..... I I - U.S. Government Publishing Office

320' CONCiRI!SSIONAL RECORD- SENATE January 18.-Mr. Weitzel is a university graduate,' liold-·

ing the degree of bachelor of arts with highest distinction from George Washington University, and bachelor of laws with distinction from the same university. He -is a. member of the bar of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and of the Supreme Court of the United States. He has had 7 years' experience in the General Counsel's oftice, General Accounting Oftice, in the drafting of decisions for the Comptroller General, and more than 11 years in the immediate Oftice of the Comptroller General in handling legal, organizational, and procedural problems, and since. 1945 in his post in charge of the entire legislative program and interagency relations of the Oftice. During his incumbency in that post he has participated in the legislative processes in the enactment of a great deal of basic legislation, not only strengthening the functions and operations of the General Accounting Oftice, but laying the foundation for Government-wide improvements in accounting and auditing. Such legislation includes the Government Corporation Control Act of 1945, the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950, the Post Oftice Department Financial Control Act of 1950, and the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949.

Mr. Weitzel has worked with committees of both Houses of Congress, especially the Appropriations, Government Operations, Post Oftice and Civil Service, Banking and Currency, and Agriculture Committees. He took a leading part in the development of the joint accounting program now being carried on by the General Accounting Oftice, Bureau of the Budget, and Treasury Depart-. ment. He is called upon constantly by congressional committees on problems affecting fields in which the General Accounting Oftice can be of assistance.

While Mr. Weitzel has always administered his duties in a completely nonpartisan and nonpolitical m a nner, he has been a lifelong Republican. Although he is a native and resident of the District of Columbia, both of his parents, whose origins were in Ohio and New York, have likewise always been Republicans. Mr. Weitzel's brother was one of the original small group which met with Senators CARLSON, DUFF, and NIXON to plan the Eisenhower campaign and participated in the primary campaign in New Hampshire and Maryland, which resUlted in a victory for General Eisenhower. He was also president of the Eisenhower-for-President Club of Montgomery County, Md., before the nomination, and of the campaign club of Montgomery County after the nomination ; and worked during the campaign, including the national Republican convention for General Eisenhower and Vice President NIXON, campaigning in New Jersey: Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Indiana. Mr. Weitzel's wife's father was a member of the Republican State Central Committee for Ohio and a close associate of the late President Harding.

Comptroller General Lindsay C. Warren has stated before congressional committees that Mr. Weitzel is recognized by the Government as a whole as one of ·the ablest men in Government, devoted to the public service. Mr. Weitze1 is active in church work in Washington and is an elder of the Georgetown Presbyterian Church.

Since October 12, 1953, Mr. Weitzel has filled the oftice of Assistant Comptroller General of the United States under a recess appointment by the President.

RECESS TO MONDAY

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, if there is· no further business to be transacted, pursuant to the order previously entered, I move that the Senate now

stand in recess until 12 o'clock noon ori Monday next. - The motion was agreed to; and <at 5 o'clock and 20 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a recess, the recess being, under the order previously entered, until Monday, January 18, 1954, at 12 o'clock meridian.

NOMINATION Executive nomination received by the

Senate January 15 (legislative day of January 7), 1954: ECONOMIC AND SociAL COUNCIL OF THE UNITED

NATIONS Preston Hotchkis, of California, to be the

representative of the United States of Axp.erica on the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.

II ..... II

SENATE MONDAY, JANUARY 18, 1954

<Legislative day of Thursday, January 7, 1954)

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

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

0 Thou guide of our pilgrim way, through the shadows of another night refreshing sleep has brought new vigor to our fragile fiesh. As now reverently we bow at this shrine of the spirit, wilt Thou restore our souls. Solemnly con: scious that we cannot hope to give to a needy world that which we do not have, we pray that we may be strengthened by Thy might in the inner man. Purge us, we beseech Thee, from all insincerity; cleanse us from the impurity that blinds our eyes to the high and holy. Break down in each of us the idols of our false pride, and shatter the sophistries of our self-love. And now, for the waiting taskS and perplexing questions of this new week, consecrate with Thy presence the way our feet may go, and steady us with the assurance that as we follow obediently and patiently the kindly light, the humblest work will shine and the roughest places be made plain. In the Redeemer's name, we ask it. Amen.

DESIGNATION OF ACTING PRESI-DENT PRO TEMPORE .

The legislative clerk read the following letter:

UNITED STATES SENATE, PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,

Washington, D. C ., January 18, 1954. To the Senate : · Being temporarily absent from the Senate, I appoint Hon. JoHN M. BUTLER, a Senator trom the State · of Maryland, to perform the duties of the Chair during my absence. - STYLES BRIDGES,

President pro tempore.

Mr. BUTLER of Maryland thereupon took the chair as Acting President pro tempore. - -

ATTENDANCE OF A SENATOR . MIKE MANSFIELD, a Senator from

the State of Montana, appeared in his seat today.

THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. KNowLAND, and

by unanimous consent, the· reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Friday, .January 15, 1954, was dispensed with.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT Messages in writing from the Presi

dent of the United States were communicated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries.

- ORDER FOR TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the quorum call there may be the customary morning hour for the presentation of petitions and memorials, the introduction of bills and resolutions, and the insertion of matters in the REcORD, under the usual 2-minute limitation on speeches.

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

Mr. · KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary. will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll. . Mr. · KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the call of the roll be rescinded, and that further proceedings under the ordzr be dispensed with.

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

ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS ON CIVIL FUNCTIONS APPROPRIATIONS BILL Mr .. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I

should like to make an announcement. The Army Civil Functions Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Com~ i:nittee will start its hearings on Monday, January 25, and it intends to hold hearings January 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and Feb-/ ruary 1. The subsequent hearing dates will be announced later. I am making the public announcement at this time inasmuch as it has been the custom in the past for the Senate committee to wait until the House Committee on Appropriations had concluded their consideration of appropriation measures. I feel, however, that the Senate could expedite its schedule by having the appropriation bills-reported to it -at an early date.

REPORT OF COMMODITY CREDI'l' ·· CORPORATION-MESSAGE- FROM

THE PRESIDENT <H. DOC. NO. 299) The ACTJNG PRESIDENT .pro tern-"

pore laid before the Senate the following message from the· President of the

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 321 :United States, which ·was read, and, ·with · the accompapy.il)g report, referred to the Committee on Agriculture and For- , estry.: To the Congress of the United States:

In accordance with the provisions ofsection 13, Public Law 806, 80th Congress, approved June 29, 1948, I transmit herewith for the information .of the~ Congress the report of the· Commodity · Credit Corporation for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1953. ·

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER. THE WHITE HOUSE, January 18, 1954.

REPORT OF RAILROAD RETIRE-· MENT BOARD-MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT TP.e ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem

pore laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the· United States, which was read, and, with the accompanying report, referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare:

To the Congrus of the United States: In compliance with the provisions of

section 10 (b) (4) of the Railroad Retirement Act, approved June 24, 1937, and of section 12 <1) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, approved June 25, 1938, I transmit herewith for the information of the Congress the report of the Railroad Retirement Board for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1952.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER. THE WHITE HoUSE, January 18, 1954.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the following letters, which were referred as indicated: REPORT OF OPERATIONS UNDER SOIL CONSERVA

TION AND DOMESTIC ALLOTMENT ACT A letter from the Secretary of Agriculture,

transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of operations, expenditures and obligations under the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1953 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. REPORT OF INTERNATIONAL CLAIMS COMMIS

SION A letter from the Secretary of State, trans

mitting, pursuant to law, a report of the International Claims Commission, for the period July 1 to December 31, 1953 (with an accompanying report) ; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

LAWS ENACTED BY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF ST. CROIX, V.I.

A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, copies of laws enacted by the Municipal Council of St. Croix, V.I. (with accompanying papers) ; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. ·

REPORT OF CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD A letter from the Chairman, Civil Aero

nautics Board, Washington, D. C., transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of that Board for the fiscal year 1953 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

c--21

REPORT OF DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE UNDER FEDERAL AIRPOR';l' ACT .

- A letter from the Secretary of Commerce, transmi~ting, pursuant to 1aw:, a report on tbe operations of the Department of Commerce · under the Federal Airport Act, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1953 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on lnt~rstate and Foreign Commerce. GRANTING TEMPORARY ADMISSION INTO THE

UNITED STATES OF CERTAIN ALIENS A letter from the Commissioner, Immigra

tion and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, copies of orders entered granting temporary admission into the United States of certain aliens (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on the Judiciary. ISSUANCE OF NQNIMMIGRANT VISA TO CLAUS

HEINRICH ARP A letter from the Commissioner, immigra

tion and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, a copy of ar. order entered in the case of Claus Heinrich Arp, relative to his admission into the United States on a nonimmigrant visa (with an accompanying paper): to the Committee on the Judiciary.

SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION OF CERTAIN . ALIENS

Two letters from the Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Servi ~e. Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, copies of orders suspending deportation of certain aliens, together with a statement of the facts and pertinent provisions of law as to each alien, and the reasons for such suspension (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on the Judiciary. GRANTING OF APPLICATIONS OF CERTAIN ALIENS

FOR STATUS OF PERMANENT RESIDENCE A letter from the Commissioner, Immigra

tion and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, copies of orders granting the applications for permanent residence filed by certain aliens, together with a statement of the facts and pertinent provisions of law as to each alien, a.nd the reasons for granting such applications (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on the Judiciary. REPORT OF NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD AND

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD A letter from the Chairman, National

Mediation Board, Washington, D. C., transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of that Board, including the report of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, for the fisc~l year ended June 30, 1953 (with an accompanying report) ; to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

REPORT OF COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL AND CONGRESSIONAL SALARIES

A letter from the Chairman, Commission on Judicial and Congressional Salaries, Washington, D. C., transmitting, pursuant to law, a report containing the findings and recommendations of that Commission (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Post Otfice and Civil Service.

PETITION~ AND MEMORIALS Petitions, etc., were laid before the

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

tempore: A concurrent resolution of the Legislature

of the State of New Jersey; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce:

"Assembly Concurrent Resolution 1 "Concurrent resolution memorializing the

Congress of the United States to continue the maintenance of the United States Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, N.Y. "Whereas many young men of New Jersey

are now attending the United States Mer-

chant Marine Academy at Kings Point in preparation for service and leadership in our modern merchant marine; and

"Whereas this splendid Academy is the only available one ·for the young men of this State both presently and in the future who may wish to become otficers in the modern merchant marine; and

"Whereas it is reported that attempts are. being made to induce the Congress of the United States to eliminate the United States Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, N. Y. : Now, therefore

"Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of New Jersey (the Senate concurring):

"1. The Congress of the United States is hereby memorialized to continue · the maintenance of the United States Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, N.Y., and not to eliminate said Academy as an academy to prepare young men for leadership in our modern merchane marine.

"2. The Secretary of .State is hereby directed forthwith to transmit a copy of this resolution properly authenticated, to the President of the United States, to the respective presiding otficers of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives and to aU of the Senators and Representatives from New Jersey in the Congress.

"3. This concurrent resolution shall take effect immediately."

A resolution adopted by the City Commission of Provo, Utah, favoring the enactment of House bill 1555, authorizing the development of the upper Colorado River; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

TREATYMAKING POWER AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS- BRICKER AMENDMENT Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I present

a telegram, embodying a resolution, which I have received from John G. Linsner, president of the New York Young Republican Club.

I am glad to say that the resolution presents the strong judgment of that club in opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 1, known as the Bricker amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that the telegram be printed in the RECORD and appropriately referred.

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

NEW YORK, N. Y., January 15, 1954. Hon. ALEXANDER WILEY,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

The following resolution was unanimously adopted at a special meeting of the board of governors of the New York Young Republican Club held on Thursday, January 14:

"Resolved, That the board of governors of the New York Young Republican Club expresses its grave concern as to the probable effects of the Bricker amendment and emphatically rejects this unfortunate attempt to tamper with the traditional time-tested process of conducting American foreign af-

. fairs. It fully endorses President Eisenhower's unalterable opposition to any amendment 'which would hamper the President in his constitutiona: authority to conduct foreign affairs.' It calls upon all those having responsibility in this matter to bring about its defeat. It pledges its support to this end."

JOHN G . LINSNER, President.

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, knowing the high regard which my colleagues in the Senate hold for the League of Women Voters of the United States, I was greatly

322 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE January 18

encouraged to note the stand which the league has recently taken in firm opposition to the Bricker amendment.

This outstanding bipartisan group of American women, headed by the distinguished Republican, Mrs. John G. Lee, has climaxed a year's study of the language of the Bricker amendment with the conclusion that the amendment not only is unnecessary but would actually be dangerous to the future security of our country.

In view of the importance of the stand taken by the league, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD and appropriately referred a copy of the letter which Mrs. Lee addressed to President Eisenhower on January 13. Mrs. Lee wrote on behalf of the approximately 130,000 members of the league in all 48 St ates, the District of Columbia, and the Territories.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

JANUARY 13, 1954. The PRESIDENT,

The White House, Washington, D. c. MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The League of

Women Voters of the United States is opposed to the Bricker amendment (S. J. Res. 1) . During the past year leagues throughout the country have studied the issues involved and the weight of opinion expressed is clearly against the Bricker amendment as not only unnecessary but as dangerous for the future security of our country. Our reasons are as follows:

1. The power of the National Government to conduct foreign relations must be maintained as provided in the Constitution. The Bricker amendment would deprive the National Government of its full power to carry out treaty obligations in important areas of national policy and would leave to the States the choice of implementation.

2. The constitutional system of checks and b alances between the executive and legislative branches of the National Government must be safeguarded. The Bricker amendment would alter the traditional concept of .the balance of power by removing functions from the Executive and transferring them to the Congress. It is essential that the President retain his authority to fulfill his constitutional responsibility to act in times of national emergency as well as in the day-today conduct of foreign affairs.

3. The negotiation and ratification or treaties should not be made more cumbersome. The Bricker amendment would hamper our present treatymaking procedure, already surrounded by constitutional and legislative safeguards, by adding steps which would cast doubt on the ability and willingness of the United States to carry out its international obligations.

4 The interests of the United States are best served by a foreign policy based on the principle . of international cooperation. The Bricker amendment would impair this principle. It is based on fears that the United Nations Charter and other internatignal a greements could invade our constitutionally protected individual and States' rights. The League of Women Voters does not share this fear.

5. The Constitution should be amended only when need is clearly shown. This need h as not been established.

The League of Women Voters urges you to u~:e your utmost infiuence to prevent passage of the Bricker amendment.

Respectfully, Mrs. JoHN G . LEE,

President.

REPORTS OF A COMMITTEE The following reports of a committee

were submitted: By Mr. LANGER, from the Committee on

the Judiciary, without amendment: S. Res. 172. Resolution to further increase

the limit of expenditures under S. Res. 366, 81st Congress, relating to the internal security of the United States (Rept. No. 853);

S. Res. 181. Resolution increasing the limit of expenditures by the Committee on the Judiciary (Rept. No. 854);

S . Res. 1oJ·7. Resolution increasing the limit of P-Xpenditures by the Committee on the Judiciary (Rept. No. 855);

S . Res. 188. Resolution further extending the authority to investigate problems connected with emigration of refugees from Western European nations (Rept. No. 856); and

S . Res. 190. Resolution amending the resolution providing for an investigation of juvenile delinquency in the United St ates , and increasing the limit of expenditures (Rept. No. 857).

ACTIVITIES OF COMMITrEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS-REPORT OF A COMMITTEE (o. REPT. NO. 852) Mr. McCARTHY, from the Committee

on Government Operations, submitted a report summarizing the activities of the Committee on Gc,vernment Operations, during the 1st session of the 83d Congress, which was ordered to be printed.

BILLS INTRODUCED

Bills were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows:

By Mr. BUSH: S. 2720. A bill to control the exportation

and importation of arms, ammunition, and implements of war, and related items, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

By Mr. BUSH (for himself and Mr. PURTELL):

S . 2721. A bill for the improvement of Patchogue River, Conn.; to the Committee on Public Works.

By Mr. GEORGE: S. 2722. A bill for the relief of Margarete

Lewis; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. SMITH of New Jersey:

S . 2723. A bill to provide for a White House Conference on Education; and

S. 2724. A bill to establish a National Advisory Committee on Education; to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

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

By Mr. LANGER: S . 2725. A bill for the relief of Aldo Conti;

and S. 2726. A bill for the relief of Melit ta

Elizebeth Rhone; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. LANGER (for himself, Mr. YouNG and Mr. CARLSON):

S. 2727. A bill to grant the consent of Congress to the States of Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming to negotiate and enter into a compact relating to the conservation, development, and utilization of water, land, and other related resources of the Missouri Basin; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

By Mr. CARLSON: S. 2728. A bill to authorize the collection

of indebtedness of m.ilitary and civilian per-

sonnel resulting from erroneous payments, and for other purposes;

S. 2729. A bill to provide for compensation of certain employees on days when departments, agencies, or establishments of the Government are closed by administrative order; and

S. 2730. A bill to authorize the sale of postage-due stamps for philatelic purposes; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. FERGUSON: S. 2731. A bill for the relief of Jean Can

talini; S. 2732. A bill for the relief of Hildegard

Kropfitsch Pelloski; and S. 2733. A bill for the relief of John Falzon;

to the Committee on the Judiciary. S. 2734. A bill to -prohibit the payment of

retirement annuities to former Members of Congress and others who are convicted of certain offenses; tO the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. WILEY: S. 2735. A bill for the relief of Ahmet Suat

Maykut; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. GREEN: ·

S. 2736. A bill to place State Directors of the United States Savings Bon"d Division of the Treasury Department under the classified civil service; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. DWORSHAK: S . 2737. A bill for the relief of C-L Electric

Co.; and S. 2738. A bill to amend the act of June 30,

1950, relating to the extension of the terms of patents of World War II veterans; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. RUSSELL: S. 2739. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Romal

da Stase Plachows Manley; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. ELLENDER: S. 2740. A bill to authorize the Issuance

of a special series of stamps commemorative of the 200th anniversary of the Expulsion of the Acadians from Nova Scotia; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

S. 2741. A bill to make ineffective a certain requirement of local cooperation with respect to the river and harbor project on the Pearl River, Miss., below Jackson; to the Committee on Public Works.

