5528 May 25 - GovInfo

5528 C~NGRESSIONAL RECO)l~ ·-:-HOUSE ( --~

May 25

amendment (Rept. No. 452). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. BISHOP: Joint. Committee on the Disposition of Executive Papers. House Report No. 454. Report on the disposition of certain papers of sundry executive departments. Ordered to be printed.

Mr. BISHOP: Joint Committee on the Dis.:. position of Executive Papers. House Report No. 455:" Report on the disposition of certain papers of sundry executive departments. Ordered to be printed.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

~Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of comnlittees. were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows~ ·

Mr. DONDERO: Committee on Public Works. H. R. 5349. A bill authorjzing the United States Government to reconvey certain lands to W. C. Pallmeyer and E. M. Cole; without amendment (Rept. No. 453). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 4 of rule XXII, .pursuant

to the order of the House of May 22, 1953, the following bill was introduced on May 23, 1953:

By Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin: H. R. 5376. A bill making appropriations

for civil functions administered by the Department of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Appropriations.

[Introduced and referred May 25, 1953]

Under clause 4 of rule XXII, public bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows:

By Mr. DONDERO: H. R. 5377. A bill to rescind the authori

zation for construction of Libby Dam project, Mont.; to the Committee on Public Works.

By Mr.-FISHER: H. R. 5378. A bill to amend section 124 of

title 28 of the United States Code; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. GROSS: H. R. 5379. A bill to authorize the print

ing and mailing of periodical publications of certain societies and institutions at places other than places fixed as the offices of publication; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. MACK of Washington: H. R. 5380. A bill to extend pension bene

fits under the laws reenacted by Public Law 269, 74th Congress, August 13, 1935, as now or hereafter amended, to certain persons who served with the United States military or naval forces engaged in hostilities in the Moro Province, including Mindanao, or in the islands of Samar and Leyte, after July 4, 1902, and prior to January 1, 1914, and to their unremarried widows, child, or children; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

By Mr. SAYLOR: H. R. 5381. A bill to provide a government

for the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interior and Insular A1fairs.

By Mr. SIMPSON of Pennsylvania: H. R. 5382. A bill to amend the Internal

Revenue Code with respect to deductions from gross income of amounts contributed to profit-sharing trusts; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. KILDAY:· H. Con. Res. 100. Concurrent resolution

expressing the sense of the Congress that the 7th day of March of each year be known and designated in the several Sta.tes as Friendship Day; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

MEMORIALS Under clause 3 of rule XXII, memorials

were presented a~d- referred as follows: By the SPEAKER: Memorial of the Legis

lature of the State of Alabama, memorializing the President and the Congress of the United States to leave local control and direction of the internal affairs of the Tennessee Valley Authority to the Board of Directors of the Authority; to . the Committee on Public Works.

Also, memorial of the Legislature of the State of California, memorializing the President and the Congress of the United States relative to renegotiation of contracts between the United States and public agencies for water supply from the Central Valley project of California; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

Also, memorial of the Legislature of the State of California, memorializing the President and the Congress of the United States in relation to the enactment of Federal dangerous drug controls; to the . Committee on Ways and Means.

Also, memorial of the Legislature of the State of Florida, memorializing the Pre'sident and the Congress of the United States to provide for the necessary Federal aid to maintain the central and southern Florida flood-control project; to the Committee on Public Works.

Also, memorial of the Legislature of the State of Illinois, memorializing the President and the Congress of the United States relative to the preliminary report of the Illinois-Mississippi Canal Sinnissippi Lake Commission, and Senate joint resolution relating thereto; to the Committee on Public Works.

Also, memorial of the Legislature of the State of Nebraska, memorializing the .President and the Congress of the United States to transfer all the buildings and land of the Fort Robinson Military Reservation to the State of Nebraska for the use of its agencies for agricultural study and experiment, etc.; to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, memorial of the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii, memorializing the President and the Congress of-, the United States to include rice and taro grown in the Territory under the Federal agricultural pricesupport program; to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, memorial of the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii, memoria~izing the President and the Congress of the United States to authorize the Commissioner of Public Lands to exchange certain public lands for private lands of equal value required by the city and county of Honolulu for school purposes; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

Also, memorial of the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii, memorializing the President and the Congress of the United States to enact legislation providing for new post office buildings in the county of Kauai; to the Committee on Public Works.

Also, memorial of the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii, memorializing the President and the Congress of the United States to amend the Federal Internal Revenue Code to permit sugar planters to spread 'income attributable to their industry over a period of several years; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

PRIVAl'E BILLS. AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause .1 of rule XXII, private bills and resolutions were introduced and severally_ referred as follows:

By Mr. AYRES: H. R. 5383. A bill for the relief of Guiseppe

Merlini; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 5384. A bill for the relief of Benjamin

Oren; to the Commit1iee on the Judiciary. By Mr. CA~:

H. R. 5385. A bill for the relief of Noble Jordan; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. CONDON: H. R. 5386. A bill for the relief of Mary D.

Rauch; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. DONOVAN:

H, R. 5387. A bill for the relief of Albert Lest; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HELLER (by request): H. R. 5388. A bill for the relief of Richard

Steinmetz; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mrs. KEE: H. R. 5389. A bill for the relief of Mrs.

.Margarita Cordero Bolin; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. O'HARA of Illinois: H. R. 5390. A bill for the relief of Edward

Lawrence Lynch; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. OSTERTAG: H. R. 5391. A bill for the relief of Carmella

Bianchi; to the Committ·ee on the Judiciary. By Mr. POULSON:

H. R. 5392. A bill for the relief of George Serailian; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mrs. ST. GEORGE: H. R. 5393. A bill providing for the exten

sion of Patent No. 2,047,615, issued July 14, 1936, relating to balanced valves; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. SCOTT: H. R. 5394. A bill for the relief of Fritz

Hans Engelmann; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

PETITIONS, ETC. Under clause 1 of rule XXII, petitions

and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk and referreq as follows:

282. Petition by the SPEAKER: Petition of the president, American Industrial Arts .Association, Oswego, N. Y., relative to a resolution adopted by the American Industrial Arts Association at Detroit, Mich., on May 2, 1953, calling for the restoration of the appropriations which are absolutely essential to make the United States Office of Edueation an effective agency for the discharge of its very important duties; to the Committee on Appropriations.

283. Also, petition of the National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, Washington, D. C., relative to endorsing the principles of Senate Joint Resolution 1, known as the Bricker resolution, which provides a treaty or executive agreement shall

· become effective as internal law in the United States only through the enactment of appropriate legislation by the Congress; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

284. Also, petition of Thomas Costello and 1,278 others, Brooklyn, N. Y., requesting the enactment of· H. R. 4308, providing for a special canceling stamp bearing the· words "In God We Trust"; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

285. Also, petition of Mrs. Florence Lopes, Ladies Auxiliary of the Andrew King Post Veterans ·of Foreign Wars, Wailuku, Maul, T. H., relative to recording their vigorous protest against the reduction of the appropriations to be made by the Congress of the United States to the Veterans' Administration, so that the health and welfare of our veterans may be properly safeguarded; to the Committee on Appropriations.

1953 CONGRESSIONAL ;RECORD- SENATE 5529

SENATE TuESDAY, MAY 26, 1953

<Legislative day of Thursday, May 21, 1953>

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

Dr. W. C. Fields, pastor, First Baptist Church, Yazoo City, Miss., offered the following prayer:

Eternal God, our Heavenly Father, our hearts are still and quiet for a moment before Thee-quiet in solemn acknowledgement of Thy sovereignty, quiet in full awareness of the presence of the thrice holy God.

Grant to Thy servants who wait before Thee here today a deep sense of humility and a continuing attitude of dependence upon divine leadership and power.

In the alternating currents and the changing patterns of this our time, this golden age of opportunity, give to all of us stability of mind, clarity of purpose, and courage for our convictions. ·

May the Divine Spirit so direct our lives this day that in the things we do and say, and by the very meditations of our hearts, we may conduct ourselves as good citizens of our country and the kingdom of God.

In Christ's name we pray. Amen.

THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. KNOWLAND, and by

unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Monday, May 25, 1953, was dispensed with.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT Mesgages in writing from the Presi

dent of the United States submitting nominations 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. Chaffee, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed the biil <S. 1324) to authorize the Commissioners of the District· of Columbia to fix certain licensing and registration fees, with an amendment, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate.

The message also announced that the House had agreed to the amendment of the Senate to each of the following bills of the House:

H. R. 1242. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, or his authorized representative, to convey certain school properties to local school districts or public agencies; and

H. R. 1244. An act to amend section 13 of the act entitled "An act to provide for the allotment of lands of the Crow Tribe, for the distribution of tribal funds, and for other purposes.''

The message further announced that · the House had passed the following bills,

fu which it requested the concurrence of the Senate: ·

H. R. 2969. An act to authorize the Commissioners of the District ·of Columbia to sell certain property in Prince Georges County, Md., acquired as a site for the National Training School for Girls;

H . R. 3087. An act to authorize the Board of Commissioners of t ·he District of Columbia to permit certain improvements to two business properties situated in the District of Columbia;

H. R. 3796. An act relating to the incorporation of the Columbus University of Washington, D. C.;

H. R. 4229. An act to change the n ame of the Polycultural Institution of America to Polycultural University of America, to grant a congressional charter to such university, and for other purposes;

H. R . 4484. An act to amend section 365 of the act entitled "An act to establish a code of laws for the District of Columbia," approved March 3, 1901, as amended, to increase the maximum sum allowable by the court out of assets of a decedent's estate for funeral expenses;

H. R. 4485. An act to amend the law of the District of Columbia relating to publication of partnerships;

H. R. 4486. An act to amend the law of the District of Columbia relating to forcible entry and detainer; ·

H. R. 4487. An act to amend the act entitled "An act to establish a code of law for the District of Columbia," approved March 3, 1901, as further amended by an act of April 19, 1920 (title 20, ch. 1, sec. 116, D. C. Code, 1951), relating to continuing decedent's busfne~s;

H. R. 4550. An act to amend the Code of Laws of the District of Columbia in respect to the recording, in the Office of the R ecorder of Deeds, of bills of sale, mortgages, deeds of trust, and conditional sales of personal pl'operty; and

H . R. 4940. An act to provide for the redemption of District-of Columbia tax stamps.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED The message also ·announced that the

Speaker had affixed his signature to the following enrolled bills, and they were signed by the President pro tempore:


H. R. 1244. An act to amend section 13 of the act entitled "An act to provide for the allotment of lands of the Crow Tribe, for the distribution of tribal funds, and for other purposes."

LEAVES OF ABSENCE Mr. CLEMENTS. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Senator from Montana [Mr. MURRAY] may be excused from attendance on the sessions of the Senate beginning today .and through June 23, in order that he may attend the forthcoming International Labor Organization Conference at Geneva, Switzerland, to which he has been appointed a delegate.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, leave is granted.

On his own request, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 'I'HYE was excused from attendance on the sessions of the Senate after today, for the remainder of the week.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS DURING SENATE SESSION

Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Internal Security of the Committee on the Judiciary may be permitted to meet this afternoon and every afternoon up to and including June 15, during the sessions of the Senate. I may say that the subcommittee has a number of witnesses scheduled and is working hard to conclude its hearings by that time, but certainly we will be subject to the call of the Chair at any time important business requires our attendance in the Senate.

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

On request of Mr. HENDRICKSON, and by unanimous consent, the Subcommit-

. tee on Immigration of the Committee on the Judiciary was authorized· to meet this afternoon during the session of the Senate.

On request of Mr. KNOWLAND, and by unanimous consent, a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations was authorized to meet this afternoon during the session of the Senate.

On request of Mr. THYE, and by unanimous consent, the Labor and Federal Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations was authorized to meet this afternoon during the session of the Senate.

On request of Mr. BENNETT, and by unanimous consent, the Committee on Banking and Currency was authorized to meet during the session of the Senate today. · ·

·:~ ~- --------EXEMPTION FROM ANNUAL AND

SICK LEAVE ACT OF CERTAIN OFFICERS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The

Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business, which is H. R. 4654, a bill to provide for the exemption from the Annual and Sick Leave Act of 1951 of certain officers in the executive branch of the Government, and for other purposes.

ORDER FOR TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr . .President, I am about to suggest the absence of a qourum. However, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the quorum call Senators may be permitted to make insertions in the RECORD, introduce bills and joint resqlutions, and transact other routine business, any speeches, under the rule, not to exceed 2 minutes.


CALL OF THE ROLL M~ KNOWLAND. I suggest the . ab·

sence of a quorum. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The

clerk will call the roll.

5530 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE May 26

The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Anderson Beall Bennett Bricker Bridges Bush Butler, .Md. Byrd Capehart Carlson Chavez Clements Cooper Cordon Daniel Dirksen Douglas Duff Dworshak Eastland Ellender Ferguson Flanders Frear Fulbright 9eorge

Gillette Gore Green Hayden Hendrickson Hickenlooper Hill Hoey Holland Bumphrey

, Hunt Jackson Jenner Johnson, Colo. Johnson, Tex. Johnston, S.c. Kennedy Kerr Kilgore Knowland Kuchel Lehman Long Malone Mansfield Martin May bank

McCarthy McClellan Millikin Mundt Neely Pastore Payne Purtell Robertson Russell Sal tons tall Schoeppel Smathers Smith, Maine Smith, N.J. Smith, N.C. Sparkman Stennis Symington Thye Tobey· Watkins Welker Wiley Williams Young

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming rMr. BARRETT], the Senator from Arizona IMr. GoLDWATER], and the Senator from Michigan rMr. PoTTER] are absent by leave of the Senate.

The Senator from New York IMr. IvEsl is absent by leave of the Senate, having been appointed a delegate to attend the International Labor Organization Conference at Geneva, Switzerland.

The Senator from Nebra.Ska IMr. BuTLER], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. GRISWOLD], the Senator from North Dakota I Mr. LANGER], the Senator from Ohio IMr. TAFT], the Senator from South Dakota IMr. CASE], and the Senator from Oregon IMr. MoR~E] are necessarily absent.

Mr. CLEMENTS. I announce that the Senator from Missouri IMr. HENNINGS] and the Senator from Washington IMr. MAGNUSON] are absent by leave of the Senate on official committee business.

The Senator from Tennessee IMr. KEFAUVER], the. Senator from Nevada [Mr. McCARRANJ, and the Senator from Oklahoma IMr. MoNRONEY] are absent by leave of the Senate on official business.

The Senator from Montana IMr. MURRAY] is absent by leave .of the Senate, having been appointed a delegate to attend the forthcoming International Labor Orgapization Conf,erenee at Geneva, Switzerland.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. _ A quorum is present.

REPORT ON ADVANCE PLANNING PROGRAM

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a letter from the Administrator, Housing and Home Finance Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the fourteenth quarterly report on the administration of the advance planning program. dated March 31, 1953" ..,hich, wi.th the accompanying report, was referred to the Committee on Public Works.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS Petitions, etc., were laid before :the

Senate, and referred as indicated: By the PRESIDENT pro tempore:

A joint resolution of the Legislature of the State of California; to the Committee on Interior and Insular A1fairs:

"Senate Joint Resolution 85 "Joint resolution relative to renegotiation of

contracts between the United States and public agencies for water supply from the Central Valley project of California "Whereas the United States has entered

into numerous contracts with irrigation districts and similar agencies for a. supply of water from the Central Valley project, which contracts provide for payments to be made upon construction costs of the project and, in some instances, upon construction costs of local distribution systems; and

"Whereas these oontracts have been entered into pursuant to section 9 (e) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939; and

"Whereas the Sup:reme Court of Wyoming has held provisions of the so-called '9 (e) • contracts invalid; and

"Whereas in at least two instances, superior courts of California, in considering the matter of the validity of such contracts, have held them invalid in several particulars; namely, the provisions of such contracts which deal with the matters of water rights, credit for payments made upon such contracts, and limitations as to the use of water; and

"Whereas in some instances irrigation districts have secured validation of some of such contracts by default, and are now confronted with the problem of being forced to carry out contracts which as to other districts )lave been declared invalid; and

"Whereas litigation concerning such contracts might extend over a long period of time, causing great uncertainty as to the rights and powers of irrigation districts and similar public agencies with respect to the Central Valley project of California; and

"Whereas the form of contracts used in connection with the Central Valley project of California should be in accord with the requirements of the laws of the State of California and the United States and should not contain features which have been held invalid: Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of California (jointly), That the Secretary of Interior of the United States be requested to renegotiate the existing contracts to provide a more acceptable contract and one that can be uniformly used within the Central Valley project of California and which will avoid the invalid and ob]ectionable features of the existing contracts; . and be it further

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate is directed to transmit a ·copy of this resolution to the President of the United States, to the President of the United States Senate, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to the Secretary of Interior of the United States, and to each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States."

A joint resolution of the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii; to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry: "Joint resolution requesting the Congress o!

the United States to include rice and taro grown in the Territory under the Federal agricultural price support program "Whereas the products of taro and rice

constitute the staple diet of a maJority of the people of the Territory; and

"Whereas the Territory 1s ]>resently dependent upon . outside source,s_ for almost all of the rice consumed in the Territory; and

"Whereas the people of the Territory have from time to time suffered from a shortage · in the supply of rice a.nd from high prices resulting therefrom; and

"Whereas the g~ographical position of the Territory makes . it essential to. produce loclally as much of such staples as possible; and

"Whereas it is the consensus of the legislature that the continued deterioration of the taro and rice industries in the Territory and the continued d~crease in supply of the products of such industries is inimical to the public interest, and that in the interest of and for the welfare of the people of the Territory it is necessary to rehabilitate and to encourage the development of these basic agricultural industries; and · "Whereas the Congress has passed numerous legislative measures assisting farmers to obtain parity prices for basic agricultural commodities: Now, therefore

"Be it enacted by the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii:

"SECTioN 1. That the Congress of the United States of America be, and it is hereby respectfully requested to enact legislation authorizing and ~irecting the Secretary of Agriculture to include rice and taro grown in the Territory of Hawaii among the basic agricultural commodities which are unde~ the provisions. of price support programs administered by the Commodity Credit Corporation of the Department of Agriculture.

"SEC. 2. That authenticated copies of this resolution be forwarded forthwith to tbe President of the United States, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress, to the Secretary of the Interior, and to the Delegate to Congress from Hawaii.

"Approved this 20th day of May A. D. 1953. "SAMUEL WILDER KING,

"Governor of the TerritCYry of Hawaii." A joint resolution of the Legislature o1

the Territory of Hawaii; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs:· "Joint resolution requesting Congress of the

United States to authorize the commissioner of public lands to exchange certain public lands for ...private lands of equal value required by the city and county of Honolulu for 'School purposes "Whereas certain privately owned l~nds are

required by the city and county of Honolulu for school sites; and . "Whereas other lands of equal value. o;wned by tbe Territory, are available for exchanges with the owners of such privately owned lands; and

"Whereas in order to effect such exchanges the limitations imposed by section 73 (1) of the Hawaiian Organic Act sbould be waived: Now. therefore,

"Be it enMted- by the Legis~ature of the Terrirory oj Hawaii: ·

"SEcTION 1. That the Congress of the United States be, and it hereby is, respectfully requested to authorize the Commissioner of Public L-ands of the Territory of Hawaii to make certain exchanges of public lands without regard to acreage and value limitations for the purpose of acquiring privately owned land needed as public-school sites; and to that end the Congress of the United States 1s requested and urged to adopt a. bill substantially in the following form, to wit: ;, 'A bill to authorize the commissioner of

public lands of the Territory of Hawaii to exchange c~rtain public lands for private lands of equal value required for .school purposes "''Be it enacted, etc.: •• 'SEcTioN 1. Any limitations lm.posed by

section 73 ( 1) of the Hawaiian Organic Act (31 Stat. 141), to the contrary notwithstand

-ing. the commissioner of publi~ lands, With the approval of the Go.vernor and two-thirds

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE 5531 of the members of the board of publ-ic lands, is authorized to exchange public lands for private lands of equal value required by the city and county of Honolulu as school sites for the Kahala Elementary School, Waialae High School, and Koko Head Elementary School on the island of Oahu.

"'SEC. 2. The lands received in the ex.:. change authorized by section 1 shall, except as otherwise provided, have the same status and be subject to the same laws as the lands given in the exchange.

"'SEC. 3. This act shall take effect upon its approval.'

"SEc. 2. That certified copies of this joint resolution shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, to the Secretary of the Interior, and to the Delegate to Congress from Hawaii.

"SEc. 3. This joint resolution shall take effect upon its approval.

"Approved this 19th day of May A. D. 1953. "SAMUEL WILDER KING,

6'Governor of the Territory of Hawaii." A resolution adopted at a convention of

district 402 of Lions International, at Hoberg's, Lake County, Calif., relating to an in· vestigation of water conservation and transportation for the San Francisco Bay area, California; to the Committee on Public Works.

A letter in the nature of a memorial from the Hopi Indian Sovereign Nation, Hoteville, Ariz., signed by George Naseweseuma, and sundry other Hopi Indians, remonstrating against the drafting of Hopi Icdians into the Armed Forces because of their religious beliefs (with an accompanying paper); to the Committee on Armed Services.

AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION RELATING TO AUTHORITY OF TREATIES-RESOLUTION OF NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, THE AMERICAN LEGION Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, I pre-

-sent for appropriate reference and ask unanimous consent to have prinj;ed in the RECORD a resolution adopted by the national executive committee ·of the American Legion at Indianapolis, Ind., relating to Senate Joint Resolution 1, proposing an amendment of the Constitution regarding authority of treaties.

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

RESOLUTION 70 AMEND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION REGARDING

AUTHORITY OF TREATIES Whereas subsection I of article VI of the

Constitutioh provides that all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, binding on the judges in every State, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwit_hstanding; and

Whereas subsection II of article II of the Constitution provides . that the President . shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of Senators present concur; and

Whereas the Senate by a vote of one Senator, in· the absence of a point of order as to lack of a quorum, might ratify a treaty; and

Whereas Senate Joint Resolution 1, by Senator BRICKER, of Ohio, and 63 of his colleagues, and Senate Joint Resolution 43, sponsored . by the American Bar Association. would, 1! reconciled as to language and ap·

proved by the Congress, give the American people opportunity to consider fully the possible operation, effect, and implications of the treatymaking powers, and, if approved by the people as by the Constitution required, would afford protection of present and existing rights of the people and the States under the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the national executive committee of the American Legion, in meeting at Indianapolis, Ind., April 30, 1953, reaffirms the principles of Resolution 426, adopted by the 1951 national convention of the American Legion, and of Resolution 1, adopted by the 1952 national convention of the American Legion, both pertaining to the subject matter of this resolution, and both incorporated in the report of the Special -Committee on Covenant of Human Rights and the United Nations, heretofore approved by this national executive committee, and urges early adoption by the Senate and the House of Representatives of a joint resolution which will embody the principles of our aforesaid national convention resolutions and of said Joint Resolution 1 and Joint Resolution 43, now pending before the Senate of the United States.

Mr. CARLSON obtained the floor. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will

the Senator yield to me for 5 minutes? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The

Senate is proceeding with morning business by unanimous consent, speeches being limited to 2 minutes. The Chair would suggest that morning business be concluded before other · business is transacted.

Mr. CARLSON. I do not wish to have the floor until the morning business is concluded, so I am happy to yield the floor, if I may be recognized later.

BILLS INTRODUCED Bills were introduced, read the first

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

By Mr. CLEMENTS (for Mr.. HEN· NINGS):

S. 1~83. A bill for the relief of Joe Lee (Lee Jaw); to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HOEY: S. 1984. A bill for the relief of Mable Jerni

gan Bell; and S. 1985. A bill for the relief of Ida Peggy

Vernell; to the Committee on Finance. S. 1986. A bill for the relief of Lou '"For

rest Sitte.rson and Melody Yvonne Sitterson; S. 1987. A bill for the · relief of Edmond

Kaiser Zahka; and s. 1988. A bill for the relief of Linda Ann

Ramsey; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. PURTELL:

S. 1989. A bill for the relief of Paul Kusmanoff; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. YOUNG: S. 1990. A bill to strengthen the invest!

. gation and enforcement provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act; to the Commit· tee on Agriculture and Forestry.

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

By Mr. THYE: S. 1991. A bill for the relief of Esperanza

Jimenez Trejo; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado: S. 1992. A bill to amend title II of the

Social Security Act to permit all citizens of the United States to receive at least mini· mum old-age and survivors insurance bene· fits; and, for the purposes of computing the primary insurance amount of an individual, such individual shall be deemeu to have an

average monthly wage of at least $100; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. CAPEHART (by request): S. i993. A bill to amend the National

Housing Act, as amended, and the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, as amended, with respect to maximum interest rates, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

By Mr. BEALL (for himself and Mr. BARRETT):

S. 1994. A bill to authorize the care and treatment at facilities of the · Public Health Service of narcotic addicts committed by State bourts and the· United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

INVESTIGATION AND ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS OF COMMOD• ITY EXCHANGE ACT Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I intro

duce for appropriate reference a bill to strengthen the · investigation and enforcement provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act.

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

The bill (S. 1990) to strengthen the investigation and enforcement provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act, introduced by Mr. YOUNG, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the bill for not more than 4 minutes.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will say to the Senator from North Dakota that the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD] had asked unanimous consent to proceed· for 5 minutes, but under the unanimous-consent agreement which had previously been entered into morning business was first to be transacted, and speeches were to be limited to 2 minutes. The Chair therefore feels that until the morning business is concluded the request of the Senator from North Dakota to speak for 4 minutes would be out of order.

Mr. YOUNG. Then, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks a statement which I had intended to make.

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

STATEMENT BY SENATOR YOUNG The bill which l have today introduced has

as its purpose the strengthening of investigation and enforcement provisions of tbe Commodity Exchange Act. This measure, if approved, would strengthen the powers contained i~ the Commodity Exchange Act in two important respects.

First, the bill permits the use of the sub· pena power for purposes of investigation, as well as for purposes of formal proceedings. Such authority is now enjoyed by a number of regulatory agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission. With this authority persons or firms involved in sus· pected manipulative activities, and persons having a knowledge of such activities could be questioned as soon as the signs of possible abuses under the act became evident.

.55~2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE May 26 I · understand there is some uncertainty

stemming from the language of the Commodity Exchange Act as to whether the subpena power shall be available for inve~tigation, as well as other proceedings, under the act itself. The full and free use of the subpena power in connection with investigations will, in my opinion, immeasurably assist carrying out the intent of Congress as expressed in the basic act.

The second important provision of this measure is one which would permit the use of a permanent or temporary injunction to prevent violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, upon a showing that a person has engaged, or is about to engage, in a practice which is considered to be a violation. The purpose of this provision is to provide a summary-type proceeding to prevent violations before they occur. The merit of such action is obvious. It would result in considerable savings in time and expense by the Government. More important still is the fact that means is hereby afforded for expeditous and effective action by the Commodity Exchange Authority.

Presently a case is pending with respect to alleged -violations of the Commodity Exchange Act by Cargill, Inc. This involves the importations of millions of bushels of Canadian oats much to the detriment of our domestic producers.

The Department of Justice has taken the view presently that criminal prosecutions "could not be maintained successfully." However, they are keeping the case open for further appraisal before a final determination is made as to whether criminal prosecutions should be instituted.

The Department of Agriculture, under the Commodity Exchange Act, has authority to

· institute administrative proceedings against Cargill for its alleged violative practices. Of-: ficials of the Department of Agriculture recently ad~tted in testimony before the agricultural subcommittee that they had reason to believe heavy importation ·of Canadian oats was being continued at a loss by Cargill, Inc., and possibly other grain firms. They stated, however, that under the existing law there was little or nothing that the Commodity Exchange Authority could do b~ond what it had already done to halt such practices.

These continuing imports of Canadian oats have already made it virtually certain that for the third consecutive yea~ United States farmers in 1953 will receive less than parity, and possibly even less than the Government price-support level for their oats. It is abundantly clear that the present act is not adequate to deal with & problem such as this. Therefore, 1 hope and feel certain that Congress will approve the measure which I have introduced today which would extend the authority of the Department to deal quickly and effectively with these serious violations.

PRINTING OF UNITED STATES WALL MAPS

Mr. JENNER submitted the following concurrent resolution (S. Co-n. Res. 30) , which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration:

ResoZved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That there be printed 30,051 copies of a United States wall map, size 5 by 7 feet, of which 99 copies, mounted and backed, and '1,425 copies, not mounted or backed, shall be for the use .of the Senate; and 441 copies. mounted and backed, and 22,050 copies, not mounted or backed, shall be for the use of th:e .How;e o! Representatives.

INCREASE IN LIMIT OF EXPENDITURES FOR SELECT COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS Mr. THYE submitted the following

Tesolution (S. Res. 115), which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration:

Resolved, That the Select Committee on Small Business is authorized to expend from the .contingent fund of the Senate the sum of $50.000 for the purpose of discharging ob!ligations incurred by it prior to June 30, 1954, in carrying out the duties imposed upon it by Senate Resolution 58, Eighty-first Congress. Such sum shall be in addition to any other moneys available to the committee for such purpose. and shall be disbursed upon vouchers approved by the chairman.

INQUIRY INTO INVESTIGATIONS OF POSTMASTERS BY THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina

(for himself, Mr. PASTORE, Mr. SYMINGTON, Mr. SPARKMAN, Mr. HUMPHREY, and Mr. MoNRONEY) submitted the following resolution (S. Res. 116). which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service:

Resolved, That a subcommittee of the· Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to consist of five members of such committee, three from the majority and two from the minority, to be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee, is authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete investigation with respect to the activities of the Bureau of the Chief Post Office Inspector of the Post Office Department for the purpose of ascertaining (1) whether unwarranted investigations of postmasters are being made by such Bureau, (2) whether improper methods are being employed in any such investigations, and (3) whether any postmasters pave been wrongfully removed from omce as a result of any such investigations.

SEc. 2. The subcommittee shall report to the Senate at the earliest practicable date the results of its investigation together with such recommendations as it may deem desirable.

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED The following bills were severally read

twice by their titles, and referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia:

H. R. 2969. An act to authorize .the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to sell certain property in Prince Georges County, Md., acquired as a site for the National Training School for GirlS;

H. R. 3087. An act to authorize the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia to permit certain improvements to two business properties situated in the District of Columbia;

H. R. 3796. An act relating to the incorporation of the Columbus University of Washington, District of Columbi-a;

H. R. 4229. An· act to change the name of the Polycultural Institution of America tio . Polycultural University of America, to grant a congressional charter to such university, and for other purposes;

H. R. 4484. An act to amend section 365 of the act entitled "An act to establish <a coqe of laws for the District of Columbia,'' approved March 3, 1901, as amended, to increase the maximum sum allowable by the court out a! assets of a decedent's estate !or funeral expenses;

H. R. 4485. An act to amend the law of the District of Columbia relating to publicati-on -of partnerships;

. H. R. 4486. An act t-o amend the law {)f the District of Columbia relating to forcible entry and detainer;

H. R. 4487. An act to amend the act entitled "An act to establish -a code of law for the District of Columbia,'' approved :M;arch 3, 1901, as further -amended by an act of April 19, 1920 (title 20, ch. 1, sec. 116, D. C. Code, 1951), relating to eontinuing decedent's business;

H . R. 455.0. An act to amend the Code of Laws of the District of Columbia in respect to the recording, in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds, of bills of sale, mortgages, deeds of trust, and conditional sales of personal property; .and

H. R. 4940. An act to provide for the redemption of District of Columbia tax stamps.

ADD::1.ESSES, EDITORIALS, ARTICLES, ETC., PRIN'I'ED IN THE APPENDIX

On request, and by unanimous consent. addresses, editorials, articles, etc., were ordered to be printed in the Appendix, as follows:

By Mr. BUTLER of Maryland: Address entitled "Young Men and Gov

ernment~" delivered by him before the convention of the Maryland Junior Chamber of Commerce on May 23, 1953, in Baltimore, Md.

By Mr. WILEY: Ad-dress entitled "Tile Test of American

.Lea,dershipJ' delivered by him before the American Bar Association on May 21, 1953.

By Mr. FULBRIGHT: Address entitled "Student Exchange Be

tween India and the United States of America" delivered by the Ambassador from India at Syracuse University on April 11 1953. ,

By Mr. CLEMENTS (for Mr. HENNINGS):

Address delivered by Jerome Walsh before Society of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick, at New York City on May 4, 1953.

Article entitled "Present Day Lesson of the Louisiana Purchase,'' written by Clarence K. Streit, and published in Freedom and Union for April 1953.

By Mr. MARTIN: Statement of 10 evidences indicating a

return to the church of its Christian power, from an address by Dr. Edward L. R. Elson, pastor of the National Presbyterian Church of Washington, D. C., at the annual dinner

·of the Men's Union of the Washington (Pa.) Presbytery, at Waynesburg, Pa., last week.

By Mr. MANSFIELD: Article entitled "Reds Have Master Plan

for Middle America,'' written by Edward Tomlinson, and published in the Washing_ton Daily News of May 25, 1953.

By Mr. HILL: Editorial entitled "Human Va~ues as Well

-as Money Saved by Sound Parole System,'' written by Neil 0. Davis, editor ·of the Lee County Bulletin, of Auburn, Ala., and published in the Montgomery Examiner of May 21, 1953.

Article entitled ••President's Power In Foreign Policy," written by Carroll Kilpatrick and published in the Washington Post of May 24, 1953.

By Mr. KENNEDY: Editorials from New England newspapers

regarding the proposed Federal program relating to the New England economy.

· By .Mr. PURTELL: Article entitled "The Story and Life of Dr.

Marcus Whitman." written by Georgene Whitman Ross, of Hartf-ord, Conn.

By Mr. CAPEHART: . Article entitled "Meddling With Railroad

Safety/' from the Railway Age for May 4, 1953.

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5533 Article entitled "Britain's No. 1 Money

Man on His Way to United States," written by Walter Trahan, and published 1n the Chicago Tribune, May 15. 1953.

REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2, 1953, RELATING TO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-LETTER FROM GOVERNOR OF WISCONSIN Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I re

ceived this morning a letter from the Governor of Wisconsin endorsing Reorganization Plan No. 2, providing for streamlining the Department of Agriculture.

The letter points <mt the experiences of my State in cooperation with the USDA in successfully working out vital patterns of Federal-State relationships in the farm field.

I send to the desk Governor K!ohler's letter and ask unanimous consent that it be printed at_this point in the body .of the RECORD.

I should like also to note that I have received a message from Gavin McKenow~ chairman of the Wisconsin Committee for the Hoover Commission

· Reforms, endorsing the reorganization plan, and opposing the resolution which would disapprove that plan.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the REcORD, as follows:

OFFICE OF 'THE GO.VERNOR, Madison, Wis., May 22, 1953.

The Honorable ALEX-A-NDER WILEY, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SEN A'TOR: The proposed reorganiza-

• tion of the Department of Agriculture is a matter of great importance to the State of Wisconsin, and I am writing, therefore, to urge you to oppose the resolution of disapproval of Reorganization plan No. 2 {)f 1953, introduced by Senator RussELL on April. 9.

The experience of our State department o! agriculture indicates that the President's plan will do much to provide maximum quality of public service at minimum expense. The State is now cooperating with the USDA in working out patterns of Federal-State relationships in the field of agriculture. This pilot study is expected to provide the basis for attaining cooperation and coordination of effort, never before realized, at every 1evel of government.

While our working relationships with the USDA have been cordial, experience has shown that a great deal of overlapping ·of functions, duplication of effort, and inconsistent action exists. This reorganization plan, based upon the recommendations of the Hoover Commission, will, we believe, help eliminate wasted effort .and wasted tax funds, and provide a long-needed modernization of the USDA.

For these reasons, I hope you 'Will lend your support to the plan by voting against the resolution of disapproval and by soliciting the support {)f your coUeagues in opposition to the resolution.

With good wishes, Sincerly yours,

WALTER J. KOHLER, Governor ..

NATIONAL MARITIME DAY-PROCLAMATION OF GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD, a proclamation issued by the Governor of the Commonwealth

XCIX-348

of Massachusetts, aesignating Friday, May 22, 1953, as National Maritime Day.

There being no objection, the proclamation was ordered to be printed in the REcORD, as follows:

THE COMMONWEALll'H OF MASSACHUSETTS BY ms EXCELLENCY, CHRISTI!AN A. HERTER,

GOVERNOR-A PROCLAMATION, 1953

Whereas the American merchant marine 1s assisting immeasurably in the strengthening of our Nation and the forces of freedom by performing singularly important services in the :flow of international trade and travel; and

Whereas gainfUl employment ls now enjoyed by thousands of our skilled workers in shipyards, ·waterfront activities, railroad, and truck transportation, endeavors which serve our varied industries both with needed raw commodities and the furnishing of an outlet for manufactured products; and

Whereas Boston has prod,uced under the genius of Donald McKay and others many of the famous American vessels of the past so that this tradition-"sait water is the lifeblood of our welfare. furnishing the nourishment upon which our very survival depends"-is today still carried on by the efficient shipbuilders within the Commonwealth; and

Whereas 'we join the Congress of the United States in honoring the American merchant marine, remembering especially the · departure from Savannah, Ga., on May 22, 1819, of the Savannah on the first transoceanic voyage by any steamship.

Now, therefore, I, Christian A. Herter, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, do hereby designate and pl"oclaim as National Maritime Day, Friday, May 22, 1953, in .Massachusetts, and respectfully urge the people of the Commonwealth to cooperate in its observance.

Given at the executive chamber in Boston, this 12th day of May, in the year of our Lord 19-'53, and of the independen~e of the United States of America, the one hundred and .seventy-seventh.

CHRISTIAN A. HERTER, His Excellency the Governor. By LEO M. HARLOW,

Deputy ,Secretary of the Commonwe.alth.

NOTICE OF HEARINGS ON CERTAIN NOMINATIONS

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, the President of the United States sent to the Senate today the nominations of Lleweilyn E. Thompson, Jr., of Colorado, a Foreign Service officer of class 1, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the UniteJ States of America to Austria, and to be also United States High Commissioner for Al1Stria, to which offices he was appointed during the last recess of the Senate; James S. Moose, Jr., of Arkansas, a Foreign Service officer of class 1, to be Ambassad{)r Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Syria, to which office he was appointed during the last recess of the Senate; and Harold Shantz, of New York, a Foreign Service . officer of class 1, to be Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Rumania, to which office he was appointed during the last recess of the .Senate. -

Notice is hereby given that the nominations wm be considered by the Committee on Foreign Relations after 6 days have expired, in accordance with the cominittee .rule.

NOTICE OF HEARING ON NOMINATION OF WILLIAM D. MITCHELL TO BE ADMINISTRATOR, SMALL DEFENSE PLANTS ADMINISTRATION Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, on

behalf of the Committee on Banking and Currency, I desire to give notice that a public hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday, June 3, 1953, at 10 a. m., in room 301,Senate Office Building, upon the nomination of William D. Mitchell, of Colorado, to be Administrator, Small Defense Plants Administration. At the indicated time and place all persons interested in the nomination may make such representations as may be perti-nent. ·

NOTICE OF HEARING ON NOMINATION OF FRANK A. SOUTHARD, JR., TO BE UNITED STATES EXECUT1VE DIRECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (RE· APPOINTMENT) Mr. CAPEHART. .Mr. President, on

behalf of the Committee on Banking and Currency, I desire to give notice that a public hearing has been •scheduled for Wednesday, June 3, 1953, at 10 a. m., in room 301, Senate Otiice Building, upon the nomination of Frank A. Southard, Jr., of New York, to be United States Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund. At the indicated time and place all persons interested in the nomination may make such repres~ntations as may be pertinent.

NOTICE OF HEARING ON S. 784, TO PROIDBIT BLENDING. OF IMPORTED WHEAT UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION WITH WHEAT SUIT ABLE FOR HUMAN CON SUMP· TION Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, on be

half of the special subcommittee on improvements in the Federal Criminal Code, of the Committee on the Judiciary, I desire to give notice that a public hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday, June 10, 1953, at 10 a. m., in room 424, Senate Office Building, on S. 784, to prohibit the blending of wheat imported unfit for human consumption with wheat suitable for human consumption. Persons desiring to be heard should notify the committee so that a schedule can be prepared for those who wish to appear and testify. The subcommittee consists of myself; chairman, the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BuTLER], and the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. SMITH].

FIXING OF CERTAIN LICENSING AND REGISTRATION FEES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid

before the Senate the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 1324) to .authorize the ·Commissioners of the District of Columbia to fix certain licensing and r~gistration fees, which was

5534 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-·- SENATE May 26

to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

That the Commissioners of ·the District of Columbia are authorized and empowered to fix from time to time, in accordance with section 2 of this act, the fees authorized to be charged by the following acts:

(1) The act entitled "An act to regulate steam-engineering in the District of Colum· bia," approved February 28, 1887 (ch. 272, 24 Stat. 427, as amended; title 2, ch. 15, D. C. Code, 1951 edition). ·

(2) The act entitled "An act to regulate plumbing and gas fitting in the District of Columbia," approved June 18, 1898 (ch. 467, 30 Stat. 477, as amended; title 2, ch. 14, D. c. Code, 1951 edition).

(3) The act entitled "An act to regulate the practice of pharmacy and the sale of poisons in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes," approved May 7, 1906 (ch. 2084, 34 Stat. 175, as amended; title 2, ch. 6, D. C. Code, 1951 edition).

( 4) The act entitled "An act to regulate the practice of veterinary medicine in the District of Columbia," approved February 1, 1907 ( ch. 442, 34 Stat. 870; title 2, ch. 8, D. C. Code, 1951 edition).

(5) The act entitled "An act to define the term of 'registered nurse' and to provide for the registration of nurses in the District of Columbia," approved February 9, 1907 (ch. 913, 34 Stat. 887, as amended; title 2, ch. 4, D. C. Code, 19iH edition). ·

(6) The act entitled "An act to regulate the practice of podiatry in the Distri~t of Columbia," approved May 23, 1918 (ch. 82, 40 Stat. 560, as amended; title 2, ch. 7, D. C. Code, 1951 edition).

(7) The act entitled "An act to create a board of accountancy for the District of Co· lumbia, and for other purposes," approved February 17, 1923 ( ch. 94, 42 Stat. 1261, as amended; title 2, ch. 9, D. C. Code, 1951 edi· tion).

(8) The act entitled. "An act to regulate the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia," approved May 28, 1924 (ch. 202, 43 Stat. 177; title 2, ch. 5, D. C. Code, 1951 edition).

(9) The act entitled "An act to provide for the examination and registration of archi· tects and to regulate the practice of archi· tecture in the District of Columbia," ap· proved December 13, 1924 ( ch. 9, 43 Stat. 713, · as amended; title 2, ch. 10, D. C. Code, 1951 edition). ·

(10) The act entitled "An act to regulate the practice of the healing art to protect the public health in the District of Columbia," approved February 27, 1929 ( ch 342, 45 Stat. 1326, as amended; title 2, ch. 1, D. C. Code, 1951 edition).

(11) The act entitled "An act to define, regulate; and license real-estate brokers, business chance brokers, and real-estate salesmen;. to create a Real Estate Commis· sian in the District of Columbia; to protect the public against fraud in real-estate .trans· actions; and for other purposes," approved August 25, 1937 (ch. 760, 50 Stat. 787, as amended; title 45, ch. 14, D. C. Code, 1951 edition).

(12) The act entitled "An act to provide for the examination and licensing of those en· gaging in the practice of cosmetology in the District of Columbia," approved June 7, 1938 ( ch. 321, 52 Stat. 611; title 2, ch. 13, D. C. Code, 1951 edition).

(13) The act entitled "An act to regulate barbers in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes," approved June 7, 1938 ·(ch. 322, 52 Stat. 620, as amended; title 2, ch. 11, D. C. Code, 1951 edition).

(14) The act entitled "An act to amend the act for the regulation of the practice of dentistry in the District of Columbia, and for the protection of the people from empiricism in relation thereto, approved June 6, 1892, and acts amendatory thereof,'' ap. proved July 2, 1940 ( ch. 513, 54 Stat. 716; title 2, ch. 3, D. C. Code, 1951 edition).

(15) The act entitled "An act to regulate boxing contests and exhibitions in the Dis· trict of Columbia, and for other purposes,'' approved December 20, 1944 ( ch. 612, 58 Stat. 823, as amended; title 2, ch. 12, D. C. Code, 1951 edition).

(16) The act entitled "An act defining and regulating the practice of the profession of engineering and creating a Board of Regis· tration for Professional Engineers in the Dis· trict of Columbia,'' approved September 19, 1950 ( ch. 953, 64 Stat. 854; title 2, ch. 18, D. 0. Code, 1951 ' edition). ·

SEC. 2. The Commissioners may after public hearing increase or decrease the fees authorized to be charged by each of the acts listed in the first section of this act to such amounts as may, in the ju'dgment of the Commissioners, be reasonably necessary to defray the approximate cost of adminis· tering each of said acts.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. President, on May 25 the House passed Senate bill1324 with a slight amendment which has no serious effect upon the content of the bill. I move that the Senate concur in the House amendment.

The motion was agreed to.

GRAZING LANDS Mr. BUSH obtained the floor. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The

Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD] has requested the privilege of addressing the Senate for not more than 5 minutes.

Mr. BUSH. I shall be very glad to yield to the Senator. from Montana for 5 minutes, with the understanding that . I do not lose the floor. I ask unanimous consent that I may do so.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut asks unanimous consent that he may yield to the Senator from Montana for not more than 5 minutes, with the understanding that the Senator from Connecticut will not lose his right to the floor. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the Senator from Montana. may proceed.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I rise to protest as strongly as I can against H. R. 4023 and S. 1491.

These measures, in my opinion, constitute a raid by certain private interests on the national forests and, if successful, will lay the groundwork for further attempts to despoil the national parks, Federal'wildlife refuges, and other public lands.

Anyone reading these measures can see that what they actually do would be to make a vested right of grazing privileges under the authority of the Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture. Under this vested right ranchers could sell or give their grazing privileges to people · of their own choosing and the Secretary of Agriculture would be required to accede to it.

Under these measures the public interest in our forests would be · subordinated and the grazing privilege -would be made paramount over timber production and watershed protection.

These bills will not, as they state, provide for the "improvement and develop .. ment'' of the public lands. These bills are deliberately designed to protect the holders of grazing permits and not the people-all the people-to whom the public domain belongs.

Under sections 6 and 7, the Secretary of Agriculture would be required, where ..

ever he permits grazing, to grant con-. tinuing grazing privileges . to present permit holders and successors of their own choosing. In other words the grazing permit holder and not the Secretary would be the one who would determine who would get all permits in the future.

Section 6 would also prevent the Secretary from making any change in present grazing allotment boundaries or the kind of livestock permitted, and • section 7 would also keep him from decreasing the privilege as to the number or kind of stock, or changing allotment boundaries, for any purpose whatever, when a privilege passes to a successor.

There are other dangerous elements to these measures, but I believe I have pointed out enough of the difficulties to convince any reasonable minded person of the threat to the public welfare these proposals contain. I sincerely hope that these bills will be killed in committee, and I hope also that Secretary of Agriculture Benson will make his views known. He has been strangely silent. By bis silence he has lent credence to the belief that he has adopted a "hands off" policy which, if true, augurs ill for the Forest Service which he heads. However, the only official comment up until this morning has been by a representative of the Department of the Interior. I hardly need to tell you, that was an endorsement of this questionable. proposal. Much to the pleasure of the livestock industry lobbyists who have been swarming over this town during the past 2 weeks, they have it as an open secret that the Secretary of Agriculture and his Forest Service have been placed behind a curtain of some sort on· this subject. · As a result, no word has come from them about it, although both the House and Senate hearings on these bills will probably close soon.

I call upon Secretary Benson to stand up and be counted on this controversial measure and to let the public and the Congress know whether he is on the side of the people or the special interests.

I also call upon Secretary of the Interior McKay to make his views known to the proper committees and to the people of the country as well. This issue is so important and so far reaching in its possiple consequences that it is imperative that the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior come from behind the curtain and face up to this issue immediately.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at this point in my remarks I may include telegrams and letters I have received from Montana about this proposed legislation.

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

MoNTANA WooL GROWERS AssociATION,

ApriZ 30, 1953: Hon. MIKE MANSFIELD,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MIKE: I have just been browsing through the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for April 21, and I find where you made the statement, in questioning the Senator from W.ashington, "May I ask the Senator from Washington if it is not his belief, that if the cattlemen's grab bill is enacted, what we shall be creating will be, in effect, a revival of the old feudalistic system, by

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD_: SENATE 5535 which leases could be handed down from r father to son, and at the expense of the public, great areas of land could be removed from use for the purposes of feeding cattle and sheep, and could be turned over to individuals, for their own particular use, regardless of the number of head of stock grazed on it, and regardless of the damage done to the forage crops?

Mike, we would be very interested in knowing why you refer to this as the "cattlemen's grab bill," and from whom you got your information that it is a grab.

We would also like to know by what method you interpret it to be a revival of the old feudali'stic system of handing leases down from father to son at the expense of the public. ·

We would also like to know what part or section of the bill would allow the removal of great areas of land at the expense of the public for the purpose of feeding cattle and sheep, and we would also like to know, what you mean relative to the damage done to forage crops.

As the Montana Wool Growers Association have been very interested in this legislation, and have had committees working on it for over 2 or 3 years in an effort to bring out a fair and just bill, we f~el it Is only right that you quote those sections of the bill which you think are detrimental to the public and why you interpret them in this manner.

Sincerely yours, EVERETT E. SHUEY,

Secretary-Treasurer.

SOUTHEASTERN MONTANA LIVESTOCK AssociATION,

Miles City~ Mont., April 24, 1953. Senator MIKE MANsFIELD,


DEAR SENATOR: Enclosed is a copy of a resolution passed at our annual meeting held April 18, 1953, which we are very much interested in.

Yours very truly, I. V. ZooK. Secretary.

"Whereas greater uniformity and stability of administration of Federal grazing lands is needed to allow and enc·ourage better use and greater development of these lands; and

"Whereas legislation is needed for attainment of these ends;

.. Therefore, the Southeastern Montana Livestock Association urges the en-actment of the Uniform Pederal Gra-zing Land Act, H. R. 4023, and. that copies of this resolution be sent to our Senators ·and Congressmen."

MONTANA STOCKGROWERS AssociATION, INc.,

Helena, Mont.

"'Resolution lO "'Whereas H. R. 4:'028 is tne result of several

years of study by interested stockmen's and other organizations to "further the unified administration of federal grazing lands; and

"Whereas it 1s the policy of the Montana Stockgrowers Association to further unified practices of land ma:nagement to foster conservation and -protection of our national resources and continuing developmen~ o! our grazing lands: Therefore. be it

"Resolved, that the Montana Stockgrowers Association wholeheartedly e:m.dorse H. R. 4023."

Attest: This is a true and correct copy o! a resolution adopted by vote of the members of the Montana. S~owers Association in regular session at Missoula, Mont., May 14, 15, .an.d 16, 1953.

E. A. PHILLIPS, Secretary, Montana Stockgrower•

.Association.

DELL, MoNT., May 6, 1953. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

For domestic sheep and wool industries to survive, imperative harassing cease, proposed corrective legislation be enacted this session of Congress, and Tariff Commission must act favorably on wool case without further delay. Criticism uniform Federal grazing bill unjustified and unr'easonable; defy anyone to find anything derogatory to public interest. Land-grab charge so untrue. It is contemptible. B9seech your active and vigorous support of legislation designed to effect at least partial cure of our sick industries.

WHITWORTH & SONS, INC.

WEST YELLOWSTONE, MONT., May 20,1953. Ron. MIKE MANSFIELD,

Montana Senator, Senate Building, Washington, D. C.:

Please record my strongest opposition and yours to S. 1491 in the hearings now being held. This bill special legislation and would ruin our forest watershed and wildlife and would destroy the areas now used for the pleasure of all people. Please send me names of Kentucky Senators.

Regards, MARI!j: B. RoDMAN.

HELENA, MoNT., May 21, 1953. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,

Senate Office, Washington, D. C.: The Montana Wildlife Federation opposes

H. R. 4023 and solicits your assistance in defeating the bill.

E. A. RUDMAN, President, Montana Wildlife Federation.

FORSYTH, MONT., May 22, .1953. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MIKE: The members of the Rosebud Treasure County Wildlife Association, composed of 500 sportsmen from the two counties, are strictly opposed to H. R. 4023, the stockmen's land-grab bili. Such legislation is contrary to all that such clubs stand and work for. Your he'lp in killing any and all such · legislation will be appreciated.

W. E. OONN, • President.

. MISSOULA, MONT., May 16, 1953. MIKE MANSFIELD, .

Senator from Montana, . Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MANSFIELD: In reference to bill

H. R. 4023, the Uniform Federal Grazing Land Act, I wish to state I am against it.

Reasons: It gives the big rancher too much control and crowds out the small stockman.

The committee that acts on complaints 1s made up of the violators themselves. -

The taxpayer's money is being used for the good o! a few. The taxpayer takes care of the reseeding.

On the whol~ there seems to be more wrong with the bill than there is good.

Yours truiy, FAY E. KisER.

HAMILTON, MONT., May :16,. 1953.Hon. MIKE MANSFIELD.

DEAR Sm; I suppose that this letter is unnecessary, but I do want to assure you that my own sentiment and that of everyone to whom I have talked in Hamilton is very much against the land-grab bill. s. 1491.

Sincerely, .J~ FREDERICK BELL, M. D~

RoNAN, MoNT., .Apri~ 9, 1953. Hon. MIKE MANSFIELD,


DEAR SENJ\TOR: Please send me 4 copies of H. R. 4023, introduced by Congressman

D'EwART, also 4 copies of companion bill introduced by Senators BARRETT and BUTLER.

yery truly yours. THOS. 0. PEASLEY.

(From the Great Falls (Mont.) Tribune of April 9, 1953]

SHALL FORESTS BE PRIVATE PRESERVES? A dangerous storm is brewing, imperiling

national forests of Montana and throughout the Mountain West. It is embodied in identical bills now pending in both branches o! Congress. If enacted Into law these measures could turn grazing permits on our national forests into legal property rights for the benefit of a comparatively few large livestock operators. In the House this bill (H. R. 4023) has been introduced by Representative D'EwART, of Montana. Notation that it was introduced by request may indicate that Mr. D'EWART has some reservations regarding it • but we believe his sponsorship of it, limited or otherwise, is a serious . mistake. In the upper b.ranch a companion bill is sponsored by Senators BARRETT, of Wyoming, and BuTLER of Nebraska. The bills would reverse the established policy of administering our na-

-tional forests for the greatest good to the greatest number. That policy recognizes Government control as necessary to safeguard vital resources for the benefit of all the people. Timber and watersheds are given first priority. Other uses are secondary. This overall policy has proved wise and farseeing. The Forest Service now affords the stockmen considerable protection in the exercise of grazing privileges. Having once granted a rancher a permit to graze a specific number on the national forests, he is accorded preference rights for a similar number as long as he retains his ranch· holdings. But limits are established as to how many one owner may graze on the · forests and these limits vary in accordance with the economy of the area which surrounds the forests. ·

The present legislation, could in effect, establish property rights to the grazing permits wh'ich could be bought and sold and which could lead to all of the rights eventually going to a few large operators. It would also transfer a major portion of the control and administration of forest grazing lands to advisory boards elected by the permit holders. There are bountiful assets in our public forest lands and a multiplicity of interests some of them conflicting. The grazing privilege ls important to the livestock industry. It deserves both practical and fair administration but U does not deserve special advantages that would jeopardize the best long-term interests of the region and the country. We are told that the impetus of this legislation came from the Southwest. There is no conflict in Montana, but there could be In years to come, under such a law. Hence we think it is a bad piece of legislation for Montana as well as for the entire mountain area of public domain.

JORDAN, MoNT., May 7, 1953. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,

United States Senate~ Washington, D. r::.:

Please send copies oi H. R.. 4023 and con• panion Senate bill-

MANUEL J. ROTH.

ROUNDUP, MoNT., May 9, 1953. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD:

We wish to let you know we are very much opposed to Bouse bill 4028 and Senate bill 1491.

We .appreciate your opposing th~se bills as we feel they are unfair to the people ex .. cept just a favored few.

Sincerely, CHAS. C. and ETHEL E. SMITH •

5536 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE May 26

MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY, Missoula, May 14, 1953.

The Honorable MIKE MANSFIELD, · Senator from Montana,

Senate Office Buildi ng, Washi ngton, D. a.

DEAR MIKE: This is to acknowledge your note of May 8 referring to my telegram of May 7. I am not out of sympathy with an at tempt to economize in Government, but I do think that judgment should be used, and that activities vit al to the welfare of the people in one way or anot her should not be _discontinued. I am prejudiced, of course, but I do feel that the establishment of the Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit has placed an emphasis upon wildlife research which would have been difficult to obtain without the cooperation of the Federal Gov· ernment.

I suspect that it isn't easy to serve as a member of a minority party in a time like · this. I don't like some of the things going on, and I am sure you don't. In particular, I don't like th.e provisions of H. R. 4023 and its companion Senate bill, 1491. I understand that they ar~ identical, alt hough I have only seen a copy of the House bill. For your information I am enclosing a copy of a letter which I have filed with the House Subcommittee on Public Lands. I think I know you well enough to know that you will oppose the provisions of this bill. At any rate·, I want to register my protest to it.

With best personal regards Sincerely,

J. W. SEVERY.

MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY, Missoula, May 14, 1953.

Han. WEsLEY A. D'EwART, Chairman, House Subcommittee

on Public Lands, House Office Buildi ng,

Washington, D. C. DEAR CoNGRESSMAN D'EWART: I have had

opportunity to study H. R. 4023, a bill which proposes to revise the public-land laws, particularly as they apply to the use of the Federal lands by livestock. I must protest strongly against the passage of this bill which, it seems to me, can only lead to a relaxation of ' the management standards upon Federal rangelands, particularly those under the administration of the United States Forest Service.

The wording of section 5 seems to give the judgment and recommendations of an advisory board priority over the judgment and recommendations of a trained and experienced man in the field of land management--a man who is responsible to the American peopie for the maintenance of certain management standards upon public lands.

Sections 6 and 7 appear to tie, unnecessarily closely, the grazing privilege upon public land to so-called base property.

Section 10 seems to make administrative judgment a matter of an agency hearing if there is disagreement followed by court action if the holder of a grazing privilege is still dissatisfied. I cannot see that such delay in administration is in the best interests of the American people, who have Joint ownership in these public lands.

The end result of the bill, it seems to me, · would be to expose lands, already known to be poorly managed, to a still lower level of management. This is not to damn the holders of grazing p·ermits-many of whom ·are high-type managers. The statement rather implies that some holders of permits are poor managers, and that this bill plays into their hands and allows poor man• agement to continue. This can only mean the continuation of low-level management in certain areas where water values and wildlife values have little consideration at the present time.

As near as I can make out, there are about 42,000 grazing-privilege holders on Federal public lands in the 11 western-land States.

H. R. 4023 seems to place the special interests of these permit holders against the interests of the several million citizens of those States, as well as the total citizenry of the United States, whose genentl welfare is ceratinly in part dependent upon a high quality of public-land management.

Sincerely, J. W. SEVERY.

GREAT FALLS, MONT., May 12, 1953. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,

Washington, D. C. DEAR Sm: I sincerely request that you vote

against and do all you can to defeat Senate bill 1491.

We cannot permit private interests to dictate the policy of our national forests.

Sincerely, LEROY SCHELLY.

SQUARE BUTTE, MONT., May 6, 1953. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,


DEAR Sm: Hope it isn't necessary to urge that you help defeat Senate bill 1491. Legislation of this type is shocking to say the least.

Yours truly, RUSSELL ROBISON.

FARMERS EDUCATIONAL AND COOPERATIVE UNION OF AMERICA,

Glasgow, Mont., May 7, 1953. Sen a tor . JAMES MURRAY. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD. Representative WESLEY D'EwART. Representative LEE METCALF.

DEAR SIRs: We strongly urge increased funds for REA electrification, the amount that the REA cooperatives anticipate they will need to borrow during the year. That includes telephone, of course.

·We urge Senators to vote against crippling power projects for REA. We know that bill is to come before the Senate. It is unbelievable that our Congressmen want to cripple the REA which has done and does so much to aid the farmer in production as well as comforts.

We do not endorse H. R. 4023 or S. 1491 for the following reason: It would giVe big livestock men a practicaly ironclad and exclusive mon~poly on use of the national forests and grazing lands for sheep and cattle.

We hope you will do all you can to defeat bill 1559 which would tax cooperatives patronage refunds. It is unnecessary to explain to you why and what it would do to the cooperatives.

Thanking you for your cooperation. Sincerely,

FARMERS UNION CHERRY CREEK LOCAL, DANIEL J. RICE, Secretary,

THE FROMBERG RoD AND GUN CLUB, . Fromberg, Mont., May 9, 1959.

The Fromberg Rod and Gun Club, at a regular meeting held April 15, 1953, adopted the following resolutions and requested that copies be mailed to Montana Senators and Representatives and to the committee studying H. R. 4023 introduced (by request) by Representative D'EWART, of Montana:

"Be it resolved, That the Fromberg Rod and Gun Club go on record opposing the passage of H. R. 4023 for the following reasons:

"1. Although the bill is high-soundin~ and altruistic, its very essence is opposing American tradition and defrauding its many citi• zens of their heritage in order to favor a greedy minority.

"2. It is another step, and a big step, to· . ward giving away what is left of our na· tional domain. This diametrically is opposed to all principles of conservation.

"3. The bill makes a definite change in the basic conception of graZing on forest

lands; that changes it from the status of a privilege granted the lessee by a free people to an inherent right to the Forest Service ground and grass, a right that could then be bought and sold as any chattel property.

"4. It would give the lessee virtual ownership of· the land for a few paltry lease _dollars and leave the taxpayer the costly job of maintaining the land, reseeding the range, building and maintaining its roads and trails, fighting its fires, etc., while at the same time depriving him more and more of any right to use the forests and forest lands.

"5. The bill tends toward building a monopoly and creating a landed aristocracy at no expense to themselves as opposed to our much-lauded system of free and competi· tive enterprise.

"6. The bill would lead to eventually de· priving all the people of our country of all the forest lands and turning them over to the stockmen and the lumbermen and other self-seeking interests to be controlled and regulated to suit their needs and in total disregard for the public right to access.

"7. Man to be free must have reasonableand free access to the works of nature. The right to commune with your God by contemplating His handiwork is a great natural right. Let us see to it that Iio power ever again assaults it. Let us impress upon the minds of greedy, selfish interests that in this age of a developing city civilization tl:e public domain shall not be restricted but rather it should be expanded for all the people.

"The gravest danger confronting our social and economic system springs from such. illogical and immoral attempts to steal the national heritage and place the heel of eco-: nomic expediency upon the natural rights of the American people~ , .

"Therefore we request that this bill be killed so emphatically that the powers behind it will be unable to reintroduce it in our time.

"FROMBERG RoD AND GuN CLUB "F. J. RAHRER, , "Secre.tary, Resolution Committee ...

MONTANA ASSOCIATION OF SoiL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS,

Sand Coulee, Mont., May 11, 1953. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,

Senate Office Building, . Washington, D. a.

DEAR Sm: In regard to Senate bill 1491, I would like to voice my opposition. I have been a farmer and stockman for 32 years. Having served on the Cascade County planning board for 8 years, ACP committeeman for 7 years and county committeeman for 2 years, about 11 years on the FSA and FHA committtee, and soil conservation district director for 7 years, I have a great interest in the public land in this State. -

I attended the national soil conservation district convention in Cleveland, Ohio, where stockmen from all interested States discussed the subject thoroughly. Although the change in the present law was proposed by stockmen some of the large operators from California and Nevada were personally against such a change.

The deplorable condition of some of our State land, the overgrazed, overstocked condition on too much of our private range is a good indication of what could happen to our forests under Senate bill 1491. I realize the stockmen do have their problems . but feel that an equitable agreement could be worked out with the present cooperative Forest Service Administration.

The welfare of our Nation depends on the Forest Service's long-range planning and the absolute control of the utilization of all foliage in our forests.

Therefore, I hope that you do not support Senate bill 1491.

Sincerely yours, TED PETTYJOHN,

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. SENATE ·5537, THE VALLEY SPOR~MEN'S ASSOCIATION,

Glasgow, Mont., May 13, 1953. Benator MIKE MANSFIELD,


DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: The directors Of the Valley Sportsmen's Association representing 800 members urge you to vote against Senate bill 1491, as it is a bill giving away the national forest lands to special interest groups.

This bill would reduce the present effective management of the national forest lands to a quagmire of court cases -in which the special interest groups representing a minority of grazi~g associations would gain control of these lands. The sportsmen who number 7 million people would lose their rights to the use of these lands for the benefit of 30,000 people.

·We want continued wise multiple use of our forest lands. This bill would not give us that wise use. Put the national interest above the private interests and vote against this bill.

Sincerely yours, ' CARL A. OGRINC, 0. D.,

Secretary-Treasurer.

BozEMAN, MoNT., May 12, 1953. Hon. MIKE MANSFIELD,

Washington, D. C. · MY DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: While well aware that you need no urging to oppose House bill 4023 and Senate bill 1491 (beginning to turn the resources of our national forests over to private interests), we do want to add our voice to the opposition, ~nd good luck to you. , ·

· It would be bad enough (though possibly necessary to meet competition) to turn over to Montana all the Government land within its traditional (and actual) boundaries, but to start a wedge to turn it over to private interest is unthinkable. .

Congratulations on the work you are continuing to do for 'ls.

Yours sincerely, HOBART MYRICK, MABEL MYRICK,


Washington; D. -C. HoNoRABLE Sm: Regarding Senate bill

1491 which provides for turning over the public grazing lands to the livestock interests, replacing Government control with stockmen's advisory boards. . This would be virtually the end to hunting and fishing by the public. We have a sample of what would happen here in this vicinity. The old Dana Ranch in the Hound Creek area west of Smith River, where it is as much as your life is worth to be caught ~nside the boundaries of this ranch. Nobody fishes or hunts there except maybe a special friend of the owners. . The public lands must be administered by the Federal Government for the benefit of all the people and to protect these lands from misuse.

The wildlife and fishing in this State is a big business, about a million dollars being received from hunting and fishing licenses. It seems to me that that large a business would justify some protection and promotion by the Federal Government and the State of Montana.

Public lands should be made accessible, as well as streams, for the benefit of the people. ·

I wish to protest this bill, Senate bill 1491, and request that this letter be made a part of the testimony of the hearings on this bill.

With kindest pe~sonal regards, I am, Very truly yours;

H. F. McMAsTER.

. MAY 4, 1953. The board of supervisors of Pondera

C!ounty · (Mont.) Soil yonservation District at the regular monthly meeting of said board of superv~sors h~ld on May 4, 1953, at Conrad, Mont., discussed at great length ~he D'Ewart bili, known as H. R. 4023, and 1ts Senate companion measure, S. 1491.

The Pondera County Soil Conservation District has 1,051,520 acres of which 106,637 acres are in the national forest within its boundaries and during the year 1952 assisted 215 cooperators.

The board of supervisors believing that ~_onservation of natural resources is of vital Importance to- the welfare of these United State~ and its 159 million population; and deemmg that H. R. 4023 and S. 1491 are not in the best interest of the public, nor do they follow approved conservation practices. ;r'herefore, the board has passed the followIng resolution and had the same spread upon the mi~utes of the meeting of May 4, 1953, and copies mailed to Hon. WESLEY A. D'EWART, chairman, House Subcommittee on Public Lan_ds; Hon. Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture; Senators MURRAY and MANsFIELD, of Montana; Representative METCALF o~ Montana; respectfully requesting thei; disapproval of H. R. 4023 and s. 1491.

''RESOLUTION "Whereas H. R. 4023 and S. 1491 vitally

affect 140 million acres of public domain and forest lands in 11 Western States· and

"Whereas if these bills are enacted into law then sportsmen and the public in general will find their rights of enjoyment of the national forests placed in serious jeopardy; and

"Whereas at the present time public agencies have the necessary authority to administer public lands under their jurisdiction. Under the provisions of the above bills these agencies would be stripped of such authority and the management of said lands would be placed in the hands of local advisory boards· and '

"Whereas the public domain and forest lands affected by H. R. 4023 and s. 1491 are grazing lands and will be uti-lized by livestock operators it may be assumed that the advisory boards above referred to will be dominated by stockmen; and "~hereas sections 6 and ·.7 provide that

contmuing grazing privileges be granted to present permit holders and successors of their choosing, thus virtually making a permit perpetual. It would be possible to hand it down from generation to generation the same as an estate or to sell the grazing privilegs the same as though one w~:e transferring owned property; and

Whereas national forest regulations at present provide that permittees must own 'base property' in order to get grazing privileges on national forests. H. R. 4023 under section 4 would allow permit seekers to offer leased or occupied lands as base property which practice would likely lead to instability of the livestock industry· ana

"Whereas the public, the ~wners of the public lands, will lose rights and recreational privileges due to special vested rights to be given livestock . operators amounting to monopolistic control of the forests and public lands: Now, therefore be it

"Resolved, That we, the board of supervisors of Pondera Soil Conservation District, are unalterably and emphatically opposed to the enactment into law of H. R. 4023 and S. 1491 and ask that this resolution be spread on the record of House Subcommittee on Public Lands at the hearing on H. R. 4023 to be held on May 20, 21; 22, in room 1324, New House Office Building, Washington, D. C."

Respectfully submitted. WALLACE KINGSBURY,

Chairman, Board of Supervisors.

Attest: ·

Pondera County Soil Conservation District.

CHARLES E. Voss, Secretary.

MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Missoula, April 30, t953.

Hon. MIKE MANSFIELD United States Se;,ate,

Washington, D. C. DEAR Sm: ;r· am ·a Montana property owner,

taxpayer, and resident. I also am interested in the conservation and judicious administration of our natural resources and in 'my field work ·as a geologist have the c:Pance to observe the present administration . of much of our public lands.

I believe that the present administration of our public lands (except possibly the Taylor grazing lands) is in the spirit in which these lands were set aside for the people of the United States. I ·am, therefore, unalterably opposed to several bills now .in committee, namely H. R. 4023, anct. S. 1491. I urge y~:m to strongly oppose the passage of these blllS.

Sincerely, FRED S. HoNKALA, Ph. D.

UPPER YELLOWSTONE ROD AND GUN CLUB (PARK COUNTY), Gardiner, Mont., May 12, 1953.

Honorable Senator MANSFIELD: Over the past several years the people of

Montana and the majority of the people in the Western States have become genuinely concerned about our heritage of mountains, woods, lakes, and wildlife. We feel that pending legislation such as House Resolution 4032 introduced by Congressman WESLEY A D'EWART and Senate bill 1481 by BUTLER and BARRETT are nothing but a cleverly worded land grab in the interest of stockman interests only.

It is also the feeling of the overwhelming majority of our people that these remaining public domain heritages should remain free and intact for the use and enjoyment of all the people of the Nation instead of be· ing controlled by a few stockmen.

This bill as proposed will directly threaten the welfare of our already hard pressed wild.; life and would strip the Secretary of Agric~lt~reo of the necessary authority to adn_umster the public lands under his jurisdictiOn. IJ?- fact it give~ the stockman the right to sell the lands they ·lease from the Government, which is the public, to interests of their own choosing and to force the Secretary to accept the deal.

This is bad legislation. The public as owners of public lands should know that. We as part of the public feel the laws and policies as they stand have been fair and equitable to all concerned. Why give a few the rights to lands that belong to all of us? · Sincerely yours, ·

JOHN W. GALB, Secretary.

VALIER COMMUNITY CLUB Valier, Mont., May 12, i953.

Senator MIKE MANSFIELD Senate Office Buildi;,g,

Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MANSFIELD: At the regular •

monthly meeting of the Valier Community Club, held this 11th day _of May 1953, action was taken on H. R. 4023 in which the above club declared itself to be emphatically and unalterably opposed to the above-proposed bill. Furthermore, the club asks that this opposition to H. R. 4023 and its companion measures, S. 1491, be made a matter of record.

This club represents a cross section of this area in that it consists of businessmen farmers, stockmen, Government employees: etc. With about 250 representation, this becomes of great importance to us.

-~ 1 :Yours truly.

Attested to:

EARL CRAWFORD, President.

DON FREEBURY, Secretary.

•

5538 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD·- · SENATE May 26 BILLINGS RoD AND GUN CLUB,

Billings, Mont., May 12, 1953. Hon. MIKE MANSFIELD,


DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: We wish to go on record as vigorously opposing House bill 4023 and hope you will do everything in your power to kill this bill.

This legislation is favorable to a few at the expense of many.

Yours truly, .(..·:·

DON ELLINGER, Secretary.

SOUTHEASTERN MONTANA SPORTSMEN'S ASSOCIATION,

Billings, Mont. Hon. MIKE J. MAt"<SFIELD,


·DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: At the annual meeting of the Southeastern Montana Sportsmen's Association, held at Roundup, Mont., on May 10, the following resolution was adopted:

"Be it resolved, That the Southeastern Montana Sportsmen's Association go on record as opposing the passage of House bill 4023, relating to the control of grazing privileges in the national forests, and that the officers of the association be instructed to write our · congressional delegation and the committees considering the bills, stating our opposition to this legislation." - The Southeastern Montana Sportmen's Association is an association of sportsmen's clubs located within district 5 of the State Fish and Game Commission of the State of Montana. The following is a list of the clubs belonging to the association:

Columbus Rod and Gun Club, Columbus, Mont.

Fromberg Rod and Gun Club, Fromberg, Mont.

Tri-County Sportsmen's Association, Roundup, Mont.

Rosebud-Treasure Wildlife Association, Forsyth, Mont.

Big Horn County Rod and Gun Club, Har-din, Mont. • - Bridger Rod and Gun Club, Bridger, Mont.

Custer County Rod and Gun Club, Miles City, Mont.

Red Lodge Rod and Gun Club, Red Lodge, Mont.

Billings Rod and Gun Club, Billings, Mont.

Tongue River Rod and Gun Club, Birney, Mont.

Absarokee Rod and Gun Club, Absarokee, Mont.

Laurel Rod and Gun Club, Laurel, Mont. Park City Rod and Gun Club, Park City,

Mont. Yours very truly,

DON ELLINGER, Pr~sident.

BOZEMAN, MoNT., May 13, 1953. Han. MIKE MANsFIELD,

Senator from Montana, Washington, D. C.

DEAR Sm: Reference is made to D'Ewart bill, H. R. 4023, and the identical ButlerBarrett bill, S. 1491.

The first three pages recite the benefits that would accrue to the public by the passage of this bill. Most, if not all, are now in effect through Forest Service policies and regulations.

"Base property" owned by the permittee as used by the Forest Service refers only to the number of .cattle grazed on forest lands said owned land will support without regard to any additional number carried on the same base property. This is exceedingly liberal without additional conditions such as leased and occupied lands; water rights being added. . Many stockmen in this locality are carrying more stock than their land will support.

I have seen too much private and unregulated State and private land badly misused to have any faith that a board of stockmen will do anything that is beneficial to public lands.

Sections ~7 would give vested rights to grazing rights to stockmen. This would add thousands of dollars to the value of the permittee's property. It would preclude any new permittees the use of public lands for grazing unless they purchased some base property at at inflated price because of these sections. One person or company could buy all the grazing on any amount of public lands.

Section 8, it is my belief that if stockmen did not expect a reduction of grazing fees this clause would not have been in the bill. The grazing fee on public land is now below those charged on private lands.

If the Secretary's decisions are subject to review by the courts, important action can be put off for years. No other Government agencies are subject to such review and why should a few stockmen have this privilege?

The Gallatin National Forest in Montana is nearly all confined to three counties, Gallatin, Park, and Sweetgrass. These counties had, according to the latest USDA figures, 1,682 commercial cattle outfits and 374 commercia( sheep outfits. Of these 205 cattle and 40 sheep outfits graze on the Gallatin Forest. If this ratio is anywhere near true for other public lands, one can easily see that a very few stockmen would benefit by this bill.

The above are some of the reasons why I object to this bill. Will you please give them consideration before action is taken to make this bill a law?

Very truly yours, J. K. DWINELLE.

MAY 13. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,

Senate of the United States, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MIKE: We are gratefully aware of your opposition to the "stockman's grazing bill" and urge that you actively fight its passage.

Sincerely yours, Mr. and Mrs. M. CHESSIN.

MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY, Missoula, Mont., May 13, 1953.

Senator MIKE MANSFIELD, United States Senate,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: This letter is

to let you know that many of us here in Montana and elsewhere in the western United States are quite concerned about the introduction of H. R. 4023, the Uniform Federal Grazing Land Act, and the contemplated introduction of similar bills in the Senate. These proposed legislative actions can hardly be interpreted save as being against the best interests for the whole country in the long run. And where· is another philosophy as sound for guiding the use of our country's resources. -

I do hope that you will do your best to oppose any legislation of this type which will make public lands the effective prop-erty of a few. -

Yours sincerely, JOHN A. CHAPMAN,

Instructor, Department of Zoology.

MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY, Missoula, May 1, ·1953.

Mr. MANSFIELD, United States Senator,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Let this be evidence that we are

opposed to any change in administering the forest range lands as proposed in ·a bill before the legi1;;lative groups now, the House bill with D'EwART's name on it.

Sincerely, IRVING BOEHELHEIDE. PRISCILLA BOEHELHEIDE.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA,

· Helena or Saco, Mont., 1953. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,


DEAR MIKE: Due to the fact that I dld not have a copy of the Federal Range Code available at the time I received your letter of March 25 and the enclosure from Senator McCARRAN, I was unable to answer it until I could get a copy of the code.

After again making a very careful check of the transfer provisions of the Federal Range Cod~ I still feel that there is very little need for subsection (b), of section 161.7 of the code and am glad to know that Senator McCARRAN is in agreement.

It is hard to write an amendment to the Taylor Grazing Act which would provide for the few justifiable transfers without leaving the law so that some undesirable transfers could be carried out under it. No transfer or a license or permit should be allowed from one owner to another owner unless the land on which the license or permit is based is also transferred with the ·license or permit. Transfers of this kind are provided for under sui:>section (a), of section 161.7; subsection (c) provides for the sale of land which is in excess of that necessary for the support of the licensed or permitted livestock which leaves only two classes of cases which col.!ld be justified under subsection (b). These are as follows:

1. Cases where the original base property was not entirely satisfactory and the owner has later acquired other land which would improve . his position as to his livestock operation. Here a transfer of use without an actual transfer of the license or permit would very likely serve the purpose equally well and by leaving the preference attached to the original base property would eliminate the danger of com~ercialization of the preference as a sale of. the original base property would then result in a loss of the preference. Actually under subsection (b), as now worded, A having land ~ould buy B's land and have the license or permit transferred to his land and then immediately sen the land purchased from B which .would make it possible for one or two large landowners to control most of the public land ill a district.

2. Wh~re the applicant is the holder of a leasehold without which.such property would not have dependency by use or priority. This is so far as I can see the only case where transfer of a license or permit should be allowed without ownership of the base property. The need for this is very questionable.

These words in subsection (b), "Provided, That such transfer will not interfere with the stability of livestock operations or with proper range management and will not affect adversely the established local economy," are so broad as to have little or ·no limiting effect on transfers of licenses or permits. The transfers carried out in this area indicate that it not only does not limit the transfers but opens the way for much abuse of the rules.

In Montana part- or full-time water is not used as a base for livestock operations but I can see no reason why the same rules would not apply equally well in either case • . · As the Federal Range Code is only a set of rules and regulations made by the Secretary of the Interior under authority of the Taylor Grazing Act and the Secretary is subject to much pressure from large livestock interests, I believe the act itself should be amended in section 3, which could be accomplished either by a. new bill or by an addition to Senator McCARRAN's bill, S. 31. and the amendment should be substantially as follows:

1. That no transfer of a license or permit from owner to another be allowed without

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE 5539 a transfer of the base property on which the license or permit is based.

2. That no transfer of a license or permit based on ownership of land or of water be allowed to other land or water, but that the actual livestock operation could be conducted from other land or water under the same ownership. .

3. That no license or permit based on control of land or of water could be transferred to other land or water except where the applicant is the holder of a leasehold without which such property would not have dependency by use or priority. ·(The value or need for this is questionable.)

4. Where preferences are no longer needed by the original holder or are lost because of nonuse or for failure to comply with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the InteriQr, they should be reallocated to other landowners who arEl next in line by reason of preference or need.

I hope that an amendment can be worked up which will accomplish the above suggestions either as an addition to Senator McCARRAN's bill, S. 31, or as a new bill.

Press releases here indicate that Representative D'EWART's bill, H. R. 4023, has a provision for transfer of preferences on forest lands similar to that in the .Federal Range Code and if so would be very objectionable as it would bring about the same conditions on the forest lands as are now so objectionable on the public domain lands. Further it would create a vested interest for a few people in the forest lands which belong to all of the people. It also opens the way for a few large livestock interests to

. control all of the grazing privileges of these lands.

Thanking you for your continued interest, I remain,

Sincerely yours, LLOYD BARNARD.

ANACONDA SPORTSMEN'S CLUB, Anaconda, Mont., April 30, 1953.

ALERTING ALL SPORTSMEN'S CLUBS IN MONTANA AND WYOMING

Subject: Stockmen's grazing bill, H. R. 4032, by which certain Western livestock operators proposed to secure greater con .. trol over grazing privileges in the national forests. This bill was introduced by Congressman WESLEY A. D'EWART of Montana.

Whereas over the past several years the people of Montana have become genuinely concerned about our heritages of mountains, woods, lakes, and wildlife; and

Whereas it is the feeling of the overwhelming majority of our people that these remaining public domain heritages should remain free and intact for the use and enjoyment of all people of the Nation; and

Whereas it has been called to our attention that certain Senators and Congressmen from Montana and Wyoming are aiding and abetting the large stock interests of the Rocky Mountain States in a gigantic "land grab" coalition to pass more rights and special privileges into the hands of these big stock interests, who are only a small segment of our total population, and an equally small segment of Western stock growers; and

Whereas such a bill as proposed would directly threaten the welfare of our already hard-pressed wildlife and their habitat;

Therefore, it is the purpose of this club to alert and warn all sportsmen's groups and other citizen conservation groups in the States of Montana and Wyoming to fight this class privilege legislation in whatever effective manner they choose. It is especially advised that besides contacting the Honorable A. L. MILLER (Nebraska), chairman of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D. C., and your own Congressmen, letters and wires should go to eastern Congressmen warning

them what is happening in the West to the Nation's public domain. .

Don't be asleep at the switch. Get tttto immediate action if you wish to conserve your fish and game and recreation. ·

ANACONDA SPORTSMEN'S CLUB.

BEI:r, MoNT., April 17, 1953. Honorable Senator MANSFIELD, ·


DEAR Sl!!'NATOR MANSFIELD: We, the undersigned, are unalterably opposed to H. R. 4034.

We consider this a raid upon the public lands of the West.

Ralph F. Cook, Olaf Johnson, John E. Holmes, Jalmer, J. Maki, Rudolph Hahnes, Belt, Mont.; Tom C. Goodman, Geyser, Mont.; Kenneth Johnson, Marvin K. Cook, Bertha P. Maki, Evelyn Warilu, Belt, Mont.; Henry Heikhila, Geyser, Mont.; Dorothy Landers, Matt Makila, Elmer R. Maki, Belt, Mont.; Opal Goodman, Geyser, Mont.; John 0. Carlson, Wm." Makila, Frank Urick, Mrs. · Frank Urick, Richard A. Maki, Emily J. Maki, Belt, Mont.; Pauline West, Great Falls, Mont.; Olive G. Crowe, Belt, Mont.; James W. Murphy, Geyser, Mont.; Opal G. Goodman, Secretary, Willow Belt Farmers Union, No. 115, Belt, Mont.

HAMILTON, MONT., April 2'8, 1953. Senator Mrx.E MANsFIELD,

Washington, D. C • DEAR MIKE: I sincerely urge you to sup

port H. R. 1972 and help defeat H. R. 4023. I believe H. R. 1972 will give us much needed improvement in our overall conservation. However, H. R. 4023 would defeat the whole purpose. I find the small stockmen here much opposed to H. R. 4023 as they feel the large interests would move in and their rights and the range also.

Montana is very fortunate in having many natural resources and outdoor recreation.

The sentiment here is along these lines, but I know very few will take the trouble to voice their wishes.

Sincerely yours, HARVEY C. ELLIOTT.

MISSOULA, MONT., April 28, 1953. Hon. MIKE MANSFIELD,

Washington, D.C. DEAR MIKE: I have read .H. R. 4023 intro

duced by Mr. D'EWART and S. 1491 introduced by Mr. BUTLER and Mr. BARRETT regarding management of public lands, par ticularly as to grazing and lease privileges by sheep and cattle men. I am convinced the provisions of this proposed bill are a serious mistake and a step backward.

Our people out here do not want to see the management of our public lands taken from professional and competent people·, who are doing a good job now, and placed in the hands of those who may exploit them for their own interests. We want to keep our hunting and fishing privileges and our precious watersheds unimpaired.

Please work against this bill in committee and vote against it should it come up for passage in the Senate.

Respectfully yours, JoHN C. WooD.

AUGUSTA, MONT., April 21, 1953. To: Senator MIKE MANSFIELD. Subject: H. R. 4023.

Request that th_is letter be made a part of the record and be available at the hearings.

I have read this above-mentioned bill over carefully and the comments on the proposed Uniform Federal Grazing Tenancy Act, and I think it 1s a bad piece of legis,ation and

not to the best interests of the general public.

Therefore I ask that adverse action be taken on this above-mentioned bill. Many of my friends with whom I have discussed this bill, also think adverse action should be ' taken on it.

Yours truly, RoscoE 0. GEisE.

GERALDINE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CLUB,

Geraldine, Mont., April 23, 1953. MIKE MANSFIELD,


DEAR SIR: We have given consideration to H. R. 4023 and believe it to be highly undesirable. This decision was reached by unanimous vote by the Geraldine Community Commercial Club.

We kindly solicit your help in defeating H. R. 4023.

Yours very truly, THoMAs E. HERROD, Secretary.

FORESTRY CLUB, MoNTANA STATE UNIVERSITY,

Missoula, Mont., May 13, 1953. The Honorable MICHAEL J. MANSFIELD,

United States Senate, Washington, D. c.

DEAR MR. SENATOR: Reference is made to the bill H. R. 4023, introduced by Mr. D'EWART, and its twin, S. 1491, introduced by Messrs. BUTLER and BARRETT. This act, being known as the Uniform Federal Grazing Land Act, proposed by Mr. D'EWART, has been brought to the attention of our forestry club here at the university, and we have spent considerable time in interpreting the exact meaning and consequent fallacies that are to be found in this act.

We find this bill to be very cleverly written and is definitely not the boon to public interests which it proposed to be. It is in actuality t.ae big freeze which will eventually put the whole public domain into the hands of a proportionately small, powerful, and monopolistic few. Those acquiring the bulk of this relatively "free" land will utilize it with little thought of conservation measures as they have virtually nothing to lose. They will reap the profits of the land, Uncle Sam getting practically nothing, while the taxpayer bears the full burden of depreciation. This bill would give the Secretary no more authority than he already has and would seem to require of him only that which would benefit the lessee of the land. Furthermore, any decision made by the Secretary could be appealed in the civil courts, which would attempt to abrogate the Administrative Procedure Act, which adheres to the idea that administrative decisions under statutory authority ar.e not reviewable in courts unless capricious or illegal.

These are a few of the major points which are brought out in detail by the emergency committee on natural resources in reference to this bill. It is very poor legislation, as can be readily seen after reviewing both sides of the issue. We would very much like to see this bill defeated.

Very sincerely, GERALD WRIGHT, President.

BELT, MoNT., May 6, 1953. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,


DEAR MR. MANSFIELD: In regard to D'EWART's bill No. 4023, I wish to inform you that I'm very much concerned over the outcome of this land grab.

I'm a small permit holder in the national forest and I'm dependent on this for my summer pasture; in fact, my livelihood depends on it. My father had it before I diet. a matter of some 35 years or so.

5540 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE .May 26 Now grass is a natural ·resource same as

minerals, oil, and waterpower, and the only way it can be utilized is by grazing it to livestock which assures food for the Nation, a living for the small cattleman, and revenue for the Government in grazing fees and taxes.

Now, Mr. MANSFIELD, I wish you would do everything in your power to defeat this and any other bills that threaten our national forests which are our playgrounds and recreation areas. Keep up the good work in be- · half of Montana.

Yours truly, HARVEY W. TALVI,

MISSOULA, MoNT., May 14, 1953. DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: I am writing in

favor of your opposition to the D'Ewart bill, H. R. 4023, and the Butler-Barrett bill, S. 1491.

Recognizing the length of time you have represented the people of this State I hope and urge that you use your accumulated knowledge to the utmost active opposition possible.

To me, the most dangerous section of the bill is section· 7 in which it is made possible for a permittee to transfer his grazing privilege to successors.

Yours truly, Mrs. MILDRED SWACKHAMER.

WESTERN MoNTANA FisH AND GAME ASSOCIATION,

Missoula, Mont., May 16, 1953. Hon. MmE MANSFIELD,


DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: Over the Course of many ye_ars the Western Montana Fish and Game Association has consistently supported the cause of better management of both public and private lands. It has followed this policy in the belief that high-type land management not only will serve the best interests of the American people but that it will also provide better conditions for the production of wildlife.

Having considered the provisions of H. R. 4023, it is the judgment of the association that this bill, if passed, could only lead to poorer f!Uality land management on much of the Federal land holdings of the West rather than lead to better quality land management. It is its judgment that the provisions of the bill would tend to degrade water and wildlife values in many areas, thus working against the best interests of the general public which has joint ownership of

· Federal public lands. The Western Montana Fish and Game As

sociation, consisting of 2,500 members, therefore, goes on record as opposed to the passage of H. R. 4023. We hereby request that this letter be made a part of the record of the hearing. ·

Sincerely, ELMER J. STOWE,

Secretary.

