

519 117

2,338 2 14,332

1, 001

5,186 Independent agencies: . .

American Battle Monuments CommJsswn. 432 Atomic Energy Commission______________ 13 Civil Aeronautics Board .. . --------------- 8 Civil Service Commission __ ___ ____________ 17 Farm Credit Administration 1- ------- ---- - --------- -Federal Communications Commission . ... 27 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation... 1 General Accounting Office ________ ________ 40 General Services Administration .. ........ 104 Housing and Home Finance Agency______ 140 National Labor Relations Board__________ 21

1, 492 3,084

548 5, 902

517 107

2,349 14, 102 1, 001

5, 262

437 13

7 17 11 26 1

39 103 134

21

20 ---------- --- --- 51

3 ----- ---- 76

2 -------- 10

11 --------230

76

11 -- ------1

1 1 6

Department or agency Novem- D ecem- In- De-her ber crease crease

-------------------1---- ------ ----Independent agencies-Continued

Panama Canal ____ _______ .---- ------------Reconstruction Finance Corporation _____ _ Selective Service System.---------- -------Smithson ian Instit;ution ... _____ ... ----- __ _ United States Information Agency.------Veterans' Administration __ ---------------

16,553 6

208 2

7,806 1, 222

16,411 6

207 2

7, 264 1, 220

142

542 2

Total excluding Department of Defense . . 61,223 60,283 126 1. 066 N et decrease, excluding D epartment of

D efense ... --------------------------- - - - -------- ---------- 940

Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense _________ _ D epartment ot the Army ____ --- -----------Department of the Air Force _____________ _ D epartment or the avy --- ---------------

51 50,033 35,747 30,258

56 5 --------49,647 -- ---- -- 386 35,834 87 --------30.389 131 ------- -

Total, Department of Defense___________ 116,089 115,926 223 386 N et decrease, Department of Defense ___ _______ ___ ---------- 163

Grand total, including Department of -----------~---D efense.--------------------------- -- - 177,312 176,209 3491 1, 452

Net decrease, including Department of Defense.- ----------------------------- ---------- ---------- 1,103

I 1 The Farm Credit Administration, formerly under the Department of Agriculture, 2 Revised on the basis of later information.

became an independent agency effective Dec. 4, 1953, pursuant to Public Law 202, 83d Cong.

TABLE TV.-Industrial employees of the Federal Government inside and outside continental United States employed by executive agencies during December 1953, and comparison with November 1953

D epartment or agency D epartment or agency ovem- D ecem- In- De-her ber crease crease

N ovem- Decem- In- De-ber ber crease crease

------------------1-------------- ---------------1-----------Executive departments (except Department

of Defense) : Commerce .. __ ---------------------------Interior_.------ --------------------------. State __ . __ .•. _ .. _ ... __ ....•. ______ ._ ..... __ Treasury ____ . _ .... _____ -------------------

Independent agencies: Atomic Energy Commission ______________ _ Panama Canal._---- -- --- -----------------Tennessee Valley Authority _________ _____ _

490 2, 516

128 7,140

106 1,372

14,160

479 11 2, 177 -------- 339

130 2 --------7,010 130

108 1, 372

14,068

2 - -------

92

572 Total, excluding Department of Defense. 25,912 25,344 N et decrease, excluding Department 01

D efense.----------------------------- - -- --- ---- - _________ _ 568

Department of Defense: Department of the Army:

Inside continental United States._____ 202,589 Outside continental United States..... 31,333

D epartment of the Air Force: Inside continental United States._____ 143, 928 Outside continental United States_____ 20,889

Department of the Navy: Inside continental United States . _____ 260,897 Outside continental United States_____ 22,038

198,813 31,126

144,148 20,553

3, 776 207

220 ------- -336

260,523 -------- 374 22,107 69 -- ------

Total, Department of Defense..... . . 681,674 677,270 289 4, 693 N et decrease, Department of De-

fense __________________________________________________ 4,404

Grand total, including Department = = =1= of Defense______________________ ___ 707,586 702,614 293 5, 265

N ot decrease, including Department of Defense _________________________ ---------- ---------- 4,972

I

TABLE v.-Federal employees assigned to mutual def ense assistance program

Payroll (in thousands) Civilian personnel

D epartment or agency In October In :rovem· Increase <+> InNovem- In Decem· Increase<+>

was- ber was- or de- bernum- bernum- or de-crease(-) bered- bered- crease(-)

Total .. _____ --------_---- _____ • __ ----- _____ • ____________________________________ _ $6,863 $6,586 -$277 23,802 24,277 +475

State Department .... _ .. ________________________ •. ------ __ ----- •• _______________ _ • ___ _ 103 85 -18 1,039 1,014 -25 22 21 -1 38 32 -6 69 67 -2 146 149 +3

14,719 ~ 4, 719 -------------- I 16,558 2 16,558 --------- -----1,056 987 - 69 2, 900 2, 966 +66

894 2 707 -187 3,121 3,558 +437

Foreign Operations Administration. __ .. ___ . _______ . ___ _____ ------------- ____________ _ Office of the Secretary of Defense ... ---------------------------------------------------Department of the Army---- ----------------------------------------------------------Department of the Air Force·---------------------------------------------------------D epartment of the Navy--------------------------------------------------------------

t Revised on the basis of later information. ' Subject to revision.

TABLE VI.-Foreign_ nationals working under Um'ted States aqendes oversea~, excluded from usual Federal personnel repm·ting because of the nature of thetr work or the source of the funds from whtch they are patd, as of December 1953, and comparison with November 1953 (not included elsewhere in this 1·eport)

Total Army Navy Air Force Country

November December November December November December November

Aush"ia __ __ ------- -------------------------- •.. __ ------- _ 3 3 England.--- __ •. -- ----- _______ ------ - _____ •. __ .. ----_____ 45 47 Frnnce ____ ______________________________________ _ -------- 21 5 Germany------------------------------------------------ 114,738 117, 037 -------94;876- -------96~34.6- --------i:iilo- --------i:83s-

~~;~==================================================== ------~~~~~~- ~b~: i~~ -------------- -----------.--------------- -------------- --------------l28, 969 ll!l, 406 16,968 17, 166