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

By Mr. WATKINS: S. 2742. A bill to amend the act of Au

gust 21 , 1951, relating to certain payments out of Ute Indian tribal funds;

S. 2743. A bill to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of the Sac and Fox of the Missouri Tribe of Indians located in the States of Kansas and Nebraska, the Iowa Tribe of Indians located in the States of Kansas and NebraEka, the Kickapoo Tribe of Indians located in the State of Kansas, and the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians located in the State of Kansas, and the individual members thereof; and for other purposes;

S. 2744. A bill to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of the Alab-ama and Coushatta Tribes of Indians of Texas , and the individual members thereof, and for other purposes;

S . 2745. A bill to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of the Klamath Tribe of Indians located in the State of Oregon and the individual members thereof, and for other purposes;

S. 2746. A bill to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of certain tribes and bands of Indians loca ted in western Oregon and the individual members thereof, and for other purposes;

S. 2747. A bill to provide for the termination of Federal sup ervision over the property of the S~minolc Tribe of Indians in the State

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE 323 of Florida and the individual members there-of, and for other purposes; .

S. 2748. A bill to provide-for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians in the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana, and the individual members thereof; for assistance in the orderly relocation of such Indians in area of greater economic opportunity; and for other purposes;

S. 2749 (by request). A bill to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of Indian tribes, bands, and groups in California and the individual members thereof, and for other purposes; and

S. 2'750 (by request). -A bill to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Mont., and the individual members thereof, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

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

By Mr. POTTER: S. 2751. A bill for the relief of Umberto

Marandola; · S . 2752. A bill to outlaw and prohibit

membership in an organized conspiracy generally known as the Communist Party of the United States, and for other purposes; and

S. 2753. A bill to allow admission of certain types of evidence in the Federal courts of the United States against defendants prosecuted for treason, espionage, and other crimes involving the national security; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. MARTIN: S. 2754. A bill for the relief of Athanasios

Dimitrios Stathopoulos; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HUMPHREY: S . 2755. A bill to provide for the redemp

tion by the Post Office Department of certain unsold Federal . migratory-bird hunting stamps; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

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

By Mr. DANIEL: S. 2756. A bill conferring jurisdiction upon

the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas to hear, determine, and render judgment on certain claims of the legal guardian of 'charles Joe Starnes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. FERGUSON .(for himself and Mrs. SMITH of Maine) :

t.. 2757. P;. bill to ame~d the Immigration ·and Nationality Act to provide for the loss of nati.onality of persons convicted of certain crimes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON EDUCATION

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. President, I introduce for appropriate reference, a bill to provide for State and White House conferences on education. This bill incorporates in -proposed legislation one of the recommendations regarding education which was contained in the President's recent state ef the Union message. I have introduced this bill as chairman of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, after consultation with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, in order' that what may be called an administration bill may be immediately before-the Senate and the. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

It should- be noted that · in the President's state of the. Union message, he expressed the hope that a conference on education would be held in each State this year, and that_ those State conferences would culminate in a national conference. The bill which I have just introduced authorizes the appropriation of funds to be allotted to the States in accordance with a fixed formula to help finance these State conferences on education. The bill also authorizes the appropriation of funds to cove:. the administrative expenses which the Federal Government will incur in connection with the White House conference on education.

It is my purpose to requeEt the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare to consider the Presid:!nt's recommendations in regard to educational conferences without delay. I hope that this bill may be reported and passed promptly in order that the educational conferences suggested by the President can begin their work as soon as possible.

Mr. President, let me say that the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CooPER] has consented to act as chairman of a subcommittee to push the hearings as rapidly as possible, and he will have his subcommittee meet promptly.

The bill <S. 2723> to provide for a White House conference on education, introduced by Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. President, I introduce for appropriate reference, a bill to authorize the establishment of a permanent nine-member National Advisory Committee on Education in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This bill helps to carry out the recommendations of the President in his state of the Union message in regard to education. It authorizes the establishment of a National Advisory Committee on Education which will .assure, through its efforts, the continuous study and development of suggestions for solving our educational problems of national concern.

It is my purpose to request the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare promptly to consider the bill that I have just introduced for the reason that it is an important part of the administration's approach to our educational problems. I hope that this bill may be reported and passed without delay in order that the Advisory Committee which it authorizes and establishes may come into being as _quickly as pqssible.

Mr. President, I have asked the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CooPER], to act as chairman of the subcommittee, to consider all these educational bills.

The bill <S. 2724) to establish a Na-. tiona! Advisory Committee on Education, introduced . by Mr. SMITH- of New Jersey, was -received, -read- twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Labor and .Public Welfare.

MISSOURI BASIN COMPACT Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, on be·

half of myself and my distinguished col· league, the junior Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YoUNG], ·I introduce for appropriate reference a bill to grant the consent of Congress to the States of Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming to negotiate and enter into a compact relating to the conservation, development, and utilization of water, land, -and other related resources of the Missouri Basin.

I ask unanimous consent-that the bill may remain at the desk for a period of 2'4 hours, so that the Senators from the other States involved in the proposed compact may have an opportunity to join in sponsoring the bill, if they so desire.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my name be added, as a cosponsor on the bill just introduced by the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. LANGER], with regard to a compact between the States of the Missouri Basin.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the name of the Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON] will be added as a cosponsor.

The bill will be received and appropriately referred, and, without objection, the bill will remain on the desk as requested by the Senator from North Dakota.

The bill <S. 2727) to grant the consent of Congress to the States of Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming to negotiate and enter into a compact relating to the conservation, development, and utilization of water, land, and other related resources of the Missouri Basin, introdduced by Mr. LANGER (for himself, Mr. YoUNG, and Mr. CARLSON), was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Interior · and Insular Affairs.

ISSUANCE OF SPE.CIAL SERIES OF STAMPS COMMEMORATING 200TH ANNIVERSARY OF EXPULSION OF ACADIANS FROM NOVA SCOTIA Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I in-

troduce for appropriate reference a bill to authorize the issuance of· a series of commemorative postage stamps on the occasion of ·the bicentennial of the expulsion of the Acadians from Nova Scotia.

I am sure that every member . of the Senate -has studied, or at least read, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's immortal poem Evangeline. That poem, Mr. President, tells the story of an Acadian girl, who, separated from her _lover, _was transported to Louisiana and there she waited beneath an oak tree -until ner beloved was found. The story of Evangeline has never been proved, but that it could haye been true, I do not doubt, and for this reason, the people of niy State hav.e erected a_shl:ip.et9 the faithful maid who kept her: yigil on the banks of Bayou. Tech e. In the city of St. Martinville, there stands one of the oldest

324 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE January 18 ·

Roman Catholic churches in my State; built in 1765, its records originated in Nova Scotia, and were brought to Louisiana by the Acadian exiles. In St. Martinville there is also an oak tree, which is said to be the tree beneath which Evangeline waited for her lover; and next to the church is a tomb, said to contain the remains of Evangeline.

This, while romantic, may or may not be true in itself. Yet, the story of the expulsion of the Acadians from Nova Scotia is truly factual; but it is far from romantic. One historian has described it as the greatest tragedy of modern times.

In a little more than a year and a half from now, Mr. President, citizens of my State, descendents of Evangeline's Acadian people, will gather to mark the 200th anniversary of the day when the Acadians were driven from their homes in Nova Scotia, separated from their families, loaded aboard British men-ofwar, and dumped like so many animals along the eastern seaboard of the United States. This is a chapter of American history of which we know but little, for it has been suppressed by American historians, but the expulsion of the Acadians from Nova Scotia is a deep scar on the countenance of the Anglo-Saxon world. Its only counterpart in modern times can be found in the concentration camps of 1-:-azi Germany and Soviet Russia, and in the death houses of the Gestapo and the Communist secret police.

I should like to read to the Senate a passage from a French history book:

The total of the misery suffered by the Acadians is incalculable, and as we unite all the other cruel and terrible circumstances, the tableau becomes one of the most poignant of the history of human sufferings-peaceable and prosperous people of simple habits, ardently attached to their religion, living in abundance, if not in opulence, suddenly torn from their firesides by military force-their lands confiscated, their house pillaged and burned, their churches destroyed after having been profaned by the occupation of the soldiers.

Philip H. Smith, in his book, Acadia, a Lost Chapter in American History, says of these people:

There have bee:1. instances in the annals of the past in which a country has been desolated in time of actual war and where the inhabitants were found in arms, but we defy all past history to produce a parallel case in which an unarmed and peaceable people have suffered to such an extent as did the French neutrals of Acadia.

On September 10, 1755, Mr. President, more than 5,000 Acadian residents -of Nova Scotia were driven from their homes, forced off their lands, and forceably deported from the country of their birth because they refused to abandon their religious belief. Forced to wrap themselves in blankets taken from smallpox hospitals, these people died by the hundreds; the survivors were cast ashore, without money or food, at ports in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and South Carolina. Choosing their God above their physical comfort, they were thrown among strangers, who spoke a strange language and who worshipped in a strange ,way. Yet, they survived. They survived to make their

way southward, to Louisiana, where they were to find not only their own language, their own people, their own churches, but in which they were to find a new and happier home. In southern Louisiana, along the Mississippi River, along Bayou Teche, and on the flat plains of the western part of my State, these exiles settled, tilled the soil, and reared their families. The first sizable group of Acadians arrived in Louisiana in 1765; they settled along the Mississippi River, near St. Gabriel, and in what is now Iberville Parish. Others moved to St. Martinville and the lands that were then known only as the Attakapas country.