. GLASGOW, MoNT., April 16, 1953. DEAR SENATOR MIKE MANSFIELD: The Farm

ers Union, Local No. 94, goes on record as opposing H. R. 4023 because they feel this bill would be harmful to the small stockman. The local also is against H. R. 1559.

Sincerely yours, . Mrs. CLARA ISAKSON,

Secretary, Farmers Union, Local No. 94.

CASCADE COUNTY TRADES AND LABOR ASSEMBLY,

Great Falls, Mont., April18, 1953. The Honorable MIKE MANSFIELD,


DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: The Cascade Col,lnty Trades and Labor Assembly 1a

strongly opposed to proposal for an act, House bill 4023.

We feel that you are elected to represent the people of Montana, in Washington, D. C., and should support legislation beneficial to the residents of the State as a whole. ,

We note that section 5 of this bill places national forest grazing privileges under local advisory boards similar to those which now supervise administration of Taylor Grazing Act lands. Such boards are notoriously controlled by livestock interests and could not he expected to function in the best interests of all the people.

We do not believe in the principle of vested rights in the national forest grazing lands.

The assembly hopes you will defeat this proposed measure in the interest of de-mocracy. .

Very truly yours, JoHN EvANKO, Jr., Secretary.

OPHEIM, MONT., April 16, 1953. Senator MmE MANSFIELD. .

DEAR Sm: I wish to express my opposition to House bill H. R. 4023 introduced by Representative D'EWART. Also against Mason bill, H. R. 1559.

Sincerely yours, Mrs. HAZEL MILLER, Farmer.

FORT BENTON, MoNT., April 17, 1953. Hon. MIKE MANsFIELD,


. DEAR Sm: May I urge you to consider H. bill 4023 and to do everything you can to defeat this bill. It won't be necessary for me to point out the hazards and injustices in this bill for I am sure that you are aware of them. A chosen few should never obtain dominance in control of our resources. They should be kept in trust and administered for the people as a whole. The passage of this bill will give way for exploitation. I think further that the Forest Service is doing a fine job in managing our grass and timber tracts in contrast to Taylor grazing lands. Do all you can to defeat this. Will you?

I want to add now that the above is off my chest that I think you are doing an excellent Job representing the people of this State and of the whole country.

Thank you. GEORGE PUCKETT.

GREAT FALLS LODGE, .No. 1046, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF MACHINISTS, Great Falls, Mont., April 20, 1953.

Senator MmE MANSFIELD, United States Senate,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Seems funny to call you Senator

but it is nice. I'm writing to you to tell you that this lodge request your help in defeating House bill 4023, introduced by Representative D'EWART, as we feel that this bill is not in the best interest of the general public. That is, of course, if the bill passes the House.

We are also opposed to turning over the tideland oil to the different States. We know that you are against this too but thought that you would like to know our viewpoint.

Thanking you in advance, I remain Sincerely,

EDGAR R. LINN, Recording Secretary.

STANFORD, MONT., May 4, 1953. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: Wesley D'EwART's grazing

bill, I believe No. 4023, looks like a bad one to me and I have no doubt you are of the same opinion. · Hope it does not pass.

Am also definitely in favor of the St. Lawrence seaway, think it would be a great thing for the United States.

Would also like to see the farmer PMA committees continued as they are. Think we should have acreage control or marketing quotas or both to keep down burdensome surpluses.

Yours very truly, J. H. WILSON.

GLASGOW, MoNT., April 16, 1953. Sen a tor MIKE MANSFIELD,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MIKE MANSFIELD: I Wish to

express my opinion on H. R. 4023, introduced by Representative D'EwART, of Montana. I am opposed to this bill, also the Mason bill, H. R. 1559.

Yours truly, Mrs. ETHEL WARD.

GLASGOW, MONT., April 16, 1953. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: I wish to express

my opinion on H. R. 4033, introduced by Representative D'EwART, of Montana.

I am opposed to this bill, also the Mason bill, H . . R. 1559.

Yours truly, ALYCE BECK.

GREYBULL, WYO., April 17, 1953. Honorable MIKE MANSFIELD,

Washington, D. C.: "Resolved by the Greybull Bod and Gun·

Club in the regular meeting held April 6, 1953, That said legislation bill No. H. R. 4023, introduced by Congressman D'EwART, of Montana, and bill No. 1491, introduced by Senator FRANK BARRETT, of Wyoming, both bills being identical in nature, vesting the rights to a few individuals to exploit our forests and mountains at their discretion, to the determent of 90 percent of the people of Wyoming and our Nation in general. By majority vote, this club goes on record in urging the defeat of this bill; be it further

"Resolved, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Wyoming delegation in Congress, to the Montana delegation in Congress, to the Governors of the States of Montana and Wyoming, to the Montana Fed· eration of Wild Life, to the Wyoming Fed· eration of Sportsmen's Clubs, and to all other clubs and groups interested in the protection of our mountains and wildlife of Wyoming and the other western States involved."

Sincerely,

Attest:

GREYBULL ROD AND GUN CLUB, By R. L. DoCKERY, President.

JEANNETTE DoETER, Secretary.

GREAT FALLS, MONT., April 18, 1953. Hon. MIKE MANSFIELD,


DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: · Meat CUtters and Butchers Local, No. 479, or' Great Falls, Mont., at their regular meeting held April 15, 1953, took action against H. R. 4023 pertaining to leasing of forest lands to stockmen.

We believe that these forest lands should be preserved for the public, to be · used as recreational centers, also for the preservation of wildlife. When these lands are leased to stockmen they usually keep the public off from these lands, thereby the public is deprived of recreational facilities. We hope you will vote against this bill when it comes _up for passage.

We also took action against giving the tidelands oil to the States bordering on these tidelands. We believe that the . oil on these lands should be held by the Nation as a

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5541 whole for the purpose of educating our children and building facilities to educate them.

Respectfully yours, JOHN F. DuSAK,

Secretary, Butchers and Meat Cutters Loc_al Union No. 479.

GLASGOW, MONT., April 16, 1953. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,

Washington, D. C. DEAR MANSFIELD; I wish to express my

opinion on H. R. 4023, introduced by Representative D'EWART, of Montana.

I am opposed to this bill, also the Mason bill, H. R. 1559.

Yours truly, THEO. BECK.

OPHEIM, MONT., April 16, 1953. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,


DEAR Sm: I wish to express my opposition to House bill 4023, introduced by Representative D'EwART; also against Mason bill, H. R. 1559.

Sincerely yours, DoNALD DAVENPORT,

· Stockman.

OPHEIM, MoNT., April 16, 1953. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD.

DEAR Sm: I wish to express my opposition to House bill 4023, introduced by Representative D'EWART.

Also against the Mason bill, H. R. 1559. Mrs. DELLA STEVENS.

OPHEIM, MONT. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,


DEAR Sm: I wish to express my opposition to House bill 4023, introduced by Representative P'EwART; also against Mason bill, H. R. 1559.

Sincerely yours, Mrs. MABEL WESTLY.

OPHEIM, MoNT., April16, 1953. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D . C.-

DEAR Sm: I am opposed to House bill 4023, Introduced by Representative W. D'EwART; also against the Mason bill, H. R. 1559.

Sincerely yours, ADOLPH WESTBY,

OPHEIM, MoNT., April16, 1953. Senator MIKE MANsFIELD,

Washington, D. C. DEAR Sm: I wish to express my opposition

to House bill 4023, introduced by Representative D'EwART, of Montana; also to the Mason bill, No. 1559.

Respectfully, · L. B. TAYLOR.

OPHEIM, MoNT. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,

DEAR Sm: I wish to express my opposition to House bill 4023, introduced by Representative D'EwART; also against the Mason bill, H. R. 1559.

N. E. STEVENS, Farmer • .

MISSOULA, MONT., April 11, 19.53. MIKE: I assume yo'.l are fully informed on

the subject of the following editorial. If you are not and wish further information I am sure you can get it by a request to our office for someone to brief you.

Senator MURRAY is in a strategic position with his membership on the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. He should have the facts available to him also. Forest Cooper is a legal adviser to the southern cattlemen who sponsor this legislation. I

I

feel sure you appreciate the signific-ance. Hearings on the D'Ewart bill are scheduled for about May 20. AIKEN and HoPE have introduced bills to_ help the situation.

Regards, PETE HANSON.

(Enclosure) [From the Great Fans· Tribune of April 9,

1953] SHALL FORESTS BE . PRIVATE PRESERVES?

A dangerous storm is brewing, imperiling national forests of Montana and throughout the mountain West. It is embodied in identical bills now pending in both branches of Congress. If enacted into law these measures could turn grazing permits on our national forests into legal property rights for the benefit of a comparatively few large livestock operators.

In the House this bill (H. R. 4023) has been introduced by Representative D'EWART, of Montana. Notation that it was introduced by request may indicate that Mr. D'EWART has some reservations regarding it but we believe his sponsorship of it, limited or otherwise, is a serious mistake. In the upper branch a companion bill is sponsored by Senators BARRETT, of Wyoming, and BUTLER of Nebraska.

The bills would reverse the established policy of administering our national forests for the greatest good to the greatest number. That policy recognizes Government control as necessary. to safeguard vital resources for the benefit of all the people. Timber and watersheds are given first priority. Other uses are secondary. This overall policy has proved wise and farseeing. ·

The Forest Service now affords the stockmen considerable protection in the exercise of grazing privileges. Having once granted a rancher a permit to graze a specific number on the national forest, he is accorded preference rights for a similar number as long as he retains the ranch hol'dings. But limits are established as to how many one owner may graze on the forests and these limits vary in accordance with the economy of the area which surrounds -the forests.

The pending legislation could, in effect, establish property rights to the grazing permits which could be bought and sold and which could lead to all of the rights eventually going to a few large operators. It would also transfer a major portion of the control and administration of forest grazing lands to advisory boards elected by the permit holders.

There are bountiful assets in our public forest lands -and a multiplicity of interestssome of them conflicting. The grazing privilege is important to the livestock industry. It deserves both fair and practical administration but it does not deserve special advantages that would jeopardize the best longterm interests of the region and the country.

We are told that the impetus for this leg:.. 1slation came from the Southwest. There is no conflict in Montana, but there could be in years to come, under such a law. Hence we think it is a bad piece of legislation for Montana as well as for tlle entire mountain area of public domain.

GRASSHA VEN RANCHES, Missoula, Mont., April 7, .1953.

Senator MIKE MANSFIELD, United States Senate,

Washington, D. c. DEAR MIKE: Your letter of March 10 came

during my extended stay at the ranch near Billings. I am writing County Agent Thomas at Hamilton asking that he send you a copy of the ARC plan developed at the grass roots for Ravalli County. I hope you ·will urge Secretary Benson to give this locally developed plan his sympathetic support. I believe it is in harmony with ideas that Benson has expressed.

MIKE, I am really alarmed over the threat to our public lands and related resources

that is clearly developing from various directions such as the offshore oil question. Another is H. R. 4023 by D'EWART and a similar bill in the Senate by BARRET!' and others. I believe you know that it will be a sorry day for the smaller stockmen with permits on national forests and grazing districts if these bills become law. As one of them I hope you will do . everything consistently possible to oppose this legislation cooked up by a little group of nonrepresentative stockmen who have worked for years for legislation that would give them an unfair advantage and open the door to the plunder of public property.

Sincerely yours, LEON c. HURTT,

Bange and Ranch Consultant.

ELKHORN HOT SPRINGS, . Polaris, Mont., May 7, 1953.

Senator MIKE MANSFIELD, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: I am writing in

great concernment about the possibility of the passage of S. 1491, commonly called the stockmen's bill. .

_Senator MANSFIELD, I am unequivocally opposed to this so-called conservation bill and urge you to do your utmost in seeing and working toward its defeat.

This bill will not only aid_ the large cattleman and bring about the destruction of the small rancher. Not only will this bill ruin the small man it will bring about the desecration of our public lands and national forests.

Permit the rancher to have free use of the lands and forests and the lumbermen will then step up and place their foot in the door and demand their "vested rights."

We cannot permit the few to ruin our watersheds, close the playgrounds of thousands of people, stifle the propagation of our animals and fish, and impoverish the small cattleman.

Senator MANSFIELD, as a Senator from a great Western State, one in which tourists play a huge part in our income, I once again urge- you to work toward the defeat of S. 1491.

Most sincerely, CHARLES W. HAIGHT, Jr.

MoNTANA STATE UNIVERSITY, Missoula, May 1, 1953.

The Honorable MIKE MANSFIELD, Senate Office Building,

W~hington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: It is my hope that you will

help to defeat, or in any case modify, Senate bill 1491, the so-called stockman's bill.

Sincerely, LUDVIG G. BROWMAN,

Chairman, Department of Zoology.

BELT, MoNT., May 8, 1953. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD:

We go on record against H. R. 4023. There are 106 members.

TIGER BUTTE FARMERS UNION, No. 47, LEE RoY SMITH, Secretary.

DEER LoDGE, MONT., May 6, 1953. Ron. MIKE MANSFIELD,

Congressman From Montana, Washington, D. C.:

This is a copy of a letter of protest sent to WESLEY A. D'EWART for introducing H. R. 4023:

"We, the undersigned, a.re Just a few of the ,people who resent and condeinn your intro• duction and support of H. R. 4023. Why are you trying to take from the people control of public forest and grazing land to give to the large livestock operators?"

Twenty signatures accompanied this letter.

5542 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE May 26 We were pleased to note you were against

the above measure and are taking this means to let you know we approve your action.

Respectfully yours, L. D. AKERS.

HELENA, MONT., May 5, 1953, Chairman WESLEY D'EwART,

Subcommittee on Public Lands, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Having been born and raised in Montana, as most of my friends were, and being ardent sportsmen as well as being vitally interested in our national forests, which must be preserved unrestricted for future generations to enjoy, we are very much opposed to the passage of H. R. 4023 as well as Senate bill 1491.

We are in full accord with the letter of April 8, 1953, from Robert Yeoman, president of the Cascade County Wildlife Association, addressed to you and request that you and Representative LEE METCALF, if he is in favor of it, withdraw your personal support from this bill and that it receive an unfavorable report.

A copy of this letter is being sent to Representative LEE METCALF as well as to Senators JAMES E. MURRAY and MIKE MANSFIELD, together with the request that the Senators take similar action with regard to Senate bill 1491.

Would your efforts not be better directed in securing additional funds to combat the disease that is killing millions of trees in Montana and the Pacific Northwest as, if this dread disease is not stopped, there will be no national forests or forests on private lands for anyone to enjoy.

Your earnest support is solicited. Very truly yours,

NORMAN J. HATCH,



DEAR Sm: As a citizen and sportsman of Montana, I go on record as being opposed to the passage of House blll 4023. ·

It is my understanding that the national forests were created for the enjoyment and use of all the people of this country. As I see it, this bill would turn over our national forests to a selected few, who could control all rights on this land for decades to come.

. The present policy of grazing in the national forests is adequate to serve both the stockman and other interests and yet allow the other people of this country to enjoy them.

I am certainly against any bill or provision that leads, or that could lead, to the capture of our ·national forests and lands by a minority group.

Yours very truly, ANGELO PAUL MATTEUCCI,

GREAT FALLS, MONT., May 7, . 1953. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. c.

DEAR MR. MANSFIELD: I resent the powerful interests that are backing the bills H. R. 4023 and S. 1491.

The bills would turn grazing privileges on the public's national forests into private preserves for the benefit of the greedy few.

I will be looking to you to protect our interests so that we can continue to enjoy the beauty spots of Montana:

I request that this letter be made part of the testimony of the hearing of these bills,

Sincerely, LILY McKENZIE Mrs. J. McKenzie.

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER SPORTSMEN'S CoUNCIL,

Vancouver, Wash., May 16, 1953. Hon. WESLEY A. D'EwART,

Congressman from Montana, House of Representatives,

· Washington, D. C. CONGRESSMAN WESLEY A. D'EWART: It has

come to my attention that you presented H. R. 4023 "by request." It is hoped that it was due to the pressure of your daily work and shortage of time to thoroughly examine this thing that you did present it. If you presented it with full knowledge of the content of the bill, and, if passed, the effect that it would have upon our public domain, I am afraid that the good people of Montana have been taken for a ride. ·

Having been a long-time resident of Missoula, Mont., and being very proud of the State, its history, and pioneers, I am very sorry to see such legislation as this come from a Representative of this very great and respected State.

I trust, now that you have been made aware of the full intent of H. R. 4023, that you will not do anything to further its passage, but will try to have it withdrawn. It is more honorable to admit an error of judgment than to contin.ue with a thing like H. R. 4023.

Respectfully yours, HOWARD E. NELSON,

President.

DEAR MIKE: Congratulations on your new place in Washington. It looks like the quality of the Senate is going up and that of the House is going down-if H. R. 4023 is any indication.

I am proud of you, MIKE, on the stand -you took on the tidelands bill. I read a portion Of it in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, May 4, 1953, volume 99, No. 80. Now, for the sake of some of our other land, do what you can to stop H. R. 4023. I can assume that from your stand on the tidelands bill that you would feel the same about H. R. 4023.

Elinor sends greetings and best wishes to Maureen.

Keep up the good work, MIKE. I would like to hear from you if you get a free moment.

Conservationally yours, HoWARD NELSON,

GREAT FALLs, MoNT., May 4, 1953. The Honorable Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,

United States Senate, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: I Wish to reg

ister my opposition to . House bill 4023 and Senate bill 1491. You undoubtedly are more familiar with the expected workings of these than I, but as a matter of policy, not as a sportsman, but as a citizen of the United States, it seems to me that both of these bills should be killed.

I respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the testimony of the hearings on these bills before the respective committees.

· Yours very truly, FLOYD S. WEIMER,

GREAT FALLS, MONT., May 4, 1'953. Senator MIKE MANsFIELD,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: I am enclosing

a clipping from the Great Falls Tribune, which is self-explanatory, and I wish to enter my protest against House bill 4023 and Senate bill 1491.

I also want to mention something elsein regard to the GI loan-most of these men figure they are discriminated against and I believe 1! the down payment on homes for GI's was reduced. to 10 percent instead of 20

percent that the loan co:g1panies demand in Montana and the payments spread over a longer period of time-it would offset a lot of the dissatisfaction among them at this time.

I am a member of the American Legion and a good listener.

Senator, I do hope this information will be of some interest to you.

With every good wish, I am, Respectfully,

JOHN D. REARDEN. (Enclosure)

[From the Great Falls Tribune] ExCERPTS FROM AN OPEN LETTER TO CONGRESS•

MAN D'EwART CASCADE COUNTY WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION,

April 8, 1953. Chairman WESLEY D'EwART,

Subcommittee on Public Lands House Office Building,

Washi ngton, D. C. DEAR SIR: The board of directors of our

organization, representing over 1,800 sportsmen in this area., voted unanimously to go on record as ·being very much opposed to the passage of H. R. 4023 for the following reasons:

Section 5 of your bill places national forest grazing privileges under local advisory boards similar to those which now supervise administration of the Taylor Grazing Act lands. We wish to go on record that we do not favor putting the national forest under local advisory boards as we do not feel that this type of supervision is in the best interests of all the people.

Administrative decisions by the Forest Service or Land Management Bureau under your bill would be made subject to court review. Under such an arrangement, Federal authority to manage and protect would be greatly weakened. Were they so inclined, powerful financial interests could prolong court action indefinitely • • • possibly for years; meanwhile, disputed range could be· come irretrievably ruined.

Sections 6 and · 7 of your bill would give holders of established grazing privileges "first preference for continued use" and entitle them "to transfer their grazing privileges as they stand at the time, to successors." What you are proposing is a vested right in the national forest grazing lands. You would transfer to a tiny minority of western livestock men a vested right to use and sell grazing ·privileges in the forests which belong to the public at large .

We are not opposed to the wise multiple use of what· remains of our once vast public lands. We subscribe to the theory that there must be a balance of activities and that one use cannot be to the exclusion of all others to favor any one group. Watershed, mineral, grazing, timber, recreational and wildlife must all be considered in a balanced program. · Your bill, H. R . 4023, is in our opinion decidedly detrimental to the best interests of all the people and we therefore respectfully ask that--

First. H. R. 4023 receive an unfavorable report and

Second. That you withdraw your personal support from this special interest legislation.

Sincerely yours, ROBERT YEOMAN,

President.

A VALUABLE PUBLIC ASSET IS AT STAKE House bill 4023, introduced by Represent

ative D'EwART, of Montana, and an identical Senate bill 1491, would turn grazing privileges on the public's national forests into private preserves for the benefit of a comparatively few western stockmen. Under these bills, grazing privileges would become private property and Government control would be replaced by stockmen's advisory boards.

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE 5543 PROTECT YOUR INTEREST

Our forests belong to everyone. Limited grazing is essential to a well-balanced program of wise multiple use. But unless you t ake steps to protect your share now, you may wake up to find that the lands, wit hin which your favorite picnic spots and fishing st reams are located, are being managed prim arily for the benefit of stockmen and that your favorite hunting grounds are bare of feed and game.

WE NEED YOUR HELP Powerful interests are behind these bills.

We need a storm of letters to defeat them. It's your :fight, get into it. Write a letter to each Me·mber of our Montana congressional delegation protesting these two bills. Mention the bills by number, House bill 4023 and Senate bill 1491. Request that your letter be made a part of the testimony of the hearings on these bills. Below are the addresses you need.

Representative WESLEY D'EWART and Representative LEE METCALF, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

Senator JAMES E. MURRAY and Senator MIKE MANSFIELD, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

CASCADE CoUNTY WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION.

BUTI'E MOTOR Co., Butte, Mont., April 9, 1953.

The Honorable MIKE MANSFIELD, United States Senator,

Washington, D . C. DEAR MIKE: According to this morning.'s

Great Falls Tribune, there has been a bill introduced by Representative D'EWART, H. R. 4023, which refers to grazing permits on our national forests, and according to the editorial, a companion bill has been introduced in the Senate by Senators BARRETT, of Wyom•ing, and BUTLER of Nebraska.

According to this editorial, this is certainly legislation which we should carefully consider before allowing it to pass.

t know that you will give it your consideration but thought it advisable to write you.

Sincerely yours, GEORGE B. ScHOTI'E.

MONTANA ASSOCIATION OF SoiL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS,

Highwood, Mont., March 31, 1953. :Mr. EzRA TAFT BENSON,

Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. BENSON: I have recently received a · copy of the bill, H. R. 4023, called 'the Uniform Federal Grazing Land Act. After having studied it over, I see many objectionable features which could have a very devastating effect on 20 million people living in the West.

There are approximately 2,000 communities in the Western States which are entirely dependent upon the mountain ranges for their domestic water supplies. The proper handling of these ranges directly affects the 150,000 irrigated farms in the West, and in turn the food production from these areas affects the population of the Nation. From this standpoint, therefore, no in~ividual or group of individuals should ever have the right to direct management for selfish interests with no regard for the interests of others.

On Friday morning, March 13, 1953, our National Association of Soil Conservation District Directors met in your office with Under Secretary Coke and yourself. In your remarks I understood you to say that you desired to build grass-roots agricultural programs from the recommendations of the people from the field. Therefore, I am taking this libex:ty of voicing my objections to the above-mentioned bill, which I am sure 1s not in the interest of the majority of the people.

Some of the more objectionable features are outlined below:

The balance of power lies with the advisory boards in the administration of public grazing lands. · A wildlife representative is authorized -in an advisory capacity, but water, timber, recreation, and other interests are · denied representation. Actually, the water alone from a given range may far outweigh the production of forage in value.

Existing permits would be frozen in the h ands of those who hold them, regardless of whether they are of a temporary nature.

The sale of permits without limitation and as personal property opens the door to the .creation of huge monopolies and to speculation in the purchase and sale of grazing permits.

Increased grazing capacity, although resulting from range improvements constructed from public funds, must be distributed to existing permittees regardless of other small dependent operators. ·

I do not believe that multiple interests can be properly safeguarded, or renewable resources properly managed ·subject to the

. Administrative Procedures Act. In spite of the fact that this bill was intro

duced by a Montana man, I am sure that it is not endorsed by the majority of the people of this State. I sincerely hope that you will use your best efforts to defeat a selfish motive of this kind. -

Yours very truly, GORDON McGoWAN,

D i rector, National Association of Soil Conservaiton Districts.

GREAT FALLS, MoNT, May 22, 1953. Senators MURRAY and MANSFIELD,


I understand you are opposing D'EWART's H. R. 4023. I am a small stockman running about 140 head of cattle in the national forest. I appreciate very much your opposition to this bill which is very dangerous to the well-being of all the people. ·

CAMP BROS., SIDNEY CAMP.

GREAT FALLS, MoNT., May 22, 1953. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. c.

I am a small stockman with over 30 years' grazing rights. If H. R. 4023 passes I feel that I will lose my rights and be wiped out. I would like the law· to remain as is.

MoNARCH, MoNT.

HuNT BROS., FRANCES HUNT.



Urge your present strong opposition to H. R. 4023 and S 1491, very dangerous legislation that will give a few stockmen a vested right in the public domain. Montana is very much interested since we have millions of acres of national · forest and Department of Interior land within our boundaries. Our thousands or" small family farmers and stockmen wm be squeezed out of the picture entirely as lessees. They are already disadvantaged in the fact of present leasing arrangements, and H. R. 4023 and S. 1491 will

. make matters much worse. This legislation not only sharply limits opportunities for small stockmen but encourages bad con .. servation practices and opens way for unmerciful overgrazing of great Montana watersheds that feed other States. The national forests in Montana are a source of valuable timber. Provide water for human ..consumption, sanitation, irrigation and power, and offer recreation to all citizens regardless of station 1n life. This le~islation

•

allows a relatively few large stockmen to put paralyzing hands on great areas 1n which the general public has a vital interest. Please make our opposition to H. R. 4023 and S. 1491 emphatically clear.

RICHARD C. SHIPMAN, Acting President, Montana Farmers

Union.

GREAT FALLS, MONT., May 24, 1953. Senator MANSFIELD,


I am a small stockman. If H. R. 4023 passes I feel I will lose by grazing rights and be ruined. Would like law to remain as is. Thank you.

Gus R. OLSON. MONARCH, MONT.

GARFIELD COUNTY SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT, Jordan, Mont., May 19, 19.53.

The Honorable MIKE MANSFIELD, Senate From Montana,


DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: Enclosed ls a copy of the resolution adopted by the Gar;field County Soil Conservation District, of Garfield County, Mont., conc~rning S. 1491 and H. R. 4023, recently introduced legislation relative to tl).e Federal lands of the United States.

This resolution is forwarded in accordance with its terms and for the purposes therein stated.

Sincerely yours, MANUEL J. ROTH,

Secretary. (Enclosure)

RESOLUTION OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY SoiL -CONSERVATION DISTRICT

Whereas there has been introduced in the Senate of the United States at the 1st session of the 83d Congress a bill entitled · ~ s. 1491," said bill having been introduced by Mr. BUTLER of Nebraska, for himself and Mr. BARRETT, of Wyoming; and

Whereas there has been introduced in the House of Representatives of the United States at the 1st session of the 83d Congress, a bill entitled "H. R. 4023," said bill having been introduced by Mr. D'EwART, of Montana;· and

Whereas both the aforementioned bills provide as follows, to wit: ·"To provide for the revision of the public lands laws in order to provide for orderly use, improvement, and development of the Federal lands and to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the Federal range, and for other purposes"; and

Whereas the board of supervisors of the Garfield County Soil Conservation District of Garfield County, Mont., having reviewed said bills and after due and careful cpnsideration by said board, it has been deduced that said bills are being introduced for the benefit of a few privileged individuals and not for the benefit of all the peoples of the United States; and

Whereas the Constitution of the United States of America does not tolerate such spe-cial. legislation; and .

Whereas said board feels that said bills will in effect give away the property involved therein of the people of the United States, with a complete disregard for the rights of others and amount to what might be termed a legal steal for said privileged Individuals and usurping the rights of the citizen..s of the United States; and

Whereas such legislation would give vested rights to certain privileged individuals in the Federal lands, which vested rights would practically amount to the deeding of said lands by Congress to said individuals, to be held by them perpetually for their own selfish use a.nd not for the benefit of a.J.l; and


Whereas the United States of America was not founded on selfishness and greed, but grew on pillars of honesty and justice for all of its citizens: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of the Garfield County Soil Conservation District of Garfield County, Mont., now in special session, That it hereby goes on record against the aforementioned Senate bill 1491 and H. R. 4023, and that it desires the defeat of said legislation, for the reasons heretofore expressed in this resolution; be it further

Resolved, That this resolution be forwarded to Waters Davis, president of the National Association of Soil Conservation Districts, so that he may be informed of the views and expressions of this member district, so that said views and expressions may be presented to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of both the Senate of the United States and the House of Representatives of the United States; be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the following Senators and Representatives of the State of Montana: Senator JAMES MuRRAY, Senator MutE MANsFIELD, Representative LEE METCALF and J;tepresentative WESLEY D'EwART, so that they may be informed of said board's view and expressions, and they are hereby urged and requested to do all within their power to defeat said bills.

Dated this 15th day of May A. D. 1953. GARFIELD CouNTY SoiL

CONSERVATION DISTR,ICT, W. A. LARSON,

Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. Attest:

MANUEL J. ROTH, Secretary.

UNIVERSITY TEACHERS UNION, LOCAL 497, AMERICAN

FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, MONTANA STATE VNIVERSITY,

Missoula, Mont., May 19, 1953 .. Hon. MIKE MANSFIELD,


DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: At its regular meeting on May 13 the University Teachers' Union, AFT, Local 497, voted unanimously to go on record as vigorously opposed to the passage of H. R. 4023 and its companion measure in the Senate, S. 1491.

In our opinion, these bills would seriously endanger the preservation of our land and forest resources. We believe their enactment would be decidedly detrimental to the best interests of all the people, ~:..nd we, therefore, respectfully request that they be given an unfavorable report arid that this letter be included in the testimony offered in hearing on the bills.

Very truly yours, C. RULON JEPPESON,

President. LUCILE SPEER, Resolutions Committee.

GREAT FALLS, MoNT., May 23, 1953. Hon. MIKE MANSFIELD,

United States Senate, · Washington, D. C.:

We concur most heartily in your action opposing grazing bill, H. R. 4023, as same would work a definite hardship on smallstockmen customers of ours.

GRAHAM & Ross MERCANTILE Co.



DEAR Sm: We wish to inform you that as residents of Montana we are very much opposed to House bill 4023 and Senate bill 1491. These bills, in our opinion, are definitely detrimental to the best interest of all the people in our State. This letter may

be used as testimony at the hearings on these bills.

Yours sincerely; Thomas w. Smith, Mrs. Thomas W.

Smith, Kathleen Kramer, G. H. Fontaine, Roy C. Scharr, Earl S. Hooker, Violet M. Hooker, Selmer D. Clark, Barbara J. Clark, Roy A. La Mtltte, Mrs. R. A. La Motte, George A. Blyth, Jeannette A. Leigland, Mrs. Earl S. La Motte, E. S. La Motte, Anthony J. LOpuch, Edward R. Teddy, Elmer V. Teddy, A. H. Strong, Ralph S. Silta, Olaf M. Olson, Eric R. Flippen, Peggy Lee Blyth, S. A. Leigland.

INTEREST RATES AND INFLATION Mr. BUSH. Mr. President, I wish to

speak at some length on the question of interest rates and inflation.

From across the aisle ~n the past few weeks has come an intermittent drumfire of criticism of one of the Eisenhower administration's steps toward establishing a sound fiscal policy for the United · States. I refer to the repeated attacks which have been made against the Treasury Department's new issue of 3% percent 30-year bonds by some of our Democratic friends and also to the charge that it is a policy of the administration to raise interest rates. '!'here is no such policy. · Some of this criticism may have been inspired by an honest misunderstanding of the factors which govern our monetary system. Much of it, we must conclude, has a political motive. It has become apparent that some of our opponents, with an eye on the 1954 elections, hope to use the interest-rate question as a basis for attacking the administration. It has been charged, for example, that the new Treasury bond issue is a part of what has been labeled a ''takeaway" program. False slogans of that kind indicate that some of our opponents hope that if they shout black is white often enough and · loud enough they can fool people into believing them.

Fortunately, the American people are rarely deceived when they have the facts, and I believe that when they know and understand the facts about this interestrate question they will fully approve the President's program for giving the people of the United States a dollar they can count upon.

A sound dollar is one of the major goals of the Eisenhower administration, and is essential to its broad objectives of preserving our national security ar-'d strengthening our economy. The President stressed its importance in his radio report to the Nation on Wednesday, May 20, in this passage:

For every American family today, this matter of the sound dollar is crucial. Without a sound dollar, every American family would face a renewal of inflation, an ever-increasing cost of living, the withering away of sav~ngs and life-insurance policies.

Mr. President, a return to a sound dollar will not take away anything from the American people; far from it. Instead, it will give them a sound pension dollar; a sound life-insurance dollar. It will give them a full dollar of interes.t on Government bonds; a full dollar of savings for a home or for the future educa:. tion of their children.

•

It will encourage and reward thrift in all its forms. Not only will the reward of savings be greater, but economic conditions favorable to long-range planning will once more be assured.

That is the meaning of the new policy · of economic stability which the present administration has announced it will follow. That the meaning of the policy which the Treasury and the Federal Reserve System have already begun to put into effect; the Treasury by keeping hands off the money market, and taking it as they find it.

To understand why such a 'policy is necessary, we must remember what the Eisenhower administration inherited from its predecessors. Secretary of the Treasury Humphrey well described that sorry legacy when, in his address at the Assoc~ated Press luncheon on April 20, he said: ·

For several years past we have been treading a dangerous path, one from which we have now turned. It is not too late to make the turn and avoid the inevitable consequences for which we were directly headed. .For 20 years we have been consistently following unhealthy policies that induced inflation, depreciated our currency, and threatened to exhaust our credit. Over that period our dollar has shrunk from the hundred cents we started with to approximately 50 cents today. We have artificially manipulated our interest rates and have actually. printed billions of dollars of current indebtedness which is only narrowly. removed from printing money.

Mr. President, what has been the cost to . the American people of these un- · healthy policies of past administrations?

Ask the truly forgotten men and women who suffered because of inflation.

Ask those who had saved for a rainy day and found half their savings taken from their bank accounts by upward spiraling prices.

Ask those who had sacrificed to buy insuranc~ for their families, only tO find inflation slashing its value in half.

Ask those forced to live on fixed salaries, or upon salaries which always lagged behind the rise in prices-schoolteachers, postal employees, ·government employees of all kinds, Federal, State, and municipal.

Ask the pensioned war veterans and those receiving social security benefits, which they paid for, in part, with their own money.

Ask the working men and women who found the pensions upon which they had been counting made inadequate by the ever-increasing cost of living.

Ask the universities, the schools, and hospitals, whose endowment funds lost half their purchasing power, to the extent that they had fixed-income security.

Ask the teachers in any level of education.

Mr. President, much has been said about the added interest cost, totaling some 7% million dollars a year, which is involved in increasing the Treasury's rate on long-term· bonds from 2% to 3% percent. That cost is negligible when measured against the toll which has been stolen from everyone's pocket by a deliberate encouragement of inflation.

We probably never will be able to reckon the total cost, but the figures for

1953 _ CON.GRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE 5.545 1 year alone will give us an inkling of its magnitude. In the recent report of the Banking and Currency Committee on Senate bill 1081~ we find this statement: · The cost of inflation during fiscal 1951 to the Department of Defense alone was estimated a:t 7 billion dollars. The consumers of this country had to pay an ·estimated 18 to 20 billion dollars more for the goods and services they bought because of the price increases which took place between the outbreak of hostilities in Korea and the date of the issuance of the general ceiling price regulation on January 26, 1951.

Those wer.e the costs, in one year alone, of a deliberate policy of inflation adopted by the former administration. Those were the staggering sums taken· from the pock-ets of American taxpayers and consumers. Measured against them, I repeat, the increased cost of the new interest rate on long-term Treasury bonds is negligible. It is a small price to pay for a return to a sound fiscal pol~ icy which, in the end, will save the tax~ payers and consumers much larger amounts.

Mr. President, I have regretted that the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois [Mr. DouGLAS] has not, up to the present time, entered into the cur~ rent discussion of interest rates. In the 82d session of the Congress he made an important contribution to the under~ standing of monetary questions, interest rates, and the effects of inflation.

At that time there were differences of opinion between the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Board about the policy then in effect of pegging the prices of Government bonds by open-market purchase~.

There were then in the Senate those who were making statements similar to some of those made recently on the other side of the aisle. ·

What the Senator from Illinois said then, Mr. President, was so clear and convincing that I should like to quote portions of his remarks in the Senate on February 22, 1951. ·

· First, let us hear from the Senator from Illinois on the effects of inflation:

What do we mean by inflation? To every housewife who goes to market it is painfully apparent in the riSing cost of living. To every schoolteacher, to every Government worker, to 'millions living on retirement funds and countless millions more who are counting on their savings, to every individual who depends for exist~nce on a fixed income. it brings up a nightmare of fear that the dwindling purchas!ng power of the dollar will put them on a starvation level. To the churches, to· the universities, to millions investing in insurance, it is a living threat to their security. And what about the pensions which Congress has voted for those of our Armed Forces who have been wounded on the fighting fronts? What about payments of the pensions for which labor has fought so hard; and what about the socialsecurity payments? These pension payments are in terms of fixed money amounts; and if prices go up and the value of the dollar goes down, the security which it was intended they would give becomes a mirage.

So spoke the Senator from Illinois in February 1951. · Further on in the RECORD, the Senator

from Illinois [Mr. DouGLAs] said: Every historian knows that inflation has

been a great destroyer of tbe vast middle

classes, and of governments. It has paved the way for dictatorships and the overthrow of democratic institutions. By wiping out the middle classes and separating society into the two classes of the propertyless, on the one hand, and the rich speculators, on the other, it paved the way for fascism and communism on the continent of Europe. It is a destroyer · almost as evil as war itself. In the eyes of those who want to destroy democracy and capitalistic institutions, it is a cheap way of achieving their collapse. It costs the enemy nothing in lives or treasure. It is really a supreme folly for a nation which is arming against the -threat of invasion from without to let this invader. inflation, bring ruin from within.

Mr. Pres~dent, I may say it is just as true as can be that with inflation the rich become richer, and the poor become poorer. That is one of the· inevitable results of inflation. I should like to debate that point with anyone at any time.

Those were strong words which the Senator from Illinois spoke, and they should be a caution to those good friends of his across the aisle who attack the Eisenhower administration bitterly for doing just what the distinguished Senator from Illinois said must be done in fairness and justice to all the people, namely, the prevention of inflation.

Now let us hear from the Senator from Illinois as he described, in 1951. the Treasury's position under the former administration when the prior interest rate controversy was in progress:

Over the shoulder of the Federal Reserve System has !Stood the Treasury, making threatening passes and gestures and from time to time cracking its whip.

And what have ·been the Treasury's demands? They h.ave insisted that the Reserve System hold its arms wide open and buy every Government security which is offered. They have insisted, moreover, that these securities shall be purchased above parexcept in the case of some short-term issueand shall be at low rates of interest-the actual coupon rate being 2lf2 percent on outstanding long-term bonds.

Now, there are two assigned reasons why the Treasury insists upon this policy. The first is that they say the policy is necessary to prevent bonds from falling appreciably below par and hence bringing loss to those who hold them. The second reason is the saving to the Government in its interest payments. The total interest bill of the Government is now approximately $5,800,000,000 a year. A rise of one-half percent in the interest rate would, it is claimed, cost the Government a billion and a quarter dollars a year more in interest charges.

Listen to the Senator from Illinois as he demolishes the arguments of the men who then controlled the Treasury:

These gentlemen [Democratic Treasury Secretaries] have been misguided men. For under the guise of keeping the interest rate down, they have forced the Reserve to action which resulted in increased bank credits and hence created inflation.

The costs to the Government and to the people have been far greater than the gains which we have made from a lower interest rate. The increase in prices since Korea are ·probably already adding to the Federal Government costs at the approximate rate of six billion a year. ·

The cost of meeting the Interest on the public debt is now roughly $5,800,000,000. The entire budget submitted by the President for fiscal year 1952 is approximately $71,600,000,000. This means that Government expenditures for purposes other than interest, ·that is, for services and materials.

wm be approximately $66 b11lion. It is a conservative estimate that there has been a general increase in prices of commodities and . services of roughly 10 percent as a result of the inflation; so that this inflationary price increase then is already costing the Government at least $6 billion; and possibly more. That is in excess of the total amount which the Government now (1951) pays in interest.

Even if interest rates were doubled, which is at best a very remote possibility- --

With w}?.ich I agree-the added cost of meeting the Interest on the public debt would not equal the cost to the Government because of the rise in prices that has already taken place.

Furthermore, our whole society has been greatly disturbed and convulsed by the increase in the cost of living whic:h has taken place; and no one knows what lies ahead.

Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois, distinguished economist that he is, displayed then an understanding of the necessity for a sound fiscal policy. I can only" regret that he . failed to convince some of his Democratic colleagues who are repeating now the arguments he exposed as utterly fallacious in 1951.

It has been contended that there is no longer danger of inflation; that what we now have to fear is deflation. However, all economic indicators point to the conclusion that we are still in a boom period. I have before me charts and data from the Joint Committee on the Economic Report. I have also before me charts from the Federal Reserve System, issued in April, containing economic indicators for May 1953. I also have the May letter on general business conditions of the National City Bank of New York. All of these documents indicate, as I have said, that we are in a boom period~ Business activity is now at all-time high levels, and, generally speaking, nearly all industries are likewise enjoying great prosperity. That may not be true of all industries, but it is the -showing of the general index. So, we are in a boom period.

Mr. President, we want no further inflation. We have seen too much of its damaging effects to fall into that error a·gain. Neither do we want deflation. I read in last Sunday's newspaper about a politician who was discussing this issue. He said, "I am not for inflation, I am not for deflation. I am for 'flation.'" Mr. President, I submit that is about right.

What the Eisenhower administration wants to do---and is determined to do-is to safeguard the value of the dollar.

Mr. President, unfortunately, this is a somewhat technical subject. To understand why the new policy for a sound dollar is essential, we must understand the nature of our monetary system, and the effects upon it of Government financ~ ing. We should never forget those things, Mr. President, when we are talking about this very important and vital subject. Very simply, for a few moments, I shall try to deal with these matters. I admit the subject is very involved, and I shall therefore try not to go into it too deeply, but merely in a general way. · Since the close of the war the Govern

ment has done most of its financing by means of short-term note issues. Such securities are attractive primarily to commercial banks and to certain other

5546 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE- May 26 ·_

short-term investors. Their purchase by banks increases the money supply and ' thus puts upward pressure on prices and the cost of living. It is as simple as that.

In contrast, purchases of Government securities by long-term investors such as mutual savings banks, insurance companies, pension and trust funds, and so forth, tend to counteract the inft.atio~ary effects of Government borrowmg. These institutions are the custodians of genuine savings. The funds which they put into Government securities and other types of investments can remain undisturbed for long periods of time. Indeed they are usually held to maturity.

In addition to relying almost entirely on short-term financing, the Government made it possible ·for investors who wished to do so to cash in their longterm holdings at any time without the risk of capital loss. Up to the time of · the Treasury-Federal Reserve accord in 1951, the market was pegged. The peg was occasionally varied, but was never allowed to drop below par. At this figure, the Federal Reserve stood ready to buy all the bonds which investors might wish to sell.

The result was that long-term bonds no longer performed their unique function of contribution to economic stabil- · ity. Instead they served about the same purpose as an equal amount of cash. Encouragement to inft.ationary spendipg could hardly have gone further.

It might be thought, in view of these policies, that the opportunities for long-term financing of the Government's needs during the postwar period were limited. But on the contrary, such opportunities were ample. Savings were accumulating. But they were not going into Government securities. Why? Because other borrowers were offering more attractive rates of return on obligations with a sound investment appeal.

To compete for loan funds, the Gov- . ernment would have had to raise interest rates-which it was unwilling to do. It would have had to meet the first test of pricing in a free market, namely, pay- · ment of the going rate. During the entire period between the close of World War II and the end of the Truman administration, the Treasury did not offer · a single long-term marketable issue in either new borrowing or refunding oper- · ations. Small amounts of investmenttype nonmarketable bonds were occasionally offered, and savings bond sales · to individuals were promoted. But a large part of the increase in savings bonds over this period was due to the accumulation of interest. New investments of this type were not very attractive at a time when the dollar was rapidly depreciating.

It is true that the interest cost of the public debt during this period was· smaller that it would have been if the Treasury had gone· into the market and competed for investment funds on a price basis. Had it done so, it may be noted that the increased interest cost would have been partly recovered in taJ~:- ation. Moreover, to the extent tliat the interest on Government bonds went to . insurance companies, savings banks~ pension funds, and other forms . of the

people's savings it would have benefited the millions of families who were being most damaged by inft.ation and by inadequate returns on their savings funds.

I might say, parenthetically, Mr. President, that it is time the thrifty individual, who is. more responsible for the development of this country than is anyone else, came into· his own again. We have been glorifying the borrower for the past 20 years, and I think we are now paying through the nose because of that policy .. I believe the policy of the administration to which I referred, namely, a policy which will bring the saver back into his . own and stop the hidden thief, inflation, is the policy which should be followed.

It is the intention of the present administration in conducting its financing operations to allow the forces of competition, and the price mechanism through which they work, to _have the fullest scope consistent with the national well being. This is the meaning of a free market. It is an essential step in restoring the independence of the Federal Reserve System and enabling it . once more to use monetary policy in the best interests of the country as a whole.

Competition for funds is strong at the present time, when the Treasury must raise new money to cover expenditures . in excess of revenues. State and local borrowing this calender year will probably approach the 1952 total of more than $7% billion. Urban home credit will probably increase by another $6 billion this year; and consumer' instalment credit-especially automobile credit-is currently expanding at a very high rate.

With active bidding in the investment markets, the Treasury cannot hope to obtain any significant share of investment funds unless it offers an interest rate and other terms which are judged adequate by those who have money to lend. The fact that the new 3%-percent bond has been selling close to par since trading on this issue began is evidence

. that the Treasury priced its new security about right, in view of the market, in order to get the desired amount of funds from long-term investors.

Mr. President, incidentally, there has been some criticism with reference to the way that issue was handled. I say that events have proved that the Treasury was correct. The speculators, those who oversubscribed the bonds to bring the total subscription up to approxi .. mately $5 billion, about which we have heard so much from across the aisle, were prepared to borrow 10 times as much money as they needed to buy the bonds because they thought they could make a quarter of a percent out of them, or possibly a little more than that. What they found out was that the Treasury was right and they were wrong in their guess. They unloaded rapidly, and that brought the issue down · below par. But I have noticed that lately the issue is going back. The last quotation I saw was 993%2. which is practically par. So, Mr. President, I consider that the issue was a success. There is nothing about it for which to apologize, except with reference to the behavior of the speculators, who, from time to time, think it is wise to trade against their own Government, a practice which I thoroughly disapprove

and which I think should be generally condemned.

However we may look at it, the fundamental question involved in our program for a return to sound money is actually very simple. For some time the Government will be running a deficit; taxes . will not be sufficient to cover all our Government expenditures because of the situation we have inherited from the Truman administration. Do we as a people want to meet these requirements out of genuine savings, paid, for at competitive market rates? Or do we want to continue the process of keeping a large portion of the debt in short-term issues, with all that that implies for the encouragement of irift.ationary pressures?

The American people g~ve their answer to that, along with some other questions, last November. They voted to protect the value of their savings.

There is only one way the present administration can fulfill the monetary responsibilities which the voters gave it last year. That is courageously to take whatever steps are necessary and within their authority to maintain the present balance between inft.ation and deft.ation-to balance the budget, and to safeguard the value of . the dollar.

It is worth noting that the policies now being followed by this administration with respect to money, credit, and debt management are not new policies. A, :flexible monetary · policy, capable of meeting both inft.ationary and deft.ationary threats, was one of the purposes for which the Federal Reserve System was created 40 years ago. By whom? By Carter Glass, distinguished D~mocratic Senator and Secretary of the Treasury. Under whom? Woodrow Wilson, aDemocratic President.

Mr _ President, I want to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that those two gentlemen would roll in their graves if they heard some of the statements which have been made on this :floor by members.of their own party.

It is a policy which has had the over- _ whelming support of specialists in the field of monetary, credit, and debt management policies throughout those 40 years. A rigid interest-rate structure, supported by artificial means, is the policy which is new. It was undertaken during World War II, supposedly to meet special war circumstances. It was continued after the war, when these circumstances were no longer. present-with the disastrous results with which we are all familiar, and for which we shall continue to pay for a long time to come.

The dangers inherent in artificially low interest rates, and the need for areturn to free markets, were given strong expression by the committees of the Congress who have been charged with investigations. of these matters in recent years.

In January 1950, for _example, the Subcommittee on Monetary, Credit, and Fiscal Policies of the Joint Committee on the Economic Report, under the chairmanship of the Senator from illinois TMr. DouGLAs]., whom I have previously quoted, made the following recommendation on monetary policy:

We recommend that an appropriate, flexil;>le, and vigoro~s monetary poliqy, employed.

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE 5547 ln coordination with fiscal and other poll· cies, should be one of the principal methods used to achieve the purposes of the Employment Act. Timely flexibility toward easy credit at some times and credit restrictions at other times is an essential characteristic of a monetary policy that will promote economic stability rather than in· stability. The vigorous use of a restrictive monetary policy as an anti-inflation measure has been inhibited since the war by considerations relating to holding down the yields and supporting the prices of ·United States Government securities. As a longrun matter, we favor interest rates as low as they can be without inducing inflation, for low interest rates stimulate capital in· vestment. But we believe that the advantages of avoiding inflation are so great and that a restrictive monetary policy can contribute so much to this end that the freedom of the Federal Reserve to restrict credit and raise interest rates for general stabilization purposes should be restored even if the cost should prove to be a significant increase in service charges on the Federal debt and a greater inconvenience to the Treasury in its sale of securities for new financing and refunding purposes.

In another section of its report the committee further stressed the importance of a return to free markets as follows:

Another reason for preferring reliance on monetary, credit, and fiscal policies as the major method of general economic stabilization is that they are more consistent with the maintenance of our democratic system and with the fostering and promotion of free competitive enterprise. These instruments do not involve the Government in detailed control of the particulars of the economy; they do not require the Government to intervene in individual transactions between buyer and seller, in dealings between em· ployer and employ~e. and in the determination of the prices and production of particular commodities. These millions of i~tricate decisions are left to the operation of the market mechanism while general monetary, credit, and fiscal policies work toward stabilization by influencing the total supply and cost of money and the total amount of money income at the disposal of the private sectors of the economy. There is every dif· ference between the effects of general overall monetary, credit, and fiscal policies which indirectly influence the economy toward stabilization and the effects of an elaborate system of direct con trois.

In June of last year ... another subcommittee of the Joint Committee on the Economic Repor~Subcommittee on General Credit Control and Debt Management, under the chairmanship of Representative WRIGHT PATMAN-reported that it saw no reason to alter the general recommendation on money and credit policies made in January 1950 by its predecessor committee. The major- · ity report was not particularly critical of the policies then in e:tiect, however, and for that reason the Senator from ·Illinois [Mr. DouGLAS], in a minority statement, made a strong attack on the policy whereby Government securities could be turned into cash at any time without risk of capital loss. He urged, in particular, that stability of price levels was far more important to the social and economic well-being of the country than any artificially maintained stability of the interest rate.

I have heard the criticism made lately that there is no need now for higher interest rates and tighter credit since prices are not now rising. It is said also

that high rates and tighter credit will bring hardships. People who want to borrow money, it is said, will have to pay more for it, and may :find it harder to get.

I.t is perfectly true that a flexible monetary policy operates sometimes to tighten credi~to make it harder for people to' borrow-when there is danger of inflationary developments, just as it acts to ease credit whert a stimulus to business activity is needed. It is also true that many prices are not rising now. But with business and trade.operating at close to capacity, as at present, the simple fact is that we cannot keep prices under control if we continue to supply credit in almost unlimited amounts at artificially low interest rates. That is the reaf heart of the matter. A stable price structure which safeguards the value of the dollar is worth very much more to the veteran, the home buyer, the farmer, the small businessman, the consumer, than the additional price which he may have to pay for borrowed funds.

Moreover, it cannot be emphasized. too strongly that the time to prevent an inflationary price rise is before it startsnot after it is under way. Because of heavy tax payment months, the Government in the present half of this calendar year is taking in more money than it has been paying out. This is helping to keep the money supply in balance with the needs of the economy. But the opposite will be true in the second half of the year. We will then be taking in conSiderably less than we will be paying out.

We cannot ignore this deficit. The Treasury has to borrow money to cover it. Continued rapid expansion of private credit, combined with ~ore Government borrowing, could easily put us right back on the road to inflation again. Interest rates have an important role to play in helping to keep this from happening. Their function is los~and monetary policy rendered ine:tiectivewhen they are kept below the level which would permit them to contribute to the stability of the economy.

No one of us needs to fear that stability cannot be maintained-or that the prosperity of the country depends on continually increasing Government spending, :financed in part by inflationary borrowings. In the words of the Secretary of the Treasury, speaking before the members of the Associated Press on April20:

Peace is what we all want. It ls nothing to f~ar, nor is there any reason for depression. Adjustments, yes. But not depression. So long as we maintain the soundness of our money; attain that nice balance between achieving security from aggression and maintaining economic strength; eliminate waste and handle our fiscal affairs with wisdom, America can look forward to good jobs at good pay and real advances in our scale of living. We can have a stronger economy based on sounder fundamental condi· . tions and with greater opportunity for indi· vidual and collective future security than we have known in many years.

Mr. President, I gladly subscribe to those statements by the Secretary of the 'l'reasury.

The monetary and debt management policies now. being pursued represent only a part of the broad program for getting our American economy back on

a sound basis. But they are an essential element in this program, and one which every citizen can understand in terms of his own income, his own savings, and his own individual plans for the future. These policies are important to him for those reasons.

In closing, let me repeat there is no policy to increase interest rates. The policy is to have a stable dollar, a sound dollar for all the workers and savers of America. With a sound dollar interest ratel) may :fluctuate up and down, but no one will be hurt if the value of the dollar remains stable.

Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BUSH. I very gladly yield to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. MILLIKIN. I wish to extend my congratulations to the Senator from Connecticut on the superb address he has just made.

Mr. BUSH. I very deeply appreciate the Senator's compliment.

Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BU'SH. I yield. Mr. BRICKER. I wish to co·mmend

the Senator from Connecticut for his excellent presentation of the subject covered in his address, which is seemingly a controversial problem, but which should not be. I believe every American citizen is interested in the stability of the dollar. For the past 15 or 20 years there has been the threat of inflationary pressure, which has wiped out much of the earnings of our people.

I know of the Senator's long experience in the financial :field. His understanding and presentation go a long way toward clarifying the issues presented by the present policy of the Treasury and of the freedom that has been given to the Federal Reserve Board to protect the value of the United states dollar.

As I understand, the opposite philosophy is that we shall meet inflation by direct Government controls, which are never e:tiective, but are a political approach to the solution of an economic problem which ought to be solved by action of the Federal Reserve.

Does the Senator from Connecticut agree with me that this inflationary pressure began, in the :first instance, with the devaluation of the dollar, when the United States went o:ti the gold standard, and, following that, by a decrease in the rediscount rates and in the bank reserve requirements; and that the most destructive policy of all was the open market purchasing by the Federal Re- · serve Board at a pegged price?

Mr. BUSH. I agree with the Senator's statement that that was a very important feature of the program that began the inflationary process, especially in the monetary :field. Of course, the failure to balance the budget later became a very important factor.

Mr. BRICKER. Likewise, with reference to the issuance of short-term Government notes, is it not true that for every dollar of short-term money the Government borrowed, there was pumped into the credit and currency stream of the country between $5 and $6?

Mr. BUSH. The Senator is correct; there was that e:tiect.

5548 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE · May 26

Mr. BRICKER. Of course, that con- I again commend the Senator ·for his suspect that ·that fact has been partly tinually raised prices that the people had presentation. He will have much sup~ responsible for the reluctance of some to pay. port. very wealthy people and speculators to

Mr. BUSH. It continually increased .Mr. BUSH. I am very grateful to the fight inflation, because they have done the supply· of money without enlarging Senator from Ohio for helping to devel~p very well under it. At some future time the supply of goods. Increasing the sup~ this subject, and for pis very generous I should like to develop that point, beply of money but leaving the supply of - remarks. cause, as I have often said, under infla~ goods the same ob:viously had an infla- Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, will the tion the rich become richer and the poor tionary effect. Senator yield? become poorer. Under inflation the

Mr. BRICKER. The increased cost of Mr. BUSH. I gladly yield to my friend value of the things one owns goes up, living for the people of the United States from Idaho. ' whereas the man who does not own any was an inevitable consequence of the .Mr. _WELKER. I wish to take this oc- pr:operty does not enjoy the benefit of fiscal policy the -Government carried out. casion . to cqngratulate my personal any increase in value. However, the cost

Mr. BUSH. It could not possibly have friend, the great statesman sent to the of living goes up, and his income re~ · been otherwise. The Senator is abso~ . Senate by the people of Connecticut, and mains the same. Moreover, as the value Iutely correct: in turn, to congratulate the people of of the property, securities, or real estate

Mr. BRICKER. The only question we Connecticut for sending ~uch an able, . which the individual owns goes up, his face is whether we shall have a sound profound st.atesman to this body. income from such property also goes up, dollar, or shall continue to have a pro- · It is wholesome ~nd inspiring ~d listen and he is far better off under a 5 or gram of greenbackism, which has been to a Senator of his stature _dellver the - 10 percent inflation than is the poor threatening the credit of the Nation. profound speech we have JUSt heard. fellow who owns no property, and who is

Mr. BUSH. There can be no question 'Yhen we co~~der the character, integ- · lucky if he obtains a raise af-ter the inat all about that. I do not believe the nty, an~ abillty of the Senator. from flation. That is why the rich become people of the United States, once they ~onnecticut, who has presented_ his the~ richer and the poor become poorer. understand the issue, . will stand for SI~ to us today, we n~ed have llttle fear ·Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, I sin-greenbackism. I think they are solidly for t):le future of this co~ntry, I con~ cerely trust that at some time in the -behind the administration in its effort gratulate the Senator on his r~marks. · very near future; t~e distinguished and to create. a sound dollar, and they will Mr. BUSH. I thank ~Y fnend fro~ aale Senator from Connecticut will support that program. Furthermore, I Iqaho very deeply and smcerely for ·his · develop the subject UPDn which he has believe that all Members of Congress who too generous remar~s. I _want _him to just spoken. It is essential for the support it will be supported by the people. know that I appreciate his takmg the people of the United States to under-

Mr. BRICKER. I am quite confident trouble to make them. I hope I may stand that we cannot remain solvent -the Senator is correct. There has been prove worthy of them. . . unless our dollar is sound. no depreciation in the value of some Mr. PURT~L. Mr. President, Will If the senator will permit me; I fifty-nine or sixty billion dollars of sav~ the Senator Yield? should like to give an illustration of what ings bonds held by people who loaned · . Mr. BUSH. I yield_t~ my c<;>lleague. · inflation means. A_ farmer in my own their money in an effort to win the war. . Mr. PU~TEL~. I JOin other Senators county came to me not long ago and There has been no ·decrease iri the value . m com~llmentmg _my co~eague from _ said: "I should like to give you an i~lus-of those bonds. Co~necticut for domg a piece of work tration of what inflation has done to me. -

Mr. BUSH. I will not agree with the which neede~. to be done. Our people · Te~ years ago I bought $1,000 worth of S.enator about that. I think they have hav~ been ~Ismformed about the whole saVIngs bonds: ~e other day I cashed -had some depreciation. The value of the subJect of mterest: On behalf of the them and got my $1 ,000. They cost me money that was invested in savings people of _connecticut and the people ~750. At the time I bought those savbonds during the early part of the war is of the entire cou~try, I thank my col~ mgs &onds I could have bought a Ford not the same as it is now. league for presentmg to t~e Senate and c~r or a Chevrolet car. However, now,

. Mr. BRICKER. But that is the result to the people . of the . Natwn the truth . wit~. my $1,000 I could not buy half a of inflation; it is not the result of present about the subJect of mterest. V!e owe car. fiscal policy. ~Y colleague a great debt for domg the . . Does. not the _senator. agree that that

Mr. BUSH. It is the result of inflation. JOb he J:?.as done. IS a very good IllustratiOn of the situa-M BRICKER Th . d fl ·t· Mr. BUSH. I am most grateful to my tlon?

i thr · k t · . efrethis nob e da IO~ . distingui;shed colleague from Connecti~ Mr BUSH It is a very good illustra

n e mar e pnce o ose on s · IS t f h · · k I · · · - · th ? ' cu or IS generous rema.r s. appre~ tlon. An additional factor is that he ere· _ . ciate them very much indeed. was supp d t b tt' t Mr. BUSH. No; but there was no open Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President will the , . ose o e ge mg. a re_urn on .

market in those bonds. There was one · Senator yield.? ' his money. Howe~er, the I?-flatwn ":'as . agreed price all the time. one could · . . sq grea~ that the 1 eturn withered with

h h. b d f t t . Mr. BUSH. I am delighted to yield to the capital The Senator is absolutely cpa~ fils don f

1 . romd year 0 year a a my friend the distinguished Senator correct. I · am most grateful for his ·

nee xe we m a vance. from Pennsylvania. assistance. Mr. BRICKER. The only loss to ho~d- . Mr. MARTIN. I commend the Senator · Mr. President, I yield the floor unless

ers _of those b~nds was by reason of m- from Connecticut for the magnificent tl:lere are some questions: flatwn. InflatiOn has lessened the value statement he has made today. I hope Mr. CARLSON obtained the floor. of the return on those bonds. h_is statement will be widely read by the Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President I sug ..

Mr. BUSH. But the Senator will agree people of the United States. What t~ey gest the absence of a quorum. ' with me that it was a very important · need now is the truth. Many are evad- . The PRESIDING OFFiCER (Mr. loss; will he not? ing the truth. Those who are being CooPER in the chair). Does the Senator

Mr. BRICKER. It was just as impor- injured by the inflation which we now · from Kansas yield for that purpose? tant as was any savings account loss to · have are the folks with savings accounts, · · Mr. CARLSON. I yield. · the American people in the inflationary the veterans who are drawing I?ensions, . Mr. BRICKER. I suggest ·the absence _. period. Those who had insurance poll- a?-d the men and women on social s~cu- . of a quorum. · cies and savings accounts in banks and : rity. They are the ones whq are losmg. . The PRESIDING OFFICER. The building and loan associations have Is not -that true? . clerk will call the roll. suffered approximately 60 times the total · co~~~~USH. The Se_nator Is absol~tely . . The legisla~ive clerk proceeded to call-. loss to depositors and stockholders in · . . the roll. banks and bu.ld'ng d

1 . t· Mr; MARTIN. Is It not also true that · Mr BRICKER Mr President I ask

1 1 an . oan assoCia wns th -..... · h ts t t · : · · ' d · th 1932

f .1

e "-~usmessman w o wan o specula e unammous consent that the order for a urmg e a_1 ures. · is the man who wins l?Y inflation? quorum call be rescinded and that fur-Mr. BUSH. I w1ll acce?t t_he Senator's Mr. BUSH. Mr. President, the infla-. ther - p-roceedings under the call be

statement. I cannot venfy It. tionary times through which we have dispensed with. · Mr. B~ICKER. That is, measured in . passed have been wonder~ul for the · · The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

purchasmg power of the dollar. speculators. They have done well. I objection, it is so ordered. ·

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5549 EXEMPTION FROM ANNUAL AND

SICK LEAVE ACT OF CERTAIN OFFICERS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH The Senate resumed the consideration

of the bill <H. R. 4654) to provide for the exemption from the Annual and Sick Leave Act of 1951 of certain omcers in the executive branch of the Government, and for other purposes.

Mr. CARLSON: Mr. President, the purpose of House bill 4654 is to settle a riumber of issues relating to the annual · leave rights of and lump-sum payments for unused annual leave to employees in the executive branch of the Government. The bill deals not only with certain matters that have caused many of us great concern during recent weeks but, in addition, it cohtains provisions that will enable the heads of departments and agencies to adopt more economical and emcient practices in the scheduling of work assignments and vacation periods throughout the Federal service.

The bill accomplishes the following major objectives:

First. It removes high omcials in the executive branch of the Government from the leave system applicable to Federal employees generally.

Second. It ends the granting of lumpsum payments to such exempted omcials covering periods of service in the future.

Third. It settles two basic questions: First, which otlicers are entitled to the compensation attached to their office by virtue of their status as officers and, second, which officers are required to conform to the regular statutes and regulations governing hours of work and leaves of absence.

Fourth. It restores the annual leave accumulation provisions of the 1951 Leave Act by repealing section 401 of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1953-Public Law 455, 82d Congress.

Mr. President, I desire at this time to explain in some little detail the background and importance of each of the four major objectives of this bill.

First, the removal of certain high officials from the leave system applicable to Federal employees generally.

The granting of leave of absence with pay to employees of the Government goes back to the act of March 3, 1893. From then until the act of March 14, 1936, with the exception of a temporary economy act, the statutes provided in substance that the head of a department might grant 30 days' annual leave with pay to each clerk or employee. ·

It was not until the act of 1936 that the right of officers, as distinguished from employees, to earn and accrue an- . nual leave was established. The 1936 act, in pertinent part, provided that-

All civilian officers and employees of the United States wherever stationed and of the District of Columbia, regardless of their tenure, in addition to any accrued leave, shall be entitled to 26 days• annual leave with pay each calendar year, exclusive ~ Sundays and holidays. ·

Subsequent to enactment of the 1936 act, the Comptroller General was asked for a decision as to whether the act was applicable to the Ac'lministrator, Wage

XCIX---349.

and Hour Division, Department of Labor, who had been appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The Comptrolier General on the basis of the language of the act and in the absence of any indication in the legislative history of the act that it was not intended to apply to Cabinet officers, agency heads, or other appointive officials held in a decision rendered on November 14, 1939, that the official in question, being a civilian official of the United States and not expressly excepted from the terms of the statute, was entitled to annual leave with pay under the terms of the 1936 act.

Although under this act civilian officers and employees were entitled to earn and accrue unused leave, upon the termination of their services the accrued leave to the credit of such officials and employees could not be liquidated in a lump sum. Consequently, such officials and employees were carried on the payroll in a leave status until the expiration of their accrued leave and then terminated.

. By the act of December 21, 1944, Congress provided for the liquidation of accumulated and accrued annual leave due an officer or employee upon separation from the service in a lump sum.

The reason for the enactment of the 1944 act as set forth in reports of the committees on civil service of the Senate and House are, in part, as follows:

The purpose of this bill is to authorize a lump-sum payment for accumulated annual or vacation leave due any officer or employee of the Government when separated from the Government (or in the event of death).

At the present time there Is no authority in law to pay an employee in money for such leave as may be due him upon separation from the service. In order to receive the benefits of accumulated leave prior to separation from the service, the date of separation must be fixed a,t the expiration of such leave. Employees who are to be separated from the service therefore, must be carried on the payroll as nominal employees until they have received salary for the period covered by the accumulated leave.

The reports of the Senate and House Committees on Civil Service in connection with the 1944 Lump-Sum Act then state:

This bill would provide many benefits such as the problem of dual compensation; stop service credit on the last day of active duty; permit immediate recruitment of a successor to a separated employee; would make fund available to employees leaving the services after the war enabling them to return to their homes; would simplify and expedite clearance of records in closing out installations; would eliminate considerable paperwork for payroll sections, and would save expenses to the Government.

After the 1944 act became law, the Comptroller General, in response to a question raised by the Federal Communications Commission with regard to the leave rights of a Commissioner, held as follows:

The Annual Leave Act of March 14, 1936, 1s applicable to all civilian omcers and employees of the United States, with certain exceptions not· here material. Also, the act of December 21, 1944, 1s applicable to any civilian omcer or employee of the United

States who is entitled to receive leave of absence with pay. Therefore, a Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commisison, who is a civilian officer of the United States, clearly comes within the purview of both statutes.

In 1951 the leave laws applicable to civilian officers and employees were revised by enactment of the Annual and Sick Leave Act of 1951.

The provisions of the 1951 act, like the provisions of the 1936 Leave Act and the 1944 Lump-Sum Act, apply to Cabi~ net members, agency heads, and other officials as well as employees.

That, in brief, is the history of the leave and lump-sum rights of civilian officers and employees in the Federal service.

The disclosure recently that 215 high officials of the Government who left the service during the period November 1, 1952, to February 15, 1953, received lump-sum payments aggregating over $700,000 on account of annual leave remaining to their credit indicated the need for reconsideration of the issues involved.

The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, of which I have the honor to be chairman, is unanimous of the view that a formal leave system and the right to lump-sum payments on account of any unused leave growing out of such a system is not appropriate in the case of topranking officials in the Government. This conclusion is based on the premise that such officials can never divest themselves of their responsibilities even during periods of vacation or illness. In effect such officials are on duty at all times; thus, it is absurd, in the case of these officials, to pretend that attendance and leave records can be maintained and then allow them lump-sum payments for unused annual leave remaining to their credit when they leave such positions.

As indicated earlier this bill has four major objectives, the first of which is the removal of certain high officials from the leave system applicable to Federal employees generally.

Section 1 of the bill accomplishes this objective by removing from the Sick and Annual Leave Act of 1951, the following:

First. All Presidential appointees in the executive branch whose ratio of basic compensation exceeds the maximum of grade GS-18-presently $14,800.

Second. All chiefs of mission in the Foreign Service and officers of similar · rank in other agencies who are paid in accordance with the provisions of section 411 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946-$15,000 to $25,000 a year.

Third. Other officers that may be specifically designated by the President except postmasters, United States attorneys; or United States marshals.

There are approximately 225 Presidential appointees who will be exempted from the 1951 Leave Act under the first provision referred to above. There are between 70 and 80 chiefs of mission in the Foreign Service and between 15 and 25 comparable rank omcers in other agencies-principally in the Mutual Security Administration-who will be exempted from the leave act under the second provision. Under the third provision


the President has the authority-except with respect to postmasters, United States attorneys, and United States marshals-to remove from the 1951 Leave Act such other officers as he may designate. It has been indicated by the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission speaking on behalf of the President that a permissive provision of this kind is advisable and necessary to bring about the exclusion of officials comparable to those specifically exempted such as the Treasurer of the United States, the civilian Commissioners of the District of Columbia, etc. It is estimated that the number of officers designated by the President will number less than a hundred. Thus, in total, the bill removes the 400 to 500 top officials of the Government from the leave act.

As indicated, the second major objective of the bill is to end the entitlement of high officials to lump-sum payments covering periods of service in the future.

This objective is accomplished by exempting such officials from coverage under the 1951 Leave Act. By terminating their right to annual leave, they automatically lose any rights to lumpsum payments covering periods of future service.

The third major objective of the bill is the settlement of two basic questions: First, which officers are entitled to the compensation attached to their office by virtue of their status as officers. Second, which officers are required to conform to the regular statutes and regulations governing hours of work and leaves of absence. -

Section 1 of the bill settles both of these questions. Officers who are exempted from the act would retain their present right to absent themselves from duty as they see fit but they would lose the present unwarranted added right to leave benefits and lump-sum payments. On the other hand, officers who are not exempted from the Leave Act would lose their freedom with respect to hours of work but would retain their statutory rights to annual leave and lump-sum payments for any such unused leave upon separation from the service.

The fourth and final major objective of the bill is the restoration of the leave accvmulation provisions of the 1951 Leave Act. Those provisions permit a maximum accumulation of 60 days' annual leave by employees in the United .states and 90 days by overseas employees wit!\ minor exceptions.

The committee firmly believes that as a general rule, agencies should restrict the accumulation of annual leave by seeing to it that employees take regularly scheduled vacations. However, a reasonable amount of flexibility in the use and accumulation of annual leave is desirable for a number of'reasons:

First. The committee is convinced, on the basis of testimony by the Civil Service Commission, the Bureau of the Budget, the General Accounting Office, and others, that the restriction on accumulations of annual leave is costly and unduly burdensome to administer. It is costly because (a) under certain circumstances when employees are forced to take time off or lose certain benefits to which they are entitled their work is

done by others on an overtime basis, at _ overtime rates of pay; (b) it is necessary for agencies to maintain dual records on each employee which increases overhead; (c) its effect is reflected in higher turnover and lower employee morale.

Second. During emergencies or rush periods it may be advantageous to the Government to restrict the use of leave on a partial or total basis within an agency or even throughout the Federal service as a whole. · Under these conditions, if leave cannot be accumulated, administrative officials must either force employees to lose earned leave or must grant leave, which results in loss of production, and may require work by other employees at overtime rates of pay. ·

Third. Employees earn only 13 days annual leave during each of the first 3 years of their employment. During the 4th through the 15th years, they earn 20 days per year, and thereafter 26 days per year. Not all of this time is available for vacation purposes, for the reason that every absence from duty for any reason is charged to the employee's leave account. As a result many employees, particularly the newer ones, find it difflcult and financially prohibitive to return to their homes for their vacations on the amount of annual leave earned andremaining to their credit dur~ng any given year.

Fourth. Federal employees, unlike most employees in private employment, are not covered by the Federal unemployment-insurance program. The only financial protection against unemployment Federal employees have is the accumulated annual leave standing to their credit.

Fifth. The June 30 deadline date in the Thomas amendment precedes the normal summer vacation period. Thus, to avoid the forfeiture of earned leave, employees are compelled to schedule vacations at a time that is disadvantageous to the agency where they are employed because it causes an excess of leave-taking during the closing weeks of the fiscal year, when the workload is often at its peak.

Sixth. Another factor, and one not without considerable significa,nce, is the 1951 Leave Act itself This act has been in effect only a little over a year-since January 6, 1952, to be specific. Under its terms the vast majority of Federal employees received a drastic cut-back in the amount of annual and sick leave earned each year. Sick leave was cut from 15 to 13 days a year. Annual leave was reduced as follows:

(a) Employees appointed for less than 90 days, reduced from 2% days a month to no leave at all.

(b) Employees with less than 3 years · service, reduced from 26 days to 13 days a year.

(c) Employees with 3 but less than 15 years' service, reduced from 26 days to 20 days a year.

(d) Em'ployees with over 15 years' service-no change.

These cuts as voted by the Senate in 1951, reduced the leave earnings of the 2% million Federal employees by 15,-630,000 d;:tys, having a salary value of over $275 million. Worded in another way, Federal employees were required to

work 15 million days more, under the 1951 Leave Act,· than they would have worked, had that act ·not been enacted. That measure was passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives. I wanted ·the Senate and the country to know that because of that Leave Act, the employees contributed $275 million worth of work the Government would not have received if that act had not been changed by Congress.

The ·Post Office and Civil Service Committee believes that the reduced rate of leave earnings under the 1951 Leave Act is fair both to the employees and to the Government. It does believe, however, that a further. restriction, such as that provided in the Thomas amendment, is neither necessary nor advisable.

In summary, on this point, repeal of section ·401 of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1953, and restoration 'of the accumulation provisions of the Annual and Sick Leave Act of 1951 would <a> enable agencies to adopt more efficient work schedules and economical practices in the granting of leaves of absence, (b) enable employees to take reasonable vacations during the normal vacation season, <c> enable employees to establish a small amount of self-provided protection in the event of sudden unemployment through no· fault of their own.

In connection with the four major objectives I have covered, the bill contains the following necessary technical provisions to assure that they are carried out as intended:

-Subsection (s) of section 1 enabl-es the President to authorize leaves of· absence to chiefs of mission in the foreign service and comparable officers for use in the United States, its Territories and possessions. Under the 1951 Leave Act, such officers receive, in addition to annual and sick leave, home leave at the rate of 1 week for each ·4 months' service abroad. Such home leave is not in the same category as annual leave, in that it must be used for that purpose only either during one or between two assignments abroad, and when it is not used, it cannot serve as the basis for any lump-sum payment. When such officers are removed from the 1951 Leave Act, they will lose their entitlement not only to annual and sick leave, but also to home leave. It . is not necessary to provide them with annual and sick leave, because as officers they have freedom to absent themselves from duty. It is.necessary, however, to provide statutory leaves of absence for . use in the .United States, -its Territories and possessions, so that their travel cost can continue to be paid in the future, as at present. ,

Section 2 of the bill suspends the en• titlement of officers taken out from under the 1951 Leave Act, as a result of enactment of the bill, to liquidation, by lump-sum payment at the time of or during their exemption from the act, of any leave to which they are entitled immediately prior to their exemption.

Such leave will remain frozen to the credit of the officer until first, he is separated from the service, in which case it will be liquidated at the rate of compensation he was receiving at the time of his exemption from the Leave Act;

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5551 or second, he transfers to a. position subject to the Leave Act, in which case it will be recredited to him.

Finally, the bill contains a perfecting change to the Annual and Sick Leave Act of 1951.

The 1951 Leave Act provides that employees may not have more than specified amounts of annual leave to their credit at the end of the last pay period occurring in the year. The end of the last pay period may occur on any date from December 20-as happened last year-to the end of the month. When it occurs before Christmas, some employees are forced ·to forfeit leave they might otherwise use over the Christmas and New Year's holidays·. This can be overcome by correcting the 1951 Leave Act to provide that employees may not have more than sped.fied amounts of annual leave to their credit at the beginning of the first pay period occurring in the year. This management of the leave year will permit the use of unused accrued leave over the holidays, while maintaining the advantages of pay-period accounting.

The committee believes that enactment of the bill as reported is highly desirable in the interest of economy and good management.

Mr. President, I sincerely hope the bill will be passed.

My colleagues will notice that various amendments are submitted to the bill, which is a House measure, and deals with only one subject. In the amendments we provide for the various changes.

So, Mr. President, I urge the passage of the bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kansas yield?

Mr. CARLSON. I am glad to yield. Mr. WILLIAMS. Is there in the bill

any provision to prohibit the so-called firing-and-rehiring racket which was recently exposed-a plan whereby employees were being separated from the service and were paid for their annual leave, and then were being immediately reemployed, without forfeiting their annual leave?

Mr. CARLSON. Yes; there is. We think we have in the bill adequate provisions on that point, .and we also feel that the General Accounting Office has made some very definite rulings on this particular phase of the matter. The distinguished junior Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JoHNSTON], the former chairman of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, placed in the REcoRD earlier this year, I be~ieve, some corre~pondence he had on that subject with the General Accounting Office.

As a committee, we felt that the matter was well taken care of.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr.· President, will the Senator from Kansas yield further?

Mr. CARLSON. I yield. Mr. WILLIAMS. No doubt the Sena

tor from Kansas is familiar with the amendment I offered a few days ago to one of the appropriation bills. That amendment provided that in the event an employee was separated from the service and received a lump-sum pay .. ment for his annual leave, and then was reemployed before the period covered by his annual leave had expired •. he would

be required to pay into the Treasury an amount equal to the unexpired portion of his annual leave.

Would the chairman of the committee accept an amendment which would prohibit that practice? I do not believe it is fully corrected in the bill as it now stands. I am sure the committee agrees with me that Congress never intended to endorse this practice when we passed the original law.

Mr. CARLSON. Our committee discussed that matter at some length. Personally, I am in accord with what the Senator from Delaware desires to do. If he believes that we have not taken care of the matter in this bill-and I certainly wish to take care of it--then I would not have objection, personally, to accepting his amendment and taking it to conference, with the distinct understanding that I am not familiar with the language of the amendment, although I am familiar with the principle he is trying to apply, with which I am in accord.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kansas yield to me, to permit me to ask a question of the Senator from DeJaware?

Mr. CARLSON. I yield. . Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.

Let me ask the Senator from Delaware what the amendment will . do? Will it change the amount of leave Federal employees have already accumulated?

Mr WILLIAMS. The amendment was prepared by the Legislative Counsel, and I think it accomplishes its purpose outlined but, if in conference it is found that a .rewording of the amendment is

, needed, I would not object. The purpose of the amendment is that

in the event individual employees or a group of employees are separated from the service and receive lump-sum payments for their annual leave, and if, for example, they had 60 days annual leave coming to them, they are reemployed by the Government within the 60-day period, then to the extent that the 60-day period had not expired, they would pay back into the Treasury the amount represented by the unexpired portion.

This will prevent a .repetition of the case which occurred in the Rent Stabilization Agency, where employees were fired wholesale on Saturday night, and were reemployed on Monday morning, but in the meantime had received lumpsum payments for their accumulated annual leave.

If my amendment is adopted, and a similar incident occurs these employees could be reemployed only after they returned to the Treasury the lump-sum payments they had received for their accumulated annual leave-which I think such employees should do.

I repeat, the amendment merely provides that employees cannot draw their annual-leave payments and keep on working for the Federal Government.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, as I have. stated, personally I am in accord with what the Senator from Delaware is trying to do. I have had discussions with the General Accounting Office, which, after having studied the bill, has advised me that it would be glad to write

a letter to the effect that the bill does take care of the matter.

As I say, I shall be willing to take the amendment to conference, where the. proposal will be worked out with the conferees.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Then, Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Mr. President, I should like to make a statement about the matter with which the Senator from Delaware dealt a few months ago.

I was interested in it, and I wrote to the Comptroller General of the United States, asking for a modification of the former ruling. In reply, the Comptroller General advised that, having inquired into the matter further, a ruling had been made which prohibits the very thing to which the Senator from Delaware referred a few moments ago.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I understand that is correct, but, according to my information, there is still this situation: A man can be reemployed in a different position, under a different annual-leave system. For example, if he is presently ·holding a position as a permanent employe, and -is transferred into temporary status, he would be under a different leave system. - Temporary employees have a different leave system than that of permanent employees. There is therefore a question in the minds of some of those in the Comptroller General's Office as to whether the modified rule corrects that situation. Again I say the amendment would merely accomplish what we are all trying to do, and what the Comptroller General says must be done. I think it would afford an additional safeguard.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I think that was true until the Comptroller General made his last ruling, which, in a way, changed his former ruling. The last ruling will, I think, take care of the situation about which the

· Senator from Delaware has complained. I base my statement upon the letter of the Comptroller General to me and also upon the order which he enclosed therewith.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Perhaps that is true. But if we adopt this amendment we will preclude any possible chance that some future Comptroller General will reverse that interpretation and return to the old interpretation.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I agree with the Senator from Delaware about that.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, would the distinguished Senator from South Carolina agree that we might take this amendment to conference?

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I think it might be well to take it to conference. If it is found in conference that there is any question of its constitutionality-a question which might be raised by the attorney~! course, I know that the Senator from Delaware would not ftirther insist upon it, or would modify the amendment in order to take care of the situation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the committee amendment -which is in the nature of a substitute for the bill.

5552 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. SENATE May 26

The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert i~ lieu thereof the following:

That section 202 of the Annual and Sick Leave Act of 1951 is amended by adding a subsection (c) as follows:

"(c) (1) This title shall not apply to the following officers in the executive branch of the Government: (a} persons appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, or by the President alone, whose rates of basic compensation exceed the maximum rate provided in the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended; (b) persons who receive compensation at one of the rates authorized in section 411 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946; and (c) such other officers (except postmasters, United States attorneys, and United States marshals) as may be designated by the President. No officer in the executive branch to whom this title applies shall be deemed to be entitled to the compensation attached to his office solely by virtue of his status as an officer.

"(2} The President, in his discretion, may authorize leaves of absence to persons who are exempted from this title pursuant to subsection (c) (1) (b) for use in the United States and its Territories and possessions."

SEc. 2. (a} The accumulated and current accrued annual leave to which any officer exempted from the Annual and Sick Leave Act of. 1951 as a result of the enactment of this act 1s entitled immediately prior to the date this act becomes applicable to him shall be liquidated by a lump-sum payment at the rate of compensation which he was receiv.ing immediately prior to such date only upon (1} the separation of such officer from the service, (2) the death of such officer, or (3) the transfer of such officer to a position under a leave system other than the leave system provided by the Annual and Sick Leave Act of 1951.

(b) In the event any such exempted officer, without any break in the continuity of his service, again becomes subject to the Annual and Sick Leave Act of 1951 upon the completion of his service as an exempted officer, such officer shall be recredited with the unused annual and sick leave standing to his credit at the time he was exempted form the Annual and Sick Leave Act of 1951.

(c) In the event any such exempted officer i& separated from the service to enter upon active service in the Armed Forces or the merchant marine of the United States, such officer shall be entitled (1) to receive compensation covering the accumulated and current accrued annual leave to which he is entitled immediately prior to the date .this act becomes applicable to him, or (2) to elect to have such leave remain to his credit until his return from active service 1n the Armed Forces or the merchant marine.

SEc. 3 (a) Section 203 (c) of.the Annual and Sick Leave Act of 1951 (65 Stat. 679) is hereby amended by striking out the words "end of the last complete biweekly pay period" and substituting the words ·~beginning of the first complete biweekly pay period." ,

(b) Section 203 (d) of the Annual and Sick Leave Act of 1951 is hereby amended by striking out the words "end of the last complete biweekly pay period" and substituting the words "beginning of the first complete biweekly pay period."

(c) Section 208 (a) of the Annual ancl Sick Leave Act of 1951 1s amended by striking out the words "end of the last complete biweekly pay period" and substituting the words "beginning of the first complete bi· weekly pay period."

SEC. 4. The foregoing provisions of this aet shall take etfect on the first day of the first pay period 'Which begins after the date of enactment of this act.

SEC. 5. Section · 401 of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1953 (Public Law 455, 82d Cong.), is hereby repealed.

Mr. Wn.LIAMS. Mr. President, I o:ffer the amendment which I send to the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendment of the Senator from Delaware.

The CHIEF CLERK. On page 6, after line 18, it is proposed to insert:

SEC. 4. Under no circumstances shall any sums authorized or made available by this act be used to pay any civilian officer or employee (except an officer or employee stationed outside the continental United States) for any period of terminal leave in excess of 60 days; and if such officer or em-

. ployee reenters the service within a period equal to that for which he was paid terminal leave he shall be required to refund to the United States an amount covering the period of accumulated unused.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS] to the committee amendment.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, we are willing to accept the amendment, and take it to conference.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I have prepared an amendment somewhat along the same line, which I ask to be made a part of the · REcORD at this point.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

There being no objection, the amendment intended to be proposed by Mr. CARLSON to the committee amendment was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

On page 5, beginning with the word "only,•• in line 10, strike out down through line 14, and insert in lieu thereof the follow~ng: "in accordance with the act of December 21, 1944. However, no officer shall be considered, by reason of the enactment of this act, to have been transferred to a ditferent leave system within the meaning of such act."

Mr. JENNER. Mr. President-The PRESIDING OFFICER. noes

. the Senator from Kansas yield to the Senator from Indiana?

Mr. CARLSON. I will be pleased to yield to the Senator, or, if he desires the floor in his own right, I shall yield the floor.

Mr. JENNER. I desire th~ floor in my own right.

Mr. CARLSON. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on the adoption of the committee amendment, as amended.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be offered, the question is on the engrossment of the amendment and the third reading of the bill.

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a third time.

The bill <H. R. 4654) was read the third time and passed.

Mr. JO~STON of South Carolina. Mr. President, I send to the desk a statement, which I ask to have printed in the RECORD at this point, as an explanation of my position on the bill which has just been passed.

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

ExPLANATION OF H. R. 4654 Section 1 : This section would remove from

the Annual and Sick Leave Act of 1951-(a} Presidential appointees in the execu

tive branch of the Government whose rates of basic compensation exceed the maximum of grade GS-18 (at present $14,800).

(b) Chiefs of missions in the Foreign Service and others who receive compensation at one of the rates authorized in sections 411 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 ($15,000 to $25,000 a year).

(c) Such other officers as may be designated by the President. However, it is specifically provided that the President may not remove postmasters, United States attorneys, or United States marshals.

Section 2: This section suspends the entitlement of those officers who are exempted from the Annual and Sick Leave Act of 1951 as a result of the enactment of the bill, to liquidation by lump-sum payment, during the period of their exemption from such act, of the accumulated and current accrued annual leave to which they are entitled immediately prior to their exemption from such act.

The accumulated and current accrued annual leave to which any such officer is so entitled is to be liquidated, by lump-sum payment at the rate of compensation which he was receiving immediately prior to his exemption from the Annual and Sick Leave Act of 1951, if, while he is within the class of such exempted officers, he is separated from the service, dies, or 1s transferred out of the exempted service to a position under a leave system other than the leave system provided by the Annual and Sick Leave Act of 1951.

Section 3: Under the present act, regular accumulation limits of from 60 to 90 days take etfect at the end of the last pay period in the calendar year. This means that employees who have reached the regular accu-

, mulation limit must use or forfeit all leave earned in the year by, for example, December 21 or 22. Thus, they must lose leave which, within a few days, could be used over the Christmas and New Year's holidays. This section allows accumulation limits to take etfect at the beginning of the first pay period of the calendar year, thus permitting the use of unused accrued leave over the Christmas and New Year's holidays, while maintaining the advantages of pay-period accounting.

Section 4: This section provides that the foregoing provisions shall take etfect on the first day of the first pay period following enactment.

Section 5: This section repeals section 401 of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1953, thereby reinstating the accumulation provisions of the Annual and Sick Leave Act of 1951.

A reasonable amount of flexibility in the use Pnd accumulation of annual leave is desirable for a number of reasons:

(1) The committee is convinced, on the basis of testimony by the Civil Service Commission, Bureau of the Budget, General Accounting Office, and others that the restriction on accumulations of annual leave is costly and unduly burdensome to administer. It is costly because (a) under certain circumstances when employees are forced to t .ake time otf or lose benefits td which they are entitled their work is done by others on an overtime basis at overtime rates of pay, (b) it is necessary for agencies to maintain dual records on each employee which increases overhead, (c) its etfect is reflected in higher turnover and lower employee morale.