1 95, 676 1 96,476 -------------- --------------

3 45 21

17.922 42, 297 10,006

~~~~~================================================ 14, 7~g --- · ---~~~~~~- -------~~~~~~- -------~~~~~- ============== ============== 3, ~g

December

3 47

5 18,853 41, !154 9. 955

822 3, 813

1-----------1--------- 1-----------1-~-------Tota]._______________________________________ ______ 423,451 417,568 330.600 323, 112 18,908 Hl, 001 73.943 75,452

1 Includes 37,036 members of the Korean Service Corps in December as compared with 37,465 in November.

NoTE.-The _Germans are paid from funds provided by German governments. Ryukyuans reported by tbe Army are paid from funds appropriated Cor personal service . .All others are pa1d from funds appropriated for other contractual services.

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1193 STATEMENT BY SENATOR BYRD

Executive agencies of the Federal Government reported regular civilian employment in the month of December totaling 2,357,294. This was a net reduction of 10,036 as compared with employment reported for the preceding month of November.

Civilian employment as reported by employing agencies of the Federa l Government by months in the current fiscal year 1954, which began July 1, follows:

Month

July---------------------------August_ ____ __________________ _

September--------------------October-----------------------1'\ ovember _ --- ------------ ----December--- ---- --------------

Employment

2, 454, 714 2, 431,430 2,401, 810 2,372, 745 2,367,330 2,357, 294

Decrease

-14,926 - 23,284 - 29,620 - 29,065 - 5,415

- 10,036

These figures show that during the 6 months of fiscal year 1954, civilian employment was reduced by 112,346. December was the 17th consecutive mont h in which net reductions were reported. As compared with December 1952, a year ago, the reductions in 12 months totaled 203,185.

Civilian employment by the Defense Department continued to decrease during December, dropping 5,607 to a total of 1,179,534. And employment by civilian agencies decreased during the month from 1,182,189 in November to 1,177,760 in December-a decrease of 4,429.

Major decreases were reported by the Department of the Army with a reduction of 5,505, the Department of Agriculture with a reduction of 1,866, and the Department of Commerce with a reduction of 1,256. The only major increase was reported by the Post Office Department with 1,061.

These figures are from reports certified by the agencies as compiled today by the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures.

FOREIGN NATIONALS

The 2,357,294 employees above were certified to the committee by executive agencies in their usual personnel reports for December; but the committee report also records for the first time an adidtional 417,568 foreign nationals who were working under United States military agencies overseas as of December 31, 1953. They follow:

Country Total Army Navy Air Force

-------1·-------------Austria_----------England_----------France ____________ _

Germany----------Japan ___ _ ---------_ Korea __ -----------_ Libya __ ___________ _

Ryukyus_ ---------

3 47

5 117,037 178,526 106,431

822 14,697

96, 346 1, 838 119, 406 17,166 96,476 --------

10,884 --------

3 47 5

18,81)3 41,954 9, 955

822 3, 813

Total ________ 417,568 323,112 19,004 75,452

Most Federal personnel reporting is confined to employment paid from funds appropriated for personal service payrolls, and foreign nationals paid from such funds are included in the regular reporting. But these 417,568 are workers who, because of the eource of the funds from which they are paid, or the nature of their work, have been excluded from regular reporting.

Some are being hired under labor contracts between the military services and foreign governments. Others are working under American occupation forces and are being paid from funds provided by German governments. Some Ryukyuans are being paid from American personal service appropriations, but because of the nature of their employment, they have been recorded in regular reports only as footnotes. Still others are Korean civilians who have been organized into what is called the Korean Service Corps.

Recording this additional use of foreign national employment, along with but sep-

arate from regular employment, fills another gap in Federal personnel reporting. It follows disclosures last summer of thousands who were working for United States agencies overseas but not reported because they were being p aid from foreign currencies owed to and owned by the United States which were being used without specific appropriation for personal service.

The President's budget submitted t o Congress J anuary 21 presents greatly improved data on the employment of foreign nationals. In addition to showing for the first time those who are paid at local rates, a~ distinguished from those paid at Unit ed States rates, it also includes data on employment under master labor contracts or agreements with foreign governments in lieu of direct employment with funds specifically appropriated for personal service.

From budget document detail it is indicated that Army and Navy and Air Force, for fiscal year 1955, beginning next July 1, are requesting authority to employ nearly 400,000 foreign n ationals under contracts and agreements with foreign governments to be paid from funds not specifically appropriated for personal service payrolls-approximately 280,000 under labor contracts and approximately 120,000 under agreements.

UNEXPENDED BALANCES OF FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a statement by me on behalf of the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures, relating to unexpended balances of Federal appropriations.

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

STATEMENT BY SENATOR BYRD

Executive agencies of the Federal Government started the current fiscal year with authority to call upon the Treasury to meet their bills in fiscal year 1954 and subsequent years up to a total of $160.9 billion, $58.8 billion in appropriations and other spending authorizations enacted in the past session of Congress, and $102.1 billion in old appro-

priations and other spending authorizations enacted prior to the 83d Congress.

During the first 4 months of the fiscal year, through October, $22.5 billion of agency obligations came due and were p a id by the Treasury; $8.8 billion against appropriations and other spending au thorizations enacted in the last session of congress, and $13.7 billion against old appropriations and other spending authorizations enacted in earlier years ..

These figures were revealed today in the 11th monthly compilation of Federal Appropriations and Authorizations, Expenditures and Unexpended Balances, by the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures. (The term "unexpended balances" in appropriations and authorizations does not mean that the cash is in the Treasury. It means the agencies are still authorized to call upon the Treasury to meet their obligations up to the so-called unexpended balances in their appropriations and other spending authority. As the bills come due, the Treasury must provide the funds from tax collections, other cash on hand, or from borrowed funds which increase the Federal debt.)

A summary of available appropriations and other spending authorizations, expenditures, and unexpended balances, as described above, through October 1953, is attached.

The President's budget this year emphasizes these so-called unexpended balances more than ever before. The figures in his budget document differ from those to be found in the Treasury records, on which the committee report is b ased, in several technical respects including: ( 1) Budget figures represent full year estimates for the permanent and indefinite appropriations, whereas Treasury accounts reflect the actual figures to date; (2) budget figures include total unfinanced contract authorizations, whereas Treasury accounts reflect only the actual figures for appropriations made to date for liquidation of contract authorizations; and (3) budget figures exclude all lapsed appropriations, whereas Treasury accounts include lapsed appropriations until they are actually written off by transfer t o surplus. In addition, the committee report does not include figures for the judicial and legislative branches.

The budget document's resume of appropriations and authorizations, expenditures and so-called unexpended balances shows:

[In billions]

1953 ____ --- -----------------------------1954 (estimated)_----------------------1955 (estimated)------------------------1956 (estimated)------------------------

I Breakdown not available.

Balances N ew Total Expenditures

carried appropri- spending From old From new over into- ations authority balances autllori- Total

zations

$99.4 $80.2 $179.5 (1) (1) $74. 3 102.7 2 60. 7 2163.6 $35.2 $35.7 70.9 86.9 56.3 143.2 29.3 36.3 65.6 77.1 - ----- ------ ------------ ---- -- ------ ------------ ------------

J Includes $1.2 billion in proposed supplement.als not yet enacted.

TABLE I.-Summary of appropriations and other authorizations, expenditures, and unexpended balances, executive branch of the Federal Government,1 showing appropriations and other authorizations by current and prior years; and 1954 expenditures from appropriations for the cut·rent year and appropriations enacted in prior years, and unexpended balances, as of Oct. 31, 1953

[In thousands of dollars]

Appropriations and authori- Expenditures (tbroug.h t>.ations Oct. 31, 1953)

Current Out of Unex-Out of pended

Prior-year appro- prior year current balances Department or agency priations appro-appropri- and appro- pria- as of

ationsand Total : priations Total Oct. 31, authoriza- authori- and tions 1953

tions zations, authori- and fiscal year zations autbori-

1954 zations ---

Execnti\-e Office of the PresidE-nt. ______ 2,485 9,688 13,202 769 2,833 3,601 9,603 Funds appropriated to the President_ __ 10,797,737 4, 529,723 15,367, 576 976,311 27,134 1, 003,445 14, 364,133 Independent Offices __ __ _______________ 11,055,842 5,679,106 16,779,908 1, 231,280 1, 495,979 2, 7'1!7, 264 14,052,643 General Services Adminlstration ______ 2, 732,885 162,3 1 2,875, 254 221,433 45,257 266,692 2, 608,562 Hom ina and Home Finance Agency_-- 5,074,068 312,666 5, 302,743 47,848 -98,112 -50,264 5, 353,004.

See footnotes at end of table.

1194 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE February · 3

GEOLOGICAL, GEOCHEMICAL, AND GEOPHYSICAL MINING CLAIMS ACT OF 1954

TADJ. .. E I.-Summary of appropriations and other auth01·izations, expend·itu1·es, and unexpended balances, executive branch of the Fedeml Government; showing appropriations and other a·uthorizations by cun·ent and prior years; and 1954- expenditures from appropn·ations for the current year and appropriations enacted in prior years, and unexpended balances, as of Oct. 31, 1953-Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Appropriations and authori- E xpenditures (through zations Oct. 31, 1953)

Unex-Current Ou t of Out of pended

Department or agency Prior-year appro- prior year current balmJces appropri- priations appro- appro- as of

and pria- Oct. 31, ationsand Total2 priations Total authoriza- authori- and tions 1953

t.ions zations, authori- and fiscal year zations authori-

1954 zations

D epartment of Agriculture ___________ _ 4, 936,489 1, 763,755 6, 698, 140 825,100 159,870 985,058 5, 713, 081 Department of Commerce __ __________ _ 26.'3, 749 8.'\8, 777 1,195,335 161,071 301i, 569 466, 638

14,096, 6()8 728.G09

Department of Defense ________ __ ______ 62,540,891 35, 070,229 97,018,954 9, 519, 729 4, 5i6, 880 82,922,346 Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare _________________ _______ _ 626,735 1, 468,421 2, 094,483 376,251 339. 415 715,66.5 1, 378,818 Department of the Interior __ _________ _ 358,652 477,984 833,179 162,034 67,816 229,847 603,3.31 Department of Justice ________________ _ 22,282 186, 978 209, 260 12,990 50,149 63.137 146, 122 Department of Labor._- ------ ------- - 14, 495 242,355 256,838 3, 927 93,300 97,319 159,519 Department of the Post Office ______ ___ 1, 194 590, 518 531, 194 - 55.3 159,287 158, 734 372,459 Department of State ____ ____ _________ _ 116, 142 209,994 273,636 29,977 50,024 80,000 193,636 D epartment of the Treasury---------- 4, 520,694 7, 227, 246 11,4\12,389 14J, 713 1, 531,045 1, 674, i60 9, 817, 6:31

Total_------------------------- - 103, 069, 340 58,789,818 160, 942, 087 13, 711,970 8,806, 536 22,518,508 138, 423, 577

1 Excluding trust and deposit fund accounts. 2 Net total after transfers among agencies, and transfer of lapsed appropriations and spending authority to surplus

totaling approxjmately $1 billion . NOTE .- Figure are rounded and will not neceSSaJ·ily add to totals. Source: Department of the Treasury.

BILLS INTRODUCED Bills and a joint resolution were intro

duced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows:

By Mr. MURRAY: S . 2875. A bill to provide for the location

of mining claims by geological, geochemical, and geophysical prospecting methods, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

(See the remarks of Mr. MURRAY when he introduced the above bill, which appear under a separate heading.)

By Mr. MANSFIELD: S. 2876. A bill to require inside latches on

the doors of household refrigerators shipped in interstate commerce; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

(See the remarks of Mr. MANSFIELD when he introduced the above bill, which appear under a separate heading.)

By Mr. PURTELL: S. 2877. A bill for the relief of Philopimln

Michalacopoulos (Mihalakopoulos) ; and s. 2878. A bill for the relief of Luca Salta

relli; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. IVES:

S . 2879. A bill for the relief of Helen Hilda Coral Newbery, Peter Julian Newbery, and Prudence Ellen Newbery; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. IVES (by request): S. 2880. A bill to amend the Social Security

Act, as amended, to provide judicial review of certain findings of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare which may result in the reduction or discontinuance of public assistance payments to States;

S . 2881. A bill to amend the Social Security Act, as amended, to provide for conferences between the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and representatives of the several States; and

S . 2882. A bill to amend the Social Security Act so as to provide that public assistance p ayments to the States shall not be reduced in certain cases by reason of the disapproval by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare of the personnel practices of the State agencies carrying out public assistance programs; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. McCARTHY: S. 2883. A bill for the relief of John F.

McKenney; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. BYRD: S. 2884. A bill for the relief of Sister Anna

Scrinzi, Sister Giuliana Paladini, Sister Iolanda Mazzocchi, and Sister Giuseppina Zanchetta; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. POTTER: S. 2885. A bill for the relief of Sandra Lea

MacMullin; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. MURRAY: S. 2886. A bill to stimulate the explora

tion, production, and conservation of strategic and critical ores, metals, and minerals, and for the establishment within the Materials Division, Emergency Procurement Services, General Services Administration, of a Mine Incentive Payments Division, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

By Mr. JACKSON: S. 2887. A bill for the relief of Hon Cheun

Kwan; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. JACKSON (for himself and

Mr. MAGNUSON) : S . 2888. A bill to provide for advancement

on the retired lists of the Armed Forces of individuals who did not receive promotions after having been held as prisoners of war during World War II; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. SPARKMAN: S . 2889. A bill to expand and extend to

June 30, 1955, the direct home and farmhouse loan authority of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs under title III of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, as amended, to make additional funds available therefor, and for other purposes; and

S. 2890. A bill providing for a Regional Credit Union System; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

S. 2891. A bill to require inside latches on the doors of household refrigerators shipped in interstate commerce; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

(See the remarks of Mr. SPARKMAN when he introduced the above bills, which appear under separate headings.)

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I introduce for appropriate reference a bill to provide for the location of mining claims by geological, geochemical, and geophysical prospecting methods, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point an explanatory statement relative to the bill.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the explana tory statement will be printed in the RECORD.

The bill <S. 2875) to provide for the location of mining claims by geological, geochemical, and geophysical prospecting methods, and for other purposes, introduced by Mr. MURRAY, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

The explanatory statement by Mr. MURRAY is as follows: DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED GEO

LOGICAL, GEOCHEMICAL, AND GEOPHYSICAL MINING CLAIMS ACT OF 1954

(Statement by Senator MURRAY) BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION Writers in mining technical journals have

been pointing out for some time that most of the hope for the discovery of extensive new ore bodies lies in finding those which have not cropped to the surface.

Although made in another context, a statement by Joel D. Wolfson, formerly Acting Associate Director, Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of the Interior, is in point. He said, "While the laws governing many other aspects of the development of the public domain have changed mat erially, those relating to the extraction of lode and placer minerals have not changed." As is generally known, a valid location of an unpatented mining claim cannot be made unless there is a physical discovery of mineral in place. The utilization of scientific methods of prospecting is often expensive and the lack of any means of securing an exclusive right to prospect on such public domain as may be open to location is thought to have inhibited greater utilization of these methods.

This is an attempt to provide security for the scientific prospect or and at the same time prevent frivolous encumbrance of the public domain, in order to encourage the exploration and development of the Nation's mineral resources.

Draft No. 4 of the Geological, Geochemical, and Geophysical Mining Claims Act of 1954 actually was the seventh draft upon which the Subcommittee on Mining and Minerals Industry of the Senate Small Business Committee, of the 79th Congress, worked in conjunction with representatives of the mining industry. Altogether, several thousand copies of various drafts were widely circulated; and as criticisms and comments were received, those which seemed to be most generally favored were included in the various drafts. There was no claim by the subcommittee that the draft was final or perfect. The present discussion is for the purpose of considering various issues which occurred to the subcommittee staff during the preparation of the various bill drafts. It must be kept in mind that the bill can be further rewritten in the legislative committee to which it is assigned after public hearings have been had.

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1195. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED

BILL

T i tle "A bill to provide for the location of min ..

ing claims by geological, geochemical, and geophysical prospecting met hods, and for ot her purposes."

Comment: It will be noticed by those who h ave studied previous drafts of the bill that t he word "geological" has been added. Several experts have pointed out that there are d efini t e conditions existing where the geo· logical indications of ore deposition may be of as great or more value than the results of geophysical prospecting. Under these con· dition s the expense of geophysical work may not be warranted, but it seems only fair to allow an interim location to permit doing geological prospecting, if preferable.

Short title "SEc. 1. (a) That this act may be cited as

the Geological, Geochemical, and Geophysi· cal Mining Claims Act of 1954."

Comment: This short title is merely for convenient reference.

Definitions "SEC. 1. (b) As used in this act-" ( 1) the term 'geological mining claim'

means any mining claim, located under the terms of this act, on which geological, geo· chemical, or geophysical prospecting is to lJe or has been conducted by the locator subse .. quent to the location of such claim;

"(2) the term 'geophysical prospecting' means prospe~ting for mineral deposits by means of scientific instruments for measur .. ing physical differences between rock types or discontinuities in geologic formations;

"(3) the term 'geological prospecting' means prospecting for mineral deposits by the application of the principles and tech· niques of the science of geology as they re· late to the search for and the discovery of mineral deposits;

" ( 4) the term 'geochemical prospecting' means prospecting for mineral deposits by the application of the principles and tech· niques of the science of chemistry as they relate to the search for and the discovery of mineral deposits; and

" ( 5) the term 'locator' means any one person, individual group of persons, associa· tion, or corporation or agents thereof."

Comment: In this section the name of the new mining claim authorized by the pro· posed act is specified as "geological mining claim" by definition to avoid using through· out the bill the longer and more awkward name specified in the short title as "geo .. logical, geochemical, and geophysical min .. lng claim."

In addition, a definition of "geological prospecting" is given and also a definition of "geochemical prospecting" and "geophysi .. cal prospecting.' These have been acclaimed by competent geophysicists as the best deft .. nitions so far developed. The definition of "geological prospecting" has not yet been commented upon by industry or geologists.

The section also gives a technical defini .. tion of the term "locator" as used throughout the bill and the text of the section above quoted is in this report self-explanatory. Lands on which geological mining claims

may be located "SEc. 2. (a) Notwithstanding the provl·

sions of section 2320 of the Revised Statutes, a location of a geological mining claim may be made on lands belonging to the United States prior to the discovery of a vein or lode or other mineral deposit within the limits of the claim located, and upon which a mining claim may be based under the provisions of such section."

Comment: Section 2320 of the Revised S t a t utes is the basis of the legal authority for making the traditional type of mining location on the public domain. Subsection

2 {a) makes the necessary exception which permits the location of the new type of claim upon any public lands open for the location of lode or placer claims under the present mining laws.

Size, shape, and orientation of claims "SEc. 2. (b) Any geological mining claim

located under the provision of this act shall be square in shape, and shall con t ain not more tha n 40 acres. All boundary lines shall as far as possible be parallel to or coincide with the United States system of public-land surveys. The total acreage of all contiguous geological mining claims located or held at any one time by a locator shall not exceed 640 acres in area or 2 miles in length."

Comment: This section specifies the area of any single claim as 40 acres and, at the same time, specifies that it shall be square so as to generally conform to the public-land surveys, partly for greater convenience when encumbering the public domain and partly because, as no veins m ay be identified on the surface, the necessity for the rectangular shape is not as real. The words on page 2, line 25, of the printed bill (second sentence of sec. 2 (b) ) "as far as possible be parallel to or coincide with the United States system of public-land surveys" has raised some question. "As far as possible" was inserted to take care of those cases where for some reason or other the lines of the public-land sur veys are not themselves parallel so that it would in certain instances be impossible to obey a firm mandate to make the claim square and in conformity with the established survey.

A good deal of controversy has arisen over the limitation of the contiguous-group acre· age to 640. It is true that the new scientific types of prospecting are frequently done over large areas. The point has been developed in the subcommittee correspondence on this matter that geophysical prospecting by large companies may be so expensive that holding of whole townships may be warranted. At the same time, as a practical matter, it is thought there may be considerable resist· ance to encumbering large areas of the public domain under one locator, even for the short period prior to discovery permitted under the proposed act. Informally, the subcommittee has advices that the Interior Depart~ent may show considerable opposition to mcluding larger areas in the bill.

The limitation in shape for a 640-acre group to a total length of 2 miles is to reasonably limit stringing the claims out for pos· sible nuisance purposes and to prevent nonproductive monopoly holdings of mineralized areas.

The subcommittee realizes perfectly well that without a prohibition against one hold· er or owner having more than one 640-acre group, the words "a locator" permit a subter· fuge similar to that which has been used to circumvent the limitation on placer loca .. tions. Clearly several locators may locate contiguous groups and later assign to one party. A very definite quandary has developed on this point. Initial location of great expanses of the public domain might encourage speculation. Likewise, to permit large holdings of idle claims in favorable areas would further restrict or prevent the active development of the Nation's mineral resources by more progressive individuals and companies. On the other hand, prohibi· tion against ultimate accumulation of groups might inhibit large-scale development in cer .. tain instances. Generally it seeins as though few lode or open-pit operations ever would overlap the 640-acre group, and it is felt this is a reasonable compromise. However, the present wording of subsection 2 (b), while limiting the total acreage of any one group of contiguous geological m.lning claims to 640 acres, does not prohibit "a locator" from locating and holding practicallY: the entire

area over an unlimited number of townships providing each group of claims of maximum acreage is noncontiguous. An alternate to subsection 2 (b) has been proposed and is presented below for consideration. Further comment from interested par ties is solicited.

Proposed alternate to subsection 2 (b) : "The total acreage of all unpatented or pa tented geological mining claims located or held at any one time by a locator or holder of such claims shall not exceed 1,280 acres within any one township and no group of cont iguous claims shall exceed 2 miles in length r.nd 640 acres in area, except that for each such claim actively being developed and from which periodic shipments of minerals or metals have been made for 6 months, the locator or holder of such claim may exceed the above limitations by 2 additional claims.''

Extralateral r ights "SEc. 2. {c) Notwit hstanding section 2322

of the Revised Statutes, nothing contained in this act shall be construed to confer upon the locator of any geological mining claim a right of possession to any part of any mineral deposits lying outside of the boundary lines of such claim extended downward vertically, and no extralateral rights to any ore body within the boundary line of such claim shall be acquired by the locator of any lode claim which is located subsequent to the location of such geological mining claim and which is out side the boundaries thereof."

Comment: The exclusion of extralateral rights from the new class of claims is highly controversial. It is desired to make it very clear that this section does not apply to any traditional type of claim aut horized under sections 2320 and 2322 of the Revised Stat· utes, located prior to or subsequent to the enactment of this bill, with the single excep· tion noted below.

As is generally known, the extralateral rights permitted under the present statutes have caused endless litigation and are unique to the United States. It appears possible to lay out the geological claims in such a manner that such rights would be of little value compared with the possible confusion caused by the difficulty of determining the true apex of blind ore bodies.

This section also prevents the locator of a lode claim in the vicinity from speculating on the work done by the locator of geological mining claims by making a subsequent regular lode location, perhaps upon some surface stringer some distance away, which might have enough values to validate a location, and then harass the holder of the geological claims with speculative apex litigation on the theory that the stringer cropping on the lode location dipped under the geological claim and widened into such ore body as was there discovered. Several variations of this theoretical situation may be envisaged.

Surprisingly enough, although diverse opinions have been registered with the subcommittee, the bulk of comment has been surprisingly small and more would be de .. sirable. Some mining engineers and mining lawyers who have practiced in apex cases object to section 2 (c) but it is felt their opinion may be biased. In this matter, as in fact , with all sections of the bill, the subcommittee is completely openminded and wishes to refiect in the legislation what seems to be the best informed and unbiased opinions of spokesmen for the mining industry of the country.

Access to other claims in vicinity "SEc. 2. (d) The United States Department

or the Interior or the locator of a geological mining claim in the vicinity shall have free access to the surface of all unpatented or patented mining claims hereinafter located, for the sole purpose of extending and correlating geological or geophysical prospecting,

1196 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE February 3 which may include examining, mapping, and securing hand samples of exposed geologic formations and structures but shall not include drilling, trenching, or digging prospect holes, except that free access to such claims shall not include the surface within 100 yards of any camp sites or workings in use, buildings, or structures thereon ."

Comment: This subsection has not appeared in any of the previous drafts. It is felt certain that there will be resistance to it from certain groups of mining people on the ground that it appears to involve a new theory and is an invasion of property rights in both patented and unpatented mining claims. It must be remembered, however, that in considerable areas today, claims located subsequent to the dates of various acts bearing thereon are limited in the degree of surface rights which pass to the locator so the principle actually is not new.

If free access is not had to the entire surface of the public domain within several miles of newly located claims, it probably would be impossible, in many instances, to accumulate sufficient geological or geophysical data of such a nature as to reasonably warrant physical exploration and the continued holding of such claims. In fact, except for the first few locators in any given area, initial locations of geological mining claims by others probably would not be feasible or legally possible if geological or geophysical prospecting is not permitted on surrounding groups of claims already located.

If the new subsection is carefully thought over in an impartial manner it will be seen, it is believed, that ( 1) most claim holders would not object to such temporary access and (2) those who might object would be blocking temporary reasonable use of land, which they have obtained from the United States for little or nothing, for purposes which may aid in adding much to the public knowledge of our mineral wealth. It must be observed that even where permission to enter is given to private parties, their findings may eventually become a public record, subject to the limitations of section 9 (b) of the bill, commented upon later in this report. It has been brought to the attention of the subcommittee that there have been instances where right of access maliciously has been denied, causing a considerable difficulty with the particular survey. It is believed that buildings and workings sufficiently are protected from trespass and that mining people generally will approve of the inclusion of this subsection. Comment is invited.

Location monuments or posts

"SEC. 3 . (a) Any locator of a geological mining claim under the provisions of this act shall immediately-

" ( 1) erect a stone monument at least 3 feet high or a post 4 feet above the ground in the approximate center of such claim; and

"(2) erect a similar monument or post at each corner of such claim."

Comment: The method of marking a geological mining claim is similar to that employed when marking a regular lode claim excepting that no side or end center monuments or posts are required as at present designated by certain States, making the total number of monuments 5 rather than 7.

Location notices for monuments or posts

"SEC. 3. {b) At the time the location is made the locator of a geological mining claim shall attach a location notice securely to each monument or post erected as provided 1n subsection (a), and each such notice shall contain-

" ( 1) the name of the claim located; "(2) the name of the locator or group of

locators; "(3) the date of location; "(4) the linear measurements of the

elaim;

"(5) the exact position of such claim with reference to the United States system of public land surveys or, if the area has not been surveyed, the exact position of such claim with reference to at least two permanent and prominent natural objects or permanent monuments with which such claim may be identified; and

"(6) in the case of corner posts or monuments, a designation of the specific corner."

Comment: The inclusion of the requirement that the linear measurements of the claim shall be given on the location notice will permit anyone inspecting the notice to immediately identify the claim as a geological mining claim rather than a regular lode claim and to determine the size and boundaries of the claim. Requirement (b) ( 5) is to more firmly fix the position of the claim than has heretofore been the practice. Anyone who has searched the public domain for unpatented mining claims, only to find in the approximate vicinity of the claim an unmarked monument from which it is impossible to determine the position of other monuments or that in which the location notice has been placed will immed.iately appreciate the desirability of requirement (b) (6). It is contemplated that a single corner monument will suffice for all claims cornering on the particular intersection provided the marking is sufficiently clear for each claim so cornering.

Filing of location notice "SEC. 4. (a) Within 30 days from the date

of location the locator of a geological mining claim shall-

" ( 1) file a copy of the location notice in the office of the recorder, or other proper official, of the county in which such claim is situated;

"(2) furnish a copy of the location notice to the United States Bureau of Land Management."

Comment: It will be noted that subsection (a) ( 1) of this section duplicates present practice in recording location notices, but that (a) (2) is a new requirement. There now is strong popular demand for the registering of such large acreages with the Bureau of Land Management and the subcommittee believes this to be desirable. This requirement will serve multiple purposes: It will make it easier for the Bureau to see that the provisions of the act are properly carried out; it will permit the inclusion of these claims on plats so that, if kept up to date, the prospector can, by stopping in at the nearest office of the Bureau of Land Management, determine what areas still are open for location, and what already located have been abandoned. The desirability of this feature should require no elaboration.

Time limitation for commencing prospecting "SEc. 4. (b) Within 90 days from the date

of location of a geological mining claim the locator shall-

"(1) furnish the United States Bureau of Land Management with a statement of the nature and scope of the geological or geophysical prospecting which the locator intends to undertake;

"(2) commence geological or geophysical prospecting and perform such prospecting according to good current practice."

Comment: It is thought that 90 days will be ample time in which to plan a prospecting program on the particular claims located. As there must be some control over the adequacy of the prospecting program, particularly whether it will be geological, geophysical, or a combination of both, it appears only sensible to file the plan with the Bureau. There has been some discussion of the advisability of authorizing the Bureau to pass on the adequacy of the program and to reject it i.f unsatisfactory, thus invalidating the location at this point unless the deficiency is cured. There are obvious pros and cons to this requirement and the subcommittee

would like to hear further from the mining industry as to its desirability.

One of the most difficult requirements to express is that in sect ion 4 (h) (2), setting up a criterion for geological an l geophysical prospecting. Complaints have been made that the proposed act would le;'lve the door open for all kinds of doodlebug prospecting and quackery of various kinds, thus encumbering the public domain with claims located without any scientific foundation for the work proposed to be done. It has been proposed that a board of experts be set up to specify what practices m ay be suitable. Clearly this would have its drawbacks as such experts might turn out to be ultraconservative and bar methods which, in such a rapidly developing science as that of geophysics, later would be found to be useful. There is no doubt but that methods change and improve from year to year and it was felt that the phrase "good current practice" is as close a limitation as is desirable. Presumably, should there be any contest as to the title to the claim not being properly initiated under section 4 (b) (2) the courts would have to decide whether or not the methods were good current practice at the time.

There may be much better ways of setting some limits against fakers and speculators while leaving the field open to legitimate de-. velopments in the science, and if so the subcommittee would be glad to consider them. It must also be remembered that in any case, unless a mineral deposit is found, title will lapse in not more than 2 years and if minerals are found, what method was used becomes u~important.

Requirements for holding claims for 1 year "SEc. 5. (a) The location of a geological

mining claim in the manner prescribed in section 3 and the performance of the acts required by section 4 of this act shall be deemed sufficient to hold such claim for a period of 1 year from the date of location thereof. Any claim not located or prospected in accordance with such required acts shall be deemed to have lapsed."

Comment: Subsection 5 {a) merely states the maximum time permitted for the geological or geophysical work. The physical work for discovery may be initiated during this period if the locator so desires. Extending tenancy period for additional year

"SEc. 5. (b) Upon the performance of the acts required to be done in subsection (b) of section 4 of this act and the prosecution of geological or geophysical prospecting to a conclusion the locator of a geological mining claim may, at any time within 1 year from the date of the location of such claim, extend the tenancy of such claim for a period of 1 year, in addition to the tenancy period provided for in subsection (a) of this section, by filing in the office of the recorder, or other proper official of the county in which such claim is located, an affidavit and a notice of intention to hold and by furnishing to the United States Bureau of Land Management a copy of such afiidavit and notice, accompanied by a suitable report and maps of the prospecting performed. The report, illustrated with maps, shall show the nature and scope of the work performed and shall present the data, evidence, and results obtained, together with such correlations, determinations, and conclusions as may have been developed or indicated. The affidavit shall state that geological or geophysical data have been accumulated of such nature as to reasonably warrant physical exploration of such claim."

Comment: Subsection (b) provides the means of securing title to the claims for the additional period of 1 year after the geological or geophysical work has been completed. It is during this second period that the physical work generally will be done which may lead to actual discovery.

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE 1197 It may be seen that if the geophysical or

geological work does not prove fruitful the location automatically lapses in a year. If the physical work during the second-year period does not result in the discovery of a mineral deposit, the location lapses. The longest time the public domain can be encumbered, in case the results are negative. then, is 2 years. It seems very desirable, in view of practical experience with the present situation with regard to the vast number of ·unpatented mining claims on which no work whatever is done and where possible active prospectors and miners are blocked from entering, locating, and working in large areas so encumbered, to make sure the ground becomes open for relocation if the geological minlng claims are not properly utilized by a locator or if definitive results are not obtained. Where one man fails, another may be successful. The mineral development of our country depends upon active exploration of the public domain, not in tying up great tracts in nonproductive speculative holdings.

Subsection 5 (b) also requires the filing of the notice to extend tenancy for the additional year. At the same time the locator is required to file with the Bureau of Land Management such data as he has acquired during the initial period of the location. It may be thought from the context that the requirements for filing data are too severe but it will be noted from the context that the locator is not bound by any particular schedule of data, but may furnish such as he has in the form in which it was compiled. The wording was developed more or less as a guide to show what is preferred.

The affidavit not only places the burden on the locator of having done the work described but furnishes the legal foundation for the tenancy extension. Here again, in case there should be any contest, the courts would have to decide if the data is of such a nature "as to reasonably warrant physical exploration of such claims."

Undoubtedly, a new body of legal precedent will have to be built up under this proposed act as there are many contingencies which may arise which neither can be foreseen nor can be covered even in the most detailed legislation.

Time limitation tor commencing physical exploration

"SEc. 6. (a) Not later than 30 days after the expiration of 1 year from the date of the location of a geological mining claim, where the tenancy of such claim has been extended in the manner provided in subsection (b) of section 5 of this act, the locator shall begin drilling, shaft sinking, or such other physical work as may be necessary to the proper exploration of such claim."

Comment: This subsection merely provides that physical work on the claim shall be started within 30 days after filing intention to hold for the second period. There has been some argument that this is too short a time. But, as the extension is virtually automatic, preparations for physical work actually will be started before filing in the majority of cases. Furthermore, there is no requirement that work be in full course within 30 days.

Validating unpatented mining claim by discovery

"SEc. 6 (b) If, within the periods of tenancy provided in section 5 of this act, the locator of a geological mining claim discovers a vein, lode, or other mineral deposit upon such claim by means of physical exploration, such claim shall become a valid unpatented mining claim upon the filing of an affidavit accompanied by adequate proof to the effect that such vein, lode, or other mineral deposit has been discovered. Such affidavit and proof shall be filed, before the expiration of the tenancy period, in the office of the recorder or other proper oftlcial of the county

tn which such claim is located, and a copy thereof, accompanied by a suitable report of the exploration work performed and t h e results obtained, shall be furnished to the United States Bureau of Land Management within said period. · Title to such claim sha ll be vested, subject to the paramount title of the United States, in the locator of such claim to the same extent that such title would be vested in the holder of any unpatented mining claim located under the provisions of section 2322 of the Revised Statutes, and any such claim or fract ion thereof may be patented upon compliance with the provisions of section 2325 of the Revised Statutes."

Comment: This subsection provides for converting the preliminary location into a valid, unpatented location under the provisions of section 2322 of the Revised Statutes and for patenting in the usual manner under section 2325 of the Revised Statutes, providing all the terms for initiating the preliminary location as required by the proposed act have been met.

It will be noted that discovery must be made on each claim of the group. In the case of a deep-seated ore body the expense of even a single drill hole on each claim might be prohibitive. At the same time, it would not seem logical to permit the whole group to be held because discovery was made on one claim. This matter will merit further discussion.

It has been suggested that where a locator has failed to discover a vein, lode, or other mineral deposit upon a group of geological mining claims on the expiration of the second year or tenancy period, that on the presentation of evidence that physical exploration specified by section 6 (a) has been actively and continuously conducted during said period, weather permitting, the locator or holder shall be permitted to hold such group of claims for an additional year, and as long thereafter as active and continuous physical exploration is conducted in search for mineral deposits and extensions thereto. The subcommittee would particularly like to have comments from the industry on this suggestion.

An aftidavit to the effect that discovery has been made must be filed with the proper official of the county in which the claim is located but the report of the exploration work need not be filed with such county ofticial. It is felt the various maps and reports to be filed with the Bureau at various stages of the location will form an important addition to the public-land records and may be of · great value in the event of a future war necessitating expanded production of minerals and metals. The Bureau is spe-

. cifically prohibited under section 8 (b) from making public any of the information so acquired unless the claim is abandoned or otherwise invalidated.

Restricting State or local law requirements "SEC. 7. (a) No State or local law or rule

shall modify the requirements of this act with respect to the location, discovery, annual assessment work, prospecting, or exploration of a geological mining claim."

Comment: As the purpose of this proposed act is to liberalize the minlng laws, it is thought well to prohibit limiting its scope by State or local action of any kind.

Annual assessment work "SEC. 7. (b) The annual expenditure re

quired to hold an unpatented geological mining claim shall be $100 for each 20 acres or fraction of its area: · Provided, That such expenditure may be made at any one or· more points within a group of contiguous clairp.s if it will result in benefit to such claims as a group and if annual expenditures on the group aggregate $100 for each claim."

Comment: There has been considerable discussion about the present value of assessment work. The intent of Congress to cause

a certain amount of work to be don e has been largely· nullified by time. It would t a ke several hundred dollars to do the same work as when the mining laws first were passed. However, as the present mining laws are left untouched, it was not thought fair to set a differen t standard for assessment work for the geological claims as exists for the ordinary lode claims. As the area of the usual lode claim is about 20 acres, the standard of $100 in assessment work for each 20 acres specified in this proposed bill maintains about the same basis.

Affidavit of performance of assessment work "SEc. 7. (c) Following the performance of

annual assessment work but not later than 12 o'clock meridian on the 1st day of August of each successive year, and until a patent has been issued for such claim, the locator shall file an affidavit of the performance of such assessment work in the office of the recorder or other proper official of the county in which such claim is located and shall furnish the United States Bureau of Land Management with a copy of such affidavit together with a suitable report of the nature. scope, and amount of assessment work performed."

Comment: This subsection requires the filing of an affidavit of assessment work both with the appropriate county official and the Bureau, in order to keep valid the unpatented mining claim. Although the work must be performed within the period now provided by law, an extra month is given in which to file the affidavit required under this proposed act. The copy to be furnished the Bureau will keep its records up to date, and maintain a continuous record of title. The lack of such filing will indicate the claim has been abandoned, permitting the Bureau's records to be adjusted accordingly.

Standard location marker for unpatented claims

''SEC. 8. (a) Within 1 year after a geological mining claim becomes a valid unpatented. mining claim under the provisions of this act, a location marker of a standard form to be prescribed and furnished by the Department of the Interior shall be placed at 1 corner of such claim: Provi ded, That 1 location marker may serve for a group of con• tiguous claims held by 1 locator."

Comment: This subsection is a distinct departure from the usual practice and is an attempt to extend and improve the marking of public lands. Ample time is given to carry out this provision so that in case of early abandonment the locator will not be bound by it. It will be noted that only one marker is required for a group and the locator may choose the claim the corner of which is to be so marked. Platting these claims on maps of the public domain should be made easier by this device.

Maintenance of posts or monuments "SEc. 8. (b) When locating a geological

mining claim all corner posts or monuments shall be conspicuously marked or painted and all such posts and monuments shall be maintained in a condition so as to be readily found at all times."

Comment: Engineers and others whose business has made it necessary to go on the public domain and find old mining locations will appreciate this insistence upon maintaining marking in good order and as conspicuously as possible. The subsection re• quires· no further explanation.

Submission of and receipt for documents furnished Bureau

"SEC. 9. (a) All notices, statements, reports, and affidavits required herein to be furnished to the United States Bureau of Land Management shall be submitted in triplicate to the nearest branch office of said Bureau. Such documents may be transmitted by mail and the Bureau shall furnish an individual receipt for each within 30 days

1198 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE February 3 from the date received. The Bureau of Land Management shall furnish a copy of all reports to the United States Geological Survey.'"

Comment: The desirability of continuously adding to the knowledge of the resources of the public domain is obvious. It certainly is not too much to ask, as the Government is permitting the use of these lands for private exploit ation, that it be furnished with such information for its records as may become available to the locator, and it scarcely seems there will be any objection to this practice, especially when the limitations of subsection 9 (b) hereof are noted. Although 3 copies of notices, statements, reports, and affidavits are required to be filed with the Bureau, it will be noted that only the legal notices are required to be filed with county officials. The requirement should not be deemed too onerous in these days of typewriters, duplicating facilities , and photostat machines. It is specified that one copy shall be for the United States Geological Survey, which can make good u se of such data. Of the other 2 copies, 1 is for the local office of the Bureau and the other for its central files. Subsequent possible locators of abandoned areas should greatly be benefited by access to this data. Limitations on public access to documents

furni shed Bureau "SEC. 9. (b) Except for the data contained

1n the same notices and affidavits required to be filed with the recorder of the county in which a geological mining claim is located, none of the information contained in the reports or statements required to be furnish.-~d to the United States Bureau of Land Management shall be made public so long as such claim remains a valid location or claim under this act.''

Comment: These limitations on publication of the data accumulated by the Government under this proposed act should give sufficient protection to locators whose operations proceed to the productive state. As a matter of fact, the Bureau of Mines and the United States Geological Survey already are prohibited by law from publishing information which may disclose the business of individuals or firms.

Location and utilization for mineral development only

"S.Ec. 10. Geological mining claims may only be located and utilized for the purpose

·of mineral development ... Comment: So many complaints have been

heard that some locators of mining claims have intended to use them for purposes other than mining that it seems time to crystallize the sentiment of more responsible mining people against such practice by a specific prohibition against use of geological mining claims for anything but legitimate mining development.

Appli cabilit y of present mining laws ••sEC. 11. Except as otherwise provided

herein or except where in conflict with the terms of this act, the mining laws of the United States now in effect shall apply with respect to claims located under the terms of this act ...

Comment: This section preserves the common mining practices excepting where changes are made by this proposed act to further the purposes thereof.

NOTE.-It is not intended that the proposed Geological, Geochemical, and Geophysical Mining Claims Act of 1954 shall in any way effect or be applicable to the disposition of public lands containing deposits of coal, pho-sphate, oil, oil shale, gas, sulfur, potash, or sodium, which are provided for 1n the Leasing Act of February 25, 1920. ·

INSIDE LATCHES ON DOORS OF HOUSEHOLD REFRIGERATORS SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I introduce for appropriate reference a bill to require inside latches on the doors of household refrigerators shipped in interstate commerce.

During the summer months of last year newspapers and magazines throughout the Nation carried numerous stories of tragic accidents in which children, playing in old iceboxes, refrigerators, and freezers, shut themselves in and were suffocated.

The untimely death of so many children in discarded iceboxes brought prompt action by many civic groups and public-spirited organizations. These campaigns set about to have all hazardous refrigerators, iceboxes, and freezers destroyed or have the latches and doors removed. Premiums were offered in some cities by local merchants for doors that were removed f1:·om the iceboxes.

In accord with the campaign for children's safety at the local level, approximately 15 States have enacted legislation which forbids the abandoning of old boxes where they are accessible to children.

Since the initiative to destroy all old boxes has been taken at the State and local level, it seems logical that Congress should pass legislation which would prevent accidents of this kind in the future.

The bill which I have introduced will do just that. The bill would require inside latches on the doors of refrigerators, iceboxes, ice chests, or deep freezers shipped in interstate commerce. The proposed legislation would apply tq household refrigerators of a capacity of 1% cubic feet or more and all those who would violate this law, if enacted, would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

What greater satisfaction could we have than in the realization that we have helped save the lives of the many children that might die each year in this manner.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be received and appropriately referred.

The bill (S. 2876) to require inside latches on the doors of household refrigerators shipped in interstate commerce, introduced by Mr. MANSFIELD, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED

The following bills were severally read twice by their titles, and referred as indicated:

H. R. 758. An act for the relief of Harry C. Barney; ..

H. R. 1647. An act for the relief of Mrs. Sylvia Mae Smit h;

H. R. 2616. An act for the relief of Generosa Bonet;

H. R. 2617. An act for the relief of Gu11-lermo Morales Chacon;

H. R. 3041. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to transfer to Frederick W. Lee the right, title, and interest of the United States in and· to a certain invention;

H. R. 4340. An act for the relief of Charles 3. Abarno and others;

H. R. 5025. An act for the relief of Paul G. Kendall;

H. R. 5572. An act for the relief of Lt. Comdr. Cook Cleland;

H. R. 6452. An act for the relief of Mrs. Josette L. St. Marie;

H. R. 6698. An act for the relief of Alexei Frank; and

H. R. 6808. An act for the relief of Col. Samuel J. Adams, and others; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. R. 2235. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct the Santa Maria project, Southern Pacific Basin, Calif.; and

H. R. 4551. An act to amend the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 removing authorization of projects by the Secretary of the Interior; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

H. R . 4881. An act to amend the Canal Zone Code in reference to the survival of things in action; to the Committee on Armed Services.

H. R. 7395. An act to amend the definition of "airman" in the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

H. R. 7398. An act to repeal the requirement of section 3921 of the Revised Statutes that postmasters report to the Postmaster General failure to cancel postage stamps; and

H. R. 7399. An act to authorize the sale of postage-due stamps for philatelic purposes; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF A COMMITTEE

As in executive session. The following favorable reports of

nominations were submitted: By Mr. SALTONSTALL, from the Commit•

tee on Armed Services: Brig. Gen. Eugene Mead Caffey, Army of

the United States (colonel, U. S. Army), for appointment as The Judge Advocate General of the Army, and as major general, Judge Advocate General's Corps, Regular Army, and major general (temporary), Army of the United States; and

Maj. Gen. Kester Lovejoy Hastings, Army of the United States (brigadier general, U. S. Army), for appointment as The Quartermaster General, United States Army, and as major general in the Regular Army of the United States.

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF A COMMITTEE

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, as in executive session, from the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably the nominations of 5,363 persons for appointment in the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps. Among this group are interspersed 90 nominations of fiag and general rank. The nominations have been approved by the committee. I ask unanimous consent that the nominations may lie on the table, until the next session of the Senate, without being printed on the Executive Calendar, in order to avoid encumbering the Calendar.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the nominations will be received, as in executive session, and ,will lie on the table, as requested by the Senator from Massachusetts.

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 1199 CURTAILMENT OF AMMUNITION

PRODUCTION SCHEDULES Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I

hold in my hand an article entitled "Twin Cities Arsenal Layoff To Idle 1,900 Workers," published in the St. Paul Pioneer Press of January 28, 1954. I have been checking into this subject with the Defense Establishment to find out if this is the first of a series of layoff procedures which will be necessitated at the Twin Cities arms plant, which is one of the largest ordnance plants in the country.

This morning I investigated to find out exactly how much offshore procurement in terms of small arms ammunition our country was obtaining. The Twin Cities arsenal manufactures .30 arid .50 caliber ammunition.

In view of some of the problems which now face us, it is my feeling that before we lay of! American workers the whole subject of offshore procurement should be thoroughly restudied in light of growing unemployment in our own country.

I find that in 1952 and 1953 offshore procurement contracts for small arms were awarded to plants in northern Italy, many of which were later discovered to employ workers from Communist-dominated unions. In some instances there was Communist infiltration in the management itself.

I have ascertained that we are now in the process of letting new offshore armament contracts for small arms ammunition in Italy. I am sure the same situation pertains to other countries. At the same time, we are dismissing thousands of employees in our own country.

I mention this subject today because I took it up with Secretary of Defense Wilson by letter on January 18, but as yet have seen no action beyond a routine acknowledgment. It is my intention to follow it up in committee, and to address a further letter to the Secretary of Defense, asking him to look with very careful and scrutinizing eyes on all offshore arms procurement proposals. I strongly protest the layoffs which have taken place.

Contrary to some indications in the newspaper article that these laid-of! workers are out-of-State or rural people who will not be seriously upset by this unemployment, my investigation discloses that is not the case. Inquiry reveals 34 percent of the workers laid of! are from St. Paul, 27 percent are from Minneapolis, and almost all the balance are from suburbs of the Twin Cities in Anoka, Elk River, Stillwater, or White Bear. Only a very small number were from our neighboring State of Wisconsin.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: SHIFT To BE DROPPED--TWIN CITIES ARSENAL

LAYOFF To IDLE 1,900 WORKERS (By Earl Almquist)

Slightly more than 1,900 workers will be laid off, effective February 26, when the "C" shift at the Twin Cities Arsenal will be eliminated due to a curtailment of production schedules for .30-caliber ammunition.

This announcement was made late Wednesday by Lt. Col. C. C. Gleason. commanding officer at the arsenal.

Workers at the Minneapolis-Moline and Donovan, Inc., shell .plants at the arsenal, which make 105-millimeter and !50-millimeter artillery shells, will not be immediately affected by the layoffs, the announcement added.

Affect ed will be 1,900 employees of Federal Cartridge Corp. who work from midnight to 8 a. m . and 22 Ordnance Corps inspectors who work the same "C" shift hours.

("C" shift workers who have longer seniority rights will be permitted to bump those with less seniority on the "A" and "B" or day and swing shifts, while the 22 Ordnance Corps inspectors will come under customary governmental regulations.)

Elimination of the third shift at the arsenal is not expected to have too great an impact upon the employment situation locally inasmuch as 33 percent of the workers on this shift live in rural and out-of-State areas. SIX HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FOUR RURAL WORKERS

Ralph B. Lynn, workers manager for Federal Cartridge Corp., said 634 of the 1,900 "C" shift workers are in this rural or out-ofState area classification, and in many cases would leave their ammunition plant jobs for farmwork in the spring.

As far as plant operations are concerned, elimination of the "C" shift will leave but 2 shifts, day and swing, each working a 5-day, 40-hour week.

The forthcoming mass layoff at Federal Cartridge Corp. is in sharp contrast to St. Paul industry, which for the most part is engaged in regular peacetime instead of war production, it was pointed out.

For example, the St. Paul plant of Ford Motor Co. is providing overtime with 9 and 9Y:z-hour workdays Mondays through Friday, and in addition is operating on some Saturdays. Plant officials said the outlook for the entire first quarter is for similar full ca· pacity-plus production.

Similarly, officials of Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. reported not a single person has been laid off this month, and current high production is anticipated during the remainder of January.

Earlier in the month the St. Paul office of the State employment division reported there were no mass layoffs in the city and none was anticipated, although small work force reductions throughout the city's industry had been made around the first of the year.

THE FARM PRICE SUPPORT CONTROVERSY

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the RECORD an editorial entitled "Senator YoUNG and the Farm Parity Fight," published in the Grand Forks (N. Dak.) Herald. I appreciate the editorial very much. I may say that Mr. Oppegard, the editor of the newspaper, is one of the outstanding newspapermen in North Dakota.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: SENATOR YOUNG AND THE FARM PARITY FIGHT

Life magazine, with the usual finality found in all publications headed by Henry Luce, takes a few cracks at North Dakota's Senator, MILTON R. YouNG, in its current issue for his position on. the farm price· support controversy.

The magazine is, of course, entitled to its view, just as Senator YouNG has a right to plot his own course on any question. And fortunately, under our Constitution, each is free to criticize the other.

It seems that Life has discovered that Congressmen almost invariably are politicians, rather than statesmen. The order really is

reversed in practice, for a person must be a politician before he or she can be a Congressman.

Perhaps that is a reflection on the e:ectorate. It would suggest that the electorate does not reach its conclusions through sound reasoning, but instead bases its favors on emotional considerat ions.

Life is certain "the old mealy-mouth days•• are now dead and gone. Our voters know the score, and aren't going to vote for the best baby-kisser or the most generous dispenser of political pork, for this is a new and sophisticated America.

Thus, we are told, we h a ve become a Nation in which the ambitious politician need not fear to be a statesman first and foremost. This, it seems, was demonst rated when Mr. Eisenhower, a man of no conventional politi· cal instincts, training, or experience, was elected President in a national landslide.

The election of President Eisenhowahardly proves Life's point. The general, on the stump during the election campaign, was an excellent politician, wittingly or unwittingly, and he had the advice of top politi· cians or their equivalent in highly experi• enced public relations men.

Mr. Eisenhower, it would seem, again wit· tingly or unwittingly, is performing just as many other presidential candidates after winning office in failing to live up to campaign promises, which is the political way.

As a campaigner, he had the advantage of tremendous national popularity built up through his service as our No.1 military man in a winning war. He, or his supporters, were politically wise in cashing in on that popularity.

In the campaign, he promised a budget of $70 billion in his first year and one of $60 billion or less in fiscal 1955, which would have meant a balanced budget, for income in that year is estimated around $63 billion.

The people of the United States elected Mr. Eisenhower because ( 1) he was person· ally popular, (2) he promised greatly reduced taxes, (3) he opposed the socialistic trends manifest in the Truman administra· tion, and ( 4) he promised to undo and resist all the things we had come to dislike in the two previous administrations.

The Herald is the first to agree that Mr. Eisenhower was not-and is not-a politician in the accepted sense. It just happened that his campaign performances fitted so well into the pattern of politics.

We consider President Eisenhower a statesman, scrupulously honest in both public and private matters, devoted to the Nation and all the lofty things for which it stands. We are still for him 100 percent.

But we think Life is reaching into the air when it attempts to show that his election marked the burial of politics in Government--even pussyfooting politics as it calls the turn.

Members of Congress, as politicians before they are statesmen, will continue to act on m'llch legislation with· an eye to the polls. for unless the legislation they approve is endorsed by their constituents, they will soon become former Members of Congress.

This brings us to Life's attack on Senator YoUNG. It quotes him as saying that if somebody should get up in Congress and propose to keep high-price supports instead of a lower parity percentage for farmers. "Who is going to vote against it?"

"In other words," says Life, "Senator YouNG and other folklore-ridden politicians of his type would let the Government just keep on giving the farmers everything their most fanatic and shortsighted spokesmen might ask • • • to the eventual ruin of the farmers."

The Herald is not evaluating the position either of Life or Mr. YOUNG when it says it does not necessarily follow that people supporting high-parity protection for the farmer


are folklore-ridden politicians. But they could be wrong, of course, without fitting Life's characterization.

Then Life goes on to inform Mr. YoUNG that "we have news for you. There are a lot more consumers than farmers in America , and they know all about the farm mess that your kind of thin}f.ing has created."

Thus, with the power of a majority, Life would suggest that the farm problem will be settled by that weight rather than on the prin ciple that in our Republic the minority will have the same protection as the m ajority.

Many of us might prefer to see lower prices for automobiles and other products we like to have, and as there are a great m a ny more consumers of those products than manufacturers, perhaps the consumers should adjust the prices. That, of course, would be carrying the principle of majority rule to ridiculous (and impossible) ends.

But to suggest the farm problem can be solved by the mere acceptance of consumer opinion r ather than by equity and what is right--whatever it may be-is not the intelligent or fair approach to the problem.

TRIAL OF UNITED STATES SOLDIERS IN NATO FORCES BY FOREIGN COURTS Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Mr. President, on

January 31 there was published in the Topeka Daily Capital, of Topeka, Kans., an article by Clif Stratton, of the staff of that newspaper. In the article Mr. Stratton deals with the Status of Forces Treaty under which the United States agreed to make United States soldiers in NATO forces subject to the laws and courts of the countries in which they are stationed. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the body of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

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

CLIF STRATTON WRITES WASHINGTON, D . C.-Last session of Con

gress Representative WINT SMITH heartily applauded Senator ANDREW F. ScHOEPPEL for voting against ratification of the Status of Forces Treaty, which agreed to make our soldiers in NATO forces subject to the laws and courts of the countries where stationed.

In a letter to constituents the Sixth District Congressman notes:

"Here is the sequel of that treaty: Pvt. Richard Keefe, United States Army, was stationed in France. Private Keefe got intoxicated, got into a taxicab and drove off. A French court gave him 5 years. Private Keefe was a drafted soldier. He was sent to France, not of his own free choice, to defend this country. 'At least, so the internationalists say. At least, he was in France to defend the soil of France against aggression, which country has failed to defend itself in its last three wars.

"In all past history the protection of the Stars and Stripes followed the American soldier. But that doctrine has been thrown out the window as an old-fashioned idea. We now live in a new, modern, pink-tinted age, where we must conform to the United Nations ideas.

"Two weeks ago Private Keefe's wife filed a habeas corpus proceeding before Judge . Curran, of the Federal District Court. The attorneys for Mrs. Keefe argued that Private Keefe's conviction was null and void because it was against the constitutional guarantees (Bill of Rights). But the judge said he had no jurisdiction. Treaties are paramount law. American citizens' rights have been taken away by treaty.

"Just another case of State Department officials giving away rights of American citi-

zens-so they can say we are for international peace and cooperation throughout the wor ld.

"This case proves how necessary the -Bricker amendment is, if we are to preserve our basic American domestic rights. This case is sad for Private Keefe and his wife and two children in Riverdale, Md., but it is tragic for America.

"St. Paul, preaching the Christian faith in Asia Minor, was arrested for his teachings. His accusers demanded he be tried in Jerusa lem. Paul said: 'I am a Roman citizen. I st and at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged.'

"The governor of the province said: 'But when Paul had appealed to be reserved into the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Rome.'

"Rome gave her world established law and order. The rights of a Roman citizen were protected throughout the breadth and length of the Roman Empire."

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION RELATING TO TREATIES AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS The Senate resumed the consideration

of the joint resolution <S. J. Res. 1) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the making of treaties and executive agreements.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, yesterday evening, on behalf of myself, the Senator from California [Mr. KNowLANDL the Senator from Colorado [Mr. MILLIKIN], and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL], I submitted to the committee amendment an amendment which is at the desk, and is identified as ' '2-2-54-C." I wish to modify the amendment to the amendment in the following way: Strike out all of lines 7 to 9, inclusive, on page 3 of Senate Joint Resolution :No. 1, which is the "which" clause, and insert in lieu thereof the following-which is "C":

SEc. 2. Clause 2 of article VI of the Constitution of the United States is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the following: "Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this clause, no treaty made after the establishment of this Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land unless made in pursuance of this Constitution."

To the amendment "D" to the committee amendment, I submit, on behalf of myself and the same Senators, the following modification: Change "lines 14 and 15" to read "lines 10 to 15."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The modifications of the amendments to the committee amendment will be received and printed, and will lie on the table.

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, from the four corners of the Nation I have received a great many additional expressions from organizations which oppose the Bricker amendment. I send to the desk now several such messages, and ask unanimous consent that they be printed at this point in the body of the CoNGRESsioNAL RECORD.

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

WASHINGTON, D. C., January 27, 1954. Senator ALEXANDER Wn.EY,

United States Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

The American Association of University Women at its 1953 national convention

adopted a resolu tion supporting "existing constitutional provisions for the conduct of foreign affairs." Our association is composed of 125,000 members in over 1,200 branches in all t h e States. The Washington branch of the AAUW after careful study expresses disapproval of the proposed Bricker amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1 on amending the Constitution with reference to treaty making and executive agreements. Our branch approves President Eisenhower's opposition to the proposed amendment and believes that such an amendment limiting powers of the President to negotiate treaties and executive agreements is neither necessary nor desirable. Experience demonstrates that the division of power between Congress and the Executive has proved a safe and practical means of conducting foreign affairs. Our organization urges you to use your influence to defeat this amendment and any of the related proposals made today.

KATHERINE H. FREDERIC.

CHICAGO, ILL., January 27, 1954. Sen a tor ALEXANDER WILEY,

Senate Office Building: This is to inform you that I heartily ap

prove of the President's public leadership in oppositiop to the proposed Bricker amendment. He has our support.

CHARLES F. Boss, Jr., Executive Secretar y, Board of World

Peace of the Methodist Church.

WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND FREEDOM,

Edgewood, R. I., January 24, 1954. Senator ALEXANDER WILEY,

Senate Office Bui lding, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR WILEY: We are very much concerned about the Bricker amendment and we firmly agree with your opposition to it. We have written to both of our Rhode Island Senators, neither of whom sponsored the original bill, and we are urging them to stand firm and to oppose any substitute amendment that would delimit the constitutional power of the President or the Senate.

We admire your strong stand in the face of opposition from many of the Senate and we are convinced that the American people would back you up firmly, if they understood the implications of this legislation. In our opinion, it is unnecessary and dangerous, particularly in these critical days in world history.

Sincerely yours, DORIS M. MILLS,

Legislative Chairman, Providence Branch.

YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION, Nashville, Tenn., January 28, 1954.

Hon. ALBERT GORE and Hon. ESTES KEFAUVER,


MY DEAR SENATORS: The board Of directors of the Nashville YWCA, upon recommendation of the public affairs committee, wishes to go on record as opposing the Bricker amendment. The committee has studied and given careful consideration to this proposed legislation and the members feel there are hidden dangers in the amendment, namely:

1. It would be a serious obstacle to effective work by the United States within the framework of the United Nations.

2. It would unnecessarily restrict the constitutional power of the President.

3. It would throw a great deal of unnecessary work upon Congress and make less effective the specific functions of the Senate.

Even more ilnportant, the adoption of the Bricker amendment would change some of

. the basic conceptions of our form of government which the makers of our Constitu

. tion considered essential: 1. It would repudiate the system of checks

and balances by giving Congress unchecked control of foreign policy, and

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD·- SENATE 1201 2. It would weaken the idea that the power

of the Federal Government should always prevail and that we should operate as a united Nation ih dealing with other nations, because it would in some instances give individual States the chance to repudiate treaties.-

Therefore, we respectfully urge you to use your influence toward the defeat of the Ericker amendment. ·

Very sincerely, !4ARGARET !4AGER Mrs. C. F. Mager, President, Board of Directors.

LOIS WHEELER Mrs. Arville W. Wheeler,

Chairman, Public Affairs Committee.

THE INDIANA COUNCIL OF CHURCH WOMEN,

South Bend, Ind., January 30, 1954. Senator ALEXANDER WILEY,

Senator from Wisconsin, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR WJLEY: The national administrative committee of the United Church Women, and I, as a member of the National Board of the United Church Women, and State president, wish to express to you our support of President Eisenhower in his opposition to the Bricker amendment.

We have made a careful study of the Bricker amendment and oppose it for the following reasons:

1. We believe that it would prevent the United States from acting responsibly in its foreign relations.

2. It would hamper procedures already safeguarded, by adding steps which would cast doubt on the ability of the United States to fulfill its obligations. .

3. To avoid paralyzing irresponsibility, the President must be allowed to retain his authority in this field.

Thank you for helping us defeat the Bricker amendment in the Senate.

Yours sincerely, CLARA D. POINTER Mrs. P. D. Pointer.

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF INDIANA, Indianapolis, January 29, 1954.

The Honorable ALEXANDER WILEY, United States Senate,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SENAToR WILEY: I should like to ex

press my personal admiration for the way in which you have worked to clarify the difficulties that· would ensue if the Bricker amendment should be passed, and the statesm:l.nlike manner in which you have handled the situation.

The League of Women Voters of Indiana bas written to both Senator HOMER E. CAPEHART and Senator WILLIAM E. JENNER eXpressing their opposition to the Bricker amendment. We have studied it carefully

·and the weight of league opinion is definitely opposed to the amendment.

A copy of the letter sent to the two Indiana Senators is enclosed.

Sincerely, HARRIET R. CLIFFORD Mrs. Austin V. Clifford,

- State President.

JANUARY 29, 1954. The Honorable WILLIAM E. JENNER,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR JENNER: After careful study

on the part of our membership, the League of Women Voters of Indiana wishes to express the opposition of· a majority of its members to the Bricker amendment. We feel that sufficient safeguards exist in the Constitution and through legislative action and judicial interpretation, and that the power of the Executive and the Senate to conduct foreign relations would be seriously impaired if it were passed. They would have -the- respon-

C--76

sibility, without the necessary authority to carry out this responsibility.

We believe that the traditional balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government would be disturbed to the extent that some doubt would be cast on the ability of the Federal Government to conduct necessary international affairs.

We believe in a foreign policy based on the principle of international cooperation, and feel that this would be impossible if the Bricker amendment should be enacted.

We urge you to make every effort to insure the defeat of the Bricker amendment.

Sincerely, Mrs. AUSTIN V. CLIFFORD,

State President.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF NEGRO WOMEN, INC.,

Washington, D. C., January 29, 1954. The Honorable ALEXANDER WILEY,


MY DEAR SENATOR WILEY: This is to let you know that your positive efforts to interpret the inherent dangers of the proposed Bricker amendment have been noted and greatly appreciated by many members of the National Council of Negro Women.

I am enclosing a copy of the letter we sent to President Eisenhower early in January on the subject.

Will you let us know if there is any further step our organization might take which would be helpful to you.

Most sincerely yours, NAOMAH W. MAISE Mrs. Naomah W. Maise,

Executive Director.

JANUARY 4, 1954. The Honorable DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER,

President of the United States of America, The White House,

Washington, D. C. MY DEAR PRESIDENT EISENHOWER: This is

to urge you to continue your opposition to the proposed Bricker amendment and to use the full influence of your office to further circumvent any compromise effort which seeks to limit the treatymaking power of the President of the United States.

The National Council of Negro Women, representing 850,000 women, went .on record as opposing the Bricker amendment. The resolution is quoted as follows:

"Whereas passage of the Bricker amendment scheduled to come before the next session of Congress will have an adverse impact on United States participation in the United Nations; and

"Whereas the Bricker amendment will, in effect, take away the traditional power of the President of the United States to make -treaties; and

"Whereas the Bricker amendment will cause mistrust of American motives in the minds of our allies throughout the world; be it

"Resolved, That the National Council of Negro Women opposes passage of the Bricker ·amendment and will vigorously describe and ·interpert its provisions to the entire membership."

Our very good wish for the New Year. Sincerely yours,

Mrs. WILLIAM THOMAS MASON.

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, last week there was carried in the Hearst newspapers across the land a debate between the senior Senator from Ohio [Mr. BRICKER] and myself on the subject of Senate Joint Resolution 1. One round .of that debate was devoted to the answers of the senior Senator from Ohio to certain questions on this subject; another round was devoted to my answers to the same questions.

I now send to the desk the text of the comments I prepared in response to questions put to me by Mr. William Flythe, of the Hearst newspapers; and I ask unanimous consent that my responses may be printed in the body of the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD.

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

[From the New York Journal-American of January 29, 1954)

ROUND 2 OF THE GREAT DEBATE-WILEY ANSWERS BRICKER

Controversy over the Bricker amendment has reached the stage of a great debate in Congress. On this page yesterday we presented the answers of its sponsor, Senator JoHN W. BRICKER, of Ohio, to questions submitted by William Flythe, diplomatic correspondent of the Hearst newspapers, Washington bureau.

Today we publish the replies of Senator ALEXANDER WILEY, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to similar questions from Mr. Flythe.

"Question. Is this proposed Bricker amendment to the Constitution a step toward isolationism to take the United States out of foreign entanglements?

"Answer. It is certainly a big step toward isolationism. It comes from an exaggerated fear of foreign entanglements which neither the President nor the Senate have any intention of getting involved in. The actual result of the amendment would be what President Eisenhower has warned: It 'would make it impossible for us to deal effectively with friendly nations for our mutual defense and common interests • • • to achieve and maintain peace.' What a price to pay for imaginary fears.

"Question. Does it give the Congress the veto power over the President's responsibility to conduct foreign relations?

"Answer. Yes. It says specifically that 'Congress shall have power to regulate' all international agreements. Such a power to regulate could easily be used to destroy the position of the President as it now exists under our constitutional system.

"Question. Would it tie the hands of the President in case of war?

"Answer. Yes, very dangerously. Congress would be able to 'regulate' the President in war as well as in peace.

"Question. Is it a States' rights amendment to the extent of making State laws supreme when they conflict with the provisions of a treaty or executive agreement?

"Answer. If a treaty or agreement were made which conflicted with a State law, the State law would be supreme. The only exception would be if the National Government already had power to make a law on that same subject, and if it did actually pass such a spec.ial law to put the international agreement into effect in the States. The whole process would be extremely laborious at best, and would probably make other nations unwilling to deal with us."

REGARDING TREATIES "Question. Would the amendment keep

treaties from automatically becoming laws within the United States?

"Answer. Treaties do not now 'automatically' become law until they have been approved by two-thirds of the Senate. It would no longer be enough, as it usually is today, for the Senate to give its consent by a twothirds majority and then in case the treaty is questioned for the Supreme Court to give its judgment on the treaty. In addition to having the appro.val of these specially qualified bodies with long tenure, the treaty would usually also have to be passed as a law by the House of Representatives-and often all the 48 States would have to pass separate laws too.

1202 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE February 3 "'Question. Would the amendment nullify

reciprocal trade agreements or tariffs worked out with other nations?

"Answer. Under the amendment Congress would be free to regulate these agreements completely out of existence."

WOULD WEAKEN U. N. "Question. Would the amendment weaken

the United Nations? "Answer. It would seriously weaken the

United Nations. It would give Congress power to set barriers around all the negot iations which the President conducts with the United Nations and through the United Nations, including matters like the cease-fire in Korea.

"Question. Would the amendment weaken international agreements or nullify those which made the North Atlantic Mutual Security Pact effective?

"Answer. It is impossible to say what the effect of the Bricker amendment would be on t>xisting international agreements. It is clear that the President would be excessively limited in his freedom to make new agreements, such as those that might be needed to strengthen the North Atlantic Treaty countries against Russia.

"Question. Would it limit the authority of the Secretary of State to carry on negotiations, such as those now in progress at Berlin?

"Answer. As I have emphasized before, Congress would be completely free to regulate every kind of international agreement and this would surely cover negotiations such as those now in progress.

"Question. At what dangers is the Bricker amendment aimed?

"Answer. The Bricker amendment Is not aimed at any real dangers. Proponents have not been able to name one single treaty approved by two-thirds of the Senate th~t they think would not have been approved If the Bricker amendment had been in effect. They talk about the dangers of United Nations conventions, specifically the Genocide Convention and the Human Rights Covenant. The Genocide Convention has been pigeonholed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 5 years. The Human Rights Covenant has not even been signed by the United States. Proponents are fearful of so-called executive agreements like Yalta and Potsdam. Both of these agreements were secret and were negotiated by Democratic Presidents. Congress might try to limit such agreements under the Bricker amendment, but how could it succeeed in these secret matters?

"Question. Is It true that a treaty can make law within the United States just as much as an act of Congress?

"Answer. A treaty concluded under the authority of the United States is the supreme law of the land in precisely the same way as a law passed by the Congress is the supreme law of the land. Both treaties and congressional law are subject to the limitations of the Constitution.

"Question. What is the 'which' clause that people are talking about?

"Answer. The 'which' clause states that a treaty is to 'become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of a treaty.'

"Question. What does the 'which' clause do?

"Answer. This clause which I oppose serves notice on the world that there are many things upon which the United States could not conclude treaties. In the words of President Eisenhower, 'it would so restrict the conduct of foreign affairs that our country could not negotiate the agreements necessary for the handling of our business with the rest or the world.' ••

PUZZLING SITUATION "'Question. Suppese a treaty deals partly

with foreign relations and partly with mat-

ters o! local concern within the United States. What happens then under the Bricker amendment?

"Answer. I don't know what happens under the Bricker amendment in this case. T hat is one thing that is wrong with the amendment. We have over a periOd of 165 years developed a Constitution which most Americans and our courts understand. I would guess in the situation prescribed that we would need to negotiate 2 treatles-1 dealing with foreign relations and 1 dealing with so-called matters of local concern. But what are m atters of local concern? Are the fisheries of the Gulf States, of New England, or the Far West matters of local concern? Fish have a tendency to ignore international and State boundaries in their migrations. A fishery that is overharvested while the fish h appen to be in Canadian waters, for example, will injure the fishing indust ry in the United S tates. We h ave treaties to prot ect our fisheries. They would not be possible if the Bricker amendment were made a part of the Constitution.

"Question. President Eisenhower has said he will never ask the Senate to r atify a treaty conflicting with the Constitution and that he will not seek approval of the Covenant on Human Rights. Why, then, is an amendment needed?

"Answer. An amendment is not needed. President Eisenhower stated on January 25: 'I am unalterably opposed to the Bricker amendment as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee.' "

Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Mr. President, on January 31, Clif Stratton, the Washington correspondent of the Topeka Daily Capital, of Topeka, Kans., had published an article entitled "Bricker Amendment Called Attempt To Preserve, Protect American Heritage." Most of the article deals with the views of Representative WINT SMITH, of the Sixth Congressional District, Kansas. I concur in most of Representative SMITH's views, and I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: BRICKER AMENDMENT CALLED ATrEMPT TO

PRESERVE, PROTECT AMERICAN HERITAGE (By Clif Stratton)

"'The Bricker amendment," according to Representative WINT SMITH, Sixth Kansas Congressional District, " in simple language is nothing more or less than an attempt to preserve and protect our American heritage."

During the past 20 years, he said, many attempts have been made to remake American laws that have to deal with domestic and foreign concepts of our American way of life. Some of these attempts have been made openly. But generally these substitutions and alterations have been "deceit'ful, deceptive, fraudulent ."

These modifications o! our age-old American rights generally have been placed in a gaudy package bound with pinkish, red, and glittering tinsel, with a motto on the outside-"in the name of worldwide humanity,'• he said.

"But those who are fighting against the Bricker amendment are using a different wrapping. When you see through their phony legalistic phrases, these become as clear cellophane-and you can see their whole package is designed to make the United States a vassal state in which the internationalists, the one-worlders can get control of the sovereignty of the United States.

"We, in America, always have won our battles for freedom and sovereignty when we could see our enemy. But the enemy who hides behind the Constitution, while plotting

its destruction, is sometimes difficult to control. These modern international socialists and Communists who hide b ehind the fifth amendment to carry on their so-called enlightening reforms are not always easy to apprehend," SMITH said.

"Why not spell out why, after some 165 years, it is necessary to amend the Constitution? Just what are the d angers, and how the Bricker amendment would protect the American heritage?" it was suggested to Congressman SMITH. He has done so, and h ere it is.

It might be well to recall that this latest attempt to destroy our American heritage (through using the treaty power to bypass Congress and the Constitution in writing internal law) was started at San Francisco at the first organization meeting of the United Nations. And remember, the basic architect, after months of scheming with the internationalist socialistic, pink-fringe crowd-the basic architect was Alger Hiss.

The San Francisco meeting was nothing more or less than the public stage from which the United Nations concept would be launched, again wrapped in gaudy tinsel , to proclaim to the world an organization for international peace.

But the real objective of Alger Hiss, Joe Stalin, and all the Red International Socialists, was a back-door entry to steal the sovereignty of the United States.

The weird organizational meeting opened without prayer so the atheists and other international one-worlders might not be offended by the mention of God's name.

Did the people of the United States elect the delegates to this organizational meeting? No. They were appointed. These delegates simply gambled with the destiny and sovereignty of the American people. Joe Stalin was not there. His presence was not necessary. Alger Hiss was there, as secretary general.

Edward R. Stettinius, one of the United States delegates, told the President of the United States that this United Nations Charter was a declaration and a constitution.

Emphasis was placed as usual by the proponents of the U. N. to show that it was designed basically as a peace organization. Korea is the tragic example of this phony concept. When this U. N. Charter was ratified , it was a blow at the independence of the United States. It was dishonoring to the sound doctrine of George Washington and an insult to the memory of the Continental Army. And, above all, a slave act for the American people.

Senator PAT McCARRAN has said: "I made an error which I shall regret all the days o! my life when I voted for the United Nations."

The basic objective of the Bricker amendment is to insure two things:

1. That world government cannot be forced on the American people through the back door-or by using the Trojan horse technique; and

2. To be doubly sure that the civil liberties of the people of the United States be not destroyed.

Perhaps the Bricker amendment's chief and final objective is to guarantee our basic domestic rights. It certainly is a long jump from our fundamental concepts of basic American rights if foreign states can change. alter, or compel us to change our basic domestic laws. Yet many of those who oppose the Bricker amendment say we must submit to this in order to show international cooperation.

Our own Constitution would never have been ratified by the States if the Bill o! Rights had not been added to that Constitution as the first 10 amendments.

The makers of our Constitution thought the Federal Government would be concerned only with treaties concerning boundaries, freedom of the seas, right · to trade with foreign nations, etc.

19~4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1203 Article VI of the Constitution says: . •'Ail treaties made, or which shall be made,

under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and '!;he judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Edgar W . . Waybright, of Florida, has this to say apout th~ intent of the framers of the Constitution:

"They did. not foresee that in 1848, a little man who had failed at everything else, by the name of Karl Marx, would devise a scheme for a cruel world dictatorship to enslave all mankind. They did not foresee that thousands of college professors, school teachers, ministers, labor bosses, writers, businessmen, lawyers, and doctors could be led by a few sinister men consumed by the lust for power, to turn the words of the Constitution upside down and inside out, so they would mean what the writers never intended.

"They never could ln the wildest nightmare have imagined that these sinister men and these well-meaning but shallow thinkers could take from the preamble of this great instrument the phrase 'promote the general welfare' and interpret it to mean that these words taken from the context authorized, ignoring the rest of the Constitution, the creation of a Communist, Socialistic, or Fascist 'welfare state.'

"Likewise, the framers of this great instrument could never have dreamed that these same men could twist the above-quoted words from article VI to mean that the President of the United States and two-thirds of the Senators present and voting, could by ratification of a treaty, destroy at one fell swoop the Constitution of tjle United States, every State constitution in each and every of the 48 States of the Union, and every State and Federal law."

By use of the present doctrine in the area of domestic law, the President with the consent of the Senate can do anything he wants to do by treaty, regardless of the restrictions and prohibitions in the Constitution. This may seem to be a bold statement, but stranger and sadder things than this have happened.

Harry Truman, by a stroke of a pen and a telephone call, caused 130,000 men to die in Korea-simply using the authority granted in the United Nations Charter. The Constitution was nullified because it plainly states--only the Congress can declare war.

Patrick Henry well expressed the danger in these words: "If treaties are made to infringe our liberties, it will be too late to say our rights have been violated.''

Those who oppose the Bricker amendment say it "can't happen here--domestic American laws are in no danger."

Recently the United States Supreme Court had this to say in one of its decisions: "The U. N. Charter represents a moral commitment of foremost importance and we (the Court) must not permit the spirit of our pledge to be compromised or disparaged in either our domestic or foreign affairs." These words coming from the Supreme Court should warn us all-as a Red flag of danger.

Secretary Dulles, before he was Secretary of State pointed out on two separate occasions the necessity for the Bricker .amendment. He said in a Louisville, Ky., speech that treaties can change our domestic law and override the Constitution. But since he has become Secretary of State, he says the danger is unimportant, because "we"

· won't do anything to undermine the Constitution.

That in effect is what all dictators in history have said: "Just give me power and I'll never misuse it.''

Secretary Dulles now says the -Bricker amendment woUld interfere with the international position of the United states .. This statement leads to asking Mr. Dulles, the

former associate and successor to Mr. Dean Acheson: "Which is the more important, the international position of the United States or the basic constitutional domestic rights of the American people?"

The great mass of the internationalists, the bleeding hearts for the downtrodden world humanity, the pinks, many scholarly unthinking degree-laden college professors saying, "If we pass the Bricker amendment, we will be placing the President in a straitjacket in his treatymaking powers." That is just the point. He should be placed in a straitjacket if he makes any treaty or recommends one that in any way, shape, or form or manner interferes or takes away any basic rights of American citizens.

The American people have been accustomed to living under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I believe they still prefer to live under the constitutional safeguards, rather than upon mere promises. Under the U. N., a (world) Supreme Court consisting of Chinese, Russians, Arabs, Jews, Indians, etc., can make laws and ratify them because we are a part of the United Nations.

It is, therefore, virtually certain that, unless we withdraw from the U.N., or secure an amendment to its charter, or amend article VI of our own Federal Constitution (by adopting the Bricker amendment), all segregation laws, all laws permitting intermarriage of races, all laws fixing national quotas for immigrants, and all laws which in some way affect different races, different religions, different sexes, and different language peoples will fail. This may be already the law of the land. (But such changes would be made for us, not by us.)

How easily could such a vicious treaty be slipped through. At least three recent treaties were ratified legally by one United States Senator. He didn't cast the deciding vote; he cast the only vote. They now are the supreme law of the land. If they had any concealed jokers, American law could not protect you.

Several major treaties have been ratified by a small handful of Senators. For instance, our Mutual Assistance Treaty with Turkey was made the supreme law of the land by six Senators.

A distinguished jurist, Florance E. Allen, judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, recently had this to say:

"At first I was not particularly alarmed about this. I said to myself, 'Well, these international socialists can draft all the laws they want to, but it will not affect the United States.' But then I learned two things I should have known before, but didn't. And those two things are the reasons for the Bricker amendment. Here they are: _

"Bear in mind, as I said before, that an international law called a convention is considered a treaty. In the United States treaties are submitted only to the Senate. They are not submitted to the House of Representatives. An ILO convent ion, for example, can be ratified as a treaty by a two-

- thirds vote of the Members of the Senate present and voting on the day the vote is taken • • • only a handful present could put through the vote. That is how ratification of a convention might be slipped through."

I am sure we all remember when President Truman seized the steel companies. The Constitution gave him no power to take private property-so said a majority of the Supreme Court. But remember that the three dissenting judges said that our ratification of the U.N. Charter had given our President power to seize private property, in defiance of the Constitution. Had those three judges been able to persuade two more judges to their way of thinking-our Constitution would be dead and we would be completely at the · mercy of the ·United Nations.

Some years ago the Congress enacted a la:w concerning migratory birds, ducks, - and game. The President approved. ·No one

questioned the validity of this act at the time of its passage. But subsequently, someone got arrested for shooting ducks out of season and this migratory bird law was attacked because Congress had no power to act in this field-that the States only had this power. The case was appealed and this migratory bird law was held unconstitutional. What happened? The United States made treat ies with Britain, Canada, and Mexico. Then the Federal Government had jurisdiction over migratOry birds-but they got this power by treaty and not by congressional law.

If these ardent, intellectual designers of world government believe so strongly in the United States Constitution as they claim, why do they object to putting the Bricker amendment in black and white, and making it a part of the Constitution?

Mr. Frank Holman, former president of the American Bar Association, answers the above question in the following manner:

"The only possible answer that can be made to this is that in recent years there has developed gradually in our midst another kind of American than those who founded this great Republic-the American who is impatient with the slow and safe processes of law; impatient of constitutional restraints; the kind of American who prefers unrestrained power; the kind of American who believed in so-called unhandicapped executive power.

"Behind all this changed attitude of mind on the part of many of our high officials of Government is also the desire to change America from a repubiic to a socialistic state by and through the treaty process and eventually to put us into some form of world government. Mr. Dulles in his Boston speech on August 26, 1953, before the annual meeting of the American Bar Association, 'let the cat out of the bag'-or half out of the bagwith respect to this matter. He pointed out that the U. N. Charter, by its own terms, comes up for amendment in 1955.

"It is now no secret that Mr. Dulles and others believe in strengthening the Charter in the direction of world government, and that they are planning and hoping to do so by the treaty method in 1955. The clear answer to these diplomatic planners of world government is that whether we have or do not have world government is a matter for the American people to decide.

"World government should not be imposed upon them by treaty law and through mere action of the President, the State Depar-tment, and two-thirds of the Senate present and voting."

The former Sec~etary of State Dean Achesan-and his position is now ratified by Secretary of State Dulles-proclaimed that there is no difference between foreign and domestic affairs. And that treaties are supreme and can override the Constitution, Secretary Dulles has said: "Treaties make international law and they als-o make domestic law."

As you think about the merits or demerits of this Bricker amendment--keep this thought always in your mind. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution forbids Congress to change your basic American rights. But without the Bricker amendment, since this Republic now is a member of the United Nations, your basic rights can be taken away by a treatymaking agency which consists of the President and two-thirds of the Senators present and voting.

The passage of the Bricker amendment will establish once and for all, the American theory that basic American rights cannot be changed by acts of Congress, or by State legislatures-but without the Bricker amendment, those rights can be changed or destroyed by international treaties.

The important thing for everybody to remember is that we are up against the most sinister and diabolical conspiracy in history of the world to destroy the Constit-ution of the United States and the American · way of


life, destroy the opportunity state which made us great, and substitu te b¥ the combination of outside force, internal fifth column activities of force and deception, a slave state, in which a government-a world government-shall control everybody and everything.

It is unimportant whether this is called a liberal or progressive government, a welf are state, a socialistic, a Fascist, or a Communist system. They all add up at the same goalpost-a totalitarian dictatorship.

In any discussion about the forces and events that are taking place about the world, particularly in Asia, Africa, and the Far East, one always is struck with this phrase"self-autonomy and home rule." This is uppermost in these peoples' minds. These thoughts come from Uganda, deep in the jungles of equatorial Africa.

To the people of the Sixth Congressional District-Kansans all-people of northwest Kansas, descendants of men of royal bloodthe pioneers-men and women who subdued and conquered the high plains with its drought, its violent upheavals of weather, dust storms-a land of watercourses without water, a land of no high mountain peaks, no wonderland of scenic valleys nestling between forest-covered hillsides-there is no hallowed Plymouth Rock, nor Bunker Hill Monument, nor a statue of a Jefferson, Washington, or Lincoln on a high hill to remind us of our ancient heritage.

But there are living monuments in each city, town, and village and on the ancient homesteads. There are the men who in yesteryear gave their service in the Argonne, Belleau Wood and on the Rhine-men who built bridges over the rivers of Europe, who drove tanks through the Siegfried Line; men who crawled off the ships on the beach of Normandy and waded through the snows of Belgium-and more lately men who took and held Baldy and Pork Chop Hills in Korea. Most of them are home.

They want to live as freemen in a free nation, paying a fair share of taxes to help maintain a government that is theirs. A free man's government. And not a government whose laws can be changed by an international body on a foreign shore.

Men of the Revolution, North and South, gave us our Constitution. We must protect it. It is not yet international. Our trust must be in God. Not in men. Ours is a Government of constitutional law-not officeholders. Let us keep it so. Lift your voice. Protest to those who would come sneaking through the back door to steal your basic American rights.

The Bricker amendment must be passed.

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, former Senator George Wharton Pepper, for many years a very distinguished Member of this body, and one of the outstanding lawyers of eastern United States, has sent me a telegram which reads in part as follows:

Careful consideration has convinced me of the soundness of the Bricker amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that his entire telegram be printed at this point in the body of the RECORD as a part of my remarks.

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

PHILADELPHIA, PA., January 15, 1954. Hon. EDWARD MARTIN,

Senate Office Building: Careful consideration has convinced me of

the soundness of the Bricker amendment. I am hoping that both Senators from Pennsylvania will give it effective support.

GEORGE WHARTON PEPPER.

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed

at this point in the RECORD an editorial entitled "Why the Bricker Amendment Should Pass," which was published in the Norristown <Pa.) Times Herald.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: WHY THE BRICKER AMENDMENT SHOULD PASS

Under Democratic Presidents since 1933, emergencies greatly magnified the power of the Chief Executive.

Champions of congressional authority and of St ates' rights became convinced that in this long period many exercises of presidential power actually were abuses-particularly in the foreign policy field.

They complained that grave errors were being made in treaty-writing and executive foreign policy agreements. Yalta was cited as a prime example. They contended, too, that treaties were being approved which established internal American law, in violation of the United States Constitution.

Finally, Republican Senator BRICKER of Ohio drafted an amendment to the Constitution which he said was designed to meet this problem. He won about sixty-odd Senators over to cosponsorship of his amendment, and shortly now it will come up for Senate debate.

His amendment would alter drastically the constitutional provision dealing with treaties, which now reads simply that the President shall have power to make treaties by and with the consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of those present concur.

Under BRICKER's amendment, a treaty would become effective as internal law only "through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty." This means that after a treaty has been negotiated and approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, it must yet be endorsed by both Houses of Congress in separate legislation.

In the view of many constitutional historians and lawyers, it means also that wherever a treaty provision touched on matters normally reserved to the States, it would have to be approved as well by the separate legisaatures of all States.

The second major clause of the Bricker amendment provides that "Congress shall have pow~r to regulate all executive and other agreements." This is designed to give Congress authority over foreign policy arrangements which are not treaties and thus do not come up for senatorial vote.

Under the President's constitutional power as it now stands, he has wide discretion in the making of such agreements as well as in negotiating treaties.

President Eisenhower has thrown the weight of his enormous influence with his party, and with the Senate, against the adoption of the Bricl{er amendment. This is astonishing.

He has no constitutional right to do so. He is invading a sphere of government in which he is clothed with absolutely no authority under the Constitution.

The power to amend the Constitution rests wholly upon the two Houses of Congress, and the States, which may ratify or reject as they please. When and if the Congress adopts a resolution to amend the Constitution the President is powerless to intervene. He can veto other acts of Congress, but not this one.

Time is running out for the Senate. The country expects it to make it a part of the organic law of the land, that no treaty with the U. N. or any alien state can thwart the will of the American people expressed by their Congress and preserved by the rights reserved, by the Constitution, to the people and to the States.

The amendment should be adopted-not as a watered-down compromise but as it stands today, to save the Constitution from the designs of foreign leftists and others who

might try to impose-by treaty-a civilrights program, socialism, and perhaps world government. Many organizations, including law, business, veterans, and nationalist groups, agree with us. ·

Mr. HENNINGS. Mr. President, the Senate has for more than a week been debating the proposal made by the socalled Bricker amendment to alter the trea tymaking provisions of the Constitution.

A good many Senators have already ably discussed this issue quite thoroughly. Originally, I had intended to join in this discussion at an early point, but last week it was necessary for me to be in Boston for hearings of the Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency.

During the time this debate has run the newspapers have reported quite fully the efforts by the majority leader and his associates to effect a compromise on this issue between President Eisenhower and the distinguished senior Senator from Ohio [Mr. BRICKER]. Since the beginning, I have felt that these news stories did not reflect the correct parliamentary situation concerning these issues.

Since the beginning of the 2d session of the 83d Congress, the Senator from Ohio, in my opinion, has never had the necessary votes to win Senate approval of the joint resolution reported last summer by a majority of the Judiciary Committee. At the time when the joint resolution wa~ reported, I was 1 of a minority of 4 of the committee members in opposition to this radical measure; and I still am opposed to it. I have failed to understand why a compromise has been found necessary or desirable. Certainly, on the merits of the issue, none is needed. President Eisenhower and his chief advisers, Attorney General Brownell and Secretary Dulles, have already spoken out firmly against any measure that would lessen the President's powers to conduct our foreign affairs. The President's prestige should add a sufficient number of votes to the votes of those of us who are firmly opposed to any amendment of this sort to assure the defeat of this measure on the floor. The President has only to remain firm in his opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 1 as presently amended, or to any compromise.

Those of us who have continually been in agreement with the President have not been consulted or represented in these compromise negotiations. It does not appear to have occurred to anyone among the President's advisers that the Senators who have remained firmly committed to his position may well be the key to this situation. We ask only that President Eisenhower not desert us.

It is unfortunate that the negotiations for compromise have been managed by the majority leader, who was an original cosponsor of the Bricker amendment. He has my sympathy, if not my support, because, of necessity, he must be trying to represent both sides. It is understandable, of course, that he should desire to avoid an open and bitter split within the ranks of his party. For the Republican Party, it is, of course, important to retain the illusion of unity. For the Nation, however, I think it would be

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1205 better that the Republican Party appear before the country in its schizophrenic condition, rather than appear harmonious, at the expense of wrecking the Constitution of the United States. President Eisenhower would be well advised to stand by his principles and not attempt to compromise. Then, at least, one part of the Republican Party would show faith· in the future, rather than be dominated by a philosophy of fear.

The majority leader has, withal, grown quite frantic in his efforts. It is also apparept that the Senator from Ohio is anxious to fasten onto some face-saving device. Hence much smoke has been created around a radical proposal referred to as the "which" clause. Lately the Ohio Senator has expressed a willingness to surrender even this ci tadel of the amenders-the sacred "which'' clause.

Of course, as pointed out earlier in the debate, the Senator from Ohio, was originally opposed to the "which" clause and he is-or at any rate was-only recently converted to this extreme doctrine.

Nothing constructive for our country can come out of these protracted compromise negotiations.

In a television interview on Sunday evening the distinguished Senator from Ohio stated that he had seen at least 150 drafts of proposed changes. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee which considered the original resolution, I know of only 2 drafts that the full committee studied. I assume that most of the 150 drafts seen by the Ohio Senator have been written andrewritten during their hasty negotiations. If, finally, a compromise is put before the Senate, it will inevitably be a hodgepodge of vague language which has a different meaning for each person who has a hand in it. I recall hearing that the proponents have conceded it might be 10 years before the Supreme Court could pass on some of its aspects.

I submit, Mr. President, that the Constitution of the United States should not be amended by such a procedure: that the Constitution should not be amended on the Floor of the Senate without the safeguards that come from extensive public debate of the precise language and careful study of it by informed scholars in the fields of constitutional and international law. Only a small fraction of the public has heard of this issue and, according to the Gallup poll of a week or so ago, only 4 percent of the people actually favor the proposals put forward by the Senator from Ohio.

If any proposed compromise would affect the broad historic power of the President to conduct our foreign affairs, it would be contrary to the interests of our country and I shall therefore oppose it. If the compromise does not hamstring the President or weaken his needed powers in any way but is merely an empty gesture in order that it may appear that the Senator from Ohio has won something, I shall also oppose it.

We can never be sure that language purportedly harmless will not somehow be construed to have meaning and effect that would be harmful. And what is more to the point, I hold that the Con-

stitution-the supreme law of our landmust not be degraded by adding meaningless surplusage of language in order that a political party already badly divided against itself might seem to be in agreement.

So, Mr. President, so far as I am concerned-and I think I express the sentiments of a good many other Senatorscompromise on this issue is not possible, and I believe that the Senate will reject any compromise that can be concocted or devised at this stage of the debate and submitted to the Senate as a whole without even a minimum of committee consideration. I cannot believe that this august body would adopt any so-called compromise which has been conceived in a series of backroom negotiations.

Having made these general remarks in opposition to any attempt to weaken the Presidential powers in foreign affairs, I shall now yield the floor. But before doing so, Mr. President, I wish to say that at the time the unknown compromise or compromises are unveiled to the Senate and to the country, I shall again address the Senate on the specific provisions of these masked marvels. If no compromise is brought forth in a day or two, I shall again ask recognition to address the Senate specifically on the proposal now before it.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, let me say in passing that had the original members of the Constitutional Convention taken the position that no compromise was possible, the Union would have

· been wrecked before it was started, because there had to be compromises between the large States and the small, by giving to the large States representation in the House in proportion to population and to the small States equal representation in the Senate. There were other great compromises which made our Constitution possible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-"sent to have printed in the RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks a letter which I addressed to Hon. Walter Bedell Smith, Under Secretary of State, on February 1, 1954. It has already appeared in the RECORD, but I desire to have it appear in the REcoRD at this point.

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

FEBRUARY 1, 1954. Hon. WALTER BEDELL SMITH,

Under Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: During the discussions on Senate Joint Resolution 1, there has been a difference of opinion expressed as to the number of executive agreements involved in any constitutional provision that in order for such agreements to have the effect of internal law congressional action would be required.

Article I of the Constitution states: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."

The Constitution also gives the Congress power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Please furnish me with information showing for each year 1943 to 1953 inclusive the number of executive agreements entered into with foreign governments of international or-

ganizations and the number of s.uch agreements which have the effect of internal law. Also list those agreements affecting internal l aw which were based on prior or subsequent congressional action and those which had no con gressional authorization.

I believe that it is essential that such information be made available prior to the submission to the _ States of the proposed const it utional amendment. Your early reply will be appreciated.

It is also my intent ion to introduce a Senate resolution requesting the Senate Foreign Rela tions Committee to make a complete study of this question. It is my belief that in the past the executive department has used executive agreements when the Constitution intended the treatymaking power to be used, with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Sincerely yours, WILLIAM F. KNOWLAND.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I wish to read at this time a letter from the Acting Secretary of State in reply to my letter just. referred to. The reply is under date of February 2, 1954, and reads as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 2, 1954.

Hon. WILLIAM F. KNOWLAND, United States Senate.

MY DEAR SENATOR KNOWLAND: I have received your letter of February 1, 1954, in which you request information showing for each year 1943 to 1953, inclusive, the number of "executive agreements entered into with foreign governments or international organizations" and the number of such agreements which "have the effect of internal law." You ask also that there be listed those agreements affecting internal law which were based on prior or subsequent congressional action and those which had no congressional authorization.

The Department of State will endeavor to furnish you, at the earliest possible moment, the information which you request.

I am sure you will appreciate the fact that this necessarily involves studies of a highly analytical character. There would seem to be no well-defined rule by which many agreements may be said to have or not have "the effect of internal law." It is assumed that the task involves a determination as to which agreements have or m'ight have an effectiveness that would be recognized by courts within the United States in determining cases which rely to any extent on the existence of such agreements (a reciprocal trade agreement being one of the simpler examples). On that assumption, it would seem that the task will require an extended period of time on the part of our staff. It has been roughly estimated that the completion of the task may take a considerable period, 6 months as a minimum.

Sincerely. . WALTER B. SMITH,

Acting Secretary.

On the same day that I wrote the letter to the Acting Secretary of State I submitted a resolution calling for a complete investigation by the Foreign Relations Committee of all executive agreements.

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, last week I inserted in the RECORD-January 28, page 932-a statement of alleged misstatements about the Bricker amendment which was printed as a paid advertisement in a number of newspapers.

Today I have a statement issued by the Committee for Defense of the Constitution, of which Edward S. Cor\vin is national chairman. It is entitled "The Fictitious Claims for the Bricker Amendment and the Facts." This statement

1206 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE F:_e_bruary 3.

refutes, one by one, the fictions which have been advanced by proponents of the Bricker amendment. I ask unanimous consent that it be inserted in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: THE FICTITIOUS CLAIMS FOR THE BRICKE:a

AMENDMENT AND THE FACTS FICTION

The Constitution must be amended to prevent treaties from overriding the Constitution and our constitutional rights.

FACT No such amendment is necessary. The

Supreme Court has consistently made it plain that any treaty which conflicts with the Const itution will be held invalid. A treaty cannot rise above the Constitution any more than a river can rise above its source.

FICTION With the U. N. and its agencies drafting

so many dangerous covenants, the treaty power must be curbed to keep our country from being sold down the river. ·

FACT · Supporters of the Bricker amendment ig

nore the fact that the !'resident may not even propose for consideration covenants which have been drafted by the United Nations or its specialized agencies. They also pass over the fact that all treaties must be approved by the Senate-a body so little known for its r ash actions that it has been called the "graveyard of treaties," also the fact that the Supreme Court has made it plain that it will not permit a treaty to operate as domestic law in violation of our constitutional riO'ht s, and that Congress may at any time o;'erride the operation of a treaty as domestic law by a subsequent statute. We should not cripple our treatymaking machinery because a few unwise treaties have been drafted or proposed any more than we should abolish the Congress because a few unwise bills have been introduced. If the Bricker amendment had been in effect it would not have prevented past errors in judgment nor will it secure infa1libility in the future. No laws can assure us that all men will be wise.

FICTION The treaty procedure must be tightened

because treaties have slipped through the Senate with as few as six Senators voting.

FACT Laws have also been passed by the Con

gress with very few Members present. If the matter is at all controversial, the Members turn out to vote. If necessary, a change in the Senate Rules could require a quorum to be present for votes on treaties. No such drastic step as a constitutional amendment is needed.

FICTION The Bricker amendment will prevent so

cialized medicine. FACT

We already have United States social-security laws passed by a majority of both Houses. The real risk of some form of socialized medicine is not through the cumbersome route of international treaties but by a similar act of Congress. To think that the Bricker amendment can prevent socialized medicine is absurd.

FICTION We need the Brieker amendment to pre

vent American boys in uniform from being imprisoned in French jails.

FACT In the NATO Status of Forces Treaty, milt ..

tary personnel of the sending country, when off duty, are subject to the criminal Jurlsdic .. tion of the host country.

Senator BRICKER proposed as a reservation to this treaty that the United States be given exclusive jurisdiction over its forces

. abroad. This would, of course, mean giving foreign countries the same rights over their troops in this country. Under Senator BRICKER's "which" clause, the United States could not assure foreign countries that the individual states would grant these rights. So, the Bricker amendment, far from preventing the adoption of a treaty, such as the NATO Status of Forces Treaty, would in fact make it more difficult to correct the very aspect of it which Senator BRICKER criticizes most.

FICTION The Bricker amendment would merely put

our treatymaking machinery on a par with that of other countries.