Since 1765, these people have contributed much to my State. Their blood lines have produced hundreds of great Louisianians, members of the legislature, generals in the proud armies of the Confederacy and of the United States, prominent businessmen, doctors, lawyers, agriculturalists, and Members of Congress. But more important, the Acadians have become symbols of a way of life. A peaceful people, they have tilled their lands, reared their families, and lived in a manner which all Americans could well emulate. Their love of the land, of the home, of the family, and their love of their country and their willingness to die for it if necessary, have truly won for the Acadians a place in the Nation's hall of fame. I am pleased that it becomes my privilege to sponsor this bill, the first attempt, to my knowledge, to honor the Louisiana Acadians for their contribution to our way of life.

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

The bill <S. 2740) to authorize the issuance of a special series of stamps commemorative of the 200th anniversary of the expulsion of the Acadians from Nova Scotia, introduced by Mr. ELLENDER, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee· on Post Office and Civil Service.

LOCAL COOPERATION WITH RESPECT TO RIVER AND HARBOR PROJECT ON PEARL RIVER, MISS., BELOW JACKSON Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I in

troduce for appropriate reference a bill to make ineffective a certain requirement of local cooperation with respect to the river and harbor project on the Pearl River, Miss., below Jackson. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a letter addressed to me by C. Ellis Ott, an attorney at law, of Bogalusa, La., giving the reasons why such requirement should be made ineffective.

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

The bill <S. 2741) to make ineffective a certain requirement of local cooperation with respect to the river and harbor project on the Pearl River, Miss., below Jackson, introduced by Mr. ELLENDER, was received, read twice by its title,

and referred to the Committee on Public Works.

The letter referred to is as follows: BOGALUSA, LA., January 6, 1954.

Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, United States Senate Office Building,

Washi ngton, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ELLENDER: In line With our

telephone conversation on yesterday, I am writing you some of the details with reference to the desire of the city of Bogalusa to h a ve eliminated from local requirements, the necessity for the city to maintain ferry service across the canal for the use of those who were isolated by the canal.

As I stated to you over the telephone, the Pearl Ri.ver project was approved by Congress in the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1935, House Document 408, 75th Congress, 2d session, and approved by the Board of Engineers on August 23, 1937. In the project document containing the report and approval of the Board of Engineers, the following paragraph was conta ined in the report of the district engineer rela tive to requirements for local cooperation, among other requirements, to wit:

" (d) The construction of the proposed lat eral canal would leave a narrow strip of territory, varying from ~ to 1 Y2 miles in width, between the waterway and the river. Although most of this territory is swampland, a few scattered tracts of cultivated land and about 11 small homesites are included therein. Some means of egress and ingress should be provided for the inhabi-. tants of the area which would otherwise be isolated by the canal from highways and markets. Local interests should be required to provide three or more ferries as would be necessary for convenience of egress and ingress of the people living in this area."

The above recommendation was contained in the report of the district engineer under dat e of July 20, 1937. In the report of the division engineer under date of July 31, 1937, and in the approval of the Board of Engineers under date of August 23, 1937, as well as in_ the report of the Chief Engineer under date of September 22, 1937, this clause relative to requirements of local cooperation was included as follows:

"(b) That local interests shall give assurance satisfactory to the Secretary of War that they will construct, free of costs to the United States, a terminal basin at Bogalusa with suitable terminal facilities open to all on equal terms."

These reports and approvals were tra n s mitted by the Secretary of War to the Speaker of the House of Representatives on September 23, 1937, and these provisions became part of the approved project. ·

Since these requirements relative to ferries and bridges for traffic across the canal were made and approved, all the people who lived in the area at the time have moved out, except one family and the city of Bogalusa is prepared to arrange with this family to move out and afford the necessary compensation for a complete release from the fa mily for any requirement of maintaining a ferry . It is an unnecessary expense for the city of Bogalusa to maintain ferry service across this canal when there will be practically no need whatever for such service when this one family is satisfied . .

Mayor Curt Siegelin is ready to go to Washington at any time to submit necessary proof of the situation and the reason for asking that this particular part of the local cooperation requirements be elimin::ted. I understand that the district engineer's office will not oppose the elimination of this requirement, but will approve a recommendation -to that effect.

I believe the elimination could be effected by an act to delete from the requirements of local cooperation the following clause in said paragraph (b): "the ferries and bridges

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 325 required for land traffic across the lateral canal and terminal canals." The remainder of the requirements would not be changed.

I believe you stated that you would draw the necessary act after you have secured the necessary information, and request Representative MoRRISON to introduce it in the House. If there is any further information you need from this end, let us know and we will endeavor to furnish same.

With personal regards and best wishes, I am,

Sincerely yours, C. ELLIS OTr.

PAYMENTS OF CERTAIN UTE INDIAN TRIBAL FUNDS

Mr. WATKINS. Mr. President, I introduce for appropriate reference a bill to amend the act of August 21, 1951, relating to certain payments out of the Ute Indian tribal funds. The act of 1951 contains at the present time language prohibiting the Secretary of the Interior from paying over to the Ute Indians more than one-third of the interest earned by the Ute Indian tribal funds on deposit in the United States Treasury.

The language of the act does not express the intent of Congress at the time the act was passed or at the present time, and this bill by amendment will remove the misunderstanding arising out of the phraseology of the 1951 act.

This bill requests no additional appro· priation.

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

The bill <S. 2742) to amend the act of August 21, 1951, relating to certain payments out of Ute Indian tribal funds, introduced by Mr. WATKINS was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

TERMINATION OF FEDERAL SUPERVISION OVER CERTAIN INDIAN PROPERTY Mr. WATKINS. Mr. President, I in

troduce for appropriate reference eight bills to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of certain named Indian tribes and the individual members thereof. These bills are .one more step toward granting the Indians the first-class citizenship they deserve. During the 1st session of the 83d Congress, House Concurrent Resolution 108 was adopted by both Houses expressing it to be the sense of Congress that certain advanced Indian tribes and people be removed from under Federal supervision. . That these Indian tribes are advanced and ready for immediate emancipation is not a new innovation, for Mr. William Zimmerman, Acting Indian Commissioner, testified before a Senate committee in February 1947 that these and other Indian tribes· were ready at that time for the removal of ·an Federal supervision· over their properties and persons. Two of the bills are introduced by request.

_'The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bills will be received and appropriately referred.

The bills were received, read twice by their titles, and referred to the committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, as follows:

S. 2743. A bill to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of the Sac and Fox of the Missouri Tribe of -Indians located in the States of Kansas and Nebraska, the Iowa Tribe of Indians located in the States of Kansas and Nebraska, the Kickapoo Tribe of ilndians located in the State of Kansas, and the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians located in the State of Kansas, and the individual members thereof; and for other purposes;

S. 2744. A bill to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of the Alabama and Coushatta Tribes of Indians of Texas, and the individual members thereof, and for other purposes;

S. 2745. A bill to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of the Klamath Tribe of Indians located in the State of Oregon and the individual members thereof, and for other purposes:

S. 2746. A bill to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of certain tribes and bands of Indians located in western Oregon and the individual members thereof, and for other purposes;

S. 2747. A b111 to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of the Seminole Tribe of Indians in the State of Florida and the individual members thereof, and for other purposes;

S. 2748. A bill to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians in the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana, and the individual members thereof; for assistance in the orderly relocation of such Indians in area of greater economic opportunity; and for other purposes;

S. 2749 (by request). A bill to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of Indian tribes, bands, and groups in California and the individual members thereof, and for other purposes; and

S. 2750 (by request). A bill to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Mont., and the individual members thereof, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

AMENDMENT OF MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACT RELATING TO REDEMPTION OF CERTAIN UNSOLD HUNTING STAMPS Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I

have received a number of letters from businessmen in my State, including members of the Minnesota Retail Hardware Association, urging me to correct inequities in the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. This inequity is unncessarily adversely affecting the sportsmen who utilize the excellent sporting and wildlife facilities in our community. I refer you to section 2 of the act which provides that "no stamp sold under this act shall be redeemable by said Department in cash or in kind." In practice, this means that the hardware and other merchants of our State and other States who sell duck-hunting stamps for the convenience of our sportsmen do so at the financial risk of having purchased stamps from the post office, some of which remain unsold at the end of the hunting season and for which they can-

not get refunds. These merchants desire to be of service to the sportsmen of our State and, therefore, want to make it easier for the sportsmen to be supplied with the necessary hunting stamps. They should, however, not be penalized for carrying out this courteous and useful service.

I therefore introduce for appropriate reference a bill which would correct the inequity in existing law and provide for the redemption by the Post Office Department of the unsold Federal migratory bird hunting stamps.