( 2) During emergencies or rush periods it may be advantageous to the Government to restrict the use of leave on a partial or total basis within an agency or even throughout

1953 CONGRESS~ONAL RECORD-· SENATE 5553 the Federal service as a Whole. Under these conditions, if leave cannot be accumulated, administrative officials must either force employees to lose earned leave or grant leave which results in loss of production and may require work by other employees a~ overtime rates of pay.

(3) Employees earn only 13 days annual leave during each of the first· 3 years of their employment. Dur.ing the 4th through the 15th years, they earn 20 days per year, and thereafter 26 days per year. Not all of this

. time is available for vacation purposes for the reason that every absence from duty for any reason is charged to the employee's leave account.

(4) Federal employees, unlike most employees in private employment, are not covered by the Federal unemployment insurance program. The only financial protection against unemployment Federal employees have is the accumulated annual leave standing to their credit.


sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, its reading clerk, announced that the House had agreed to the following resolution:

Resolved, That pursuant to Public Law 32 of the 83d Congress, the Speaker announced the appointment of the following Members to serve as members of the Joint Committee on Observance of the 50th Anniversary Year of Controlled Powered Flight: .Mr. HINSHAW of California, Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota, Mr. ScHENCK of Ohio, Mr. BoNNER of North Carolina, Mr. PRIEST of Tennessee, and Mr. MAcK of Illinois.

VISIT TO THE SENATE OF FRANCISZEK JARECKI, A POLISH FLIER

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I desire to have the attention of the Senate for a few moments. Back in the days when this country was struggling for its liberty, the names of Pulaski and Kosciusko

. were very familiar to the people throughout the Thirteen Original States. Those men had joined with us in our fight for liberty. Very recently, the newspapers told of an incident involving a modern hero from Poland. It was the story of a young Polish flier, a boy 19 years of age, who had been separated from his mother when he was 9; who was captured by the Russians, and in-

. doctrinated and inoculated with communistic thought from the Kremlin. The name of that young man is Franciszek Jarecki. The Russians felt that they had made this boy subservient to the concepts of Marxism, but he so well concealed his reactions that he became one of the great lieutenants in the Russian Air Force.

A few weeks before he decided to leave Russia, there came to his attention the fact that the Russians were getting a new jet plane; so he delayed his departure. He obtained one of those planes. Then, as he was flying in company with three other men, he decided that it was time for him to join· up with what he called Anders Army of the Free Poles. He forthwith flew his plane to Denmark, where he landed. He was imprisoned for 13 days. Upon his release, he found his way to England, and, finally, to America. He now wants to join the American Air Force, to fight at this time

for the country for which Kosciusko and Pulaski fought more than 150 years ago.

Mr. President, it is my great privilege today to have this young man in the Senate gallery as my guest. I ask him to rise, that we may honor him with our plaudits.

[Mr. Jarecki rose from his place in the gallery, and was greeted with applause, Senators rising.]

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I wish to remind the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin and other Senators that I happened to be at Idlewild Airport when this young man arrived from across the seas. I believe I was the first Member of the United States Senate to have the opportunity of welcoming him to our country, and of assuring him of our appreciation of the fine work he has done. We are very happy th~t he is here, and I sincerely trust that we may have much benefit from his splendid services.

CONSOLIDATED GENERAL APPROPiUATION ACT

Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 8. It is Order No. 267 on the calendar.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the resolution by title.

The CHIEF CLERK. A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 8) providing for a consolidated general appropriation act.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Ohio.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll .

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for a quorum call be rescinded and that further proceedings under the call be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. JENNER obtained the floor. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President,

will the Senator from Indiana yield? Mr. JENNER. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND .. Mr. President, im

mediately preceding the request for a quorum call, the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BRICKERl, .who had been acting for me at a time when I was attending a meeting of the Republican Policy Committee, moved that the Senate· proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 267, Senate Concurrent Resolution 8, providing for a consolidated ·general appropriation act. I now .ask for action on that motion.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Ohio.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 8) providing for a consolidated general appropriation act, which had been reported ·from the Committee on Rules and Administration with an amendment.

WAR IN KOREA Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, we owe

a debt of gratitude to the leader of the Socialist Party of Britain.

Clement Attlee has pulled the wool from our eyes. He has shown us the proposed sell-out of our fighting men in all its ugly nakedness.

At the Pacific political conference, to be held 90 days after the cease-fire in Korea, we are to sign away our honor and give Soviet Russia and her satellites

. the fruits of victory. Mr. President, have we been defeated

by Red China? Is it true we must drink to the last drop the bitter brew of defeat? Are the Communists victors· who must receive the rewards of victory?

We have not been defeated in . the field, Mr. President.

Never in all our long history, from the days of the Indian fighting in the wilderness, have Americans fought more bravely against more cruel odds than our American youth have fought against

· in the Korean theater in what was in reality the battle for Asia.

It is my belief, Mr. President, that we were never meant to win the war in Korea.

The plans were laid, down to the last detail, to push our men quickly off the Peninsula at Pusan, and leave all Asia to the Red forces.

The Communists in the Soviet ·Union, and their obedient agents in this country, knew Kore~ was halfway round the world from our sources of supply.

They knew Korea had been chosen for the decisive thrust because it was the most unfavorable terrain for a nation whose advantages lay in modern indus-

. trial power. The Communists in Russia and in

Washington knew we would be hopelessly defeated.

But our fighting men and our fighting military leaders did not understand defeat. Our Navy did not know it was impossible to steam across the Pacific in time to get the Marines into battle. So they did it.

Our commander in the Far East, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, did not know it was impossible to strip Japan of our garrison forces.

Our supply men did not know it was impossible to get planes and guns across the Pacific.

Our salvage men in Japan did not know it was impossible to get pieces of junk from Pacific island dump heaps and turn them into parts of planes and vehicles.

Our airmen did not know it was impossible to go up in the fog, but they did it.

The American forces were not driven back into the Pacific.

Instead, they drove the Korean Communist forces back in total defeat.

Our commanding general and his advisers turned the line at Inchon and recaptured South Korea.

The Red Chinese entered the war. We surprised them as they formed their new invasion army. Our forces had to withdraw, but turned to fight again, ready for the final test.

All this is to establish one all-important fact: the Communist forces were


defeated in the spring of 1951, more than 2 years ago.

General Van Fleet has now made even clearer what was then unmistakably clear.

He says without equivocation that on April 28, 1951, the so-called U. N. forces had stopped the last big Red offensive cold, and a counterattack at that moment would have sent them reeling back toward disaster.

I repeat, Mr. President, General Van Fleet says our- Armed Forces had disastrously defeated the combined North Korean and Chinese Communist armies 2 years ago.

When the Soviet pe'ace proposal was broached in June, 1951, the short-wave radio networks around the world were filled with statements of foreign spokesmen:

The Americans will never accept the Soviet peace offer. They have won the war. American firepower has proven it is superior to the vast manpower pools of Asia.

Everybody knew we had won the wareverybody but U:s.

Faced with the fact the Reds were beaten, did the pro-Red clique in our Government hesitate? No; Mr. President. They deeided to do by indirection what they had bungled by letting· the military use part of their strength.

In the 2 succeeding years, someone in our Government snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and lowered the proud standard of American military power while our officials bent the knee to the new barbarians.

First of all-and this is not a digression-the American people and their spokesmen had been persuaded in early 1951 to send American troops, as well ;:ts American materiel, to Europe, though all the fighting was in Asia.

Mr. President, let me ask you this question: If- you were one of the masterminds in the Kremlin, planning to destroy America without arousing her strength, if you had to quench the patriotic fire roused by prolongation of the fighting in Korea, could you have imagined any better way to keep down the fighting forces jn Asia, and to keep them short of ammunition, than to build up a fictitious crisis in Europe?

Mr. President, let us never forget that this game is played on the world chessboard, and the debate on sending troops to Europe in early spring of 1951 was

-in fact a debate on not sending them to Korea. Having carefully diverted attention to Europe, the appeasers could move in Asia.

On April 10, 1951, the American· commander in the Far East was summarily dismissed. He first learned of his dismissal from Mrs. MacArthur who had been told by an aide who had heard it over the radio.

What evil deed of our American commander occasioned his dismissal? He had asked the Reds if they were ready for a cease-fire and warned them that, if they were not, he would step up the attack. That was good American offensive strategy, and conformed at every step with military · etiquette for commanders in the field.

On May 17, President Truman said he had dismissed our commanding general

because this offer of an armistice wrecked his, the President's, plan for peace. General MacArthur answered this admission in one of the most important statements he ever made.

He said that twice before he had made the same offer without any objection and that a cease-fire could only be regarded as in full support of any political move toward peace, and here I ask you, . Mr. President, to listen carefully while I quote exactly:

Unless an agreement was In contemplation on the enemy's own terms.

General MacArthur knew then, as many Senators · knew then, that on March 24, 1951, an agreement was in fact in contemplation to make peace on the enemy's own terms.

Our political leaders were working then to destroy at the council table, and in the press, the hard-won victory of our men on the battlefield.

In May 1951 I said: For months the administration's artists in

propaganda have been softening us up in preparation for a Yalta peace in the Far East, for a settlement which at first looks like a victory, but like Yalta, would in reality be a sellout.

I even stated the terms of this sellout, because the Soviet Union had formally presented them on December 9, 1950, before the U. N.

The Soviet Union had said that peace could be obtained in Korea on two conditions.

First. That all foreign troops be withdrawn immediately from Korea.

Second. That the decision on the Korean question be entrusted to the Korean people themselves. , I said then:

All the Soviet Union wants is to get the American Armed Forces out of Asia.

Then time and the fifth column will do the rest.

Mr. President, these are still the Communist ai'ms in Korea.

We must always translate Communist statements from their Aesopian language into words which make sense to us.

The most recent Korean peace proposal, that prisoners of war be turned over to five neutral nations, is proposition one in Aesopian language.

If the Communists cannot get our forces out; they will get us to invite the troops of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and India into the Korean Peninsula.

And who, Mr. President, will direct the operations of the troops of Poland, of Czechoslovakia, and India-indeed, of all five neutrals-if they operate under a single command?

The other Communist goal was liquidation of free China and admission of Red China to the U. N., with Nationalist China's seat on the Security Council.

We can be grateful to Mr. Attlee, because he has brought out into the open what, until now, has been clothed in the softest, most ambiguous language. . Recognition of Red China is the only real barrier to a peace agreement in Korea. The prisoners of war are pawns in this cruel game of power politics. They have never been the real issue.

The Communists haggle over 48,000 prisoners so we will forget the 400 mil-

lion Chinese pr.isoners of war we are to abandon for all time.

The pro-Communists in Britain and the pro-Communists in the United States can never give up their insistence on placing Red China on the Security Council, because that is the No. 1 objective of the U. S. S. R. in Asia.

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. JENNER. I am glad to yield. Mr. MALONE. Does the distin•

guished Senator from Indiana remember that when Mr. Acheson returned from Europe there was a joint meeting of ·

, Congress to enable Congress to hear the results of Mr. Acheson's visit? ·

Mr. JENNER. Yes; I recall that. Mr. MALONE. Mr. Acheson spoke for

about an hour and said only one thing which, so far as I knew, we had not heard many times before. He led up to it fast and got away from it fast, but he said that the United States would not

. use the veto in order to prevent the recognition of Communist China. -Does the Senator remember that?

Mr .. JENNER. I remember that very well.

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield?

Mr. JENNER. I yield. Mr. MALONE. Does the distin

guished Senator remember any change in the State Department policy by Mr. Acheson later or by Mr. Dulles since he has taken office?

Mr. JENNER. I have noticed no change.

Mr. MALONE. If -the Senator will further yield, he will no doubt remember that Great Britain was one of the first to recognize Communist China, followed by India and other nations. Does the distinguished Senator t:rom Indiana remember that the junior Senator from Nevada placed in the RECORD in 1949, and again in 1950, a couple o:! mutual security pacts?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; between England and Russia and between France and Russia.

Mr. MALONE. There is a mutual security pact between England and Russia, one paragraph of which reads almost exactly like a paragraph in the Atlantic Pact, which we have signed with England and other nations.

Mr. JENNER. I recali that. Mr. MALONE. It provides that the

signatories shall do everything in their power to assist each other.

Does the distinguished Senator remember that France has the same kind of pact with Communist Russia, containing similar paragraphs?

Mr. JENNER. I do. Mr. MALONE. On April 4, I believe it

wa.s, the junior Senator from Nevada placed in the REcORD a similar paragraph from the mutual security pact between Communist China and Russia. Does the distinguished Senator remember that?

Mr. JENNER. I recall. Mr. MALONE. There is another pact,

which the junior Senator from Nevada. has not yet obtained, but which he believes he will obtain, between England and France. This pact was made subsequent to the two mutual security pacts,

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5555 made separately with Russia. It ties the ends together.

SO we have all these mutual security pacts-England with Russia, France with Russia, Communist China with Russia, and the Atlantic Pact, between ourselves and the European countries. We have England recognizing Communist China. Does the distinguished Senator see any connection between those pacts and the continual insistence by Churchill-who, in the judgment of the junior Senator from Nevada, is one of the finest operators in the international field-on wetting down the operations in Asia at all times, so that ·England might keep her pact. with us and keep the pact with Russia at the same . time?

Mr. JENNER. I agree with the Senator. ·

The Soviet Union will never desist and never let its followers desist, until that aim is won.

We cannot retrace all the devious steps, Mr. President, by which we were ·kept in a state of confusion while the Communist sympathizers made one carefully planned move after another to push us toward the final sellout.

General Van Fleet has told us how. after the Red forces were defeated, our troops were refused permission to follow up their victory.

Our commanders could not use any body of troops larger than a patrol with

. out approval from Washington, ·and that approval was never given. ·

We all know, Mr. President, how our armies were refused the right of hot pursuit, the right to bomb troop concentrations and airbases, where bombing would reduce casualties to our forces.

The most fantastic fact, in this fantastic dream world, is that our soldiers were ordered to limit the war to the territory of our allies.

They were expressly forbidden to make the Reds angry by attacks on their soil.

I am sure this is the first time, in all history, that a victorious government boasted it had confined the war to the territory of its friends, and had not let a shot be fired against the territory of the enemy.

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield?

Mr. JENNER. I yield. Mr. MALONE. Does not this hark

back to the time when the 17 Marshall plan countries, including our supposed Allies i.n the Korean war, had approximately 100 trade treaties with Russia and the Iron Curtain countries, and were selling them everything from tool steel to engines, trucks, and other articles they needed to fight a world war against us?

Mr. JENNER. That is all a part of the entire picture. As I say, I cannot trace all the devious ways, but I think I have put the pieces together so that the American people can clearly understand what is going on and what has been going on.

Mr. MALONE. Have there not been conferences in Vienna between 40 Russian representatives and businessmen from all over Europe, in an effort to make new treaties and new arrangements for further trade with the area?

Mr. JENNER., l think that is correct.

Mr. MALONE. As a matter of fact, do Red Chinese as China and the legal govnot these mutual-security pacts, the ernment as Formosa. trade treaties, and the orders which we That plants the suggestion that the

· give our troops not to tight too hard for · Nationalists are only an island. fear they might win, all dovetail to- In the old days we used to have recog-gether? nition by formal acts of governments.

Mr. JENNER. They do. Today, recognition of an invader is Our demolition bombs fall on Korean achieved by getting the commentators to

railroads and power stations. Our na- ''condition" the public to words embodypalm bombs set tire to Korean buildings, ing the change, as Pavlov used to conP.iOur naval guns bomb Ko1·ean harbors, tion his captive dogs to new associations.

·while the Chinese cities and roads and In fact, calling the present war, the harbors are safe by order of an Ameri- Korean war, is in itself a semantic booby can President. trap.

Perhaps some Americans have not It has never been a Korean war. thought too much about whether the war It has, from the beginning, been a war was fought in Korea or in China, but over Asia. the French have noticed and the Ger- By calling it a local war our mentors mans have noticed, and the Southeast conditioned us to thinking we had "limAsians have noticed. I am certain, Mr. ited" the war when we were fighting on President, that the Soviet leaders have the territory of our friends and protectnoticed, because they planned it that ing the territory of the attackers. way. The pro-Communists have followed

But the perfect confusion, the really this one objective of getting Red China effective smoke~creen, was that on the recognized and installed in the U. N. diplomatic front, especially in the United ever since the fall of China. Nations. I cannot take time to trace We have the exact words of their plan all the moves on the diplomatic chess- from the testimony given by Harold board, Mr. President. First, the U. N. Stassen to the Senate Internal Security aim was unification of all Korea. Then Subcommittee on the "briefing session" we were told that returning to the 38th he attended at the State Department in parallel was a glorious victory. We were October, 1949. told stopping in mid-Korea was repell- At that session the IPR inner clique, ing aggression, a nice soft-spoken word led by Owen Lattimore, were spokesmen in place of attack. of the party line.

This is as if our police, called in to They mentioned two objectives to help catch a burglar who was murdering a the Reds-the first, to put an end to the man in his bed, should say to the thief, Nationalist blockade of Red China, and "You must go outside the window be- second, to get China's seat, in the U. N. cause entering is a crime, but, if you and on the Security Council, for shoot your victim from outside, w.e can- Communist China. not touch you. We have been told to Said L. K. Rosinger: ''In terms of preconfine this police action to the interior paring American public opinion for recof this house and not risk unpleasant ognition, there is a process of disentanviol{mce by going outside to tight you." glement from the Chinese Nationalists,''

Senators will remember the protesta- by which he meant we should end ECA tions that our forces must not bomb aid to China, refuse to help the guerrillas, Manchurian bases because that might and then withdraw recognition. make the Reds angry. Russia, it was Benjamin Kizer, also of IPR, said, said, might come in. Is she not in, with "The American people will rather quickly everything she is willing to risk? adapt themselves to it." Like Pavlov's

As his final legacy, Mr. Acheson left dogs again. the Indian peace proposal by which we Let me remind you, Mr. President, of committed ourselves in advance to a what we all know well. Pacific political conference in which the Almost the first act of President Truwishes of the American people would be man in June, 1950, after he sent Amerihopelessly out-voted. Like a retreating can forces into Korea, was to order the army, planting its boobytraps to snare American Fleet to protect the Red China the advancing foe, the pro-Communists coast against the ships of Free China. passed the Indian proposal, after a It is impossible but true. The plans of stage-managed hesitation, and left it to the pro-Soviet inner circle to help Red plague the Eisenhower administration. China were put into effect by an Ameri-

Recently, we heard of an apparent can President as almost his first action modification of the plan to sell out the in the Korean crisis. Nationalists. No words of mine could adequately de-

Instead of compelling the Formosa scribe the shame of that order, Mr. Government to accept the rule of Red President. China, we have a new plan to make the The proud American Navy was ordered Nationalist Government sovereign over to protect the Red Chinese commerce Formosa only, that is, to amputate most in war essentials to be used against our of its territory, and then put it under a own :flesh and blood. U. N. trusteeship. No words of mine could adequately

That proposal is different in form but describe the honor that will justly come not in substance, Mr. President. to President Eisenhower throughout his-

We know that Formosa would be eaten tory for his prompt lifting of that shame. up by Red China, as soon as public ful, traitorous order. opinion had been softened up. For 2 years longer the inner circle

This plan was repudiated by President worked and schemed to get the Chinese Eisenhow·er, but its sponsors will come attackers accepted as a respectable up with the same idea in a new dress. nation.

If you watch, you will notice how skill- They hatched the idea of having our fully our spokesmen now refer to the State Department get England and India

5556 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE May 26

to recognize her first so we could seem to follow the procession.

They said we must take "affirmative action to throw the Nationalist Govern· ment out of the United. Nations."

I want to remind you, Mr. President, of what we all know.

Two years ago the Red Chinese were a barbarian horde.

They had some seasoned fighting men, but they had no economy to back .them up.

Their war equipment moved over the Trans-Siberian Railroad at snail's pace.

The Red Chinese have used that 2 years of grace to kill off the Chinese who dared to resist them, or transfer them to the camps of Siberia, or the mines of Czechoslovakia for forced labor.

In that 2 years they have used their slaves to build railroads, airfields, submarine bases, munitions factories, while the blood of American soldiers dripped, dripped, dripped into the soil of Korea.

I want Senators to understand what defeat in this war means.

It means that the United States-not the United Nations, but the United States-has been defeated by a China which could not defeat Japan or Russia, which could not today defeat the Nationalists, if they had guns.

Do you think, Mr. President, the Japanese do not know that?

Do you think the Indians do not know it, or the people of southeast Asia or the Philippines?

There is something else we must understand to get the full measure of this proposed defeat.

If Red China has "peace" and a place in the U. N., how long will it be before the airstrips in Tibet are filled with bombers pointed at New Delhi?

How much help will the American people send to Indochina the next time?

How long will it be before Japan is drawn into the economic boobytrap already set for her?

What will the freedom of Formosa be worth then? Or Okinawa?

How far will the Communists be from Pearl Harbor?

Do you think our allies in Europe will trust us to liberate them as we "liberated" Korea?

Why should they, Mr. President? If Red China takes her seat at the

council table of the U.N., if she is given China's permanent seat on the Security Council, she will be part of the political power which commands our Armed Forces in Korea, in NATO, and our ships on the Atlantic Ocean.

Her 400 million slaves will be trained by Soviet officers and Soviet industrial managers to become one gigantic war machine for the conquest of all Asia and the United States.

Let no one try to tell us later they did not know, Mr. President. They know now.

But far more serious than all of this, what will happen to our own fighting men, Mr. President?

Americans always nave fought as if they were sure of victory. A thrill of hope spread over Western Europe when American troops landed on the soil of France in 1917. A thrill of hope spread over Western Europe when the Europeans heard American troops would fight

by their side after Pearl Harbor. A comb_ed with men loyal to the Soviet thrill of hope spread over the world Government or willing t:o accept orders when it was learned that American from .tbe Soviet agents in return for troops had at last stood up to the Com- power, or, in a few cases, duped by conmunist hordes in Korea. Even here in stant. repetition of the slogans the Soviet Congress we rejoiced at the bravery of Union wants us to believe. our troops in Korea, although we were On March 29, 1950, Lord Vansittart deeply disturbed over the unconstitu- told the House of Lords, in connection tiona! method of our entry. · with the Fuchs affair, a similar story of

If our troops who won a decisive mill- _ the pentration of Communist infiuence tary victory over Red China, must hang into the very heart of British life-into their heads in shame because Red China broadcasting, education, the church, won at the council table, what will hap- military intelligence, the diplomatic pen to the hearts of our fighting men? services, the armed forces~ the GovernWe shall have cut the hearts out of . ment services, and the great unions of American fighting men. Government employees. He had, him-

Where are we now, Mr. President? self, met peqple, he said, who were afraid On the military front, General Van Fleet. to talk because they had been told they has told us in no doubtful words: would be "bumped off" for their anti

In terms of high strategy, the Reds have Communist efforts. if war came. lost the war in Korea, and they know it. Lord Milverto"n, in the same qebate,

Only the United States Army today has pointed out that Communists and comthe superb kind of leadership and planning munism in Britain were the headwaters which can conduct the prolonged, fluid at- for communism all over the Empire, tack, the war of motion. particularly in Malaya and in British

We have the one army in the world that West Africa, where Communists were can regroup as it goes along, hitting hard here, then starting a thrust somewhere else, spreading into every department of the constantly moving, maintaining the full public service. fury of attack, never giving the enemy a If we want to know where we are, Mr. chance to rest or dig in. President, we can always look to the

Mr. President, such an army could be France of 1940. We know now why defeated only at home. France, with the "greatest army in · The Red Chinese are beaten. In Ko- Europe," offered only token resistance rea we do not need a substitute for vic- to the Nazis. It wa& the Communist tory. We have the hard reality of vic- fifth column, in alliance with Hitler, tory, and the Red Chinese and the Rus- which delivered France to the Nazi · sians know it. But the Soviet Union armies. still expects to win by its skill in the I should like to believe that this appapsychological war, by fooling the Amer- ratus is not at work in England, but I icans into giving the Communists what know it is. I should like to believe it is not they want. at work in our country, but I know it is.

The Korean war was won in the hills I should like to believe that the memof Korea. · It will be lost-if it is lost- bers of this fifth column were driven out in washington-not in London, not in of power by the recent election, but I Paris, not in Panmunjom, but in wash- know we shall have no such easy road ington. to security at home.

If the Communists can fool us, all is I sit day. after day-and for almost lost. If they cannot fool us, all may yet 3% hours today-in meetings of the Subbe saved. · committee on Internal Security, learn-

President Eisenhower has tried very ing of new ramifications of Communist hard to get us out of the morass of State power over our war operations and our Department thinking, but he is handi- postwar policies. But we still d~ not capped. The Communist Government know what the Communists are doing of Russia still has a pro-Communist fifth today, except that, by every trick they column at work in the United States, as have ever learned, they are throwing it has in Britain, trying to confuse our dust in our eyes and confusing our leadforeign policy, and put over Soviet peace . ers and our people, so they will not be aims under the cover of confusion. able to block the insidious power of sug-

By the Soviet fifth column, I mean gestiqn of the pro-Soviet apparatus. members of the Soviet apparatus who We have to solve the problem of forwork in the open party organization, eign policy, including our Asia policy, members of the Soviet underground, while the fifth column is throwing dust ''sleepers'' who have no visible contact in our eyes; while it is spreading rumors, with the Soviet apparatus, so-called turning Americans against each other, Americans who believe the Communists trying to discredit the courageous are going to win, and will do their bid- spokesmen for truly American solutions. ding for a few husks of power, and fuzzy- I say, Mr. President, that if we conminded Americans who can be fooled tinue to drift, if we wait without a goal by words, who are . without any ability or a plan, while the trained fifth column to understand them. presses forward under orders from the

We dangerously underestimate the Soviet high command, we shall sink power of the fifth column. lower and lower until we fall into the

The 15 volumes of the IPR Report of gulf toward which we are being guided. the Internal Security Subcommittee tell I repeat, Mr. President, if we go on _us why President Eisenhower is handi- as we are going, without a specific AIDercapped, Mr. President. The 5 volumes ican strategy, Red China must win the of the Russell Report and the current war. reports of the Internal Security Sub- Mr. Attlee has done us a great service. committee all tell the same story. ·He has made us look defeat in the face-

Our Federal Government and our to see its hideous features no longer agencies of public opinion are still honey- veiled by soft words of propaganda. The

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENAT;E 555'l

acquiescence of Mr. Churchill makes the picture perfectly clear. Either we must tell our fighting men we have sold them out and we are going to build up Red China into a great power or, with a. mighty effort, we must cut ourselves off from every tentacle of this evil power, and must fight our own way back to health and life and national safety.

I say, Mr. President, that President Eisenhower can free himself now from the toils, if he choose a program which has in it not the smallest particle of appeasement, if in the whole Asian settlement he acts as vigorously as he acted to end the shameful protection, by our Navy, of the Red China coast.

Our President already has taken three major steps in the direction of American independence.

First was the order to the Seventh Fleet.

Second was the appointment of wholly new Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Third was the statement that we would never abandon our opposition to forcible repatriation of prisoners, because it was a moral issue, of central importance in the values of the free world.

The next step is an equally final statement that we will not recognize the blood-stained murderers of Red China as the legal government of China, or admit her to U.N.

To appease the Red regime in China is to imperil our own survival-

Says General Van Fleet. When Mussolini invaded the little

kingdom of Abyssinia, Haile Selassie stood before the League of Nations and begged the members, on moral grounds,

·to put ·restraints on Mussolini. The members refused. They ceuld not bother with moral issues. The League of Nations crumbled there and then.

The admission of Red China, with her bloody hands, into the U. N. is a moral issue. If the U. N. votes to admit a cruel slave-state which invaded a peaceful, law-abiding Korea, U. N. has no moral excuse for being. All the highsounding words are without meaning. The only choice for the United States is to withdraw.

The Senator from California [Mr. KNOWLAND] has introduced a resolution stating the American position. I should be happy to join in sponsoring such a resolution to strengthen President Eisenhower's hand.

I know the great majority of our colleagues will never descend to the dishonor of approving Red China as a legal entity. I know they want to stand up and be counted.

Armed with a clear statement of American insistence on moral principles, the President can formulate an American program for Asia. '

We do not want to cut ourselves off from our allies. We want to save ourselves from the Communist spell. If our allies wish to do the same thing, we can all go forward together.

We should tell the Chinese delegates at Panmunjom that if they do not want to sign a cease fire, we shall resume fullscale war, but that war will be carried on with no hol~s barred.

We should promptly carry out President Eisenhower's _proposal fully to equip the armies of South Korea.

We should face the bitter facts of geography and rearm the Japanese.

Permanent demilitarization would have been ideal for Japan, if Sakhalin and. the Kuriles were not occupied by Soviet Russia.

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. JENNER. I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. MALONE. Did we not force Japan to sign a treaty which established the Russians in the islands referred to by the Senator, and within shooting distance of Japan?

Mr. JENNER. I am saying to the Senator that we must face the realities. We created the present situation.

Mr. MALONE. Then, Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, I ask him whether the natural trading area of Japan is not southeast Asia.

Mr. JENNER. That is correctsoutheast Asia and Red China.

Mr. MALONE. It includes Red China now. Southeast Asia is supposed to be controlled by our allies, is it not?

-Mr. JENNER. It is supposed to be. Mr. MALONE. Is the distinguished

Senator from Indiana aware that Japan is not allowed to trade at all in the Malayan States or in Indochina, and is prevented therefrom through manipulation of currency, quotas, and various other devices, on the part of America and England, which devices operate against the Malayan States and against Indochina?

Mr. JENNER. We all know that Japan is in a booby trap.

Mr. MALONE. I am sure the Senator understands that we are allowing Japan · to trade, practically on the basis of free trade, in the United States, with the probable result of the shutting down of plants in certain industries in our coun-try. ·

Mr. JENNER. Japan is being forced into the arms of the Communists.

Mr. MALONE. I think some of us so stated when we returned from the signing of the Japanese Treaty at San Francisco. I would ask the Senator again, is it not obvious that that is the case, in view of the fact that most of those whom we still refer to as our allies have recognized Communist China., or have signified their intention of doing so?

Mr. JENNER. That is correct. Mr. MALONE. Is it not a fact that

England may appropriately be said to be the leading ally in .that regard? Is it not generally taken for granted that that is the case, since England was the first to recognize Communist China?

Mr. JENNER. The Senator is correct.

Mr. MALONE. Most of our so-called allies have trade treaties with Russia and the Iron Curtain countries, and are shipping materials to them without stint. Is the distinguished Senator from Indiana aware of the fact that they are now threatening, aided by England and France, that if we do not give them free access to the markets of. the United States for their low-cost sweatshop-labor products, they will if possible set up their

trade with Russia and the Iron Curtain countries?

Mr. JENNER. Yes, not only that they will do so, but they are already setting up those trade relations, as the records will show.

Mr. MALONE. The Senator from Nevada does not believe it possible for them to step it up to very much more than what it is now. The Senator from Nevada stood on the floor of the Senate, several years ago and placed in the REcORD the trade trea t~es they had already entered into with Russia and the Iron Curtain countries. In 1950, as I recall, according to the latest figures there were 96 such treaties. I thought the country would be shocked by the statement of those facts. The country was not shocked. In fact, it shocked no one. But I would again ask the Senator, How are we to deal with allies who have received strategic materials and arms from · us, and who have recognized Red China, and have done everything in the world against our best interests?

Mr. JENNER. What I am advocating today is that our best strategy is to look after America.

Mr. MALONE. I think the Senator from Indiana is doing a great service to our country by what he is saying on the floor of the Senate today. · Mr. JENNER. I ask, which is better,

for . Japan to defend herself, or for American troops to garrison and defend her? The answer is obvious. We should give to Free China at least as much aid as we give to Japan.

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Indiana yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania?

Mr. JENNER. I yield to the distin .. guished Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. MARTIN. Is it possible for any nation to defend another nation?

Mr. JENNER. Not unless that nation has the will and the heart to defend itself.

Mr. MARTIN. We talk much about ammunition; we talk about great guns and about the atomic bomb, but unless the will to defend itself is present a country cannot be successfully defended from the outside. Is not that a fact?

Mr. JENNER. We are worrying about sending supplies to Korea. When ·our boys in Korea are short of equipment, we should send it where it is needed.

Mr. MARTIN. Is it not a fact that what we need to do is to give the truth to the American people? We heard on this floor an hour ago a magnificent address on the economic condition of this country, setting forth why we have inflation and what it is necessary to do in order to avoid inflation. What we need to do is to give the people the truth. The American Colonies won their independence because they had the will to win it, not because they had arms which were superior to "those of England, but because they had the will to be free. Unless a nation wants to be free, no amount of money that can be appropriated will make it possible for that country to keep itself free.

Mr. JENNER. I agree with the Senator and thank him. for his contribution.

5558 CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD- SENATE, May 26

Which is better-for Japan to defend herself or for American troops to act as a garrison to defend her? Tfie answer is obvious. We should give to free China at least as much equipment and training as the U.s.S.R. gave to Red China.

Friends of the United States should not use secondhand equipment and work without technical training, while satellites of Red China forge ahead in the very fields in which we lead.

I am not a military man, and I cannot give an expert military judgment. But Senators are supposed to know how to choose experts and judge expert opinion.

From everything I . have heard and read, Mr. President, I believe the people of China are only waiting for an opportunity to rise up.

I hear many experts say the National .. ists cannot recapture the mainland, but they are all experts in words, in propa .. ganda, not military experts.

Soviet Russia is arming the oppressors of the Chinese, but in spite of big talk, we have steadfastly neglected to arm the defenders of these helpless victims of Communist inhumanity.

We have neglected the only possible protection for Indochina-the return of the Nationalists to the mainland.

I do not want war with China, Mr. President. I do not want war with the U. S. S. R. I even dread to see the Free Chinese invade their homeland and· attack the Reds.

It would be intolerable, if the Communists were not killing more Chinese in their deadly "peace" than would die in a war of independence.

Far from enlarging the war, I believe arming all the free nations of Asia is the only hope of peace.

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?

Mr. JENNER. I should like to conclude, because I must leave the fioor in a few moments.

Mr. President, there are, perhaps, 20 . million fighting men available in free Asia today.

Does anyone believe the U. S. S. R. would · start a war, if these men were armed to defend their homelands?

No, indeed; the Soviet Union prefers to wage psychological war to tell us not to arm the Asian nations, but, if we do not swallow her bait, we can be free of feat.

To oppose communism, we must also have an idea that lifts the imaginations of men.

The American idea of liberty has always been a symbol of hope, of light in darkness.

It is a glowing idea which, set against Communist deeds, will tell its own story of our faith in human dignity.

The American principle which we can stress for the world today is the principle of national independence.

We believe in independence. We fought a war for it. .We came to the help of the people of South America when their independence was threatened. We helped preserve the independence of China. We gave national independence to the Philippines.

The United States is not engaged in any duel with the Soviet Union for domination of the world.

We will not make ourselves into an imperial power system, to meet the Soviet threat. We will choose our own ground. That ground is to take up our moral leadership in the struggle of the Asian people for national independence.

Let us set against the Soviet idea of empire, President Eisenhower's principle that every nation has a right to its own government, free of compulsion by any other power.

People who loved liberty have always trusted our country because Americans have never lost their deep interest in weak or small nations which must fight great powers for their own independence.

Patrick Henry and Valley Forge are still too close to us for Americans to bear tyranny patiently.

We, in turn, can trust nations which are seeking only independence, because people who truly love their rocks and rills, their wooded and templed hills, have no wish to desecrate the homeland of others.

Nations are born out of love. Imperial power systems are born out of the will to dominate.

Let us accept the leadership of all those nations which aspire to keep their homeland free.

Let us accept the moral leadership of tbose people who want to fight the new slavery.

Communist China is and must remain one vast slave-labor camp.

The Soviet leaders will use their recently acquired technical arts to wring high production from unwilling workers.

They will end resistance by moving their human pawns to other parts of the Soviet chessboard, where their victims will have no friends to hear their cries.

Let us promise to any country ready to fight for its independence that we will give them arms and equipment equal to those of any country which threatens them.

Our only condition should be that they are ready to fight for their own freedom.

We do not want our Asian friends to die for us. They are dying now. We want them to live. We want them to carry a soldier's pack instead of a prisoner's chain.

Against the subtle, devious, shifting policies of the Soviet Union and her fifth column let us set a simple, firm, unyielding policy based on moral principle.

Against the lies, the smears, the rumors, the bhindishments of Soviet propaganda, let · us set our own strong determination to keep our minds clear, our wills firm.

I believe, Mr. President, the outcome will be peace, an American peace; but whatever the outcome, we can all meet it together, so long as it is peace with honor, or war with honor, in defense of man's inalienable right to freedom.

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Indiana yield?

Mr. JENNER. I yield. Mr. MALONE. I have been informed

by an official who is in charge of the draft in my State that they are now at the point of drafting 19-year-old men and are worried about the 'number which can be secured in the future without taking men who serveQ, in World War II.

The Government is $270 billion in debt. That is the heritage of 20 years of

the kind of Government we have had during that period.

I believe the distinguished Senator from Indiana has given the Senate something to think about today, something it ought to consider very seriously, because we are at the end of our rope if it is true that we are now down to 19-year-olds in the draft. We have gone $270 billion into debt and are figuring on another $10 billion deficit at the end of the year. Therefore, as the Senator from Indiana has suggested, we must take stock and see what areas we can defend and what we can do with the materials and manp,ower we have. Does the distinguished Senator agree with me?

Mr.. JENNER. I agree; and I am hoping that the new Chiefs of Stafi will tak.e a look, and take it quickly. Mr~ MALONE. If 'the Senator will

further yield, I may say that it is time the new Chiefs of Stafi took over. We have had the menu read backward by political generals for about 10 years. What I mean by reading the menu backward is that when the administration wanted something done the generals cooked up reasons why it ought to be done. That is the conclusion I arrived at a good many months ago.

Mr. JENNER. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr. President,

I move that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of executive business.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr.

CARLSON in the chair) laid before the Senate messages from the President of the United States submitting several nominations, which were referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

<For nominations this day received, see the end of Senate proceedings.)

Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate proceed to the consideration of nominations under the heading "New Reports." .

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will proceed to state the nominations on the Executive Calendar under the heading "New Reports."

DIPLOMATIC AND :fOREIGN . SERVICE

The legislative clerk read the nomination of Frederick M. Alger, Jr., of Mich· igan, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Belgium:

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE The legislative clerk read the nomi

nation of Edward T. Wailes, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of State.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is' confirmed.

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. SENATE 5559 ~UTUAL DEFENSE -

The legislative clerk read the nomina· tion of Walter S. DeLany, of the District of Columbia, to be Deputy Admin· istrator of the Mutual Defense Assist• ance Control Act of 1951.


MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION The legislative clerk read the nomina

tion of Col. Herbert D. Vogel, Corps of Engineers, to be a member of the Mississippi River Commission.


Without objection, the President will be notified forthwith of all nominations this day confirmed.

LEGISLATIVE SESSION Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr. President,

I move that the Senate resume the consideration of legislative business.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration of legislative business.

CONSOLIDATED GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

The Senate resumed the consideration of the concurrent resolution <S. Con. Res. 8) providing for a consolidated .General Appropriation Act.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Beall Bennett Bricker Butler, Md. Byrd Carlson Chavez Duff Eastland Ellender Ferguson Frear Green Hayden

Hendrickson Holland Jackson Jenner Johnson, Colo. Johnson, Tex. Johnston, S. C. Knowland Lehman Long Malone Mansfield Martin McCarthy

McClellan Mundt Purtell Russell Saltonstall Smathers Smith, N.J. Smith, N.C. Stennis Watkins Welker Williams

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CARLSON in the chair) • A quorum is not present.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be directed to request the attendance of_ absent Senators.

The motion was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Ser

geant at Arms will execute the order of the Senate. ·

After a little delay Mr. Am:EN, Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. BRIDGES, Mr. BUSH, Mr. CAPEHART, Mr. CLEMENTS, Mr. COOPER, Mr. CORDON, Mr. DANIEL, Mr. DIRKSEN, Mr. DOUGLAS, Mr. DWORSHAK, Mr. FLANDERS, Mr. FuLBRIGHT, Mr. GEORGE, Mr. GILLETTE, Mr. GORE, Mr. H!CKENLOOPER, Mr. HILL, Mr. HOEY, Mr. HUMPHREY, Mr. HUNT, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KERR, Mr. KILGORE, Mr. KucHEL, Mr. MAYBANK, Mr. MlLLm:IN, Mr. NEELY, Mr. PASTORE, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. ROBERTSON, Mr. SCHOEPPEL, Mrs. SMITH of Maine, Mr. SPARKMAN, Mr. SYMINGTON, Mr. THYE, Mr. TOBEY, Mr.

WILEY, and Mr. YoUNO entered the Chamber and answered to their names.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo .. rum is present.

The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment, in the nature of a substitute.

The committee amendment was to strike out all after the resolving clause, and in lieu thereof to insert the following:

That effective on the first day of the second regular session of the 83d Congress, the )oint rule of the Senate and of the House of Representatives contained in section 138 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsections:

"(c) (1) All appropriations for each fiscal year shall be consolidated in one general appropriation bill to be known as the 'Consolidated General Appropriation Act of , (the blank to be filled in with the appropriate fiscal year). The consolidated general appropriation bill may be divided into separate titles, each title corresponding so far as practicable to the respective regular general appropriation bills heretofore enacted. As used· in this paragraph, the term 'appropriations' shall not include deficiency or supplemental appropriations, appropriations under private acts of Congress, or rescissions of appropriations.

"(2) The consolidated general appropriation bill for each fiscal year, and each deficiency and supplemental general appropriation bill containing appropriations available for obligation during such fiscal year, shall contain provisions limiting the net amount to be obligated during such fiscal year in the case of each appropriation made therein which is available for obligation beyond the close of such fiscal year. Such consolidated general appropriation bill shall also contain provisions limiting the net amounts to be obligated during such fiscal year from all other prior appropriations which are available for obligation beyond the close of such fiscal year. Each such general appropriation bill shall also contain a provision that the limitations required by this paragraph shall not be construed · to pro-

. hibit the incurring of an obligation in the form of a contract within the respective amounts appropriated or otherwise authorized by law, if such contract does not provide for the delivery of property or the rendition of services during such fiscal year in excess of the applicable limitations on obligations. The foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall not be applicable to appropriations made specifically for the payment of claims certified by the Comptroller General of the United States and of judgments, to amounts appropriated under private acts of Congress, to appropriations for the payment of interest on the public debt, or to revolving funds or appropriations thereto.

"(3) The committee reports accompanying each consolidated general appropriation bill, and any conference report thereon, shall show in tabular form, for information purposes, by items and totals-

"(A) the amount of each appropriation or other budgetary authorization for expenditure including estimates of amounts becoming available in the fiscal year under permanent appropriations;

"(B) estimates of the balances of appropriations and other budgetary authorizations for expenditure as of the beginning of the fiscal year, other than the obligated balances of expired appropriations;

"(C) estimates of the net amount to be expended in the fiscal year from each appropriation or other budgetary authorization for expenditure referred to in clause (A);

"(D) estimates of the net amount to be expended in the fiscal year from the bal ..

ances of appropriations and other budgetary authorizations for expenditure referred to in clause (B):

"(E) estimates of the net amount to be expended in the fiscal year from revolving and management funds, other than ex ... penditures referred to in clauses (C) and (D); •

"(F) the totals of the amounts referred to in clauses (C), (D), and (E); and

" (G) estimates of the total amount which will be available for expenditure subsequent to the close of the fiscal year from the appropriations and other budgetary authorizations for expenditure referred to in clause (A). The committee .reports accompanying each deficiency and supplemental appropriation bill containing appropriations available for obligation or expenditure during the fiscal year, and each appropriation rescission bill, and any conference report on any such bill, shall include appropriate cu:r;nulative revi• sions of such tabulations.

"(4) The infor.mation reported under paragraph (3) shall be accompanied by (1) data on revolving and management funds (including the funds of wholly owned Government corporations) which shall show the gross amounts from which the net amounts estimated to be expended are derived, and information on estimated investments, repayment of capital, payment of dividends, and other cash transactions which do not affect net expenditures; and (ii) such supplemental data as may be considered de .. sirable by the committee making the report.

"(5) The provisions of paragraphs (2). (3), and (4) shall not be applicable to appropriations of trust funds or to transactions involving public-debt retirement.

"(6) No general appropriation bill shall be received or considered in either House unless the bill and the report accompanying it conform with this rule.

"(7) The Appropriations Oommittees of the two Houses may hold hearings simultaneously on each general appropriation bill or may hold joint hearings thereon.

" (d) The consolidated general appropriation bill for each fiscal year, and each deficiency and supplemental general appro .. priation bill containing appropriations avail .. able for obligation during such fiscal year, shall at the time the bill reported to the House of Representatives and to the Senate contain in the body of the bill or in a preamble thereto, as the respective committees may deem appropriate, a current estimate of the Secretary of the Treasury of the over .. all Federal receipts for such fiscal year."

'I'he PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment.

The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the concurrent resolution, as amended.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President-

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Colorado desire recognition?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I do. However, I should first like to give the proponents of the measure an opportunity to discuss it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senate Concurrent Resolution 8 is sponsored by 50 Senators. I invite attention to the fact that among the 50 sponsors are 11 members of the Committee on Appropriations. I have reason to believe that several other members of the Committee


on Appropriations will vote in favor of the resolution, which will mean that a majority of the 23 members of the committee · support the resolution.

I invite attention to that fact because ·Of the peculiar interest of the members of the- Committee on Appropriations in the resolution, and to the further fact that, with one exception, all the chairmen of the subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations are sponsors of the resolution. The chairmen of the subcommittees are the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. YouNG], chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture; ·the Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERGUSON], chairman of the Subcommittee on Armed Services; the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia; the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL], chairman of the Subcommittee on Independent Offices; the Senator from Oregon [Mr. CoRDON], chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior; the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. THYE], chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor-Federal Security; the Senator from _South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT], chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Judiciary; the Sen;:ttor from New Hampshire [Mr. BRIDGES], chairman of the Subcommittee on State, Justice, and Commerce; and the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. McCARTHY], chairman of the Subcommittee on Treasury· and Post Office.

Mr. President, I may say further that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. BRIDGES], who has served as chairman of the APPt:OPriations Committee both at this session and in the 80th Congress, has been one of the first and one of the most active supporters and advocates of this measure, which provides for a consolidated appropriation bill and, in addition, provides for a limitation of expenditures. Senator FERGUSON has been especially active throughout the years for a consolidated bill.

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield to me?

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. PuRTELL in the chair). Does the Senator from Virginia yield to the Senator from Arizona?

Mr. BYRD. I yield. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, in re

sponse to the statement by the Senator from Virginia that all or practically all chairmen of subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee favors Senate· Concurrent Resolution 8, let me say that every Senator who was chairman of a subcommittee of the Appropriations ComiPittee at the time when we had a one-package appropriation bill, and who bases his present opinion upon his actual experience with the laborious work which was imposed upon him as a result of that bill, is opposed to the pending measure.

In other words, Senators who now favor the concurrent resolution have not yet been through the mill.

Mr. BYRD. In any event, for the most part the Senators who are sponsors of the concurrent resolution were Members of the Senate at that time, and marty of them were then members of the Appropriations Committee. ·Further-

more, most Senators ·now favor the concurrent resolution because it is entirely different from the former measure, as I shall explain.

Such a measure was first reported by the Committee on . Rules and Administration in 1947, by the then Senato:r Brooks, of Illinois, who was chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration. However, the measure failed to pass the Senate at that time.

A similar measure was reported on June 2, 1949, by the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. HuNT], on behalf of the Committee on Rules and Administration, and was approved by the Senate, but was not approved by the House of Repre.sentatives.

A similar measure was reported by Senator Lodge, of Massachusetts, in 1951. · The concurrent resolution now before the Senate was reported by the Senator from Indiana [Mr. JENNER], after hearings· held by the Committee on Rules and Administration.

First, Mr. President, I wish to make it clear that the pending concurrent resolution provrdes for an entirely different kind of consolidated appropriation measure than that which was passed for the fiscal year 1951. That arrangement

. came about simply as a result of action taken by the House of Representatives, and was not in accordance with the measure passed by the Senate, which failed of passage in the House. At that time . the procedure was simply to put together into one package, so to speak, the 12 appropriation bills.

The pending concurrent resolution goes further, by providing that there shall be a 1imitation of the net amount to be obligated during the fiscal year in the case of each appropriation which is available for obligation beyond the close . of the fiscal year. That is a great improvement over what was attempted in the fiscal year 1951.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield to me? ·

Mr. BYRD. I yield. Mr. ELLENDER. Why could not that

be done under the present method of handling the appropriation bills?

Mr. BYRD. It could be done, but it never has been done.

Mr. ELLENDER. How does the Senator from Virginia know it will be done if we have a "one package" bill?

Mr. BYRD. Because it is required by the concurrent resolution.

The concurrent resolution will have all the appropriations put into one· bill, and will limit the obligations on the basis of new and old appropriations, and will require that an estimate ot the expenditures be set forth in the report. That is not required at present, and such an estimate is not set forth in any of the reports of the Appropriations Committee.

In the body of the appropriation bill there will have to be a statement of the revenues, so that the total expenditures will be set forth, on the one hand; and the total available revenues, according to the Treasury's estimate, will be set forth, on the other hand. Then we shall know whether we shall be voting for a deficit or for a surplus.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further to me? ·· Mr. BYRD. I -yield.

Mr. ELLENDER. IS it intended that the appropriations shall not exceed the revenues? Is that what this concurrent resolution proposes to accomplish?

Mr. BYRD. No. I am not speaking ef the appropriations. The Senator from Louisiana well knows, for he is a member of the Appropriations Committee, that an appropriation does not necessarily mean an expenditure in the fiscal year for which the appropriation is made. · Le.t me state the.situation as of today, under the present system. First, let me say that I have been a Member of the Senate for nearly 21 years, and I have never seen greater confusion with respect to appropriations than exists today, because under the present system we shall have $82 billion of unexpended balances, as of the 1st of July of this year.

Mr. ELLENDER. Does the Senator from Virginia know why that condition exists?

Mr. BYRD. Yes; I do. Mr. ELLENDER. · Does not the Sen

ator from Virginia know that the House of Representatives forced . on us a rule which provides that before any Government department can enter into a contract, the money has to be actually appropriated, instead of having Congress provide contract authority?

Mr. BYRD. I understand that fully. I am not ·saying why the confusion occurred, but I am saying it has occurred under the present system, whereas the pending concurrent resolution provides that the funds may be appropriated, but the amounts to be expended each year will be limited, and thereby we shall arrive at a definite conclusion, regardless of whether there is a balanced budget.

Under the present arrangement there is no control over the expenditures until the money is actually sp~nt by the various departments. That situation has brought about the present large unexpended balances.

I agree with the Senator from Louisiana as to how that condition occurred. For example, the House has required that if a battleship is to be built-and its construction may take 4 years-the entire amount required for construction of the battleship ·must be appropriated at one time, during the first year, and that means that in the following 3 years the Congress will have lost control of that expenditure, in the sense that the matter never will come before Congress again.

The plan now proposed provides for a limitation of expenditures. Thus, if a battleship, for example, is to be built, it will be possible to provide contract authority, if Congress chooses to provide it, and it will be possible for Congress to review the expenditure as the money becomes payable, in the same way that any business orgar~ization does.

With the present unexpended bal· ances in the amount of $80 billion, what is happening · in the case of the appropriations to be made at this session? Nearly one-half of them will be expended in fiscal years following the next fiscal year. The result will be that the same system will be continued into the

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE 5561 fiscal year 1955, and so forth, until a change is made.

Although I know that every member of the Appropriations Committee is most able and most diligent, yet I challenge any member of the Appropriations Committee to state definitely, when an appropriation bill is before the Senate, the amount of the appropriations which will be spent in the fiscal year for which the . appropriation is made. Yet that is the factor which determines whether we have a deficit or a surplus.

I know very well that in the general operations of the Government the question of whether there will be a deficit or a surplus is determined by the cash income and the expenditures. I do not use the word receipts, because the Government collects money from social-security payments and other payments which constitute receipts, but do not constitute a revenue to the general Treasury, for expenditure. Instead, such funds are really trust funds.

Every once in a while we hear someone say we must balance the cash budget. That would mean taking the socialsecurity payments and other payments and using all cash receipts of the Gov- . ernment to balance the cash budget, which, of course, is not a proper procedure. At the present time the arrangement is that in the Government's reports on its financial situation, the cash income, on the one hand, is set forth as opposed to the cash outgo, on the other . hand, for the fiscal year. That arrangement makes no allowance for the obligations of the Government or the amounts due in the form of tax refunds, and so forth; but on June 30 of each year a balance is struck in accordance with the cash income of the Government and the cash outgo, and that is the way the Government now runs its business.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BYRD. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. As I under

stand, the Senator from Virginia is saying that the concurrent resolution is an attempt to tie the appropriations and the expenditures closer together and to give Congress a better understanding, when it is making appropriations, of the amount of money which will be spent in the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made. Is not that the purpose of the concurrent resolution?

Mr. BYRD. Yes, that is the purpose, and the Senator from Massachusetts has very correctly stated it.

Under the provisions of the concurrent resolution, we shall have a consolidated budget. When the budget is sent to us it will be consolidated," and the income of the Government will be set forth in the budget; all that information will be set forth in one document. Thus, the concurrent resolution carries out the theory, as I see it, of such a budget system.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield for . another question?

Mr. BYRD. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Is it not true

that today the Government's books are kept on a cash basis. so that the Govern-

ment itself does not know what obligations it has outstanding, until the bills come in for ·payment? Consequently there is not a close connection either between the revenues and the expenditures ·or between the expenditures and the appropriations;

By putting all the appropriations in one bill and stating how much money is to be expended under them in one year, what is sought to be done is to make it clear what the appropriation is and what the expenditure is. We can then determine how much revenue is necessary in order to balance the budget, to balance the cash expenditures and receipts. Is that not what the Senator from Virginia is se.eking to do?

Mr. BYRD. That is certainly what the Senator from Virginia is trying to do, together· with the other 49 sponsors of the concurrent resolution.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. This resolution represents one step in that direction, does it not?

Mr. BYRD. I think it a very effective step, because it will require that the amount of the expenditure in each particular fiscal year be limited in the bill. In order to Understand the fiscal condition of the Government, we must separate appropriations from expenditures. Of course, we must appropriate first, as everyone knows, but there are certain appropriations which are not expended for 2, 3, or perhaps 4 years after they are made, and in that situation it is impossible to conduct the business of the Government in an orderly way.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one further question.


that almost every State of the Union, and a great many municipalities, have a more advanced, modern, and up-to-date method of bookkeeping than has the Federal Government, which spends vast billions of dollars?

Mr. BYRD. I think that is correct. Of course, we must recognize today that there is no easy way to appropriate and spend $80 billion, because that is about 30 percent of the total income of all the 155 million Americans. There is no easy way to do it. I do not claim that our proposal· will completely take the place of what must be done to effect true economy. Economy is the result of cutting down on expenditures. But I submit that the adoption of the resolution will give all of us a much better opportunity to understand what we are doing. The 12 appropriation bills come before the Senate at different times. Frequently they are voted upon hastily and without the Senate Chamber being filled with Senators, as I think it would be if there were the one appropriation bill. When the "one-package" appropriation bill was considered in a previous session the attendance was greater

. and the consideration and discussion were more complete than when the 12 bills reached the Senate at different times.

We often hear it said, when one appropriation bill comes before the Senate, "Well, I am for economy, but I am not going to have it taken out of this par-

ticular activity. I think we ought to economize all the way down the line, yet the other 11 bills are not before us." There is, therefore, the argument that we should not economize on the particular bill then under consideration; whereas if we had all the bills before us, _ we could compare the requests of the different departments, we could ascertain what the increases were in the different departments, and could use our judgment and decide what should be done.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one further question?


also that what the Senator is seeking is to make it possible for Senators -to know how much the appropriation will be for one department or subject this year, how much will be spent during the year, and how much will be obligated, so that in the next Congress, or in the next session of the same Congress, they will know the obligations with which we start before we appropriate for the ensuing year? The Senator said a few moments ago that we are going ahead, but making no improvement. If the pending resolution should be adopted by both Houses, then at least when the next session of .the Congress convenes we will have a better idea of what is hanging over our heads awaiting our consideration, before we appropriate new funds, and we will know how much revenue we have with which to make expenditures. Am I correct?

Mr. BYRD. That is correct. Under the concurrent resolution all the perti._ nent information is required to go into the reports, and much of it goes into ·the bill. For example, it is required that there be included in an appropriation bill an estimate of the revenue, the latest estimate by the Secretary of the Treasury, and then a statement of the totals of the bill can be counted up on an expenditure basis for that current year, not on an appropriation basis, but on an expenditure basis. It would be possible to ascertain in that manner, with a fair degree of accuracy, whether there would be a deficit. The pending measure does not prevent commitment of appropriations in the form of contracts. It only limits the . expenditure for the particular year ..

Mr. President, I now wish for a moment to refer to our present fiscal condition, which I may say looks very black to me.

Mr. R.USSELL. Mr. President, before the Senator moves into that phase of his discussion, will he yield to me?

Mr. BYRD. I yield. Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator from

Virginia is aware of the fact that under the Constitution all revenue-raising legislation must originate in the other body. The other body has construed that provision to extend to all appropriation measures. Does the Senator's concurrent resolution do anything to clarify that situation, or to give the Senate the power to originate appropriation bills?

Mr. BYRD. No. Mr. RUSSELL. It does not deal with

that subject?


Mr. BYRD. It does not deal with it Mr. BYRD. It came to the Senate at all. It is a concurrent resolution, about Easter of that year,ln April. and, of course, must. be agreed to by the Mr. RUSSELL. I think it was in May. ,House. It proposes to amend the joint . My recollection is that it came to the rule of the two Houses. Senate in May. However, I defer to the

Mr. RUSSELL. I understand, but it superior judgment of the Senator from occurs to me that one of the disad- Virginia. vantages of the single-package appro- Mr. BVRU. Many of the appropriapriation bill is the fact that it would tions bills have not yet come to the tend to make even more unequal there- Senate, though ,this is the last of May. spective positions of the Senate and the The larger appropriations are still in the other legislative body with respect to ap- House. propriations. The House would have Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator recalls, complete control over the timing of the no doubt, that the single-package bill . passage of the single-package bill. If passed by the House at a previous session

· they were to pass it, let us say, in the did not contain all the appropriations. middle of June, right on the eve of the He probably remembers that one of the beginning of the new fiscal year, we largest and most controversial items in would only have a few days in which to that bill, and, in fact, an item involving consider and act upon it. one of the big issues before the Congress,

If we are to have the one-package bill, was the foreign-aid appropriation. If I it seems to me the Senate ought to de- recall correctly, foreign aid was not invise some way by which to originate ap- eluded in the alleged one-package bill propriations. There is nothing in the when that system was in effect in the Constitution that denies us that right, Congress. but the cold facts are that the House has I -wish something .could be done that always refused to consider any appro- would assure the Senate a fair chance priation bill which originated in the to consider a one-package bill. There Senate, and we are now handicapped in is provision for both simultaneous and maintaining our position as a coequal joint hearings. But if a one-package body because of the fact that the House bill is brought to the floor of the Senate insists on originating appropriation bills. only 3 or 4 days before the beginning ·Of If all appropriations were put in one bill, the new fiscal year, it will be impossible and we were to adopt such a massive for the Senate and the individual Membudget or spending program just ·on the bers of the Senate to have the opporeve of the beginning of the new fiscal tunity to which they are entitled for the year, it occurs to me the Senate would consideration of the measure on the fioor be still further handicapped in maintain- of the Senate. ing its position as a coequal branch of Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Presthe Congress. It would give the other ident, will the Senator from Virginia body great power because, if a bill comes yield? · to the Senate late in the fiscal year, there The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the -will be tremendous pressure on us to get Senator from Virginia yield to the Senthe bill out of committee and pass it, ator from Colorado? without giving it the consideration which Mr. BYRD. I should first like to anwe would be entitled to give it, if we are to swer the statement of the Senator from maintain our position as a coequal body Georgia. Economic cooperation and in dealing with appropriations. foreign aid were in the appropriation

Mr. BYRD. I may say to the Senator bill, under title I, chapter 11. from Georgia that the experience with Mr. RUSSELL. That may well be; the last one-package bill was that it but if I recall correctly, it was put in in reached the Senate earlier than was the the Senate. I am quite confident that a case with the separate bills. It reached study of the RECORD will show that the the Senate by Easter. There is no reason foreign-aid item did not come to the why there should not be simultaneous Senate from the House. We added that hearings. In fact, that is what is being provision in the Senate. done now. The Subcommittee on the Mr. BYRD. The Senator has a good Armed Services, under the able leader- memory, I know, but it was in the bill as ship of the Senator from Michigan [Mr. enacted. FERGUSON], is having hearings now, and Mr. RUSSELL. My recollection is the House committee is also holding that when the bill came to the Senate meetings, though the bill has not yet we had not even passed the authorizing come over from the House. It is pos- legislation for foreign aid. My memory sible to have simultaneous.hearings and, is not infallible, but I do remember a under the concurrent resolution, pro- great deal about the foreign-aid item. vision is made for joint hearings if de- We had to hold the bill in the committee sired. for some time in order to put the foreign ..

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, I observe that aid provision into the bill and to allow provision in the concurrent resolution, time for its passage. and, of course, we have had hearings be- Mr. BYRD. · On June 25, 1950, durfore Senate committees time and again ing the consideration of the bill there before the appropriation bills had ever were a good many complication's, but, passed the House. But the cold fact is notwithstanding that, the bill was finally that unless we have adequate time on the signed on August 6, 1950. Since that floor of the Senate in which to consider time some other appropriation bills have the bills, there is an infringement upon not been passed until October or Novemour position as a coequal body. The ber, and we had to pass resolution after

-bills come to the Senate separately, at resolution continuing certain approvarious times. This year some of them priations. came .to the Senate in March. I believe As a matter of speed, the RECORD the si~gle-packa_ge. bill came from the shows that the one-package bill, imperHouse m May, did It not?. feet as it was, made a very creditable

showing, considering the fact that the Korean war broke out in the midst of the consideration of the bill.

Mr. RUSSELL. My recollection is that the bill did not become law until .some time in September.

Mr. BYRD. That is when the President signed it. I am advised that the bill was passed on August 6.

Mr. RUSSELL . . But it did not become law until some time in September.

Mr. BYRD. Of course, we could not make the President sign it.

Mr. RUSSELL. I am aware of that, and I suppose the President wanted some time in which to study the bill.

That is another reason, Mr. President, why I am apprehensive about a singlepackage appropriation bill. It compels departments of the Government to wait until Congress has agreed on the last item before they are aware of what programs they can plan for the fiscal year. If we had completed action on appropriations for 11 departments, and there were still unacted upon the appropriations for the Department of the Interior, for example, 11 departments would have to mark time for several weeks; in fact, there have been occasions when it has been months in the new fiscal year before they were aware of the new programs they were to follow.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield to me for 5 minutes, providing he does not thereby lose the floor? I should like to try to reply. to the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL].

Mr. BYRD. I yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, the Senator from Colorado may proceed.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President, I am worried about the very points which the Senator from Georgia has raised and about the difficulties to which he has called attention, I have tried to think of a way to overcome the pifficulties, and I think I have discovered a way. · First, Mr. President, I want to say that I am wholly and completely in accord with the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD]. I was a member of the Senate, though not a member of the Appropriations Committee, when the Senate had before it the single-package appropriation bill. I considered it to be a great success. I think it saved billions of dollars, and I believe the idea could be carried out further along the lines which the Senator from Virginia has advocated. It could place our fiscal policies and our fiscal state of afiairs on a balanced-budget basis.

It will be recalled that there is a law which we are not observing. I refer to section 138 of the Reorganization Act, I wish to read three sentences from that section. It provides for the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Appropriations of the House, and the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate to meet and to work out a ceiling for all expenditures. Why . should not that be done? The law provides:

Such report shall contain a recommendation for the maximum amount to be appropriated for expenditure in such year which shall include such an amount to be reserved

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5563 ·ror deficiencies as may be deemed necessary

. by such committees: ·

Then it provides: Such report shall be made by February 15.

That is what the law says, Mr. Presi-dent. It goes on to provide:

The report shall be accompanied by a con- . current resolution adopting such budget and fixing the maximum amount to be appropriated for expenditure in such year.

That is what the law provides. It is an excellent law. If it were followed, we ·would get away from all the difficul· ties which the Senator from Georgia has . mentioned, rather than to drag appro· priations along until the end of the fiscal year and then not have an opportunity to discuss and to work out the amount of the appropriations which should be made.

Mr. President, I hold in my hand an appropriation bill containing three pages, covering a list of all appropria· tions made in 1952. They are all there, contained on three pages. In volume it is not something which should frighten anyone. Any Member of the Congress, any member of the press, any of our citizens on the streets of our cities, reading this bill, can get a better idea of the expenditures and the fiscal policies of our country than could be obtained by reading the single-package appro· priation bill containing 482 pages.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Colorado yield at that point?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I do not have unlimited time, but I shall be glad to yield to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. AIKEN. With reference to the committees meeting and working out a fiscal program and reporting before the 15th of February each year, am I in error in believing that that was tried, but it was found impossible to make a report within that time each year? Was it not also found that a committee composed of nearly 100 members could not function, and was unworkable? Is not that the reason why it was abandoned?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. It is a · fact that it did not work out, but it is

the law. I think it could be worked out, if there is a will to work it out. Of course, if there is not a will, it will not work out. We cannot accomplish these things unless there is a will to do it.

Mr. AIKEN. There were a hundred wills to deal with when we put those four committees together. It is very dif· ficult to work them into one will.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. If we cannot work things out cooperatively, we cannot solve the problem.

My bill approaches the whole problem. When I explain it, I think it will be clear to every Senator.

Mr. President, some months ago our colleague, the able and experienced new chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee [Mr. BRIDGES], very properly pointed out that Congress is employing the same techniques in appropriating eighty billions that it used when appropriations were less than five billions an· nually. The facts are that the important function of making appropriations in these days of huge expenditures has gotten completely out of hand. ~he size of

present-day appropriations has broken tary, including civil functions, receives the back of our congressional fiscal rna- almost 62 percent of the total revenues

· chinery. · of the country. Relativity carries the Something must be done to bring order same vital significances in appropr~oJ.·

· out of this chaos. In that spirit and tions which they do in Einstein's cosmic with that objective very much in mind, I universe. have devised a new streamlined and very Keeping Federal appropriations in the simple appropriation bill. It is a one· proper adjustment with respect to pub· package appropriation bill and is so com· lie functions as a whole on a basis of pletely streamlined that it consists of value to the people is vital to the progress

· but 3 pages, and yet, in my opinion, i.t of this great. country and its contentprovides more pertinent fiscal informa· ment. Balance is vital alike to the circus tion for the people and for the 531 Mem· performer and to a fiscal policy. bers of Congress than the Qjle-package The new administration has made a appropriation bill of 1950, consisting of solemn pledge to the American voters to 482 pages. . cease indulging in deficit spending. Con-

As I say, my biil, which I call the gress cannot do less than give the new percentage appropriation approach, is President full support in his efforts to devised to give the Members of Congress straighten out fiscal problems by cutting and the man on the street a comprehen· spending. It is my earnest and consid· sive perspective of Federal expenditure ered opinion that the adoption by Con· that he cannot get by reading the Fed· gress of my suggestion for a streamlined eral budget, which ordinarily is 3 times appropriation bill with a fixed ceiling for as large as a Sears, Roebuck catalog, or the overall total appropriation and a by reading a dozen appropriation bills of fixed ceiling for each departmental ap· 50 pages each, or even the one-package propriation and the opportunity for the appropriation bill of 482 pages, which is Budget Bureau to review each depart· being advocated by so many Senators. ment's appropriation after it is made as

The percentage approach, as Senators well as before, will be a long and' con· will .see, first determines th.at $70 billion, structive step toward bringing order out o.r some other amount, shall be the over· of chaos in Federal fiscal matters. all total of appropriations for the follow. The figures and percentages used in ing fiscal year. Every schoolboy knows my calculations have been assembled that a total of anything is 100 per-cent. merely to ill:~strate the new approach to Accordingly, I split that total of 100 per- the difficult task of determining the cor- · cent up into many items of smaller per· rect size of all Federal appropriations. centages, the sum of which equals 100 I do not say that any of them are correct · per?ent and allocate these items. to the as to amount. Doubtless, the Appropriavanous depart~e~t~ and functiOns of tions Committees would want to change G:overnment. J?IVIding that 1~0-I?ercent . somewhat every percentage point. I pie on the basis of the relative Impor- used the overall total of $70 billion be· tance and .Pro:per support for each Fed- cause the press had reported that the e~al fqnc~10n IS .the very essence .of. the distinguished majority floor leader, Mr. difficul.t JOb Which the AppropriatiOns TAFT, and President Eisenhower have Committees of Co~ress are called upon agreed upon $70 billion as a proper to make. . . tot&l for the fiscal year. My own views

From long observation, I am convmced are that $60 billion would prove to be that the ~verag~ .senator and. the aver- a far wiser fiscal target. However, that a~e .Am~ncan Citizen makes httle or ~o is a matter for the Appropriations Com~IstmctiOn bet~e~n thousands and IDI~· mittee members to determine out of lions or even bllllon.s. I ~ave seen. thiS their long experience and intimate senate spend. h<?urs debatmg the VIrtue knowledge of Federal fiscal problems. of an appropr~at~on for $100,00.0 ~nd ~hen But I do contend that some overall spe. vote appropnatic;ms of. $50 billlo:r:t m a cific total must be determined and tena· few seconds of time Without battmg an ciously adhered to come what rna eye. On the other hand, percentages are . ' y. a different matter because they deal with !.he allocatiOn of the exact percentage the relationship of functions rather than C~Ilmgs to each department and func· with unrelated amounts. Very naturally, t10n of Gove~nment ~ould then follow with respect to such matters, there is after exhaus_tiv.e hearmgs _and study by much knowledge and great interest. the Appropriations <?om_mi~tees. If one

Before I can grasp the actual appear· departme:r:tt or func~10n IS given more by ance of some new object, I must make the committees or by the Congress under mental comparisons with it and things n:tY plan some o~her departmen~ or func· ·with which I am familiar. If someone tion must receive less. The time-bon· should undertake to describe an elephant ored custom J:as been to ~llocate funds to me and I had never before heard of to each function o~ a basis of the suc· the ponderous symbol of the Republican ?essful ~al~smanshiP of the_ !iepart~ent Party, I might ask: "Is it the size of a In convmcmg Congress of Its reqmre· greyhound or a Greyhound bus?" By ment and then ~o boost the total to acmaking comparisons with things with commo~a~ the mcrease. Under _such ·.a which I am familiar I could get a fairly system It IS small wonder t~at m t~Is accurate picture of a pachyderm. c_urrent .year. we have a deficit. o! $8 _lnl·

One instantly comprehends the situa- hoD: which:, m my huii?-ble OPID:IOn, Is .a tion when you say the Department of natio~al ~Isgrace. T? md':ldge m deficit Agriculture is allocated only about 1 per. ~pe~dmg m the year m wh~ch we are. en· cent of the revenues of this Government· JOYII1g the greatest prospenty of all time, or that the Department of the Interior' with employment and production at an including reclamation, gets less tha~ all-time high, is reckless beyond descrip. seven-tenths of 1 percent of those rev. tion. In such a year we are bonding our enues, or the legislative branch receives children's children to pay for our in· one-tenth of 1 percent, while the mili- dulgence and waste. :When honestly

5564 CDNGRESSIONAL IU:CORD- SENAT,E May 26

analyzed, that is exactly what deficit spending means.

Without the active leadership, enthusiastic support, and infiexible d~ter~i~ nation of the Executive, no legislative body can effect economies in gover_nment. That is equally true of the city council, the State legislature. and the Congress of the United States.

The Founding Fathers who wrote our Federal Constitution did not recognize the importance of that fact and acco!dingly neglected to employ two very vital devices in handling Federal finances. They were afraid to make the Chief Executive too strong so they refused to give him the power to veto separate items in an appropriation bill without vetoing the whole measure, and they failed to make all appropriations by Congress for which no revenues have been provided null and void except in cases of insurrection or rebellion. Colorado, as do many States, has such provisions on its constitution. As a result there can be no deficit spending in such a State and the governor can keep his · State's finances in balance and in orderly adjustment if he has the courage and the will to do so.

If the Federal Constitution had provided such safeguards for its Treasury the Federal debt would be merely a fraction of its present gigantic size and there would· never be an undeclared war.

The percentage appropriation bill virtually gives the President the power to veto items through the Bureau of the Budget's authority and direction to scrutinize congressional appropriations after they are made and before expended by the various executive departments.

Greater use should be made of the Bureau of the Budget in dealing with the Federal fiscal problem. It is a large bureau with many trained and ex-perienced technicians. It has 462 employees who are paid a total annual salary of $3,181,000 and an average salary of nearly $7,000 a year. In addition, there is an annual expense item of $340,200. I am not being critical of this bureau; its operation; its size; or its costs. If its costs were three times as great I would not complain because they should be the watchdogs of our Treasury, ~d good watchdogs cost money.

At present they compile volumes of vital data on appropriations before enacted by Congress and thereby form a basis for the President's recommendation to Congress. So far so good, but the pe.rcentage-appropriation approach contemplates that in addition to that necessary service they ride herd on every expe,nditure of every executive department of the Federal Government after Congress has voted a lump sum appropriation to such department. If that were done, the President of the United States could protect the Treasury in the expenditure of every penny allocated to a Federal executive department.

Mr. FERGUSON . .Mr. President, will the Senator from Colorado yield?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I cannot yield, Mr. President, because I do not have the time.

My bill simply provides that the sum of $70 billion is appropriated out of any

money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for expenditure by the Government during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1953. That is the beginning of the bill. It starts out on a percentage basis and determines on a percentage basis how much each one of the functions of Government will get on a percentage basis.

One hundred percent is seventy billion. That would be divided into percentage items, one item for each of the functions. When we were finished, we would h~e 100 percent .• or .$70 billion.

Recenti'!{ an appropriation bill was before the Senate. I was seeking to have · $618,440 added to a ·certain item. Under the proposed new system, if I made such a proposal, I would have to subtract $618,440 from some other item, because the appropriations would be in percentages. Any Senator who attempted to increase the amount of the appropriations would have to subtract from some other appropriation before he could get the increase in the appropriation he .sought. That is the big advantage in the proposed method. ·

A newspaper in Colorado is very much sold on the idea. I sold them on it. They did not give the id~a to me. They said that after the Senate finished with the appropriations this year they would reduce all the appropriations to the form of a table. I do not know whether or not they will go to all that work, but that is what they said they would do. They can then print the appropriations in a very small space in the newspaper, and the man on the street who reads the statement probably will know much more about the fiscal policy of this Nation than any of us know. I doubt whether all members of the Committee on Appropriations can possibly grasp the appropriations situation as it is now presented. .

I do not wish to impose further upon the time of the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD], except to say that my proposal is to streamline, facilitate, and expedite the work of Congress. This is the first step. Seventy-five percent of our work is in making appropriations. I know that Senators who serve on the Committee on Appropriations devote many months to extremely hard work. They would still have to do much hard work on the kind of method now proposed. Their work would not be reduced, because, instead of appropriating in terms of dollars, they would be appropriating in terms of percentages of the total appropriation. .

Mr. BYRD. It seems to me it would be necessary to have a limitation on expenditures; just as is proposed in the concurrent resolution.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. That is true; it would be necesssary. The sa~e point is involved. I am not argumg against the Senator's resolution.

Mr. BYRD. I understand. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I am

trying to answer the charge that if the Senate gets such a bulky, voluminous proposal before it that we cannot handle it ourselves, the House will take advantage of us. I say it is not necessary to have a voluminous bill. It is not necessary to have an appropriation bill as big

as a Sears Roebuck catalog. It can be reduced to 2, 3, or 4 pages, so that it can be considered with ease. Subcommittees would work on this kind of proposal just as they would work on the measures

· which now come befor·e the Senate. Mr. President, will the Senator from

Virginia allow me to take 1 more minute? Mr. BYRD. The Senator may take

his time. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. The sec

ond purpose of the bill is to assist in halting deficit spending. It would have a psychological effect. I do not suppose a single Senator within hearing of my voice would have much difficulty in agreeing upon a total expenditm;e for the year. However, wh~n we get down to the various items, such as r..ow much is to be allowed for television, how much for this, and how much for that, that is when we get into difficulty, into long, drawn-out debate on the Senate floor, and into all the considerations that are necessary to be taken care of. It is simply a matter of psychology. We would first set the total amount, or a ceiling on the total amount, and then work toward percentages. ·

My third and last hope is that adoption of the proposal would make it easier for Congress and the people to understand what becomes of th~ taxpayers' dollars. .

I should like to ask permission to have printed in the RECORD the text of my bill, and also two newspaper items, {)ne an Associated Press dispatch entitled "Senator JoHNSON Proposes New Single Bill Pian for United States Appropriations,'' published in the Wall Street Journal of January 14,· 1953; the other an article entitled "Fixed Limit on Spending is Proposed,'' published in the Wa-shington Post of January 15, 1953~

There being no objection, the bill <S. 469) and newspaper articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the sum of $70 billion is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for expenditure by the Government during - the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954.

SEC. 2. The sum appropriated by this act for expenditure by the Government during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, is hereby apportioned among the various branches, departments, agencies, and establishments of the Government in accordance with the table contained in section 3 of this act. The sums made available by this act for expenditure during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, together with any sums remaining avallable for expenditure from any prior fiscal years, by each branch, department, agency, or establishment shall not be in· creased by any other act of the Congress.

SEC. 3. The percent of the sum appropriated by this act which shall be available for expenditure during the fiscal year ending June 3Q, 1954, by each branch, department, agency, or establishment of the Government is as follows: Agency: Percentage

Legislative branch____________ 0. 0960 The Judiciary________________ • 0340 Independent offices:

Executive Office of the Presi-dent --------------------- .0090

·American Battle Monuments Commission -------------- • 0010

Atomic Energy Commission__ 5. 132~

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5565 Agency-Continued Percentage

Independent offices-Continued Civil Aeronautics Board______ 0. 0047 Civ-il Service Commission____ • 4260 Commerce-Civil Aeronautics

Administration ----------- .1781 Commerce-Maritime activi-

ties --------------------- .2230 Defense Production Adminis-

tration ------------------ • 0030 Defense Transportation Ad·

ministration______________ • 0020 Economic Stabilization Agen-

CY------------------------ .0740 Federal Communications Com-mission __________________ _ Federal Power Commission __ Federal Trade Commission __ _ Federal Security Agency ___ _ Federal Civil Defense Admin-

istration _________________ _ Federal Mediation and Concil-

iation Service ___________ _ General Accounting Office __ _ General Services Administra-tion _________ _. __________ _

Housing and Home Finance Agency-------------------

Indian Claims Commission __ _ Interstate Commerce Com-

mission ------------------Interstate Commission on the

Potomac River Basin __ : __ _ Motor Carrier Claims Com-

mission ------------------Mutual Security ___________ _ National Advisory Committee

for Aeronautics __________ _ National Capital Housing Au

thority -----------------National Capital Park and

Planning Commission ____ _ National Science Foundation. National Labor Relations

Board -------------------National Mediation Board ___ _ Renegotiation Board _______ _ Revolving fund, Defense Pro-. duction Act _____ ,_ ________ _ Securities and Exchanage Commission ______________ _ Select~ve Service ___________ _ Smithsonian Institution ____ _ ~ubversive Activities Control

Board---------------------Tariff Commission __________ _ Small Defense Plants Ad·

ministration _____________ _ Tennessee Valley Authority __ Tax Court of the United

States---------r----------Veterans' Administration ___ _

.0080 .0050 .0060

2.0507

.0535

.0100 .0390

.4910

.1300 .0001

.0137

• 00001

.0083 7.4744

.0825

.0001

.0008

.0059

.0012 • 0014 .0067

.0019

.0065

.0458

.0048

.0004

.0024

.0047

.4185

.0011 4.8164

Independent offices, totaL. 21. 5610

Department of Agriculture ____ _ Department of State _________ _ Department of Justice ________ _ Department of Commerce _____ _ Department of the Interior ___ _ Department of Labor _________ _ Department of Defense:

Civil functions _____________ _ Military functions __________ _

1.0438 .2948 .2296 .5858 .6793 .2771

3.5931 58.0047

Department of Defense total_ 61.5978

Department of the Treasury ___ _ Post Office ____________________ _ District of Columbia __________ _ Permanent appropriations for

general and special accounts:

Interest on the public debt_. Other-----------------------

.8157 3.4655

.0137

7.6589 1. 4616

Grand total---------------- 100.000 SEc. 4. The Bureau of the Budget is author

Ized to control the amounts actually ex• pended from the sums _made available by this act for expenditure by each department,

XCIX-350

agency, or establishment of the executive branch, except the following arms of Congress: the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Federal Power Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the United States Tariff Commission.

[From the Wall Street Journal of January 14, 1953)

SENATOR JOHNSON PROPOSES NEW SINGLE-BILL PLAN FOR UNITED STATES APPROPRIATIONS WASHINGTON.-8enator EDWIN C. JOHNSON,

Democrat, of Colorado, proposed that Congress adopt this novel plan for providing the money to run the Government: Vote an overall amount and fix a percentage of it for each department and agency.

He would have Congress Junk its present bulky and complex appropriations bills.

Senator JOHNSON introduced a bill to carry out his plan. He said it was designed to bring order out of c:P.aos, halt deficit spending· and make it possible for Congress and the people to have a better understanding of where the taxpayers' dollars go.

Congress now enacts a dozen or more regular money bills each year. One, for example, tells exactly how much the Treasury and Post Office Departments may spend, and for what functions.

Several ·years ago, Congress tried a single appropriations bill, but it was in reality Just a collection of the usual bills. The difference was. that it provided an immediate overall total of appropriations.

Senator JOHNSON's proposal would go further. The single bill he has proposed would fix the total amount the Government could spend and earmark a fixed percentage for each department and agency.

The Atomic Energy Commission, for example, might be voted 5.13 percent of whatever to~al appropriation Congress approved, the Federal Security Agency 2.05 percent, the Defense Department 61.39 percent and so on-but in no event could these allotments add up to more than 100 percent.

One effect of this would be to make lumpsum appropriations . to each department, rather than earmarking funds or various purposes. Senator JOHNSON stated the percentage allocations would be made only after exhaustive hearings by Senate and House Appropriations Committees.

[From the Washington Post of January 15, 1953]

FixED LIMIT ON SPENDING Is PROPOSED A Democratic Senator proposed yesterday

that Congress put a top limit on Federal spending each year and then cut it up, like a pie, with slices to each agency on the basis of its importance. .

Senator EDWIN C. JoHNSON, who has been in the Senate 16 years, said the present system of ladling out money piecemeal is "notoriously antiquated and sickeningly slipshod." He added the people .must feel Congressmen are "a bunch of boobs" on finances.

JOHNSON said he will introduce a bill appropriating $70 billion for the 12 months peginning next July 1. He gave that figure because, ·he said, that is the amount President-elect Dwight D. Eisenhower and Senate Republican Leader RoBERT A. TAFT are reported to have agreed on.

Actually, the Colorado Democrat said, $60 billion would be a "far wiser target" for next year but he added the exact amount is up to congressional committees to decide.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President, when I introduced my bill on January 13, I raised the question covered by the bill with the Comptrcaller General of the United States. I recited

th~ l~w. and asked him if the approPriatiOns we were making violated the law or were valid o.ppropriations. In about 2 weeks I received the following letter from Mr. Frank L. Yates, Acting Comptroller General of the United States. It is short, so I shall read it.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Washington, February 9, 1953. Hon. EDWIN c. JoHNSON,

United States Senate. ' MY DEAR SENATOR JoHNSON: Reference is

made to your letter of .January 16, 1953, requesting my views on the question as to Whether the practice of the Congress in appropriating funds for the expenses of the Government without strict compliance with the provisions of section 138 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, approved August 2, 1946, 60 Stat. 812, 832, constitutes a violation of law endangering the validity of appropriations. ·

A report in the matter has been unavoidably delayed, but will be submitted to you in the very near future.

Sincerely yours, FRANKL. YATES,

Acting Comptroller General of the United States.

That is the last I have heard from him or that I expect to hear, on the subject: I do not wish to ask him about it again, because I do not desire to embarrass him.

Mr. FERGUSON. I take it the Senator did not get a report.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I did not get a report, and I feel certain that I will not get it.

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield so that I may ask a question of the Senator from Colorado? 7 Mr. BYRD. I yield for that purpos~.

Mr. MALONE. I should like to ask the distinguished Senator from Colorado if in the bill he introduced on January 13, 1953, he had the effrontery to try to hold the Congress of the United States to a $70 billion appropriation expenditure for the fiscal year 1954.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I do not have quite ~hat much effrontery, but I do have qUite a little effrontery, and what I am proposing in the bill is that Congress determine what the amount sJ:Ia:l be, whether it be $70 billion, $60 billion, $80 billion, or whatever the amount may be. Appropriations would then be provided on a percentage basis but Congress would be bound by the totai amount of appropriations it fixed.

As the Senator from Nevada knows the present method of making appro~ priations is to appropriate money piecemeal, .so much for this item, so much for that Item, and so much for something else. We do not work under a ceiling but we keep piling up expenditures: Then when we have finished we add up . the appropriations, and that is how we arrive at our ceiling. My proposal is to start with a ceiling, and then divide up the individual appropriations.

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? ·

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. Mr. ·MALONE. I should like to ask

the distinguished Senator if he had some idea, when he introduced the bill providing for a ceiling on appropriations, of first trying to consider what the

5566 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD..:.= SENATE May 28

taxpayers could pay, and then to make appropriations according to that assumption.

Mr. JOHNSON of ·Colorado. The Senator from Nevada has been gazing into his crystal ball, because he has put his finger on exactly the purpose of the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. MALONE. · If the Senator will yield further, I should like to say that I am, of course, in favor of the Byrd resolution, because it should shock the Senate and shock the country to see what we attempt to appropriate in one lump sum. Perhaps it might have some effect on the vote later when we come to approving the amount. ·

I am for the proposal of Representative REED, in the House, and I am for the one-package bill, if it will accomplish what it attempts to do; or for any other bill that attempts to determine what the taxpayers of A~erica may be able to pay, Then we can read the menu backward and let the departments work within those amounts.

Mr. BYRD: As I under$tand the Senator from Colorado, he is in favor of the principle of the consolidated appropriation bill on a more simplified basis. Nevertheless, he favors the principle of the consolidated appropriation bill.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. '!'hat is correct.

Mr. BYRD. With regard to the questions of the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL], I wish to read a section of the concurrent resolution. I read from page 9, line 19:

The Appropriations Committee of the two Houses may hold hearings simul taneously on each general appropriation bill or may hold joint hearings thereon.

I cannot believe that our associates in the House would deliberately hold up an appropriation bill if the delay could be avoided.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, if the Senator will permit me, I was not inipunging the good faith of the Members of the House.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator stated that we would be at the mercy of the House.

Mr. RUSSELL. That is correct; but there a:re many vicissitudes in the course of legislation which are not brought about by bad faith. There are often delays which come about through the ordinary parliamentary processes, and are not at all prompted by bad faith.

.Mr. BYRD. I did not mean to say that. The fact is that when we had the single appropriation bill before, the bill was reported to the Senate about the last of April. This year, under the old system, the largest bills have not yet been reported to the Senate.

Mr. President, I wish to refer briefly to our present fiscal status. We are to have a deficit this fiscal year of about $7 billion. There was a loss of income of about $1% billion, according to the estimates, for the fiscal year 1954. Assuming the reduction of expenditures as represented by the President, the deficit will be approximately $5,700,000,000. That is on the assumption that there will be a reduction in expenditures of $4% billion. I may say that up to this time not to exceed 10 percent of such

reduction has been put into actual ef ... feet. Am I correct in that statement?

Mr. RUSSELL. I always yield to the superior knowledge of the Senator from Virginia 9n fiscal rna tters.

Mr. BYRD. Up to this time I do not think there has been an actual saving of more than four or five hundred million dollars.

Mr. RUSSELL. That is true with respect to the bills which have passed both Houses.

Mr. BYRD. It is very difficult to ascertain the savings on an expenditure basis. There will be a deficit, along the lines of the President's message, of about $5,700,000,000 for the next fiscal year, and unless there are still further reductions in the fiscal ·year 1955, there will be a deficit of $10 billion, because the full effect of the tax reductions will then be in operation.

As I see it, in order to balance the budget under the President's program, and with the tax reductions he has advocated, not counting those whose expiration we oppose, we must cut from the present Truman expenditure figure something like $14 billion, in order to balance the budget in 2 years.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BYRD. I yield. Mr. ELLENDER. A moment ago the

distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. JoHNSON] stated that 2 or 3 years ago billions of dollars were saved, by means of the one package. bill. I wonder if the distinguished Senator from Virginia can tell us how that saving came about.

Mr. BYRD. I do not know the exact figure of savings. It is very difficult to determine what the savings are on an expenditure basis. Last year I think the largest single reduction that was made in an appropriaticm bill was $800 million. I think that is the largest single reduction that has ever been made.

Mr. ELLENDER. Was that because the appropriation bill was a single-package bill?

Mr. BYRD. The saving was the result of a reduction by 10 percent in a large number of appropriations.

Mr. ELLENDER. As I recall, the· distinguished Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERGUSON] introduced an amendment to each bill to reduce it by 5 to 10 percent. A number of bills were so amended. It is very difficult to determine how much is saved, because of the manner in which the appropriations are made.

Mr. BYRD. If a reduction is made in an appropriation whicq is not to be spent for 2 or 3 years, there may not be any saving, because in the interim Congress may pass another appropriation for a particular purpose. ·

Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. Pr.esident, I should like to make some brief comment with reference to the pending measure.