FACT On the contrary, it would make our treaty

making process the most cumbersome in the world.

First. Already, a treaty must be negotiate-d by the President, and submitted by him to the Senate.

Second. Already, the treaty must be approved by two-thirds of the Senators present, usually after committee hearings, and ratified and proclaimed by the President.

Third. Under the amendment in order to be effective in the United States a treaty would also have to be passed as a law by a majority of both Senate and House, presumably after more committee hearings, and signed by the President. Or, if the subject matter ran afoul of the "which" clause of the amendment, each State would have to pass State legislation to make the treaty effective in that State.

Our legislative bodies are already over .. worked. This process will be so time consuming that our power to act will be curtailed and other countries will be reluctant to negotiate with us.

FICTION We are one of the few countries in the

world in which it is possible for a treaty to become internal law without the passage of legislation.

FACT It is true that in many other countries

legislation is required before a treaty becomes operative as internal law. Howevet, in such countries there is no requirement of prior consent to the ratification of a treaty, such as our requirement that twothirds of the Senators concur. Moreover, in practice in such countries, the necessary legislation is generally passed prior to ratification of the treaty by the Executive and is, accordingly, the practical equivalent of the Senate's consent to ratification under our Constitution. In any event a treaty does not go to the legislatures a second time as it would under the Bricker amendment.

FICTION The BTicker amendment will not hamper

our ability to make effective treaties with other countries.

FACT It is true that the Bricker amendment

would not interfere with the technical legal power of the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties. However, the "which" clause would make th& consent of the State legislatures necessary to the enforcement in the United States of such vital international agreements as the traditional treaties of friendship , commerce and navigation, narcotics control conventions, and possible arrangements for international control of atomic energy. This would mean that the United States would have to depend on State governments to enforce its treaty obligations and, as a practical matter, would not be able to enter into many necessary treaties or enter into them on as favorable terms as it otherwise might.

FICTION The Bricker amendment would prevent

another Yalta. FACT

Nothing in any constitution can prevent any government from making bad decisions. The Bricker amendment would merely sh1ft the ultimate responsibility, for conducting negotiations like Yalta, from the President to Congress. Congress would then have three choices: (1) It might do nothing-in which case the amendment would accomplish nothing (except to have everyone in doubt as to whether Congress was going to pass a regulatory law right in the middle cf the conference); (2) it might pass a statute giving the President broad powers in general terms-in which case he might actually be able to act with more powers than he has now; or (3) it might pass a very specific statute, defining precisely just what the President could and could not do. That would be nonsense-it would be negotiation by newspaper. Congress might just as well tell the President to stay home, and move the conference right into the floor of the House and Senate ' (if the other nations would take the trouble to come).

FICTION The Bricker amendment will solve the

problem of drawing the line between treaties and executive agreements.

FACT Under our present system there are no

written definitions specifying when a President may make an executive agreement with. out congressional authorization, when he must seek the approval of Congress and when he must present the agreement in the form of a treaty to the Senate. Attempts to fit all agreements into set categories have failed and the Bricker amendment does not in any way meet this problem. It merely vests solely in Congress the full power to set up these categories without any guidance as to how it shall be done.

Secretary of State Dulles has correctly stated that: .. This is an area to be dealt with by free cooperation between the three departments of the Government which are involved, rather than by attempts at constitutional definition, which are futile, or by the absorption, by one branch of govern .. ment, of responsibilities which are presently and properly shared."

FICTION The Bricker amendment would prevent se

cret agreements by the President.

FACT The success of delicate negotiations with

other countries in peace or war would be jeopardized if all agreements were immedi .. ately made public. Since all executive agree· ments must now by law be published within 1 year following their effective date, we already have one safeguard against Presidential abuse. A more important safeguard is our system of representative government with free elections. No President or party can defy the will of the people for long and remain in office.

FICTION The Bricker amendment will not affect the

powers of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.

FACT The Bricker amendment contains no such

exception whatsoever. It gives Congress power to regulate all executive agreements. Imagine Congress debating when, where, and how to open a second front in World War IIor when the Russians were to enter the war against Japan. To give Congress that power would be Just as unthinkable as offering Hitler or Tojo a free seat on the Allied Joint Chiefs of Statf.

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1207 Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, earlier

today there appeared on the news ticker an AP dispatch dealing with President Eisenhower's conference with the press on the subject of the Bricker amendment. I have had the dispatch transcribed, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the body of the RECORD.

In connection with what was stated by the distinguished Senator from Missouri [Mr. HENNINGS] a few minutes ago, the press dispatch definitely states that the President stands pat; that there is to be no compromise with principle, and that the President feels he cannot agree to any amendment which would delimit the power of the Executive or of Congress.

There being no objection, the news dispatch was ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, as follows:

WASHINGTON.-President Eisenhower said , today he will uncompromisingly oppose any

attempt to change the traditional balance of power among the branches of the Federal Government.

The President's general comment at a news conference came as the Senate headed toward showdown votes on the Bricker constitutional amendment on treaty powers.

Eisenhower declined specific comment on various proposals put before the Senate as possible substitutes for the plan by Senator BRICKER.

The President said, however, that this is a very, very intricate question which should be studied soberly and on a nonpartisan basis to determine what is good for the United States in the long run.

Thus the President declined to endorse a move by the Senate Republican leadership to revise the Bricker amendment.

Neither did he give an opinion on a different proposal which is being pressed by Senator GEORGE in the wake of collapse of bipartisan talks held in the past few days in an effort to get agreement on some proposal which could command the necessary twothirds vote.

Eisenhower declared emphatically that he will not compromise one bit-one single word-in any way which would destroy the tradi tiona! balance of power between the three branches of Government--executive, legislative, and judicial.

He repeated that he still ls willing to endorse any compromise proposal designed to make it clear that no treaty shall contravene the Constitution.

The Republican high command ln the Senate battle is composed of Senators KNowLAND, FERGUSON, MILLIKIN, and SALTONSTALL.

The stiffest threat to their leadership was from Senator GEORGE.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, apropos of the press conference to which the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Wn.EY] has referred, I believe the position of the President of the United States has been very clear from the beginning. It is that he does not wish to agree to anything which might upset the balance of power under the Constitution. He is just as strongly opposed to the legislative branch encroaching on the executive branch as he is to the executive branch encroaching on the legislative. Personally I feel certain that there could be adopted in the Senate an amendment along the lines that have been discussed for some time, to make certain that there would be no encroachment by the executive branch on the legislative branch, or by the legislative on the executive, in full keeping with the

President's desire that the balance of power be not upset.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan £Mr. FERGUSON] on behalf of himself and the Senator from California [Mr. KNoWLAND], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. MILLIKIN], and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] to the committee amendment on page 3, line 5, after the word "treaty" to insert the words "or other international agreement."

ENFORCEMENT OF INCOME-TAX LAWS

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, for some time I have been greatly concerned by what appears to be a difference in the harshness with which our income-tax laws have been enforced against the smaller tax violators as compared to the punishments meted out to the larger and ofttimes more flagrant cases.

To determine the accuracy or inaccuracy of this suspicion several months ago I launched a study in which I documented the history of 20 cases showing how some of the largest of them had been handled.

In presenting these cases I admit that they are among the more glaring examples; but they are by far not the full list that could have been included. Many others in which collection of the taxes, or prosecution, has been extremely lax are omitted because the criminal aspects are now pending in the courts. Criminal prosecution in many of these omitted cases, however, was only resumed during recent months.

Against at least one of the individuals there is an indictment on another but nom·elated ca~e pending in the courts. Reference to that specific case is omitted for the reasons outlined above; namely, that a discussion of a pending criminal case on the Senate floor could prejudice its outcome.

As a result of this study I am convinced that as our laws now stand and as they are being enforced, there is no equality of justice between the punishments meted out to the larger and more flagrant violators as compared to that meted out to the small fellows without any influence.

I recognize the problems with which our courts are faced and that the amount of money involved does not necessarily determine the degree of guilt; but I think that the Department of Justice, the Treasury Department, and the Federal courts should give a serious study to the question of a revision of their existing policies of enforcement.

One suggestion would be that there should be greater publicity given by the Treasury Department to their method of handling some of these cases and their ultimate settlement.

Likewise, Congress should give prompt consideration to the enactment of a law which would prohibit former employees of the Government from representing clients before the same Department with which they were affiliated during the first 2 years of their separation, as proposed in Senate bill 637. This would stop much of the present influence peddling.

I might say that in a recent statement made by the Attorney General of the United States he endorsed in substance the principle of the bill.

For many years this was the established policy of the Government. However, the rule was suspended during World War IT and as yet it has never been restored.

Consideration could be given toward reducing the penalties of first-time violators, particularly in cases involving the smaller amounts, to punishment by fines plus the payment of their taxes and the imposition of the 50-percent statutory fraud penalty and interest, but reserving the threat of prison sentences for second- and third-time violators.

I am making these suggestions with the full recognition that perhaps they may not be the ultimate answer. I am convinced, however, that we do not have the answer now, and that some change in our existing policies must be made.

Unquestionably in some of our courts punishment has been meted out during the past not so much on the basis of the crime committed but rather on the basis of the ability of the law violator to wield political influence or to employ the proper attorney.

As examples of how our tax laws are now being enforced against some of the larger violators I shall cite 20 cases. In presenting these cases it should be noted that my report is documented as of a specified date in late 1953, and ther.e is a possibility that in the recent months or weeks some change in the present status of the cases could have been made.

The first 4 cases which I shall outline involve uncollected taxes approximating $4 million. Four of the individuals involved are listed in the Department of Justice files as fugitives from justice. One individual was given the severe sentence of 1 day on probation. Those cases are as follows:

The first case is that of Sidney E. Wolfe, and related cases, arising in San Francisco, Calif. The years involved were 1942 to 1946, inclusive, and the tax and penalty were $1,588,013.

On January 14, 1947, the Intelligence Unit began an investigation of Mr. Wolfe, and on September 15, 1950, their report was filed with the Penal Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

On January 24, 1951, the case was referred by the Treasury Department to the Department of Justice with recommendations for prosecution.

On June 5, 1951, the case was presented to the grand jury, and on June 13, 1951, Mr. Wolfe was indicted.

As of June 10, 1953, the Department of Justice files showed this case was still being carried as an open case, and reported that the reason the case had not been brought to trial was that Sidney E Wolfe has been "out of the country."

On July 16, 1953, the Treasury Department in reply to the question as to whether or not any collections had been made on this account answered:

Liens were filed July 5 and July 18, 1951. Partial collections were made in 1952 as a. result of seizure and sale of assets. Taxpayer's petition to the Tax court was dismissed as untimely.

1208 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE February 3 Representing the taxpayer before the

Treasury Department and the Department of Justice were, before the Treasury Department, Conrad T. Hubner and before the Justice Department, Albert H. Davidson, ConradT. Hubner, Richard C. Marshall III, and James Wintham.

The second case is that of Victor B. Estrella, of Tucson, Ariz. The years involved were 1944 to 1946, inclusive, and the proposed tax and penalty were $748,365.

On March 18, 1947, the Intelligence Unit began their investigation of Mr. Estrella, and on January 2, 1948, their report was filed with the Penal Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

It was not until nearly three years later, on December 5, 1950, that the Bur eau of Internal Revenue ever got around to referring this case to the Department of Just ice.

On February 16, 1951, the Department of Justice presented the case to the grand jury.

On April 5, 1951, the grand jury returned an indictment against Mr. Estl·ella charging willful attempted evasion of individual income taxes for the years 1944 and 1945.

On May 21, 1951, Mr. Estrella pleaded not guilty to the indictment and was released on $25,000 bond.

On March 20, 1953-nearly 2 years later-the court, the defendant having waived a trial by jury, found him guilty as charged.

On March 24, 1953, the date set for the sentencing, Mr. Estrella failed to appear. Accordingly, a bench warrant was issued, and t he defendant's $25,000 bail was forfeited. The court sentenced the defendant, in absentia, to 2 years' imprisonment plus a fine of $5,000.

The Department of Justice records as of June 22, 1953, listed Mr. Estrella as still being a fugitive from justice and stated that their available information indicated that he had fled to Mexico. Continuing, they stated that the United States has no treaty in force with Mexico authorizing the extradition of criminal tax evaders.

On April 22, 1953, the Department of Justice notified the Bureau of Internal Revenue of the ultimate disposition of the case and of the defendant's fugitive status, and on the same date they also instructed the United States attorney to advise authorities of the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization of the defendant's absence from the jurisdiction.

On September 1, 1953, in reply to the question as to how much, if any, had been collected on this outstanding account the Treasury Department replied:

Liens were filed August 28, 1947, and Oct ober 12, 1949. Partial collection was made in 1947 and 1948 as a result of seizure and sale of taxpayer's assets. Further collection anticipated from sale of seized assets. Civil liability pending in Tax Court.

I was unable to obtain an explanation as to why this case was left in the pigeonhole in the Bureau of Internal Revenue nearly 3 years before being referred to the Department of Justice. Nor does there appear on record any explanation as to why the trial of Mr. Estrella was delayed nearly 2 years after the indictment.

The third case is that of Theodore Rask, New York, N. Y. The years involved were 1943 to 1945, inclusive, and the proposed tax and penalty were $1,474,276.

On November 18, 1948, the Intelligence Unit began their investigation of Mr. Rask, and on June 21, 1950, the report was stamped as being received by the Penal Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

On January 15, 1951, the case was referred by the Treasury Department to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.

On March 3, 1951, the case was presented to the grand jury, and in that same month Mr. Rask was indicted.

As of June 10, 1953, Theodore Rask was still listed by the Department of Justice as being a fugitive from justice, and the indictment is still carried as an open case.

On July 16, 1953, in reply to my inquiry as to whether or not there had been any collections made by the Treasury Department on this account the Treasury Department replied:

Accounts have not been paid. Unsuccessful efforts were made to locate assets.

The fourth case is that of Ralph Strassburger of Beaver, Gwynedd Valley, Pa., together with the related case of Frederick S. Fox. The date the case was received in the penal division was September 4, 1945. The years involved were 1936 to 1940, inclusive, and tl;le proposed tax and penalty amounted to $1,044,118.

On September 13, 1943, the Intelligence Unit began their investigation of Mr. Strassburger, and on September 4, 1945, the report was received in the Penal Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

The Bureau of Internal Revenue forwarded this report to the Department of Justice on April18, 1946, and on November 20, 1946, the case was presented to the grand jury.

Mr. Fox was tried and found guilty on J"une 16, 1950, and approximately 1 year later, on May 3, 1951, he was sentenced by District Judge Thomas J. Clary to probation for a period of 1 day on each of two counts, the sentences to run concurrently. In other words, he had to be a good boy for 24 hours.

Mr. Strassburger, as of June 10, 1953, was still reported by the Department of Justice as a fugitive from justice.

In a letter dated July 16, 1953, the Treasury Department in reply to the question as to whether or not the accounts had been paid, replied that the liability as finally determined had been collected in full.

Representing the taxpayer in this case were, before the Treasury Department, James J. Dougherty and John R. Scholl, and before the Department of Justice, Joseph Daugherty, Mr. Dunn, Miss Enderberg, who was Strassburger's confidential secretary, William P. Quinlan, and John T. Sullivan.

The next cases which I shall outline show how certain individuals with large delinquencies either were not prosecuted at all or, if prosecuted, were merely given token fines or suspended sentences.

In practically every case no collection has been made on the taxes involved.

I now refer to case No. 5: Proposed tax

Name and address: and penalty United Container Co. (a partner-

ship): Lester Kardon, Philadelphia,

P a ___ ___ ____________ ____ $481,579

Eugene Butts K ardon, Phila-delphia, Pa ___________ ____ _ 480,230

Morris Weiner, Philadelphia, Pa - ----------------------- 408,227

Morris Kardon, Philadelphia, Pa ------------------------ 832, 308

Total-------------------- 2,202,344

Years involved: Morris Kardon, 1944-47, inclusive; three others 1943-45, inclusive.

On Oct ober 25, 1946, the Intelligence Unit began their investigation of this case, and on March 26, 1948, their report was filed with the Penal Division in the , Bureau of Internal Revenue.

On January 14, 1949, the case was referred to the Department of Justice.

On April 20, 1951, a little over 2 years later and after the statute of limitations for the year 1943 had expired, presentation to the grand jury was authorized, and the case was sent to the United States attorney in Philadelphia.

While the case was in the hands of the United States attorney in Philadelphia the statute of limitations for the year 1944 was allowed to expire.

On June 25, 1952, the United States attorney advised that he was declining prosecution for the year 1945.

No explanation has been found as to why the case was allowed to remain first in Washington and then in the hands of the United States attorney with the statute of limitations expiring for the years as mentioned above, nor is there any explanation as to why prosecution for the year 1945 ·was declined.

On September 1, 1953, in replying to the question as to whether or not they had collected any of the tax referred to above as being owed by these taxpayers the Treasury Department replied:

No; case has not reached assessment stage and therefore, collections by administrative authority are not permitted under the law. In the absence of circumstances tending to indicate that the revenue is in jeopardy, action respecting civil liability is post poned pending disposition of criminal features to avoid possible prejudices to the criminal case.

Representing the taxpayers before the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department in this case were: Treasury Department: Leonard J. Schwartz, Fred L. Rosenbloom, B. Sidney Krantz, Otto Lowe; Justice Department: Fred Rosenblum, New York City; Jesse Climenko, New York City; Otto Lowe, Washington, D. C.; Leonard J. Schwartz, certified public accountant, Philadelphia, Pa.

I now refer to Case No. 6: Preston T. Tucker, Ypsilanti, Mich.

Years involved, 1945-48, inclusive. Proposed tax and penalty $525,761.

On February 12, 1948, special agents of the Intelligence Unit began their investigation of Mr. Tucker, and on October 13, 1950, their report was received by the Penal Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE 1209 In this report the agents proposed a

total assessment, including tax and penalty, of $525,761.

On September 1, 1953, in answer to the question as to whether or not any collection had been made on the account o~ the Treasury Department answered:

No. Case has not reached the assessment stage, and therefore, collection by administrative action is not permitted under the law. Open civil aspects under consideration in a field office of the Internal Revenue Service.

Representing the taxpayer before the Treasury Department were: R. M. O'Hara, Paul V. Rahaley.

It should be noted that in addition to the $525,000 tax delinquency of Preston T. Tucker, the Tucker Corp. of Chicago, TIL, with which he was associated, still owes the General Services Administration more than $2 V2 million.

Purchaser Date of sale

Ypsilanti Tool & Machine Co., Ypsilanti, Nov. 14, 1945 Mien.

I ask unanimous consent to have in .. corporated at this point in the RECORD the letter of the General Services Administration dated January 12, 1954, signed by John A. Skeen, regional director, in which he itemizes the purchases of certain personal property by his corporations upon which payment has been made along with a breakdown of current unpaid accounts receivable totaling $2,643,903 .63.


GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, REGION 5,

Chicago, Ill., January 12, 1954. Hon. JOHN J. WILLIAMS,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR WILLIAMS: This has reference to your letter of December 2, and our acknowledgment of December 15, 1953.

Original cost to

Govern-m ent

Net amount of sale

Terms of financing

Enclosed is report, In duplicate, listing the data requested on sales of personal property made to companies with which Mr. Preston T. Tucker was connected. The only disposal of real property was a lease, with purchase option, made to the Tucker Corp., Chicago, Ill., of Plancor 792, known as the former Dodge-Chrysler plant, Chicago, Ill. The unpaid account that developed therefrom is listed on the enclosed report.

All of these sales were made by the former War Assets Administration. No sales have been made by the General Services Administration in this region to Mr. Tucker or to any companies with which he was known to be affiliated.

Any further cooperation desired, I assure you, shall be gladly extended.

Sincerely yours,

D escription

JOHN A. SKEEN, Regional Director.

Status

$23,039.89 $13,692.26 Conditional sales contract_ ____ Precision boring and 3lathe machines___ Paid in full.

Do- --------------------------~--------- _____ do_______ 18, 047. 07 7, 810. 82 _____ do_----------------------- 2lathes __ _____ --------- ___ _____________ _ Do. Do. DO------------------------------------- Dec. 17,1945 38,425.63 19,298.81 ____ _ do ________________________ 5 milling machines, 1 radial , Carlton

drill. DO------------------------------------- D ec. 18. 1945 41, 086. 96 21, 503. 08 _____ do ___ --------------------- 5 lathes and 1 boring machine_---------- Do.

Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do.

Do __ ___________________________________ Feb. 26, 1946 324.38 138. 83 Cash sale __ ------------------- Su:nnen precision honing machine ______ _ Do_____________________________________ Sept. 26, 1946 1, 208. 21 668. 11 ___ __ do __ ---------------------- '!'ubing_ --------------------------------Do ____________ ------------------------- _____ do_______ 420. 84 214. 06 _____ do __ ---------------------- __ __ _ do _______ ---------------------------

Tucker Corp., Chicago, UL ________________ June 4,1947 t 7, 240.00 3, 810. 21 _____ do _________________________ Surface plates __________________________ _ Do _____________________________________ Aug. 22,1947 3, 654.20 1, 922. 10 _____ do ______________________________ do __________________________________ _ Do _____________________________________ Nov. 10, 1947 5, 161.00 2,322. 45 _____ do_________________________ Gun welders ___________________________ _ Do _____________________________________ D ec. 22,1948 366,571.94 229,592.82 _____ do ______________ ___________ Expendable personal property __________ _

Ypsilanti Tool & Machine Co______________ Feb. 3, 1949 9, 472.30 5, 683.38 Conditional sales contract_____ Cincinnati hydraulic grinding machine __ Tucker Corp., Chicago, UL________________ Feb. 16,1949 143.40 99.26 Cash sales--------------------- Expendable personal property __________ _

1---------1--------1 TotaL------------------------------- --------------- 514,795.82 306,756.19

1 Estimate.

Current unpaid accounts receivable-Tucker Corp., Chicago, Ill.

Real property taxes on Plan-cor 792, Chicago, IlL _____ _

Rental unpaid on Plancor 792, Chicago, IlL----------

Interest on rentaL _________ _ Rental of space by trustees __ _

$131,368.37

2,381,938. 4! 62,342.90 68,253.92

Total _________________ 2,643,903.63

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed -in the RECORD an Associated Press article under the Chicago dateline of October 30, 1953, entitled "Tucker Unit Earnings Up."

I quote one significant sentence from that article:

Chatz said his attorney still Is negotiating for a reduction of the Government's tax claim, which already has been reduced from $2,302,701 to $245,948.

I have no other information regarding the tax claim to which this article refers; however, evidently it is in addition to the obligations which I listed above.

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

TUCKER UNIT EARNINGS UP CHICAGO, October 30, 1953.-The trustees

of the bankrupt TUcker Corp. said today the company's wholly owned subsidiary in Syracause, N. Y., had an increase of $214,316 in net earnings during 1952. _

John H. Chatz, the trustee, in a report to Federal Judge Michael L. Igoe said Aircooled

.

Motors, Inc., the subsidiary, had net earnings of $568,266 for 1952, compared with $353,950 for 1951.

Chatz said the net worth of the firm as of September 30 was $1,658,850, compared with $1,260,824 the previous year. The subsidiary produces helicopter engines.

Tucker Corp. was organized in 1948 by Preston Tucker to produce a radically new type of automobile. It went bankrupt in 1950 without ever going into full production. About 30 cars were produced by hand before the firm was declared bankrupt.

Chatz said his attorney still is negotiating for a reduction of the Government's tax claim, which already has been reduced from $2,302,701 to $245,948. He added the Tucker firm's big problem still is negotiating in regard to the Government's lease claim for $3,374,075, which the Government seeks for use of the Chicago plant which Tucker rented.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. LONG. Is it the position of the

Senator from Delaware that there may still be certain irregularities in connection with the handling of various tax cases coming before the Internal Revenue Service?

Mr. WILLIAMS. The particular cases I am discussing have been handled, and the criminal actions have been closed. I am speaking as a layman. It is my understanding that nothing further can be done in these cases. I am referring to the record to show that no prison sentences were imposed. I am not dis ..

cussing the merits or demerits of the cases, but the facts remain in those cases that the defendants were convicted by courts, or, at least, that they pleaded guilty and accepted the sentences.

As I have pointed out, in one or two of the cases, either the sentences Wl!re suspended, or the defendants were given no sentence. In one case, the defendant was sentenced to 1 day and was placed on probation.

It is my opinion, from reviewing these cases, that that type of punishment has not been extended to violators in the iower-income groups, who perhaps were not in a position to employ influential attorneys.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. LONG. Is the Senator from Dela

ware urging that the matter should be investigated by appropriate congres .. sional committees?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I have no objection to any committee investigating the mat .. ter. I think most of the facts in connec .. tion with these cases have been stated. If anyone can think of any further facts that should be developed, certainly I would suggest that they be obtained. I think the record shows, however, that most of the reports are complete in this particular field.

. Mr. LONG. I thank the Senator.

1210 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE FebJ~uary 3

Mr . WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I now refer to case No.7:

N ame and address D ate received penal division Years involved P roposed tax

and penalty

H arry Kessler, B rook lyn, N . y ___ ___ _____________ __ July 25. 1950 1942 to 1947, inclusive _c_ ___ __ _ $430, 41 6. 00 K . and L. KnHUng M ills, Inc., B rooklyn, N . y __ __ Jan. 25,1950 1\:43 to 1947, inclusive ------ --- 578, u03. 81

TotaL -- -- ------------------------------------ ------------- -- ------------------------------- - 1, 009, 109. 81

Th e investigation on these two cases V/3.3 sta rted by the Intelligence Division in 1948, and on July 25, 1950, the report was forwarded to the Penal Division in the Bureau of Internal Revenue with recommendations for prosecution.

On November 10, 1950, the cases were for warded by the Penal Division to t he Department of Justice for prosecu~ion.

On February 14, 1951, they were presented to the grand jury, and on March 5, 1951, the corporation, Harry Kessler, and Murray A. Linnick were indicted.

The defendants pleaded guilty on October 25, 1951, to count 1 of the indictment.

On November 26, 1951, Mr. Kessler received a sentence of 9 months and $5,000 fine· Mr. Linnick was sentenced to 9 mo~ths and $5,000 fine. The sentence of

imprisonment was then suspended and the defendant placed on probat ion for 1 year; the corporation was fined $10,000.

On September 1, 1953, the Treasury Department in r eply to the question as to whether or not the accounts h ad been paid, reported:

No. Liens have been filed, and invest igation is underway to uncover any additional assets.

Representing the taxpayer before the Treasury Department and t he Justice Department were: Treasury Department: Howard F. Corcoran, Boris Kostelanetz, Edward Margolin, Martin Schwaeber, James D. Saver; Justice Department: James D. Saver, New York City; Martin Schwaeber, New York City.

Mr. President, I now refer to case No.8:

N ame and address Date received penal clivi ion Years involved Proposed tax

and penalty

Samuel L . Lebi~. New York City ____ ______________ _ N ov. 26, 1946 1940 to 1943, inclusive _____ :, __ _ Rn tlee H otel Corp .. New York City ___ __ ________ ____ ____ do ___ ___ _ 1940 to 1944, inclusive ____ ____ _

$993. 121 283.017 44 , 625 Hotel Ri tz, Inc., W ashington, D. C_- -------------- __ ___ do_----- - Fiscal year June 30, 1943 __ --- -

T otal_---------------------------------------- -------------- - ____ ---------- _______ ----------- 1, 325, 763

The investigation on these three cases was begun in 1944, and on November 26, 1946, the report was received in the Penal Division of the Treasury Department with recommendations for criminal prosecution.

It was not until January 14, 1949, over 2 years later, that the report was forwarded to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

The taxpayer was indicted on March 14, 1949.

Three years later on May 28, 1952, the defendant pleaded guilty to all four counts. He received a 2-year suspended sentence and fines totaling $10,000.

On September 1, 1953, the Treasury Department, in answer to the question

as to whether or not any of the tax had been paid, replied:

No; case has not reached the assessment stage and, therefore, collections by administrative authority is not permitted under the law. Open civil aspects under consideration in a field office of the Internal Revenue Service.

The taxpayer was represented before the Treasury Department and the Justice Department, as follows: Treasury Department: Morris D. Oppenheim, Louis Lederman; Justice Department: Llewellyn A. Luce, Washingto.n, D. C.; Jesse Climenko, New York, N. Y.

I shall now discuss case No. 9:

Name and address Date received penal division Years involved Proposed tax

and penalty

Sol Liebowitz, New York, N . Y - - -- ------- --------- Jan. 11,1949 1941 to 1951, inclusive_________ $563, 246 K ay Bros. Clothes, Inc., N ew York, N. y _________ _ ____ _ do _____ ______ __ do ________________________ ____ 1 68_· , 972

Total ________________ ----- ___ - - ---____________ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ------ ___ ----- ______ -------_ 732, 218

On February 8, 1945, the Intelligence Unit started their investigation of these two cases, and on January 11, 1949, the Penal Division received their report pro-posing tax and penalty assessments approximating $750,000, plus recommendations for criminal prosecution.

On June 3, 1949, the Penal Division forwarded this report to the Department of Justice.

On October 31, 1949, the case was presented to the grand jury, and on March 13, 1950, the individual taxpayer was indicted.

On February 6, 1951, he. pleaded guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year and 1 day. Sentence was immediately suspended conditioned upon payment of the fine of $10,000 within 90 days.

On September 1, 1953, the Treasury Department, in reply to the question as to whether or not the above referred to accounts had been paid, answered:

Accounts have not been paid. Liens were filed April 28, 1952. Steps have been taken to lien against all known assets.

Representing the taxpayer before the Treasury Department and the Justice

Department were: Treasury Department: Walter Brower, Joseph E. Brill, Coleman Gange!, J. Frederick Hazelett, Edward J. Ennis, Norman Kaliski; Justice Department; Brower, B r ill & Gange!, New York City.

I come now to case No. 10: Name and address, W. J. Jones, Shelby,

N. C.; date received, Penal Dlvision, April 12, 1948; years involved, 1941 to 1946, inclusive ; proposed tax and penalty, $562,392.

On August 12, 1947, the Intelligence Unit started its investigation of Mr. Jones, and on April 12, 1948, their report was m arked "received" in the Penal Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

On May 19, 1948, the case was r eferred by the Treasury Department to the Department of Justice.

Following presentation of the charges to the grand jury on September 8, 1949, the t axpayer was on June 5, 1950, indicted, at which time he entered a plea of nolo contendere to two counts.

On Janua ry 21, 1952, he was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.

On March 10, 1952, the court changed its judgment t.o a 3-year probationary sentence and a fine of $10,000.

On September 1, 1953, in reply to the question as to whether or not any collection had been made on the above account the Treasury Department replied:

No. Lien filed on November 24, 1952. un .. successful efforts were made to locate assets.

The taxpayer was represented before the Treasury Department and the Justice Department by: Treasury Department: no record; Justice Department: Richard E. Thigpen, Charlotte, N. C.

Mr. HOEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. HOEY. I desire to commend the

distinguished Senator from Delaware for his very great energy and activity in investigating these income tax cases. I think he has rendered a fine public service.

However, in the particula.r case to which he has just referred, the case of W. J. Jones, of Shelby, N. C., this man happened to live in my town. I have known him all his life. He was reared in the country and came to the town of Shelby.

At first he was rather indifferent in his business affairs, and at one time he failed. Then he succeeded and did fairly well.

I do not believe any charge could be brought against the Treasury Department for lack of vigilance or aggressiveness in prosecuting this suit. ~he man was indicted in the United States district court at Charlotte and submitted to the two counts. The assessm.-ent was esti-mated at $550,000. The man never had that much money; he never saw that much money in all his life. Anyway, he submitted to the court and pleaded nolo contendere to two counts.

The judge sentenced him to 18 months and fined him $10,000. That, I believe, was either in December 1951, or January 1952.

Then it was brought to the attention of the judge that the man's health was

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1211 very poor. The judge appointed two independent doctors, not connected in any way with any of the parties to the litiga- · tion, and had an examination made. The examination disclosed that the health of the man was in such serious condition that if he were to be incarcerated in prison, it probably would result in his early death.

Under those conditions, the judge placed the man on probation for 3 years. The court had already imposed a fine of $10,000, but, following the placing of the defendant on probation, the judge indicated that something must be done with reference to settling matters. The man then went under examination before Federal authorities and, in the presence of the judge, for 3 or 4 hours disclosed every single dollar and every item of property he had or that he had been able to obtain. It was shown very · clearly that he had never had any such amount as would justify an assessment in the sum of $550,000.

He has since that time been trying to arrange for a settlement with the Government. The Government has liens against every dollar of property he has. So that process has been going on. A settlement has not been reached, but he has offered to pay everything in the world that he could pay. The question at issue is just how much can be realized.

I am not offering the statements I have made in the way of an excuse because I think there was a violation of the law, but I am merely saying that the Treasury Department has been aggressive in this matter and has used due diligence. I think, likewise, the Department of Justice has done the same. I think that should be said in justice to all concerned.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the Senator from North Carolina. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I am not discussing the merits of the cases. I am merely stating the record as it appears for the purpose of showing how the laws have been enforced as against some of the larger taxpayers in comparison with how they have been enforced as against some of the smaller taxpayers.

As to whether or not in this particular case the taxpayer owes the amount of ·money claimed, I am sure the Senator from North Carolina is more familiar with that matter than I am. I am sure the Senator from North Carolina is familiar with the conditions pertaining to that particular case, and that he is speaking from firsthand knowledge and I am not. However, if there was a conference in which it was shown by the record that perhaps the taxpayer did not owe the amount stated, 1 think it was wrong for the Department of the Treasury to have gone · to court against this particular taxpayer, with a claim that $562,000 was the obligation, or for the Treasury Department to prosecute this taxpayer, or any other, for the col-1-::!ction of an amount which the taxpayer did not owe. The Treasury Department is guilty of nothing less than blackmail if it engages in such conduct. I think it has no right to go into court and set a figure at an artificially high level on the basis · that "if we claim half a million dollars as being due, and the tax-

payer owes a couple of hundred thousand, perhaps we will get all that is coming to us." I think the Treasury Department has an obligation to be as straightforward and as honest as it expects the taxpayer to be in filing his return.

There are cases in which consideration should be given. So far a.s I know there was no record contained in the report which I obtained from the Department of Justice about the doctor's certificate to which the Senator from North Carolina referred, or I would have incorporated it in my remarks. In fairness to all concerned, I am glad the Senator from North Carolina has mentioned that fact. In many of the cases mentioned there was no such report.

Taking the cases as a whole, I believe that the ones in which the larger amounts are involved are more adequately defended and represented than perhaps some of the smaller cases, in connection with which the taxpayers do not get proper attention and representation. That is the point I was trying to make.

Mr. HOEY. I thank the Senator from Delaware, and I agree with him heartily. I was not complaining about the Department of Justice or the Treasury. All I was saying was that the amount assessed ag·ainst the man was far and a way more than he ever had. I agree with the Senator from Delaware, and I do not think it is good policy to make assessments out of proportion to the realities of the actual amount involved. I wanted the Senator to know that I am not saying the man he has mentioned did not violate the law; he probably did; but he is not a man of great wealth.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the Senator from North Carolina.

I now refer to case No. 11: Name and address: Isidore Reissman,

Guttenberg, N. J.; date received, Penal Division: March 15, 1949; years involved: 1943 to 1945, inclusive; proposed tax and penalty: $918,045.

On February 11, 1947, an investigation was started by the Intelligence Unit, and on March 15, 1949, their report was filed with the Penal Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

On January 3, 1950, the Bureau of Internal Revenue referred the case to the Department of Justice, following which on March 7, 1950, it was presented to the grand jury.

The taxpayer was indicted on March 28, 1950.

He entered a plea of nole contendere on October 22, 1951.

On November 2, 1951, he was fined $5,000 and received a sentence of 18 months. His sentence was suspended.

On September 1, 1953, the Treasury Department, in reply to the question as to whether or not the account had as of that date. been paid, replied:

No; case has not reached the assessment stage and, therefore, collections by administrative authority are not permitted under the law. Open civil aspects under consideration in a field office of the Internal Revenue Service.

The taxpayer was· represented before the Treasury Department and the Justice

Department by: Treasury Department: Joseph T. Higgins, Philip A. Brenner, Maurice H. Rich, Robert E. Zagorin; Justice Department: Higgins, Brenner & Higgins, New York, N. Y.

I come now to case No. 12, Grand Gas Light, Inc., New York City; Samuel Ruderfer, Meyer Ruderfer.

Years involved: 1943 to 1944, inclusive; proposed tax and penalty: $511,584.

On October 9, 1947, the Intelligence Unit started their investigation, and on November 1.0, 1949, their report was filed with the Pemil Division in the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

On February 7, 1950, the Bureau of Internal Revenue referred this report to the Department of Justice.

On March 3, 1950, the case was presented to the grand jury and on March 14, 1950, the taxpayers were indicted.

One year later, on April 12, 1951, they entered a plea of guilty and on April 25, 1951, the court imposed the following sentence:

Count 1: The corporation, $10,000 fine; Samuel Ruderfer, $7,500 fine; Myer Ruderfer, $2,000 fine.

Count 2: The corporation, $10,000 fine; Samuel Ruderfer, $7,500 fine; Myer Ruderfer, $2,000 fine.

Under date of September 1, 1953, in reply to the question as to whether or not this account had been paid, the Treasury Department answered:

No; case has not reached the assessment stage, and therefore, collections by administrative authority are not permitted under the law. After disposition of the criminal aspects of the case the civil features were referred to a field office of the Internal Revenue Service for action and are pending in that office.

Representing the taxpayers before the Treasury Department and the Justice Department were: Treasury Department: Louis J. Gribetz; Justice Department: James D. Saver, New York, N. Y.

I now refer to case No. 13: Proposed ta.:e

Name and address= and penalty Union Packing C<l., Los An-

geles, CaliL ________________ $1, 319, 366 Adolph Miller, Los Angeles,

CaUL_____________________ 946, 172 Benjamin Miller, Los Angeles,

CaliL_____________________ 224,007 Nathan Miller, Los Angeles,

Calli______________________ 225,943 George Epstein, Los Angeles,

CaliL_____________________ 8, 511

Total ____________________ 2,718,999

On March 18, 1946, the Intelligence Unit began their investigation of these four related cases, and in May 1949 their report was received by the Penal Division in the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Years involved: Union Packing Co .• 1942-45, inclusive; Adolph Miller, 1943-44, inclusive; Benjamin Miller, Nathan Miller, and George Epstein, 1943-45, inclusive.

On February 6, 1950, the Bureau of Internal Revenue forwarded these reports and their recommendations for prosecution of Nathan and Benjamin Miller for the years 1943-45 and for George Epstein for the years 1943 and 1944.

This case was not presented to the grand jury until February 1951, by which

1212 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE February 3 time the statute of limitations had expired on the year 1943 for all three individuals referred to ab'Ove.

On October 8, 1951, the defendants pleaded nolo contendere and were ordered to pay fines of $2,000 each.

Under date of September 1, 1953, the Treasury Department, in reply to the question as to whether or not the accounts referred to above had been paid, stated:

No; cases have not reached the assessment stage and, therefore, collection by administrative authority is not permitted under the law. Civil liability pending in Tax Court.

Representing the taxpayers before the Treasury and Justice Departments were: Treasury Department: George Bouchard, Benjamin W. Shipman, Ernest R. Utley; Justice Department: George Bouchard, Los Angeles, Calif.; Benjamin W. Shysman, Los Angeles, Calif.; Wallace Cohen, Washington, D. C.; Prentis Moor, Los Angeles, Calif.; Fred Morrison, Washington, D. C.

I come now to case No. 14, Leo L. Lowry, New York City; American Rolbal Corp., New York City-related cases.

In this instance the original recommendations for criminal prosecution were based on the years 1942 and 1943. The case was pigeonholed in the Justice Department files and allowed to remain until after the statute of limitations had expired for both years. The taxpayer was subsequently indicted for violation of the income tax laws for the years 1945 and 1946; however, upon the latter charge he was acquitted. No collections have been made. Likewise, this same taxpayer was involved in a related case of the American Rolbal Corp. of New York City, against whom proposed tax and penalty assessments total over $700,000. Again, no collections on either of the two accounts.

The history of these two cases is as follows:

Leo L. Lowry: Proposed tax and penalty, $1 ,088,193; years involved, 1942-43; received, Penal Division BIR, June 5, 1946; date sent to Justice, March 21, 1947; grand-jury presentation authorized, March 9, 1949; payments on account as of July 16, 1953, none.

On April 23, 1947, the Bureau of Internal Revenue's recommendation for proceeding against the taxpayer for evading his taxes for the years 1942 and 1943 was referred to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York for his consideration.

On June 14, 1948, the case was returned to the Bureau of Internal Revenue for further investigation with a recommendation that 1944 and 1945 also be investigated.

On December 30, 1948, a supplemental report was received from the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

On February 3, 1949, prosecution was authorized for the years 1943, 1944, and 1945 in the southern district of New York.

On February 21, 1949, the United States attorney pointed out that venue for 194:4 and 1945, the two biggest years, lay in the eastern district of New York.

On March 9, 1949, prosecution was authorized in the eastern district of New York; on September 29, 1949, an indict-

ment was returned; and on April 25, 1952, Judge Robert A. Inch granted the defendant 's motion for judgment of acquittal.

The statute of limitations was allowed to expire for the years 1942 and 1943 while the case was in the Department of Justice.

The Treasury Department, under date of July 16, 1953, in answer to the question as to whether or not the accounts had been paid, replied:

Civil liability pending before Tax Court of the United States. Case has not reached assessment stage. Therefore collections by administrative authorit y are not permitted under the law.

The taxpayer was not represented by counsel while the case was before the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice's file does not show who represented him at the trial; such information would appear in the United States attorney's file.

The attorney representing the taxpayer before the Bureau of Internal Revenue was V/illiam B. Miller.

American Rolbal Corp.: Proposed tax and penalty, $700,879; years involved, 1942 and 1943; received, Penal Division, BIR, June 3, 1946; date sent to Justice, December 30, 1948; payments on account as of September 1, 1953, none.

Prosecution of this taxpayer was initiated in connection with the case of Leo L. Lowry-see above.

The Treasury Department under date of September 1, 1953, in answer to the question as to whether or not the accounts had been paid, replied:

No; case has not reached the assessment stage and, therefore, collection by administrative authority is not permitted under the law. Civil liability pending in Tax Court.

The attorney representing the taxpayer before the Bureau of Internal Revenue was William B. Miller.

I now come to case No. 15: Name and address: M. H. Hall, Shubuta, Miss.; proposed tax and penalty: $572,199.

On April 5, 1946, the Intelligence Unit began investigation of :Mr. Hall, and their report was filed with the Penal Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue on October 10, 1947. Years involved, 1942 to 1945, inclusive.

On March 29, 1948, the Bureau of Internal Revenue forwarded this case to the Department of Justice.

It was not until 2 years later on February 21, 1950, that the Department of .Justice presented it to the grand jury. The statute of limitations had expired during this interval as to the year 1942.

On May 3, 1950, the grand jury returned a three-count indictment against M. H. Hall for evasion of his individual income taxes for the years 1943, 1944, and 1945.

On February 27, 1951, the taxpayer entered a plea of nolo contendere to the indictment.

The court sentenced him to a fine of $1,000 on count one, $1 ,000 on count two, and $500 on count three.

On March 14, 1951, the Department of Justice notified the Bureau of Internal Revenue that the case was closed in their files.

On September 1, 1953, the Treasury Department in reply to an inquiry as to

whether or not the tax referred to above had been collected answered:

P artial collections made in 1947 and 1951. Liens filed in March 1947, in April and May of 1948, in September 1950, and in June 1952. Suit to enf orce liens pending in Federa\. court. Civil liabilit y pending before the T ax Court.

Representing the taxpayer before the Treasury Department and before the J"ustice Department were: Treasury Department : T. J. Wills, DeQuincy V. Sutton; Justice Department: DeQuincy V. Sutton, ·wooten & Wooten, Hattiesburg. Miss.; T. J. \Vilis, Hattiesburg, Miss.

And then there are three caEes involving approximately $7 % million in which Joseph D. Nunan, the former Commissioner, appears as the counsel, and again we find the same pattern prevailing as in the previous Nunan cases-no prosecution, no collection.

On February 14, February 21, and again on February 23, 1952, I outlined the manner in which 6 other tax caEes had been pigeonholed after Joseph D. Nunan appeared as the counsel representing the defendants.

It should be noted, however, that following the exposure of the lax conditions existing in the Treasury Department, prosecution has been resumed upon t.hm:e caEes in which the statute of limitations had not expired.

Now I come to caEe No. 16, which is the first case in which Mr. Nunan appears:

The names of the taxpayer and his two companies are omitted in view of the fact that prosecution has been resumed.

Proposed tax Years involved: · and penalty

1943-47, inclusive ____________ $1,791 , 708 1943-47, inclusive------------ 1, 041 , 501 1944-48, inclusive ____________ 2,337,343

Total ____________________ 5, 170, 552

Investigation of these related cases was started on December 16, 1947, by the Intelligence Unit, and on February 1. 1951, they were stamped as received in the Penal Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue.

No indictment was obtained in this instance until after the exposures of the Treasury Department were well under way and Mr. Joseph D. Nunan had been denounced as an influence peddler. During the period of delay the statute of limitations for a portion of the period had expired.

Under date of July 16, 1953, the Treasury Department said, in answer to the question as to whether or not the accounts had been paid:

No; cases have not reached the assessment stage, and, therefore, collection by administrative authority is not permitted under the law. In the absence of circumstances tending to indicate that the revenue is in jeop· ardy, action respecting civil liability is postponed pending disposition of the criminal features to avoid possible prejudice to the criminal case.

The names of the attorneys and accountants registered with the Treasury Department and the Department of Justice as representing the taxpayer are as follows:

Treasury Department: Joseph D. Nunan, Jr.; Bertram F. Bongard; Talbot M.

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1213 Malcom; Douglas H. Thayer; Justice Depa rtment: Joseph p. Nunan, Jr.; Walter A. Lynch; Douglas Thayer; Thomas McManus; Samuel Hochstein; Samuel Gellin, certified public accountan~; Albert Solomon, certified public accountant.

Joseph D. Nunan, who heads the list as representing this taxpayer before both the Departments, entered the case sometime in 1950. Mr. Nun~n had resigned as Commissioner of Internal Revenue on June 30, 1947.

I now take up case No .. 17, the second case in which Mr. Nunan appears:

Name and address P roposed

Years involved tax and penal ty

Cone Bros. Contracting 1938-46, inclusive__ $313, 788 Co., Tam pa, :Fla .

C o n e Fa rms Co., 1944--46, inclusive.. 146, 923 Tampa, F la.

Con e Gro v e Co., 1943 and 1946_____ _ 205, 747 '!'am pa, F la .

Julian L. Cone, Tampa, 1939-46, inclusive·__ 1, 093, 326 Fla . · ·

Vera. G. Cone, Tampa, 1944- 46, inclusive__ 38,739 Fla.

Vcl'a G. and R owena _____ do____________ 119,549 Lee Cone (partner-ship), 'l'ampa, Fla.

TotaL------------ -------------------- 1, 918,072

In this case the list of attorneys, as appearing on the records in the Treasury Department as defending the taxpayers, has the appearance of a Who's Who in former Treasury employees. Four were recent top officials, while two others had left the service many years previously. The list of attorneys and their former positions with the Treasury Department is as follows: Name and former position: Date resigned

Joseph D. Nunan, Jr., Com- June 30, 1947 missioner of Internal Rev-enue.

John P. Wenchel, Chief June 30, 1947 Counsel, Internal Revenue Service.

Robert A. Schulman, at- June 30, 1947 torney, Office of Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service.

Ferdinand Tamienbaum, at- Dec. 15, 1922 torney, Internal Revenue Service.

Sylvan Oestreicher, deputy Feb. 3, 1919 collector.

Leonard E. Ackerman, attor- Aug. 4, 1947 ney, Office of Chief Coun-sel, Internal Revenue Serv-ice.

The investigation upon these related cases was started by the Intelligence Unit on April 29, 1947; and on June 19, 1950, they were filed with the Penal Division of the Internal Revenue Service, with recommendations for prosecution. The proposed assessments, including penalties, aggregated nearly $2 million.

The records of the Department of Justice show that the case was never forwarded to them by the Treasury Department.

The Treasury on July 16, 1953, in reply to my inquiry as to whether the accounts were still unpaid, replied :

No. Open civil aspects under consideration in the Bureau.

Continuing, the Bureau explained that their decision not to send the case to the Department of Justice was based upon the testimony of Mr. John L. Fahs, for-

mer collector in Flqrida, that he had personally advised Mr. Cone to make a vol-. untary disclosure by filing amended returns.

They offer no explanation for the delayed collection.

I now come to case No. 18, the third case. In this case I am again omitting the name of the taxpayer, due to the fact that he is now deceased, h aving died in 1952; however, in view of the fact that the same pattern prevails it is being listed:

Year Original tax

Proposed deficiency P enalty

--------1------------1942 ___ _________ ___ _ $23,927.03 $15,471.07 $7,735.54 1943_ ___ _________ ___ 35,853.27 49,278.34 21, 648.29 1944 ___ _________ ____ 51,847. 12 129,454.96 64.727. 48 1945_ - - -- ----- - - - -- - 64, 774. 99 91, 437.94 45, 718. 97

TotaL_ ____ __ 176,402. 41 285, 642. 31 139, 830. 28

Proposed defi ciency---------------------- -- $285.642. 31 Penalty- -- ----- ---------------------------- 139,830. 28

'l'otaL-- - --------- - ---------- - - - -- --- ~ 425, 472. 59

On November 28, 1949, Mr. Nunan filed an application for a special waiver or consent to handle this specific case.

The special waiver was necessary in this instance due to the fact that the case had been pending before the Bureau while Mr. Nunan was serving as Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The waiver was approved on December 14, 1949, by Mr. John L. Graves, chairman of the Committee on Practice, representing the Treasury Department.

At the time of the death of this individual-sometime in 1952-the case was still pigeonholed in the Treasury Department and labeled as: "Case not settled. Pending consideration in office of Internal Revenue Agent in Charge, Upper New York Division."

These 3 cases along with the 6 upon which I reported last February make a total of 9 cases as having now been reviewed, in which Joseph D. Nunan appeared as the counsel. In each instance the same pattern prevailed, namely, no prosecution and no collections after the taxpayers hired Mr. Nunan.

One of ·the cases mentioned in my remarks in the Senate on February 21, 1952, would bear review in the light of its recent disposition by the courts.

On that date I pointed out how Lawrence Bardin, of Racine, Wis., had in 1946 reported an income of approximately $500,000 upon which the original tax was computed as $426,382.89. However, Mr. Bardin, while apparently reporting his full income for that year, overlooked one slight item, namely, he failed to accompany his return with the necessary payment.

In November 1951, 5 years later, this account still remained unpaid, and the delinquency was called to my attention. I immediately contacted the Treasury Department for an explanation. Fourteen days after my inquiry, the Treasury Department, on December 5, 1951, confirmed the discrepancy, and announced that they were forwarding the case to the Department of Justice.

In my remarks, appearing in the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD of February 14, 1952, I also pointed out how the same Mr. Lawrence Bardin and his brother Alvin,

operating as the Indianapolis Brewing Co., had, during this- intervening period settled an $812,000 tax case for the insignificant amount of $4,500, followi"ng which settlement the same corporation was paid an uncontested claim of $35,000 against the Treasury Department.

I also pointed out how two other corporations owned by the same brothers were likewise delinquent in their corporation taxes.

I now wish to rea<;i into the RECORD a letter received from Mr. Marshall E. Hanley, United States attorney for the southern district of Indiana, regarding the final disposition of the Lawrence Bardin case:

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA,

Indi anapolis, May 25, 1953. Re United States v. Lawrence P. Bardin. Hon. JOHN J. WILLIAMS,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR: I am happy to advise you that the above-entitled subject was convicted on two counts of income-tax evasion for the year 1946 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on Friday, May 22, 1953. The court imposed a sentence of 4 years on each count, said sentences to run concurrently.

I thought that you would be interested in learning of the successful outcome of this prosecution in view of the fact that your efforts had a great deal to do with this matter coming to our attention. In preparing this case for trial, I relied to a great extent upon the February 21, 1952, issue of the CoNGRES"' SIONAL RECORD which sets forth your statement to the Senate concerning this case.

With kindest personal regards, I am, Most sincerely yours,

~RSHALL E. HANLEY.

Mr. President, I appreciate the recognition which Mr. Hanley has given to the part which I played in exposing this case. ~evertheless, the real credit should go to the Intelligence agents who investigated and prepared the report on Mr. Bardin and his affiliated companies, and to the individual who at the risk of his job called my attention to the fact that the reports had been pigeonholed.

My remarks, as appearing in the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD of February 21, 1952, were taken in their entirety from the dust-covered files of the Bureau of Internal Revenue-from files and reports which should have been referred by that agency to the Department of Justice months before I ever heard of the case.

I extend my congratulations to the United States attorney in Indiana, Mr. Hanley, for the effective manner in which he handled the case, once the supporting evidence had been made available to his office.

I now discuss case No. 19. The next cases which I shall discuss involve the strange manner in which both prosecution and collection were dropped on a $7 million assessment, on the excuse that the taxpayer and the company were producing strategic materials for the Army.

It is interesting to note, however, that this case was pigeonholed in the Department files for 2 years prior to the outbreak of the Korean war, during which time no effort was made either to prosecute or to collect.

Then, after the Korean war broke out, they picked up the case, and within 3

1214 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE February 3. months had rejected prosecution on the basis outlined above.

Nothing has been done since. The history of this case is as follows:

-arne and address Years in>olved Proposed tax and penalty

Ho1 ·ard Foundry Co., 1943- 45, inclusive .. $5,061, 280 Chicago, ill.

Fr n.nk C. H oward, 1943-46, inclush·c __ 2, 085,521 Chicago, Dl.

TotaL ------------ -- ------------------ 7, 146,801

On April 25, 1947, the Intelligence Unit began their investigation of this case, and their report and recommendations for criminal prosecution were filed with the Penal Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue on June 25, 1948.

It was not until December 12, 1950, nearly 2 -Y2 years later, that this case was ever referred to the Department of Justice.

On March 1, 1951, less than 3 months after its being received by the Department of Justice, the case was sent back to the Treasury Department with the notation that prosecution was declined apparently on the basis that the taxpayer was a supplier of strategic materials to the Armed Forces.

In the Department of Justice files there is a letter, dated January 13, 1951, signed by Frank Roberts, former Director of the Renegotiation of the Air Force Contracts, referring to this particular case. In Mr. Roberts' letter he makes no reference to having any knowledge as to the tax liability or the condition of the taxpayer's health but refers to his letter as only being written in reply to a question which he was asked in a telephone call from Mr. T. Lamar Caudle, who at that time was holding the position of Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. Apparently Mr. Caudle had called Mr. Roberts requesting information as to the importance of the part which the Howard Foundry Co. had in furnishing critical materials to the Armed Forces. Mr. Roberts' letter merely confirmed that they were large suppliers of strategic rna terials.

I fail to find any explanation, however, as to what or who prompted Mr. Caudle to request Mr. Roberts' opinion. Furthermore, I know of no reference in our tax laws which would indicate that such a claim by a taxpayer would be sufficient to excuse him from criminal prosecution for a $7 million tax evasion.

Nevertheless the record shows that within 1% months after the receipt of this letter by the Department of Justice the decision had been made not to prosecute.

Notwithstanding the fact that this report by the Treasury agents recommend· ing proposed tax deficiency, including penalties, of over $7 million was filed with the Penal Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue on June 25, 1948-over 5 years ago-we find that not only was prosecution dropped but the account still remains unpaid.

On July 16, 1953, the Treasury Department in reply to my inquiry as to whether or not any payments had been

made on this $7 million account advised as follows:

No; cases have not reached the assessment stage and, therefore, collections by administrative authority not permitted under the law. Open civil aspects under consideration in the Bureau.

Attorneys representing the taxpayers. before the Treasury Department and the Justice Department were: Treasury Department: E. J. Quinn, J. F. Riordan, Eldon McFarland, W. A. Elliott; Justice Department: Eldon McFarland, Mr. McClerkim, Edward J. Quinn, Mr. Riordan, Mr. Elliott.

The next case is No. 20. The last case which I shall outline here today involves one in which the records of the Department of Justice indicate that their decision not to prosecute was in part based upon the recommendations of a Member of Congress.

According to the Department files this Member of Congress in an interview with Mr. Turner Smith, Chief of the Criminal Section, Department of Justice, suggested that it might be advisable to drop criminal prosecution due to the taxpayer's health.

The Member of Congress referred to admits having taken part in the conference but claims that he made no recommendations.

The case is as follows:

Name and address Years invo:ved Proposed tax and penalty

Edward E . Jackson, 194.2-48, inclusive.. $298, 202.00 Tampa, Fla.

Eamuel E. Jackson, _____ do __ - - - --- -- -- I, 119, 580. 48 Sidney, Ohio.

Jackson Steel 'lube 1947_ _____________ _ 873,509.62 Co. , Inc., Piqua, Ohio.

Jackson T ube Co., 1949___ ____________ 424, 653. 21 Inc., New York, N . Y .

Welded Steel T ube 1947-49, inclusive. . 92,920.00 Corp., Piqua, Ohio.

'l'otaL~- -------- ------------------ -- 2, 808,875.31

The chronological record of the han· dling of this case is as follows:

On November 30, 1948, the Intelligence Unit started its investigation.

On August 17, 1950, the Intelligence Unit's reports with recommendations for criminal prosecution were forwarded to the Penal Division of the Bureau of In· ternal Revenue, which at that time was under Charles Oliphant.

On June 29, 1951, the Bureau of Internal Revenue forwarded these reports to the Department of Justice with rec· om.mendations for criminal prosecution.

In the Department of Justice files there appears a memorandum dated August 1951, signed by Turner Smith, who at that time was serving as Chief of the Criminal Section of the Depart-ment of Justice, and addressed to his superior, T. Lamar Caudle, the then Assistant Attorney General.

In this memorandum Mr. Smith explained that Representative CELLER of New York had on that date visited his office with another gentleman whom he had introduced as a law partner of his brother-in-law. The memorandum further states that Representative CELLER in this interview had explained that his

relative who had been representing the Jackson· people had just been appointed a judge and that the man whom h e was then introducing would be taking his place in the case.

According to Mr. Smith's memorandum Representative CELLER emphasized that it was his personal opinion that the defendant should not be prosecuted for criminal violations due to his health but that the case was one which should be settled in the civil courts. Mr. Smith in this memorandum suggested to Mr. Caudle that should this be their ultimate decision it might be advisable for Mr. Caudle to call Representative CELLER direct and give him their favorable deci· sian. Repr esentative CELLER at that time held the position of chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives.

Three months later, on November 27, 1951, the Department of Justice con· curred and returned the case to the Treasury Department, declining prosecution on the basis of the bad health of Samuel E. Jackson.

The Department of Justice records show tha t following this decision they reasoned that, since they were declining prosecution as to Samuel E. Jackson on grounds of health, they would also decline to prosecute Edward E. Jackson on the basis that Samuel E. Jackson was the key figure.

There the case rested until January 10, 1952, when both the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Department of Justice, as a result of the severe criticism they were receiving following the exposures of the scandals in those agencies, dropped the policy of the Treasury De· partment's determining these cases on the basis of health. The case was then resubmitted to the Department of Justice for further examination.

On March 25, 1952, the same Samuel E. Jackson was reexamined by a Dr. Zang, of New York City, who certified that the defendant's health was such that he could stand trial.

The Department of Justice then authorized prosecution of Samuel E. Jackson, but not of Edward E. Jackson, for evading the taxes of the Jackson Steel Tube Co. for the fiscal year 1946-action with respect to 1945 was now barred by the statute of limitations-and of the Welded Steel Tube Corp. for the fiscal year 1948 and of the Jackson Tube Co. for the fiscal year 1946.

On May 8, 1953, Samuel E. Jackson pleaded guilty and was fined $30,000 and sentenced to 2 years in each case, to be served concurrently; however, this sen· tence was suspended, and he was instead put on probation for 2 years.

The Treasury Department advised that as of July 16, 1953, this account still remained unpaid.

I quote their reply under that date to my question as to whether or not payments had been made:

No; cases have not reached assessment stage. After disposition of the criminal aspects in May 1953, the civil features were referred to the appropriate Bureau field offices for action.

The Justice Department and the Treasury Department record the follow-

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1215 ing attorneys as having been registered to represent the taxpayer: Treasury Department: Thomas C. Best; Andrew E. Hurley; Emil N. Baar. Justice Department: Andrew E. Hurley; Maurice Celler, certified public accountant; Judge Ww Mayock; AI Wheeler; Judge Baar; Mr. Lieberman; William G. Pickrel.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have incorporated in the RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks a letter dated January 7, 1954, signed by me and addressed to Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C., calling attention to a certain memorandum, and the references therein to him.


UNITED STATES SENATE, January 7, 1954.

lion. EMANUEL CELLER, House of Rep1·esentatives,

Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN CELLER: In reviewing

the tax case of Mr. Edward E. and Mr. Samuel E . Jackson, of Tampa, Fla., and Sidney, Ohio, along with their corporations, a memorandum dated in 1951 and signed by Mr. Turner Smith, addressed to his superior, Mr. T. Lamar Caudle, who at that time was serving as Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, has been called to my attention.

In this memorandum Mr. Smith explains to Mr. Caudle a visit which you made to his office accompanied by a gentleman whom you introduced as a law partner either of your brother or of your brother-in-law, who had been representing the Jackson people. According to Mr. Smith you explained that this relative had just been appointed judge, and that the man whom you were then introducing would be taking his place in the case. In Mr. Smith's memorandum he told Mr. Caudle that you had stated that it was your opinion that the defendant should not be prosecuted for criminal violations, due to his health, and requested that the case be settled in the civil courts.

In view of the fact that a report on this ease is being considered, and the memorandum referred to above, or its substance, will appear in that report, I felt that it should be called to your attention prior thereto in order that you could have incorporated in that same report your explanation of the in~rview.

Yours sincerely, JOHN J. WILLIAMS.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks a letter dated January 26, 1954, signed by Representative EMANUEL CELLER and addressed to me, together with an accompanying letter under date of January 20, 1954, addressed to Representative CELLER and signed by Mr. Lawrence J. Lieberman.

I may say that both these letters explain Representative CELLER's version of the interview referred to, and I think it is only fair that they be incorporated in the RECORD at this point.

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

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., January 26, 1954.

Hon. JoHN J. Wn.LIAMs, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: I am enclosing a copy of a

letter I received from Mr. Lawrence J. Lieber•

man, which has reference to the matter contained in your letter to me dated January 12, 1954.

I, personally, have no Interest and have had no interest in the case of Samuel E. Jackson. I introduced Mr. Lieberman to Mr. Turner Smith, and recall saying that I felt reliance could be placed on the statements made by Mr. Lieberman, who is personally known to me as a lawyer of good standing. I also recall that I had no interest in and no knowledge whatsoever of the facts involving the case of Samuel E. Jackson.

In other words, I merely introduced Mr. Lieberman to Mr. Smith, and was careful to indicate the aforesa id facts.

Sincerely yours, EMANUEL GELLER.

Enclosure.

BAAR, BENNETI' & FuLLEN, New Y.ork, N. Y., January 20, 1954.

Re Samuel E. Jackson et al. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER,

House Office Buildi ng, Washington, D . C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN CELLER: I have before

me a copy of a letter of January 12, 1954, addressed to you by Senator JoHN J. WILLIAMS with reference to the above matters.

My partner, Emil N. Baar, was appointed a justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in 1951. The Jackson tax matter had been in his charge. I succeeded him in the representation of the clients.

Toward the end of July 1951, through associate counsel, I was advised that an indictment or information might be filed against Samuel E. Jackson within a matter of days to protect the Government aga-inst the statute of limitations' running on any returns involved, despite the fact that the Department of Justice was awaiting a report from the Public Health Service as to whether an indictment and trial might prove fatal to Samuel E. Jackson. It was my considered judgment that the Department of Justice had incorrectly applied the law and that in fact, if the Department waited until the Public Health Service report was received, not only would the statute not run against any returns that were then involved, but in our opinion, by ·reason of our knowledge of the client's physical condition, the finding of an indictment prior to consideration of the medical report would r.esult in a miscarriage of justice. Since time was of the essence, I requested you to make an immediate appointment for me with whomever might be in charge of this case in the Department of Justice. On August 6, 1951, as I recollect the date, you introduced me to Mr. Turner Smith, whom you advised as to my taking Judge Baar's place in these matters. You also stated to Mr. Smith that it was my position that the defendant, because of the very precarious condition of his health, should not be prosecuted for criminal violations and that I also wanted to present before the Department a legal argument on the question of the statute of limitations which I confidently believed would demonstrate that there was no urgency in the immediate filing of an indictment, and that consequently, in all fairness, the report of the Public Health Service should be awaited before further action was taken. You will recall at the conclusion of the conference, I was advised by Mr. Smith that if the medical report did not arrive in due time, I would be given an opportunity to present argument on the legal question of the application of the statute of limitations.

In order that you may be fully apprised of subsequent developments, I give you the following information:

The Public Health Service report was such that not only was an indictment not filed, but the Department of Justice returned the matter for civil disposition. However, subsequently and for reasons Which, particularly in the light of the foregoing, we never understood, Samuel E. Jackson was indicted

in both New York and Ohio. Mr. Jackson pleaded "guilty" to both the New York and Ohio indictments. Under the rules, an application was made to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to have the New York case transferred to Ohio, where Jackson resided, which application was granted. By direction of the judge presiding in the United States district court in Ohio, the defendant was examined by Government physicians and medical proof was adduced as t o his condition. By reason of Jackson's state of health, the court fined him $10,000 on each of three counts and sentenced him to 2 year s in prison, which 2-year sentence was suspended.

I trust this gives you all the required information in t his matter.

Very truly yours, LAWRENCE J . LIEBERMAN.

COINAGE OF 50-CENT PIECES IN COMMEMORATION OF TERCENTENNIAL CELEBRATION OF FOUNDING OF CITY OF NORTHAMPTON. MASS.-VETO MESSAGE <S. DOC. NO. 93) The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr.

PAYNE in the chair) laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, which was read, and, with the accompanying bill, ordered to lie on the table:

To the United States Senate: I am returning herewith, without my

approval, S. 987, "to authorize the coinage of 50-cent pieces in commemoration of the tercentennial celebration of the founding of the city of Northampton, Mass."

The proposed legislation would authorize the coinage of 1 million silver 50-cent pieces in commemoration of the tercentennial celebration of the founding of the city of Northampton, Mass.

The principal objection to commemorative coins is that they detract from the fundamental function of the coinage as a medium of exchange. Multiplicity of designs on United States coins would tend to create confusion among the public, and to facilitate counterfeiting. The Congress recognized the necessity for limiting the designs of coins by section 3510 of the Revised Statutes which provides that "no change in the design or die of any coin shall be made oftener than once in 25 years from and including the year of the first adoption of the design, model, die, or hub for the same coin."

I am further advised by the Treasury Department that in the past in many instances the public interest in these special coins has been so short-lived that their sales for the purposes intended have lagged with the result that large quantities have remained unsold and have been returned to the mints for melting.

I fully recognize the importance to the country of the event which this coin would commemorate. I recognize, too, that the authorization of 1 or 2 or 3 of such issues of coins would not do major harm. However, experience has demonstrated that the authorization of even a. single commemorative issue brings forth a flood of other authorizations to commemorate events or anniversaries of local or national importance. In the administration of President Hoover, thes•


authorizations multiplied to the point where he felt compelled to exercise his veto. The same pattern recurred in the administrations of Presidents Roosevelt and Truman. In view of this historical pattern, which by now has become so clear I think that it is both wiser and faire~· to make known my views on this subject at the outset. I therefore regretfully withhold my approval of S. 987.

As has been suggested in the past, it seems to me wholly appropriate that anniversaries like this one, which the Congress deems it desirable to commemorate, should be recognized by bills aut horizing the Treasury to provide f~uitable commemorative medals at cost.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER. THE WHITE HOUSE, February 3, 1954.

COINAGE OF 50-CENT PIECES TO COMMEMORATE THE TERCENTENNIAL OF FOUNDATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK-VETO MESSAGE (S. DOC. NO. 94) The PRESIDING OFFICER laid be

fore the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, which was read, and, with the accompanying bill, ordered to lie on the table:

To the United States Senate: I am returning herewith, without my

approval, S. 2474, "to authorize the coinage of 50-cent pieces to commemorate the tercentennial of the foundation of the city of New York."

The proposed legislation would authorize the coinage of not to exceed 5 million silver 50-cent pieces in commemoration of the tercentennial of the founding of the city of New York.

The principal objection to commemorative coins is that they detract from the fundamental function of the coinage as a medium of exchange. Multiplicity of designs on United States coins would tend to create confusion among the public, and to facilitate counterfeiting. The Congress recognized the necessity for limiting the designs of coins by section 3510 of the Revised Statutes which provides that "no change in the design or die of any coin shall be made oftener than once in 25 years from and including the year of the first adoption of the design, model, die, or hub for the same coin."

I am further advised by the Treasury Department that in the past in many instances the public interest in these special coins has been so short lived that their sales for the purposes intended have lagged with the result that large quantities have remained unsold and have been returned to the mints for melting.

I fully recognize the importance to the country of the event which this coin would commemorate. I recognize, too, that the authorization of 1 or 2 or 3 of such issues of coins would not do major harm. However, experience has demonstrated that the authorization of even a single commemorative issue brings forth a :flood of other authorizations to commemorate events or anniversaries of local or national importance. In the administration of President Hoover, these authorizations multiplied to the

point where he felt compelled to exercise his veto. The same pattern recurred in the administrations of Presidents Roosevelt and Truman. In view of this historical pattern, which by now has become so clear, I think that it is both wiser and fairer to make known my views on this subject at the outset. I therefore regretfully withhold my approval of s. 2474.

As has been suggested in the past, it seems to me wholly appropriate that anniversaries like this one, which the Congress deems it desirable to commemorate, should be recognized by bills authorizing the Treasury to provide suitable commemorative medals at cost.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER. THE WHITE HOUSE, February 3, 1954.

RETIREMENT OF EMPLOYEES IN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 2175) to amend title VI of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, with respect to the retirement of employees in the legislative branch, which was to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert :

That title VI of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section :

"SEC. 603. (a) Section 4 of the Civil Service Retirement Act of May 29, 1930, as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"'(g) Any officer or employee in the legislative branch of the Government within the classes of officers and employees made eligible for the benefits of this act by the act of July 13, 1937, or the act of June 21, 1947, retiring under this act on or after the date of enactment of this subsection and after having rendered at least 6 years of service as such an officer or employee shall, if he so elects at the time of retirement, be paid, in lieu of an annuity computed under subsection (a), a life annuity equal to the sum of the following:

"'(A) 2~ percent of the average salary, pay, or compensation received by him during any five consecutive years of allowable service at his option multiplied by the sum of his years of service as an employee described in this subsection and the years of his allowable military or naval service; and

"'(B) 1~ percent of such average salary, pay, or compensation multiplied by the years of his allowable service other than service referred to in clause (A).

"'In no case shall an annuity computed under this subsection exceed an amount equal to 75 percent of the highest average annual salary, pay, or compensation received by the officer or employee during any 5 consecutive years of allowable service. No of·ficer or employee shall be entitled to the benefits of this subsection unless there shall have been deducted and withheld from his salary, pay, or compensation for the last 5 years of his service, or there shall have been deposited under section 9 with respect to such last 5 years of service, the amounts specified in section 9.'

"(b) Section 3 (a) of such act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:

"'Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, any officer or employee in the

·legislative branch of the Government within the classes of officers or employees which were made eligible for the benefits of this

act by the act of July 13, 1937, or the act of June 21, 1947, serving in such position o:u the d ate of enactment of this paragra ph, may give notice of his desire to come within the purview of this act at any time prior to the expiration of 6 months after such date of enactment.'

" (c) Section 3A of such act is amended as follows:

"'(1) Paragraph (3) is amended to read as follows:

"' "(3) No person shall be entitled to receive an annuity as provided in this section until he shall have become separated from the service after having had at least 6 years of service as a Member of Congress and haYe attained the age of 62 years or after having had at least 10 years of service as a Member of Congress and have attained the age of 60 years, except that (A) any such Member who shall have had at least 5 years of service as a Member of Congress, may, subject to the provisions of section 6 and of paragraph (4) of this section, be retired for disability, irrespective of age, and be paid an annuity computed in accordance with paragraph (5) of this section, and (B) any such Member who shall have become separated from the service after having had a least 10 years of service as a Member of Congress and have attained the age of 55 years may receive an annuity computed as provided in paragraph (5) of this section reduced by one-fourth of 1 percent for each full month he is under the age of 60 years.' "

"'(2) Paragraph (5) is amended to read as follows:

"' "(5) Subject to the provisions of section 9 and of subsections (c) and (d) of section 4, the annuity of a Member of Congress shall be an amount equal to 2 ~ percent of the average annual basic salary, pay, or compensation received by him during any 5 consecutive years of allowable service as a Member of Congress at his option multiplied by the sum of his years of service as a Member of Congress and his years of active service performed as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States prior to his separation from service as a Member of Congress, but no such annuity shall exceed an amount equal to three-fourths of the basic salary, pay, or compensation that he is receiving at the time of such separation from service.' "

"'(3) Paragraph (10) is amended by inserting before the period at the end thereof a semicolon and the following: "and the term 'basic salary, pay, or compensation' includes amounts received as expense allowance under section 601 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended; and the term 'active service performed as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States' means (A) active service performed as a member of such forces, during any war or national emergency proclaimed by the President or declared by the Congress, by a Member of Congress who left or leaves his office for the purpose of performing such service, and (B) any other periods of active service, not to exceed an aggregate of 5 years, performed as a member of such forces, but shall not include any such service for which credit is allowed for the purposes of retirement or retired pay under any other provision of law, including title II of the Army and Air Force Vitalization and Retirement Equalization Act of 1948." '

"(d) (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3 (a) of the Act of February 28, 1948-

.. (A) the last proviso in section 9 of the Civil Service Act of May 29, 1930, as amended, shall apply to Members of Congress; and

"(B) subsections (c) and (d) of section 12 of such act shall apply in the case of Members of Congress dying after the date of enactment of this section. Such subsections (c) and (d) shall apply to the widower of any such Member of Congress to the same extent and in the same manner as to the

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECOR_D-SENATE 1217 widow of any such Member of Congress, 1f such widower shall have been married to such Member ~or at least 2 years immedi· ately preceding her death or is the father of issue by such marriage.

"(2) Section 12 (c) of the Civil Service Re· tirement Act of May 29, 1930, as amended, is amended by striking out 'section 4 (a) hereof' in paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting in lieu thereof 'section 4 (a) or 3A hereof, as the case may be,'; and by striking out 'section 1, 2, or 6' in paragraphs (2) and (3) and inserting in lieu thereof 'section 1, 2, 3A, or 6.'

"(3) Section 4 (d) of the Civil Service Retirement Act of May 29, 1930, as amended by the Act of August 4, 1939, which is referred to in paragraph ( 5) of section 3A of such act, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: 'No person shall be-eligible to receive an annuity under this subsection and an annuity under subsection (c) of section 12, based upon the service of the same officer or employee, covering the same period of time.'"

Mrs. SMITH of Maine. I move that the Senate disagree to the amendment of the House, ask a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that the Chair appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to; and the Presiding Officer appointed Mrs. SMITH of Maine, Mr. DIRKSEN, Mr. BUTLER of Maryland, Mr. HUMPHREY, and Mr. KENNEDY conferees on the part of the Senate.

INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREE· MENT-REMOVAL OF INJUNCTION OF SECRECY Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, as

in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from Executive B, 83d Congress, 2d session, the International Sugar Agreement, dated at London October 1, 1953, and that the agreement, together with the President's message, be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and that the President's message be printed in the RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, as in executive session, the injunction of secrecy will be removed, anc;l the agreement, together with the Presi':"' dent's message, will be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the message from the President will be printed in the RECORD. The Chair hears no objection.

The message from the President is as follows:

To the Senate of the United States: With a view to receiving the advice

and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith a certified copy of the Intemational Sugar Agreement, dat-ed in London October 1, 1953. ·

I also transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report made to me by the Acting Secretary of State with respect to this matter.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER. THE WHITE HoU.SE, February 3,1954. <Enclosures: (1) Report of the Acting

Secretary oiState; (2) certified copy Qf the International Sugar Agreement.>

C-77

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITU· TION RELATING TO TREATIES AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS The Senate resumed the consideration


Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I have previously brought to the attention of the Senate misquotations of the text of the Constitution by partisans of the pending joint resolution and now I wish to set forth additional misrepresentations which have been widely disseminated, particularly with respect to the dissenting opinion in the case of the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company et al. v. Charles Sawyer (343 U. S. 579), commonly referred to as the Steel Seizure case, which was decided on June 2, 1952.

It is reported in the newspapers that Mr. Frank E. Holman, of Seattle, an expresident of the American Bar Association, has traveled a half million miles over the United States warning the American people that the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are endangered by what he calls treaty law. It is not his fault if he has failed to express alarm with the fervor of a prophet of woe and destruction at any convention or other assembly held anywhere in the Nation. For the ;past year and a half he has been pointing out the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Vinson in the Steel Seizure case as a horrible example of how a treaty might be so construed as 'to make the United· Nations Charter override the Constitution.

The issue in that case, as stated by Mr. Justice Black for the majority of the Court, was whether the President acting within the aggregate of his con.;. stitutional powers and as Commanderin-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, in a grave emergency.., could seize the steel mills to a vert a national catastrophe.

I am convinced that the majority of the membership of the Supreme Court correctly decided that the President was not acting within his constitutional power when he directed the seizure, and that in doing so he exercised a lawmaking function which the Constitution gives to Congress and not to the President.

Not satisfied that the majority opinion ·of the Supreme Court adequately disposed of the issue, Mr. Holman dragged into the dissenting opinion some other words not found therein when he stated, in his answer to the minority views on the pending resolution, that the Chief Justice arid his associates held that:

••• acting under the [United Nations] Charter and other international commitments and implementing legislation based on "treaties" the. President has powers not granted to him by the Constitution put even denied to him b~ the ~onsti~uti_on.

In his pamphlet on Treaty Law and · the Constitution, Mr. Holman again re-fers to a dangerous threat to American

. rights by stating: _ But the Chief Justice of the United States 1n his dissent in the Steel Seizure case ad·

vanced the alarming doctrine that the United Nations Charter and other international arrangements and implementing legislation pursuant to the treaties gave the President of the United States authority to seize private property which authority is nowhere granted to him either by the Constitution or by the laws of the country.

Under his guidance, or rather misguidance, Mr. Holman has been followed up by statements such as the following in Spotlight, No. C-222, by Garet Garrett, which has been widely distributed by the Committee for Constitutional Government:

And it was the Chief Justice himself who argued that under the United Nations Charter, which is an international treaty, the President had power to do that which under the Constitution he was forbidden to do. His seizure of the steel properties, therefore, was legal-not under the Constitution of the United States but under the Charter of the United Nations. The Chief Justice, happily, was in the minority, supported by only two other members of the Court of nine.

In issue No. C-226 Spotlight printed an article entitled "Again the Issue Is Freedom" by Frank Chodorov, which reads:

Nor should it be forgotten that the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court argued last year that the President of the United States had authority under the U. N. Charter, because it was an international treaty, to seize the steel mills, something he could not do under the Constitution. The basis for this reasoning is a clause in the U. N. Convention which gives the executive unlimited authority during a declared "emergency." Chief Justice Vinson succeeded in convincing two other members of the Court; six stood by the Constitution. I! he had won over 2 of these 6 judges, a precedent in favor of the Charter and against the Constitution would have been established.

. Then there is the Economic Council Letter No. 327, for January 15, 1954, which says:

In 1952 Chief Justice Vinson and two As· sociate Justices of the Supreme Court upheld the power of the President to seize the steel industry. They based their findings on the mere ratification by the Senate of the U.N. Charter. This startling opinion elicited the phrase from an alarmed commenta· tor, "Two Justices short of a revolution."

On January 27, 1954, an editorial appeared in the Washington News, a Scripps-Howard newspaper, under the title "This Agreed," which contained the following statement:

Three Justices of the Supreme Court in 1952 held that President Truman had the power to seize the steel mills as a wartime act solely because we had ratified the United Nations treaty.

Now comes Dr. Clarence E. Manion, ex-dean of law at the University of Notre Dame, who advertises that he has been in every State in the Union, many of them many times, asserting in his speeches that there is a tremendous un-

: plugged hole in the Constitution which leaves our liberties subject to sudden destruction through a treaty or an ex

-ecutive agreement. It is quite certain that he has not failed to say elsewhere,

. if not Everywhere, what he repeated in a speech delivered in Washington on January 26, 1954, from which I quote:

In the famous Steel Seizure case three Supreme Court Justices were of the opinion

1218 , CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE February 3

that the U. N. Charter and the North Atlantic Pact as they are now written justified t he Presidential seizure of the steel mills, the Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding.

Along with other propaganda which the Vigilant Women for the Bricker Amendment have accepted without question and included in their 16-page pan{phlet entitled "Our Constitution has a Dangerous Loophole," is the following statement:

The fifth amendment to the Constitution says flatly that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of la w."

Yet under the powers granted the President by the U.N. Charter (a ratified treaty), Truman seized the steel industry. Fortunately, the Supreme Court declared this seizure unconstitutional. The decision was 6 to 3. Had two more Justices joined the minority, it would have set a court precedent which would have given the government the right to seize property •.. which could be your home, your farm, your business, the factory where you work!

In the February issue of The American Legion Magazine is a long article by Ray Murphy, a past commander of the American Legion, in which are assembled all of the usual or standard arguments in favor of the Bricker amendment. Mr. Murphy must be an able lawyer for otherwise he would not be the general counsel in New York City for the Association of Casualty and Surety Companies. Charity, therefore, compels me to say that he must not have read what Chief Justice Vinson actually said, but merely copied from something he saw printed, for otherwise he would not have included this section in the article. I read:

Though the three Justices were a minority and the steel mills were handed back to their owners by a majority of the Court, it is significant that the President bad not made a strong point of his right to seize the steel mills under treaty powers. Despite that fact, the three Justices in the minority opinion went out of their way to stress t he argument that the UN Charter should override the fifth amendment.

I have read these quotations to show the widespread circulation of this misrepresentation of what was said by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in dissenting from the majority opinion in the_steel case in order that I may say to the Senate that each and every such statement is without foundation in fact.

In a letter dated May 19, 1953, which I received from a constituent of mine, whom I had previously advised of my opposition to amending the Constitution as proposed by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BRICKER] and the American Bar Association, is the following paragraph:

I am going to make one last appeal. If you still feel there is no danger to our rights and privileges as American citizens, consider, please, the dissenting opinion of Chief Just ice Vinson in the Steel Seizure case. But two more Justices, and we would have been committed to the doctrine that the United Natioas Charter is superior to the Constitution of the United States.

After reading the letter very carefully I picked up the telephone and asked to be connected with the Chief Justice of the United States. I felt free to do so

because I had served with him in the House of Representatives and we were always good friends. When he came to the telephone I read to him the paragraph I have quoted from the letter and asked for his comment on it. His immediate answer was that he never had any such idea in mind, and went on to say that I would find nothing in the dissenting opinion to justify any conclusion of that kind.

I promised the Chief Justice that I would read the dissenting opinion, and found when I did so that he, Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Minton had agreed upon a statement which cited certain United States statutes to show that by way of resisting worldwide Communist aggression congressional approval had been given to definite national policies in the following seven instances:

First. The United Nations Charter. Second. The Truman plan for assist

ance to Greece and Turkey. Third. The Marshall plan for eco

nomic aid to Western Europe. Fourth. The North Atlantic Treaty. Fifth. Appropriations for military as

sistance to nations dedicated to the principles of mutual security.

Sixth. Authority to draft men into the Armed Forces.

Seventh. The Defense Production Act of 1950.

The dissenting opinion states: The President has the duty to execute the

foregoing legislative programs. Their successful execution depends upon the continued production of steel and stabilized prices of steel.

And that-The President's action has thus far been

effective, not in settling the dispute, but in saving the various legislative programs from destruction until Congress could act in the matter.

The dissenting opinion makes only this pertinent reference to the United Nations:

Accepting in full measure its responsibility in the world community, the United States was instrumental in securing adoption of the United Nations Charter, approved by the Senate by a vote of 89 to 2. The first purpose of the United Nations is to "maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace • • • ." In 1950, when the United Nations called upon member nations "to render every assistance" to repel aggression in Korea, the United States furnished its vigorous support. For almost two full years, our Armed Forces have been fighting in Korea, suffering casualties of over 108,000 men. Hostilities have not abated. The "determination of the United Nations to continue its action in Korea to meet the aggression" has been reattirmed. Congressional support of the action in Korea has been manifested by provisions for increased military manpower and equipment and for economic stabilization, as hereinafter described.

While it is true that President Truman had not made any point of his right to seize the steel mills under treaty powers, there is not a word in the opinion to indicate that the Chief Justice and his associates went out of their

way or otherwise to stress the argument that the U. N. Charter should override the fifth amendment, as asserted by Past Commander Murphy in The American Legion Magazine. The opinion cannot be construed to support the theory of legal authority of treaties over the Constitution. The basis of the dissenting argument was that the President, under the Constitution which imposed the duty upon him to see that the laws were faithfully executed, had the power which would in an emergency enable him to act temporarily to protect the security of the United States, until Congress could take action. It was the law of self-defense, or what Theodore Roosevelt called the stewardship theory.

Among the duties imposed upon the President as quoted in the dissenting opinion was the duty "to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression." And when the United Nations called upon the United States to render every assistance to repel aggression in Korea, the United States vigorously responded. The next day, the President sent his message to the Congress asking for its decision on the way to handle the situation.

There is no intimation in the dissenting opinion that the United Nations Charter gave the President any power to seize the steel mills, any more than the .acts of Congress implementing the Truman doctrine in Greece and Turkey, the Marshall plan, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization gave such power. They were each enumerated as indicating the duties imposed by law upon the President, which he in turn was bound to execute. They were the facts from which the dissenting Justices justified the finding that there was an emergency which brought into play the implied powers of the President to act to protect the life and security of the Nation. Far from intimating that the United Nations Charter should override the fifth amendment or any other part of the Constitution, the charter was cited only as a fact, among others, that the President could have relied upon to demonstrate the existence of an emergency.

The Chief Justice's argument went like this: By our obligations under the treaty referred to as the United Nations Charter, the United States agreed to take collective action to stop aggression when called upon by the United Nations. The United Nations called, and the United States vigorously responded. The fighting in Korea required munitions, which required steel, and all of this required the steel mills to operate without interruption by strike or otherwise.

Our obligations under the United Nations Charter led to armed conflict, but only remotely and incidentally did it involve the President's exercise of the power to seize the steel mills. By no stretch of the imagination could the charter be said to be the basis for the exercise of the power. It was cited only as one of the things creating the emergency. Even the fact of emegency created no powers. As Chief Justice

195.1,. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD _- SE~~T~ 1219 Hughes said in Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (290 U. s. 398 426): ,

While emergency does not create power, emergency may furnish the occasion for the exercise of power. ·

The statement in the dissenting opinion that the seizure was for the purpose of saving the various legislative programs at stake from destruction until Congress could act should make it perfectly clear to any reasonable person that all of the alarming quotations I have read which assert or imply that what Chief Justice Vinson said would make the United Nations Charter or any other treaty paramount to the Constitution of the United States is pure demagoguery, which, in my opinion, disgraces all those who have indulged in it.

The seizure of the steel mills was not for all time or for any particular period of time. but only until Congress could act in the matter. If two more Justices had joined with the Chief Justice and the two other Justices, the effect would have been to compel Congress to give immediate consideration to legislation which would empower the President either to continue to retain control of the steel mills or to direct their return to the owners.

The senior Senator from Maine lMrs. SMITH] has developed ample evidence that_ the steel strike seriously delayed the production of needed munitions for the confiict in Korea and at a very sub§tantial increased cost in money to the American taxpayer.

There is no doubt at all that the immediate effect of the decision made at that time by the majority of the Justices of the Sqpreme Court took Congress "off t.he h.ook." I can properly add that up to this hour the Congress has failed to lay down any guidance to the Chief Executive as to what be will have authority to do in time of great emergency when steel is urgently needed or when the vital interests of the entire Nation may be endangered by a widespread interruption of transportation or of communications. I am sure that most of the Members of this body agree that Congress should give guidance of that kind, in some degree, to the President and should do so in a per~od of calm when there is no immediate need for the ex~rcise of such authority.

As further evidence that there is no bas~s in fact for the repeated misinterpretation of the Vinson dissenting opinj~n. I can state that I had an opportumty to ask Mr. Justice Burton, with whom I served in the Senate, as to what he knew about the assertions that the Chief Justice had stated that a treaty could become superior to the Constitution. His reply was that he was sure _that the Chief Justice did not say or even imply anything of that kind. ·

To substantiate his reply, Justice Burton pointed out that it is an established practice, which was -followed in the Steel case, for drafts of the majority opinion ~nd all concurring and dissenting opinIons to be submitted in writing to all .members of the _Supreme Court, which often results in modifications of statements made in the final opinions. · He

and all the other :five Justices in the majority had an opportunity to read and study what the Chief Justice proposed to say. Justice Burton then went on to say that if any implication could be drawn from the words written by the Chief Justice to indicate that the Constitution was to be subordinated to the United Nations Charter or to any treaty, some of the six justices who disagreed with him would not have failed to notice it, and to comment from the bench upon such a revolutionary idea. . What Fred Vinson and Harold Burton told me leads to but one conclusion: All those who believe that the dissenting opinion in the Steel case would give treaties greater force and effect than the Constitution of the United States must have convinced themselves that Frank Holman and Clarence Manion are much smarter men than any and all of the members of the Supreme Court who participated in the decision itself. Each of tJ::em is !ully qualified to make amazing d1scovenes of menaces to our liberties that do not exist. They both have the unquestioned ability to read words spoken by the Chief Justice and to make them convey a meaning of which he never even dreamed. As industrious and indefatigable spreaders of alarm, Mr. Holman and Mr. Manion are without peer in the entire Republic.

In conclusion, Mr. President I ask unanimous consent to have pri~ted at this point in the RECORD a letter dated ~anuary 29, 1954, addressed to the junIor Senator from Virginia [Mr. RoBERTsoN] by the Hon. John W. Davis. I served in the House of Representatives with Mr. Davis in 1912 and until here.signed to become the Solicitor General of the United States from 1913 to 1918. I also heartily supported him for President of the United States in 1924.

Mr. Davis, as chief counsel for the plaintiffs, made the winning argument which resulted in denying to the President the right to seize the steel mills. Certainly, by reason of rendering that service in arguing the case before the Supreme Court, Mr. Davis is in position to indicate clearly as he does in his letter, that the Chief Justice of the United States made no assertion of the superiority of the United Nations Charter over the Constitution of the United States. ·


DAVIS, POLit, WARDWELL, SUNDERLAND & KIENDL,

New York, N. Y., January 29, 1954. Hon. A. WILLis RoBERTSON,

United States Senate, Washington, D. a.

DEAR SENAToR: Thank you for your letter of· January 27. · · I am glad to know that you do not feel compelled to vote for the Bricker amendment if it is in the form in which it was reported from the Judiciary Committee. ·

I am not greatly disturbed by the opinion of Chief Justice Vinson in the Steel Seizure case. Gravely a~,> I dissent from his reasoning, I hardly think either he or his two colleagues in dissent intended to draw from the Charter •of -:t-he United Nations support for the position that President Truman had the power to .seize the steel mills. He was more concerned in _building up a picture of the

ti~es and the climate rather than pointing ~o the U.N. Charter as a source of Presidential authority. He was examining the con4 text in which the President had acted. In building up his argument for an implied grant by Congress you will note the Chief Justice cited not only the United Nations Charter but the action in Korea, congres4 sional enactments of foreign-aid programs, Senate approval of the North Atlantic Treaty congressional implementation of that treaty' and other congressional legislation imple~ menting our efforts to stop a·ggression. He also alluded to congressional appropriations for defense, for military assistance, the ~utual _security Act of 1951, the congres4 ;nonal direction to the President to build up our defenses, appropriations acts, and nu4 merous other enactments designed to ~trengthen our national security and to Implement the conduct of the Korean war. From all these actions the Chief Justice sought to build up an enlarged view of Presidential authority, going even so far as the right to take private property by Presi4 dential seizure without due process of law. I quote some of the Chief Justice's words:

"There is no statute prohibiting seizure as a method of enforcing legislative pro4 grams • • •.

"• • • the single Presidential purpose disclosed on this record is to faithfully execut e th~ laws by acting in an emergency to main4 tam t~e status ~uo, thereby preventing col4 lapse of the legiSlative programs until Con4 gress could act • • •.

" • • • A sturdy judiciary • • • must independently determine for itself whether the President was acting, as required by the Constitution, 'to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'

"• • • Faced with the duty of executing j;he defense programs which Congress had .enacted and the disastrous effects that any stoppage in steel production would have on those programs, the President acted to pre4 serve those programs by seizing the steel mi~ls. • • • On the contrary, judicial, legis4 lative . and executive precedents throughout our history demonstrate that in this case the ~sident acted in full conformity with his dutles under the Constitution. • • •"

The answer to the question as to what would have been the result had the Chief Justice prevailed on just two or more jus4 tices to unite with him in his viewpoint 1s that, in my opinion, a serious miscarriage of_ justice would have occurred. Congress ~Ight have dealt with such a miscarriage either by acquiescing in the Court's finding of previous Congressional intent or it might have passed a statute making it clear that it had no intent to give such arbitrary seizure power to the President. It is not u~known that when Congress disagrees With the Court's determination as to its intent it has in an orderly fashion changed the law. Presumably the Congress will do so time and again in the future and our Con4 gressional processes will continue to func4 tion as they have in the past.

I am in entire agreement with what At4 -torney General Brownell said ·as to the argument of the Chief Justice when he spoke before the Senate Judiciary Committee: · "I think the basis for the dissent is all ~es~ Acts of Congress • • • that impose obllgations on the President to implement .them. • • • It rests on the view that t.he Pr_esident's alleged _power to seize the steel mills arose from his duty to execute the legislative programs of the Congress and not from any implication that any treaty "gaye the President power to seize private property."

Sincerely yours, JOHN W. DAVIS.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President I do not desire to encumber the RECOR~ with extensive remarks, but representations which have been made by supporters of


the Bricker amendment have shown such a total lack of understanding of the potentialities of the amendment and of the constitutional situation that I feel it is necessary to discuss some of the points of danger. · I shall direct my remarks today principally to two provisions of the proposed constitutional amendment which, I feel strongly, would cripple this Nation's conduct of its foreign affairs. These two provisions, which constitute the heart of the proposed amendment, are the so-called "which" clause and the provision permitting "regulation" by Congress of executive agreements.

I am very glad the Senator from Arizona [Mr. HAYDEN] discussed the steel case, which ha::- been so often misunderstood.

Why am I so strongly opposed to the "which" clause? Because it would overturn one of the fundamental principles of the Constitution, and would set back the clock 17Q years to the_ time when the United States lived under the Articles of Confederation.

The Constitution at one time was aptly described as a fence enclosing a field of Federal Government. By a contract called the Constitution, the States gave to the Federal -Government its power. It is very significant to remember that by that fence the States were specifically prevented from exercising any right to handle foreign affairs, including treaties·. The power to conduct such affairs was vested solely in the Federal Government. It was specifically _provided that the States could not enter into treaties with foreign countries. : It is no exaggeration to say that if the great leaders of the Revolutionary era had not brought about the "more perfect union" embodied in the Constitution, we never would have become the great nation and world power we are today. We would still be a collection of loosely associated individual republics, each jealous of its own sovereignty, with ne more . stability, unity, or influence over world affairs than the nations of South America or of southeastern ·Europe.

It is from our union that we derive our strength. The effect of the proposed ·amendment would be to sap that strength by seriously weakening the Union and returning this land to its preconstitutional state.

One of the principal weaknesses of the ·confederation lay in the fact that, although the Continental Congress had the .power to make treaties, it did not have the power to make the States observe them. When the State did not abide, for example, by the provisions of the Treaty of Paris, which prohibited the prosecution of British sympathizers or the confiscation of British property, all the Continental Congress could do was unanimously to adopt a resolution that all State laws restraining the execution of a national treaty ought to be repealed. As a result of the failure of the individual States to comply with the Treaty of Paris, the British, in retaliation, continued to occupy fortresses in our Northwest Territory in violation of the treaty provision requiring them to withdraw from our soil.

It is not surprising, then, that the problem of putting an end to this sorry state of affairs and providing for the proper enforcement of treaties was one of the first and most urgent subjects taken up at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Past experience had demonstrated onl:· too well, as James Madison put it, "the necessity of some adequate mode of preventing the States in their individual characters from defeating the constitutional authority of the States in their united character."

The Founding Fathers accordingly embodied in the Constitution the principle, which is fundamental to our form of government, that the treatymaking power is vested exclusively in the Federal Government and that the States must abide by the commitments made by this Nation in its treaties with foreign nations.

Specifically, the Constitution provides that the President shall have power to make treaties, with the advice and consent of the Senate. No treaty can become law unless it is ratified by twothirds of the Members present in this body. Having thus vested the treatymaking power in the National Government, the Constitution goes on to state that no State shall enter into any treaty, allegiance, or confederation, and also that no State shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign power. Two States cannot enter into an agreement to build a bridge ·without the authority of Congress.

All these provisions were adopted by the Constitutional Convention without a -single dissent, thus showing how basic is the principle that the National Government, and not the States, shall conduct our foreign affairs. These provisions must-also be read in light of the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which provides:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of -the land, and the ·judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

This provision is the foundation stone of our system of government; without it, the Constitution could never have created a nation.

I would point to one illustration of the operation of the new constitutional scheme adopted by the Founding Fathers and embodied in the provision I have just mentloned. Under the Treaty of Paris, ending the Revolutionary War, the United States covenanted, among other things, not to confiscate the property of British subjects nor to hinder the enforcement of claims held by them. In direct conflict with this provision of the treaty was a statute of the State of Virginia, enacted during the war, which provided for the discharge of all debts owed to British subjects. Prior to the adoption of the Constitution, the Continental Congress, as we have seen, was powerless to enforce compliance by Virginia with this ·international obligation of the United States.

Shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, however, the Supreme Court, in a historic decision, struck down the Virginia statute as violative of the British treaty and thus repugnant to the supreme law of the land. This was the case of Ware v. Hylton <3 Dall. 199), decided in 1797. Thus did the framers of the Constitution succeed in making the Federal Government supreme in the field of foreign affairs and in enforcing compliance by the States with our treaties with other nations.

The basic . achievement of the framers of the Constitution would be reversed and nullified by the second section of the proposed amendment, and that is why I am so vigorously opposed to its adoption. This is dramatically illustrated by the fact that the case of Ware against Hylton-decided, as I have said, in 1797-would have to be decided differently if the "which" clause were made a part of our Constitution. The treaty provision involved in that case dealt with a subject; namely, the enforcement of private claims in State courts, which is not included in the enumerated powers granted by the Constitution to the Congress and which is, therefore, ordinarily within the powers reserved to the States· under the lOth amendment. The power of the Federal Government to deal with that subject rested, therefore, solely upon its treaty power, for certainly the reciprocal enforcement of the claims of one country in the courts of another is a proper subject of negotiation with foreign powers. Under the second section of the proposed amendment, however; a treaty provision of this sort could not be enforced against a State unless that particular State had passed implementing legislation specifically consenting to such enforcement of the treaty. Since Virginia, of course, had not given its consent to the pertinent provision of the treaty with Great Britain, the Supreme Court in the Ware against Hylton case would have to sustain the inconsistent State statute and declare the treaty un·enforceable in Virginia.

Thus, the proposed amendment would, in effect, require the approval of treaties by all 48 States before they could become effective as internal law. The amendment would thus negative one of the principal accomplishments of the Constitution and return us to the chaos of pre-Constitution days, when the Fed·eral Government lacked the power to -represent and to bind the States in dealings with other nations.

The effect upon the conduct of our international relations in this critical period of world history would be catastrophic. We would be at a severe disadvantage in dealing with other nations. Our President would not be empowered to represent the entire Nation. He would have to explain that he was simply a bargaining agent for 48 separate sovereignties, and that undertakings agreed to by him were not only subject to the approval of the Senate, but were conditioned upon affirmative expressions of approval by the legislature of each of the States that comprise what used t-o be known as · the Union. I use · the words "used to be,u because, if the

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ·- SENATE 1221 Bricker amendment went into effect, I think the words woul~ be appropriate.

The practical effect, of course, would be that this Nation would be disabled from engaging in diplomatic relations with other nations. We would be forced into isolationism-which, I believe, is the real reason why some of the self-styled patriotic organizations favor this amendment-with the most damaging consequences to this Nation and to the rest of the free world, which looks to us for leadership. ·

Mr. President, I think of the story of the distinguished bishop, who, in the early days of the West, was calling on the president of a college. While they were at lunch the bishop made the statement that he thought the end of the world would come soon, because we had made all the discoveries it was possible to make, and all the inventions it was possible to conceive. The president of the institution took issue with him. He said he did not think we had gone that far. He thought that within 50 years men would fly in the air like the birds. The bishop practically condemned him to everlasting torment, because, he said, that was reserved for the angels. The bishop, however, had one son named Wilbur Wright and another son named Orville·, who made it possible for men to fly in the manner the bishop had condemned. The advocates of isolationism forget that we ourselves brought into being aviation, which has in effect reduced ·the size of the Atlantic Ocean to the size of the English Channel in ·the days of sailing ships.

How, for example, could we enter into treaties of friendship, commerce, and navigation with other nations? Such treaties are designed to protect American citizens and American businesses abroad. They normally provide for reciprocal rights for nationals of each contracting nation to acquire property, carry on business, and to be free from discriminatory taxation within the territory of the other contracting nation. These are fields which are customarily within the province of the States and as to which Congress, in the absence of treaty, could not legislate. Therefore it would appear that under the "which" clause, in order that treaties of friendship, commerce, and navigation could be effective, each of the 48 States would have to enact implementing legislation expressing its consent to enforcement of the reciprocal provisions of the treaty within its borders. In practice, of course, it would become impossible for this Nation to negotiate such treaties and secure these important protections for its citizens and their business interests abroad.

I wonder what would happen to the salmon-fishing industry and the sealhunting industry if we abrogated the joint international control treaty which applies to the northwestern waters.

Were the proposed amendment to become law it would similarly be impossible to negotiate treaties such. as the one ratified by the Senate on July 15, 1953, regula.t~ng_ the _status of our military forces in foreign countries. This type of treaty normally provides a limited immunity for our forces from the

local jurisdiction of the country in which they are stationed, a subject which is of considerable importance to us in view of the large forces we maintain outside the United States. Yet in order to negotiate these privileges for our forces we must in fairness agree to accord 'like privileges to the forces of the other treaty nations stationed within our borders, small a's such forces may be. However. under the proposed amendment, the Federal Government could not agree to grant such reciprocal immunity, ex-

. . cept it be conditioned upon the express approval of the legislatures of each of the 48 States. As a practical result, of course, we could not obtain such a treaty.

It is obvious that many treaties contain provisions affecting matters normally within the sole cognizance of the States and would therefore, under the proposed amendment, require the approval of all the States as a condition to becoming effective. Almost every peace treaty could be expected to come within the scope of the proposed amendment, for peace treaties customarily contain reciprocal provisions affecting internal law. An important example is the Treaty of Peace with Japan, ratified by the Senate in 1952, which provides for the protection of prewar debts. In fact, Secretary of State Dulles has accurately pointed out that 12 of the 23 treaties approved by the Senate last year would have been, unconstitutional under the proposed amendment, and that 8 of these were ratified by a Sena.te· vote of 86 to 1.