I hope action may be taken on the bill at this session, because the cost of the stamps runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The ACTING PRESIDENT protempore. The bill will ·be received and appropriately referred.

The bill <S. 2755) to provide for the redemption by the Post Office Depart~ ment of certain unsold Federal migratory-bird hunting stamps, introduced by Mr. HUMPHREY, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOP-MENT CORPORATION-AMEND-MENTS Mr. LONG submitted amendments in

tended to be proposed by him to the bill (S. 2150) providing for the creation of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation to construct part of the St. Lawrence seaway in United States telTitory in the interest of national security; authorizing the Corporation to consummate certain arrangements with · the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority of Canada relative to construction and operation of the seaway; empowering the Corporation to finance the United States share of the seaway cost on a self-liquidating basis; to establish cooperation with Canada in the control and operation of the St. Lawrence seaway; to authorize negotiations with Canada of an agreement on tolls; and for other purposes; which :were ordered to lie on the table and be printed.

SALARIES OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE JUDICIARYAMENDMENTS Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, I

submit a number of amendments intended to be proposed by me to the bill <S. 1663) to increase the salaries of Members of Congress, judges of the United States courts, and United States attorneys, and for other purposes, introduced by me.

The purpose of the amendments is to carry out the recommendations of the Commission on judicial and congressional salaries, which .submitted its report on January 15.

The amendments are lettered for identification and I have prepared a brief · explanation of each amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments and the explanations may be

326 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-~ SENATE January 18

printed in the -RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem~ pore. The amendments will be received, printed, and will lie on the table; and, without objection, the amendments and explanations will be printed in the REc~ ORD, as requested by the Senator from Nevada.

The amendments and explanations referred to are as follows:

AMENDMENT A

On page 4, line 12, strike out "$27,500" and insert "$39,500."

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENT A

This amendment would change the proposed salary for Associate Justices of the Supreme Court to $39,500, the same amount recommended by the Commission on Judicial and Congressional Salaries. An amendment already proposed by the Committee on the Judiciary, in line 8 on page 4, would make the salary of the Chief Justice of the United States $40,000, which is the amount recommended by the Commission.

AMENDMENT B

On page 4 , tine 12, strike out "$27,500" and insert "$30,500."

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENT B

This would change the proposed new salary of judges of the circuit courts of appeals to $30,500, to accord with the recommendations of the Commission.

AMENDMENT C On page 4, at the end of line 14, insert

"'where such figure first appears therein"; and on page 4, line 15, strike out "$25,000" and insert "$27,500"; and on page 4, line 16, immediately following the figure "$15,000" insert "where such figure next appears therein"; and in the same line strike out "$25,500" and insert "$28,000."

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENT C

The purpose of this amendment is to carry out the recommendations of the Commission with respect to district judges, and also with respect to the chief judge of the District Court for the District of Columbia, who traditionally has received a salary differential of $500 above the other judges of that court. This amendment would make the uniform salaries of Federal district judges $27,500, and the salary of the chief judge of the District Court for the District of Columbia $28,000.

AMENDMENT D


EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENT D

This amendment would increase the proposed compensation for judges of the Court of Claims to $30,500, the figure recommended by the Commission.

AMENDMENT E


EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENT E

This amendment would increase the proposed compensation for judges of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals to $30,500, the figure recommended by the commission.

AMENDMENT F


EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENT F

This amendment would increase the proposed new compensation for judges of the Customs Court to $27,500, which is the figure recommended by the Commission. ·

AMENDMENT G . On page 5, line 7, stri_!re out "$25,000" and

Insert "$27,500."

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENT G

The purpose of this amendment is to increase the proposed compensation for judges of the District Court for the District of Alaska to $27,500, the amount recommended by the Commission and the same amount as intended to be provided for judges of the United States district courts.

AMENDMENT H On page 5, line 11, strike out "$25,000" and

insert "$27,500."

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENT H

The purpose of this amendment is to increase the proposed compensation for the judge of the District Court of the Virgin Islands to $27,500, the amount recommended by the Commission and the same amount as intended to be provided for judges of the United States district courts.

AMENDMENT 1


EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENT I

This amendment would increase the proposed new salary for judges of the tax court of the United States to $27,500, which is the figure recommended by the Commission.

AMENDMENT J On page 5, line 20, after "(j)" Insert "(1> .. ,

and between lines 23 and 24 insert the following new paragraph:

" ( 2) Such article is further amended by adding at the end of subdivision (a) (1) thereof the following: 'Each judge shall, upon his certificate, be paid by the Secretary of Defense all necessary traveling expenses, and also his reasonable maintenance expenses actually incurred, not exceeding $15 per day, while attending court or transacting official business at a. place other than his official station. The cfficial station .of such judges for such purposes shall be the District of Columbia.' "

EXPL.\NATION OF AMENDMENT J

The purpose of this amendment is to make applicable to judges of the court of military appeals the same provision s with respect to necessary traveling expenses that is applicable now with respect to all other Federal judges. This is in line with the recommendation of the Commission.

AMENDMENT K

On page 5, line 23, strike out " $27,500" and Insert "$30,500.''

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENT K

The purpose of this amendment is to raise the proposed new salary for judges of the Court of Military Appeals to $30,500, in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission.

AMENDMENT L On page 6, line 5, strike out "$25,000" and

insert "$27,500." ·

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENT L

This amendment would make the proposed new compensation for Members of Congress, including Senators, Representatives, Delegates from the Territories, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, $27,500, in line with the recommendations of the Com-mission.

AMENDMENT M On page 6 , immediately following line 9,

insert a new subsection as follows: '' (c) Section 601 (a) of the Legislative

Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, is further amended by striking out the figure '$30,000' appearing therein and inserting in lieu thereof the figure '$40,000'.''

E XPLANATION OF AMENDMENT M

The rurpose of this amendment is to increase the salary of the Speaker of the House of Representatives to $40,000 per year, in line with the recommendations of the Commission.

AMENDMENT N On page 6, immediately preceding line 10,

insert the following new subsection: "(d) Section 104 of title 3 of the United

States Code (relating to the compensation of the Vice President) is amended by striking out '$30,000' and inserting in lieu thereof '$40,000'.''

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENT N

This amendment would increase the salary of the Vice President to $40,000 per year, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission.

DETERMINATION AND ELIMINATION OF COMMUNISTS IN LABOR UN~ IONS-CHANGE OF REFERENCE

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Pres-ident, on March 9, 1953, the bill (S. 1254) to establish effective means to deter~ mine Communist domination in unions and to ·eliminate Communists from positions of influence and control in labor unions, was introduced in the Senate by the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GoLDWATER), and was referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

Since Senate bill 1254 was referred to that committee, the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BuTLER), who now occupies th~ chair, introduced the bill <S. 1606) to amend the Internal Security Act of 1950, and for other purposes, dealing with the same subject. His bill was referred to the Committee on the Judi~ ciary. A reading of the bill of the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GoLDWATER) convinces me that its subject matter is more properly under the jurisdiction of that committee and it would be appropriate for the Committee on the Judiciary to consider the bill of the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GoLDWATER) in connection with the bill of the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BUTLER).

I therefore ask that the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare be discharged from further consideration of the bill (S. 1254) and that it be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

This action is taken at the request of the full Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the change of reference will be made.

AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION RELATING TO COMPOSITION AND JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT-NOTICE OF HEARING ON SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 44 Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, on be~

half of the Standing Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the Com~ mittee on the Judiciary, I desire to give notice that a public hearing has been scheduled for Friday, January 29, 1954, at 10 o'clock a. m., in room 424, Senate Office Building, on Senate Joint Reso~ lution 44, proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to the compo~ sition and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Persons desiring to be heard should notify the committee so that a schedule may be prepared for those who wish to appear and testify. The subcommittee consists of myself as chairman, the Senator from Illinois [Mr.

1951, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 327 DIRKSEN], the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BUTLER], the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. KILGORE], and the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER].

LAUNCIITNG OF THE ''NAUTILUS," FIRST ATOMIC SUBMARINE

Mr. BUSH. Mr. President, this week the State of Connecticut is to be the host to Mrs. Eisenhower, the wife of the President, and a group of distinguished officials of the Government, in connection with the launching of the first atomic submarine, the Nautilus, at Groton, Conn.

Connecticut has been identified with the history of the submarine perhaps as much as has any other State, if not more, and we look forward very happily to this invasion of distinguished officials of the United States Government. My colleague, the junior Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PURTELL], and I and our wives will be present to welcome the visitors.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD in connection with this event, an editorial entitled "Revolution in United States Navy Power," published in the New Haven Journal-Courier of January 14, 1954, and a story entitled "Atomic Sub Makes History at Groton," written by Elton C. Fay, Associated Press military affairs writer, and published in the Bridgeport Sunday Post of January 17, 1954.

There being no objection, the editorial and article were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the New Haven Journal-Courier of

January 14, 1954] REVOLUTION IN UNITED STATES NAVY PoWER

Connecticut will be the theater and a week from today the date of an event that promises to revolutionize naval warfare. We refer to the launching on January 21 at Groton on the Thames of the Nautilus, the world's first atomic submarine. Its sponsor will be the Nation's first lady, Mamie Eisenhower.