· I may say to the distinguished Senator from Virginia, the author of the concurrent resolution, that I joined with him on a previous occasion in his resolution pro• viding for a consolidated appropriation bill. In theory I think it is a very good idea if it can be carried out in prac• tice. If it can be put into practical ef·

feet, very profitable results can be achieved.

Senators will recall that last year we passed a bill to create a Joint Committee on the Budget. . As I recall, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 55 to 8. It went to the House of Representatives~ which did not consider it. The motion to consider the bill, or a companion bill. lacked 15 votes of the number necessary to make i:t the unfinished business.

Last week the Senate passed substantially the same bill, with a slight modification. The Senate passed it unanimously, and the bill is now before the House.

In my judgment, if this plan is to be workable, practicable, sound, and effective, it must be implemented by the Joint Committee on the Budget. The Joint Committee on the Budget, as we all know, is simply a joint subcommittee of the two Appropriations Committees. It must be provided with a staff to dig out the facts and the information to show us where reductions can be made.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator from Vir .. ginia supported that proposal.

Mr. M..cCLELLAN. I know the Senator did, and I thank him.

I believe that if this . measure is enacted it will become almost indispensable that the additional service to which I have referred be provided.

The concurrent resolution provides for joint meetings of the two committees, and joint hearings. I think that is indispensable to make this system work and get the maximum benefit from it.

Mr. President, with a Government as large as ours, appropriations for about $80 billion of expenditures a year, I think the time has come for members of the Appropriations Committees, if they are to do their job, to devote themselves exclusively to that task. I believe they have no time to serve on other committees. Service on the Appropriations Committees is becoming a yearround job. As a member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations I would dislike to give up my membership on the legislative committee on which I · serve. But if we are to do the job efficie-ntly, and hold Federal expenditures down to the minimum, we must put more time, effort, and energy into the job and concentrate on it with the best tools with which we can provide ourselves, regardless of what legislation we enact, if we are to economize and limit expenditures to objects and purposes which are absolutely necessary.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, on many occasions I have spoken on the fiscal policy of the Government of the United States. Since I came to the Sen- ' ate I have served on the Appropriations Committee.

I had intended to ask the distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. JOHNSON] a question, but I know that his time was limited.

As · a member of the Appropriations Committee, under section 138 of the Reorganization Act of 1946 I participated in meetings of the Joint Committee on the Budget. I · did not find that it was the number of members on the committee that interfered with its func-

1953 CON.GRESSION.AL R:ECORD- SENATE 5567 tioning. I think there w~ a feeling that we did not want to know how much money we would have to spend, because it might interfere with our appropria~ tions. I say that honestly. I think there was a feeling among the members that we-and when I say "we" I mean the Congress of the United States-wanted to have a free hand-to appropriate, dis~ regarding what the Nation's income might be. I served 1or many years on that joint committee with the distin~ guished senior Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD] as well as on other com~ mittees having to do with appropria~ tion matters. He has discussed the sub~ ject from the angle of knowledge of what the national income is to be. Knowing what the income is to be, .we can look at the whole fiscal picture and determine what the appropriations should be. The distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. JoHNSON] also referred to that point.

What we must have, Mr. president, is the will to do the job. The job can be done, not with separate appropriation bills, but with a consolidated bill. It can be done if we have the will to do it.

I ask the distinguished Senators who are now on the :floor, how are we to tell following the passage of the first regular appropriation bill, for instance, with the many items it contains, how

·much money that bill should have contained in order to help balance the budget? ·

Aside from a few Members no one in the Senate knows what is contained in · the next appropriation bill, and ·what we should take out of it and what we should let remain in the bill. -

How can we balance the budget as between expenditures ·and income from taxes on any such basis?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. The Senator from Michigan has put his finger clearly on the difficulty. I served on the joint committee. We did not have the

. will to determine what the ceiling should be. If we do not have the will to do it, it will be very hard to bring it about.

However, that is the point to start from, not the point at which to end, as we do at the present time. In other words we end with the ceiling, whereas we should start with the ceiling.

_ Mr. FERGUSON. I remember that the Senator from Colorado served on the joint committee. I believe there was in the committee the feeling to which he referred. If we knew how much money the Government was going to receive from taxes, we would not be in~ clined to appropriate so freely, and we would not have so much freedom with reference to making appropriations. We did not have the will to impose a ceiling. We should have realized that Congress was destroying its control of the purse strings.

That is why, as I see it--and again I say it will take a will to do it--provision for a consolidated appropriations bill should be adopted by Congress. The House should work on such a bill as soon as the budget is sent to Congress, with the Senate dividing the work on the bill, after it comes from the House, among

the various subcommittees, as it does today, The committee could then work on the various items, and when the bill came to the :floor every Senator would know exactly the total amount of the

. appropriations contained in the bill. At the same time he would know the total amount of the anticipated receipts from taxes. Thus he would be able to determine, at that time, the answer to the question: "Do I, as a Senator of the United States, want deficit spending?"

If he wants deficit spending, he knows at that moment how much the deficit spending will amount to. If he then votes for deficit spending, he is telling the people back home in effect, "I knew we were going to have deficit spending, and I willingly accepted it. Not only

-did I know we would have deficit spending, but I knew how much it was going to be, and I voted for it, knowing all the facts."

I say, with appropriations coming before us in a piecemeal fashion, one at a time, as in the case of the bill passed last week, no Senator can know whether a deficit will be incurretl. The amount of that bill was small; but no Senator could know to what extent the appro~ priations in that bill would contribute to a deficit. With a consolidMed bill before him he would be in a different position.

I agree with the Senator from Arkan~ sas [Mr. McCLELLANJ-and I was co-

. sponsor of the bill to which he referredthat there should be in Congress a joint committee of the kind provided for in his bill. We should have such a joint committee working in conjunction with a consolidated appropriation bill.

Until we know how much every bill is going to cost the taxpayers of the country we will not do very much with respect to deficit spending and deficit financing.

Why do I say that, Mr. President? My experience on the Committee on Appropriations has taught me that when a department submits a new item or asks for additional employees, and we inquire as to the _ reason for it, invariably the reply is: "During the last session the Congress passed such and such a bill, and because of its enactment into law we must now have additional employees or additional funds in order to implement it."

Many years ago legislation passed by Congress -did not involve large bureaus and large agencies. Such large establishments were not necessary in order to execute the legislation enacted by Congress. However, considering the kind of legislation being passed todayand I say too much of it is being passedthe time has come when it can be stated that the fewer bills Congress passes the better the Congress is.

·With each bill that is passed we should have before us, from the Director of the Budget, an estimate as to the cost of its operation, if the bill is passed, for the first year, and perhaps for the next 5 years. Otherwise, we will not be able to control expenditures.

On the next call of the calendar, bills will be passed with respect to which Members of the Senate and Members of

the House will not have the slightest idea of the cost they entail upon the Govern~ ment.

Such questions can be worked out if the pending resolution is adopted. Questions like that can be worked out even by the committees. In fact, no legislation on · that point would be needed, because we could ask the Director of the Budget to furnish such information.

I return to the statement I made in the beginning. If there is a will, there can be a way. Unless all of us decide that we are going to know as much as we can about the income of the Government and about expenditures, we will never be able to balance the budget, particularly if we are to have separate appropriation bills. In that case we can have no knowledge, until we pass the last bill, whether or not we will have a balanced budget.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield?

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield, gladly. Mr. ELLENDER. As a matter of fact,

when it is submitted to us, does not the budget give an estimate of the anticipated revenue?

Mr. FERGUSON. It does. Mr. ELLENDER. Does it not also

state how much money is to be expended by each department, as well as whether the Government will be in the red or in the black?

Mr: FERGUSON. Yes. Mr. ELLENDER. Of course it has

been in the red for the past 20 years, I know.

Mr. FERGUSON. For 18 years out of 20.

Mr. ELLENDER. , There were 3 years duririg which the budget was balanced. In 2 of those years we canceled a great many contracts entered into during World War II, and we imposed additional taxes soon after the beginning of the Ko~ rean war. Aside from that there has been a deficit each year. Is it not a fact, however, that such information is furnished to the Senate and to the House by the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes; but I wish to say to the Senator from Louisiana that

· he has that knowledge and the distin~ guished Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD] has that knowledge, because he is continuously studying the question of income and expenditures.

Mr. ELLENDER. Each Senator receives a copy of the budget.

Mr. FERGUSON. I do not think it would be casting any re:fiection upon a Senator to express a doubt that many Senators could read the budget and do anything else.

Mr. ELLENDER. It is not necessary to read all the items. A summary is provided, which shows how much is to be spent by each department and how much the revenues will amount to.

Mr. FERGUSON. I will ask the distinguished Senator from Louisiana this question: How much did the last appropriation bill contribute to deficit spending?

Mr. ELLENDER. How much? Mr. FERGUSON. Yes.


Mr. ELLENDER. I wish I knew. Does the Senator know? . Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator from Louisiana would know if we had a consolidated appropriation bill.

Mr. ELLENDER. How? Mr. FERGUSON. Because he would

know the amount of the income and the amount of the total expenditures.

Mr. ELLENDER. We know that now. Mr. FERG1JSON. No. Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator can

find out just as easily with 10 separate appropriation bills as he can with 1 consolidated bill.

Mr. FERGUSON. No. Mr. ELLENDER. Yes, he can. The

amount of money to be expended by each department is set forth in the budget, and the amount of the revenue is set forth in the budget. If we add the amounts set forth for the budget of all the departments, and if we then deduct the amount of the revenues, we determine the deficit.

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes. But . what happens is that the Appropriations Committee recommends making certain cuts in the appropriations provided by a bill, or else perhaps the Appropriations Committee recommends that the bill be passed in the amount recommended by the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. ELLENDER. All we have to do is compare the amount of money actually appropriated in a specific appropriation bill with the amount of appropriations recommended by the Bureau of the Budget for that agency, and in. that way we can determine whether the amount of appropriations is greater or less than the amount recommended by the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. FERGUSON. But suppose we pass an appropriation bill in the amount recommended by the Bureau of the Budget. Such action on only one appropriation bill will not make it possible for us to know whether the budget will be balanced. If in a following appropriation bill Congress appropriates less than the amount of appropriations recommended by the Bureau of the Budget, Congress still will not know whether the budget will be balanced.

On the other hand, if all appropriations are set forth in one bill, at one time, Congress will be able to determine whether the budget will be balanced or how much out of balance the budget will be.

Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield to me?

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. MAYBANK. No Member of Con

gress is more interested in balancing the budget than am I, but I think the Senator from Michigan will agree with mefor he and I have been on the Appropriations Committee a long time-that one of the greatest troubles we have in connection with appropriations is not because of the recommendations of the Bureau of the Budget or because of what the Senate Appropriations Committee recommends or what the House of Representatives votes, but is because of the .authorization bills which are passed by Congress. When such bills are passed, we never know how much money they will finally cost.

priations Committee dealing with appropriations for the Department of Commerce, the members of the subcommittee will be told, "You must vote to have the Government keep its contract with the State of Michigan or the State of South Carolina"-or with whatever State may be involved.

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes; we are often told, "You have allowed the expenditures

I have voted many times to provide the appropriations required by authorizations which previously have been voted. But I ask the Senator from Michi· gan, if he agrees with me that the diffi· culties arising as a result of authorization bills are about the worst difficulties we have, because following the passage of such authorization bills, we never know how much money they will cost.

Mr. FERGUSON. I agree with the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. MAYBANK. I thank the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. FERGUSON. I agree that one of the greatest troubles we have is that when we act upon authorization bill~, we pay little or no attention to their ultimate cost.

. to be made, under the authorization, in the respective States, and all you are being asked to do this year is to appropriate sufficient money to cover the expenditures which were made last year."

Mr. MAYBANK. For instance, recently we authorized the construction of 150,000 housing units, and later the number was reduced to 35,000, and the number may yet be cut further. I know the Senator from Michigan did not vote for that number, but he knows that many cities have entered into contracts on the basis Of the authorization bill passed by Congress. Is not that correct?

Mr. FERGUSON. ·Yes. Mr. MAYBANK. That is where the

fault lies. Mr. FERGUSON. How easy it is to

have a committee vote to report an authorization bill, without knowing or appreciating . how much · the project will cost.

Mr. MAYBANK. That is correct. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will

the Senator from Michigan yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I am glad to yield. Mr. ELLENDER. That difficulty will

not be corrected by a one-package appropriation bill. It must be corrected on the floor of the Senate~ by defeating such authorization bills.

Mr. FERGUSON. The difficulty can · be corrected by committee work, as I have said. If there is a will, there can be a way.

For instance, if the distinguished Senator from Louisiana were chairman of a committee which was considering an authorization bill, he could ask that before the committee voted to report the bill, it include as a part of its report on the bill a statement of the estimated cost of the bill for the first 5 years.

Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield again to me?

Mr. FERGUSON. I am glad to yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. MAYBANK. I am glad to hear the Senator from Michigan make the statement he has just made, because he knows how I feel. about some of these matters.

The same difficulty exists in the case of public roads. I have supported public roads appropriations. }\owever, the dif· ficulty is that first the States make agreements with the Federal Government in regard to the construction of public roads, and thereafter appropriations are requested in amounts sufficient to cover the expenditures previously made under such agreements.

For instance, when, tomorrow morning, the public roads appropriation comes before the subcommittee of the Appro-

Just today, before the Appropriations Committee, a similar situation developed. Appropriations of approximately $30 million were requested for certain international organizations, and the committee had absolutely no control over that item.

Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield again to me?

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. MA YBANK. As I recall, those

expenditures were authorized by · the Foreign Relations Committee; the Appropriations Committee never knew a thing about them, but had to vote for appropriations for that purpose, in order to lia ve the Government keep the contract which was made with the United Nations.

Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. As I have said, the Appropriations Committee had nothing to do with the question of whether the $30 million would be spent, for the State Department had made contracts with budgets of various branches of the United Nations, and thus determined tl~at the United States would pay 35 percent of the total cost of those budgets. Therefore, if at this time Congress does not appropriate sufficient funds for that purpose, it will be said that the Government is in default.

Certainly a government cannot be operated properly if it is insisted that unless sufficient funds for a given purpose are appropriated, it will be considered that the Government has breached its contract-a contract which was indirectly authorized by Congress, but actually was made by another agency of the Government.

That is what I mean when I say Congress has lost control of the purse strings.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield again?.

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. ELLENDER. How will a one

package appropriation bill cure the defect the Senator from Michigan is discussing?

Mr. FERGUSON. It will not cure all evil.

Mr. ELLENDER. Of course it will not. Mr. FERGUSON. I do not declare

that it will cure all evil, and the Senator from Virginia does not declare that it will cure all evil. However, it will be a good start toward placing on the shoul-ders of every Member of Congress the responsibility of knowing what he is doing when he votes for the appropriation bill; and in such case he will know that when he votes for the bill, he will have the responsibility of telling his con-

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5569 stituents why he voted for it. That is the purpose of the one-package appropriation bill measure.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I am sorry to have to disagree with some of my colleagues, but I still have a vivid recollection of the time when we tried a onepackage appropriation bill. As I recall, we finally concluded the session in October of that year. Of course, the arrangement may not have worked well in that particular year.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the ·Senator from Vermont ,yield to me?

Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. BYRD. The consolidated appro

priation bill was passed on August 6, 1950, for the fiscal year 1951, and was signed by the President approximately 30 days later. That was one of the earliest times in recent years that Congress completed action on appropriations.

Mr. AIKEN. That still left us rather close to October.

Mr. BYRD. What happened was that the Korean war broke out on June 25, 1950; and then we enacted other appropriation bills, by reason of that war.

Mr. AIKEN. However, the desire for an earlier adjournment is not the prin:cipal reason why I shall not vote for the concurrent resolution. If we believe we now have trouble with pressure groups, ·I point out that we are actually having scarcely any trouble at all, as compared with the trouble we would have if Congress were to say, "We are going to appropriate a certain amount of money this year, and we are going to prorate that amount among the various governmental agencies, or the appropriations will be made on a percentage basis"-as was suggested a short time ago by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. JOHNSON]. If any Member of Congress thinks he has seen lobbying groups active in their attempts to have appropriations made, let me say that he has not yet seen anything of that sort, as compared to what would happen under the proposed onepackage arrangement.

For example, the question would arise, "What percentage of the appropriations will go to the Department of Commerce, what percentage of the appropriations will be available for ship subsidies, how much will be available for foreign aid, and how much will be available for the construction of highways?"

A substantial number of people in the United States want better highways than the ones we have today.

Others would ask, "What part of the total appropriations will be available for airports, what part will be available for rivers and harbors, what part will be available ~or ftood control, what part will · be available for reclamation, and what part will be available for health?"

After all, many persons in the United States are vitally interested in matters pertaining to health. ·

Others would ask, "What part of the total appropriations will be available for public works, and what part will be available for agriculture," and so on.

Others would ask, "What part of the total appropriations will be available for the Air Force?"

Of course, that matter is under much dispute today, and every city and every

area in which maimfacturers of airplanes or airplane parts are located is vitally interested in that subject. So we might expect unprecedented lobbying by those who would seek the most for their own special interest.

Mr. President, I believe we ought to ·take up each of the functions of Government and assume the responsibility which properly belongs to the Congress of determining what is the need and how much we can spend, and how we can reduce the amount to a minimum consistent with good administration. It seems to me that we should not legislate primarily in terms of dollars, but in terms of what is best for the Nation as a whole, first determining the minimum needs of the country, and then providing the necessary money, and ba ancing the budget in that way. It may seem diffi-

. cult for some people to. do it that way, but that is the way in which the State in which I live does it. A determination is first made as to how much is required, and in my State we have an unwritten law that before the State legislature adjourns, the money must be provided to meet all appropriations.

Mr. HENDRICKSON.· Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. AIKEN. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. I heard the distinguished Senator refer a moment ago to his own State of Vermont. The Senator was formerly the distinguished governor of that State. I should like to know whether the Senator from Vermont is aware of any of the 48 States which do not at this time follow the practice of making appropriations in a single-package ·bill.

Mr. · AIKEN. The different appropritions are taken up one by one, and, at the end, are placed in a single package, which requires but a short time for its passage. But the appropriations themselves are not considered as a single package.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. But when the State legislatures get through, they have a single package, and it is possible for one to see the whole picture at a glance, and to comprehend an overall picture.

Mr. AIKEN. But I do not know ·of any State which, at the beginning of a session, says, "We have so much money that we are going to prorate among all the different State agencies." I do not think that method would work. I am satisfied it would not. The fact that the way is left open in the pending measure for an unrestricted number of supplemental appropriation bills indicates that perhaps the sponsors of this measure do not think it would work, either.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. The single package works very well in the State of New Jersey, and I am certain it would work well in the Federal Government.

Mr. AIKEN. My view is that the other system of determining the needs of the State and then having to provide the money is a very good deterrent against wastefulness in my State, and I think it would be equally beneficial on a national scale. I think we ought to legislate to meet the needs of the country. We should then balance our budget at all times, except when there

were extraordinary emergencies. There are times when a deficit is justifiable, although we all dislike the idea of a

· deficit. So, Mr. President, I hope that the Con

gress will not undertake to abdicate its responsibility of determining the needs of each department and each function of the Gover~ment by itself. Certainly, when I am called upon to vote on appropriations fo·r the Department of Commerce or the Department of the Interior, I do not want to have to correlate that appropriation with a thousand other appropriations at the same time. I do not think this proposal would be as workable as its proponents would lead us to think.

SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION OF CERTAIN ~lENS

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PUR• TELL in the chair) laid before the Senate the amendments of the House pf Representatives to the concurrent resolution

· <S. Con. Res. 20) favoring the suspension of deportation of certain aliens, which were, on page 6, strike out line 10; on page 8, strike out line 22; on page 17, strike out line 9; on page 20, strike out line 6; on page 32, strike out line 25; on page 39, strike out line 18; and on page 45, after line 12, insert:

A-9532298, Mathisen, Wollert. A-1331075, Williams, George Kapa. A-7145943, Prisciandaro, Damiano. A-4193296, Zaganas, Leonidas alias Leo Z.

Gr:-ty. A-7019831, Begin, Joseph Real Gaeton. A-6670579, Smith, Henry Hallam.

Mr. WATKINS. Mr. President, Senate Concurrent Resolution 20, which expresses congressional approval of the adjustment of status of certain cases of suspension of deportation, was agreed to by the Senate on May 6, 1953.

The House of Representatives amended Senate Concurrent Resolution 20 on May 19, 1953, by making certain technical changes chiefty with reference to the spelling of names of certain aliens embraced in the concurrent resolution.

Accordingly, I move that the Senate agree to the House amendments to Senate Concurrent Resolution 20.

The ·motion was agreed to.

GRANTING OF STATUS OF PERMANENT RESIDENCE TO CERT~N ALIENS-CONFERENCE REPORT Mr. WATKINS. Mr. President, I sub-

mit a report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the concurrent resolution <H. Con. Res. 29) favoring the granting of the status of permanent residence to certain aliens. I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. PUR• TELL in the chair) . The report will be read for the information of the Senate.'

The legislative clerk read the report, as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. Con. Res. 29) favoring the granting of the status o! permanent residence to certain


aliens, having met, after fuU and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate ~nd agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment insert the following:

"That the Congress favors the granting of the status of permanent residence in the case of each alien hereinafter named, in which case the Attorney General has determined that such alien is qualified under the provisions of section 4_of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, as amended (62 Stat. 1011; 64 Stat. 219; 50 App. U.S. C. 1953):

"A-6963020, Amsel, Andor. "A-7898535, Avilo, Rudolf. "A-6592016, Balberiski, Miron or Bell. "A-6756307, Baqai, Mohamad Amir or

Mohamad Amir Boukai. "A-6552873, Brotleit, Zofia Kusewicka. "A-9825254, Bussani, Andrew. "A-7099697, Chang, Peter Yun-Pao. "A-6431861, Chang, Jean M. Y. (nee

Young). "A-6623722, Chang, Shau Hoa. "'A-6623'721, Chang, Tsaing Wa. ''A-6625811, Chang, Yuan Lo. ''A-6851532, Chao, Tsei-Yu or T. Y. Chao or

Chao Tsei Yu. "A-7073396, Chechik, Luba (nee Luba Rus-

sak). "A-6848439, Chen, Min. ••A-6830501, Dischka. Zsu~anna. "A-6917990, Domb, Mozes. ''A-7828138, Domb, Cyla. ''A-7828139, Domb, Fryda. ''A-7131176, Esop, Verner. "A-6740258, Fanaberia, Calel Morika. ''A-6713644, Fanaberia, Masia (nee Rubin). ''A-6886818, Feldblum, Meyer. "A-6536894, Fleischman, David. "A-68414247, Fleischman, Ilona Sara (nee

·Eizikovitz). "A-6769948, Frankel, Nechemie. "A-6758622, Frankel, Chana (nee Wachs). '!A-7056845, Furer, Menashe or Menasze or

Menasche or Menash Furer. "A-7210070, Gawronski, Antonina (nee Rit-

tigstein). · · "A-6769935, Gedeon, Elie Jabra. "A-6860145, Gedrovics, Alberts. ''A-6903711, Grunwald, Alexander. "A-6448004, How, Julie Lien-Yng or Julie

How. · "PR901282, How, Bang. "PR901281, How, Rose May Ng or Rose

Howe. "A-6737212, Huang, Yao Sien or Eva Yai-

Sien Huang. "A-6576346, Jacobowitz, Bela (Jakobowitz). "A-6848236, Jacobowitz, Eva. "A-7197382, Jaszkowski. Tadeusz or Ted

Jaszkowski or T. Jaszkowski. "A-7427989, Karm, Meinhard. "'A-6772233, Khalidi, Suleiman Faud El. "'A-7491361, Kirilloff, Boris Ephim. "A-6887572, Kopelowitz, Ester (nee Tess-

ier). "A-7178548, Laurik, Evald. "A-8091096, Lee, Margaret Chia Lin (Mar-

garet Therese Lee) . "A-6171207, Lee, Yiu Yung. "A-6953010, Lieber, Sarolta (nee Berger). "'A- 6851545, Loo, Ching Chee. "A-7135305, Lo<?, Chia-Ying Chang (nee

Chang). "A-6819172, Masliyah, Noory Heskel or

Noory Heskel Musaleh. · "A-6467056, ,Metsalo, Valentin. ''A-6415978, Molnar, Theresia. ''A-6923768, Muller, Vera. "'A-7095882, Munteanu, George Nicholas. "A-9107940, Nakielski, Bernard or Makiel-

ski. "A-8091555, Novak, Joakim Ante. "'A-680196.5, Pan, John Joel-Siang or John

Pan. "A-6611055, Potocka, Maria.

"A...:g668080, Rand, Vladimir. ''A-6776588, Rotbart, Motel. ''A-7094824, Saltoun, Ishaq Heshel. ''A-7841095, Saltoun, Raina. "'A-7841096, Saltoun, Salum. "A-9825231, Scrivanich, Antonio Nicolo. "'A-7048886, Shulman, .Joel or Julian Shul-

man or Julian Szulman. "A-6606633, Spierer, Villiam or William or

Vilimos. "A-6508114, Stern, H.erman. "A-9825170, Swidzinski, Czeslaw. "A-7144911, Swoysik, Emery Anthony or

Emerich Antonin Svojsik. "A-7365957, Szekely, Suzanne. "A-6862642, Tessler, Margit (nee Margit

Sonnenschein). "A-6258292, Tsai, Pe Chiu. "A-7934047, Tulk, Johannes. "A-7243463, Tye, Josephine Chou. "A-6990780, Wagner, Wlenczyslaw Jozef. "'A-6701080, Weiss, Rachel Ruth. "A-6881779, Weisz, Eva. "A-7134269, Wisniewski, Roxana. "A-7197533, Woo, Kok Liang. "A-7197534, Woo, Lily Ji-Yuen. "A-7197535, Woo, Andy Ying-Chung. "A-7197536, Woo, Benny Fong-Chung. "A-6291894, Zydorowicz, Zygmunt Stanis-

law. "A-6291893, Zydorowicz, Stanislawa (nee

Babel) (Bombel). "A-6615482, Cimze, Brigita. "'A-6619075, Sils. Jekabs Rudolfs. "A-6615484, Cimze, Wilhelmina Albertine

(nee Upmanis). "A-7181298, Ambaras, Berek. "A-7181299, Ambaras, Ruchla Leja (nee

Spektor). "A-7181301, Ambaras, Szmul or Samuel. "A-7181300, Ambaras, Chaja. "A-6933862, Antos, Viktor or Viktor Adler. "A-7073948, Bajor, Laszlo. "A-7073949, Bajor, Margaret (nee Ber-

mann). "A-7125348, Belohlavek, Ladislav. "A-8015690, Boni, Donata or Bonich. "A-7982580, Chen, Betty Shu-Hsien. "A-7350806, Chen, Chi-Cheng. "'A-6542129, Deutsch, Emery'. ''A-6542128, Deutsch, Edith. "A-7395122, Dunn, Fung, Wen-Feng. "A-6899359, Eisendraft, Jente Perl. "A-7975403, Greisman, Chaim. "A-6933870, Qreisman, Dyna (nee Dyna

"Stern). '!A-6511086, Gulewski, Chaim Ber. "A-6843542, Halberstam, Serena. "A-7143248, Hauser, Moses. "A-6896010, Kac, David or David Katz. "A- 6794615, Kahan, David. "A-6819107, Konig, Simon. "A-7383019, Konig, Judit. "A- 6917·988, Leffel, David. "A-7841092, Leffel, Rania Sarah Leffel. "A-7841094, Leffel, Henry. "A-7066379, Leicht, Alfred. "A-6757650, Liberman, Chaja Cross. · "A-7057929, Loblovics, Jirina. "'A-7445230, Loblovics, Peter Stepan. "'A-9669698, Loser, Ladislav. "'A-6439571, Lukacs, John Adalbert. "A-7184075, Nagy, Gustav. "A-6953276, Ostreicher, Sally or Sara Os

treicher. "A-9825173, Piccini. Giovanni or John Pic-

cini. "A-9825233, Piccinich, Antonio. "A-9825234, Picinich, Giovanni (John). "'A-7048776, Pribramska, Milena Jaroslava. "'A-6803937, Propper, Hinda. "A-7243272, Rofe, Clemy (nee Hassoun). "'A-7243273, Rofe, Roland. -"'A-6542415, Ronikier, Adam. "A-6275646, Rosenthal, Cecilia Lucy (nee

Rochlin). "A-6937373, Rottenberg, Laszlo. ''.A.-6851434, Shen, Mary. , "A-6441693, Shew, Lester Fook. "A-6441694, Shew, Alice Lee. "A-6450187, Shimanovsk:y, Alexander Eu

gene.

"A-6450157, Shimanovsky; Xenia Nlkosevna.

"A-6450158, Shimari.ovsky, Nickolai Alexander.

"A-6450159, Shimanovsk:y, Natalie Alexander.

"A-6905008, S~rauss, Leo. "'A-7863422, Strauss, Elizabeth (nee Eliza-

beth Brody). "A-7125300, Szilas, George. "A-7125301, Szilas, Veronica Anna. •'A-6913912, Tabak, Guta. "A-"9825237; Tarabocchla, Antonio Gio-

vanni. "A-6805581, Teitelbaum, Dorothy. "'A-7116390, Winter, Berek Litman. ••A-7427544, Winter, Mordechal. "A-78020H>; Zaharoff, George Alexander. "A-6659388, Zak, Irene Anna (nee Segal). "A-6663293, Zak, Daniel. "A- 6663244, Zak, Michael. "'A-6779061, Abdul-Nabi, Sion Moshl. "A-6907333, Abramczyk, Abram. "A-7074032, Blumenstein, Jerta. "A-6509235, Brecher, Samuel. "A-6703334, Chang, Joyce Loretta. "A-6848604, Chien, James Tal Tze. "A-7975994, Chiu, Leung. ••A-9836671, Cymer, Alfred or Alfred Zie

mer or Alfred K. Cymer or Cymer Alfr.ed or A. Cymer.

'<A-7934149, D'Antonl, Giuseppe Giovanni. "A-6949998, Dresdner, Desider. "'A-6983006, Felkay, Miklos. "A-6983007, Felkay, Jl.{agdalena. "A-7445428, Felkay, Julia Agnes. "A-6496385, Fischman, Moses. "A-6472344, Fischman, Piri (nee Jeremias). "A-9765956, Fook, Lum or Lam. "A-6390069, Gerencser, Frank. ''A-6390070, Gerencser, Anne. "A-7132030, Goldberger, Ernest. "A-6929650, Gorodecki, Aba. "A-6480449, Gorog, Frigyes or Frederic

Gorog. "A-7125154, Gorog, Margit. "A-688'7741, Gunsburg, Mendel. "'A-6666944, Haberfeld, Eugene. "A-6922074, Halpert, Mendel. "A-7491705, Ho, Hao Jo. "A-7828496, Ho, Hsiang-Chiao Huang. "A-7828498, Ho, Lily Li-Lien. "A-7828495, Ho, Louise Li-Si. "A-7828597, Ho, William Wei-Yu. "'A-7125390, Iritz, ~agda. "A-7354858, !ritz, Andras Ferenc. "A-6438637, Jurisevic, Milo Tripe. "A-6438638, Jurisevic, Jelena Milo. ..A-6438640, Jurtsevic, Radmila Milo. "A-6438639, Jurisevic, Svetozar Milo. "A-6987919, Karastoyanova, Marguita Bog-

danova. "A-1056457, Karcz, Jerzy Feliks. "'A-7097876, Karcz, Irena. "A-7134826, Karlik, Oldrich (Olda) Evse

Spitihnev. "A-7095980, Kovacs, Ilona Marie (nee To-

volgyi). "A-7095981, Kovacs, Judith Ilona. "A-7095982, Kovacs, Katalin Piroska. "A-6847906, Keng, Hilda Hsi Ling. "A-9506160, Kingsepp, Alexander. "A-7210424, Kotas, Jindrich. "A-7197295, Kucera, Sonia or Sonia Ku

cero:va. "A-7802992, Kun, Jo~ef Lajos. or Joseph

Kun. "A-9290474, Lian, Choo Joon.' "A-6709345, Kwong, Tin Yu. "A-6991771, Leidermann, Susan Veronica. "'A-6985787, Leidermann, Paul. "'A-6848564, Lin, Ru-Kan or Ru Kong Lin. "A-800125"7, Ljubcic, Maria Luca. "'A-7210293, Madis Voldemar. ''A-7210288, Madis Ilona. "A-7863133, Madis, Ilona, Jr. "A-7863134, Madis, Voldemar, Jr. ••A-7991037, Maram, Maria. "A-7629040, Michalski, Stefan Antoni. "A-6555835, MUikowski, .Boruch, or Mili-

kowsky or Boruch Milikowskie or Milkowski or Bouch Milikowski or Borouch Milikowski.

1953 CON-GRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5571 "'A-7483287, Moy, Don Tsit. "A-7095886, Miculescu, Mircea. "A-6849839, Nieh, Tseng-Lu. "A-6852886, Ostteicher, Ester or Esther

(nee Perlstein). "A-7868150, Pi, Teh Ho. •• A-9825275, Piccini, Matteo. "A-7201404, Ripk!t, George Prokop. _ "A-7863155, Ripka, Hubert Jean Michel or

Hubert Jan Michal Ripka. "A-6704266, Romanowska, Alicja Theresa

or Alice Romanowski. "A-6983560, Setton, Renee Albert. "A-6746537, Shina, Isaac Saleh. "A-9825384, Tarabochia, John. · "A-6403591, Tkachenko, Arkady. . "A-7142101, Twardon, Gerard Edward. "A-7828393, Veres, George Stephen. "A-7828395, Veres, Catherine Renee. "A-7828394, Veres, Paul St~phen. "A-7095791, Vizer, Jozsef or Joseph. "A-7095792, Vizer, Erzsebet or Elizabeth

(nee Papa). . "A-7264780, Pal, Peter or Paul Vizer. "A-7915647, Wang, King-Ching. "A-7354350, Wang, Shen. Kuang. "A- 7379754, Wang, Chaci-Chih Shih. "A-6622376, Wang, Shih Jien. "A-7427597, Yang, Bernard Kenneth. "A-7248107, Yu, Fu Ching. "A-6699842, Choye, James Hung or Tsai

Hung. "A-6933906, Feder, Solomon. "A-7052513, Feher, Janos. "A-7052514, Feher, Klara (nee Vajda). "A-7052515, Feher, Agnes, Julianna. "A-7053576, Friend, Jacob Lion. · "A-6159672, Hudec, Ladislas Edward. "A-6159673, Hudec, Gisella !tabella. "A-6903729, Irany, Jalal Zend. "A-6704668, Jacob, Ellis Samuel. "A-9778010, Kaplur; Serge Michael. "A-9506849, Klak, Tadeusz Boleslaw. "A-7052354, Kremnitzer, Samuel. "A-7898806, Kremnitzer, Sala. "A-7298969, Ku, Ta Hai. "A-7350229, Kurzenbaum, Konstantin

Paul. · "A-1804133, L1llo, Rudolf Karl. "A-6460280, Lis, Josef Lisek Vel. "A-6071234, Liu, James Hsi-Hwa. "A-9825110, Maslobojew, Ryszard. "A-7356260, Metes, Mircea Virgil P. "A-7809812, Nacinovich, Francesco Gio-

vanni. "A-9831492, Paszek, Emil. "A-7249625, Quon, Yuk Lum or Egai Kim

Quon. "A-6704260, Rymarska, Stanislawa Janina

or Stella Rymarskl. "A- 7197296, Schwiuzenberg, Fraricis (Fran~

tisek) . · "A-7197297, Schwarzenberg, Amalie (Ama-

lia). "A-7809033, Schwarzenberg, Ludmila. "A-6982895, Sevcik, Jaromir. "A- 7809012, Siao, Ruby Wang. "A-7809013, Siao, Lilly. "A-5206882, Silla, Johannes. "A-6992868, Sian, Caroline Eliahou (nee

Caroline Eliahou Khazzam). "A-6943745, Somogyi, John. "A-6985795, Stransky, Frank. "A-6985796, . Stransky, Kamila. "A- 9716791, Strawinski, Adolf. "A-9825125, Szymankiewicz, Kazimierz. "A-6844603, Wang, Kung-Lee. "A-6848123, Yen, Jen Hwa (Moore Yen). "A-9766047, Abelnicks, Karlis Alexsandris. "A-6763814, Ahmad, Abder Raouf Sayied. "A-9621982, Baric, Slavko. "A-9825347, Bresaz, Metodio Vittorio. "A-7201326, Chao, Margaret Ellen. "A-6868652, Chasan, Samuel. "A-6843905, Chasan, Lala. "A- 6843906, Chasan, Daniel. "A-6665493, Djordjevich, Ilija Milan or

Eli M . Georgevich. "A-6363788, Dwek, Joseph. "A-9825078, Geba, Waclaw Stanislaw. "A-6857645, Gedeon, William Jabra. "A-7176712, Geiger, Leslie alias Lelsie

Laselo Geiger •.

"A-7197556, Geiger, ·Elizabeth nee Eliza• beth Klein alias Elisabeth Kozma • .

"A-6870411, Gottlieb, Suzanna Gabriella. "A-6829523, Hofer, Andras or Andre or An•

drew or Andre, Fernand, Francois Hofer; Andras Nandor Ferenc Hofer.

"1100-23457, Huang, Yuan Chung or Wei Ta Huang or Walter Huang.

"A-6652842, Kenigsberg, Szaja Abram. "A-7144083, Lederman, Abram. "A-6923751, Lewita, Pinkas. "4~7903765, Mikulich, Gilda (nee Ermine•

gil do Miculich) . · "A-6819103, Pick, Teresa Zeller. ''A-6555822, Rosenstein, Muzza. "A-6987833, Sebestyen, George Stephen. "A-7941803, Simicich, Giovanni. "A-9825228, Tarabocchia, Antonio. ''A-6881776, .Traube, Moses. "A-6949360, Traube, Frida Pessa. "A-6848504, Tsou, Kwan Shung or Tsou

Kwan Chung. "A-6983523, Visoianu, Florlca Corneliu (nee

Balteanu). "A-8001252, Wei, Chue Sue. "A-7118818, Winkler, Thomas. "A-9634634, Adamson, Armant. "A-7074001, Alimanestiano, Mihal.

. "A-7052865, Alimanestiano, Ioana. "A-7118760, Blau, Sidonia (nee Weiss). "A-6953297, Brod, Ivan. "A-6739686, Chao, Pel Chu. "A-6973682, .Chang, Linda Tung-Chen. "A-7111908, Chiao, Gene Liang. "A-7111909, Ciao, Wei Ying Lin. "A-6522482, Chou, Kuo-P'ing alias Ch'Iao-

Chin Chou (or Chow), alias Shou-Ying Chou (or Chow) alias Hsien-Chen Chou (or Chow).

"A-6921258, Deutsch, Joel. "A-6595663, Druker, Haim Girsch. "A-6595664, Druker, Rebecca Afraim.

' "A-6595662, Druker, Leah alias Lillian Druker.

"A-6854411, Fabry, Gavriella. "A- 7135698, Fan, Kwan Chi alias Quincey

Chi-Chun Fan. "A-6897918, Faybik, Alojz Stefan alias

Allen Stefan Faybik. "A-6945554, Froemel, Robert Boris Ivan-

chenko. · "A-6968029, Goldstein, Margarita Martin. "A-7395111, Hu, Helen or Yu Hsin Hu. "A-6851699, Huang, William Yung-Nien

alias william Edward Huang. "A-7141717, Izsak, Julianna. "A-7279652, Izsak, Robert John. "A-6771471, Karkar, Ya'Qub (Jack) Nasif. "A-7985654, Kask, Johannes alias Johan-

nus Kask. "A-7178540, Kask, Nelly (nee Jarg) alias

N. Jarg or Nelli Jarg or Nellie Jarg or Millie Jarg or Nellie Jarge or Nelly Jarg Kask.

"A-7863386, King, Peter Wei Kong. · "A-6930672, Kramer, Esther or Ester. "A-6279271 , Landau, Judith. "A-6521591, Loutchan, Ludmila Maria. "A-7125164, Lowinger, Ida (nee Ida Klein). "A-.:9914609, Pusic, Paul. "A-9825124, Puszka, Jan. "A-7184152, Radnai, Pal Andras alias Paul

Andrew Radnal. "A-7197543, Radnai, Eva (nee Eva Balazs). "A-7383442, Sakin, Anna (nee Boxer). "A-7383443, Sakin, Shulamith. "A-7383444, Sakin, Judith. "A-7178370, Sihv, Eduard (or E.; or Ed-

ward Sihv; or Eduard Shiv). "A-6183233, Tamm, Igor. "A-9580292, Toomberg, Valdemar. "A-7057641, Treblinska, Rywka alias Rywka

Treblinski or Regina Treblinski, or Hoch• sztein (nee Treblinska).

"A-7967275, Tung, Chen Huan. "A-7398350, Vali, Eduard Julius. "A-6922682, Winkler, Sandor. "A-7046213, Winkler, Margit (nee Szerou). "A-6790612, Wu, Chien Keng. "A-9825045, Swiderski, Romuald. "A-6916445, Ulm, Arvo Johannes~ "A-6779243, Schidlo:f-Vojnovic, · rvan, or

Ivan Schidlof. ·

"'A-7079927, Weiss, Bernat, or Bernard Weiss. · "A-6354566, Krajden, Moszko.

"A-6849467, Skarzynska, Aniela, or Irena Merenholc.

"A-5534198, Zombory, Ladislas. "A-7941170, Chong, King Kee, or Kee

Chong King or Casey King. "A-7786119, Gorski, Boleslaw Pawel. "A-6862321, Adamus, Stanislaw. "A-7193792, Kulej, Hanna Teresa. "A-7193793, Cholewicki, Victor Stefan. "A-9677603, Aasma, August. "A-7129220, Aurel, Mazes. "A--6903692, Bluth, Lenke Einhorn. "A-6861310, Chao, Hieh Chang, or Frank

Chao. "A-6852888, Feldbrand, Mancl. "A-7868117, Frank, Frieda. "A-6887552, Ickowicz, Majer. "A-6983574, Indig, Abraham. "A-1841098, Indig, Irene. "A-7052337, Levendel, Irene. "A-6691413, Lin, Shuh Yuen, alias Shuh

Yuen Liu. "A-6794943, Malhas, Ruhi Abdul-Hamid. "A-6612875, Masri, Mahmud Said. "A-6887709, Meisels, Naftali. "A-7190317, Molostvoff, Catherine Basil. "A-7125385, Nowomiast, Mojzesz, Hirsz,

alias Marvin Henry Newton. "A-7125386, Nowomiast, Mina (nee Kap

lan), alias Mina Newton. "A-7841884, Nowomiast, Mark, alias Mark

Newton. . "A-8001241, Petelka, Zofia (nee Kor

powska). "A-7427649, Rzepkowicz, Michael. "A-7390586, Sedlak, Mirko Svatopluk, or

Mirko Sedlak. "A-4768149, Shu, E. Hah. "A-7048743, Stern, Martin. "A-7124129, Tan, Pal Chu. "A-9766004, Toomepuu, Juhan. "A-9766003, Toomepuu, Juri. "A-6163781, Tsai, Chen Yu. "A-7144079, Wolf, Aron Nathan. "A-6862641, Adam, Mazes. "A-6440636, Aizer, Salim Shaoul. "A-5876212, Ambrus, Jan. "A-8001260, Arro, Arnold. "A-6952382, Beer, Adam, Eugin. "A-7210292, BekefH, Laszlo, alias Leslie

Bekeffi. "A-7210291, Bekeffi, Magdalena. "A-6967636, Chen, Paul Kuan Yao. "A-7463958, Cheng, Ai Ming. "A-74'83959, Chen, Lilly Li. "A-9765114, Cieslak, Alfons. "A-6662080, Domb, Jerachmiel, alias

Jerachmiel Donn. "A-6805594, Faber, Laszlo, alias Laszlo

Theodore Faber and George Leslie Fab"er. "A-6567671, Friedman, Leopold. "A-6903791, Gilbert, Suzanne, alias

Suzanne Goldberger. "A-6737204, Godkin, Michael Joseph, or

Moses Joseph Godkin. "A-7049993, Hazzan, Leon Isaac. ''A- 7049994, Hazzan, Renee. "A-6862650, Herman, Michel. "A-6991850, Herman, Maria. "A-6887727, Horowitz, Majer. "A- 7276014, Hwang, Lai-Yin Grace. "A-6985811, Ionnitiu, Mircea. "A-6903748, Kaftanski, Seymour, alias

Szepsel Kaftanski. "A-6390210, Kangro, Valdeko. "A-7085991, Kassab, David Jacob. "'A-6627380, Kiang, Frederica Shu-Ya. "A-9635272, Kiploks, Ludvigs, Paul or Lud·

vigs "Kiploks. "A-6922685, Klein, Marie. · "A-7828455, Klein, Julie. "A-7828456, Klein, Tomas. "A-6386367, Kogerman, Sulev Kristjan. "56133/ 591, Kuljaca, Jovo Petro. "A-6847740, Kwong, Man Hong. "A-7087401, Lautman, Zoltan. "A-6983796, Lee, Joseph Alexander. "A-6694226, Li, Kuah. "A-6625627, Li, Frances. "A-6794979, Lieber, Leopold.


- "A-6794944, Loh, Ellen (Ai Lien Loh, Ellen Lo).

"A-7757809, Loo, Ping Yok. ''A-6995548, Lowy, Gustav. ''A-~805570, Odinak, Alec (Elya Odinak). "A-6373385, Petrova, Olga Gregorie. ''A-6904771, Pizyc, Stefa. "A-6934637, Popoff, Sergei Vasilievich. "A-6390227, Raid, Kaljo, alias Kaljo Raa-

mann. "A-7073587, Rizk, George SUman, formerly

George SUman Rizk Abu Judom. "A-7463362, Sabel, Bela. "A-7463363, Sabel, Ilona (nee Adler). ''A-7903795, Sabel, Irene.

· "A-6771472, Salah, Nadim John. "A-69.38007, Schwartz, Hillel Aron. "A-7243320, Shalom, Yacoub Raphael, alias

Jack Raphael Shalom. "A-6867165, Sommerstein, Emil. ''A-6886844, Szeto, Shih-Chuan. "A-7290210, Sztrachman, Aleksander. ''A-9734415, Tal, Ying Wah. ''A-6983820, Taub, Ladislas Basile, alias

Lawrence Taub. ":A-6628885, Vaughan, Nellie Ladd. "A-7752326, Wang, Chi-Yuan. "A-6849833, Wang, Virginia Fu-Chuang. ''A-6904341, Wechsler, Samuel. "A-6886824, Weiss, Josef. "A-6844256, Wenger, Irving (Izrael We

g1er). "A-6844257, Wenger, Ida (Chaja Wegier). ''A-7130820, Berland, Felicja, alias Felicia

Berland. "A-7182346, Borowiec, Andrzej Stanislaw. "A-9758751, Bracco, Giovanni. "A-7139089, Bracco, Simon Guisto. "A-8057048, Cug1iani, John, or Ivan Kul-

janic or Ivan Milan Kuljanic. "A-7046293, David, Masouda M.S. S. ''A-7139010, Deblinger, Srul. "A-6959748, Deblinger, Kate (nee Gutt-

man). "A-7934151, Fable, Joseph, or Joe Fable. "A-7079925, Fulop, Jeno. . "A-7144001, Goldberger, Magdalena. "A-6528723, Halpern, Aron. "A-6159671, Joles, Joel Leib. "A-6737779, Klein, Moritz. "A-6891804, Kohn, Judith. "A-6755538, Liang Tsich. "A-7779160, Loo, Shou Ming. "A-6949995, Neufeld, Josef. "0300-299946, Paema, Ernst. "A-7244193, Picinich, Matteo. "A-7123477, Rawicki, Jerzy Jacob, alias

Jerry Rawicki. "A-7276711, Sang, Cbang Chuan. ''A-6934990, Schnabel, Moses. "A-7828578, Surian, Giovanni. "A-6849828, Tal, Gertrude Loe or Hsiao ·

Tso Loe. "A-6620485, Tsang, John Lien-Kwel.

·••A-9555577, Veider, Carl (Karl) Alfred. "A-7118759, Weiss, Ervin, alias · Erwin

Weiss. "A-7118778, Weiss, Frieda. "A-6238175, Yang, Peter Quay, also known

as Yang Quay ·and Yang Kwei. "A-6210613, Litynski, Zygmunt .Leopold or

Zygmunt Litynski. "A-7383205, Iliescu, Dumitru. "A-6405961, Lin, Chi-Sun." And the Senate agree to the same.

I;• ,, r.:-·

ARTHUR V. WATKINS, WILLIAM LANGER, JAMES 0. EASTLAND,

Managers on the Part of the Senate. LoUIS E. GRAHAM, RUTH THOMPSON, FRANciS E. WALTER,

Managers on the Part of the House.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the report?

There being no objection. the Senate proceeded to consider the report.

Mr. WATKINS. Mr. President. House Concurrent Resolution 29 records con ..

gressional approval for adjustment of the immigration status of certain aliens who have established that they are ·displaced persons residing in the United States within the purview of section 4 of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, as amended. Included in the concurrent resolution, as agreed to by the House of Representatives, were 509 cases. The Senate committee deleted from the concurrent resolution the names of 27 aliens because upon the basis of the then available information it did not appear that there were sufficiently strong equities in the 27 cases to warrant the granting of the status of permanent residence. Upon reconsideration of the merits involved in each individual case, the conferees have agreed to reinstate 11 names which were deleted from the concurrent resolution by the Senate and to sustain the action taken by the Senate in 16 cases. In addition, three cases which were transmitted to the committees by the Attorney General have been added to. the concurrent resolution.

Accordingly, Mr. President, the conferees on the part of the Senate do recommend and I hereby move that the Senate adopt the conference report on House Concurrent Resolution 29.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the report.

The report was agreed to.

FARM PRICES Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I wish to

speak briefly on the subject of farm prices. I believe that the level of farm prices this year and next will have much more to do with a balanced budget next year, or the year after, than any other thing we are discussing on the floor of the Senate today. Go back as far as we want, at least 35 years, and we shall find that our national income is always approximately seven times that of our farm income. The prices of our basic raw materials are important to our national economy and have a direct relationship to it.

The many attacks on our present farm price-support program are completely unwa-rranted. For the most part. these attacks are based on misinformation and a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of these price-support programs. They are directed mainly against our present 90 percent pricesupport program for basic farm commodities. Incidentally, over the past 20 years of their operation. the price-support programs have netted the Federal Government a profit of $4 million.

Prices of practically all farm commodities continue their drastic downward trend. The average price that a11 commodities are selling for at the present time is less than 93 percent of parity. Many commodities. and particularly grains and feed grains, are selling at less than 85 percent of parity. While this downward trend in farm prices continues, the prices of most commodities and services that the farmers have to bay remain at their all time high, and there is every indication that the prices of some of these goods and services may increase even further. There have been important wage increases and pension

benefits granted to some ·organized labor groups this week. ·

The situation we are facing today is not too unlike that which prevailed in 1929 just before the great depression. If history repeats itself, as it has many times in the past, our present greatly reduced farm income could well lead to another and even more severe depression. If we are to avert another depression, it will require bold action on the part of the United States Government to maintain at least a fair level of farm prices.

Ninety percent farm price supports, according to many of our most reputable

· economists. prevented the expected post · World War II depression. These pricesupport programs, properly administered, can and will go a long way toward preventing another depression. At least part of their effectiveness has already been destroyed by unwise attacks by high officials in the present administration. These attacks, based for the most part on lack of understanding or inf-ormation, have already destroyed the confidence of the American people in the future price structure.

Many of the speeches opposing the present price-support_program are reminiscent of those we heard in and out of Congress during the sessions of 1949 and 1950. It wil) be recalled that at that time, Mr. President, many predicted that the agricul~ural surpluses we had then would destroy our price-support program and wreck our economy. We had some sizable carryovers of important agricultural commodities at that timemore than we have presently.

I wonder how many Members of the Senate recall that it was only a short while ago-1951, to be specific-when we were encountering not only a United States shortage of many important farm commodities but a worldwide shortage. In fact, during 1951, -we saw the imposition of price ceilings on cotton and the skyrocketing of cotton prices throughout the world. Many of the textile industries. particularly in Europe, still have not completely recovered from the results of the short cotton supply and resultant high prices of that period just a short while ago. A similar situation prevailed with respect to the short supplies and resultant higher prices of many other farm commodities.

The Government of the United States, realizing the importance of maintaining sizable supplies of important raw materials in a continued tense world situation, has been stockpiling under a war emergency program important commodities such as copper, aluminum, asbestos, lead, mercury, nickel, quinine, crude rubber, tin, tungsten, diamond dyes, pepper, wool, and even castor oil. No less important- than the need of stockpiling these materials has been the need to maintain sizable stocks of basic farm commodities, including cotton, corn, and wheat. These commodities, however, rather than being· stockpiled under a. separate program. as is the case with other strategic war materials, have been carried as surplus stockpiles under the Commodity Credit Corporation and the farm-price-support program.

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5573 Mr. MAYBANK. Mr . . President. will

the Senator from Nor~h Dakota yield? Mr. YOUNG. I yielq. Mr. MaYBANK. The Senator has

said that they had a right to stockpile, even when the prices were going down.

Mr. YOUNG. I think it was a very . necessary prog:ram.

Mr. MAYBANK. But they did not stockpile, except, as the Senator has suggested, through the Commodity Credit Corporat-ion.

Mr. YOUNG. That is correct. Mr. MAYBANK. There was practi

cally no wheat or cotton stockpiled. Mr. YOUNG. The . stockpiles which

were maintained meant a surplus beyond our normal carryover of these commodities, which had the effect of demoralizing prices.

Mr. MAYBANK. The surpluses were a part of the program of the Department of Agriculture. Representatives of the Department of Agriculture went from pillar to post, I may say, urging the farmer to increase his production. Is not that correct?

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. Mr. MA YBANK. And Congress re

moved the controls. Mr. YOUNG. The Department of Ag

riculture is asking farmers to increase their corn production at this time.

There is no attack being made upon the stockpiling_ of strategic war materials. except our agricultural commodities. This in spite of the fact the Government of the United States has continually year after year been asking farmers to produce more of many of these commodities. The Government of the United States: is asking the corn farmers of this Nation, for example, to increase their corn production this year for the third consecutive year.

While the corn farmers are being asked to increase their corn production by the Department of Agriculture, its Secretary, M.r. Benson, at the same time has been pointing out in speech after speech the sericus problem we have of corn and other surpluses. The present price support law provides among other things that our normal carryover of wheat is considered to be approximately 150 million bushels. A 150 million bushel carryover, in my opinion. and I believe most everyone else's, is an inadequate amount under our present and past unsettled world situation. Either the 150 million bushel carryover as provided under our price support legislation should be increased or wheat and other strategic farm commodities should be stockpiled under a separate program.

We read many statements by supposedly responsible people expressing alarm over our present supplies of basic farm commodities, particularly wheat, cotton, and corn. Mr. President, r have obtained what I believe to be accurate information from the United States Department of Agriculture on our present Commodity Credit Corporation holdings of farm commodities and their obligations under CCC loans which are outstanding.

I ask unanimous consent that the entire table may be printed in the RECORD at this point in my remarks, but I would like to read some of these figures into

the REcoRD and comment on them, as I believe they present an entirely different picture from what many persons would have us believe.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Commodity Credit Corporation investments

in price-suppor+. operations and outstanding obligations to advance funds (including inventories, loans held by Commodity Credit Corporation, loans held by lending a·gencies, loans in priocess, purchase agreements)-Peak figures for each year

Fiscal year: 1948, December ¢1947)_____ $565,400, 000 1949, June (1949) --------- 2, 692, 500, 000 1950,February (1950)------ 4,231,100,000 1951, July (1950) --------- 8, 502, 900, 000 1952, October ( 1951) ------ 2, 041, 300, CJOO 1953, as of Mar. 31, 195>3___ 3, 267, 500, 000 Source: CCC, USDC.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, in 1949 the total obligations under the Commodity Credit Corporation, including inventories, loans held by . Commodity Credit Corporation, loans held by lending agencies, loans in process, and purchase agreements, amounted to $2,692,500,000.

In 1950 the holdings amounted to $4,231.100,000.

In 1951 they amounted to $3,502,90(},-000.

That is considerabl~ higher than it is at the present time.

In 1952 the amount was $2,041,300,000. As of Mar'cl1 31,. 1953, it was $3,267,-

500.000. That is approximately a billion dollars

less than it was in 1950'. Mr. MA YBANK. Mr. President, will

the Senator from North Dakota yield? Mr. YOUNG. I yield. Mr. MAYBANK. We hear complaints

about the farmers bemg subsidized. We are going to consider i:n the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce the appropriation of millions of dollars to subsidize maritime interests. I cannot understand why some persons who are interested in such subsidies should complain about the farmer having a right to borrow money, which he generally pays back, and at the same time Congress appropriates countless millions of dollars to . keep American ships on the seas. Of course, they should be kept on the seas. But I cannot understand how such persons can complain about the farmers receiving credit.

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the Senator for his comment; all the more· so since he is one of the best friends agriculture has in the Senate.

If we want to go into the question of subsidies, I think every other segment of our economy enjoys more subsidies than do our farmers.

Mr. MAYBANK. The Postmaster General made one of the best statements before the Appropriations Committee a few days ago · that I have ever hearrd, when he said, in effect, that we were subsidizing all classes of mail except one or two classes. He admitted that we were subsidizing too much.

Mr. YOUNG. We are spending at the present time approximately $1,900,000,-000 a year in research by industry. Approximately 47 percent of that amount is provided by :United States Qov.ernment

appropriations~ The total amount we spend in agricultural research is approx .. imately $50 million to $60 million.

Mr. MAYBANK. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations, the Senator knows that appropriations for agricultural research have 'Qeen reduced. I have never heard any complaint about the fairness and equity of the· research program carried on by the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. YOUNG. I think the Senator is correct.

Mr. President, it will be noted, among other things, that both our inventory of farm commodities which we hold under the CCC and the outstanding loans under the Price Support Program are considerably less than they were in 1949 and 1950.

Jn recent weeks we have witnessed a.ttacks by not only other than farm people, but by some groups of our farm economy themselves against our present price-support program for grains and particularly feed grains. This despite the fact that according to the Department of Agriculture practically all feed grains were selling, as of April 15, 1953, at a national average below 85 percent of parity. The cash corn price, as of April15, 1953, on a national average was selling at 82 percent of parity; oats at 86 percent of parity, and wheat at 85 percent of parity. Cas:b grain prices are even lower at the present time. Oats, for example, on Saturday, May 23., sold at Bismarck,. N. Dak., for 49 cents a bushel. This is 20 cents a bushel below the support price which is 85 percent of parity. In other words, cash oats in my State are selling at ~ot more than 70 percent of parity.

Mr. President, during the past several weeks some cattle producers and cattle feeders have made demands upon the Department of Agriculture to make available corn and other feeds at lower prices than are now obtainable on the cash markets. This is. despite the fact that corn and most feed grains are selling at 83 percent of parity or less. These interests are expressing opposition to the present price=-support program for grains.

Last year we had similar requests from some hog feeders who wanted cheaper corn to offset their losses resulting from the demoralized hog prices at that time. Corn prices were maintained at 90 percent of parity despite these requests. At the present time we have a very favorable hog price and normal sup .. plies of hogs. . If corn and other feed prices had been

lowered a year ago to meet the demands of hog feeders, it would have resulted in continued heavY feeding and production of hogs and a continued oversupply with demoralized hog prices. A lowering of corn prices. to a year ago would have acpelerated even more the cattle feeding operations ,with a net result of even more Jmrdensome surpluses of cattle today. As bad as the cattle price situation i:s, it would have been immeasurably worse if corn prices had been lowered a year ago as requested by some of our agricultural interests. Cattle producers. as well as other farm producers, I believe are entitled to,price p:(otec~iOJl. It would be


unreasonable, however, to expect grain prices to be lowered even more to meet their demands.

In substance, such demands mean that these producers expect the grain producers to subsidize their operations. The problems of our agricultural economy can best be served by all of our agricultural interests working together.

If we are to maintain a stable economy in this Nation, we are going to have to give greater protection to the prices of farm commodities and not less. To those who advocate still lower price supports for our basic farm commodities, and the resultant still lower prices that would automatically follow, are following directly in the footsteps of those who controlled the policies of the Government of the United States during the late twenties and early thirties. To follow that line of thinking under present conditions wben we have .a debt-ridden, topheavy economy would lead us· directly and speedily toward another and disastrous depression.

Mr. President, at the present time agriculture is in a serious situation. To retain any semblance of solvency for agriculture and the Nation as a whole will require more sympathetic understanding of farm problems and some direct action. It involves not only maintaining a high level of price supports for farm commodities, but, equally important, more protection than we have on imports of more cheaply produced foreign agricultural commodities.

According to the best information I have, in the spring wheat areas the farmers have increased their wheat acreage and planting, and have reduced the number of acres of feed grains and particularly oats. The reason is simple. Oats and feed grain prices are for the most part below the cost of production. Oats prices could be at a fair level now if the past had taken action or the present administration would take the necessary action to at least curb heavy imperts. ·I tried in vain to get the previous admin-

. istration to take action to curb these imports, but with no success. The present Secretary, Mr. Benson, indicates that he desires to do something about these imports. I am patiently waiting for results.

Mr. President, let me give you jlJst one example of why it is impossible for United States farmers to compete pricewise with Canadian farmers on feed grains. Taxes, labor, transportation, and many other costs in Canada are much lower than in the United States. The Canadian Government, because it is practically out of debt, has found it possible to eliminate certain taxes that are burdensome in America and reduce many others. Here are some startling figures on transportation costs in Canada as against the United States. The rail rate from Regina, Saskatchewan, to Fort William is 6.4 cents per bushel on oats. The rate from Crosby, N. Dak., which is directly across the line from Regina, is 15.87 cents per bushel to Duluth, Minn., which is comparable to Fort William on the Canadian side. ·

The freight rate from Sweet Grass, Mont.-including tax-is 45.3 cents a bushel on wheat to Duluth • . The freight

rate directly across the nne at Coutts, America will be headed for economic dis. Alberta, to Fort William is 16 cents per aster, despite anything else we may do. bushel for wheat. Mr. YOUNG. I could not more heart-

Mr. President, this fs one of the many ily agree with the Senator. I have often reasons why United States farmers can- admired the studies the Senator from not compete pricewise with canadian South Dakota has made of agricultural imports of grains. economics, especially of the price~ farm-

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the ers receive for their commodities amt Senator from North Dakota yield?. how those prices affect the entire econ-

Mr. YOUNG. I yield. omy. I deeply appreciate the Senator's Mr. MUNDT. First, I wish to compli- comments.

ment my colleague on the Committee on Mr. MUNDT. The Senator from Appropriations, the senator from North . North Dakota has made a generous conDakota, for the very challenging address tribution to the thinking of America. he is giving. Then I wish to associate I am happy to see on the floor the very myself especially with the point he has distinguished, able, and energetic chairjust made about the necessity of main- man of the Committee on Agriculture taining adequate impot~ tariffs , on cer- and Forestry, who is listening with his tain agricultural products, if our price- usual rapt attention. Our committee is support program is to succeed. If our just now concluding a long series of hearprice-support program fails, America ings on important problems confronting will be plunged into depression. agriculture: I hope those hearings may

I believe it is now clearly understood merge into legislative methods by which among all economists in the country that we can solve the problems that have when depressions originate with the been very definitely exposed. . farmers they eventually ramify and Mr. YOUNG. I thank the Senator

very much. bring about a nationa1 depressiob. If we Mr. President, the prices which the reduce by 25 or 30 percent the income of the farmers of America under our exist- producers of farm commodities and all ing schedules of fixed h h 11 · other raw materials receive are so basic

. c arges y;e s a to the prosperity of the whole Nation plunge the country mto econ~mic chaos. that we simply cannot permit farm prices So when we talk about a pnce-supp?rt . to slip further. If we are to maintain program f~r the farmer we are talkmg national prosperity and solvency, it will about a pnce~support program for our require a sympathetic understanding of whole pro~pen~y level. our present administration with respect

May I mqUire whether t~e Senator not only to the price of all farm comfrom North Dakota agrees With. me th~t modities, but also to the ·price-support when we talk abo~t a pro~ective tariff program which has been almost entirely program fo.r Amencan ~griCulture.. we . responsible for preventing an even more are not .ask~ng for anyth~ng for agriCul- serious situation. ~ure ~hiCh Is ~ot now enJoyed by Amer- Mr. President, I believe the 83d Con-lean mdustry · gress will not adjourn next year until it

Mr. YOUNG . . The Senator is correct. has extended our present price-support Mr. MUNDT. It seems to me that the .Program. or legislate an even better pro

good way to bring that point to the at- gram than now exists. tention of fair-minded citizens is to talk Mr. President, · I ask unanimous conabout barley. The tariff on a bushel of sent to have printed following my rebarley, which produces the equivalent of marks a part of a letter which I have a barrel of beer, is 7¥2 cents~ The received from M. W. Thatcher, general farmer gets protection of 7 Y2 cents a manager of the Farmers Union Grain bushel. Terminal Association, St. Paul, Minn .

I wish we had time to engage in some His is a very excellent letter bearing on conjecture in the Senate as to what in- the entire agricultural situation, includdustry receives as its share from a bushel ing price supports and the effects of of barley, so that we might realize just· heavy foreign imports. how the farmer is being victimized by There being no objection, the portions the inadequate, dishonest import tariff of the letter referred to were ordered to policy, because breweries in the United be printed in the RECORD, as follows: States, On every barrel Of beer produced FARMERS UNION GRAIN TERMINAL from every bushel of barley, enjoy a AssociATION, tariff of $3.80 per barrel. That means St. Paul, Minn., May 13, 1953. they receive a 50-to-1 preference over The Honorable MILTON. R. YouNG, the American farmer. I know of no one Senate Office Building, who 'alleges that the economic success Washington, D. c. of the bre:wing industry is essential to DEAR MILT: I am very glad to have your the economic prosperity of the United recent letter, giving me copies of letters to

you from Secretary Benson. I am particuStates, whereas any student of American Iarly interested in the approach through economics must realize that the overall which our Government is discussing these

_. economic prosperity of the farmer is es- grain imports with the officials in Canada. sential to overall American prosperity. The discussions relate to oats. We have a

I wonder if the Senator from North deeper interest in barley and rye than we do Dakota will agree with me that no more in oats, particularly barley. Today, there

is just no market for our barley-! mean important fiscal problem confronts the there is no market. In order to m'Ove any country or the Congress today than the substantial barley today, we would have to working out of a program which will give offer terminal elevator barley at a discount to the farmer his fair share of the na- of from 5 to 10 cents per bushel under the tional income and the kind of tariff pro- current sluggish price for fresh country run tection he requires, so that the price sup- receipts.

t The maltsters simply sit in a laughing po· por program can work, because if the sition in the situation. They have complete price support program breaks down, buying control beca1,1se of the large supply

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5575 of malting barley in Canada. Naturally, the Canadians want to sell their surplus barley, and naturally, the maltsters want to buy malting barley as cheaply as. they ~an. · In the early marketing last fall, we had good malting barley prices. Just as soon as · the Canadian barley crop was made and some malting barley sh€lwed llp, our ma:ltsters started importing it_ and tearing down om ' price structure. We can't even get parity for premium malting barley.

We have a deficient crop in rye. Yet. the price fs way· off, and again, ft is the Canadian rye that does ft.

I can't understand a Secretary of Agricultu:re, responsible for the administration of programs that seek to achieve parity for agriculture, showing the· attitude that has prevailed down there last year and this year. The whole theory of support prices is to help farmers get a reasonable price on. commodities that are raised in surplus. The purpose of the laws is clear. Tremendous funds from the taxpayers' money are used in supporting these programs. If we had no surpluses, we woUld not need price supports. But, we do have surpluses. We do need price supports. And, we use price supports. ·

Why then, permit the importation of surplus commodities from Canada to come in here and further aggravate our. surplus accumulations? The greater the surplus in the hands of the Government, the greater

· the eost, the greater the publicity about it, which means a couple of black eyes to our price support program. To permit a continuation of the importation of the u:qneeded surpluses from Canada makes the Government look stupid, particularly the Secretary of Agriculture. I.t flagrantly defeats the purpose of the legislation and constitutes both an economic loss to the Federal Treasury and imposes an unjustified burden on the farmers in carrying out international trade. Further, it is a betrayal of everything promised to and l.Xpected by our grain growers.

We have import. quotas on wheat for human consumption. We use quotas in the cotton program. We use quotas, subsidies, and regimentation in the sugar program. Will you tell me what economic sense it makes to use quotas on some of these commodities and deny them on feed wheat, oats, barley, and rye? Who can defend such inconsistency and lack of fairness as to one group of farmers as compared to another? Ten me anyone who Gan defend It. Tell me anyone who can defend imposing a tariff of $3.83 on a barrel of beer and then impose a tariff of 7¥:! cents on a busl!el of malting barley, which is the eql!livalent of a barrel of beer. It looks to me as though the oreweries are protected by $3.83 a barrel as against the American farmer raising malting barley with a protection of 77'2 cents a bushel, which shows a prejudice for the breweries of about 50 to 1. Who can defend that?

The theory of the law of supply and demand is that shortage creates price. This past year, we raised about 60 percent of our needed supply .of rye. Rye prices should boom up away above parity. But no, in comes the Canadian rye. Who can defend these things? What Member of the House, or the Senate, or the State Department, or the Department of Agriculture will take the facts to the public and attempt to defend them? .

If these very important economic matters, affecting the economic welfare of our farmers, are serious to our farmers and costly to our farmers at a t.ime when we have the highest employment we have ever. had and the highest· purchasing power we have ever had, what are these farmers to look forward to in a period cf .recession?

If there ts to be a. program to curtail wheat production next year, what. are our farmers going to do with their cropland? If wheat restriction is approved, are we going

. I

to say to them, "Shift. your wheatland into oats,. barley, and rye'"l I simply cannot un-

- derstand how any sane man with any sense would dare openly and publicly support such economic nonsense and such flagrant prejudice against our grain farmers.

• • • • • Our a:grfeultural acreage is totaJI. Followed

from the south to the North, you will find areas. where cotton., grain sorghums~ and wheat are interchangeable in production. As you keep on moving over the country, you will find related interchangeability of crops, so that we really are always dealing with total acreage in cropland. Therefore, as you trace feed grains from Canada:, it affects grain sorghum acreage or cotton acreage in the South~

Who, in view of all factS', ean stand before the public and rest a ease upon shifting of crops with the implica.tion that we have surpluses of some and shortages of others:

Even though r serve as President of the National Federation of Grain Cooperatives, I have no contact with Secretary Benson. I wrote him one letter, which he never answered, so I am through with him. r do enjoy contact with important Members of Congress as deeply interested in this matter of protection to American· farmers as I am. But, this is of no ·avail. unless such Members go on the floor o! the House and Senate and pound away everytime there is a chance to speak, camng attention to these serious problems.

• • • • .. The. land of agriculture is the last seg

ment of free America. Tb,is great family of unorganized farmers is the last group in this country that is exposed to the jungle law of supply and demand.

Efficient agricultur-e carried to its ultimate conclusion will rest upon the farmlands of this country in feudal ownership, resulting finally in organized farm labor on the· land, which wiU. result in two things:

1. Organized farm labor means that consumers will be buying their food and fiber on a labor wage, portal-to-portal, time and .one-half, double time, vacations, social security, l'esulting in prices twice as high as they are at the present time.

2. With labor organized both fn the urban and rural areas, there will be the final clash between organized workers and concentrated capital. ·

• • • • • Very sincerely yours,

FARMERS UNION GRAIN TERMINAL. Assoc.IATION,.

M. W. THATCHER~ General Manager.,

CONSOLIDATED GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

The Senate reswned the consideration of the concurrent resolution <S. Con. Res. 8) providing for a Consolidated General Appropriation Act.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, there is no man in the Senate for whom I hold a higher regard than the distinguished Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD]. He has spearheaded many attempts to economize in Government and to attain a balanced budget. However, I am in disagreement with him-and with the 49 cosponsors of the concurrent resolution-in his statement as to what the concurrent resolution would accomplish.

As I pointed out in a colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Michigan [Mr. FRRGUSONJ, every year the President of the United States furnishes to the Congress a budget, which he must submit early in January of each year.

In that budget he states' specifically the amount of money whi-ch is." to be spent, or which he suggests should be spent, by each department of Government. The budget also includes an estimate of the amount of revenue which is expected to be collected during the year for which the appropriation is to be made.

In addition to the budget. which, as my colleagues are well aware, is quite voluminous, the executive department furnishes to the· Congress a summary called the Federa] Budget in Brief. On page 5 of the Federal Budget in . Brief for the year 1954, there appears estimates of receipts for 1954 in the sum cf $68.7 billion. Estimated expenditures amount to $78.6 ·billion. The budget summary also indicates the deficit which will occur if the amount of money Slfggested is appropriated, and the amount of receipts comes within the estimate made by the President.

Each year similar information is made available to an Members of Congress. I fail to see how money can be saved if we write into the appropria,tion bill the very thing which we are furnished by the President-that is, a statement of the receipts as against the expenditures.

I read :from page 2 of the report on the concurrent resolution:

By terms of th~s concurrent resolution C.ong:ress. would write into eaeh consol!idated appropriation bill, as well as supplemental and deficiency bills, annual limits on all items which propose ob1igat.ions for expenditure beyond a fiscal year as well as annual limitations on all obligations for expenditure carrying, over from prior fiscal years.

The importance of this may be seen from the fact that on next .June 30, 1953, the buildup from unexpended balances from old appropriations and authorizations will probably meet $100 billion. While a large part of this total may be called obligated, the validity of the whole would be reviewed annually by adoption of this resolution.

How does· the concurrent resolution seek to meet this contingency? Prior to World War II there was an understanding, or custom, between the. House and the Senate, whereby authority was given to each department of Government to contract in-advance for such goods, wares and merchandise as it might need. This contract authority was withdrawn during World War II, and the House insisted on the procedure requiring that before a .contract could be entered into by any department of Government, Congress must first appropriate the entire amount of the contract.

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PURTELL in the chair). Does the Senator from Louisiana yield to the Senator from Arizona?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. HAYDEN. I should like to point

out to the Senator that while it may be true that the unexpended balance of an appropriation may be very large, 85 percent of the items in an appropriation bill are 1-year appropriations.

Mr. ELLENDER. The senator is correct, if he is referring to the number of items, rather than the amount.

Mr. HAYDEN. I am speaking about the number of items. It is proposed to


put all this information in a report, when about 85 percent of the items are 1-year appropriations.

Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator knows what is done by the Appropriations Committee with respect to some of these unexpended balances. What we do is to deduct them from the entire amount requested, and let the Department spend so much in new money, supplemented by what is carried over.

The point I wish to make is simply that, whether it be done by contract authority or by appropriating the money in advance, we cannot tell exactly how mueh we are to spend from year to year. We cannot hit the nail on the head, so to speak as the concurrent resolution proposes to do.

· I recall very well that during 1950 we appropriated approximately $2 billion for airplanes. Those airplanes were actually ordered in 1951. They are now being delivered in 1953. However, we appropriated the money back in 1950. The money was not spent in the first year, and I doubt if it will all be spent by the end of 1953. How we shall be able to say that during a given period so much will be spent on airplanes is beyond me. It is impossible to say. When it comes to appropriating for regu- . lar departments of Government, as was pointed out by the distinguished Senator from Arizona [Mr. HAYDEN] such appropriations are appropriations from year to year. If there is any unexpended balance, either it goes back to the Treasury or it is deducted from the cash amount asked by the Department for the succeeding year. ·

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield." Mr. HAYDEN. It may be that prior

to the end of the fiscal year one of the annual appropriations may be obligated; but it is obligated only for the succeeding fiscal year, and if not expended it goes back into the Treasury.

Mr. ELLENDER. As the distinguished Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD] pointed out, under the terms of the concurrent resolution, if we contract to build an airplane carrier, it may require 4 years to construct it. What we would have to do would be to give contract authority to enter into a contract for the full price of the ship, and appropriate each year an amount sufficient to pay for the work a.S it progresses.

Mr. HAYDEN. That is not the proposal of the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. ELLENDER. Under the concurrent resolution there would be authority ·to enter into contracts.

Mr. HAYDEN. Certainly. I do not know whether the House would ever agree to that or not.

Mr. ELLENOER. The Senator knows that it would not. The House has fought against this repeatedly, and will not permit any department to enter into a contract. The House insists that the· full amount of money be appropriated during the year the contract is entered into, whether or not the goods are delivered during that year, or whether they are delivered 2 or 3 years hence.

Mr. HAYDEN:. What I could not quite understand in the statement of the Sen-

ator from Virginia was this: He stated that some of us knew of the conditions that if all the money were appropriated, at Fort Belvoir. There was a request to we could fix the amount to be expended build a 500-bed hospital, which would each fiscal year. How can anyone guess have cost, I believe, $15,000 a bed. how much is to be spent each year on I had visited Fort Belvoir a few months the contract for a battleship? before the request was made. I found

Mr. ELLENDER. It cannot be done. there were 1,200 beds available at Fort That is just what I am trying to point Belvoir, and of the 1,200 beds only 250 out. So whether we follow the pro- were being used. Nevertheless, we had cedure of granting contract authority, a request to build a 500-bed hospital. or whether we appropriate the entire What was the explanation given to us? amount during the year the contract is There was no need for a 500-bed hosmade, we shall have the same result. pital, but those making the request were

Mr. President, if the concurrent reso- taking advantage of the emergency in lution is adopted and the House should order to obtain a permanent building for unfortunately agree to it, I dare say it a hospital. Because some of us knew will be late in the fall before any. appro- the true situation, ·there was stricken priation bill is passed. · from the bill approximately $48 million

A one-package appropriation bill will requested for hospitals to be built in not receive the same amount of study 10 facilities . scattered throughout the which separate bills receive. Under the country. present system our committee is divided . Mr. President, if the members of the into 10 subcommittees. Most of us serve committee had sufficient help-and we on at least half of the subcommittees. are getting it now-in order to make inFor example, I serve on subcommittees spectioris ahead of time, we could save which appropriate money for every one money, and we could save more money except three of the departments of the in that manner than by way of a oneGovernment. I am able to attend most · package appropriation bill. We could of the· hearings which are held on ap- cut; percentagewise, 5 or 10 .percent and propriation bills for the Department of save the $800 million which the distinthe Interior, the Army civil functions, guished Senator from Virginia [Mr. and the Department of Agriculture, and BYRD] stated was saved on the oneI am more or less acquainted with what package bill in 1950. goes on in the other subcommittees. Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the When the separate bills are reported to Senator yield? the full committee, the committee itself Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. goes over the bills very carefully. After . Mr. LONG. I believe I heard my colthe bills are reported to the Senate, the league say that the committee is now Senate itself certainly has a better op- getting help so it can examine some of portunity to study the items in separate the items that should be questioned. appropriation bills for each department - Will the Senator explain why we are getthan if one bill for the 11 departments ting the help now, when we were not were to be presented at once. getting it in the past? .

There will be untold time lost also, Mr. ELLENDER. We depended too Mr. President, in conference, wl;le~·e con- much on the military. When the miliferees will be forced to deal with and tary officials came before our committee reconcile a multiplicity of items. I dare we took it for granted that everything say that the committee will be doing ex- tbey asked of us was in order. We took tremely well to report~ measure agree- their word for it. That was a grave misable to both Houses by early fall. take. If in the past 10 years·we had had

There ·is no doubt in my mind that if sufficient help on the Appropriations any money is to be saved, we can more · Committees of the House and Senate, easily bring about that result under the and if we had then had some of the expresent system of separate appropria- perts we are now employing to go forth tion ·bills than by means of a one-pack- and look behind the scenes to find out age appropriation bill. wliether the things asked for were nee-

Let us not forget that in the various essary, we might have saved a great deal appropriations 87 percent of the money of money, I may say to my distinguished appropriated goes toward paying for colleague. past wars and protecting ourselves Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the against future wars. $87 out of every Senator yield further? $100 appropriated is for that purpose. Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Of the remaining 13 percent a good deal Mr. LONG. My colleague from Loui-of money is spent for defense housing, siana has worked in hi::t effort to bring aid to schools in defense areas, genera- about economy. It is important to tion and transmission of power, atomic achieve economy and I wonder whether energy, defense plants, and other mat- he agrees with me that those who are ters directly connected with our se- st· ·dying requests for appropriations curity. should not be confronted with such an

No, Mr. President; the only way by enormous task, without expert assistwhich we can save money is for the ance. Does the Senator agree? Appropriation Committees of the Senate Mr. ELLENDER. Yes; and the only and House to make a thorough study of way economy can be brought about is by appropriations, and to employ sufficient having knowledge of the facts, circumhelp to make such a study, before the stances, and necessities? Does the Senappropriation bills come before the two ator agree? bodies for action. Mr. LONG. Yes; I agree.

For example, in the closing days of . Mr. ELLENDER. The example I cited the 82d Congress an appropriation was a short time ago can be duplicated many requested with which to build a hospital times. For instance, I remember in tliat at Fort Belvoir in Virginia. It happened same bill tnere was contained -an item

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE 5577 . '

· amounting to approximately $6 _million for the construction of laundries in my state. I asked, "What did you do dur-ing World War II?" ·

I was told, "We had the laundries op. erated by private enterprise in the city of Lake Charles and in other towns near

·the camps, and with the one that was built at Camp Polk we were able to take care of the situation.''

Notwithstanding the fact that the needs were well taken care of during the war years the officials had asked for an amount of money with which to build a brand-new laundry at the airport which · was then being constructed at Lake

·Charles. Because we were familiar with the situation, we were able to examine the witnesses on the subject and elicit the facts.

By the same token, in order that we inay be in a positiop. to bring about some real savings, we must try to find out in advance what the money is to be spent for.

We should cut the appropriation in advance. The way to do it is first of all to determine the purpose for which it is

·to be used. Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the

Senator yield? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. LONG. Some . of us found, in

studying requests for public works authorizations last year, that by sending out someone who was an expert in the construction field to examine the type of

·construction asked for, in many cases we could reduce the unit price by about 25 percent simply by requiring that the structures should not be so elaborate as they had been planned.

Mr. ELLENDER. In that connection, Mr. President, I may state to my colleague that I presume the method followed by the military in the case he has mentioned may be the same method followed with respect to the hospitals I mentioned a short time ago.

Instead of having plans to present to the committee as to how the hospitals were to be built, they simply said, "We will build in Louisiana a 500-bed hospital at a cost of $15,000 .a bed. We are going to build a hospital at Fort Belvoir, with 500 beds; and the cost will be $15,000 a bed." .

That is the way th~ costs were arrived at in the case of the hospitals to be built in the 10 facilities.

I have no doubt in my mind that the same process was followed in many of the cases to which my distinguished colleague is referring.

Mr. LONG. It seems that the principal thing we need is to have someone check firsthand, -in the field, on many of the expenditures.

Mr. ELLENDER. And to do so before they are made.

Mr. LONG. Yes; and also to have someone who is qualified to check on those who do the work. ·

Mr. ELLENDER. Yes. ·Mr. President, I repeat that there is

no chance to save the millions of dollars which some Senators say will be saved.

A while ago my good friend, the Senator from Colorado [Mr. JOHNSON], saidand it seemed that the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD]

_did not disagree with· him-that the "one package" appropriation bill which was passed in 19·50 resulted in the saving of billions of dollars. I wish either of those Senators would point out to us how billions of dollars were saved in that way.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PuRTELL in the chair). The question is on agreeing. to Senate Concurrent Resolution 8, as amended.

Mr. BUTLER of Maryland. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. BUTLER of Maryland. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the

· order for a quorum call be rescinded and that further proceedings under the call be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the· request of the Senator from Maryland? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

The question before the Senate is on agreeing to Senate Concurrent Resolution 8, as amended.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, this resolution is a rehash uf a great many ideas which have been popular with people who know nothing about the problem of appropriations as it exists in the Congress. To quote from a newspaper of na tiona! circulation:

The consolidation of all appropriations into one act, whatever the theoretical arguments in favor of it, is in actual operation a wholly impractical, unwieldly cumbersome, inefficient and unbusinesslike method of handling appropriations.

There are many similar quotations, but, without quoting them, I desire to say as a member of the Appropriations Committee and as the past chairman of a subcommittee of that committee handling appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office Departments, that· I have had an opportunity to compare at first hand the two methods, the old method, and the new method now proposed, which was once tried, in 1950.

The inadequacies of the so-called onepackage appropriation became glaringly obvious in 1950. In that year we spent practically the whole year trying to put together into one bill the various parts, and then endeavoring in conference to

· obtain agreement with the House on the bill.

I know of no way by which we could make the appropriations in a one-package bill, unless there were an executive session of the Senate and House, and all their Members, sitting jointly, each Member of the Congress, hearing the testimony of each of the witnesses who appeared before them. It would mean that there would be no transaction of legislative business other than the consideration of appropriation bills.

The Appropriations Committee has a staff composed of persons who are specially trained in the work of dealing with particular phases .of appropriations. They investigate the legislative proposals, search out the mistakes that may be contained in them, and endeavor to bring such mistakes to the attention of the members of the particular subcommittee with which they are working.

They endeavor · to reconcile the differ-. ences which may arise in the determination of where cuts can be made. The staff cannot deal with the entire governmental picture, which has become too vast. A larger staff, instead of being more helpful, would be found to be less efficient. The result would be that, being unable to provide for the necessities of the various departments, an effort would be made to balance the budget at all events, and in so doing, a particular agency, no matter how valuable it might be in the general picture, would suffer, since there would be no one present to speak for it.

From the days of the Founding Fathers, with the exception of one year, the Senate has worked on the plan of breaking down the requests for appropriations into the component parts. The most that can be said for that method is that only those Senators are kept off the floor who are engaged in the hearings, a great

. many of them working on appropriations only. The same is true in the House of Representatives, though not quite to the same extent, since the House has a larger membership, and therefore no Member of the House serves on more than one subcommittee. Under the procedure in the Senate the subcommittees, after having heard the witnesses, approve a budget .and submit it, with their justification, to the full committee. Each subcommittee submits its justification to the full committee, after which the full committee submits a report to the Senate, together with its justifications. The Senate, on the basis of the two reports, then decides how much should be appropriated for each department, in accordance with the needs of the Nation.

That method, as we found in 1950, enables the Senate to work about 4 or 5 times as fast as under the other method, and it works with less injustice to the people as a whole. For that reason I was in 1950, and I still am, confirmed in my belief that the so-:-called one-package appropriation simply does not work. As in the case of many other things, the proposal embodies a fine ideal, and, assuming we had unlimited tiine, it might work out satisfactorily.

Mr. President, let me call attention to something else. Let us suppose that the authorizations for the Treasury and Post Office Departments were delayed until the passage of a one-package bill. Let us suppose that during that time, in working on the one-package bill, we made a 20-percent cut in the appropriation for the Post 'Office; and let us assume further that the one-package bill was not passed until October, as in 1950. In the meantime, July, August, September, and October would have gone bY entailing the passage of continuing resolutions. The Post Office Department would have operated for 4 months on the basis of the appropriation for the pre

·ceding year. It would then suddenly face a 20-percent curtailment, to be taken care of within a period of 8 ·months. That would mean· that, instead of its being a 20-percent curtailment, it w0uld ·in effect be a 30-percent curtailment during the 8-month period, while an effort was being made to meet the budget.


Then, ln order to maintain -the postal service, we would have to pass numerous supplemental appropriations, that in my humble opinion would deceive the public, since we would say to them "Oh, yes, we appropriated only X billions of dollars this year," but later on we would make supplemental appropriations of Y billions ·of dollars.

The one-package appropriation bill would lead to that result every year, since, if it were necessary to wait for the passage of the one-package appro~ priation bill, numerous supplemental appropriations would be required. Even though, by curtailment of expenses, a department could get along for a while with the appropriations previously made, it would have to carry on into October, until the one-package bill could be passed. It simply would not work.

So, Mr. President, quoting from another national publication-

The one-package approach provides a far less adequate way of determining the real needs of the departments and agencies of the Government, and makes the achievement of proper economies in governmental operations correspondingly difficult.

Mr. President, another suggestion has been made in connection with this matter. It has been suggested that the President might veto a one-package bill unless there was incorporated a provision permitting him to veto individual items.

Mr. President, that is another thing which we should consider very carefully. We must realize that that is the first step toward totalitarianism. We would be creating a superappropriations committee composed of one man. If anyone thinks that appropriations do not make government, that person is badly fooled. By striking out certain items agencies can be discriminated against; markets can be hurt; services can be curtailed. Congress would be relinquishing one of its most powerful assets if such an amendment to this concurrent resolution should be adopted. I am speaking to it, even though such an amendment may not be offer~d. I think it would be the most dangerous precedent we could establish. We might just as well abolish Congress and start out on a completely totalitarian basis.

I do not want anyone to infer that I am saying President Eisenhower would use the veto power wrongly, any more than I w_ould say that Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, or any other President in the past 20 or 30 years would have used it wrongly. But there may come a time when some President will use it wrongly, and that is what Congress must protect against. We must realize that when Congress ceases to function representative government ceases. The Members of this body know the conditions in their own States better than does any one man in the entire United States, just as a Member of the House of Representa.; tives knows conditions in his district better than does anyone else. Therefore, Mr. President, it is entirely essential that we permit no such amendment to be adopted.