The proposed amendment would disable this country from entering into treaties for the international control of narcotics, for su~h treaties normally require each nation to covenant to pro~ hibit the growth of poppy plants and other sources of drugs within its borders.

Even more dangerous would be the . roadblocks the proposed amendment would place in the way of reaching international agreements for the control of atomic energy. These agreements would necessarily affect purely intrastate matters, · such as the ownership of atomic mining and manufacturing properties. As is stated in the report of the special committee appointed by the American Bar Association to investigate the proposed constitutional amendment:

The adoption of the "which" clause miaht strip Congress of the power to implement"' an international atomic energy control plan and vest the. determination of the extent of United States participation in the efforts at international control of atomic energy in the legislatures of the 48 States.

It was this . aspect of the pro;,Josed amendment which led the minority of the Judiciary Committee to warn "not to make the means for peace unconstitutional.''

The mattE:rs of which I speak are serious. They show that adoption of the "which" clause would not merely be illadvisee: it could be suicidal. It would effectively place a straitjacket upon the conduct of our international affairs. In the words of the asso.cia tion of the bar of the city of New York-which, unlike the American Bar Assoyiation, adopted its special committee's findings: · We would stop being a compl~te Nation like others, able to make treaties on any

subject on which they can, and become in-stead only a partial Nation. '

This would b~ more than ever dangerous and foolish at the present juncture of world history, when the peace ?f the world may depend upon flexibility m the conduct of our relation;:; with other nations. It would be more than irresponsible for the Senate to approve this ill-considered amendment and upset the constitutional plan which has worked so well for more than 160 years.

I have been speaking against the proposed amendment, and I have been outlining the reasons why it should not be adopted. I believe, however, that the burden should be upon those who propose this radical change in the document which is our Nation's charter. In my opinion, they have failed to establish in the slightest degree that the constitutional procedure established by the Founding Fathers for the making of treaties has worked badly, or that under it treaties that have not been in the interest of the Nation have been enacted. Neither have they shown why it has suddenly- become necessary, after so many years of operating under the constitutional plan, to make the fundamental changes they advocate.

Do the proponents of the "which" clause believe the Constitution does not sufficiently protect the Nation against indiscriminate and improper exei·cise of the treatymaking power? The wise framers of our Constitution, believing strongly in a system of checks and balances, expressly provided that a treaty concluded by the President cannot take effect unless it is approved by two-thirds of the .Senators present.

Mr. President, why is the Senate, alone, specifi,ed, as between the two branches of the Congress, as the one which, by. twothirds vote, must approve treaties before they can be effective? That ·is because in the Senate each State regardless of its size, has the same number of votes. That is why that power was placed in the Senate, inasmuch as in the Senate each State has equal power.

Do the proponents of this amendment suggest that even one-third of the Members of the Senate ·cannot be trusted to strike down treaties which ·are ill-conceived or unfavorable to this country or violative of the fundamental rights and liberties of our citizens? History refutes such a suggestion. It is not without reason that the Senate has been called the graveyard of treaties.

Is it feared by the proponents of this amendment that the rights of the states are not protected by our historic procedure? Again, there is no basis for such a fear, for here in the Senate each

· State, regardless of its population, has an equal voice. If, through their representatives in the Senate, two-thirds of the States vote affirmatively on the question of the approval of a treaty, then· I say the national interest requires that it take effect.

To sum up my views on the second section of the joint resolution: The "whieh'' cla-use represents a radical change in our constitutional. system. It would

.


drastically alter the historic treatymaking procedure embodied in the Constitution. It would return us to the discredited state of affairs which prevailed unaer the Articles of Confederation, when treaties could not be enforced in the States without their consent. It would strike at the heart of our Federal system, by reviving the sovereignty of the States in international affairs. It would disable the United States from reaching accords with other nations, because of the uncertainty and doubtfulness of ever getting all 48 States-some of whose legislatures meet only every 2 years-to pass the necessary implementing legislation. It would return us to isolationism, and would deprive us of our partnership with the rest of the free world in this time of danger.

As to the requirement of the second section of the joint resolution-namely, that no treaty shall become effective as internal law except by legislation-there is no need for it. If there were no harm in permitting the provisions of a particular treaty to be self-executing, the proposed amendment would impose upon us the most cumbersome treatymaking procedure in the world. It would r~quire five separ~te approvals before the treaty could take effect-as follows: First, signature by the President; second, ratification by two-thirds vote of the Senators present; third, approval by majority vote of the House of Representatives; fourth, approval by majority vote of the Senate; and, finally, fifth, signature by the President of the requisite law.

On the other hand, if it were felt that the internal-law provisions of a treaty should not be self-executing, the treaty itself could expressly so provide, or, if it failed to do so, the requirement of supporting legislation could be attached by the Senate as a reservation at the time when it voted to approve the treaty, because we must realize, Mr. President, that the Senate has the right to adopt reservations to the resolution of ratification of a treaty, and in that way to limit the treatymaking power. No need exists for freezing into immutable constitutional doctrine a provision that no treaty can ever be self-executing as internal law.

I shall move on to the provision of the joint resolution that, after the "which" clause, poses the greatest danger to the proper conduct of our affairs with other nations. That is the clause, set forth in the third section of the joint resolution, which provides that Congress shaP have power to regulate all executive or other agreements with any foreign power or international organization.

What is meant by the innocent-sounding word "regulate"? The fact is, of course, that at present Congress can exercise a substantial measure of control over executive agreements. Congress can by legislation override any executive agreement-or even a treaty, so far as domestic law is concerned. Moreover, the courts have quite properly held that an executive agreement which is . not exp~essly authoriz~O. . by Congress, and which contravenes a prior act of Congress dealing with the same subject matter, is simply void as domestic law.

In addition to this legislative control over executive agreements, Congress has another very effective means of control namely, by reason of its power over appropriations-for executive agreements, like most other things in life, cannot be successfully implemented and carried out without the necessary funds.

So it is misleading to imply that at present Congress has no power to regulate executive agreements. True it is that the power to enter into such agreements is vested in the executive branch of our Government, but that must be the case, for the Government has to make any number of agreements with other

·nations, in the course of its day-to-day operations.

These agreements deal with such various subjects as the inspection of vessels, the admission of civil aircraft, customs matters, commercial relations, international claims, postal matters, registration of trade marks and copyrights, and so on. Power to conclude such agreements must be placed in the executive. It would be an impossible and intolerable situation if this country's ordinary affairs with other nations had to be conducted by 435 Representatives and 96 Senators.

The fact is, however, as I have pointed out, that Congress is not without power to control these agreer..1ents. Consider, for example, the statute, enacted in 1950, which requires publication of all executive agreements within 1 year following their effective date, so as to prevent undue secrecy on the part of the executive branch in concluding the agreements.

The proponents of the "regulation" clause, however, are not satisfied with merely being able to regulate executive agreements. They ask the power to prohibit them altogether, and to make congressional consent neceEsary to the conclusion of any such agreements. In fact, one version of the resolution contained a clause expressly conditioning the power to conclude executive agreements upon prior congressional approval. It is plain to see that it is hoped that this same result can be indirectly achieved through the deceptively innocent language of the third section of the present resolution. The majority report of the Judiciary Committee points out that "the power to regulate carries with it the power to prohibit.'' The majority also say that under the regulation clause, Congress could prescribe the conditions, limitations or prohibitions under which executive agreements could be made.

In short, were the Constitution amended in the manner suggested in the third section of the resolution, Congress could pass a statute providing-in the identical language used by the Senator from Ohio in his own original resolution-that executive agreements shall be made "only in the manner and to the extent to be prescribed by law." In other words, unless Congress expressly authorizes the same by statute, the executive may .not enter into an executive agreement.

As I have already shown, such a law would· be absurd-and tragiC. It would produce a complete stalemate' in our

foreign policy, by making it literally impossible for the State Department to conduct our day to day relations with other nations. And our country would be placed in the position where there would be no one who could act in foreign affairs on matters of urgency and dispatch.

Not only would the proposed "regulation" amendment authorize such a state of affairs, but, as I have shown, that appears to be the very design of its draftsmen. I believe it a very foolish and a very dangerous thing to attempt thus to stifle our international affairs. In this contracted world of the 20th century, when free intercourse among the nations of the world is of such vital importance, the proposed "regulation" clause would have enormously dangerous consequences for our Nation.

I wish to make it very clear that this "regulation" clause is not really what it first appears to be-that is, a mere attempt to prevent the utilization of executive agreements as a substitute for treaties. No one can feel more strongly than I do that it is improper for the executive to use the executive agreement as a substitute for the purpose of avoiding the necessity of ratification by the Senate. But I most assuredly do not believe that the way to avoid this is to incorporate in our organic law a provision that would authorize Congress to prevent the Executive from ~ntering into any executive agreements without its consent.

I do not believe it possible to define for all time what types of international agreement shall take the form of a treaty and what types shall take the form of an executive agreement. The possible situations are too numerous and too difficult to categorize and pigeonhole to permit of such easy definition. It would therefore be dangerous to undertake to do so. As the Secretary of State has said:

This is an area to be dealt with by friendly cooperation between the three departments of Government which are involved, rather than by attempts at constitutional definition, which are futile, or by the absorption, by one branch of Government, of responsibilities which are presently and properly shared.

In any event, it is clear that the proponents of the third section of the resolution have not even attempted such definition. Instead they have come forward with a dangerous and ill-considered proposal that would authorize the destruction of the vitally important power which the Executive has exercised since the earliest days of the Republic, to conclude executive agreements with foreign governments.

I have discussed, as I promised at the beginning of my remarks, two provisions of the resolution which, in my opinion, would have the most serious consequences for this Nation: the "which•• clause, and the provision for congressional "regulation" of executive agreements. Before closing my remarks, I would briefly refer to the first section of the proposed constitutional amend-ment. ·

That section would amend the Constitution to read as follows: "A provision of

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1223 a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force ·or effect." One reading this provision would get the impression that at the present time the Government may lawfully · conclude treaties which · do violate the Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth. Constitutional lawyers agree that a treaty contravening any of the provisions of our organic law would be struck down as unconstitutional. I need quote but one of the many statements to that effect by the Supreme Court of the United States, as follows:

It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument. This results from the nature and fundamental principles of our Government. (The Cherokee Tobacco (11 Wall. 616, 620-621) .)

The only purpose for including this first section in the resolution, it seems to me, was to seek to create the impression that unconstitutional enactments could be effected through exercise of the treaty power, and that a constitutional amendment was thus imperative. The fact, as we have seen, is otherwise. Nor do I believe, as do the proponents of the Knowland substitute, that an amendment declaring that treaties must comply with the Constitution should be adopted notwithstanding, as all appear to concede, that it simply restates existing law, according to the long-standing interpretation of the Supreme Court. In other words, the result would be mere redundancy in the Constitution.

I do not believe in unnecessary amendment of our Constitution. That great document has more than stood the test of time. Framed by some of the most brilliant and foresighted men of any age, it has made of the separate States a Nation, a Federal Union, that has had most phenominal growth and the most extraordinary record of freedom and liberty that the world has ever known. Not the least successful of its provisions have been those regulating the conduct of our Nation's international relations and the exercise of the treaty power. The proponents of the resolution have utterly failed to establish .the need for amendment of these provisions. I would therefore vote down the entire proposed amendment--in part, as unnecessary, and in larger part, as unwise and dangerous in the extreme.

I would vote down not only the original joint resolution, but all so-called substitutes which would have a similar effect. Let me say, from the bottom of my heart, that we are not debating a law, in the ordinary sense of legislation in the Senate. We are debating the future of the Nation.

· The joint resolution would produce the exact opposite of what its proponents claim for it. Instead of producing a stronger United States it would produce a far weaker United States.

Mr. President, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York has performed a valuable public service in preparing a comprehensive bibliography of material relating to the treatymaking power of the United States. I believe that it will be of use to every Member of

the Senate who is concerned with this important subject, ·and I should like to include it in the body of the RECORD immediately following my remarks.

There being no objection, the bibliography was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the record of the Association of the

Bar of the City of New York, val. 9, No. 2, February 1954] TREATYMAKING POWER OF THE UNITED

STATES-A: BIBLIOGRAPHICAL GUIDE (Compiled by Sidney B. Hill)

On February 7, 1952, Senate Joint Resolution 130 (the Bricker resolution) was originally sponsored by 59 Senators to stimulate full discussion of the trea tymaking power of the Government.

On January 7, 1953, Senate Joint Resolution 1 was introduced through Senator BRICKER, by proponents interested in curtailing the powers of the Executive with respect to the treatymaking power.

Hearings on the amendment were held and Senate Report 412, 83d Congress, 1st session, was printed. On page 2 of the majority report there appears this statement, "As a result of these hearings, the study of the peace and law committee of the American Bar Association and other studies, it may fairly be said that the issue of amending the treaty power has been exhaustively considered."

With due respect for the statement referred to above it was found upon seeking material for study that no comprehensive guide to literature on the subject of the treatymaking power of the United States was available.

Recognizing that the 'Bricker amendment involves fundamental constiutional changes and would have great effect upon international and domestic problems, the librarians of this association upon publication of the report of the Senate Judiciary Committee undertook to ascertain and catalog the material which it appeared would be needed for any scholarly and searching examination of the problems involved by the proposed resolution.

In the hope that a full presentation of the problems which would be created by the proposed constitutional change will be demanded by adherents to both sides of the question, the following checklist of 500 references for study on the treatymaking powers of the United States have b'een compiled.

It is submitted that adequate study may be made by Me~bers of Congress, opponents, and proponents of the Constitutional proposal, that the voters may come to a decision of their own, as to whether it is advisable again to amend the Constitution of the United States.

Abbott, Lyman. The power of the government to make a general arbitration treaty. Lake Mohonk, 1905.

Adams, John Quincy. Memoirs, Charles Francis Adams, ed. 12 vols. Phila., 1874-1877.

Alger, George. The states and national treaties. 1909. 66 Independent. 89o-B93.

Allen, Florence E. The treaty as an instrument of legislation. New York. Macmillan. 1952. 114 p.

Allen, Francis W. The legislative effect of a treaty. 1929. 13 Bi-Mo. L., Rev. 41-64.

Amendment of Constitution relating to treaties and executive agreements. 1953. 99 Cong. Rec. 160.

American Bar Association. Section of International· and Comparative. Law. Report. August 1953.

American Bar Association. Standing Committee on Peace and Law Through United Nations. Annual Reports, 1950-51.

American Bar Association. Standing Committee on Peace and Law .Through United Nations. Reports, Sept. 1950; Feb. 1950; Sept. 1952.

American Bar Association. Standing Committee on Peace and Law Through United Nations. Report. 1952. 32 p.

American Jewish Congress. An analysis of the Bricker amd't. N. Y. 1953. 10 p.

American's treatymaking power as defined by the Constitution. 1942. 21 Cong. Digest. 230.

Anderson, Chandler P. The extent and limitations of the treatymaking power under the Constitution. July 1907. Arr . J. Int. L.

Anderson, Chandler P. The extent and limitation of the treatymaking power under the Constitution.- New York. Baker, ~oarhis & Co., 1907.

Anderson, Chandler P. The Senate and obligatory arbitration treaties. 1932. 26 Am. J. Int. L., 328-33.

Anderson, Chandler P. Treaties as domestic law. 1935. 29 Am. J. Int. ·L. 472-6.

Andrews, B. Amending the Constitution to provide for participation in a world government. 1950. 14 Albany L. Rev. 125--48.

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences. Congress and foreign relations. Sept. 1953.

Arreglado, J. M. The need for a more :flexible constitutional arrangement for treatymaking. 1953. 4 Law Rev. 101-6. Univ. of Santo Tomas.

Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Report by the Committee on Federal Legislation and the Committee on International Law. Our Constitution and the Bricker proposals. Dec. 1953. 8 The Record. 454-85.

Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Committee report on S. J. Res. 1, 83d Cong., 1st Session. 1953. 8 The Record. 167-202.

Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Committee report on S. J. Res. 130, 82d Cong., 2d Session. 1952. 46 p.

Aufricht, H. Supersession of treaties in international law. 1952. 37 Cornell L. Q. 655-700.

Bacon, Augustus 0. The treatymaking power of the President and the Senate. 1906. 182 N. Am. Rev. 502-12.

Baker, Newton D. Some constitutional problems. 1925. 11 A. B. A. Jour. 539.

Barrett, James T. International agreements without the advice and consent of the Senate. 1905. 15 Yale L. J. 18-27

Bascom, John. Growth of nationality in the United States; a social study. New York & London, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1899. 213 p.

Bates, Lindell T. Les traites federaux et Ia legislation des etats aux Etats-Unis. Paris, Librairie Generale de Droit & de Juris· prudence. 1915. 228 p.

Battling for Bricker resolution. Argu .. ments of groups for and against the resolution submitted by Senator JoHN W. BRICKEll. 1953. 11 Cong. Rept. 885-9.

Bellot, H. H. L. Treatymaking power In the United States and the growth of the executive. 1909. 127 Law Times. 384-6.

Bemis, Samuel Flagg. American Secretaries of State and their diplomacy. 10 vols. New York, 1927-29.

Bemis, Samuel Flagg. A diplomatic his• tory of the United States. -New York, Henry Holt & Co., 1936.

Bemis, Samuel Flagg. . Jay's treaty: a study in commerce and diplomacy. New York, Macmillan Co., 1923.

Benton, Thomas Hart. Debates of Con• gress, val. 1 New York. D. Appleton & Co .• 1857.

·Berdahl, Clarence A. War powers of the executive in the United States. Urbana, 1921.

BieUtsky, Frank. The danger in the treatym~king power-a mirage. 1952. 25 Temple L. Q. 463-71.

Binsse, H. L. Present discontents; constitutional formula making the Secretary of State directly responsible to legislative body charged with ratifying treaties. 1954. 41 Commonweal. 317.

1224: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE February 3

Bird, C. B. Right of states to pass local laws in confiict with foreign powers. 1917. 24 Case and Comment. 200-96.

Bishop, J . B. Theodore Roosevelt and his times. New York, Scribner's, 1920. 2 v.

Bishop, William W., Jr. Cases and materials on international law. New York, Prentice Hall. ~. 952.

Bishop, William W ., Jr. The structure of federal power over foreign affairs. 1952. Minn. L. Rev. 299-322.

Black, Forrest R. Missouri v. Holland-a judicial milepost on the road to absolutism. 193!. 25 Ill. L. Rev. 911-28.

Black, Forrest R. The role of the President and the Senate in the treatymaking power. 1928. 11 St. Louis L. Rev. 203.

Black, Forrest R. The United States Senate and the treaty power. 1931. 4 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 1-19.

Black, Forrest R. United States treaty power and limited government. 1925. 11 St. Louis L. Rev. 6-17.

Black, Henry Campbell. Handbook of American Constitutional law. 2nd ed. St. Paul, West Pub. Co., 1897.

Blaine, James G. Twenty years of Congress. Norwich, The Henry Hill Pub. Co., 1886.

Borchard, Edwin M. Constitutional amendment on treatymaking. 1945. 39 Am. J . Int. L. 537-41.

Borchard, Edwin M. Executive agreements and treaties. Shall the executive agreement replace the treaty? 1944. 38 Am. J. Int. L. 637-43.

Borchard, Edwin M. The proposed constitutional amendment on treatymaking. 1945. 30 Am. J. Int. L. 537.

Borchard, Edwin M. Reply to M. S. McDougal and A. Laos-treaties and Congressional-executive or Presidential agreements. 1945. 54 Yale L. J. 616-64.

Borchard, Edwin M. Shall the executive agreement replace the treaty? 1944. 53 Yale L. J. 664.

Borchard, Edwin M. Treaties and executive agreements. 1946. 40 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 729-39.

Borchard, Edwin M. Two-thirds rule as to treaties--a change opposed. 1945. 68 N.Y. S. B. A. 201-15.

Boyd, James H. Limitations of the treatymaking power of the President of the United States with the concurrent power of the Senate. 1918. 86 Central L. J . 172-76.

Boyd, Julian P. The expanding treaty power. 1928. 6 N.C. L. Rev. 428-56.

Boyd, Willard L., Jr. Treaties governing the succession to real property by aliens. 1953. 51 Mich. L. Rev. 1001- 20.

Brandon, Michael. Analysis of the terms "treaty" and "international agreement." 1953. 47 Am. J. Int. L. 49-69.

Brewer, F. M. The treaty power. Editorial Research Report. Jan., 1943. 39- 54.

BRICKER, JOHN W. America's greatest danger: domestic legislation by treaty. 1952. 98 CoNGRESSIONAL REcoRD, 5219-5228.

BRICKER, JOHN W. Bringing the Constitution up-to-date. 1953. Ohio Bar. 409-19.

BRICKER, JoHN W. Government's role. June 1953. Bests Ins. N. (Life ed.) 18-20.

BRICKER, JoHN W. Safeguarding the treaty power. 1952. 13 Fed. B. J. 77-84.

The Bricker amendment. S. J. Res. 1, proposing to limit the President's power to make treaties and executive agreements: pro and con views. Ap. 18, 1953. Information Service. 1-4.

The Bricker resolution: three views, the sponsor, the administration, the opposition. May 1953. Freedom and union, 14-19.

Bronaugh, Minor. Treaties versus the Constitution and Congress. 1923. 27 Law Notes. 168.

Burke, D. B. Executive agreements and the treaty power. 1942. 42 Colum. L . Rev. 831-43.

Burr, Charles H . The treaty making power of the United States and the methods of its

enforcement as affecting the police powers of the states. Phila., The Amer. Philo. Society, 1912. 153 p.

Butler, Charles H. Limitations on the treaty making power of the United States in matters coming within the jurisdiction of the states. 1929. Prom. of the Am. Soc. of Int. L. 176.

Butler, Charles Henry. The treaty making pow-er of the United States. New York, The Banks Law Pub. Co., 1902. 2 v.

Cadwalader, John L. Notes on treaties and conventions between the Unit ed States and foreign powers. Wash, D. C., 1876.

Calhoun, John C. Works. Edited by Richard K. Crane. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1888.

Calhoun, John C. A discourse on the Constitution and government of the United States. New York, D. Appleton & Co .. 1888.

Canfield, A. F. Government by treaty. Address. 1952. 19 J. B . A. D. C. 239-47.

Cannon, Clarence. Cannon's precedents of the House of Representatives. vol. VI. Wash., D. C., G. P . 0 ., 1935.

Castel, J. G. International law: effect of war in bilateral treaties; comparative st udies. 1953. 51 Mich. L. Rev .. 566-82.

Catudal, H. M. Executive a greement or treaty? 1948. 10 J. Pol. 168- 78.

Catudal, H. M. Executive agreements; a supplement to the treaty-making procedure. 1942. 10 Geo. wash. L. Rev. 653-69.

Chafee, Zechariah, Jr. Amending the Constitution to cripple treaties. 1952. 12 La. L. Rev. 345-82.

Chafee, Zechariah, Jr. Federal and state powers under U. N. covenant on human rights. 1951. Wise. L. Rev. 389.

Chafee, Zechariah, Jr. Stop being terrified of treaties. 1952. 38 Am. B. A. J. 731-4.

Chafee, Zechariah, Jr. Treaty making power. 1952. Harvard L. School Rec. Nos. 1-6.

Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. Legislative Dept. Treaty law vs. the Constitution; the threat--the remedy. Wash., D. C. 1953. 33 p.

Chamberlain, Joseph P. Legislative processes, national and state. New York, D. Appleton-Century Co., 1936.

Chamberlain, Lawrence H. The President, Congress and legislation. New York, Colum. Univ. Press, 1946.

Chambrun, Charles Adolphe de Pineton, marquis de. The executive power in the United States: a study of the constitutional law. Lancaster, Pa., Inquirer Print. & Pub. Co., 1874. 288 p.

CHAVEZ, D. Advice and consent of the Senate in the making of treaties. 1944. N. M.S. B. 81-5.

Clancy, Charles Sumner. An organic conception of the treaty making power vs. state rights as applicable to the United States. 1908. 7 Mich. L. Rev. 19-52.

Claudy, Donald E. The treaty power and human rights. 1951. 36 Cornell L. Q. 699-739.

Clayton, J. C. A new view of the deportation cases in the Supreme Court. Is Congress empowered to abrogate a treaty? 1893. 16 N.J. L. Jour. 292-299.

Cockes, William Archer. The supremacy of a treaty and the sovereignty of a state. 1878. 7 Central L. J. 423-6.

Coleman, William C. The treaty power and its relation to state laws. 1909. 43 Am. L. Rev. 641-666.

Cohen, Benjamin V. Some comments on the Bricker amendment. 1953. 48 Northwestern Univ. L . Rev. 185-196.

Commager, Henry Steele. The perilous folly of Senator BRICKER. 1953. 9 Reporter. 12-17.

Congress and the ratification of treaties. 1945. 411 Int. Concil. 363-78.

Congressional Digest for April 1945 is devoted to the question--should the constitutional treaty process be preserved?.

Congressional Digest for November 1952 is devoted to the proposed congressional amendment to restrict the use of treaty power.

Conway, Edward A. Straitjacketing the treaty power. 1953. 88 America. 647-9.

Cooley, Thomas M. Constitutional limitations. 7th ed. Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 1903.

Cooley, Thomas M. The general principles of constitutional law in the United Stat es of America. Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 1931. 478 p .

Cooper, J. C., Jr. Pan American convention on commercial aviation and the treatymaking power. 1933. 19 A. B . A. Jour. 22-6.

Corbett, P . E. Congress and proposals for international government. 1950. 4 Int. Organ. 383- 99.

Corwin, Edward S. The constit ution and world organization. Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press. 1994. 64 p.

Corwin, Edward S. National suprema cy; treaty power vs. state power. N. Y. 1913.

Corwin, Edward S. The President's control of foreign relations. Princeton, 1917.

Corwin, Edward S. The President: office and powers. New York, N.Y. U. Press. 1941. 476 p.

Corwin, EdwardS. The President's treatymaking power. 1953. 19 Think. 5-7, 30.

Corwin, EdwardS. The spending power of Congress. 1925. 36 Harvard L. Rev. 548.

Cowles, Willard B. Treatie:::; and constitutional law. Wash., D. C. , Amer. Council on Public Affairs. 1941. 315 p.

Crandell, S. B. Treaties, their making and enforcement. 2nd ed. Wash., D. C., J. Byrne & Co., 1916. 663 p.

Crosskey, William Winslow. Politics and the Constitution in the history of the United States. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1953.

Croswell, Simon Greenleaf. The treatymaking power under the Constitution. 1886. 20 Am. L. Rev. 513-27.

Currey, John. State vs. treaty rights. 1913. 6 Lawyer and Banker. 6-16.

Danger in treatymaking powers-a mirage. 1952. 25 Temp. L. Q. 463-71.

Dangerfield, Royden J. In defense of the Senate. Norman, Okla., Univ. of Okla. Press. 1933. 365 p.

Davis, J. C. B. Notes upon the foreign treaties of the United States. Wash. , D. c .• 1880.

Davis, John W. The treatymaking power in the United States. Address. London, New York, H. Milford, Oxford Univ. Press. 1920. 18 p.

Dean, Arthur H. The Bricker amendment and authority over foreign affairs. 1953. 32 Foreign Affairs. 1-19.

Dennison, Eleanor E. The senate foreign relations committee. Stanford Univ. Press, 1942. 201 p.

Deutsch, E . P . Legislation by treaty. 1952. 31 Mich. S. B. J . 19-25.

Deutsch, E. P. Need for a treaty amendment: restatement and a reply. 1952. 38 Amer. B. A. J. 735-8, 793- 6.

Deutsch, E. P. Proposed changes in U. S. treaty making power. 1953. 1 La. B. J . 3-11.

Deutsch, E. P. The treaty making clause. 1951. 37 Am. B . A. J. 659~2.

Devlin, Robert Thomas. The treaty power under the Constitution of the United States. San Francisco, Bancroft-Whitney Co., 1908. 864 p.

Dewhurst, William Whitwell. Is the President the sole negotiator of treaties? Wash., G. 0. P., 1921. llp.

Dickey, J. S. Our treaty procedure versus our foreign policies. 1945. 25 Foreign ~fairs, 357-77.

Dickinson, Edwin D. Are the liquor treaties self executing? 1926. 20 Am. J. Int. L. 444.

Dickinson, Edwin D. The law of nations as part of the national law of the United States. 1952. 101 Univ. of Pa. L. Rev. 792-833.

1954 . CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD- SENATE 1225 Displacement of state laws by treaties.

1914. 14 Colum. L. Rev. 667-9. Diplomatic correspondence. Vol. 1. Wash.,

D. C., G. P. 0. 1867. Dobie, Edith. Attitude of the United

States Senate upon general arbitration treaties. 1928. 8 S. W. Pol & Soc. Sci. Q. 413.

Dodd, w. F. International relations and the treaty power. 1944. 30 A. B. A. J. 360-2.

Duer, William. Outline of the constitutional jurisprudence of the United States. New York, Collins & Hannay. 1833.

Dulles, John Foster. The making of treaties and executive agreements. 1953. 28 State Dept. Bull. 591-5.

Dulles, John Foster. Speech before the American Bar Association convention. 1953. N. Y. Times. Aug. 27th. p. 4.

Duwalt, G. W. The treaties of the United States and alien land laws of Illinois and other states of the Union. 1896. 43 Central L. J. 211-22.

Eagleton, Clyde. International government. Rev. Ed. New York, The Ronald Press. 1948.

Eagleton, Clyde. Problems on international legislation. 1934. 8 Temp. L. Q. 218, 376, 505.

Eagleton, Clyde. Signature, ratification and accession of treaties. 1934. 8 Temp. L. Q. 376.

Edwards, R. A. Constitution, the treaty power, and juridical isolationism. 1953. 14 Pitts. L. Rev. 199-233.

Effect of objections to treaty reservations. 1951. 60 Yale L. J. 728-35.

Eisenhower, Dwight D. Amendment relating to treaty making power. 1953. State Dept. Bull. 192-194.

Eliot, Edward C. The treaty making power with reference to the reserved power of the states. 1913. 20 Case and Comment. 77-83.

Elliot, Jonathan. The American diplomatic code. Wash., D. C. 1834.

Elliot, Jonathan. The debates in the several state conventions on the adoption of the federal Constitution. Phila., J. B. Lippincott Co., 1896.

Elliott, Charles B. The treaty making power. 1899. 27 Forum. 592-604.

Executive agreements and the proposed constitutonal amendments to treaty power. 1953. 51 Mich. L. Rev. 1202-6.

Fairman, Charles. Finis to Fujii. 1952. Am. J. Int. L. 682-90.

Farrand, Max. The records of the federal convention of 1787. New Haven, Yale Univ. Press. 1937.

Federal treaty power and the reserved powers of the states. 1953. 21 Kan. B. A. J. 277-81.

The Federalist: a collection of essays, written in favor of the new Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay. ·Nos. 33, 35, 58, 64, 75. New York, Tudor Publishing Co., 1937. Or any edition.

Feidler, E. R., and R. H. Dwan. Extent of the treaty making power. 1939. 28 Ga. L. J. 184-97.

Fensterwald, B., Jr. Trojan horse or Don Quixote's windmill. 1952. 13 Fed. B. J. 85-98.

Fenwick, Charles G. International law. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1948. 744 p.

Fenwick, Charles G. Proposed limitations -upon executive agreements. 1953. 47 Amer. J. Int. L. 284-7.

Fenwick, Charles G. Reservations to multilateral treaties. 1951. 45 Amer. J. Int. L. 145-8.

Fenwick, Charles G. When is a treaty not a treaty? 1952. 46 Amer. J. Int. L. 296-8.

Finch, G. A. Treaty-clause amendment: the case for the association. 1952. 28 Amer. B. A. J. 467-70, 527-30.

Fish, Carl Russell. American diplomacy. Srd ed. New York, 1919.

FitzpatriCk, William H. Government by treaties. Address. 1952. 6 Ark. L. Rev. 315-25.

Fleming, D. F. · Role · of the Senate in treaty making: a survey of four decades. 1934. 28 Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev. 583-98.

Fleming, D. F. The treaty veto of the American Senate. New York, Putnam. 1930. 325 p.

Fleming, D~ F. United States and the League of Nations. New York, 1932.

Fleming, 'w. H. Treaty making power of the President and Senate. 1909. Ga. B. Assn. 183-207.

Flood, E. C. Treaties and state laws. 1917. 10 Lawyer and Banker. 181-196.

Fort, John Franklin. Treaty power under the Constitution of the United States. 1912. 35 N. J. L. J. 68-76.

Fortuna, C. P. The treaty-making power: senate joint resolution. 1953. 33 B. U. L. Rev. 486-93.

Foster, John W. Diplomatic volumes. 2 v. New York, 1909.

Foster, John W. The practice of diplomacy. New York, 1906.

Foster, John W. The treatymaking power under the Constitution. 1901. 11 Yale L. J. 69.

Fraser, Henry S. Constitutional scope of treaties and executive agreements. 1945. 31 A. B. A. J. 286-9.

Fraser, Henry S. Treaties and executive agreements. 1945. 68 N.Y. S. B. A. 175-84.

Freeman, H. A. International administrative law: a functional approach to peace. 1948. 57 Yale L. J. 976-93.

Ferymond, Pierre. La ratification des traites et la probleme des rapports entre le droit international et la droit interne. Lausanne, Imprimerie La Concorde. 1947. 175 p.

FULLBRIGHT, J. W. and others. Should treaties be ratified by a majority of both houses? Town Meeting, Oct. 19, 1944. p. 1-22.

Gallatin, Albert. Written by John Austin Stevens. Boston, Houghton Mifilin & Co., 1888.

Gallatin, Albert. Writings. Edited by Henry Adams. Phila., J.P. Lippincott & Co., 1879.

Galloway, George R. Congress at the crossroads. New York, Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1946.

Garner, James W. Acts and joint resolution of Congress as substitutions for treaties. 1935. 29 Am. J. Int. L. 482.

Garner, James W. American foreign policies. New York, 1928.

Garner, James W. Senate reservations to "the inter-American general treaty of arbitration. 1932. 26 Am. J. Int. L. 333-6.

Garrett, Garet. Nullification by treaty. 1953. 3 Freeman. 549-50.

General Electric Co. v. Robertson, 21 F 2d 214. Scope of treatymaking power, when treaties are self-executing. 1928. 26 Mich. L. Rev. 316-21.

Genocide-a commentary on the convention. 1949. 58 Yale L. J. 1142-60.

Gordon, W. C. Self-executing treatiesgenocide convention. 1950. 48 Mich. L. Rev. 852-60.

Graham, M. W. Draft treaties of peace. 1946. 40 Am. J. Int. L. 781-4.

Green Bag Editorial. The treaty power and "state rights." 1913. 25 Green Bag. 451-4.

Green, James Frederick. The President's control of foreign policy. New York, Foreign Policy Assn. 1939. 11 p.

Gregory, Charles Noble. Federal treaties and state laws. 1907. 6 Mich. L. Rev. 25-43.

Gulick, Mary S. Legal effect on an act of Congress upon a prior treaty. 1933. 2 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 74.

Hackworth, G. H. Digest of international law. Washington, G. P. 0. 1940-44.

Hackworth, G. H. Treaties and executive agreements defined. 1943. 22 Cong. Digest. 233-4.

Hadley, Edwin W. The treatymaking power: an Ach1lles' heel. 1951. N. L. Rev. 49-52.

·Hall, Connor. The treaty power. 1924. 30 w. va. L. Q. 104.

Hall, J. P. State interference with the enforcement of treaties. 1917. 7 Acad. of Pol. Sci. Proceedings. 548-557.

Hamilton, Alexander. Works. Edited by Henry Cabot LOdge. New York, G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1885-86.

Handler, Bidney. Limitations on the treatymaking power of the United States. 1930. 2 N. Y. S. B. A. Bull. 502-9. · Harley, J. E. The obligation to ratify treaties. 1919. 13 Amer. J. Int. L. 389.

Harley, J. H. A reexamination of the treaty power and the Constitution. 1952. 23 World Affairs Interpreter. 275-93.

Harris, L. Treaties under the Constitution and international law. 1950. 54 Dick. L. Rev. 417-31.

Harrison, Benjamin. This country of ours. New York, Charles Scribner's Sons. 1897.

Hatch, Vermont. The treatymaking power: "An extraordinary power liable to abuse." 1953. 39 A. B. A. J. 808.

Hatch, Vermont. The treaty power and the case for constitutional amendment. 1953. 42 Maine State Bar Assn. p. 52.

Hayden, Joseph Ralston. The Senate and treaties, 1789-1817. New York, The Macmillan Co., 1920. 237 p.

Hayden, R. States rights doctrine and the treatymaking power. 1917. 32 Amer. Hist. Rev. 566-85.

Hayden, S. S. Shall the Senate modify its treatymaking power? 1943. For Pol. Bull. 2-3.

Haynes, George H. The Senate of the United States. Boston, Houghton. 1938.

Hazlitt, Henry. A new Constitution now. New York, Whittlesey House. 1942. 297 p.

Reicher, Winchester H. and Clyde Eagleton. Revision and termination of treaties. 1934. 8 Temp. L. Q. 505.

Heindel, R. H. Atlantic treaty in United States. 1949. 43 Amer. J. Int. L. 633-65.

Helman, F. E. Treaty law and the Constitution. 1953. 24 Okla. B. A. J. 1333-48.

Henry, Leslie. When is a treaty selfexecuting? 1929. 27 Mich. L. Rev. 776-85.

Hershey, Amos S. Essential of international public law. New York, Macmillan. 1912.

Hershey, AmosS. The treatymaking power with special references to the United States. 1926. 1 Ind. L. J. 261-9.

Hill, H. c. Roosevelt and the Caribbean. Chicago. 1927.

Hinds, Ascher C. Hinds' precedents of the House of Representatives, vol. 2. Wash., G. P. 0., 1907.

Hoar, George. Autobiography of . seventy years. 2 v. New York, 1903.

Holman, F. E. American rights vs. "treaty law": case for the adoption of the Bricker amendment. 1953. 3 Freeman. 803-5.

Holman, F. E. An "International Bill of Rights": Proposals have dangerous implications for U. s. 1948. 34 A. B. A. J. 984-6, 1078-81.

Holman, F. E. Treaty lawmaking. Address. 1950. 36 A. B. A. J. 707-10.

Holman, F. E. Treaty law-a threat to American rights. 1952. J. B. A. Kan. 253-63.

Holman, F. E. Is the UN's Bill of Human Rights dangerous? 1949. 35 A. B. A. J. 288-90, 360-3.

Holman, F. E. Treaty law and the Constitution. 1953. Okla. Bar. A. J. 1333-48.

Holst, H. von. The constitutional law of the United States of America. Chicago, Callaghan & Co., 1867. , Holt, w. Stun. Treaties defeated by the Senate; a study of the struggle between President and Senate over the conduct of foreign relations. . Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press. 1933. 328 p.

Horwill, Herbert W. The usages of the American Constitution. Oxford Univ. Press. 1925.

Howland, Charles P. American foreign relations, 1931. New Haven, 1931.


Hudson, Manley 0. Charter provisions ~on Human Rights in American Law. 1950. 44 Am. J . Int. L. 543.

Hudson, Manley 0. The membership of the United States in the international labor organization. 1934. 28 Am. J. Int. L. 669.

Hudson, Manley 0 . Some problems under current discussion. Amer. Soc. of Int. L. Proceedings. 1952. 2-11.

Hudson, Manley 0 . The treat ymaking power of the United States in connection with manufacture of arms and ammunition. 1934. 28 Am. J. Int. L. 736--9.

Hughes, Charles Evans. The pathway of peace. New York, 1925.

Hulen, Bertram D. Inside the Dept. of State. New York, Whittlesey House. 1939. 328 p.

Hunt, Ga1llard. The Dept. of State of the United States. New Haven, 1914.

Hunt, Gaillard. The trea tymaking power. 1912. 94 Nation. 612.

Hyde, Charles Cheney. Constitutional procedures for international agreement by the United States. 1937. 31 Proc. Am. Soc. Int. L. 45.

Hyde, Charles Cheney. International law, chiefly as interpreted and applied by the United States. Boston, Little, Brown & Co .• 1945.

International agreements other than treaties-effect. 1953. 47 Amer. J . Int. L . 147.

Jackson , J . L. The tenth amendment versus the treatymaking power under the Constitution of the United States. 1928. 14 Va. L . Rev. 331-57, 441-69.

Jackson, S. W. Treaty powers amendment unnecessary. 1953. 22 J. B. A. Kan. 74-77.

Jefferson, Thomas. Writings, autobiography, correspondence, reports, etc. Wash., D . c., Taylor & Maury. 1853-54.

Jefferson, Thomas. Manual of parliamentary practice. Phila., 1840. 110 p.

Jefferson, Thomas. Writings. Edited by Paul Leicester Ford. Vols. VII, X. New York, G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1896.

Jessup, Philip Caryl. The conquering march of an idea; the universal declaration of human rights. 1949. 21 Dept. of State Bull. 432-5.

Jessup, Philip Caryl. A modern law of nations, an introduction. New York, Macmillan Co., 1948. 236 p.

Johnson, H. J., Jr. Federal treaty power; a constitutional wolf in sheep's clothing? 1950. 11 Ala. L. 123-32.

Johnson, W. F. American foreign relations. 2 v. New York, 1916.

Johnston, Henry P . Correspondence and public papers of John Jay. 4 vols. New York, 1890-1893.

Jones, J. M. Constitutional limitations on the treatymaking power. 1941. 35 Am. J. Int. L. 462-81.

Judicial review and the growth of the treaty power. 1952. 3 Syracuse L. Rev. 315-22.

Kearney, J. M. A proposed amendment to the Constitution; Senate Joint Resolution 130. 1953. 3 Catholic Univ. L. Rev. 43-50.

Kellogg, Frank B. Effect of reservations and amendments to treaties. 1919. 13 Amer. J. Int. L. 767.

Kellogg, Frank B. Treatymaking power. 1913. Amer. Bar Assn. 331-392.

Kelly, C. B. The treaty power: its scope and limitations under the Constitution. 1951. 19 George Wash. L. Rev. 422-38.

Kent, James. Commentaries on American law. 12th ed. vol. I. Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1873.

Kuhn, A. K. Supremacy of treaties over state laws in respect to the interstate estates of aliens. 1932. 26 Amer. J. Int. L . 348-51.

Kuhn, A. K. The treatymaking power and · the reserved sovereignty of the states. 1907. 7 Columbia L. Rev. 172-85.

Langhin, J. L., and Willis, H. P . Reciprocity. New York, Baker & Taylor Co. 1903.

Lashly, J. M. Should the treaty power be restricted? 1953. 39 Women L. J. 5-8. 23-25.

· Laski, Harold U. The American Presidency. N. Y. Harper. 1940.

Lawrence, William. The treaty power under the Constitution of the United States. Washington, 1871-1875.

Leake, Walter. The limitations upon the treatymaking power. 1915. 15 Va. L. Register. 72- 75.

Legal Committee acts on trea ty reservations. 1950. 9 U. N. Bull. 477- 8.

Legislative h istory of the Senate Committee on foreign relations. 82nd Cong. 2nd Sess. Sen. Doc. 161.

Lenoir, James J. The conclusions derived from treaty cases decided by t he United States Supreme Court. 1935. 7 Miss. L. J. 401-5.

Lenoir, James J. preme Court. 1934. 602-22.

Treaties and the Su-1 Univ. Chicago L. Rev.

Lesser, S. T. International law: treaty provisions dealing with the status of prewar bilateral trea ties. 1953. 51 Mich. L. Rev. 566-82.

Levi, Werner. Lawmaking treaties. 1944. 28 Minn. L. Rev. 247-54.

Levitan, David M. Executive agreements: a study of the executive in the control of the foreign relations of the United States. 1940. 35 Ill. L. Rev. 365.

Library of Congress. List of references on the treatymaking power. Washington, Govt. Printing Office. 1920.

Lodge, Hen ry Cabot. Selections from the correspondence of Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge. 2 vols. New York. 1925.

Lodge, Henry Cabot. The Senate and the League of Nations. New York. 1925.

Luce, Robert. Legislative problems. Hol..lghton Mifflin Co. Boston. 1935.

Lyle, J. E. Power of treaties. Address. 1952. 15 Tex. B. J . 419-21.

Lyman, Charles M. Bar Associations and the Bricker amendments. 1953. 27 Conn. Bar Journal. 393-406.

McBain, H. L. The living Constitution. New York. 1927.

McCall , Samuel W . The business of Congress. New York, Columbia Univ. Press. 1911.

MacChesney, B. Treatymaking powers and problems. 1950. 39 Ill. B. J. 8-13.

McClendon, R . Earl. The two-thirds rule in Senate actions upon treaties, 1789-1901. 1932. 26 Amer. J. Int. L. 37-56.

McClure, Wallace. International executive agreements. New York, Columbia Univ. Press. 1941. 499 p.

McCormick, J. Francis. Exclusive Federal jurisdiction over aviation via international treaties. 1935. 6 Air L. Rev. 13.

McDougal, Myres S., and Leighton, Gertrude C. K. Rights of man in the world community. 1949. 59 Yale L. J. 60-115.

McDougal , Myres S ., and Lans, A. Treaties and congressional-executive or presidential agreements; interchangeable instruments of national policy. 1945. 54 Yale L. J. 181-35( 534-615.

McLaughlin, Andrew C. A constitutional history of the United States. New York, D. Appleton-Century Co. 1935. 833 p.

Maclay, William. Sketches of debate In the First Senate. Harrisburg. 1880.

MacMaster, Donald. United States Senate and treatymaking powers. 1920. 2 J. Comp. Leg. and Int. L . 189-95.

McMaster, John Bach. History o-t the people of the United States. Vol. II. New York, D. Appleton & Co. 1885.

McNair, A. D. Effects of peace treaties upon private rights. 1941. 7 Camb. L. J. 379-98.

Madison, James. The debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. Mobile, A. Mygatt. 1842. 3 vols.

Madison, James. The journal of the debates in the convention. ed. by Gaillard Hunt. New York, G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1908.

Madison, James. The papers of Jam es Madison. Washington, Langtree & O'Sullivan. 1840.

Madison, James. Writings, ed. Gaillard Hunt. vol. VI. New York, G. P . Put nam·s Sons. 1906.

Magnusson, J . OUr membership in the United Nations and the federal treaty power under the Constitution. 1948. 34 Va. L. Rev. 137-64.

Mart in, Charles E. and George, William H. American government and citizenship. New York, Alfred A. Knopf. 1927.

Mathews, John M. American foreign relations: conduct and policies. New York, Appleton-Century. 1938. 766 p. . Mathews, John M. The joint resolution method. 1938. 32 Amer. J. Int. L. 349~52 .

Matthews, R. E. Bricker proposed const itutional amendment on treatymaking power discussed from both sides. 1953. 22 Hennepin Lawyer. 19- 22.

Merrill, M. H. Treaty law. What is bad about it? 1953. 24 Okla. B. A. J . 1465-70.

Mikell, William E. The extent of tbe treatymaking power of the President and Senate of the United States. 1909. 57 Univ. of Pa. L. Rev. 435-58.

Miller, David H. Treaties and other international acts of the United States of America. 1930. 24 Amer. J. Int. L. 241-63.

Milton, George F . The use of presidential power. Boston, Little, Brown & Co. 1944. 349 p.

Mitchell. N. P. State interests in American treaties. Richmond, Va., Garrett & Massie. 1936. 220 p .

Mitchell, W. D. The Constitution and the treaty to prevent war. 1945. 31 A. B. A. J. 59-62 . ..

Moore, John Bassett. A digest of international law. Washington, Govt. Printing Office. 1906. 8 vols.

Moore, John Bassett. History. and digest of the international arbitrations to which the United States has been a party. Washington, Govt. Printing Ofiice. 1898.

Moore, John Bassett. International law and some current illusions. New York. 1924.

Moore, John Bassett. Treaties and executive agreements. 1905. 20 Pol. Sci. Q. 385.

Morey, William Carey. The treatymaking power and the legislative authority of the states. Rochester, The Genesee Press, 1909. 10 p.

Morford, J . R. Constitutional amendment as to the ratification of treaties. 1944. 30 A. B. A. J . 605-7.

Morley, Felix. State of the nation; power to make treaties. 950. 38 Nation's Bus. 17-18.

Morley, Felix. Treaty law and the Constitution. 1953. American Enterprise Assn. (Nat. Econ. Problems Ser. no. 448) 52 p.

Morris, Herman W. Powers of Congress over treaties. 1903. N. Y. State Bar Assn. 95-115.

Morse, W. L. International justice through law. 1946. 26 Oreg. L. Rev. 7-38.

Morton, T. H. · International agreements and third states. 1953. 15 Ga. B. J. 417- 34.

Moskowitz, M. Is the U.N.'s bill of human rights dangerous? A reply to President Holman. 1949. 35 A. B. A. J. 238-8, 358-9.

Mowat, Robert B. Diplomatic relations between Great Britain and the United States. New York. 1925.

Mullen, J. M. Supreme law of the land. 1953. 39 va. L. Rev. 729-52.

Murdock, J. 0. Constitutionality of a treaty or an executive agreement with the United Nations to establish the "world capital" in the United States. 1947. 15 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 175-90.

Murphy, Jay. Review of: Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Committee -on Federal Legislation and Committee on International Law, Report on S. J. Res. 130. 1952. 5 Ala. L. Rev. 198-207.

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1227 Myers, Denys P .. Treaty and law under the

Constitution. 1952, 26 Dept. of State Bull. 371-76.

National supremacy; treaty power vs. state power. New York, H. Hoyt & Co. 1913. 321 p.

Naujoks, H. H. Compacts and agreements between states and between states and a foreign power. 1953. 36 Marq. L. Rev. 219-47.

Nevins, Allan. Henry White. New York. 1930.

New York County Lawyers Association considers treaty amendment. 1952. N.Y. County Bar Bull. 91 p.

New York State Bar Association. Committee on Amendments to the Federal Constitution. Report on proposed constitutional amendments relating to the making of treaties and their effect. June 1952. 47 p.

New York State Bar Association. Committee on International Law. Report on S. J. Res. 1, and discussion of resolution. Jan. 1953. 86 p.

Nigro, Feliz A. Senate confirmation and foreign policy. 1952. 14 J. Politics. 281-99.

Nutting, C. B. The treaty power: a legislative footnote. 39 A. B. A. J. 920-21.

Ober, F. B. The treatymaking and amending powers: do they protect our fundamental rights? 1950. 36 A. B. A. J. 715-19.

Ogg, Frederic A., and Ray, P. Orman. Introduction to . American government. 9th ed. and lOth ed. New York, AppletonCentury-Crofts, Inc. 1948 and 1951.

OliverrL. S. World government inevitable. 1950. 24 Temp. L. Q . 7-26.

On amending the treaty power. 1953. N. J. L. J. 5-6, 6-8.

Opinions of the Attorney General. vol. 6 1853-54.

Our system could be made' over by treaty. S. E. P. 1952. Kent B .. Assoc. 10.

Palmer, Norman D. and Perkins, Howard C. International relations. Wharton School of Finance and Commerce. Univ. of Pa. 1953.

Patch, B. W. Treaties and domestic law. 1952. Editorial Research Reports. 241-56.

Pearson, Theodore, and Backus, Dana Converse. Save the peace power: don't straitjacket treaties. 1953. 39 A. B. A. J. 804.

Pepper, George W. In the Senate. Phila-delphia, 1930. ·

Pergler, Charles. Limitations on the treatymaking power. 1925. 98 .Cent. L. J. 41.

Perkins, James A. Congressional Investigations of Matters of International Import, 1940. 34 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 284-294 p.

Perlman, P. B. On amending the treaty powers. 1952. 52 Columbia L. Rev. 825-68.

Phillips, D. W. Senate must recover its lost powers in treaty making. 1951. 223 _Sat. Eve. Post. 12.

Phillips, 0. L. Treaty-making power-a real and present danger. 1952. 29 Dicta. 397-405.

Pierce, Franklin. Federal usurpation. New York, D. Appleton & Co. 1908. 437 p.

Pomeroy, John Norton. An introduction to the constitutional law of the United States. 9th ed. Boston and New York, Houghton, Mifil.in & Co., 1886. 709 p.

Post, C. Gordon. Treaty versus statute. A note of Cook v. United States. No. 4. 1936. 16 S. W. Pol. & Soc. Sci. Qt. 65.

Post, · Russell L. Government spe'nding for general welfare . . 1935. 22 Virginia L. Rev. 1.

. Potter, D. R. Development of treaty procedure in the United States Senate. Address. 1936. 2 Fed. B. A. J. 325-30.

Potter, P. B. Inhibitions upon the treatymaking power of the United States. 1934. 28 Am. Int. Law. 456-74.

. Powers of the States-treaty-making power. 1918-. 27 Yale L. J. 406--407.

President withdraws obsolete treaties from the Senate. 1949. 21 U. S. St~te Dept. Bul. 316.

The President's control of .foreign relations. Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press., 1917. 2.16 p.

President's treatymaking power under fire. 1953. 11 Congressional Q. W. Rept. 502-4.

:r;>reuss, Lawrence. On amending the treaty-making power: A comparative study of the problem of self-executing treaties. 1953. 51 Mich. L. R. 1117-1142.

Preuss, Lawrence. Treaties. Address. 1951. 45 Amer. Soc. Int. L., Proceedings. 82.

Pringle, Harry J. Theodore· Roosevelt. New York, 1931.

The proposed constitutional amendment to restrict the use of the treaty power. 1952. 31 Cong. Digest. 257-288.

Proposed Constitutional Limitations on International Agreements. 38 Minn. L. Rev. 46-76.

Putney, Albert H. The police power of the states as restricted by the federal constitution. 1913. 20 Case and Comment. 310-315.

Putney, Bryant. Participation by Congress in Control of Foreign Policy. 1939. No. 18 Editorial Research Reports. 339-355.

Queens County Bar Association. Committee on American Principles. Report concerning the proposals by the United States to amend the constitution of the United States relative to the power of making treaties and executive agreements. 1953.

Rank, R. Modern war and the validity of treaties. 1953. 38 Cornell L. Q. 321-55.

Rawle, William. A view of the Constitution of the United States of America. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, P. H. Nicklin, 1829. 349 p.

Re, Edward D. Treaty-making power. 1954. 5 B'klyn Barrister. 106-112.

Reiff, Henry. The enforcement of multipartite administrative treaties in the United States. 1940. 24 Am. J. Internat. L. 661-79.

Report of the Committee on International Law and Relations on S. J. Res. 1. 1953. 13 Law. Guild Rev. 8-13.

Research in International Law of the Harvard Law School. Law of Treaties: Draft Convention, with Comment. 1935. 29 Am. J. Int. L. Supp., No. 4. 652-1226.

A review of the question, In whom has the constitution vested the treaty power? Philadelphia, printed by - Samuel Harrison Smith 1796. 35 p.

Rhyne, Charles. Statement for the U. S. Chamber of Commerce on the need for amendment of the treaty clause. 1953. 12 p.

Richardson, J. D. A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1902. Washington, D. C. 1905.

Richberg, D. R. Bricker amendment and the treaty power. 1953. 39 Va. L. Rev. 753-764.

Riley, Robert L. Treaties past and present. Missouri law review. 1952. 17 Mis-souri law review. 66-73. . . Rix, C. B. Human Rights and International Law: Effect of the Covenant Under Our Constitution. 1949. 35 A. B. A. J. 551-4, 618-20.

Rix, Carl B. Human rights and international law. 1949. Amer. Soc. Int. L .• Proceedings. 46-58.

Rix, Carl B. Treaty laws and the press. New York, 1953. 11 p.

Robinson, Chalf.onte. The treatymaking power of the House of Representatives, 1903 . 12 Yale L. Rev. 191.

Rogers, Lindsay. The American Senate. New York, Crofts, 1931. 285 pp.

Rogers, Lindsay. Senator Bricker finds a loophole. 1952. 7 Reporter. 31-33.

Rohrlich, C. Self-release from treaties. 1932. 66 U.s. L. Rev. 18-24 .

Roosevelt, Theodore. An autobiography. New York, The Macmillan Co., 1913.

Sandifer, Durward V. International prQ4 tection of ,human rights: the United Nations system. ·1949. · Amer. Soc. Int. L., Proceedings. 59-65.

Satterfield, John C., Sr. Constitutional amendment by treaty and executive agreement. 1953. 24 Miss. L. J. 280-294.

Sayre, F. B. Constitutionality of the Trade Agreements Act. 1939. 39 Columbia L. Rev. 751-775.

Schmidt, J. F. International Organization and the Senate. 1945. 19 Tenn. L. Rev. 29- 30. .

Schurz, Carl. Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers, ed. by Frederic Bancroft. 2 vols. New York, 1913.

Scott, James B. Treaty-Making Under the Authority of the United States, Its Use and Abuse. Washington, D. C., 1934. 36 pp.

Segal, M. Constitutional law-the United Nations Charter and the treaty power ••• 1953. 26 So. Calif. L. Rev. 175-186.

Self-execution of treaties under the United States Constitution. 1926. 26 Colum. L. Rev. 859-70. 1926. 25 Mich. L. Rev. 78-9.

Senate resolutions proposing restrictions on treatymaking powers. 1952. 26 Dept. State Bull. 952-61.

Separation of powers-current proposals to limit international compacts by United States Government. 1953. 29 N.D. L. Rev. 170-79.

Se.rgeant, Thomas. Constitutional law, Philadelphia, A. Small, 1822.

Should the Constitution be amended to limit the treaty-making power?-a symposium. E. P. Deutsch, G. A. Finch, J. L. Call, H. C. Dillard, Q. Wright. 1953. 26 So. Calif. L. Rev. 347-395.

Should the constitutional treaty power be preserved? 1945. 24 Cong. Digest. - 99-128.

Should the treaty authority of the United States Senate be curtailed? 1943. Cong. Digest.

Simpson, W. H. Legal aspects of executive agreements. 24 Ia. L. Rev. 67-88.

Simpson, W. H. Uses of executive agreements in the settlement of International reclamations. 1938. 8 Detroit L. Rev. 23-38.

Skillin, E., Jr. Postwar treaty making; inquiry into current American procedure in the light of present needs. 1943. 39 Commonweal. 110-112. · Smith, Justin H. The Annexation of

Texas. New York, 1911. Spindler, J. F. Executive agreements and

the ·proposed constitutional amendments to the treaty power. 1953. 51 Mich.· L. Rev. 1202-17. -

Stason, E. B. Forum on Current Problems in International Law. 1948. 47 Mich. L. Rev. 1-71.

Stinson, Joseph Whitla.· The Supreme Court and the treaties. 1924. 73 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1.

Stinson, Joseph Whitla. Treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States. 1923. 7 Minn. L. Rev. 113. .

Stone, I. M. The House. of Representatives and the treaty-making power. 1929. 17 Ky. L. J. 216-57.

Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Boston. Little, Brown & Company. 1891. 2 vols.

Sturges, W. A. World Law and Order-The Quest for. 1948. 22 Tul. L. Rev. 558-68.

Sutherland, · A. E. The Bricker Amendment, executive agreements, and imported potatoes. 1953. 67 Harv. L. Rev. 281-92.

Sutherland, A. E., Jr. Restricting the treaty power. 1952. 65 Harvard L. Rev. 1305-8.

Sutherland, George. Constitutional power and world affairs. New York, Columbia Univ. Press, 1919. 202 p.

Sutherland, William Angus. Notes on the Constitution of the United States. San Francisco, Bancroft-Whitney Co., 1904. .973 p. .

Taf.t, William Howard. Four aspects of civil duty. New York, Charles Scribner's Sons. 1908.

1228 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE February 3 Taft, William Howard. Our chief magis

trate and his powers. New York, Columbia Uriiv. Press. 1916.

T a nsill, C. C. The Treat y-Making Powers of the Senate. 1924. 18 Amer. J. of Int. La w. 459.

Teller, Henry M. Power of Congress over treaties. 42 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 6461-6463 .

Tennant, J. S. .Judicial process of treaty interpretation in the Unit ed States Supreme Court. 1932. 30 Mich. L . Rev. 1016-39. ' Tha cher, Archibald G. The North Atlantic

Treaty: "Shield against aggression." New York, Purcell-Davison. 1949. 50 p.

Thayer, William Roscoe. Life and Letters of .John Hay. 2 vols. Boston, 1912.

Thirion, N. B. Conflict Between Treaties, Federal and State Laws. 1944. 19 Notre Dame Lawyer. 305-9.

Thompson, B . M. The power of the Senate to amend a treaty. 1905. 3 Mich. L. Rev. 427-441.

Thompson, G. Constitutional law-separation of powers-current proposals to limit international compacts by the United States government. 1953. 29 N.D. L. Rev. 170-9.

Thompson, L. L. State sovereignty and the treaty making power. 1923. 11 Calif. L. Rev. 242--58.

Thorpe, Francis Newton. The constitutional history of the United States. 1765-1895. Chicago, Callaghan & Co., 1901. 3 v. . T11fany, .Joel. A treatise on government,

and constitutional law. Albany, W. C. Little, 1869.

Tondel, L. M., .Jr. Law by treaty and the Constitution. 1952. U. S. A. 14-21.

Treaties, conventions, international acts, protocols and agreements. Edited by WilHam M. Malloy. Washington, G. P. 0 ., 1910. 2 vols. . Treaties and executive agreements. Sen

ate Hearing before a Subcommittee of the Comm. of the .Judiciary on S . .r. Res. 1 and 43. 83 .1.

Treaties and other international acts of the United .States. Edited by Hunter Miller. Washington, G. P. 0. 1933.

Treaties and the Constitution-alien property rights. 1937. 37 Colum. L. Rev. 1361-73.

Treaty makers need Senators' help. 1945. 217 Sat. Eve. Post. 104.

Treaty-making power. 1945. 412 Int. ConcH. 434-5. . Treaty-making power: a rejoinder. 1914. 199 N. Am. Rev. 893-901.

The treaty-making power. Can the President and Senate set aside the law and estab-1ish free-trade? H}02·. 29 Am. Econ. 62--63.

Treaty-Making Power-Effect of Treaty on State Alien Land Law. 1948. 2 Rutgers U. L. Rev. 273-6.

The treaty making power of the United States. New York, The Banks Law Publishing Co., 1907. 62 p.

Treaty making powers of the United States Senate; fact material and pro and con discussion. 1943. 22 Cong. Digest. 227-56.

The treaty-making powers under the Constitution. 1901. 11 Yale L. J. 69-79.

Treaty Power-Its Scope and Limitations Under the Constitution. 1951. 19 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 422-38.

Tucker, Henry St. George. Constitutionality of the covenant of the League of Nations. 1919. 89 Central L . .r. 79. . Tucker, Henry St. George. Limitations on the treaty-making power under the Constitution of the United States, Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 1915. 444 p.

Tucker, Henry St. George. Treaty making power under the constitution. U. S. Congress 63.2 Senate Doc. 539. 11 p.

Tucker, Henry St. George. View of the Constitution of the United States. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries. 140-377. Philadelphia. 1803. ' Tucker, John Randolph. The Constitution of the United States. Chicago, Callaghan & Co., 1899. 2 v.

Unconstit utional treaties. 1834. 11 Am. .Jurist. 305-308.

United Nations Charter-Its Application as a Tieaty to State Law. 1950. 30 B. U. L. Rev. 555--61.

U. S. Congress. House. Committee on the .Judiciary. Amendment to Constitut ion rela tive to the m a king of treaties. Hearings before the subcommittee no. 3 on H . .r. Res. 6 . . 78.2 1944. Supt. of Doc. , Washington, D . C. 141 p.

U. S. Congress. House. Committee on the .Judicia r y. Amendment to the Constitution with respect to t reaty ratification. Report to accompany H . .r. Res. 603. 79.1 H. Rept. 139. Washingt on, D. C. 10 p. . U . S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the

Judiciary. Constitutjonal amendment relative to treaties and executive agreements. Report together with minority views to accompa n y S . .r. Res. 1. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1953. 63 p. 83d Cong., 1st Sess. Senate. Report no. 412.

U.S. Con gress. Senate. Committee on the .Judiciary. Treaties and executive agreements. Hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on the .Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-third Congress, first session, on s . .r. Res. 1. February 18, 1953. Washington , U . S. Govt. Print. Off., 1953. 1267 p.

U. S. Congress. Senate. Compilation of treaty reservations. S. Document 135 66.1. 1919, 10 p.

U.S. Dept. of State-Statement before subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on S . .r. Res. 1 and S. J. Res. 43. April 6 , 1953.

U. S. Dept. of State-The treatymaking J}ower in various countrl.es. Washington, U . S. Govt. Print. Off., 1919. 89 p.

United States-Foreign Relations. Recognition. Power of the President to Negotiate Treaties, and Methods "or Recognizing a New State. Washington, Govt. Printing 011ice. 1921. 56 p.

Vailance, · W. R. Two-thirds Rule as to Treaties-A Change Atfirmed. 1945. 68 N.Y. S . B. A. 184-92.

Vanderbilt, A. T. The doctrine of the separation of powers and its present day significance. 1952. Univ. of Nebraska. 144 p.

Vanderlip, F. A. Back to the Constitution. 1923. 9 Amer. B. A . .r. p. 339.

Van Der Zan den, .Jan. . Trea,ties prevail over national law (Verdrag gaat voor wer, ook in nationali rechlsbetrekkinsis). 1952. · Zwolle. W. E . .r. Tjeek Willink. 506-508.

Van Meter, W . G. Obligations of the United States under the ILO social security convention (dangers of the treatymaking process as a substitute for Congressional_ legislation ... ] .Jan.-Feb. 1953. Am. Econ. Security. 33--8.

Virginia Law Register. (Editorial) Can an unconstitutional law be made constitutional by a treaty? 1918. 4 Virginia L. Register. 305-307. · Wagner, Wienczyslav .r. The Colonial Airlines case : treaties and executive agreements · relating to aviation. 1952. Wash. U. L. Q. 211-38.

Warner, Charles. Presidential declaration of independence. · 1930. 10 Boston Univ. L. Rev. · Warren, Charles. The Mississippi River and the treaty clause of the constitution. 1934. 2 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 271.

Warren, Charles. The Making of the Constitution. Boston, Little·, Brown & Company. 1937. 832 p.

Washington, George. Writings, ed. by Jared Sparks. Vol. II. New York, Harper & Bros. 1848.

Watson, David Kemper. The Constitution of the United States, its history, application and construction. Chicago, Callaghan & Co. 1910. 2 v.

Webster, Bethuel M. Amend in haste, repent at leisure. Notes for a discussion of current proposa ls to amend the Constitution at the meeting of the New York State Bar Association. 1953. 4 p.

Webster, Bet huel. M. Let's take a good look. Notes for a speech on current proposals to amend t he Constitution at the annual meeting of the American Newspaper Publishers Associa tion. 1953. 9 p .

Weinfeld, A. C. Are labor conditions a proper subject of international conventions? 1935. 24 Calif. L. Rev. 275-87.

Weinfeld , Abraham C. What Did the Framers of the Federal Constitution Mean

~ by "Agreements or Compacts"? 1936. 3 U. of Chi. L . Rev. 453.

Welch, T . .r. Treaties and executive agreements. 1953. 41 Ill. B . .r. 93-4.

Wharton, Francis. Digest of International Law. 8th ed . Edited by Richard Henry Dana, Jr. Boston , Lit tle, Brown & Co., 1866.

What should we do about Bricker amendment? Preser ve the treatymaking power, by D. C. Backus; Curtail the treatymaking power, by John W. Bricker. 1953. For. Pol. Bul. 4-6.

Wheeler, Paper on treatymaking power of the Government of the United States in its intern~tional aspect. London, 1907.

Wheeler, Everett P. The treatymaking power of the Government of the United States in its international aspects. 1908. 17 Yale L . .r. 151-161.

When are Treaties Self-Executing? 1952. 31 Nebraska Law Rev. 463-474.

When self-executing, treaties relating to patent rights. 1930. 28 Mich. L. Rev. 630--1.

Whitlow, J . M. Should the treaty clause of the U. S. Constitution be amended in the light of the provision of the United Nations Qharter? 1953. 31 Phi Delta Delta. 9-15.

Whittington, W. V. Treaties and their legal effects. 1940. 2 U. S. Dept. State Bul. 502-6.

Wickersham, George W. The Senate and Our Foreign Relations. 1923. 2 Foreign Affairs. 177-192 .

Wiggins, P . K. The treatymaking poweris a co_nstitutional amendment necessary? 1953. Bklyn. Bar. 110--17.

WILEY, ALEXANDER. America's legal experts oppose Bricker amendment 15-o. Remarks in the Senate. 1953. 99 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 8584-8587.

WILEY,, ALEXANDER. Se~ate joint resolution 1-refutation of comments by Senator Bricker on minority views of Senate .Judiciary Committee. Extension of remarks. 1953. 99 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, . AppendiX. A4375-A4379.

Willoughby, W. W. The making of the Constitution. 2nd ed. New York, 1929.

Willoughby, Westel Woodbury. The Constitutional Law of the United States. New York, Baker, Voorhis & Company. 1910. 2 vols.

Willoughby, Westel Woodbury. Principles of Legislative Organization and Administration. The Brookings Institution. Washington. 1934.

Wilson, James, and M'Kean, Thomas. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States of America. London. Printed for .r. Debrett, 1792.

Wilson, Robert R. Access-to-courts provisions in United States commercial treaties. 1953. 47 Amer. J . Int. L. 20-48.

Wilson, Robert R. The ·international law standard in treaties of the United States. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. 1953. 321 p. . Wilson, Woodrow. Constitutional Government in the United States. New York, Colum.bia Univ. Press. 1921.

Wise, .r. C. Unconstitutionality of "foreign legislative contracts." 1932. 18 Va. L. Rev. 875-85.

Wood, T . A. The Federal treaty power and the reserved powers of the States. 1953. 21 J. B. A. Kan. 277-81.

Woolsey, Theodore S. Treatymaking under the United States Constitution. 1902. No. 40 Journal of Social Science. 83- 95.

Wright, H . Two-thirds Vote of the Senate in Treatymaki.ng. "1944. 38 Am. J. Int. Law. 643-50.

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1229 Wright, Quincy. Congress a:hd the ratifi

cation of treaties-the U. S. and international agreements. 1945. 411 Int. Council. 363-98.

Wright, Quincy. Congress and the treatymaking power. · 1952. Amer. Soc. Int. Law. Proceedings. 43-58.

Wright, Quincy. Constitutional pro-cedure· in the United States for carrying our obligations for military sanctions. 1944. 38 Amer. J. Int. L. p. 678.

Wright, Quincy. Constitutionality of treaties. 1919. 13 Amer. J. Internat. L. 242-66.

Wright, Quincy. The Control of American Foreign Relations. New York, Macmillan. 1922, 412 p.

Wright, Quincy. Treaties and the constitutional separation of powers. 1918. 12 Amer. J. Int. L. p. 64

Wright, Quincy. The United States and International Agreements. 1944. 38 Am. J. Int. L. 341.

Wriston, Henry M Executive Agents in American Foreign Relations. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins Press, 1929. 874 p.

Young, Richard. The development of international law. 1952. 38 A. B. A. J. 513-15.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre

sentatives, by Mr. ·Bartlett, one of its clerks, announced that the House had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill <S. 15> to provide for the appointment of -additional circuit

-and district judges, and for other pur-poses.

ANNOUNCEMENT AS TO EVENING SESSIONS

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I wish to make an announcement to the Senate on the program of the Senate for the remainder of the week.

Last evening I gave notice that the Senate would be in session this evening. I expect that the Senate will stay in session at least until 7 o'clock this evening, and perhaps a little later. I am trying to make some adjustments for the convenience of Senators. who had made commitments prior to my announcement of yesterday; but, -we shall remain in session at least until 7 o'clock this evening. If we do not stay in session later this evening, it is my intention to ask the Senate to meet at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, in order to make up for any time we may lose this evening, and we will definitely have a night session tomorrow night. I hope Senators will be prepared to stay in session tomorrow at least until 9:30 or 10 o'clock in the evening.

Unless we can move along expeditiously on the pending business, it is planned to meet on Friday and, if necessary, on Saturday. I hope Senators will adjust their commitments so that they will be available and will be prepared to vote on some of the amendments to the pending legislation.

I have ·been trying, both last year and this year, to keep Senators as fully advised in advance as it is possible for me to do. I am sure Senators understand that to predict with any degree of accuracy what will happen in this body is rather difficult, but all of us have seen debate run along for a great many days.

and then have voting start and legislation move along fairly rapidly. I shall keep the Senate advised as fully as possible as the situation develops.

AMENDMENT · TO THE CONSTITUTION RELATING TO TREATIES AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS The Senate resumed the consideration


Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, it now appears that we have finally arrived at the point where we shall vote on the Bricker amendment and on the amendments offered to the Bricker amendment, as well as on substitute proposals and on amendments in the second degree.

I am glad that we have at long last arrived at the terminal point in the deliberations and that we will once and for all give a timely funeral service to this carcass, which needs to be buried in the annals of the Congress. I refer to the Bricker amendment.

In the last week or two the issue has not been the legal principle involved in the Bricker amendment. The issue has been, ·~can we get someone to accept such and such an amendment." We read in the newspapers about compromises. The terminology of the Bricker amendment has literally · become meaningless.

Mr. President, I feel that the adoption of the Bricker am'endment would be a constitutional tragedy. · The amendment has become a constitutional farce. if I may use words of the Greek drama. Some persons even think it is a comedy. But it is not a comedy. It is deadly serious business.

We are engaged in a word game: Will some Member of this great body acce-pt a particular word? Will such and such an amendment be acceptable to Senator So and So? ·

I say that is not the proper way to amend the Constitution. It may be an acceptable way of amending a simple, minor law. But, Mr. President, we are talking about the fundamental law of this land. Amending the Constitution of the United States requires and deserves careful, judicious, and considered judgment, not clever politics.

I say-and I say it with full recognition of its import and of its meaningthat what we have witnessed in recent days is a desire, on the issue which has been presented, to have unity in the ranks of the Republican Party at the expense of the Constitution and the country. No one can deny that it is party unity which the Republican leadership has been attempting to accomplish. It has tried in one way or another to compromise something that cannot be compromised.

I believe the distinguished Senator from Ohio [Mr. BRICKER] is sincere in his effort. I disagree with his purpose and his effort, but I have admiration for him in his unwillingness to compromise on the purposes and objectives he has set forth.

I say that the President of the United States has shown courage in not being willing to compromise on what he believes to be the heart of the issue.

I also say that it would disgrace this great body if it tried to write, in the lobbies and in the private meeting halls, words and language which will in one way or another say something to the public and to an individual Member of the Senate, but which it is not intended to say so far as court interpretation of the Constitution is concerned.

I regret that we have come to this position. Therefore I must say that it is my purpose and my responsibility and privilege to vote against many of the amendments pertaining to the Bricker amendment.

Legal principle has been surrendered to political expediency. I further point out, as I shall develop in my remarks, what is really behind the Bricker amendment, is not so much constitutional reform as it is a rallying ground on the part of some-! repeat, on the part of some-for a "new-look isolationism," a new brand, a new ground, and a new center of activity.

Mr. President, I speak today in the role of a conservative. By definition, a ''conservative" is one who hesitates to accept change. But its verb form, "to conserve," means to "preserve from injury or destruction." Today, the object of injury or destruction is the Constitution of the United States. The injuries and destructive force is the so-called Bricker amendment.

Where does the Bricker amendment strike at our Constitution? Threatened is one of the fundamental characteristics of our fabric of government, if not the most fundamental-the doctrine of the separation of powers. So ingrained in the thinking of the Founding Fathers was this doctrine that the actual arrangement of the Constitution devoted article I to the legislative branch, article II to the executive branch, and article III to the judiciary. Not only was the separation of powers the existing practice and the prevailing political theory. but it represented sound psychological observations-for the Founding Fathers. and their descendants after them, well knew that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The Articles of Confederation failed in the early days of our Republic largely because of their inability to deal with foreign affairs.

I digress at this point to say that the Articles of Confederation were our first Constitution. That first Constitution broke up on the rocks of the abuse of power on the part of many States. It was because of the failure of the Articles of Confederation that men like George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton called for the Constitutional Convention. They had specific objectives in mind, not based on any theoretical doctrine, but on practical experience.

It is amazing to me that in view of the history of this Nation-a history which is known by every high-school student--that we are now talking about an amendment which would take us back on the long return journey to some o:!

1230 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE February 3 the conditions -that existed before the great Constitution of the United States, which is our fundamental law today, was adopted.

Treaties and their enforcement was one of the most urgent problems that faced the Constitutional Convention in 1787. When the written document emerged from the secrecy that shrouded Philadelphia, article II, section 2, read: "The President shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided twothirds of the Senators present concur." Clearly, the treatymaking power had been vested in the Executive.

Mr. President, anyone who examines Madison's notes-he was the official recorder for the Constitutional Convention-knows that the powers of the Executive were hotly and clearly debated, and that the treatymaking powers under the Constitution were the subject of careful and extensive deliberation.

In vesting the treaty power in the Executive, our Founding Fathers accepted the universal custom of sovereignties to vest the treaty power in the executive branch of Government. There was another powerful and compelling reason to do so-the President, elected by ·an the people, alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the Nation.

Mr. President, I desire to raise my voice in this Hall today to say that the President of the United States is the one officer of the Government who is elected by all the people. He is the one officer who can truly represent the Nation. One development which I have seen appearing on the political horizon through the years is that some Members of the Senate have begun to feel that they represent the whole Nation. But while we may have powerful constituencies, and while there are Members of this body who have great experience and a tremendous wealth of knowledge, the President of the United States is the only national officer in the Government of the United States elected by the majority of all the people.

As a Member of this body I refuse to place myself in the position of denying to the President, as the leader of the Nation, the authority and the responsibility which he needs to conduct the affairs of this great Republic.

John Marshall, one of the greatest of all Americans, told the House of Representatives in his memorable argument of March 7, 1800, which will be found in the Annals of the Congress of the United States, Sixth Congress, at page 613:

The President is the sole organ of the Nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations. Of consequence, the demand of a foreign nation can only be made on him.

He possesses the whole executive power. He holds and directs the force of the Nation. Of consequence, any act to be performed by the force of the Nation is to be performed through him.

Mr. President, I think it would be well for the Congress of the United States to realize the meaning of John Marshall's words. The President is the Commander in Chief. the sole spokesman for this

Nation in the field of foreign affairs. To be sure, there have been many selfappointed spokesmen in recent years, but it is only our President who can really speak with authority for this Nation in the field of foreign affairs.

But the vital principle of checks and balances does not allow the President free rein. His treaties must meet with the approval of two-thirds of the Senators present. We all know that the Senate has been called the graveyard of treaties. John Hay even went so far as to say-and I quote what I consider to be a choice statement from one of the writings of John Hay:

A treaty entering the Senate is like a bull going into an arena. No one can say just how or when the final blow will fall. But one thing is certain: it will never leave the arena alive.

Mr. Hay was a little uncharitable, I would say, and the facts of history do not fully substantiate his statement, but he knew that the Senate of the United States, if it performs its duty, if it does its job, can protect every liberty of the American people in the treatymaking process. The fact that some Senators may not be present is another matter. The Constitution has no way of sending out the arm of the law, so to speak, to see that Senators are present. But the Constitution does provide that treaties shall be examined and scrutinized and finally ratified or rejected, depending for ratification upon the votes of two-thirds of the Members of the Senate.

I think it is fair to add that seldom does one political party have two-thirds of the Members of this body. So, as a great historian, Mr. Henry Steele Commager, has said in an article which came to my attention a few days ago, most treaties in our country, in fact, all treaties, have been bipartisan-or should one say nonpartisan?

The vital principle of checks and balances, as I have said, does not allow the President free rein,

In spite of these facts, however, supporters of the Bricker amendment are today asking us to change our traditional executive-legislative balance in treatymaking. Ironically, under the pressure of an atomic-age cold war, the Senate is not only being asked for a vote of no confidence in the Executive. but in itself as well. ·

I hope the people of the United States realize that when we talk about amend-

. ing the treatymaking process what we are really saying is that we cannot trust ourselves, despite the record, and despite the facts.

When anyone proposes a basic change in the fundamental law of the land, the burden of proof rests upon him who proposes it to show a clear and present danger to our liberties and to demonstrate the absolute necessity for the fundamental change, because, as the distinguished Senator from West Virginia [Mr. KILGORE] pointed out, we are not discussing a statute; it is not a city ordinance or a ruling made by county commissioners, but it is a proposed amendmen£ to· the basic iaw of the! ·land.

No longer, say those who support the Bricker amendment. can we put our

trust in the President, who negotiates treaties, or in the Senate. which confirms them.

Let . us take a look at some history. There are men who have studied this subject so well and so long that they have literally written voluminous manuscripts, literary gems of debate. I mentioned Henry Steele Commager as one of the great historians, and I think most persons of objective mentality will agree that he is a learned scholar and a great historian. Here is what he had to say:

There is nothing essentially new about the so-called Bricker amendment, which proposes strict limitations on the power of the President in making agreements with foreign governments. The fathers of the Constitution knew well the dangers that threatened the rights of individuals and States from a Central Government with extensive powers, and they threw all necessary safeguards around those rights. They knew, too, the threat to the Union and to order from feebleness and imbecility in the condP.ct of foreign relations, and they took care that the Federal Government should be supreme in diplomacy. They had watched the frustration of treaties by States claiming to be sovereign and the decline of the prestige and power of the Confederation in its relations with other governments, and they determined to put an end to this intolerable situation. They provided, therefore, that treaties should be the law of the land and should take precedence over all State laws.

But because the treatymaking power was, 1nevitably, supreme and extensive, the fathers carefully safeguarded its exercise. What are the safeguards? After a treaty has been negotiated by the President, it must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senators present. As a single party rarely commands a twothirds majority, this means that it must have bipartisan support. It must be constitutional, or the courts will hold it void. If it turns out to be a really dangerous treaty, Congress can impeach the President who was responsible for it. It must ordinarily be carried out through legislation, and when Congress comes to vote funds for its administration, that body has another ch~nce to pass upon its merits. If it is found to be unsatisfactory in whole or in part, it can be modified or even repudiated by law. Such an action would constitute a grievance for the other contracting nation. but no one doubts its legality.

The fathers, then, g·ave amplest authority to the President to conduct foreign relations, and to the Senate to confirm such treaties as negotiated, and then placed careful safeguards around these powers.

Has anything happened in 166 years to suggest that the fathers went wrong on all this?

Who is it here who says that Washington, Franklin, and Madison were wrong? What is their evidence? Suspicion? Is it purely hypothetical?

Mr. President, the burden of proof rests upon those who propose the change.

Mr. Commager says: Has the Constitution, otherwise the object

of admiration and reverence, here proved to be a failure?

Has the treatymaking power in fact, been-as its critics now so vigorously assert--the Trojan horse of the Constitution? Have President and Senate forfeited Ameri-

' can liberties, , surrendered the constitutional rights of . American citizens, and invaded the proper area of State governments through the_ abuse of the treaty power?

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1231 There is evidence that the United

States Senate has abused the rights of more citizens than have the constitutional procedures of treatymaking.

If we wish to do something about procedure, I suggest we legislate some procedures for Senate committees. That is where good work could be ·done. The record there is, at least, a record filled with examples of abuse of power.

But there is not one instance of a treaty ever having been declared by a court to be unconstitutional. There is not one example of a treaty of the United States giving away the rights of the people of the United States of America, unless someone intends to say that a ban on the right to hunt ducks at certain times in Missouri is a fundamental loss of American liberty.

Mr. Commager points out: In the last century and a half the United

States has concluded something like 900 treaties and perhaps twice that many executive agreements. If the treaty power is the Trojan horse that its critics now assert, certainly that fact must have been apparent during those years. Surely there is at least one treaty that the critics can cite as evidence of a foreign violation of the Constitution or an invasion of liberties of the citizen.

I say to my colleagues who are lawyers that if they were to go into court with such flimsy evidence, the judge would rule the case out of court before the hearing even began.

A bill of particulars is at least a basic ingredient of a court case; there must be more than an assumption of guilt, or a suspicion of guilt. The supporters of the Bricker amendment present a long list of purely hypothetical dangers. Mr. Commager gives us some very good examples of hypothetical dangers. What are they?-

There is no mystery about them. They are the dangers anticipated from membership in the United Nations. They are · the dangers anticipated from ratification of that body's Draft Covenant on Human Rights, or perhaps from its Genocide Convention.

Mr. President, these are all legal instruments or documents which are before the American people. All of them still await Senate action. As the situation· stands, it looks as though they will have a long wait before there will be any action. The fact that there has not been any action indicates that the Senate of the United States is very jealous of its powers when it comes to the ratification of treaties ..

They are the old isolationist fears of international commitments, particularly in the field of human rights. Thus, Frank E. Hallman, past president of the American Bar Association and one of the most vigorous advocates of the Bricker amendment, wrote of those who object to bowdlerizing-

That is a new word for me-the Constitution that "They belong to the school of thought that has become so internationally minded that it believes world peace can be achieved by recognizing in the President unlimited power to give America away at the international conference tabl~."

Mr. President, I am always amused by statements of how much of America we seem to be giving away. The rest of the world js poor and weak. Much

of the world is on the verge of bankruptcy. Yet every time anybody wants to appeal to the emotions of the Ameri"can people, the statement is made that we have given everything away. Yet here we are, the richest and most powerful nation on the face of the earth.

Much of mankind is sick, hungry, impoverished, bankrupt, with very few exceptions. We have been sitting at conference tables With other nations for 166 years. Yet, here we stand, the mightiest Nation on the face of the earth, the richest people in God's great kingdom. We are the most blessed people, with the greatest abundance the world has ever known. Yet some people say we are giving everything away. · As a matter of fact, it seems to me we have gained quite a little. I have never known a good Yankee who did not make a good trade. We are quite proud of our ability to be good businessmen and good traders.

I shall return later to the article by Mr. Commager. He speaks a lot of good sense. But first I wish to speak about the effects of the Bricker amendment.

The effects of the Bricker amendment would be to require treaties that affect internal law, after going through the usual senatorial "arena," to be either passed by both Houses of Congress, or to be approved by the 48 State legislatures.

This is a basic, fundamental change in constitutional doctrine and practice. Let us not forget that the treatymaking power is exclusively a Federal power. A war was fought to obtain that powera war of revolution and independence. A Constitution was written to provide that power, and a Constitution was ratified to get it. In fact, Mr. President, the War of 1812, and, indeed, the secessionist movement and the Hartford convention, threatened the supremacy of Executive power in matters of foreign relations.

There has been plenty of trouble in the United States over this power, but it has been maintained. . As one Member of the Senate, I do not

intend to cast any vote that will weaken that power.

It is strange that some persons, who have raised their voices as lovers of the Constitution, are the first to want to weaken and injure it.

Once we change the balance of power, once we change the doctrine of the separation of powers, we will have put the constitutional system of the United States off balance.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr.HUMPHREY. !yield. Mr. KENNEDY. If we should proceed

on the assumption that the President and two-thirds of the Senate would accept a treaty which contravened the basic rights of the American people, 1t would be equally possible to assume that the President arid the Senate would destroy the freedom of the Supreme Court by packing the Supreme Court.

There is an equal danger that the House and Senate together, by a twothirds vote, would impeach the President, and thus destroy his independent power.

It is equally possible that the House might refuse to appropriate money, and

,.

that, therefore, all possible effects of the foreign policy which depended at all on appropriations could be denied by action ·Of the House.

In other words, our constitutional system is not only a system of checks, balances, and laws, but it also presumes, as the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FuLBRIGHT] said yesterday, the existence of rational men.

If we assume that the President is ·corrupted and that- two-thirds of the Senate is corrupted, then it seems to me there is no hope of survival of the constitutional system.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I wish to thank the Senator from Massachusetts. He has made a profound observation. He has gone to the whole heart of the system of democratic, representative government. It is a question whether people can live, not only within the letter of the law, but also within the spirit of thelaw. -

Mr. President, I do not suppose there is any constitution that can guard against every contingency. No constitution can guard against even ordinary contingencies. As the Senator from Massachusetts has pointed out, sometimes we must take our chances on happenings, trusting to experience and trusting to common sense and human decency, trusting to the integrity of public officials and the virtue of the people. If we lose the integrity of public officials and the virtue of the people, we do not have a democracy. We may have a scrap of paper; we may have representative governnent; but we will have lost the real meaning of it.

What are the treaties that affect internal law? The Association of the Bar of the City of New York believes that if the Bricker amendment were adopted we would not be able to make treaties concerning the allocation of radio frequencies, or to adopt uniform quarantine regulations, because they affect internal law.

I am not an expert in these matters • I am simply saying that the Association of the Bar of the City of New York says that the part of the Bricker amendment pertaining to internal law might make it impossible to make treaties pertaining to allocations of radio frequencies or quarantine regulations, because they all affect internal law.

The State Department believes we could not make treaties relating to the control of atomic energy, because such treaties would affect internal law. Let us assume that we wanted to make a treaty to insure a f~ll-scale investiga .. tion, to provide a full-scale opportunity to search out and see where there were atomic energy plants. We have been saying to the Soviet pnion, "If we have a pact providing for international control of atomic weapons, we want literally to go into your country and investi· gate to see whether you are pulling a fast one on us, to see whether you have dismantled such plants, and to see whether or not you are going to engage in peaceful pursuits."

If we are to make such a request of · Rus8ia, they are gojng to ask for the same right. Such a situation affects internall~w. because the States, under the


Constitution, have the right to regulate affairs within their own borders. They have police power.

Prof. Zechariah Chaffee of the Har,.. vard Law School believes that we could not make certain types of treaties of commerce, ownership, and inheritance of land abroad, and for the carrying out of business and professions abroad because they affect internal law. The distinguished chairman of our Foreign Relations Committee has even said that treaties for the international control of narcotics and international extradition of criminals might not be made because they affect internal law.

It is indeed possible that all these types of treaties will be prevented or impeded under the proposed amendment. But the fact remains that no one knows the exact extent that the internal law clause of the Bricker amendment would affect treaties. Is it not remarkable that we are now discussing the passage of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States and we cannot say definitely what will be affected by it?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield for a question?

Mr. HUMPHREY. . I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Am I correct in understanding that under the international narcotics treaty the countries which are signatory thereto bind themselves to prevent the growth of poppies to be used in producing opium?

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. DOUGLAS. Countries which are

centralized can, of course, by treaty, bind their whole nation. But suppose the Bricker amendment were to be ratified. Then, since the power to control the growth of poppies is not a Federal function, and is not delegated under section 8 of article I of the Constitution, and since the lOth amendment says that powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government are presumed to rest in the State and in the people, that would mean that the States would have complete control as to whether or not poppies should be grown. Is that the Senator's understanding?

Mr. HUMPHREY. That would be my understanding.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Such a treaty, in order to be effective under the second section of the Bricker amendment, not only would have to be ratified by the Senate, but enabling legislation would have to be passed by both Houses of Congress, and then enabling legislation would have to be passed by each of the 48 States. Is that the view of the Senator from Minnesota?

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is the view held by the junior Senator from Minnesota. It is also the view of the dean of the Harvard Law School. It seems to be the view of most people who have studied the question.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The result would be, at best, a great delay, would it not?

Mr. HUMPHREY. That surely would be the result, for many of the State legislatures meet only once every 2 years.

Mr. DOUGLAS. In some cases the failure of States to act would mean that poppies could be grown for the produc-

tion of opium within their borders. Is that not correct?

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. DOUGLAS. Under those condi

tions, where the foreign countries would be bound by treaties, but we would not be bound by them, to what degree would the foreign nations be willing to enter into treaties with us?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I think I would be going into the realm of speculation to venture an answer. However, in my opinion, it must be obvious to all that foreign countries woul<i be reluctant to enter into such treaties, because they would not be sure we would ratify such a treaty, or that the treaty would be operative.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Is not the same question involved in the case of ownership of land by aliens, rights of aliens to do business, and rights of aliens to inherit property, together with many other questions?

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator is correct. I should like to make one comment at this point. If the provision to which we are at present referring, the internallaw provision of the Bricker amendment, had been in the original Constitution, the Treaty of France of 1778, the treaty with the Netherlands of 1782, and the Treaty of Paris entered into in 1783, would not have become the law of the land. In fact, the Jay Treaty of 1794 would not have become the law of the land, because both of those treaties applied to both nations internally. They applied to the rights of nationals internally. For example, the treaty with the Netherlands provided not only for reciprocal property rights, but reciprocal liberty of worship. In the treaty with France there was involved the question of inheritance of property.

I refer the Senate to the opinions of Dr. Henry Commager in a splendid article, in which he said that there were some who feel that the treatymaking power is not an exclusive right.

For example, the argument is made by the supporters of the Bricker amendment that the constitutional system is one of enumerated powers, that certain powers are granted to Congress, and that all other powers are reserved to the States and the people thereof, and that under that system Congress may not go into the States .and dispose of matters in which States have jurisdiction. How lawless and how· wicked, they say, it is to permit Congress to do by treaty what it cannot do by internal law or domestic law.

The fallacy of that reasoning is that the Founding Fathers rejected the statement now put forward by the advocates of State's rights in the domestic field. Not all questions of domestic powers are divided between the National and State governments. The lOth amendment makes that crystal ·clear. I may say to the American people that in the foreign field, in the field of international relations, , the State governments are excluded from participation. The paramount and exclusive power rests with the National Government, and the treatymaking process is the responsibility of the Federal Government.

A man who fails to study the Constitution can make a mighty good argum.ent for the Bricker amendment. The truth is, however, that we have a fundamental law in this country which sets up the rights of the Federal Government and the rights of the States.

The lOth amendment is called the great Federal principle. The article which pertains to the Executive, article III, and the article which pertains to the treatymaking powers grant specific, exclusive jurisdiction in the field of international relations to the Government of the United States.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Is it not true that the section of article VI of the Constitution which deals with this situation, namely, that "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land," was adopted deliberately by the framers of the Constitution in order to meet the situation which had been created by the treaty of peace with Great Britain and the other treaties to which the Senator from Minnesota has referred, namely, with France and the Netherlands?

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is indeed true, because the constitutional fathers wanted it perfectly clear that the terminology of those treaties was to be fully executed, and the right of treatymaking was vested in the executive branch of the Government. They wanted to make it crystal clear, and to prevent once and for all the intrusion of the States into the treatymaking process.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Is it not true that in the treaty of peace with Great Britain in 1783, in return for obtaining from the British the abandonment of the British forts in the Northwest, we on our side made two concessions, first, that we would not seize the property of the Torfes inside our country?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes. Mr. DOUGLAS. And, secondly, that

the debts of American citizens to Great Britain should not be repudiated?

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator is correct.

Mr. DOUGLAS. But after the treaty of peace was signed, a number of States confiscated the property of the Tories, and also passed acts repudiating the debts; is not that correct?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes. Mr. DOUGLAS. And as a result, the

British refused to abandon their forts in the Northwest.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes, that is a part of our early history.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Is it not also true that other countries then refused to sign treaties · with the United States, on the ground that even though the United States made treaties, they would not be binding upon the individual States?

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct, and of course that is one of the reasons why we have our present Constitution.

· Mr. DOUGLAS. Was not Jeffersonwho, from 1783 to 1789, I believe, was our Minister to France, With more or less of a roving commission over the Con-

1954 CONGRESSIONAL . RECORD-SENATE 1233 tinent-continually embarrassed by the fact that foreign governments would say, "We are being asked to bind ourselves in these matters, but you cannot guarantee that your States will so act?"

Mr. HUMPHREY. That was his continual embarrassment; and anyone who reads Jefferson's letters and diary will understand that was ·the case. In fact, he wrote many times to the Government at that time, pleading for something to be done to bring the States into a responsible position.

Mr. DOUGLAS. That was because under the Articles of Conferedation the Federal Government could not bind the States on internal matters by a treaty, was it not?

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. DOUGLAS. Thus it was neces

sary to obtain action by the States, to back up a Federal treaty, was it not?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes. Such action had to be taken. However, once it was taken, it was never possible to be sure it would be maintained. Therefore, it was necessary to make the negotiation and ratification of treaties the exclusive prerogative of the Federal Government.

Mr. DOUGLAS. · Was not that one of the purposes for which the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was convened?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Indeed it was. Mr. DOUGLAS. Namely, to write into

the fundamental law a provision thatAll treaties made, or which shall be made,

under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. President, let me say that the Sen

ator from Illinois knows the Constitution as do few other Senators, and he knows that at the conferences which were held prior to the Constitutional Convention, foreign relations and trade relations and treaties were under discussion, and the final result was the sending of the call to the legislatures of the 13 States for representatives to go to Philadelphia, where they drew up the new Constitution of the United States.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I take it to be well established that if a treaty confiicts with the Constitution, the Constitution will have supremacy. That is true under the holdings of our courts.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes. The decisions in several cases make that rule unmistakable. Let me say that Justice Story, in his Commentaries-and I think we generally consider his Commentaries on the Constitution to be authoritativesaid, in speaking of the making of treaties. that a power given by the Constitution cannot be construed to authorize the destruction of other powers given in the same instrument, but must be construed to be in subordination of them. The Supreme Court has so held in one decision after another, and most clearly held to that effect in a case decided about 1890, as I recall-the case of Geoffrey against Riggs, in which the Court said:

It would not be contended that the treaty power extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids or a change in the character of the Government or in that of any of the States.

Mr. President, that is the law of the land. It is perfectly obvious that

C-78

a treaty cannot do something which the Constitution forbids, and it is equall~ obvious that anything that is done by a treaty can be repealed by a statute.

Mr. DOUGLAS. But if there is a constitutional vacuum, so to speak, and if in order to obtain privileges for our citizens who are abroad, we have to grant reciprocal privileges to the citizens of other countries who are in the United States, in such case the Federal Government is empowered by treaty to act, and the treaty becomes binding as internal law, does it not?

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. DOUGLAS. On the other hand,

section 2 of the Bricker amendment would require that after the treaty was negotiated and ratified, both Houses of Congress would have to pass enabling legislation; and then, in order for the treaty to be effective, effective, each of the 48 State legislatures would have to act favorably.

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. In fact, I was about to develop that point.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I beg my colleague's pardon.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Not at all; I am deeply indebted to the Senator from Illinois for bringing out these points. This subject is most important, of course. We are not discussing whether the minimum wage shall be 75 cents an hour or 76 cents an hour-a matter coming under a statutory provision. On the contrary, we are discussing the fundamental law of the land, the basic law, fundamental constitutional doctrine.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Sometimes it is said by the advocates of the Bricker amendment that it is not true that the States would have to act in such cases, because the States would not have to ratify treaties. Is not that beside the point? Of course, under section 2 of the Bricker amendment the States would not have to ratify treaties; but they would have to pass enabling legislation, in order to make the treaties e1Iective, would they not?

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is my understanding. Although I am not a lawyer, yet the vast majority of lawyers who have studied the Bricker amendment feel that the position the Senator from Illinois has outlined in the course of his observations is sound and correct.

Mr. DOUGLAS. It is the difficulty of obtaining speedy enabling legislation covering all the States which would make this provision of the Bricker amendment so cumbersome, is it not?

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is my feeling.

Mr. DOUGLAS. It also would make it very difficult for the United States to negotiate with other countries reciprocal treaties of commerce, would it not?

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. For example, Mr. President, the Italian treaty of 1949-our treaty of peace with Italy, which was ratified within the last 5 or 6 years-contains many provisions which apply to internal law. If the Bricker amendment were a part of the Constitution, we would still be in the process of trying to complete that treaty with -Italy, because i-t woulel have been necesary for the States to have passed

enabling legislation, inasmuch as some of the provisions of the treaty have a direct bearing on or application to the internal affairs of the States. For instance, in many instances the scientific and professional standards established by State law are a1Iected by the Italian Treaty.

I wish to say, further, that, as all of us know, the Senate can attach to the resoluticn of ratification of a treaty any reservations it desires. I have had some little opportunity, though very limited, to be sure, to know that that has been done by the Senate in recent years.

But it is not only the existing legislative-executive balance that would be upset by the Bricker amendment. Equally important is its devastating effect on the Federal-State balance. Not only did our Founding Fathers vest the treatymaking power entirely in the hands of the Federal Government, but they made sure that treaties would be the supreme law of the land, as the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DouGLAs] has ·thoroughly developed. This was done, in the words of James Madison, to prevent the States in their individual character, from defeating the constitutional authority of the States in their united character.

The Constitution gave Congress a number of specified powers. Powers not specified, or delegated, and not constitutionally necessary and proper for the carrying out of delegated powers, were reserved to the States, under the lOth amendment. I repeat that the treatymaking power was not reserved to the States, and I am not prepared to urge that it be made a part of the privileges and responsibilities of the .States. Not only was it delegated to the Federal Government; but article I, section 10 of the Constitution strictly forbids a State from entering into any treaty, alliance of confederation.

That the treaty power, vested solely in the Federal Government, is the supreme law, taking precedence over any conflicting State statute, is not a new and radical principle, as the proponents of the Bricker amendment would have us believe. Only 7 years after the Constitution became e1Iective, in 1796, the Supreme Court held in the case of Ware v. Hylton (3 Dall. 199), that a Virginia law was unconstitutional because it confticted with a later treaty. Had there not been a treaty the State statute would have been perfectly legal. I believe this case involved the question of the payment of certain debts. But if the Federal Government had not had this supremacy power in treatymaking, and had the State law remained in e1Iect, we could have had no guaranty that other nations would respect our agreements, or even make treaties with us at all. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. DouGLAS] has fully developed this point, and I think he has made a very fine contribution to the argument.

Certainly with the distinct possibility that any agreement our representatives negotiated with foreign nations ·would have no e1Iect as law within the 48 States, our international-bargaining power would be drastically weakened. And that would be the situation under the Br:icker amendment. In other words, as Secretary of State Dulles has said,


the Bricker amendment "would set the clock back to an approximation of the conditions which existed under the Articles of Confederation." Any treaty negotiated on any subject that in domestic law is reserved to the States would have to be ratified by the States-by 48 separate bodies, usually meeting for only 60 or 90 days at irregular intervals, some spaced 2 years apart.

The Bricker amendment would repudiate the principles of internationalism which unite the mainstream of both of our major parties. It is the long step backward to the dismal and disastrous go-it-alone way of thinking. It is the psychological roadblock in the path of American participation in world affairs.

I speak not as one who is trying to examine the legal concepts of the Bricker amendment, but as one who is trying to face the political realities of it. I say that it would be a step backward and a repudiation of the principles of internationallaw. It is a psychological roadblock in the path of American participation in world affairs.

Is this merely the thinking of the junior Senator from Minnesota? Not by any means. I hold in my hand one of the leading business ne;vsletters of the Nation, the Callahan Washington Letter, published in New York. This letter is received by thousands of people in the business, professional, and scientific world. This is the issue of Saturday, January 30. I read from page 2, under the title "Isolationism'':

This ideology is growing in the United States Congress. It moves under the guise of patriotism. It fosters such movements as the Bricker amendment to the Constitution. This amendment will be defeated, but-

The author is a good prophet--the indications are isolationism is growing, and it will be fanned by prejudice and bias. Unless halted and beaten back it may wreck the Republican Party. Although it is not partisan, and while its most voluble advocates are in one faction of the GOP, there are followers in the Democratic Party.

The Bricker amendment must be defeated, not only because of what it would do to the Constitution, but because it stands today as a symbol of the rebirthif not the rebirth, at least the regrouping-of the forces of isolationism in this land. We need to support the President of the United States and the foreign policy of this country once again, as we had to do it in the case of the Marshall Plan, as we had to do in the case of the NATO alliance, and in the matter of troops for Europe. We have had to make successive reafiirmation of the desire and willingness of the American people to participate in world affairs and become world leaders. Let our Nation assume the responsibility which is ours, and which we cannot shirk. This goes far beyond any partisanship. As this debate well indicates, this is not a matter of partisanship. This is a matter of making it crystal clear, once and for all, that we are not going backward, and that we are not going to permit ourselves to be shackled in fulfilling our responsibilities of leadership.

I have attempted to show the havoc this amendment would wreak on the basic fabric of our Government-the

Constitution, and on our hopes for a free world. I have done this as a student and teacher of government, and not from a legalistic point of view. I am not a lawyer. Great outcries in behalf of this proposal have come from certain small, but vocal, groups of the bar. To analyze their polemics more fully, I call your attention to three blistering legal reports in opposition to the Bricker amendment by the Federal Bar Association, the association of the bar of the city of New York, and the section of international and comparative law of the American Bar Association. I call the attention of the Senate, as well, to the opinions of 26 out of 27 deans of American law schools who vigorously oppose this threat to the Constitution, and to the numerous forthright statements of opposition by one of our Nation's greatest constitutional lawyers, Mr. John W. Davis.

But even without a law degree one can observe a vital flaw in the arguments of the proponents-for all their reasoning is either hypothetical or based on mere dicta. As one of the most influential proponents said in presenting his case to the American Bar Association:

We are thinking about what is going to happen 8 years from now.

Would that the Lord would give us such vision. Apparently this man has some kind of superoptical device by which he can see far into the future.

Why do the proponents resort to such strategy? Certainly they would not attempt to build such a case in a court of law. They do so because they cannot point to one single unconstitutional treaty in the 165 years of American history. What could be a greater commentary on our treatymaking system and the wisdom and vigilance of our Executive and Senate? What could be a more powerful answer to those who criticize our Constitution?

Has this minority of the legal profession stopped to look carefully and responsibly at the Bricker amendment in the light of our role in world affairs? Armed with precedents and horn books, have they not failed to see this measure in the far-sighted, long-term light of our foreign policy-and our quest for survival in this atomic age?

I single out these men of the legal profession who support this resolution first because they are honorable individuals in the main whose primary mistake appears to be that they have failed to see the forest of world affairs for the trees of legal dicta. But what about that other group of willful men-those Bricker amendment supporters who are deliberately using the proposal as a weapon in their self -appointed crusade to bring our Nation back into the fold of isolationism, and who rally to the cry of Gerald L. K. Smith to "Kick the U. N. out of the United States and get the United States out of the U. N." If anyone has any doubt as to that statement, I suggest that he see the booklet entitled Abolish the United Nations, published by the Citizens' Congressional Committee To Abolish the United Nations.

On this issue, the extremist fringe is all the more dangerous because they are

carefully hiding behind the coattails of legalistic arguments. Gratis, they have finally been given a shield of respectability.

Let us examine some of the arguments these extremist groups have been spreading across the United States in behalf of the Bricker amendment. Let us see how they have distorted the truth to forward their cause.

First, there is the irrevocability of treaties distortion. I quote from Samuel Pettengill, sometime chairman of the old Committee To Uphold the Constitution. Apparently he is unwilling to uphold it now. He has written something called Subverting the Constitution by Treaty, which is being widely distributed by Merwin K. Hart's National Economic Council. You will recall this group as the one that the House Select Committee on Lobbying Activities of the 8lst Congress said tries to disparage those who oppose its objectives by appeals to religious prejudice-General Interim Report, Union Calendar No. 1085, page 22. Pettengill writes:

· No matter how foolish or dishonorable a treaty or executive agreement may be, you must bleed and die if you get hooked in one of them.

And once in, you can't get out. • • • Nor could the Senate repeal a treaty. Only our clever lads-

He tells us earlier that this means the Hisses, Achesons, and Dulleses and their friends-could agree to change a treaty.

Unfortunately for this spurious argument, the Supreme Court held nearly 70 years ago <in the Head Money case (112 U.S. 580), and has since repeatedly declared that any act of Congress can repeal an earlier treaty.

One does not have to be a lawyer to know where to look for these cases. I learned about this subject in the second year of college. It is a part of general living to acquire a knowledge of basic constitutional law.

This rule, by the way, also applies to executive agreements. If we confirm a treaty and later want to repeal it, all that has to be done is to get a simple majority of Congress.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that any act of Congress can repeal an earlier treaty. Therefore, if we should be outbargained at the bargain table, all we need do is to get a new Congress, if we are not satisfied with the one in being, and we can repeal the whole thing and cancel it out. What more protection do we want?

There is absolutely nothing irrevocable about the treatymaking power of the Constitution.

Second, there is the completely fallacious argument that the Bricker amendment would place the United States on a parity, or on a plane of equality, with other nations. The proponents of this line of reasoning appear to have a scanty knowledge of comparative government. Prof. Lawrence Preuss, of the University of Michigan, has shown that their understanding of this issue is based upon "a superficial examination of foreign practice,'' "an exclusive reliance upon formal texts," and "a misunderstanding of the process by which treaties are given ef-

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE 1235 feet under foreign legal systems."- tion that could run wild in a situation Michigan Law Review, June 1953. of that kind.

f 1 d . ll" them I quote from a letter to American Yet, a group o a Ies ca mg - doctors wri·tten in December by Edward selves the Vigilant Women for the

rricker Amendment have spread the A. Rumely, executive secretary of the inaccuracy in more than 100,000. co~ies committee for constitutional governof their pamphlet, Our Constitl·ticn ment. The group have opposed almost Has a Dangerous Loophole. They write: every piece of humane legislation for

the past 18 years. Rumely writes: The United States is the only major par-ticipant in the entire u. N. which permits Passage of the Bricker amendment is Inratified treaties to become "the supreme law dispensable to safeguard the medical proof the land." Let's give ourselves the same fession and free enterprise for physicians. pr-Otection other nations provide for them- I am happy to say that Dr. Charles selves. Mayo, of the State of Minnesota, in a

What is the true situation? Let us telegram to the senior Senator fr~m take the United Kingdom, for example, Minnesota [Mr. THYE] and to me, dissince it is most frequently cited as the agreed with Mr. Rumely. Dr. Mayo country we are not in a position of knows something about medicine, too. "equality" with insofar as treaties be- In Minnesota we have one of the finest coming domestic law is concerned. Pro- clinics in the world in the Mayo Clinic. fessor Preuss finds that "From the mo- I was delighted to receive Dr. Mayo's ment the treaty becomes binding inter- telegram, and I wired my th~nks and nationally, the British Govern_m~nt is gratitude to him. I assured h1m o~ my in a position to give effect to It mter- unqualified opposition to the Bncker nally. No further legislative action is amendment. required subsequent to ratification." In The fact is that the Bricker amendother words, it becomes the "supreme nient has nothing to do with the free law of the land" in Great Britain; and enterprise of the American medical prothat is the situation in the United fession. States. The case Rumely and others are try-

The professor then goes on to find the ing to build is that a so-_called s~cialsame true of France, the Netherlands, ized-medicine program Will be slipped Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, Western over on the American people through an Germany, and Australia. I might add International Labor Organization conthat when the State Department asked vention. What they fail to tell the docour diplomatic corps to make a survey tors is that this ILO convention under of foreign treaty procedures, their find- discussion would give the Federal Govings were similar. ernment no legislative powers it does not

so what about this statement of the already possess _; thRt the two-thirds vote sci-called Vigilant Women or similar of the Senate needed to pass such a constatements by Mr. Frank Holman, who, vention is more difficult to get than a by the way, would go so far in isolating simple majority of Congress; that such a our country as to oppose the Baruch treaty is non-self-executing and would plan for atomic control, and who has therefore have to receive enabling legisdone extensive propagandizing for this lation from both Houses of Congress, a.1;1d amendment in more than 40 States? that as the Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill The true situation is that the Bricker · was not even able to get out of commit. amendment, instead of giving us the tee in 1948 there is no possibility for such same protection other nations provide a convention to withstand the much for themselves, would give us the most more arduous formalities necessary for cumbersome m~thod of treatymaking it to become law. in the world, and put u~, _not o~ an In still another misleading appeal to equal plane, but at a distmct disad- doctors it is said that without the vantage in international relations. Bricker' amendment reciprocal treaties

No one can dispute that stateme~t for the practice of medicine would lower of fact. It would tie our hands and It our medical standards. This is not so would hamper and hinder our Presi- for the following reason: If the President dent, and impose upon him details and negotiates such a treaty, if the Senate by restraints which would make it literally a two-thirds vote confirms such a treaty, impossible for him to perform his duties if the President then ratifies such a as the Chief Executive. That is why treaty the only thing it could possibly do the President has stated he is o~posed would provide that a foreign doc~r to the Bricker amendment. That IS why shall not be denied the right to practice the Se-cretary of State, now that he is solely because of his nationality. He the Secretary of State, does not want would still have to fulfill the rigid re~he Bricker amendment to_~- adopted. quirements that the States set to pro- Once a person has -responsibility placed teet the public health. upon his shoulders, he ~s inclined to take As I recall, only a few months ago the a different view of thmgs. Senate placed reservations in treaties to

Third, there is the ~isleading ~ppeal protect the medical standards of _our being made to the medical professiOn. I respective states and of our NatiOn. ·suppose it would be much mor~ adva~- They were treaties with Germany and tageous for me not to mentiOn this Israel and with other nations also. I

·point. I am told that it is politically was ;, member of -the subcommittee of dangerous to do so. However, what little the Committee on Foreign Relations oanger there is to the junior Sen-ator wbich considered those treaties. The from Minnesota is far outweighed by the very :first thing we did was to make sure

·danger-of having an amendment such as that the scientific and_ ·:professional acbeing proposed placed before State legis- tivities of American CI_tlzens we:r:e prolatures, particularly because of the emo- tected. The Senate will .see to 1t that

we are not socialized and that our free enterprise system is not destroyed.

In my own State, Minnesota, we have a State Board of Medical Examiners. This consists of seven physicians appointed for long terms by the Governor. An agreement for the reciprocal rights to practice medicine would not atiect this State board. They would .still have the authority to set standards and grant licenses. The Bricker amendment has nothing to do with the protection of our high medical standards. .

Personally, I am perturbed by the outright insinuation that the duly elected Senate of the United States is engaged together with the President in a world plot to sneak something over on the American people. Furthermore, I consider this attempt to appeal to the socalled vested interests of the American medical profession one of the most unfair tricks of the campaign waged by the supporters of this amendment.

The Congress of the United States holds the medical profession in the highest esteem. Congress and the President would do nothing to harm the medical profession. In fact, I have personally commended the President for his message on strengthening the medical profession and suggesting programs to protect the health and welfare of our country.

There is another appeal being made in behalf of the Bricker amendment. It is the appeal to fear. True, this propaganda technique is only being employed by a small minority. But this minority, from the literature I receive daily, appears to be by far the most vocal. Take, for example, the booklet . written by one Bryson Reinhardt called, "You?-In a Foreign Prison." We could laugh this oti if it was not for the fact that in the last 4 months it has been reproduced more than 500,000 times; ' that it has been widely distributed by the Committee for Constitutional Government, and that promotional plans for substantially increasing this circulation have been undertaken. Allow me to quote from Reinhardt's discussion of article IV, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, the "supremacy clause":