"Submariners believe that the Nautilus and its successors will eventually make the oceans unsafe for any kind of hostile enemy craft-including aircraft carriers," says a feature article in Time.

"But the nuclear submarine," says its admirers, "will not stop when it .has swept the sea of all surface warcraft. It can attack other submarines, hunting them when they are on the surface or running them down in the depths (if they are not nuclear, too), with its greater speed and endurance.

"Perhaps their most important mission will be as missile-launchers. There is certainly some doubt that an aircraft carrier can approach an enemy-held coast and survive concentrated attack by land-based airplanes armed with atomic bombs. The nuclear submarine can. It can cruise to the enemy coast submerged, rise to the surface briefly at night, launch its atomarmed missiles at short range, and cruise away under water. It is probable that some missiles can actually be launched from beneath the surface. A missile-launcher of this type would be well-night undetectable."

Adm. Hyman G. Rickover, the brains and driving genius of this revolutionary development, is convinced that nuclear submarines will save the Navy from "nearcomplete elimination as a fighting arm of the Nation. He also believes that out of them will grow the use of nuclear power for

constructive rather than destructive purposes."

The Nautilus will make 25 knots, perhaps 30 knots (35 m. p. h.), comparing with the best destroyers that steam only slightly faster, when the sea is not too rough, and "most other escort vessels are sluggards by comparison. If necessary, nuclear submarines can be made faster than any surfacegoing vessel."

The supreme advantage of the Nautilus however, will be her independence of batteries. Rickover was graduated from the Submarine School at New London and spent three seagoing years as a peacetime submarine officer. He knows well the "pigboats" and the hated villains, the storage batteries, they carry in their bellies, good for less than an hour of propulsion at full speed.

"During peacetime maneuvers, a submarine swimming deep in the sea is at peace with the world. Though a storm may be roaring overhead, the ship does not roll or pitch. But during a wartime attack, the battery is a weak resource. Even when 'fat' (fully charged), it is good for less than an hour at full speed.

"The attack is made; the torpedoes hiss toward their victims. Then comes the bad moment. Down the white torpedo wakes race the enemy destroyers, the sharp pings of their sonars searching for the submarine. It dives for the depths, and then come the crashing depth charges.

"If the submarine survives, there is a desperate, quiet cat and mouse game of search and evasion. If the submarine tries to escape at full speed, it will soon exhaust its battery. If it tries to save its battery by drifting slowly through the depths, the destroyers above may find it by sonar. Usually it compromises, moving at moderate speed as it twists and turns.

"As the deadly game goes on, the chant of the battery man makes the crew's blood run cold. Every time he speaks, he reports a lower reading. Lights and fans are turned off to save trickles of cunent. The air grows hot and foul. When the battery's last charge

· is gone, the submarine must rise to the surface, perhaps to destruction.

"A nuclear sub will be entirely different. It could swim submerged at full speed as long as desired. No destroyer could catch it. Rising quickly from the depths it might even destroy destroyers."

Time's story of the development of the Nautilus, prototype of atomic propulsion for the Navy, is an absorbing one. Hardly less gripping than the scientific marvel is the human story of Admiral Rickover, son of a Jewish tailor in a Russian Polish village, who has achieved a notable feat in pioneer engineering, against many odds (human and material) but with the backing of some farseeing leaders like Admiral Nimitz, Navy Secretary Anderson, and President Eisenhower.

[From the Bridgeport Sunday Post of January 17, 1954]

ATOMIC SUB MAKES HISTORY AT GROTON

(By Elton C. Fay) When Mamie Eisenhower smashes a bot

tle of champagne across the sleek nose of the U. S. S. Nautilus at Groton next Thursday, she will be christening a vessel the Navy expects to be the deadliest and most versatile craft in history-the first atomic-powered submarine.

Designed to demonstrate high underwater speed, ultra-long cruising range and elusive skill, the Nautilus and other A-subs to follow her will be able to fight with either standard explosives or turn to nuclear missiles, torpedoes or mines if a mission requires them.

She will have a choice o! power to drive her propellers-atolll'ic, diesel engine, electl·ic motor.

The Navy is confident the submarine will work, even though no craft or vehicle before it-afloat, on land or in the air-has been propelled by the power of the atom. For months the Atomic Energy Commission and the Navy have been test-operating an exact reproduction of the Nautilus' nuclear power plant. Out on the Idaho desert steam from the atomic firebox has been spinning a turbine and driving a propeller like one o! the two on the Nautilus.

FINAL TESTS TO COME

But it will be sometime next summer, when the Nautilus puts out for sea trials, before the designers, nuclear physicists, shipbuilders, sliderule experts and others can be sure how efficiently the first of the atompowered undersea boats will operate. First she must undergo final fitting out.

Until then, the engineers cannot tell whether she will live up to expectations of an underwater speed of about 30 knots. Nor can they be sure aqout the flexibility of power, general maneuverability of the boat, exact burn-out rate of atomic fuel under actual operating conditions and the noise generated by the submarine when under way-an important factor in working against an enemy's antisubmarine efforts.

The Nautilus most certainly will have "bugs." Most existing conventional military equipment--planes, tanks, and guns-had mechanical or other defects when first tried which had to be corrected. Certainly the world's first seagoing atomic powerplant, for which there has been no precedent, will have its share.

But the Navy is so confident it is preparing for the Nautilus all the modern armament needed when she is t~rned over to the fleet for combat operation.

Built into her are torpedo tubes to fire the new, fast and silent electrically driven torpedoes with target-seeking guidance system. These tubes can handle torpedoes with atomic warheads when such weapons are developed. ·

CAN RELEASE A-MINES

tple same procedure used in planting conventional mines can be used to release atomic mines through the torpedo tubes.

The Navy plans to equip the atomic submarines with gear for carrying and launching the guided missile named Regulus. These missiles already have been fired from submarine decks and could easily be adapted for a nuclear explosive warhead.

Exponents of the atomic submarine claim it is virtually an all-purpose craft. It will have world-girdling range, they say, and ability to remain submerged for weeks or months, limited only by the endurance of the crew; underwater speed matching most big surface ships; hull strength to dive well below the levels attained by any present boats, where detection is difficult or impossible; and it will be able to use its main, atomic engine for full power submerged without resort to the limited speed of electric propulsion.

With these qualities of a true submarine, its proponents say, here are some of the missions the A-sub can perform:

Attack enemy war and merchant ships. Distribute mines along enemy coasts and

harbor approaches. Patrol for long periods to watch for aerial

or sea-borne attackers. With its high speed, new and still secret

underwater detection equipment and homing torpedoes, it is a natural for hunting down and killing enemy submersibles.

MORE LIVING SPACE

With more living space than other submarines, Nautilus-class boats can speed in_ close under water, surface, deliver troops ashore and dart out again-doing what other conventional submarines have done beforebut far faster and on a bigger scale.

328 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE' January 18 Shore bombardment: Guided missiles

will bring targets even well inland under the gun of the atomic submarine. The Regulus is reported to have a range of about 400 miles.

Under-ice operation: Because Nautilusclass boats will operate for long periods completely independent of the atmosphere, the frozen sea capping the northern top of the world will be no obstacle. Using sonar gear to probe under masses of icebergs or thick ice fields, the A-subs can cruise unseen toward the northern coasts and shipping lanes of Eurasia, where Russian shipping and cities heretofore have been beyond reach of attack.

Feats like these were beyond even the rosiest dreams of men like J.P. Holland and Simon Lake, who pioneered workable craft in the nineties.

Inventors experimented wit h a submersible boat in the American Revolution. By the Civil War the device still was crude but good enough to attempt, in one instance, the sinking of a Confederate vessel. Manpower was used to operate the screw of that clumsy little craft.

FIRST SUB FROM HOLLAND

By the turn of the century, there were power plants and weapons needed to make a submarine practical-internal combustion engines, electrical storage b a tteries and torpedoes. The United States Navy bought its first submarine from Holland in April 1900.

But for years the submarine remained small-and uncertain. It grew bigger with World War I,. when Germany turned to allout undersea warfare, building 365 sub,marines.

By 1925 submarines of 4,000 or 5.000 tons were in the fieets of the big powers. When World War n started fieet submarines ranged around 1,500 tons. A few huge submersibles were built, two by the United States, equalling or surpassing the Nautilus' approximate 3,000 tons.

This time the German master submariners built 1,162 submarines-and had 751 destroyed during the course of the war they lost.

Not all of the submersibles were big. Japa n tried out some midget boats, notably in the strike at Pearl Harbor. Britain built tiny boats for . special operations against German naval craft hiding in Norway's fjords. The United Sta tes displayed little interest in midget submarines until last year, when an experimental model was ordered from an aircraft manufacturing company.

With losses of conventional-type submarines mounting, Germany brought out the snorkel midway in World War II. It's ability to provide air for its diesel engines while running just below the su rface , by u~e of the snorkel, or brea ther tube, put the Nazt U-boat fieet back on top for months.