In 1950 when the one-package bill idea was followed I think we did get home in time to decorate the Christmas tree and

have the grandchildren ln. Unless we Mr. BYRD. I have the bill before me, expect such situations as that in the and it consists of only 192 pages. future it is dangerous-to follow this one- Mr. HAYDEN. The Senator has the package idea of an appropriation bill. law print of the bill. He does not have

I do not know how many members of before him the bill as it was reported the Appropriations Committe.e concur to the Senate. with me in this statement. Last year I Mr. BYRD. I have the bill which was able to beat the deadline on the was signed by the President. Post Office and Treasury appropriation Mr. HAYDEN. Certainly; but it is in

_ bill by working very hard, so that those . much · smaller typ,e than was the bill agencies did not have any difficulty dur- which the Senators considered on the ing the fiscal year in knowing how to floor. balance their budgets to meet the appro- Mr. President, the House Committee priations and save many supplemental on Appropriations consists of 50 memappropriation bills. That cannot be bers. It is an exclusive committee. The done with a one-package appropriation members of it serve on no other commit-bill. tee. The subcommittees consist of five

Mr. President, I hope the lessons which members each. Each one of the subwere painfully learned through our ex- committees considers appropriations for perience with the one-package approach a department or a group of departments. will not be forgotten. Those Senators They naturally become experts on a parwho were not Members of the Senate in ticular department, such as the Departthat unfortunate year do not know that ment of Agriculture or the Department we battled all over the floor of the Sen- of the Interior. They defend the bill on ate. The Appropriations Committee the floor of the House and act as conbattled for weeks. The only thing we ferees when it goes to conference. They can do is to hold up appropriations until take the budget items as submitted by the last one is taken care of, then bring the President, and each one has to be the bill to the floor, then go into confer- completely justified by the subcommitence, which will last 5 or 6 times as long tees. So they know what is in the bill, as they last on appropriation bills under and they handle it properly. our present system, and we shall finally What about the Senate, Mr. Preslhave to shut our eyes and hope for the dent? We have 23 members of the Senbest in order to get any money for the ate Appropriations Committee. Each departments without their having to run one of us belongs to four different- subinto the red. committees. A Senator cannot be in

Mr. President, I hope the resolution four places at once. Many times sevand any amendments thereto will be eral hearings are going on at once. The defeated. time of the Senators is not completely

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, if there available for the business of the comis any plea which I should like to make mittee and its subcommittee at all times, to the Senate, it is that it refuse to im- because those who are members of that pose upon us a bulky, unworkable, im- one committee are also members of at practicable appropriation bill such as we least one other committee, and some of had in 1950. them are members of more than one

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will other committee . . the Senator from Arizona yield for a The chairman of the committee is question?

Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. President pro tempore of the Senate and is also a member of the Committee on

Mr. KILGORE. How long has the Armed Services. Four Senators are Senator from Arizona been a member -chairmen of other committees. Seven of the Appropriations Committee? are ranking minority members of stand

Mr. HAYDEN. Too long. I have been a member of it since 1927. ing committees. There are 3 who have

In 1g50 the bill passed the House on membership on 2 other committees, and May 10. It was reported to the Sen- 8 who are members of legislative comate on July 8. We had approximately mittees of the Senate. 2 months to work on it in the committee, I do not think that situation could be and the bill passed the Senate on the 4th better described than it was on one ocof August. It was in conference for a casion by former Senator McKellar, month, and finally became law on the when he said: 6th of September 1950. While the wide scope of this representa-

lf the House of Representatives wants tion of the business of the Senate is of the t t 1 · t' ll •t h t utmost value to the committee in its work, o con ro appropna IOns, a 1 as 0 the time consumed by their duties on legis-

do is to take~ its time about passing a Iative committees serves to greatly shorten one-package appropriation bill because the time available to Members for attending the Senate will not have time, in the hearings and considering and deciding upon heat of the summer and late in the ses- - individual items of appropriations. While sian, to consider and work out the de- . an appropriation bill is passing through the tails of the bill as they should be con• procedure from subcommittee to full comsidered and perfected. mittee to floor consideration and adjusting

Mr. President, the 1950 approprfation differences in the conference committee with the House, there is constant conflict in the

bill as reported to the Senate consisted times and dates set for the various meetings of 482 pages. It weighed more than a. required. In addition, since each member pound and a half. The Senate commit· of the committee is a member of 4 or 5 tee's report contained 303 pages. Sena- subcommittees, Senators can never find the tors simply could not digest such a volu- time necessary to spread their attendance minous report. over all of the meetings it is necessary to

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the schedule. 'Senator from Arizona yield? There may be a valuable suggestion

Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. in the remarks ma~e by the Senator

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE 5579 from Arkansas [Mr. McCLELLAN] this afternoon. Perhaps we should make the Appropriations Committee ari exclusive committee, so that Senators who serve on it would have no other duties. But, as it is, we manage to get appropriation bills through in reasonable time under ordinary conditions, because the House begins to send them to · the Senate early in the year, and staggers them· along.

Mr. President, I have made these remarks "because I am impressed with the fact that many ' Senators support the kind of proposal now made because their State legislatures act upon one-package appropriation bills. I made inquiry of the Senator from New York with reference to the budget of that State, and I have been advised that it is about $1,400,-000,000. According to a statement which I shall read; the budget of the State of California is about a billion dollars. ·

I wish to quote from a very able article written by Representative JOHN PHILLIPS, a member of the House Committee on Appropriations, who was for 12 years a member of the California Legislature and who has been for 10 years a Member of Congress, the last 7 years helping to prepare appropriation bills. He is now chairman of the subcommittee handling the independent offices appropriation bill. Mr. PHILLIPS says:

In a private business, where projected expenditures are calculated in relatively small figures, a consolidated budget is eminently practical. In a State legislature also the plan is practical. To infer from the experience of private companies and State legislatures that the plan can automatically be taken over by the Federal Government is to overlook the tremendous difference that results when one moves from relatively small sums to sums which are so colossal that they literally defy anyone to analyze them intensively in a single operation. In my own State of California, for example, where the package budget is used, the total cost of State government is just a little over $1 billion. This is only one-sixth of the money involved in the independent offices appropriation bill alone, and a much smaller fraction of total Federal appropriations.

The independent offices appropriation bill is the one which Representative PHILLIPs' subcommitttee ·handles; as I have said.

Once an omnibus bill begins to deal with sums so many times larger than a State budget, the operation necessarily becomes so bulky as to impede careful consideration •.

That has been our experience in the the Senate. Mr. PHILLIPs points out another aspect of the matter which I think is very significant and is ex;wtly in line with what happened when the Senate had bef<,>re it the last package appropriation · bill. A per9entage cut was offered as an amendment. That is a temptation ·which is very hard for Senators to resist. I wish to read Mr. PHILLIPS' comment on that method of trying to reduce appropriations, a method I have protested vigorously, because I believe that thereby we surrender our judgment to the judgment of someone in a department as to where reductions in appropriations ought. to be made. Mr. PHILLIPS says:

The package budget inevitably · invites amendments directing the President to cut the total amount by a given sum or per-

centage. In fact, one of the greatest boasts _veto which Representative PHILLIPS of the package-budget· advocates is that the seems to be talking about. experiment on the fiscal year 1951 bill facil- . . itated the amendment which directed the M~. _HAYDEN~. I thmk a~ Item-veto President to cut the final total by an amount . provision would give the Pr~sident m~ch approximating $550 million. more power than does this resolutiOn,

· but the point I am makipg is that we I understood the Senator from Vir- surrender power whenever we provide for

ginia [Mr. BYRD] to say that it was a percentage cut. I think Mr. PHILLIPS $800 million. was perfectly justified in the approach

In principle this approach represents an he took. · abdication of -congressional responsibility I pass on to another matter which over the power of the purse. From the view- seems to be confusing. The Senator point of practical politics it confers upon from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] menthe President the power to penalize his po-litical opponents by eliminating expenditures tioned it. It does not seem to be under:. in their home districts. Any President of stood that the President's budget, as the United States who wanted to achieve submitted, shows all the items the Sendictatorial control over Congress could ask ator from Virginia insists should be for little more than the restoration of the placed in a committee report. It shows package budget and the inevitable move to the amount of money expended during amend it every year by directing him to the previous year. It shows the amount make a cut of a given size in any manner t• t d t b d · he chooses. All he would need before him es Ima e 0 e nee ed. It shows the would be a list of major budget items, a list unexpended balances.' On every sub- · of the doubtful districts and states, a tele- committee on which I have served-and phone at his elbow, a blue pencil in his hand, .I know this is equally true in the other and a skilfull publicity man to explain why House-every Member is keen to know Senator X and Representative X were the what the unexpended balances are and obstacles to a new highway or dam. to examine into them.

It is an ironic paradox that Members of As I have pointed out today, if we Congress who shudder at the thought of a were required to set forth in some kind constitutional amendment allowing a Presi- of committee report all the things redent to veto individual items in a bill have supported · an extra-constitutional device quired by the terms of this· resolution, which in effect gives the President the same a 20-column chart would ·be required. .veto power but allows the Congress no op- Furthermore, the chart would have to portuni~y to override him. be revised when the House subcommit

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. Does not the Sen

ator from Arizona think that the argument of Mr. Phillips would apply to an item veto, as has been suggested sometimes, rather than to such a bill as would come before the Senate under the concurrent resolution of the distinguished Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD]? In most of the items, or in a large part ' of them, we are dealing with total figures. For instance, even in the civil functions bill, we are dealing with a total figure. The President would not be in a position to act and strike out language from the committee report. If a bla:nket cut were applied, it would apply to the total within the various titles of the bill.

I think the argument of the Member of the House from my State, with whom I served in the legislature some 20 years ago, would be quite applicable if we tried, which I doubt we could do constitutionally, to provide for an item veto, as some States provide in their consti-tutions. ·

Mr. HAYDEN. The Senator must concede that when we tell the President to reduce an appropriation bill by $550 million, he can make the reduction any:. where he pleases. To make the cut, he must take it out of items -: he cannot take it out of the total.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I think he could take it out of the total. I think there might be some instances which would affect only an area, but normally that is not the procedure. A certain amount is allotted for a specific purpose, but that purpose is bi-oader than a single State or a single area of the country. So I believe that under· the bill it would be difficult for the President, even if h~ were so inclined, to use the type of item

tee made its report to the full committee, when the full committee made its report to the House of Representatives, and again after the House had acted. It would then have to be revised by the Senate subcommittee, next by the full committee, later revised when it came to the floor of the Senate, and finally when the bill was taken to conference.

What Senator will take the time to analyze a 20-column chart that has been revised 7 times, when all the basic ·information upon which action is to be taken can be found in the budget? I cannot see any advantage that could possibly accrue from a situation of that ~nd ,

In conclusion, I point out that the Director of the Budget and his predecessor have both stated that a consolidated appropriation bill of the type proposed would not be satisfactory to them, speaking for the administration, unless it contained a provision for an item veto.

Mr. Dodge says: One problem which does concern me is

the likelihood that omnibus appropriation bills would contain legislative riders, and in some cases would contain appropriation items which the President considered too high. Under the late schedule-

He is referring to the fact that the bill would not become a law until very late, when Congress was about ready to ad,journ-

Under the late schedule that would b~ apt to prevail, the veto of an omnibus appropriation bill would disrupt the operations of the Government during the intervening period until Congress passed a new bill or passed the old one over the veto o~ the President. I believe, therefore, that the President should be given the item veto power concurrently with the adoption of an omnibus appropriation bill.

He is eminently correct. If we are to have a one-package bill, and if we are


to allow to be incorporated into it legislation to which the President is violently opposed and which he would veto instantly if he had the opportunity, he . should also have the item veto power.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. BYRD. Has an appropriation

bill ever been vetoed? Mr. HAYDEN. Oh, yes. Mr. BYRD. A total appropriation

bill? Mr. HAYDEN. There was never.

more than one omnibus appropriation bill. However, annual appropriation bills have been vetoed.

Mr. BYRD. I have been in the Senate for 21 years, and I have never known of a case.

Mr. HAYDEN. President Roosevelt vetoed one, and I am quite sure one was 'Vetoed by President Truman.

Mr. BYRD. It might have been a special bill, but not one of the 12 regular departmental appropriation bills.

Mr. HAYDEN. I am quite sure that the RECORD will show that such bills have been vetoed.

Presidents during modem times have become more accustomed to using the veto. President Cleveland vetoed about 400 bills, and President Franklin Roosevelt vetoed about twice that number. Appropriation bills can be vetoed without any difficulty if the President wishes to do it. The point I am trying to make is that a President is practically helpless because if he should veto a bill of that kind, regardless of how violently he is opposed to the legislation contained in it, or how much he may be opposed to items contained in it, it would come back to the Congress and be wide open to amendment.

On the other hand, the only way Con- · gress could stymie the President would be to pass such a bill and adjourn immediately, Even if the President possessed the item veto power. the Congress could do that. If we are to have the one-package bill, I think there is justification for the Presidential item veto power, on th~ basis set forth by Mr. Dodge. I am not for the one-package bill, and therefore I do not have to be for the Presidential item veto power. ·

If we are to try out the proposed system, as was suggested by an amendment which is pending before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, a. rider can be attached to any one of the appropriation bills providing that the House and the Senate agree that indi ... vidual items contained in such bill may be vetoed. I do not know how tl;le question _could ever get into court, because no one could complain. No one could show cause why the action was not legal,.

It is my opinion, to get back to the beginning of what I said, that a onepackage bill is a cumbersome way of handling appropriations. It would be burdensome upon members of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and bur"!' densome upon Members of the Senate when the bill reached the floor of the Senate. I believe it would be so burdensome that we would not get as good re~ sults in the way of economy as we would under the present system. That is my

honest, deliberate judgment. For that reason I am opposed to the concurrent resolution.

thorizations for expenditure referred to in clause (B);

. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the concurrent resolution as amended. · The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 8), as amended, was agreed to, as follows:

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That etiective on the fir'st aay of .the second regular session of the 83d Congress, the joint rule of the Senate and of the House of Representatives contained in section 138 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsections:

"(c) (1) All appropriations for each fiscal year shall be consolidated in one general appropriation bill to be known as the Consolidated General Appropriation Act of (the blank to be filled in with the appropriate fiscal year). The consolidated general appropriations bill may be divided into separate titles, each title corresponding so far as practicable to the respective regular general appropriation bills heretofore enacted~ As used in this paragraph, the term 'appropriations' shall not "include deficiency or supplemental appropriations, appropriations under private acts of Congress, or rescissions of appropriations.

"(2) The consolidated general appropriation bill tor each fiscal year, and each de-1lciency and supplemental general appropriation bill containing appropriati<1ns available for obligation during such fiscal year, shall contain provisions limiting the net amount to be obligated during such fiscal year in the case of each appropriation made therein which is available for obligation beyond the close of such fiscal year. Such consolidated general appropriation bill shall also contain provisions limiting the net amounts to be obligated during such fiscal year from all other prior appropriations which are available for obligation beyond the close of such fiscal year. Each such general appropriation bill shall also contain a provision that the limitations required by · this paragraph shall not be construed to prohibit the incurring of an obligation in the form of a contract within the respective amounts appropriated or otherwise authorized by law, if such contract does not provide for the delivery of property Qr the renditiqn of services during such fiscal year in excess of the applicable limitations on obligations. The foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall not be applicable to appro- · priations made specifically for the payment of claims certified by the Comptroller General of the United States and of judgments, to amounts appropriated under private acts of Congress, to appropriations for th~ payment of interest on the public debt, or to revolving funds or appropriations thereto.

"(3) The committee reports accompanying each consolidated general appropriation bill, and any conference report thereon, shall show in tabular form, for information purposes, by items and totals-. "(A) the amount of each appropriation

or other budgetary authorization for expenditure including estimates of amounts becoming available in the fiscal year under perman~nt appropriations:

"(B) estimates of the balances of appropriations and other budgetary authorizations for expenditure as of the beginning of the fiscal year, other than the obligated balances of expired appropriations;

"(C) estimates of the net amount to be expended in the fiscal year from each approp:t:iation or other budgetary authorization for expenditure referred to in clause (A);

"(D) estimates .of the net amount to be expended in the fiscal year from the balances of appropriations and other budgetary au-

· "(E) estimates of the net amount to be expended in the fiscal year from revolving and management funds, other than expenditures referred to in clauses (C) and (D);

"(F) the totals of the amounts referred to in clauses (C). (D), and (E); and

"(G) estimates of the total- amount which will be available for expenditure subsequent to the close of the fiscal year from the appropriations and other budgetary authorizations for expenditure referred to in clause (A). The committee reports accompanying each deficiency and supplemental appropriation bill containing appropriations available for obligation or expenditure during the fiscal year, ·and each appropriation rescission bill, and any conference report on any such bill, shall include appropriate cumulative r~visions of such tabulations.

"(4) ·The information reported under paragraph (3) shall be accompanied by (i) data on revolving and management funds (including the funds of wholly-owned Government corporations) which shall show the gross amounts from which the net amounts estimated to be expended are derived, and information on· estimated investments, repayment of capital, payment of dividends, and other cash transactions which do not atiect net expenditures; and (ii) such supplemental data as may be considered desirable by the committee making the report.

" ( 5) The provisions of paragraphs ( 2) , . (3), and (4) shall not be applicable to appropriations of trust funds or to transactions involving public-debt retirement.

"(6) No general appropriation bill shall be received or considered in either House unless the bill and the report accompanying it conform with this rule.

"(7) The Appropriations Commit.tees of the two Houses may hold hearings simul.taneously on each general appropriation bill or may hold joint hearings thereon.

"(d) ~e consolidated general appropriation bill for each fiscal year, and each de:ficiency and .supplemental general appropriation bill containing appropriations available for obligation during such fiscal year, shall at the time the bill is report-ed to the House of Representatives and to the Senate contain in the body of the bill or in a pre·:a:mble thereto, as the respective committees may deem appropriate, a current estimate of the Secretary of the Treasury of the overall Federal receipts for such fiscal year."

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks a statement respecting Senate Concurrent Resolution 8.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: · Senate Concurrent Resolution 8, most frequently is referred to as the single appropriation bill, or the single-package bill. ·

But this reference does not-it never has--accurately describe its provisions. ·

Actually the bill is in three principal parts: ·

The first pal"t does provide for a single bill in which a~l general appropriations shall be considered by Congress with one cover. And this is as far as the so-called single appropriation bill of 1950 went.

The second part provides that Congress shall write into appropriation bills limitations against annual obligations against all available appropriations both current, and ,those previously enacted; and to my mind this provision, which has been in the bill since it was first introduced 1n 1947, 1s the most important.

The third part provides that as the bill passes through the v~ious stages Qf the leg-

19"53 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5581 islative process, it shall set forth revised estimates of the revenue.

Frankly, Congress virtually has lost annual control over expenditures from the Federal Treasury, and the purpose of th~s bill is to recover legislative control, at least in part.

There are numerous practices which have grown up to contribute to this loss of control. They include permanent appropriations; adoption of statutory programs requiring Federal payments to meet formula fixed in the law; authorization to spend from the public debt, etc. For all practical purposes these expenditures are beyond annual review by the appropriations committees, and annual control by Congress.

But by far the most important of these practices, which deprive Congress of annual control over expenditures, is the ·practice of "funding" entirely-or appropriating the full amount in advance-multi-year programs and projects requiring multi-million- or multi-billion-dollar appropriations. _

As the result of this practice we have piled up more than $102 billion of balances in authorizations to spend out of the Treasury. These balances are in appropriations already passed-in prior years. They include more than $80 billion in regular and special funds, and more than $20 billion in revolving and capital funds. And, it should be emphasized that all appropriations enacted by the present session of Congress will be in addition to this $100 billion to be available for expenditure next July 1.

As members of this committee knowunder current appropriation legislation procedure, Congress acts only on new appropriations. Under ordinary procedure neither the Appropriations Committees nor the Congress as a whole, would act this year to review

. or control expenditures to be made from these huge balances. Yet, these balances are just as available for expenditure in the coming year as will be the -funds provided in the appropriation b1lls now before us. And expenditures from these balances will result in just as much deficit as expenditures from new appropriations.

Actually under the Truman budget submitted to Congress .January 9, $38 billion of next year's estimated expenditures would be out of balances in appropriations enacted in prior years over which this Congress would have no control-it would not even review them in any substantial degree.

By the same token $32 billion of new appropriations requested in the Truman budget would be for expenditure, not in the coming year, but in some future year.

From these figures it can be seen that an appropriation ena-eted in a year when revenue is high, may actually be expended in a year when revenue is low.

This is not responsible practice when the Federal debt is already more than a quarter of a trillion dollars-when the necessity for raising the debt ceiling is becoming m01·e evident every day-and when the probability of a debt in excess of $300 billion can be reversed only by forthright action.

I do not concede that Federal expenditures cannot be reduced. I do not conced-e that deficit spending must be continued. I do not concede that more debt must be piled up.

But these conditions are virtually reality if Congress acquiesces \n default. The fact is that the budget for fiscal year 1954 cannot be balanced by action on new appropriations. And I submit that the budget a year hence will be impossible of balance by reduction only in new appropriations.

This is to say that the Federal budget cannot be balanced in the foreseeable future unless control over annual expenditures is recaptured.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 8 is prQposed by 50 members of the Senate as a constructive step toward this objective.

XCIX--351

ANALYSIS OF BILL

Amendment to rules Analysis of the resolution will reveal that,

·_ as in the past, the proposal is in the nature of an amendment to the joint rule of the Senate and the House of Representatives re-

-lating to the legislative budget. (If the rules ot the two Houses were amended to require the proposed procedure, it could not be abandoned by. more committee action. It could be repealed only by resolution approved by both Houses.)

Single package The resolution would require the consol

idation of all regular appropriations into a single general appropriation bill.

Under terms of the · resolution the consolidated appropriation bill might be divided into any number of separate titles, and if desired each of these titles might correspond to one of the numerous appropriation bills enacted under present procedures.

It would permit consideration of the consolidated bill by titles, at the subcommittee stage, without interruption of the present subcommittee organization of the respective appropriations committees, if that is desired.

Deficiency and suppleme_ntal bills There would be nothing in the resolution

to preclude necessary deficiency and supplemental appropriation bills in addition to the consolidated bill, but· a reduction ·in the number of such bills probably would result. Private act appropriation bills and appropriation recission bills also would be permissible·.

Limitations The resolution would require that Con

gress write into the consolidated b111 limitations on the net amounts to be obligated during the ensuing year against all new multi-year appropriations. Likewise limitations would be written into the bill on the net obligations to be made during the year against appropriations enacted in prior years

-which were st~ll available for obligation.

Contracts These limitations would not prohibit Gov

ernment agencies from entering into authorized contracts, but they would control the value of goods and services to be delivered and rendered during the fiscal year.

Exclusions In the interest of administrative efficiency

and precluding unnecessary bookkeeping, the provisions limiting obligations would not apply to: appropriations made specifically for payment of claims certified by the Comptroller General; to appropriations for payment of judgments; amounts appropriated under private acts of Congress; appropriations for payment of interest on the public debt; or to revolving funds or appropriations thereto.

CDm:mittee reports Under the resolution both committee re

ports, and conference reports, accompanying each consolidated appropriation bill would show in tabular form the amount of each appropriation, including estimates of amounts becoming available in each fiscal year under . permanent appropriations; estimates of amounts to be transferred between appropriations; estimates of the net amount to be expended during the fiscal year from each appropriation, and from the balances of prior appropriations; and estimates of the amount remaining in the appropriation for expenditure in subsequent fiscal years.

Committee and conference reports accompanying deficiency and supplemental bills and appropriation recission bills would be required to include cumulative revisions of this table.

Government corparattons With respect to Government corporations

and other agencies authorized to receive and expend receipts without covering them into. the Treasury, committee reports on the consolidated bill would estimate expenditures out of their checking accounts (except those to retire borrowing), and estimate their re-

. ceipts (except from borrowing) to be deposited in checking accounts.

Joint hearings The House and Senate Appropriations

Committees would be authorized to hold simultaneous or joint hearings on general appropriation bills in order to expedite their

·consideration.

Revenue estimates And finally, to assure that expenditure· au

thorizations are being considered at all times in the light of the latest revenue estimates, the resolution provides that the current revenue estimates by the Secretary of the Treasury shall be written into each general, de:ficiency, or supplemental bill as it is reported by the respective committees .to the House and to the Senate.

In summary, provisions of the res9lution would provide that Congress consider all appropriations in one package, instead of a dozen scattered, unrelated bills as at present, so Members and the public can see the whole picture .as the spending side of the budget develops. (The so-called single appropriation bill of 1950 merely collected all of the regular appropriation bills between two covers. It 'did no more.)

This resolution would go further, and provide that Congress shall write into the appropriation bill, against all items involved, limitations on annual obligations for expend,iture froin · all appropriations-those previously enacted as well as those currently under consideration. (It should be noted that it is annual expenditures, not annual appropriations, against annual revenue which result in annual deficits or surpluses,

_and that it is annual deficits which pile up long-term public debt.)

And, in addition, the resolution would provide that appropriation bills themselves shall establish a relationship and comparison between funds authorized for expenditure and estimated receipts.

Analysis of the resolution will indicate clearly the care with which its provisions have been worked out and drafted For obvious reasons officials of the General Accounting Office, Treasury and Bureau of the Budget may not wish to endorse or oppose a proposal amending legislative branch rules, but they have testified that it is technically perfected, and that it is administratively practical in terms of accounting and auditing practices and fiscal and budgetary requirements.

Substantially as it is now the resolution has been introduced in the Senate in each of the past three Congresses.

It was first introduced in 1947. Senator BUTLER, of Nebraska, cosponsored it with me at that time. The Senate Rules and Administration Committee of the Republican 80th Congress held exhaustive hearings and gave the resolution its approval without a dissenting vote, but it died on the calendar when the session expired before action was taken by the' Sen;:t te as a whole.

The resolution was reintroduced again in 1949. This time, besides myself, it was sponsored by Senator BRIDGES, BUTLER of Nebraska, FERGUSON, GILLETI'E, KNOWLAND, O'CONOR,

and the late Senator Wherry. - Again, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, of the Democratic 81st Congress held exhaustive hearings and gave the resolution its approval without dissenting vote. This time the Senate, as a whole, passed it without a

5582 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE May·26 dissenting vote. But the House of Representatives failed to act before the session expired, and the resolution died again.

Once more the resolution was introduced ln 1951 early in the 82d Congress. This time-as now-more than half the membership of the Senate joined in its sponsorship. Once more the Senate Rules and Administration Committee held exhaustive hearings, and this time the committee reported the bill favorably with only one dissenting vote. This was by Senator HAYDEN who expressed his opposition in Individual Views which were included in the committee report. The report was delayed until late spring last year-too late for action in the Senate.

So the bill was introduced again on February· 4, this year-this time with more sponsors than ever before-51 at the last count.

Most of the opposition expressed by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman of the past session set forth in Senator HAYDEN's "Individual Views" last year was based on what they said was their experience with the omnibus bill of the 2d session of the 8lst Congress. They said it overworked the membership of the Appropriations Committee, and slowed down passage of approprie.tions.

There is little similarity between the omnibus bill of 1950 and the procedure proposed in this resolution. There is a vast dif· ference between the two.

The omnibus bill as it was drafted by House Appropriations Committee in the 8lst Congress merely dumped all of the regular appropriations into one bill. There was no provision for either control or limitation of annual obligations. And there was no provision for expenditure estimates. There was no authorization for relating latest revenue estimates to appropriation action.

This House Appropriations Committee version of the bill was abandoned by the committee, over the protest of its chairman, after a trial of only 1 year, and that was a year in which huge supplemental appropria-

. tions were required incident to the sudden outbreak of unexpected war. The committee action was final since the House had failed to pass this resolution which would have amended the rules.

As to overworking the membership of the committee, I can say only that nothing on earth is now more important than the fiscal condition of this Nation.

As to slowing down passage of appropriations, I can document the statement that by the record more members of both Houses of Congress participated in the debate on that omnibus bill than took part in the debates on the numerous appropriation bills passed in the years immediately before and immediately after the omnibus bill trial.

By the same record the actual working time on the :floors of the two Houses was shown to have been less on the omnibus bill than it was on the numerous bills in the years immediately before and after the omnibus-bill trial.

There are legitimate criticisms of the proposal now before this committee, but they can be answered, and the -sponsors believe they are both outweighed and outnumbered by the advantages.

The three major criticisms of the proposal which have been considered by both the sponsors and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on 3 different occasions over a period of nearly 6 years are:

1. Length of time required by the Appropriations Committee and the respective Houses in consideration of a consolidated bill.

2. Necessity tor the President to veto a bill containing all appropriations in the event he disapproved one or more items.

3. Tendency to increase logrolling. With respect to the first point: Bot:h the

majority of the committee and the sponsors

have taken the position that with proper cooperation between the two Houses and their respective committees, the time requirement should be met. This might well contemplate simultaneous or joint hearings, prior to passage of the bill in the House of Representatives, for detailed information purposes and justifications.

The majority of the committee, in the past, and the sponsors have taken the position that logrolling would be no greater than at present. Now Members interested in an appropriation item protest reductions in one bill because reductions are not made in others. With a consolidated bill, the tend· ency to logroll actually should be reduced, because the total appropriation may be cal· culated at one time and seen in view of estimated revenue.

Offsetting whatever legitimate criticism . there may be, there are many advantages. Among them are:

1. It would bring together in one place at one time the expenditure and appropriation program of the Federal Government so that all items could be considered in their relative importance to each other. This is impossible under the present system wherein appropriation and spending legislation is considered in numerous and almost unrelated appropriation bills brought in over a period of 6 months or so.

2. It would extend legislative control over annual obligations for expenditure.

3. It would give Congress and the country a chance to see the whole spending program of the Federal Government at one time, and it would give the Appropriations Committees a chance to see and study the same thing.

4. It would give the Appropriations Committees, the revenue committees, and the country a chance to see how the spending program compares with the tax program.

The advantages of enactment of Federal appropriations under procedures proposed in this resolution were recognized by the -late Harold Smith, former Director of the Budget . They have been recognized by a Democratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee ·and a Republican chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. They have been recognized by numerous authorities on political science and public fiscal and budgetary practices. In addition to these eminent authorities the advantages of a single appropriation bill are recognized in testimonials from governors of a majority of the 48 States ~ich are a part of the record already made by this committee.

If the proof is in the pudding, we have the example of the omnibus bill, such as it was. That bill was reduced by a half billion dollars on one of the most carefully workedout appropriation-reduction amendments in recent years. There was nothing meat ax about it.

CONCLUSION

I am firmly convinced that this resolution would be a long step in the direction of recovering expenditure ' control by Congress, where it ought to be.

It is not the substitute for all that needs to be done in the modernizatio~ of congressional procedure ori fiscal legislation, but it certainly is a vitally needed reform.

In conclusion, I should like to point out, for the record, that our Federal programs, through which Federal taxes are spent, in:fiuence policies determined in world capitals around the globe; and at the same time they influence action in every county seat of the United States. They influence the destiny of nations, and the lives of individuals.

No single thing on earth is as economically important to as many people -as is the fiscal situation of this Government. Yet we are financing these programs under legislative processes in which it is impossible to know whether income and outgo are in balance.

If the American ·Congress and public had an opportunity to analyze fiscal legislationalong with its causes and effects-during the course of its enactment, I believe the results would be wholesome, and that there would be a measurable reduction in nonessential Federal expenditures. Such -an opportunity could be provided by this simple change in the system under which Federal fiscal legislation is considered.

REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2 OF 1953

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I . move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate Resolution 100, which is a resolution disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953. I do not intend that the Senate shall proceed with the consideration of the resolution tonight, but I wish to have it made the unfinished business for tomorrow.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will be stated by title for the information of the Senate.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A resolution (S. Res. 100) disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, reported ad-nrn~~ ·

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from California.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution, Senate Resolution 100, which was read, as follows:

Resolved, That the Senate does not favor Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 transmitted to Congress by the President on March 25, 1953.

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, for

the information of the Senate, and because a number of Senators haVe in· quired as to what the program is to be ·tor the remainder of the week, I understand that probably' all of tomorrow will be occupied by the consideration of Re. organization Plan No. 2, relating to the Department of Agriculture.

It is thought possible that the doctors' draft bill may be reported from the Committee on Armed Services tomor-

·row. If it is, it is anticipated that it may be taken up for consideration on Thurs. day. If not, some other measure will be taken up on Thursday.

It is the proposal of the acting majority leader that when the Senate concludes its business on Thursday after· noon, it stand in recess until Monday next.

It is expected that the Appropriations Committee will report the State, Com· merce, and Justice Departments appro· priation bill, possibly tomorrow. I am not certain that that will be the case. In anY' event, it will · not be taken up this week, but will be ready for consideration on Monday of next week.

ADMIRAL FECHTELER, COMMANDER IN CHIEF, ALLIED FORCES, SOUTHERN EUROPE Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,

it is welcome news that Admiral Fechteler will assume the duties of Commander

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE 5583 in Chief, Allied Forces, Southern-Europe. · That PQst has been ably :filled by Admiral Carney, who has been nominated to be Chief of Naval Operations.

The high qualities of both men are being given special effect in these new assignments. The fact that. ~dmiral Fechteler was accepted by the 13 member na· tions of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to relieve Admiral Carney is strong evidence of his qualities ·as a naval leader. ,

With so many of our citizens in the Armed Forces today, and so much of our national effort engaged all over the world, I am satisfied that the· traditions ·of superior leadership, for which our Navy is justly famed, will be ·furthered by Admiral Fechteler in his new international assignment abroad.

RECESS Mr. KNOWLAND. 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 17 minutes p. m.) the Sen,ate took a recess until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 27, 1953, at 12 o'clock meridian.

NOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by the

.Senate May 26 (legislative day of May ·21), 1953:

DIPLOMATIC AND FOREIGN SERVICE

James S. Moose, Jr., of Arkansas, a Foreign Service officer of class 1, to . be Ambassador

· Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of -Syria, to which office he was appointed during the last recess of the Senate.

Llewellyn E. Thompson, Jr., of Colorado, a Foreign Service officer. of class 1, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Austria, and to be also United States High Commissioner for Austria, to which offices he was appointed during the last recess of . the Senate. ·

Harold Shantz, of New York, · a Foreign Service officer of class 1, to be Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Rumania, to which office he was· appointed during the last recess of the Senate.

CONFIRMATIONS Executive nominations confirmed by

the Senate May 26 (legislative day of May 21), 1953:

DIPLOMATIC AND FOREI.GN SERVICE

Frederick M. Alger, Jr., of Michigan, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Belgium.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Edward T. Wailes, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of State.

MUTUAL DEFENSE

· WalterS. DeLany, of the District of Columbia, to -be Deputy Administrator of the Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act of 1951, pursuant to section 406 (e). of Public Law 329 Blst Congress, and as authorized by section 501 (d) of Public Law 165, 82d Congress.

. MISSIS~IPPI ~IVER co:MMnisioN

Col. Herbert D. ·vogel, Corps of Engineers, to be a member, Mississippi River Commission, a position to. which he was appointed during the last recess of_ the Senate.

•• ...... •• HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TuESDAY, MAY 26, 1953

The House met at 11 o'clock a.m. Rev. Burton Coffman, minister,Church

of' Christ, Washington, D. C., offered the following prayer:

Eternal Father, Thou art He before whom the generations of men rise and fade away. From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God. From Thee comes eyery good ~nd perfect gift. To Thee, we lift our hearts in thanksgiving. Of Thee, we pray forgiveness of our sins.

0 God, bless the President of the United States, the Members of Congress, and the judiciary. Bless these servants of the people that they may have wisdom to know what is right, courage to do what is right, and sufficient support of their constituents tQ sustain them in what is right. Endow these Thy servants with grace and knowledge to the end that the wounds of our bleeding world may be healed and peace on earth prevail. May Thy name be glorified and Thy kingdom be increased throughout all nations. God bless the United States of America and this House of Representatives. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.

. MUCH ADO .ABOUT NOTHING Mr. MASON. Mr. Speaker, I ask

· unanimous consent to extend my re· marks at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlem~n from Illinois·? ·

There was no objection . Mr. MASON. Mr. Speaker, the na

tionwide hue and cry about the administration's proposed reduction in . the budget of the Air Force is "much ado about nothing.'' · Here are the facts:

First. As of June 30 this year there will be an unexpended balance in our military procurement funds-appropri· ated l~st year but not spent as yet-of $4.5.6 billion, of which $26.8 billion represent outstanding orders for aircraft not yet constructed of delivered. That means 60 percent · of the unexpended military appropriations of last year ts for aircraft.

Second. More than 40 percent of all military appropriations for next year will be for aircraft, even with the reduced aircraft budget.

Third. The proposed reduction in the budget for the Air Force does not mean a reduction in our airpower. More than one-half of the Navy budget is for naval airpower: In fact, 'about 60 percent of the entire Eisenhower budget for national defense next year will be . for airpower and air defense.

. . - -In the :field of military planning, ~t

least, President Eisenhower is at home and is a topnotch authority.

~· R. 52.46, MAKING APPROPRIA· TIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF . LABOR, AND HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Mr. CURTIS of Nebraska. Mr. Speak

er, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Nebraska? ·

There was no objection. Mr. CURTIS of Nebraska. Mr. Speak

er, it is my hope that before this appropriation bill is enacted into law a provision will be inserted granting some authority to the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to transfer funds, especially those funds provided for the Secretary's office. The Appropriations Committee of the o,ther body should call upon the Secretary and General Counsel of the Department to present their views in this matter. Should the other body so amend this measure, it ought to · be ac-cepted by the House. ·

It is evident that in the past the Congress has indicated mistrust of the Fed· eral Security -Agency. That agency did spend money and did engage in propaganda activities not authorized by law. The situation is now changed and in the interests of sound administration it _ is necessary that certain reorganization take place. To do this the Secretary must have the authority to transfer funds. I might call attention to the fact that the budget for the ·Department was made up before Reorganization Plan No. 1 became effective.

If. the Congress wants sound econom· ical administration of our laws, we must give honest and dependable heads of departments the authority to make the best possible use of the funds appropriated.

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED Mr. RICHARDS asked and was given

permission to address the House for 30 minutes today, at tl ... e conclusion of the legislative program and following any special orders heretofore entered.

Mr. STAGGERS asked and was given permission to address the ·House for 5 minutes today, following any special orders heretofore entered.

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, AND HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, AND RELATED INDEPEND· ENT AGENCIES, APPROPRIATION BILL, 1954 The SPEAKER. The unfinished busi

ness is the further consideration of the bill <H. R. 5246r making appropriations for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare, and related . independent agencies, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, and for other purposes.

5584 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - - HOUSE May 26

Mr. ·BUSBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the bill and all amendments thereto to final passage.

The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. Is a separate vote

demanded on any amendment? Mr. BUSBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask for

a separate vote on the Fogarty amendment on page 15, line 1.

The SPEAKER. Is a separate vote demanded on any other amendment? If not, the Chair will put them in gross.

The amendments were agreed to. · The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the first amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded.

The Clerk read as follows: · On page 15, line 1, strike out "$60,500,000"

and insert "$66,500,000."

The SPEAKER. The question is on the amendment.

The question was taken; and on a division <demanded by Mr. HALLECK) there were-ayes 25, noes 31.-

Mr. FOGARTY. 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. Obviously a quorum is not present.

The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.

The question was taken; and there were-yeas' 237, nays 156, not voting 37, as follows:

Abernethy Addonizio Albert Andrews Aspinall Ayres Bailey Baker Barden Barrett Battle Belcher Bennett, Fla. Berry Bishop Blatnik Boland Bolling Bonner Bramblett Brown, Ga. Brown, Ohio Broyhill Buchanan Burdick Byrd Byrne,Pa. Camp Campbell Canfield Cannon Carlyle Carnahan Celler Chatham Chelf Chenowetl: Chudoff Colmer Condon Cooley Cooper Corbett Crosser Cunningham Davis, Ga. Davis, Tenn. Dawson, Ill. Dawson, Utah Deane Dempsey Ding ell Dollinger Donohue

[Roll No. 44] YEAS-237

Donovan Dorn,N. Y. Dorn, S.C. Doyle Durham Eberharter Edmondson Engle Evins Fallon Feighan Fernandez Fine Fino Fogarty Forand Fountain Frazier Frelingh uysen Friedel Fulton Garmatz Gary Gathings George Golden Gordon Granahan Green Gregory Hagen, Calif. Hagen, Minn. Hale Hardy Harris Harrison, W<yo. Hart Hays, Ark. Hays, Ohio Hebert Heller Herlong Heselton Hill Holifield Holmes Holtzman Hope Horan Howell Hyde Ikard Jarman Javits

Johnson Jonas, Ill. Jones, Ala. Jones, Mo. Judd Karsten, Mo. Kearns Kee Kelley, Pa. Kelly, N.Y. Keogh Kilday King, Calif. Kirwan Klein Kluczynski Knox Landrum Lane Lanham Lantaff Lesinski Long Lovre Lucas Lyle McCarthy McConnell McCormack Mcintire McMillan Machrowicz Mack, Ill. Mack, Wash. Madden Magnuson Mahon Mailliard Marshall Matthews Merrow Metcalf M1ller, Calif. Miller, Kans. · Mills Morgan Moss Moulder Multer ·Murray Nelson Norrell O'Brien, Ill. O'Brien, Mich.

O'Brien, N.Y. O'Hara, Ill. O'Konskl O'Neill Patten Pelly Perkins Pfost Phi:lbin Pilcher Poage Polk Preston Price Priest Rabaut Radwan Rayburn Reams Rees, Kans. Rhodes, Pa. Richards Riley Rivers Roberts

Abbitt Adair Alexander Allen, Calif, Allen, Ill. · Andersen.

H. Carl Andresen,

August H. Arends Auchincloss Bates Beamer Bender Bennett, Mich. Bentley Bentsen Betts Boggs Bolton,

Frances P. Bolton,

Oliver P. Bonin Bosch Bow Brownson Budge Burleson Busbey Byrnes, Wis. Carrigg

· Cederberg Chiperfield Church Clardy Clevenger Cole, Mo. Cole, N.Y. Coon cotton Cretella Crumpacker Curtis, Mass. curtis, Mo. curtis, Nebr. Dague Davis, Wis. Derounian Devereux D'Ewart Dies Dondero Dowdy

Robeson, Va. Robsion, Ky. Rodino Rogers, Colo. Rogers, Tex. Rooney Sadlak Schenck Scott Seely-Brown Selden Shelley Sheppard Shuford Sieminski Sikes Small Smith, Kans. Smith, Miss. Spence Staggers Steed Sullivan Sutton Teague

NAYS-156

Thomas Thompson, Tex. Thornberry Tollefson Trimble Vinson Vorys Walter Watts Westland Wheeler Whitten Wickersham Widnall Wier Williams, Miss. Willis Wilson, Calif. Wilson, Tex. Withrow Wolcott Wolverton Yates Yorty Zablocki

Ellsworth Mumma Fenton Neal Fisher Nicholson Ford Norblad Gavin Oakman Gentry O'Hara, Minn. Goodwin Osmers Graham Ostertag Gross Passman Gubser Patterson Gwinn Phillips Halleck Poff Hand Prouty Harden Ray Harrison, Nebr. Reece, Tenn. Harrison, Va. Reed, Ill. Harvey Reed, N.Y. Hess Regan Hiestand Rhodes, Ariz. Hillelson Riehlman Hinshaw Rogers, Fla. Hoffman, Ill. Rogers, Mass. Hoffman, Mich. St. George Holt Saylor Hosmer Scherer Hruska Scrivner Hunter Scudder Jackson Shafer James Sheehan Jenkins Short Jensen Simpson, Ill. Jonas, N.C. Simpson, Pa. Jones, N.c. Smith, Va. Kean Smith, Wis. Keating Stauffer Kersten, Wis. Taber Kilburn Talle King, Pa. Tllompson, Krueger Mich. Laird Tuck Latham - Van Pelt LeCompte Van Zandt McCulloch Velde McDonough Vursell McGregor Wainwright McVey Wampler Martin, Iowa Warburton Mason Weichel Meader Wharton Merrill Wigglesworth Miller, Md. W1lliams, N.Y. Miller, Nebr. Young Miller, N.Y. Younger Morano

NOT VOTING-37

Angeli Elllott Powell Becker Forrester Boykin Gamble Bray Grant Brooks, La. Haley Brooks, Tex. Hillings Buckley Hoeven Bush Kearney Case Mollohan Coudert Morrison Delaney Patman Dodd Pillion Dolllver Poulson

Rains Roosevelt Secrest Springer Stringfellow Taylor Thompson, La. Utt Wilson, Ind. Winstead

So the amendment was arieed to. The Clerk announced the following

pairs: Mr. Kearney with Mr. Morrison, Mr. Bush with Mr. Forrester. Mr. Dolliver with Mr. Grant. Mr. Gamble with Mr. Rains.

Mr. Pillion with Mr. Elliott. Mr. Poulson with Mr. Delaney. Mr. Springer with Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Stringfellow with Mr. Buckley. Mr. Taylor with Mr. Powell. Mr. Wilson of Indiana with Mr. Patman. Mr. Case with Mr. H a ley. Mr. Bray with Mr. Brooks of Louisiana. Mr. Becker with Mr. Thompson of Loui-

siana. Mr. Angell with Mr. Winstead. Mr. Hillings with Mr. Secrest. Mr. Hoeven with Mr. Dodd. Mr. Utt with Mr. Mollohan.

Mr. VURSELL and Mr. MUMMA changed their vote from ''yea" to "nay!'

Mr. BATTLE changed his vote from "nay" to '.'yea."

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

The doors were opened. The SPEAKER. The question is on

the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?

Mr. FOGARTY. I am, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. The gentleman qual

ifies. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows: Mr. FOGARTY moves to recommit the bill

to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report it back forthwith with the following amendment: On page 18, line 24, strike out "$50 million" and insert in lieu thereof "$75 million."

Mr. BUSBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to recommit.

The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on

the motion to recommit. Mr. FOGARTY. Mr .. Speaker, on that

I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there

were-yeas 197, nays 203, not voting 30, as follows:

Abernethy Adair Addonizio Albert Alexander Andrews Aspinall Auchincloss Bailey Baker Barden Barrett Battle Bennett, Mich. Blatnik Boggs Boland 'Bolling Boy kin Brooks, Tex. Brown, Ga. Buchanan Burdick · Byrd _Byrne,Pa. Camp canfield Cannon Carlyle , Carnahan

• Celler

[Roll No. 45] YEAS-197

Chatham Chelf Chenoweth Chudoff Colmer Condon Cooley Cooper Corbett Crosser Davis, Ga. D'a.vis, Tenn. Dawson, Til. Deane Dempsey Ding ell Dollinger Donohue Dorn, N.Y. Dorn, S.C. Doyle Durham Eberharter Edmondson Engle Evins Fallon Feighan · Fernandez Fine Fino

Fogarty Forand Fountain Frazier Friedel Fulton Garmatz Gary Gathings Gordon Granahan Green Gregory Hagen, Calif. Hagen, Minn. Hale Harris Harrison, Wyo. Hart Hays, ,Ark. Hays, Ohio Hebert Heller Herlong Heselton Hill Holifield Holtzman Howell Javits Jones, Ala.

1953 Jones, Mo. Judd Karsten, Mo. Kee Kelley, Pa. Kelly, N.Y. Keogh Kersten, Wis. Kilday King, Calif. Kirwan Klein Kluczynski Landrum Lane Lanham Lesinski Long Lyle McCarthy McCormack McMillan Machrowicz Mack, Ill. Madden Magnuson Marshall Matthews Merrow Metcalf Miller, Calif. Miller, Kans. Mills Mollohan Morgan

Abbitt Allen, Calif. Allen, Ill. Andersen,

H. Carl Andresen,

August H. Arends Ayres Bates Beamer Belcher Bender Bennett, Fla. Bentley Bentsen Berry Betts Bishop Bolton,

Frances P. Bolton,

Oliver P. Bonin Bonner Bosch Bow Brambl~tt Bray Brown, Ohio Brownson Broyhill Budge Burleson Busbey Byrnes, Wis. Campbell Carrigg Cederberg Chiperfield Church Clardy Clevenger Cole, Mo. Cole, N.Y. Coon Cotton Cretella Crumpacker Cunningham Curtis, Mass. Curtis, Mo. Curtis, Nebr. Dague Davis, Wis. Dawson, Utah Derounian Devereux D'Ewart Dies Dondero Donovan Dowdy Ellsworth Fenton Fisher Ford Frelinghuysen Gavin Gentry

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 5585 Moss Moulder Multer Murray Norrell O'Brien, Ill. O'Brien, Mich. O'Brien, N.Y. O'Hara, Ill. O'Hara, Minn. O'Konski O'Neill Osmers Patten Perkins Pfost Philbin Pilcher Poff Polk Powell Preston Price Priest Prouty Rabaut Rayburn Rhodes,Pa. Richards Riley Rivers Roberts Robeson, Va. Robsion, Ky. Rodino

NAYs-203

Rogers, Colo.· Rogers, Fla. Rooney Roosevelt Scott Selden Shelley Sheppard Sieminski Sikes Smith, Miss. Spence Staggers Sullivan Sutton Teague Thompson, Tex. Thornberry Trimble Vinson Walter Wampler Watts Wheeler Wickersham Widnall Wier ·Williams, Miss. Willis Withrow Wolverton Yates Yorty Zablocki

George Nelson Golden Nicholson Goodwin Norblad Graham Oakman Gross Ostertag Gubser Passman Gwinn Patterson Halleck Pelly Hand Phillips Harden Poage Hardy Radwan Harrison, Nebr. Ray Harrison, Va. · Reams Harvey Reece, Tenn. Hess Reed, Ill. Hiestand · Reed, N_ Y. Hillelson Rees, Kans. Hinshaw Regan Hoffman, Ill. Rhodes, Ariz. Hoffman, Mich. Riehlman Holmes Rogers, Mass.

·Holt Rogers, Tex. Hope Sadlak Horan St. George Hosmer Saylor Hruska Schenck... Hunter Scherer Hyde Scrivner Ikard Scudder Jackson Seely-Brown James Shafer Jarman Sheehan Jenkins Short Jensen Shuford Johnson Simpson, Ill. Jon as, Ill. . Simpson, Pa. Jonas, N. C. Small Jones, N.c. Smith, Kans. Kean Smith, Va. Kearns Smith, Wis. Keating Stauffer Kilburn Steed King, Pa. Taber Knox Talle Krueger Thomas Laird Thompson, Lantaff Mich. Latham Tollefson LeCompte Tuck Lovre Utt Lucas Van Pelt McConnell Van Zandt McCUlloch Velde McDonough Vorys McGregor Vursell Mcintire Wainwright McVey Warburton Mack, Wash. Weichel Mahon Westland Mailliard Wharton Martin, Iowa Wigglesworth Mason Williams, N.Y. Meader Wilson, Calif. Merrill Wilson, Ind. Miller, Md. Wilson, Tex. Miller, Nebr. Wolcott Miller, N.Y. Young Morano Younger Mumma Neal

NOT VOTING-30 Angell Becker Brooks, La. Buckley Bush Case Coudert Delaney Dodd Dolliver

Elliott Forrester Gamble Grant Haley Hillings Hoeven Kearney Morrison Patman

Pillion Poulson Rains Secrest Springer Stringfellow Taylor Thompson, La. Whitten Winstead

so the motion to recommit was rejected.

The Clerk announced the following pairs:

Mr. Poulson with Mr. Morrison. Mr. Pillion with Mr. Delaney. Mr. Gamble with Mr. Buckley. Mr. Angell with Mr. Brooks of Louisiana. Mr. Becker with Mr. Thompson of Lou-

isiana. Mr. Bush with Mr. Rains. Mr. Case with Mr. Elliott. Mr. Coudert with Mr. Grant. Mr. Dolliver with Mr. Forrester. Mr. Kearney with Mr. Haley. Mr. Hoeven with Mr. Dodd. Mr. Springer with Mr. Patman. Mr. Stringfellow with Mr. Secrest. Mr. Taylor with Mr. Winstead.

. Mr. Billings with Mr. Whitten.

Mr. WHEELER changed his vote from · "nay" to "yea."


The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there

were-yeas 396, nays 2, answered "present" 1, not voting 31, as follows:

Abbitt Abernethy Adair Addonizio Alber-t , Alexander Allen, Calif. Allen, Ill. Andersen,

H . Carl Andresen,

August H. Andrews Arends Aspinall A uchincloss Ayres Bailey Baker Barden Barrett Bates Battle Beamer Belcher Bender Bennett, Fla. Bennett, Mich. Bentley Bentsen Berry Betts Bishop Blatnik Boggs Boland Bolllng Bolton,

FrancesP. Bolton,

Oliver P. Bonin

' Bonner Bosch Bow Boy kin Bramblett Bray Brooks, Tex.

· [Roll No. 46]

YEAS-396 Brown, Ga. Brown, Ohio Brownson Broyhill Buchanan Budge Burdick Burleson Busbey Byrd Byrne, Pa. Camp Campbell Canfield Cannon Carlyle Carnahan Carrigg Cederberg Celler Chatham Chelf Chenoweth Chiperfield Chudoff Church Clardy Clevenger Cole, Mo. Cole, N.Y. Colmer Condon Cooley Coon Cooper Corbett Cotton Cretella Crosser Crumpacker Cunningham Curtis, Mass. Curtis, Mo. Curtis, Nebr. Dague Davis, Ga. Davis, Tenn. Davis, Wis. Dawson, Dl.

Dawson, Utah Deane Delaney Dempsey Derounian Devereux D'Ewart Dies Dingell Dollinger Dondero Donohue Donovan Dorn,N. Y. Dorn, S.C. Dowdy Doyle Durham Eberharter Edmondson Ellsworth Engle Evins Fallon Feighan Fenton Fernandez Fine Fino

·Fisher Forand Ford Fountain Frazier Frellnghuysen Friedel Fulton · Gamble Garmatz Gary Gathings Gavin Gentry George Golden Goodwin Gordon Graham Granahan

Green Lyle Gregory . · McCarthy Gross McConnell Gubser McCormack Gwlnn · McCulloch Hagen, Calif. McDonough Hagen, Minn. McGregor Hale Mcintire Halleck McMillan Hand McVey Harden Machrowicz Hardy Mack, Ill. Harris Mack, Wash. Harrison, Nebr. Madden Harrison, Va. Magnuson Harrison, Wyo. Mahon Hart Mailliard Harvey Marshall Hays, Ark. Martin, Iowa Hays, Ohio Mason H~bert Matthews Heller Meader Herlong Merrill Heselton Merrow Hess Metcalf Hiestand Miller, Calif. Hill Miller, Kans. Hillelson Miller, Md. Hinshaw Miller, Nebr. Hoffman, Ill. Miller, N.Y. Hoffman, Mich. Mills Holifield Mollohan Holmes Morano Holt Morgan Holtzman Moss Hope Moulder Horan Multer Hosmer Mumma Howell Murray Hruska Neal Hunter Nelson Hyde Nicholson Ikard Norblad Jackson Norrell James Oakman Jarman O'Brien, Ill. Javits O'Brien, Mich. Jenkins O'Brien, N.Y. Jensen O'Hara, Ill. Johnson O'Hara, Minn. Jonas, Ill. O'Neill Jonas, N. C. Osmers Jones, Ala. Ostertag Jones, Mo. Passman Jones, N.C. Patten Judd Patterson Karsten, Mo. Pelly Kean Perkins Kearns Pfost Keating Philbin Kee Phillips Kelley, Pa. Pilcher Kelly, N.Y. Poage Keogh Poff Kersten, Wis. Polk Kilburn Powell Kilday Preston King, Callf. Price King, Pa. Priest Kirwan Prouty Klein Rabaut Kluczynskl Radwan Knox Ray Krueger Rayburn Laird Reams Landrum Reed, Ill. Lane Rees, Kans. Lanham Regan Lantaff Rhodes, Ariz. Latham Rhodes, Pa. LeCompte Richards Lesinski Riehlman Long Riley Lovre Rivers Lucas Roberts

Robeson, Va. Robsion, Ky. Rodino Rogers, Colo. Rogers, Fla. Rogers, Mass. Rogers, Tex. Rooney Roosevelt Sadlak St. George Saylor Schenck Scherer Scott Scrivner Scudder Seely-Brown Selden Shafer Sheehan Shelley Sheppard Short Shuford Sieminski Sikes Simpson, Ill. Simpson, Pa. Small Smith, Kans. Smith, Miss. Smith, Va. Spence Staggers Stauffer Steed Sullivan Sutton Taber Talle Teague Thomas Thompson,

Mich. Thompson, Tez. Thornberry Tollefson Trimble Tuck Utt VanZandt Velde Vinson Vorys Vursell Wainwright Walter Wampler Warburton Watts Weichel Westland Wharton Wheeler Whitten Wickersham . Widnall Wier Wigglesworth Williams, Miss. Williams, N.Y. Willis · Wilson, Calif. Wilson, Ind. Wilson, Tex. Withrow Wolcott Wolverton Yates Yorty Young Younger Zablocki

NAYs-2 Smith, Wis. VanPelt

ANSWERED ''PRESENT''-1 Fogarty

NOT VOTING-31 Angell Becker Brooks, La. Buckley Bush Byrnes, Wis. Case Coudert Dodd Dolliver Elliott

Forrester Grant Haley Hillings Hoeven Kearney Morrison O'Konski Patman Pillion Poulson

So the bill was passed.

Rains Reece, Tenn. Reed,N. Y. Secrest Springer Stringfellow Taylor Thompson, La. Winstead

·5586 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE May 26

The Clerk announced the following pairs:

Mr. Taylor with Mr. Morrison. Mr. Stringfellow with Mr. Elliott. Mr. Becker with Mr. Grant. Mr. Angell with Mr. Rains. . Mr. Hillings with Mr. Haley. Mr. Springer with Mr. Secrest. Mr. Kearney with Mr. Thompson of Loui-

siana. Mr. Hoeven with Mr. -Brooks of Louisiana. Mr. Bush with Mr. Winstead. Mr. Coudert with Mr. Forrester. Mr. Dolliver with Mr. Dodd. Mr. Reece of Tennessee with Mr. Buckley. Mr. Reed of New York with Mr. P atman.


A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

WORK OF THE HOUSE UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE

M:t:. VELDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER . . Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from nunois?

There was no objection. Mr. VELDE. Mr. Speaker, as we

know, the investigating procedures of certain committees of this Congress have occasioned comment recently on the other side of the Atlantic as well as in this country. Some of these comments have generated more heat than light. The work of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee was recently subjected to a searching scrutiny by a writer assigned especially to this task by the Sunday Times of .London, and in this instance, I am glad to say, the resultant articles produced light.

The author of the articles, Miss Rebecca West, is an eminent figure in all English-speaking literary circles, renowned for her history of Yugoslavia, entitled "Black Lamb and Gray Falcon"; for her biography of the wartime British traitor, William Joyce-Lord Haw HawThe Meaning of Treason; and for articles in American periodicals, including Harper's magazine which has termed her the world's greatest reporter. The articles on the work of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee by this eminent and dis~nterested author, Mr. Speaker, constitute a valuable and most interesting commentary on the committee's work. I cannot, of course, vouch for the accuracy of all of Miss West's statements and interpretations. As I have said, however, the articles did shed light. I therefore request permission for their publication in the Appendix of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Collectively, I believe they will take up in excess of two pages, so I shall have the first article included in today's RECORD and the second and third articles will follow in tomorrow's RECORD with permission of the Speaker.

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that Subcommittee No. 3 of the Committee on the Judiciary may sit during general debate this afternoon.

The SPEAKER. Is· there objection to the request of the gentleman from ' New York?

There was no objection.

SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. SAYLOR asked n.nd was given

permission to address the House on tomorrow for 15 minutes, following any special orders heretofore entered.

FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY YEAR OF CONTROLLED POWERED FLIGHT The SPEAKER. Pursuant to Public

Law 32, 83d Congress, the Chair appoints as members of the Joint Committee on Observance of the 50th Anniversary Year of Controlled Powered Flight the following Members on the part of the House: Mr. HINSHAW, Mr. O'HARA of MiiL.lesota, Mr. SCHENCK, Mr. BoNNER, Mr. PRIEST, and Mr. MACK of Illinois.

CIVIL FUNCTIONS APPROPRIATION BILL, 1954

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 244 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 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. 5376) making appropriations for civil functions administered by the Department of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, and for other purposes, and all points of order against said bill or any provisions contained in said bill are hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 3 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee onrAppropriations, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may require.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the adoption by this body of House Resolution 244 which would make in order the consideration of the bill H. R. 5376. This bill makes appropriations for civil functions, Department of the Army, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954.

The Committee on Rules has granted an open rule waiving points of order against the bill and they have provided for 3 hours of general debate on the bill itself.

Breaking down H. R. 5376 into sections, the bill provides appropriations for rivers and harbors and fiood control, trust fund appropriations for the United States Soldiers' Home and appropriations for the Canal Zone government for the fiscal year of 1954.

In terms of good economical government, this bill, if passed ~ro~ses to save

the American taxpayer millions of dollars. The initial budget estimates submitted to the Committee on Appropriations asked for an appropriation of $683,-377,100. The revised budget estimate asked for an appropriation of $498,650,-100, which represented a reduction of $184,727,000 over the original figure.

The Committee on Appropriations, however, now recommends in this bill an appropriation of $415,991 ,600 which is $267,385,500 below the initi~l estimate and $82,658,500 less than the amount recommended in the revised budget estimate. If this appropriation bill is passed, it will represent a saving of $168,075,000 over what was appropriated for the current ilscal year.

If you consider the proposed legislation in terms of percent, the results are even more revealing. The current bill calls for an appropriation that would represent a saving of 39 percent over the original estimate submitted and approximately 16 percent over the revised estimate. H. R. 5376 recommends an appropriation that is 29 percent less than the amount appropriated last year. '

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this House Resolution 244 which would make in order the consideration of this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. SMITH].

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker I know of no objection to the rule on this side and I have no requests for time.

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. M:r. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr." Speak

er, 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. 5376) making appropriations for civil functions administerJKI by the-Department of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, and for other purposes.

The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the House resolved itself

into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the con-· sideration of the bill H. R. 5376, with Mr. HOPE 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. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair

man, I yield myself such time as I may require.

Mr. Chairman, in fulfilling my responsibility of bringing the Army civil functions appropriation bill to the fioor for the consideration of the House of Representatives, I perform that act with considerable pride, if not with a great deal of pleasure. This is not the kind of legislation particularly designed to please. 'I bring this bill here with pride because I believe that under all of the circumstances the subcommittee has done a good job.

The major credit for the subcommittee's accomplishment should be given in two places: First of all, the executive clerk of our subcommittee, Frank Sanders, has done what I consider to be a

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 5587 remarkable job in furnishing the subcommittee with the information we require in order to act with judgment upon the many requests that came before us. He spent a great deal of time in the adjournment period making on-the-spot inspections of various projects throughout the country. He has furnished us with a great deal of information as a result of those inspections. He has done a great deal of work with the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of the Budget in working out a new and more informational format for the presentation of this material. He has brought a printed record and a report_ here which, I think, are understandable to those who search for information on specific projects.

Secondly, I should like to give a great deal of credit to the members of the subcommittee, who worked with faithful diligence, with great harmony, and with admirable self-denial in the considera-· tion of the various projects that came before us.

This bill has traditionally been the subject of a great deal of logrolling and back-scratching. Surely the temptation existed with the members of the subcommittee to help each other out, shall we say? For certainly every member of the subcommittee was interested and vitally interested in projects affecting their State or their part of the country. But you will not find any projects of that kind included in this bill. Two new members on the majority side, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. ·HAND], and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CEDERBERG] worked with faithfulness. They had a keen desire to get the information which was needed in order that they might exercise a fair and reasoned juqgment upon these requests. On the minority side, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CANNON], and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. RABAUT] are old hands at this particular bill. Most of the testimony, I suppose, was an old story to them. We were particularly pleased when our colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. RABAUT] who had handled this appropriation in years past, was able to leave his sick room in order to join us in the mark-up of the bill and the consideration of the bill in the full committee on last Saturday. He certainly can be called an elder statesmen and an elder advisor in dealing with this particular appropriation measure. While our friend from South Carolina [JoHN RILEY] is not a newcomer to the committee, he is a newcomer to this particular subject. Just as I enjoyed working with him as subcommittee chairman in the 82d Congress, it was a pleasure to again see in action the sincerity and the integrity which has always marked his work in every subcommittee of the Committee onAppropriations.

This bill traditionally is known in many places throughout the country as the pork barrel bill. To many people, this is simply considered a measure in which the largess of the Federal Government is distributed on the basis of political pressure to various districts and various States of the Nation. -But this measure in truth provides the wherewithal for the water resources program of the country. '!'his program cannot

·and ought not to be minimized, for it is a program for the development and preservation of one of our greatest natural resources.

One of the things that our committee considered at considerable length in this report was the necessity for the development of an overall water resources program on the part of the Federal Government. We felt, as our report indicates, that one of the things which will strengthen this overall program the most is a recognition on the part of the local interests involved, the local communities, that by and large the success of a national water resources program will depend upon their participation in an effective manner in that program. It is our feeling that the local community must accept a greater share of the responsibility for the development of these projects in their community.

This bill represents, as it is brought to you today, a cut of just under 40 percent from the original budget. It represents a cut of between 16 percent and 17 percent of the revised budget and the amount recommended for appropriation is about 29 percent less than the amount which was appropriated in this bill last year.

Those are large reductions, but in every case I think it is fair to say that there is an intelligent and a sensemaking explanation for each of the actions taken. There was one arbitrary rule which this subcommittee followed. That was the rule that we would not include any items not recommended by the Bureau of the Budget, and, as a corollary of that rule, we have not recommended more money for any specific item than had been recommended - by the Bureau of the Budget.

This is a rule which my friend from Michigan [Mr. FORD] and I were pleased to follow when we were in the minority. It is a rule which I believe it is fair to say all of the members of the subcommittee approve at this time. It is arbitrary, and to some extent the subcommittee has been criticized by those who have been made unhappy because particular projects have not been included. They have said for us to follow that arbitrary rule is for use to relinquish the freedom of judgment that we ought to have in dealing with these projects. They have said, "You are letting the people downtown and-you are letting the Members of the other body dictate, in the final analysis, the projects that shall go into that program." Perhaps there is some justification for that charge, but in the critical fiscal condition in which our Government finds itself, this freedom of choice, this right of imposing our judgment on the budget items for this particular appropriation bill, is, in a sense, a luxury that we cannot afford.

I have with me this morning a chart which I would like to call to your attention because I · think it illustrates the urgency of the reductions which · our subcommittee was called upon to make. Here are shown the appropriations for last year. It also sets forth the original budget for the fiscal year 1954, and it shows the revised budget upon which the subcommittee took its action. Then, getting over into these lined portions of the graph,· the various colors represent

the different types of project. For instance, the green is the flood-control program of the Mississippi Valley and i.ts tributaries. The pink represents the multiple-purpose projects and the red represents new projects involving planning only this year. There are several others, but the significant line is this light blue line which you see, in fiscal year 1956, running completely off the chart. That is the cumulative line. That shows you where this program would go if we permitted the Corps of Engineers' program to proceed in the manner which has been approved by the Bureau of the Budget. This is not just a program that the Corps of Engineers would like to have. · This is the approved program; and unless some arbitrary action is taken by this Congress, by the fiscal year 1956 you will not have a budget of $480 million upon which to exercise your judgment, but you will have a budget of $1,165,000,000; and in the fiscal year 1957 a budget of $1,400,-000,000. Where it will go from there I am not prepared to say.

So, while the members of this subcommittee have been subjected to a great deal of criticism because we took things out of the budget request, after it had been approved by the Corps of Engineers and after it had been approved by the Bureau of the Budget, I submit to you that we are fulfilling a responsibility that was required, unless we are prepared to relinquish the thought of the necessary reality of bringing the spending of this Federal Government under control so that there will be some hope of balancing the Federal budget. We have tried in our subcommittee report to be specific; we tried to permit the reader of the report to go through it and know precisely what we have done and why we have done it; and I believe that the reader of the report can, by reading it, obtain the reasons for the actions which we have taken.

First of all, with respect to the program of survey and examinations, I think the chart is the best evidence that can be presented with respect to that. The program of the Corps of Engineers must be made more concise; the number of projects available for appropriations must be reduced unless we are to embark upon a program of public works far beyond anything that would seem reasonable in the foreseeable future.

Our subcommittee for many years has not earmarked the projects upon which survey and examination money is to be spent. That is true because the survey determines whether or not the project is sufficiently worthwhile to proceed with planning and construction money at a later date. We have felt consistently that the survey money should be made available, that the general scope of the work should be set by the level of general appropriations of Congress, but that the Corps of Engineers, the experts in this field, should be the ones to make the decision as to the priority for the expenditure of those funds.

When you get to the next· step, however, and that is planning money, there we felt that on the basis of the surveys which had been completed, on the basis of information which the Corps of En· gineers could then present to us, we

.5588 .CONGRESSIONAL RECORD =HOUSE May 26

were in a position to exercise judgment as to the priority with which that money should be spent; in this bill, therefore, we have before us planning requests for some 30 to . 35 projects. Because we felt that to permit them to proceed would aggravate the problem that is portrayed by this chart, we picked out the 10 we considered to be of greatest urgency and of greatest economic benefit to the Nation and earmarked, on page 6 of the report, the 10 projects for which planning money is to be spent.

In the field of construction there are three projects for which funds were denied completely, and that does not reflect necessarily upon those projects; it simply means that ip those 3 cases there were 2 that repr_esented · resumptions where funds had not been appropriated in recent years, and another where we felt that local interests should exercise a great deal more activity with respect to it. There were others, a group of about 12, that were started last year as a result of appropriations late in the fiscal year. They were presented to Congress in a supplemental budget after the House had acted on the appropriation bill last year. With one exception, the Oklahoma City Floodway, where local interests did cooperate fully and there was prompt action in getting construction under way, we have denied funds in this bill this year. That will not prevent those projects from proceeding in an economical manner. Because. of their late start last year they just did not get under way. A great share of the money is still unexpended. They can go ahead with the money appropriated last year and expend it during this fiscal year.

With the remainder of the projects, those that were well along, we did not atte:npt to make any drastic reductions. Once they are well along toward completion, the economical thing to do is to provide the funds to permit the Corps of Engineers to wind up the projects. In some cases that means putting the projects in the hands of local interests for maintenance; in other cases it means the completion of projects so that the revenue they will produce can be ·returned to the Federal Government.

In the field of operation and maintenance we made a very nominal cut in a very local and specific place, and that was with respect to the fish program in the Columbia River Basin. In no other place did. we make any reduction in the operation and maintenance funds because of our feeling that this program has been starved for· funds in the last few years, and tnat. it does riot represent good economy to deprive these functioning projects of the necessary maintenance in order to permit that backlog to pile up and to create the definite danger that we will be faced not with maintenance but with new construction to replace the facilities that we have permitted to deteriorate.

One new. item that you will find in the report this year is that of general expenses. That has been handled as a part of the construction fur.d in the· past. This is the first time it has been set out so that we know just what portion of it is used for the general administrative expenses of the corps.

There are a number of items of language which are explained quite fully in the report. Fo:t;: the most part they represent long hours of work among people of the General Accounting Office, people in the Corps of Engineers and in the Bureau of the Budget, and on the part of our executive clerk, Frank Sanders, in working out a new format so that we can improve the administration, improve the budget, and improve the fiscal control that the Congress exercises over the Corps of Engineers.

As I said, I do not expect you to greet the presentation of this report with great pleasure. This is not the kind of an appropriation bill that evokes great pleasure but it does represent the unanimous best judgment of seven men who devoted themselves diligently to the task set for them by the Members of this House.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. I notice the following language used in the report on page 6:

Allocation of planning funds are not to be taken as an indication that these projects are to be constructed.

I wonder what other interpretation we could have that you are making funds available for planning and do not expect to prosecute those plans because our great loss in funds has been in the planning area rather than in the construction part. So it has been hoped by a great many of us that the planning stage would be removed and that funds would be made available for construction, and planning would then become a part of construction.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I think perhaps it would clarify it in the gentle-

. man's mind if we had said: "Constructed immediately upon completion of the plans." Our objective is to permit planning on these projects to be completed so that they will represent a reasonable backlog of projects to be constructed when our economic situation is less critical than it is today.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. It would seem to me if you are going to have an orderly working of these civil projects, . it would be better to get them in the planning stage, not abandoning completely those projects, because we have already spent approximately $40 million in planning on projects that have never been completed. So if we are going to look at the purse strings, the most fruitful field to save money is to eliminate those plannings, unless actually there is some work going to take place following this planning work.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I would not want to give the impression that the committee frowns upon the construction of these projects. What we are saying is, we want to serve notice, in a sense, to the people interested in these projects that the completion of the planning does not necessarily mean that this subcommittee is then committed to the appropriation of construction funds immediately. That has been one of the difficulties . that puts . us in the position illustra.ted on this chart.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. ·u seems to me that the subcommittee is not taking a very practical_ position on the matter if they say, "Now we are going to give the Corps of Engineers sufficient money to make detailed plans and to go into furtner actual studies of conditions surrounding these various projects," and then say, "We may mean that this will be shelved." The pursuit of these projects within season is the place to save money on planning, so if we continue to make these appropriations without fol-1owtng up with construction, then the Federal Government is losing money by investing in that type of planning. ·

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I do not consider it as losing money. I know that the most economical thing to do as far as individual projects are concerned would be to proceed with construction immediately upon completion of the planning. ·

Mr. JONES of Alabama. Is it the intention of the appropriations subcommittee to try and take a reasonable amount of work and pursue it to its conclusion or is it going to be one of these types of projects that we are going to say, "Well, we have $600 million for 1 year" or "$300 million the next year," and so on, because unless we get some orderly planning, then these works cannot be prosecuted?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. It is the opinion of the subcommittee that there certainly is a place in a program of this kind for a backlog of planned projects that can be pursued when the economic situation of the country so requires.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. I understand.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. But at the same time we want to make it clear · that the application of this planning money is not a commitment on the part of this subcommittee for the appropriation of construction funds for each of these projects next year.

Mr. JONES of .Alabama. · I am not trying to get the chairman of the subcommittee to say he is committed to these projects. I am talking about the planning as a part of the program. So I come back to this situation that we have now enough projects on hand that would require about $12 billion worth of appropriations to complete at present-day costs. We have spent some $40 million, I remind the gentleman from Wisconsin, on the very thing he is talking about. So why should we continue to insist that planning should be divorced from a scheduled program of construction?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Certainly the gentleman is not suggesting, is he, that we should not proceed with the planning of projects which are urgent and which have a high benefit to cost ratio until we have cleared up the backlog on all of the projects that have been planned in the past.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. Of course, I do not think the appropriations subcommittee will undertake to set up a system of priorities as to the dates that they were authorized and . the first instances in which money was appropriated for planning, because we have enough projects that there· must be some system of priorities reestablished to prosecute those works that are most meritorious

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 5589 and neglect those that do not have proper merit. · Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. One other thing should be mentioned, that a great many of these previously authorized projects that have been stagnant and that are not meritorious should be deauthorized, so that they do not remain part of that backlog.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. I certainly hope we can do that.

Mr. DEMPSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. DEMPSEY. I would like to ask the chairman a question which I think he can answer very readily. The other day I discussed with the gentleman the floodwater project on the Rio Grande at Albuquerque. Does the gentleman recall that?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Yes. Mr. DEMPSEY. I understood the

chairman to tell me that the committee was not reducing that project below the amount recommended by the Director of the Budget.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I do not believe I made that statement.

Mr. DEMPSEY. I thought the gentleman did. Then will the gentleman

· tell me this: The Congress of the United States has authorized what is known as the floodway project at Albuquerque. The reason I assumed the Congress had for authorizing it is that the channel is about 4 feet higher than the main street of the city. Last year we had a flood costing about a $1% million to a lot of people. They have small homes and do not have very much finance, but they did have that much destruction, for which they were not compensated at all. This had been going on year by year. The gentleman's subcommittee took every dollar out of that appropriation, so far as that project was concerned, which the budget recommended. ·

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. That is consistent with what I mentioned. That was one of the 11 local flood-control projects that was presented to the Senate committee in a supplemental budget request late in the last session. Money was appropriated. The work is not well along at this stage. There is money in last year's appropriation to permit the continuance of work during this fiscal year.

Mr. DEMPSEY. Is it the disposition of the chairman to be consistent and not to cure something where damage is being done to property?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Surely, the gentleman from N€w Mexico is not going to try to put me in that kind of position just because he did not get the amount of money he thought he ought to have for a particular project.

Mr. DEMPSEY. I did not ask you to give ' the money there that you should have, I asked you to leave the money in there that the Eisenhower Budget Director recommended. It was insufficient, but it would have helped.

Let me say this to the gentleman: The Rio Grande rises in Colorado.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I yielded for a question. There are a great many Members waiting for time in this general debate.

. Mr. DEMPSEY. This is a very important bill. You have gone over it for weeks. When I approached the gentleman the other day I though.t I might come before his committee. I want him to know at this time that, because of the existing situation that I am telling him about, the State of Texas is suing t~e State of New Mexico because Texas claims New Mexico is not giving Texas the amount of water due to Texas that comes into the river. The reason that we cannot deliver that water is that we have no channel through there to carry the water properly and without waste and destruction. It floods into cellars and . basements and what not, but we cannot get it down the river because there is no channel. This thing has been going on and on. The 80th Congre2s recognized the need and voted money for this project.

Certainly New Mexico does not own the river. Old Mexico gets a certain amount of the water by treaty which we must get down there. What we are trying to do is get the channel open. I have a great deal of respect for the ability of the chairman of the subcommittee, but I think you have made a mistake. You made the mistake a year ago and admitted it, and you changed it on the same proposition. All we want to do is this: We are not trying to get a big project through, we are trying to get the channel opened up so the water can get through where it belongs, to old Mexico, to southern New Mexico farmers, and to Texas. That is our obligation. It was not too many months ago that everybody who came out to my State-

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Will not the gentleman please cooperate with all of the people who have time assigned in

·general debate and permit them to use that time? I have tried to answer the gentleman's question.

Mr. DEMPSEY. But you have not answered it at all. The gentleman from New Mexico is willing to cooperate to the

· extent of voting for every dollar that you voted. I regret to say that you took out every dollar from this project which is as worthy as any of those that you have in this bill. You took out every dollar for New Mexico.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I have tried to explain. tha-t it was not the intention to stop this project in its progress, but because of a late start last year, and the late appropriations of funds, there has not been a substantial start, and it was the feeling of the subcommittee that they could proceed with the construction during the fiscal year, as they already have.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? ·

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I yield. Mr. SAYLOR. On the chart to which

the gentleman has referred, am I correct in reading the last figure there for projects which have been authorized and have been planned would cost $6,780, .. 000,000 to complete?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. That is the balance to complete the projects after the fiscal year 1954; that is correct.

Mr. SAYLOR. May I say to the chair .. man, the gentleman from Wisconsin, I feel he might recommend to the Com ...

mittee on Public Works that they do what the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs is doing for the Reclamation Bureau in calling upon them toreview all of their presently authorized projects to see whether some of those

. projects, which have heretofore gone so

. far as to be authorized, are now feasible. I want to congratulate the gentleman and his committee for the excellent work they have done.

Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Public Works.

Mr. DONDERO. Did the committee place an item here for ·an emergency fund for the use of the Army engineers?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. There is money available for the emergency fund.

Mr. DONDERO. Is that $10 million? Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. No; there

is money in the emergen.cy fund. They have a considerable unexpended and unobligated balance, which is more than the amount that they have used or bave asked for in previous appropriations. They did not request additional funds this year.

Mr. DONDERO. Among 10 projects for which planning money has been granted, I find Libby Reservoir. I pre .. sume that means Libby Dam?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Yes. Mr. DONDERO. I wonder if the

committee knows that a bill is pending both in the other body as well as in the House to deauthorize that project com .. pletely.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. The rea .. son for the planning money in this proj .. ect is not for the prosecution of that project as is now contemplated, but to permit the continuance of the study now under way by the corps to determine the feasibility of relocating and redesigning that particular project, because we feel there is an urgency for some project in that particular location.

Mr. DONDERO. There seems to be great controversy existing as to that project, and while an estimate has been made that it will cost $318 million, information has come to me that it will cost closer to $500 million.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. They have a very serious relocation problem, and a problem with the Canadian Government and a number of other matters as well, if they proceed with the project as now contemplated.

Mr. DONDERO. That raises the question as to whether or not it was wise to place more money in a fund for plan .. ning on a project that might or might ·not be authorized-and which might be deauthorized, which would be more cor .. rect to say.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin: Because we felt there was a need for working out a project in this area, and not because we wanted to encourage the -engineers to proceed with the program they have now contemplated is the reason why the money is in the bill.

Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I yield._

5590 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE. May 26

Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. During the 1951-52 floods there were 13 communities in my district which were flooded, 10 communities on the Minnesota River and 3 communities on the Mississippi River. I think in the State of Minnesota we had that many more communities which were flooded at other points. We obtaine~ through action on the part of the other body last year, funds for preliminary surveys. I attended one or two of the hearings which the engineers had. Can the gentleman tell me what happened to the engineer's report on the preliminary surveys because there is not one cent in this bill for the entire State of Minnesota. What is the reason for that?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I have tried to explain that we did not allocate these projects on the basis of their geographical location.

We do not try to earmark survey funds. However, if there is nothing mentioned here I would assume that the reason is that the results of the preliminary examinations did not reach the Bureau of the Budget in time for the Bureau of the Budget to submit a request for authorization to Congress.

Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. I have not had an opportunity to contact the Bureau of the Budget, but I know the district engineer has completed his preliminary surveys, to be submitted about the 1st of January of this year. I presume the Bureau of the Budget's recommendations came after that.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. The revised budget estimate came after that, but as of this moment I cannot tell you the status of those examination reports of the Corps of Engineers.

Mr. DONDERO. The gentleman should not feel too badly about his State being left out. I do not see a 5-cent piece here for the State of Michigan.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. '!'he gentleman is in good company.

Mr. D'EWART. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.

Mr. D'EWART. I rise to question the gentleman about the project at Havre, Mont. Last year your committee appropriated $348,000 for the construction of this project. According to the report, $300,003 will be left over after the end of the fiscal year. Is it your intention that this fund will be available after July 1 for the continuation of the const.ruction work on this project?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Yes. That project at Havre is in the same status as the project mentioned by the gentleman from New Mexico. The funds were made available and released for purposes of construction late in the current fiscal year. They will remain available.

Mr. D'EW ART. So that the project can proceed in what we believe to be an orderly manner?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Yes. Mr. D'EWART. These funds were

frozen about January 1 and only recently have been released. That is why such a small amount has been used.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Yes. I think the gentleman can assure the peo

~ Ple of that community that they can

anticipate proceeding with that project in an orderly fashion.

Mr. D'EWART. I thank the gentle· man.

Mr. HOLMES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.

Mr. HOLMES. Does the committee have any policy in relation to going ahead with these projects when the planning has been completed?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. We stated that we did not wish to be committed with respect to construction funds, even though the planning might be completed on these particular projects. We have

. got to reserve the right to choke them off somewhere, if we are not going to let this get completely out of bounds.

Mr. HOLMES. Does the committee review the projects after the planning is completed in any priority system?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. They usually come before the committee if approved by the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of the Budget. They come before us with their projects and then the committee exercises its judgment as to the priority with which they should be initiated. For the last 3 years-at leastt this is the third year now since the outbreak of the war in Korea-it has been the consistent policy of our subcommittee to permit no new projects to be started.

Mr. HOLMES. In the policy that the committee pursues in permitting no new projects to be started, do they investig~te first the necessity and the speed of amortization of the project?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. We have not done that in the last 3 years because of the previous decision that had been made that we would simply not appropriate money for any new starts.

Mr. HOLMES. Could you give any estimate as to how long the committee will take that attitude?

Mr. DAVIS. of Wisconsin. I would hope that the committee would continue to take that attitude as long as the war in Korea continues, with the shortages of critical materials, and so long as so much of the key personnel of the Corps of Engineers is required for military construction, and so long as the Federal Government budget continues to be unbalanced.

Mr. HOLMES. Then the committee would not give consideration to the fact that a project might in itself be necessary to help prosecute that war?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Oh, we have had this policy from downtown of certifying certain projects for defense, as defense necessities. I might say that in the 3 years I have been sitting in the hearings of this subcommittee we have never been too much impressed with the certification that we have received on that score.

Mr. HOLMES. You have not been impressed with the certifications?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Not particularly.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? .

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I yield. Mr. HARRIS. On the point that was

brought up a p}oment ago about new

projects, does the committee have any policy as to what is a new project?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin·. This year we regarded a new project this: If the entire project was new, if it represented substantially a new portion of an overall project, or if it represented a resumption of a project after a lapse of more than 1 year.

Mr. HARRIS: I have in mind a particular project, a dual-purpose project in my district in Arkansas, which was authorized and on which $13 million or more has been appropriated, the reservoir and dam constructed. As I say, it was a dual-purpose project, flood control and power. The power portion of it, the dam, is all completed. The flood control part of it below the power dam is being interpreted by someone-I cannot find out just who--as a new project, when it will take only about $400,000 more to complete it and.get the flood control benefit that is so badly needed. As it is now, we do not get flood control benefit although it started as a dual purpose project, power and flood control. But the flood control part of the project is constantly being held as a new project. Both projects were authorized at the same time. I have made an effort now for several years to try to find out just why the balance of the project is not considered to be part of the over-all project instead of being a new project. I just wondered from the answers the gentleman · has given here interpreting what is meant by a new project what would be the situation in regard to the project I have in mind.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I would take from what the gentleman has said that it did not come before our subcommittee, that it was not approved by the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. HARRIS. I appeared before the subcommittee. A member of the gentleman's committee was there. I brought it to the attention of the committee. The gentleman was busy with the other committee in the other room. The matter was brought to the attention of the gentleman's committee. It did have approval of the budget when it was originally started, but about the time the rule on new projects was again invoked it was again held to be a new project and therefore it was cut out.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. We did not exercise our subcommittee judgment on projects of that nature if the Bureau of the Budget did not submit the projects to us.

Mr. HARRIS. One other question with reference to planning as included in your report under general investigation, what is the full interpretation of the language that this is a new appropriation item which provides primarily for survey and studies prior to authorization? Does that mean that this .item goes only for those projects under study before they are originally submitted to Congress for authorization?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Those are what we generally refer to as examination and surveys, which authorized by

-law or by resolution of the Public Works Committee. They are prior to authori

·- zation of the projects for construction.

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 5591 Mr. HARRIS. And prior to the actual

authorization of the project by the Congress making it, of course, available for apprQpriations when the committee could approve funds for it.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. They are authorized for survey purposes, by resolution of the Public Works Committee and not by the Congress as a whole.

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman,· will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I yield. Mr. GEORGE. I realize the tremen

dous problem the gentleman and his associates are faced with as members of this committee. The gentleman will no doubt recall that in 1951 our State suffered possibly a greater loss than any

· combination of States lias ever suffered in the United States in the tremendous tlood of that year. In looking through this bill I see that we are no nearer solving our problem than we were in 1951. Under the program of no new starts which has been in force, I believe the gentleman stated, for ·3 years, one river and one watershed district that was under consideration has been stopped from getting appropriations frpm the Bureau of the Budget. . . Does the gentleman have any idea when those "new starts will take place? It seems to me that a State that has suffered a billion dollars of :flood loss should possibly have some consideration or perhaps special consideration.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I am not in a position to state when that policy is .to be changed other than to reiterate the comments that I made in response to a previous question along the same line. That is, when the world situation and our fiscal situation are different from what they are.

Mr. GEORGE. I doubt if either one will ·improve until we have another flood at least as big as the last one we had and as long as our condition exists as it does now we have nothing to do but to dump our water on Missouri and Oklahoma.

Mr. WITHROW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. WITHROW. I want to commend my colleague from Wisconsin for his very fine presentation. There is one thing I would like to have clarified in my own mind. I would like to know when a project enters the planning stage? I have . in mind, as the gentleman knows, two projects in Wiscqnsin, the Pecatonica flood-control project and the Kickapoo flood-control , project. Preliminary surveys have been completed on those two projects. Now, is the next survey to be made a planning survey?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. The result of the preliminary survey would be reviewed by the Corps of Engineers and if their preliminary survey appears to be favorable, then, the next step would be authorization for construction of the project. After that planning funds would be requested specifically for that project before our subcommittee.

Mr. WITHROW. I understand, I think. Those planning funds, the gentleman states, his subcommittee will not earmark?.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. We do earmark planning funds. We do not earmark survey and examination funds.

Mr. WITHROW. Then if a survey is to be completed, the Corps of Engineers must give it a priqrity?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. That is correct.

Mr. WITHROW. And the money is appropriated and given to the Corps of Engineers, they to designate the surveys they feel should be completed?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. That is correct. I think it is fair to say that the Corps has a large backlog of requested surveys for which they have not had the money to proceed as rapidly as they would like.

Mr. WITHROW. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. FARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. FARRINGTON. The gentleman is well aware of my interest in the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific because of my correspondence with him and from testimony before the committee that I gave. That prompts me to ask upon what basis the committee reduced the amount for maintenance and operation of cemeteries by $197,000, page 2 of the report, and just how that will affect the cemeteries where additional maintenance is very seriously needed?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. We tried to explain that in the second paragraph on page 2 where we have .attempted to limit their administrative personnel and have suggested to them that we feel they could make better use of mechanized equipment instead of as much manpower as they are now using.

Mr. FARRINGTON. I assume the gentleman takes into account the peculiar conditions which apply in that partic"4-lar cemetery?

Mr. DAVIs· of Wisconsin. I visited the cemetery that the gentleman has in mind and I think it is adaptable to the use of mechanized equipment.