Just how does it endanger you? What does this hole in the Constitution mean to you personally-to your children ?-your neighbors?-your job?

In one sentence: It means tliat--with a little manipulation-foreign governments (including Russia) can rea-eh through this hole and control you as they now control the faceless serfs in their own lands.

Control the most intimate details of your personal 1ife, what is taught to your children in school, what you can buy at your grocery store, what your minister may say in church, what union you may join or not join, where and how you work and live.

Mr. President, this is an unabridged passage.

'Ibis statement should really be sent to the How's That Again department of the New Yorker magazine. Yet such threats, such unfounded fears are being poured into ·the bloodstream of our Nation. I appeal to my distinguished colleagues who sincerely and honestly support the amendment, to repudi~te this extremist fringe so that the NatiOn, unhampered, can debate the constitutional

1236 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE February -3

issues involved calmly, dispassionately, with reason and intelligence.

The last argument of the Bricker amendment supporters to which I wish to address a few remarks could be most formidable-if true. I am referring to the political argument. I am referring to the claims of widespread political support for the amendment. Let us examine some of this alleged support:

First. In many of the more than 20 pamphlets that Mr. Frank Holman has published he lists a number of State legislatures that have gone on record favoring the amendment. Yet I have in my possession copies of letters from the secretaries of the senates of two of these States, Idaho and Wyoming, saying that their States have not passed any such resolutions. What is the explanation?

Mr. President, I have in my hand a photostatic copy of a letter from the Senate of the State of Idaho, dated October 31, 1953, signed by the secretary of the State Senate, advising that the Idaho Legislature did not pass a resolution approving the Bricker amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The letter is as follows:

STATE OF IDAHO, STATE SENATE,

Boise, October 31, 1953. Mr. STEPHEN H. HESS,

Instructor of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University,

Baltimore, Md. DEAR MR. HEss: In reply to your letter of

October 27th, received this morning, I can inform you that the Idaho Legislature did not pass the resolution approving the Bricker amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

BRITT NEDRY, Secretary, Idaho State Senate.

The same thing is true with reference to the State of Wyoming. I have a photostatic copy of a letter from William A. Riner, Jr., of Cheyenne, Wyo., which reads as follows:

CHEYENNE, WYo., November 12, 1953. Mr. STEPHEN H. HEss,

Department of Political Science, The Johns Hopkins University,

Baltimore, Md. DEAR SIR: With reference to your letter of

October 27 concerning possible debates a~d hearings on the Bricker amendment in -the Wyoming Legislature, so far as I know. our legislature has not placed itself on record on th_e matter. During the last session, held last January and February, I was a member of the House of Representatives and recall no such action. A check of the legislative journals seems to confirm my recollection.

I am sorry not to be able to be of assistance to you.

Yours very truly, WILLIAM A. RINER, Jr.

Second. Last September. at the Chiago Republican Women's Conference, the so-called Vigilant Women for the Bricker Amendment set up desks for the signing of petitions at every entrance to the grand ballroom of the Hilton Hotel. When the smoke had cleared they had amassed 700 signatures. These, of course, have been presented to the Senate as an indication of grass roots strength. But what really happened? I talked to a university scholar ·who had personally interviewed many of the women who signed the petition. They told him that in the bustling of convention activities they were handed innumerable

official papers to sign. Pushed in among these were the Bricker amendment petitions. Many thought it was an official position and signed. Many did not even have time to examine what they were signing. The treaty-making issue was not even on the conference agenda. Now what was the real extent of support? All that can be concluded is that these vigilantes have well learned the tactics of high pressure politics.

Third. Proponents of the amendment receive great comfort from the favorable resolution of the house of delegates of the American Bar Association. But they also know that behind this facade is a split between two of the ABA's committees-the committee on peace and law through United Nations is for the amendment and the section of international and comparative law is against it. What are these two groups? To answer that question I would like to quote from the 1952 hearings on the amendment. This is from the testimony of the late Mr. Charles W. Tillett. Mr. Tillett was chairman of both groups of the American Bar Association for 2 years and was, therefore, in an unequaled position to evaluate them. I read:

Mr. TILLETT. The section of international and comparative law of the American Bar Association is made up not only of lawyers who practice international law professionally but also it is made up of general practitioners who feel that they can help in solving the problems of an effective and free world order by participating in the committee work of the section and · its democratically conducted forums where they have an opportunity to present ideas of enduring peace.

Senator HENDRICKSON. How many members do you have in that section?

Mr. TILLETT. From 800 to 1,000. Senator HENDRICKSON. That is nationwide? Mr. TILLETT. And I want to impress the

fact that it is a democratically conducted section. It is the only phase where the rankand-file lawyers shall participate. The peace and law committee is not a democratically elected group, but it is appointed by the president. So the difference between the section on international and comparative law and the peace and law is that the one is- a representative group of those lawyers who have an interest in that sort of thing, whereas the peace and law committee is appointed by the president, and there is no veto.

I might add that while the group opposing the amendment has 1,000 members, the group for it has 7.

The house of delegates, however, chose to ignore the recommendations of the section of international and comparative law. They accepted the argument of Mr. Holman and others that if the ABA reversed its stand-and I now quote from Mr. Holman:

You will never send another committee down to Congress to· speak for this association without the Senators or Representatives saying, "How do we know if we follow your committee that 2 years later your house of delegates won't turn turtle on us and repudiate us?"

Does this mean that for mere prestige the delegates felt it would be better to compound · a mistake rather than honestly admit one? They voted in favor of the amendment 117 to 33. But 77 members of the house of delegates did not vote.. Furthermore, when an ef-

fort was made to poll the entire ABA membership it was sidetracked. Now does this suggest widespread support of the Bricker amendment among American lawyers?

Fourth. The proponents of the Bricker amendment point to public opinion polls to substantiate their claims to widespread popular support. One such poll, the results of which were distributed to 1,800 newspapers, 500 radio stations, and every Member of Congress as a sample of public opinion, was taken by an organization called Facts Forum. It showed 77 percent in favor of the amendment. It is not my purpose . to evaluate the credibility of this poll. Suffice it to say it is in question. I do believe it necessary, however, to refer the Senate to the conclusions of the reputable American Institute of Public Opinion which found 5 months after Facts Forum poll, that a mere 9 percent of the people favor the Bricker amendment. The most recent Gallup poll, dated January 26, which is already in the record, shows only 4 percent of the people favor the amendment.

Where, then, is the widespread support? It appears that Samuel Insull himself could not have done a better job of pyramiding manufactured support into paper profits. No votes will be lost by opposing the Bricker amendment. At stake are not Senate seats, but the Constitution of the United States.

It is a matter o{ great comfort and pride to me that associated in this fight to preserve our cherished Constitution are two national administrations: The Democratic administration of Harry S. Truman and the Republican administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower. We are joined by a great number of our leading newspapers, such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New York Herald Tribune, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the St. Louis GlobeDemocrat, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Denver Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Boston Herald, and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

Mr. President, as I look across this Chamber I cannot help seeing the distinguished Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee [Mr. WILEY]. I know the attacks that have been leveled against him in his own State. I know the burden he has had to carry in his battle against the Bricker amendment. I say to him that these are stars in his crown; they are glory to his name. A man is sometimes best known not by the friends he has, but by the enemies he makes. I say to the distinguished Senator that he has endeared himself to thousands of persons in this country, because of his bold, courageous, and persevering position in behalf of sound constitutional government. I salute him, as I did in connection . with the St. Lawrence seaway project.

A great number of our outstanding organizations are opposed to the proposed amendment, including American Association of University Women, League of Women Voters, Young Women's Christian Association, Section of International and Comparative Law of the American Bar Association, Association of the Bar of the City of New York, New York State Bar Association's

1954, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1237 Committee on Amendments·to the Federal Constitution, St. Louis Bar Association, Federal Bar Association, National Study Conference on the Churches and World Order, Board of World Peace of the Methodist Church, Church Peace Union, Catholic Association for International Peace's Subcommittee on Juridical Institutions, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Friends Committee on · National Legislation, Department of Social Education and Action, Presby·terian Church in the United States of America, National Foreign Trade Council, American Civil Liberties Union, Air Transport Association of America, American Association for the United Nations, Citizens Conference on International Economic Union, United World Federalists, Cooperative League of the United States of America, Americans for Democratic Action, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, AMVETS--American Veterans of World War II and Korea-Young Republican Club of New York, Committee for Collective Security, American Federation of Labor, Congress of Industrial Organizations.

Mr. President, I wish to make note of the fact that some outstanding private citizens are opposed to the Bricker amendm~nt, among them being the following:

John W. Davis, Democratic candidate for President of the United States, 1924; former Member of Congress, Solicitor General of the United States, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Great Britain, president American Bar Association, Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

Gen. Lucius D. Clay, retired, chairman of board and chief executjve otficer, Continental Can Co.; Deputy Director of War Program; Commander in Ohief, United States Forces; Military Governor, United States Zone, Germany.

Frank Altschul, chairman of the board, General American Investors Co., Inc.; member, advisory council, Yale Institute of International Studies. · Hon. James T. Brand, former chief justice of the supreme court, Oregon. · Harry Amos Bullis, chairman, General Mills, Minneap(>lis, Minn.

Will L. Clayton, Houston, Tex.; former Assistant Secretary of Commerce; former Under Secretary c.f State for Economic Affairs.

Dr. Edward Samuel Corwin, professor emeritus of Princeton University, author and lecturer.

I wish my good friend the distinguished senior Senator from New Jersey [Mr. SMITH] were present when I mentionetf Princeton University. The senior Senator from New Jersey always calls Princeton the cultural hub of the universe.

I make note of the fact that Dr. Corwin is one of the leading opponents of the Bricker amendment.

I continue with the list of distinguished opponents of the Bricker amendment: · PTof. Edwin D. Dickinson, University of Pennsylvania Law Gchool; former ·president, American Society of International Law; former dean, University of California Law School.

Palmer Hoyt, publisher and editor, the Denver Post.

John Lord O'Brian; attorney, Washington, D. C.; former General Counsel, Office of Production Management; also Supply Priorities and Allocation Board and War Production Board.

Philip D. Reed, chairman of the board, General Electric Co.

Justice Owen J. Roberts, dean of law school, University of Pennsylvania; former Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States.

Harrison Tweed, Milbank, Tweed, Hope & Hadley, attorneys, New York City; president, American Law Institute; overseer, Harvard College. · · Sarah Tilghman Hughes, Dallas, Tex. ;

judge and educator; president, National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs.

Anna Lord Strauss, New York City; Vice Chairman, President's Commission on Internal Security and Individual Rights; former president, League of Women Voters of the United Stat.:;.

Elizabeth E. Heffelfinger, Republican national committeewoman for Minnesota; alternate representative to the second extraordinary session of UNESCO.

Elihu Root, Jr., Root, Ballantine, Harlan, Bushby & Palmer, attorneys, New York City; trustee, Hamilton College; Carneg"ie Corporation of New York; diiector, American Telephone & Telegraph Co.;. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York.

Whether they be Democratic or Republican, the great leade1·s of law, philosophy, business, the professions, and the· great political leaders and statesmen, 6f yesterday and of today, all are joined in opposition. I consider it a privilege to be joined with them, standing alongside .them.

Mr. President, I now wish to allude momentarily to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. GEORGE]. Section 2 of the substitute, relating to international agreements, certainly has engaged the interest of a number. of Senators in reference to what are called Executive agreements. I un-· derstand the amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by the Senator from Georgia, is now on the floor. I consider the George substitute as a much more desirable provision, by far, than the Bricker amendment.

I also wish to say that a resolution in the nature of a substitute, offered by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER] for himself and on behalf of other Senators; of whom I am proud to be one, eliminates some of the objections which some persons have raised to the treatymaking procedures, such as the requiring of a yea-and-nay vote and the reaffirming in resolution form certain of judicial decisions that have become the law of the land.

I shall not burden the Senate with a description of the respective mea.Sures. Later we shall vote upon them.

Mr. President, I have 'carried on what I might term a correspondence of argument with the distinguished lawyer, Mr. Frank· Holman, and I now ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the REcORD a letter which I wrote to Mr. Holman under date of July 1, 1953.

·There being no objection, the letter was offered to be printed in the RECORD, a:s follows: ·

UNITED STATES SENATE, Washington, D. C., July 1, 1953.

Mr. FRANK. E. HOLMAN, Holman, Mickelwait, Marion & Perkins,

· Seattle, Wash. DEAR MR. HoLMAN: I have your letter of

June 2 commenting on my statement on the proposed Bricker amendment to the Constitution and alleging that my statement contains numerous errors of law. I am sorry to have to say after carefully studying your letter that I must again disagree with you. My statement, which was based upon the testimony of able and eminent lawyers who testified before the subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, contained no such errors as you suggest.

Your letter does confirm my opinion that there is great confusion and sharp difference of opinion among eminent lawyers, not only as to the wisdom but as to the meaning and effect of the Bricker amendment. In these circumstances I feel more strongly than ever that there should be no tinkering with the treatymaking clause of our Constitution which was most carefully framed by the Founding Fathers and has served this country well for more than 160 · years.

It seems to me that you play dangerously and misleadingly with words when you write that iny statement that "the so-called Bricker amendment, proposed a change in the United States Constitution to limit the treatymaking power vested in the President and in the Senate" is "untrue, both as & matter of fact and law." You argue that the proposed amendment would not limit the power of the President to negotiate or the power of the Senate to ratify "treaties on any matter under the sun," but would merely prevent effect being given to certain 'provisions of a treaty under certain circumstances. Even if the argument were true, it would be ·a mere play on words, signifying nothing.

But section 2 of the proposed Bricker amendment clearly limited in form as well as in substance the power of the President to negotiate and of the Senate to ratify treaties. It provided that "no treaty shall authorize or permit any foreign power or any international organization to supervise, control or adjudicate rights of citizens of the United States within the United States enumerated in the Constitution or any matter e·ssentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States." This is a clear limitation of the treatymaking power.

Since my statement and your letter were written, the Senate Judiciary Committee has reported out the Bricker amendment dropping section 2. But as I shall show, the amendment as reported out still seriously shackles the treatymaking power. -

In your letter, you assert that "as a matter of fact, foreign nations are not interested in the domestic effect of treaties" and that "this is an unquestioned principle of international law." Certainly these assertions of yours are questioned by the testimony given by many eminent jurists at the hearings. Judge · John J. Parker, senior judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and an alternate member of the Internatio-nal Military 'iiribunal in Nuremburg stated:

"Specifically the proposed amendments would require every treaty to go through a two-step legislative process before becoming valid as internal law of the country. It would have to be approved by two-thirds of the Senate and then be implemented by )egislation passed by both Houses of Congress. Treaties of trade and friendship ordinarily provide for rights of aliens to hold, acquire, inherit, and dispose o:f property, to engage in business and professions and to be free from burdensome taxation. Such treaties are usually self-executing. Since

1238 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. SENATE Febr~~ary 3 the beginning of the Republic they have, when ratified by the Senate, become domestic law which overrides State law. The proposed amendment would require all such treaties, even though approved by two-thirds of the Senate to be passed upon, so far as such provisions are concerned, by both Houses of Congress, although in the absence of treaty Congress would have no power to legislate with respect to such matters. I see no reason to hamper the exercise of the treatymaking power in this way when no dangers have resulted under the present constitutional system. We are told that other nations require approval of treaties by their legislative bodies, but the answer is that they do not require double approval. We have been getting along safely for more than a century and a half under a system that requires approval by two-thirds of the Senate instead of the approval of the majority of both Houses required by some countries. If our safeguard is sufficient, there is no reason to encumber the treatymaking power by requiring theirs in addition to ours."

It seems to me to be impossible to maintain, as you attempt to do, that foreign nations are not interested in the domestic effects of treaties. The treaties of trade and friendship to which Judge Parker refers would be of little or no value except for their domestic effect.

In reporting out the Bricker amendment, the Judiciary Committee has made even more rigorous the restrictions to which Judge Parker objected. The amendment as reported out by the Judiciary Committee provides that "a treaty shall become effective as internal law only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty."

When, at the hearings, Judge Parker discussed this more restrictive formulation which was cor.tained in Senate Joint Resolution 43, he pointed out that "most of the treaties of trade and commerce relate to rights which are subject not to the Federal Government, but to the power of the several States, the right to own property, the devolution of property"; and that "the ordinary treaties of trade and commerce which contain these provisions would have to be ratified, not by the Senate or by the Congress, but have to be ratified by every State of the Union, and nobody would make a treaty with us." In these circumstances certainly it cannot be said that the Bricker amendment, as proposed and as reported out, does not seriously limit the treatymaking power.

I cannot accept" your assertion that there is dE.~ger that the treatymaking power can or will be exercised to infringe or destroy our Bill of Rights. No instance has been cited of a treaty so doing. When Secretary Dulles testified against the Bricker amendment he submitted a legal memorandum prepared by Mr. Phleger, the legal adviser of the State Departmen~. from which I quote:

"A claim that a treaty can violate the Constitution appears unsupportable in view of the fact that it is universally agreed that as a matter of internal law a treaty ranks no higher than an act of Congress which obviously cannot violate the Constitution. It is well settled that a treaty is supplanted as law in the United States by a subsequent act of Congress intended to have that effect. (Head Money cases (112 U. S. 580); Chae Chan Pinz "<!'!U.S. (130 U.S. 581) .)

" The cases considering the question have uniformly held that a treaty may not violate the Constitution or authorize what the Constitution forbids. Typical of these are Doe v. Braden (16 How. 635); Geojroy v. Riggs (133 U. S. 258); and Asalcura v. Seattle (268 u.s. 332).

"It has been urged that these authorities are not controlling, and ·that no treaty has ever been declared unconstitutional, the inference sought to be drawn being that a treaty may be supreme over the Constitution. The expressions by the Supreme Court

on the subject were germane to the matter in issue and were not mere dicta, and they · are uniform. That no treaty has ever been held unconstitutional may be ascribed to the fact that there has never been a treaty which offended the Constitution and therefore no occasion for the Supreme Court so to declare. It is a tribute to the wisdom of the Executive and the vigilance of the Senate that in the 164 years of our history, no treaty offending the Constitution has been ratified. Rather than constituting evidence that treaties may override the Constitution, this record is persuasive evidence that there is little basis for the belief that the treaty power will be abused in the future."

Similar views were expressed by Solicitor General Perlman when he testified last year and by Attorney General Brownell when he testified this year.

In my statement which you criticize I stated that "section 1 (of the Bricker amendment) • • • would be interpreted under · the lOth amendment of our Constitution to mean that no treaty would be binding upon · any of the 48 States unless the States themselves individually ratified the treaty."

In your letter you paraphrase this statement leaving out the words regarding the lOth amendment which indicate that I was referring to treaties affecting State laws, and assert: "This statement is absolutely without any basis or foundation. There is no provision in either of the amendments for · ratification by the 48 States." My statement clearly referred to the broadened effect that the Bricker amendment might be interpreted to give, and that Senate Joint Resolution 43 certainly gives, to the lOth amendment. This would require State legislation to put into effect treaties, such as those referred to by Judge Parker, that affect the laws of the several States.

While you may be technically accurate in stating that there is no provision in the proposed amendments for ratification by the 48 States, legislation by the 48 States certainly would be required to give effect to the ordinary treaties of trade and commerce. As Secretary of State Dulles testified "They (the proposed amendments) would deny to all treaties the force of law, making their enforcement depend on subsequent action of the Congress and, in the case of Senate Joint Resolution 43 (which is incorporated in the Bricker amendment as reported out by the Judiciary Committee), also of the 48 States.'~

Relying on the testimony of Dr. George Finch, you cast aside as "fantastic hocuspocus" the views of equally eminent international lawyers to which I refer in my statement to the effect that the proposed Bricker amendment would have prevented our joining the United Nations and participation in other important international organizations. Even the proponents of the Bricker amendment on the Judiciary Committee were sufficiently impressed by the views of the eminent jurists which you choose to ignore that they did not attempt to retain section 2 of Senate Joint Resolution 1 as introduced when they reported it out.

In this connection it is important to point out that even Dr. Finch, upon whose authority you so heavily; rely, did not attempt to contradict the legal memorandum prepared by Mr. Phleger, the legal adviser of the State Department to the effect that the proposed amendments "would not only prevent our advocating such a proposal (as the Baruch plan for the control of atomic energy), it would prevent our agreeing to such a proposal if advanced by others." When Mr. Phleger's memorandum was read to Mr. Finch at the hearings, he stated: "I have not followed these negotiations in detail, and if they make ·any such proposal as that, I am in favor of Senate Joint Resolution 1 and Senate Joint Resolution 43 stopping it. I think that would be one reason why we should adopt the amendment.'• ·

If I had said in my statement, as you quote me in your letter as saying, that a treaty- cannot become effective within the United States except by appropriate legislation, I would agree with you that my statement was inexplicable. What I said was quite different. What I said was "the Senate may now limit the internal application of any treaty. The Senate can at ~ny time amend the internal application of any treaty without the necessity of passing the Bricker amendment."

My views are fully supported by the legal memorandum prepared by Mr. Phleger, the legal adviser of the State Department, which Secretary Dulles submitted at the hearings and from which I again quote:

"It should be realized that many treaties are not self-executing by their terms and the Senate now has the power to require that a treaty be not self-executing either by adding a reservation to that effect -or refusing to consent until such a provision is added. • • • There is the additional safeguard that the internal effect of any selfexecuting treaty can be overcome at any time by a simple act of the Congress."

It is for these reasons that I believe that there is no need for any constitutional amendment limiting or regulating the internal effects of a treaty.

In your letter you term my objections to section 4 of the Bricker amendment as introduced "sheer nonsense." That section provided that all executive or other agreements between the President and any international organization, foreign power, or official thereof shall be made only in the manner and to the extent prescribed by law. Most of the agreements now made by the President with any international organization or foreign country are made as prescribed and authorized by Congress. There is now no obstacle to Congress regulating by law the making of agreements by the President in foreseeable situations and foreseeable circumstances. The difficulty is that unforseeable situations and circumstances may arise in this dangerous world, when emergency action must be taken in the national interest. It is really unthinkable that the President should be deprived of au · powez: to act in a grave or pressing national emergency because Congress has failed to prescribe how the President should act in a situation in which Congress did not antici-pate or could not foresee. ·

The Founding Fathers gave careful consideration to the treatymaking provisions of the Constitution. They considered it necessary to give to the President broad treatymaking powers, subject to the concurrence Of two-thirds of the Senate. They believed that treaties once ratified should become the law of the land and should over;. ride all State laws to the contrary. In this increasingly interdependent world from which we cannot isolate ourselves we should be very slow to sanction proposals which would deprive the Federal Government of the Unitea States of powers with which the Founding Fathers deemed it wise to en~ dow it. It is no accident that last year under the Democratic Administration of President Truman and this year under the Republican administration of President Eisenhower responsible officials of the State, Defense and Justic~ Departments vigorously opposed tinkering with the treaty-making power. There is no justification in our history or experience for making the radic~l changes in our Cons_titution proposed by the Bricker amendment. We must have trust in the processes of our constitutional democracy and not deprive the Pre&ident and the Senate of p()wers necessary to protect the security and freedom of our people.

Sincerely yours, . _. . ... HUEERT H. HUMPHREY.

Mr. HUMPHREY. · Mr. President, · I ask unanimous consent ~o have· printed

1954 ·CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1239 at this point in the RECORD a statement I have prepared on Senate Joint Resolution 1, which was published so~e months ago, and which was made available to my constituents.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the REcORD, as follows: STATEMENT BY SENATOR HUBERT H. HuMPHRE~ ON SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1, MAY 1953 Senate Resolution 1, the so-called Bricker

amendment, proposed a change in the United States Constitution to limit the treatymaking power vested in the President and in the Senate. I did not join Senator Bricker and the other Senators who cosponsored the resolution because I believe it would seriously undermine the effectiveness of our Nation in its attempt to resist communist aggression and establish world ~ace. I am pleased that in recent weeks President Eisenhower, Secretary of State Dulles, Attorney General Brownell, and representatives of leading church organizations ~nd civ~c groups have likewise expressed their opposition to the Bricker resolution.

The chief support for the resolution comes from the American Bar Association, but the legal profession is by no means united on this issue. We have had substantial evidence to the fact that a great many lawyers experienced in the problems of international law including a former president of the ABA, are.' in fact, opposed to the resolution. I am informed that the International Law Section of the American Bar Association was opposed to the Bricker resolution, although they were overruled by the house of delegates. The Association of the Bar of the Oity of New York has likewise testified against the proposed constitutional amendment.

It perhaps would be clearer if I explained my position in a section by section analysis of the Bricker proposal:

SECTION 1

Section 1 or Senate Joint Resolution 1 states: :·A provision of a treaty which deni~ or abridges any right enumerated in this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect." Senator BRICKER intends with this section to change paragraph 2 of article VI of the Constitution which provides that the Constitution, laws made in conformity with 1t and "all treaties made or which shall be m'ade under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.,.

The purpose of this section, according to the supporters of the resolution, is to prevent the President and the Senate from agreeing by treaty to any proposal which would, for example, destroy our Bill of Rights. Were I convinced that any such danger exists, I would join in the .resolution. The Supreme Court, however, and other constitutional experts, including the Attorney General, have repeatedly stated .that no treaty can override the Constitution. Thus no treaty can override our Bill of Rights. This is now existing l~w without the necessity for the Bricker resolution.

Not only would a treaty undermining our traditional liberties be unconstitutional, but I can't believe that the President Of the United States and two-thirds of the Senate would betray their trust by negotiating such a treaty. No treaty becomes effective unless it is agreed to by the President and by twothirds of the Senate.

My objection to the Bricker amendment, however, goes beyond the argument that it is unnecessary in some respects. Some of its provisions, in my judgment, are quite damaging. Section I, to which I referred for example, could be interpreted under the lOth amendment of our Constitution to mean that no treaty would be binding upon any of the 48 States unless the States themselves individually ratified the treaty. This would come about by an interpretation that

treaties are no longer superior to State laws. Such a condition, in my judgment, would create chaos in our international relations.

SECTION 2

Let me now discuss section 2 of Senate Joint Resolution 1. It reads as follows:

"No treaty shall authorize or permit any foreign power or any international organization to supervise, control, or adjudicate rights of citizens of the United States within the United States enumerated in this Constitution, or any other matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States."

This appears to me to be an ambiguous statement full of danger to our continued existence as a sovereign nation. In testimony presented before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a number of international law experts said that if this provision had been in effect in 1945 it would have prevented us from joining the United Nations. The association of the bar of the city of New York contended that this section would forbid the United States from playing its part in the International Monetary Fund Agreement, the International Telecommunications Union, the World Health Organization, and similar organizations. Thus, we could not participate with other nations in allocating international radio frequencies or adopting uniform quarantine regulations, to mention only a few of the activities these international organizations participate in. The section might also prevent us as a nation from espousing various rights of United States citizens before the International Court of Justice.

There is always a question as to what is meant by the term "domestic jurisdiction ... Many experts argue this might forbid the kind of international atomic control program that we as a Nation have been seeking for many years, since we have refused to enter into any agreement which would not provide the right of inspection. If we state treaties cannot cover matters within our "domestic jurisdiction" and if the right of inspection of atomic installations is interpreted as "domestic jurisdiction," it is clear our Nation woul<J be seriously handicapped in attempting to achieve international understanding.

SECTION 3 Section 3 of the Bricker resolution pro

vides that a treaty can become effective within the United States only through the enactment of appropriate legislation by the Congress. This adds very little to existing law. The Senate may now limit the internal application of any treaty. The Congress can, at any time, amend the internal application of any treaty without the necessity of passing the Bricker resolution.

SECTION 4,

Section 4 of Senate Joint Resolution 1 applies to executive agreements and not to treaties. It states that executive agreements between the United States and other countries should be made only in the manner and tQ the extent prescribed by Congress through statute. The Constitution places executive agreements within the jurisdiction of the President. This is where I believe they should remain. We enter into scores and perhaps hundreds of executive agreements as a Nation every year. They do not establish vital policy. They provide, for example, for procedures with regard to the activities of our servicemen in other countries and the conduct of our businessmen and nationals when they travel abroad. Some of them are as insignificant as to provide for the construction of sanitary facilities for our servicemen. It is · unnecessary to require these executive agreements should be adopted by the Congress.

CONCLUSION You will remember that when the Con

stitution was ·drafted in 1787 a number of

demands were made that the treaty power be linlited so as to avoid possible abuse. I have carefully studied the debates of the Constitutional Convention with regard to this provision. We were as a Nation at that time quite small, with fewer than 4 million people. We were relatively isolated along the Atlantic seaboard and quite distant from the rest of the world. In spite of that, our Founding Fathers insisted that the door be kept open to international agreements within the power granted by the Constitution when they are deemed necessary for the national welfare. It seems strange to me that now, when the United States is the most powerful Nation in the world, we should want to weaken or take away powers which the Founding Fathers considered to be quite essential to our national security.

I do not believe that we should tamper with the treatymaking power at this critical period in our history. The Bricker resolution would handicap President Eisenhower and Secretary Dulles unnecessarily and perhaps dangerously. We need a flexible, positive, and unembarrassed foreign policy. The cold war may last for a number of years. As a Nation we should not have our hands tied behind our back in dealing with international problems as they arise.

We, as a nation, are now facing the greatest crisis of our history. I agree with President Eisenhower that the Bricker resolution would cripple our conduct of international negotiations and would hinder us in assuming international leadership.

In conclusion, I urge the Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, to unite and defeat the Bricker amendment. The issue is one of patriotism, not politics; saving the Constitution, not solidifying a political party. In this issue I stand with President Eisenhower as I stood with President Truman before him in their united effort to keep our country strong and our Government resilient enough to maintain our position of world leadership.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, the Senate has before it a number of alternative proposals for amendment of the Constitution qesigned to meet what many thoughtful people regard as a real need for clarification of the status of treaties under the supremacy clause. Some of the proposed amendments would go beyond this and restrict the exercise both of the treaty power itself and of executive authority to enter into agreements with other countries.

Mr. President, I recognize the need for clarifying the supremacy clause. I do not believe, on the other hand, that we should in any way shackle the effective exercise of the treaty power or unwisely hamper the authority of the President in the field of foreign affairs. For these reasons, I have joined my colleagues, the Senator from California [Mr. KNow,LANDl, the Senator from Colorado [Mr. MILLIKIN], and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERGUSON] in offering several perfecting amendments to Senate Joint Resolution 1.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a synthesis of the four amendments. The placing of the four amendments together in the RECORD will provide an opportunity to m·ake clear their overall meaning, even though they are separate amendments.

There being no objection, the synthesis was ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, as follows:

SECTION 1. A provision of a treaty or other international agreement which confiicts


with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.

SEc . 2. Clause 2 of article VI of the Constitution of the United States is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the following: "Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this clause, no treaty made after the establishment of this Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land unless made in pursuance of this Constitution."

SEc. 3. When the Senate consents to the ratification of a treat y the vote shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against shall be entered on the Journal of the Senate.

SEC. 4. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 7 years from the date of its submission.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, it was because I believed that the supremacy clause required clarification that I joined in sponsoring the so-called Bricker amendment when it was first offered in the 82d Congress as Senate Joint Resolution 130. Testifying before the Committee on the Judiciary at the original hearings on that resolution, I said:

One thing seems to me to be clear-that our constitutional forefathers, when they drafted the Constitution, could never have foreseen that the world would grow as small as it has [with the result that] international agreements can involve personal rights that were retained by the people [and] protected under the Constitution.

It seemed to me, nevertheless, that the language of Senate Joint Resolution 130 went too far in restricting the proper scope of Executive authority to deal with other governments. At the same hearings, therefore, I expressed doubts on this point, and added that I believed further thoughtful consideration should be given to the language.

The perfecting umendments submitted by my colleagues and myself would eliminate the ambiguity in the Constitution which led me to join in sponsoring Senate Joint Resolution 130. They would avoid at the same time the objections which gave rise to the expressions of doubt to which I have just referred.

Mr. President, I should like to outline briefly why I believe that there is a real need for clarifying the present language of the Constitution with respect to the treaty power. Then I propose to explain my reasons for thinking that the language of Senate Joint Resolution 1, as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, goes too far in restricting the effective discharge of Executive responsibility in the field of foreign affairs. Finally, I shall attempt to describe how our amendments meet the need to which I have referred while avoiding the pitfalls of the more extreme approach taken by the committee resolution, and certain other proposed amendments to it.

First. Article VI, section 2, of the Constitution, the so-called supremacy clause, defines the status of treaties in the following terms:

This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, . and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.

The most striking feature o~ this section is the contrast between the language dealing with the laws of the United States and the language dealing with treaties. Both are to be the supreme law of the land. But the former are supreme law only if they shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution. The latter are supreme law provided merely that they are made under the authority of the United States.

What force, then, is to be given to this very obvious contrast in language? One possible answer is that, while laws are valid only so far as enacted under and in accordance with the powers vested in the Federal Government by the Constitution and are not in conflict with any prohibition of the Constitution, these limitations do not apply to treaties. Consistently with this interpretation, a treaty may be valid provided merely that it is entered into by officials duly representing the United States and ratified by the Senate even though some of its provisions conflict with an express prohibition of the Constitution. A treaty, in other words, is the supreme law of the land on the same footing as the Constitution itself and, therefore, not subject to the restrictions imposed by the Constitution.

If this interpretation is correct, it means that a treaty could override provisions of the Constitution designed to safeguard the rights of individuals. It could authorize, for example, searches without a warrant in the enforcement of a pact providing for the control of atomic weapons. It could make possible trial without a jury in the enforcement of an international narcotics control agreement. My own attention was first called to these possibilities by the decision of a district court of Calif_ornia-, holding that the State's alien-land law was superseded by article 55 of the United Nations Charter.

This interpretation of the supremacy clause certainly is not the only possible interpretation. It is, however, an interpretation regarded as tenable by many eminent students of the Constitution, by two successive majorities of the house of delegates of the American Bar Association, and by countless individual lawyers and laymen throughout the United States.

Other eminent students of the Constitution, I fully realize, do not agree with this group. A treaty, they argue, cannot rise to an authority transcending the very Constitution which confers the power to negotiate and ratify it. That, they say, would be a bootstrap exercise of astonishing ingenuity.

Who is to say which group is correct? Certainly I do not profess to have the grasp of constiutional law required to give an authoritative answer. But I am convinced of one thing, that rights protected by the Constitution should be immune from infringement by any conceivable exercise of the treaty power. Even the lawyers who disagree most violently a.s to the possibility that this could happen will unite in agreeing that it should not happen.

So long, however, as article VI, section 2, of the Constitution remains ambiguous, the possibility will remain. This possibility, in my view·, betrays a real

weakness in the Constitution. The doubt raised in my mind by the California decision was not in my mind alone. If it had been, the debate in which we are engaged today would never have taken place. But the constitutional problem symbolized by the California decision gave concern to many thoughtful Americans, and the senior Senator from Ohio [Mr. BRICKER] is to be commended for focusing attention on it through the introduction of the joint resolution for a constitutional amendment which he originally proposed.

Ours is a rapidly shrinking world, and today some people would hasten the establishment of a world government. Others propose various degrees of limitation of national sovereignty in the interest of world order. Some, in their eagerness to better the lot of the underprivileged, would raise the standard of living in other countries at the cost of possible sacrifice of rights of our own citizens.

I believe, therefore, that we should act now to eliminate any ambiguity in the Constitution under which a treaty infringing individual rights might be upheld. The need for such a clarification of our Constitution is what led me to become a joint sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 130. I still believe that this gap should be closed by an appropriate constitutional amendment.

Second. While I favor the clarification of article VI, section 2, so as to guarantee the immunity of individual rights against encroachment by treaty, it is neither wise nor necessary, in my opinion, in order to accomplish this purpose, that we should make any redistribution of power in the field of foreign affairs, between the Federal Government and the States or the executive branch and Congress. Such a redistribution, however, would be the effect of sections 2 and 3 of the committee resolution.

As between the Federal Government and the States, the so-called "which" clause would confine the effect of treaties to the area in which the Federal Government can act under its enumerated powers other than the treaty power. Stated in general terms, this sounds reasonable enough. Practically, however, it would create doubt as to various types of treaty provisions basic to the conduct of day-to-day relations with other countries.

No one knows, of course, just what treaty provisions would be called into question by the "which" clause, because the issue could not have arisen under the Constitution as it stands. Under the "which" clause, some of the common types of treaty provisions which would become of extremely doubtful validity, if not altogether invalidated, would be those dealing with civil aviation, radio frequencies, narcotics, and quarantine requirements. The same questions would arise as to treaties of commerce and friendship containing assurances of fair and nondiscriminatory treatment of investment, the right to do business, to acquire and dispose of real and personal property, to select empioyees, and so on. The enforcement of extradition treaties would be rendered doubtful. Treaties to protect Americans f1~om dou-

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1241 ble foreign taxation of particular transactions and to prevent fiscal evasion with -respect to income, estate, and inheritance taxes would become difticult or impossible to negotiate because we could not o1Jer reciprocal advantages in return.

Of less immediate, but great potential, seriousness, the "which" clause would cast grave doubt on any pledge by the United States of cooperation in the international control of atomic energy and mass destruction weapons with strict international inspection, as proposed in the Baruch plan.

Such doubts and difticulties would be bound to breed endless litigation and delay. More serious, in every case where the ultimate decision was that the subject matter of any provision of a treaty fell outside the expressly delegated powers of the Federal Government, separate legislation would be required in each State where the validity of the treaty had some international importance. In the case of most treaties, this would mean every one of the 48 States. The result, of course, would be that no one speaking for the United States, not even the President himself, could give a foreign government any assurance that such f treaty would ever become fully enforceable or ever, indeed, be disposed of in any clear-cut manner. Ratification by the Senate certainly would not mean that the treaty had become binding.

These are some of the reasons why our perfecting amendments to the committee amendment strike out one "which" clause.

As between the executive branch and Congress, section 3 of the committee amendment would redistribute authority to act in the field of foreign a1Jairs by giving Congress power to regulate all agreements of whatever character entered into by a representative of the United States with any foreign government. This, I am convinced, would open the door to legislative interference with powers inherently belonging to the President. The power to regulate is the power to prohibit and to nullify. I do not believe that in the almost daily grist of dealings between the United States and foreign governments the Congress should have such power.

It is true, of course, that Executive authority to deal with other governments is subject to abuse. The Constitution contemplates that the Senate shall participate in the treatymaking process by providing that a treaty can become effective only upon being approved by a twothirds vote of the Senate. The plain purpose of this provision is to see that treaties are brought under the scrutiny of a representative body, and, in this way, of public opinion also. Executive agreements can be exploited as a means of evading this requirement. But in

· seeking to remedy the possible abuse of Executive power, the committee amendment goes too far in enlarging congressional power. Congress is a legislative body, neither organized nor equipped to conduct negotiations with other countries. It should not, in my judgment, undertake to regulate the exercise of Executive responsibility in this field.

Ours is a government of laws, but that does not mean we can never trust men. In electing a President, we choose a man in whom we can confidently put our trust. Let us not take from this great omce the powers necessary to its e1Iecti.ve discharge.

Section 2 of the amendment proposed by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. GEORGE] to the committee amendment to Senate Joint Resolution 1 is subject, in my opinion, to similar criticism. The amendment of the Senator from Georgia would require that "an international agreement other than a treaty shall become effective as an internal law in the United States only by an act of the Congress." This language is designed to insure congressional scrutiny of international agreements in every case where they affect matters within the domestic legislative powers of Congress or the States.

I, for one, certainly recognize the force of the argument that what amounts to domestic legislation should not be enacted without the knowledge and approval of Congress and the American people.

But the difticulty with the language proposed by the Senator from Georgia, lies in the impossibility of determining in advance what are the possible domestic e1Iects of an international agreement. How can we tell where internal law leaves oti and external law begins? The lack of a clear answer to this question would throw into doubt the validity of every international agreement not submitted to Congress for the enactment of implementing legislation. It would, moreover, impose upon Congress the burden of sifting countless international agreements, in order to determine in what cases and to what extent legislation was needed. This could result only in confusion and delay in the administration of routine matters involving our relations with other countries. Thus, while I agree with what the amendment of the Senator from Georgia seeks to accomplish, it must be clarified, in my opinion, so as to overcome these real difticulties.

Third, the perfecting amendments to the committee amendment effectively safeguard individual rights, while avoiding the pitfalls of the committee amendment.

It was, as I have said, because of my concern that the Constitution might conceivably be interpreted as permitting a treaty or an international agreement to infringe individual rights, that I joined in sponsoring the Bricker amendment when it was first introduced.

The possibility that a treaty could ever have this effect is eliminated by section 1 of the committee amendment, which reads:

A pwvision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be o:t: any force or effect.

We do not propose to eliminate this section but si.Iitply to add, after the word "treaty", the words "or other international agreement." Certainly there can be no dispute that an international agreement should not have a more far-reaching eflect than a treaty.

In all probability this section alone completely meets the need for clarifying the Constitution. To make the matter doubly sure, we also propose an amendment to article VI, section 2, of the Constitution which would add at the end:

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this clause, no treaty made after the establishment of this Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land unless made in pursuance of this Constitution.

The ambiguity of article VI, section 2, of the Constitution derives, as I have pointed out, from the difference between the language applicable to laws of the United States and that applicable to treaties. This di1Jerence in phrasing was deliberate, but it had nothing to do with giving treaties superiority to the Constitution itself. The reason for it, as the records of the Constitutional Convention make clear, was simply to pre.;. serve the effectiveness of treaties entered into by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, before the Constitution came into being. Such treaties were entered into under the authority of the United States, but could not have been made in pursuance of the Constitution, because the Constitution did not exist. It was appropriate, however, that those early treaties should be supreme over State law, no less than treaties adopted after ratification of the Constitution or laws enacted by Congress pursuant to the Constitution. The simple phrase "under the authority of the United States" was thus made applicable to all treaties-both those already made and those which shall be made.

Despite this explanation of its origin, this phrase has given rise to the question I have already discussed, namely, whether treaties must be made "in pursuance of" the Constitution, as well as "under the authority of the United States." In order to eliminate this question for the future, the proposed addition to article VI, section 2, in effect! demands that all future treaties satisfy both requirements: Hot only must they be "made under the authority of the United States," but they cannot take effect as "the supreme law of the land unless made in pursuance of" the Constitution.

As modified by our perfecting amendments to the committee amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1 would not effect any redistribution of power between the Federal Government and the States. A treaty could still, as heretofore, be effective as internal law upon matters outside the scope of the Federal Government's enumerated powers in the domestic field. As to such matters, the validity of the treaty rests upon the treaty power itself. This being so, the treaty has been made "in pursuance of" the Constitution. It does not conflict with the lOth amendment, which reserves to the States powers not delegated to the United States, because the treaty power is one of the powers delegated to

· the United States. On the other hand, a provision of a

treaty which infringed prohibitions of the Constitution designed to safeguard individual rights would not be ''in pursuance of the Constitution." Moreover,

1242 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE February 3 it would be in conflict with the Constitu- Mr. SPARKMAN. r ·yield to the Eenation, and thus would be invalid, under tor from Nevada under that agrezmen t. section 2. The possibility that such a provision might be up_held unde~ th~ existing language of article VI, sectiOn 2, is thus foreclosed.

As between the executive branch and Congress, the perfecting amendments to the committee amendment leave power where it already lies. This, I am convinced, is a wise decision. Much as. the experience of Yalta and Potsdam ~Ig~t tempt us to insist upon a larger vmce m the area of international a greements, such a voice could be obtained only at ~he cost of serious restraints upon the mherent powers of the President. As I testified in 1952, this would be a do~btful, and in all probability a damagmg, experiment.

Section 3 of the perfecting amendments to the committee amendment requires that "where the Senate consents to the ratification of a treaty, the vote shall be determined by yeas and nays" and recorded in the Journal of the Senate. This would simply make ~inding a sound rule of practice. Treaties are a solemn form of international enga~ement, and the very considerations W~Ich justify the requirement of a two-thirds vote also demand that the vote be taken by yeas and nays and be ~ecorded. As to the desirability of this, mdeed, there can only be general agreement.

For the reasons I have outlined, Mr. President, I regard the perfecting amendments to the committee amendment to Senate Joint Resolution 1 as embodying a real improvement in the . Constitution. They would thus fulfill the main hope of many of us who_ joined the Senator from Ohio in sponsormg the original joint resolution; namely, that by focusing discussion and debate upo? a serious lack of clarity in the Constitution, a sound solution might emer_ge. Because I believe the solution embodied in the pe~fecting amendment to the committee amendment is sound, I shall vote in their favor.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. . Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi

dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll. The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the

~L . Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-

dent I ask unanimous consent that the orde~· for the quorum call be rescinded and that further proceedings under the call be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CARLSON in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SPARKMAN obtained the floor .. Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi

dent, will the Senator yield? Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield. Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I ask unan~

mous consent that, without losing his right to the floor, the Sen.ator from Alabama may yield to the Senator from Nevada [Mr. McCARRAN] for the purpose of bringing to the attention of the Senate a highly privileged matter.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Texas? The Chair hears none.

APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL CIR. CUlT AND DISTRICT JUDGES

CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. McCARRAN. M:J;". President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill <S. 15) to provide for the ap-

' pointment of additional circuit and district judges, and for other purpo?es. I

, ask unanimous consent for the Immediate consideration of the report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be read for the information of the Senate.

The legislative clerk read the report. <For conference report, see CoNGRES

SIONAL RECORD Of January 28, 1954, pp. 1259-1261.)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the report?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report.

Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, we have before us the conference report on Senate bill 15, the omnibus judgeship bill which provides for. additional distri~t and circuit judgeships throughout the United States.

This bill was originally passed by the Senate and amended by the House. During the 1st session of the 83d Congress the conferees met on occasions, but were unable to agree as to the differences between the two versions of the bill. When the conferees again met early in this session of the Congress, after much discussion and study, agreement was reached, and we have before us the conference report which has just recently been approved by the House.

The Senate version of Senate bill 15 provided for a total of 39 judgeships, 4 of them being circuit judgeships and the other 35 being district judgeships, both of a permanent and temporary nature. The version of Senate bill 15 as it passed the House contained a total of 13 less judgeships than the Senate version, or a total of 26 judgeships. The conference report which is now before us has a total of 30 judgeships. The ones added to the House version of the bill, and upon which the House receded, were the additional district judgeships for the eastern district of Michigan and the temporary additional judgeship for the western district of Pennsylvania. In addition the House agreed to accept the Senate v'ersion as regards the additional judgeship for the district of North Dakota by making that judgeship permanent instead of temporary. It was also agreed that in lieu of the permanent judgeships set forth in the Senate version for the districts of Nevada and Utah that those two judgeships be granted on a temporary basis. These were the matters upon which the House and Senate conferees agreed.

As I have stated, just recently this conference report has been adopted by

the House, and I now move that the Senate adopt the conference report on Sen-ate bill 15, the omnibus judgeship bill. . Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I am in favor of adopting the conference .report. I believe it is a good report. There are heavy dockets in many districts and that situation will be taken care of by the adoption of the conference report. I hope it will be adopted. At the same time I wish to give notice that some of the Federal judges will have to do more work. The Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing last week at which former Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts t estified.

There is no question in my mind that some of the judges have been taking too many vacations and too long vacations. Mr. Justice Roberts agreed.

Certainly I cannot see why a judge should take a 3-month vacation in the summer, another 2 or 3 weeks at Christmas and some more time at Easter. A far~er does not do it, a Member of the Senate does not do it, and a businessman does not do it. I was delighted when former Justice Roberts testified that it was his feeling it should not be done by judges.

If the conference report is adopted, a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary will go into the subject of vacations very fully, and I hope with very good results.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Dakota yield?

Mr. LANGER. I yield. Mr. RUSSELL. I was interested in the

Senator's statement with respect to the subcommittee. I wonder what a subcommittee could do about it after a judge has been appointed. A judge is appointed for life. I am curious to know what a subcommittee of the Judiciary Com.mittee could do about it.

Mr. LANGER. Of course, after a judge is appointed, nothing can be done about it.

Mr. RUSSELL. Yet the Senator proposes to provide 30 additional judges.

Mr. LANGER. I am not opposing the appointment of the additional judges.

Mr. RUSSELL. I understand. However it seems to me that the Senator fro~ North Dakota, while providing for additional judges, is at the same time indicting the present judges for not working hard enough.

Mr. LANGER. I am not condemning a single judge who is now on the bench by name; not one.

Mr. RUSSELL. Not by name. Mr. LANGER. We had one case before

us with reference to a judge in a State, which had only one judge, who would go away for the whole summer and it would be necessary to bring a judge from out of the State to do the work of the judge who went on vacation.

Mr. RUSSELL. Is not the Senator going to give that State a new judgeship under the bill?

Mr. LANGER. In this particular case that is correct, but the judge I refer to is no longer on the bench. · Mr. RUSSELL. In other words, the Senator from North Dakota is making it possible for 2 judges to take vacations instead of 1 judge • .

1951,. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1243 Mr. LANGER. The judge I refer to The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BAR-

bas retired. I am satisfied that a full RETT in the chair). Does the Senator and complete study ought to be made. from North Dakota yield? A majority of the judges do a good job. Mr. LANGER. I yield. I want that clearly understood. How- Mr. CARI.SON. I notice that the con-ever, once in a while there is a judge who terence report does not provide for a does not do a good job, and I believe new judge for the State of Kansas or it to be the duty of the Committee on for the Kansas judicial district. I the Judiciary to make a study of the should like to ask the distinguished situation. There was a case in Idaho, chairman of the Committee on the with which my colleague, the Senator Judiciary if there is a possiblity of getfrom Nevada [Mr. McCARRAN], is acting consideration for additional judges quainted, of a judge who, at least in my at this session of Congress. opinion, did not hold in very high esteem Mr. LANGER. I should like to have the judgeship to which he had been ap- the distinguished Senator from Nevada pointed. [Mr. McCARRAN] answer that question.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, I the Senator from North Dakota yield? apologize to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. LANGER. I shall yield in a mo- I did not hear his question. ment. I might say that I do not know Mr. CARLSON. I notice that thereat this time how long a vacation judges port does not contain a recommendatook in the early days, or when the prac- tion for an additional judge in the State tice of taking summer vacations first of Kansas. arose, or when the practice of taking Mr. McCARRAN. I am advised that ·other vacations first arose. However, I the State of Kansas was not included in believe it to be the duty of the Commit- the bill as it passed the Senate. tee on the Judiciary to find out what the Mr. CARLSON. That is what I unsituation is. Certainly we should try to derstood. Is there a possibility of find a remedy. In other words, if a another judgeship bill being considered judge can take otr 3 months, what is to at this session? prevent him from taking off 6 months? Mr. McCARRAN. I am not at all cerDoes the Senator from Georgia say that tain whether such a bill can be considCongress is helpless in the situation? ered at this session, but not only does

Mr. RUSSELL. No; I do not take that Kansas need another judge, but an addiposition. Congress has the power of im- tiona! judge is badly needed in southern peachment, of course. However, I do Florida and also in California. We tried not understand how we can correct a to have those judgeships provided for in situation by appointing another judge the bill, but were unable to do so. There in a State to help the first judge take was a recommendation from the Judicial his vacation. Conference for an additional judge in

Mr. LANGER. I agree. the State of Mississippi. · ·Mr. RUSSELL. If the Senator could • Mr. CARLSON. For many years the

correct the dereliction which he has al- Conference has recommended an addileged on the floor to exist, that would tional judge in Kansas. I know the be one thing; but I do not see how it docket there is very heavy, and that an could be done by appointing another additional judge is badly needed. I urge judge to help the first judge take a that if at this session a bill is introduced

·vacation. providing for additional judgeships, the Mr. LANGER. If some publicity were appointment of an additional judge in

given to the situation and the public Kansas be given consideration. were to be aroused, the average judge Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the would do a better job. Senator from Nevada yield?

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. the Senator from North Dakota yield? Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, as the · Mr. LANGER. I yield. Senator from Nevada has stated, the Ju-

Mr. KILGORE. Did we not also learn dicial Council has recommended an adduring the course of the hearings of the ditional judge in the State of Mississippi case of a judge who was permitted to stay to cope with the crowded docket, :Particuin omce long after his useful days were larly in the southern district. So far as over and who had to take vacations for the Senator from Nevada knows, will the reasons of health? Did we not also have Senate consider that recommendation testimony to the etrect that judges this year? stayed on the active list longer than they Mr. McCARRAN. I will say that should have remained on it, and thereby when the change of administration came impaired the work of their courts? about, the chairman of the Judiciary

Mr. LANGER. The distinguished Committee [Mr. LANGER] was courteous Senator from West Virginia will remem- enough to appoint the senior Senator ber that when former Justice Roberts from Nevada chairman of a subcommittestified, he stated that the average tee on judicial machinery. It was out of judge does a good job. I certainly agree. · that subcommittee that this bill origl am not criticizing the judiciary in the · inated. slightest. However, here and there is to I desire to say to the Senator from be found an individual judge who takes Mississippi that it is my intention to take advantage of his position. Mr. Justice into consideration the recommendations Roberts said he did not like to see a case of the Judicial Conference with the idea of that kind when he was on the Supreme of trying to relieve the situation in MisCourt bench, and he thinks perhaps sissippi as well as in some other States.

·something could be done about it. · Mr. STENNIS. Does the Senator :Mr . . CARLSON. Mr. President, will think it is advisable to introduce at this

ihe ·senator yield? session a bill t.o that erid? ·

Mr. McCARRAN. I shall personally do everything I can along that line.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report.

The report was agreed to.

ANNOUNCEMENT AS TO DURATION OF TODAY'S SESSION

Mr. SPARKMAN obtained the floor. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will

the Senator from Alabama yield in order that I may make an announcement?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I shall be very glad to yield, if I may do so without losing the floor.

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

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, earlier today I indicated that we might hold a night session. Because of the fact that the announcement had been made last night, without adequate warning to some Members of the Senate, and because of the fact that a number of Senators had made commitments which it will be difficult for them to break, we shall not run tonight beyond 7 o'clock. So far as the session tomorrow is concerned, I have been informed that the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has scheduled a meeting to mark up the bill providing statehood for Alaska.

I have no desire to interfere with the committee's functioning in that regard, and, inasmuch as an earlier meeting of the Senate tomorrow might interfere with the work of the committee, we shall meet at 12 o'clock noon tomorrow.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield. Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. There are

some Senators who have speeches they desire to make. In view of two dinners which are scheduled for this evening, the Senator from California does not expect to have a vote on any of the amendments to the pending measure, does he?

Mr. KNOWLAND. Since the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN] has indicated that he will not make a prolonged speech, I am hopeful that we may have some votes this evening and to that extent move ahead a little. Senators on both sides of the aisle have indicated that they would like to have some votes if it is at all possible. I told the Senator earlier that if no votes were taken by 6:30 o'clock this evening, there would be no voting after that hour, even though the Senate might run. until 7 o'clock to enable Senators to make speeches.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield. Mr. BENNETT. Will there be any

session of the Senate tomorrow night? Mr. KNOWLAND. I have given ad

vance notice that we might have ·an evening session but I think we might wait until tomorrow before making final determination to that effect. If it looks as though we might proceed with a roll· call by continuing in session until 'I or 8 o'clock, and that meets with the approval 9f the Senate. I think we


should be in a position to do so. But, as the distinguished Senator from Utah knows, it is very difficult to predict what the Senate of the United States may do under any given set of circumstances. I shall leave it in that nebulous state, to see what we can accomplish during the remainder of this afternoon and tomorrow.

Mr. BENNETT. The Senator from California is giving us a litt le bit of carrot in the hope that if we finish tomorrow afternoon we can go home.

Mr. KNOWLAND. That is correct. Mr. WILEY. l.\4r. President, will the

Senator from Alabama yield to me so that I may make a brief st atement?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield, with the understanding that I shall not lose my right to the floor.

THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, on Tues

day, February 2, the Civil Aeronuatics Board was taken to task on the floor of this body for doing something which it is charged by law with doing, namely, the protection of the U:nited States national interest. I have heard criticism here before of failures by our Government to look after the interests of the United States, but I confess I was a little astonished to hear an agency taken to task for doing its bounden duty to protect the Nation's interests.

Mr. President, the facts in the case I am discussing are simple and easy to understand. Once understood, they reflect only credit on the action of the CAB in moving expeditiously to see that the United States gets an even break in air competition with a European flag airline. There is one simple issue at the heart of this matter: Will the United States flag carrier have the opportunity to fly on equal terms with the French Government airline?

The facts, Mr. President, are these: For 7 years the CAB and the Department of State have tried to negotiate with Mexico an air treaty which would provide for the air transportation rights of all interested carriers. Throughout this period their attempts have been unsuccessful. About 2 weeks ago the Mexican Government authorized Air France, the French Government airline, to carry local passengers nonstop between New York City and Mexico City. The United States had given France this right several years ago on the principle of reciprocity for United States flag rights in France, that is, Paris to Rome.

Air France commenced New York City to Mexico City operations immediately with a flight time under 7 hours. This created an emergency situation because American Airlines, the only United States carrier authorized to fly between these two cities, was required to fly a longer route, making intermediate stops, so that its fastest flying time was 10 hours, 10 minutes, against 6 hours, 55 minutes for Air France, a difference of 3 hours, 15 minutes. The history of air transportation shows that with such a disadvantage caused by slower service, our Government would in effect be permitting the great bulk of the business to be transported by a European carrier.

To meet this emergency the CAB, with the concurrence of. the Department of State, and acting under its emergency powers, granted American Airlines the right to fly this route nonstop. This allows the United States carrier to compete on equal terms. American Airlines being the only United States carrier operating the route between these two cities, this was the only thing the Board and the Department of State could have done to meet this emergency.

For several years, Mr. President, American, which has worked to develop this traffic since 1942, has been aware of the possibility that one day Air France would start such a nonstop service between New York and Mexico City. It has been diligent in ~dvising the CAB and the other interested Government agencies that it, too, should have opportunity to compete for the traffic it had developed on equal terms with the European airline. The record of the CAB is full of the representations made by American in this regard.

So, Mr. President, when the matter came to a head late in January through Air France obtaining permission from the Mexican Government to carry United States-Mexican traffic nonstop between these cities, the CAB, with the concurrence of the Department of State, moved swiftly to insure the protection of our national interest.

Contrary to the impression that some are trying to create, the CAB did not act hastily or on ill advice. The facts in this situation, I reiterate, have been known to the Board and to the Department of State for several years. They are spread upon the public records of th& Board. The State Department and the Civil Aeronautics Board moved swiftly to protect the United States national interest, and for doing that, Mr. President, they deserve the commendation of this body and the thanks of every American.

Mr. LONG. - Mr. President, will the Senator from Wisconsin yield?

Mr. WILEY. I yield. Mr. LONG. The Senator is aware of

the fact, is he not, that there are two former Senators on that Board, one of whom takes the same position that I have taken for some time, namely, that cities like New Orleans and Birmingham, for example, are entitled to have air service to Mexico City?

Mr. WILEY. I am also acquainted with the fact that Air France makes flights there, and I am also acquainted with the fact that American Airlines was promised service some time ago and should have had it. I shall not attempt to thresh out the merits of the question. If we are going to criticize the decis.ions of boards and courts, we are assuming a jurisdiction. which does not belong to us. We are legislators. I mean no reflection on the Senator from Louisiana. I realize he received good publicity and received many letters, but I think a statement on the other side is merited.

Mr. LONG. How would the Senator from Wisconsin feel if, after his State had been one of those given permission 7¥2 years ago to have air service between his State and another country, the people of his State were then told they could not have the service until there had

been entered into with the foreign country a bilateral agreement which would settle every issue?

After we had listened to that excuse for 7¥2 years, American Airlines decided it wanted to establish a nonstop line from New York to Mexico City. There was no bilateral agreement in that case. The Civil Aeronautics Board said, "Go down and work out an agreement with Mexico. So far as we are concerned, it is all right."

But for 7% years Eervice has been denied to New Orleans, Birmingham, and Atlanta. If the Senator's State of Wisconsin were being discriminated against, how would he feel? Would he not speak out in favor of the people of his State?

Mr. WILEY. I have no criticism of the distinguished Senator from Louisiana. I have always thought he was very fluid in his expressions, and was loyal to his State and his constituents. I do not blame him a bit. I say, Three hurrahs for him.

At the same time, I felt that since a former Senator had been attacked, his views should be given, although he had not asked me to express them. Chan Gurney is an old friend of mine. I thought the views of both sides should be placed in the RECORD, not merely the views of one side. ·

Mr: LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. WILEY. Certainly; and I say to the Senator from Louisiana, Shake hands.

Mr. LONG. When~ver former Senator Chan Gurney, now Civil Aeronautics Commissioner Gurney, . is in favor of granting adequate air service to Louisiana, I shall be at the side of the Senator from Wisconsin, standing with him.

EXPANSION AND EXTENSION OF DIRECT HOME AND FARMHOUSE LOAN AUTHORITY Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, it is

my purpose in taking the floor to introduce three bills, and to make a short explanatory statement about each of fuem. . .

First, I wish to refer to a bill I am introducing to expand and extend to June 30, 1955, the direct home and farm':" house loan authority of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs under title III of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, as amended, to make additiona. funds available therefor, and for other purposes.

The bill, which I shall send to the desk at the conclusion of. my remarks, seeks to continue the . life of the veterans' direct-loan program, which I originally introduced, and which Congress first authorized in the Housing Act of 1950.

I hope that this bill will receive the wholehearted support that it deserve.s. It is the only way tbat the GI-loan benefits of the GI bill of rights can be made possible for many of our World War II and Korean veterans who live outside the large metropolitan centers. .

My reason for introducing the bill is that the President, in submitting his housing program, omitted any referet;1ce to this extension; and if the program as the President presented it were to be en-

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 1245 )

acted, the very fine and worthwhile program to which I am referring would expire on June 30 of this year.

It is important to distinguish between the regular GI-loan program of the Veterans' Administration and the .supplemental direct loan program which is confined to the small towns and rural areas. The regular GI-loan program of the Veterans' Administration is the program under which private mortgage capital supported by the VA guaranty has made available the advantageous terms of GI financing to more than 3 million World War II and Korean veterans. These are loans made by private banks, savings and loan associations, and insurance .companies, and the loans are partially guaranteed by the VA.

The protection of the VA guaranty has encouraged lenders to make loans at low interest rates and on very liberal terms. Most of the regular GI loans have been made with no downpayment .or with a much smaller downpayment than that normally required. The typical maturity has been for 20 or 25 years.

VA's direct-loan program-with which my bill is concerned-was set up by t.he Congress in 1950 as a necessary supple~ent to the regular VA-guaranteed GIloan program. The reason that Congress authorized the direct loan program is simple. We had found that ever since the GI-loan program was first authorized in 1944,' veterans who lived in many of our small towns and semirural communities were unable to find private lenders willing to make GI loans. · In maqy of these areas the only.Jending institution is a relatively small country bank which does not h.ave sufficient capital to make long-term mortgage loan~. The primary b~siness of these country banks is to supply the commercial and farming credit needed by the community. It usually has very limited funds available for long-term mortgage loans. Also the going interest rate. for mortgages in these rural areas has typically been much higher than the 4 percent or 4% percent interest rates permitted for GI loans. · ' The increase in the interest rate on regular GI loans from 4 percent to . 4% percent, which was effective last May, has had little effect on the availability of GI loans in rural areas and small towns. Since that time, the Veterans' Administration has been able to remove a few areas from direct loan eligibility, but the number of such actions has been very small, and in general the areas where 4-percent GI loans were customarily unavailal>le are virtually identical with the arei4.s where 4 1/2-percent GI loans are unobtainable today.

Recognizing this basic inequity which, in effect, denied to veterans living outside of urban areas the benefits of the GI loan law which Congress intended tO be available for all veterans, the Congress authorized the Veterans' Administration to make loans direct with Government funds in those areas where private lenders were unable or unwilling to make GI loans.

In. its report, the President's Advisory Committee makes clear that there are areas' where there is always an acute ~prtage o:f housing investment funds.

It would try to solve the shortage, however, by raising interest rates and charging higher fees. This might make more money available, but those added charges would make the cost prohibitive. Experience shows that my proposal is the sound way to fill this admitted gap. · I may say at this point that the last time this measure was before the committee for hea'rings, bankers, investment bankers, and representatives of insurance companies who came before the committee, I believe without exception, acknowledged that the program was a good one and ought to be continued.

The sum originally made available to VA for the direct-loan program was $150 million, a relatively small sum when compared with the $22 billion which private lenders have made available for GI loans with the VA guaranty.

Congress extended the program again in September 1951, and authorized the $150 million to be used as a revolving fund which would permit the VA to make new loans as outstanding loans were repaid or sold to private investors. Then later, in April 1952, when VA funds for additional direct loans were exhausted, Congress authorized an additional $12'5 million to be made available to the VA in quarterly installments.

Last year the Congress authorized a 1-year extension of the program and a continuation of the authorization for additional allotments of $25 million per quarter. However, under existing law the final $25 million allocation will be made available on April 1, and the VA's authority to make additional loans will expire on June 30 of this year. · The need for VA's direct-loan program which Congress has clearly recognized ever since 1950 is as great today as at any time over the past 3 or 4 years. The supply of funds available for GI loans appears to be somewhat better now than it was a year ago, but this improvement has been confined primarily to the urban areas of the country. ·

I hope that the improvement will eventually be felt in some of our more sparsely populated communities. If so, under the law, the Veterans' Administration will be able to remove such areas from direct-loan eligibility. Uowever, there is little prospect in the immediate future that private capital will be able · to meet the home financing needs of veterans in rural areas and small towns. · If ~e do not extend the life of V A's direct-loan program and provide additional money, we will have to face the brutal fact that the GI loan benefit will be nothing more than a hollow mockery to those veterans who do not happen to live in the urban areas where GI loan money is obtainable. I do not want to see that happen, and I am confident that the other Members of Congress do not want to see it happen either.

In order to meet the needs of the direct-loan program my bill would provide a total of $200 million for the year beginning ' July 1. However, the $200 million would not all become immediately available but, following the present pattern, the money would become available to the Veterans' Admin-~tration in four quarterly inst~l~ments

of $50 million each during the next fiscal year.

Also, as under the present arrangement, the $50 million quarterly allotments would be reduced by the amount of sales of loans to private lenders made by VA in the pr.eceding quarter.

You will note that my bill would call for quarterly allotments of $50 million or double the $25 million which VA has been receiving each quarter over the past year. I propose that the quar.terly allocation be increased for the very simple reason that the $25 million allocation has fallen considerably short of meeting the demand for GI loans by World War II and Korean veterans in the smaller towns and rural areas.

There are many thousands of veterans now on the waiting lists hoping to receive GI loans. If the program expires on June 30, the unsatisfied waiting list would still number many thousand veterans. The increase · to $50 million should help to reduce the size of that waiting list substantially, and more effectively meet the direct loan demand by veterans in the coming fiscal year.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield for a question?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I am very glad to yield to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. STENNIS. I may· preface my remarks by saying that the matter being discussed by the Senator- from Alabama is one in ·which I am indeed interested, because quite recently I have received several requests from veterans in Mississippi for help in connection with the loans referred to, not help in getting the actual loans, but for assistance in getting their names on the list, which is very long. On a quick inquiry, I understand that there are pending in Missis:. sippi at the present time more than one thousand applications. l understood the Senator to say a while ago that the law, unless amended, will expire within a very short time. Is that correct?

Mr. SPARKMAN. It will expire on June 30, and there will be available from April 1 to June 30 only $25 million.

Mr. STENNIS. I may point to one case in particular, in which the Veterans' Administration was not to blame, because the veteran made a mistake as to his title. In any event, the veteran waited several months, and then the mistake was discovered. He was then told, on last August 12, that he would have to take a new place on the list and await his turn. I have before me a letter dated December 23, 1953, in which it is stated that the veteran would still have to wa~t. and that it would be several months before his name would be reached. It was anticipated that by that time the funds would not be available.

I desire to ask the Senator from Alabama how long it is proposed to extend the life of the legislation. I am talking about the direct loans. because the Sen-ator has said that 1n the small towns and rural areas such-loans are not available to veterans from other sources.

Mr. SPARKMAN. In reply to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, I may say that all I am ·proposing in the


bill is to extend the law for 1 year. As a matter of fact, if I had my way-and I may say that this suggestion now comes from the national headquarters of the American Legion-! would extend it for the same period which is provided for in the GI bill of rights. I would make the two laws conterminous. However, I see nothing wrong in our reviewing the program every year, and for that reason I am simply proposing to extend the law for 1 year.

I may say further to the Senator from Mississippi that one reason why I feel rather confident in favoring the proposal to extend the law for 1 year is that it has been extended year by year.

I introduced the bill originally at the request of the American Legion and in response to the action taken at their national convention, which suggested the kind of program I am sponsoring. The American Legion sent the bill to me and asked me if I would sponsor it, and I did so.

I may say that I was reenf arced in my support of the bill by letters which I had received from bankers in the smaller towns in my own State. I remember one in particular which came from a gentleman in Tuscumbia, Ala. As the Senator from Mississippi knows, that town is very near his State. It is not a large place. It is a fairly sizable town, but it certainly is not one of the metropolitan areas.

The banker said, ''You know, I am president of a little bank. We are limited by capitalization. We can put only so many loans in our portfolio; then we are through. I have tried to help the veterans of this area, but my portfolio is full. I can't move the loans into the market. It does make me sad not to be able to take care of the veterans in this community."

I had many letters of that kind from banks, as well as letters from veterans in rural communities, touching on the subject.

The distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. DouGLAS] may recall that when I introduced the bill originally I had great difficulty in getting the Committee on Banking and Currency to approve the bill, because it was something new, and it was a direct-loan program. When the bill was brought up on the :ftoor of the Senate, we had a very difficult time in securing its passage, but it scraped through on a trial basis, with an appropriation of $150 million for 1 year.

The next year the matter came up again. Under the amendment which I offered, the fund was changed into arevolving fund, and the bill provided that as the banks sold the mortgages, they could use the money over and over. I remember that the distinguished junior Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] spoke in behalf of it at that time. The bill then passed unanimously.

A similar bill again came up in April of 1952, and at that time it was passed unanimously.

Now the time comes for the subject to be considered again. Frankly, I would not int roduce the bill had the President included such a provision in his program. However, · the President did not

include it,. and I think it is vital for ·us to continue the program.

I have from· the American Legion an informal statement that, by all means, the program should be continued, and they suggest continuing it for the life of the GI bill of rights program. ,

If the Senator from Mississippi will pardon me, I may say, in connection with the statement just made by him, that unless such a program is continued a veteran to whom he referred cannot hope to get a loan.

I may add that the Korean veterans are just returning, so the Korean veterans in the rural areas cannot hope to profit under this program or any other housing program unless such a bill as I am introducing is passed.

Mr. STENNIS. In answer to the Senator's observation, I call attention to a statement in the letter I said I had received:

Our manager in Jackson indicates it may be several months before Mr. Coleman's request is reached in turn, dependent upon the many variables which enter to affect the amount of funds available and the housing desires and needs of veterans ahead of him on the waiting list.

I may add that I have discovered that the law will expire before many months pass.

Mr. SPARKMAN. And before his name on the list is reached.

Mr. STENNIS. Will the Senator from Alabama yield further on this point?

Mr. SPARKlVIAN. I am glad to yield. Mr. STENNIS. I happen to know

what the situation is with reference to the small-town banks. It is pertinent t'l inquire whether or not local lending institutions can carry loans of the nature provided for in the Senator's bill. Although small-town banks are solvent and sound, they do not have the longterm investment funds and the big trust departments which the banks in larger cities have. Except for a few loans, they cannot go beyond agricultural loans and the short-time commercial loans which are usual in such communities. The State laws do not permit their going beyond that. The banks are not created to go beyond such loans. In small towns veterans do not have available to them loans for construction of homes and they are without avenues of financing which are available to veterans in other areas where are located larger financial institutions or banks, with larger financial structures. I am impressed with the fact that in the relatively small State of Mississippi, more than 1,000 such applications are pending, with no hope of obtaining loans before the expiration of the law.

Certainly the Veterans' Administration is not at fault; I wish to make that clear.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Of course that is true. The trouble arises because of the limitation on the program. It has been operated on the basis of $25 million a quarter. A few minutes ago I said, as the able Senator may recall, that I was proposing that the program be increased to $50 'million a quarter, less any sales which are made, because of the tremendous backlog that has been built up. The Senator from Mississippi has referred

to the backlog which has been built up in his own State. Of course the backlog is increasing as the Korean veterans return home. . My guess is that the backlog which has developed in the State of Mississippi represents a complete program for that State for about 18 months. In other words, in Mississippi a backlog of about 18 months exists at the present time.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield to me?

The PRESIDING .OFFICER <Mr. ScHOEPPEL in the chair). Does the Senator from Alabama yield to the Senator from New York?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield. Mr. LEHMAN. I wonder whether the

Senator from Alabama recalls a meeting of the Banking and Currency Committee, of which he is a very distinguished member, about 1 year ago, at about the time when we were discussing increasing the interest rate on VA loans. We had before us a large number of representatives of the smaller lending institutions in the smaller communities, who testified~ with great conviction, I thought-that although there was no doubt that in the large money centers, such as New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Baltimore, and possibly New Orleans, sufficient mortgage money was available at a fair rate of interest, so as to permit the larger lending institutions to care for the veterans' needs, yet in the small centers, such as the one referred to by the Sena .. tor from Mississippi-and let me say they are multiplied many hundreds of times, if not thousands of times throughout the Nation-there was no way by which a veteran could obtain a loan; except through the direct inter• vention of the Federal Government.

It seems to me that the testimony given there was so convincing that there should be no difficulty in . persuading Congress to pass this bill, so as to authorize $50 million a quarter, instead of the $25 million a quarter which has been allowed in the past; but which has been entirely inadequate.

I wish to commend the Senator from Alabama very highly for introdueing the bill. He can be assured of my full support.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. - President, · I appreciate very much the remarks of the distinguished Senator from New York.

Let me say that I remember the meet· ing of the committee. The Senator from New York will remember, too, that not only were there present at that meeting representatives who spoke of the need, but also some of the most distinguished bankers of the Nation. For instance, I remember quite well that the representative of one of the leading New York banks-and the Senator from New York may recall which one it was; I am uncertain whether it -was Chase National Bank or the Guaranty Trust or the City National Bank; I believe it was 1 of the 3-testified in behalf of, and paid his compliments to, the program, and said it had done a good job, and was needed because there were areas which his bank and similar -banks could never, never hope to reach.

Mr. LEHMAN. Yes, I remember that distinctly. As I recalV that testimony

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 1247 was given "by a representative of the Treasury Department.

Mr. SPARKMAN. The Senator from New York may be correct as to that.

Mr. KILGORE. · Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield to me?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield. Mr. KILGORE. At the outset of the

GI home-loan program, the Government guaranteed most of the amount, and the 1·est was borrowed at a fixed rate of interest. Is not that correct? ·

Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes; and that is still done. · Mr. KILGORE. Yes; where it is possible to find a bank that will make such a loan.

Mr. SPARKMAN. That is correct. Mr. KILGORE. At the outset the·

RFC bought the loans from the banks, and even paid a commission for them. Of course Congress . had to stop that practice, because of abuses. Is not that correct?

Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes. Of course the home mortgage market, as in the case of many other markets, has gone up and has gone down. We have had a second.:. ary mortgage market, which was supposed to help when the other market "went bad.'' But of course there was a time when it -bought all the mortgages; that is the instance to which the Senator from West Virginia has referred. -

Mr. KILGORE. Yes. The big problem at this time arises .from the fact that in the smaller communities-such as those referred to by the Senator from Mississippi-the local banks get their portfolios loaded with home mortgages, ·of which they can take only a certain percentage, under the regulation; and then it is encumbent upon the prospective borrower to obtain the loan elsewhere, thus entailing brokerage fees. Is not that correct?

Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes. But, of course, there are other areas where loans under the Government program are not available at all; and some of those areas are in the State which is so ably represented by the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. KILGORE. It is true that there are such areas in the State I in part represent. However, even in those areas, the Government has to have its interest safeguarded, in handling such loans. -

Mr. SPARKMAN. That is correct:Mr. KILGORE. The Government of

ficials have to check the loans, and have to have the properties appraised. Therefore, the operation under this program is much cheaper and also much safer for the veteran, and entails no cost to the Government. Is not that correct?

Mr. SPARKMAN. That is correct. In fact, I think the GOvernment will show a profit on the operation. A little later I shall show in detail how good '"he program has been. In fact, defaults have occurred in a little less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all the loans handled.

Mr. KILGORE. Furthermore, the program results in a decreased cost to the veteran; and it costs the Government no more; and the risk is practically negligible, even as compared to private bank-loan risks.

Mr. SPARKMAN. That is correct.

By the way, let me -point out that we wrote into the original law a require-ment that the veteran had to be a good credit risk. That requirement is still in the law.

Mr. KILGORE. Yes. And, I can give an illustration of it: I happen to know of a case in which the FHA was willing to finance a piece of property at an evaluation of $17,500. The seller agreed with the veteran, however, to accept the Veterans' Administration appraisal, which was $16,000. The loan was handled in that amount, through the Veterans' Administration. Of course the veteran had a certain amount of money of his own which he would use. Thus he was able to finance the loan, and was saved $1,500, because of what I would consider to be possibly an excessively large valuation which had been placed on the property by the seller.

So in the long run the program redounds to the benefit of the veteran, and at no cost to the Government.

Mr. SPARKMAN. The distinguished Senator is correct in the conclusion he 1·eaches.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield to me?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana, who, as I remember, was previously an outstanding member of the Banking and Currency Committee when this program was approved by it.

Mr. LONG. Yes, I had the honor of serving on the subcommittee headed by the distinguished junior Senator from ·Alabama. ·

I wish to compliment him on the very fine work he has done in connection with housing bills which have provided for housing for veterans and, in ·fact, for persons in all walks of life.

So far as I recall, I have agreed with his views on housing in every instance.

I should like to have the Senator from Alabama tell me, if he can, whether the Government has lost any money on the program of direct loans, or whether the Government will be able to look upon this program as one which has been without cost to it.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I do not have the figures available, except as to foreclosures. A moment ago I said that foreclosures have amounted· to a little less than one-tenth of 1 percent. In a moment I shall present those figures.

I am quite certain that not only has the Government not lost any money on the program, but probably there will be a slight margin of profit. Of course, the program is not for the purpose of profit. However, I am quite certain that-just as in the case of all the other housing programs-this program will show a profit to the Government. I am excepting, of course, such programs as those for slum clearance, urban redevelopment, and public housing, which are long-range programs. Actually, as to them we could figure a profit if we considered the tax returns.· However, I am speaking solely of initial operations.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield further to me, at this point?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield.

, Mr. LONG. Is it not true that these loans perhaps carry a small amount for insurance of the loans?

Mr. SPARKMAN. They do. Mr. LONG. The losses to the Govern

ment have never been near-ly so great as the amount the Government charges for the insurance of the loans.

Mr. SPi...RKMAN. That is correct. I wish, however, to draw a distinction. These are guaranteed loans, rather than typical FHA insured loans.

Mr. LONG. Yes. . Mr. SPARKMAN. So rather than saying that there is an insurance, I prefer to say that there is a margin in the interest rates which takes care of expenses. In connection with the regular FHA loan, there is a definite amount which goes into an insurance fund. While this discussion has nothing to do with that, I digress to say that that fund has shown a rather handsome return, and has today a large reserve to take care of loans.

Mr. LONG. Of course we know that in years gone by the Government was able to borrow money for perhaps as little as 1% percent. The present administration is borrowing money currently at around:::% percent. But even at 2% percent, the Government is in a position to borrow money at a lower interest rate than it is charging to veterans when it lends the money to veterans at 4 percent.

Mr. SPARKMAN. The Senator is exactly correct. The Government loans it at 4¥2 percent to the veterans, whereas money which comes out of the Treasury, as the Senator has correctly said, costs the Government an average of about 2% percent. The rate has varied from about 2% to .234 percent, but at the present time it is about 2 :Y2 percent.

Mr. LONG. In this program to help veterans, what the Government is doing, in effect, is helping veterans to borrow money at a low interest rate so that they can own their own homes, but it is charging the veterans 2 percent more than the cost of interest to the Government.

Mr. SPARKMAN. That is correct; and the program is limited to veterans who are good credit risks, but because of the fact that they live in a remote area, a rural area, or a semirural area, they are unable to obtain private capital. There is a provision written into the law that if they can get the money elsewhere, they are not eligible under this program. The Veterans' Administration limits the area of operation. -· While a great portion of Alabama is eligible, my home county is not eligible. Not a single loan can be made in my home county. Such loans may be made in almost any part of metropolitan New York, New Orleans, or some of the parishes which enjoy a good, strong economy, where mortgage money is available.

Mr. LONG. The Senator is familiar with the fact, is he not, that unemployment is increasing by leaps and bounds at the present time? We saw a report the other day which indicated that unemployment was approaching the twoand-a-half-million mark. So there is certainly more than one reason why the


Government should not abandon the program at this time. It is desirable that veterans have housing, but it is also desirable that employment be maintained for such useful purposes as building houses for veterans.

Mr. SPARKMAN. That certainly is a very strong feature of the program which the President has recommended to us in the economic report. By the way; as the Senator knows, I am a member of the Joint Economic Committee, and we are in the process of studying that report in order that we may make our recommendations to the Congress by March 1, as required by law.

One of the strongest features of that program is the overall housing program. I may say to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana that, as he knows from the studies which we conducted when he was a very able and helpful member of the housing subcommittee, we must have a bare minimum-and I stress the words ''bare minimum"-of 1 million housing units. That will not take care of our needs. That will simply enable us to get by. We probably need as many as one and a half million, but certainly somewhere between one million and one and a half million. We are not going to get them unless we have a housing program which will make it possible for all segments of our population to enjoy the housing program, as they have done in the past. Cutting off the veterans' direct loan program would be cutting off that much of the overall housing program. Certainly, as the Senator has so well pointed out, at a time when unemployment is climbing and the number of workers is shrinking, we should not be looking for programs to curtail the economy, but programs to maintain it. That is the theme of the President's economic report to Congress. We want to project this economy into 1954, and through 1954, so that 1954 will be practically as good a year as 1953. I believe 1954 is referred to as promising to be the second best year in the Nation's history.

Mr. LONG. The Senator well knows that it had been predicted that shortly after World War II we would have a postwar depression.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes. Mr. LONG. The large veterans' hous

ing program which was passed by Congress was only one of the factors which made it possible for us to readjust the economy, when we had 14 million servicemen coming home looking for jobs. With soldiers coming back from Korea, and with the Government cutting back on defense expenditures, it seems that now would be the worst possible time to discontinue the program.

Mr. SPARKMAN. It is no time to curtail a program to sustain the economy. Aside from the fact that the veterans are entitled to an opportunity to share in the overall-housing program, there are many veterans in the parishes of northwestern and southwestern Louisi-

. ana, in portions of Alabama and Mississippi, in upper New York, western New York, and all over the country, who are returning from the service and who will not otherwise have an opportunity to share in the housing program if this program is allowed to die.

· Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the furniture, refrigerators, and about every-Senator yield? thing that one can think of.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Mr. LEHMAN. Did I correctly under- Senator yield?

stand the Senator from Alabama to say Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield. that the rate of default was only one- Mr. STENNIS. The Senator referred tenth of 1 percent? - to small towns in the rural areas. Does

Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes. This is not the bill limit or clearly define the areas a big program. It could not be on $25 along that line? million a year. Remember, the Vet- Mr. SPARKMAN. No; it does not erans' Administration guaranteed loan spell it out, except it charges the Vetprogram has run to $22 billion, whereas erans' Administration to determine the this program has been only about $300 areas in which the. program ought to million. apply and it does restrict it to those

Mr. LEHMAN. I think the record of areas, and it restricts it to those vetone-tenth of 1 percent defaults will com- erans who are not able to get mortgage pare very favorably with the experience loans elsewhere. of most of the insurance companies and Mr. STENNIS. That could be imbanks in New York which deal in loans. portant. Suppose there is a county, one

Mr. SPARKMAN. The Senator will side of which is much stronger ecoremember that bankers testified before nomically than the other. our committee that a wonderful job had Mr. SPARKMAN. The Administrator been done with this program. can divide a county. He does not have

Mr. LEHMAN. It must be remembered to say, ''This whole county is eliminated" that the one-tenth of 1 percent does not or "This whole county is eligible." He mean that there is one-tenth of 1 percent could draw a line and say, "All of this of actual final loss in this investment by county is included except such and such the Government, because, of course, the a city or the western half of the county." Government recoups the value of the Mr. STENNIS. The case to which I houses. referred a short time ago was of a young

Is it not also true that whatever small man from a little town of about 5,000 loss there might be and it would be a population. He would not be precluded very small loss-would be more than merely because the town had more than

. counter-balanced by the profit which a smalltown status? .the Government makes in borrowing Mr. SPARKMAN. Oh, no. That is cheaply and lending at a reasonable rate, not the definition. The Senator will reas well as the Government's profit on member that each time I have referred insurance premiums? .to it I have said that "rural or semi-

Mr. SPARKMAN. I am reluctant to rural areas," or "small towns," and so use the term, but in the absence of a de- forth. pression or a very severe recession, or · The key to the situation is whether adjustment, or whatever it may be called, a mortgage for home financing is availthere will be no losses in the overall .able. Of course in the case of a large program. As the Senator points out, metropolitan area mortgage money is the one-tenth of 1 percent referred to ne~rly always available, because large foreclosures, and not to the loss. The banks and other financial institutions chances are that the Government did maintain representatives there. not lose a dollar. Mr. STENNIS. The Senator makes a

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the distinction between what he calls a pri-Senator yield? vate loan and--

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield. Mr. SPARKMAN. And a guaranteed Mr. LONG. The Senator refers to the loan.

fact that there might be a loss in con- Mr. STENNIS. And a guaranteed nection with some of these programs if loan. we have a depression. It should be Mr. SPARKMAN. That is correct. pointed out that there is a connection be- Mr. STENNIS. As I understand, the tween these programs and a possible Senator's bill pertains solely to direct depression. If we should cut back on lo~ns. home construction, if we should make it Mr. SPARKMAN, That is correct. difficult for the Nation's economy to .The President's program proposes to go ahead, as it has been doing in the continue the GI guaranteed loans, but past, if we should raise the interest rates it does not offer a continuance of this and thereby discourage people from part of the program. That is why I making long-term investments or capital am introducing the bill. Had this part improvements, those things would bring been included in the President's recom-

. on a depression, which, of course, would mendation, c.ertainly I would merely mean that we would lose money, even have gone along with the recommenda

. under the existing FHA loans, as well tion. as loans made by the Veterans' Admin- Mr. STENNIS. The President's bill

· istration. does not include this particular group?_ Mr. SPARKMAN. I do not have the Mr. SPARKMAN. It was not in-

. figures with me, but I know the Senator eluded in the President's message. So will readily agree with the general state- far as I know, a bill has not yet been ment that there is perhaps no other in- introduced . dustry in the United States which con- Mr. STENNIS. On the basis of actual tributes more economically, in providing need and on the basis of our economypeople with work, than does the con- and the Senator from Mississippi is in struction industry, of whieh home build- fairly close contact with the military ing is a great part, because its effect goes program, and he knows that it is bound on down the line, reaching cement mills, to be slowing down-! believe housing, iron and ste·er mills, equipment, lumber, together with what goes into the .build-

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1249 ing of a house and what goes into the house after it is built, is the safest and soundest and most certain way of sustaining an economy. I commend the Senator very highly.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I agree with the statement of the Senator from Mississippi as to the economic value of housing programs. I do want to be cautious in one respect, however. I would not advocate overbuilding merely for the purpose of maintaining our economy. As I stated a few minutes ago, in order to take care of our increasing population we need between a million and a million and a half units a year. That is just a normal increase. Certainly this is no time to cut that program below what we need, taking into consideration the great contribution it makes to a sound and healthy economy, particularly in the employment of so many different people in so many related lines.

Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to the distinguished Senators who have propounded questions to me, because I believe such questioning has brought out a good many facts that needed to be brought out. I shall continue with my statement.

Mr. President, please note also that the effect of my bill would be to raise the maximum size of the revolving fund from $375 million to $575 million. If the mortgage money market continues to improve during 1954-as many financial observers predict-! would hope that VA's efforts to sell its loans would be more successful and that the total fund would revolve more effectively in the future so that more and more veterans in our rural and semirural areas can be accommodated with direct loans, without a further increase in the revolving fund.

To further the revolving fund feature of the program, my bill proposes an amendment which I think will help VA in its efforts to sell the loans it has already made. Under existing law eligible purchasers must be private lending institutions. My bill would remove that limitation so that VA could sell to charitable funds, pension funds, as well as private individuals. Since, when VA sells a direct loan the purchaser is guaranteed against loans just as in the case of a regular GI loan, I believe that my amendment will broaden the market for VA's existing direct-loan portfolio.

Some of those who have opposed the VA direct-loan program have done so on the ground that it is competitive with private enterprise. These charges have no validity when applied to V A's directloan program. It simply is not competitive with private enterprise. It is instead a necessary supplemental program which is designed to supply a need which cannot be met by private lending institutions in the areas where VA's direct-loan program operates.

First, it should be emphasized that VA will make direct loans only in areas which it declares eligible. Those areas are confined, as Congress intended, to the smaller towns and semirural areas of our Nation. The large urban centers are not eligible for VA direct loans. In the con• tinental United States no city of over 50,000 in population is eligible, and rela-

C-79

tfvery 'few cities in the twenty-five to fifty thousand size group are eligible.

In the second place, the law and VA's procedures prevent the making of a VA direct loan whenever a private lender is willing to make the loan. The veteran must show that he is unable to obtain a VA-guaranteed loan from a private lender in his community.

In view of those basic safeguards, I do not see how anyone can argue that the program is competitive with private lenders. It just is not so. In fact, I have been told by country bankers themselves that the direct-loan program is supplying a real need in their communities which would otherwise go unsatisfied.

I know that has been the case in my own State of Alabama. Under the program about 1,700 direct loans have been made in the smaller towns and rural areas in the State of Alabama. Without the aid of direct loans I doubt that any of those 1,700 World War II and Korean veterans' families would have been able to start on the road to home ownership with the beneficial terms of GI financing. It is my fervent hope that we will continue to make it possible for more families like them to enjoy the same benefit.

Another argument I hear offered against VA's direct loan program is that it cost the Government money. It is true that when the Veterans' Administration makes a direct loan the Treasury does have to disburse the necessary funds. But remember, that is only the· initial step. That money is not a gift; it is a loan which the veteran must repay and repay with interest. And the veteran is doing just that in a most commendable fashion. I know Senators will share in my pride when I report that out of almost 41,000 direct loans made to date, only 52-or slightly over one tenth of 1 percent-have defaulted to a point where the Veterans' Administration has had to acquire the property. Incidentally, Mr. President, earlier in my remarks I referred to less than one-tenth of 1 percent. It is slightly more than one-tenth of 1 percent; but I doubt that any other housing program past or present can point to such an outstanding record.

Bear in mind also that the Government is receiving a substantial net income from these loans. The Veterans' Administration has paid the Treasury about 2 percent for its direct loan funds but it receives 4% percent interest on the new loans it makes. I am confident that that spread will be more than sufficient to cover the administrative costs of the program, and in addition to set up reserves against future losses so that in the long run the program will not cost the Government a dime. It will more than likely show a tidy profit.

It may be argued .that a serious economic depression would cause the program to lose money. In that eventuality so would all the other housing programs, and in any case I believe that is an eventuality we are all willing to do our utmost to prevent. . In short, I am proud to be the sponsor of a bill to which my mind should be a ~·m,ust" on our Legislative Calendar this session.

Mr. President, I now introduce the bill, and ask that it be appropriately referred and printed in the RECORD.

The bill <S. 2889) to expand and extend to June 30, 1955, the direct home and farmhouse loan authority of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs under title III of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, as amended, to make additional funds available therefor, and for other purposes, introduced by Mr. SPARKMAN, was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the Servicemen's Readjustment Act . of 1944, as amended, is hereby amended-

(a) by striking out of clause (C) of section 512 (b) "June 30, 1954" and inserting in lieu thereof "June 30, 1955";

(b) by striking out of section 512 (d) "to any private lending institution evidencing ability to service loans" and inserting in lieu thereof "to any person or entity approved for such purpose by the Administrator"; . (c) by striking out of the first sentence of

section 513 (a) "June 30, 1954" and inserting in lieu thereof "June 30, 1955";

(d) by striking out of the third sentence of section 513 (c) "June 30, 1955" and inserting in lieu thereof "June 30, 1956";

(e> by striking out of the first sentence of section 513 (d) "June 30, 1954"; and inserting in lieu thereof "June 30, 1955"; and,

(f) by striking out of section 513 (d) the second time it appears the sum "$25,000,000'" and inserting in lieu thereof the sum of "$50,000,000."

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield. Mr. LEHMAN. The Senator from

Alabama, in the course of his remarks, referred to the fact that there is a need for a million units of new housing, or probably a million and a half units.

The original bill was passed before I became a Member of the Senate. It provided for the construction, I believe, of 135,000 units. That was, of course, gradually reduced, because recommendations were made at various times, for 75,000 units. The Senator will recall that 2 years ago, after a long debate, we passed a bill providing for 35,000 units. That was eliminated in conference, and no new housing whatsoever was authorized.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I may say to the Senator that the final agreement was 20,000 units.

Mr. LEHMAN. I thought the item had been entirely eliminated.

In the message of the President of the United States on the subject of the housing program he recommends the construction of 35,000 units. In view of the situation which has been described by the Senator from Alabama, and in view of the need of a minimum of a million more units and probably a million and a half more units, does the Senator not think that 35,000 units of public housing is quite inadequate?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I may say to the distinguished Senator from New York that the one person who has probably had more to do with formulating the public housing program than has anyone else was the late Senator Taft, of Ohio. I was a member o! the Banking and


Currency Committee when the housing bill of 1949 was reported and passed.

I remember quite well Senator Taft's testimony before the committee. It was given while he was serving as a member of the committee and he teamed up with the predecessor of the distinguished Senator from New York, the late Senator Wagner, and with the distinguished Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER]. The bill first became known as the Wagner-Ellender-Taft bill. In the 80th Congress it became known as the TaftEllender-Wagner bill, and it was during that Congress that the bill was reported, although it was not passed until the following year, 1949. But it was undoubtedly the continuing hard work and the application of a fine mind by the distinguished Senator from Ohio that eventuated in the enactment of that law.

I have said many times that I never would have thought of that plan of meeting a part of the needs of the municipalities of this country. After all, a great many persons think of public housing as being owned by the Federal Government. It is not. It is owned by the cities, the municipalities and municipal organizations. It may be a county or some other political subdivision.

Senator Taft's argument was that approximately 10 percent of the housing ought to be what we had come to call public housing. The committee finally worked out a compromise bill providing for 810,000 units over a period of 6 years, which would be an average of 135,000 a year, but with the right of the President to increase or decrease the number.

Since that program was passed, instead of building 10 percent of public housing, we have built a total of 187,000 units. The able Senator from New York can see that we have fallen even below 5 percent, much less the 10 percent which Senator Taft recommended.

I think that answers the Senator's question.

There is another thing which we must remember. There has been a great backlog built up.

I desire to say to my distinguished friend from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], because he in part represents a State which is very much like my own, in that both have large rural areas, that when the public-housing program was cut off last year, certain small towns in Alabama were eliminated. Indeed, 32 such towns were eliminated. They got under the wire late. They had made all their plans and were ready to go ahead, but they were eliminated when the program was cut last year. That backlog is still present. I believe it should be taken into consideration in determining the number of units that should be constructed.

Mr. LEHMAN. Of the 35,000 units, cities in New York will get a negligible number.

Mr. SPARKMAN. My hope is that we shall first take care of the small towns which were omitted. If that is done, however, I think New York would not get any.

Mr. LEHMAN. I think there is a great deal of merit in the Senator's con-

cern regarding the small cities and towns. I have been fighting the battles of areas of this country other than my own for many years, and I shall continue to do so. But there is a very urgent need in New York, as there is in the State of Mississippi, the State of Alabama, and other States. So I hope that New York will not only get its share, but that the number of units authorized will be very materially increased over the 35,000 now proposed in the President's message and which, in my belief, is entirely inadequate.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Before the Senator leaves that point, I should like to invite his attention to a fact which was brought out in the report of the President's Advisory Group on Housing. I urge every Senator to read that report. There are portions of it with which Senators may not agree, but the group did a good job in assembling facts and figures. There was one figure that surprised me. We hear many persons speak about the terri11c cost of public housing to the Federal Government. During the entire time the public housing program has been in effect--and, remember, it first became effective in 1938-the total cost of all housing that has been built under the socalled public housing program of the Federal Government to date has been $116 million. People sometimes speak of the cost of this program in terms of billions of dollars.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield. Mr. LEHMAN. I am very grateful to

the Senator from Alabama for having brought out that fact.