NAZI INVENTION TOO LATE

Eventually improved methods for locating submarines which did not have to resurface to recharge batteries were developed, and the Allies beat back the menace again. When the war ended, Germany had a closed-cycle internal combustion engine that required no oxygen from outside for operation, enabling the submarine to operate at regular diving deptlr and at speeds subst antially above that of battery-electric .motor propulsion. It was a fine invention and could have won the undersea campaign for t he Nazis--except that, like the rocket-powered fightE'r plane and the V-1 bomb, it came too lat.e. The war was lost by then.

The United Stat es adopted Germany's snorkel (actually a Dutch invention seized by the Nazis) after World War II.

In some boats they combined the snorkel device with an improved streamlin~-:1 hull t o produce the guppy type boats. (The name

guppy derives from the phrase "greater underwater propulsion." )

Two years ago the Navy moved into a new field of design, the hunter-killer submarines. These boats, smaller than fieet or Guppy class submersibles, are designed for the sole purpose of tracking down and destroying other submarines. · The day of the atomic submarine has arrived only by tremendous scientific effort, the expenditure of millions of dollars--estimates of the Nauti lus cost range to as high as $55 million, including the boat and the atomic power plant-and some family bickering within the Navy.

Although the contract with the Electric Boat Co., to build the Nautilus wasn't awarded until August 21, 1951, much sporadic "Study had been made before that time.

Navy officials had predicted in 1946, a year after the first atomic explosion, that nuclear power could be harnessed to drive a naval craft. Indeed, they say that as early as 1940 the Naval Research Laboratory had organized a nuclear power research group.

In the discussions and planning that fol·lowed, the submarine found favor as a test vehicle. One reason may have been the submariners' quest for new and better power, while the rest of the Navy was giving primary attention to aviation, carriers, bigger and faster cruisers and destroyers.

In 1946 the Navy formed a.nother small group and assigned its members to study at the AEC's Oak Ridge, Tenn., atomic laboratory. One was Ca pt. H. G. Rickover.

Rickover, an untiring zealot, plunged deeply into the subject of nuclear power propulsion. After ups and downs in the program, a nuclear power branch of the Navy 's Bureau of Ships was formed, with Rickover as its chief.

His administrative techniques, including bypassing superiors when he decided delays were unreasonable, brought him into considerable disfavor with some high brass. Twice a selection board passed him over for promotion to rear admiral.

RICKOVER PASSED OVER

There ts an unwritten, but usually firmly followed rule, that a man twice passed over

·for promotion is retired. That's what faced Rickover, in the midst of his big job.

But pressure from congressional and other sources kept him on the job, and when his name came up a third time, a selection board made him an admiral.

While the hull of the Nautilus was still building, and before the first land-based prototype for her atomic engine had been tested, the Navy recommended to Congress and received approval for the construction of a second nuclear submarine, the Sea Wolf .

A third craft, which the Navy says will h a ve sign ificantly higher speed than even the high underwater speeds designed for Nauti lus and Sea Wolf, has been approved for construct.ton.

The Sea Wolf still wlll be built because it will u se an atomic reactor of a type different from t h ose in the Nauti lus and the third sub. The Navy wants experience wit h ail the t yp es it can get.

The Nau tilus' power plant was built for the AEC by Westinghouse Electric Corporation.

Fuel for the reactor is uranium-235, one gr am of which p r oduces the equivalent of a bout 24,000 kilowatt hours of heat. The heat produced in the reactor is transferred by water in heavily shielded p ipes to the steam t urbine.

The react or is heavily shielded in a comp ar t ment to stop dangerous r ad iation from reaching crew members who will live and work wit hin a few feet of it.

Steam pressure· in the N auti lus will be only about 300 pounds, well b elow t he 500 or 600 pounds used in the conven tional turbines of many naval surface craft or the

1,200 pounds designed for the new ForrestaZ class supercarriers. This is not because the atomic reactor couldn't produce almost any temperature, but because the rapid transfer of tbe water through the pumps and piping of the heat exchange system would wear out the equipment by friction.

Control of power in the plant will be double. Control rods can be inserted into the reactor to dampen or stop the nuclear fission process and thus regulate the atomic fire. And the turbine also has normal steam control equipment.

Built into the submarine ts a multitude of safety gadgets, including automatic controls to stop reaction if an emergency occurs, and various instruments to warn of radiation or leakage of contaminated liquid. The designers say valves and pipe fittings are made as finely as watches to prevent even a drop of liquid escaping.

Except for her size and an oddly rounding, blunt bow (to give better underwater speed) the Nauti lus looks much like a conventional Guppy submarine externally. She differs .from previous submarines, however, by hav·ing only a single-walled hull. The double hull of standard submersibles is used for ballast and fuel storage. The Nautilus will use tanks.

FORCES OF CONFORMITY A DANGER TO AN EFFECTIVE FOREIGN SERVICE Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, there

appeared in the January 17 edition of the New York Times a letter entitled ''Forces of Conformity Seen a .::J Danger to Effective Foreign Service," written by five distinguished members of the Foreign Service, Norman Armour, Robert ·woods Bliss, Joseph C. Grew, William Phillips, and G. Howland Shaw. These men are among the most experienced, expert, and respected career diplomats we have ever had in our Foreign Service. In their letter they point out that at.tacks on the Foreign Service from outside sources which have questioned the loyalty and moral standards of its members, as well as the procedures within the State Department, have had sinister and very dangerous results. They write, in part:

The conclusion has become inescapable, for instance, that a Foreign Service officer who reports on persons and events to the very best of his ability and who makes recommendations which at the time he conscientiously believes to be in the interest of the United States may subsequently find his loyalty and integrity challenged and may even be forced out of the service and discredited forever as a private citizen after many years of distinguished service. A premium therefore has been put upon reporting and upon recommendations which are ambiguously stated or so cautiously set forth as to be deceiving.

That, Mr. President, describes a terribly dangerous situation, particularly at a time when every possible step should be taken to safeguard the integrity of, and to strengthen, our Foreign Service. The letter from these experienced and very distinguished career diplomats should be carefully read and considered by the Members of the Congress and by all other citizens. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the body of the RECORD at this point in my remarks.

1951, CONGRESSIONAL -RECORD- SENATE 329 · There being no objection, the letter

was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: BACKING OUR DIPLoMATS-FORCES OF CoN

FORMITY SEEN AS DANGEROUS TO EFFECTIVE FOREIGN SERVICE (The signers of the following letter are

present or past holders of ambassadorial or other diplomatic posts.) To the EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Since the time when the United States assumed a significant place in international affairs, at the turn of the century, the Foreign Service has been an organization of growing importance. Today it would be impossible to exaggerate that importance, whether it is considered from the angle of the constructive influence of the United States in world affairs or from the more selfish angle of our national security.

It is to the official representatives o! the United States abroad that foreign Governments and peoples have the right to look with confidence for the most authentic interpretation of American values and the American point of view, and it is upon these same representatives that the President, the Secretary of State and others engaged in formulating our foreign policy must rely for accurate information concerning persons and events abroad.

At present these demands upon the Foreign Service are more exacting than ever before; not only because the events to be reported on have become more complex, more difficult of analysis, but ~lso-and primarily-because the emotional climate at home has xnade objective reporting unusually difficult.

QUALITY OF EVIDENCE Recently the Foreign S-ervice has been

subjected to a series of attacks from outside sources which have questioned the loyalty and the moral standards of its members. With rare exceptions the justifi'Cation for these attacks has been so flimsy as to have no standing in a court of law or in the mind of any individual capable of differentiating repeated accusation from even a reasonable presumption of guilt. Nevertheless these attacks have had sinister results.

The conclusion has become inescapable, for· instance, that a Foreign Service officer who reports on persons and events to the very best of his ability and who makes recommendations which at the time he conscientiously believes to be in the interest of the United States may subsequently find his loyalty and integrity challenged and may even be forced out of the Service and discredited forever as a private citizen after many years of distinguished service. A premium therefore has been put upon reporting and upon recommendations which are ambiguously stated or so cautiously set forth as to be deceiving.

When any such tendency begins its insidious wQrk it is not long before accuracy and initiative have been sacrificed to acceptability and conformity. The ultimate result is a thre.at to national security. In this connection the history of the Nazi and Fascist foreign services before the Second World War is pertinent.

The forces which are working for conformity from the outside are being rein~orced by the present administrative set-up within the Department of State which subordinates normal personnel administration to considerations of security.

EVALUATING FINDINGS It is obvious, of course, that candidates

for the Foreign Service should be carefully investigated before appointment · and that their work should at all times be under the exacting scrutiny of their professional superiors. But when initial investigation attaches undue importance to such factors as even a temporary departure from conservative political and economic views, casual

association with persons holding views not currently in fashion or subscription to a periodical labeled as "liberal"; when subsequent investigation is carried to the point of delaying a promotion list for a year and routine transfers from one post to another; when investigations of individual officers must be kept up to date to within 90 days; when an easy path has been opened to even the anonymous informer; and when the results of these investigations are evaluated not by persons experienced in the Foreign Service or even acquainted at first hand with conditions abroad, but by persons of quite different experience, 1t is relevant to in-quire whether we are not laying the foundations of a Foreign Service competent to serve a totalitarian government rather than the Government of the United States as we have heretofore known it.