Mr. FARRINGTON. I do not want to belabor the gentleman's point of view, but I am afraid that unless additional maintenance is provided, the condition of that cemetery will continue to de-~ teriorate to the shame of the Congress.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I do not think you will find the l:!Ubcommittee intended to reduce ordinary maintenance operations. · It is on some of their planning and development sections and administrative personnel that this cut is to be applied.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. The gentleman has listed in the report, on page 6, 10 projects for which planning money is · recommended. I note the gentleman has stated that the certification of defense needs and that sort of thing has not made much of an impression on the committee, but I would like to ask how many .of these 10 projects have been certified as being in the interest of national detense.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I would assume that there would be a national defense need on all of the 30 or 35 that were submitted in the budget request for pl:imning. The remark that I made earlier was with respect to construction funds, many times that were dragged in at the last minute, and those were the projects on which I questioned the real sincerity of the defense certification.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. We appreciate. the committee must exercise its discretion, but I am anxious to know 1 or 2 other things. Of these 10 projects, how many, if any, have had assertions or assurances of local contributions? I note the committee has mentioned the need for more local contributions on projects.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I believe it is fair to say that assurances satisfactory to the Corps of Engineers will be given in all of those cases where it is required.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. That is, that there will be local contribution?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. In the cases that it would ordinarily be required in; yes. In multiple-purpose dams, for instance, there is no local contribution.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I understand that. But with respect to flood-control projects, you do have assurances that there

· will be local contribution? Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Well, we

certainly are not going to provide construction funds unless we have very definite assurances by the time the matter reaches the appropriation stage.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. The gentleman has been most generous with his time, but I would like to ask one more question. In connection with these 10 some projects, or in connection with any of the projects we have had under consideration, the gentleman mentioned some 30, have any of them been in the budget heretofore? Has the budget recommended planning money, has planning begun, and then has the committee now refused to recommend further planning money? I have reference to one particular proj· ect where some $200,000 of planning money has been expended, the budget has recommended another $100,000 for the next fiscal year, and yet the committee, for good reasons, I assume, has not placed it in this bill. Can the gentleman explain that situation?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I am sure that is true with respect to quite anumber of those that have not been allotted planning funds in this report, but we tried to pick out those that in our judgment represented items of greatest economic benefit.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. i: am sure of that. I just wanted to make sure that the particular project I have reference to was not treated any differently than other projects which came before the committee.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I assure the gentleman that these appropriations were made on the basis of a precon-ceived plan and that we did not pick and choose on the basis of any consideration other than that.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. In other words, there are other projects where planning work has been done but now will be halted bec~.use of the action taken by the committee.

5592 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.- HOUSE May 26

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I am not certain that is true, . because there remains a large amount of unobligated planning fund available to the Corps, which the committee has not earmarked.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I have reference to Eagle Gorge Dam in the State of

. Washington, as the gentleman knows. Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield? Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I yield to

the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. GAVIN. I note the report says

that-Generally speaking, the reduction made by

the committee has been achieved by application of unexpended and unobligated balances on the individual projects so as to provide funds which can be economically expended during fiscal year 1954.

Can the gentleman tell me approximately what that amount was, the unexpended and unobligated balances that you took over in an attempt to reduce the overall appropriation?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Where there were unobligated and unexpended balances on these s:Pecific projects the funds were applied to those specific projects. The budget recommends that $10 million of surplus funds be applied to the construction program. We were confident there was more such money available, so we have taken $15 million of funds held in suspension and have allocated them as a part of the appropriations in this bill.

Mr. GAVIN. Who determines whether or not they shall take those funds?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. We determine what they should take, and in the other cases the Corps of Engineers informs us as to projects which had been completed and they had some money left over, bless their hearts, or in other places where it was not feasible or advisable to continue with the construction, the money was taken out of that place of suspension and made available as a part of the $15 million.

Mr. GAVIN. Those who may be interested in the different projects that remain uncompleted and for which appropriations have been made may differ with the Engineers as to taking that money a way from a particular overall flood-control project. We have no recourse, then, except to accept the determination of the Engineers that .they are going to take that money away, even thought it has been appropriated and established for a particular project?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. My understanding is that this money was not taken from those projects, that it was taken from projects which had been completed at less than the estimated cost, or projects for which it was not found feasible to · use the money for some reason or other so that proceeding with the construction was not economically feasible at this time.

Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished former chairman of this committee, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr: CANNoNl, such time as he may require.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the committee, the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.

·DAvis] has well said-and no one within

my recollection has discharge'd the duties of that position better than the gentleman from Wisconsin-this bill has come to be widely known as the pork-barrel bill.

There could be no greater misnomer. While it is true that· in this bill as in any other general appropriation bill, and I might say in every other general appropriation bill, there have been vast sums of money appropriated which were unwarranted and in many respects wasted, the Government has received from money carried in this bill from year to year, as great a benefit as it has received from money appropriated for any other civilian purpose. Generally speaking, no money appropriated in any bill has been better invested. It is also the vehicle through which the Federal Government provides money to remedy injustices and to right losses which have been occasioned by the Government itself under its all-embracing power of eminent domain in the improvement of the waterways of the Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I did not write this bill. If I had written it, it would have been considerably different. I believe I can also say, Mr. Chairman, that would be true in tb.e case of any other Member of the House of Representatives. If every Member of the House had been given carte blanche to write this bill, as he personally thought it ought to be written, and as he would endeavor honestly and fairly to write i~we would have 435 separate bills, no two of which would be identical. This . bill, therefore, does not conform entirely to the views of any member of the committee. It is not as a whole acceptable to . any Member of the House and for that reason we can safely support it as a general composite of the views of the House and of the needs and purposes of the agencies it supplies.

Mr. Chairman, one of the turning points in the economic history of the United States was the adoption in 1913 of the 16th constitutional amendment. Up until that time, the Federal Government had been closely restricted in revenues with which to carry out essential Federal purposes. Finally in desperation, because of the growing need for money which could not be brought in under current constitutional provisions, we passed the 16th amendment giving the Federal Government the right to levy income taxes.

The result was astounding. Instantly there poured into the coffers of the Federal Treasury such a golden stream as never had been anticipated. None of those who had so carefully studied the proposal for many years before it was finally adopted foresaw the vast amount of money that could be and would be provided for the use of the Government under its right to impose income taxes.

Money flowed in at an unprecedented rate. Naturally, we began to spend it in · the same way. Millions were spent for purposes for which it had previously been impossible to appropriate thousands. And that was especially true pf purposes carried by this bill. As a result there developed a psychology of spending which swept through all branches of the Government. It is interesting and

informative to compare the general appropriation bills before the adoption of the amendment with those following the adoption of the amendment. And the world wars accelerated the process. We expanded appropriations to meet war emergencies expecting to return to former rates of expenditure only to find that the close of the wars brought no retrenchment and peacetime expenditures exceeded war expenditures. Everybody seemed to have the idea that the Federal Treasury was bottomless and increasing the Federal income was mere-_ ly a matter of increasing Federal appropriations.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentle- . man from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. And to make sure they got the money, they put on the withholding tax, did they not?

Mr. CANNON. The gentleman is an authority on that subject and is doubtless taking steps to do something about it.

The golden stream continued to fiow in, swollen by expanding war incomes.

And along with the idea of boundless national revenues there developed the idea that every State and every congressional district was entitled to its share, and States and districts vied with each other in submitting million dollar projects. Government engineers, ambitious ~tatesmen, canny contractors, and obliging budget bureaus cooperated to bring in fantastic millenniums. And before we knew it we had piled up a backlog of surveys, planning projects, and construction programs, which. as the chairman of the committee has so graphically demonstrated by this chart here before ~s. as will when completely under way require not millions but billions. As demonstrated conclusively by the chart before us, expenditures at the rate proposed, and approved will in a few years exceed national revenues for all purposes.

To complicate this situation, many projects as they near completion produced situations more serious than those ~hey proposed to remedy. For example, In my own State we conceived an ambitious program of deepening the Mis-.ouri River and providing a permanent channel which would open our river cities to inland waterway commerce and make them in effect ports of entry. Vast sums of money were spent annually by tpe Federal Government in dikes, dams, retards, revetments, and levees only to find that the project was impracticable and the only effect was to so obstruct the channel that the water was thrown out over the banks and lands never before subject to overflow were inundated, denuded of crops, and covered with sand.

It has now become apparent that the plan is visionary and the larger part of the money spent on it has been worse than wasted, and with that in view the last Congress included in the conference report on this bill, the civil functions appropriation bill, the following paragraph:

The conferees are in unanimous agreement that the funds approved for the Missouri River from Kansas City to Sioux City, and

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE '5593 Kansas City to the mouth, ought to be used neers, and finally the Chief of Engineers, only for bank stabilization work. look into a ·project and approve it, do

This language repudiates JtnY further they take anything into consideration, idea of establishing a 9-foot channel in for instance, the national economy and the Missouri River, and directs that all the capacity for taxation, or do they future funds provided for this section of simply take that isolated case and dethe river shall be used exclusively for cide that it is feasible to be built? In bank stabilization. other words, do they disassociate them-

The subcommittee has found in its selves from the whole national picture hearings this year no occasion to change instead of trying to fit that into some its views or wishes in this respect; and kind of a national pattern by which the if no further action is taken on the sub- American taxpayers and the American

· ject by either House, this provision will Government can stand? govern the expenditure of all funds pro- Mr. CANNON. That is a very pervided in this bill for that portion of the tinent question, and is directly in point Missouri River-that none of it shall be at this time. spent on a 9-foot channel, and that all The Board of Engineers, as the gentleof it shall be used exclusively for bank man has indicated, merely reports on the stabilization. · feasibility of the project. The Board

The appropriation for the Missouri makes no attempt to in any way evaluRiver is inadequate. I have urged a ate the effect of the project or the exlarger sum for this purpose on the penditure involved on the economy and grounds that the loss and destruction in the financial integrity of the Governthis section is due directly to the action ment. of the Government in obstructing the Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-natural :flow of the water in its futile man, will the gentleman yield? and fruitless effort to deepen the river Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentle-·and improve navigation. But the com- man from Alabama. mittee insists that appropriations must Mr. JONES of Alabama. Did I un-

. be curtailed. so we must make the · derstand the gentleman to state that most of what we have. At least we can planning was for the purpose of deterbe certain that the flow of the river will mining the economic ratio of cost to not be further hampered and such funds benefit? as are expended will be used to protect Mr. CANNON. One of the objects of the land. . it is to determine how· economically ad-

'Just a word on the effect of providing vantageous it would be and what is the · money for surveys and planning. Slir- ratio of cost to advantage?

veys cost only a few thousand dollars. But there is more to be taken into conIn the past almost any request for a sur- sideration than the feasibility of a provey was granted. But there are those ~ posed project and its cost ratio. who take the view that because small When I first became a member of the amounts have been provided for surveys Committee on Appropriations and had and plans, the committee and the Con- opportunity to observe the processing of

· gress is thereby committed to the con- a project, the question before the comstruction of projects costing millions of mittee · was whether the project was dollars. · needed and whether the money appro-

The purpose of surveys and plans is to priated for it w~u~d be well invested. If determine the practicability and merit so, the appropnatwn was usually made. of a project and the ratio of the ad- But for years now we have been exvantages to be derived from the com- · pending more than we tak~ i~. Pracpleted project to its cost. Repeatedly tical~y all t~ese approp1·~at10ns are the committee underwrites surveys and deficit expenditures. There IS no money plans and then pigeonholes them on the in the Treasury to pay them and ti:ey findings. ·As in the last Congress, for have to be added to the ever-growmg example, the committee after studying national debt. the plans submitted by the Board of So the question has ~hanged. The Engineers on the Tombigbee River found question now is whether we can get that the costs outran the benefits and along without them. And if so, the ap-

. although several years and large sums of propriation should not be made. money had been spent in the study, Mr. Chairman, along with the other directed that the project be permanently members of the committee I vote to re-

. abandoned. ject the request of colleagues for appro-It would be absurd to contend that be- priations with the greatest reluctance.

cause a project is among th,e many sur- The great proportion of them are desveyed and planned, the committee is un- perately needed. The money asked for . der obligations to construct it regardless . them would be well spent and in many of the findings on the merits of the instances would result in increased taxes proposition. Certainly it would be in e.nd revenues more than compensating contravention of the . practice of the the Government for the cost of con-committee and the Congress. struction. ·

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, will But I hope they will be patient with the gentleman yield? us and understand that as soon as we

Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentle- can balance the }>udget _and begin to pay man from California. our way, we can take them up and give

Mr. JOHNSON. I have had a little them real consideration. experience in dealing with harbor proj- We are confronted today by the most ects and :flood control projects, some of dangerous, the most expensive, and the which have been completed. I would most deadly military situation in our hislike to ask the gentleman, who is very tocy. Heretofore in all its wars the experienced in this, to answer this ques· . United States had before it only the tion: .When the Board of Army Engi- question of victory or defeat. l'oday we

are confronted with a war of extermination. If we lose, we lose the majority of our people, all our great cities, and we lose forever our form of government.

The war is being fought on many fronts, on the economic front as well as on the military front. We can lose the war without firing a gun. We can lose it by economic bankruptcy. We can lose it by voting here on this floor to appropriate money we do not have, for something we can get along without.

Mr. Chairman, at midnight tonight, at some disputed barrier, in s·ome :flaming town, on the scarred slope of some battered hill, young men-hardly more than boys-will give everything they have-for time and all eternity.

We voted to send them there. Can we not also vote here on this floor

this afternoon to back them up by denying expendit'!lres, however needed, in order to win the war on the economic front while they are winning it on the Korean front?

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, . I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. COON] •

Mr. COON. Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words in support of the committee's recommendation of $29,250,000 to be appropriated in the 1954 budget to continue construction of the Dalles lock and dam project.

I am naturally especially interested in this project because it is located in the district I represent in · Oregon. But I think the important thing to cohsi.der this afternoon is the importance of this project from the point of view of all the people and the welfare of the Nation as a whole.

Continued construction of the Dalles project is· needed as a national defense measure. The defense effort at this time urgently needs the productive capacity that the power from the Dalles Dam would give.

Continued construction of this project is also needed as an economy measure. · In the long run, the quick completion of this project will cost the people less than delaying it, and the present administration is certainly committed to a policy or· saving money.

It is my understanding that $21 million has already been spent in starting this dam. Any businessman knows that ·a job worth starting is a job worth finishing. You don't make a business go by buying inventory and then letting it lay in a warehouse. You do 'not make a farm profitable by buying a tractor and then letting it stand out in the rain. The taxpayers have spent $21 million in starting this job, and they are not going to get any return on either principal or interest until the job is finished.

The Dalles project will provide aninitial installation of 1,092,000 kilowatts of power generating capacity, and I am told the :first two units of 78,000 kilowatts each will go on the line in November 1957. This power is greatly needed in the defense effort. Secretary of the In .. terior Douglas McKay stated in a letter of April 29, 1953,""that any delay in the construction of the Dalles Dam will have an adverse effect upon production for defense in the tforthwest.

5594 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE May 26

The power from this project will make it possible ~ save money on national defense. It is well known that the cost of the Pacific Northwest hydroelectric power is reasonable, so t:qe materials produced by this power will give the taxpayers of this country more defense for less money. .

The e:tiects of the shortage of power upon national defense were made clear last winter when the water flowing in the Columbia River was at a low level. This shortage of water produced a shortage of power that forced important defense industries in the area to cut their output. This meant, for example, that three electric furnaces in a Portland steel mill were standing cold 22 hours a week, and losses in aluminum production in the Pacific Northwest were amounting to about 1,000,00.0 pounds daily.

I understand that present power prospects are that without the Dalles project coming into service as scheduled in 1957, there would be a bad shortage situation that year. The installation at this project on the present plan will go far toward meeting estimated future load requirements. Because this -project is so close to major load centers, particularly Portland, Oreg., and Seattle, Wash., the transmission costs and losses will be low.

Because the Dalles Dam is already under construction, generation there can be started sooner than at any other site offering as much power.

Finally, I think it is very important to point out that the money spent on this dam is not an ·expense, it is an investment-a reimbursable investment-and that $327 million out of a total of $348 . million that the project will cost will

· come back to the people with interest. And if the record on Bonneville Dam is any indication, the money will come back into the Treasury a lot quicker than present plans call for. The army engineers told me this morning that payments on principal, interest, and operating charges on Bonneville Dam come to about $3 million a year, while they are clearing about $6 million a year on the sale of power. So on that dam they are .taking in about twice what they need to keep up their payments.

To conclude, Mr. Chairman, the Dalles Dam is a job that has been started and should be finished. It is needed for defense, and cal} provide defense tools that are needed at reasonable cost. It will help to alleviate a critical and costly power shortage. And it is not an expense. It is an investment, and a good one. ·

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. HAND].

Mr. HAND. Mr. Chairman, there is no need of going over or even attempting to emphasize the excellent statement made by my friend from Wisconsin, the chairman of this subcommittee. He has in some detail given to the Members of the Committee of the Whole the approach the subcommittee felt it had to make in connection with these sensitive appropriations, not the approach that we would like to ma e under other circumstances; not the approach, indeed, that we might be able to make next year or the year after, but the approach that

we had to make this_ year in view of the unbalanced budget and the crushing burden of taxation and the emergency situation. which confronts us. So that I am not going to go into that again nor need I repeat what he said about the harmony and the hard work which I think was done by every member of this subcommittee, and the excellent work done by Frank Sanders, our executive clerk.

When I went to law school, a member of the faculty defined, not very well, but defined a good lawyer as a good index to a good legal library. That is not an accurate definition; but it serves to illustrate what I mean about Frank Sanders. He is a good index and a fast index to all the vast amount of information which has been accumulated over the years by the Committee on Appropria-tions. .

What I want to do, even though it may in some respects be considered out of harmony with the present approach of the committee with which I am in accord, is to indicate very briefly what I think of as guide posts for our future consideration on a bill of this kind.

Mr. Chairman, the bill now before you is a result of a great many weeks of hearings, and during those weeks your subcommittee averaged better than 6 hours a day in the continuous examination of both Government witnesses, Members of the Senate and of the House, and local interests.

With respect to the local interests alone, the subcommittee heard 650 witnesses, and the total hearings comprise 1,893 pages.

The legislation primarily involves scores of projects within the civil functions of the Corps of Engineers, some involving only a few thousand dollars and others involving in excess of $300 million.

The legislation contemplates appropriations for continuation of planning and surveys, for the continued construction of navigation projects on many of our great rivers, for flood control projects both local and regional. and for the huge multiple purpose projects which involve in one design, flood control, improvements to navigation, the production of hydroelectric power, and to some extent the irrigation and reclamation of agricultural lands.

In addition to the familiar civil functions section of the bill, it also includes the proposed appropriation for the Panama Canal, both the Canal Company and the Canal Zone Government, and other Governmerit activities, including the National Cemetery program, and the Soldiers' Home here in Washington.

'I'be money involved, as large as it is, is almost trifling when compared to some other appropriation bills which we have been or soon will be considering; but the scope of the bill is so varied and so detailed, that it would be quite impossible to-discuss it in any generalized remarks and within any reasonable limits of time.

I shall, therefore, confine my own remarks to two phases which I think are fundamental to the understanding of the problem, one dealing with the ap-

proach used . by your committee for the immediate problem, which is p_rovisions for the fiscal year 1954, the other the philosophy., if t may use that expression, which it seems to me the committee and the Congress should consider for the next and future fiscal years.

Now, with respect to the general rules which guided the committee in its present considerations. We sought to fol ..

· low, perhaps even a little too closely, the plans of the present administration as indicated by the Bureau of the Budget. For Members who are interested in details in this connection, I refer to part I of the hearings, pages 204 through 208, which include correspondence between the Director of the Budget, the Secretary of the Army, and the Chief of Engineers, commencing on February 3, 1953, and establishing certain general principles.

For example, the letter of Director Dodge dated February 3, 1953, says m part:

With respect to construction: It is the policy to proceed only with those projects which are deemed clearly essential in terms of the objectives of this administration and on such projects to employ the strictest standards of economy. Each department and agency head is therefore directed to:

(a) Review all proposed or authorized construction projects on which work has not yet begun, and to propose initiation of construction during the remainder of the fiscal year 1953 and the fiscal year 1954 only on those projects which be determines meet the above criteria.

(b) Review all going construction projects' in the light of the above criteria and take such action as he may deem appropriate, including action to stop the work.

With respect to all programs: It is the policy to operate at a minimum level of cost and expenditures. This policy requires that the necessity for all work be questioned and that action be taken to eliminate unnecessary programs and to hold the remainder to minimum levels.

A following letter from Earl D. Johnson, .the Under Secretary of the. Army, says:

1. You will eliminate all new starts and res~mption of projects and all new separate units of projects which have been previously started.

2. You will delay construction up to 1 year on larger projects where this can be done consistent with economical prosecution of the work by slowing down earnings on contracts already awarded and slowing up the award of additional contracts. The above should not be applied, however, to projects which are so near to completion that the delays in achieving anticipated benefits do not warrant the budgetary results which can be obtained.

As I indicated before, these were general guides laid down by the administration, which were not only followed perhaps too rigorously by the committee, but within such limitations the committee very substantially reduced the amounts allocated by the Bureau of the Budget, even under those restricted criteria.

I need hardly interpolate that the work of the committee is dtlllcult in the extreme, and in some degrees highly unpleasant. We were dealing time and time again with projects of undoubted merit, projects very close to the hearts of the people in the a:tiected communities and, indeed, very close to our friends

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 5595 and colleagues in the House. It is not agreeable to eliminate or reduce such projects, but if we are sincere in our frequently stated position that the expenditures of the Federal Government must be reduced,' and that tax relief must take place, and that the budget must be balanced, we cannot frustrate these broad and important objectives of national policy by making exceptions in this or any other bill. It may and probably will be argued that we have very recently · violated this principle of reduction of expenditures, and my only answer to that is that such violation was not the work of or responsibility of this subcommittee.

There are items in this bill of which I do not approve, and there are iteins omitted in this bill which I should like to see in it, but it seems to me that we have got to have a little bit of breathing space during the first year of this administration to see how far we can achieve the objectives of reducing expenditures, reducing taxes, balancing the budget, and a sound economy, and the attempt of this committee has, therefore, been along these lines. I ask your temporary indulgence because it is quite possible that when we can see daylight some of the things which the committee would like to do, and which the House would like to do, can be done.

GUIDEPOSTS FOR THE FUTURE I do want to respectfuliy suggest for

your consideration some of the guideposts which I think should mark our deliberations on this subject after we have had that breathing space. I do not suggest these as a blueprint for future action, but as almost random thoughts which are entitled to our study in planning the future of this whole program:

First. Planning and sttrveys: On February 14, 1953, Secretary Johnson pre-· pared a memorandum for the · Chief of Engineers in which, among other things, he said:

Recommendations presented in survey reports must be carefully screened against existing Federal policy and favorable action indicated only when the economics of the project are sound and consistent with the policy statements contained in the February 3 Bureau of the Budget directive; advance planning under way and proposed for fiscal year 1954 must be carefully analyzed and bear a reasonable relationship to the number of projects proposed for inclusion in yearly programs. This is one area in which it would be preferred to err on the safe side since expenditures for adeq-qate planning may save greater amounts for ac-tual construction, ·

I must confess I have a great deal of sympathy with this position. Planning and survey moneys in reasonably adequate amounts are very necessary, first, to permit us to evaluate any given project; second, on the assumption that careful planning ought to prevent waste and save money ih construction; and third, because I believe we should· have a reservoir of carefully screened and planned projects ready for the time when we will be in a position to .give more heed to our domestic economy and our domestic welfare. Such a reservoir of properly planned projects might also be vital in the event of any serious re-

cession in our present high rate of general business activities.

In this connection, however, I want to call to the attention of the Members that the present survey program bears no re ..

· lationship to common sense or to avail .. able moneys. There is no use whatever in deluding ourselves that, because we might obtain an action by the Public Works Committee to have a survey made, the survey ever will be made. There is an 8-year backlog of uncompleted surveys now, and the situation is not improving. If the members will refer to part I of the hearings, at page 214, ·and following pages, they will see listed by Chairman DAVIS a table of examinations and surveys which clearly proves this point. I invite your attention to my examination of General Chorpening on the question of navigation studies, on page 219, as follows: NUMBER OF NAVIGATION STUDIES TO BE MADE

IN 1954

Mr. HAND. You have in this budget requested $300,000 for replenishment of that fund for navigation studies; is that correct?

General CHORPENING. That is $900,000, Of which $300,000 we propose to apply to navigation; yes, sir.

Mr. HAND. On navigation studies alone you.. have outstanding requests for 378 surveys. Do I understand that to be the situation?

General CHORPENING. 378; yes, sir. Mr. HAND. You have 378 reports officially

requested by the Congress for navigation studies only?

General CHORPENING. Yes, sir. Mr. HAND. You contemplate in the coming

fiscal year working on only 11 studies; is that right?

General CHORPENING, Working on · 11 of those; yes, sir. ·

Mr. HAND. So that the program has bogged down completely, has it not? I mean what i.s the use of the Public Works Committee, or what is the use of Congress asking for further surveys if you are only gbing to do 11 out of 378? This is not critical of you. I am just trying to determine the situation. If you get the money you are requesting and do your 11 surveys, there wi.ll be the three hundred and sixty-odd still left at the end of the year; is that right?

General CHOR.PENING. It is obviously rather slow progress on the program.

Mr. HAND. I think that is an understatement, General. You have 378 reports officially requested by Congress, but this year you ask for only $900,000 in the revised budget, which includes both flood control and navigation, and in navigation projects you will only take up about 11?

General CHORPENING. Yes, sir. Mr. HAND. So, the resolutions really begin

and end with the committee. General CHoRPENING. That is correct. Mr. HAND. Moreover, if you do get re

ports back, there is still a backlog before the Public Works · Committees of 80 on which they have not acted; is that correct?

General CHoRPENING, Yes, sir, more than 80 favorable ones. ·

Mr. HAND. In effect, we are doing quite a little shadow boxing with this program, are we not?

General CHORPENING. It is not a live program on the basis that we are proceeding.

Mr. HAND. When one of the Members of the House goes to the Public Works Committee and asks them for a resolution directing some survey of a project in his district, he is kidding himself under the present circumstances. ·

Mr. POFF. Mr ~ Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAND. I yield to my friend, the · gentleman from Virginia. ..

Mr. POFF. Do any of these 10 proj .. ects listed on page 6 of the report, which have received an allocation for planning money, have a cost-benefit ratio equal to or less than 1.4?

Mr. HAND. My recollection is very certain that they do. That is,-they are all in excess of that benefit ratio and many of them are substantially in excess of it. May I add I 'have a project in my - district which has a benefit-cost ratio of 16 to 1 and it is not being processed.

Mr. POFF. I thank the gentleman. Mr. HAND. Resuming my statement,

I want to call to the attention of the Members the present survey program which it might be worth while for the Members to hear. The present survey program bears no relationship to common sense or to available money. · There is no use whatever in deluding ourselves that because we might obtain action from the Committee on Public Works to · have a survey made that that survey ever will be made or will be made withln a reasonable time. There is an 8-year backlog of surveys now and the engineers are not able to catch UP. on that backlog. They are still as far behind as they were a couple of years ago. I will not have time to go into detail about that, but there are 337 surveys pending which will not be done in any reasonable time in the future. The Members may want to look at the colloquy between the committee and General Chorpening on that subject, which is on page 218 of the hearings. Suffice to say that the survey program in which almost all of us are interested to some extent is not a live program in the words of General Chorpening.

Mr. LECOMPTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAND. I yield. Mr. LECOMPTE. Why does the gen

tleman say it is not a live program. The House could furnish the money to order a survey at any time, could it not?

Mr. HAND. The House could furnish the money, but it could not afford the money to take care of the surveys. I am coming to that question shortly.

Mr. LECOMPTE. We could insist upon the surveys if we wanted them.

Mr. HAND. We could, indeed. We could do one of two things to facilitate this program. One is to appropriate about ten times as much money for planning and surveys, but by far the more sensible approach, at least now, is to reduce the number of plans and surveys which are now authorized.

Mr. LECOMPTE. You mean deau .. thorize some of them?

Mr. HAND. I mean that many of them should be deauthorized if they are no longer current, or no longer of great benefit.

T.hat brings me to a point which I hope to refer to later, and that is in all projects, either local or regional, if we would require by law that local interests contribute a substantial part of the funds required for planning, we would not only cut Federal expenses materially, but. we would assure ourselves that the locality involved is really interested and the project has real ·merit which they are willing to back with their own money. We would eliminate a lot of planning


which is without merit and done largely for political purposes. On those, of course, it is a legislative problem, and I take the liberty of suggesting that the Public Works Committee continue its scrutiny of the· whole program, eliminating projects which no longer have merit, or are no longer current; carefully screen new ones, and insist upon a degree of local cooperation and expense sharing.

Secondly, I suggest that we cannot forever relate all of our planning and construction of civil projects to the socalled defense effort. With all of you, I sincerely pray for an early termination of the hostilities in Korea and the restoration of stable and peaceful relationships in the world, but even if we· are frustrated in that desire in the immediate or near future, we cannot forever neglect important domestic planning here at home. In this same connection, I

· suggest that while for the most part I approve of our efforts to eliminate new starts for this coming fiscal year, I at the same time suggest that this is not always a valid criteria. Some projects; regarded as new starts, may well be immensely more important than the continuation of projects fortunate enough to have been started heretofore.

Thirdly, I would say I am afraid in our preoccupation with the enormous and costly multiple projects involved, principally :flood control and hydroelectric power, that we are neglecting the primary and historic function of the Corps of Engineers to maintain and improve the tremendously important navigation facilities of our rivers, lakes, and inland waterways. I should not burden you with figures, but if you care to study the problem, you will find that the transportation tonnage now carried by our inland waterways is nothing less than astonishing, and .habitually exceeds every estimate that the engineers make.

Fourth. And I hesitate to say this because I shall certainly be accused of provincialism, I feel that in all fairness we are bound to pay a little bit more attention to that section of our great land which lies east Of the Mississippi River. I should hate to calculate the percentage of the money involved in this bill which is spent in or on the Atlantic coast. It is infinitesimal, and yet the Atlantic Coast States pay a very large ·part of the Federal tax bill. Do not misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that projects be located in the East just because they ought to get their share of Federal spending, that is merely a pork-barrel approach. I realize, of course, that the East does not have, generally speaking, the problems nor the geography which would warrant some of the construction we are now engaged in, as on the Mississippi, Ohio, or the Pacific Northwest but I am seriously suggesting that in or~ der to support the millions which we are spending in other sections, we are being very niggardly with the important navigation facilities near the Atlantic coast and are, among other things, doing nothing whatever about the beach-erosion problems of our great coastal cities and towns notwithstanding the legislative authority for such protection passed by

the 79th Congress. My people insist that We are negotiating claims of Indian salt water is just as wet as fresh water, tribes, because we violate their fishing and if it is necessary to protect the town rights and other inherent rights, all preof A in Minnesota from the occasional sumably resulting from treaties that, in :floods of a river, it is equally important one instance that I know of, are suggestto protect the town of B on the coast of· ing payments of $16 Inillion for a comNew Jersey from occasional :floods by the paratively small group. This may be ocean, especially when the town of B simple justice, or it may be unjust enoften has far more valuable ratables to richment. All I know is that one payprotect. ment to one Indian tribe would take care

Fifth. Speaking of beach-erosion leg- of all the Federal money that I ever hope islation reminds me of what I think is to see spent in New Jersey by the Fedthe most important subject of all, and eral Government for many years to that is that if we are to continue this come. meritorious but extremely expensive They are building, as you know, the Federal program we must establish a most elaborate contrivances to help the formula that is not discriminatory and is salmon leap up the Columbia River, 'in equitable, and which would require in spite of evidence that the salmon crop most cases a far greater degree of local has not materially declined even after contribution than presently exists. I years of huge dam construction. I like have had many witnesses tell me that the salmon, and I certainly am not unnational .economy can affor~ such and friendly to the salmon industry, but I such an Improvement. I thmk the na- ' am tempted to think it might be cheaper tiona! economy can; the question is to buy all the packing plants and liquiwhether the Federal Treasury can or date them, and do without this delicious ought. fish, rather than to build ladders and

There is no rhyme or reason for the other contrivances for the convenience present formula for local contribution. of their homecoming. Region A will hugely benefit from a $300 You know that when we condemn land million multiple-purpose project built for building a dam, we again lease the at the ent~re cost _of the Federal Govern- same land for agricultural purposes, ment; region B Will make some contribu- even though it is subject to the occasiontion by way of lands and easements; real :flooding. That may sound like good gion C will make a substantial cash con- business on the surface, but did you also tribution. There is no equitable formula know that we promptly give 75 percent which applies to them all alike. More- of the proceeds of these leases back to over, while the national economy is cer- the States involved for the use of local tainly benefited to a degree by the con- schools and other purposes. Thus we struction that we are undertaking in this have Federal aid to education in a big bill, it is also true that the local :floodway. c~>ntrol district, levee districts, and re- In Panama we pay 25 percent addigiOnal areas seeking benefits including a tional compensation to employees in the cheap and plentiful electricity, are ben- zone, apparently still on the 1900 theory efited far more. Is ther~ any reason that it is an undesirable place to live. ~hy they s~ould not contribute accord- In addition to that, we have been rentmgly? I thmk not. It may well be that ing Government-owned houses costing the Co?gress, in a far less generous mood $25,000 to $30,000 for a fraction of what when It passed the beach-erosion acts, rents would be in the States. In addih8:d esta~lished a _standard w?ich we tion, we charge the minimum or nothing ~ght use _for ~ gmde. You Will recall for hospital services, so that one small m that l~gislatiOn the c~mm';lnity to be hospital suffers $500,000 loss annually. ~ffected IS not only required m the first In addition to that, for a population of mstance to put up 50 percent of the cost approximately 50,000 and within a maxof the s~rvey, but th~reafter is required imum of 1 hour's travel distance, we to contn~ute two-thirds of the cost of have four different hospitals, one of constructiOn and all of the subsequent which is about one-half filled or less maintenan?e·. Maybe this is .~ot the for- So I could go on, but you have my asmul~, but _It IS perhaps a gmde fo_r o~r surance that the committee is energetico~sideratiOn of some form~la which IS cally working on all of these problems, fair to the local commumty and less and with the completion of this bill I costly to. the Federal Government. hope that our work will be just begln-. Now, JUSt a few more scattered com- ning, because the important thing is to ments, and I a:m done .. In many of our plan an overall program which is conJ:uge dam proJects we, m the construe- structive, fair, and economical. t10n of the dam, :flood almost as much I hope the time will come, and soon, value as we seek to protect. . . when the drastic revision of our foreign

I a~ bound to say that I am d1ssa~1~- policy and a great reduction in expendi~ed With the value set on the a?qUisi- tures made in connection with it, will t10n of land by the C?rps of Engmeers. permit us to spend more money, not less, I have hardl_y seen an mstance where we on works which are vital to our domestic ~re not paymg top value, and I susp~ct economy. But when that day does come, In many cases far more than the gomg we ought to be ready with a formula market value. which will require far greater local and

We are involved in relocations of regional cooperation than now is rebridges, highways, and railroads, which quired, and which will eliminate extravsometimes amount to as much as the agant expenditures which have inevitanew p~oject. Presumably, this is mostly bly crept into this far-:flung program. unavoidable, but when I see a highway Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield. relocated at an approximate cost of $1 myself 5 minutes. million 3: mile! I must wonder whether Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chair-some savmg might not be effected. man of the subcommittee and the distin-

1953~ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - .HOUSE 5597 guished ranking minority Member and former chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, have so well explained this bill that it Js not necessary for me to go into too much detail. ,

However, I want to express my ap· preciation to the subcommittee chair· man, my colleagues and the staff, for the courtesy and consideration which they have evidenced in the hearings; for the sincere, impartial, and objective views that they have taken in regard to the requests made; for the long hours that they have met and worked in order to meet the time schedule which was set up to bring this bill on the floor of the House.

These colleagues of mine have resolved a very difficult job.

It is hard to defer the requests of your colleagues, people with whom you have to work every day; but this committ~e has been deeply concerned with the high tax rate under which our citizens are laboring today and the high cos.t of government which made that high tax rate necessary. In presenting this bill to you, Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee has kept in mind your concern about the tre· mendous and burdensome government costs of the day. Many worthy projects. were presented to the committee, proj· ects that are vitally needed, projects that would help commerce, projects that would affect the floodwaters that are so destructive, projects that would save beach erosion, projects that would bring power into being by harnessing that wasting power which runs down our great rivers, dredging the harbors so our ships could come in and go out, and numerous other projects in regard to the waterways. But all of them involve costs, and this committee at your re-

, quest, and we believe with the backing and approval of the taxpayers of this Nation, deferred all of these projects that they conscientiously could defer without involving additional heavy costs in connection with the deferment.

I was very much surprised in making the study-this is my first year on this particular subcommittee-to find that more ·than 20 percent of all the bulk

· freight of this country moves along the inland waterways and inland rivers of this Nation-gasoline, coal, and iron ore, among other products--and because of the cheap rate involved in moving over these waterways great benefit is derived by having cheap gasoline and reasonably priced steel and coal.

You who are disappointed because you did not get the project that you. were interested in, I feel sure, must agree with your subcommittee that the first concern of this great body is to defend this Nation from those lustful foreign leaders who would attempt to take over our Nation and use it for their own greedy desires, who would destroy our form of government, who would destroy the great wealth we have built up, the great progress we have made. It is because of that we ask you to cooperate with us in deferring everything· that can possibly be deferred, things that · we know are needed, things that would prove to be good investments but things

XCIX---352

tha.t can be deferred in view of this major problem which is before us.

My colleagues have touched on the overall problem of developing our nat .. ural resources particularly as regards the waterways. I want to concur with them in the suggestions they have made in regard to this. The program is di· vided and ncoordinated; at least four of the admimstrative divisions of the Gov· ernment have a hand in forming a pro· gram and a policy for our waterways: The Army engineers, the Interior Department, the Department of Agriculture, and the Federal Power Commission. This program needs to be· coordinated; we need an overall program so that this Congress and the taxpayers of the Nation can know what this program is costing, and just what the program is, and just what will be accomplished when the program is completed. More definite planning, more detailed planning, so the proper committees of the Congress can reasonably evaluate the benefits that will be derived from these particular projects in line with the demand of the public for drastic economy until our defense expenses can be reduced. Again I plead with you to go along with the committee and defer everything that can be deferred until ·our international problems can be re-solved and we can once again take up these worthy projects and make proper provision for the development of our natural resources. But first of all, I believe you will agree we must defend our right and our privilege and our opportunity to take care of these resources by properly taking care of our defense.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CEDERBERG].

Mr. ALLEN of California. Mr. Chair· man, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CEDERBERG. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ALLEN of California. I had intended to propound a question of the gentleman from New Jersey before he finished his remarks. If I may, I will ask him a question now. Can the gentleman tell me with regard to the pay limitation for Panama Canal workers whether the investigation of the 15-percent reduction has been fully deter· mined, and fully heard, or whether he thinks there might be some necessity for a further hearing, particularly before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, of which the gentleman was formerly a member.

Mr. HAND. I would say to my friend from California that so far as our subcommittee is concerned, we feel that we gave the problem a great deal of careful attention. I may say further that, of course, we recognize it is a legislative problem. I am not aware of any other general hearings that have been held on the overall subject, either with respect to Panama or other foreign services and, speaking for myself, I would be delighted to see the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries give further consideration to the problem. I ain satisfied there ought. to be a reduction, but it certainly would not hurt to give the whole problem further legislative study

!n addition to the attention th~t we gave 1t. Does that answer your question?

Mr. ALLEN of California. It does. . Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Chairman, as

a new Member of this House, I want to say that it has been a real pleasure for me to serve on this subcommittee of the APJ?ropriations ~ommittee. I was very delighted to realize that here is a place where there is very little partisanship. These projects have been looked at from a nonpartisan point of view and have been weighed solely on their merits and without any political considerations.

I have also found that being a member of this particular subcommittee is a great opportunity to make no friends and influence no people. I have no illusions I will do so this afternoon because all of us have these particular pet projects and the great majority of them are very, very worthy projects. · We listened to the testimony of the Corps of Engineers and we had people who were interested in their particular projects from all over the United States take up their time and pay their own money to come here and tell us of the particular problems in their own areas. As I say, we have had projects brought before us which are worthy and which have a great deal of merit.

However, there is a limitation as far as the United States Government is concerned as to how far it can go in this particular field or, as far as that is concerned, in any other field. I may say that in these particular hearings we have heard various people throughout the United States and I have never heard a group that has been more interested in economy, but it has always been false economy to ~ouch their particular project. I came to this Congress as an advocate of economy, but I am no longer for economy; I am for false economy. I think we are going to have to be that way or we will not remain solvent. As a matter of fact, I do not believe we are solvent at the present time.

I believe before this bill is passed that we are going to hear a great many arguments for particular projects on the point of view that we are spending a great many billions of dollars in foreign aid; we are spending money here for projects throughout the whole world, so why can we not spend a little bit of it at home. I believe there is a good deal of merit in that argument, and I think we ought to do something about the foreignaid proposition to a degree, because as far as I am concerned, two wrongs will never make a right.

In the hearings before the committee the matter of local participation was brought out. That is something that ought to be explored, because on many of these projects, when it comes right down to it, the question of whether or not the individual in the area is concerned in putting up his own money or a portion of his own money is the true test as to the worthiness of a particular project. In many areas where that test is made the requirement of money is not forthcoming, and therefore the merits of the pro-ject as determined by the people who will benefit by it are sometimes questionable. We have also the


question or problem about ' harbors through ut the United States, as well as the depth of harbors, and certainly we have many worthy projects along those lines, many of which have been brought before this particular committee. But, you know our shipping interests are building lar-ger boats and they are building boats which will carry much greater tonnage and therefore draw more water, and I think something in the years to come is going to have to be done along those lines so that there can be adequate coordination, because we realize that this vital industry is involved in this particular field.

Then, of course, we have the projects of these great dams in the West and in the Northwest many of which are built primarily for power and secondary for :tlood control. I think this is an area in which there can be a great deal of study made because as far as I am concerned personally I ·am not much of a public power man. I believe that there probably are areas where the Federal Government can be involved in the production of power but the distribution of power, and some of the other areas involved ought to be studied with a great deal of consideration. I think this is the time when a great number of the Members of the House are going to have to stand up and be counted in these matters of economy. As I say, you certainly eannot blame the Members of the House for doing what they can for the particular districts from which they come in- regard to their projects, but there is going to have to be a tightening of the belt, and we will have "to tighten it all the way around so far as I can see. Maybe I should not be too happy about this, but nevertheless we, in the State of Michigan, are great contributors to the Federal Treasury, yet I dare you to find one cent, other than for maintenance and operation of particular projects in Michigan, 'for our State. There is not one cent in this bill for our particular State, and we have needs there as well as there are needs anywhere else. But, so far as ·I am concerned we are able to take our cut and I hope you gentlemen will go along with us on this bill because it is a good bill. I could not hope to match the eloquence of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CANNON] in his plea to the House today as far as giving prime consideration to the fiscal condition of our great country, because if we lose our own particular way of life by going bankrupt, and we can, then all of these projects will mean very little. So, let us give consideration to these things and do what we can for this particular bill. I know that in many instances it is going to be a little hard because we have particular projects involved. I want to say again it has been a pleasure for me to be a member of this committee and to have a part in this particular bill.

Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. SELDEN].

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of the Members this afternoon a project for which an appropriation is not included in the bill now under consideration.

·This project is the proposed Warrior lock and dam which, when built, will be an important link in the WarriorTombigbee Waterway, and will be located in the Sixth District of Alabama which I have the privilege of representing.

In the original budget estimates for the fiscal year 1954, funds amounting to $1,900,000 were included for construction on the Warrior lock and dam. However, this sum was eliminated in therevised budget estimates and was not restored by the Civil Functions Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

· river wall and would require closure of the river to traffic for a period of about 1 year.

At lock 8 the structure is similar to lock 9, but apparently in somewhat better COI?-di· tion. The dain is in fair condition and has been recently faced with steel sheets on the upstream side. Subsequently, a leak has developed in a 50-foot section which would need facing with steel sheet piling. Except for the upstream sheathing, no part of the original crib dam was replaced. The lock being the same age and similar in construe· tion as at lock 9, it is believed that the same undermining exists but not as critical as at lock 9. The river wall of the lock does not move excessively when rubbed or struck by tows. There is at least 1 known hole under According to the information I have

been given by the Corps of Engineers, any appreciable delay in the construction of this dam to replace the now dilapidated locks 8 and 9 could result in a complete stoppage of navigation along the Warrior River for a period of months. If such a stoppage should occur, it would not only cause a serious setback in trade and commerce on this waterway, but the present movement of critical materials along the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway to and from the great steel producing center of Birmingham could be seriously impeded.

~ the land wall near the lower valves which is about 6 feet deep. In general, the leakage at this lock is such that for unwatering a hydraulic fill haB to be pumped around the lower end of the river wall from the dam downstream and across the lower end of the lock.

The building of the Warrior lock and · dam would further eliminate multiple lockages now required by this waterway, and would thereby reduce considerably the time of travel. This would, of course, speed up all water movements, including that of critical defense materials. At the same time, it would bring about a significant saving in transporta- · tion costs.

The construction of this proposed Warrior lock and dam would save annually an estimated $157,363 in operating costs alone by the elimination of antiquated locks 8 and 9. I received a report on the 28th of April of this year from the Corps of Engineers, stating the present condition of locks 8 and 9. In this report they state:

The present condition of lock 9 f:s ·considered very critical. The lock was unwatered during the low-water season of 1951 for e.mergency repairs to the lock flood to cut down on leakage. To accomplish this unwatering, it was necessary to pump a hydraulic fill completely around the river wall and across the upper and lower ends of the lock. Even with this hydraulic fill in place, unwatering was difficult. It was found that the entire river wall and the lock floor had been undermined to a depth of 3 to 4 feet, leaving the river wall supported only on the original timber piling. The wood sheet piling surrounding the river wall is in poor condition and in some locations missing entirely. While the river wall has not settled appreciably, it moves excessively when rubbed or struck by tows entering or leaving the lock.

The timber crib dam at lock 9 settled from 0.2 to 0.5 feet over a 75-foot section during the high-water season of 1949-50 after being rubbed by a tow attempting to navigate over the dam. Inspection during the next lowwater season revealed that the crest timbers have moved downstream and the original crib section of the dam is crushed. In general, the wood cribbing of this dam is from 33 to 50 percent wasted away due to deterio .. ration.

Due to the above-described very poor con .. dition of the entire structure at lock 9, it :!.s not believed practicable to repair ·it sufficiently to insure a. 10-year additional useful life. Any attempt to rehabilitate the lock would a.t least re.quire replacement of the

It is believed that this structure could be made reasonably safe for 10 years by repairing the leaking 50-foot section of the dam and repairing and reinforcing the lock by coffering it off, breaking out the · lock floor and placing steel sheet piling around the entire river wall, placing an additional row of piling along the inside of the river wall, and pumping concrete back under the wall and pouring a new toe to the wall to rest on the addftional row of piling. Steel sheet piling would also be placed along the inside edge of the land wall as determined to be necessary from inspection. It is estimated that this repair would necessitate closing the lock to traffic for a period of 4 months.

In summary, it is believed that to maintain navigation for 10 years over the Warrior River from the Demopolis pool to Tusca· loosa lock and dam, it will be necessary to either build the Warrior lock and dam or to replace lock and dam 9 with a new structure and rehabilitation lock and dam 8 as described above with a 4-month closure of the waterway.

The approximate cost of rebuilding lock No. 9 to present dimensions is an estimated $5,900,000. Although the Engineers report that lock 8 could be repaired the cost of repair is an estimated $750,000. In order to make the necessary repairs on lock 8, traffic interruption for 4 months during the repairing of this lock· is estimated to have a worth of $348,000. Therefore, in order to replace lock 9 and repair lock 8, it ·will be necessary to spend $6% million in the near future if the recommendations of the Corps of Engineers are followed. Under such a plan, the major benefits attributable to modernization and reduction of lockages would not be realized.

The cost of building the Warrior lock and dam, a modern structure 110 feet by 600 feet with a maximum lift of 22 Jeet, is estimated at $19 million: From a long range point of view, it is my opinion that it would be much better to begin construction on the proposed Warrior lock and dam than to incur the tremendous expense of repairing and rebuilding the old locks and dams. At the same time, in constructing the Warrior lock and dam, we will be continuing the program · of development already approved by the Congress for the development of the Warrior-Tombigbee River systems.

I presented most of this information to the Civil Functions Subcommittee on May 13, 1953. I feel sure the members of the subcommittee considered my report

1953 CONGRESSIONAL :RECORD- HOUSE 5599 carefully, and, if so, must realize not only the merit of this project but the urgency of beginning construction at the earliest possible date. ·

r understand the necessity of postponing many worthwhile projects while this country is attempting to arm the free world and at the same time stabilize our dollar. I have been assured by several members of the subcommittee that no appropriation has been made in the bill under consideration for new construction and that the Warrior lock and dam

· has been eliminated on that basis. Under the circumstances, I cannot at this time expect special consideration for this particular project if others are receiving the same treatment. Yet, I feel I would be remiss in my duty if I failed to point out the reasons for the u:rgency of constructing the Warrior lock and dam. I sincerely hope the condition of our budget may soon be such that both

· the committee and the House can favorably reconsider this project and that no serious emergency arises on this waterway in the meantime.

Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. HARDY].

Mr. HARDY~ Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss with the Members a project which is not in this bill and which ought to be in this bill. I base my argument that it ought to be in this bill not on the contention that my district should have consideration because of projects in some other district, not. on the contention that we ought to appropriate funds for domestic activities because we are spending money all over the world. I base my argument to support this project on good, sound, common sense from a fiscal standpoint because it will save money for all the taxpayers of this Nation. It is a project that involves the expenditure of $7,772,000. It is a project for which we need this year $4,500,000. It is a project that will take from 18 months to 2 years to complete. · It is a project that has been under study and planning for approximately 10 years. It was authorized I think, in the 79th Congress before I was elected. The Craney Island Disposal Basin would serve directly the constituents of three Virginia Congressional Districts. It will serve directly or indirectly every citizen of the Nation because of its essentiality to the Navy. ·

This is a project to provide a disposal area for material dredged from the Hampton Roads Harbor and its tributaries. Last year I offered an amendment to the bill pending then, because

• at that time it was estimated that the situation would become critical in about 18 months to 2 years from then. I was unsuccessful at that time., I think we made a mistake in not approving it then. We should have provided the funds last year, but it i~ urgent that we provide them now.

I would like to describe to the Members just exactly what has occurred and what the situation is now that confronts u.S. Heretofore we had some deep holes in the Hampton Roads Harbor. We had some holes as deep as 90 feet. and the materials dredged in the maintenance of our channels and piers and in the elimi•

nation of shoals in the harbor, was dumped into these deep holes. It was thought at that time that the natural currents might carry that material out to sea. But you know, the currents on the bottom of the ocean and the bottom of the harbor are pretty hard to predict. Those holes are now filled up.

Last year when I appeared before the committee' the District Engineer had estimated that those holes would be filled up in 18 months to 2 years. In February

. of this year orders were issued that no additional permits would be granted for the dumping of material in these holes in our harbor. Already the elevation of the mud which has been put in the harbor has reached a point where there can be no further material dumped there.

We are running' into another situation in connection with that. In certain areas where there has been an accumulation of the silt that has been dumped the currents are taking that back into the harbor and . depositing it again around our piers. It is causing some shoaling, and we are handling some of the same material over and over again.

We have reached a critical condition now where we must :Provide a basin to dump this material in. The alternative is to haul this material out to sea some 40 miles beyond the capes. You can appreciate the cost which this entails.

Let us take a look at what the cost situation is. I believe the Army engineers estimated · the cost of this project at $7,772,000. They have provided me some figures on the amount of material that has to be removed annually to maintain our harbor, our channels, and our naval facilities there. It is estimated that 3,820,000 cubic yards of material will have to be dredged annually for the Government alone. There is another 480,000 cubic yards that will have to be dredged for the maintenance of private installations. The cost of handling 3 million yards of material removed, if this facility is built, will be at the rate of 13 cents a cubic yard. The cost of carrying the materials to sea is about 60 cents a cubic yard or a difference of 47 cents a cubic yard. For the remaining 500,000 cubic yards that have to be removed by scows annually, the difference is some 76 cents a cubic yard between the cost of pumping it into the basin and the cost of hauling it to sea. Applying simple arithmetic, the amount of money we will have to appropriate annually for theremoval of only that amount which must be removed to maintain the Government activity will be an additional appropriation of $2,020,000.

Private interests would use this facility also. They would be charged a toll of 35 cents a cubic yard to amortize the facility in addition to the 13 cents of estimated operating cost. That would give another $168,000. So unless we build this facility at a cost of $7,772,000, we are going to spend annually for maintenance work an additional $2 million of taxpayers money.

Most of the projects included in this bill are justified on the basis of the benefits which would accrue to the local community. The Craney Island disposal basin was orig~ly justified on a similar basis, but now I can, point out to you that it would be self-liquidating in sav-

ings of appropriated funds in less than 4 years. This project during its useful life will save the taxpayers many times

·its cost of construction. This is a type of project which, in the interest of good fiscal policy, should be built as quickly as possible, and it ought to have been approved by the Bureau of the Budget before now.

I have talked to the committee about this, and at the time the Under Secretary of the Army, Mr. Johnson, appeared before the subcommittee he mentioned this project and indicated his expectation that Budget Bureau approval would be forthcoming. His testimony is found on page 202 of the hearings.

It is understandable that this project was not included in the budget recommendations submitted by President Truman, or in the revised budget recommendations submitted originally by President Eisenhower. At the time these budgets were drawn material dredged in the Hampton Roads area was still being dumped in the holes in the harbor. But as I have pointed out, the situation became critical in February when the district engineer found it necessary to disco~tinue dumping permits. It was then that I sought to have a supplemental budget request submitted in time for consideration of the project by the Appropriations Committee.

I believe that generally speaking the policy of tlie present administration to deny approval for starting a new project which is not urgently needed in the interest of national defense is a sourid policy. Prior to last February the Craney Island disposal basin was not urgently needed in the interest of national defense, because we still had a place to dump the dredged material. But now that· is all changed. In the latter part of February, Rear Adm. I. N. Kiland, commandant of the Fifth Naval District, recommended to the Navy Department that this facility be constructed immediately in the interest of national defense. In a letter dated February 26, addressed to Mr. H. M. Thompson, executive vice president, Hampton Roads Maritime Association, Admiral Kiland had this to say: "The construction of a disposal area for dredged material north of Craney Island in Hampton Roads is primarily a project to be sponsored by the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army. The dredging of the navigational channels in the harbor and the maintenance of both Fed.erally. owned and private waterfront areas is a perpetual requirement which annually involves large expenditures of funds. The present disposal area in the vicinity of Forth Wool and elsewhere nearby in the Hampton Roads Harbor will soon reach capacity for filling and it. will be necessary to haul future dredged material out to sea at considerable additional expense. The proposed disposal area north of Craney Island is considered to be a sound and economical . project, which can, in my opinion, be justified as an urgent defense requirement. I am accordingly recommending to the Navy Department that it strongly support such action as the Chief of Engineers may take to secure the necessary funds for undertaking this work."

5600 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE May 26.

I subsequently learned that the Chief of Naval Operations had strongly recommended the construction of this facility to the Secretary of the Army, and that likewise the Secretary of the Army had submitted the project to the Bureau of the Budget.

In view of all of this, and in view of Under Secretary Johnson's statement to the Appropriations Committee, I had thought that this proposal was in line for favorable action by the Bureau of the Budget, and that it would conform to its criteria. Last week I learri"Cd that the Bureau proposed to disapprove of this item, so I requested an appointment with Mr. Dodge .. I am grateful to him for giving me an opportunity to present to Mr. Hughes certain aspects ·of the matter which I believe have not previously been properly presented. We had a very frank and comprehensive discussion of the matter with Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hughes agreed to take it under advisement, and I hope that approval will eventually be forthcoming. But· funds ought to be included in this bill. · To defer action will entail the additional annual expense of about $2,000,000, and may also involve additional costs in construction and in the necessary land acquisition.

Mr. Chairman, -I would like to point out a few other aspects in connection with this matter. I am particularly interested in it from a standpoint of national defense. If war should come it would be particularly difficult to maintain the harbor and channel depths necessary.

We cannot continue to carry this material to sea because then we could not afford to send our dredges outside of the submarine nets which are run across the Capes. Therefore,· in the event of war we will find ourselves in a position of dredging this material and dumping it somewhere ,else inside the harbor area hoping to goodness it is not quickly washed back into the channel.

Adequate harbor, anchorage, and channel depth must be maintained. Let us not forget the tremendous Naval activities concentrated at Hampton Roads where we have the Fifth Naval District Headquarters, the great · Norfolk Naval Base, the naval shipyard, the air station, the amphibious training station, the supply center, the hospital, the Marine Corps forwarding depot, and a number of other naval, marine, Army, and Air Force installations. Remember also that here is located the Hampton Roads port of embarkation and in time of war tremendous convoys of troops and supplies, as well as combatant vessels would be continuously using Hampton Roads. We cannot _gamble with the facilities necessary for the satisfactory operation of so vital a part of our total defense establishment. A $4¥2 million appropriation at this time is a cheap insurance. These funds ought to be provided now, and I personally feel that we ought not to defer another month steps to bring this project to the quickest possible realization.

Mr. Chairman, I have not dwelt upon the commercial value of this project because I have felt that these other factors of national defense and of fiscal savings are paramount at this time. I could have

told you about the tremendous volume of shipping that is handled in the Port of Hampton Roads and referred tQ some recent statistics for emphasis. sumce it to remind you that in 1 recent year, I believe it was 1951. more than 55 million tons of waterborne commerce was han .. dled through this port, and during the same year nearly 7,000 ocean-going ves .. sels arrived and sailed to and from Hampton Roads.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot overemphasize the need for action on this matter now.

The CHAffiMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has expired.

Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. PRICE].

Mr. PRICE. I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

The CHAmMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, there are a great many Members here interested in this bill who would like to have some time to discuss it, but since the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. PRICE] is my next-door neighbor and I understand what he is going to say, I will not make objection.

· The CHAmMAN. Is there objection? '!'here was no objection. Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I thank

my good friend from Missouri [Mr. SHORT]. I know the interest he has in the matter I am going to discuss. I recogiiize the importance of the bill un .. der discussion this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, the entire Nation is deeply concerned over drastic cuts in ap .. propriations for national -defense-to the extent that it is about time this Con .. gress beginS to concern itself and to ponder the question whether we can at .. tain greater military strength, through weakness, as some administration offi .. cials would have us believe.

Are we approaching the defense budget for fiscal year 1954 with.a dollar limit in mind, or are we thinking primarily of a safe, adequate program to provide for our national defense? Are we giving any thought to what the enemy can do to us? In my opinion Secretary of De .. fense Wilson has yet to give real as .. surance to the American people that de .. fense was the primary objective in the slashing of the budget for the Military Establishment.

There is serious doubt existing as to the manner in which our budgeting for national defense for fiscal year 1954 has been established-whether it is coming from civilian level alone or whether our military leaders are being consulted.

At the conclusion of my . remar~s I will include a letter from the Director of the Budget to the Secretary of Defense, which is worthy of attention of the House. It gives rise to the question whether the advice of our Joint Chiefs of Staff has been followed. As far as I know the Joint Chiefs have not changed their strategic estimates, and if they have not then the proposed cuts in naval aviation and in the Air Force are not safe. They represent a dangerously

·high price to pay for so-called economy. They represent an invitation for an

· enemy· to attack.

The letter .gives rise to another question: Is Secretary Wilson, himself, in full accord with the proposed cut.s? What were Secretary Wilson's recommendations to the Director of the Budget? Were his suggested cuts as drastic as the figures forced upon the Defense Establishment by the Bureau of the Budget?

Congress and the people should know the answers to these questions.

Budget Director Dodge's letter is arbitrary. It applies the discredited meatax technique to the defense ·of the Nation.

In view of this letter, I believe it is not out of place to ask: Who is Secretary of Defense?

Is it to be the Director ·of the Budget? Are we to plan our defense and de

fense of future generations on the recommendations ·of accountants, adding machines and comptometers rather than on the recommendations of men who have spent their entire adult careers in the study of military problems?

Are we-willing to trust our defense to a battery of accounting machines rather than to an adequate Air Force?

President Eisenhower himself has said many times that Russia recognizes only strength. Yet his administration leaders cut our defense budget even in the light of the President's own remarks in his first fireside chat with the people of the Nation in which he said:

There has been, to this moment, no reason to believe that Soviet policy has changed its frequently announced hope an~ purpose--the destruction of freedom everywhere. There is, therefore, no reason for the free nations to alter their course: to hope and work for the best, to arm and be ready for the worst.

Have we suddenly found out from some mysterious source that Russia can be cowered by penny-pinching so-called efficiency better than it can be by an Air Force which. is equipped to . deliver the atomic bomb at any designated target in the world?

England found out that a balanced budget would not protect it from Hitler's Luftwaffe when it was fighting the Battle of Britain. -

Today the people of the United States in cooperation with the people of the other free nations ar.e engaged in a life and death struggle against communism. The most obvious battlefront in this struggle is Korea. We must not forget, however, that the Communists look on Korea as only one part of the larger war which they are waging by political and economic as well as military means. We would do well to remember Lenin's words • when he talked of peaceful agreements:

The concessions which we grant • • • are the continuation of war in another form. • • • This agreement 1s equivalent to war.

. Today I want to talk about only one part of that war-the military- part. Without in any way minimizing the importance of the Korean battlefront, I want to talk about the larger problem today of creating adequate military power-military power which will make the Soviets less likely to start a total military war-military power which will defeat them if they do.

The issue of adequate national secu .. rity is the most crucial one facing us

1953 : CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· -HOUSE 5601 today. All of us should take heed of the statesman who warned: "War is too important to be left to the generals." I think that war is also too important a matter to be left to the-businessmen.

The business of national security is a matter which concerns all of us. In a democratic country such as ours it is a matter which must be decided by the people. Before World War II, perhaps it was all ri~ht for us to sit back and leave problems of military security to the military and political planners. Even during World War II, our homes and factories were never threatened by the enemy.

But let us look at the facts today. Today the Soviets themselves are reported to have an army of more than 3 million men organized into over 175 divisions. Added to this are the armies of the Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe and Asia. Altogether the Communist military forces probably number between 8 and 11 million men in uniform. ·

We have always thought of the Communists as having tremendous manpower resources. Now, the Soviet Union has become an important naval as well as military power. Undoubtedly, the most important feature of her naval strength is her submarine force. Authoritative sources indicate that she has at least 350, and probably has more than 370, submarines. This is a larger, much more modern submarine force than the German force of World War IT, which attacked our shipping with such deadly effectiveness. Some sources indicate that this force will be increased to 750 by 1955.

Even more important, however, in terms of the safety of our own homes and factories, is the fact that the Soviet Union has the most powerful air force in the world today. The Red Air Force ·has more than 20,000 aircraft assigned to combat-type unjts . . This represents twice the number of our Afr Force, our naval air arm, and Marine air combined. Furthermore, the Soviets have an additional 20,000 aircraft in reserve. During World War II, the Red Air Force put most emphasis on air support of ground units, and it had virtually no strategic. air. Today, however, the Soviets have about 1,000 long-range bomb .. ers capable of hitting most of the vital areas of the United States.

Most important, the Soviets have had the atomic bomb since the fall of 1949.

The explosion of the Soviet ·A-bomb in 1949, nearly 3 years ah~ad of our pre .. vious estimates, together with the increasing size of their strategic bombing force, obviously· called for a new look at our basic military strategy, It takes time to develop plans just as it takes time to build the weapons to put · those plans into effect. Thus, there is a planning lead time as well as a production lead time.

In the spring of 1951, a new basic military strategy was approved which took into account the new military capa .. bilities of the Soviet Union. In late 1951, more than a year after the Soviet A-bomb explosion, new force levels were ap .. proved. '

The levels approved by the President called for ali Army · of .21 divisions, a Navy of 408 combat ships, and ·an Air

Force of 143 wings. These goals were to be reached by June 30, 1955.

Today we have an Army of 20 di· visions, a Navy of 408 cmp.bat ships and an Air Force of only 106 wings. It is important to note that the Air Force is much farther from its goal, because it started to build up from a much lower level than the other two services.

This, then, brings us up to date, except for one point. The administration has jus1f presented the Congress with a defense budget which drastically cuts down the military forces originally planned. ·

The new budget does recommend an increase in Army appropriations of $1.6 billion over the previous budget for fiscal year 1954. However, the new budget provides for the advance financing of combat consumption of supplies and equipment in Korea, which was not included in the old budget. Thus, since it is reasonable to assume that the hos .. tilities in Korea will cost the Army more than $1.6 billion, the new budget represents an actual cut from the previous recommendation. Furthermore, the Army is to be limited to its present strength of 20 divisions instead of being allowed to activate and equip . 1 addi .. tiona! division originally planned for. The budget further provides that the Army's present strength will be reduced by about 80,000 men by June 30 next year.

The new budget for the Navy requires a reduction of $1.7 billion from the previously recommended appropriation of $11.4 billion. Almost half of this cut will be felt in the construction of aircraft and related procurement. By June 30, 1954, the Navy personne~ will be cut about 55,000 from its present strength of about 800,000. The budget calls for a cut in the Marine Corps of about 15,000. For both the Army and the Navy the budget calls for further reductions in civilian personnel in addition to those which have already taken place in the last few months.

As I have stated, more than half of the Navy budget cut comes in aircraft and related procurement. This cut amounts to $834,134,000. In talking later about the cut in Air Force procurement, I want the Congress to bear in mind that this figure adds almost a billion dollars to curtailment in aircraft production for our Armed Forces. Taken along with the slash in the Air Force budget, it adds to the seriousness of the threat to United States air su .. premacy. And, add to this another $85 million for aircra-ft and facilities in the Navy program, so that there is a total cut of $919,134,000 in naval aviation.

I am also alarmed over the reduction in appropriations in research and devel .. opment. The program in the Depart• ment of the Army will take a reduction of $105 million, in the Navy of $6,352, .. 000, and in the Air Force of $62 million, a total reduction ot $l 73,352,000 in this very important field.

In talking of these reductions, we must also consider that they are the suggestions and .recommendations of the Bureau of -the ·1;3udget and that they are subject to review by appropriations com• mittee~ in Congress. I am sincerely

hopeful that these congressional committees will not make further reductions on expenditures for our national security.

Serious as these reductions are for the Army and Navy, it is the Air Force which :will be the hardest hit. Air Force appropriations are to be cut over $5 billion. The bulk of this decrease is to be felt in two categories, aircraft and related procurement and maintenance and operation appropriations. In addition to cutting down on the new money to be appro-

. priated, the budget limits the amount of money which the Air Force can spend .during the next year out of money previously appropriated.

It has been pointed out that the Air Force has a lot of money on hand, which it has not yet spent. Apparently, this is supposed to mean that the Air Force does not need more money until it spends what it already has. Two points refute this appealing but false logic.

First, the limit on spending for next year means that the Air Force will not be permitted to spend all this money even if it wanted to. In effect, the budget says:- Since the Air Force has not spent $28 billion of that which it now has, we will orily provide $12 billion more. Thus, it will have $40 billion to spend next year, which is more money than it had a year ago. Then comes the joker. The budget turns right around and says although the Air Force has $40 billion, it can only spend $15 billion next year.

Second, is the fact that almost all of the · unspent money has already been earmarked. The Air Force has already made contracts for most of the money obligating the Government to make payments when the contracts are filled. Since it still takes anywhere from 16 to 27 months to build an airplane, depending on the type, it is obvious that the Air Force will always have money at the end of the year. But this represents money to pay for aircraft which have been ordered but not yet delivered. Thus the limit on spending means that aircraft which have been ordered for delivery next year will have to be delivered at a later date, or the orders canceled.

On the one hand, it will obviously cost the Government money to change or cancel these contracts. On the other hand, it means that the Air Force will receive fewer aircraft next year than planned. I fail to see, therefore, that such an action can be described as businesslike or as the strengthening of our planned Air Force.

The reduction in appropriations, together with the limit on spending, means the complete abandonment of the 143· wing strength. Instead, the Air Force's goal has now been reduced .to only 120 wings, and this strength is not to be reached until 1956, instead of 1955. ·

It is, of course, difficult for anyone, even a military man, to know just what the proper strength is to meet the threats posed by our enemies. It is particularly diffiCult when we talk in terms of ships or divisions or wings to know just what those units mean in terms of strength. We know, of course, that a wing is the smallest effective combat unit which contains within its own organization the means to support it directly in combat. And we know that the number of

5602 CONGRESSIONAL ~RECORD -- . HOUSE May 26

aircraft in a wing varies from 75 for a fighter wing to 30 for a bomb wing. But it is impossible for the average man to know whether we need 140 wings or 143 wings or 155 wings.

In talking about Air Force strengths, however, it is important to remember bow they were arrived at. Thus, the 143-wing strength which was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff was based on the best military estimate of the capabilitites of the soviet Union and her satellites. Every wing in that force was justified on the basis of specific tasks which would have to be performed immediately in the event of all-out war.

Thus, 57 strategic wings were author .... ized in order to be able to destroy the Soviet atomic capabilities, her war-sustaining resources, and to support Western Europe in the event of war ·with the Soviet Union. Twenty-nine air defense wings were authorized as a defense against the Soviet's offensive air capabilities. Forty combat tactical wings were authorized to support the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Far East, and the necessary bases in the United States for rotation and training. Seventeen troop. carrier wings were authorized to support the Army.

The requirement for the strategic wings was based on the quantity and quality of the Soviet air defense which would have to be penetrated in order to direct a successful atomic attack against the Soviet Union in case of war. The requirement for air defense wings was based on providing the means to defend our vital areas. The Air Force recognized that this force was submarginal in strength. The requirement for tactical wings was based on specific national commitments to NATO, and on a minimum force for the defense of Japan and Okinawa.

The Air Force supported the total goal of 143 wings last year as the absolute minimum which would be required to attain a reasonable degree of security in view of Soviet capabilities.

This strength was in itself less than the Air Force thought was desired. Now we find that this force which was established as the minimum force needed by 1954 is not to be reac:P,ed even by 1956.

In the presentation of this budget to the Congress, it was pointed out that the administration plans to take a new look at the entire defense picture. I would certainly be the first to agree that we should take a new look at the defense picture. We should see if there have been changes in the strategic situation which would require basic changes in our national military policy. It seems strange, however, to make arbitrary cuts before we have taken the new look. · Apparently, we are supposed to be reassured by the statement that "Once the program is well underway and a reasonable level of production is underway, there is a somewhat lesser requirement for advance financing to provide for lead times."

Lead time counts the time from the release of funds by the Secretary of Defense to the Air Force for a reorder contract until the delivery of the first plane under the contract. Unquestionably. the lead times for the production of our

older aircraft which have been 1rt production for some time has been reduced. I understand, however, that the lead time for the newer models of the F-86 is still from 16 to 20 months and that the lead time for the newest fighter, the F-102, is estimated at 25 months. The lead time for our new intercontinental jet bomber, the B-52, is· estimated at 27 months. In each case an additional 12 months must be added to count the time until the last plane is delivered. under a reorder contract.

On the one hand, the budget presentation points out that there is no indication that the threat and danger to the free world has appreciably lessened. Then we hear that the budget is to be cut, although the danger is still the same. Finally, we are told not to worry about it too much because the whole matter will be reviewed next summer and fall. I think it is tim'3 to call a halt to such goings on and put first things first.

In considering the problems of military security, we must not lose sight of the importance of the time .element. Plans for an effective strength tomorrow do no good if we are called upon to use that strength today. We must not lose sight of the lead time that is required for planning. It took us more than a year between the time that the Soviet A-bomb exploded and the time that force levels necessary to meet this new threat were decided upon. Thus, if the Joint Chiefs of Sta1f take a new look at tbe strategic situation this summer and fall, it will probably be late this year, if not the middle of next year, before a new strategy can be formUlated. This means that if the Joint Chiefs of Staff agree that the military threat has not lessened, and that a 143-wing strength is necessary, its achievement will be delayed by at least 6 months, if not by more than a year.

We have been assured, however, that the new budget will give us a bigger and better Air Force next year than would have been possible under the old budget. We are told that the 110 wings which we will have next year will be better than the 133 wings which we would have had next year. If such a miracle were possible, I woUld be all for it; but I cannot see how it can be done. First of all, the limitation on expenditures means that equipment which has already been contracted for will have to be delayed or -canceled. I understand that the limitations are such that reductions in equipping standards will be necessary, even · in the reduced force.

It is true that the new appropriations for next year will provide for equipment which will be delivered primarily 2 years from now. However, the reduction in funds for buying aircraft w-ill affect deliveries next year and the year after, as well as in fiscal year 1956. To offset the drastic impact which this cut would have on the industry, the Air Force must reprogram aircraft already planned for deliveries next year and the year after until 2 years from now. If the aircraft were not reprogramed· over the 3-year term, there would be a great danger that much of the aircraft industry would be cut to the point that they would not be able to fill later aircraft orders.

The Air ·Force will also be ·hard hit. by the limitations on their manpower. Ori.g-

inally, ·Air Force t>lafmers· figured that they would need 1,700,000 men to man an Air Force of 143 wings. By using stringent manpower controls and by cutting down on the provision for reserve crews to take care of combat attrition, the Air Force was able to reduce this strength by ·almost half a million men. On this reduced basis, the Air Force indicated that it would be able to achieve its present .strength of 106 wings ~ith 1,016,800 men. At the present time, however, the actual strength of the Air Force is some 30,000 less than that level. Now we find that the Air Force is to be cut down an additional 20,000 men at the same time its strength is to be incre·ased by 4 wings. The following year the Air Force is expected to stay at this reduced strength and add an additional 5 wings. While it may be possible for the Air Force to reach and maintain a strength of 115 wings with only 960,000 men, it will be impossible to reach the new goal of 120 wings without more men. ·

To cut down from 143 to 120 wings it has been reported that the Air Force will cut out 5 strategic wings and 18 wings planned for Army support. On the one hand, the cut in strategic wings would appear to lower the effectiveness of our Strategic Air Command as a deterrent to war. On the other, the decrease of about a third in the planned air support for the Army would seem to mean that the Army cannot hope to count on the air superiority it has always enjoyed in the past.

Now I certainly do not think that we should cut the strength of · our small Army any further, but it does not seem logical to reduce the Army's divisions by 5 percent at the same time the air support of the Army is to be cut some 30 percent. The only logical step is to insist that the Air Force be given enough money so that it can adequately support the Army as well as carry out its strategic and defensive missions.

The forced decrease in our tactical air support strength seems especially strange in light of General Ridgway's recent testimony. General Ridgway, who replaced General Eisenhower in Europe, was testifying before Congress on the ·mutual security program. He stated:

Today, as a year ago, alrpower is still the weakest link in our defense. Despite .the substantial gains in numbers of aircraft and trained pilots deriving from the United States mutual defense assistance program, our air forces today are still inadequate to carry out their assignec;l tasks.

Apparently we are expected to ignore the General's remarks.

Apparently we are expected to accept at face value the statement that the new budget "plan calls for achieving as much airpower as possible within the limits of available resources." I for one, however, cannot believe that our American aircraft industry is incapable of producing for an Air Force of 133 or 143 wings. If this statement really means that we will get as much airpower as possible out of the money to be appropriated, it is of course quite understandable. I am sure that the armed services can be further improved by the further application of business methods to their ·operations. · If, however, the statement

1953 CONGRESSIONAL ~CORD -HOUSE 5603 is supposed to mean that the people of the United States are unwilling to make available an additional $5 billion next year toward the creation of an Air Force to meet the minimum needs of national security, then the statement cannot be accepted.

I would like to point out an article published by four professors of the Harvard Business School in the Harvard Business Review in 1951. At that time they stated that the resources of the United States could support an Armed Force of 6 million men and yearly expenditures of $84 billion for as long a time as necessary witl)out serious impairment of the civilian economy. Yet today we are told that after 2 years the people of the United States cannot make sufiicient resources available for a sum less than half that amount.

It seems to me that · the new budget underestimates the intelligence and the willingness of the American people to make sacrifices if those sacrifices are necessary. Three recent polls give an indication of how the American people feel about a 143-wing Air Force, and military security.

A recent Gallup poll showed that 74 percent of the American people would be opposed to any reduction in our Armed Forces,· even if there is a truce in the Korean fighting.

My friend and Democratic colleague, Hon. E. C. GATHINGS, recently conducted a poll in the First Congressional District of Arkansas. He found that 85.5 percent were opposed to a reduction in defense spending which would delay the planned 143-wing Air Force, as well as the development of the atomic-energy program.

On the other side of the aisle, my distinguished Republican colleague, Hon.

Amount in Appropriation title 1954 budget

OI'FICE OF SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND DEPARTMENTWIDE

Salaries and expenses _________________ $13, 900, 000 Claims __ • ____________ ---- _____________ 6;000, 000 Retired pay------------------------ ___ 375, 000, 000 Contingencies----------------------- __ 75,000,000 Emergency fund ______________________ 60,000,000 Salaries and expenses, Office of Public

Information _____________ ---------- 750,000 Salaries and expenses, Court of Mill-

tary Appeals ___ -------------------- 325,000 Reserve tools and facilities ____________ liOO,OOO,OOO

THoMAs E. MARTIN, conducted a poll in been chosen by a free people in free electhe First Congressional District of Iowa. tions. Our leaders must not now put He found that over 57 percent were op- false economy ahead of freedom. posed to cutting down the budget for The letter from Budget Director Dodge d.efense and military spending. He and his revision of defense funds which found that 83 percent were opposed to a I mentioned at the beginning of my rereduction in defense spending which marks follows: might delay realization Of the planned ExECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, 143-wing Air Force. BUREAU oF THE BUDGET,

In matters of such grave concern as washington, D. c. May 7, 1953, national security, the people have a right .The honorable the SECRETARY oF DEFENsE, to know certain basic facts. They are MY DEAR MR. SEcRETARY: The report on not interested in the technical military your review of the 1954 budget estimates for details, whose release would help the your agency has been received and carefully enemy military leaders. They do have considered in relation to the administraa right to the basic truth without dis- tion's stated policies and budget objectives. tortion. If the facts are presented in- To meet these objectives the revisions in stead of specious arguments used to appropriations set forth in sumary below and

J·ustify arbitrary cuts in the interests of in detail in the enclosures will be necessary. You are expected to adjust your recom

false ecnomy, the American people will mendations accordingly and present these make the right choice. Our leaders have revisions to the Appropriations Committees.

Summary of revisions for fiscal year 1951,.

Amountin . 1954 budget

Revised amount

Difference C+)or(-)

Office of the Secretary of Defense and departmentwide___________ $1,030,975,000 $1,029,625,000 -$1,350,000 Department of the Army---------------------------------------- 12,109, 591,000 13, 671,000,000 +I, 561,409,000 Department of the Navy---------------------------------------- 11,367,882,000 9, 650, 695,000 -1,717,187,000 Department of the Air Force·------------------------------------ 16, 778,000,000 11,688,000,000 -5,090, ooo, ooo

1----------1---------1---~~~Total new obligational authority--------------------------- 41,286,448,000 36,039, 320,000 -5,247,128,000

Cash to liquidate prior-year contract authority___________________ 131,968,000 131,968,000 o Total appropriation ________________________________________ 41,418,416,000 36,171,288,000 -5,247,128,000

The accomplishment of these budget objectives will require that you reexamine your programs, their components, and the priorities related to them, and reschedule your operations so that budget expenditures for the military functions of your agency will be held to a level of about $43.2 billion in fiscal year 1954.

·Your attention is particularly called to the fact that these determinations relate to appropriation and expenditure levels that do not take effect until July 1, 1953, about 2 months in the future; also that the expenditure level applies to the 12 months following July 1, 1953. Thus, there is a period of al-

most 14 months in which to accomplish an adjustment to the given level of expenditure. To avoid a need to reach the average by moving from a point above it to one below it at the end of the period, action should be taken as promptly as possible before July 1, 1953, to approach the expenditure level established for the ensuing year.

Also, you are reminded that action On the fiscal year 1954 level of expenditures should be related to the budget objectives for fiscal year 1955.

Sincerely yours, JosEPH :v.t. DoDGE, Director.

Revisions in appropriations, fiscal year 1951,.

Revised Difference, Appropriation title Amount in Revised Difference;

amount increase ( +) or 1954 budget amount increase(+) or decrease (-) decrease (-)

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY-con:.

Marine Corps troops and facilities ____ $668, 215, 000 $452, 000, 000 -$216, 215, 000 $12, 800, 000 -$1, 100, 000 Aircraft and facilities __ ________________ 1, 055, 000, 000 970, 000, 000 -85, 000, 000

6,000, 000 0 Aircraft and related procurement _____ 2, 234,134,000 1, 400,000,000 -834, 134,000 375, 000, 000 0 Ships and facilities _____ _______________ 1, 069,165,000 938, 000, 000 -131,165,000 75,000,000 0 Construction of ships __ --------------- 56,739,000 56,700,000 -39,000 60,000,000 0 Shipbuilding and conversion __________ 996, 120, 000 741,500,000 -254,620,000 Ordnance and facilities ________________ 816, 619, 000 818, 000, 000 +1, 381,000

liOO,OOO -250,000 Medical care ______ -------------------_ 91,000,000 84,900,000 -6,100,000 Civil engineering ______________________ 140,117,000 117,700,000 -22,417,000 325,000 0 Military construction, Navy civilian

500, 000, 000 0 components _________________________ 32,400,000 31,200,000 -1,200,000 Research _______________ ~ ______ -------- 74,952,000 68,600,000 -6,352,000

TotaL-------------------------- 1, 030, 975, 000 1, 029, 625, 000 -1,350,000 Servicewide supply and finance ______ 419, 947, 000 Servicewide operations _____ ___________

385,000,000 -34,947,000 109, 539, 000 105, 300, 000 -4,239,000

DEPARTMENT Ol THE ARMY Naval petroleum reserves _____________ 13,150,000 0 -13, 150, 000 Military personneL __________________ 4, 7~, 437, 000 4, 776, 173, 000 +46, 736, 000 Total.------------------------ __ 11, 367, 882, 000 9, 650, 695, 000 -1, 717, 187, 000 Maintenance and ope,rations __________ 3, 1)99, 504, 000 4, 720, 000, 000 +720, 496,000 Procurement and production __________ 2, 471, 779, 000 3, 395, 266, 000 +923, 487, 000 LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHOR-Military construction, Army civilian .IZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1954 components ______ _____ ________ ______ 15,000.000 9, 094,000 -5,906,000

Construction of ships ___ ----------~--- 76,968, 000 76,968,000 " Reserve personnel requirements _______ 116, 636, 000 102, 909, 000 -13,727,000 Army National Guard __ ______________ 215, 355, 000 211, 273, 000 -4,082,000 Ordnance for new construction ________ 55,000,000 55,000,000 0 Research and development ____________ 475, 000, 000 370, 000, 000 -105; O<JO, 000

TotaL-------------------------- 131, 968, 000 131, 968, 000 0 National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice _______________________ 100,000 100,000 0 Operation and maintenance~ Alaska DEPARTMENT OF THE Affi I'ORCE

communication system ______________ 11,780,000 11,185,000 -595,000 Aircraft and related procurement __ ___ 6, 664, 000, 000 3, 495, 000, 000 -3, 169, 000, 000 Civilian relief in Korea ________________ 75,000,000 75,000,000 0 Major procurement other than aircraft_ 900, 000, 000 625, QOO, 000 -275, 000, 000

Total. __ -----------------------_ 12, 109, 591, ·ooo 13, 671, 000, 000 +I, p61, 409,000 Acquisition and construction of real 700, 000, 000 400, 000, 000 -300,000,000 property _______________ -------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY Maintenance and operation ________ ___ 4, 235, 000, 000 3, 200, 000, 000 -1, 035, 000, 000 Military personnel requirements ______ 3, 560, 000, 000 3, 300, 000, 000 -260, 000, 000

Military personnel, Navy _____________ 2, 643,341,000 2, 569, 000, 000 -74, 341, 000 Research and development. .. ------~-- 537,000, 000 475,000,000 -62, 000, 000 _ Military personnel, Naval Reserve ____ 61,970,000 63,300,000 +1,330,000 Reserve p·ersonnel requirements _______ 23, 000,000 14,900,000 -8,100,000 Navy personnel, general expense-----~ 92,100,000 84,000,000 -8,100,000 Air National Guard ___________________ 128, 000, 000 147, 100, 000 . +19, 100, 000 Military personnel, Marine Corps ____ 'l76, 884, 000 '751, 695, 000 -25,189,000 Contingencies------------------------- 31,000,000 31,·000, 000 ---------------Military personnel, Marine Corps

13,800,000 -2,690,000 TotaL-------------------------- 16, 778, 000, 000 11, 688, 000, 000 -5, 090, 000, 000 Reserve •• ~-------------------------- 16,490,000


I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his kindness in yielding me this time. ·

The CHAffiMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has expired.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair· man, I yield 4 minutes to the gentle· man from Oregon [Mr. ELLSWORTH].

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the subcommittee on doing an excellent job on this bill. I · know how difficult the problems have been. I know the -disappointments that many of us have felt with the report, but I am in full a~cord with the philosophy behind the reductions made.

There was one little item, however, in the budget on which I feel the commit· tee made an unintentional error. I be· lieve that if the committee had known the facts the item of $245,000 which I am speaking about now would have been included in the bill. I refer to a project on a little creek which runs directly through a city in my district, Amazon creek in Oregon. There has been a small fiood control project to control that creek under construction for several years. $245,000 would have completed the project this next fiscal year, and the annual benefits are $206,000. Economically, it seems to me that this job should be completed this coming year.

In the hearing on this project, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. DAVIS], chairman of the subcommittee, made this comment:

The requested appropriation· for fiscal year 1954 is $245,000 to bring the project to 59 percent of completion.

As a matter of fact, that is not true. The purpose of this appropriation was to complete the project. $245,000 brings to 59 ·percent the amount of the total cost which the Government will put into the project. The citizens of the city of Eugene, Oreg., have already raised and are ready to spend or have spent the amount of $414,000. The Federal Government has to date spent $379,000, and $245,000 will complete the job with resulting annual benefits of $206,000. No benefits can come from the . money spent until the last link in the drainage canal is completed.

I am ·sure if the subcommittee had even considered these few facts they probably would have allowed this item. But the reason stated in the report for leaving -aut the item is this: that the project is one which had been suspended, and it was the policy not to resume suspended projects.

With that policy statement of the committee I do not have the slightest disagreement. The only difficulty is that this project did not qualify under that particular statement. •

This project was frozen by the President late in 1950, but upon a showing of need and of actual defense value the frozen funds were released. In the flooded area which floods almost every year there is a total overall lumber production of 150 million board feet an· nually. Not only is this important pro· duction in the Douglas-fir region, but there were many other things which

caused the President and the Bureau of recognizing some of the :findings that the Budget to unfreeze the funds which were made in that report. However, on were impounded so that the project did page 3 of this committee report accomcontinue under construction until late in panying the bill, we :find that you comOctober of last year. So the work is al- ment upon a request for local participamost completed but there must be this tion for survey money. The sentence I final appropriation to complete the job refer to is on page 3 under "Local con-so that the city of Eugene can get the tribution" and reads: · benefits that it needs from the money The committee is particularly concerned it has spent. Unless it is completed with the lack of local participation in survey Eugene will be flooded probably at least projects prior to au~horization.

once a year. That poses more difficulties, Mr. Chair· Another question was raised by the man, than it resolves. In the first place,

committee-and I submit these questions the great problems arise when the wato your consideratio11 and ask if you gen- ter starts its .flow and increase as the size tlemen had realized these things whether of the stream increases. the subcommittee would have left this We have long recognized that there is item out-the question was raised by the a Federal responsibility for the developcommittee why should the Federal Gov- ment of flood control and navigation and ernment protect 50 city blocks in a small we know it has a significance upon the city not only in Oregon but anywhere? national economy . . This was recognized That is a fair question but that question back in the first session of the First Conis not applicable in this case. The city gress when the Internal Improvement is upstream from about , 11,500 acres of Act was passed which recognized the refarm land. The city of Eugene can and sponsibility of the Federal Government did raise ample money \thich it ·could to develop navigation and to open up have used selfishly to run the water the waterways for the future economic through the town and turn it loose on the development of this country for trade farm lands. But a few miles beyond the and for commerce. city is a reservoir to which a ditch is The report reflects a feeling that there now being built to take oft this water. must be local responsibility. Where Had the city of Eugene done its own job, as it could have-and it already has does local responsibility start and. where spent money enough to have done it- does Federal responsibility commence? the city would not now be flooded but the The very complexity of that problem I farm lands would have received the :flood submit, Mr. Chairman, cannot be rewaters from the city. Instead it co- solved by requiring local participation in operated in building the long canal. surveys, for if it embraces more than just There now remains a very short link to tlood control, or navigation and flood ·complete the canal to take the water oft control, there must be a separation of

that function before a survey program ;~er~~fr. of Eugene and put it in the can be carried forward.