Mr. SPARKMAN. There are many interesting facts contained in the report of the advisory group. I recommend that each Senator procure a copy of the report, and I commend to Senators a reading of every phase of our housing program.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield. Mr. LEHMAN. I am very grateful to

the Senator from Alabama for making the point he has made. There have been more misunderstandings and more wild statements made, day after day, with regard to the cost of the public housing program to the Federal Government than have been made on almost any other subject with which I am familiar.

As a matter of fact, the public housing program is a cooperative partnership arrangement, in which the Federal Government, of course, has taken the lead, and in which it participates. I am indeed very glad the Senator from Alabama has pointed out that the loss which has been sustained by the Federal Government has been very small.

Mr. SPARKMAN. - Borrowers can apply to the Federal Government only after their State legislatures have enacted laws making such action possible, and only after their respective city councils, city commissions, or whatever their city governments may be called, have passed ordinances permitting such -borrowing.

The housing does not belong to the Federal Government. The Federal Government does not build it. Neither does

the Federal Government supply the money for building it. The housing authorities issue bonds, which are sold on the open market to private investors. The housing authorities make contracts with private builders to build the housing. The cities rent the housing and collect the rental fees.

About the only place where the Federal Government enters into the picture is when it says to a city, "The housing is to be used for the benefit of people who need decent housing but who are not able to pay the full cost of such housing."

In other words, such housing is considered to be a necessity, like food, clothing, or anything else that a city might include in its welfare program.

The city says to the housing authority, "You are to make the housing available to people who are not able to afford the whole rent, and you are to collect from them what they are able to pay."

I believe the rental is figured to be about 25 percent of a person's income, as a maximum. If a person were earning $120 a month, he would be considered to be able to afford a rental of about $30 a month. If the actual break-even cost of the rent of an apartment were $40 a month, the Federal Government would subsidize the difference of $10.

Mr. LEHMAN. Yes; but the States also help to subsidize rentals.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes. Mr. LEHMAN. So it is a true part

nership arrangement. Mr. SPARKMAN. It is a partnership

arrangement between the Federal Government and the State, county, or city.

Mr. LEHMAN. I wonder if the Senator from Alabama will not agree with me that, as a matter of fact, the cost of financing the sale of housing authority bonds, whether they cover property in New York, Florida, Mississippi, or Alabama, is exceptionally low. I think it has averaged less than 2 percent during the past 2 or 3 years.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I do not know, but my guess would be that the Senator's statement is correct. Had I been asked, I would have said it was between 1 'Ya percent and 2 percent.

Mr. LEHMAN. That is my recollection of the figure.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield, before he leaves that subject?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield. Mr. STENNIS. I shall not take the

time of the Senator to express some thoughts I have in mind with reference to the proposed legislation. I simply wish to thank the Senator from Alabama for the very fine work he has done on the bill and for his presentation of the subject matter here today. It certainly hits the spot. There is a real need for such public housing in my area of the country, and I am impressed with the soundness of the plan proposed by the Senator from Alabama. I certainly hope the bill will become law, and that the program will not become interrupted any more than it has been. I hope additional funds will be provided beyond those which are available for this year, so that the sound loan applications, the ones that are considered to be good risks,

1954 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD- SENATE 1251 can be handled, -and the entire needs met.

I thank the Senator from Alabama. Mr. SPARKMAN. I appreciate the

remarks of the able Senator from Mis .. sissippi.

I shall n.Jt place any of them in the RECORD, but I have a collection of letters from veterans in my State, and also some letters from veterans in other States. Most of the letters are from veterans in my State. The veterans tell about their experiences with . the direct-loan program, and of how it would have been absolutely impossible for them to have financed their ·homes had it not been for the existence of this law.

I believe the law ought to be continued beyond June 30 of this year.

Mr. President, I desire now to intro .. duce another bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama has the ftoor.

REGIONAL CREDIT UNION SYSTEM Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent to introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill to provide for a regional credit union system. The bill is for the benefit of credit unions that exist in many communities and in other places where people work.

I do not desire that the bill be printed in the RECORD at this point, but I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a summary of the regional credit union bill.

There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REGIONAL CREDIT

UNION BILL -

The basic objective of the proposal is to establish a method by which credit unions may supplement funds derived from their members' share purchases in order to make additional loans to their members for the provident or productive purposes that are characteristic of the credit union movement.

In order to accomplish this objective, it is proposed that the Federal Credit Union Act be amended to provide for the organization. on a voluntary basis, of a number of Regional Credit Unions. These regional credit unions would be corporate organizations basically financed by the purchase of their shares by State and Federal credit unions. The funds of the regional credit unions would be available for borrowing at reasonable rates of interest by both State and Federal credit unions.

Full participation In the program by State credit unions would in many instances necessitate amendments to State laws. However, if the program is to-- be placed under way, it is obvious that a start must be made somewhere. After most careful consideration, it has been concluded that the best method of procedure - is by amendment to the Federal Credit Union Act, to be thereafter supplemented by such amendments to State laws as are necessary to place the pro-gram in full effect. _

It is contemplated that each regional credit union wm be a . substantially autonomous organization ·under the general control of its own board o{- directors who will be responsible ·to · the members of the regional credit union by whom they will be elected. At the same time it has been felt that there should. be_ a central source from which there will be obtained such general supervision, examinations and administrative regulations , as may be necessary, within the fra~ework- l?f _ the proposed ac:t of

Congress, · in order to provide for efficient operations.

The proposed bill contemplates that the functions noted will be performed by the Bureau of Federal Credit Unions. It appears particularly logical that this method of procedure be followed in view of the fact that the : rogram contemplates as its basic framework an amendment to the Federal Credit Union Act. The Bureau of Federal Credit Unions . is an existing agency which is fully fa: liliar with all aspects of credit union operations.

Following this introductory background statement, there is hereinafter set forth a summary of what are deemed to be the most important features of the proposed regional credit union bill.

The proposed bill would include pro· visions of the following substance:

1. The Federal Credit Union Act would be amended to provide for the creation of not less than 6 or more than 12 regional credit union districts, subject to apportionment and reapportionment from time to time by the Director of' the Bureau of Federal Credit Unions, with due regard to the convenience and customary course of the business of credit unions in the various areas.

2. A regional credit union may be organized in each such regional district and may have not to exceed three offices in such district. The minimum number of State or Federal credit unions required for obtaining a charter for a regional credit union would be fixed by the Director of the Bureau, but would be not less than 50 nor more than 200, and the minimum aggregate required stock subscription would be $250,000.

3. No credit unions would be forced to become members of a regional credit union. Credit unions desiring to become initial members of the regional credit union would be required to purchase stock equal to 2 percent of their membe:·ship holdings, adjustable annually not later than October 1 on the basis of their membership holdings as of the previous year end. Credit unions thereafter desiring to become members would be required to purchase stock equal to 2 percent of their membership holdings on the basis of their previous month-end statement. This minimum percentage could be increased ~p to not over 5 percent of me,mbership holdings upon a favorable threefourths vote of the member credit unions in a regional credit union, each member credit union acting through its board of directors.

4. The par value of shares would be $100. A regional credit union would be permitted to repurchase shares which it sold.

5. Subject to any applicable regulations prescribed by the Director of the Bureau of Federal Credit Unions, required shareholdings of members could be withdrawn upon a written notice, not in excess of 1 year, of intention to withdraw from membership, except in case of -liquidation of a member credit union. In the event. of liquidation of a member credit unit, no more than 60 days notice of withdrawal may be required. Shareholdings in excess of the minimum requirements of members in good standing would be subject· to withdrawal pursuant to notice requirements, not in excess of 60 days, fixed by the board of directors.

6. Indebtedness of a member credit unit to the Regional Credit Union shall be liquidated upon withdrawal from membership. In connection with such liquidation any collateral posted by the member shall be returned to it and the shares Of stock of the Regional Credit Union owned by such mem.'ber should be surrendered and canceled and such member shall be paid- a sum equal to the par value of the shares so surrendered, together with all deposits, . whether time or demand made by such member and any unpaid dividends and interest due such member. However, if the board of directors of the Regional Credit Unio:tl• or the director of the bureau.

finds that the paid-in capital of such Re· gional Credit Union is then impaired as of the date of such withdrawal, the Regional Credit Union shall withhold from the amount to be paid in retirement of such shares, the pro rata amount of such impairment.

7. Each Regional Credit Union would have 8 directors, a credit committee of 3, and a supervisory committee of a. Terms of office would be up to 3 years, as provided by the bylaws. The board of directors would be divided into 3 classes, 3 from members with assets less than $100,000, 3 from members with assets of $100,000 to $500,000, and 3 from members with assets over $500,000, subject to .future reclassification by asset structure by the Director of the Bureau of Federal Credit Unions in a manner to provide equitable representation. Officers of the Regional Credit Union would be elected by the directors and could be compensated.

8. The annual meeting of the regional credit unions would be held during the month of February of each year, and each member credit union would have only one vote, regardless of the number of shares held. Member credit unions would be able to vote in person or by mail but proxies would be prohibited.

9. Any Federal credit union would be eligible to become a _member of a Regional Credit Union in its district. Any State credit union would be eligible to become a member of a regional credit union in its district to the extent permitted by the applicable State law as then in e1Iect or as thereafter amended.

10. There would be no distinction between State and Federal credit unions in voting for directors of regional credit unions.

11. Member credit unions in good stand· lng, that is, having the minimum sharehold-ings required of credit unions ~o be eligible for full membership privileges, would be entitled to a statutory preferential interest rate on loans of at least one-half of 1 percent per annum. Loans to credit unions would be made at an interest rate not in excess of one-half of 1 percent a month on the unpaid balance, or 6 percent per annum. inclusive of all charges incident to making the loan.

_ 12. The maximum borrowing power of a regional credit union would be limited to 100 percent of capital and surplus, including borrowings from the sale of deben'tures. bonds, and other obligations.

13. W.here State laws are restrictive, State .. chartered credit unions would be permitted to become nonmember borrowers pending enactment of amendatory State . laws permitting such credit unions to acquire stock and become members of a regional credit union.

14. Regional credit unions would have authority to make deposits in national banks, other regional credit unions, State banks, trust companies, and mutual savings banks.

15. Regional credit unions would have authority to invest funds in loans to State _or Federal credit unions and other regjonal credit unions, in obligations of the United States of America or securities fully guaranteed as to principal and interest thereby. in shares or accounts of Federal savings and loan associations, and in ·shares or accounts of any other institutions, the accounts of which are insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. . ~6. The initi_al charter fee would be . $250 for each regional credit union and the Federal credit union supervisory fee formula would be applicable to supervisory charges. with a minimum supervisory charge of $500 per annum. Examination fees would be on a basis comparable to that of Federal credit unions.

17. Each regional credit union would accumu~ate. a reserve fund by transfer of 20


percent of each year's net income with a maximum reserve equal to 50 percent of the members' shareholdings.

18. A regional credit union advisory council would be established consisting of one representative of each regional credit union, to meet at least once annually to confer with the Director of the Bureau on business affecting regional credit unions and their members and to make recommendations.

19. The Director of the Bureau would have general powers of administration and regulation comparable to those applicable in the case of Federal credit unions.

20. Regional credit unions would be exempt from taxation to an extent and in a manner compa.I"able to the present status of Federal credit unions.

The bill (S. 2890) providing for aRegional Credit Union System, introduced by Mr. SPARKMAN, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

REQUIREMENT OF INSIDE LATCHES ON DOORS OF HOUSEHOLD REFRIGERATORS SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill to require inside latches on the doors of household refrigerators shipped in interstate commerce.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a letter dated October 19, 1953, addressed by Mrs. Frances Glaze to Gov. Gordon Persons; a letter I have received from Gov. Gordon Persons, of Alabama, dated October 26, 1953, addressed to Mrs. Frances Glaze, of Montgomery, Ala.; and a letter dated November 6, 1953, written by me to Mrs. Frances Glaze, be printed in the RECORD.

I may say that following the writing of my letter of November 6, 1953, to Mrs. Glaze, I wrote to the legislative counsel and suggested the preparation of a bill which would remedy the situation.

It seems to me it would be a very simple and inexpensive matter for the manufacturers of iceboxes and refrigerators to provide facilities for the opening of such appliances from the inside. We are aware of the tragic occurrences, particularly during the last year, when small children lost their lives when trapped in iceboxes which could not be opened from the inside.

In that connection, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD an editorial entitled "Alarmed Over Icebox Deaths," published in the Alabama Municipal Journal for November 1953. This journal is the official publication of the Alabama League of Municipalities.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the requests of the Senator from Alabama? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

The bill <S. 2891) to require inside latches on the doors of household refrigerators shipped in interstate commerce, introduced by Mr. SPARKMAN, was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That it shall be unlawful for any person to introduce or deliver

for introduction into interstate . commerce any household refrigerator unless the door of such refrigerator is equipped with a latch which enables it to be opened from the inside.

SEC. 2. Any person who violates the provisions of the first section of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall on conviction thereof be subject to imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than $1 ,000, or both.

SEc. 3. This act shall become effective 6 months after the date .of its enactment.

The letters and editorial presented by Mr. SPARKMAN are as follows:

MONTGOMERY, ALA., October 19, 1953. Han. GORDON PERSONS,

Governor, State of Alabama, Montgomery, Ala.

DEAR GOVERNOR PERSONS; I think there should be a nationwide law forcing all persons discarding old iceboxes to remove all locks or hooks from the box before it has been discarded, thus saving lives of little children.

Yours very truly, FRANCES GLAZE Mrs. Frances Glaze.

STATE OF ALABAMA, Montgomery, October 26, 1953.

Mrs. FRANCES GLAZE, Montgomery, Ala.

DEAR MRS. GLAZE; Thank you for your letter, and as you mentioned the need for a nationwide law in connection with the removal of locks from old iceboxes, I am taking the liberty of forwarding this to Senator JOHN SPARKMAN, WhO Will, I know, give your suggestion every consideration.

My kindest regards. Sincerely,

GORDON PERSONS.

HUNTSVILLE, ALA., November 6, 1953. MrS. FRANCES GLAZE,

Montgomery, Ala. MY DEAR MRS. GLAZE: Governor Persons

has sent me your letter of October 19 addressed to him with a copy of his reply. I assure you that I share fully your feeling regarding discarded iceboxes. I am not a member of the committee that handles this legislation, but I shall be glad to discuss it with members of that committee to see if something can be worked out along the line that you suggest.

May I suggest to you that this legislation would be handled by the Commerce Committees of the two Houses of Congress. As it happens, Alabama fortunately has a member of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. I refer to Congressman KENNETH ROBERTS Of Anniston. I am taking the liberty of sending a copy of my reply to KENNETH. I am sure that if you care to write him you will find him fully sympathetic.

Sincerely, JOHN SPARKMAN.

ALARMED OVER ICEBOX DEATHS Steps to prevent unused iceboxes from be

coming death traps for children have been taken by local governments in six States. Communities all over the Nation are considering severe regulation.

Action has been in the form of ordinances that provide fines up to $100 or jail sentences for those who leave old refrigerators where children might find them, according to the National Institute of Municipal Clerks, Youngstown, Ohio, Beverly, Mass., Warwick and Hampton, Va., Olean, N. Y., Jackson, Tenn., and Takoma Park, Md., are among those legislating against the abandoned icebox danger.

Youngstown set a $50 penalty on failure to tightly bolt doors of old iceboxes or to remove

their latches or locks. Beverly's ordnance involves a $20 fine.

Punishment .grew stiffer as local officials learned of the suffocation within 3 days in August of 11 children in three separate incidents. Following the death of 4 boys in a cast-off refrigerator in Richmond, Va., both Warwick and Hampton adopted emergency ordinances stating that iceboxes, refrigerators, or other containers with "airtight doors" or locks that will not open from the inside cannot be left in places accessible to children unless the doors or locks are taken off. Violation means a fine of $10 to $100 or 10 days in jail. Previously, 4 boys and a girl had suffocated at Proctor, Ark., in a chest, and 2 boys had been found dead in Haverhill, Mass., in another abandoned icebox.

Olean's common council made it a misdemeanor to leave iceboxes where children might come across them while playing. The councilmen made violations punishable by a $100 fine or 30 days in jail. At Takoma Park, similar punishment will go into effect after 24 hours, a time provision made to give leeway to persons who. are moving. In Jackson, it's also a misdemeanor now to discard iceboxes where children might find them. The city court sets the punishment there.

The situation in Illinois is taken care of by a State law that imposes a $50 fine and/or a 30-day jail sentence on those who store or leave iceboxes in accessible places unless the doors have been removed.

The City Council of Lynchburg, Va., for a contrast, declined to enact an ordinance directed against the danger. Councilmen said it would be too hard to enforce and instead asked police and public welfare agents to be on the lookout for abandoned iceboxes and to notify owners to dispose of them.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its clerks, announced that the House insisted upon its amendment to the bill <S. 2175) to amend title VI of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, with respect to the retirement of employees in the legislative branch, disagreed to by the Senate; agreed to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr. HAGEN, Mr. WITHROW, and Mr. DAvrs of Georgia wete appointed managers on the part of. the House at the conference.

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

The message also announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the enrolled bill <S. 373) to extend the time for filing claims for the return of property under the Trading With the Enemy Act, and it was signed by the President pro tempore.

AMENDMEl'c"T TO THE CONSTITUTION RELATING TO TREATIES AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS

The Senate resumed the consideration of the joint resolution <S. J. Res. 1) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the making of treaties and executive agreements.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I sug.gest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary .will call the roll.

1951, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1253 The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the

roll. Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi

dent, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded and that further proceedings under the call be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

The question is on agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERGUSON] for himself and other Senators to the amendment of the committee.

Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, on January 29, 1954, the senior Senator from Nevada ·offered an amendment proposing compromise language for Senate Joint Resolution 1. It is interesting to compare this language with the proposals made on February 2, 1954 by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERGUSON] on behalf of himself, the able majority leader, the Senator from California [Mr. KNOWLAND], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. MILLIKIN], and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr~ SALTONSTALL].

I now ask that the clerk read the amendment to the committee amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada, and marked "Amendment B."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read as requested.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. It is proposed to amend paragraphs 1 through 4 of the committee amendment so as to read as follows:

1. After the ratification of this amendment no treaty shall be the supreme law of the land unless made in pursuance of this Constitution.

2. A provision of a treaty or other international agreement which con:Oicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.

· 3. No International agreement other than a treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States except through legislation.

4. Any vote In the Senate on the question of ratifying a treaty shall be determined by the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, the so-called perfecting amendment lettered "C," offered by the Senators to whom I have referred, to the committee amendment, would accomplish exactly the same thing as the first paragraph of my proposal. Mechanically, the proposal of the four Senators on the other side of the aisle is different, in that it follows a formula long urged by the Se.nator from Michigan [Mr. FERGUSON], and would actually amend the Constitution in the body of that document. This is something which has never been done since the Constitution was adopted. All constitutional amendments heretofore have been added at the end of the document.

The entire proposal offered by the senior Senator from Nevada would be a new amendment at the end of the Constitution.

However, in effect, the two proposals are exactly the same. Each would provide that after the ratification of the new amendment, no treaty · would be considered as supreme -law of the land unless it was made in pursuance of the Constitution.

Both proposals would take effect im- This is why, in writing a similar· pro-mediately upon ratification of the vision into his own proposal, the senior amendment. Both proposals would af- Senator from Nevada used the words feet all treaties, whether made before or ''by legislation," instead of the words after the date of ratification of the "by an act of the Congress." amendment. Both proposals would re- In the same respect, namely, the limitstore the supremacy of the judiciary, ing of the effect of an executive agreemaking it clear that the Supreme Court ment as internal law to what may be has the right to invalidate a treaty on provided by an act of Congress, the the ground of unconstitutionality. amendment of the Senator from Georgia

The so-called perfecting amendment would preclude all future possibility of . lettered "B," offered by the four Senators the negotiation of executive agreements from the other side of the aisle to the which, by their terms, should become committee amendment, is precisely in effective in different States only as such line with the proposal made by the Sen- States by their own laws might provide. ator from Nevada. The language of the Mr. GORE. Mr. President, will the committee amendment, if amended as Senator from Nevada yield to me? proposed by these four Senators, would Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. coincide exactly with the language pro- · Mr. GORE. How would the amendposed in the second paragraph of the ment to the committee amendment, amendment offered by the Senator from submitted by the distinguished senior Nevada. Senator from Georgia, to which the able

The purpose of the amendment let- senior Senator from Nevada has just tered ''D," offered by the Senator from made reference, if adopted, operate to Michigan, on behalf of himself and his preempt the field more specifically than three colleagues, is identical with the it now would be preempted by an execupurpose of the fourth paragraph of the tive agreement entered into between the amendment offered by the Senator from United States and a foreign power, unNevada on January 29. Both are de- der the decision in the case of United signed to require yea-and-nay votes in States against Pink? the Senate on any question of ratifying Mr. President, if the Senator from a treaty. Nevada will yield further, I should like,

Perhaps it would be more fair to say if I may have his permission to do so, that the purpose of the fourth para- to read into the RECORD from that decigraph in the proposal offered by the Sen- sion, as follows: ator from Nevada is identical with that A treaty 1s a law of the land under the offered by the Senator from Michigan supremacy clause (art. VI, cl. 2) of the Conand his colleagues, since it seems clear stitution. such international compacts and that both proposals stem from the agreements as the Litvinov assignment amendment offered on January 27 by the have a similar dignity. Senator from California [Mr. KNow- I turn now to a part of the next para-LAND], on behalf of himself and the graph: Senator from Michigan. The Senator But state law must yield when it is in· from Nevada is frank to say that he consistent with, or impairs the policy or adopted the substance of this proposal provisions of, a treaty or of an international in his own amendment, changing the compact or agreement. • • • Then the language somewhat for the purpose of power of a State to refuse enforcement of simplification, and eliminating surplus- rights based on foreign law which ·runs age, but not changing in any way the counter to the public policy of the purpose or effect. forum • • • must give way before the su-

The amendment offered by the Sena- perior Federal policy evidenced by a treatJ tor from Georgia [Mr. GEORGE], to the or international compact or agreement. committee amendment makes a very fine I recognize the validity of the point approach to the problem, and was one of the distinguished Senator from Nevada the bases of the proposal offered by the has made; but I submit that under this senior Senator from Nevada. However. holding of the United States Supreme the second paragraph of the George Court, the same preemption of the field amendment is susceptible of an inter- could occur by executive agreement. pretation which would bring grave dan- without reference to Congress. ger to the rights of the States. This The amendment proposed by the disdanger arises from the provision that tinguished senior Senator from Georgia treaties and international agreements [Mr. GEORGE] to the committee amendshall become effective as internal law men~, would require action by the Cononly by an act of the Congress. It gre~-s to make an executive agreement would appear that this might give the applicable to internal law. Executive, through the negotiation of an Mr. McCARRAN. That is correct. executive agreement, power to preempt Mr. GORE. But under the prevailing a legislative field to the extent of fore· decisions an executive agreement has closing all State legislation in that field, internal law application without refer-whether or not Congress acted. ence to Congress.

We all know that if Congress acts in Mr. McCARRAN. But if Congress such a way as to preempt a field, which acts within the field of its authority, is within its delegated powers, State the State is precluded from acting. I legislation in that field is void and fur- think the Senator will agree to that ther State legislation in that field may proposition. not be enacted. It would be a matter Mr. GORE. I agree. of very grave consequence if similar Mr. McCARRAN. That is what I am preemption could result from the ne- contending for with reference to the gotiation of a mere executive agreement. language of the George amendment. by the President; yet this is the threat Mr. GORE. Going further, the queswhich is posed by the George amend- tion I submitted to the distinguished ment. Senator was how that would differ from


the preemption of an executive agreement under the present holding of the Supreme Court.

Mr. McCARRAN. Personally I think it differs very materially, in that l)y the proposed -constitutional amendment we would give sanction to the Congress only to act in a field, and thereby specificaHy preclude a State from acting in that field.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield?

Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. GORE. In the decision which I

have just read the Court has held that, through implied power or specific power, or a combination of both, the President has power through the medium of an executive agreement to make that take precedence over State laws.

Mr. McCARRAN. I do not know what the Senator's question is, now.

Mr. GORE. That was a statement rather than a question.

Mr. McCARRAN. I was merely trying to fit the statement into the Senator's query.

Mr. GORE. I was trying to make the point that the power to make executive agreements apply as internal law, which the George amendment would permit through action by Congress, is now effective by action of one man alone, by execution of an agreement with a foreign power.

Mr. McCARRAN. What is the date of the decision from which the Senator reads, as compared with the decision under the Migratory Bird Act?

Mr. GORE. This .decision was handed down on February 2, 1942. The case of Missouri against Holland, to which the Senator has made reference, was many years earlier.

Mr. McCARRAN. That is correct. My thought on the whole subject, as I

have tried to express it, is this: I would be partial to the -George amendment were it not for the one expression, "only by an act of the Congress," which I think would be a constitutional amendment which would specifically say that it is for the Congress alone, thereby taking the States out of that field entirely. That is what I have in mind, if I am expressing my thought intelligibly.

Mr. GORE. The Senator is always intelligible. In the opinion of the junior Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Nevada has made a valid point. The question I am raising is whether the same point would not lie with respect to the existing situation, without action by Congress.

Mr. McCARRAN. That might be. Both proposals would take effect im

mediately upon ratification of the amendment. The amendment of the Senator from Georgia would preclude all future possibility of the negotiation of executive agreements which, by their terms, should become effective in different States only as such States by their own laws might provide. Yet such executive agreements have been entered into in the past, and it would-not be wise to preclude the possibility that they might be entered into in the future. _ If the words "only by legislation" are used, instead of the words "only by an act of the CongresS." it is perfectly clear

that the Congress would have power to act; and if the Congress did act, State law to the contrary, could be rendered ineffective by that congressional action; but in the absence of congressional action, the States would remain free to act; and there would ·be nothing to prevent the negotiation of an executive agreement giving proper weight to State law.

The basic objective of the "which" clause in the Bricker amendment was to restore the supremacy of the judiciary; to make certain the power of the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of a treaty or legislation under .a treaty. The McCarran amendment, though containing no "which" clause, would have the effect of restoring the supremacy of the judiciary in this regard; it clearly would give the Supreme Court the right to rule on the constitutionality of a treaty or legislation under a treaty.

The first paragraph of the McCarran proposal deals with treaties alone, and would impose on treaties the same requirement which clause 2 of article VI of the Constitution now imposes upon laws, namely, that they be made in pursuance of the Constitution. At the present time, it is only required that a treaty be made under the authority of the United States. Under this clause, the Supreme Court could hold a treaty invalid if it found the treaty was not made in pursuance of the Constitution. Of course, no legislation could be based on a treaty so held invalid.

Paragraph 2 of the McCarran proposal deals with both treaties and other international agreements, which embraces the type of agreements commonly referred to as executive agreements. This section would permit Supreme Court action to invalidate a single provision of either a treaty or an executive agreement on the grounds that it confiicted with the Constitution.

Paragraph 3 of the McCarran proposal deals solely with international agreements other than treaties; in other words, with executive agreements. It is a limitation designed to prevent any executive agreement from being selfexecuting as domestic law in the United States. This paragraph would permit Congress to implement an executive agreement; but since there is no contention that an executive agreement gives Congress any enacting powers, legislation to implement such an agreement would have to be legislation within the delegated constitutional powers of the Congress. In the event Congress should act to implement an executive agreement, State action for the purpose would be unnecessary, and State laws in confiict with the act of Congress would be invalid. On the other hand, if Congress should not act, it would be possible for a State to act, and the State law would be effective unless and until Congress should act to the contrary. This would permit the negotiation in the future of executive agreements such as have been negotiated in the past, making certain provisions contingent upon State legislation. But this would not require action by both Congress and the States, nor give States any power to _enact valid

. statutes in confiict with Federal law.

Paragraph 4 of. the McCarran proposal simply requires a recorded vote in the Senate on the question of ratifying any treaty. This would prevent ratification of a treaty by unanimous consent.

From the standpoint of the administration, the amendment offered by Senator McCarran should have two big advantages:

First. It eliminates the "which" clause. Second. It does not limit the treaty

power in any way except to "nail down" a requirement that treaties must be made in pursuance of the Constitution.

Another point which should meet the administration's viewpoint is the fact that the McCarran proposal does not contain any language such as found in the Bricker amendment, dealing with the power of Congress to regulate executive agreements; :hough the McCarran proposal does contain a new provision making executive agreements ineffective as internal law without legislative implementation.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield?

Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, in

order to keep the record straight, I should like to refer to the first time the language relative to the ratification of a treaty by a yea-and-nay vote of the Senate was first proposed. It is approximately the same language which has been in the Constitution since its inception, with respect to overriding a presidential veto. It was placed in the Constitution for the very sound reason that a presidential veto of legislation is a rather drastic act. Likewise, the overriding of a veto is a very important act. Therefore, Senators should be recorded with respect to their action.

Mr. McCARRAN. I am entirely in accord with what the Senator has stated.

Mr. KNOWLAND. The ratification of a treaty, particularly in view of the fact that it becomes a part of the supreme law of the land, fs equally important and should also be by a yea-and-nay vote.

However, the first time the language was proposed in an amendment was not on January 27, or whatever date the Senator from Nevada has mentioned, when the distinguished Senator from Michigan and I offered the amendment. It was first used in the substitute which was submitted last July 6. Although it was submitted under my name, actually it was the work of a large number of Senators who were also interested in the subject, and who at that time were trying to work out an area of agreement in this field.

I also invite the attention of the Senator from Nevada to the fact that section 2 of the substitute which was offered on July 22 of last year, which is now the language of section 1 of the committee amendment, with the modification proposed by: the distinguished Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERGUSON] and certain other Senators, follows the language which appears in section 1 of the substitute to which I have referred, which reads:

A provision of a treaty or other international agreement which . confiicts with the

1954 CONGRESSIONA·L RECORD-· SENATE · 1255 Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.

I merely mention that fact because some members of the press and perhaps others throughout the country have gained the impression that some of the language being proposed has merely grown up over night, or that someone has scribbled it on the back of an envelope, without any thought being given to it at all.

As a matter of fact, the subject has caused great concern to many Senators. I know that the distinguished Senator from Nevada, who is an able constitutional lawyer, has been giving thought to thfs subject for a long time.

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. BRICKER], as well as many of us who are not lawyers but who have 'a responsibility in the field of amending the Constitution, have also ·given great thought to the subject for a long period of time.

Therefore the fact that new amendments may be presented does not mean that they have been grabbed out of thin air, or have been submitted without any prio·r thought being given to them.

It is important for the RECORD of the Senate to indicate that fact, so that the public will not get the misconception that it is something which is just being done over night.

Mr. McCARRAN. I agree with what the Senator from California has stated. I may say that the Bricker amendment, as it came from the Committee on the Judiciary, was the subject of long and continuous study, and some of the most brilliant legal minds. in the country presented their thoughts to the committee before the committee arrived at a conclusion.

·However, amendments which come in from day to day are not pulled out of thin air by any means. They come from the thoughts and minds of those who have studied the subject for a very long time.

PRINTING OF "A NEW LOOK AT THE NATIONAL AIRPORT PROGRAM"

· AS A SENATE DOCUMENT (S. DOC. NO. 95) Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, a

panel of most distinguished representatives of the aviation industry, appointed at the request of the Transportation Council of the Department of Commerce, has made an extremely interesting report which I am sure will be of interest to every Senator. It is, indeed, a document of historic importance, which

. should be widely disseminated, and preserved for future reference. I therefore ask unanimous consent that this report, entitled "A New Look at the National Airport Program," may be printed with its appendixes, as a Senate document.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. . Mr. KNOWLAND. Will the Senator

state again who issued the report? Was it issued by an official agency of the Government?

Mr. McCARRAN. Yes, it was issued by a panel appointed at the request of the transportation council of the Department of Commerce.

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. UPTON in the chair). Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. McCARRAN]? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I did not

have an opportunity to examine the insertions made in the RECORD today by the senior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. WILEY] concerning my criticism of the Civil Aeronautics Board for its failure to provide air service between the cities of New Orleans, Birmingham, Atlanta, San Antonio, and Mexico City.

It is my understanding that the Civil Aeronautics Board was ·created by Congress and was intended to be a creature of Congress to carry out the will and purpose of Congress.

Therefore I believe that it is incumbent upon Senators and Members of the House of Representatives to observe the actions of the Civil Aeronautics Board, as well as those of other boards, and to state when they believe such boards are not carrying out a policy to advance the best interests of the country. If we violently disagree we may find ourselves compelled to take legislative steps. In other respects I believe we should watch developments of the Board to make certain that every section of the United States is protected; and to speak out when we violently disagree with any of their actions.

I should like to discuss at this time another subject which is pending before the Board, and which I believe to be of major importance to the people of the United States.

Briefly stated here is a question that must be answered by the·Board:

Should the certificated all-cargo carriers, not now permitted to carry any mail, be allowed to participate in an experimental program just inaugurated by the Postmaster General for the carrying of first-class surface mail by air transport? Stated otherwise, should this developing field of air commerce be monopolized by our major passenger airlines which already have many monopolies of transportation in addition to the huge subsidies they have received from our taxpayers?

On October 6 last year the Postmaster General inaugurated a highly significant experimental program to determine the practicability of transporting first-class letters by air at current 3-cent-mail rates. If carried out · in the manner originally proposed by the Postmaster General, this experiment will have an excellent chance to .provide a basis for establishing faster and improved regular mail service to the public and of effect.; ing important economies in the operation of the Post Office Department. The present minimum rate paid by the Post Office Department for airmail is 45 cents per ton-mile. The new rate for air transport under the experimental programs of the Postmaster General of ordinary surface mail will . average less than 20 cents per ton-mile.

The Postmaster General deserves our congratulations for starting this program which can lead tO a basic and ex-

tremely worthwhile evolution in our· postal system.

Although the Post Office Department had urged that certificated cargo carriers be permitted to serve in the experiment, applications by the all-cargo carriers to the Civil Aeronautics Board for permission to participate in the Post Office Department experiment were denied by the Civil Aeronautics Board on December 22, 1953. The order of denial was made by a bare majority of three, Commissioners Lee and Adams dissenting.

Last week, on January 21, the Postmaster General asked in a petition to the Board, as amicus curiae, for reconsideration by the Board of its opinion and order which denied to the all-cargo carriers opportunity to participate in the experiment being conducted by the Post Office Department. This petition is now pending before the Civil Aeronautics Board but will probably be acted on in the near future. ·

In the petition the Postmaster General emphasized that his experiments are "being undertaken in the interest of impl.·oving the mail service; the objectives are to provide a basis in. actual experience for determining the extent of the economies arid efficiencies that may be realized from the use of air transportation for surface mail and to test the practicability of such an operation. Of the scheduled airlines, only the certificated cargo carriers have offered their whole system for experiment by the Department at the lowest rate now being paid for the present segmentary experiment. Thus, it would appear to the Department that the public benefits that could flow from the requested grant of exemptions would outweigh any objection. The rates offered by these carriers over their entire system or any parti thereof present a firm basis upon which the Department could proceed to determine whether the experiment should be expanded and whether they could be utilized on the grounds of economies and efficiencies."

At this point I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD following my remarks a copy of the Postmaster General's petition. Every Senator will, I think, find it most interesting to read.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With• out objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.) Mr. LONG. Mr. President, personally,

I am most concerned in having a first class mail by air service provided for the people of my State, and of the Nation. I am equally intetested in this new and improved service being provided at the most reasonable cost to our taxpayers, with the accompanying economies which can be realized by the Post Office Department. Inclusion of allcargo carriers in the program obviously would seem to provide a major rate stabilizing factor and a firm anchor on costs to the Government.

It is my understanding that certain of the major airlines which have regular high -cost-to-the-Government air-mail contracts, authorized by the Civil Aeronautics Board, alone have urged that the all-cargo carriers be excluded from the postal experiments. Participation


by the all-cargo carriers would unquestionably seem in the national interest, and in the event that this second request of the Post Office Department for permission to use their services is denied, I feel that it would be most appropriate for the Congress to intervene and by a thorough investigation to clearly establish the relevant facts and the proper national policy to be pursued.

It might be proper, under those circumstances, that legislation be enacted to make it possible for the all-cargo carriers to compete in carrying the mail, and thereby realize economies for the taxpayers ..

It also should be stated that there is presently pending before the Civil Aeronautics Board an application of two overseas cargo carriers to participate in the carriage of overseas military mail. This application likewise has the support of the Post Office Department as well as of our military authorities. This support may be understood when it is realized that our overseas passenger planes are paid 85 cents per ton-mile for the carriage of such mail while the overseas cargo carriers are anxious to participate in the program at 25 cents per ton-mile.

At present our major domestic passenger airlines have a monopoly on carrying 6-cent air mail at 45 cents per ton-mile. They likewise have a monopoly and a profitable field in the air transportation of passengers, parcel post, and express, as well as the right to compete against the cargo carriers in hauling freight. Moreover, for many years such major airlines have enjoyed huge bounties and subsidies from the Federal Government by virtue of which they are now in a most advantageous position and safely secured against any loss.

While I am personally convinced of the need of maintaining strong and solvent passenger air carriers supported by public subsidies, if necessary, I must express my serious concern at any attempt to throttle competition and to foster monopolies by granting additional exclusive contracts to .them for the carriage of surface mail in opposition to the program and conviction of the Postmaster General.

EXHIBIT 1 BEFORE THE Civn. .AERONAUTICS BOARD

In the matter of the applications under section 416 (b) of the act by various air carriers to carry first-class and other preferential surface mail by air on a nonpriority basis for the Post Office Department. Docket Nos. 5551, 5553, 6325, 6333, 6334, 6335, 6336, 6337, 6366, 6390. PETITION OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, AMICUS

CURIAE, FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD

OPINION AND ORDER OF DECEMBER 21, 19 53

Comes now Arthur E. Summerfield, Post-master General of the United States, amicus curiae, by his undersigned counsel, and respectfully petitions for reconsideration of the Board's opinion and order denying exemptions 1 adopted in the above-captioned proceedings on December 21, 1953, insofar as said opinion and order denied the applications of air carriers certificated to engage in the air transportati<>n of property only. In .support hereof, the Postmaster General shows to the Board as follows:

The Board, in opinion No. E-7937, dated December 3, 1953, held that the Board is

:a Order No. E-7~85.

empowered by section 416 (b) of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, as amended, to exempt air carriers not holding mail certificates from the requirements of that act relating to the transportation of mail, and to fix rates for such services under section 406 of said act. However, in its opinion and order dated December 21, 1953, the Board denied the request of the certificated cargo carriers for appropriate exemptions which would permit them to transport mail in conjunction with the experimental services being operated and proposed to be operated by the Postmaster General for the transportation of first-class mail and other preferential mail by air, holding:

"In summary, it does not appear that there is any need at this time for the participation of noncertificated-for-mail carriers in the movement of first-class and surface mail in order to insure the success of the Post Office experiment."

It would appear that the Board's remarks were directed to the experimental services now in operation between New York and Chicago, and Washington and Chicago. The results of those experiments have been very satisfactory. But it must be reemphasized that the Board's decision was apparently based only on considerations pertaining to the New York-Chicago and WashingtonChicago segments where the experiment is being operated by four mail-certificated carriers. Additionally, a question has been raised as to the fitness of many of the applicants to perform the mail service.

The applications of the certificated cargo carriers present an entirely different question. They include considerations broader in scope than the question merely as to whether additional carriers are needed in conjunction with the presently authorized experimental services to Chicago. Moreover, no question of fitness should exist as to these carriers who are already certificated by the Board. The Postmaster General's experiments are being undertaken in the interest of improving the mail service; the objectives are to provide a basis in actual experience for deterlllining the extent of the economies and efficiencies that may be realized from the use of air transportation for surface mail and to test the practicability of such an operation.

Slick Airways, Inc., The Flying Tiger Line, Inc., and Riddle Airlines have requested exemptions which would not only permit them to participate in the New York-Chicago and Washington-Chicago experiments at the rates already prescribed by tl'le Board for the experimental services over these segments, but make the remainder of their certificated services available to the Post Office Department at the rate of 18.66 cents per mail tonmile. In the opinion of the Department, such rates are fair and reasonable on an experimental basis.

The rates offered by these carriers over their entire system or any part thereof present a firm basis upon which the Department could proceed to determine whether the experiment should be expanded and whether they could be utilized on the grounds of economies and efficiencies. Such determinations for expanded experiments could, therefore, include various segments comprising the systems of these certificated cargo carriers which are being offered for the use of the Department.

Of the scheduled airlines, only the certificated cargo carriers have offered their whole system for experiment by the Department at the lowest rate now being paid for the present segmentary experiment. Thus, it would appear to the Department that the public benefits that could flow from. the requested grant of exemption would outweigh any objection.

Subsequent to the inauguration of the Initial surface-mail-by-air experiment on the Chicago-Washington and New York segments, the Department has used to advantage similar systemwide services o11ered by

the various local service air carriers during the past Christmas season, pursuant to Board approval. The Department has just filed its letter of January 18 supporting additional motions of these local service carriers to extend their own experimental period for carrying surface mail by air throughout the balance of 1954.

As stated above, the experimental mail services performed by the mail-certificated carriers over the New York-Chicago and Washington-Chicago segments have been completely satisfactory. However, it is the opinion of the Post Office Department that since the experimental exemption requested by the certificated cargo carriers wUI make their services available at the rate of 18.66 cents per ton-mile over the remainder of their systems as well as the New York-Chicago and Washington-Chicago segments, their requests should be granted as being in the public interest at least insofar as the other points are involved. To this extent the need exists for their services at the rate offered, in that they could be used to advantage in circumstances similar to those existing in connection with the feeder lines.

If the board grants these requests for a temporary exemption, these services, too, will be used in those instances where in the judgment of the Postmaster General there would be improvements in the present postal service commensurate with the transportation charges. These services could and will be used, as stated in our letter of December 14, in those instances, emergency in nature, where the movement of surface mail would otherwise be delayed; and in other instances where pilot tests are deemed proper by the Postmaster General for additional data as to the advisability of expanding the present experiments involved in the surface-mail-byair program. It is not presently contemplated, however, that the Department will conduct experiments with these certificated cargo carriers on the same scale and with the same regularity as is presently being conducted with the trunkline carriers operating on the New York-Chicago and Washington-Chicago experimental segments.

• • 3. That if the Board finds that the services

of the applicants are not needed in conjunction with the New York, Washington, and Chicago experimental segments, that the exemption be granted at least for the remainder of their systems at the requested rate of 18.66 cents per ton mile, and for a period of time coextensive with the present trunkline experiment.

Respectfully submitted. Louis J. DoYLE,

Acting Solicitor, Post Office Department.

JULIAN T. CROMELIN, Attorney, Office of the Solicitor,

Post Office Department.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing petition upon all parties of record in this proceeding by mailing a copy thereof, in a franked envelope and properly addressed, to each such party or their attorney.

JULIAN T. CROMELIN,

Attorney, Office of the Solicitor. Dated January 21, 1954.

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM-RECESS Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I

have discussed with the minority leader, earlier in the day, a call of the calendar next week. It is planned to have a call of the calendar from the beginning on Monday next. In addition to that, there are several bills which it is my intention to ask to have considered during next week. I have discussed several bills with

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 1257. the minority leader, and he said that while he did not know whether there Jllight be individual Senators who would oppose some of the bills, he would have no objection to taking them up next week.

I now read the list of the bills which I have in mind.

Calendar No. 617, S. 2038, to amend the act approved July 8, 1937, authorizing cash relief for certain employees of the Canal Zone Government;

Calendar No. 856, H. R. 5861, to amend the act approved July 8, 1937, authorizing cash relief for certain employees of the Canal Zone Government;

Calendar No. 857, S. 1647, to amend the act of August 3, 1950, as amended, to continue in effect the provisions thereof relating to the authorized personnel strengths of the Armed Forces;

Calendar No. 877, S. 2772, to provide for the disposal of paid postal savings certificates;

Calendar No. 881, Senate Resolution 194, to print additional copies of Senate Report No. 848, 83d Congress, on Korean atrocities;

Calendar No. 888, H. R. 2326, to amend the act of August 3, 1950, as amended, to continue in effect the provisions thereof relating to the authorized personnel strengths of the Armed Forces; and

Calendar No. 923, S. 1184, to authorize relief of authorized certifying officers from exceptions taken to payments pertaining to terminate war agencies in liquidation by the Department of State.

Mr. President, I am following my customary practice of giving as much advance notice as may be possible. We hope to be in position to call up those bills during next week.

Mr. President, if there be no further business at this time, I move that the Senate stand in recess until 12 o'clock noon tomorrow.

The motion was agreed to; and (at 6 o'clock and 47 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a recess until tomorrow, Thursday, February 4, 1954, at 12 o'clock meridian.

•• ~ ... •• HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3,1954 The House met at 12 o'clock noon. The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Braskamp,

D. D., offered the following prayer: Almighty and ever-blessed God, in this

brief moment of worship, may we be inspired with a vivid perception of life's noblest purposes and a clear vision of how best to serve Thee and our fellow men.

Grant that we may apprehend and ap~ propriate by faith the inexhaustible re~ sources of Thy grace which Thou hast placed at our disposal.

May nothing impair the strength and integrity of our character and conduct as we seek to prove worthy of the trust that our beloved country has placed in us.

We pray that the evening hours of each day may be radiant with joy and peace as we look back upon work well done. ·

Hear us in the name of our blessed Lord who has called us to be His part~ ners in the glorious task of establishing on earth His kingdom of righteousness. Amen.

The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT A message in writing from the Presi~

dent of the United States was commu~ nicated to the House by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate, by Mr.

Carrell, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate had passed without amendment a joint resolution of tbe House of the following title:

H. J. Res. 354. Joint resolution amending Public Law 207, 83d Congress.

The message also announced that the Senate disagrees to the amendment of the House to the bill <S. 2175) entitled "An act to amend title VI of the Legisiative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, with respect to the retirement of employees in the legislative branch"; requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mrs. SMITH of Maine, Mr. DIRKSEN, Mr. BUTLER ·of Maryland, Mr. HUMPHREY, and Mr. KENNEDY to be the conferees on the part of the Senate.

NATIONAL DEFENSE Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan~

imous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington?

There was no objection. Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, the deter~

mination of President Eisenhower and the Republican administration to obtain the greatest value for the American taxpayers' defense dollar was demonstrated yesterday with the announcement of the award of the contract for building the .third Forrestal carrier to the Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co.. As a result of calling for fixed bids, an award is being made at a saving of $28,314,000 under the next low bidder.

Another vital factor in the defense program was likewise recognized yesterday in the award of a contract for three destroyers to the Quincy, Mass., yard of the Bethlehem Steel Co., as against a. lower bid, in order to keep available the great mobilization potential of this ship~ yard and retain .its skilled employees.

The two factors of saving the tax~ payers' dollar and maintaining certain facilities and manpower for defense which have been recognized are worthy of note. Certainly those of us who have dealt with Secretary of the Navy Robert B. Anderson have gained a high respect for the conscientious and fair, as well as wise, decisions that he has made under very difficult circumstances.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, the Members of this body will recognize that the present policy of retiring older naval vessels and constructing modern ships, particularly aircraft carriers, is essential. And, speaking of carriers, I call attention to the fact that the so-called supercarrier is the only answer to a mobile air base capable of launching the modern jet plane which will be coming off the production line in the next few years. We should bear in mind, too, that the For~ restal class carrier cannot pass through the Panama Canal and, therefore, it is in the national interest that facilities and skills for constructing and repairing the so-called supercarrier must be available on the west coast.

I believe that we now have one of the greatest Secret aries of the Navy this country has ever had. I believe that he will recommend that we continue the program of building a new modern carrier each year and that the Congress should see to it that the authorization and funds are included in this year's budget for a fourth 60,000-ton carrier. Also, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the Department of the Navy will consider it in the national interest to allocate the construction of this fourth carrier to the Pacific coast.

SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. BENTLEY asked and was given

permission to address the House for 30 minutes on Monday next, following the legislative program of the day and any special orders heretofore entered.

CARDINAL MINDSZENTY Mr. BENTLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection. Mr. BENTLEY. ~ir. Speaker, Monday

next, February 8, marks the fifth anni~ versary of the sentencing of Cardinal Mindszenty, of Budapest, Hungary, by a Communist kangaroo court.

It is my intention to take advantage of the special order which I have just been granted to speak on that unha;>py event. I was a personal friend of Cardinal Mindszenty. I was in Budapest at the time he was sentenced. I hope I will be able on Monday next to pay due tribute to the courage of this man, and also to describe something of the tribulations and tortures which he had to undergo Gl.t the hands of his Communist interrogators.

Not because of myself but in respect to this great martyr of the 20th century, ·I hope there will be a goodly number o! my colleagues on hand at that time.

INTERFERENCE WITH FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATION IN GUATEMALA

Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

1258 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE February 3

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Ohio?

There was no objection. Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. Mr.

Speaker, the Government of Guatemala yesterday expelled two American news correspondents, Mr. Sydney Gruson, of the New York Times, and Mr. Marshall Bannell, of the National Broadcasting Co. Mr. Gruson was charged with having systematically defamed and slandered the Guatemalan Government. . I understand there are no charges against Mr. Bannell.

At any time this sort of treatment of American news correspondents would be of concern to the United States. But since this action has been taken by a government which is, to say the very least, hostile to the interests of free peoples everywhere, this becomes an event of great magnitude.

To those who have been watching the situation in Latin America this is one more fact in evidence that the Government of Guatemala is Communist, using every Communist method against all who disagree.

Guatemala, Mr. Speaker, is about 4 hours flight from New Orleans and considerably less than that from the Panama Canal. We can only interpret the recent actions by the Guatemalan Government as an open threat to the way of life we in this country-and most of our neighbors-hold dear.

I feel certain our Government will not let these actions go by without some firm counteraction. I know the other Members of the House will agree with me that freedom of communication is basic to better understanding among all peoples and that any interference with the free transmission of news by an accredited American correspondent indicates a very unfriendly act on the part of a foreign government.

GUATEMALA Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Cali-fornia? ·

There was no objection. Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Speaker, relative

to the remarks of the gentlewoman from Ohio, the situation in Guatemala is becoming one which is of increasing concern to the free peoples of the earth. Th.e exclusion of Mr. Gruson, of the New York Times, and Mr. Bannell, of the National Broadcasting Co., is another example of the exercise of the powers of a police state which is becoming a common occurrence in Guatemala. The exclusion order follows upon the expropriation without compensation of private property belonging to nationals of foreign countries, nationals whom, I might say, have made considerable contributions not only to the standard of living of the people of Guatemala, but have paid millions of dollars in taxes into the treasury of that country.

The price of coffee is high in the United States, but it is certainly not so high that the people of this country will not give

serious thought to the exclusion from the United States of coffee produced in Guatemala, the American dollars paid for which renders possible the continued stability of the Guatemalan economy. Treaties to which the Goverment of the United States is signatory forbids the imposition of sanctions at Federal level but the American housewife who treasures human freedom for her family may well prove to be a tremendous factor in the market place of the United States.

SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED

Mr. JACKSON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 hour on Thursday, February 25, following the legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, on the subject of Guatemala.

INCREASED ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS FOR CERTAIN WHEAT GROWERS Mr. D'EWART. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks and to include a letter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Montana?

There was no objection. Mr. D 'EWART. Mr. Speaker, the

President of the United States has signed Public Law 290 which passed the House and the Senate recently, and which includes a provision that permits him to increase acreage allotments on classes and subclasses of wheat that are in short supply.

My State grows a large amount of high-protein wheat that is in short supply, as is evidenced by the premium even as high as 72 cents a bushel that is paid for high-protein wheat.

I understand the Secretaty of Agriculture is now considering rules and regulations to implement the increase in acreage allotments for these high-protein wheat growers. I am hopeful that the regulation can be worked out and the provisions of this law can be put into effect so that the allotment of acreage for these high-protein wheats that are in short supply can be increased during the present season.

Mr. Speaker, I am today addressing the following letter to the Secretary of Agriculture:

FEBRUARY 3, 1954. The Honorable EzRA T. BENSON,

The Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: This is with reference to Public Law 290 and the provision contained therein which permits you to increase acreage allotments for growers of classes or subclasses of wheat which are in short supply.

As you may know, I introduced a similar measure on the opening day of this session, in an effort to afford a larger acreage of the high-protein spring wheats that are grown in Montana. This wheat is in short supply, and the best evidence of this fact is the payment of premiums of up to 74 cents per bushel for the protein content.

I wish to urge that you take steps immediately to declare that this high-protein wheat is in short supply, and to issue regulations to permit larger acreages for the growers of such wheat. Tbis action must be

taken very soon in order to be effective for this crop year. Your assistance and cooperation in behalf of both the growers and the consuming public will be deeply appreciated.

Sincerely yours, WESLEY A. D'EWART.

SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED

Mr. WOLVERTON asked and was given permission to address the House for 30 minutes today, following the legislative program and any special orders heretofore granted.

PROPOSED REINSURANCE SYSTEMHEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?

There was no objection. Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Speaker, my

purpose in taking this time is to acquaint the House with a portion of the program which is to be considered as part of the President's health program as contained in the President's message on health. As you are aware, already several bills to effectuate the program have been introduced and referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. There has been some question raised as to whether it was the intention of the administration to present legislation to provide a limited system of reinsurance _to encourage insurance companies and organizations to make available to more people broader insurance against the cost of illness. In that connection, I bring to your attention a statement made today by Mrs. Oveta Hobby, Secretary of the Departmen~ of Health, Education, and Welfare, as follows:

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is working out a number of specific details connected with the President's proposal for a limited reinsurance system to encourage insurance companies and organizations to make available to more people broader insurance against the costs of illness.

There is absolutely no truth to any report that the reinsurance proposal is being dropped by the administration.

It is indeed very gratifying to learn that it is the intention of the administration to make effective this very important part of the President's health program.

DISCHARGE PETITION NO. 7 ON ALASKAN STATEHOOD NOW ON CLERK'S DESK Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan

imous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection t.o the request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objection. Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Speaker, today I

placed on the Clerk's desk a discharge petition to discharge the Rules Committee from further consideration of the Alaskan statehood bill. The Rules Committee bas failed to grant a rule on -Alaskan statehood, and our informatiol}

1954 CONGRESSIONAL -RECORD- HOUSE 1259 is that the Rules Committee does not intend to do so. Consequently, the discharge-petition procedure _ is the · o:nJ.y one left to us to get consideration of this measure. Many of us have long supported Hawaiian statehood, but we believe that Alaska should be given similar consideration. As a matter of fact, our Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has always considered them as companion measures. - Alaskan statehood bas already once passed this House. During the 81st Congress the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, with only one dissenting vote, reported the Alaskan statehood bill to the House, and that measure passed the House on March 3, 1950. The Senate companion committee voted 8 to 2 to vote the measure favorab-ly in the 81st Congress, but the bill did not receive consideration on the Senate floor. On several previous occasions our Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs bas favorably considered and- reported Alaskan statehood. The first Alaskan statehood bill to receive committee action was approved unanimously by the House Public Lands Committee and reported to the House on April 14, 1948, in the 80th Congress.

In June 1953, 83d Congress, the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee reported an Alaskan statehood bill favorably to the House. The committee vote on this measure was 19 to 4. This bill is still pending before the Rules Committee and is the subject of the discharge petition which I have placed on the Clerk's desk. I wish to urge those who believe that Alaska statehood should be considered along with, even though not connected to the Hawaii statehood bill, to sign the discharge petition. The discharge petition on the Clerk's desk is discharge petition No. 7.

PROBLEM OF DOMESTIC COMMUNISM

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from West Virginia?

There was no objection. Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I am

pleased to note that Adlai Stevenson has suggested the formation of a high level commission to ferret out subversives in Government.

This suggestion is somewhat similar to my bill, H. R. 6943, which I introduced on the opening day of the present session of Congress.

Since then I have conferred with President Eisenhower about the establishment of a study commission to go into the entire problem of domestic communism and I hope that action on this resolution will be forthcoming soon.

It is, I would like to repeat, a nonpartisan move which is receiving the endorsement of both Republicans and Democrats.

I have received several hundred letters from American citizens all over the Nation favoring this approach to this issue

which is one of the most important facing the Nation today. -

SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. DAVIS of Georgia asked and was

granted permission to address the House for 30 minutes on Friday next, if the House is in session, and if not, on Monday next, at the conclusion of the legislative business of the day and any other special orders heretofore entered.

DRINK SASSAFRAS TEA: A SOLUTION TO THE COFFEE PROBLEM Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?

There was no objection. Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am

today offering a solution to the coffee problem. The jumbled coffee situation seems to be getting no better fast. I have given considerable thought to this perplexing situation which is creating jangled nerves, strained pocketbooks, and is a threat to social life itself. In this extremity I offer a suggestion which I believe has merit: Drink sassafras tea.

Having been reared in the Missouri Ozarks, where I am sure there is not a family but what is familiar with this most delicious beverage, I ba ve drunk literally: gallons of sassafras tea. In the spring~in the Ozarks--wben the blood is tired we turn to sassafras tea for a pickup, and such a delightful pickup it is. This pleasant drink is made from the roots of the humble sassafras. The roots of this shrub, or switch, _ can be obtained through commercial channels, and are also available for the digging. I am sure that in my district alone enough sassafras roots can be harvested to bring comforting relief to the many citizens of our country who take a dim view on coffee prices.

You are all cordially invited to Missouri for an ample supply of this satisfying beverage. To any of you who contemplate a trip- to this great State in order to procure some of these magic sassafras roots, I point out that the shrub can be easily pulled from the ground. The ever-present aroma in this harvesting process will be ample reward, and remember-the roots may be boiled over and over, and over again without impairment to the flavor of this invigorating elixir.

I might mention that a concentrate of sassafras tea is said to have certain medicinal qualities. While I have never used the product for this particular purpose, I pass it on to you, not with the thought of course that it is so needed, but anyway, it is said and firmly believed in my section of the hills that sassafras tea is a "sure cure for the itch.'' However, with all the seriousness at my command I recommend sassafras tea for its unusual qualities: pleasing :fiavor, delightful beauty, and satisfying results as a beverage-either hot or iced, and preferably with sugar and cream. And. of course, as a solution to the coffee problem.

For jumpy nerves, sleepless nights, financial strain, and tired blood, why not switch to sassafras. Enjoy the ''switch that satisfies."

APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT JUDGES Mr. JONAS of Illinois submitted the

following conference report and statement on the bill <S. 15) to provide for the appointment of additional circuit and district judges, and for other purposes.

The conference report and statement follow;

CoNFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. No. 1133) The committee of conference on the dis;.

agreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 15) to provide for the appointment of additional circuit and district judges, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: ·

That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted bY the House amendment insert the !_allowing: "That the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, one additional circuit judge for -the fifth circuit and two additional circuit judges for the ninth circuit. In order that the table contained in section 44 (a) of title 28 of the United States Code will reflect the changes made by this section in the number of circuit judges for said circuits, such table is amended to read as follow& with respe<;:t to said circuits:

"'Circuits Number of judges • • •

Fifth ---------------------------- Seven • • • • •

Ninth ----------------------------- Nine • • • • •

"SEc. 2. (a) (1) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, one additional district judge for the southem district of California, one additional district judge for the district of Colorado, -one additional district judge for the district of Delaware, one additional district judge for the southern district of Florida, one additional district judge for the district of Idaho, one additional district judge for the northern district of Indiana, one additional district judge for the southern district of Indiana, one additional -district judge for the western district of Kentucky, one additional district- judge for the district of Massachusetts, one additional ·district judge for the eastern district of Michigan, one additional district judge for the western district of Michigan, one additional district judge for the district of New Jersey, two additional district judges for the southern district of New York, one additional district judge for the district of North Dakota, one additional district judge for the northern dlstrict of Ohio, one additional district judge for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, one additional district judge for the western district of Pennsylvania, one additional district judge for the eastern district of Texas, one additional district judge for the eastern district of Virginia, and one additional district judge for the eastern district of Wisconsin.

"(2) The existing judgeship -for -the eastern and western districts of Missouri, created by the Act entitled 'An Act to provide for the appo-intment of an additional district judge for the eastern and western districts of Missouri'. approved December 24, 1942 (56

1260 E:ONGRESSIONAI. · RECORD- HOUSE February 3 Stat. 1083), the existing judgeship for the ~;outhern district of Texas created by section 2 (d) of the Act entitled 'An Act to provide for the appointment of additional circuit and district judges and for other purposes', approved August 3, 1949 (63 Stat. 495), and the existing judgeship for the northern and southern districts of West Virginia, created by the Act entitled 'An Act to provide for the appointment of an additional district judge for· the northern and southern districts of West Virginia', approved June 22, 1936 ( 49 Stat. 1805), shall be permanent judgeships.

"(3) In order that the table contained in section 133 of title 28 of the United States Code will reflect the changes made by this subsection in the number of permanent judgeships for certain districts, such table is amended to read as follows with res.pect to said districts:

"'Districts California:

• •

Judges

• • · Southern ____ ___________________ 11

Colorado____________________________ 2

• Delaware___________________________ 3

• Florida:

• Southern_______________________ 4

• Idaho------------------------------ 2

• • • • Indiana:

Northern_______________________ 2 Southern_______________________ 2

• • Kentucky:

• Western________________________ 2

Massachusetts---------------------- 5 Michigan:

Eastern ------------------------ 6 Western________________________ 2

• Missouri:

• Eastern and Western____________ 2

New .Jersey_________________________ 7

New York: • • •

Southern_______________________ 18

• North Dakota_______________________ 2 Ohio:

Northern_______________________ 5

• • Pennsylvania:

Eastern------------------------ 8

Western________________________ 5 Texas:

• • Southern_______________________ 4 Eastern------------------------ 2

• • Virginia:

Eastern------------------------ 3

West Virginia:

• • • • Northern and Southern___ _______ 1

Wisconsin: Eastern________________________ 2

"(b) (1) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, one additional district judge for the district of New Mexico. The first vacancy

occurring in the office of district judge i~ said district shall not be filled.

"(2) The President· shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, one additional district judge for the district of Nevada. The first vacancy occurring in the office of district judge in said district shall not be filled.

"(3) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Sena'te, one additional district judge for the district of South Dakota. The first vacancy occurring in the office of district judge in said district shall not be filled.

"(4) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, one additional district judge for the middle district of Tennessee. The first vacancy occurring in the office of district jud[3 in said district shall not be filled.

"(5) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, one additional district judge for the western district of Pennsylvania. The first vacancy occurring in the office of district judge in said district shall not be filled.

"(6) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, one additional district judge for the district of Utah. The first vacancy occurring in the office of district judge in said district shall not be filled.

"(7) The second sentence of section 94 (a) (3) of title 28 of the United States Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 'Court for the Hammond Division shall be held at Hammond and Lafayette.'

"(8) (a) Section 102 (a) (1) of title 28 of the United States Code is amended to read as follows:

" ' ( 1) The Southern Division comprises the counties of J ackson, Lapeer, Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, Saint Clair, Sanilac, Washtenaw, and Wayne.

" 'Court for the Southern Division shall be held at Detroit and Port Huron.'

"(b) The second sentence of section 102 (a) (2) of title 28 of the the United States Code is amended to read as follows: 'Court for the Northern Division shall be held at Bay City and Flint.'

"(c) Section 102 (b) (1) of title 28 of the United States Code is amended to read as follows:

" ' ( 1) The Southern Division comprises the counties of Allegan, Antrim, Barry, Benzie, Berrien, Branch, Calhoun, Cass, Charlevoix, Clinton, Eaton, Emmet, Grand Traverse, Hillsdale, Ingham, Ionia, Kalamazoo, Kalkaska, Kent, Lake, Leelanau, Manistee, Mason, Mecosta, Missaukee, Montcalm, Muskegon, Newaygo, Oceana, Osceola, Ottawa, St. Joseph, Van Buren, and Wexford.

"'Court for the Southern Division shall be held at Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, and Mason.'

" ( 9) The second sentence of section 115 (a) (1) of title 28 of the United States Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 'Court for the Eastern Division shall be held at Cleveland, Youngstown, and Akron.'

"(a) The first sentence of subsection (d) ( 4) of section 124 of title 28 of the United States Code is hereby amended to read as follows: '(4) The San Antonio Division comprises the counties of Atascosa, Bandera, Bexar, Comal, Dimmit, Frio, Gonzales,

"Guadalupe, Karnes, Kendall, Kerr, Medina, Real , and Wilson.'

"(b) The first sentence of subsection (d) (5) of section 124 of title 28 of the United States Code is hereby amended to read as follows: ' ( 5) The Del Rio Division comprises the counties of Edwards, Kinney, Maverick, Terrell, Uvalde, Val Verde, and Zavalla.'

"(10) The present incl,lmbent of the judgeship created by the Act entitled 'An Act to provide for the appointment of an additional district judge for the eastern and western districts of Missouri', approved December 24,

1942 (56 Stat. 1083), shall henceforth hold such office under section 133 of title 28 of the United States Code, as amended by tbis Act.

" ( 11) The present incumbent of the judgeship for the southern district of Texas created by section 2 (d) of the Act entitled 'An Act to provide for the appointment of additional circuit and district judges, and for other purposes', approved August 3, 1949 (63 Stat. 495), shall henceforth hold such office under section 133 of title 28 of the United States Code, as amended by this Act, and section 2 (d) of the said Act approved August 3, 1949, is repealed.

"(12) The present incumbent of the judgeship created by the Act entitled 'An Act to provide for the appointment of an additional district judge for the northern and southern districts of West Virginia', approved June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1805), shall henceforth hold such office under section 133 of title 28 of the United States Code, as amended by this Act.

" ( 13) (a) Section 134 of ti tie 28 of the United States Code is amended to read as follows:

"'§ 134. Tenure and residence of district judges.

. "'(a) The district judges, except in Hawaii and Puerto Rico, shall hold office during good behavior. The district judges in Hawaii and Puerto Rico shall hold office for terms of six and eight years, respectively, and until their successors are appointed and qualified.

"'(b) Each district judge, except in the District of Columbia, shall reside in the district or one of the districts for which he is appointed.

"'(c) If the public interest and the nature of the business of a district court require that a district judge should maintain his abode at or near a particular place for holding court in the district or within a particular part of the district the judicial council of the circuit may so declare and may make an appropriate order. If the district judges of such a district are unable to agree as to which of them shall maintain his abode at or near the place or within the area specified in such an order the judicial council of the circuit may decide which of them shall do so.'

"(b) Orders made by the judicial councils of the circuits under the second sentence of subsection (c) of section 134 of title 28, as amended by this section, determining that a specified district judge shall maintain his abode at or near a place or within an area which the council has theretofore designated for the abode of a district judge under the first sentence of such subsect ion, shall be applicable only to district judges appointed after the enactment of this Act.

"SEc. 3. (a) The first sentence of section 26 of the Organic Act of the Virgin Islands of the United States, as amended (48 U. S. c. 1405y), is amended to read as follows:

" 'The President shall, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint a judge for the District Court of the Virgin Islands who shall hold office for the term of eight years and until his successor is chosen and qualified unless sooner removed by the President for cause, and a district attorney ·who shall hold office for the term of four years and until his successor is chosen and qualified unless sooner removed by the President for cause.'

"(b) This section shall take effect upon its approval but shall not affect the term of any incumbent whose term has not yet expired.

"SEc. 4. (a) Sections 371 and 372 of title 28, United States Code, are hereby amended

-to read as follows:

"'§ 371. Resignation or retirement for age. "'(a) Any justice or judge of the United

States appointed to hold office during good

1951,. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 1261 behavior who resigns after attaining the age of seventy years and after serving at least ten years continuously or otherwise shall, during the remainder of his lifetime, con·

· tinue to receive the salary which he was re· ceiving when he resigned.

"'(b) Any justice or judge of the United States appointed to hold otHce during good behavior may retain his otHce but retire from regular active service after attaining the age of seventy years and after serving at least ten years continuously or otherwise, or after attaining the age of sixty-five years and after serving at least fifteen years con· tinuously or otherwise. He shall, during the remainder of his lifetime, continue to receive the salary of the otHce. The President shall appoint, · by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a successor to a justice or judge who retires. •• '§ 372. Retirement for disability; substitute

judge on failure to retire. "'(a) Any justice or judge of the United

States appointed to hold office during good behavior who becomes permanently disabled from performing his duties may retire from regular active service, and the President shall, by anr~ with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint a successor.

"'Any justice or judge of the United States desiring to retire under this section shall certify to the President his disability in writing.

" 'Whenever an associate justice of the Supreme Court, a chief judge of a circuit or the chief judge of the Court of Claims, Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, or Customs Court, desires to retire under this section, he shall furnish to the President a certificate of disability signed by the Chief Justice of th~ United States.

"'A circuit or district judge, desiring to retire under this section, shall furnish to the President a certificate of disability signed by the chief judge of his circuit.

"'A judge of the Court of Claims, court of Customs and Patent Appeals, or Customs Court desiring to retire under this section, shall furnish to the President a certificate of disability signed by the chief judge of his court.

" 'Each justice or judge retiring under this section after serving ten years continuously or otherwise shall, during the remainder of his lifetime, receive the salary of the office. A justice or judge retiring under this section who has served less than ten years in all shall, during the remainder of his life· time, receive OI~e-half the salary of the office. •

"(b) The analysis of chapter 17 of title 28, United States Code, immediately preceding §371 of such title, is amended by striking out the items '371. Resignation or retirement for age: substitute judge on fail· ure to retire.' and '372. Retirement for dis· ability.', and inserting in lieu thereof the following: " '371. Resignation or retirement for age. " '372. Retirement for disability; substitute

judge on failure to retire.' "SEc. 5. Section 373 of title 28, United

rtates Code, is amended to read as follows: "'§ 373. Judges in Territories and Posses

sions. •• 'Any judge of the United States District

Courts for the Districts of Hawaii or Puerto Rico, the District Court for the Territory of Alaska, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, or the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and any justice of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii who resigns after attaining the age of seventy years and after serving at least ten years, continuously or otherwise, or after attaining the age of sixty-five years and after serving at least fifteeen years, continuously or other· wise, shall continue during the remainder of

his life to receive the salary he received when he relinquished office.

" 'Any judge of any such courts who is removed by the President of the United -States upon the sole ground of mental or physical disability, or who fails of reappointment, shall be entitled, upon attaining the age of sixty-five years or upon relin· quishing office if he is then beyond the age of sixty-five years, (a) if his judicial service aggregated sixteen years or more, to receive during the remainder of his life the salary he received when he relinquished office, or (b) if his judicial service aggregated less than sixteen years but not less than ten years, to receive during the remainder of his life that proportion of such salary which the aggregate number of years of his judicial service bears to sixteen.

" 'Service at any time in any of the courts referred to in the first paragraph, or in any other court under appointment by the President, shall be included in the computation of aggregate years of judicial service for the purposes of this section.'

"SEc. 6. The Act entitled 'An Act to clarify the law relating to the filling of the first vacancy occurring in the office of district judge for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, and to provide for the appointment of an additional United States district judge for the eastern, middle, and western districts of Pennsylvania,' approved July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 654), is amended by adding at the end of section 2 a new sentence to read as fol· lows: 'If a vacancy arises in the office of district judge for the middle district of Pennsylvania while the judge appointed pursuant to this section is holding the office created by this section, such judge shall thereafter be a district judge for the middle district of Pennsylvania.'"

And the House agree to the same. EDGAR A. JONAS,

USHER L. BURDICK,

Managers on the Part of the House. PAT McCARRAN,

ARTHUR V. WATKINS,

HERMAN WELKER,

Managers on the Part of the Senate.

STATEMENT

The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 15) to provide for the appointment of additional circuit and dis· trict judges, and for other purposes, submit the following statement in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the conferees and recommended in the accom· panying conference report:

The House passed the Senate bill after amending it by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting its own pro· visions. The Senate insisted upon its version and requested a conference; the House then agreed to the conference.

The conference report recommends that the Senate recede from its disagreement to the House amendment and agreed to the same with an amendment, the amendment being to insert in lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House amendment the matter agreed to by the conferees, and the House agree thereto.

In substance the conference report con· tains the language of the House amendment with a few exceptions which are subsequently explained in detail.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

The House amendment did not provide for one additional judge for the eastern district of Michigan. The Senate bill created one additional district judge for that district. In the conference report the House receded and adopted the language o! the Senate bill.

THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA

The Senate bill provided one additional district judge for the district of North Dakota. The House amendment provided one additional judge for the district of North Dako-ta with the provision that the first vacancy occurring in the office of district judge for said district shall not be filled. In the conference report the House receded from its amend· ment and adopted the language of the Senate bill.

THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

The Senate bill provided for the appointment of one additional district judge for the district of Nevada, but the House amendment made no provision for the appointment of the additional district judge in that district. In the conference report both th.e House and the Senate receded from their respective provisions and adopted a substi· tute which provided for the appointment of one additional district judge for the dis· trict of Nevada with the proviso that the first vacancy occurring in the office of district judge in that district shall not be filled.

THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

The Senate bill provided for the appointment of one additional district judge for the district of Utah, but the House amendment made no provision for the appointment of the additional district judge in that district. In the conference report both the House and the Senate receded from their respective provisions and adopted a substitute which provided for the appointment of one additional district judge for the district of Utah with the proviso that the first vacancy occurring in the office of district judge in that district shall not be filled.

WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Senate bill provided for the creation of one temporary district judge in the western district of Pennsylvania but the House amendment contained no such provision. In conference the House receded and adopted the language of the Senate bill.

RESIDENCE AND TENURE OF DISTRICT JUDGES

The Senate bill did not contain the gen• eral language amending section 134 of title 28 of the United States Code, which was a part of the House amendment to the Senate bill. In conference both the House and the Senate receded from the language in their respective versions and adopted the sub• stitute language for the conference report. The effect of this substitute language is merely to clarify minor points in the provi· sion of the House amendment. The substance of the substitute language is the same as that proposed in the House amend• ment. Its effect is merely to clarify minor points and to permit more flexibility in pro• viding that the abode of a district judge should be at or near a particular place for holding court when public interest and the nature of the court's business requires it.

In the Senate bill 4 circuit judges had been created while the House version created only 3. The conference report provides for only three additional circuit judges.

In the Senate bill 28 additional permanent district judges were created while the House amendment provided for only 19. The con• ference report increases the House figure by 2 to a total of 21. One of these 2 additions. namely, the 1 for the district of North Dakota, was changed by the conference from a temporary to a permanent, as it had appeared in the House amendment. The Sen· ate version created · 7 temporary district judges, while the House amendment pro• vided for 4. Under the conference report three temporary judgships were added, namely, those in Nevada, Utah, and the western district of Pennsylvania.

EDGAR A. JONAS, USHER L. BURDICK,

Managers on the Part of the House.


Mr. JONAS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the imme-. diate consideration of the conference report on the bill <S. 15) to provide for the appointment of additional circuit and district judges, and for other purposes.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

There was no objection. Mr. JONAS of illinois. Mr. Speaker,

I ask unanimous consent that the statement be read in lieu of the report.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

There was no objection.

CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, I make the

point of order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House.

A call of the House was ordered. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol

lowing Members failed to answer to their names:

(Roll No. 6]

Andresen, Elliott August H. Fino

Barrett Grabam Battle Gwinn Bramblett Hart Chelf Hinshaw Chudoff Hope Coudert Hyde Dawson, Til. Jarman Dingell Jones, Mo. Dorn, N.Y. Lyle Dorn, S. C. Mollohand

Morgan Philbin Phillips Powell Reams Sieminski Small Stringfellow Vursell Weichel Yorty

The SPEAKER. On this rollcall, 396 Members have answered to their names, a quorum.

By unanimous consent, further proceedings under the call were dispensed with.

APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT JUDGES

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the statement of the managers on the part of the House.

The Clerk read the statement. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from

Illinois [Mr. JoNAS] is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may require.

Mr. Speaker, . I shall not enter into a long dissertation relative to the many details that are involved in this conference report or the bill as originally proposed and passed by the House. I can only emphasize again that the measure now pending before the House, the subject matter under discussion, was preceded by many hours of painstaking and careful consideration of the various applications and reports that were submitted with reference to expanding the program dealing with the appointment of judges of our Federal-courts.

In our original hearings we had the benefit of the judgment and statement of Judge Biggs, the chief · judge of the

Third United States Circuit of the State of Pennsylvania, who was appointed by the Judicial Conference to make a minute investigation of the various requests made to add additional Federal judges throughout the various areas of the United States, including the Territory of Alaska.

We heard testimony from quite a number of the Members of the House who appeared in every instance, as I recall, in support of requests for an additional judge, or one or more judges to be added to the areas that comprised the judicial districts in their States.

Finally a bill was submitted to the House, which di1Iered from the bill submitted by the other body. Following the compilation of all the testimony that we had, and when the bill was presented, there was some deviation from what the other body suggested. The bill was passed in the House. It was then submitted to conference. I might report to you that it was a rather tedious and difficult problem to arrive at some definite agreement as to who should recede from one problem pertaining to eliminating a judge, or adding another, and so on. But we had numerous meetings, and it finally resulted in a stalemate. Upon the reconvening of Congress in 1954, the conferees met again on a number of occasions and finally decided to report out their findings in the manner as has been noted, and to which your attention has been called.

I might state that as far as my St-ate is concerned, we do not get an additional judge. I am not personally interested in this bill. What I am trying to do is to try to be helpful, because if you had occasion like I had and the other Members had, to hear the statements of the various individuals, including judges, Members of the other body, and Members of this House who made appeals to get additional judges, you would have been impressed with the stories they told and the appeals they made. You would have come to the conclusion that if the condition prevails as represented in some areas in the United States at the present time and in some States in particular,

· there is grave danger that the judicial system created under the Constitution is on the way to losing some of its high regard and respect that it has heretofore commanded for so many years in this country.

There is too much criticism of the plan to expand our Federal judiciary and add new judges, too much that is not germane or pertinent to that issue. In some instances the reports indicated the court calls are so bogged down and the case backlog is so great that it is a matter of conjecture as to how long this situation will be tolerated by the people in the respective districts that are affected thereby.

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. I yield. Mr. WALTER. In that connection I

would like to point out to the gentleman that in the eastern district of Pennsyl

. vania the civil list is about 40 months in arrears. and in the western district the

calendar is so congested that the senior circuit judge has instructed the district court judges to try nothing but criminal cases; so it is utterly impossible to have a. civil case tried.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for the contribution that he has made. The facts bear out the statement that conditions in western Pennsylvania are as bad as he indicated; we tried to remedy the condition by giving the western district of Pennsylvania an additional judge. · Mr. FULTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. I yield. Mr. FULTON. As to the western dis

trict of Pennsylvania there has been some comment that the proper recommendations have not been made to the Executive by the Attorney General's Office.

·Is that correct? Mr. JONAS of Tilinois. You mean as

to the additional judge that was added in the conference?

Mr. FULTON. We have a judgeship that has been vacant for many months and not filled. Now you are adding another temporary judgeship in western Pennsylvania. I am asking: What is the reason the present judgeship has not been filled?

Mr. JONAS of illinois. I am afraid that the gentleman must draw on his imagination. If he does that he will find that in his State, according to what I am told, there is some conflict between the two men who represent the State in the upper body-this is just from statements I have obtained, I do not know whether I can state it as a matter of fact, but it has been so reported to me.

Now, regardless of that condition in the State of Pennsylvania the fact remains that you have a condition in your courts that has been aptly set forth by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALTER], one of the worst backlogs in case loads that is imaginable in any district court. As a matter of fact, -as has been stated, one judge has ordered that

· no case be tried except criminal cases. What happens to the civil cases? Justice delayed is justice denied, and you are on the road to anarchy if you do not correct that situation.

Mr. FULTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. I yield for a further statement.

Mr. FULTON. As the gentleman will recall, I was on my feet when the bill went through last year urging that an additional judgeship be set up for western Pennsylvania and then we were advised that there was one judgeship unfilled; as I recall I was advised that it was on the part of the Executive that the recommendation had not been made, that previously recommendations had been made to the Attorney General's office by the ones involved in Pennsylvania and then no action had been taken. I wonder if the gentleman has any information on that?

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. I wish to say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that I have no information about that. The vacancies should be filled and I am in sympathy with the litigants. 1 am

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 1263 not prepared to say why the vacancies have not been filled.

Mr. CELLER. There are four. Mr. WALTER. There are four va

cancies. Mr. JONAS of Illinois. I am advised

that there are four vacancies in Pennsylvania.

Mr. FULTON. We need judges in Pennsylvania.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. Does the gentleman believe that regardless of the roadblock that has evidently occurred with reference to filling of vacancies in the gentleman's State the - litigants should suffer the consequences? We have to look beyond that and see that we get our Judicial Department moving and working and serving the p.eople according to the intent and ideas that are implemented in the inherent nature of the job to be done by the Federal courts. Does the gentleman agree with that?

Mr. FULTON. Yes; and I want to compliment the gentleman and the committee because we in western Pennsylvania are not getting justice and that is not through any fault of the judges up there.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. There is really no serious objection,. as I can see it, to the revised situation as is being presented here.

Some question may be raised as to why a temporary judge was allotted the State ·of Utah and the State of Nevada. Utah has a population of nearly 770,000 people according to the 1952 census. There are a number of States in the Union that do not exceed that population that have two judges. You have there a temporary judgeship which expires as provided by law. So it does not assure those States they will have two permanent judges. Of course, later these teiPPOrary judgeships may be made permanent, but that is a matter for the future. I am speaking about the situation that prevails at the present time. The same .thing is true of the State of Nevada.

The conference report suggests a change by giving North Dakota a permanent judgeship instead of a temporary judgeship.

I want to mention what occurred in the State of Michigan. Subsequent to the time that our conferees met last summer, we received letters and statements, factual statements, from Members on both sides of the House in reference to conditions that prevailed in the eastern district of Michigan. It is only fair and common sense, when one is clothed with responsibility to see that

. justice is done and to look into the situation further. This was not done hastily through committee activity. The committee exchanged views and ideas between one another following the receipt of the data at that time. If the facts are to be taken as true, as submitted by Members on both sides of the House, then the eastern district of Michigan does need another Federal judge.

Many equations and many factors en-ter into delays pertaining to the expediting of justice and cleaning up of your court calendar. There is sickness, old age, impairments in health, and many other factors that you know as well as I

·do and that I do not need to mention here.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CELLER. Has the gentleman ever heard of a temporary judgeship that was not finally · converted into a permanent judgeship?

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. You know, I look to the gentleman for counsel every once in a while. I have a high regard for him-. May I advise him that I am not familiar ·with that but if the House yields and does make a temporary judgeship permanent, is that net the will of the House? 1 cannot assume that there is something surreptitious about that.

Mr. CELLER. No; but that is the way the camel gets his nose under the tent. We simply say it is a temporary judgeship and that seems to mollify -some Members of the House; however, in my whole experience as a Member of this House every single temporary judgeship has been finally or at some time converted to a permanent judgeship.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. May I say then that the gentleman from New York has exercised his prerogative because in this bill we took that into consideration in the State of Pennsylvania. There are a number of other situations that exist. If that matter comes up, in due course I am sure the point he raises can be again emphasized, proven or dissipated.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman ·yield?

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. McCORMACK: I think probably the chief interest relates to two of the jUdgeships inore than others. Will the gentleman advise the House as ·to what the approximate. cost is to the taxpayers each year for a United States District Court judge?

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. Well, the salary is $15,000 a year and it takes about $25,000 tO $30,000 to set the court up; to get the clerk, to get the crier, the marshal, and so on.

But, may I interject this, pursuant to the gentleman's question, we do not want to go away with the impression that all goes out of . the courtroom and nothing comes in. There is considerable money collected in the clerk's office because the litigants have to pay for the right to litigate.

Mr. McCORMACK. You do not appoint judges on the income; you appoint judges for the administration of justice, I assume. ·

Mr. JONAS of · Illinois. The gentleman's question raised this point; He asked me what it would cost.

Mr. McCORMACK. Yes; the cost per year. Of course, for every judgeship that is unnecessary, why we save about $50,000 a year during the term of the judgeship.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. It does not cost $50,000 a year if the court keeps busy, because the cost is offset by what the clerk collects, which goes into the United States Treasury, and which is used in distributing the cost of running the judiciary o:! the United States.

Mr. McCORMACK. The gentleman does not think we should vote to create judgeships where it is not necessary, does he? · Mr. JONAS of Illinois. No; I certainly do not, but who is to be the judge of that?

Mr. McCORMACK. Will the gentleman ·kindly give me the justification for the temporary judgeship in Utah?

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. For the State of Utah?

Mr. McCORMACK. Yes. Mr. JONAS of Illinois. I will give the

justification for it. Mr. McCORMACK. Having in mind

that the gentleman just stated that he would not stand to have judgeships created that are unnecessary.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. The State of California asked for three additional judges to set up a court of appeals. The conferees gave them 2; that is, in the House we gave them 2. The distances involved in the state of Nevada--not the population so much-and the inconveniences that are created by reason of the litigants having to travel hundreds of miles to where their case can be tried, is one factor involved. The second factor is that California can obtain the aid of his temporary judge to help clear up their calendar, and it will not cost any additional money. ·

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, why not give California an .additional judge rather than use that as an excuse for appointing a temporary judgeship?

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. The State of California asked for three judges in addition to the number that constitute their United States circuit court of appeals.

Mr. McCORMACK. I asked about Utah. The gentleman is straying around. The gentleman has seen the certificate of the clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, which was based on the record of June 30, 1953, has he not? He certified the criminal cases pending on the date that Hon. William W. Ritter took office, November 1, 1953, there were 59; June 30, 1953, 11. In 5 of the 11 cases pending June 30, 1953, the defendants are. fugi· tives. The Department of Justice has been unable to locate them following indictments and the issuance of bench warrants. We find that in one of the cases pending June 30 the defendant has since changed his plea.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. May I interrupt the gentleman to say that if the gentleman want:; some time and there is some time available, I will be very glad to give him 0ome time.

Mr. McCORMACK. Will the gentle· man give me 5 minutes?

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. If there is any time left, I will be glad to.

Mr. McCORMACK. Fine. Mr. HILLINGS. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield? Mr. JONAS of Illinois. I yield to the

gentleman from California. Mr. HILLINGS. Mr. Speaker, the

omnibus judgeship bill which is being considered today is of great interest to the judges, lawyers, and people of California and the ninth circuit. As the

..

1264 CONGRESSIONAL -RECORD -HOUSE February 3

only member of the Committee on the Judiciary from California or any State included in the ninth circuit area, I rise to commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. JoNAS] and his distinguished Judiciary subcommittee which labored so long and hard on this legislation.

NINTH CIRCUIT

The bill as amended, provides for an increase in the number of circuit judges in the ninth circuit from 7 to 9. These new judgeships are recommended by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The ninth circuit covers the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Arizona, Montana, Nevada, California, the Territory of Hawaii, Guam, and the Territory of Alaska. The caseload per judgeship for the ninth circuit was 63.4 cases filed compared with the national average of 47.4. The number of cases filed in the first half of the fiscal year 1953 was 234 compared with 217 in the first half of the fiscal year 1952. This rep:resents an increase of 8 percent. In the first half of the fiscal year 1953 the number of cases in the court of appeals for the ninth circuit was larger than in any other circuit. In 1952 the median time interval from filing to final disposition was 10.2 months in the ninth circuit compared with the national median of 7.3 months.

Judge Denman, chief judge of the ninth circuit, has urged the appointment of one more judge than is provided for in this legislation. He cites the ever-increasing population and caseload in this circuit as strong evidence of this need. While the House and the other body have not seen fit to grant this request at the present time, it is my hope that consideration will be given in the near future to the suggestion and advice of the distinguished chief judge of the ninth circuit.

I wish to point out that this bill incorporates legislation I introduced in the 82d and 83d Congresses to increase the membership of the ninth circuit bench.

When debate on this legislation took place in the House last year, I offered an amendment to increase the number of ninth circuit judges by 3 instead of 2 and in the course of my remarks in support of that amendment, I submitted the testimony of Judge Denman before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Unfortunately, the House did not accept the amendment but did act favorably on my original request.

The following table points up the increased judicial business in this circuit in support of the position Judge Denman and I have taken:

Cases filed, termin ated, and pending in the Uni ted States Court of Appeals for the N inth Circuit, fiscal year s 1941- 52 and first half of 1953

F i cal year

Hl4L _ ---- - - ---- - -1942_--- - - - - - --- - -1943. -- - - --- - ---- -1944_- ----------- -1945.-- --- ------ - -1946. - -- ----- - --- -1947--- -----------1948.-------------1949.--- -- - - - -----

1 Adjusted figure.

Filed

295 333 296 342 267 285 312 284 319

T ermin ated

329 '}72 282 280 324 296 270 323 290

P ending

1140 201 215 277 220 209 251 212 241

Cases filed , ter minated, an d pending in the Unit ed St ates Cour t of App ea ls for the N inth Circuit , fiscal years 1941- 52 an d first half of 1953-Continued

F iscal year Filed T ermi- Pending n &.ted

1950_- --------- -- - 317 307 251 1951. - - ----- - - - -- - 409 337 323 1952.- - ----------- 444 419 2 348 Firs t ha lf of 1953 . . 234 136 3430

2 Includes cases which bad been decided but in which motion for rehearing was pending or time for such motion had not expired.

a Does not include cases which bad been decided bu t in wh ich motion for rehearing was pending or time for su ch motion bad not expired.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Speaker, in addition to provisions pertaining to the ninth circuit, this legislation also provides an increase in the number of judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The number of judges in this district would be increased from 10 to 11, and again the bill incorporates legislation I introduced in this and the previous Congress.

A considerable portion of the population increase of the ninth circuit has occurred in the southern district of California, and, even though Public Law 205 of the 81st Congress was of invaluable aid in solving the congestion of that district, more aid is indicated. The pending caseload of private civil cases was 406 in 1948. In 1949 it rose to 517 and in 1950 to 587, and finally in the first half of 1953-so far reported-it has risen to 621.

On the criminal side of the docket there were, in 86 districts, 169 cases commenced per judge during the fiscal year 1950. In the southern district of California for the same period the caseload was 230.

It is noted that this figure is well above the national average. The high rate of criminal cases is enhanced by immigration cases which arise on the Mexican border and Which are filed in great numbers in this district.

It is my belief that particular consideration in the future should be given to the possibility of realining and perhaps increasing the number of judicial districts in the State of California. The increased number of cases, both civil and criminal, originating in San Diego County has been brought to the attention of the Congress by. the San Diego Bar Association and is a factor which should be taken into account. The San Diego area, with a population of over a million, which is more than many States, is today merely a division of the southern district of California.

At the same time, the increasing population growth in the northern district of California deserves attention and requires further study relative to the needs of that area. It should be pointed out also that the great Central Valley area of California is divided between two districts, the northern and southern districts of California. Some members of the bar in this area have already contacted me to express the hope that a new judicial district to be known as the middle district of California be created.

In order to illustrate the tremendous growth in the southern district of Cali-

fornia and the constantly increasing caseload, I submit the following statistical data: Southern D istr i ct of Cali forn i a--Cases com

men ced an d t erminat ed, by fiscal year, an d p ending at the en d of each year , begi nning w i th 1941

TOTAL CIVIL CASE S

Fiscal year

1941_ ___________ __ _

1942_ -- - - -- ------ -1943_ - ------ ---- - -1944 __ ___ _______ __ _

1945. - ------ - - --- -1946 _- - --------- --1947- - - --------- --1948_- ------------1949. -- --- --------1950_- ---------- --1951 . -------- -- - - -1952_- - --- ------- -First baU or 1953 . .

Comm enced

668 808 898 922

1, 093 1, 204 2, 034 1, 292 1, 816 2,191 1, 575 1, 2u4

850

T ermina teu

708 807 697 821

1, 104 1,088 1, 568 1,824 1,497 1, 917 1, 904 1, 173

577

Pending June 30

633 634 835 936 925

1,041 1, 507

975 1, 294 1, 568 1,239 1,330 1,603

UNITED ST.\ TES CIVIL CASES (UNITED STATES A PARTY)

[OP A cases are in parentheses t]

1941 _____ _____ ___ _ 276 251

1 942 ___ ---- - --- --- 468 (2) 351 1943_ -------- ---- - 668 (68) 398 1944_ - - - - -------- - 707 (146) 585 1945_ - - - - - ---- --- - 891 (414) 872 1946 ___ ___ _ ---- -- - 906 (508) 853 1947-- --- - - -- -- -- - 1, 441 (996) 1,160 1948 __ - -- - ------ -- 729 (32J) 1, 248 1949 ___ ____ ___ ___ - 1, 177 (662) 969 1950_ ------ -- - - -- - 1, 557 (8.38) 1,353 1951_- - -- - - - ------ 986 (388) 1, 313 1952.- - ----- - - - --- 715 (67) 628 First half of 1953 .. 548 (29) 307

PRIVATE CIVIL CASES

1941. - -- - -- - - - - - - -1942_ -- ---- - - - - ---194iL _ - --- --- - - -- -1944_ - -------- - -- -1945_ --- - - - - - -- - - -1946_--- - -- -- --- - -1947- -- - --- - - - - ---1948. -------- - - -- -1949.- --- -------- -1950. - - ---------- -1951 . - -- - - --------1952.- ---- - -- --- - F irst half of 1953 . .

392 340 230 215 202 298 593 56.3 639 634 589 549 302

CRIMINAL CASES

457 456 299 236 ~2 235 408 576 528 564 591 545 270

226 343 613 735 754 807

1,088 569 777 981 654 741 982

407 291 222 201 171 234 419 406 li17 587 585 589 621

[Cases transferred are not included in "Commenced" and "Terminated " columns]

1941. -------------1942. -------------1943. ---- - - - -- -- - -1944.- ------------1945. ----- - - ------1946. ------- ------1947-- -------- ----1948.------------ -1949.- -- ----------1950.------------ -1951.- - - ----------1952.--- ------ - - - -1st half of 1953 ___ _

1, 077 1, 226 1, 048 1, 694 1, 733 1, 746 2, 896 3 384 a: 280 2, 298 1,806 2, 229

948

987 1, 232 1,087 1, 687 1,690 1, 740 2, 761 · 3,112 3,109 2, 476 1, 983 2, 298

920

300 288 249 256 299 305 385 527 li63 446 322 289 344

J OP A cases, including rent control, a re separately listed because from 1945 to 1947 they constituted a large proportion of all civil cases commenced , a lthough tbey requ ired on tbe average a relatively small p roportion of court time per case for disposition during those years. '.rbey are included in the figure wb ich tbey follow.

Mr. Speaker, the population of the State of California is growing by approximately 500,000 per y: ar. The un· precedented growth of this State demands that the Congress recognize the problem and take steps to provide for the increasing judicial needs of the people of California. Failure to do so could well deprive thousands of litigants of due process of law.

It is my hope that the members of the State bar of California will maintain constant vigilance in this situation and

1951, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 1265 bring to the attention of the Committee on the Judiciary its recommendations for California and the ninth circuit.

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? ·

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. KEARNS. I would like to congratulate the gentleman and his great committee for their foresight in setting up the need of additional judgeships. I would like to tell the gentleman that in Erie, Pa., western Pennsylvania, for one year and a half since the death of our last judge, we have not tried one civil case, and the great need in the third largest city of Pennsylvania for an additional judge is well established. I congratulate the gentleman and his com ... mittee for seeking to bring about relief in that district. ·

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for his complimentary remark.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LANE].

Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, may I first express to the chairman of my subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. JONAS], my appreciation for all of the work, eft'ort, and study that both he and the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. BURDICK] have put into this judges bill. As he has stated to the House, a great deal of time was consumed not only by the members of the committee of conference, but also the members of the Subcommittee on the Judiciary in studying this bill o7er a long period of time. ';I'hey are to be complimented and congratulated on the wonderful bill they brought bef.Jre the House last year. Un-fortunately, the bill did not meet with the approval of a good many of us, and it had to go to conference.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the original Senate bill called for 28 additional permanent district judges. The House bill provided for only 19. The conference report increased the number from 19 to 21, and 1 of these was for a temporary judge in North Dakota that we have made a permanent judge instead of a temporary judge. It was in our bill when it was here in the House.

The Senate bill created 7 temporary judgeships, while the House bill provided for only 4. Under the conference report, three temporary judgeships were added, in Nevada, Utah, and the western district of. Pennsylvania.

In other words, the conference report recommended a permanent judge for North Dakota and a permanent judge for eastern Michigan, which were ba_dly need~. and a temporary judge for western Pennsylyania, which was also one that carried a very, very heavy caseload. However, together with those, that are well merited, the committee on conference has added two temporary judges

-for Utah and Nevada. As I see it, there is no rhyme or reason why we should-accept that part of the report of the committee ·of conference. I was for the original judges bill last year and the year before, and I am for additional judges at the present time, but I think when we mete out these judgeships in the various States and the various districts in the

C--80

States we ought to take into consideration the need and necessity for such judgeships.

There are many, many States that have a heavier caseload than Nevada and Utah, and they ":l.7ere in the original Senate bill. I refer to the southern district of Florida, the western district of washington, the northern district of Ohio, the eastern district of Pennsylvania, the Territory of Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the State of Arizona. All those courts have a heavy caseload, and we have nothing for them in this conference report.

I am not against the entire conference report, Mr. Speaker, but only two phases of it. I hope that at the proper time I may have an opportunity to make a motion to recommit with instructions to the _ committee on confer:ence to strike out those two, which are most controversial.

Some question has been asked about the need f.or a judge in the district of Nevada. - The chairman of my committee well stated that a judge there has to travel a considerable distance because court is held in Las Vegas, Reno, Car• son City, and Elko. The reason is given that because of the distance traveled, 200 miles each way, we should have another judge. But that is not the real reason that a judge is wanted in l'fevada at the present time. The caseload indicates that in the first half of 1953 only 104 cases were pending, and from the figures taken away back in 1941 only 95 cases .were pending. In other words, there has been a difference of only 9 cases since 1941. The figures also indicate the caseload is somewhat less than the national average. The present district court judge in Nevada is continually l;>eing assigned to adjoinirlg districts where the congestion is acute and his service is more needed. Although this situation in Nevada, Mr. Speaker, has been studied time and time again by the Judicial Conference and hearings have been held, at no time has the Judicial Conference ever recommended another judge for Nevada.