I submit to the committee, Mr. Chair- The very nature of the survey is to man, that had they known these facts, determine if local responsibility should had they given consideration to them be forthcoming in the development of a

·t h ld project and the amount of local contri-this item would be in the bill; 1 s ou bution based upon the direct benefits to

beMr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 that community. minutes to the gentleman from Alabama Mr. Chairman, I hope that the com-[Mr. JONES]. mittee will not press for this point be-

Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair· ca~se there is no legal au~hority by man, last year by resolution of the Pub· which: ~~Y agency ~barged w~th the relic Works Committee a special commit- ' .sponslblhty of carrymg out th1s work.c~n tee was established for the study of wa- assume payment from local authontles ter resources. As the committee pointed for surveys. . . out in its report that study is now pend· Mr. RILEY. M~. Charrman, t y1eld ing before the committee, and it is hope- the balance of my t1me to the gentleman ful that we will get consideration of its from New York [Mr. RooNEY]. recommendations within the next few Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, I am weeks. grateful to the gentleman from South

I did not realize the complexity of the Carolina [Mr. RILEY] for yielding me problems of water resources until we un- t~e balance of his time so that I ~i~ht dertook that sudy. It is not complete d1scuss ~he matter of an appropnat1on by any means and it is a problem that for the Improvement of Gowanus Creek needs continuous study, Certainly there Channel •. Brooklyn, port of New York. has not been a subject matter in which Gowanus Creek is a tidal waterway there is such universal interest as there on the east side of upper New York Bay, is in water, for water means the very in the Borough of Brooklyn, about 4 life of our civilization. miles by water southeast of the Battery,

Year before last the Appropriations New York City. It extends 1.8 miles Committee brought out some glaring de· northeasterly from the north end of Bay fects in our program of water resources. Ridge Channel in Gowanus Bay and The Public Works Committee took note includes the 1-mile upper portion known of those problems, and there has been as Gowanus Canal, which local interests a manifestation of complete harmony have improved to depths ranging from and cooperation between the two com- 12 feet at the lower end to 7 feet at the mittees to resolve these problems. We head. The lower part of Gowanus Creek are grateful, indeed, Mr. Chairman, to has been improved by the United States the experts on your subcommittee for under a project known as Gowanus

1953 CONGRESSIO;NAL _REGOR~- HOUSE 5605 Creek Channel. The locally dredged find that the bulk of the money conHenry Street Basin enters Gowanus tained in this bill goes to States other Creek Channel from the north, 750 feet than New York. There is not a dime of upstream from the lower end of the Fed- the $251,496,000 contained in this bill eral project. This basin. about 2,000 for the construction projects for the feet long and 200 feet wide, has depths State of New York. The amount indecreasing from 21 feet in a strip 100 volved for Gowanus Creek Channel is feet wide in the lowe·r 1,000 feet of the only the sum of $400,000. I might point basin to 5 feet at the head. out in passing that there is on this chan-

Local intereiits have expended approxi- nel a grain elevator which is the only mately $17 million in developing water- grain elevator equipped to service seafront terminals and berthing facilities going ships iii the entire port of New in the section of Gowanus Creek under York, and which has a capacity of consideration. Insufficient depth in the 1,800,000 bushels. 26-foot section of , the waterway pre- At the time of the hearings on the eludes efficient operation of the larger authorization representatives of the deep-draft vessels and, during high tide, Corps of Engineers testified that the imcongestion is aggravated with the con- provement would relieve congestion on centration ·of deep-draft vessels taking the waterway by spreading the traffic of advantage · of the additional depth of deep-draft vessels throughout the day water. Depths in the Henry Street instead of only during the hours of high Basin are insufficient .to accommodate tide and would eliminate the hazards of the cargo ships and tankers that use, or grounding. The recommended project expect to use, the basin. has an indicated benefit-cost ratio of

The authorized plan of improvement, 2.65 for Gowanus Creek Channel, 1.22 which local interests claim would pro- for the channel in Henry Street Basin, duce annual benefits estimated at $525,- and 2.28 for the total improvement. 000, provides for deepening the. existing Improvement of the project, as recom-26-foot project of Gowanus Creek Chan- mended by the Corps of Engineers, is nel to 30 feet at mean low water, includ- justified further since two large shiping extension of the deepened channel yards on the Gowanus Creek 26-foot about 500 feet into the 18-foot project, channel are engaged in the repair of all and widening of the channel at the june- types of vessels -from many ports, intion with the existing 40-foot project of eluding the latest type of oceangoing Bay Ridge and Red Hook Channels, and tankers and cargo vessels, and the projfor a branch channel 30 feet deep and ect thus contributes materially to na-150 feet wide in the lower 1,000 feet of tional-defense requirements. Henry Street Basin. Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a matter

The authorization for the improve- that is entirely nonpolitical and· nonparment of Gowanus Creek Channel was tisan. There are 8 Members in this contained in H. R. 7855, which was re- body from the Borough of Brooklyn and ported to the House on last June 16 and all 8 Members are in agreement with became Public Law 551 of the 82d Con- regard to this request. They are the gress last July 16. gentlewoman from New York [Mrs.

The requested appropriation was not KELLY], the gentlemen from New York included in the budget sent UP to the [Mr. CELLER, Mr. KEOGH, Mr. MULTER, subcommittee on appropriations. Mr. HELLER, Mr. DoRN, and Mr. RAY].

I have here before you a map which We appeared before the committee, I beshows the channel system within the lieve on the 15th of May, and I shall seek port of New York. You will note that permission to insert with these remarks the channel which extends around the testimony before the subcommittee Staten Island and up the North or Hud- on appropriations on that date. We son River, and up the East River to Long were accorded a very, very fine and courIsland Sound and out into New York Bay teous hearing. It is regrettable indeed and the Atlantic Ocean is, according to that the subcommittee did not ~ee fit t~ this color, 30 feet in depth. In the chan- include in the bill this very worthwhile nel system of the port of New York there and necessary project, a project which is at this ipace which I indicate on the should be completed immediately. map and which looks like a pip on a I should like to read to you an editorial radar screen, what is called Gowanus from the Brooklyn Eagle of May 3, 1953 Creek Channel, which is only 26 feet in entitled "Deepening the Gowanus Creek depth. Now, in that small pip on the Channel Vital to Brooklyn and the map there is carried more cargo than is Whole Port": carried in the whole ports of Boston, A barrier of mud less than a mile long, Mass., or Houston, Tex. As the re- 4 feet thick, and 200 feet wide bars the 1msuit of the channel being only 26 feet provement of a substantial part of Brookin depth it becomes necessary to move lyn's multi-billion-dollar waterfront. This all the deep draft ships-and there have murky curtain lies at the bottom of a waterbeen over 400 of them using this Go- way known as Gowanus Creek Channel, wanus Creek Channel in a year-at high sometimes confused with Gowanus canal, tide. The space in the channel is most into which it runs at Percival street, Just

south of Hamilton Avenue. Gowanus Creek congested an~ everyone wants t? use it Channel 1s now 26 feet deep, the depth estabat the same tune. It becomes qwte haz- lished in 1904, when it was first dredged. It ardous. As a matter of fact, there are - should be ao feet deep to accommdate the only 4 hours generally out of the 24 hours larger cargo-carrying vessels developed 1n in the day in which the channel can be half a century of shipping progress. used to berth and unberth these ships. BILL PAssED LAsT YEAR

If you will look at pages 6 and 7 of the Last year both Houses of Congress pass~d committee report on this bill, you will and President Truman signed a bill .author-

izing the deepening of Gowanus Creek Channel. It was left to the succeeding Congress, through its Appropriations Committee, to provide a relatively modest sum so that the work could actually begin.

Less than $500,000 for a substantial improvement on Brooklyn's waterfront shouldnot cause much concern, even at a time when economy is and should be the watchword in Washington. Some things must be done, and this is one of them.

Gowam.is Creek Channel, even in its present archaic state, carries as much cargo as entire ports the size of Boston or Houston. The goods coming through it are vital 'to Brooklyn industry and commerce. During national emergency it is of tremendous military importance. Chromium ore and other metals and chemicals necessary in the manufacture of steel for national defense come in over Gowanus Creek Channel. It furnishes raw materials and takes away finished goods necessary to the entire metropolitan area, all of Long Island, and .to an area extending all the way to the Mississippi River.

It does all this despite the fact it is only 26 feet deep. Ships drawing more must wait until the tides add 4 feet to its depth and then scrape bottom in order to get to their piers. There have been groundings and long delays at anchor waiting for tides. Because · daylight navigation is necessary qnly 4 hours in the 24 are practicable. A condition such as this is not far removed from the primitive conditions ~hen cargo ships stayed downstream and were unloaded by lighters. They are not characteristic of the greatest, most modern port in the world.

Recently the Bull Lines spent about $17 million installing a modern waterfront terminal on the shore served by Gowanus Creek Channel. The great New York Port Authority Grain Terminal is dependent upon it. · Numerous shipping and ship-repair companies line both sides of it. Every conceivable type of cargo from fuel oil to cocoa beans and sugar and coffee come into it. The Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce estimates that at least $10 million in further improvements would soon be undertaken if there was rea· sonable assurance the channel would be deepened. ·

The matter will come before the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives Monday, May 11. At that time various Brooklyn agencies interested in this matter are to be heard. But the disturbing fact is that there now is considerable doubt as to its chances of being passed. The reason for this is that the present adminis• tration is for economy.

Representative JoHN TABER, Republican, o! New York, Appropriations Committee chairman, has not ruled the proposal out. As a matter of fact, it has been given a prominent place on the agenda of the coming meeting. All eight members of the Brooklyn congressional delegation are for it, regardless of party. The chamber of commerce has for several years prepared and presented facts and figures to legislators and committees explaining the need for it.

SHOULD VOTE APPROPRIATION It is to be hoped that the Members of

Congress serving on the Appropriations Com· mittee can be made to understand that the small sum of money involved in this particular improvement is vitally necessary to the world's largest port and of particular im· portance to that part of the port which carries cargo the value of which exceeds half of all that is carried by the rest, the Brooklyn waterfroht. While Brooklyn's interests would be and should be served by this, it is of great importance to a much wider area and of vital necessity in every national emergency.

5606 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE May ~6 FRmAY, MAY 15, 1953.

GoWANUS CREEK CHANNEL (Witnesses: Hon. John J. Rooney, a Repre·

sentative in Congress from the State of New York; Hon. Emanuel Celler, a Repre· sentative in Congress from the State of New York; Hon. Eugene J. Keogh, a Repre· sentative in Congress from the State of New York; Hon. Edna F. Kelly, a Repre· sentative in Congress from the State of New York; Hon. Francis E. Darn, a Repre· sentative in Congress from the State of

_New York; Han. John H. Ray, a R~presentative in Congress from the State of New York; Hon. Louis B. Heller, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York; Hon. John Cashmore, president, Borough of Brooklyn, Brooklyn, N. Y.; Frank D. Schroth, publisher of the Brook· iyn Eagle, Brooklyn, N. Y.; Col. A. C.

. Welsh, foreign-trade secretary and transportation secretary, chamber of commerce, Brooklyn, N.Y.; Donald L. O'Toole, former Member of Congress, New York; Howard A. Swain, executive secretary, Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce) Mr. DAVIS. The subcommittee will resume

this afternoon with the consideration of Gowanus Creek Channel project in the State of New York. The ch~irman is somewhat over· whelmed tp see this delegation of the Members of Congress from the State of New York and I am very pleased to turn the conduct of the discussion of this matter over to one of the very distinguished and hard-working members of the House Appropriations Committee, the Honorable JoHN J. RooNEY.

Mr. RooNEY, I wil~ ask you to introduce these others who are with you and proceed with the discussion in your own way.

Mr. RooNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to you and shall be pleased to do so.

Mr. Chairman, we ar·e seeking the funds necessary to implement Public Law 551 of the 82d Congress, of which I was the author and which provided for the deepening of Go· wanus Creek Channel in the port of New York, in Brooklyn. · This channel, which Is less than a mile in length, is the only :part of the channel in the entire port of New York which is not 30 feet in depth. If you will please look at this map which shows all the authorized channel projects in the New York district-in this color (indicating) throughout the .port the chan· nels are 30 feet in depth.

The point with which we are concerned today is the channel leading out of Gowanus Bay-the strip that goes through there [indicating). In this small strip of water cargo is carried to the extent of 4 million tons a year. This equals the amount of cargo handled in the whole area of the ports of Boston or Houston, Tex. Along this channel and since 1948 there have been provided private improvements to the extent of over $17 million; almost half a million dollars have been spent to deepen slips. This channel has been 26 feet in depth since 1904. Before I forget it, I should point out that along this channel there is a grain elevator with a capacity of 1,800,000 bushels of grain.

I am highly honored to have the opportunity of presenting to you many distinguished gentlemen from the Borough of Brooklyn who fully realize and will tell you of the importance of this project. I shall first introduce each of them and then ask them to briefly address the chair with re· gard to this project.

First, I shall introduce my distinguished colleagues who are present. You very well know the dean of the New York State Democratic delegation who has seen more than 30 years of distinguished service here in the House and the author of the book, You Never Leave Brooklyn, Congresssman EMANUEL GELLER.

Then, on his left Congressman. EUGENE J. KEOGH; Congresswoman EDNA F. KELLY; Con. gressman FRANCIS E. DoRN; and Congressman

JoHN H. RAY. It has been impossible for Congressman LoUIS B. HELLER to be here this afternoon, but I would like to have ap· pended at the end of the testimony his state• ment of his views in regard to this matter.

I have been asked to express to you the views of Congressman ABRAHAM J. MULTER, who is presently out of the State and district on omcial business. He is in full accord on the matter with which we are concerned today, and his views are the same as those I express.

We have with us here today the very able, capable, and highly respected president of the Borough of Brooklyn. Mr. John Cashmore for 12 years has been, in effect, mayor of a city of over 3 million people. Such is the significance of the omce of president of the Borough of Brooklyn.

And the publisher of the Brooklyn Eagle, one of the well-known papers of this country, Mr. Frank D. Schroth; the executive secretary of the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Howard A. Swain; Col. A. C. Welsh, the foreign-trade secretary and trans· portation secretary of the Brooklyn Cham· ber of Commerce; as well as Mr. Robert P. Sch'l_llze, general manager of marine terminal operations, New York Port Authority.

Now, I would like to have you listen to our borough president the Honorable John Cashmore.

Mr. CASHMORE. First, I want to thank you for giving us this opportunity to be heard. I fully realize the importance of your committee's work. In the matter of appropriations, your jurisdiction and your responsibilities are enormous. They apply not only to the whole United States, but to every part of the world where Federal expenditures are involved. I appreciate the value of your time and want, therefore, to be as brief as possible.

The matter In which we are vitally Inter· ested is the proposed appropriation to deepen one of the important tidal waterways in the Borough of Brooklyn and city of .New York. This is the Gowanus Creek Channel on the easterly side of upper New York Bay.

Although this channel is actually less than a mile long and decreases gradually in width from 300 feet to 200 feet, I believe I am correct in saying that it is certainly one of the busiest and most important waterways in the entire United States.

As we proceed in this hearing, it will be shown how directly this is related to our national defense and the civilian requirements essential to the international conditions we are facing today.

But before this is done, I hope your committee will allow me to speak very briefly about the community of which this channel is such an important part.

The capacity in which I appear before your committee is that of president of the Borough of Brooklyn. I have the honor to rep· resent 3 million people who live there and help to make it the great and famous community it is. I was born in Brooklyn and have lived there all my life. Frankly, I love Brooklyn and am proud to be a Brooklynite. And if anyone tries to get me to move to Wisconsin, I will have to say "No."

All over this country and throughout the world, people hear much about Brooklyn. They hear about the Dodgers and Ebbets Field. They see pictures of the famous Brooklyn Bridge. They know about Coney Island and its ocean-front bathing beaches.

During World War ll Brooklyn became known in every corner of the globe where our troops were stationed. This was because so many of the young men and women of Brooklyn joined the Armed Forces and served wherever they were need~d. The record shows that 326,000 young men and women of our borough-a number larger than ariy other city of the Untied. States-fought in the war, and that _7,()90 gave their lives for our country.

But while Brooklyn Is known far and wide, lt is probably also true that c·omparatively few people ·realize Brooklyn's importance as a great and commercial manufacturing center.

I doubt, for example, whether it •s gen· erally ·remembered that during the war Brooklyn was the headquarters of the largest port of embarkation in the world.

From the time of Pearl Harbor until V-E Day, this port of embarka1;J.on moved more than 3 million troops and their equipment overseas. It direc~ed the shipping of more than 63 million tons of supplies and cleared half of this tonnage through the port of ;New York. The port of embarkation could handle nearly 100,000 troops a day and move supplies that would fill a freight train ex· tending from New York to North Carolina.

Nor is it generally rememberep that the Brooklyn Navy Yard built the largest and mightiest battleships and aircraft carriers in the world-the Missouri, the Iowa, and the Franklin D. Roosevelt. Today the Brooklyn Navy Yard has again been called upon to help strengthen our national defense by building the super-aircraft-carrier Saratoga.

In Brooklyn today we have more than 7,000 manufacturing plants. While most of these ~re in the so-called small-business category, the fact is that their output, when combined with the output of the larger establishments, is valued at more than $1 billion a year.

Brooklyn continues to be our country's principal foreign-trade center. In a representative month, 52 'shipping companies send out 179 ships to 238 ports in all parts of the world and many return with raw materials important to our national security.

All these activities are concentrated in an area of just 80 square miles, the area of the Borough of Brooklyn. This is an industrial miracle and the reason for it is not hard to find. It is due largely, of course, to Brooklyn's location on the great New York Harbor, to our waterways and the waterfront prop· erties that have J:>een developed during past generations, and to our productive capacity and the tremendous manpower skills of which we are very proud.

I could and would like to say more about this wonderful community. But there is a time limitation today and I want to go directly to the matter before us.

In the calendar year 1952 the dollar value of imports of the entire port of New York was nearly $4 billion. Although the customshouse at New York keeps no separate figures on Brooklyn imports, it is conservatively estimated their dollar value totaled about $1,316 million and that the revenue or duty the Government collected on these Brooklyn imports was nearly $100 million.

According to the latest figures I have been able to obtain, the Gowanus creek Channel area handled in the year 1951 about 4,538,000 tons of cargo--an increase of 555,000 tons over the previous year. This vast amount of tonnage was carried in 846 steamers, 604 motorships, and 8,451 barges.

While most of this cargo consisted of ordi· nary commodities, I have been reliably informed that much of it related to our present national state of emergency. Some of this information may be classified, but I believe enough facts will be brought to your attention to justify your committee's approval of the appropriation that is being requested for the deepening of this channel.

The Army engineers have studied and reviewed this proposed improvement several times. It has been recommended by the Army district engineer, the division engineer, .the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and by the Chief of Engineers.

The report of the Board of Engineers shows how petroleum products are generally received at the Gowanus Creek Channel from Texas, Louisiana, and from Venezuela. Coal arrives from Virginia and Pennsylvania mines. Grain and grain products ar~

1953 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD- HOUSE 5607 shipped from the Middle West 'by way of the Great Lakes, the Erie and Oswego Canals, and the Hudson River, direct by water or water-rail combination to the- Port of New York Authority grain terminal, and are then shipped to all parts of the world.

This is clearly in the national interest. By no means can this be regarded as a socalled local matter.

This area is served by a great highway system and is only a short distance from the Brooklyn-Battery tunnel. We started to build this tunnel before World War II, but were compelled to halt work when the war came. In 1950 ·we completed this tunnel at a cost of $80 million and since that time traffic through the tunnel has been increasing at an enormous rate.

From May 1, 1952, to April 30, 1953, the total number of vehicles using the tunnel increased to nearly 17 million. - ·

As a further example of how this Gowanus Channel area serves the national interest, all one has to do is to watch the trucks and trailers coming through the tunnel and crossing our bridges in the morning. They arrive from many States along the Atlantic seaboard. They bring in manufactured goods and where are they headed? For the Brooklyn· waterfront, of course, and many go directly to this Gowanus Creek Channel area. .

Because of the tremendously increased shipping activity there, the borough president's office, with the approval of the New York City Board of ~timate, has provided $528,000 in improvements for this section in the past few years. Every few years the city dredges the Gowanus Canal, which lies beyond the Gowanus Creek Channel.

It has been stated that just one of the shipping lines has spent $17 million in recent years to construct a modern mariJ?-e terminal on the channel. The Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce has estimated that $10 million in further illl'Provements are planned, if there is a reasonable assurance that the channel will be deepened. -

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I believe you are fully justified in approving this proposed appropriation. Let us bear in mind the present 26-foot channel has existed since the year 1904. The cost, including maintenance during all these years, was about $140,000 to June 30, 1949. ~

The Army engineers have stated the· major problem for navigation in the channel is the lack of sufficient depth which prevents efficient operation of the larger and more econoinical deep-draft vessels now in use. They have stated that on many occasions more than 50 barges and other vessels have moored in the vicinity of the junction of the channel and what is known as the Henry Street Basin, thereby obstructing berthing operations.

The Army engineers have further reported that grounding accidents, due to insufficient depth, have taken place. In 10 years, 8 vessels, consisting of tugs and barges, have been sunk.

When you consider these conditions, I believe you will agree the channel must be deepened to 30 feet. In the 82d Congress you passed a bill, which the President signed, authorizing this improvement. For this we extend our particular thanks to our dis.tinguished fellow Brooklynite, Congressman RooNEY, of your ·committee.

Like each of you, we, too, recognize the need for economy. But there is a point beyond which economy is hard to justify and sound judgment is needed. My hope, therefore,- is that you will see the need for this improvement as we see it, and that your committee will recommend this necessary appropriation.

I am grateful to your committee for giving us this time. I sit on the board of estimate of the city of New York. OUr budget is not as large as yours. My budget is only $1,528,-000,000. I have sat there t:or 13 years.

Everyone says, "Go, put your house In order; but don't cut us down on the budget."

I am putting up this plea for my country and my city. We bought more war bonds in Brooklyn than in 39 States of the Union. ·we won more Army and Navy E awards. We are an energetic little city. And we are asking for only $400,000.

Mr. ScHROTH. Mr. Chairman, it is embarrassing for me to be here. It is embarrassing for the editor of a newspaper who is constantly yapping and criticizing expenditures to come before a committee of Congress to ask for an appropriation of $400,000.

The facts and statistics will be presented, not only by the borough president and experts but I address myself to what I call public opinion. This is 'the first time I have any conception of where I can see not only that the Democrats are for it but the Republicans, too. The capitaliPts are . for it and labor is for it. Members of Congress of both political parties are for it. I know of no other interest in my rather long newspaper career where it can possibly be said that in this great community, there is not a single, solitary voice in opposition.

A newspaperman has a number of functions, the printing of the news, the facts of the day, and some crftical comment thereon. You have good or you have bad. The one other purpose is the betterment of the community in which he lives as related to the whole country. And I know of no improvement past, present, or future, that has so much of an effect upon the welfare of the country as a whole as this award for Gowan us Creek Channel.

There have been a great many fine things done for Brooklyn, the Brooklyn Battery tunnel, the bridges and everything else, but there is nothing-especially in the state of flux in which our national economy is in at the moment regarding international affairsthere is nothing so important as making this channel sufficiently navigable to take care of present and future needs.

I say that I am embarrassed because it is the first time I have done such a thing as this. I think newspapers should speak on their editorial pages and not be supplicants individually and personally. But however, this is of such importance, not only to the community which is interested enough, but to the country as a whole, that I am not sorry · to say to you today that this is a good thing.

Mr. DAVIS. t am sure you need make no apology for appearing before the subcommittee on an occasion of this sort.

Mr. SCHROTH. Thank you. Mr. CELLER. This is rather an unusual ex

perience to have the solid delegation from Brooklyn, both Democrats and Republicans with the president of our borough and a distinguished editor and-publisher of a traditionally known Brooklyn paper and one of the best papers in the country-all consulting here in the interests of getting 4 feet greater depth to this. Gowanus Creek Channel.

Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. CELLER. On the record. Brooklyn has asked very little from this

Congress all the years that I have been here. We have never said much-hardly anything-and Brooklyn Members have always supported that which we deem was right and proper, like the TVA, the Farm Bureau, a'Q.d REA. We now come as supplicants to ask you to aid our local coll).IIlerce, but in doing so, you will enhance the national commerce and the national interests.

The Bureau of Engineers a few years ago said the total cost would be less than $400,-000. Probably it is higher now but not much; $289,000 a few years ago. · What the exact amount will be, I canno;t say.

You have heard a very masterfUl presentation of this matter by our borough president for whom we all have an a1fectionate

_regard and the supplementary statement by Mr. Schroth; and I will state that no one can challenge a'Q.ything these two distinguished gentlemen have said.

I might add that something like 4,537,000 tonS of petroleum products go through that creek every year. That is a, vast amount of petroleum and petroleum products. ·In addition, there are vast tons of coal, grain, cereals, wheat, and chromium which is very strategic and very e~sential in the manUfacture · of steel; many strategic ·chemicals go through. There are great quantities of nonferrous ore and there is not a State in the Union that is not affected by commerce that goes through that creek and most of that product is carried bY.. deep-draft cargo.

These ships have a great deal of trouble in berthing because they must wait in New York Harbor in Gowanus Bay before they can go alongside their piers.

The industry is very anxious to expend some money on piers and bulkheads. They have spent about $6 million and have built 27 piers there. There are. more piers there than you find in many cities. There are 28 bulkhead tunnels whose assessed value with the channels together with facilities are worth $19 billion. These figures are abnost astronomical when you figure that what we are asking for is half a million.

Very important lines have spent money there. The Bull Line has spent $17 million on its terminal and intends to spend as much in the future. Bethlehem Steel and other companies have reported an average of 917 vessels a year. The Patchogue Oil Terminal handles 2,950,000 tons of petroleum a year through these facilities and if you will spend $500,000 on this improvement they intend to spend $600,000 to build a 600,000-ton storage there. ·

I am reading briefly from a statement contained in the New York Times this morning:

"During the high-tide rush period the engineers found as many as 50 small craft and barges will block the canal on Gowanus Creek and Henry Basin creating dangerous conditions. For this reason navigation of the creek is carried on only in daylight hours."

Doing business there needs to be one continuous operation, not only in the daytime but in the nighttime as well.

You are told that time and tide wait for no man. But we must wait for time and tide and that time waste is money lost. Lots of money is lost in taxes-a deliberate loss to the Federal Government. You can make money and not lose money by increasing the expenditure for this improvement. May I have inserted into the record later a letter which includes a list of imports ancLexports in and out of the Gowan us Creek Channel?

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. CELLER. We Will be happy to accept your letter with enclosures for the record.

(The matter referred to follows:) MAY 15, 1953.

Mr. FRANK SANDERS, Subcommittee on Civil Functions#

House Appropriations Committee# House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR Ma. SANDERs: Please insert the fol• lowing after my testimony today, Friday, in support of the Gowanus Creek Channel ap• propriations as follows:

I have asked the Department of Commerce, Oftlce of International Trade, to prepare for me a list of imports and exports in and out of the Gowanus Creek Channel as well as the steamship liners which berth in this channel and the countries which they serve.

You will see how widespread the nature of this commerce is and the great number of countries a:ffected, as indicated in the at• tached memorandum from the Department of Commerce.

Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely yours,

E:MANUEL CELLER.

5608 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD- HOUSE May 26 DEPARTMENT oF CoMMERCE, character of the people who are advocating OFFICE QF INTERNATIONAL TRADE, this tremendous improvement for the Bor-

Washington, D. C., May 15, 1953. ough of Brooklyn. I am the first Republican The Honorable EMANUEL CELLER. · •' r· elected from the Borough of Brooklyn for over

House of Representatives, SO years and Republicans and Democrats and Washi ngton, D. c. everyone else in the borough are behind

DEAR MR. CELLER: In accordance with your this appropriation and are urging it. request of even date, we are pleased to at- I want to emphasize the effect of comparl-

. tach information on the Gowanus Channel. sons. Enormous sums are spent on the bar-Sincerely yours, bors of Houston and Boston and Norfol~ by

the Federal Government. Here a compara-HERBERT AsHTON, tively small amount of $400,000 will do twice

Director, Transpor tat ion, Oommunica• as much in improvements as is spent on tions, and Utilities DiVision. these other harbors. Houston has less cargo.

"THE GOWANUS CR~K CHANNEL Boston has just about an equal amount, and "Port of New York includes the section Norfolk in 1951-I do not know the precise

from Twenty-eighth Street, Brooklyn, to figure-has about an equal amount in cargo Hamilton Avenue Bridge. This area is tonnage as this small Gowanus Creek. heavily industrialized, being the site of docks You may never have heard the name beof the Bethlehem Steel Corp., the Texas Co., fore, but it means just as much to the comand the Sullivan Drydock Co., as well as of a merce of the country as Houston, Boston, Delaware, Lackawanna & western terminal. and Norfolk, and this improvement will

"The 1951import tonnage was 599,000 tons, practically double the tonnage that will carried in 351 vessels, while 505,000 tons were come into this small creek channel. exported in 405 vessels. 7'he major commod- It. seems to me that the importance of deities moving in international trade in this fense this particular little creek has to the area are: country emphasizes the fact that $400,000 is

. "Imports not much to spend on it. "Fish and meat products, raw hides and And again, Mr. Chairman, let me stress

skins, animal feeds, fruits and nuts, coffee, the bipartisan natwoe of the people you have cocoa beans, spices, sugar,t rubber, castor before you today. beans, vegetable oils and fats, inedible, vege- Mr. RooNEY. Thank you, Mr. DoRN. Mr. table dyeing and tanning extracts, tobacco, RAY. · textile fibers, lumber,t petroleum, crude,t Mr. RAY. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to comresidual fuel oil,t iron and steel products,t plete the roster of Brooklyn's Congressmenother metals,t industrial chemicals, and all of us support the Gowanus Creek Chan-fertilizer. nel deepening. I can endorse all the state-

~'Exports ments of fact and concur in the recommendations which have been presented to you

"Fish and meat products, corn, wheat and here today. I have no new comments to wheat fiour, animal feeds, vegetable oils, a<ld, but I wish to give such emphasis as I lumber, lubricating oil and grease,1 iron and can to the statement made here by Mr. steel products,t metal manufactures,1 rna- Schroth. It is true .economy to spend the chinery,t and chemical specialties.1 amount required to deepen the Gowanus

"Steamship lines which berth in this . Creek Channel because that small expendichannel and countries· which they serve are ture will cause large additional private in-

as .:g~~:~~ean Shipping Co. (Yugoslavia vestments, increase the fiow of commerce, Lines), Yugoslavia, Mediterranean ports; and increase employment, and it should subBull-Insular Lines, Puerto Rico, Caribbean stantially increase Federal and State tax ports; Isthmian Line, India, Persian Gulf, revenues. I shall not take more of your Far East, Hawaii; Black Diamond Line, Rot- time, but I do ask your considerate attenterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg; United States tion for this Gowanus Creek project. Navigation Co., Rotterdam, Antwerp, Ham- Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. RAY. burg; -Barber Line, Philippines, SOuth Africa, Mr. RooNEY. Colonel Welsh, of the Brook-Scandinavia; Furness-Withy (tankers)~ lyn Chamber of Commerce. Venezuela, Aruba." Colonel WELSH. Gentlemen, in discussing

Mr. RooNEY. Mr. Chairman, Congresswom- the port, we must understand it is part of a an KELLY would like to be heard. tightly woven structure that handles the

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate overall commerce of the country and while this opportunity to appear before this com- it may be of minimum importance to a mittee in an endeavor to urge the appro- locality it is in a broader sense a part of the priation of funds to deepen the Gowanus national structure. Creek Channel in the Borough of Brooklyn. Going on from there, my name is A. C.

I agree with the previous speakers, includ- Welsh and I represent the Brooklyn Chamber ing Hon. John Cashmore, president of the of Commerce. We appear here in favor of Borough of Brooklyn; Hon. Frank Schroth, affirmative action by your committee in conowner and editor of the Brooklyn Eagle; and nection with the appropriation of funds for my colleagues in the House of Repre- the improvement of Gowanus Creek Channel sentatives. in the' port of New York.

I desire to emphasize one point· which I Gowanus Creek Channel at the present believe should bear considerable weight. time· has a depth of 26 feet for a width The Borough of Brooklyn, 1 of the 5 bor- of 200 feet for most of its course. The total oughs of the Greater City of New York, con- improvement would be about eight-tenths tributes $1,040,000,000 annually in internal of a mile. The present project was comrevenue to the Federal Treasury. Only 16 pleted in 1904 and at that time was quite States in these United States contribute adequate to accommodate commerce using more than that amount. thjl waterway. In 1904 the 5,000-ton freighter

I agree we .are all economy minded, but I was the standard type and the 26-foot chanthink you have a good guaranty that this nel was adequate to permit the efficient oper• small investment on the part of the Federal ation of this type of vessel. 41so, as late as Government will bring increased revenue 1947 there were only 56 ships a year that into the Treasury. usea that channel. Today, the situation is

I urge that you take favorable action on entirely changed. The common type of ves-this project. sel today is the so-called c-:2 with a tonnage

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mrs. KELLY. capacity of 12,500 tons. This type of vessel Mr. RooNEY. Congressman DoRN. cannot be operated in a channel with less Mr. DoRN of New York. I do appreciate the water than 30 feet. This restricts operation

opportunity to speak .before this committee of ships in the channel to the limited time today, and particularly because it gives me of high tide. the opportunity to emphasize the bipartisan In addition to this the number of vessels

1 Major commodities. using the channel has entirely changed since 1947 and in 1951 414 ships w~re using the

waterway. The port of New York needs wharfage space badly and it is essential that this important channel be improved so as to permit operation of the highest efficiency for the longest possible period of time.

A further disadvantage of the inadequacy of the developments is the necessity for dredging slips to provide adequate water for ships in dock at extreme low tide. If a fully loaded 5hip were docked it would lie on the bottom and a serious strain might result. Because of this it is necessary to dredge the slips below the channel fiow for a depth of from 30 to 35 feet. This results in almost impossible maintenance since the channel mud is being washed into the slip by every passing vessel. Since steainShip operations are restricted to the period of high tide, congestion is bound to result because of the effort of so many vessels to reach berth in

. such a limited period of time. This heightens the problem of handling' the fourmillion-odd tons now using the channel. If any large portion of this commerce were driven to other sections of the port, serious congestion might result.

Among the 4 million tons moving over this waterway much is vital to our own economy and some is vital to our defense and to that of the free world. However, much of this tonnage is indistinguishable. For example, a large shipment of X-ray insulating material moved to a contractor in Puerto Rico had nothing to distinguish it from ordinary commercial traffic. However, upon investigation we found that the material was to be used in the construction of a military hospital.

Some commodities are earmarked and can be readily recognized, as in the case of the large and regular movement of trucks, rockets, and artillery moving to the Yugoslav Army, w"Qich moves in large quantities, or the movement of special · machinery from Germany consigned to the Air Force. We have abstracted from the tonnage records of the steamship lil!es the commodities assotiated with the production of defense material. Among the inbound freight are antimony, bismuth, lead ingots, copper cathodes (used in the manufacture of shells), aluminum ore, tinplate and ingot (Government controlled), ferromanganese, chrome . ore (bagged and in bulk), mercury, special steels, brass tubing and rods. In addition to this 18,645,196 bushels of grain moved to European ports in the past 3 years while 386 million board-feet of lumber moved into this port.

In this statement I have endeavored to be as brief as possible and at the same time emphasize the commercial importance of this gateway. It will be recalled that in my statement I included a great numb~ of import commodities which are entirely for United States Government use, and almost the entire volume of grain that I reported was shipped on Government programs.

It is our feeling that the Gowanu!S Creek Channel's importance to the United States Government as a harbor facility should not be overlooked because of the existing international difficulties in Korea and elsewhere.

I thank you for this opportunity, and if there are any questions I shall be very glad to answer them.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Colonel Welsh. Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Swain. Mr. SWAIN. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman

and gentlemen, I want to thank you on behalf of the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce and industry for giving this matter your attention. I hope that you are able to find favorably for it. I hope particularly that you find the time to give particular attention to the defense aspects that have been underlined by Colonel Welsh and if any members of the committee wish further information and more specific information on it we are always ready to supply them through the borough delegation to Congress.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Swain.

1953 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - · HOUSE 5609 Mr. HELLER. Mr. Chairman and members of

the committee, I appreciate the opportunity extended to me by your committee to express my views in support of the proposed appropriation to improve the Gowanus Creek Channel in the New York Harbor.

This channel, which is now 26 feet deep, was first dredged back in 1904 when ships were small. During the past half century shipping has made notable progress, and it is imperative that a great harbor such as New York should keep up with this progress, if it wants to maintain its position as one of the world's largest ports of entry and exit through which is funneled much of the commodities used and produced by the eastern half of the United States. It requires a sum of less than $500,000 to dredge this channel to a depth of 30 feet in order to accommodate larger cargo-carrying vessels.

If this improvement is undertaken in the very near future, I understand that at least $10 million will be spent by shipping and ship-repair companies in building modern waterfront terminals and making other necessary improvements, which should prove to be a great boon to the economy of New York. The goods coming and going through the Gowanus Creek Channel are especially vital to coll}Illerce and industry in the Borough of Brooklyn, which has a population of some 3 million. Any deterioration in the economy of this huge community would immediately be felt throughout New York and would unquestionably have its effects on a much wider area.

The improvement so urgently needed in this channel has long been delayed-too long, to be sure--so that there is a good deal of uneasiness and anxiety · in our borough, particularly among commercial and industrial interests, concerning the future. If Congress, which last year authorized the deepening of this channel, should now fail to appropriate the relatively small sum required to fulfill this project, I can assure this committee that there will be a tremendous disappointment felt by all the people of Brooklyn, business interests will feel a great letdown, and the first signs of economic deterioration in the area may soon appear.

It would be extremely shortsighted and a great disservice to a huge community such as Brooklyn, whose commercial and industrial activities· are so dependent on the flow of goods through this harbor area, to economize on this relatively modest sum so urgently needed to improve shipping facili.ties. When a whole area involving the welfare of millions of people and many more millions of dollars in investment in business enterprises is so dependent for its livelihood on its port facilities, it would be false economy on the part of Congress to try to save a sum of $500,000 at the detriment of a whole community. There are certain expenditures which must be made in order to maintain our economic position, and I cannot think of a more urgent and more deserving project than the improvement of this channel.

Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the members of this committee to take into consideration the problem and the needs involved in this situation, to realize that the small sum required for this improvement is of vital necessity to· a large segment of our population, and to recommend to Congress that this expenditure be appropriated as soon as possible so that work on the project can be undertaken at an early date. You will be performing a creditable service to this entire area, and one of which you will be proud and blessed for many years to come.

Mr. CASHMORE. Mr. Chalrman, may I ask a question; or if I should not ask it, will 'you tell me to withdraw it? About what date can you tell me what is going on and what is going out?

Mr. DAVIS. We expect to make that with• in the next week. ·

Mr. CASHMORE. While Brooklyn 1s the strongest Democratic county in the United States and I, as president of the borough, said Brooklyn was Democratic, yet when General Eisenhower came to Brooklyn I turned over the steps of borough hall to him. I built a stand and put 48 chairs there.

Mr. DAvis. You want to remember that the Republicans are going to have something to say about that. ·

Mr. RooNEY. Mr. O'Toole. is a former Member of Congress for New York, Mr. Chairman, and has a few remarks to offer.

Mr. DAvis. You may proceed, Mr. O'Toole. Mr. O'TOOLE. I live 3 blocks from this canal

and channel and every day I have the opportunity of observing the way commerce is held up by its narrowness and depth. As the editor of the Brooklyn Eagle and my colleagues. have brought out, this is a national waterway. It is not a local proposition. Every part of our country receives assistance from the Federal Government recognizing its obligation to the people.

But during all these years we have never received any assistance and the assistance we ask today iS not for ourselves nor our community, but as has been pointed out, for the entire Nation and national and international trade.

Mr. RoONEY. Thank you, Mr. O'Toole. Before concluding this hearing, I should like to say that my attention has been called by Mr. Schulze to the fact that the grain elevator on this channel which, as I said before, has a capacity of 1.8 million bushels is the only grain elevator in the port of New York which can service seagoing vessels.

Mr. Chairman, I will leave this map with you. May I express the thanks of each and every one of us who came here today from Brooklyn. We truly appreciate your patience and your courtesy. We do hope you see fit to include funds for the improvement of Gowanus Creek Channel in the bill you report.

waterway in Brooklyn extending north· easterly about 1 ¥2 miles from the north end of Bay Ridge Channel, as is seen by the map. The project authorized by the River and Harbor Acts of 1881 and 1896 provided for a channel 26 feet deep at mean·low water from Bay Ridge Channel at 28th Street to the foot of Percival Street, with width decreasing from 300 feet at 28th Street to 200 feet at Percival Street; thence 18 feet deep at mean low water to Hamilton Avenue Bridge, gradually reducing in width to 100 feet at the bridge, all as limited by harbor lines. Length of section included in project is three-fourths mile. In 1952, Congress authorized modification of the existing project so as to provide for deepening the existing 26-foot channel to 30 feet and for a branch channel 30 feet deep and 150 feet wide in the lower 1,000 feet of Henry Street Basin at an estimated cost of $287,000. Work authorized by the River and Harbor Acts of 1881 and 1896 was completed in 1904 at a cost of $70,000; however, no work has been done on the modification. The average annual commerce transported over this waterway during the period of 1941 to 1950 amounted .to 4,441,600 tons, iil.cluding 240,300 car ferry tons. Commerce during calendar year 1951 amounted to 4,696,400 tons, including 158,900 car ferry tons.

The terminal properties located on the Gowanus Creek Channel are among the most easily accessible waterfront properties in the Port of New York since the opening of the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel.

Because of the wide streets and parking facilities available in the immediate

Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask vicinity trucks delivering cargo to the unanimous consent that the gentleman piers do not· cause undue congestion or from New York [Mr. RAY] may extend obstructions to traffic. his remarks at this point in the REcORD. · The amount of general cargo export·

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection ed and imported by ships berthing at to the request of the gentleman from piers located on the Gowanus Creek New York? · . ': · , Channel exceeds the tonnage of many

There was no objection. large United States ports. With few ex-Mr. RAY. Mr. Chairman, one mem· ceptions, all the slips at which freight

ber of the committee, the gentleman vessels berth have been dredged to 30 · from New Jersey, referred this afternoon feet or over in anticipation of the chanto the approach of the time when we nel also being dredged to 30 feet at mean will not be able to defer all projects that low water as recommended by the Army are new starts. He had in mind that engineers as far back as 1946. This true economy requires that some new dredging could be done now at a fraction projects get under way. The deepening of the cost of performing this operation of Gowanus Creek Channel is that kind in time of an emergency. of project. It will facilitate and in- The officials of the city of New York, crease the flow of commerce, and already recognizing the increasing importance of the channel carries as much tonnage as · this waterway, have made improvements the port of Boston or the port of Nor· and changes in the streets and ap· folk. It will increase investment and proaches to the terminals. In the case employment in a very important indus- of our terminals 2 streets were widtrial section of Brooklyn and it will in- ened to 100 feet and a third, which herecrease Federal and State tax revenues. · tofore had been closed, was opened ·and

Mr. Chairman, I have every sympathy paved. with the committee. It has done a dif- Tidal currents in the Gowanus Creek ficult job and done it well. In this case, Channel are at a minimum, thereby I submit it has done it too well as it ran greatly aiding in the handling of barges beyond the line of economy and reached and lighters and reducing the damage into the field of false economy. done to piers and ships in spite of the

Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask fact that the Gowanus Creek Channel is unanimous consent that the gentleman a narrow body of water. from New York [Mr. DoRN] may extend The channel is· continuously filling in, his remarks at this point in the RECORD. which in tum means some of this fill,

The CHAIRMAN~ Is there objection through ship propeller action, finds its to the request of th~ gentleman from way into the slips dredged at consider-New York? ' able expense·by private interests.

There was no objection. ··.. '.i · Vessels are arriving and leaving with Mr. DORN of New York. Mr. Chair• ._ deeper draft, therefore the difficulties

man, Gowanus Creek is a. small tidal,, .... navigating the channel are increasing.

5610 CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD--- HOUSE May 26

Due to the fact that ·deep-draft vessels can only leave during daylight, at certain stages of high tide, the congestion in the waterway at those times increases, operations become difficult, delays are prevalent.

Business interests engaged in shipping and marine facilities have expended over $17 million since 1948 in new construction and improvements. Over $500,000 for dredging the slips, so deepladen ships can be accommodated; all in anticipation of the Government improving the channel leading to same.

All Brooklyn is behind this improvement. It is nonpartisan and joined in by all of the Democratic Members of Congress, as well as all of the Republican Members of Congress from Brooklyn.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. GoLDENJ.

Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, there are two projects that were contained in the revised budget estimate in my home district of Kentucky that this great Appropriations Committee saw fit to delete and strike out. I am very grateful to the committee for giving me time, when I know they are under great pressure and that many Members of this House will not be afforded that opportunity.

I feel that if they can get a grasp of the true facts that exist on the Cumberland River in southeast Kentucky at Barbourville, Ky., and Pineville, Ky., they will realize that these two projects measure up in every particular, any way . you look at it, to be included in this bill.

Last year we were in the budget and we received an app-ropriation at Pineville of $274,000. At Barbourville we received an appropriation of $75,000 to complete the planning. We have expended a portion of that fund. We got it, as was stated on _some of the other projects, near the end of the session of Congress last year. We immediately went to work. The citizens of Pineville, Ky., have voted bond issues and sold bonds to the tune of $590,000. Although the entire project and the expenditures of the Federal Government are only $1,-500,000, we are paying a third of the cost. We have our money in the bank. It is drawing interest. At Barbourville also bonds have been voted and money raised by local citizens to meet their share of expenses.

When they started the work there this spring en this first appropriation we were notified by the Federal Government to buy rights-of-way over the first segment of this flood wall. We took $50,000 of our money and bought those rights-ofway. As soon as we were placed in the budget for this year on the revised estimate, of the Army engineers, we began to expend, at the request of the Army engineers, further money for more rights-of-way, and we made a contribution of $50,000 over and above what we were obligated to do in order that there may .be no obstacle to speeding up this work.

We were frozen, as all other projects were frozen, along in January, but as soon as that freeze order was off we went to .work again.

We furnish to this great Nation a large amount of bituminous coal. Pineville,

Ky., that will be protected by this flood wall, has a railroad yard in it where the great trains of bituminous coal that go into the war factories of this Nation are assembled. We produce on the CV division of the L. & N. Railroad Co. from 15 to 20 million tons of coal a year. You cannot produce steel in America unless you have bituminous coal. -

In addition, just below Pineville, Ky., and between Barbourville and Pineville, Ky., and these two towns are under like ami similar circumstances, there is a great electric generating plant owned by the Kentucky Utilities. As soon as the Korean war broke out the United States Government, and the people in charge of the bomb plant at Oak Ridge; Tenn., requested this electric company, with headquarters in Pineville, to double the capacity of electricity. Every day of the year this electric plant near Pineville is sending ·to the Oak Ridge plant electricity with which to make bombs. This flood wall will protect those essential war industries, if you will put us back in this bill.

The bituminous coal burned in this electric plant goes through the streets of Pineville, Ky., and· some through Barbourville, Ky., and when these flood walls are built, these streets and haulways will be protected.

I understand that the Army engineers do not have a sufficient sum left out of last year's appropriations to keep this Pineville project going this fiscal year and work will stop if $590,000 is not put back in this bill . · Floods sweep through Pineville, Ky.", most every year, water gets more than 6 feet deep all over town, in business buildings, schools, churches, the courthouse and post office, and the homes of

· our people. The same thing happens at Barbourville. When floods strike, tremendous damage is intlicted on our people.

At the expense of the people of Kentucky, through the highway department, we have built at our own expense a high bridge and street, or highway, over the · Cumberland River at Pineville which is above flood stage, and this ties in· with our flood wall. This was done at our own expense of over $100,000-local money of Kentucky.

The electric power furnished Oak Ridge bomb plant from our coal and plant below Pineville .is so important to

·our Government, they have a helicopter airplane to patrol this line from Pineville to Oak Ridge every day. · Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may require to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. SHORT].

Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, now, no pancake is ever so fiat that it does not have two sides. We are here not arguing or dictating, but to plead with you to consider with an open mind, without any bias or prejudice whatever, the merits of our case.

To me it is rather regrettable that we should take your time and take our own in having to come before this committee again.

For the 20 years that I have been 1n Congress I have been working for Table Rock Dam. ·

It took some time for me to be sold on its merits, I might say, but every gov.:. ernmental agency that has dealt with this project has approved it, not only the district engineers, the division engineers, and the Chief of Engineers of the Army, but the Federal Power Commission, the Flood Control Committees, the legislative committees of both the Senate and the House, the Bureau of the Budget under President Roosevelt and President Truman, the Natural Resources and Planning Board; and Congress-itself, both the House and Senate authorized Table Rock Dam with Bull Shoals in 1941.

So, it has been pretty firmly established, I think, by all these governmental agencies, both in the executive and legislative branches of the Government, that Table Rock is a project that, from an engineering and economic standpoint is feasible and justifiable.

Now, over a period of the past 15 years there have been survey studies made and test borings and drillings taken. We have spent more than $800,000 in exploratory work.

Last year Congress gave us $3 million for the beginning of construction.

Both Table Rock and Bull Shoals were authorized in 1941, but because of the war and the shortage of critical materials and manpower, construction was delayed, but in 1946, a year after V-J Day, funds were voted for the beginning of the construction of Bull Shoals and that is now nearing completion. The reservoir is filling, power is being de.veloped, and people are receiving benefits from that _great project. · It was not until last year that we got funds for the beginning of the construction of Table Rock.

I wish that your committee would bear in mind that Table Rock and Bull Shoals are tied tog~ther as a unit. ·

It would be rather foolish, from· the standpoint of the engineers' and the economists' testimony, to build one of these dams without the other.

The construction of . Table Rock will not only develop power at that site, but it will increase the output of power of the Ozark Beach Power Dam at Forsyth, Mo., a private utility which was constructed 41 years ago, and it will enormously increase the output of power of Bull Shoals which is about 100 watermiles, and 50 air-miles down the White River from Table Rock dam site.

Now, I want to impress upon you as one who was born there and has lived there all of his life, and these other wit'nesses will also tell you, thai we have had recurring disastrous floods in that valley, I suppose, from time immemorial, but we have felt them most in recent years.

Between 19·27 and 1938 there were seven disastrous floods, and we have had several since then. In fact, it 1s estimated that there is $2 million of fiood damage each year in that valley.

So, from the standpoint· of flood control alone the , construction of Table Rock, I think, would be justified, but when you connect with it the generation of power and the increased power which it will .give to both Ozark Beach Dam and Bull ShoalS Dam, I do not

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 5611 see how anyone could intelligently and logically oppose it.

I might say that the White River rises in the Boston Mountains in northwest Arkansas, and it flows through three counties in my district, Taney, Barry, and Stone and it cuts back across northeastern Arkansas and spills into the Mississippi. It is a clear, beautiful river as it storms out of those steep, rugged hillsides. I do not want to stress them unduly, but I think I should mention the great incidental benefits from a recrea-tional standpoint. •

We have there the Ozark Pl~ygrounds Association. This is quite a watering place. We get tourists from St. Louis, Kansas City, Wichita, Tulsa, Little Rock, and that whole region who come there.

While some of our bottom farmlands in the White River Valley will be taken out of production and out of taxation, I think I am conservative and would be perfectly safe in predicting that within 2 or 3 years after the construction of that dam the revenues in my own county will be doubled or trebled." That is the experience we have had at Norfork ·and are having at Bull Shoals. ·

I want to point out, too, to this subcommittee that all of the power . being generated at Bull Shoals is already contracted for by the huge aluminum plant being built in north Arkansas.

we have some precious and strategic minerals there, such as bauxite, titanium, lead, zinc, aad fluoride, and if we had the power, and if we could adopt the electrolytic process, I am sure that many of these marginal mines which are having a hard time, and that many .people out of employment would find gainful work and that the prosperity of the whole region would be enormously increased.

Most of the lake or the reservoir that this dam will create will be in my home county, Stone County, and Barry County to the west is in my district.

There is a little opposition to this project which has been quite vocal and vociferous. I shouid have enjoyed listening to them if I had had the time, but I can tell you as these other witnesses will tell you, Democrats, Republicans, Old Dealers, New Dealers, all of them, regardless of their politics or religion, that I think at least 95 percent of all of the people in my district and in JIM TRIMBLE's district in that region are for the construction of Table Rock Dam.

If I did not think it was a worthy project I certainly would not have spent all of the time and energy that I have on it for 20 years. You gentlemen know me.

I served on the Flood Control Com·mittee, on the Rivers and Harbors Committee, and on the Irrigation and Reclamation Committee, of the House of Representatives, and I served for 6 years as president of the National Rivers and Harbors Congress, a lot of hard work, little honor, and no pay.

Senator · McCLELLAN, of Arkansas, is now president of the National Rivers and Harbors Congress; I am chairman of the board.

I have been tremendously interested in flood control and aware of the importance of navigation, the development

of hydroelectric power, and the conservation of our water and land resources all over this Nation. I have visited the dams and projects in the Ohio, the Mississippi, and the Missouri Valleys, and I have gone into Arkansas and up and down the Atchafalaya and Boeuf in Louisiana, all of them from the Columbia out in the West to the Connecticut in New England.

I have voted as a Member of Congress for certain projects, and I have voted against others.

I want you to know now that I do not want to turn my district into a lake.

The Engineers have a lot of projects in reserve on the shelf which · I could never support. They even want to build a dam above my little home town of Galena. We do not want that one built. It would cover up Crane, Hurley, and Nixa, because the land up there is more of an open and level nature, but down at Table Rock on the White River above Bull Shoals and above the Ozark Beach Dam the valleys are deeper, or the hills are higher, put it either way you like, the canyons are nar:r:ower, and the construction of that dam will not cover up railroads or utilities or industries, and it will not interfere too much with highways and bridges. There will be a min-imum' of dislocation. ·

There will be some relocations of highways, and maybe 2 or 3 bridges to be built and a road, but it will create this reservoir there to protect a miliion acres of fertile farmlands below, chiefly in Arkansas.

They are going to benefit from it, but it will also generate power to give all of the people in that vast region where we have considerable unemployment an opportunity for employment, Bear in mind that has been declared a distress or hardship area.

That alone, I think, would almost justify the construction of this dam that will bring in new industries to develop our resources. Industries follow power.

My district is dotted with canning factories. We can tomatoes, peas, and beans, and it is great dairy country, and also poultry country, and great strawberry country. It is fast becoming one of the leading poultry and dairy districts in the United States.

My district, Mr. DAVIS, would compare very favorably with any district in the State of Wisconsin today in the production of milk, butter, and other dairy products; we have Kraft cheese, Carnation and Pet milk plants, and brooder nouses scattered all through my district~

It is a great poultry and dairy country. We have these sawmills and industries there and we need this power because all of the power that is being generated at Bull Shoals is already committed for that aluminum plant.

It would be-the greatest possible boon to that whole region, and this project is self-liquidating. It will pay off every dollar. There was $10,800,000 in the Truman bl:ldget.

I know and you know that Republicans were elected,_ and this administration put in power, because one of the main reasons was promise<! economy. We

wanted to cut expenditures, and wanted to reduce taxes. We still do.

You know my voting record when it comes to economy and trying to restore the value of the dollar. I want to trim off all the fat that we can, but I do not want to cut into the muscle and I do not want to cut the nerve.

I think it would be false economy after all of the time and energy and money that has been spent on it, and the tremendous interest of the people in that vast region around Table Rock Dam to eliminate the whole $10,800,000 from the budget. · It would be wanton waste.

These people would continue indefinitely in distress if you did that. The farmers in this region have not built homes, they have - not painted their houses, they have not repaired their fences or barns, and they have not increased the fertility of their soil because they have been living with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, expecting to be covered up.

We have a lot of the local people here today to testify who will give · you a clearer picture of their situation than I could.

When you think of the value that will be added to the whole region, not only in flood control, but from the development of hydroelectric power, and the bringing in of new industry, in giving employment to people there who need work, and who are eager for it, and all of the recreational advantages that the Ozark playland will afford I do not see how any man with an open mind, or with a sound brain, if he will just take time enough to get the true facts, how he could oppose such a worthy proposition.

I have never gotten a dime for such projects in my district until last year. I have never gotten a dime for flood control or for the development of dams, and some of the dams the engineers want built in my district we do not want built. We want to build Table Rock Dam because it is tied in, intertwined, interrelated with Bull Shoals. They are to function as a unit as the Army engineers will tell you. Table Rock is a sound economic investment that will pay dividends in the years ahead.

I do not think I could add anything more to what I have said unless ~YOU gentlemen want to ask some questions.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. BURDICK].

Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, I have not risen to put any new project in this bill. The fact is I want to take one of the projects out. I live at Williston, which is in close proximity to Garrison Dam on which they have already spent $335 million. The irrigation system they expect to establish will cost about $335 million more. Before they get ·through with it and ready to operate it, the people of the United States will have a billion dollars in it. When the plant was authorized, they provided for a pool of 17 million acre-feet. Everybody agreed on that. That would not have flooded out our town. The Army engineers discovered in a few months they had found 6 million acre-feet more water

5612 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE Ma.y 26

capacity. So now they want 23 million acre-feet. That takes away from us 90,000 acres of additional land in that rich valley. It inundates the railroad, the only railroad in our· vicinity, the Great Northern. You have on record here this statement from the President that they will not maintain their line behind dikes. Here is the city of Wil· liston with a population of 16,000 people, which is coming up fast since the dis· covery of oil. This rise of water :floods that town out. They expect us to live behind dikes for the rest of our lives. The Congress never discussed dikes at all.

Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURDICK. I yield. Mr. GAVIN. Does the gentleman in

tend to offer an amendment to take out this appropriation?

Mr. BURDICK . . I do. Mr. GAVIN. I will be glad to help

you in the matter, and I will be glad to support the amendment.

Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, I have no criticism against the committee at all. · I think they did as well as anybody could do. But there is an item there for $4 million which can be stricken out. That $4 million is to provide protection to that area. It just says protection .. but it does not say dikes. But I know what that means. They are going to protect us all right. The Congress does not know at this moment whether you can build a dike on quicksand which will keep the water out, and keep it from seeping onto agricul· tural land. It cannot be done because we have tried it. Furthermore, this reservoir will not be filled for the next 10 years or 15 years. Why is it necessary to run in here now, 10 or 12 years ahead of time and appropriate $4 million to buy land upon which to build these dikes. Now you can save some mone:v. this time if you want to. · There are many bills coming up here on which I am going to vote with you to save money, but I am not going to vote with you to take away educational advantages. You found that out yesterday. But on matters of this kind, I am with you 100 percent. You would naturally think, when I come from Williston, that I am here to get something. But that is not true. I want you to take some of it back, and I am going to offer an amendment, when the bill is read under the 5-minute rule, to strike out this $4 million. Then we could have school lunches and we can have educational advantages and a lot of other things, but we do not need this appropriation at this time. According to the report that has come in this is exactly what the Army engineers will do with that $4 million.

The CHAffiMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Dakota has expired. All time has expired.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair· man, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have permission to extend their remarks at this point in the RECORD on the pending bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from .Wisconsin?


The Clerk read as follows:· For necessary cemeterial expenses as au

thorized by law, including maintenance, op .. eration, and improvement of national ceme-

. teries, and purchase of headstones and markers for unmarked graves; purchase of one passenger motor vehicle for replacement only; maintenance of that portion of the Congressional Cemetery to which the United States has title, Confederate burial places under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army, the Surrender Tree Site in Cuba, and graves used by the Army in commercial cemeteries; $4,870,000: Provided, That hereafter no railroad shall be permitted upon any right-of-way acquired by the United States leading to a national cemetery, or to encroach on any roads or walks thereon maintained by the United States: Provided further, That this appropriation shall not be used to repair more than a single approach road to any national cemetery: Provided further, That this appropriation shall not be obligated for construction of a superintendent's lodge or family quarters at a cost per unit in excess of $14,000, but such limitation may be increased by such additional amounts as may be required to provide office space, public comfort rooms, or space for the storage of Government property within the same structure: Provided iurther, That no part of the funds in this or any other act shall be used for the payment for services rendered by any retired officer detailed on active duty at Arlington National Cemetery as provided by the War Department Appropriation Act, 1933 (Public Law 286, 72d Cong.).

Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike. out the last word, and I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and to proceed for 5 addi- · tional minutes.

The CHAmMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

There was no objection. Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I had no

intention to take the :floor today. How· ever, I think a very significant point has been brought to our attention by my very good and able friend the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. BURDICK], who is asking that $4 million be taken out of the $27 million that has been established for the Garrison Dam in North Dakota.

Therefore I am at a loss to understand just how the engineers arrive at what projects shall be included and what proj· ects shall not be included in their recommendation as it is evident from what my good friend from North Dakota has stated the people of North Dakota are not concerned about the project.

I am interested in a little project up in my district at Johnsonburg, Pa., that was authorized in 1944. It was a four. phase project. The first phase was to construct a dam to impound the water,

. which has now been completed. The second and third phases were the widen· ing, channeling, and dredging of . the river at three small towns below the dam.

Last ·year we had an appropriation of $850,000 for this project for completion of the dam and there was an overage of $400,000 on the project. I assumed, in view of the fact that the law provided and I quote, "It is hereby modified to include construction of :flood control work for the protection of Ridgway, Johnsonburg, St. Marys, Brockway, and vicin~ty - iii the State of ~ennsylvania,"'

that the engineers would immediately start on the second phase of the project, which was for widening, channeling, and dredging at this town of Johnsonburg, Pa., below the dam, but they, along with the Bureau of the Budget, decreed otherwise, that when this money was available it could not be applied to this project until it was authorized at the direction of the Congress. While the law specifically states ":flood protection for the town of Johnsonburg" and the money was appropriated for this project, it was .applied elsewhere; now what rigl).t they had to reallocate this money to some other project I cannot understand.

The Members of Congress certainly ought to be entitled to some consideration in these various projects which concern the economic and industrial life of their districts, and when appropriations are made to a project and they are to be diverted elsewhere that consideration should be given Members of Congress before action is taken. I did not bypass the Civil Functions Subcommittee; I went before them; I explained the whole situation as the · hearings indicate. This money was appropriated for this particular project; still I get no satisfaction; the money is reallocated somewhere else. I do not know whom I can appeal to·other than in regular manner go to the Civil Functions Subcommittee, present my case, and ask them to consider it. I do not know what consideration was given other than the $30,000 included for planning and in the report it states on page 6 that although money has been allocated for planning, yet_the allocation of funds is not to be taken as an indication that the project will be considered. I am at a loss as to whom we can appeal. The Bureau of the Budget says to go to the engineers; the engineers say to go to the Bureau of the Budget; and from the Bureau of the Budget they tell you it is up to the Civil Functions Subcommittee.

And here is the irony of it, after I have been working on this project for 10 years and every spring and fall the town is threatened with devastating :floods-the other day, Friday, the day the bill was presumably marked up, Johnsonburg was again badly hit by a cloudburst and in the west end area the town homes were under 5 to 6 feet of water. Here we have a desperate situation existing where people are being :flooded out each year and can secure no relief.

I have many telegrams and pictures here from that area. Let me read some and place the rest in the RECORD:

JoHNSONBURG, PA., May 25, 1953. Han. LEON H. GAVIN,

· New House Office Building: Dredging of Clarion River at and below

Johnsonburg absolutely necessary immediately. Eighth disastrous flood occurred

· Friday night. Estimated personal damage, $2,000.

G. E. Mc.ALEE.

JOHNSONBURG, PA., May 25, 1953. Han. LEON H. GAVIN,

New House Office Building: Please get some dredging for west bend

of Clarion River. We had a disastrous flood Friday night; personal loss, approximately .$4,000.

MERLE Cxosa.

1953 tONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 5613 JOHNSONBURG, PA., Ma.y 2'5, 1953~ .

Hon. LEoN H. GAVIN, New House Office Bu.ilding:-

Disastrous flood Friday night; lost aU the first-floor furnishmgs. Please do something; need help badly.

Mr. and Mrs. LAVERN BREAl!tEY. '

JoHNSONlJUitG, PA., May 25, 1!)53. Hon. LEON H. GAVIN,

New House Office Building: Dredging of Clarion River at Johnsonburg

absolutely necessary immediately. Eighth disastrous flood occurred Friday night; estimated personal damage, $20,000.

McMANIGLE MoTORS, REED McMANIGLE.

RIDGWAY, PA., May26, 1953. Hon. LEoN H. GAviN,

New House Office BUilding: Floodwaters of Clarion River and Silver

Creek rising at over 1 foot per hom at Johnsonburg, Pa.. Emergency whistle blown at 11 a. m. this date warning residents to aba.n.don homes. West' Johnsonburg and Rolfe

-flooded for second tfme in 3 days. Aroused -citizens cannot understand lack of govern-mental action when necessity for flood-control project this area has been. proven and accepted for so long a period. Clarion River and Elk Creek about to overflow banks in Ridgway Borough. You have seen the millions of dollars destruction and loss of life this area as result or repeated floods. Sug-

. gest ym!r colleagues a~so· come to site and view damage. Immediate action necessary.

PAUL B. GREINER, • Republican County Chairman..

JoHNSONBURG, PA., May 26, 1953. Ron. LEON H. GAVIN,

New House Office Building: Vote yes on flood control for Johnsonburg.

Hit twice in 3 days. Eddie Hazer, William McGonigal, Rich

ard Dubler, Mrs. C. E. McAlee, Mr. G. E. McAlee, Miss Ann McAlee, Mr. Regis Wilhelm, Henry Wilhelm.

JoHNSONBURG, PA.,.. Jfay 2.6, 1953. H.on. LEON H. GAVIN,

New House Office Building: Junior Women's Club representing 70

women of Johnsonburg urgently request · continuation of your efforts fo~ .lohnsonburg flood control.

MAllY ZELEHOSKI, Corresponding Secretary.

JoHNSONBURG, PA., May 25, 1953 • . lion. LEoN H. GAVIN,

New House Office Building: My home flooded. Still raining. Please

vote favorable H. R. 4485, amended May 20, ' 1944.

Mr. and Mrs. B. F. GARRY.

JoHNsoNBURG, PA., May 25, 1953. Hon. LEON H. GAVIN,

New House Office Building: Again deluged by 4 feet of muddy flood

waters from the west branch of the Clarion River. When are you going to get us some relief? •

Mrs. E. A. HEWETI'. ·

JoHNSONBURG, PA., May 25, 1953. .Han. LEO~ H. GAVIN,

New House Office Building: Flooded again Friday night". What are

you going to do about it? Lost first-floor ·furnishings.

. Mr. and Mrs. Louis JoRDAN. -

JoHNSONBURG, PA.,..May 25, 1953. Han. LEON H. GAVIN,

New House Office Building: _ . Just narrowly averted another 1942 flood.

Imperative flood control be finished by the

XCIX--353

Bm.an additional outlay necessary if we are to have :run benefit o:f East Branch Dam.

D. s. _DICKINSON, General Manager, Russell Snow Plow co.

JoHNSONBURG, PA., May 25, 1953. Han. LEON H. GAVIN, . New House Office Building: - We respectfully request your continued le~dership and support for flood-control ·project in Johnsonburg.

AMERICAN LEGION POST, 50, L. E. ANDERSON, Adjutant,

.Johnsonburg, Pa.

JoHNSONBURG,. PA., May 25, 1953. Han. LEoN H. GAVIN,

New House Office Building: . Please appropriate funds for flood control, West Johnsonburg.

E. :r. McDoNALD, Jr.

JoHNSONBURG, PA., May 25, 1953. Hon. LEON H. GAVIN,

New HO!Use Office Building: May 23 flash flood proves present control

Inadequate. Johnsonburg Order of Eastern Star, 160 members, urges prompt consideration of flood control of west branch Clarion River.

WELFARE COMMITTEE OF JOHNSONBURG~ CHAPTER No. 36, OES,

KATHERYN WOLBE.'tT-, Secretary.

JoHNsoNBURG, PA., May 25,. 1953. Hon. LEoN H. GAVIN,

New House Office Building: Your help In getting appropriation for flood

relief in West Johnsonburg needed urgently. ORA McALEE.

JoHNSONBURG, PA., May 25, 1953. LEoN H. GA'IIIN,

New House Office Building: Earnestly mge your continued support o!

flood control in Johnsonburg. Mrs. L. E. ANDERSON.

JoHNSONBURG", PA., May 25, 1953. Bon. LEoN H. GAviN, .

New House Office Building: Disastrous :Hood again Friday night; lost

first :floor furnishings. Please get west branch Clarion River dredged.

RICHARD KOSMISKI.

JoHNSONBUB.G, PA., May 25, 1953. Hon. LEoN H. GAVIN,

· New House Office. Building, Washington, D. C.:

Crescent Study Club, representing 120 women of Johnsonburg, urgently request continuation of your efforts for Johnsonburg flood control.

MARY GORDON, Corresponding Secretary, Crescent

Study Club.

JoHNSONBURG, PA., May 25, 1953. Hon. LEON H. GAVIN,

New House Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

We request approval of second step floo1 relief at once.

Arthur L. Hughes; Christie Storrar; Norman Miller; Peter W. McAlee; John R. Preshak; John Cander; George A. Long, Jr.; John Marrone; Dick A. Ross; Paul S. Black; S. C. Dragone; R. A. Kosmis-ki; Jack Keneske; Larry zuraski; T. P. Gray; Mr. and Mrs. George Forrest; Mr. T. C. Williams; Mr. and Mrs. Arthur O'Neil; R. C. Myers; Mr. and Mrs. Laverne Breakey; Mrs. George Freyer; Mr. and Mrs. .Tames Primearano; Harold Kirkpatrick; S. A. Vavala; Thomas Starror; Bernard a.;- Pavlock; Joseph F. Kl'iegish; James R. Shuey; Paul Launer; Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Evans; Mr. and Mrs. Emmett J. McDonald, Sr.; Mr. and Mrs. Harold Mortimer; Mr. and Mrs. Heitzenrater; Mr. and Mrs. Cleto Duchi; Mr. and Mrs. Gerald F. Russell; Mr. and Mrs. Edwa:rd Dubler; Mr. and Mrs. Jack McGonigal; Mr. a.nd Mrs. Ross P. Young; Mr. and Mrs. John R. Clark; Mr. and Mrs. Miles Wheeler; Mr. and Mrs. James Eggler; Mrs. C. E. McAlee; Beatrice McAlee; Mrs. James Flanagan; Mrs. William McKnight.

JoHNSONBURG, PA., May 25, 1953. Ron. LEoN H. GAVIN,


FlOod conditions over weekend point up need for continuing effort to obtain funds for flood control.

RUTH BRADLEY.

JoHNSONBURG, PA., May 25, 1953. Hon. LEON H. GAVIN, -

JoHNSONBURG, PA., May 25, 1953. New House Office Building, Hon. LEoN H. GAVIN, Washington, D. C.:

New Hou:~e Office Building: Increase efforts for appropriation for flood Disastrous flood Friday night. Please have relief in West Johnsonburg.

west branch of Clarion river dredged. Prop- · BEATRICE McALEE. erty · and furniture rUined. ·

Mrs. PHILIP CROTZER.

JoHNSONBURG, PA., May 25, 1953. . LEON H. GAVIN,

New House Office Building: Disastrous flood Friday night. Please have

. west branch of Clarion River dredged. Property and furniture ruined.

R. J. PRESHAX.

JoHNSONBURG, PA., May 25, 19.53. _Hon. LEON H. GAVIN,

New House Office Building: Urgent help needed . by dredging west

branch of Clarion River. Lost entire beautY shop in flood saturday. My only means of support.

C. BEBTILLA MALLoY •

JoBNSONBUB.G .. PA., May 25, 1953. · . Bon. LEoN H. GAVIN,

New Ho.use Office :Building: Please pass flood-control bill.

ROMAN KOSMISKI.

JoHNSONBURG, PA., May 25, 1953. Hon. LEON GAVIN,

New House Of!ice Building, Washington, D. C.:

We urgently request aid from repeated · flood damage~

· Mrs. Thomas Zeleckoskl, Mr. Thomas Zeleckoski, Joseph Parana, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Parana, Edwin Muraski, Mr. and Mrs. ·Malcolm Stump, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Stump, Guy Allegretti, Arthur R. Airgood, Lawrence John Miller, Mr. and Mrs. Hauy Kl'oah, Mrs. Anthony Ferragine, Mrs. Antoinetta Perragine, Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Wickett, Mr. and Mrs. Frank Vinllla, Mr. and Mrs. Walter Pusl, Mr. and Mrs. James Brown, Mr. and Mrs. Paul Stahll, Claude R. Will or, Mr. and Mrs. Sam Beaver, Mr. John Connors, Mr. Fred Hoffman, Merle E. Cross, Hannah M. Hewett, Mr. James Heitzenrater, Mrs . James Heitzenrater, Mr. and Mrs. Jack Wilhelm, Mr. and Mrs. Alols Dietz, Mr. and Mrs. Norman Parks, Mr. Sam Parks, Mr. and Mrs. Howard Smith.

5614 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE May 26 JoHNSONBURG, PA., May 25, 1953.

LEON H. GAVIN. New House Office Building:

We have had the eighth disastrous flood, destroying all furnishings, floors, and ~ecorating on first floor. We want immed1ate relief by dredging west branch of Clarion.

Mr. and Mrs. MILEs WHEELER.

JoHNSONBURG, PA., May 25, 1953. Hon. LEoN H. GAVIN,

New House Office Building: Disastrous flood occurred again Friday

night. Please have something done a1;>out dredging of west branch Clarion River. Lost first-floor furnishings and car Friday night in flood.

VINCENT LUPOLE. .

JoHNSoNBURG, PA., May ·25, 1953. Hon. LEON H. GAVIN,


Rush legislation to dredge west branch Clarion River. .

Mrs. Glenn McAlee, Robert Abplanalp, W. M. Stahli, Central Hose Co. No. 1, Carl -Miller, Mrs . . Donald Dickey, Mr. and Mrs. John Cunningham, Lloyd Wachob, Mr. and Mrs. John J. Mann, Mr. and Mrs. W. V. Terry, Mr. and Mrs. Glenn C. Willow, Mr. and Mrs. Regis Wilhelm; Mr. and Mr~. John Garske, James Wilhour, John H. Steudler, James M. Hennessy, Stephen Gapin&ki, B. Gan:y Marlin King, Mr. and Mrs. John wachpb, Jasper Torchia, Mr. and Mrs. Allen L._ O'Connor, Mr. and Mrs. John Dubler, Robert c. Jacobs, Jr., Laura Belle Jacobs, Fiore Allegretto, Mary ~llegretto, Mr. and Mrs. Chas. Resch, Mr. and Mrs. F. Funair, Mr. and Mrs. Wm. McGonigal, ·Mr. and Mrs. Geo. Steudler, Mr. and Mrs. John Sekelsky, Helen Sekelsky.

JoHNsoNBURG, PA., May 26, 1953. Han. LEON H. GAVIN,

New House Office Building: The Catholic Daughters of America rep

resenting over 200 women of Johnsonburg urgently request your continued efforts for Johnsonburg flood control.

Miss JENIE MALFARA, Secretary, Catholic Daughters of

America.

ST. MARYS, PA., May 26, 1953. Han. LEON H. GAviN,

House of Representatives: In behalf of 2,000 members of local 502,

IUE-ciO, who reside in Johnsonburg, Ridgway, . St. Marys and ~lk · County area we request that you do everything within your power to have money appropriated for flood control project in this area to supplement the East Dam Branch project just completed so that further discomfort and hardship to residents in this · area will be eliminated • Request you inform me on this matter at your earliest convenience. .

JOHN P. McCLUSKEY, President.

JoHNsoNBURG, PA., May 26, 1953. -Hon. LEON H. GAVIN,

New House Office Building: Fifty thousand dollars damage in West

Johnsonburg. Please rush relief. Harvey Lehman, Mr. and Mrs. Howard

McAnick, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Dudlei-, Henry Wilhelm, Richard Kosmiskl, Mrs. Philip Crotzer, Philip Crotzer, R.

· J: Preshak, Mrs. Forrest Crotzer, Mr. Forrest Crotzer, Mrs. Ross Young, Mr. Charles Sweeney, Mrs. Anna Sweeney, Mrs. Rose Seneno, Mr. Frank .Serena, Franj Kreigger, Mr. and Mrs. W. R. Myers, Mrs. Joseph Czekai, Joseph Wolfe, H. Korep, Neva Breakey, Mrs. E. J. BUskey, Mrs. Fred Eggler, Mrs.

Mary Nelson, D. D. Nelson, Ulldred Nelson, Mr. and Mrs. Irvin Henry, Mrs. Gertrude Spealter, Mr. and Mrs. Claude Gordon.

JoHNsoNBuRG, PA., May 25, 1953. Hon. LEoN H. GAVIN,

New House ·Office Building Seventeen floods since 1936. Where is relief

for flood control? Mr. and Mrs. Dan O'Connell, Mr. and Mrs.

Victor Wolfe, Pearl Wolfe, Lawrence Polaski, Josephine Polaski, Mr. and Mrs. Sam Boults, Mr. and Mrs. William Bullers, Fannie Howe, Andy Gullickson, Mr. and Mrs. Pat Condon, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Himes, Mr. and J.I..Irs. Harold Fiscuss, D. M. Fulton, R. 0. Fulton, Mr. and Mrs. Terry Merle Wolfe, Mr. and Mrs. William Girts, Mr. and Mrs. B. Piurkoski, Mrs. Sarah Nortum, Paul Wingate, Mr. and Mrs. Mike Paladino, Mr. and Mrs. J. E. Rosenhoover, Mr. and Mrs. Angelo Metro, Mr. and Mrs. s. E. Mortimer, c. H. Leroy, c. w. Kifer, Mr. and Mrs. John Mann, Edward D. Schott.

JoHNSONBURG, PA., May 25, 1953. Hon. LEoN H. GAVIN,

New House Office Building: How much longer must we wait for flood

relief? Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Mowrey, Mr. and Mrs.

Hatry Bedfore, Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Aunkst, Mrs. Ruth Klase, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Himes, Mrs. Shirley Halpin, Mrs. Ben Himes, Jr., Mr. and Mr~. Harry Anderson, Mr. and Mrs. Bell Olosiwioski, Amanda Kosmiski, Clair Clark, Mr. and Mrs. Ed Clark, Charles Zuroskl, Mr. and Mrs. Frank Gabor, Miss Gladys Mecca, Mr. and Mrs. Orville Dickey, Mr. and· Mrs. Lawrence Parks, Mr. and Mrs. Bob Ross, Mr. and Mrs. Ray Blashak, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Kasmurski, Mr. and Mrs. Ray Liscinski, Julia M. Steele, Edward Sosmiski, Mrs. E. Allegretto, Adam Sopok, Joseph Zedkoci, Mrs. Clara Weirich, Mrs. Leon Muroski, Mrs. Chester Willow.

him appealing for help in a desperate situation that has developed in New York harpor where a · small ·appropriation would be most helpful. And there are many other places where small amounts of. money would be effective to relieve existing conditions that need attention and should be taken care of. ·

But when it comes to the question of a gigantic monumental dam we can spend ten: twenty, thirty, or forty millions; but the fol~s back home who are getting flooded out every spring and fall every year, who come here and ask for help, cannot get any consideration. So I have reached the point where I am concerned as to how my State, a great State whose

·industrial and economic life is threatened in this highly competitive situation over

· the United States, cah get the help it needs particularly on floo_d control.

In this town I talk about we have 1 'industry in which 1,800 or 2,000 people are employed. When the rains and cloudburst hit it last Friday, May 22, ft again meant trouble, homes flooded out, 5 or 6 feet of water "in the streets and the individual losses are great. Those people are affected, and it affects the economic life of that whole community. I was in that town in 1942 when the plant was closed down for weeks, when I saw whole rows of houses that had been bowled over, 8 or 10 houses laying on top of one another and in that flood people were marooned on tops of houses and freight cars. Certainly those are the sort of projects we should consider? t listened to my very good and able friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. DAvis], who turned in a remarkable performance in his _conscientious way as chairman of this subcommittee, but I just want to point out that it is about time we get away from these recommendations of the engineers on these 20-, 30-, and 40-million-dollar projects and let us g·et to thinking about the folks

But here today, a gentleman, a dis- back home. · tinguished gentleman from North Da- Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. Mr. kota whom I greatly aamire, takes the Chairman, will the gentleman yield? floor and states that they neither want Mr. GAVIN. I yield to · the gentle-nor do they need the money_ that has man from Minnesota. been allocated to the Garrison Dam proj- Mr. H. · CARL ANDERSEN. Mr. ect in North Dakota and that he is going Qhairman, I may say that we have been to offer an amendment to cut it by $4 in more or less the same predicament as million, and yet we come to committee has the gentleman from Pennsylvania. and present our case representing the It seems to us that year after year it 1$ people back home who are begging for virtually impossible to get any considerarelief from these devastating, recurring tion _in this particular bill for what w·e floods that are periodically visited upon consider very meritorious projects, and their community; they are asking for by "meritorious" I have in mind four difhelp, and we can secure no help while ferent areas in my particular congres-

. millions are allocated on projects that sional district in Minnesota where the are -not wanted. These folks have no op._ · floods in recent years have so silted in portunity to take part in the discussion the normal drainage outlets that the enhere today or present their case. They tire drainage system which had operated depend upon their · representatives for• well for the last 40 years has now colhelp. laps·ed, and in some instances we have

Why are not these matters carefully as much · as 70,000 acres of good farm considered, as to where this money land in the lower Red River Valley in-should be allocated? And why is it not undated. · wisely and equitably allocated where it The CHAffiMAN. The time of the would be most effective and do the most gentleman from· Pennsylvania has ex:. good for the people? pired.

Why do we see small projects denied? · (By unanimous consent,"Mr. GAVIN was Why do Members have to come up here a}lpwed . to pr~ed for 5 additional and plead their case vigorously to ·afford minutes.) · relief to su:tfering people? - Why are not Mr. H. · CARL ANDERSEN. Mr. cases like that· presented by our friend, . Chairnuin:, last year' alone we had in my the gentleman from New York [Mr. congressional district a loss of $1 million RooNEY], taken care of? Here we find to the people simply because of the lack

1953. CONGRESSIONAL ImCORD .-· HOUSE-' 5610. of consideration in years gone by to these problems directly affecting the people. As the gentleman has well said, it is time for this Congress to do- a little serious thinking and to. try to force the Army engineers or whoever it might beto get in and take a look at these projects which mean so much to the people involved and try to save those people.

Mr. GAVIN. I thank the gentleman for expressing his opinion. These losses g,re by individuals, and they cannot understand why relief is not afforded them. When I go back to my district and say, "You do not understand the situation. What difficulties we encounter to get an appropriation through Congress'" they say, "We want relief. VIe are taxpayers. You say it is being considered. It has been considered for years they say, Why do we not get action?" ·Then the flood breaks· and again they have individual losses running into thousands of dollars, their homes are washed out, they have to clean up the debris. They cannot continue to take this beating. That is why I went bef&re the committee and asked that some consideration be given to this matter. The money had been appropriated. It was not going to increase the appropriation; it had been allocated, yet they took it away and reallocated it to other places. ·

Mr. BENDER. Mr. Chainnan, will the gentleman yield? .

Mr. 'GAVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. BENDER. I commend the gentleman for his statement regarding the situation in Pennsylvania. I want to call your -attention to your neighboring . State of Ohio. Four million dollars was recommended in the Truman budget for Cleveland Harbor and $3 million was recommended by the Eisenhower budget. This committee eliminated it entirely. As I see it, those of us coming from the Great Lakes States and those who are Representatives from New England are remiss if we fail to point out the fact that the committee is. killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

Industries are moving elsewhere because Congress provides vast appropriations for undeveloped areas. I am not being nturow and provincial~ but I submit that since these Great Lakes States provide so much of the tax money, and inasmuch as Cleveland Harbor supplies the entire country with steel and products we manufacture we deserve every consideration. This harbor cannot serve b·oats larger than 475 feet-and they are now building boats approximately 600 feet long~you can appreciate why we are concerned. ·

The Cleveland Harbor project has been approved in House Document No. 629, 79th Congress, 2d session, and also has the approval of the Defense Production Administration and the Munitions Board as being necessary in connection with the current national-defense program.

This project should be completed at the earliest date possible- in order that the three steel companies. American Steel & Wire Co., Jones & ·Laughlin Steel Corp., -and Republic Steel Corp., might receive iron ore and lim.estone without delays inasll}uch as the ~P.acity of the

three steel companies has increased from 1,767,00& tons in 1938 to in excess of 4 million tons annually.

Railroad companies owning bridges replaced under the Truman-Hobbs Act will not let contracts unless sufficient funds have been made available to pay the Government's share of the costS"~ Therefore, if appropriations are not made to carry the work fo:rward, construction will be delayed at least 12 months.

It takes 6 months to get delivery on steel piling and from 9 to 12 months on heavy steel for bridge construction.

This project has moved along in a very orderly way in the past because :funds have been made available so that the Corps of Engineers could anange with the railroads to let contracts, and the $5,085,000 now available is under contract and is to be spent as follows: Bridge No. 25------------------ $15, 000 Bridge No. 8-------------------- 40, (}()() Bridge No.9-------------------- 2,677,000 ~idge No. 1-------------------- 2,334,60Q Plans and specifications for hrldge

No. 15------------------------ 13, 00(} Plans and specifications for bridge

No. 3------------------------- 5,400

Total _____________________ 5,085,000

The working plans and ~pecifications for a new bridge No. 15, owned by the New York-Chicago & St. Louis Railroad. and bridge No.3. owned by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad,. will be completed by August and contracts could be let by September 1 providing that the $3 million recommended in the Eisenhower budget is approved by Congress. This money would be spent as. follows: Bridge No. 15 (cost) $5-,168,000 __ $1,730,000 Bridge No. a (cost) $3,311,000- 1, 269, 000

The Cleveland steel companies have spent in excess of $160.000.000 in enlarging their steel-making facilities at Cleveland, and they can only move ore carriers up the Cuyahoga River which are not less than 35 years old and many are 55 years old. There are so few of these small boats that there aren't enough water transportation facilities available to meet the needs of Cleveland s.teel mills; _therefore, part of their shipments have to move by rail at tremendous expense. · It is hoped that the Congress will recommend $3,000,000 for the fiscal year 1954 so that this important project which is in the interest of nation.ai defense might move forward without delaying it at least 1 year.

Mr. GAVIN. I agree with the: gentleman, and I, too, am not selfish. I like to see the exploration and exploitation of all parts of our country, the develop-ment of our natural resources., the conservation and development of our forest areas, but at the same time I think we ought to give a little consideration to the man on the street and folks back home. He ;has no one to speak for him other than his Representative, and. when be has difficulties and he and his family are flooded out and all of his personal effects are lost, and his. home is ruined, I think he should be given some assistance. I feel that instead of building some ·of these gigantic dams, like the one my good friend, the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. BURDICK], talked about, for ~whic}l. they are allocating $27 million,

and ·from what my very distinguished friend tells us the people out there do not want, and I think l)e represents the · peop.le and represents them wellbut still the engineers are going ahead and they are putting in $27 million-it would be more advisable to take part of that and allocate it among ·an of these projects that are emergency projects. They need help, they are begging us for belp, as these wires indicate to . me, pleading with me, to see what I can do with the Congress to get some help from these devastating ftoods.

The CHAmMAN. The time of the· gentleman from · Pennsylvania has expired.

Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GAVIN} has brought up the problem facing the people of his district. Both he and I have attempted over the years to secure some consideration, but seemingly there has been no solution. I have four large separate areas of good farmland in my district that are slowly deteriorating into Slough bottom land because of the closing up through silting of the normal outlets. The ftoods of 1951 and 1952 have so closed up these outlets that the normal drainage facilities have become practically useless. Consequently, thousands of acres. of the best farmland in the Midwest is becoming waterlogged and we are forced to turn to the Army engineers for help in.s.aving these farms from destruction.

The Army engineers in St. Paul have been very cooperative and helpful, but with their very limited funds they are unable to do the necessary investigative _and surve~ work. Yet right in this bill the subcommittee has seen :fit to cut down the amount for necessary investigations and surveys having to do with the entire United States. I repeat, these gentlemen have seen fit to cut down this very necessary work to. two-thirds of what has been requested by the budget. By this action they close the door on permitting the engineers to look into what we consider an emergency.

It is rather discouraging for these farmers who have been writing me recently to the effect that formerly, 10 years ago~ where they farmed a good quarter section of land. or 160 acres, now they have 57 o:r 60 acres of that land available for farming and the balance is

-under water. What would you personally think if about two-thirds of your property were taken away from you through something not within your ability to cope with? You would probably ask Uncle Sam to help, as it is within the Federal responsibility to keep open the natural drainage outlets by cleaning out these streams and rivers of the sediment they have filled up with. The whole thing is getting worse from year to year. It has· gradually gotten to the point where we have to do something about it because, not only is the property of thousands of farmers involved, but because the health of fine communities is threatened. These drainage waters cannot get out by the normal outlet and consequently last spring in five communities in my district the sewage facilities_ were blocked. Surely when

5616 CONGRESSIONAL-RECORD _·- HOUSE-· May 26

the health of people is involved, we here in Congress can at least put up the . needed funds to permit the Army engi-neers to do something about it. .

So, Mr. Chairman, it is my intention tomorrow to endeavor to replace in the budget, not just for my State, but for the overall nationwide work having to do with the investigations by the Army engineers, the sum of $750,000, to bring back part way to the level of this fiscal year the moneys they have had available for this work. We need help and I am sure the Army engineers can do what our communities cannot accomplish by themselves. A little help now will restore over 50,000 acres of good farmland to production. Most essential of all is the protection of the health of hundreds of children. My district has never asked directly any assistance since I have been in Congress. -Now we would appreciate very much some consideration in the solution of what is, to us, a very serious problem.

Mr. FARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

ne Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. FARRINGTON:

On page 2, line 12, strike out "$4,870,000'' and substitute "$5,067,900.''

Mr. FARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase the total appropriation for cemetery expenses by the amount of $197,000, which is the amount by which the budget estimate figures for maintenance and operations were reduced. During the course of general debate, I asked the chairman of the subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, just how that economy was to be achieved. He said the answer was to be found fn a sentence in the third paragraph of the report, which says:

The committee believes these reductions can be achieved by increased use of mechanized equipment in the cemeteries and by restriction of the activities of the technical planning and development _section of the cemetery branch to those clearly essential to the operation of the program.

I am prompted to offer this amendment by the very great concern I have about the condition of the National Me:. moria! Cemetery of the Pacific. This is

· one of the three great cemeteries created as a result of World War II. It is located in the Punch Bowl Crater in Honolulu. At the present time some 14,000 of World War II dead are located there. I presented to the committee in the hearings a letter from the leading landscape architects of Honolulu pointing out that at the present time there were a total ·or only eight men available for the maintenance of the cemetery; an area of 40 acres, in which more than 14,000 graves are situated. I think the gentleman who wrote that letter, Mr. Robert D. Thompson, knows whereof he speaks, and I think he made a particularly important point when he said that the estimate of expenditures necessary there was based upon experience in the States, rather than. upon the special requirements of Hawaii. In this part of the country and throughout the States, you do not have to maintain your grass and your plants for much more than 6 months of the year. But when you get down into the

tropics, you have to maintain them for 12 months of the year, and, in fact, thegrowth during the winter months is very great because of the heavy rainfall. I also presented to the committee a letter from Mr. Harland Bartholomew, one of the most distinguished city planners and landscape architects of this country. Mr. Bartholomew said he had recently been at the cemetery and was disappointed in its present appearance. He added that possibly one of the difficulties encountered in the maintenance of the Punch Bowl is that costs may have been judged by precedents in other cemeteries by a standard cost of maintenance per acre or per grave that did not apply in Hawaii.