Let us look at the State of Utah. Under the provisions of this conference report, the number of judges for the State of Utah is increased to two. They have one permanent judge at the present time, and this calls for a temporary judge. As the former chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary stated, ''Always the tem:porary judges are made permanent as time goes on."

The volume of private, civil cases commencing in 1952 in Utah is less than onehalf of the national average. There were 58 such cases filed in Utah in 1952 as compared with the national average of 126 cases. This situation has been prevalent according to the records since 1941.

The Judicial Conference, Mr. Speaker, at no time has recommended an additional judge ·for Utah due to the fact that the case load does not warrant such an increase. The Republican governor of the State has publicly opposed an additional judgeship for the State of Utah.

One of our two Congressmen from the State of Utah has publicly opposed ad

. ditional district judgeship for his own State. The president ·of the Utah State

Bar Association and the Salt .Lake County Bar Association from whom I -have a wire has also opposed this additional judgeship temporary or permanent.

May I quote, Mr. Speaker, from the telegram of the Governor of the State of Utah, Gov. J. Bracken Lee, to the State congressional delegation and to the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Hon. Leonard W. Hall, one of our former colleagues. The telegram reads as follows:

The bill which provides for an additional district judge in Utah is the same type of graft that the Republicans so severely criticised the Democrats for in the past.

May I quote from the letter from one of our colleagues from Utah to the House Committee on the Judiciary concerning the additional judgeship. Mr. Speaker, this is not me talking but a Congressman from Utah:

On the basi-s of the current workload there is little justification for the appointment of a second Federal district judge for Utah. The present judge's predecessor in office handled all of the Federal court cases for Utah with dispatch until he was almost 90 years old. All the evidence which has been pre-sented to me indicates that his successor's court calendar is up to date and that he has been able to serve part time in other districts without causing the delay of cases in Utah~

The Congressman further stated in his letter, and I admire him for his forthright opinion-at a time when we are trying to cut down Federal expenditure and the size of the Federal payroll, it behooves us all to examine our wishes in the light of the overall good of the country. In this light I cannot support the addition of another highpaid Federal judge, when it is clearly demonstrated by the facts that such a judge is not now needed for the efficient operation of our Federal court.

The following memorandum in oppo.sition to S. 15, to create an additional judge for Utah, was forwarded to me by one of the leading law officers in the State of Utah: MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL

15 To CREATE AN ADDITIONAL JUDGE FOB

UTAH The judgeship for Utah in the bill (S. 15)

is not recommended by the Judicial Conference of the United States.

And, the judgeship is not recommended by the American Bar Association.

A second judgeship for Utah is opposed by the great majority of the members of the bar of the State of Utah. Six hundred members of the Utah State bar reside in Salt Lake County. The Salt Lake county Bar Association on July 16, 1953, held a meeting called for the purpose, at which 147 were in attendance and voted unanimously to oppose a second Federal judgeship for Utah.

The proposal for a second judgeship for Utah is opposed by the Honorable WILLIAM A. DAWSON, Congressman from the Second Congressional District of Utah.

It is also opposed by Gov. J. Bracken Lee, of the State of Utah, and many other persons all of whom know there is no justification based upon a need for an additional Federal Judge tor Utah.

Another judgeship will represent a large and unnecessary expenditure of public money.

Action by Congress should be based upon true and correct information showing the necessity for another judgeship.


The printed report on this bill of _the· Committee on the Judiciary of the Umted States Senate does not appear to have been based upon such information.

Nine sentences out of a total of 22 sentences in the supporting information for the additional judgeship for Utah at pages 27 and 28 of the Senate committee report contain incorrect or misleading information.

The vice of that part of the committee report is that-

1. It leaves the impression that there is an increasing backlog of pending cases. Nothing is further from the truth. There is no backlog of either civil or criminal cases in the Federal court in Utah; nor has there ever been. There are (on June 30, 1953) only 11 criminal cases pending in Utah's Federal court. All cases pending are listed and analyzed in the certificate of the clerk of .the ·court at the end of this statement.

2. It implies that the judicial business in Utah has suffered because Utah's Federal judge has been called to Colorado by the chief judge of the lOth circuit to relieve the congestion there. The implication is unjust and wholly unwarranted. It is Colorado that needs a judge, not Utah. The Utah judge can go to Colorado because his work is completely current. Nothing needing attention in Utah district has been delayed, let alone, neglected.

3. Further support is sought for another judge by providing in the bill that Federal court be held at Cedar City.

No justification, in fact, or necessity can be found for holding Federal court in Cedar City. There was only 1 case from Cedar City out of a total of 224 civil cases filed in Utah's Federal Court during calendar 1949. There were only 2 cases from Cedar City out of a total of 168 civil cases filed during 1952.

There has been filed an average of only 2 cases each year from Cedar City since 1948.

There has been a total of only 10 civil · cases filed from Cedar City since 1948, as compared with a total of 774 filed from all over the State.

The following summary of statistical data has been compiled from statistical information supplied by Mr. Will Shafroth, Chief of the Division of Procedural Studies and Statistics, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Supreme Court Building, Washington 13, D. C. and can be checked there:

1. Cases tn the United States District Court for the District of Utah reach trial in about one-half of the time of the national median.

The median time from filing of a case to disposition by trial in Utah has been constantly below the national median, Mr. Will Shafroth says. In 1951 the time for filing to disposition by trial of 35 cases was 6 .9 months in comparison to the national median of 12.2 months. The average time from issue to trial was 3.4 months in comparison to the national median . of 1-3 months.

2. The volume of private civil cases commenced per judge in 1952 in the Federal District Court in Utah is less than one-half of the national average per judge.

There were 58 such cases filed in Utah in 1952 as compared with the national average of 126 cases per judge: This relationship generally has prevailed in Utah since 1941.

3. No other State, with the exception of Wyoming, had a smaller number of civil cases pending January 1, 1953, than were pending in the Federal District Court of Utah.

Civil cases are of two types, those between private citizens or companies, and those wherein the United States is a party. United States civil cases, i. e., those in which the United States is a party, are on the average far less burdensome than private civil cases, because the clerk enters defaults in the vast majority of them and the judge never sees them. They are finally disposed of in the

Utah Federal" Court within 30 or 40 days of filing.

4. There were fewer criminal cases pending 1n the Feder.al -District Court for Utah on January 1, 1953, than in all other States with the exception of New Hampshire, Connecticut, Delaware, and Montana .

5. The number of private civil cases commenced in the Federal court for Utah has decreased every year for the past 5 years from 83 in 1948 to 58 in 1952.

6. The number of both private civil cases and civil cases in which the United States is a party pending on June 30, 1951, was 37 and on June 30, 1952, was 70. The number of civil cases, both private cases and cases in which the United States is a party, pending on June 30, 1953, is 72. These are the lowest numbers of civil cases pending in tl).e United States District Court for Utah on the closing date of any fiscal year since 1941.

7. The total number of civil cases commenced in any one year since 1947 has decreased from a high of 294 cases in 1947 to 177 cases commenced in 1952.

8 . A similar comparison on criminal cases commenced shows a high of 315 criminal cases commenced in 1947 compared with 130 criminal cases commenced in 1952.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. YOUNG].

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the present judge for the Federal district court in the State of Nevada could hardly agree with all the statements of the preceding speaker. I am sure he feels, and justifiably so, that he is the busiest judge in the State of Nevada. Last year, statistics point out that the Nevada district court was the fourth busiest court in the ninth circuit, which consists of nine Western States and Alaska and Hawaii in trying criminal cases. I should like to point out that the State of Nevada is the sixth largest State, ' with 110,000 square miles. Congressman LANE, the gentleman from Massachusetts, pointed out that court is held in Las Vegas, which is separated by some 500 miles from Reno. It is also held in Elko, which is some 300 miles from Reno. The biggest problem out there is, perhaps, not the number of cases but the geographical distances involved for the judge to travel from one area to the other. The State is also the second fastest growing State in the Union. Onethird of the population is located in the southern part of the State around Las Vegas. Approximately one-third of it is located in the vicinity of Reno.

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. WALTER. What appeals to me about this situation is the fact that litigants and lawyers are put to great inconvenience to get to the only place for holding court. If this additional temporary judgeship were approved, it would relieve the inconvenience to which these people are put.

Mr. YOUNG. That is certainly true, and I thank the gentleman for his observation.


Mr. YOUNG. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from New York.

Mr. CELLER. Then I take it, the argument is, that if there is inconvenience

in any State which has only· 1 judge, they should have 2 judges. If this bill passes, I should like to say, these States have only one judge: New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, and Wyoming. Inconvenience is caused to many lawyers in those States, if they have only one judge.

Mr. YOUNG. I might point out that all of those States, except Wyoming, probably could be put into one of the larger counties of the State of Nevada.

In addition, we have an unusual type of caseload in Nevada. There is a large number of corporation cases. The law of the State of Nevada has been somewhat favorable to the organization of corporations there. There is also a large number of irrigation cases which take a great deal of time. There is a large number of criminal cases, arising not from the trial of criminals who have committed crimes in Nevada, but those who have committed crimes outside of the State, but who are caught passing through our State.

I know from personal experience of the workload in the Federal d-istrict court. When I first stated practicing law in 1949, we filed a suit in the Federal district court. When I came back to Congress last year, we were still unable to get to a hearing.

As the gentleman who first spoke this afternoon pointed out, justice late is justice denied. This is only a temporary appointment at best, and I think it would help clear up the caseload that is now clogging the courts.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER].

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I handled in the last Congress a number of these judgeship bills. I went thoroughly into the situation of these two States of Nevada and Utah, and judged by usual standards I will say beyond peradventure of doubt that there is no more need for any additional judge in those two States than there is need for any one of you gentlemen to have a hole in your head. You can put the litigants of Nevada in the proverbial telephone booth. I say that, despite the remarks of the youthful and distinguished Member who preceded me, who comes from that State.

It is interesting to note the average case load in Nevada which, in 1952, was 169; 74 civil cases and 95 criminal cases. There are 86 United States district courts throughout this country. ·Nevada ranked 84th in number of cases. In other words only two districts had fewer cases.

I suggest that Members from those States which contain those 83 United States districts that have more cases than Nevada come right in here and ask for additional judges. Ask for it while the going is good. Put in your thumb and just pull out a plum. That is indeed the pattern that has been followed by two of the distinguished Members of the other body.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. YOUNG. Does the distinguished gentleman from New York have any

1954- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 1267 record of the amount of time spent in traveling in. those districts to which he has referred, whieh have a larger caseload than the State of Nevada?

Mr. CELLER. Of course, in many of these States, they have to travel miles from various places to points where courts are held.

It is most unfortunate that the other body did not accept the bill that we passed in this House which followed generally the recommendations of the Judicial Conference. These additional judgeships for Nevada and Utah did not earn the recommendation of the Judicial Conference. In the case of Utah, the entire bar is opposed to this additional judge. Utah ranks 56th in number cf cases per judge among all court districts.

Dy toke:1 of the argument advance~. I think other States where the caseload is similar to that in Nevada should come in here and ask for more judges. Let us consider some figures on Utah. The number of private civil cases commenced was less than one-half the national average per judge.

No other State in the Union save Wyoming had a smaller number of civil cases pending on January 1, 1953, than the State of Utah. The case load in Utah was-in 1952-177 civil cases, 130 criminal, or a total of 307.

Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield. Mr. LANE. And does the gentleman

know that just at the present time the judge from the State of Utah is sitting in the State of Colorado because of no work in Utah?

Mr. CELLER. If there is need for an additional judge in Colorado, for goodness sake, give Colorado an additional judge; do not siphon off a judge from Utah and ):lave him go into Colorado and use that defection as a reason for one more judge in Utah. To my mind, that does not make any sense.

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. HALLECK. Is it not true that in the 82d Congress the gentleman's committee brought in an omnibus judgeship bill here that included one for the State of Nevada?

Mr. CELLER. I do not recall that. Mr. HALLECK. I am quite sure it is. Mr. CELLER. In the committee I op-

posed the additional judgeship for Nevada.

Now why should we sacrifice, or why should the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle sacrifice their vaunted economy on the altar, shall I say, of appeasement of two distinguished members in the other body? When the conference was held two certain gentlemen insisted that unless they had their way, they would hold up the bill in conference. That is most unfortunate. Are we to swallow that kind of procedure?

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I am sure he does not want to give the impression that caseload is the only and basic determining factor in passing ·on the question of whether we need addi-

tional judges. If such be the fact, then there is no way of leveling off the situation in any State. I understand the gentleman does not contend that caseload is the only criterion.

Mr. CELLER. I will say that it is a very important factor, but the judicial conference went into all the factors and they came up with the recommendation in words of common parlance and col;. loquialism, "no soap" for Nevada and Utah.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. If the gentleman will give me another minute.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. I will give the gentleman another minute if he requires it.

I wonder if the gentleman knows that the chairman appointed by the Judicial Council, Judge Beggs, of Pennsylvania, appeared before our committee and he did not oppose-as a matter of fact he underwrote the justification for a judge in Nevada and in the State of Utah when the bill was up. It is not spelled out in the record, but we did not go contrary to the wish or the apparent will of the Judicial Conference. They were for these additional judgeships.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from New York has again expired.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. CELLER. I take it that was sort of secret diplomacy which was exercised.

I will say to the Members who might vote for this bill because they might get an additional judgeship in their State that they nonetheless ought to vote for the motion to recommit; otherwise they will be guilty of political log-rolling, and I do not think that we should put this kind of political spots and stains on our judiciary. If the bill goes to conference again the judgeships for Utah and Nevada can be stricken therefrom. The bill is, otherwise, a good bill. I do not think any kind of political chicanery can justify the judgeship for Nevada or Utah. No amount of sophistry can offset the iniquity of this unholy bundle-it is an unholy judgeship bundle. There is much talk of the need for these judges. That is true for all the States, save Nevada and Utah. The Judiciary Committee had bills before you during the last Congress but it was Republican opposition which prevented passage through both Houses. The delay lies with those on the other side.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CLARDY].

Mr. CLARDY. Mr. Speaker, I am against the bill; I voted against it before; I am going to vote against it again in the name of economy.

Since I have been here-this is my first time-! have discovered that we are continually reminded that we have certain fixed commitments that we cannot escape. But here you are going to make another fixed commitJllent. of a hundred millions a year.

I voted against another measure to establish an Air Academy for the same reason, yet I have been ~ pilot and a plane ow:ner :for 25 _years. I do not see

how you are ever going to balance the budget in the future i:f you keep on adding $50 million or $100 million a year to the fixed charges of the Government.

I do not intend to argue for one moment whether there is any necessity or any need fo:t: these judgeships in my own State. I am of the opinion that we could get along without any additional judges in Michigan, certainly without two.

However, that is not the basis upon which I have made my decision to vote against this conference report. The balancing of the budget and the reducing of taxes are the most important things confronting us and we are not going to do this as long as we move in the wrong direction.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MEADER].

Mr. MEADER. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the conference committee on his presentation of this conference report. I also want to thank him for the observations he made concerning the factual basis which impelled the committee to include the additional judge for the eastern district of Michigan in its recommendations. That judgeship, of course, was in the Senate bill and the House conferees yielded on that point.

I might remind the Members of the House that since 1939 when the last additional judge for the eastern district of Michigan was created there had been an increase of approximately a million and a half in population up to the 1950 census. Since that census, there has been an additional increase in population.

These facts were taken into account by the conferees.

May I make an observation concerning the position of my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CLARDY]. I have been as economy-minded, I believe, as any Member of this House and I in:tend to remain economy-minded. But, Mr. Speaker, we should not be pennywise and pound-foolish.

One of the reasons for the growth of our administrative law and the determination of legal questions by trial examiners and administrative officials has been alleged to be the inability of the courts to handle expeditiously the legal business of the Nation. It is against the public interest, in my opinion, to detract from the judicial branch of our Government while at the same time we are expanding administrative tribunals and administrative decisions of officials.

Before the Judiciary Committee, of which I have the honor to be a member, there is now pending a bill which would render open to judicial review the finality clause in certain defense contracts. This legislation, if adopted, would permit the courts of the United States to go behind factual determinations of administrative officials in certain appropriate cases. It would add measurably to the volume of litigation in the Court of Claims and in Federal courts.

As lawyers, many of you must have run into situations where a factual determination has been made by a trial examiner which is precluded from review by the courts. Lack of judges should not

1268 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE Februa,ry 3

be a reason for denying litigants the proper review of findings of fact or conclusions of law by administrative tribunals and administrative officials. It is foolish economy to deny adequate justice to the people of this country.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCoRMACK].

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and to include an affidavit from the clerk of the United States district court for Utah.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, this

bill is rather interesting in several respects. One, principally, is that I find myself on the side of economy. on the side of real economy. I find many of my Republican brethren-! do not know how many-on the other side. If we have a roll call it will show, and if we do not, why it will not show-that the case of at least one of these judges is a reckless expenditure, a heedless expenditure of the taxpayers' money.

There is absolutely no justification for a judgeship in Utah. I accept the word of my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LANE] in relation toNevada, but I know something about the situation in Utah, because I have before me an affidavit from the clerk of the United States District Court, and based upon that, the inclusion of a judgeship, temporary or otherwise-temporary means during his life-so far as Utah is concerned, is not only unnecessary even from a stretched political angle, but constitutes a reckless expenditure of the taxpayers' money. While that is going on, creating a job that is unnecessary and one for life, it will cost the taxpayers about $45,000 a year during the lifetime of the judge, and when the increase in pay goes through it will be $10,000 or $12,500 more. I hope the judges' bill goes through; I am for the increase in pay for judges, and I am for the increase in pay for Congressmen. I hope both will go through, but if we have not the courage to vote for an increase in salary for ourselves, I hope we will have the courage to give the judges the justifiable increase they are entitled to. But, if it goes through, it means from $10,000 to $12,500 a year more so far as unnecessary judges in this bill are concerned.

Furthermore, while this is going on, I am thinking of a letter I received yesterday from the Department of the Navy that they are going to lay off from 1,000 to 1,400 men at the Boston Navy Yard between now and June 30. Up in the Springfield Arsenal, in Massachusetts, they are laying off many hundreds of employees. All over the length and breadth of this land they are laying off thousands of employees, and tbey are boasting about it. Yet in this bill they are creating-and I hope my friend from Indiana will answer this if he is going t\ talk-at least one judgeship that I know of that is absolutely unnecessary. As I have said on two occasions. it is a.

reckless expenditure of the taxpayers' money.

We are cutting down the Army and we are cutting down the Navy. They cut down the Air Force last year to 120 air groups and now they are going to build it up to 137, and I am glad. If the Republicans are right now, they were wrong then, only 7 months ago. We Democrats warned against cutting our defense in the air, but you did it. Now you are going to increase the number to 13'7. So you cannot be right today and rig·ht 6 months ago. You are right now and you were wrong then or you were right then and you are wrong now.

In order to bring about an increase in the Air Force, there is a decrease in the Army and Navy. That is because Mr. Humphreys and Mr. Dodge insist upon a mandatory budget for our Armed Forces. I wonder how Mr. Humphreys and Mr. Dodge are going to feel when they hear that today this House voted at least 1 judgeship, if not 2, that are absolutely unnecessary.

I wonder how many thousands throughout the country who have been discharged, whose services have been terminated, and the many more whose services will be terminated in the near future, in the next 6 months, will feel when they know that the Republican Party is creating another judgeship to give to some Republican candidate.

The following certificate of the clerk of the United States court for the district of Utah shows the current condition of the judicial business in that court to the date of June 30, 1953:

CERTIFICATE

I, 0. K. Clay, clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, do hereby certify with reference to the status of the criminal and civil dockets as of June 30, 1953, as follows:

CRIMINAL CASES

Criminal cases pending on date Hon. Willis W. Ritter took office, November 1, 1949, 58.

Criminal cases pending on June 30, 1953, 11.

In 5 of the 11 cases pending on June 30, 1953, the defendants are fugitives. The Department of Justice has been unable to locate them following indictment and issuance of bench warrants, 5.

In one of the cases pending on June 30, 1953, the defendant has since changed his plea and on Friday, July 10, 1953, sentence was imposed (U. S. v. Floyd A. Taylor (Cr. 32-53) , filed March 2, 1953).

In one case pending on June 30, 1953, the defendant entered its plea of guilty and sentence was imposed on July 10, 1953 (U. S. v. Smith Canning Company {Cr. 74-53), filed May 24, 1953) .

In one case the defendant had a heart attack after the jury was sworn, is now in the hospital and will be tried as soon as his health permits ( U. S. v. Oliver C. Howell (Cr. 39-53), filed March 19, 1953).

One case is at issue on plea of not guilty and is waiting trial in the Northern Division (Ogden) (U. S. v. George Pappas, et al. {Cr. 55-53), filed April 22, 1953).

One case which was pending on June 30, 1953, was transferred on July 7, 1953, for plea and sentence to the Federal district court at Topeka, Kans. (U. S. v. Walter Thomas Moffatt {Cr. 76-53), filed May 29, 1953.

One case ls at Issue on a plea of not guilty involving a Mexican who has been released on his own recognizance to enable him to

discover evidence of citizenship. The trial is continued without date (U. S. v. Manuel Espinosa-Casillas (Cr. 6Q-53), filed May 16, 1953).

Total, 11. CIVIL CASES

Civil cases pending on date Hon. Willis W. Ritter took office, November 1, 1949, 185.

Civil cases pending June 30, 1953, 72. There are no cases filed prior to 1952 among

the civil cases pending on June 30, 1953.

ANALYSIS OF 1952 CASES

There are 18 cases filed during 1952 among the civil cases pending on June 30, 1953.

Of these cases filed in 1952, eight cases are filed by Chinese and Japanese in Hong Kong, China, to establish their American citizenship. Trials are waiting action by the State Department of the United States to enable plaintiffs to get out of Hong Kong to come to trial. Ninth Circuit cases are now pending involving the same legal questions.

Of the cases filed in 1952, there are two cases tried in September 1952 by Judge William Robert Wallace, of Oklahoma, and are waiting decision by him.

One case (James M. Ham v. Oregon Short Line R. R., filed December 4, 1952) has been continued to October 1953 at the request of the parties to enable the Comptroller of the United States to find a record.

Two cases (Donaldson v. Warner Bros., filed April 22, 1952, and May 16, 1952) are waiting decision by the Supreme Court of Utah of a case there pending which will be decisive.

One of the 1952 cases (George Travis v. Arnold Travis, filed July 11, 1952) pending on June 30, 1953, was settled on stipulation and dismissed on July 13, 1953.

Two cases (Sinclair Refining Co. v. Greer, filed October 11, 1952; Village Theater, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., et al., filed October 15, 1952) are on the October 1953 trial calendar.

One case (Sylvia Marie Brown v. Paul Co%, d / b / a Cox Trucking Co., et al., filed December 24, 1952, transferred from Nevada) is on the calendar July 23, 1953, for summary judgment.

ANALYSIS OF 19 53 CASES

There are 54 cases filed during 1953 among the civil cases pending on June 30, 1953.

January 1953 Four cases filed in January 1953 were

pending June 30, 1953. A 3-judge court tried 1 of these cases on

July 8, one is set for trial July 28, 1 is on the October 1953 jury calendar, and 1 is not at issue.

March 1953

Three cases were filed in March 1953 and were pending June 30, 1953. One of these cases is set for trial in October 1953. The other two are not at issue.

April 1953 Two cases filed in April 1953 were pending

June 30, 1953. One of which is set for trial July 27, 1953. The other is not yet at issue.

May 1953 Fourteen cases were filed in May 1953 and

were pending June 30, 1953. Three of these cases, filed May 16, 1953, May 25, 1953, and May 26, 1953, are on the October 1953 trial calendar.

One of the May cases filed May 25, 1953. was dismissed on June 8, 1953.

Two May cases are at issue but not pretried. The remaining 8 cases filed in May are not at issue.

June 1953 Thirty-one cases were filed in June and

pending June 30, 1953. One of these cases filed June 10, 1953, and

pretried July 10, 1953, is set for trial October 1953.

The balance are not yet at issue-30. Total civil cases pending June 30, 1953, 72.

1951, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.- HOUSE 1269 Twenty cases of the 31 filed -in June are

brought against the same defendant, a steel company, and involve the same questions of nuisance and darooages. These 20 cases probably will be consolidated.

Counsel have indicated they may not be tried.

The court has disposed of and terminated ot6 of the civil cases filed in 1953, between January 1 and June 30. Between these dates 100 civil cases (private and United States) were filed. Only 54 remain pending on June 30. Hence 46 were closed.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of this court this 15th day of .July, 1953.

(sEAL) · 0. K. CLAY, Clerk.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. Mr . . Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. BURDICK].

Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Speaker, I would not be in favor of following the gentleman from Massachusetts if I had my way about ~t. I would rather speak ahead of him.

I am in favor of having two judges, at least two, in every State in the Union, and I will tell you why. I went through the experience in North Dakota of havi,ng one Federal judge. He finally became a dictator. No lawyer would oppose him, because if he did he lost his business. There is only one lawyer that did oppose him, and he is right here now. When I came to Congress I introduced a · bill for another temporary judge in North Dakota, and it passed. After that he was the finest judge you ever saw. They get arrogant.

You say that out in Nevada there is a large caseload. That is right. There will not be half as many cases next year as there are now, because the lawyers will not bring a case before that judge. If you had at least two judges in every State in the Union you would overcome this arrogance. . Just because they · are appointed for life, and are sitting under the flag of the United States, some of tQese judges think they own the Qovernment. They are just servants of the people the same as we are.

Would it not be an awful thing, a blow against the integrity of the Republican Party, on expenditures, if we happened to put in one temporary judgeship that might cost the people of the United States $12,500, while the same Democrats who complain about that will vote $40 million for . some foreign country anytime a demand for it is made.

J · was on the conference committee. I was not bulldozed. I was rather proud of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LANE] who was the only one that stood up, because he did not want to have that expenditure going on of $12,500 or whatever the amount of money is, added to the expense of the Government. But if the situation in Nevada is the same as it was in North Dakota with one arrogant judge, then I am i~ favor of an additonal judge in Nevada.


Mr. BURDICK. I yield. Mr. CELLER. What about the States

of New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, · and Wyoming? They have only one judge each.

Mr. BURDICK. I would rather have two. If the people there need another

judge, and I am in Congress, and I expect to be here a long time, I will vote for another judge for Vermont.

Mr. HOLMES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURDICK. I yield. Mr. HOLMES. . Why was the addi

tional judge allowed in the Senate bill for the State of Washington removed in conference? . Mr. BURDICK. This is the first time

I ever sat on a conference committee. I have been here since the Potomac River was started, and I finally got up to the 12th position on the Committee on the Judiciary. This is my first experience in conference. They told me when I entered that august body that I would have to give away some of the ideas I had of my own; and that they would have to give. It was a conference agreement. Well, I suppose I gave away all I had when I got in there-! do not know. At least we came to a conference agreement.

Mr. HOLMES. With the increased population in the State of Washington and the fact that they did have an additional Federal district judge included in one of the bills which went into conference, it seems to me that the conferees were a bit hasty in sacrificing the judgship for the State of Washington in the face of the overwhelming need which was demonstrated for an additional judge.

Mr. BURDICK. May I say to the gentleman that if he will get behind the bill I have, which would provide at least two judges for every State in the Union, he can add that into that bill.

If the people of the United States ever lose confidence in the integrity of courts or if the manner in which they override justice, then I say this country will go the way of many experiments in government in the past. . Mr. JONAS of . Illinois. Mr. Speaker,

I. yield the balance of the time to our distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HALLECK].

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, we certainly always enjoy hearing the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. BuRDICK] and because we do, I rather suspect we, too, feel that he will be here a: long time. He entertains us and he always has something worthwhile to contribute. When he said he had been in conference and had been told-this was his first experience-that you go over there to agree-! understand and appreciate his point. Of course, a conference involves a give and take. Generally speaking, neither the House nor Senate get everything they started with.

The address of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCoRMACK), who f~lt called upon because he was in such a strange role, to announce he was speaking for economy, was similarly illuminating. It was a rather strange role for him. I would find no reason to doubt his word-! am quite convinced that everything he had to say was undoubtedly motivated by reasons of economy. But, might it be possible that the fact that Utah has a Republican Senator and Nevada has a Democratic Senator has something to do with it? I do not

know. He may ·have been a bit concerned about that. , Of course, as to whether or not we -ought to talk of Air Rorce reductions now is something that has nothing to do with the matter before us.

Let us talk about the conference report on this omnibus judges bill. I hope this conference report is not recommitted. · .I hope it is agreed to because these judges are desperately needed. I want also to make the record clear. The gentleman from New York was not quite certain what he was doing in the 82d Congress when he was chairman of this committee. Also, the gentleman from Massachusetts was the chairman of the subcommittee, yet now he says he is going to try to recommit this bill because of the in<~lusion of the State of Nevada.

May I state to the gentleman from New York that on April 22 on the floor of the House in the debates, he listed the judgeship for the State of Nevada as one included in the bill. He argued for that bill and asked its passage. Now he is here asking us to strike out Nevada, and that is what the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LANE] is asking us to do. It is one of the most sudden reversals of form that I have seen in all my years of service in the House of Representatives. Likewise the gentleman from New York was in error when he said all of the additions are outside of the recommendations of the judicial conference because they are not. The judicial conference recommended an additional judge for the eastern district of Michigan, and for the western district of Pennsylvania. That is my information from the judicial conference.


Mr. HALLECK. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CELLER. I said that the recommendations with reference to Utah and with reference to Nevada were outside the purview of the recommendations of the Judicial Conference.

Mr. HALLECK. I understood the gentleman to refer to all of these additions that were made as a result of the conference action.

The gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. BuRDICK] dared to speak here of something that many of us do not like to talk of too much, but we all recognize that in some of these circuits situations may develop with respect to personnel that would seem to indicate that something needs to be done. I think that is true in the consideration before us.

Let me point out that after the other body and the House acted on the question of the omnibus judgeship bill last spring, the measure went to conference. The conference dragged on through the end of the session and no agreement was reached. In the meantime I, as the majority leader, was beset by representatives of the bar associations, representatives of the Judicial Conference, by the Attorney General, by all people who realize, who . know just how desperately needed these judges are, who said to me, "Heavens and earth, get this bill through.'~

1270 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE February 3.

It did not get through in the last session. But, as the gentleman from Dli· nois [Mr. JoNAS] has pointed out, the conferees went back into session to un .. dertake to work out a bill. Finally this agreement was reached. It provides for temporary judgeships in Utah and Nevada. I do not admit that they will become permanent. No one knows about that. But let me say this to the membership: Do you want to take the respon .. sibility of jeopardizing this whole legislation after our representatives in the conference did all they could do and after the matter was passed on? Do you want to jeopardize the enactment of this legislation and the creation of these judgeships in places where they are so desperately needed, by recommitting this bill? I do not think so. For that reason I hope the motion to recommit will be voted down and the conference report adopted.

Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this conference report in its present form and shall vote to recommit, with instructions.

My opposition is based mainly on the fact that there is no need for these additional judges in the States of Utah and Nevada. However, I have a further objection. I believe that this action on the part of this Republican-controlled Congress is purely political. This bill, or one very similar to it, was reported out and came up for a vote on the :floor of this House in the 82d Congress. Most of the Members who are now advocating its passage opposed it at that time for frankly political reasons. They felt that in the coming presidential election there was a possibility that a Republican President would be elected. In that event, appointments to the Federal judiciary would be made by the new Republi .. can President.

The need for additional judges was just as great in 1952 as it is today; yet the Republican Party was willing to sacrifice necessity for expediency.

One further reason for my opposition is the fact that in New York City, particularly in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the calendar of pending cases is over 4 years behind. The bill in 1952 called for an additional 5 judges, whereas this bill gives us only 2 additional judges. This, in the face of the fact that Utah and Nevada, which are up to date, receive an additional judge, is rank unfairness; and the only way in which this situa .. tion can be corrected is to recommit the bill and have the committee of conference agree to changes in it.

The SPEAKER. All the time has expired.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the conference report.

The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on

the conference report. Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, I o1Ier a mo

tion to recommit. The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op ..

posed to the bill? Mr. LANE. I am, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report

the motion to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows: Mr. LANE moves to recommit conference

report No. 1133 on S. 15 concerning the appointment of adcijtional circuit and district judges to the committee on conference with the following instructions to the managers on the part of the House: To insist on disagreement to section 2 (a) (I) of S. 15 on page 2, lines 20 and 21, by striking out the words "One additional district judge in the district of Nevada", and also lines 4 and 5, on page 3, by striking out the words "One additional district judge for the district of Utah."

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. I move the previous question on the motion to recommit.

The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on

the motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LANE] to recommit the conference report.

The question was taken; and, on a division <demanded by Mr. LANE) there were--ayes 43, noes 118.

Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will count. [After counting.] Two hundred and twenty are present, a quorum.

Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were refused. So the motion to recommit was re ..

jected. The SPEAKER. The question recurs

on the adoption of the conference report. The conference report was agreed

to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the

table.

MR. METCALF DESIGNATED TO READ WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL

. ADDRESS The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the spe

cial order agreed to on February 2, 1954, the Chair designates the gentleman from Montana [Mr. METCALF] to read Washington's Farewell Address immediately following the reading of the Journal on February 22, 1954.

COINAGE OF 50-CENT PIECES TO COMMEMORATE THE SESQUICENTENNIAL OF THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE-VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES <H. DOC. NO. 319) The SPEAKER laid before the House

the following veto message from the President of the United States:

To the House of Representatives: I am returning herewith, without my

approval. H. R. 1917, "to authorize the coinage of 50-cent pieces to commemorate the sesquicentennial of the Louisiana Purchase."

The proposed legislation would authorize the coinage of not to exceed 2 Y2 million silver 50-cent pieces in commemoration of the !50th anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase.

The principal objection to commemorative coins is that they detract from the fundamental function of the coinage·

as a medium of exchange. Multiplicity of designs on United States coins would tend to create confusion among the public, and to facilitate counterfeiting. The Congress recognized the necessity for limiting the designs of coins by section 3510 of the Revised Statutes which provides that "no change in the design or die of any coin shall be made oftener than once in 25 years from and including the year of the first adoption of the design, model, die, or hub for the same coin.''

I am further advised by. the Treasury Department that in the past in many instances the public interest in these special coins has been so short-lived that their sales for the purposes intended have lagged with the result that large quantities have remained unsold and have been returned to the mints for melting.

I fully recognize the importance to the country of the event which this coin would commemorate. I recognize, too, that the authorization of 1 or 2 or 3 of such issues of coins would not do major harm. However, experience has demonstrated that the authorization of even a single commemorative issue brings forth a fiood of other authorizations to commemOl·ate events or anniversaries of local or national importance. In the administration of President Hoover, these authorizations multiplied to the point where he felt compelled to exercise his veto. The same pattern recurred in the administrations of Presidents Roosevelt and Truman. In view of this his .. torical pattern, which by now has become so clear, I think that it is both wiser and fairer to make known my views on this subject at the outset. I therefore regretfully withhold my approval of H. R. 1917. .

As has been suggested in the past, it seems to me wholly appropriate that anniversaries like this one, which the Con .. gress deems it desirable to commemorate, should be recognized by bills authorizing the Treasury to provide suitable com· memorative medals at cost.

DWIGH.T D. EISENHOWER. THE WHITE HousE, February 3, 1954.

The SPEAKER. The objections of the President will be ~pread at large upon the Journal.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill and message be referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency and ordered to be printed.

The motion was agreed to.

AUTHORIZING HELP TO CONTROL THE LEVEL OF LAKE MICIDGAN Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Speaker, I move

that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill <H. R. 3300) to authorize the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago, under the direction of the Secretary of the Army, to help control the lake level of Lake Michigan by diverting water from Lake Michigan intO the Illinois Waterway.

The motion was agreed to.

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 1271 Accordingly the House resolved itself

into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of H. R. 3300, with Mr. McDoNOUGH in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first read

ing of the bill was dispensed with. Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 8 minutes to the author of the bill, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. JoNAS].

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this occasion to thank the members of the Committee on Public Works and particularly the chairman for the consideration and courtesy they extended to me individually, as well as all those who had to do with presenting both sides of the issue before that very capable and very active and very efficient committee.

Mr. Chairman, H. R. 3300 contains language that is plain and unequivocal in its terms. There is nothing complicated about this measure. It authorizes the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago, under the direction of the Secretary of the Army, to help control the lake level of Lake Michigan by diverting water from Lake Michigan into the lllinois Waterway.

This bill specificaily stresses the fact that it is intended to protect, improve, and promote navigation and navigable waters in the Illinois Waterway and Mississippi Valley, to help control the Lake Michigan water level, and to afford protection to property along the shores of the Great Lakes.

Under existing law, the State of Illi.:. nois and the sanitary district are authorized to withdraw from Lake Michigan a total annual average of 1,500 cubic feet of water per second. H. R. 3300 would permit an additional 1,000 cubic feet of water per second to flow into the Illinois Waterway for a period of 3 years from and after its enactment, subject to certain stipulations.

The whole project of diverting additional water is subscribed by law, with the express provision that the Secretary of the Army shall order a study to be made of the effect, if any, in the improvement of conditions in the Illinois Waterway and in Lake Michigan by reason of the increased diversion; and pursuant to such study, the Secretary shall, on or before January 31, 1956, report to the Congress the results of his study, together with his recommendations as to the continuation of the increase of 1,000 cubic feet per second, or the decrease of such fixed amount.

The Committee on Public Works made an extended investigation of the facts and written data submitted by the proponents of the bill-and likewise heard evidence in opposition to the measure. The subject matter embraced in the bill was extensively gone into and explored, not only once, but twice. The committee held two separate investigations-one in the 2d session of the 82d Congress, and the latter during the 1st session of .the 83d Congress. In each instance the committee reported favorably on the bill, without amendment, and requested that it do pass.

The Department of the Army, in collaboration with its Corps of Engineers,

made its last report on water diversion from Lake Michigan into the Illinois Waterway in 1933. At that time the question of sewage disposal and purification had not been solved. The sanitary district pledged itself to meet this very serious problem, and it may be said to the credit of the municipal body that it has made good on its promise. Approximately $200 million has been spent by the district in the construction of intercepting of sewage disposal plants.

The .1933 report of the Army contemplated constructive action by the trustees of the sanitary district, designed to meet the then ever-mounting and existing public nuisance created by sewage pouring into the sanitary district canal. Their report contained this specific directive:

A further study should be made when sewage purification plants had been completed and placed in operation by the Sanitary District of Chicago.

The district has kept faith with the Army engineers; and the time has now arrived when further study should be made-and this bill is primarily designed to bring about what the Army engineers recommended should be done when it had been established that the sanitary district had fulfilled its commitments.

The Army engineers testified before the Public Works Committee that they, too, were ready to complete their agreement, and pointed out the necessity for further study of the vexing problems still remaining in connection with operation of the sanitary district canal and the inland waterway. The engineers requested a 3-year limit to fulfill their part of the agreement. · In brief, Col. William B. Milne, Deputy Chief of Civil Works, testified before the Public Works Committee that the increased diversion of 1,000 cubic feet per second could have little adverse effect on lake or river . interests, and affords an opportunity to secure valuable information on the exact effects, favorable or otherwise, of the increased flow.

Now, what has happened since 1933 relative to high or low water level in the Great Lakes? It is conceded by proponents and opponents of this bill that during the past 20 years the water level in the Great Lakes has reached heights unsurpassed, and only equaled once or twice, during the time that scientific records were kept of periodic rises in water levels on the Great Lakes.

In the past 20 years, with the water level at this extreme height, property bordering on either side has been unnecessarily and unexpectedly inundated, thereby causing great damage and annoyance to property owners.

But what has been infinitely more annoying and serious has been the violent sto:r._ms that cause the water of Lake Michigan to damage and even destroy waterfront property to an extent never before equaled since the shorelines were inhabited and developed.

The destruction and devastation caused by the high water, in some instances, beggars description. Whole areas made up of projecting shore property have been washed away-seawalls, -jetties, piers, houses, and other buildings of various descriptions, located on

or near the lake shore, have been swept away or so severely damaged as to be beyond repair.

The property loss has mounted into hundreds of millions of dollars. This destructive force has persisted and now persists in Lake Michigan while the high watermark is still in evidence.

To date nothing has been accomplished that tends to militate against the forces of nature, except the plan embodied in this bill, which would divert additional water from the Great Lakes into the channel that constitutes the Chicago Sanitary Canal and the Illinois Inland Waterway. This exploitation, the Army engineers point out, will not injure 01~ harm navigation on the lakes for the time being. But a study of water diversion will give the engineers an opportunity to learn what, if any, overall effect prolonged water diversion will have on the lake level marks that now prevail.

In addition to what has already been noted, what does this bill aim to ac.;. complish? First of all, let me point out that it will provide the opportunity for the Army engineers once and for all time, to refute the charge that increased water diversion of 1,000 cubic feet per second would increase the flood hazard in the lower sections of the waterway to any appreciable extent.

Second. Because of the high efficiency of the district's modern plants and facilities for sewage disposal, pollution of the waterway has been reduced to a mm1mum. Increased diversion in the amount suggested would restore the vitally necessary oxygen content. At this time it is not disputed that the highly scientific and effective treatment of the sewage content extracted from water flowing into the sanitary district canal abates and virtually destroys the oxygen content.

Third. The increase in the current of the stream would be slight and would have no material effect on the cost of barge operators.

Fourth. Restoration of the waterway to a wholesome condition would provide relief for more than a million citizens inhabiting the upper reaches of the waterway who frequently are plagued by the malodorous condition caused by the sluggish flow.

Fifth. Proposed increased diversion is not intended to provide increased hydroelectric facilities.

Sixth. Existing treaties with Canada, and express or implied autho.rity vested in the International Joint Commission,

·does not conflict with the objectives sought by the enactment of H. R. 3300.

It can be well stressed here that Chicago would not be the sole beneficiary of this legislation, and that the project under consideration does not contemplate or provide for a congressional appropriation.

The contention that commerce over a wide area would benefit from the proposed increased diversion has not been effectively challenged. In the past 20 years traffic on the Illinois Waterway has increased from about 200,000 tons to over 16 million tons a year. · It is not seriously disputed that marine life in the waterway and commercial


fishing in the Illinois River have ·been damaged severely, owing to lack of sufficient oxygen in the water. As a matter of fact, the oxygen deficiency has resulted not alone in diminishing, but in virtually destroying, marine life in the Illinois Inland Waterway system.

I would like to point out briefly that H. R. 3300, if enacted into law, will accomplish much good, and certainly can do no real harm.

First, it will improve health conditions not only for Chicago, but for considerable distances along the waterway.

Second, it will reduce storm damage to lake front properties in Michigan and Illinois.

Third, it will aid the expanding navigation of the Illinois Waterway, without adding to flood hazards in the lower sections of the waterway.

Fourth, marine life and commercial fishing of the region will be greatly benefited.

Fifth, lake and river property and navigation interests are amply safeguarded in that the bill directs a study by the Secretary of the Army as to the effect, if any, on the improvement of conditions in the Illinois Waterway, and conditions in the Great Lakes, by reason of the increased diversion.

And, finally, the Secretary of the Army is directed under this bill to report to Congress the results of his study on or before January 31, 1956, together with his recommendations. The words "on or before" do not limit the Secretary of the Army to withhold his report until January 31, 1956.

Because of the flexibility of the language in the bill, he is clothed with the authority to report to Congress within any reasonable time after enactment of this measure, if he deems it necessary and proper to do so, in order to bring to the attention of Congress any alarming, detrimental or injurious results emanating from the increased diversion permitted by and through this legislation.

Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. KNox].

Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, today I join with my colleagues supporting the passage of H. R. 3300, believing the bill is in the best interest of our Nation, and will directly assist in bringing about relief to the great pressure and flooding of waters over private property along the shores of the Great Lakes and its connecting waters.

Private property has been damaged to the extent of $30 million in Michigan alone, which includes the flooding and disrupting of sewage-disposal plants and contamination of drinking water which is extracted from wells. Many farms have become completely submerged in the past 3 years-property which had been under cultivation for close on to 75 years and which was considered the most productive farmland in the growing of row crops.

In June of 1952 the International Joint Commission held a meeting in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, which was attended by owners of private property from Michigan and Canada. Those attending this meeting protested the opening of the 16 compensating gates at

the Soo Rapids · after such dams had been closed for a period of months and had built up a high wall of water in Lake Superior. This order came through from the International Joint Commission, the Corps of Engineer~ claimed that the dams must be opened to release the waters to raise the levels in Lake Huron and Lake Michigan. They did not adhere to the request of the property owners for a continuous flow of water from Lake Superior down through the Great Lakes, claiming that in some periods Lake Michigan was too high. The determination of the International Commission to proceed in the same manner has caused a great deal of anxiety among those who have private property bordering on the shores of the St. Marys River and the Great Lakes.

After the order by the International Joint Commission in June of 1952 and the decision of the Corps of Engineers to open the compensating gates the Sugar Island Causeway washed out. This had to be rebuilt and the Corps of Engineers participated in the total amount of $50,000 for reconstruction.

I am of the opinion that this bill will bring about some needed relief to the areas which have been flooded, by diverting waters through the Illinois waterway. I do not claim this is a cureall for the high water conditions that exist now in our Great Lakes area, but believe that it will add some relief to the State of Illinois and indirectly bring some relief to the shorelines of our Great Lakes and connecting waters which Michigan borders.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI: Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. FoGARTY].

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed out of order, and to revise and extend my remarks.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Rhode Island?

There was no objection. Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, the

essence of the report of the Randall Commission on Foreign Economic Policy is a proposal to throw open the markets of the United States to low-cost, cheaplabor imports. It proposes this without any assurance the United States will receive any concession in return, and in the face of direct evidence that this policy already has resulted in ruinous damage to American industry and agriculture.

I do not see in the proposal any net expansion in world trade, only the giving away of an increased share of our _United States markets.

The Commission proposes this opening of our markets despite its own conclusions, which read like a good argument for doing away with the reciprocal trade adventure which Uncle Sam has been engaged in for the past 20 years. Here are the Commission's conclusions:

The United States is no longer a hightariff country, a fact that cannot be disputed since 34 out of 42 countries have higher tariffs than the United States.

The present tariffs have never been tried under normal trade conditions.

During the past 20 years of reciprocal trade, we have gone from depression into war, from heavy foreign aid again into war in Korea. These certainly cannot be called normal conditions for trade.

Exports and imports in American trade are now in approximate balance and the dollar gap has been virtually closed as foreign nations have built up their gold reserves.

There has been a great overemphasis on tariff reductions as a solution to trade problems. This the Commission concedes in pointing out that other countries have discriminated heavily against the United States in regulating trade.

Finally, the report agrees that free trade is impossible as long as the threat of Communist aggression hangs over the world.

These conclusions appear convincing to me, Mr. Chairman. But the report turns its back on the facts and recommends a 3-year extension of the President's authority to negotiate new trade agreements, and authority drastically to reduce existing tariff rates. The escape and peril-point provisions would be retained, but the report wants expressly spelled out the President's authority to disregard such findings "whenever he finds that the national interest of the United States requires it.'' It is worth noting that without this express authority, relief from competitive imports under the escape clause has been given only 3 times in the past 5 years, out of 57 applications filed by 46 industries.

The Commission would eliminate the preference now given the United States merchant fleet in the shipment of Government-owned and Government-financed cargoes, and would weaken the Buy American Act.

The Commission's report not only passed over its own arguments in making these recommendations. It ignored the hard realities of unemployment and closed plants over the country that are the direct result of competition from low-wage foreign imports.

In my own Stat-e of Rhode Island, unemployment is mounting every day. Working hours are being reduced in some plants, others are laying off part of their work force, and in other cases plants have had to shut down. The situation is becoming acute in the lace, rubber footwear, textile, and jewelry industriesand it is due chiefly to imports which are invading United States markets for these domestic products. . More than 60 percent of the Nation's lace industry is located in Rhode Island. We have 55 plants providing jobs for some 10,000 workers. The lace industry represents a $35 million a year business to Rhode Island. Today our lace manufacturers and their employees face a struggle for survival against competitive imports. The greatest competitive factor in lace manufacture is the cost of wages. The machinery used in the world lace industry is all made in England. Production techniques are generally the same. Consequently, when an American manufacturer pays $3 an hour in wages, the British manufacturer paying 59 cents for similar work, and the French manufacturer paying 39 cents have an almost insurmountable advantage. For-

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 1273 eign producers receive additional subsidies and encouragement for exports from their governments. For example, France rebates to her lace producers the social security taxes paid for French workers whose products go into export.

The only way to offset such a marked competitive advantage for foreign lace is through an equalizing tariff which will enable American manufacturers to meet this competition on an equal footing.

Ninety percent of the Nation's jewelry industry is located in Rhode Island, providing jobs for 25,000 wage earners. Here too the workers are troubled and uneasy over the threat that unfair foreign competition holds for their future.

The manufacture of rubber footwear is another important Rhode Island industry. The pattern of past competition in the export market foreshadows what our producers can expect if domestic markets are further opened to foreign competition. Thirty-five years ago the United States supplied more than half the world's need for rubber footwear. That export market almost vanished in 10 years as foreign producers copied American designs and methods. Today the United States supplies only 2 percent of the world demand. If American producers can be driven from the world market, they can be pushed out of their home market by foreign producers benefiting from lower production costs and export help from their governments.

These are relatively small industries, made up of many small plants scattered over our State. But they are no less important to Rhode Island's economy. They have equal rights with other American industries and it is because they are small that they must be protected when life-and-death decisions are being made.

And let me say this: The vitality of these industries is of equal importance to the economy of the United States.

It may be pleasant for one segment of our economy to sit smugly by, enjoying a taste of prosperity, shall we call it, while shedding a few crocodile tears over the sad plight of New England's industry. I would like to remind all of you, once again, that what injures New England industry injures the entire Nation.

My State is the most densely populated State in the Union. All of southern New England is crowded with people who buy products of the rest of the land-agricultural commodities, raw goods, and manufactured products.

When any one section of the United States or any one industry deliberately ignores the interests of New England, then that section of the country or that industry is deliberately spurning one of the country's greatest market places. For the sake of a temporary economic advantage, obtained through artificial means, or by adopting a "me first" attitude, it is indicating a willingness to let one of the country's greatest purchasing areas become stagnant and ineffective.

we in New England have seen much of our industry attracted elsewherelured by cheap labor costs and temporary tax benefits. We have listened to well-phrased pleas that our country's economy is so geared to heavy industry and agricultural production that these

two great segments of our economy must be supported and sustained no matter what may be the cost in the way of price supports and export trade stimulation.

We have been loyal children in our mother's house. We appreciate full well that the general good of the entire Nation is the paramount concern. We are fully aware that our United States must discharge the responsibilities that go with being a member of the world's society of Nations.

But we also appreciate that we have Main Streets and Broad ways; and mill villages and farm communities. We have heavy industry; we have some of the world's most skilled mechanics ; we can build ships and submarines and airplanes, as well as produce the most delicate and intricate types of machinery. We can weave the fabric from which your clothes are made; and we can make your hats.

It would be impossible for me to attempt to run through the entire scope of New England's productive potential. It would be just as ridiculous if I should attempt to spell out the commodities, the articles, the products which New England consumers absorb in their every-day contribution to the sustaining of the Nation's economy.

Suffice it to say this: New England industry is worthy of the concern of every one of you. It forms an integral part of the fabric which is industrial America. If our industry is to be penalized through tariff reductions in order to provide preferential consideration for some other section of the country, then I think we in New England shall have to resort to something like the artificial methods now employed by others to produce a form of prosperity, which, in the final analysis, is a will-o'-the-wisp.

I doubt very much that it is possible to find in any section of t.."le country a more keen awareness of. the fact that we are all part of one great organism than that which prevails in New England.

You will recall our forebears were among the first Americans. We helped in great measure to build this great institution which is the United States of America. Many of our farmyards were

. battlefields; behind many of our stone walls men bled and died in order that there might come into being this great community of people, all interested in

· the welfare of one another.· · However, I want to say quite frankly that we in New England are bit by bit being forced into a closing of the ranks, where we will have to stand by our own decisions, for our own welfare; for the good of our families, our homes, and our shops.

We come from hardy stock. Our people have seen the ups and downs of many a cycle, political and economic. But the time comes, it seems to me, when we have to forget our political differences in order to preserve the community which we love so much.

Several years ag.o I recall proposing that the leaders in State government, labor, and industry should get together and study New England's problems and seek to reach a mutually agreeable solution to those problems. It has always been my belief that such groups could

come to a meeting of the minds and arrive at decisions which would be beneficial to New England industry, yet would be in harmony with the aims of all who genuinely seek the general welfare of all the people of America.

I still urge that these leaders exercise all their talents and ingenuity to come up with recommendations for concrete action which will benefit our section of the country. It is also my feeling that such decisions fairly arrived at can best bind the members of the Federal legislature who represent New England constituencies into an impregnable unit, regardless of party politics.

I can support the concept of a healthy, two-way trade among nations. But in this Randall report, which has disturbed me, there is the dangerous concept that Uncle Sam must make all the sacrifices. It proposes that we embark on a new program of tariff reductions in the hope that the rest of the world will go along with us. Let us remember that we launched such a program 20 years ago. In that time, the United States has reduced its general tariff level by_more than 75 percent, and 60 percent of our imports are completely free of duty. But other nations have raised their tariff walls, applied embargoes and quotas, and further discriminated against the United States through currency manipulations, ship-

-ping preferences, subsidies, and other forms of favoritism to their own products.

In 1945--on May 26 to be exact--I suggested to this House that the authority to reduce tariffs to the extent proposed in the extension legislation then under discussion was too much to place in the hands o_f my President. The Randall report proposes the same tariff reduction authority to which I objected then, and to which I still object. The proposal that the President be authorized, with or without receiving reciprocal concessions, to reduce tariffs by not more than 50 percent of the rates that prevailed on January 1, 1945, is one proposal with which I cannot go along. Whether or not any particular rate should be reduced, or perhaps increased, must be determined upon particular study of the particular situation in the industry involved and the impact of such a reduction or increase on that industry and the community immediately dependent upon that industry.

In 1945 I defended, here in this House, the principle of reciprocal trade-but I expressed the fear then that there would be little or no reciprocity resulting from our execution of these trade agreements. I said then:

In the further reduction of tariffs I am convinced there is grave danger to the men and women who toil in the textile mills of Rhode Island. You say, "They will not suffer." I am afraid to run tlie risk. There are too many signs of danger.

That I said in May of 1945. I voted against the passage of the reciprocaltrade agreements extension bill at that time. Nothing has happened since that date to cause me to change my attitude.

Tariff reductions as a solution to world trade problems have been given a fair trial. Standing alone they do not work. The United States has made concessions that other nations have not returned.

1274 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - ·HOUSE February 3

New England industry can no longer afford to be the goat. If sacrifices must be made in the name of world stability then all must bear a portion of the burden.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may require.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H. R. 3300. This bill authorizes an increase in diversion of water from Lake Michigan into the Illinois Waterway, in the amount of 1,000 cubic feet per second, in addition to the present amount of 1,500 cubic feet per second annual average now authorized by permit of the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the 1930 decree of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The bill directs the Secretary of the Army to make a study of the effect in the improvement in the conditions of the Illinois Waterway by reason of this increase in the diversion and to report the study results to Congress before January 31, 1957, with the Army's recommendation as to the continuation, increase, or decrease as to the proper diversion amount. The Army made a report to Congress in 1933, when a diversion of 5,000 cubic feet per second, plus domestic pumpage, was authorized, and stated that while in their judgment, aside from sanitary requirements, a minimum average diversion of 1,500 cubic feet per second plus domestic pumpage as ultimately authorized by the Supreme Court decree would meet the needs of a commercially useful Illinois Waterway, a further study should be made when the sewage purification plants had been completed and placed in operation by the sanitary district of Chicago.

That time has now arrived and no studies as to the lllinois Waterway on this phase have been made since 1933.

·At the hearings before the House Public Works Committee of the 82d Congress in June 1952, the Army engineers recommended an increase in diversion and authorization for the further study, recommended in 1933. They stated 3 years would be required for such study. The Committee on Public Works in the 82d Congress favorably recommended similar bills following the Army engineers' recommendations.

Similarly at the hearings before the House Public Works Committee of the 83d Congress, 1st session, the Army repeated their recommendation for an increase in diversion and authorization for the study. The House committee at the first session likewise again favorably recommended passage of this bill.

This bill authorizes such a study, their report to be submitted to Congress on January 31, 1957.

I firmly believe that this legislation is in the best interests not only of the Cook County area but of the entire Midwest.

The Illinois Waterway is steadily increasing in importance. It connects the two most important waterway systems in the Nation, namely the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River. An additional diversion of 1,000 cubic feet per second of water from Lake Michigan, in addition to the presently authorized 1,500 cubic feet per second, would provide a clean stream and improve navigation. It would result in a marked improvement in the Chicago

sewage system, and would lead to a drop in the level of Lake Michigan.

I know that some of my colleagues are concerned with the effect that this legislation may have on the Great Lakes water levels. I want to reassure them that we are also concerned with those water levels, but this legislation will have no material lowering effect on these lakes, a mere three-fourths of an inch on Lakes Michigan and Huron and only about one-half of an inch on Lakes Erie and Ontario and, as the report shows, these effects would not be realized until several years after the increased diversion commenced. The bill provides for the increased diversion only for a period of 3 years, after which the Corps of Engineers will file its complete study report, on which the right to further diversion will depend.

The Great Lakes today are in the period of high levels, causing much damage· to adjacent property owners. This condition will continue for several years, so this legislation can have only a salutary effect on the property owners.

As for the shipping interests, I doubt whether anyone can seriously contend that three-fourths of an inch lowering can materially affect the shipping to the extent as to outweigh the needs, necessities, and benefits to the residents of Cook County.

There has been some talk of opposition from down-State Illinois, because of the fears of pollution from the filth and slime of the cities downstream. This objection has been adequately met by the assurances that in times of high water in the rivers, the increased diversion would not be used. Instead of polluting downstream waters, the heavier ftow will provide the means to freshen the waterway. The improved sewage treatment methods used by the sanitary district will help the purification of the water.

Frankly, I see no basic reason why anyone should . oppose the adoption of this bill. I sincerely hope and trust that it will carry the House by a substantial majority.

Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SIMPSON].

Mr. SIMPSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I find myself in disagreement with my friends in this House from Chicago on both sides of the aisle. This legislation has been before this Congress for thirty years. The people along the Illinois river in the counties I represent have opposed it exactly that long.

Mr. Chairman, this bill in the enacting clause says, ' 'To authorize the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago, under the direction of the Secretary of the Army, to help control the lake level of Lake Michigan and promote commerce." Better language for the resolution would be to call it a memorial to "Chick" Sale.

_I think, furthermore, Mr. Chairman, w1th reference to the matter of promoting commerce, when I hear people talking about a depression in this country today, anyone who thinks that we are in a depression should not support this legislation because there is no use of promoting any more waterway commerce. If they are right we have enough now.

l think further, after looking at page 5 of the report and referring to the last paragraph, it would be well to quote from Thruston B. Morton's letter to the committee, where he states:

In the circumstances, it is considered that these bills should not be enacted and that action in regard to this matter should await the receipt of the report and recommendations of the International Joint Commission-United States and Canada on this subject pursuant to the reference of June 25, 1952.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, the Assistant Secretary of State, speaking for the Secretary of State, opposes this legislation.

On page 6 of the report, Mr. Robert T. Stevens, Secretary of the Army, states in the last paragraph of his communication to the committee:

The Bureau of the Budget advises that while there would be no objection to the submission of the proposed report to the committee, they have advised the Department of State that there was no objection to the submission of the State Department's adverse report, and that the Bureau of the Budget concurred in that Department's recommendation that the bills not be enacted.

That would mean to me, Mr. Chairman, that if this bill passes the House and the Senate and goes to the President for his signature, he will call on these two departments for advice as to whether to sign or to send up a veto. I would further assume that these 2 departments would recommend a veto. That is what this House is facing today.

On page 2 of the report it states: That report was submitted to the Congress

on December 7, 1933. Commerce on the Illinois Waterway, which amounted only to about 200,000 tons in 1933, has increased to over 16 million tons in 1950. The diversion since 1938 has remained at 1,500 cubic feet per second.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, the tonnage on this river and waterway has increased from 200,000 tons in 1933 to over 16 million tons in 1950. That is a very good increase in commerce on any river or on any railroad. Furthermore the newspapers in the last week hav~ contained accounts of railroad employees being laid off. Why should we continue to subsidize a waterway and continue to lay off railroad employees? I can see no reason for it.

Mr. Chairman, I call attention to the following telegrams I have received in opposition to this bill:

BEARDSTOWN, ILL., January 29, 1954. Bon. Sm SIMPSON,

House Office Building: We urge you strongly oppose Lake Michl·

gan diversion bill. BEARDSTOWN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE•

By D. R. WELBOURNE.

MARSEILLES, ILL., January 29, 1954. Hon. Sro SIMPSON,

House Office Building: _ Is longest open sewer in world to revive again? Better to leave it buried.

IKE BAUGHMAN.

BEARDSTOWN, ILL., January 29, 1954. Representative SID SIMPSON,

House Office Building: Urge you to vote against Chicago water

diversion bill. GLENN TILLrrr, Mayor.

1951,. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.- HOUSE 1275 HAVANA, ILL., January 29, 1954.

Bon. Sm SIMPSON, House of Representatives:

Please renew your opposition to diversion bills slated for 1loor del>ate today. I! amendment limiting diversion to 3,500 cubi:c feet per second maximum is offered, please give the amendment your support.

ILLINOIS FISHERIES COUNCIL,

HOWARDS. WHITE, Attorney,

BEARDSTOWN, ILL., January 29, 1954. Representative SID SIMPSON,

House Office Building: Please oppose Chicago water diversion bill

today on behalf of Beardstown. ILLINOIAN STAR.

Root is a great American. He is the Republican committeeman of the ward in which I am a ·resident. He was the nominee of the Republican Parcy for mayor of Chicago. He is my beloved friend, but he never voted for me because he is that kind of Republican. Indeed, the highest compliment I can pay him is that he is as good a Republican as ToM O'BRIEN is a Democrat.

Ralph Church, too, was my long time personal friend. It was a fine friendship that ran back intO our youthful days in the Generaf Assembly of Illinois. Ralph served many years in this Chamber, a beloved personal friend of mine although

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman, I in politics we never agreed. His widow yield 14 minutes to the gentleman from and his successor, a brilliant woman, Dlinois [Mr. O'HARA]. spoke in eloquent advocacy of this bill.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chair- You see, Mr_. Chairman, on this issue the man, this is one of those happy occasions Republicans and the Democrats of the when the Democratic and the Repub- Chicago area are united. · lican Members of Congress from the Chi- I want to digress here, Mr. Chairman, cago area are united as a team behind to include LEo ALLEN, chairman of the a measure calculated to contribute to the all important Rules Committee. I will progress and general welfare of the never forget his talk of yesterday. When American people. LEo ALLEN from downstate Illinois spoke

Whatever is good for Chicago is good with broadened vision for all of Illinois, f-or the United States. I am not at- yes, for all America, I felt that statestempting to paraphrase. I am seeking manship had transcended the bounds of only to present a factual picture. Chi- provincialism. cago is the great inland city of the coun- I confess to a feeling of affection and try. It contributes equally to the pros- warmth for the distinguished gentleman perity and well-being of the seacoasts of from Ohio [Mr. BRowN] and my friend Atlantic and Pacific and of great inter- and c.olleague from Illinois [Mr. MAsoN]. vening areas of agriculture, of mining I did appear before the Rules Commitand of grazing. tee in the matter of the Lake Michigan

Chicago is one of the greatest in vol- water diversion measure and I did make ume of the payers of taxes into the Fed- mention of my affection and concern for eral Treasury. The sums of money that NoAH MAsoN. For 30 and more years we pay out in our income and other taxes NoAH MASON has been longing for the make possible in part the liberal grants good old barefoot days when the fish for the development of waterpower in were big and the bites were plenty. the Far West and of fiood control and For all these years my beloved friend comparable aids beneficial to the South from Illinois has had a grudge against and other areas. Much of the financial the city of Chicago because he holds Chicontribution to price supports for agri- cago responsible for the tragedy of a cultural products is traceable to the tax- lost boyhood and a barren fishing payers of Chicago. ground. ·Well, Mr. Chairman, I suppose

Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to it is not a matter of much moment commake crystal clear is that the great city pared with the great material benefits of Chicago, second in population of all that will come from the enactment of the cities of the United States and among this legislation but it did bring a glow the very largest of the payers of Federal of satisfaction to me that one of the taxes, has practiced in its approach to results of the passage of this bill, which national problems a self-abnegation that NoAH MASON had always opposed, would ·is without parallel. At every turn we be to bring back to him, Uvelier and bihave given to the national welfare every- tier and sportier than ever, the dear old thing that we had to give, and often at fishing ground of his youth.

· the sacrifice of our own interest. NoAH MASON and I have a common Now we are asking something in re- background of memories, our boyhood in

turn. The something we are asking will the same Huckleberry Finn era of bririg in fact equal benefit to other re- glamour, our first legislative experiences gions. in the senate chamber in Springfield, Ill.

There is no valid argument against the Since NoAH MAsoN and I were boys there proposal before us. Both Republican have been great changes. I do not know and Democratic delegations from our that they have brought greater happiarea are solidly behind this measure. It ness to men and women. I do not know is proper, too, to mention that an in- tLat the days of the kerosene lamp, the creased authorization for water ade- outhouse, the barefoot boy with fishing quate to serve the needs of the Illinois pole over his shoulder, were not more Waterway was the end sought in bills filled with the simple joys than the presintroduced in many Congresses by our ent period. But it is not our job as legislate beloved dean, the Honorable A. J. · lators to meet the needs of the present Sabath. in terms of our nostalgia for the past.

I have before me a telegram from the Chicago now has· the largest and most Honorable Russell W. Root, attorney for efficient sewage disposal plant in the the Sanitary District of Chicago. He world. This plant services, besides Chisays in this telegram that he sincerely cago, 74 suburbs. n · disposes of 1,100

- hopes that the House vote today on Mr. million gallons of waste every day. JoNAS' bill will be favorable. Russell From this waste 92.5 percent-solid matter

is removed and converted into fertilizer. The 7.5 emuent, which remains, is a clear liquid requiring the addition of oxygen to render it wholesome for fish life, and also to dilute the nitrogen content. This latter, because it promotes plant gro~th, has the effect of hindering navigation. Hence it is that we in the city of Chicago who are seeking from this Congress authority to increase to 2,500 cubic feet per second the water diversion from Lake Michigan to the Illinois Waterway really would restore to reality Mr. MASON's boyhood dreams of mammoth sturgeon in the fishing grounds of his youth.

Among the opponents of this legislation are the Great Lakes shipping inter-ests who claim that a withdrawal of 2,500 cubic feet per second will lower lake levels to the detriment of Great Lakes shipping. Scientific studies made by a body {)f engineers appointed for the purpose have indicated that the rise and fall of lake levels, which follow a natural cycle, are 6 feet, whereas the 2,500 cubic feet contemplated diversion would lower lake levels eight-tenths of 1 percent, a negligible amount. When the suit of the Great Lakes States was instituted in the early 1920's, lake levels were going down, following the natural cycle, which covers a period of approximately 23 years. Since then the highwater level has been reached, resulting in fioods which have damaged commercial properties, homes, and beaches in the Great Lakes area. Many of the property owners who were antidiversionists in the early twenties are now urging, not that we divert the 2,500 cubic feet per second contemplated in this legislation, but that we return to the 10,000 cubic feet per second which was cut to 1,500 cubic feet per second by order of the Supreme Court.

Antidiversionists maintain that Congress is without authority to grant increased diversion since the Supreme Court has spoken and limited the diversion to 1,500 cubic feet per second. This is far from the fact, since Mr. Justice Hughes, acting as a special master in chancery in the diversion case, stated:

Provision should be made for further study when the sewage treatment plant (at Chicago) is completed.

And Mr. Justice Holmes, who wrote the opinion in Wisconsin v. Illinois ( 0930) 281 U.S. 179, 197-199), declared:

These requirements as between the parties are the constitutional right of those States, subject to whatever modification they hereafter may be subjected to by the Congress acting within its authority. It will be time enough to consider the scope of that authority when it is exercised. • • •

• • • All action of the parties and the Court in this case will be subject, of course, to any order that Congress may make in pursuance of its constitutional powers, and any modification that necessity may show should be made by this Court.

Clearly the Supreme Court was rendering its decision in a specific case and not precluding the Congress from further action based upop. subsequent developments. Among these subsequent developments have been (a) the building of sewage disposal plant at Chicago; <b) the rise in the lake level as part of a natural cycle of rise and fall

1276 CONGRESSIONAL -RECORD- HOUSE February 3

The development of an Illinois Waterway from the earliest history of the state has been regarded as a matter of joint concern by the Congress and the State. In March 1827, Congress granted the State of Illinois 284,000 acres of public land for the purpose of aiding the State in opening a canal to unite the waters of the Illinois River with Lake Michigan. Since then the development of a waterway connecting the Illinois River with Lake Michigan has received both State and Federal aid, the State building locks, canals, and dams, Congress appropriating funds for dredging and navigation projects.

In 1908 the voters of Illinois approved a constitutional amendment to authorize the expenditure of $20 million for a waterway to connect the Chicago drainage canal at Lockport with the navigable Illinois River at Utica. The Illinois Legislature, June 1919, pursuant to the referendum vote of 1908, passed the Illinois Waterways Act and authorized the sale of $20 million of bonds to finance the construction of this 9-foot lock-anddam project, from Lockport to Utica. Construction thereafter proceeded until 1930 when all the State funds were exhausted, and work estimated at $7,500,-000 remained unfinished.

Congress in the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1930, extended the Federal navigation project in the Illinois River up through the Illinois Waterway and on through the main channel and the Calumet-Sag Channel of the Sanitary District of Chicago to connect with the Federal navigation projects in the Chicago and Calumet Rivers and appropriated $7,500,000 to complete the Illinois Waterway.

The Illinois Waterway was completed at Government expense by March 1, 1933, and officially opened June 22, 1933. The report on the water needed for the waterway was made September to December 1933-House Document 184, 73d Congress, 2d session. The report of the United States district engineer, September 26, 1933, and by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, November 13, 1933. It was approved in general by the Chief of Engineers, December 6, 1933, and transmitted to Congress by the Secretary of War, December 7, 1933.

The general conclusion of this report was that the diversion of 1,500 cubic feet per second annual average from the Lake Michigan watershed, in addition to domestic pumpage, was sufficient to meet the direct-flotation-needs of the waterway, but that indirect needs in the matter of securing satisfactory sanitary conditions for those aboard vessels or employed at terminals could not be determined until after the waterway had been fully completed, the sewagetreatment plans of the sanitary district placed in full service, and the diversion limited to 1,500 cubic feet per second for a sufficient period of timesuggested at not more than 2 years--to observe conditions as they might then exist.

A further conclusion in this report by Col. Dan I. Sultan, 1933, was to the effect that the water authorized by the 1930 act for the Illinois Waterway would re-

suit in low-water :flow of 2,400 cubic feet per second in the Illinois River. This amount was inadequate to provide 9-foot navigation in the lower Illinois River, then improved in accordance with the 1927 project, which required about 5,000 cubic feet per second diversion. Therefore, the complete canalization of the Illinois River was recommended, involving the removal of the Kampsville lock and dam, the rebuilding of the La Grange lock and dam, the construction of a new lock and dam in the Illinois River near Peoria, and a new lock and dam in the Mississippi River at Alton. This recommendation was adopted by Congress August 30, 1935, and the existing improvement of the Illinois River has been constructed in accordance with that recommendation.

Since the completion of the waterway in terms of recommendation adopted by Congress in 1935, traffic on this waterway has grown from 2,171,374 tons in 1936 to 17,617,941 tons in 1951, the latest figures made available in the report of Chief of Engineers, United States Army, 1952. The 1951 traffic includes 79,844 tons of imports and exports to Canada, 50,464 tons of coastwise-via New York State Barge Canal, Oswego-receipts, 365,485 tons of lakewise shipments, 4,857,818 tons of goods exchanged within the limits of the waterway, 6,172,174 tons from the Mississippi to ports on the Illinois Waterway, and 1,310,481 tons downbound-outbound-in other words, destined for ports on the Mississippi.

Picking at random some of the items carried, we have paper pulp, newsprint, coal, fuel oil, gasoline, kerosene, grains, soybeans, coaltar products, chemicals, fertilizer, animals and animal products, textiles, metals, building materials, heavy machinery, electrical equipment, spices, coffee, and sugar. Clearly the Illinois Waterway is a system of arteries carrying the lifeblood of commerce to and from the State of Illinois.

The legislation which we are considering should be enacted into law because it is designed to promote the physical as well as the economic health of the State of Illinois.

Mr. VELDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Certainly. Mr. VELDE. The gentleman men

tioned the fact that Congressmen representing the 16th District, or what is now the 18th District, have opposed this bill since its inception. We were very fortunate to have such fine men as our junior Senator from Illinois, Mr. DIRKSEN, and Mr. Hull, oppose this type of bill in the past. Now I want to ask you to get on the real issue of this bill instead of talking about NoAH MASON's boyhood fishing days. I am a fisherman, too. I saw what happened to the fishing industry in central Illinois. I would like to have the gentleman get onto the issues presented by this bill. I have great respect for my good friend from Chicago.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. That is a very forthright question.

Mr. VELDE. I want to know from the gentleman whether or not this is a lake diversion bill or a bill to regulate the level of the Illinois River. The gentleman described it as being both.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Yes. This bill will have very many wide-sweeping benefits, not the least of which is its contribution to the Illinois Waterway, on which we now have over 17 million tons of freight moving. We are looking ahead to a great development there. The bill will affect the health of the people of Chicago. It will affect the health of the people in the gentleman's region. It will contribute to commerce. We think it will at least provide the medium for a study as to the increasing damage being done by lake waters that are too high.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. GoRDON].

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the passage of H. R. 3300, to authorize the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago, under the direction of the Secretary of the Army, to help control the lake level of Lake Michigan by diverting an additional 1,000 cubic feet of water to the present 1,500 cubic feet per second into the Illinois Waterway.

This proposed legislation has been reported favorably by the Public Works Committee and provides to regulate and promote commerce among the several States and foreign nations, and to protect, improve, and promote navigation and navigable waters in the Illinois Waterway and Mississippi Valley, and keep control of the lake level, and to afford protection to property and shores along the Great Lakes, and to provide for a navigable Illinois Waterway.

The passage of this bill is most needed and does not call for any appropriation. It deals with navigation, with health, with lake storm damages, and with the control of lake level affecting the surrounding territories. The passage of this bill has great significance, not only to Chicago but great significance all over the Mississippi Valley, allowing a slight diversion from Lake Michigan, which waters flow eventually to the lowlands of the Mississippi Valley.

The Mississippi River was at its lowest point in its recorded history, and if it were not for the flow of waters from the tlood-control reservoirs of the Missouri and Ohio Rivers the heavy water traffic of the Mississippi River would be at a. standstill.

Mr. Chairman, it is, therefore, my hope that H. R. 3300 will be approved in order to give relief to property owners and shores along the Great Lakes area.

Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chaim1an, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CLARDY].

Mr. CLARDY. Mr. Chairman, in view of the good steamrollering I got earlier in the afternoon, I ought to be subdued and remain in my seat, but I think I have a little information that has not been discussed that might be of interest to the few of you that are present here this afternoon.

I have heard all of these arguments, every one of them, and a good many more, because I was in the fortunate position when the litigation involving this matter was started of being an assistant attorney general for the State of Michigan. In that capacity it becaJille necessary for me, along with many others on

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 1277 the staff, to go through voluminous records to take care of organizing the case for presentation for the several States that were opposing this thing. I took part in the preparation of briefs, evidence, and other things.

I want to make one important and I think essential point. Every argument, every fact, everything that has been said in favor of this bill was presented over and over again in the court· proceedings that culminated in the court decision you are now being asked to overturn. I do not propose to discuss in detail all of that, but I do want to leave with you the fact that this Congress is now being asked to reverse the Supreme Court decision that has stood for, lo, these many years.

The information given the Congress is only a· fractional part of that which was presented and considered by the Court. We knew at that time that the thing which has come to pass would probably come to pass; that the levels would go up and that again they would come down. We knew everything that you have heard discussed. It was presented fairly and squarely and at length to the Court. The result was adverse to the city of Chicago-that wanted a great deal more than she got in this particular decision you are now asked to overturn. As things stand, we therefore today are being asked to reverse, in effect, the Supreme Court decision without a single new additional fact being adduced to justify it. There is nothing except, perhaps, a stimulated and increased desire on the part of the city of Chicago, at the expense of downstate Illinois, to destroy a case and a legal precedent which was established regarding the rights of the States in the Great Lakes. Representing the State of Michigan, as the department of which I was a member did, I think I am fairly familiar with the complex legal situation with which we are now confronted. I think it would be deplorable if with the scanty facts before us we should choose to do that which we are asked to do.

Mr. SHEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CLARDY. I yield. Mr. SHEEHAN. If the gentleman will

read the record of the Supreme Court, I think he will find it predicated its decision upon the fact, and they so stated in their decision, that when the city of Chicago completed its construction of the sanitary facilities, they should come back to the Congress. That is what we are doing, and we are not trying to overturn the Supreme Court. - Mr. CLARDY. I must respectfully differ with the gentleman. I not only read the decision, but I took part in preparing the documents which led the Court to reach its decision. I am convinced that the interpretation placed upon the language of the Court is incorrect. But I do not want to spend time on petty details. I merely want to make the inescapable point, as I see it, that there has been nothing new presented to the Congress. Everything was considered by the Court and it would seem to me bad judgment on the part of the

Congress to do this merely because Chicago wants more water. She delayed ani she procrastinated. She refused to obey a court dec~sion. They appealed and reappealed, and we fought and we refought the battle and protestingly she has gone forward with a sewage disposal plant. Now, it seems to me it is about time when she is almost through with the thing she should have done years ago that we wait for the report that is to come out and then have exhaustive hearings to bring all of the facts out, which were brought out in the Court's decision.

Mr. BENDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? -

Mr. CLARDY. . I yield. Mr. BENDER. The gentleman is mak

ing an excellent statement, and I agree with him 100 percent. I commend him on his statement. The gentleman is exactly right.

Mr. CLARDY. I thank the gentleman very much.


Mr. CLARDY. I yield. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,

I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count. [After counting.] Eighty Members are present, not a quorum. The Clerk will call the roll.

The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed to answer to their names:

[Roll No. 7) Andresen, Elliott

August H. Engle Barrett Fino Battle Fisher Bramblett Graham Canfield Gwinn Celler Hebert Chelf Holt Chudo~ Jarman Coudert Jones, Mo. Dawson, Ill. Lantaf! Dingell Lyle Dorn, N.Y. Miller, Calif. Dorn, S. C. Mollohan

Morgan Moulder Norrell Philbin Phillips Powell Reece, Tenn. Regan Stringfellow Teague Weichel Yorty

Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. McDoNOUGH, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill H. R. 3300, and finding itself without a quorum, he had directed the roll to be called, when 389 Members responded to their names, a quorum, and he submitted herewith the names of the absentees to be spread upon the Journal.

The Committee resumed its sitting. The CHAIRMAN. At the time the

point of no quorum was made, the time of the gentleman from ·Michigan [Mr. CLARDY] had expired.

Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair.man, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CLARDY. I yield. Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Referring

to the point raised by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SHEEHAN] I am of the opinion that the decision to which he

refers was merely dicta in the case, and also an observation made by the referee. . Mr. CLARDY. The gentleman is correct. - Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CLARDY. I yield. Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. The gentle

man mentions a pending survey. As a matter of fact, there are now two surveys pending, one by the Corps of Engineers and the other by the International Joint Commission, both of them bearing directly on this problem.

Mr. CLARDY. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to say. I trust that you will bear in mind the one point that I was trying to make, and that is that in the litigation in which I played a small but important part all of the arguments and all of the facts and much more was considered than is now before you. There has been no change in the situation since then.


Mr. CLARDY. I yield. Mr. VELDE. I compliment the gen

tleman on the very fine statement that he has made.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman fro~ Ohio [Mr. CROSSER].

Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons why the pending bill should be overwhelming defeated, but there are four reasons of such transcendent importance as to make the defeat of the present bill imperative.

First, even more important than the harm that the legislation would do to shipping on the Great Lakes, by the serious loss of cargo, the injury to ships, and the minimizing of our means of national defense, is the fact that the Great Lakes have always been considered as the common property of Canada and the United States. Under every principle of justice and morality these two countries have proprietary rights in common, to the waters of the Great Lakes.

Recognizing this principle of common ownership, the boundary waters treaty of 1909, between the United States and Canada, providing for the control of Great Lakes levels as a joint problem of the two countries, certainly indicated a very high standard of international morality. The two countries, in the treaty to which I have referred, did, it seems to me, follow the course that was best calculated, not only to continue the friendly relations of the two countries. but to increase the confidence of each country in the other country's desire to act according to the highest standards of justice. Under that treaty the United States is obligated to cooperate with Canada to control the waters of the Great Lakes in a way calculated to promote commerce and navigation to the best advantage. That obligation is not fulfilled by a unilateral diversion which disregards the rights of Canada as well as the bordering States.

Second. As to the effect H. R. 3300 would have on commerce let me say that the most accurate calculation by the experts of the Lake Carriers' Asso-

1278 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE· February 3_

ciation shows that a reduction of %. of an inch in the level of the Great Lakes, would lessen the carrying capacity ·of 95 percent of the Great Lakes vessels owned by the Lake Carriers' Association, operating under the United States flag, to the extent of more than one and one-half million tons of cargo annually.

Third. In recent years we have all been greatly concerned about adequate national defense. You will therefore, I am sure, be surprised to have me tell you that 85 percent of the iron ore used in the manufacture of steel in the · United States is transported over the Great Lakes. During the last few years, anyone standing on the shore at Port Huron would feel that they were witnessing a practically constant procession of ships, laden with very valuable cargo of tre· mendous importance in many ways to the defense effort of our country.

Fourth. In addition to the serious loss of cargo-carrying accommodations, amounting to more than one and onehalf million tons of cargo per year, the effect of the proposed diversion, wouJd greatly increase the hazards of navigation. Rocks and shoals would come closer to the surface, channels and turning basins would be made shallower and narrower and movement in and out of harbors would be made more difficult. Congress would soon be deluged with requests for funds to deepen channels and harbors now maintained by the Corps of Engineers.

In addition to the reasons which I have already mentioned, it seems to me the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MASON] stressed a point, which in itself should be sufficient to cause the overwhelming defeat of the pending measure.

I remember many years ago; yes, more than 20 years ago, when a bill for the diversion of water from Lake Michigan by the Chicago Sanitary Commission was before the House for several years. The Illinois people downstream from Chicago protested very vigorously against the sending down upon them through the river every kind of filth from the stockyards, and from the city of Chicago, filth both of human and bestial nature. 'The nauseating filth was allowed to accumulate on the banks of the river creating an almost unbearable stench. Other cities of the Great Lakes at that time urged that Chicago be required to provide a modern sewage disposal plant to dispose of the filth of Chicago without offending the sensibilities of anyone. Other cities, much smaller, had provided such sewage disposal plants where most of the filth was incinerated and otherwise destroyed to the great comfort of the people.

t remember well, that the Members of the House representing other cities than Chicago, vigorously opposed the diversion of the waters, and that to Theodore Burton, an oldtime Member of 30 years' service, it became almost a constant obsession.

I earnestly request Members to reject the pending measure by an overwhelm .. ing majority.

LAKE CARRIERS' AssoCIATION, Cleveland, Ohio, January 29, 1954.

H. R. 3300: IT SHOULD NOT PASS

To Members of Congress From Great Lakes States:

1. Diversion from Lake Michigan by Chicago Sanitary District fixed by Supreme Court decree : After exhaustive consideration of the evidence and of the rights of the people of the Great Lakes region, the Supreme Court of the United States fixed at 1,500 cubic feet per second the amount of water which the Chicago Sanitary District may abstract from Lake Michigan.

2. Waters of Great Lakes owned by all States (not only Illinois) and Province of Ontario: The waters of the Great Lakes belong to all the people of the Great Lakes area; not only to Illinois. The United States has no proprietary interest in those waters and Congress has no legal right to divert those waters from the people of that area for the use of the people of another area.

3. Present stage of Grea~ Lakes levels downward: Although lake levels have been high for several years, the peak was reached in 1952. A downward cycle is underway. In 1953 the general levels were about 7 inches lower than in 1952. All indications are that 1954 will see a drop of an additional 6 inches.

4. Effect of increased diversion contemplated by H. R. 3300: The Supreme Court held that any diversion at Chicago has the same lowering effect upon all the Great Lakes. Diversion of another 1,000 cubic feet per second would lower each of the lakes a three-fourths inch. This lowering applies to the water levels at their low points as well as their high points. The result of diversion cannot be turned off and on like a water faucet. Several years are required for the ultimate effect to be reached, whether it be a lowering of the lake levels after diversion is started or a raising of the levels after diversion is stopped. If the diversion proposed by H. R . 3300 were started today, its full effect would not be reached until 1957, a year after the Corps of Engineers would be required to report to the Congress on the effect of the proposed additional diversion.

5. Effect of added diversion upon Great Lakes commerce: If all the vessels owned by members of Lake Carriers' Association (constituting about 95 percent of Great Lakes tonnage under United States fiag) had their safe draft reduced by three-fourths inch, the annual loss in carrying capacity would be more than 1% million tons of cargo.

6. Relation of Great Lakes commerce to national defense: The cargoes carried over the Great Lakes are always important to the national economy and are of utmost importance in times of war. For example, about 85 percent of the iron ore used in the manufacture of steel in the United States is transported over the Great Lakes.

7. Relation of lower water to safety of navigation: A lowering of the waters in the Great Lakes by further diversion would increase the hazards of navigation as well as reduce the carrying capacity of the vessels. Rocks and shoals would come closer to the surface, channels and turning basins would be made shallower and narrower and movement in and out of harbors would be made more di1Hcult. Congress would soon be deluged with requests for funds to deepen channels and harbors presently maintained by the Corps of Engineers.

8. Control of Great Lakes levels joint problem of United States and Canada under Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909: Under that treaty, Congress has the obligation to cooperate with Canada in the preservation of the waters of the Great Lakes for ptirposes of commerce and navigation. That obli-

gation is not fulfilled by unilateral diversion which disregards the rights of Canada. as well as the bordering States. House Concurrent Resolution 12 and House Concurrent Resolution 82 propose that the matter of the causes of the fluctuation in water levels of the Great Lakes be studied by the International Joint Commission and that the Commission recommend appropriate remedies to the two countries. Those resolutions should pass, not House bill 3300.

Respectfully submitted. LYNDON SPENCER,

·Presi dent.

Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. SMITH].

Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to say that I certainly recognize the position of my good friends from Chicago with reference to this legislation. I have a very great respect and a very high regard for the author of the bill, Judge JONAS, of Illinois. Notwithstanding, I am sure that they recognize that so far as Wisconsin is concerned, the Representatives from that State have always been op .. posed to the diversion of water through the drainage canal.

I would also like to say that there must be some way to solve this irritable problem of lake water diversion at Chi .. cago. Perhaps it can be handled by compact between the States that are concerned, so there could be an end to constant litigation. It is an expensive undertaking for all parties concerned.

Chicago, in my opinion, is destined in the not distant future to be the largest city in the United States. It has a po .. tential population of 10 million or more. There are no formidable barriers tofuture expansion to the west. As a matter of fact, expansion is possible, to the north, south, and west and its position in the middle of the country augurs well for its future. Hence the necessity for resolving this inost difficult problem by some mutual agreement between all parties concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I spent all of last evening reading the hearings. It seems to me that the proponents of the proposed legislation have failed to meet a valid objection, and a legal one, which has been made by those who are opposed to this bill. Jurisdiction of the subject matter of the present bill is still in the Supreme Court of the United States. Why does not the Sanitary District of Chicago seek relief there?

Before proceeding further with my statement, I call attention to a statement that was made yesterday that this bill would not cost any money. According to the testimony of Colonel Milne, it is going to cost just $200,000-and I am quot .. ing from his testimony on page 2 of the hearings. He says:

The estimated cost to the United States of this study is $200,000, of which $150,000 would be required by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and $50,000 would be required 'by the Corps of Engineers.

While we know that $200,000 is a small sum of money in some quarters, it is a lot of money in my book. We cannot

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 1279 afford to forget about it in considering this legislation.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. I yield. Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I think I

pointed out yesterday during the discussion of the rule on this bill that the cost of this would be a very material sum, especially what this will lead to indirectly in the way of expenditures, because if these waters are diverted it will mean a great number of requests for improving and deepening the channels in the Great Lakes which will be necessary; and it will also involve expenditures and also mean need for greater protection against the water which will be flowing ciown as a result of the increased diversion. It is not $200,000 by which we should measure the cost; it should be in terms of millions.

Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.

On the question of the right to divert further water at this time, it seems to me that we have an answer in two places in the testimony, on page 14.

Mr. Stanley, Chairman of the International Joint Commission, was present. He makes this statement with reference to the further diversion of water, and I am quoting him:

I said that personally I do not object to withdrawal of 2,500 feet but I did not mean by that Congress could authorize withdrawal of it. You cannot withdraw 1 foot of water from these Great Lakes and their connecting streams without the approval of the International Joint Commission under the terms of the treaty. But it the matter comes before us, as_ it is in a way under the present reference, why, I am inclined to welcome a larger withdrawal.

Mr. SHEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. I yield. Mr. SHEEHAN. Does the gentleman

know how many feet were authorized for withdrawal in 1909 when this treaty T/ent into effect?

Mr-. SMITH of Wisconsin. No; I am not familiar with that.

Mr. SHEEHAN. It was 10,000 cubic feet per second. Today we are withdrawing only ·1,500 feet, so we have 8,500 :feet to play on.

Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. That is not the question before us. This is a matter for the Supreme Court.

Mr. SHEEHAN. We are entitled to stand on the international agreement.

Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. The matter is still in the courts, and what relief is to be had must be secured in the courts.

Mr. Chairman, on page 117 of the hearings, Mr. Stanley again repeated his' previous statement and I quote him:

The question of serious effect is a question for the Commission to decide. But the Commission itself will not take cognizance of a violation that is not material. The treaty does not deal with that. The law is mandatory and article 3 of the treaty provides that no raising or lowering or diversion of any kind or use of any kind of this international waterway shall be tolerated without the prior approval of the International Joint Commission.

Hence it would seem to follow that the bill before us is not properly here at this

time. I repeat ·again that relief is possible only upon order of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BYRNES].

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I suppose I have more shoreline in my district than any other individual Member of Congress coming from the Great Lakes region. I happen to have about 225 miles of shoreline along Lake Michigan, including Green Bay. This bill is, therefore, of considerable concern to the people of my district.

I am not going to direct my remarks to the matter of the study; I think it is sufficient to say that we have already as a Congress authorized a comprehensive study of the lake-level problems and all of the other implications that go along with that problem, so another investigation as called for is simply adding another directive to the C.orps of Engineers. It is not at all necessary.

It is my purpose to direct my remarks to the diversionary aspects of this bill, the authority that will be given to divert further waters from Lake Michigan and other Great Lakes down through the canal and thence into the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers.

It seems to me when we want to determine the merits of a bill we should look at the purposes o-f the bill. If the purposes stand up, fine, the bill should probably stand up; if the purposes fall, it would seem to me that the bill should fall also.

Let us first take the stated reasons and the reasons as announced by the various Members from the city of Chicago, who are the proponents of this legislation. If you will just take a copy of the bill, H. R. 3300, you will find a number of the objectives stated; first, ''That in order to regulate and promote commerce among the several States and foreign nations."

That is the first purpose. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CRossER] certainly showed how this bill does not promote any commerce between the States by reducing the amount of tonnage that can be carried on the Great Lakes. So that purpose must fall immediately. They have produce no evidence of any promotion of commerce as between the States. All of the evidence is to the contrary.

Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. CROSSER. Also, it interferes with navigation, as the experts of the Lake Carriers Association showed.

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Absolutely. No. 2: ''and to protect, improve; and promote navigation and navigable waters in the Illinois Waterway and Mississippi Valley."

Have we heard any evidence of howit is going to promote navigation? Absolutely not.

When I heard these arguments advanced I made a check of the traffic mov-

ing on the Illinois River and up aild down the Mississippi River. I think it will be interesting to the Members of the House to realize that in the last year for which we have figures, 1950, the tonnage upbound, that is going up the -river, were 13.7 billion ton miles of cargo; downbound 5.6 billion ton miles of cargo.

What are you going to do here? Increase the diversion, thereby increase the current going downstream so that your upbound traffic which is almost three times greater than the downbound traffic faces a heavier current. Is that aiding navigation, which is another objective in this bill? Of course, it is not and it cannot.

No. 3: "and help control of the lake level, and to afford protection to property and shores along the Great Lakes."

I have 225 miles of shoreline in my district. How much shoreline do these members from the city of Chicago have that they are so interested in protecting? Certainly very little. All of the facts and all of the evidence is that the water level now is going down. We had a problem a year ago. The lake was at a very high level, but no authority has said that this diversion will help that kind of a situation at all.

Let me ask you to do this. Do not take my word, do not take the word of the people of Chicago as to what is going to be accomplished. Wait until we have the Engineers' survey that this Congress has asked the Corps of Engineers to make. We have been advised by the author of that resolution, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. FoRD], who has been following this matter closely, that their study is approaching completion and that they will be able to report in the next year or so. Let us wait until we have their report available, then we will be legislating on sound ground. Can we be expected, with the divergence of views that exists here, to legislate intelligently? How silly it is to appropriate money for a study by the Corps of Engineers, and then legislate without even waiting for their report. Let us wait for the report, study it, and then legislate at the proper time on this very controversial issue.

Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. McVEY]. · Mr. McVEY. Mr. Chairman, first, I should like to add a word in behalf of H. R. 3300. The amount of opposition that has arisen against this measure has been somewhat surprising to me. The discussion up to this point certainly indicates very clearly that this is not a partisan measure.

Second. The statement which has been made that all of the Congressmen from Chicago are for this legislation does not mean that all 3 or 4 of us are for it. It means that all 13 of us are supporting it, because there are 13 Congressmen from Chicago and Cook County in which it is located. This is one more than half of the Congressmen from Illinois. There are 7 Democrats and 6 Republicans from Chicago and Cook County, and we are all for it.

1280 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE February 3 Third. I have ~n my portfolio a letter

from a businessman who details an expenditure of $12,669 to repair the dama ges done to his place because of the high lake level. He wanted to sue the Government for damages, but I told him that there were thousands of such cases, and the Government could hardly take care of all of them.

Fourth. I am not thinking only of this plant-! a m thinking o: the thousands of, homes which we_·e constructed along the la kefront when such construction seemed entirely safe and proper. Today, their bathing beaches are gone, houses have been inundated, expensive walls of protection have been built, and some of them have toppled into the lake.

Fifth. One estimate I have here places the damage to lakeshore property during the winter of 1951-52 at $30 million. As stated before, this flood stage comes at the end of a cycle of about 23 years. In August 1952 the lake hit a level of 582.7 feet above the mean tide in New York. The high point in August 1929 was 582.69 feet. In spite of the present flow of 1,500 cubic feet per second at the end of the last 23-year cycle, the level was slightly higher than 23 years before. There does not seem .to be dependable proof that the increase of the flow to 2,500 feet per second will have any material effect upon shipping or the lake level.

Sixth. I was pleased yesterday to find that our colleague from Louisiana is for this bill. If we can help his territory with an increased flow from Lake Michigan, that is fine. We want everyone possible to share in the benefits.

Seventh. Now this is an old subject. The same old objections were trotted out years ago. Then, too, an investigation was called for. We have been patient with these investigations, and this bill does in· no way stop them. My friends in Wisconsin think that an increased flow may jeopardize their shipping. There appears to be more supposition than facts in this statement. With all respect to my friends who made them, I am in doubt as to their authenticity.

Eighth. It has been estimated that this extra flow of water will have little effect upon the lake level, and I think it is well to remember that this is a trial period for 3 years only, and, if at the end of that time, damage is indicated, a change can easily be made by the Congress.

Ninth. This bill provides that during this 3-year period the effect of this increase in the flow of water will be studied by the engineers-not likely by a new group of engineers, but by the same people who are studying the subject today." How can we judge the effect of this increase in flow if we do not give it a trial? It seems absurd to be making statements here about something concerning which many of us know so little.

Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McVEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON. I am rather confused. The gentleman says. it is not going to change the level of the lake and yet he says it is going to keep

the shore from having any damage. I do not see how those two statements agree. Would the gentleman explain what he means?

Mr. McVEY. Well, the damage to the shor e is caused by the excess water during the flood season. That is not when the lake level is in question. It is in question when the waters are low, so we can reduce that level at the time when we have excessive heights in Lake Michigan, and many of the homes will not be inundated as they have been in the past. This cycle in the lake extends over a 23-year period. In 1929 we had a cycle slightly below the cycle we experienced in 1952.

Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. VELDE].

Mr. VELDE. Mr. Chairman, I happen to be fortunate in many respects in having lived on the shores of Lake Michigan for a couple of years, and also in having lived the major part of my life along the Illinois River.

The gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. CHURCH] yesterday mentioned that her home was immediately adjacent to Lake Michigan, and she had some hardship from the raising and lowering of the lake level over the past several years. As a matter of fact, since God created Lake Michigan it has been raising and lowering over 20-year periods. I can recall back in 1931 when I was attending Northwestern University when classes were dismissed in Swift Hall because the lake was at a high level at that time and the waves were dashing high and water· was on the floor of the classroom in which I sat.

May I say to the gentlewoman from Illinois and the other proponents of this bill from Chicago, that I have a very deep regard for their integrity and great regard for their ability to promote this type of legislation, but I would rather live on the shores of Lake Michigan and take my chances at being put out than . I would live on the shores of the Illinois River and suffer the damages we have in the past by Chicago's dumping sewage into the canal and then into the Illinois River.

I have not very often agreed with the editorial policy of the Washington Post. As a matter of fact, when I read the editorial on this particular issue I searched my mind and made a little investigation as to whether it was possible that any communistic issue could be involved in this particular bill, and decided, of course, that there was none. So, being opposed to the editorial policy of the Washington Post generally insofar as communism is concerned, I am happy to. say that I can commend the editorial policy of the Washington Post in this particular case.