The Punch Bowl Cemetery cannot be maintained on the standards that apply in the temperate zone because it is situated in a semitropical area where conditions are very different.

There is need in the Hawaii cemetery for much more water due to the irregularity of the rainfall. There is also a need for special planning and special care .of types of plants native to Hawaii.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the answer to the inadequate personnel at the Punchbowl cemetery may be found in the testimony of General Marshall. He told the committee that the standard for determining the personnel required for maintenance was 1 man for every 3,000 graves or 5 acres. By using what he described as the mathematical approach to this problem, it is evident that someone arrived at the conclusion that only 8 laborers were needed in Hawaii because there are 40 acres being used or available for graves.

I should like the committee to inform me, if it can, whether the special condi:.. tions prevailing in Hawaii have been taken into account in arriving at the need for maintenance funds. The maintenance of the cemetery in good condition is important to the morale of our Armed Forces. · Honolulu is the gateway to the Far East. Practically all of the troops called into service pass through Honolulu. Many of them visit the memorial cemetery. Certainly it will not improve their morale to find that the cemetery is not maintained in·proper condition.

I trust the chairman will be willing to offer answers to the questions I have raised.

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FARRINGTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. I know how much the gentleman has done toward the development of the cemetery there and having the markers at least put back in a temporary way. Certainly the least we can do is to honor our dead.

Mr. FARRINGTON. I thank you. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the

gentleman from Hawaii has expired. Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair

man, I rise in opposition to the amendment that has been offered. I do so with a great deal of respect for the sincerity in which the amendment was offered; but I do so first because, in accordance with the explanation which we have placed in our report, we believe that certain economies can be effected in the

overall operation and maintenance program. It should be made clear that we do not earmark the specific funds for the specific cemeteries. We are not in a position to judge whether or not they need 1 or 2 additional men for maintenance in this partlcular cemetery that might be transferred from some other place, but we are in a very good position to judge the overall picture. It is true that the figure before us this afternoon does represent a reduction in the amount requested by the Bureau of the Budget, but it is just as true that the amount provided in this bill is the most that has ever been provided for the operation and maintenance of the cemeteries. Last year there was appropriated $2,285,000. This year the amount recommended by the committee was $2,330,000. So when you consider that there can reasonably be expected reductions in overall costs for this maintenance program, and when you consider that the amount this year represents an increase over what we had last year and what we had the year before and the year before that, I think it is reasonable to expect that the proper maintenance of this cemetery and all of the other cemeteries in this program can be adequately cared for by the amount pro· vided in this bill.

I yield to the ·gentleman from South Carolina. · Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I have every sympathy with the amendment which has been offered ..-,y the distinguished gentleman from Hawaii, but I agree with my chairman of the subcommittee that the figure this year is larger than any appropriation made for this purpose since World War II. I hope that this committee will see fit to defeat the amendment and leave the figure that we have provided, which I believe is ample for the purpose.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman, and, Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote.

Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Was it not the understanding that we were not going to vote on any amendments this afternoon?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chairman knows of no such understanding.

Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. Well, I think we should have a quorum before deciding any of these items in this important bill.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman withdraw that?

Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. I will withdraw it for the moment.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. It is the understanding with the members of the subcommittee on the other side that we would attempt to finish just this paragraph on cemetery expenses this afternoon and then withhold any discussion of the Corps of Engineers program and other items until we meet tomorrow. I believe we can reasonably dispose of this paragraph without hardship or unfairness to anyone, and then it is my intention to move that the Committee rise as soon a8 we have finished this paragraph.

Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. Might I further. discuss the point of order? Is

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD·- HOUSE 5617 the gentleman from Hawaii in agree- The purpose of .this amendment is to ment with that? carry out the desire of the Congress and

Mr. FARRINGTON. I am perfectly the Government properly to mark the agreeable to following that procedure, graves of its veterans. It will do five Mr. Chairman. things in this respect. In the first place

Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. That pro- it will permit the family to take this cedure is all right with me, Mr. Chair- $25 in lieu of the marker and apply it man. to the kind of stone they want to erect

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I thank the on their loved ones grave. If they want gentleman for withdrawing his point of to put up. a $100 marker they- will not order. take the one which cost the taxpayer

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle- $25 and discard it when they find it is man from Minnesota withdraw his point not suitable. They will have $25 which of order? · can be applied toward a better marker.

Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN . . Tempo~ If they cannot ·afford to pay more than

Mr. HoPE, 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. 5376) making appropriations for civil functions administered by the Department of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

FINANCIAL AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES WITH FOREIGN EXCHANGE SHOULD BE REEXAMINED

rarily, Mr. Chairman. $25, they will have the choice of either The CHAIRMAN. The question is on getting the ready made, hand-me-down Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I

the amendment offered by the Delegate marker, such as is being given now, or ask unanimous consent to extend my re-from Hawaii. purchase one from their own monument marks at this point in the RECORD.

The amendment was rejected. builder for $25. They will at least have The SPEAKER. Is there objection to Mr. REAMS. Mr. Chairman, I offer the choice of the color of the stone and the request of the gentleman from

an amendment. the inscription thereon. Kansas? The Clerk read as follows: Second. It will insure that if the Gov- There was no objection. Amendment offered by Mr. REAMs: on ernment spends this $25 the marker will Mr. REES of Kansa_s. Mr. Speaker,

page 2, line 12, after the figures "$4,870,000", be used and that the grave will be Congress is being called upon to provide strike the colon, add comma, and insert the marked. Many of these veterans' graves additional funds for foreign aid and milfollowing: "$850,000 of which may be used are not marked now because the markers itary assistance to the NATO countries. to pay to next of kin not exceeding $25 in are so unsuitable they would rather have In view of the amount of the expendilieu of headstone or marker for the grave of none than to put that on. This amend- ture, and considering some unanswered any deceased person for which the Secretary ment would require that a certificate be questions, I am going to insist on a few of Defense is authorized to furnish a marker 1 t• f h t h d t or headstone: Provided, That the Secretary made to the Army before they issued the exp ana Ions o W a as happene O of Defense receive from the administrator or $25 certifying that a suitable marker has our money in this and similar instances, executor of the estate, or next of kin, proper been purchased and has been placed on before I shall expect to vote for the ad-proof that there has been purchased and the grave. ditional funds requested. place!f upon the grave of the veteran a suit- . Third. It will give to those who decide I think the Members of the House will able marker or headstone of a value not less to spend more money for the marker a be interested in some facts that have than $25·" contribution toward a monument which come to my attention in connection with

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair- will meet the desire and ability to pay the establishment of our huge defense man, I reserve a point of order against of the family of the veteran. bases in Morocco. The United States the amendment. Fourth. It will carry out the principle is required to make all exchange of

Mr. REAMS. Mr. Chairman, I ap- of private enterprise which we talk so American dollars for Moroccan francs preciate very much the generosity of much about here but with which prin- through the State Bank of Morocco. the chairman of the ·subcommittee in ciple we often inconsistently appropriate Payroll and materials purch.ases in reserving the point of order and thereby the taxpayers' money. If there ever was Morocco are paid in Moroccan francs. permitting me to present this amend- a case of inconsistency with private en- The serious situation, to my mind, is ment to . the committee. My amend- terprise, it is here in the purchase of that this exclusive authority is in the ment does have the refreshing quality these monuments wholesale from 1 or 2 hands of what is now primarily a private of not asking that the appropriation be big companies and completely bypassing bank. That is, the bank is owned either increased. the local monument builder. by private individuals or other bank-

This amendment would permit the And, lastly, Mr. Chairman, it will as- · ing institutions. It is not owned by ~he Government to furnish to the next of kin sure the Government that the wasteful Moroccan Government·. During the pe$25 in cash in lieu. of the headstone practice of having ·these monuments riod that this exchange has taken place, which is given to the next of kin of each ordered by the families of veterans and the American Government and its conveteran who applies for it. During the veterans' organizations whether they ex- tractors have been given an exchange year 1952, $1,403,947 was spent for these pect to us~ them or not will no longer rate of approximately 350 francs to the headstones. The cost was said to be exist if this amendment is adopted. dollar while the international rate ex'$19.60 apiece. I am quite sure that was I do hope the chairman of the subcom- isting in Tangiers, a short distance away, a wholesale cost at the plant, because mittee will waive the point of order and is approximately 400 francs to the dollar. the appropriation would indicate that let this amendment be adopted by the It would appear that someone or some there was a total cost in excess of $25 Committee of the Whole House. group has had the advantage of taking spent for each stone. · Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair- the difference. Oddly enough, the head-

The markers which are offered to the man, I renew the point of order on the quarters of the State Bank of Morocco next of kin to mark graves of veterans ground this is legislation on an appro- is in Tangiers where this free money are very small, plain slabs. They are priation bill. · . market exists. For some time this bank not appropriate to all purposes for which . The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman also was making a charge, in addition to they are intended. There is no choice, · from Wisconsin makes a point of order the lower exchange rate, for the chang:. except a very limited degree. that this amendment is legislation on ing of American dollars for Moroccan

I am advised that these headstones an appropriation bill. Does the gentle- francs . . that are furnished to the families of man from Ohio desire to be heard? Originally the State Bank of Morocco

deceased veterans are so cheap and so Mr. REAMS. Mr. Chairman, I do not was established as one of the results of unsatisfactory that a great many of the care to be heard on the point of order. the International Conference of Algefamilies never place .them in the ceme- The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is pre- ciras. It was intended to be an interteries. Often they do not match the pared to rule. The Chair thinks that national bank, and 14 shares were dis-t other monuments and the other markers the amendment offered by the gentle- tributed, 1 each among 14 countries, in the family cemetery lot. Often they man from Ohio is clearly legislation on Since that time a majority of the share~ are so out of keeping with the feeling an appropriation billl and, therefore, have become the property of private of love and respect that the family has sustains the point of order. banks. The largest holdings are held by for the veteran that they are abandoned Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair- the oldest and largest French investment and not used. I have seen a great many man, I move that the Committee do now bank, which holds 6 of the 14 shares, of these thrown aside and used as step;.. rise. Banque de-Paris et des Pays-Bas . . The ping stones instead of for memorial, the ·Accordingly the Committee rose; and chairman of its board is a former gover-purpose for which they were intended. the Speaker having resumed the chair, nor of the Bank of France.


It is significant to note in the earnings and assets record of this bank that there has been a tremendous jump in assets and profits during the time our forces have been in Morocco. From 1945 to 1950 the assets of this bank have increased at a rate of approximately two to three billion !f anes a year. From 1950 to 1951 the assets of this bank increased 17 billion francs, or an increase of approximately 5 times the previous average annual increase in assets. The earnings of the bank in 1950 and 1951 show a similar increase. The figures for 1952, I understand, show still further spectacular increases for both assets and profits.

This is just one of many instances wherein in the past our State Department agreements have been to the disadvantage of our country economically. I hope that the new State Department will proceed to correct this inequitable situation. Sine~ these profits of the Bank of Morocco go primarily into private hands, it is significant that we have had to pay in just money exchange alone from 12 to 15· percent markup. We do not have exact figures, but from information I have been able to obtain it is my opinion these private banking institutions have made profits during 1950, 1951, and 1952 of more than $40 million. The committees of Congress charged with the supervision of the State Department should insist upon an examination of all similar provisions in our treaties which are to the detriment of our economy or trade. It als<> seems to me that we should divest ourselves of the idea. that all our international agreements must be entered into by our so-called stripedpants Corps of the State Department. We need a few more experienced businessmen to sit at the conference tables and guard against these disadvantageous economic provisions in treaties which cost the taxpayers of this country millions of dollars.

SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. PERKINS asked and was given

permission to address the House for 15 minutes on tomorrow. following the legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered.

AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH ·sERVICE ACT

Mr. ALLEN of illinois, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following privileged resolution CH. Res. 249, Rept. No .. 471>. which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself b:l.to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 1026) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide medical. surgical, and dental treatment and hospitalization for certain offi.cers and employees. of the former Lighthouse Service. After general debate. which shall be confined to the bill, and shall continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute

zule. It shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any point of order the amendment recommended by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce now in the bilL At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment. the Committee shall rise and report the blll to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the' previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

FLAMMABLE FABRICS ACT Mr. ALLEN of TIIinois, from the Com

mittee on Rules, reported the following privileged resolution <H. Res. 250, Rept. No. 472), which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shaH be In order to zn.ove 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. 5069) to prohibit the introduction or movem.ent in interstate commerce of articles of wearing apparel and fabrics which are so highly flammable as to be dangerous when worn by individuals, and for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill, a.nd shan continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerc.e •. the blll shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

HOUR OF :MEETING TOMORROW Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 11 o'clock tomorrow.

The S:PEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?


SURPLUS LABOR AREAS 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, while

this legislative body awaits the decision of the House Ways and Means Committee on the proposal to impose a quota limitation on residual oil imports, I call attention to the recent announcement of the Secretary of Labor in relation to his attempts-in cooperation with the Office of Defense Mobilization-to encourage new industry to enter surplus labor areas:

Two of the current 35 SUrPlus labor areas. as defined by the Bureau of Economic Security, are in the congressional district which I represent, and you may be sure that we are intensely interested

in any plan that would bring relief to our depressed economy. Meanwhile, however, a very distinct measure of assistance can be granted by Congress merely by enacting the bill to limit residual oil imports and protect other industries suffering from the unfair competition of cheap foreign products.

Of the 35 surplus labor areas, 16 are coal-producing areas~ The coal industry and its employees first began to feel the adverse effects of foreign residual oil when America's fuel markets became the dumping ground for this alien product shortly; after the end of World War II. The problem was accentuated with the gradual increase in shipments during . succeeding years. and each month the high water mark of economic distress has been reaching a new high level.

We in the northern part of the State have been particuHtrly hard hit by foreign oil because a good percentage of our coal markets are on the eastern seaboard where oil importers are enticing away; our customers with dump prices for their alien-produced product.

The currently quarterly report issued by the West Virginia State Department of Mines shows that in Monongalia. County alone there has been a loss of 668 jobs in the first quarter of 1953. But our coal miners and their families are not the only group affected by these conditions. As a Bluefield newspaper editor stated in this month's issue of the West Virginia State Magazine:

Anything that means trouble for coal means trouble ~or West Virginia.

Layoffs on coal-carrying railroads must necessarily accompany declines in freight traffic. Our timber people and other suppliers are idle. Whole communities are suffering. The coal industry has always been the chief source of income in West Virginia .. We have in my congressional district one of the world's outstanding mining schools-at the University of West Virginia-and we encourage our boys to study courses in mining engineering because we are confident that the coal industry can provide a good living for our people through the years if it is not placed at a disadvantage through unfair competitive practices.

The policy of admitting unrestricted quantities of foreign residual oil into coal's markets constitutes a serious breach of the basic principles of free competition . . lt abets depression and contributes to the establishment of labor surplus areas in the United States.

We welcome all efforts that may bring new industry into our district, but we know that recovery can be expedited if Congress will place a curb on residual oil imports.

SALE OF AUSTRIAN WINTER PEAS B"Y: THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION The SPEAKER. Under previous order

of the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. SHELLEY] is recognized for 60' minutes.

Mr. SHELLEY. Mr. Speaker, some of the Members, of the House may have read an article in the Washington Daily News of Thursday, May 21. The article

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 5619 dealt at some length with a sale by the Commodity Credit Corporation of 80,000 tons of dried winter peas, a feed crop, to a select group of buyers at a price well below the sale price then current. To begin the story on this transaction, which is the subject of my remarks this afternoon, I will introduce into the REcORD at this point the full text of the Daily News article: PRIVATE DEAL LOPS $1,600,000 OFF PRICE

FAVORITISM CHARGED IN GOP SURPLUS SALE There's a political storm brewing over, of

all things, 80,000 tons of dried winter peas. The new Republican leadership at the Ag

riculture Department is in the middle of it. Democrats are talking quietly about fa

voritism and the Republican mess, and their voices may get louder. Agriculture spokesmen have so far declined to give a full explanation from their point of view.

The peas are, officially, Austrian winter · peas-a cover crop. Agriculture bought some seed from Northwest growers in 1951 to keep the price up, and it has been trying to sell the surplus peas ever since.

This April 1, in its regular monthly list of surplus commodities for sale, the Agriculture Department offered 100,000 tons of dried peas for use as cattle .feed, at $50 a ton. Normally, the Department guarantees that any listed price will hold through the month.

But on May 1, without any further notice, the Department disclosed that it had sold 80,000 tons of the dried peas at $30 a ton-or 40 percent below list price. .

The 80,000 tons, the entire stock on the west coast, were sold in secret negotiations to a syndicate of 3 Northwest grain firms. The total purchase cost them $2,400,000, or $1,600,000 less than the listed price.

That started the fuss. On May 2, a 'constituent of Representative

JoHN F. SHELLEY, Democrat, of California, wired him:

"OUr firm has been purchasing this material regularly • • • at announced resale prices. We received no notice of intention to sell on bid • • • we believe as members of feed industry we should be allowed opportunity to purchase on the same basis as these favored buyers."

Other protests went directly to the Agriculture Department. They sounded the same theme: Why weren't we given a chance to bid at a cut rate?

Representative SHELLEY wrote Agriculture Secretary Ezra Taft Benson, asking for an explanation. The letter was dated a week ago and has not yet been answered.

From other sources the News has been able to piece together a picture of what happened.

The Agriculture Department offices which ordinarily handle sales of dried peas-offices here and in Portland, Oreg.-knew nothing about the cut-rate sale. They were still sell-· ing peas for $50 a ton while the. $30 a ton purchase was being negotiated.

The man who handled the deal for Agriculture was Elwood L. Chase, a high-ranking Republican appointee in the Department's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).

Mr. Chase negotiated the sale with at least these two officials of the three syndicate companies:

Carl C. Farrington, vice president of the CCC from 1940 to 1947 and now a member of Secretary Benson's 14-member Agricultural Advisory Committee, headed by Dean William I. Myers, of Cornell.

C. G. Burlingham, an Oregon grain dealer with whom Interior Secretary Douglas McKay is acquainted and who visited Mr. Me• Kay in his office here recently.

Mr. Chase told the News the deal was de.sirable from the Government's point o~ view;

becau8e the dried peas were deteriorating and storage charges mounting up at a rate of about $40,000 a month.

Under the negotiated sale, the owners took possession May 1 and assumed all storage charges at once, he said, "a definite saving for the Government."

other sources called the idea of the peas deteriorating "a laugh."

And John E. Tripp, an official of the division which ordinarily handles grain at Agriculture, said: "So far as I know, the peas were sound."

Mr. Chase also said it was not unusual for Agriculture to negotiate sales of surplus commodities without prior announcement.

But others in a position to know insisted that the Department in the past, when it was planning to negotiate sales below list price, always let the trade know.

The regular procedure in this case, these sources said, would have been to wait until May 1 and then announce that the Department was open for offers on the winter peas. That way no one in the trade could complain of favoritism.

Mr. Chase declined to say why other dealers were not informed in this case. He would only hint that dealers who complained about the sale probably were not big enough to handle it themselves.

He also refused to Say whether he or the purchasing companies had started the negotiations that led to the sale.

"I'm not going into all the details of the Department of Agriculture's business," Mr. Chase said.

Before the story appeared in the press I had been looking into the transaction at the request of San Francisco constituents-a firm engaged in selling grain and feeds. I had not intended to make a public issue of the matter until my investigation was completed, but when the press stumbled on to the situation and queried me about it I gave them the jacts as I knew them. In fairness to my fellow Members of the House I also asked for this time so that they would be fully informed on the case. These are the

- facts developed up to this point: On May 2 I received from my San

Francisco constituents a telegram alerting me on the matter. I shall now read this telegram, omitting the name of the sender at this time at his request and in order not to prejudice his future dealings with the Commodity Credit Corporation or with the group who purchased the dried peas:

This week the CCC sold all Government surplus stocks of dried peas to 3 buyers on secret negotiated basis at 40 percent less than announced resale price. Our firm has been purchasing this material regularly from CCC at announced resale prices. We received no notice of intention to sell on bid this stock. We believe as members of the feed industry we should be allowed opportunity to purchase on same basis as these favored buyers. We need immediate action and will phone your office at 11 a. m. Monday next to determine what steps should be taken to protect our interest and customers.

On Monday, May 4, I received a phone call from .the sender of the telegram and at that time I asked him to send me, airmail, full details on the transaction, as far as he knew them. His letter, which I shall now read into the R;ECORD was received on May 6. This letter gives a picture of the details of the transaction, its implications, and possible effects on the feed trade and the farmer growing feed crops. I again leave out the name of the individual and the firm.

MAY 4, 1953. Congressman JOHN F. SHELLEY.

DEAR Sm: In line with our telephone conversation of this morning, we give you the following facts and information pertaining to the Commodity Credit Corporation's recent sale of the surplus stocks of dried Austrian winter peas. We would like to caution you that the information we have here, even though appearing reliable and from responsibie sources, still needs verification at your end. This situation is still pretty new for all the facts to be clarified, and at this stage there is as much gossip in the situation as there are facts.

These peas were taken over by the Commodity Credit Corporation as a result of their support program in previous years, I believe the year 1950. They were originally reoffered for sale on the basis of seed but in view of the tremendous quantity there was no particular interest in this merchandise and finally they agreed to sell it for feed purposes provided the buyer specified that this was it's ultimate use and it would not be used for seed. They have been offering this merchandise on a declining price schedule and their lowest offering was on the basis of $2.50 per hundred during the month of April just passed. In informal discussions with members of the Commodity Credit Corporation's Portland office, they were getting some movement of these peas at this price. I know our firm has been buying small quantities of it regularly for use in this area as pigeon feed. Our information was that about April 27 or 28, the Government concluded a sales arrangement with a group of three buyers acting as a unit for their total supplies stored on the west coast of approximately 80,000 tons. This negoti· ated price., according to trade sources, was on the basis of $30 per ton with a guaranty and understanding from the Government that their other stocks and inventories of this merchandise stored at other points outside of the Pacific Coast States would not be offered for sale into this area. How this was to be enforced, I do not know. Our advice also, further, was that they were allowed a period of 6 months free storage from the date of their purchase. This point appears to be contradicted from other sources but I believe worth investigating and verifying. The third report we have which is related to the matter of free storage was that the purchasers were allowed the prerogative of paying for this when it's shipped which, in effect, gives them a period of 6 months to pay for it. This point may not be true, however, if, as I have been told, they were to accept storage charges begin• ning the first of May. Generally the Gov• ernment accepts shipment as technically the date title passes.

As I mentioned to you on the phone and in my wire, we have been purchasing this · material regularly, and I might add on the basis of a certified check immediately fol• lowing or accompanying our notice of intention to purchase, and in each instance when purchases were completed, we were allowed free storage until the end of the cuz:rent month. It is obvious that our name, as an interested user for this merchandise would be on file in, at least, the Portland office. I~ this connection, I am also apprised that the Portland office, who was handling disposition of this material, had no advice or inkling that this whole transaction was taking place. The first notice came on May 1, from Washington, D. C., wherein they received a telegram stating that this merchandise was no longer available for sale. The details then followed a few hours later stating that it had been sold and was off the market. ,

As I explained to you on the phone, our objection to this whole situation is the fact that we were not given the opportunity of protecting our normal trade requirements and entering a bid for the merchandise. The

5620 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE May 26 situation now is that we have to buy these things through second hands· from our competitors at prices equivalent to the April offering fig"Ure of the Commodity Credit Corporation to approximately $10 per ton less·. These reofiering prices by the owneTs of th.e merchandise have not yet been officially established so this point is not dennite by any means.

I would like to also brfng to your attention the significance and the effect of this sale at this level. Eighty thousand tons of feed is a sizable quantity and this merchandise is going· to be a strong competitor with other supported crops and crops that are now in the process of being harvested. This is particularly true in the case of barley. These Austrian peas, for cert~in purposes. have a great deal more feed value than barley, and the indicated resale prices will place thfs merchandise about $2 to $5 a ton under new crop barley figures. In other words, not only Is the Government showing favoritism in their sales · procedure but they are a lso setting up another competitor for other supported items and working to the detriment of the farmer who, for an the advices be receives from Washington, must prepare in the future to market and harvest his crop with a minimum of Government support and protection. We know from our own experience in the trade that there is a!so going to be an effort on the part of the owners of this merchandise to sell this to the cattle feeding industry as a substitute for grain and other concentrates. It. is too early to say how successful they will be and how this merchandise will be accepted by thfs group of users.

r hope the abov:e h~s. given you some Information on the situation and reflected our attitude on the matter. Iii. view· of the fact that we do not wish to appear publicly as troublemakers, we request. as we discussed on the phone. that this letter be kept con· fidential and our name not enter Into the matter at any level or discu~ion or publication.

We very much appreciate your cooperation and willingness to look into the matter. The only regrettable feature. of this situation is. however. that. inv:estigations. and publicity on the transaction will not satisfy or pro· tect our iinJ:nediate needs. or position.

Yery truly yows..

Before receiving the letter I have just read I called the Department of Agriculture and spoke with officials of the Commodity Credit Corporation and of the ~uction and Marketing Administration. which handled the actual sale. Aside from confirmation of the fact that such a sale had taken place. I obtained little information. particularly as re.:. gards. those features of the terms of the sale and the method of negotiation which the Jetter indicates are unusual.

With the Jetter in my possession I beg.an to look further into th.e matter, since I believed that an investigation was warranted. My investigation disclosed the following information:

First. The normal practice on the sale of Austrian dried' winter peas was to set a price at the beginning of each · month and make the peas available to all buyers at this price. This price was normally guaranteed. to holc;I. . throughout at least a 30-day period..

Second. Sales of the commod:ty were · normally conducted by o:fficials of the Grain Branch . of the Production and Marketing Administration. ·

Third. On April 1. 1953, the price of Austrian. dried winter peas in possession of the Commodity Credit Corporation in the P~ific Northwest had been set at

$50 per ton, or an equivalent price of $2.50' per 100-pound bag.

Fourth. On May 1. 1953, the Production and Marketing Administration an.nounced that the entire 80,000 tons of the commodity held on the west coast had been sold to a combine of purchasers at a price of $30 per ton.. or an equivalent price of $1.50 per 100-pound bag. At a reduction of $1 per bag from the price held steady to the tr~de .through April the total discount amo-unted to $1,600,000.

Fifth. Officials of the Grain Branch of PMA, normally responsible for such sales were not consulted and. had no knowledge that the transaction was under negotiation.

Sixth. Regular purchasers in the trade, or other prospective purchasers, were given no notice o-f the proposed sale, nor were they invited to submit bids on any basis.

Seventh. The combine to whom the peas were sold consisted of three buyers. One of the purchasing firms was the · Archer, Daniels,. Midland Feed Company. doing business in Minnesota and the Dakotas and headed by a. Mr. Carl Farrington.

Eighth. Negotiations on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation and PMA were conducted by Mr. Elwood Chase. l"ecently appointed Assistant Administrator of the Pl;oduction and Marketing Administration. As stated before, these negotiations were on a secret basis, unknown either to th3- Grain Branch of PMA or to the trade in gene.raL

Ninth. . Normal . p~raetice was to sell Austrian dried winter peas subject to the purchaser taking possession within 30 days.

Tenth. It was reported that the combine of purchasers. was allowed 6 months within which to take delivery. It is noted in the newspaper a~:ticle that Mr. Chase states that storage charges are assumed by the buyers as of May 1, the announced date of the sale.

On the basis of this preliminary confirmation of the information from San Francisco. on May 14 I wrote and mailed to Secretary of Agriculture Benson a letter requesting full information on the transaction. I now read into the REcORD the full text of my , letter~

. CONGRESS OF' 'l'HE 'UNITED STATES~ HOUSE 01" REPRESENTA'l'IVES.

Washington.., D. C., May 14., 1!153:. Bon. EZRA TAFr BENSON;.

Secreta'l!y of Agriculture, Washington, D . C.

DE:Att Ma. SECRETAR-Y: · Certain of my constituents in San Francisco.., enagaged ln grain and feed marketing operations, have called to my attention a: recent: transaction by the Commodity Credit Corporation which has worked a. hardship to them in their bUSi· nesses. Although I have discussed the matter by telephone with officials of the CCC, I am somewhat- puzzled. by some aspects of the .transaction and will, therefore; appreciate your investigating the circumstances of the case and' supplying me wfth a. com. piete report. The Jteques1i is made in the interest. of those businessmen in my district who report. that the transaction has ca.used them financia.l distress.

On May I. 1953; the Commodity Credit Corporation announced the sale of surplus stocks of dried Austrian winter peas amount

. ing to 80,000 tons ~ 1,600,000 bags, These stocks had formerly .been on sale to the trade through the ~ortland. Oreg., omce of the CCQ

and, I am told., constituted the entire stock of this particular type pea in storage by the Corporation on the West Coast. My constituents report that this s:ale to a combine of purchasers, without the general trade having opportunity to purchase on an equal .basfs, has deprived them of their customary .source o:lr supply and forces them to obtain _needed peas from the bulk purchasers. at increased prices. · Although it should contain all available information on the transaction, r will appre-ciate your including the following specific points in your report:

1. The names of the' purchasers of the peas.

2. The dates of the period during which negotiations. were under way.

a. The quantity of peas involved in the sale.

4. The unit price at which they were sold. 5 . The unit price at which. they were

_on sale to the trade generally during the period in which negotiations were under way.

6. The terms of the sale; L e. contractual pro.visiOJtS governing amounts and times of payment for the peas.

7. Provisions concerning dates on which the purchasers are required to accept delivery; and. provisions concerning storage of the peas during the interim. including information as. to ho-w the expense of this storage will be borne ·

8. Whether any provisions limiting resale of the p~as. were included in the contract.

9. Whether buyers for resale in the export trade have been deprived of a source of sup· ply by the sale.

iO. Any agre.ement which may exist to hoid other C'CC stocks of dried Austrian winter peas. .out of any marketing area.

11. Whether the personnel negotiating this sale for CCC were the personnel normally conducting such negotiations heretofore.

In any instance, particularly in Instances Involving the points outlined above, where the practice followed in the subject sale deviated from the methods or pol~cy previously established! for sales of this commodity, I should like- an explanation of the reasons for the deviation._ I should also like your comments on how this sale at a price lower than the peas were on. offer to the trade at the time conforms with previous policy In maintaining and changing price quotations. One other factor fn which I am interested is the efl'ect releasing this 80,000 tons of peas will have on the markets for competing Gov• ernment supported crops.

Please be sme that. I will appreciate your cooperation in making this information available to me,. together with any comments you may wish to make~

.Sincerely and cordially, JiOHNr F'. SHELLEY,

MembeT of GCJfngress.

. Mr Speaker. it is now almost 2 weeks since I asked the Secretary to supply me with this inf.ormation. I have not yet received ·an acknowledgment or an ex-planation of any kind. '

It is not my purpose in taking the floor this afternoon to make charges of any kind. But it strikes me that there is something about the transaction not in line with good business practice, with fairness to the trade, nor with the idea of morality in government towards which we are all working.

'I make no charge that favoritism has been shown in concluding this. sale. but

, the:re are some ·elements in the matter which make m.e conclude U:tat this may

. be &Qmething more than a straight business "deal.'• It. may, fo-r instance, be pure coincidence that Mr. Carl Farrington, of th~ Midland Archer Feed Co., is a member of Secretary Benson's recent:..

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - I-IOUSE 5621 ly named Agriculture Advisory Committee. It may also be coincidental that Mr. Farrington is a cousin to Mr. R. L. Farrington, who was promoted not long ago by the Secretary to the position of Director of Agricultural Credit Services in the Department of Agriculture. However, since there is no apparent reason why the Department should have deviated 'from its usual course in disposing of this commodity, and since the trade in general is now suffering from loss of a cheap source of supply while a preferred group is benefiting from a "corner" on the market of dried peas on the west coast, it would appear that an investigation is in order.

In connection with this corner on the market, I have not mentioned previously that the reports I have received indicate that the sale agreement included a commitment by the Department of Agriculture that present surplus stocks of dried peas now stored in the Midwest, particularly Denver, will not be sold to the trade west of the Rockies. If this is so, the buyers have not only been shown a decided preference in the price they paid for these peas, but they have, in effect, been guaranteed a close market. My constituents in San Francisco have discussed with Department of Agriculture officials here the possibility of purchasing some of the Midwest stored peas for shipment to the coast. They have been told by these officials that there is "a sort of a commitment" not to sell them west of Denver. This would seem to confirm that the combine of buyers had been granted a monopoly on the western market. In any event, that phase of the transaction should be looked into.

There are some other aspects of this sale of peas which invite attention, as pointed out in my letter to Secretary Benson. Specifically, and most serious because of the probable effect on the Government price-support program as a whole, the dumping of 80,000 tons of feed on the market at a drastic price reduction cannot help but affect the wholesale feed-grain market as a whole. The price of other competing Government pricesupported feed crops will ten<l to drop. Thus we have the spectacle of the Department of Agriculture undercutting the very markets for which the American taxpayers foot so heavy a bill in price-support funds-. Not only can the taxpayer suffer, but I am sure that the farmer growing feed crops will not appreciate a drop in the price of his grain. Certainly a careful study of the economic effects of unloading the entire available stock of this commodity to a preferred group of purchasers is warranted.

Another point which deserves comment is the fact that before the regular purchasers of these peas were "frozen out'' by the bulk sale to the combine, a number of them had been purchasing the feed for resale in the export market. One of the greatest problems connected with the whole Government price support program has been to find an outlet for Government -stocks of commodities off the normal domestic market. To the extent that these peas had formerly been sold for export, the pressure on the domestic market. had been relieved. This transaction puts the pressure back

on. Thus we have another conflict with basic policy of the price support program which certainly merits attention by the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up any more of my colleague's time by dwelling on other issues raised by thistransaction, except to add the footnote that the combine is now selling the peasin the California market at about $53 per ton, delivered. Compare this with their purchase price of $30 per ton. Allowing for transportation charges, a tidy profit remains I am sure.

A review of the material I have placed in the RECORD during the course of these remarks will make the issues I have not mentioned obvious to any one familiar with the Dapartment of Agriculture's normal policy in its price support operations. I urge that the Members of the House study that record carefully.

Finally, and again, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that at this point I make no charges of misfeasance or malfeasance on the part of anyone in the administration who has had anything to do with this matter. However, I do feel that the facts I have related speak for themselves and that these facts are so strange that they warrant a complete investigation by the proper committee of the Congress. I now formally request that such an investigation be made by the House Committee on Agriculture. I shall be happy to make the material in my possession available to the committee for that purpose.

Mr. HOPE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHELLEY. I shall be very glad to yield to the able chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. HOPE. I will say to the gentleman that I know nothing about the matter to which. he has made reference ·and knew nothing about it until today, and until this afternoon I did not know that the gentleman intended to discuss it this afternoon. I have not had time to make any personal investigation of the matter, but I can assw·e the gentleman that the Committee on Agriculture will be glad to have any information which he can furnish it, and we will be pleased to look into it.

Mr. SHELLEY. I thank the very distinguished gentleman, chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHELLEY. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, the former majority floor leader.

Mr. McCORMACK. It seems to me there is a case made out here that the chairman of the committee ought definitely to promise that the committee will investigate it.

Mr. HOPE. If I did not make myself clear on that, I will say to the gentleman that I did not hear all of the remarks of the gentleman from California; I just heard perhaps the last 10 minutes of what he said; and I do not have all the information which he has jU:St given the House. But I am assuming that he has submitted some information which would warrant an investigation, and that is what I intended to say we would do; that is what we do intend to do.

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHELLEY. I yield to the capable former chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from North Carolina. ·

Mr. COOLEY. Do I understand the gentleman to say he wrote to the Secretary of Agriculture more than 2 weeks ago about this important matter and has not yet had a reply to his communication?

Mr. SHELLEY. That is true, I may say to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. COOLEY. Have you been able to ascertain what the terms of the sale were? In other words, you did indicate that they would give him 6 months to move the beans. How much time was given him to pay for the beans?

Mr. SHELLEY. Mr. Flwood Case, who handled the sale, says that they did not give them 6 months. Oth-ers have advised me that they were given 6 months.

M_r. COOLEY. Have you been able to ascertain whether or not it was a cash transaction or time transaction?

Mr. SHELLEY. I have not. Mr. COOLEY. If I understand it, the

sale was made in such manner that the ordinary dealers were not advised and were given no opportunity to participate, and that the transaction was so large that a small dealer could not participate even if he had known about it; is that right?

Mr. SHELLEY. That is correct. Mr. COOLEY. In other words, 80,000

tons of beans passed from the Government in this one transaction.

Mr. SHELLEY. Passed from the Government in this one transaction to a special joint-venture combine of three individuals or companies who now have complete control of that 80,000 tons on a protected market on the Pacific coast.

Mr. COOLEY. And you do understand after all as part of the transaction the officials of the Government agreed that they would not sell other beans in the west coast area?

Mr. SHELLEY. That is what I have been advised by people from the Pacific coast; and in telephone checks with the Department of Agriculture the only reply you can get is: "Well, there seems to be a commitment not to sell them there."

Mr. COOLEY. And these beans ordi• narily would have sold for $50 a ton?

Mr. SHELLEY. They would have sold for $50 a ton; yes.

Mr . . COOLEY. The combine pur-chased the beans at $.30 a ton. .;

Mr. SHELLEY. Yes; that is right. i! Mr. COOLEY. Then they sell them on

the protected market at' $53 a ton? Mr. SHELLEY. At $53 a ton. People

seeking to purchase them can go to nobody else but the combine that purchased them at $30 a ton.

Mr. COOLEY. Because the Government officials have agreed not to compete with them in the west coast market?

Mr. SHELLEY. That is what the in· formation that comes to me would indi· cate.

Mr. COOLEY. I would just like to say . as a member of the Committee ·on Agriculture--

Mr. SHELLEY. May I interrupt again? That is what the reports that


come tO me; and the checking I have done, would indicate. I niake no charges, but I think that the situation as I have revealed it is such that the House Committee on Agriculture should investigate. I am very happy to hear the chairman say an investigation will be undertaken.

Mr. COOLEY. I am sure the gentleman agrees with me that we have an excellent chairman of the House Committee on Agricultur-e, a man in whom all of us have great -confidence and for whom all of us have great respect. I am delighted that he is present and has heard the gentleman's statement, and I express the hope he will give this matter immediate attention to the end that the public and the Congr.ess might know what the facts really are. ·

Mr. SHELLEY. I agree with the comments of the gentleman.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, . will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHELLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman from California stated that these peas were listed by the Commodity Credit Corporation for a period of time?

Mr. SHELLEY. The Austrian dried peas had been listed for some time, the last listing with a quoted price being on April 1 at $50 per ton.

Mr. HUNTER. Have there been any purchases of the peas at $50?

Mr. SHELLEY. There were. Mr. HUNTER. What were the

amounts of the purchases? Mr. SHELLEY. I have not been able

to get that information from the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. HOPE.· Does the gentleman know anything about the condition of these peas or the age of them? I know that one of the great problems of the Commodity Credit Corporation is the disposition of commodities that have been held for a long time and that have deteriorated or that are approaching a condition of deterioration. I am just wondering if the gentleman has looked into that phase of the matter fn the course Qf his study of it.

Mr. SHELLEY. My reply to the ven' able chairman of the Committee on Agriculture is that I have not been able to look into that personally, but those who have consistently over the years been buying these peas, and have bought them up to just before this sale to the combine took place, scoff at the idea that they were deteriorated. One gentleman in the Department told me in a telephone conversation that there was some element of deterioration. Others say there has never been any reported deterioration. With the conflicting statements from both sides, and in keeping with the way in which I have tried to present it, I think this is a matter the committee ought to go into.

Mr. HOPE. The gentleman has made the statement that he is riot making any charges . . I assume that if he wishes the committee to . investigate he will submit some information which I assume in ef-

. feet . would constitute the making of ch~rges upon which the committee can base its investigation. I am a little at loss to know what the _gentleman meaps.

Mr. SHELLEY. May I reply to the gentleman by saying that I have never tried to make c])arges against a person without having all the facts personally. It has been pretty difficult to get the facts in this case. I have tried to be fair. Two weeks ago I wrote a letter of inquiry as to certain facts and still I have had no acknowledgment of that letter or no reply. I will make this charge that the information I have acquired is so strange that it possibly can be more strange and an investigation should be made. · Mr. COOLEY. I was going to suggest that apparently you have made out a prima facie case, if your information is accurate; that is, the peas were offer.ed for $50, they were suddenly withdrawn and sold secretly for $30, then put back on the market for $53. That seems to me to indicate there is something rotten in Denmark or somewhere else, and the Portland office did not know about the transaction. I think that in itself warrants an inquiry without preferring charges. You do not have to prefer charges to warrant an inquiry by the appropriate committees of Congress. I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this information to our attention, for otherwise we might not have heard about it.

Mr. RAYBURN. If the gentleman had not all the facts, he would not be asking for an investigation.

Mr·. SHELLEY. That is true. Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield further? Mr. SHELLEY. I yield to the gentle-

man from California. · Mr. ·HUNTER. The gentleman said

that he had addressed a letter to the Secretary of Agriculture asking certain questions. Has there been any communication from the Department of Agriculture which would indicate that they refused to answer those questions or merely that they are preparing an answer at the present time which will be forthcoming within a reasonable period of time?

Mr. SHELLEY. I will say to the gentleman I surely would not impugn the intelligence of the Secretary of Agriculture that they would even indicate that they did not intend to answer. I have not heard whether they_ are preparing an answer. All I know is I have been in telephone communication almost daily for about a week. The letter is there. They know it is there. They

·know I sent it. We mentioned · it in telephone conversations, but still I have no reply.

Mr. HUNTER. How long has the Commodity Credit Corporation had this 80,000 tons of Austrian peas in storage?

· Mr. SHELLEY. I think that question could better be answered by the Commodity Credit Corporation.

Mr. HUNTER. One other question. What is it costing the Commodity Credit Corporation each month to store these peas?

Mr. SHELLEY. I think that is an· other question that could best be answered by the Commodity ·credit Corporation as well as how much they origi~ally paid for these peas.

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I was just going to call attention to the fact that the newspaper article which the gentleman referred to mentions the name of Mr. Chase as having been the person in the Department. Now, Mr. Chase is one of the ·persons who negotiated the sale :with at least three officials of the syndicate companies. · The newspaper says of him, "I will not go into all the details of the Department of Agriculture business." ·Now is Mr. Chase an employee of the Government?

Mr. SHELLEY. Mr. Chase is an employee of the Government.

Mr. COOLEY. And he· is the one that participated· in these negotiations?

Mr. SHELLEY." .That.is my information. . Mr. COOLEY. Apparently he is the official who, according to this press report, is unwilling to discuss the details of this important transaction.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, were the remarks of Mr. Chase addressed to some member of the press?

Mr. COOLEY. I assume so. Mr. SHELLEY. · Yes; they were. Mr: HUNTER. What obligation is

there on the part of Mr. Chase to discuss Department of Agriculture matters with the press?

Mr. COOLEY. He may not be obligated to do so, but if it was a perfectly fair and honest transaction I do not see any· reason why , the press should ·not know about it, and apparently there is no excuse for an official of the Government refusing to answer a· letter or declining to answer a letter for 2 weeks.

Mr. HUNTER. My understanding is that my distinguished colleague from California: has addressed a letter to the Secretary of Agriculture asking a number of questions in connection with this xp.atter, and perhaps the case is ·this, that Mr. Chase is deferring his answer until the Secretary officially speaking for the Department answers all the questions involved.

Mr. COOLEY. I suppose the only reason · the gentleman from California is now taking the floor of the House is that he has not obtained the information that he wants to obtain; is that not correct? · Mr. SHELLEY. That is correct.

Mr. LONG. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? ·

·Mr~ S~ELLEY. I yield to the gentieman from Louisiana.

Mr-: LONG. All of this conversation, I think, adds up to the fact that what is really needed is an investigation of the situation. -

Mr. SHELLEY. I think the gentleman has summed it up very briefly and very succinctly, ·

Mr. MILLER of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHELLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. MILLER of Kansas. Has the gentleman from California been assured that he will receive an answer to his communication?

Mr. SH.ELLEY. I have no such assurance but I now feel sure since the Hous·e Committee on Agriculture will

1953 CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD -HOUSE 5623 look into the matter that an answer will be forthcoming either to myself or the committee.

HON. JOHN L. McMILLAN The SPEAKER pro tempore <Mrs.

ROGERS of Massachusetts) . Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. RICHARDS] is recognized for 30 minutes.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge in this House that our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMIL· LAN] was prosecuted and indicted in the

· United States District Court for the District of Columbia for purportedly having violated the statute prohibiting Members of Congress from entering into, executing, holding, and enjoying a contract with the United States or an agency thereof. ·

The House is equally well informed that the case some weeks ago was heard by His Honor, Judge T. Blake Kennedy, of the United States District Court of the State of Wyoming, who was, by assignment, hearing cases in Washington.

Most Members of the House are further acquainted with the fact that a verdict of acquittal was ordered by Judge Kennedy and reached Washington on May 16. It happened that on that day I and a number of other Members of the House were in the State of Nevada, witnessing one of the atomic-bomb tests at Yucca Flat, from which we did not return for several days. The gentleman from South Carolina, Congressman McMILLAN, the defendant in the case, was also absent at the time from Washington for several days, attending to business in his congressional district in South Carolina. Had I been present and had the gentleman froni South Carolina, JoHN McMn.LAN, been here, I would have arisen on the floor at that time to felicitate and congratulate my friend and colleague upon his vindication by the court.

In fact, long before this issue came to trial it had been my inclination, and the inclination of other friends here who were familiar with the facts involved, to express here, as we have elsewhere, our confidence in the integrity and honesty of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMILLAN] and his innocence of the charges brought against him. However, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMILLAN] himself suggested that it would have been improper for us to make this floor a sounding board of the issues involved while the case was still before the court. Now that the case has been settled once and for all, and our colleague cleared of any criminal wrong, I have the urge and the pleasure, as senior Member of the House of Representatives from South Carolina, to say that the verdict was no more than ! .expected and that we rejoice with our colleague who has served with us for 15 years and has built up a reputation for honesty, integrity, and devotion to duty.

I have not the time pere today to read the eminently fair decree by that great jurist, Judge Kennedy, but perhaps it would be well to cite a few of the basic facts of the case, as well as a few excerpts from the judge's memorandum.

;Judge Kennedy says -in his memorandum:

Through some friend the defendant learned of land that was susceptible to -application for leasing owned by the United States ln the District of Utah and thereupon decided to file an application for certain selected areas through lease under the Federal Leasing Act of 1920, as amended. Accordingly an application for lease was made through the managing agent of the Utah Land Office with the payment of the required fees under the provisions of the leasing act. No effort was made apparently on the part of the defendant to conceal his identity or his position as his address was given at the· House Office Building, Washington, D. c.

I might add that the evidence also showed that the application for the lease and the signed lease itself with the fee of $740, were addressed to the Department of the Interior in a brown envelope with Congressman McMILLAN's name and title on it, plus the usual stamps for private correspondence. In . other words, the whole thing was free, open, and above board, apd there was no kick from anyone, including the Department itself, until some other fellow who had placed a bid on this land raised objection. The manager of the Utah office of the Department thereupon canceled the lease. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMILLAN] then sought sound legal advice and, based upon that advice, determined that he was eligible to be a party to this lease even though a Member of Congress. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMILLAN] objected to the decision of the lower office and carried his protest to the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, who affirmed the decision of the Utah official, subject to the right of appeal to the Secretary of the Interior. Upon appeal to that official, the decision of the Utah manager and the Assistant Secretary were affirmed, whereupon the defendant decided to protest no further but requested the Utah official to refund to him the rental deposited.

And now comes a very interesting ob· servation by the learned judge in his memorandum. I quot~ Judge Kennedy:

It would seem in the natural course of events that this would have been the end of the matter inasmuch as the Interior Department has established for the purposes of the case its contention that the defendant was an ineligible applicant for a lease of this character. However, regardless of the fact that the defendant had been de-prived of any and all benefits of the lease

· and had elected not to pursue his contention further in the courts, evidently the Depart-

. ment of Justice !elt that the facts would justify criminal proceedings against the defendant and accordingly an indictment was found, as cited above, under which the defendant was brought to trial.

Judge Kennedy .further says: ·Doubt arises as to whether or not the Leas

ing Act itself is of such a nature tliat Members of Congress were prohibited from taking the benefits tendered. It is specific in regard to who might become applicants, noncompetitive in its character, and apparently open to anyone who is a citizen of the United States and pays the fees required.

Further, Judge Kennedy says: In the case at bar the opportunity offered

to the defendant was one of a general nature, open to anyone defined as eligible, non•

competitive in its character and not entirely dissimilar to the offering of Government bonds and other securities, including bills of exchange, clearly exempting Members of Congress from its provisions.

I still quote Judge Kennedy: Only by the strictest technical legal con

struction can it be found that there was a criminal intent on the part of the defendant in this case to violate the law. He earnestly believed in his right to apply for and hold the lease under the provisions of the statute. He was and is a man of the highest type of character and occupies a position of honor and trust in the legislative department of the Government. • • • I am definitely inclined to the belief that under all these circumstances the defendant would never have been convicted by a jury of his peers and thereby branded as a criminal by a verdict of guilty.

Many of us have wondered, along with · the eminent judge who heard JoHN McMiLLAN's case, why a distinguished Member of CongreSs of unimpeachable character should be indicted for violation · of an old and ambiguous statute with not a scintilla of evidence showing criminal intent, or effort to conceal, or to seek any advantage for himself not open to all other citizens of this country. It would seem that those at the head of the departments of our Government who tl}.ought up this indictment should have sought first clarification of the statute through the halls of Congress rather than possible destruction of a man's good name, reputation and political standing through criminal proceedings.

In any event, may I say that JoHN McMILLAN's friends here and in his native State, and they are legion, rejoice in his vindication. It was no more than we expected.

Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? .

Mr. RICHARDS. I yield to my distinguished leader and former Speaker of the House.

Mr. RAYBURN. It has been distressing to me for many years that in many parts of the country there is the attitude that every da.y is a field day on officeholders, and especially on Members of the Congress. I can conceive of no place in this country where that atti .. tude is more prevalent than in the District of Columbia, and I measure my words when I say that. I knew · JoHN McMILLAN at a time when he was a secretary here. I have known him more than 20 years. He was a good secretary and then he became a Member of the Congress. I want to say I have never served in the House of Representatives with a man who, I think, has a higher sense of honor and integrity and love for his country and a desire to serve his country.

Mr. RICHARDS. I thank my distinguished leader for that very heartening statement.

Mr. RlVERS. Mr. Speaker, our distinguished former Speaker has just made a very true observation. It seems that throughout the Nation, as a whole, it is always an open season on Members of Congress· by newspapers and commentators alike here in the District of Columbia. There is a ceaseless, endless, and relentless campaign by certain types of so-called commentators and so-called

5624 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- · HOUSE May 26

journalists. to defame, attack, and embarrass the names and reputations of many Members of Congress. The institution of Congress itself has received an interminable barrage by leftwingers and Communist sympathizers. Certainly, throughout my 13 years in Congress, I venture the opinion that any Member of either branch of the Con-

. gress, charged with any crime at all, regardless of how ridiculous, would stand more than a 50-50 chance.of being convicted in the District of Columbia, as a result of the bad name that our institution constantly receives at the hands of these traitors to constitutional government.

I sat, along with the distinguished dean of our delegation, the Honorable JAMES P. RICHARDS, of South Carolina, through the entire proceedings of the McMillan trial. Despite the fact that I have been a member of the bar for over 20 years, I could never discern any 1~hyme or reason for this case to be in criminal court in the first place. There was not the slightest earmark of criminal proceedings throughout the length and breadth of the trial, so much so that both sides waived a jury trial, and both sides were content to leave the obviously ambiguous question· up to the discretion of the eminent Judge Kennedy. At the closing of the trial, neither the Justice Department, nor counsel for Congressman McMILLAN delivered any closing arguments. These were submitted weeks after, in writing. This is a procedure unheard of in a criminal case.

I want to say here and now that I am firmly of the opinion that Mr. McMILLAN's indictment and trial was conceived in a conspiracy between the Department of the Interior, and the then Secretary Oscar Chapman, and the Department of Justice, to defame, embarrass, humiliate, and attempt to politically destroy this outstanding public servant. Instead of the Department of the Interior terminating the case in its own Department, without rhyme or reason, it transferred the case to the Department of Justice. This was without notice to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMILLAN], and what is even more alarming and interesting, the then Attorney General 'James McGranery, a former Member of this body, and one who should certainly know of the vicissitudes of a Member of Congress, urged the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMILLAN] to ple-ad guilty. This was so ridiculous the gentleman from South .Carolina [Mr. McMILLAN] did not even take the suggestion seriously. McGranery then promised to discuss the matter with the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMILLAN] before anything was done, but in order to take care of his end of the conspiracy to hurt the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMILLAN], and during the last 2 or 3 days McGranery was in officeat the end of the Truman administration, he rushed this case over to the grand jury, and an indictment forthwith was returned, despite overwhelming evidence that no criminal intent could possibly be present.

I want to commend Judge Kennedy for his splendid decision on this matter. It i~ the only existing decision on this sub-

ject. It is ·clear, concise, and it vindicates the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMILLAN] beyond the peradventure of a doubt. The eminent jurist in this case made this statement:

Regardless of the rule that all defendants of whatever class and strata of life should be amenable to the law, only by the strictest technical legal construction can it be found that there was a criminal intent on the part of the defendant in this case to violate the law.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina, Congressman McMILLAN, is free of any stigma of a criminal act. His reputation is as spotless today as it was before this uncalled for trial and unquestioned conspiracy against him.

Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RICHARDS. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. RILEY. I wish to commend and thank my distinguished colleague, the dean of our delegation from South Carolina, and my collea~;fue who has just spoken [Mr. RIVERS] and the distinguished minority leader [Mr. RAYBURN]

· for bringing this matter to the :floor of the House and letting the world know the high esteem in which my friend and colleague, JOHN McMILLAN, is held. He is a man of the highest integrity. He is a capable, conscientious legislator, a man with whom it is an honor to serve in

-this great body. I am glad that a judge from far away

Wyoming could hear this case and without prejudice clear JoHNNY McMILLAN of all the charges against him and restore his good name which some had attempted to libel. It gives me a great deal of satisfaction, and it is a great privilege for me to be able to agree with my dis-

. tinguished dean in his appraisal of my colleague.

Mr. RICHARDS. I thank the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, my colleague [Mr. RILEY] also the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. RIVERS] for their very fine statements.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may extend their re.marks at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the . gentleman from South Carolina?

. There was no objection. : Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, I am happy for this opportunity of joining my colleagues in extending congratu-lations to the gentleman from South Carolina, the Honorable JOHN L. McMIL-LAN, on the occasion of his having been completely vindicated of any wrongdoing or · wrongdoing intent in connection with his application for the purchase of certain Government lands.

I should also like to extend my congratulations to the honorable judge, T. Blake Kennedy, of the United States district court of the State of Wyoming, for an immensely fair decree. The ability to be able to grasp the real issue in a case at bar and to be able to distinguish thereby prosecution from persecution is a quality which marks a truly great jurist. Judge Kennedy displayed this mark of greatness.

It has been my privilege for the past few years to serve on the same committee as the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMILLAN]. I have a high regard for all of my colleagues. I know of no one in whom I have more corifidence in his honesty and integrity than the gentleman from South Carolina. JoHN McMILLAN just wou~d not do anything wrong intentionally.

The facts in this case made it obvious that he had nothing to conceal. The way he handled himself throughout this entire ordeal has added to his stature in the eyes of his colleagues and in the eyes of the people everywhere who know him and love him. The action of the court in this case strengthens our faith in the American system. It is good to

· know that in spite of an effort to persecute, justice will triumph, as it has in

· this case. Mr. CARLYLE. Mr. Speaker, in

these · days of doubt, uncertainty, and turmoil caused by wars, rumors of wars, and other threats of danger now so prevalent throughout the world, it is easy for us to wonder just where we may be drifting. So it is highly important that we, as individuals, and as a nation, carefully evaluate all good signs that appear, and there are many, and also think of these when we may become despondent and discouraged as to our plight. Ours is a government divided into three branches, each with separate responsibilities and duties: the executive, the' legislative, and the judicial. We know that acts of the legislative and executive branches of our Government are subject to review by the judicial and may, under the wording of our Constitution, be set aside. In fact, there are no branches, divisions, departments, or

. agencies of our Government whose acts, directives, laws or edicts are not subject to review and close scrutiny, modifica .. tion or reversal by our Supreme Court, and its interpretation and decision are controlling and final throughout our land.

Therefore, it is highly important for us to observe constantly the manner in which our Federal courts perform their duties because we know that all personal liberty and property rights of our citizens are by our organic law placed in the care and keeping of our Federal jlJ.dges. There~ore, it is reaffirming, reassuring, and highly wholesome when we examine the . past record of our Federal judges and find that in practically every instance our judges have performed their official duties with :fidelity and a high sense of public responsibility. And so long as this remains true, we may rest assured that personal liberty and property rights will be, in every respect, safeguarded and fully protected under our laws. Our Government cannot decay so long as we have judges who remain faithful in the discharge of their duties and keep their eyes focused solely upon the justice of each case. The record of our judiciary is good.

So many important instances could be cited to justify fully this statement, but at this time I am primarily thinking of the recent case wherein Congressman JoHN L. McMILLAN, of the Sixth District of · South Carolina, was charged with a

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 5625 minor infraction of the law. The prominence of this able public official caused this to be an important case. He was charged with entering into a contract with an agency of the Government in violation of statute. It appears clearly from the record that all material facts relating to the contract were well known to both contracting parties at. the incep• tion of the contract, and that no effort was at any time made to conceal or withhold any fact. The contract was entered into after full and free discussion and it is not suggested that deception of any nature was practiced, unfair advantage gained, or anything of value obtained. In such instance, it would to me appear unconscionable to expect a Government prosecution, instituted against a citizen to be successful, when the sole charge was that the citizen entered into a contract with the Government, and the record fully disclosing that all facts were well known to both contracting parties before the consummation of the contract. If one party to that contract has transgressed, I am constrained to feel that both parties have willingly entered into the same transgression. In such inStances, it is extremely difficult for one party to successfully accuse the other. If a contract is illegal and both parties thereto are possessed of all facts at the inception of the contract, we may seriously doubt if one party is more responsible than the other.

It is niy privilege to represent the Seventh Congressional District of North Carolina, and this district immediately adjoins the Sixth South Carolina District so' ably represented by Congressman McMILLAN. The two districts have many common problems and naturally we have had constant contact with each other. This experience has caused me to place high value upon the splendid qualities of efficiency and resourcefulness of Congressman McMILLAN, and I have found him to be, at all times, diligent, able, and forthright in the discharge of his many duties. His · experience and training, together with his innate honesty, have endeared him to the Members of Congress, and he has been constantly eleva~ed to positions and committees of great importance and trust. Hard work and faithfulness have caused him to be a tower of strength in Congress and certainly, I am fortunate to know that he is my friend. I know that it was not within him to intentionally trangress the law, and for this reason I followed the case very closely and with intense interest.

Congressman McMILLAN went into court with clean hands and with the strong feeling of security that he had done no wrong. He did not request a jury trial but, with a confident plea of not guilty, placed his cause entirely in the sound discretion and judgment of a Federal district judge who, by years of careful training, would be thoroughly capable of rendering a righteous judg· .. ment based upon a proper interpretation of the law applicable to the case. Of course, it is well known that Congressman McMILLAN was not only acquitted but completely exonerate~ of any wrongful or questionable act, and the case as it relates to him is of little mo-

ment. But the efficiency with which our Federal court performed its duty in this case is of great importance to every citi-

. zen of this country. . Therefore, this case served a very use

ful purpose. It completely exonerated, vindicated, and cleared any suggestion of blemish against the character and name of a good and useful citizen and public servant. It also gave to the people of this country the opportunity to observe again our Federal cour:t in action, dispensing justice without regard to per-

. son, station, or class: high and low, strong and weak, all under our system receiving the same measure of justice.

Let it be remembered that the Honorable T. Blake Kennedy, able and distinguished judge of the United States district court for the State of Wyoming, who was duly assigned to conduct a term of court in Washington, D. c., was presiding when this case was called for trial by the district attorney. The decorum in his court clearly suggests the presence of a highly experienced, scholarly, and just judge. His verdict and judgment in the McMillan case have added new luster to our Federal judiciary. May the tenure of this distinguished jurist, and those possessed of like qualities, be long upon the Federal bench.

Mr. · DORN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr: RICHARDS. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. DORN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have been somewhat disturbed; in fact, I have been greatly disturbed by the constant attacks throughout the United States of America on Members of Congress of this country. I came to the House of Representatives as a Member of the 80th Congress, and I personally have never known a finer or more patriotic group of men than those who serve in this body on both sides of the aisle. If these attacks on the Congress of this country continue they will destroy the contldence of the people of this country in this, their representative body. If that happens, then this great country, now engaged in a great war with ruthless dictatorships throughout the world, will be placed in a decidedly precarious position.

I think people in all responsible walks of lif~, whether they be members of the press or radio commentators, jurists, members of grand juries in Washington, or in some other field should try to preserve and protect the honor, dignity, and respect of their Congress. The faith of· the American people in democratic representation must be preserved. I must add that it is also our duty to so conduct ourselves as to hold every confidence and trust of the American people. .I do not know a group that has more consistently tried to live the kind of life which would warrant the respect of the people of the United States than the membership of this great body. And I

· do thank my distinguished colleague, Mr. RICHARDS, as the dean of our delegation for bringing this matter to the attention of this House today.

I have never in all my life seen a more flagrant example of an attempt to smear the good character of a man who has served so honorably in this House

for many years as this attempt to discredit the Honorable JoHN McMILLAN, Mr. McMILLAN is a member of a distinguished South Carolina family. Hi.s brother is chief highway commissioner of South Carolina, and the highway department of that State is a credit to any State or country in the world. JOHNNY McMILLAN does not know how to do anything shady or dishonest; he has never entertained the thought. It looks like an attempt on the part of some bureaucrat with leftwing tendencies-and I do not mind saying that here-to destroy this great, conservative, middle-of-the-road American, a man who believes in democracy, who believes in justice.

I think JOHN McMILLAN has been vindicated by this great judge from the West, impartial, who sat in judgment on the facts as he saw them and then rendered this decision as only a great jurist and a great American could.

I am glad to stand here today, and pay tribute to a patriotic American who needs no defense. It has been a great pleasure for me to serve with a man of such honor and integrity and who has the welfare of the people of the whole United States at heart. I hope such men as JoHN McMILLAN will continue to be sent here to represent the people of this great Nation.

Mr. RICHARDS. I thank the gen-tleman. ·

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RICHARDS. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I, too, am delighted that our· distinguished · friend, JoHNNY McMILLAN, has been completely vindicated and exonerated, and came through the recent unfortunate experience entirely untarnished. To be charitable, we might say that it was a most unfortunate instance, but actually we know that the prosecution was ridiculous and wholly unfounded, and altogether ill advised.

I have known JoHNNY McMILLAN for many years and during the most of the time that he has served as a Member of Congress I have worked and labored with him on the lj.ouse Committee on Agriculture. I have known him intimately and well, and I know and appreciate his true worth. He is an honest and upright citizen, and in my opinion he is incorruptible. He is a devoted public servant and is at all times tireless in his efforts to honestly and faith:oo fully represent his people. From what I have been able to learn about the case, and I think I am familiar with all of the facts and circumstances involved, I am convinced that no element of moral turpitude was in the · slightest way involved in the entire transaction. Having practiced law for more than 30 years and knowing something about our courts and juries, I do not believe that any jury in any jurisdiction, even including the District of Columbia, would have con .. victed him or would have stayed in the jury room 2 minutes before returning a verdict of not guilty . . Just as JoHNNY McMILLAN had nothing to conceal in the transaction-he likewise did not seek to escape the unpleasant experience of appearing in a criminal court to face ~


criminal charge because he knew in his . own heart that he was innocent and free from wrongdoing. It is not a pleasant thing for an upright and honorable man to be indicted and haled into criminal court charged with a violation of criminal law, but JOHNNY McMILLAN faced it like a man. Whel) it was suggested that some impropriety might be involved, his every word and act was that of a gentleman and indicated that his conscience was perfectly clear.

JoHNNY McMILLAN has not only served the people of his district and State with great ability and devotion, but he has likewise served well and faithfully the the people of the District of Columbia. For many years he was Chairman of the District of Columbia Committee, and frequently was referred to as mayor of Washington. . Not only in the State of South Carolina, but right here in the District of Columbia he has thousands of friends who are delighted with the outcome. Even the judge complimented him and took judicial notice of his splendid qualities and sterling character. JoHNNY McMILLAN is a great and a good man, and I shall always cherish his friendship.

Mr. RICHARDS. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks.

Mr. DEANE. Mr. Speaker, I join with my ·fellow colleagues in bearing testimony of my high regard for our esteemed ·friend from South Carolina, JoHN Mc'MILLAN. Our districts join, mine being on the southern border of North Carolina and John's on the northern border of South Carolina. I have known him for _many years. I sincerely trust that the press that has carried such glowing stories about his indictment will ·pick up the theme here this afternoon and ·carry it to his home folks as to how we feel toward him, and that he stands before the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, I am sure, completely vindicated. Not only do we think of JoHN McMILLAN today, but I am l."eminded of our colleague's family _ and those near and dear to him who have been crushed by the unwarranted pub'licity. We rejoice in this complete vindication which is shared not only by John's family but his many thousands of friends here in the Congress and throughout his district.

I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. RicHARDS] for taking this time to give some of us an opportunity to pay these respects to our beloved friend.

Mr. RICHARDS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. POAGE. ·Mr. Speaker, it is not my desire to review the events of this trial. I think justice has been done. As a matter of fact, it was an injustice to have ever dragged JoHN McMILLAN into court on this matter, but since that was done it is :5.tting that the judgment that the gentleman just read should have been rendered.

I want particularly to use this opportunity to say to JOHN MCMILLAN'S friends and to his constituents that the Members of this House who have known him and who have worked with him for many years all know that he was un-

fairly accused of wrong, that he was properly acquitted of any wrongdoing, and that those who have worked with him, and it has been my privilege to serve with him on the Agricultural Committee for 10 or 12 years, know that he is the high-class, upright, honest, able Representative that those people of his district have indicated they believed him to be all of these years. We in this House know JoHN McMILLAN is every year becoming a more ·valuable Representative of that district. We know that rather than having lost any of his in-fluence in this House he stands in the recognition of all Members of the House today on a higher place than he has ever occupied before.

Mr. RICHARDS. I am grateful for the gentleman's observation.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RICHARDS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

· Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Speaker, I also want to add my faith in, an<;i admiration for, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMILLAN]. I met him when I first came to Congress 11 years. ago and I do not know of a more honorable and modest Member of the House than Mr. MCMILLAN. His conduct in the trial of his case showed that he went to get the best legal advice he could before he made a purcbase of this land. - This clearly shows that he wanted to comply

. with the law and that he could not have had any intent to obtain the land be bought in defiance of the law. I will say further that the judge who decided this case showed a very broad attitude, the kind of attitude that we expect from our Federal judges. His analysis of the facts of the case and his conclusion that Mr. McMILLAN had no criminal intent in what he did was masterful. Mr. McMILLAN's acquittal was very pleasant news to me and justly deserved. The gentleman who now has the :floor knows that I have a little interest in South Carolina because my daughter is his constituent.

Mr. RICHARDS. I want to say that the gentleman has a very fine daughter, and she lives in my hometown, and we are glad to have her there. - Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will

the gentleman yield? Mr. RICHARDS. I yield to the dis

tinguished minority whip, formerly majority leader of the House, and may I say this: Long before this case was tried, the gentleman from Massachusetts on this :floor expressed his confidence in the integrity of the gentleman from ,South Carolina [Mr. MCMILLAN].

Mr. McCORMACK. There is not much for me to say. What I will say I stated a few weeks ago on the floor of the House. I want to express my deep pleasure in the acquittal of Jmm McMILLAN. I wrote him a letter of congratulations after reading of Judge Kennedy's verdict. I want to add that as the result of the remarks I made on the :floor a few weeks ago I received a number of letters from the good people who live in JOHN McMILLAN's district conveying to m~ their thanks, but particularly conveying to me the very high regard that they have for JoHN

McMILLAN. Each and every one _of us knows that he is honorable and trustworthy in every respect. But, I thinlc now that the verdict has been rendered, we should pay a justifiable tribute to Judge Kennedy. First, by his fair conduct of the trial, by his consideration of the evidence, and by his verdict, he has show:a that he is liVing up to the highest traditions of the Federal judiciary. It seems to me to be a complete justification for the independence of our judiciary. An independent judiciary is vital and necessary for the protection of our civil liberties and of our rights under the Constitution. I have always taken that position. The first office I ran for in 1917 was as a member of the constitutional convention in a district wh~ch only the preceding fall had voted 15 .to 1 in favor of the election of judges. I opposed the election of judges, which was one of the great questions passed upon in the Constitutional Convention in 1917. I recognized the argument behind it. But I feel that it is important that we have an independent judiciary, and in order to have an independent judiciary we must have men appointed under conditions which can assure in-

. dependence ·of thought and action on their part. The verdict of Judge Kennedy was commendable. V/e are greatly pleased with it, naturally. We congratulate him not only for the verdict, but for living up to, in the highest degree, the great traditions of our independent Federal judiciary.

Mr. RICHARDS. - I thank the gentle-man. -

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks at this ·point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from south Carolina?


THE AMERICAN NEWSBOYS -OF LOWELL, MASS.

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for r minute and to revise and extend my remarks. · The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr.

Speaker, this morning 58 newsboys, each 12 years old, came to Washington from my district to see the sights. They had breakfast with me in the Speaker's dining room at the Nation's Capitol. The trip was sponsored by the Lowell Sun, of Lowell,. Mass., because these boys secured many new subscriptions to the paper. One secured 450.

The boys had the great privilege and delight of meeting our Speaker, Hon. JOSEPH W. MARTIN. He told them that he started his career ·as a newsboy. He told them to hitch their ambition to a star. Certainly our Speaker is a star and sets a splendid example of integrity and ability. These boys were thrilled to have him talk to them and to point the way for ambition, for happiness, and for service.

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 5627 The boys were just as :fine and cour

teous as they could be. I was grateful and deeply touched because they presented me with a very beautiful orchid. I wish every one of those boys could have had the pleasure of meeting all the Members of Congress, and I know the Members of Congress would have joined me in appreciation and praise of them. They are wonderful young Americans; I am glad because I know the future of America marches on the feet of youth. I am extremely proud to be their Member of Congress-they are a great inspiration.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS By unanimous consent, permission to

extend remarks in the Appendix of the RECORD, or to revise and extend remarks, was granted to: .

Mrs. FRANCES P. BoLTON on the subject of the Indian Springs experiment.

Mr. JAVITS in three instances and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. BusBEY and to include a supplemental study on the subject Permit Communist-Conspirators To Be Teachers? by Hamilton A. Long.

Mr. REED of New York in four instances and to include extr-aneous matter in each.

Mr. HoPE in two instances and to include a table in one.

Mr. PERKINS in two instances and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. PRicE to revise and extend his remarks made in Committee of the Whole

. and include a letter from the Director of the Budget and other extraneous matter.

Mr. BoLAND in two instances and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. MoRANo and to include an edi-torial.

Mr. BRAY. Mr. VANZANDT in two ·instances. Mr. HoRAN and to include an article. Mr. GRoss and to include an editorial. Mr. RoosEVELT in two instances and

to include extraneous matter. Mr. MuLTER in five instances and to

include extraneous matter. Mr. HARDY the remarks he made in the

Committee of the Whole and to include quotations from certain letters.

Mr. PERKINS and to inctude extraneous matter.

Mr. SHAFER and to include a report of the International Rubber Study Conference.

Mr. OsTERTAG and to include an editorial.

Mr: H. CARL ANDERSEN to revise and extend his remarR:s made in Committee and include extraneous matter.

Mr. BENDER in four instances. Mr. DoNOVAN and to include an ad

dress delivered by James A. Farley. Mr. WoLVERTON in three instances and

to include extraneous matter. Mr. JOHNSON and to include an edi·

to rial. Mr. GAVIN <at the request of Mr.

WAMPLER) to revise and extend his remarks . and include extraneous matter.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED Mr. LECOMPTE, from the Committee

· on House Administration, reported that that committee had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the House of the following titles, which were thereupon signed by the Speaker:


H. R. 1244. An act to amend section 13 of the act entitled "An act to provide for the allotment of lands of the Crow Tribe, for the distribution of tribal funds and other purposes."

. BILLS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT

Mr. LECOMPTE, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that that committee did on this day present to the President, for his approval, bills of the House of the following titles:

H. R. 746. An act for the relief of Tibor Kalman Jalsoviczky;

H. R. 782. An act for the relief of Kurt J. Hain and Arthur Karge;

H. R. 880. An act for the relief of Dr. Suzanne Van Amerongen;

H. R. 974. An act for the relief of Dr. Morad Malek-Aslani;

H. R. 1243. An act to amend the act of June 30, 1919 (41 Stat. 16);

H. R. 1563. An act to amend Veterans Regulation No. 2 (a), as amended, to provide

· that the amount of certain unnegotiated checks shall be paid as accrued benefits upon the death of the beneficiary-payee, and for other purposes;

H. R. 2363. An act for the relief of David H. Andrews and Joseph T. Fetsch;

H. R. 2364. An act to terminate restrictions against alienation on land owned by William Lynn Engles and Maureen Edna Engles;

H. R. 2420. An act for the relief of Ruth D. Crunk;

H. R. 2667. An act for the relief of Mrs. Lennie P. Riggs, James A. Carson, and Vernon L. Ransom;

H. R. 2990. An act to amend the act which incorporated the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States;

H. R. 3042. An act for the relief of Anna Bosco Lomonaco;

H. R. 3389. An act for the relief of Plo Valensin;

H. R. 3406. An act to authorize payment of salaries and expenses of officials of the Klamath Tribe; and

H. R. 4605. An act to amend section 10 of the Federal Reserve Act, and ·for other purposes.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE By unanimous consent, leave of ab

sence was granted to: Mr. CouDERT (at the request of Mr.

ARENDS), on account of official business. Mr. KEARNEY (at the request of Mr.

ARENDS), on account of official business. Mr. BECKER (at the request of Mr.

ARENDS), for 2 days, on account of official business.

Mr. DoDD <at the request of Mr. BoLAND), for the balance of the week, on account of death in family,

Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana <at therequest of Mr. MULTER), for the balance of the week, on account of official business.

Mr. DAWSON of Utah, for the remainder of this week, on account of the death of mother.

Mr. SCHERER, for May 27 and 28, 1953, on account of hearing of subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities-in New York City.

Mr. TAYLOR (at the request of Mr. ARENDS), for 3 days, on account of official business.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 37 minutes p. m.). under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 27, 1953, at 11 o'clock a.m.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows:1

719. A letter from the Administrator, Housing and Home Finance Agency, transmitting the 14th quarterly report on the administration ·of the advance planning program, pursuant to section 6 of Public Law 352, 81st Congress (H. Doc. No. 153); to the Committee on Public Works and ordered to be printed.

720. A letter from the Director, Office of Defense Mobilization, Executive Office of the President, transmitting the quarterly report required by section 304 (b) of the Defense

· Production Act, as amended, for the period ended March 31, 1953; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON.PUBLIC 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. WALTER: Committee on the Judi· ciary. H. R. 5363. A bill to amend section 14 of the act of June 25, 1948, as amended; without amendment (Rept. No. 470) •. Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois: Committee on Rules. House Resolution ·249. Resolution providing for the consideration of H. R. 1026, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide medical, surgical, and dental treatment and hospitalization for certain officers and employees of the former Lighthouse Service; without amendment (Rept. No. 471). Referred to the House Calendar. .

Mr. ALLEN of llllnois: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 250. Resolution providing for the consideration of H. R. 5069, a bill to prohibit the introduction or movement in interstate commerce of articles of wearing apparel and fabrics which are so highly flam• mable as to be dangerous when worn by individuals, and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. 472). Referred to the House Calendar.

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. JONAS of Dlinois: Committee on the Judiciary. S. 484. An act conferring juris· diction upon the United States District Court for the District of Colorado to hear, determine, and render judgment upon the claim of J, Don Alexander against the United


States; without amendment (Rept. No. 456). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. LANE: Committee on the Judiciary. S. 712. An act !or the relief of William R. Jackson; without amendment (Rept. No. 457}. Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. LANE: Committee on the Judiciary. S. 1334. An act for the relief of the Reverend A. E. Smith; without amendment (Rept. No. 458). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. LANE: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 660. A bill for the relief of Frank B. Pindle; without amendment (Rept. No. 459). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. ·

Mr. LANE: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 812. A bill for the relief of the estate of Mrs. India Taylor Palmi Stevenson; with amendment (Rept. No. 460). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. LANE: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 1167. A bill for the relief of W. A. Sampsel; with amendment (Rept. No. 461). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. LANE: .Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 2021. A blll for the relief of Clarence R. Seiler and other employees of. The Alaska Railroad; without amendment (Rept. No. 462) . Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. LANE: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 2387. A bill for the relief of William M. Smith; without amendment (Rept. No. 463) . Referred to the ·Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. RODINO: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 3623. A bill for the relief of Willard Chester Cauley; with amendment (Rept. No. 464). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. LANE: Committee on the Judiciary. H . R. 4097. A bill for the relief of Terry L. Hatchett; without amendment (Rept. No. 465). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. JONAS of Tilinois: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 4329. A bill for the relief of Huntington, McLaren & Co.; with amendment (Rept. No. 466). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. BURDICK: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 4799. · A bill for the relief of Otho F. Hipkins; with amendment (Rept. No. 467). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. .

Mr. GRAHAM: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 5238. A bill for the relief of Franciszek Jarecki; with amendment (Rept. No. 468). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. GRAHAM: Committee on the Judiciary. Senate Concurrent Resolution 25. Concurrent resolution favoring the gra.ntin.g of the status of permanent residence _to certain aliens; with amendment (Rept. No. 469) . Referred to the Committee of the :Whole House.

PUBLIC BILlS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 4 of rule XXII, public

bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows:

By Mr. CAMP: H. R. 5395. A bill to correct tax equities;

to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. CURTIS of Missouri:

H. R. 5396. A bill to amend sections 3182 and 3183 of title 18 of the United States Code so as to authorize the use of an information filed by a public prosecuting officer for making demands for fugitives from justice; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HOWELL: H. R. 5397. A bill to provide for the estab

lishment of a National War Memorial Arts

Commission, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and Labor.

By Mr. McDONOUGH: H. R. 5398. A bill to amend. the Internal

Revenue Code to provide a 3-yea.r carryover for medical and dental expenses in excess of the maximum deduction allowable under section 23 {x) ~ to the Committee on Ways and Means.

H. R. 5399. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code so as to allow, as a deduction from gross income, certain amounts paid as life-insurance premiums, and to provide more liberal income-tax treatment for amounts paid fot hospitalization insurance and amounts paid under voluntary medical care plans; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

. By Mr. METCALF·: H. R. 5400. A bill to amend section 1802 (b)

of the Internal Revenue Code so as to change the basis for taxing transfers of stock with no par value; to the Committee on· Ways . and Means.

By Mr. RAY: H. R. 5401. A b111 to amend section 9 of

the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946; to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

By Mr. BATTLE: H. R. 5402. A bill to amend the Social Se

curity Act to permit individuals entitled to old-age or survivors insurance benefits to earn $125 a month without deductions being made from their benefits; to the Committee on Ways and :Means.

H. R. 5403. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide that the work clause shall not apply to work performed by individuals who have attained the age of 70; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. HAGEN of Minnesota: H. R. 5404. A bill authorizing the Civil

Service Commission to confer a competitive classified civil-service status upon certain disabled veterans; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. LANE: H. R. 5405. A bill to create a Federal Civil

tan Retirement Administration and to transfer thereto the functions of the Civll Service Commission pertaining to civil-service retirement activities; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. McGREGOR: H. R. 5406. A bill to amend the Public

Buildings Act of 1949 to authorize the Administrator of General Services to acquire title to real property and to provide for the construction of certain public buildings for housing of Federal agencies or departments, including post offices, by executing purchase contracts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Public Works.

By Mr. SAYLOR: H. R. 5407. A bill to amend section 2879

(b) of the Internal Revenue Code; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. RAY:-H. Res. 247. Resolution providing for the

payment of 6 months' salary and $350 funeral expenses to Sarah Waldron, mother of Mary Waldron, late a.n employee of the House of Representatives~ to the Committee on House Administration.

By Mr. TALLE~ H. Res. 248. Resolution providing for the

payment of 6 months• salary and $350 funeral expenses to the estate of Charles R. Torbert, late an employee of the House of Representatives; to the Committee on House Administration.

MEMORIALS

Under clause 3 of rule :x:xn, mem·orials were presented and referred as follows:

By Mr. HESELTON: Resolutions of the House of Representatives of the General Court of Massachusetts memorializing Con-

gress in opposition to a reduction of the approp:riation for the national school-lunch program; to the Committee on Appropriations.

Also, resolutions of the House of Representatives in the General Court of Massachusetts, congratulating members of the Armed Forces; to the Committee on Armed Services.

Also. resolutions of the Massachusetts State Senate memorializing the Congress of the United States to reconsider any proposed curtailment of employment or work at the Boston Naval Shipyard; to the Committee on Armed Services.

Also, resolutions of the House of Representatives of the General court ot Massachusetts memorializing the Congress of the United States to urge that any steps aimed at curtailment of employment or curtailment of work at the Boston Naval Shipyard be reconsidered in view of the value of this facility to our state and national defense and our State national economic security; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. LANE: Memorial of the House of Representatives of the General Court of Massachusetts memorializing Congress in opposition to a reduction of the appropriation for the national school-lunch program; to the Committee on Appropriations. .

Also. memorial of the House of Representatives in the General Court of Massachusetts extending to the members of the armed services its congratulations for their excellent work, al)d assuring them of the continued cooperation of the peoples of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; to the Committee on Armed Services.

Also, memorial of the Massachusetts Senate of the Commollwealth of Massachusetts memorializing the Congress of the United States to take such action as ma.y be necessary to compel the Department of Defense to maintain the present standard of employment and work at the Boston Naval Shipyard; to the Committee on Armed Services.

Also. memorial of the House of Representatives of the General Court of Massachusetts memorializing the Congress of the United States to urge that any steps aimed at curtailment of employment or curtailment of work, at the Boston Naval Shipyard, be reconsidered in view of the value of this facility to our State and national de,fense and our State and national economic security; to the Committee on Armed Services. ·

By the SPEAKER: Memorial of the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts, memorializing tlie President and the Congress .of the United States In opposition to a reduction of the appropriation for the national school-lunch program; to the Committee on Appropriations.

Also, memorial of the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts. memorializing the President and the Congress of the United states to reco:rlhider any proposed curtailment of employment or work at the Boston Naval Shipyard; to the Committee on Armed Services.

Also, memorial of the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts, memorializing the President and the Congress of the United States relative to the curtailment of employment or curtailment of work at the Boston Naval Shipyard; to the Committee on Armed Services.

Also, memorial of the Legislature of the State pf Massachusetts, memorializing the President and the · Congress of the Unlted

·States relative to congratulating members of the armed services :Cor their excellent work and to assure them of the continued cooperation of the peoples of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; to the Committee on Arnied Services.

Also, memorial of the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii, memorializing the President and the Congress of the United States to enact legislation whereby the wooden

1953 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE 5629 buildings now located at Mana Airport Base, Kauai, be transferred to the county of Kaual; to the Committee on Armed Services.

PRIVATE BILLS~ RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private

bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows:

By Mr. BONNER: · H. R. 5408. A bill for the relief of Marie Martha Schramm; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By M!r. DOLLINGER: H. R. 5409. A bill for the relief of Shaman

bhamilzadeh, Shoushan Shamilzadeh, David Shamilzadeh and Bila Shamilzadeh; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. DONOHUE: H. R. 5410. A bill for the relief of Mrs.

Alberta S. Rozanski; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. DOYLE: H. R. 5411. A bill for the relief of Jules

Maurice Lotode, Mary Tsang Lotode, and Jeanne Marie Lotode; to the Committee on the Judiciary. .

H. R. 5412. A bill for t.he relief of Novak Zuber; to the Committee on t.he Judiciary.

By Mr. JACKSON: H. R. 5413. A bill for the relief of Mrs.

Galina Nicolaevna Warner; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. MORANO: H. R. 5414. A bill for the relief of Conti

nental Insurance Co., Federal Insurance Co., imd National Fire Insurance Co., of Hartford, Conn.; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. REES of Kansas: H. R. 5415. A bill for the relief of Dr.

Danuta Oktawiec; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. RIVERS: · H. R. 5416. A bill to authorize the advancement of certain lieutenants on the retired list of the Navy; to the Committee on· Armed Services. -

By Mr. ROOSEVELT: H. R. 5417. A 'bill for the relief of Wilhelm

Efraim Silber; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

PETmONS, ETC. Under clause 1 of rule XXII, petitions

and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk and referred as follows: -

286. By Mr. BENTLEY: Peti~ion of Herbert Springs, Harry Burges, and Robert Rigoulet joined by the Shiawassee County Road Commission employees, to amend the Social Security Act so that employees of State and local government may have old age and survivors insurance, even though they have had a retirement system at the time the State and Federal agreement was consummated; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

287. By Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin: Petition of Racine Unit No. 76 of the American Legion Auxiliary, for favorable action to maintain the rights of the United States relative to the St. Lawrence Waterway development and not relinquish our rightful share to another country; to the Committee on Public Works.

288. By the SPEAKER: Petition of Dickson County Chamber of Commerce, Dickson, Tenn., relative to being placed on record as strongly opposing any decrease or cuts in appropriations to the Tennessee Valley Authority; to the Committee on Appropriations.

289. Also, petition of California-Nevada Association of Lions International, Santa Barbara, Calif., recomnrending that an impartial, qualified, and unbiased engineering study be undertaken concerning water conservation and transportation for San Francisco Bay area; "to the Committee on Public Works.

290. Also, petition of Lee Nichols and others, of Dayton~ Beach, Fla., requesting

XCIX-354

passage of H. R. 2446 and H. R. 2447 socialsecurity legislation, known as the Townsend plan; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

•• ••• •• SENATE

WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1953 <Legislative day of Thursday,

'May 21, 1953)

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:

Spirit of God, descend upon our hearts and grant that in this temple of .a people's hoPe Thy servants in the ministry of public affairs may serve Thee in the beauty of holiness.

For every spiritual i:psight which sees beyond the faulty and superficial and finds sermons in stones and good in everything; for every heavenly treasure which satisfies the heart, so that for its sake we gladly surrender the cheap and sordid; for all strengthening burdens, weights which turn into wings as they increase strength and gladden the spirit; for all doors of opportunity to render service, to extend kindness, to reach out the helping hand of understanding friendship; and for the · radiant hope that sends its ray far down the future's broadening way: We praise Thy name, as in the heat and burden of this new day we lift lame hands of prayer. Amen.

THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. KNOWLAND, and by

unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Tuesday, May 26, 1953, was dispensed with.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT Messages in writing from the Presi

dent of the United States submitting nominations were communicated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries.


sentatives, by Mr. Chaffee, one of its reading clerks, announced that the . House had passed a bill <H. R. 5246) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and ,Welfare, and related independent agencies, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, and for other purposes, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE On request of Mr. KNowLAND, and by

unanimous consent, Mr. DIRKSEN was excused from attendance on the session of the Senate from today through June 15, on official business.

COMMITTEE MEETING DURING SENATE SESSION

On request of Mr. KNowi.AND, and by unanimous consent, the Committee on

Foreign- Relations was authorized to meet during the session of the Senate today .

REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. ,2 OF 1953

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will state it. ·

Mr. KNOWLAND. I inquire what is the unfinished business?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The unfinished business is Senate Resolution 10'0, a resolution disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, on which, under the unanimous-consent agreement of yesterday, there is a limitation of 5 hours of debate, the time to be controlled equally by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL] and the Senator from Maine [Mrs. SMITH].

ORDER FOR TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS

Mr. -KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following a quorum call Senators may be permitted to introduce bills and joint resolutions, make insertions in the REcORD, and transact other routine business, under the usual .time limitation of 2 minutes.


CALL OF THE ROLL Mr. KNOWLAND. I suggest the ab

sence of a quorum. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The

clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll,

and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Green McCarthy Beall Griswold McClellan Bennett Hayden Millikin ~ricker Hendrickson Morse Bridges Hickenlooper Mundt Bush Hill Neely Butler, Md. Hoe'5' Pastore Byrd Holland Payne Carlson Humphrey Purtell Chavez Hunt Robertson Clements Jackson Russell Cooper Jenner Saltonstall Cordon Johnson, Colo. Schoeppel Daniel Johnson, Tex. Smathers Douglas Johnston, S. c. Smith, Maine Duff Kennedy Smith, N.J. Dworshak Kerr Smith, N. c. Eastland · Kilgore • Sparkman Ellender Knowland Stennis Ferguson Kuchel Symington Flanders Lehman Tobey Frear Long Watkins Fulbright Malone Welker George Mansfield Wiley Gillette Martin Williams Gore Maybank Young

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I · announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. BARRETT], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GoLDWATER], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. PoTTER], and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. THYEl are absent by leave of the Senate.

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] is absent by leave of the Senate ·on official committee business.

The Senator from New York [Mr. IVEs] is absent by leave of the Senate, having been appointed a delegate to

5528 May 25 - GovInfo

Documents