The editorial is from the Washington Post of Tuesday, February 2. It is entitled "A Rose by Another Name," and reads as follows:

ROSE BY ANOTHER NAME

Readers concerned with the problem of pollution along the Potomac will be interested in the fight between Chicago and downstate nlinois which is about to erupt on the fioor of the House. An elaborately camoufiaged bill, scheduled for debate on

Wednesday, purports to help control the lake level of Lake Michigan by authorizing the sanitary district of Chicago to divert additional water from the lake into the Illinois waterway.

So far as we can determine, the real ob~ jective of supporters of the bill is to help reduce the stench from the industrial wastes and the incompletely treated Chicago sewage that are dumped into the waterway leading to the Illinois River. Chicago undeniably has a sewage problem. At the same time downst ate cities, some of which contribute to the pollution, have a justified fear of aggravated fiood dangers resulting from the additional water. All this, however, would be merely an internal Illinois dispute (and one of long standing, incidentally) were it not for the camoufiage of the bill.

Nowhere does the measure mention either sewage or pollution. Instead it speaks loftily of an intent to regulate and promote commerce among the several States and foreign nations and to protect, improve, and promote navigation and navigable waters in the Illinois waterway and Mississippi Valley, and help control the lake level, and to afford protection to property and shores along the Great Lakes, and to provide for a navigable Illinois waterway. Now, there has been little evidence that the Illinois waterway is not already adequate for the commerce it carries . . Moreover, the proposed additional diversion from Lake Michigan would mean an estimated difference of only about 1 inch in the level of the lake-scarcely enough to protect property. But the bill would amount to a direct violation of the 1909 treaty with Canada, which provides that water diversion from the Great Lakes shall be studied by the International Joint Commission. It also would override a 1930 decision by the Supreme Court which limits the amount of water diverted by the Chicago Sanitary District to the present volume.

Altogether the innocuous language of the diversion bill affords a prize demonstration in how to beat around the bush. The best answer the House could give would be to insist that the pollution problem be met by a bill that means what it says-and by more comprehensive action against industrial wastes of the sort being taken in the Ohio Valley and on a more limited scale in the Potomac Basin.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VELDE. I yield. Mr. O'HARA of illinois. Does the

gentleman believe in guilt by associa-tion? ·

Mr. VELDE. That has nothing to do with this particular issue, as I see it. I do not believe in guilt by association.

Mr. SHEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? · Mr. VELDE. I yield to the gentleman

from Illinois. · Mr. SHEEHAN. It must make the

gentleman happy to have the Washington Post agree with him once in a while. - Mr. VELDE. It does.

Mr. HOFFM:AN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VELDE. I yield. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Does it

not cast a doubt in your own mind as to your own position?

Mr. VELDE. I do not see how it could cast a doubt in my own mind on my position in any way whl;l.tsoever. What does the gentleman mean?

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. As I understood it, you announced your gratification because the Washington Post agreed with some position that you took. With me the fact that they agreed would

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 1281 make me suspicious that I was wrong. That is the point I was trying to make.

Mr. VELDE. I am not of the same opinion as the gentleman.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. You certainly do not believe what the Washington Post says about you, do you?

Mr. VELDE. As I mentioned before, in many cases I do not. I do not agree with them, but in this particular case they are right, and I am happy they are right in this one instance.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the Committee rose; and

the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. McDoNOUGH, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 3300) to authorize the State of illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago, under the direction of the Secretary of the Army, to help control the lake level of Lake Michigan by diverting water from Lake Michigan into the Dlinois waterway, had come to no resolution thereon.

AMENDING LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1946

Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill <S. 2175) to amend title VI of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, with respect to the retirement of employees in the legislative branch, with an amendment of the House thereto, insist upon the amendment of the House, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kansas? [After a pause]. The Chair hears none and appoints the following conferees: Messrs. HAGEN of Minnesota. WITHROW, and DAVIS of Georgia.

ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY: Mr. BROWNSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous material.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

There was no objection. Mr. BROWNSON. Mr. Speaker, this

morning the Committee on Public Works, of which I am a member, reported to the House with an amendment, s. 2150. This bill provides for the creation of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation to construct part of the St. Lawrence seaway in United States territory in the interest of national security and authorizes- the Corporation to consummate certain arrangements with the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority of Canada relative to con:. struction and operation of the seaway. The bill further empowers the Corpora:. tion to finance- the United States share of the seaway cost on a self-liquidating basis; to establish cooperation with Canada in the control and operation of the St. Lawrence seaway, and authorizes ne-

C-81

gotiations with Canada of an agreement on tolls and for other purposes.

This bill, as passed by the other body, has been defended repeatedly by the proponents of the measure as being a selfliquidating project.

Senator WILEY, author of S. 2150, has stressed repeatedly in television appearances and in debate the fact that the project would pay for itself. On page 207 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for January 13, 1954, Senator WILEY is quoted as saying "the project would pay for itself, and the pending bill would not put an additional burden on the Treasury."

Later in the same debate, as reported on page 217 of the RECORD, Senator WILEY said:

One o! the arguments the railroads previously made was that the St. Lawrence seaway would not be a self-liquidating project. Now we have taken steps to provide that it shall be self-liquidating.

Repeating his vigorous allegation on page 217 of the RECORD, Senator WILEY stated positively, and I quote:

The project will be. fully self-liquidating and will not cost the taxpayers a cent.

I also seem to recall hearing Senator WILEY on television, radio, or debate compare the financing of the Sea way Corporation to that of the toll-road authorities created by many States to finance and build modern turnpikes.

I wish I could accept the argument that the financing of the seaway as provided in S. 2150 did embody the same principles as that of the majority of the existing toll roads. Most toll roads are completely self-liquidating projects. Earnings from tolls and from concessions must maintain and operate the highway and provide in full the interest and principal payments associated with the bonds which provided the funds for financing the road.

As indicated, most toll roads are set up as completely self-liquidating projects. Only the revenue which can be collected from special charges associated with the project are available. Generally, the bonds have been sold with no security except the toll-road revenue.

I was not the only one at our committee meeting this morning who had misgivings about the pledges that have been made to the public to elicit support for s. 2150 on the grounds that it would not cost the United States taxpayers a cent. I expressed my concern by offering an amendment in committee which would sever all connections between the United States 'I)'easury and the Seaway Corporation.

I offered this amendment because I was anxious to support President Eisenhower by voting for the St. Lawrence seaway if I could be guaranteed that the pledges of Senator WILEY and the other proponents IDf the seaway were so firmly tied down in the legislation itself that there would be no question of the people of my district ever having to dig down in their own pockets to :finance the ·project with taxpayers dollars.

Mr. Speaker. it was evidently a like concern over the :financing provision in section 5 of the bill which prompted my

·good friend, the gentleman from Ohio

[Mr. McGREGOR] to offer an amendment which changed the form of the corporation obligations from "notes, debentures. bonds or other obligations" to "revenue bonds which shall be payable from corporate revenues."

As I understand the amendment of the able gentleman from Ohio, who has long served on the Public Works Committee. this change in the form of securities to be o~ered by the corporation is designed to further safeguard the United States Treasury from a direct charge by the seaway. I am happy that the gentleman from Ohio shares my concern for the taxpayers and is interested in protecting them against bearing the cost of the seaway. I wish I could agree with him in the statement which he released to the press immediately after the committee meeting. The gentleman from Ohio is quoted by the United Press in reference to the seaway bill and his amendment:

It is not going to cost the taxpayers a cent.

The McGregor amendment is excellent as far as it goes, but I question whether the mere changing of the words "notes, debentures, bonds or other obligations" to the words "revenue bonds which shall be payable from corporate revenues•• will adequately protect the taxpayers from future drains on the Treasury. Changing the color of the wrapping paper cannot alter the crmtent of the package which it wraps. ·As long as the last sentence of section 5 of S. 2150 is left intact, I cannot see where the high principles and good intentions of the McGregor amendment will be effective. This sentence is:

The Secretary of the Treasury is author. ized and directed to purchase any obliga. tions of the Corporation to be issued hereunder and for such purpose the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to use as a public debt transaction the proceeds from the sale of any securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, are extended to include any purchases of the Corporation's obligations hereunder.

Mr. McGREGOR's amendment passed the committee. Then, with the idea of perfecting the bill so as to make it mandatory that the pledges of the supporters be upheld and that under no circumstances would the cost of the present seaway proposal be a charge against the Treasury, I offered the following amendment:

I move to amend the bill, as amended by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McGREGOR] as follows:

Page 7, lines 3 and 4, strike out "to the Secretary of the Treasury."

Page 7, line 12, strike out "and the Secretary of the Treasury."

Page 7. line 14, strike out after the word .. years" of the McGregor amendment, the sentence beginning "Such obligations" and the remainder of the paragraph through page 8, line 8, and insert "Obligations of the Cor• poration shall not be purchased or guaran· teed by the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof. except- that the Corporation shall have a capital stock of $2,000,000 which shall be subscribed by the United States. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the_ Secretary of the Treasury the sum o! $2,000,000 for the purpose of enabling the Secretary of the Treas· ury to make payment for such capital stock


when payment is called by the Board. Receipts for payment by the United States for or on account of such capital stock shall be i::sued by the Corporation to the Secretary of the Treasury and shall be evidence of stock ownership by the United States."

I have no pride of authorship in this amendment. Much of it was frankly borrowed from House Joint Resolution 104, introduced by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Public Works, Mr. DoNDERO, on January 9, 1953, as a culmination of his years of tireless campaigning for the seaway. I believe that the principle of making the obligations of the seaway available for purchase by private investors is sound, especially at a time when the national debt of the United States stands at $274,806,-646,812.25 as of February 1. Some of the distinguished gentlemen of the other body who have been most enthusiastic in adding a contingent liability of $105 million against the United States Treasury have been reluctant to raise the debt ceiling. This raises the interesting question as to whether we are not financing our share of the seaway with a rubber check against an overdrawn account.

If seaway revenues are up to anticipation and if the venture is profitable, Mr. McGREGOR's amendment is adequate. It is my firm contention, however, that the amended bill does not extend complete protection since, under its provisions as I understand them, the United States Government must guarantee the principle and interest of the revenue bonds the bill authorizes, since they are sold to one customer only, the United States Government. This would mean that, if for some reason the rosy predictions and estimates of the proponents of S. 2150 should not be realized and the seaway should fail to make sizable profits the Government and the taxpayer would be stuck. My amendment would prevent this from happening.

It is my present intention to introduce this amendment, or one which would accomplish tlie same purpose at the time the seaway bill is considered next week. In the meantime I shall attempt to perfect the amendment and check with existing authorities to work out the best possible solution which will achieve the guaranteed protection to the taxpayer which is so essential to plug up the loophole that exists in S. 2150 as amended. That this plan of selling the revenue bonds to private investors is not impossible was borne out by the testimony of Secretary of the Treasury Humphreys before the Public Works Committee several years ago when he was speaking as a private citizen and the head of a great industrial empire.

The daily newspapers in my hometown of Indianapolis are currently running full-page advertisements which reproduce a White House press release of May 8, 1953, which is a report of Cabinet approval of the seaway. One of the recommendations of the Cabinet in that release is that--

Participation by the United States should, however, be expressly conditioned on: • • • (c) predication of the project on a selfliquidating basis.

The largest farm organization in the co~try, the Farm Bureau Federation, in testimony before the House Committee

on Public Works last June reiterated their support of the project with the statement that--

The project should be built and operated on a self-liquidating basis. It should be financed by revenue bonds.

In an exchange between Mr. McGREGOR and the Farm Bureau Federation witness, incorporated on page 165 of the bearings on House Joint Resolution 104, June 11 through 18, 1953, Mr. Allen B. Kline, as president of the Farm Bureau, is recorded as having told the Senate the previous February that--

The American Farm Bureau Federation wants the project to be a success. It seems clear that since revenue bonds cannot be sold unless the project is economically sound, the use of such bonds would be the greatest guaranty that the project would be successful. We do not see how the other proponents of the project can be for anything less. If the project is put on a sound revenue-bond basis, investors will not need the guaranty of the United States Government. If the United States Government guarantees the principal and interest, there is no need for the investors to investigate the economic feasibility. In such event the already overburdened Federal finances would be unnecessarily subjected to additional burdens of an indefinite amount.

This expresses my position as a smallbusiness man in Congress.

I realize that the district I represent is a large rail center without any navig~_ble water or port facilities close to it. That probably accounts for the fact that my mail is running better than 20 to 1 against the seaway. But, I am also a stanch supporter of President Eisenhower and would like to see as much of his legislative program enacted as possible. I am proud that my constituents are economy minded, and if I could guarantee them that this project would cost the taxpayers of Indiana no money, I could justify my support for the bill and for the President.

Mr. Speaker, the committee did not see fit to adopt my amendment this morning, although the support received was encouraging to me and many conversations I have since held with fellow members of the committee indicate that it will have even more support on the ftoor.

As I have pointed out, the President, the author of the bill before the House, and many others have repeatedly emphasized that the seaway project should be self-liquidating without cost to the public. If my amendment had been adopted, the bill now before the House would have that guaranty written into it.

Without that guaranty I cannot see how proponents of the seaway can go on glibly promising protection based only on traffic forecasts and a rosy glow of optimism. I will support the seaway if there is assurance written into the legislation that the taxpayers will not be betrayed. I hope I shall have that opportunity.

MILLIONAffiE UNIONS AND RACKETEERING AND EXTORTION PRACTICED BY A VERY FEW UNION OFFICIALS The SPEAKER. Under previous order

of the House, the gentleman from Michi-

gan [Mr. HOFFMAN] is recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and to include certain newspaper articles.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.

Speaker, the recent loan of a million dollars of union funds, by Dave Beck, of the Teamsters Union, to the Fruehauf Trailer Co., of Detroit, calls attention to the fact that a number of unions are in the more than a million dollar annual income group.

In the U. S. News & World Report of February 5, page 64, will be found a factual statement showing the net worth of several unions.].

No criticism is made of this accumulation of wealth, which, as I have been given to understand, was all legitimately received from union members either as initiation fees, dues, or special assessments, or returns on investment of union funds. OTHER MILLIONS lMPROPERL Y COLLECTED

THROUGH THE ACTIONS OF A VERY FEW INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE IMPROPERLY USED THEIR POSITIONS AS UNION OFFICIALS TO ENRICH THEMSELVES

Having long realized that not only the public, but union members, were forced, through extortion, to pay tribute to greedy individuals, early in 1953, us chairman of the House Committee on Government Operations, I appointed a. subcommittee of three to look into the alleged racketeering and extortion practiced by union officials. At my request, a similar subcommittee, of which I was a member, was appointed by the chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor.

Acting jointly, the two subcommittees held hearings in Detroit on June 8, 11, 12, and 13, 1953.

Milton Lomask, an experienced and factual writer, gives you a picture of those hearings in the February 1954 issue of the Sign, national Catholic magazine. A copy of his story is as follows:

BIG RACKET IN SMALL CHANGE

(By Milton Lomask) THE SLOT MACHINES HAVE BECOME A BJG RACK•

ET--SO BIG AND PROFITABLE THAT AN OFFICIAL WARNED: "ANYONE WHO PRINTS THESE THINGS IS DEAD"

The American people last year shoved a billion dollars' worth of small change into vending machines, and at least a tenth of it eventually landed in the cash drawer of a syndicate whose top brass reads like a Who's Who in the Underworld.

That the mobsters were cutting themselves a slice of the industry's dollar first came to light during the Kefauver hearings in 1950

.and 1951. Subsequent investigations, in-cluding a 2-day congressional hearing in Detroit last summer, plus information from vendors and their customers, round out the picture.

1 Railroad Trainmen ___________ $54, 419, 333 AFL Teamsters _______________ $31,341,838 AFL Electrical Workers _______ $25, 983, 389 CIO United Auto Workers ____ $17,451,658 CIO Steelworkers _____________ $13,838,794 AFL Ladies' Garment Workers_ $12, 752, 049 ~nited Mine Workers _________ $34,032,833

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 1283 It isn't an edifying picture. It hasn't been

edifying to assemble. A union official said, ••Anyone who prints these things is dead." Said a smalltime Brooklyn vendor, "People have been known to get into trouble digging up stuff like this."

What is the vending machine industry? Its 2 million vending machines, including 400,000 juke boxes. Its some 1,600 suppliers and manufacturers. Its 1,200 operators ranging from the Automatic Canteen Co. of America with a 1952 gross of $40 million to individual owners of from 50 to 100 machines each.

To operate a machine is to find a spot for it. The operator services the machine and collects the proceeds. The owner of the spot-bar, restaurant, factory, filling station-receives a commission, usually 5 percent.

At the turn of the century, the only things you could get out of a vending machine were a ball of gum or a fistful of peanuts. Today, you put your nickel, your dime, or your quarter in here and anyone of 50 different items tumbles out there.

At St. John's University, in dm7ntown Brooklyn, the New York Automatic Canteen Corp. maintains a battery of machines out of which a student can dine from soup to nuts. Over the country, some 25 percent of all cigarettes, candy bars, gum, and drinks are disbursed in this manner. There are coinoperated typewriters, coin-operated lettermailers, and coin-operated washers. A few years ago, a Texas operator pocketed a nice profit from a machine that dispensed whiffs of pure oxygen for hangover sufferers.

The vending-machine racket, not to be confused with the industry, employs the usual shakedown methods. To stay in business an operator often finds it advisable to join both a trade association and a union. Association and union work together. Together they see to it that outsiders leave their members' spots alone and that no member covers another's customers.

In the case of a legitimate industry, the higher the turnover the lower the cost per item. Gangland entrepreneurs work the other way around. Their product is freedom from terror. The more they sell, the more they charge, and the consuming public ultimately foots the bill. In Cleveland, Detroit, New York City, and 1 or 2 other cities, many operators pay off to an association, a union, or both-or else.

"Or else," in the words of a terrified gangster, Lucky Luciano, now of Italy, courtesy of the Federal deportation authorities.

And there's Meyer Lansky, whom Senator KEFAUVER once identified as a kingpin in the New York City underworld. Lansky used to be in the television-set business with mobsters Frank Costello and Joe Adonis. He's been active in sundry vending-machine activities.

These men and their peers administer the vending-machine racket, the country over. In most areas, their major interest is the profitable cigarette machine business. In Detroit, it 1s the jukeboxes.

Testifying in the Michigan industrial capital last summer before the subcommittee headed by Congressman HoFFMAN, a building service labor consultant shook his prepared statement and contemptuously denounced "the Hoffas and the Bufalinos."

James R. Hoffa is no pebble on the labor beach. He's a boulder, smoothed by 20 run-ins with the law on assorted criminal charges. As second in command to International Teamster Chief Dave Beck, currently a prime mover in the attempt to tidy up the New York waterfront, Hoffa breathes the beady air of upper A. F. of L. regions.

Himself a witness at the Hoffman hearings, Hoffa took frequent refuge in the great 20th-century cliche. "I decline to answer on the grounds that • • • ." ;He declined to say whether or JlOt he had a financial interest in any corporations. It is a ma~ter

of record that ~e does, or at any rate did as of 1951. He does, or he did, own half interest in 6,000 shares of stock in the Columbus Trotting Association, and Detroit newspapers recently reported that he was trying to oust the Building Service local which now has jurisdiction over the racetrack employees and replace it with an outfit of his own.

He declined to say whether or not his wife was an employee of Teamster Local 985, which another witness called a paper operation engaged in finding favorable jukebox locations for members of the Michigan Music Operators Guild, a Detroit trade association composed of jukebox operators and dominated by known gangs.ter elements.

William Eugene Bufalino, under indictment at this writing, is. president of local 985. Mr. Bufalino was unable to attend the Hoffman hearings. He was in a Detroit hospital suffering from what was originally billed as a respiratory ailment, subsequently altered to severe psychoneurotic depression.

A witness at the Hoffman hearings called Bufalino the dictator of the Detroit jukebox industry. The statement is subject to the reservation that Bufalino obviously takes his orders from a person or persons "upstairs." In New York City last summer, a Mr. Frank Calland died suddenly. Calland was not well known to the public, but was well known along what the racket boys call the vending-machine circuit. Among the floral pieces at his funeral was a $100 spray, sent by Bufalino and paid for by his union.

Bufalino's wife is a sister of Vincent Meli, a director of the Michigan Music Operators Guild, the trade association previously mentioned. Vincent's uncle, Angelo Meli, is no stranger to Detroit law enforcement authorities. From his $25,000 home in Grosse Pointe Park, Mich., Angelo is reputed to oversee some of the major operations of the Detroit underworld.

The situation in New York City has never been subjected to extensive official scrutiny. Reputable vendors and their customers, however, are not averse to supplying details.

The organization which cigarette vending machine operators are urged to join is the Cigarette Merchandisers Association, Inc. Vendors say the Association guardS its member's spots. If John Jones, tavern owner, becomes dissatisfied with his cigarette vending machine and tries to replace it with that of another company, he is likely to get no place at all. Chances are any company he calls will be a member of the Association. Instead of sending him a machine, the company gets in touch with the Association. After which, pressure is put on tavern owner Jones to keep the machine he has.

Matthew Forbes, director of the association, says "only one-half of the 140 operators in this area belong to the association." He offers this as evidence that there is nothing to the allegation that nonmembers are frequently super-persuaded to join up. He concedes that his members do 80 percent of the business in the :five boroughs of New York City and in nearby Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties. This is a sizeable amount as there are some 30,000 cigarette machines in the area. Nonmembers, however, say the association boys do 90 percent of the busi-ness. ·

Reached by phone, Mr. Forbes was a first reluctant to talk. "All information about the association," he said, "must be obtained from the national." Meaning the National Automatic Merchandising Association, a reputable trade group headquartering in Chicago.

"We're an affiliate of NAMA," said Mr. Forbes, "and rm not permitted to give out any data whatsoever."

Apprised. of charges made against the association, Mr-.. Forbes became communicative, "All the association does," he said,. "is keep meiDbers abreast of developments in the field. ~e . take no. interest whatsoever in any m~mber's business affairs."

Asked how a member did business, Mr. Forbes said: "Oh, you know. He puts his machine in a spot and signs a contract. In return for the contract, he gives the spot-owner an advance on commissions or a loan or a bonus:~

The union to which many New York vending-machine service employees belongs is Teamsters Local 805. Its vice president and welfare fund administrator is Abe Gordon. Gordon is the owner of the A.be Gordon Trucking Co. and the A. & P. Cordage Co .• both of New York City.

A partner with Gordon in these enterprises is Phil Kovalick, alias Spic Farvel, alias Joseph Phillips, etc. In 1939, a New York prosecutor called Kovalick one of the most important figures in the New York underworld. At that time, he was being held by police as a material witness in connection with strong-arm activities by racketeers in the New York City garment district.

As a truck-company owner, labor leader Gordon is also an employer of labor. "But my men don't belong to this local," he said, s::;>eaking of 805. "They belong to a different local."

Gordon is a surly conversationalist. To each of half a dozen questions concerning the activities of his local,. he gave one of two replies: "You guess," or, "Ask the International." He volunteered: "You try to connect Dave Beck and you're dead. Beck has thrown out his best friends. If he saw a man on a truck out there, he'd yank him off." Loosely translated, this double-talk seems to mean that, in Gordon's opinion, teamster chief Beck is trying to keep his big union clean.

Among several medium-sized vending enterprises in New York is the National Vending Corp., which places cigarette machines directly or through a number of subsidiaries in greater New York, Florida, Dallas, and Los Angeles. President of National is Harold Roth, of Hewlett Neck, Long Island.

In 1952, Roth and an associate applied to the New York State Liquor Authority for a restaurant liquor license. On October 23, 1952, the two applicants were summoned to an SLA hearing conducted by Deputy cr.~mmissioners Sol Johnson and Michael J. Monz.

Portions of what transpired at this hearing are "must" reading for every serious student of the problems confronting one of America's fastest growing industries.

In 1942, according to a transcription of the testimony, Roth and a partner purchased the assets of a small Brooklyn vending concern called the Kings County Cigarette Service. Roth admitted knowing that one of the former owners of Kings County-one of the men from whom the purchase was made-was gambler Joe Adonis, Brooklyn's foremost gangster, who is currently sweating out an appeal from a court conviction which, if upheld, will exile him to Italy. Roth explained that he and his partner had not bought the stock of Kings County, only its assets, the right to use its name and what Roth termed its "dubious prestige."

Asked Commissioner Johnson~ "When you realized. you were buying something w1th which Joe Adonis was associated, didn't tt occur to you that possibly" the bar owners and others who were using those machines were doing so "because of that association? .. Later, Roth was asked another pointed question. Had he no compunction about dvi.ng business with mobsters? · He replied that not only bad he no compunction but that in doing business with mobsters be had done the vending-machine industry a service. He pointed out that the industry is full of "undesirable elements'' and that. in buying out Joe Adonis he had got. rid of at least one of them.

Further testimony brought out a touching fact, namely, that after doing his good deed for the industry Mr. Roth had modestly proceeded to keep it a secret. He never told the customers of Kings County that the company whose machines they were using had

1284 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE February 3 changed from bad bands to good. On the contra ry, by his own admission, Roth made a specia l effort to give these customers the impression that Joe Adonis still bad a fina ncial interest in their cigarette-vending machines.

Rot h was asked where he purchased his cigarette-vending m achines. He mentioned three companies, among them the Rowe Corp. Rowe, with a 1952 gross of $37 million, is t he largest manufacturer of vending machines in the country. Some idea of what lon g arms Gra ndmother R acket has is shown by the well-authenticated f act that in 1949 a group of men claiming to be representatives of the Rowe Corp. offered officials of a United Automobile Workers-CIO union in New Jersey $4,800, with more to come, if they would persuade their negotia tors to permit Rowe to speed up production in its manufacturing plant at Whippa ny, N. J. The union officials turned the offer down.

In addit ion to its production branch, Rowe maintains 53 retail vending distributor companies in American cities, including New York, and one of the corpora tion's officers is also listed as an officer of the trade association headed by Matthew Forbes. An attempt to find out whether the Rowe officials were aware of the 1949 bribery attempt was met with a statement by the corporation 's public-relations agency that " You're barking up the Wl'ong tree."

So it goes-a case history of what is happening to one of the dozen or more industries on which, according to Senator KEFAUVER, organized crime has imposed an enervating share-the-wealth program.

The story is becoming shamefully commonplace. It is becoming so, according to many troubled observers, because law-enforcement authorities are forced to work in a climate of public opinion hamstrung by a philosophy of moral relativism. Even a Catholic publication has complained that there is too much moral indignation today about labor racketeering. The editors say people are all too ready to believe the worst of labor. They imply that many businessmen also live in a glass house.

The point is not who is committing these sins but that they are being committed and that the public is permitting them to happen.

What is at stake is simple human freedom. If a man cannot go into business without paying tribute to human parasites, if he cannot competitively bid for customers on the open market, it 1s iUm-fiam to talk about freedom in America and to scatter over the world pious pronouncements about democracy.

There is no such thing as freedom from this or that. There is no such thing as political freedom or economic freedom or religious freedom or freedom from want, fear, or nagging wives. There is only freedom. It is indivisible; and when these snakes in the underworld lash their fangs into a phase of it, they poison the whole business.

The public is rightly indignant at the presence in America of a Red fifth column. But these gangsters are doing the country every bit as much harm as any addlepated, Communistic technician snooping in the archives at Fort Monmouth, N. J. They comprise a black sixth column with a gun at the back of every American, employer or employee, liberal or conservative, rich or poor, God-fearing or otherwise.

Never, from any member of the House Committee on Government Operations, of which I am chairman, have I heard any complaint as to the manner in which those hearings were conducted, nor the results accomplished thereby-some twenty-odd individuals were indicted as a result of the hearings held in Detroit and Kansas City. Nevertheless, on July 15, the full Committee on Government

Operations,% by a vote of 23 to 1, ended my authority to continue to hold such hearings.

They gave no rea on for such action. The argument then was that the committee had no jurisdiction to hold such hearings and that, in a broader sense, they were unnecessary. Whatever may have been the intent, the net result was to give encouragement to the racketeers.

Subsequently, hearings were held in Detroit beginning on November 23 and ending November 27, by a subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and Labor, and of which I was a member. The authority of that subcommittee. however, expired.

On January 20, I again asked permission of the House Committee on Government Operations to continue my investigations and hearings into racketeering and extortion. Though the committee again was apparently unable to find any fault with either the procedure or the result of the hearings in which I had participated, they again slapped me down-seven Republicans being present-and denied me the opportunity to continue the work which I had started and in which, ever since 1937, I have had experience.

The committee gave the authority to a committee of which my colleague from Ohio, GEORGE H. BENDER, is chairman, who, so far as I know, has never exhibited any particular interest in the subject. He is, however, an astute politician, and, at present, is a candidate for the Republican nomination as United States Senator from the State of Ohio.

I am still an ex officio member of the Bender subcommittee and, as such, will continue my efforts to lay before the public the activities of those who, through extortion, are enriching themselves by preying not only upon the public generally, but upon members of labor organizations.

PROPOSED REINSURANCE SYSTEM-HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM The SPEAKER. Under previous or

der of the House, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. WOLVERTON] is recognized for 30 minutes.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Speaker, tremendously hopeful developments are emerging from the current hearings of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce-hearings on the health needs of our citizens. These developments poin~ the way to new private enterprise solutions to some of the most serious and perplexing problems in the field of medical care. These develop-

"CLARE E. HOFFMAN, R. WALTER RIEHLMAN, CECIL M. HARDEN, GEORGE H. BENDER, CHARLES B. BROWNSON, MARGUERITE STITl' CHURCH, GEORGE MEADER, FRANK C. 0SMERS, JR. , CLARENCE J. BROWN, LOUIS E. GRAHAM, WALTER H. JUDD, GORDON L. MCDONOUGH, KATHARINE ST. GEORGE, WILLIM ·E . MILLER, JEFFREY HILLELSON, RICHARD H. POFF, ·WILLIAM L. DAWSON, CHET HoLIFIELD, FRANK M. KARSTEN, JoHN W. McCORMACK, BILL LANTAFF, EARL CHUDOFF, FRANK IKARD, JACK B. BROOKS, LESTER HOLTZMAN, ROBERT L. CONDON, THOMAS J. DODD, ROBERT H . MOLLOHAN, L. H. FOUNTAIN, and .1. L. PILCHER.

ments, new only in scope, have been tried and tested in several areas of our country during the past 20 years. They could and should be applied to supply more medical care for millions of our people. I commend them to you for your consideration. This, in brief, is the background.

Extensive testimony has been presented to our committee during the past several months regarding the high cost of medical care, the tragic financial burdens of illness, and the need for highquality medical care for all our people. As the President pointed out in his health message of January 18:

Two of the key problems in the field of health today are the distribution of medica l facilities and the costs of medical care. · Not all Americans can enjoy the best in medical care. • • •

Even where the best in medica l care is available, its costs are often a serious burden. Major long-term illness can become a financial catastrophe for a normal American family.

Witnesses before our committee have provided full documentation for President Eisenhower's statements.

Yet, there are some who would have us believe that there is no problem here; that the availability, costs, and distribution of medical care are of no concern to Government; that any program which would involve the slightest departure from the prevailing methods, techniques, and patterns of medical care services is socialized medicine masquerading as progress. If we heed these advocates of do nothing and fail to recognize the needs of the people, we may find ourselves forced down the road to Government socialized medicine. Our committee has listened patiently to these advocates of complacency, these advocates of do ·nothing. Their arguments, however, lack conviction. Their allegations find no support among the overwhelming majority of witnesses who have appeared before us-spokesmen of many millions of American workers and their families, leaders of major industries, physicians of unimpeachable authority and of eminent regard, both within and outside their profession. - It is quite evident that the voice of the American people cannot be detected in the utterances of these advocates of do nothing. It is equally evident that the voice of the American people has found effective expression in the words of President Eisenhower when, after illustrating the seriousness of the problem of medical costs, he insisted that we must, therefore, take further action on the problems of distribution of medical facilities and the costs of medical care. Later, in his health message, the President urged the Congress to give early and favorable consideration to his recommendations, stating that-

No nation and no administration can ever afford to be complacent about the health of its citizens. While continuing to reject Government regimentation, we shall with vigor and imagination, continuously search out by appropriate means, recommend, and put into effect new methods of achieving better health for all our people.

New methods · of achieving better health for OUI people have been de-

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE 1285 · scribed in considerable detail to our committee. These methods demonstrate the effectiveness of applying sound principles, American initiative, private enterprise, artd imagination to the problems of medical care distribution and costs. These methods drive home the message that medical economics must keep pace with medical science. Horse-and-buggy methods of distributing medical care services and st~gecoach methods of defraying the costs of such services have no place in our modern era of outstanding progress in the medical and allied sciences. This

' is how one of these new methods works. · · Three principal elemen~prepayment or insurance, · group practice by doctors, and self-supporting hospitals and medical facilities-are compounded into a program designed to provide comprehensive care to our people at costs within their means. Individually, these elements are quite familiar to all of us. When brought together, they offer the people a typically American, private enterprise solution to the problem of meeting the high costs of medical care--a solution not debased by Government regimentation.

Prepayment on a voluntary basis is the first of the three essential elements. We all know this principle. Some 90 million of our people have some form of voluntary health insurance coverage which involves prepayment. Howeveras pointed out by the President in his health message-this coverage must be broadened. Most health insurance plans provide coverage only when a person ·is ill and, in most instances, benefits under these plans are cut off, resulting in inadequate protection for catastrophic prolonged illness. For the principle of prepayment to be most effective, coverage under prepayment plans must be broadened at both ends of the scale of illness; coverage must include preventive services and services for the early detection of disease, and it must include services during catastrophic illness. The full advantages of prepayment cannot be achieved when limited benefits are provided on an indemnity, fee-for-eachservice basis during only part of an illness. The full advantages of prepayment on a voluntary basis can be achieved only when medical and allied

' services are offered to keep people well; and, when illness strikes, to provide the necessary services for the necessary length of time to return the patient to health as quickly as possible.

Group practice is the second essential element in the program. We may not be familiar with the term "group practice," but we have all heard of the worldfamous clinics where doctors practice on a group basis. For example, the Mayo Clinic, the Lahey Clinic, the Johns Hopkins Clinic, and the Crile Clinic. An efficient and effective use of modern day medical skills is found in group practice. Such has been the testimony of eminent physicians, high in the councils of their respective medical societies, who have testified before our committee. Today, more than 600 groups of physicians are in group practice throughout the country. Sixty percent of the physicians in the Armed Forces at the end of

World War II indicated through a questionnaire that they desired to go into group practice at the end of the war.

By combining group practice and prepayment into voluntary group practice prepayment health service plans, a new type of program begins to emerge.

Mr. Henry J. Kaiser, industrialist, and Dr. Sidney R. Garfield, medical director of the Kaiser Foundation health plan on the west coast, described how these elements-group practice and prepayment-have been fused into a splendid plan which provides comprehensive medical care coverage at low cost to more than 400,000 persons. Dr. George

- Baehr, former president of the New York Academy of ·Medicine, former chief of medical service and director of clin- · ical research at Mt. Sinai, and now president and medical director of the health insurance plan of Greater New York, told us about the excellent group practice prepayment health service plan in New York City. Dr. H. Clifford Loos, from Los Angeles, and Dr. Russell V. Lee, from Palo Alto, Calif.-both outstanding men in their profession and leaders in their respective communities-described their successful group practice prepayment plans. Other witnesses described similar plans in operation in other parts of the country.

These witnesses have all stressed the basic elements of group practice prepayment health service plans, that is, comprehensive care, emphasis on preventive services, and reasonable costsall achieved through group practice when combined with prepayment. Under these plans, our committee has been told, costs can be reasonable because ,the well help pay for the sick; because group practice results in substantial economies in overhead expenses, in joint use of auxiliary personnel, services, and equipment; and because it is less expensive to keep people well than it is to care for them when they are sick. It is not surprising that spokesmen for millions of Americans have informed our committee that they want the services of group practice, prepayment health service plans. The market for these services is nothing less than millions upon millions of our citizens. The American people should be given the opportunity to exercise their free choice-the choice to be served by teams of doctors working on a group practice basis.

Self-supporting medic~l and hospital facilities constitute the third essential element in this program. As Mr. Eisenhower has pointed out, the distribution of medical facilities constitutes one of the two key problems in the field of health today. Here we can spell out the useful role Government can play in the extension of medical care coverage and the broadening of coverage for millions of Americans-without Government regimentation, and without initial Government handouts.

Witnesses have assured our committee that hundreds of new groups of physicians would provide group practice prepayment health services if they had the necessary medical and hospital facilities in which to work. They have pointed out that additional group practice prepayment plans would be developed o"trer all

the country if such facilities were avail .. able.

Doctors and others interested in pro .. viding comprehensive ·coverage within the means of our people tell us that one need is long-term financing. They have pointed out the key role medical centers and hospitals play in increasing the efficiency, effectiveness, and economies of group practice prepayment plans.

They have also pointed out the diffi .. culties in obtaining long-term financing, particularly for hospital facilities. The traditional hospital which is not a:ffili .. ated with a group practice prepayment plan ·has unstable sources of income. They are considered by the banks and other lending• institutions to be poor credit risks. When hospitals are affiliated with group practice prepayment plans, as they are on the west coast under the Kaiser Foundation, such hospitals are self-sustaining and constitute excellent credit risks.

Witnesses have emphasized the point that numerous groups · of doctors and other· persons interested in the development of group practice prepayment health service plans need medical and hospital facilities and want them. What they seek is long-term financing, · not Government subsidies or grants.

A role of Government in this field can be that of stimulating the growth and development of such plans by encour .. aging private capital investment for the construction and equipping of hospital and medical facilities. This can be accomplished through Government-in .. sured mortgage loans patterned after the FHA loans, the VA loans, and the Defense Production loans. Using this insurance principle, Government has stimulated the investment of private capital, has proven eminently successful in the above-mentioned programs. There is every reason to believe that the same principle would work to provide necessary hospital and medical facilities for many millions of Americans.

The President has stated that volun .. tary health insurance plans "can reach many more people and provide better and broader benefits. They should be encouraged and helped to do so. Better health insurance protection for more people can be provided."

To further these objectives, so well stated by our President, I am today introducing a bill (H. R. 7700) entitled "The Medical Facilities Mortgage Loan Insurance Bill of 1954." I am confident that this bill, if enacted, will result in a. tremendous expansion and extention of medical-care services on a prepayment basis to meet the medical-care needs of millions of Americans.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS By unanimous consent, permission to

extend remarks in the REcORD, or to revise and extend remarks was granted to:

Mr. WIER. Mr. KERSTEN of Wisconsin. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska in 2 instances

and in 1 to include certain material. Mr. BusBEY on Lithuanian Independ

ence Day. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS.

1286 CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD- HOUSE February 3 LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to Mr. JONES of Missouri (at the request of Mr. WILSON of Texas), for 1 day, on account of illness.

ENROLLED BILL AND JOINT RESOLUTION SIGNED

Mr. LECOMPTE, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that that committee had examined and found truly enrolled a joint resolution of the House of the following title, which was thereupon signed by the Speaker:

H. J. Res. 354. Joint resolution amending Public Law 207, 83d Congress.

The SPEAKER announced his signature to an enrolled bill of the Senate of the following title:

S. 373. An act to extend the time for filing claims for the return of property under the Trading With the Enemy Act.

BILL PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT

Mr. LECOMPTE, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that that committee did on January 29, 1954, present to the President, for his approval, a bill of the House of the following title:

H. R. 7209. An act to continue the effectiveness of the Missing Persons Act, as extended, until July 1, 1955.

ADJOURNMENT Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I move

that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; accord

ingly <at 3 o'clock and 55 minutes p. m.) the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, February 4, 1954, at 12 o'clock noon.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

1232. A letter from the Secretary of the Navy, transmitting a draft of legislation entitled "A bill to provide that the enlistment contracts or periods of obligated service of members of the Armed Forces shall not terminate by reason of appointment as cadets at the United States Military Academy or as midshipmen at the United States Naval Academy or as midshipmen in the Naval Reserve or as cadets at the United States Coast Guard Academy, and for other purposes"; to the Committee on Armed Services.

1233. A letter from the Attorney General, transmitting a report showing the special assistants employed during the period from July 1, 1953, to December 31, 1953, with compensation payable from the allotment contained in section 202, General Provisions, Department of Justice, pursuant to the Department of Justice Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 1954, approved August 5, 195~;

to the Committee on Government Operations.

1234. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting a report on backlog of pending applications and hearing cases in the Federal Communications Commission as of December 31, 1953, pursuant to section 5 (e) of the Communica-

tions Act as amended July 16, 1952, by Public Law 554; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Coiil!IIlerce.

1235. A letter from the Administrator, Housing and Home Finance Agency, transmitting the annual report of tort claims paid within the Housing and Home Finance Agency and constituent agencies, Home Loan Bank Board, the Federal Housing Administration, and the Public Housing Administration, pursuant to Public Law 601 , 79th Congress, sec. 404; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1236. A letter from the Acting Postmaster General, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation entitled "A bill for the relief of Theodore J. Harris"; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1237. A letter from the Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, transmitting copies of orders suspending deportation as well as a list of the persons involved, pursuant to section 244 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U. S. C. 1254 (a)); to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1238. A letter from the Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization, Department of Justice, transmitting copies of orders granting the applications for permanent residence filed by the subjects, pursuant to section 4 of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, as amended; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports

of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

Mr. MILLER of Nebraska: Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. H . R. 4816. A bill authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to issue to Robert Graham a patent in fee to certain lands in the State of Mississippi; with amendment (Rept. No. 1146). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 4 of rule XXTI, public

bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows:

By Mr. WOLVERTON: H. R. 7700. A bill to amend the Public

Health Service Act to provide mortgage-loan insurance for hospitals and medical facilities used in connection with voluntary prepayment health plans; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. GRANAHAN: H. R. 7701. A bill to restore the right of

certain veterans to apply for insurance; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

By Mr. KEARNS: H. R . 7702. A bill to provide that persons

entitled to relief from the policemen and firemen's relief fund, District of Columbia, may waive all or part of such relief; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

By Mr. LIPSCOMB: H. R. 7703. A bill to amend chapter 1, sub

chapter C, of the Internal Revenue Code; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. MILLER of California: H. R. 7704. A bill to amend the Civil Serv

ice Retirement Act of May 29 , 1930, as amended, to provide annuities for certain Federal employees who have rendered at least 20 years' service in hazardous occupations; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. MILLS: H. R. 7705. A bill to provide that pension

for non-service-connected permanent and

total disability may be paid to single veterans who have a dependent parent, and who~e annual income does not exceed $2,700; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

By Mr. OSTERTAG: H . R. 7706. A bill to amend the Social

Security Act, as amended, to provide for conferences between the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and represenatives of the several States; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

H. R. 7707. A bill to amend the Social Security Act so as to provide that public assistance payments to the States shall not be reduced in certain cases by reason of the disapproval by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare of the personnel practices of the State agencies carrying out public assistance programs; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

H. R. 7708. A bill to amend the Social Security Act, as amended, to provide judicial review of certain findings of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare which may result in the reduction or discontinuance of public assistance payments to States; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. REED of New York: H . R. 7709. A bill to continue untll the

close of June 30, 1956, the suspension of certain import taxes on copper; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Miss THOMPSON of Michigan: H. R. 7710. A bill to amend title 18 of the

United States Code relating to the mailing and transportation of obscene matter; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. FULTON: H. R. 7711. A bill to provide for a study

of the mental and physical consequences of malnutrition and starvation suffered by prisoners of war and civilian internees during World War II and the hostilities in Korea; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts (by request):

H . R. 7712. A bill to amend the Veterans• Regulations to provide an increased statutory rate of compensation for veterans suffering the loss or loss of use of an eye in combination with the loss or loss of use of a limb; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

By Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey: H . R. 7713. A bill to extend and improve

the old-age and survivors insurance system, to provide permanent and total disability insurance and rehabilitation benefits, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Miss THOMPSON of Michigan: H. J. Res. 368. Joint resolution proposing

an amendment to the Constitution to provide that a new State may be admitted only pursuant to the procedure established by the Constitution for amending the Constitution; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

MEMORIALS Under clause 4 of rule XXII, memo

rials were presented and referred as follows:

By Mr. GOODWIN: Memorial of the Massachusetts Legislature to take necessary steps for the purpose of esta blishing a soldiers' home under Federal jurisdiction at Framingham, Mass.; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. HESELTON: Resolutions of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts memorializing the Congress of the United States to take the necessary steps for the purpose of establishing a soldiers' home under Federal jurisdiction at Framingham, Mass.; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts: Memorial of the General Court of Massachu-

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 1287 s~tts urging the Department of Defense, through the Air Force, to establish a troop carrier squadron at the Lawrence Municipal Airport; to the Committee on Armed ::Jervices.

Also memorial of the General Court of Massachusetts to take the necessary steps for the purpose of establishing a soldiers' home under Federal jurisdiction at Framingham, Mass.; to the Committee on Armed Services.

Also, memorial of the General Court of Massachusetts to extend the statute of limitations for prosecuting persons acting against the security and safety of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Also, memorial of the General Court of Massachusetts urging the Congress of the United States to investigate fully the unjust annexation of Lithuania by the Soviet Union, and the atrocities committed therein by the Communist leaders; to the Committee on Rules.

Also, memorial of the General Court of Massachusetts to enact legislation whereby Korean veterans may receive the same educational opportunities and advantages granted veterans of World War II; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Also, memorial of the General Court of Massachusetts to remove that part of the social-security law limiting the earnings of a recipient of benefits; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, memorial of the Massachusetts House of Representatives favoring increase of bicycle importation tariff; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, memorial of the General Court of Mass~chusetts to provide for the withdrawal

of the Federal Government from the field of gasoline taxation; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTI'JNS

Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows:

By Mr. BENTSEN: H. R . 7714. A bill for the relief of Homer

Cazamias; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. CUNNINGHAM: H. R. 7715. A bill for the relief of Van

nuccio Rossi; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. DURHAM: H. R. 7716. A bill for the relief of Der

Chuck Yee and Wu Mei On; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HOSMER (by request): H. R. 7717. A bill for the relief of Joseph

H. Washburn; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. R. 7718. A bill for the relief of Chris P. and Mabel Barkas; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. R. 7719. A bill for the relief of Frank Budman; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Bv Mr. JACKSON: H. R. 7720. A bill for the relief of Bogdan

Chylinski (also known as Dennis Bogdan Chylinski); to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. LANE: H. R. 7721. A bill provic;ling for the exten

sion of patent No. 119,187; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mi-. MORANO: H . R. 7722. A bill for the relief of Yechiel

Shulman; to the Committee on the Judi-ciary.

By Mr. POWELL: H . R. 7723. A bill for the relief of Jose Vic

tor Villapol; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. R. 7724. A bill for the relief of Vincenzo Strazzullo; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. R. 7725. A bill for the relief of Arthur Frank Moore; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. R. 7726. A bill for the relief of Rista Milosevic; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H . R. 7727. A bill for the relief of Alberto Araujo Silveira; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mrs. ST. GEORGE: H . R. 7728. A bill to provide for the con

veyance of a tract of land in Orange County, N.Y., to the village of Highland Falls, N.Y.; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. SIEMINSKI: H. R. 7729. A bill for the relief of Nicholas

Tsirigotis; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. STAGGERS: H. R . 7730. A bill for the relief of Mrs.

Lotte Erna (Meuhle) Taylor and her minor son, Gerhardt Meuhle; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. WILSON of California: H. R. 7731. A bill for the relief of Margarete

Seitz; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 7732. A bill for the relief of Rogerio

Santana de Franca; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

National Park Concessions

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. A. L. MILLER OF NEBRASKA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, February 3, 1954

Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I insert at this point in the RECORD 22 resolutions which were adopted by the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee of the House on February 2, 1954. These resolutions find no objection to the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior on proposed concession awards by the National Park Service.

The act of July 31, 1953-Public Law 172, 83d Congress-provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall report in detail all proposed awards of concession leases and contracts, including renewals thereof, 60 days before such awards are made, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for transmission to the appropriate c ~~nmittees. Recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior concerning 22 propoEed contracts or extensions of contracts have been referred to date by the Speaker to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs for review.

Meeting in open session on February 2, 1954, the committee was apprised of no reason to disapprove the Secretary's recommendations thereon and

the following resolutions were therefore adopted:

Whereas the act of July 31, 1953 (Public Law 172, 83d Congress, 67 Stat. 261), provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall report in detail all proposed awards of concession leases and contracts, including renewals thereof, 60 days before such awards are made, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for transmission to the appropriate committees; and

Whereas the Speaker has referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs a letter dated December 23, 1953, containing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a proposed extension of contract No. I-1p-1114 which will, when executed by the Director of the National Park Service on behalf of the Government, extend fo!:" 1 year from January 1, 1954, unless sooner terminated by a new contract, the authorization under which Fred Harvey provides accommodations, services, and facilities for the public on the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park, Ariz.; and

Whereas the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs ]· as, in session with a quorum present, this day found no reason to disapprove the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior in this matter: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives give notice in writing to the Secretary of the Interior that it has no objection to his recommendations in this matter.

COMMI'ITEE ON INTERIOR AND

INSULAR AFFAIRS, A. L. MILLER, Chairman.

Adopted this 2d day of February 1954.

Whereas the act of July 31, 1953 (Public Law 172, 83d Cong., 67 Stat. 261), provides

that the Secretary of the Interior shall report in detail an proposed awards of concession leases and contracts, including renewals thereof, 60 days before such awards are made. to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for transmission to the appropriate committees; and

Whereas the Speaker has referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs a letter dated December 14, 1953, containing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a proposed award of a concession permit to Edward B. Rushford and George I. Gravert which will, when finally approved by the regional director, region 1, National Park Service, authorize Messrs. Rushford and Gravert to operate the Rum Shop at Salem Maritime National Historic Site, Mass., for a period of 5 years from January 1, 1954; and

Whereas the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has, in session with a quorum present, this day found no reason to disapprove the recommendations 0f the Secretary of the Interior in this matter: Now. therefore, be it


COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR

AFFAIRS, A. L. MILLER, Chairman.

Adopted this 2d d ay of February 1954.

Whereas the act of July 31, 1953 (Public Law 172, 83d Cong., 67 Stat. 261}, provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall report in detail all proposed awards of concession leases and contracts, including renewals thereof, 60 days before such awards are made, to the President of the Senate

1288 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE February 3 and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for transmission to the appropriate committees; and

Whereas the Speaker has referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs a letter dated December 14, 1953 containing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a proposed award of a concession permit to Mount Whitney Pack Trains which will, when approved by the regional director, region 4, National Park Service, authorize the permittee to provide saddle horse and pack trip service from bases on privately owned lands located at Furnace Creek Ranch in Death Valley National Monument, Calif., for a period of 1 year from January 1, 1954; and

Whereas the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has, in session with a quorum present, this day found no reason to disapprove the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior in this matter: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representativ~s give notice in writing to the Secretary of the Interior that it has no objection to his recommendations in this matter.

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

A. L. MILLER, Chairman . Adopted this 2d day of February 1954.

Whereas the act of July 31, 1953 (Public Law 172, 83d Cong., 67 Stat. 261), provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall report in detail all proposed awards of concession leases and contracts, including renewals thereof, 60 days before such awards are made, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for transmission to the appropriate committees; and

Whereas the Speaker has referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs a letter dated December 14, 1953, containing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a proposed award of a concession permit to William W. and Barbara W. Myers which will when approved by the regional director, region 4, National Park Service, authorize them to provide accommodations, facilities, and services for the public at Wildrose Station in Death Valley National Monument, Calif., for a period of 1 year from January 1, 1954; and




A. L. Mn.LER, Chairman. Adopted this 2d day of February 1954.

Whereas the act of July 31, 1953 (Public Law 172, 83d Cong., 67 Stat. 261), provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall report in detail all proposed awards of concession leases and contracts, including renewals thereof, 60 days before such awards are made, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for transmission- to the appropriate committees; and

Whereas the Speaker has referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs a letter dated ~ovember 16, 1953, containing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a proposed extension of contract No. I-1p-3348 which will, when executed by the Director of the National Park Service on behalf of the Government, extend

for 1 year from January 1, 1954, the authorization under which Martin Kilian provides accommodations, facilities, and services for the public in Mount Rainier National Park, Wash.; and




A. L. MILLER, Chairman. Adopted this 2d day of February 1954.

Whereas the act of July 31, 1953 (Public Law 172, 83d Cong. 67 Stat. 261), provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall report in detail all proposed awards of concession leases and contracts, including renewals thereof, 60 days before such awards are made, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for ·~ransmission to the appropriate committees; and

Whereas the Speaker has referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs a letter dated November 9, 1953, containing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a letter to the Naches Co., Inc., which, when approved by the regional director, region 4, National Park Service, will renew for the period of October 1, 1953, through June 30, 1954, concession permit No. 14-10-426-43, under which the company is authorized to operate ski tows, provide limited lunch service, sell ski accessories and supplies, and rent skis in Mount Rainier National Park, Washington; and



CoMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,


Whereas the act of July 31, 1953 (Public Law 172, 83d Cong., 67 Stat. 261), provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall report in detail all proposed awards of concession leases and contracts, including renewals thereof, 60 days before sucli awards are made, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for transmission to the appropriate committees; and

Whereas the Speaker has referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs a letter dated December 7, 1953, containing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a proposed award of a concession permit to Mr. Albert Weiss, doing business as Friant Garage, which will, when approved by the regional director, region 4, National P ark Service, authorize Mr. Weiss to provide towing service and emergency automotive repairs and services in Millerton Lake National Recreation Area, California, for a period of 1 year from January 1, 1954; and





Whereas the act of July 31, 1953 (Public Law 172, 83d Cong., 67 Stat. 261), provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall report in detail all proposed awards of concession leases and contracts, including !"enewals thereof, 60 days before such awards are made, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for transmission to the appropriate committees; and

Whereas the Speaker has referred to the Committee on Interior a.nd Insular Affairs a letter dated January 4, 1953, containing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a proposed award of a concession permit to Mr. George W. Hurt which will, when approved by the regional director, region 2, National Park Service, authorize Mr. Hurt to operate ski tows and a lunch stand and to rent ski equipment in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colo., for a period of 2 years from November 1, 1953; and


Resolved, That the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives give notice in writing to the Secretary of the ~nterior that it has no objection to his recommendations in this matter.




Whereas the Speaker has referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs a letter dated November 9, 1953, containing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a proposed award of a concession permit to Mrs. Marilyn J. Wright which will, when finally approved by the Regional Director, region 4, National Park Service, on behalf of the Government, authorize Mrs. Wright to provide a limited lunch service at Crater Lake National Park, Oreg., for the period September 16, 1953, to June 14, 1954; and

Whereas the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has, in session with a quorum present, this day found no reason to disapprove the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior in this mattGr: Now, therefore, be it


COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND

INSULAR AFFAms,


Whereas the act of July 31, 1953 (Public Law 172, 83d Cong., 67 Stat. 261), provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall report in detail all proposed awards of con-

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 1289 cession leases and contracts, including renewals thereof, 60 days before such awards are made, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for transmission to the appropriate committees; and

Whereas the Speaker has referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs a letter dated December 14, 1953, containing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a letter to Mr. Joseph E. Niemeyer which, when approved by the regional director, region 4, National Park Service, will renew for the period December 1, 1953, through April 30, 1954, concession permit No. 14-1{}-447-56, under which Mr. Niemeye.r is authorized to operate a skirental business in Olympic National Park, Wash.; and


R esolved, That the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives give notice in writing to the Secretary of the Interior that it has no objection to his recommendations in this matter.


A. L. MILLER, Chai rman. Adopted this 2d day of February 1954.

Whereas the act of July 31, 1953 (Public Law 172, 83d Cong., 67 Stat. 261), provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall report in detail all proposed awards of concession leases and contracts, including renewals thereof, 60 days before such awards are made, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representat ives for transmission to the appropriate commitees; and

Whereas the Speaker has referred to the Commit tee on Interior and Insular Affairs a letter dated December 16, 1953, containing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a proposed extension of contract No. I-lp-1101 which will, when executed by the Director of the National Park Service on behalf of the Government, extend for 1 yea],' from January 1, 1954, the authorization under which Glacier Park Co. provides accommodations, facilities, and services for the public in Glacier National Park, Mont.; and





Whereas the act of July 31, 1953 (Public Law 172, 83d Cong., 67 Stat. 261), provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall report in detail all proposed awards of concession leases and contracts, including renewals thereof, 60 days before such awards are made, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for transmission to the appropriate comm ittees; and

Whereas the Speaker has referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs a letter dated December 14, 1953, containing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a letter to Mr. Donald P. Christianson which, when approved by the regional director, region 4, National Park

Ser-:•ice, will renew for the period December 1, 1953, through June 30, 1954, concession permit No. 14-1{}-426--42, under which Mr. Christianson is authorized to operate portable rope ski tows and provide light lunch service in the Narada Falls-Paradise area, Mount Rainier National Park, Wash.; and

Whereas the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has, in session with a quo um present, this day found no reason to disapprove the recommendat ions of the Secretary of the Interior in this matter: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representat ives give notice in writing to the Secretary of the Interior that it has no objection to his recommendations in this matter.

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAffiS,


Whereas the act of July 31, 1953 (Public Law 172, 83d Cong., 67 Stat. 261) , provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall report in detail all proposed awards of concession leases and contracts, including renewals thereof, 60 days before such awards are made, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for transmission to the appropriate committees; and

Whereas the Speaker has referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs a letter dated December 16, 1953, containing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a proposed extension of cont ract No. I-1p-6780 which will, when executed by the Director of the National Park Service on behalf of the Government, extend for 2 years from January 1, 1954, unless sooner terminated by a new contract, the authorization under which Oregon Caves Resort provides accommodations, services, and facilities for the public in Oregon Caves National Monument, Oreg.; and



COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAffiS.

A. L . MILLER, Chairman. Adopted this 2d day of February 1954.


Whereas the Speaker has referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs a letter dated December 16, 1953, containing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Charles Roening, which will, when approved by the regional director, region 4, National Park Service, renew for 1 year from January 1, 1954, concession permit No. 14-10-447-89, under which they are authorized to provide accommodations, facilities, and services for the public in Olympic National Park, Wash.; and

Whereas the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has, in session with a quorum present, this day found no reason. to disapprove the recommendations of the Secretary

of the Interior in this matter: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives give notice in writing to the Secretary of the Interior that it has no objection to his recommendations in this matt er.


A . L . MILLER, Chairman. Adopted this 2d day of February 1954.


Whereas the Speaker has referred to the Committ ee on Interior and Insular Affairs a letter dated December 18, 1953, containing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a proposed award of a concession permit to John C. Turner and Louise M. Turner, his wife, which will, when approved by the Regional Director, Region 2, National Park Service, authorize Mr. and Mrs. Turner to operate the Triangle X Guest Ranch in Grand Teton National Park, Wyo., for a period of 1 year from January 1, 1953; and


Resolved, That the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives give notice in writing to the Sec• retary of the Interior that it has no objection to his recommendations in this matter.

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAmS,



Whereas the Speaker has referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs a letter dated December 17, 1953, containing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a letter to Mr. Anton Ashenbrenner which, when approved by the region director, region 4, National Park Service, will renew for the period January 1. 1954, through December 31, 1954, concession permit No. 14-10-447-84, under which Mr. Ashenbrenner is authorized to operate a store, gasoline station, and cabin camp in Olympic National Park, Wash.; and






Whereas the act of July 31, 1953 (Public Law 172, 83d Cong., 67 Stat. 261), provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall report in detail all proposed awards of concession leases and contracts, including renewals t h ereof, 60 days r · ·ore such awards are made, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for t r ansmission to the appropriate committees; and

Whereas the Speaker :,as referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs a letter dated December 17, 1953, containing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a proposed award of a concession permit to Mr. Clifton D. Rock which will, when approved by the regional director, region 4, National Park Service, authorize Mr. Rock to sell souvenirs and related items at Gabrillo National Monument, Calif., for a period of 1 year from January 1, 1954; and

Whereas the Committ3e on Interior and Insular Affairs has, i .l session with a quorum present, this day found no reason to disapprove the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior in this matter: Now, therefore, be it

~esolved, That the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives give notice in writing to the Secretary of the Interior that it has no objecti -1 to his recommendations in • · is matter.

COUMITI'EE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,



Whereas the Speaker has referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs a letter dated December 17, 1953, continuing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a letter to Mr. Murl Emery which will, when approved by the regional director, region 3, National Park Service, renew for the period January 1, 1954, through June 30, 1954, concession permit No. 14-10-304-7 under which Mr. Emery is authorized to provide accommodations, facilities, and services for the public at Searchlight Ferry located in Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Nevada; and


Resolved, That the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives give notice in writing to the Secretary of thP. Interior that it has no objection to his recommendations in this matter.

COMMITI'EE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR

AFFAIRS,


Whereas the act of July 31, 1953 (Public Law 172, 83d Cong., 67 Stat. 261) , provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall report in detail all proposed awards of concession leases and contracts, including renewals thereof, 60 days before such awards are made, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for transmission to the appropriate committees; and

\Vhereas the Speaker has referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs a letter dated November 18. 1953, containing

the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to nine proposed awards of concession permits which will, when approved by the Regional Director, region 1. National Park Service, authorize charterboat services and bait sales to be provided in Everglades National Park, Fla., for a period of 2 years from January 1, 1954, by the following: Leroy Orme and John Scudder, sa le of bait; 0. P . Patton and J. W. Willis, sale of bait; Walter F. Mann, charter-boat service for sport fishing; William Mann, charter-boat service for sport fishing; Peter G. Mills, charter-boat service for sport fishing; Stevie Roberts, charter-boat service for sport fishing; Finis A. Williams, charter-boat service for sport fishing; Tommy N. Williams, charter-boat service for sport fishing; Lewis C. watson, charter-boat service for sport fishing; and





Whereas the act of July 31, 1953 (Public Law 172, 83d Cong., 67 Stat. 261), provides that the Secret ary of the Interior shall report in detail all proposed awards of concession leases and contracts, including renewals thereof, 60 days befor~ such awards are made, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for transmission to the appropriate committees; and

Whereas the Speaker has referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular .O.ffairs a letter dated December 24, 1953, containing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a proposed award of a concession permit to Mr. J. R. Dickson which will, when approved by the regional director, region 4, National Park Service, authorize him to operate a gasoline service station at Big Stump in Kings Canyon National Park, Calif., for a period of 1 year from January 1, 1954; and



COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND

INSULAR AFFAIRS, A. L. MILLER, Chai rman.



Whereas the Speaker has referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs a letter dated January 19, 1954, containing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a proposed award of a concession permit to Mr. Sam B. Davis, Jr., which will, when aprpoved by the regional

director, region 4, National Park Service, authorize him to conduct pack and saddle horse operations in Kings Canyon National Park, Calif., for a period of 2 years from January 1, 1954; and





Whereas the act of July 31, 1953 (Public Law 172, 83d Cong., 67 Stat. 261), provides that th<.J Secretary of the Interior shall report in detail all proposed awards of concession leases and contracts, including renewals thereof, 60 days before such awards are made, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for transmission to the appropriate committees; and

Whereas the Speaker has referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs a letter dated January 20, 1954, containing the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to a proposed award of a concession permit to McKinley Park Service, Inc., which will, when finally executed on behalf of the Gove:rnment, authorize the company to provide concession accommodations, facilities, and services in Mount McKinley National Park for a period of 5 years from June 15, 1953; and


Resolved, That the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives give notice in writing to the Secretary of the Interior that it has no objection to his recommendations in thi~ matter.

COMMITI'EE ON INTERIOR AND

INSULAR AFFAIRS, A. L. MILLER, Chairman.


Commonsense Unity or Division of Americans


HON. ROY W. WIER OF MINNESOTA



Mr. WIER. Mr. Speaker, only recent· ly it has come to my attention that re .. marks which I inserted in the CoNGRES• SIONAL RECORD of July 8, 1953, have since then been made part of an anti-Semitic article in a publication misnamed Common Sense, which is published in the State of New Jersey.

I wish to state clearly and unmistakably that I not only thoroughly condemn the evil purpose to which my comment was put by Common Sense, but also that I consider the very existence of publications of this kind a cancer in our body politic.

19-54 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD·-· HOUSE 1291 As early as June ·1951, the American

Legion, Department of New Jersey, denounced Common Sense as "un-American because of its hate preaching against m inority groups." Similarly, the Americanism Commission, American Legion, Department of Illinois, included Common Sense and its publisher, Conde McGinley, in its 1949 and 1950 reports on subversive activities. Other veterans' groups, civic, and religious leaders of all denominations have condemned the divi~ion activities of Common Sense and McGinley, who has been an outspoken apologist for Robert H. Best, convicted pro-Nazi h·aitor.

Because it has arrogated to itself the misleading title "The Nation's AntiCommunist Paper," Common Sense has been scrutinized by some of the outstanding journalistic authorities on communism. Cornelius Dalton, well-known columnist for the Boston Traveler, came to the conclusion that Common Sense actually "is a nasty little J::late paper which specializes in anti-Semitism."

In the April 9, 1951, issue of the Freeman, George Sokolsky, veteran fighter against communism, branded Common Sense as a publication devoted to antiSemitism. He correctly stressed the fact that the paper's publisher, McGinley, by his emphasis on racial and religious hatred, paves the way for precisely the evils which he claims to oppose. Sokolsky concluded his analysis by imploring real fighters against communism to denounce this paper, Common Sense.

I wish to do this here and now. I also wish to appeal to my colleagues to join me in relentlessly exposing false antiCommunist prophets, such as McGinley and his senseless Common Sense. It is agencies of that kind which under the guise of Americanism and under the pretext of combating subversion create discord in our Nation. By fostering bigotry and race hatred, they undermine the foundations of our Republic, and they do spadework for the Kremlin by dividing our people into hostile camps at a time when the threat of communism makes united efforts of all Americans more necessary than ever.

Another New York Times Error


HON.CHARLESJ.KERSTEN OF WISCONSIN



Mr. KERSTEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on January 23, Congressman JOSPEH W. MARTIN, JR., spoke before the 46th annual banquet of the Philadelphia Real Estate Board in Philadelphia. In his speech, Mr. MARTIN referred to a dedica ted group of people who want to lead us into socialism. Speaking of these leftwingers Mr. MARTIN said:

They are the egghead wing of American political life. They infest the ADA, an organization which calls itself Americans for Democratic Action, but· which might properly be renamed "A Depression Anytime.''

The Associated Press, in reporting this portion of Mr. MARTIN's speech, reported:

Representative MARTIN said these leftwingers infest Americans for Democratic Action, an organization which backs the principles of the Roosevelt New Deal and the Truman Fair Deal.

I have checked with the Associated Press in Washington and they have informed me that the above sentence is exactly the way they reported it. The New York Times, however, was not content with reporting the AP story as it came to them but had to doctor it up by reporting under the AP dateline the following:

Mr. MARTIN charged that such leftwingers infest the Americans for Democratic Action, the anti-Communist organization that backs the principles of the New Deal and the Fair Deal.

Thus, the New York Times compounded its misdemeanor. For Mr. MARTIN did not refer to the ADA as an anti-Communist organization. Nor did the Associated Press refer to the ADA as an anti-Communist organization. The New York Times ran the story as an AP story. Therefore, a reader of the New Yor!{ Times would obviously conclude that either Mr. MARTIN or the Associated Press had referred to the ADA as an anti-Communist organization. The doctoring of any AP story without removing the AP label is certainly not considered a minor violation of proper journalistic practice. Moreover referring to the ADA as an anti-Communist organization in what is supposed to be a straight news story would be an infraction of good journalistic practice even if the New York Times had removed the AP label. For it would be hotly debated by many that the ADA has any color of right, much less a claim to fame, to be entitled an anti-Communist organization. In fact, many would contend that it is rather soft on Communists.

In any event, certainly the ADA's principal characteristic as an organization is not that it is anti-Communist. No one would refer to the Washington Redskins football team as an anti-Communist organization although, undoubtedly, they are opposed to communism. I am sure that many of my colleagues would be more ready to term the Redskins an anti-Communist organization than the ADA.

Usually newsmen do not criticize newspapers, just as doctors do not criticize doctors and lawyers do not criticize lawyers. The exception is in the case of particularly mischievous misdoing. An indication of the mischief of the offense committed by the New York Times is the fact that Journalist Howard Rushmore called the Times to task in the New York Journal-American of January 30.

I include herewith the pertinent extract from Mr. MARTIN's speech in Philadelphia, the full text of the New York Times story of January 24, and the story by Mr. Howard Rushmore, which ap-

. peared in the New York Journal-Ameri .. can of January 30: ·

I do not need to tell this audience that unfortunately we have here in America a dedicated group of people who want to lead

us into socialism. They have devoted ap~ proximately the last 20 years of their lives to that goal. Their basic philosophy is that the Government should do everything. They have made immense gains, but they still have not arrived at their goal. If I need cite the evidence, I will refer you to the outcome of the presidential election of Novem• ber 4, 1952. I think Americans made it unmistakably clear that they had all they wanted of Socialist experiments with our American way of life.

Down through the years, I have been a careful student of leftwing utterances. Knowingly or not, these leftwingers are unable to hide the fact that they make their greatest gains at the expense of human hardship.

They are the ones who, in the thirties, were telling us that our plant was built, there were no more horizons.

They are the ones who, in the forties, as World War II ended, were telling us that we were going to have 10 million unemployed.

They are the ones who today are yelling depression.

These leftwingers live on pessimism. They get up each morning with their mouths tasting like back issues of the New Republic. They go to bed each night secure in the knowledge that everybody had advanced 1 more day toward the yawning cavern that is the tomb.

They are the egghead wing of American political life. They infest the ADA, an organization which calls itself Americans for Democratic Action, but which might properly be renamed "a depression any time." .

(From the New York Times of January 24. 1954]

MARTIN CONDEMNS TALK OF A SLUMP-FEELS LEFTWING EGGHEADS TRY To PROMOTE liARD TIMES AS CUE FOR SOCIALISM PHILADELPmA, January 23 (AP) .-Speaker

JoSEPH W. MARTIN, JR., charged tonight that leftwing eggheads were trying to promote us into hard times for political reasons.

Their aim, he declared, is to lead us into socialism.

In a radio speech before the 46th annual banquet of the Philadelphia Real Estate Board, the Massachusetts Republican said that "despite pessimistic statements of alarmists there is not a valid economic sign today • • • pointing to anything like the unemployment of 1949-50, when these people were so silent."

The Nation is now going through a period of readjustment, Mr. MARTIN asserted, and today's unemployment figure of 2 million may vary upward in the next few months.

"Despite this period of transition," he added, "the year 1953 just finished was the most prosperous in the history of our country, and the fact is there are 62 million American civilians at work today at gainful occupations."

Representative MARTIN'S speech was billed in advance by his office as a major address. with a nationwide broadcast arranged.

In 1949 and 1950, under a Democratic ad• ministration, the Speaker said, unemployment reached 3,400,000 and 4,750,000, but the four-alarm prophets of the leftwing • • • were silent. There were no cries of recession, no cries of depression.

"Each time you read one of these political utterances," he advised, "go back and check up the gentleman's statements in 1949 and early 1950. You will find that the color of the coat has changed."

Mr. MARTIN charged that such leftwingers infest the Americans for Democratic Action, the .anti-Communist organization that backs the principles of the New Deal and the Fair Deal.

He said he knew of no responsible busl. nessmen who were pessimistic about the economic outlook. :Politicians, he added, know

1292 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE February 3 less about the country's economy than businessmen and economists, and do more talking about the subject.

Mr. MARTIN also reviewed the first year of the Republican administration and predicted that 1 million homes would be built this year. with private enterprise performing in a manner so outstanding that public housing soon will become only a memory of the unlamented days of the managed economy.

Because of the narrow political margins in Congress, he conceded no one can predict with certainty the fate of President Eisenhower's legislative program. But, he said, the American people will demand its enactment and they will get its enactment, if not by the narrow majorities of this Congress, then by sufficient majorities in the next Congress.

[-From the New York Journal-American of January 30, 1954]

SUBVERSIVE FRONT: ADA GETS HELP FROM NEW YoRK TIMES

(By Howard Rushmore) For the past several months Americans

for Democratic Action has been under fire from bona fide Democrats as an outfit that does harm to the cause of genuine liberal politics.

Recently House Speaker MARTIN, speaking for the Republicans, slapped at ADA as one of the organizations trying to promote a depression in the United States.

With the ADA under fire from both camps, help was needed to rebuild the outfit in the public mind. Oddly enough the New York Times, which loudly trumpets its nonbias, was one of those who came to the ADA's aid.

MARTIN's statement was carried by the Associated Press out of Philadelphia. The AP reported: "Representative MARTIN said these leftwingers infest Americans for Democratic Action, an organization which backs the principles of the Roosevelt New Deal and Truman Fair Deal."

PHRASE ADDED This certainly was honest reporting and

a fair and accurate description of the ADA. But not the New York Times. It carried the same AP story thusly: "Mr. MARTIN charged that such leftwingers infest the Americans for Democratic Action, the antiCommunist organization that backs the principles of the New Deal and Fair Deal."

The addition of the phrase "the antiCommunist organization" was the idea of the New York Times. It was not in the original AP story. We confirmed that with AP. It is an old rule, learned by cub reporters in their first year, that you don't doctor or editorialize wire service stories. Even when the ADA is in need of tender and loving care.

Lithuanian Independence Day


HON. FRED E. BUSBEY OF ILLINOIS



Mr. BUSBEY. Mr. Speaker, on February 16, we will celebrate the 36th anniversary of the democratic and independent Republic of Lithuania. Lithuania, which was an independent state of g-reat importance in the 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries, was resurrected to independent statehood on February 16, 1918, by the sacrifices and sufferings of her people .. On the 36th anniversary of that

date, it is fitting to recall that this small nation on the Baltic Sea has contributed greatly to human freedom throughout the ages. It was the Grand Duke Algirdas, of Lithuania, who stopped the Mongols in 1362, when they swept westward into Europe from the Asiatic steppes behind the Ural Mountains.

And-let it be recalled-it was this brave little country which first fought the Communist aggressors of the Kremlin. The world can learn many things from the experiences of the gallant people of Lithuania, who, after 14 years of almost constant Soviet occupation, are still fighting to free themselves from the g-rip of Communist terror. And I am glad to be a member of the select committee of this House which is currently pursuing an inquiry into the experiences of these gallant people through the seizure of their country by the Soviet Union. From this inquiry, I expect · we shall learn a great deal which will be of inestimable value to the people of the United States.

In area, Lithuania is the largest of the 3 Baltic States, with a population of about 3 million. Since the 11th century, Lithuania had been a free, independent, and sovereign state.

Today, the Kremlin claims that Lithuania is part and parcel of the Soviet Union. This claim is based on the most fraudulent piece of fakery the world has ever seen. This ridiculous fraud was the faked elections which the Communists staged in Lithuania in 1940, .while the country was tight in the grip of an overwhelming Red army and while the wolves of the fiendish Soviet secret police had spread a reign of terror throughout the nation.

Those elections of 1940, held on July 14 and 15, were conducted under the guns of the Red army. They were supervised by a special emissary from the Kremlin. And they were managed exclusively by the Communist Party with a single list of candidates, while other political parties that stood for the country's independence were barred from the polls and their candidates were arre~ted.

The Lithuanian people were dragooned to the polls. The elections were compulsory. Those not voting were considered saboteurs and enemies of the Red regime. Those who appeared at the polls had their passports stamped as having voted. Those who lacked such stamps on their passports were subject to arrest, and countless thousands were arrested and deported to their doom in Siberia.

And the Soviet Union has had the colossal impudence to demand that the world accept this as an honest and legitimate election expressing the free will of the Lithuanian people.

The Moscow radio announced at the time that over 95 percent of the Lithuanian people voted in favor of the Communist candidates. The results sent from Moscow were published in the London newspapers.

But apparently Moscow had not been informed that the elections, which were supposed to be held on 1 day, had been extended over 2 days. And the laughable result was that the final election returns announced by Moscow were

printed in the London papers 24 hours before the polls closed.

Nor does there appear to be a word of truth in the Soviet claim that over 95 percent of the Lithuanian people voted in favor of the Communist list of candidates. Some diplomatic observers stationed in Lithuania at the time estimated that only about 16 percent of the Lithuanian people went to the polls at all. And most of these did so only to get their passports stamped, and then they nullified their ballots by defacing them with cartoons and slogans of defiance against the Soviet invaders.

The select committee of this Congress has already had witnesses before it who have given us testimony about these fake elections. Some of these witnesses were people who were at the polls. And some of these witnesses were members of the election boards who conducted the elections and counted the ballots. And their testimony, in great part, has been that false. returns were reported in almost every case. In some districts, the false returns provided figures which exceeded the total number of persons living in those districts.

The truth appears to be that only a small percentage of the Lithuanian people went to the polls, and that a large part of these deliberately invalidated their ballots in order to avoid giving even this token of support to the i:1-credible Communist monsters who were devouring their country and their kin.

One further feature of importance should be noted in connection with these fake elections. During the short "electoral campaign," no question of joining Soviet Russia was raised or even mentioned. On the contrary, the only slogan of the campaign was in favor of insuring "friendly relations between ·Lithuania and Soviet Russia."

The so-called elections over, the newly elected members of this Soviet puppet parliament convened on July 21. The

·first and only business of their agenda was the passing of a resolution humbly requesting that Lithuania should be admitted into the Soviet Union. Having passed it, the puppet parliament dispersed. The farce was completed when the Supreme Soviet granted the request, and it was announced, on August 3, 1940, that Lithuania was cl.eclared to be a part of the Soviet Union.

Who was it that declared this piece of impudence to the world?

It was the same criminal who stuck the gun in the back of the victim and robbed him of his life and his fortune.

And this criminal now demands that the world take his word for it that the victim voluntarily gave up all that he loved and had worked for.

Look at the proof, this impudent criminal now tells the world; look at how we asked the victim and how the victim, by over 95 percent, begged and pleaded with us to kidnap him and take him into captivity.

Now, by painstaking work, the select committee of this House is carefully collecting evidence from the victims of this monstrous crime against peace among men, this crime against civilization and humanity; and I predict that the criminal's colossal impudence will

1951, CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD- HOUSE 1293 avail him nothing in the end; and that -Concerning the Soviet Union's demand the world will choose to believe the evi- for unlimited numbers of Red army dence from the lips of the victims which troops to be stationed in Lithuania, it the select committee of this House is must be observed that such a demand daily entering into the record of history. should have been prompted by some

For the sake ·of anyone knowing little emergency or by an anticipated attack about the steps leading up to the tragedy by some European power, as stipulated of Lithuania and the other Baltic States, by article 5 of the mutual-assistance it might be pertinent to present the pact. facts. But the plain fact is that there was

Under the pressure exerted upon all no emergency and no anticipated attack the Baltic States by the fact of the Nazi- from anywhere. And if the Soviet

.co·mmunist Pact, -Lithuania was forced Union's demand to increase her army

. to agree to the demand of the Soviet garrisons in Lithuania were to constiUnion for a mutual-assistance pact be- tute an extension of the pact, there was tween them, signed on October 10, 1939. .no formal agreement entered into and ·

The mutual-assistance pact stipulated . 1·atified as required by law. nonintervention in the internal affairs · · On June 15, 1940, numerous.Red army of either contracting party. Limited · divisions crossed Lithuania's frontiers at garrisons of Soviet troops in Lithuania several points. President Smetona of were agreed upon. Lithuania, for obvi- the Republic of Lithuania departed from ous reasons, scrupulously observed all the country and went abroad without the requirements of the pact and ex- tende1ing his resignation as president. pected, naturally, a reciprocal attitude A few hours later, a special Commissar from her colossal neighbor. from Moscow arrived by plane in Kaunas

During the short period of compara- to supervise the formation of a new govtive tranquillity, satisfaction was ex- ernment. Thus, on June 17, 1940, the pressed by Soviet authorities concerning Paleckis government came into being. the treatment accorded the Red army With the creation of the Paleckis govgarrisons in Lithuania. But on May 25, ernment, with the Red army present in 1940, like a thunderbolt out of a clear all parts of Lithuania and new elections sky, came the news that Soviet officials carried out to suit its purposes, the had mr.de charges alleging mistreatment Soviet Union, using the most modern of Red army soldiers in Lithuania and methods of veiled aggression, accomaccusations that the three tiny Baltic pli~hed its task-the destruction of the States were conspiring against the Soviet independence of the Lithuanian RepubUnion-charges for which not the slight- lie at a time when peaceful conditions est . bit of evidence has ever been ad- prevailed and the development of friendvanced in the 14 years since that time. ly relations had a fair chance of success.

All efforts on the part of the Lithu- This evil act was committed by Soviet anian Government to wipe out all pos- strategem while the Lithuanian-Soviet sible misunderstandings and suspicions Union nonaggression treaty was still in and to placate the Soviet authorities effect, and the clause of nonintervention were in vain. The Prime Minister of in internal affairs was only 8 months old. Lithuania went personally to Moscow to The treaty of nonaggression between seek a betterment of the situation and Lithuania and the Soviet Union sounds to beg the Soviet authorities for coopera- rather ironical in present circumstances: tion in clarifying and investigating the ART. 2. The Republic of Lithuania and charges. the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics mu-

Instead of cooperating in behalf of tually undertake to respect in all circumpeace in the world, the Soviet Union, at stances the sovereignty and territorial inmidnight of June ~4. presented an ulti- tegrity and inviolability of each other. matum to Lithuania, demanding a pro- AR"I:. 3. Each of the two contracting parties Soviet Government and the admission undertakes to refrain from any aggressive into Lithuania of an unlimited number action whatsoever against the other party. of soviet troops. The occupation, seizure, and incorpo-

If the last legitimate Government of t·ation of Lithuania and her two sister Lithuania could be accused of any guilt, Baltic Republics violated every agreeit certainly was not guilty of any provoc- ment previously entered into by the ative acts against the Red army garri- U.S.S.R. and the three countries. sons, but perhaps had too lenient an Soviet occupation of the three counattitude toward them. In this instance, tries continued until July 1941. During it is well to recall an opinion of one this time, more than 200,000 people were great American statesman that "the killed, deported, or disappeared. Then, presence of troops of one country on the in July, Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, soil of another constitutes prima facie occupied the Baltic area, and held. it evidence of aggression." until 1944, when the Red army again

Although the terms of the Soviet ulti- returned and the Soviets completed tne matum violated the letter and spirit of annexation and incorporation that was the mutual assistance pact and consti- started in 1940. tuted an illegal intervention in Lithu- Lithuania, with her rich historic tradiania's internal affairs, the Lithuanian tions dating back from the 12th century, Government, in view of the imminent in- her ancient · language, her devotion to vasion by the Red army, complied with religion and western culture, has the the terms of the ultimatum and resigned. indisputable right to independence and The President of the Lithuanian Repub- free economic development. lie designated General Rastikis to form During her recent 22 years of indea new government; but this move, which pendent existence, Lithuania-with her was the last act of the fre·e government, population of 3 million souls, who differ f a iled, when the Soviet authorities re- racially and linguistically from the

· jected it. ~he Soviet choice, Justas Soviet Russians-thanks only to the Paleckis, was named Prime Minister in- spirit of independence, was able constead. vincingly to demonstrate to her neigh-

bors and to the world her ability of self-government and to achieve rapid progress in every respect.

It is gratifying that Lithuania, in her moments of distress, was not left alone. And it is doubly gratifying to me as an American that the United States gave moral and material encouragement to Lithuania and to her good neighbors, Latvia and Estonia; and that a select committee of this House is even now spreading on the pages of history the record of the infamous crime committed by Soviet communism on the peaceful shores of the Baltic Sea.

And let us recall the ringing words of the Secretary of State when Mr. Dulles opened tne first public hearings of the select committee of this House on November 30, last:

What of the future?

Asked Mr. Dulles. First of all, let us never lose ·hope that

there is a future.

And then our Secretary of State went on to speak thought§ which spring from every American heart:

Some say that it is unrealistic and impractical not to recognize the enforced incorporation of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia into the Soviet Union. We believe, however, that a despotism of the present Soviet type cannot indefinitely perpetuate its rule over hundreds of millions of people who love God, who love their country, and who have a sense of personal dignity.

The Soviet system, which seeks to expunge the distinctive characteristics of nation, creed, and individuality, must itself change or be doomed ultimately to collapse. The time of collapse depends largely on whether the peoples who remain free produce spiritual, intellectual, and material richness; and a faith which can penetrate any Iron Curtain. The captive peoples should know that they are not forgotten, that we are not reconciled to their fate, and, above all, that we are not prepared to seek illusory safety for ourselves by a bargain with their masters which would confirm their captivity.

We must continue to be guided by this policy-standing firm against Soviet claims to Lithuania. Our continued confidence in the eventual freedom of Lithuania will keep alive the spirit of freedom, and one day will inspire the people to rise up and throw off the Communist yoke of bondage.

Let us not fail the people of Lithuania. Let each and every one of us, on this 36th anniversary of Lithuanian independence, pledge anew our efforts and reaffirm our determination to continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with these brave people of Lithuania until Lithuanian independence is a reality.

Criteria for Power


HON. A. L. MILLER Olo' NEBRASKA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 3, 1954

Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, early in October 1953 it was my pleasure to meet with a group of REA managers at Sidney, Nebr. They


were concerned with the new power criteria directive which had been · issued August 18, 1953, by the Under Secretary of the Interior Department. This was followed by several meetings between the REA's, the Department of the Interior, and Members of Congress.

In my opinion, the REA's and preference customers had every reason to be concerned about the first interpretation of the new power criteria. The criteria were vague, inconsistent, and lacked a clear understanding or explanation from the Department of Interior.

As chairman of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, I scheduled 3 days of hearings on this matter. The REA's from a half dozen States were represented. Many questions were asked by them and answered. The testimony of these hearings is now available to interested groups.

Let me suggest that with the change of the administration a year ago that there are a number of individuals lacking official endorsement to speak for either of the major political parties who have been making a political football out of the REA. The REA in the past has had both Republican and Democratic support in Congress. It has cut across political lines with strong support. Several of these self-appointed spokesmen were disgruntled former employees of past administrations. Indeed, the attorney who was appointed to represent a large group of REA's was an individual who was released from the REA at the national level. It is unfortunate that these self-appointed spokesmen have tried to drive a wedge between Members of Congress, this administration, and the good work being carried on by the REA cooperatives.

Coming to the desks of Coneressmen has been a great deal of propaganda which made the farmers believe they were being sold down the river. Rumors were set afoot that interest rates were to be raised. Any thinking person knows that these rates were set by Congress. Propaganda said that the public-power policies of the Congress would be scuttled. It was said that the Rural Electrification Administration was going to sell the cooperatives to private power companies. Letters went to REA's carrying misinformation, half-truths, and insinuations that the REA's were to be hurt. Rumors are still repeated that the REA's must contract and pay for power not needed for several years.

These unfounded rumors and statements spread confusion and misunderstanding among the REA cooperatives. It seemed to be a plan and a pattern followed by those who wanted to hurt the administration. In my opinion, the production of electric power should be strictly an economic problem. Those who would make it a political issue do a dis-service to the REA's. .

I do know that the good REA directors in Nebraska and other States were not taken in by the groundless rumors and half-truths which came through this New Deal lobby in Washington.

The Department of the Interior was represented before the committee of which I am chairman. They were asked a great many questions which had been

presented by REA groups. When you examine the hearings you will find that the question of a short-term contract was frequently explored. Mr. Aandahl's answer was always to the effect that shortterm contracts would be so drawn that the power would be available to preference customers when they needed that power.

In its revision of article 7 of the Missouri Basin Power Marketing Criteria, dated December 11,1953, the Department of the Interior has given greater recognition to the rights of the preference customers by declaring:

That power not already under contract and not needed until a later time by preference customers will be reserved for them as a class by selling 1t under short-term interim contracts under which it can be recaptured for the preference customers at the termination of such contract.

It should be noted that the January 1, 1954, deadline has been so modified that REA cooperatives should no longer suffer a loss because they are permitted to adjust their future requirements after January 1, 1954. The Interior Department will review carefully all requests for future power and no contracts will be let which, on the face of them, would seem to indicate that the REA might be penalized for asking for more power than they can use at the present time.

In the case of the four power groups in Wyoming and Colorado who now get electric energy from the Reclamation Bureau, Mr. Aandahl said that there were 53,000 kilowatts under contract in the western division with nonpreference customers and to the best of my knowledge, all of the contracts have a withdrawal clause in them. I asked the question:

They have a withdrawal clause In them so that the power would be available on application of preference customers for power within a reasonable time?

Mr. Aandahl replied: If preference customers made application

then it would be up to the Department or the Bureau of Reclamation to make an administrative decision as to whether or not they would withdraw the power and there is a 30-month notice required in the meantime.

Mr. Aandahl stated without qualification that there would be no penalty clause on the REA's. In other words, the estimates of January 1 can be changed by the REA's at any time.

All evidence points to the fact that in the western Nebraska and WyomingColorado division that there will be a shortage of power. A shortage even though nonpreference customers in 2 to 5 years give up the 53,000 kilowatts they are now using.

In the power-hungry Missouri Basin, applications have been received from preference customers for 523,000 kilowatts. An additional 224,000 kilowatts are sought by nonpreference private utilities. There will only be 325,000 kilowatts of new and uncommitted power available for sale through 1956. In the western divisions of Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska a similar condition exists. It may take the wisdom of a Solomon to divide up the available power. There are those who complain that the

Department will commit large blocks of power to nonpreference customers on a long-term basis with no withdrawal clause. This has been the policy of past administrations. Some of these contracts still have from 5 to 16 years to run. The committee has been assured that no contracts will be made on such a basis.

It is quite obvious from the testimony of the witnesses that there exists some very serious misunderstandings on the part of the many people as to the interpretation of the Federal laws on the distribution of power. It seems also that there are some profound differences as to the proper role the Government should play in the economy of the electric industry. There are those who would insist that the Federal Government be responsible for producing and transmitting all of the power produced. There are others to the extreme right who would like to eliminate all of the socialistic ideas and let free enterprise handle the production and distribution of all electrical energy.

The testimony shows that there are 13 longtime contracts made by the Bureau of Reclamation prior to 1953 which have no withdrawal clause. There is one 30-year contract in the Southwest Power Administration with an industry which has no withdrawal clause. There are 19 industrial contracts running for many years in the Bonneville Power Administration which have no withdrawal clause. In one instance, a previous administration entered into contracts for a 20-year period for more than 1 million kilowatts of firm power produced at public expense but which was sold to private utilities with no withdrawal clause whatever. Why were the very people who now protest so much on the power criteria so strangely silent then?

It was unfortunate that the power policy statement of August 18, 1953, was developed and announced without consultation with the representatives of the REA's and Congress. This new policy would seem to represent a sharp departure from established policies which, under the first interpretation, could mean a financial loss to REA co-ops. This has since been modified and interpreted so that no loss or penalty will be made against the REA's.

The REA's and your State organization should be interested in securing an adequate wholesale electric source of power at as reasonable rates as possible. Nebraska is entirely a public power State. In the State there have been differences between the REA's, the municipalities, the hydras, and the consumers. Public power has somewhat of a monopoly in tlie State. These groups should work together for the best interests of all concerned. I have long felt there should be one public power agency in Nebraska to represent all of the people. If this is not done, there will always be conflicts between the semipublic agencies.

All of us know that the cost of generating electricity, and all the details that go into its production, and distribution have -increased costs. It has been necessary for the managers and the directors of REA cooperatives to adjust rates in order to meet payments on past loans or to borrow money for further de-

1954 CONGRESSIO~AL RECORD -HOUSE 1295 velopment of their projects. Few REA's are delinquent, good business management prevails.

It is quite evident that many people fail to distinguish between Federal power and public power. Throughout the country there are hundreds of examples of successful power operations, both generation, transmission, and distribution. They were constructed by the States, public agencies, municipalities and REA cooperatives. The Federal Government and the Department of the Interior had nothing to do with their construction or operation. These non-Federal power agencies are splendidly run and have good credit. In fact, most of the power received by REA's comes from private development of electrical power. The records indicate 58 percent comes from that source.

The growth in the consumption in electric energy has been phenomenal. In 1924 it was 455 kilowatt-hours per person. In 1951 it was 2,888 kilowatthours per person. It is steadily rising.

In 1936 10 percent of the farms in the United States had electricity. Under the REA development, electricity in 1950 was available to about 90 percent of the rural districts and farms. The growth has not been stopped.

The Federal Government produces little more than 13 percent of the electrical energy produced in America. And even though all of the additional hydroelectric power which could possibly be developed in the next 15 years would be developed, the percentage would change very little because of demands of the American people for electricity. There can hardly then be a monopoly of public power by any group. It would take at least 50 percent or more of the control of power to produce a monopoly.

It seems to me that the differences of opinion on the power criteria actually boil down to a difference in the philosophy of government. The one philosophy is that the Department of Interior is under obligation to take care of the g!·owing needs of the rural system for all time to come. The philosophy is one of placing the Federal Government in the business of supplying electric energy to certain classes of customers.

This philosophy would require the Federal Government to invest billions of dollars which would mean a tremendous Federal payroll engaged in the management of these enterprises. The philosophy would commit the Congress to make unlimited appropriations in building public electric generating plants. It would mean federalizing the electric industry.

The opposite view is that of looking at the cooperatives and other agencies as individual enterprises which should look after their own needs at the local level. I can find no place in the law which would require the Bureau of Reclamation or any power agency to engage in the power business as such. The reclamation law requires that electric energy, which is secondary, should be used to assist irrigation projects in their repayment plans. Congress has never authorized the Federal Government to take

care of the needs of the people for electrical energy.

Again, I would point out that a score or more of long-term contracts were let under previous administrations without any withdrawal clause for preference customers. One contract of over a million kilowatts was let at a firm power base and with no withdrawal clause. I have often asked myself the question, "Why did not the very people who are screaming so loudly now about the contracts which are proposed do some screaming under previous administration?"

Statement on St. Lawrence Seaway, by Hon. James C. Auchincloss, of New Jersey


HON. JAI\1ES C. AUCHINCLOSS OF NEW JERSEY



Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Speaker, at the meeting today of the Public Works Committee, prior to the vote taken on reporting the measure on the St. Lawrence seaway project (S. 2150) out of committee, I made a statement to the committee explaining my position on this legislation, which reads as follows:

When I first came to Congress and studied the St. Lawrence seaway project about 12 years ago, I gained the immediate impression that it involved the expenditure of vast sums of money with very little likelihood that the investment made by th~ United States would be worthwhile or would ever be repaid. In addition, it appeared that it would seriously affect the business of the ports along the eastern seaboard as well as the Nation's transportation system generally. Hundreds of thousands of our citizens have their savings invested in railroads in our country, and their fears about the effect of this proposal on their investments have never been adequately answered by the proponents of this measure. Furthermore, the whole proposition was complicated not only by the engineering and shipping problems involved, but also by the construction of dams to create electrical energy to be distributed in the United States and Canada. In spite of the support given this proposal by various Presidents of the United States, as well as the Army engineers, and the exhaustive hearings which were held, it was consistently rejected by the appropriate committees of both Houses of Congress. It is easily understandable why those Members of Congress who represent the areas in the Great Lakes region, as well as some Members from the Middle West, feel that their communities would be benefited by such an undertaking, but even their arguments never altered the above-mentioned facts. At the same time, those who live elsewhere in the country find it hard to understand how any project of this kind, which would be usable only about 5 months in the year, would be a proper undert aking by our Government at the expense of the American taxpayer.

As the years have gone by this project has been altered materially and today the power development feature has been entirely separated from it and we find that our growing and prosperous neighbor, the Dominion of

Canada, is ready and willing to proceed with the construction of the waterway without our assistance. Under the present circumstances today, it is inevitable that the St. Lawrence seaway will be built by Canada whether we share the expense or not. Because of these various developments the cost of this seaway to the United States has been reduced from hundreds of millions of dollars to something more than a hundred million dollars with the first year's expenditure to be about $10 million. In addition to that, provision has been made for the repayment of such advances through the collection of tolls and there may be a reasonable chance that our Government will be materially reimbursed by such collections. The delay caused by those in opposition to this proposal has produced beneficial results.

There are some features, however, still remaining in this project which may be termed questionable as far as the advantages to the United States are concerned. Tbe first is whether a 27-foot channel wm be adequate for American built and operated ships. The testimony before the Committee on Public Works is to the contrary and, therefore, it is evident that if American vessels are to make use of this seaway its depth will eventually have to be increased to at least 30 feet and, of course, such an operation is expensive. Second, if oceangoing vessels with 26-foot draft are to operate in the Great Lakes and in the American harbors therein, a large dredging operation will have to be undertaken to provide for such accommodation. While no detailed esti· mates are available, nevertheless it has been suggested by competent authority that the cost of such dredging operations in 17 American ports uill be well over $100 million. If this project is to be completed which will bring about the necessity for this dredging operation, fair play would dictate that by far the greater part of its cost should be borne by the States and communities benefiting thereby. Such an expense in all justice should not be allocated to the other States of the Union which receive no benefit and, inded, might suffer from the construction of the seaway.

As I have already stated, there is no question but that the seaway will be built by Canada with or without our cooperation, and there is every reason for Canada to build it. Canada's budget is in balance, her taxes have been reduced, she is enjoying a great industrial expansion; and so why should debtridden Uncle Sam, laden down with burdensome taxes, undertake any new obligations he does not have to? Furthermore, under the treaty made with Canada in 1909, the interest of the United States is protected including the imposition and collection of tolls whether we participate or not. Under these circumstances it is difficult to understand the decision made by this administration to spend any money of the American taxpayers for this project, even if the expectations are realized that the tolls collected will pay for the whole operation.

In spite of all this, the proposition bas been changed materially and, in addition, there may be something in the argument that because of our intimate relations with the Dominion of Canada, because of the years of close cooperation and friendship between the two countries and the desirability that this friendship continue, it is wise for both nations to be jointly committed to a project involving as it does our international boundary. Because of the considered decision of President Eisenhower and his administration to support this undertaking I believe it is desirable that the proposal should be considered by the House and there· fore I will vote in favor of reporting this bill out of committee, at the same time reserving entire freedom of action when it is debated in the House.

1954 congressional record- senate - Congress.gov

Documents