Fear is playing an important part in American life at the present time. As a result the self-confidence, the confidence in others, the sense of fair play, and the instinct to protect the rights of the nonconformist are-temporarily, it is to be hopedin abeyance. But it would be tragic if this fear, expressing itself in an exaggerated emphasis on security, should lead us to cripple the Foreign Service, our first line of national defense, at the very time when its effectiveness is essential to our filling the place which history has assigned to us.

NOXMAN AltMOUR. ROBERT WooDS BLISS. JOSEPH c. GREW. WILLLIAM PHILLIPS. G. HOWLAND SHAW.

WASHINGTON, January 14, 1954.

AMENDMENT OF THE ROBINSONPATMAN ACT

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the RECORD a letter from Malcolm P. McNair, Lincoln Filene professor of retailing at Harvard University, dealing with the amendment proposed to the Robinson-Patman Act.

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

HARVARD UNIVERSITY, GRADUATE SCHOOL OF

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Mass., December 21, 1953.

Mr. J. A. SLocuM, Assoc-iation of Independent Food Deal

ers of Amer-ica, Minneapolis, Minn.

DEAR Ma. SLocuM: I am delighted to learn that under your leadership a group of independent food merchants is planning a vigorous fight to regain the natural economic rights and competitive strengths that have been taken away from them under the existing court interpretation of section 2C o! the Robinson-Patman Act.

-The case against section 2C in its present well-established interpretation rests solidly on the following basic points:

1. Section 2C is in no sense an integral part of the Robinson-Patman Act as a whole, and the anti-price-discrimination provisions of the act are actually quite independent of section 2C.

2. The original purpose of section 2C was to correct certain abuses in buying practices which took the form of dummy brokerage payments, 1. e., payments made for services allegedly rendered when in fact no such actual services were rendered. The validity of payment for services rendered was a fundamental part of the original concept. It was only the phony brokerage fees that - were sought to be eliminated.

3. But because of cloudy and unskillful wording of the language of section 2C, an interpretation was developed by the Federal

Trade Commission and the courts which wholly changed the original intent of the section (actually, in fact, by altering the original punctuation), and converted it into a virtual bulwark of monopoly for food brokers. The services rendered concept was interpreted right out of the section, and in its stead was introduced the quite different concept that payments for services of a brokerage nature, 1. e., services of bringing buyers and sellers together, could be made only to brokers and not to any other person who might actually perform these identical services.

4. The notion that any particular type of business enterprise or business institution has the right to monopolize the performance of and the payme~t for any particular set of services or functions is entiri!ly alien to the American free competitive system. The whole history of the evolution of American business is that business enterprises have in the main been free to experiment in the performance of different groups of activities with a view to finding where these activities could be handled at the lowest cost. Manufacturers have been free to go into wholesaling, wholesalers have been free to go into manufacturing, companies have been free to do their own selling or to employ manufacturers' representatives. Only in this way can progress and evolution take place.

There is nothing sacrosanct about the activities of brokers. The admittedly useful function of brokerage, that is, the bringing together of buyers and sellers, is a business task that can be performed in various ways: by independent agencies, by persons affiliated with buyers, or by persons affiliated with sellers. Essentially, when such business contracts are made, services are rendered to both parties, and the progress o! commerce -thusis expedited. It is a wholly outmoded economic idea that in a sales transaction one party loses and the other party gains. Actually in a bona fide sales transaction both parties stand to gain through expediting the movement o! goods from the manufacturer to the consumer. Hence there is no reason to assume that fraud is involved if the organization performing the sales contact or brokerage function .is one that is affiliated with the buyer rather than with the seller. The courts have in fact recognized that services thus performed are genuine and are of benefit to the sellers. Nevertheless, by twisted reasoning the Commission and the courts have denied to cooperative groups of independent food distributors the right to earn brokerage fees for services actually rendered.

5. There bas thus been established a monopoly position .for .food brokers which is entirely contrary to the spirit of our antitrust laws and constitutes a serious injury to the small independent food retailers and distributors in whose interest the RobinsonPatman Act was originally passed. And it is a fact that many of the cases that have been brought by the Federal Trade Commission under section 2C are against these smallbusiness men who were supposedly to be benefited by the act.

6. In the highly competitive situation in the food trades today the only salvation for small independent retailers and wholesalers is to take a leaf out of the chain store book and organize cooperatively to apply the basic principle of integration of the distributive functions, 1. e ., combination of retailing and wholesaling tasks, which has been the fundamental factor in. the success of chains. That such informal integration by means of cooperative efforts can be successful is a well-established fact; but the growth of such cooperative ventures is today penalized by this twisted interpretation of section 2C of the Robinson-Patman Act which denies to cooperative groups the right to earn brokerage fees for bona fide services actually performed and instead confers Qn a small group of food brokers a cloak of legal


EDITORIALS, ARTYPRINTED IN THE

monopoly that ts abhorrent to the fundamental principles of the American competitive syst em and .wholly inconsistent with the spirit of the_ antitrust laws.

7. Since the existing interpretation 1s thoroughly embedded in law by a whole series of court decisions, the only r emedy lies in the amendment of section 2C in order to restore the original intent.

Sincerely yours, MALCOLM P. McNAm.

SALE OF CERTAIN SEED FOR EXPORT

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, the agriculture program was designed to help the American farmer. However, I have pointed out how this program, in many instances, works to the disadvantage as well as to the advantage of our f armers. For instance, many farmers during the recent years have been compelled as a result of the high prices to stop seeding their farms with certain types of cover crops such as clover and vetch seeds. To offset the high prices of these various types of cover crops the Department of Agriculture has even adopted a program of subsidizing a certain portion of his seed cost. The irony of the situation is that these high prices are a direct result of the same Government program which, for the past several years, has been purchasing and storing

these same types of seeds at artificially high prices. There is nothing in the law which made it mandatory that the Secretary of Agriculture should have purchased these commodities.

Recently the Government disposed of several million pounds of these clover and vetch seeds at a small percentage of their original cost with a proviso that they be used for export only. The result is that now the farmers in other countries will be able to buy these various types of cover crop seeds at prices much lower than being paid by the American farmers .

I ask unanimous consent to have incmporated in the REcoRD a breakdown of the most recent transactions involving the sale of 21 million pounds which originally cost the. American taxpayers $7,356,415.80. They were sold for export for $1,774,002.91, or a net loss of $5,582,412.89.

This is further evidence of the failure of the rigid high support policies of the past administration. It further emphasizes the need of Congress giving prompt attention to the President's recommendatio.n that we adopt a more sensible formula for computing these support prices.

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

S ale to A lbert Dickinson Co. (for export only )

Variety of seed

Price Crop Qu an t ity f. a. s. year (pounds) port

(cents)

Sale Less freigh t . Net pro-value a~~ga~- ceeds Cost~

N orthern alfalfa._ ________________ ___ 1952 6, 000,010 .Alsike clover -- --- ----- - ----- --- ----- 1952 2, 000,041

10. 00 $600, 001. 00 $42, 893. 71 $557, 107. 29 ~2, 145, 489. 58 9. 00 180, 003. 69 19, 827. 86 160, 175. 83 510, 774. 47

L adino clover ___ _____ ____ __ __ ___ ____ 1951 1, 998,684 17. 50 349, 769. 70 9, 419. 98 340, 349. 72 2, 516, 642. 96

Bird foot Trefoil.- ----- --- - - --- - -- - - 1951 33, 316 10. 00 3, 331. 60 204. 35 3, 127. 25 32, 969. 35 Do ...•.• - - - ---------- ______ ___ _ • 1952 86,101 _Io __ ·:...·oo_

1 __ 8_, 6_7_0._7_o_

1 ___ so_7_. 99_

1_8_,_16_2_. 7_I_

1 ___ 6_s._2_I7_.1_9

T otaL----------------------- - - ---- - 120,023 _____ ___ 12,002 30 712. 34 11 ,289. 96 98, 186. 54 =====1=======1=======1========1========

R ed clover: Basic .. ------------- - ---- - -- - -- - 1950 B elow basic___ ______ __ ___ ___ ____ 1950

527, 177 300, 134

T otal 1950__________________ ___ __ ____ 827,311

R ed clover: Basic. __ ----------- - - ---- - - -- -- - 1951 Below basic__ ______ ______ _______ 1951

410, 248 96,085

13.50 8.50

13.50 8. 50

71,168.90 25,511.39

96,680.29

55,383.48 8, 167. 23

7, 154. 01 89, 526. 28 321, 135. 66

T otal 195L·----------- ------- - - ----- =506=, 3=3=3=l====l=63=, 5=50=.=7=1 =l==4=, =368=.=0=3=l ==59~,=18=2=. 68=l===1=8~2,=97=7=.1=0 R ed clover:

Basic._-- -- ----------- - --------. 1952 2, 775, 700 Below basic__ ________ ___ __ ___ __ _ 1952 270,802

13.50 3U , 719. 50 8. 50 23, 018. 17

-----I---·I-----·I- ----1--------1---------T otall952 . .. ----------------- - - --- -- =3,=04=6=, 50=2=l====l=39=7=, 7=3=7.=6=7 ,l==29=, 7=1=0.=9=3=!=3=68='=02=6=. 7=4=l==1::' 0=83=.=51=8=. 90= T otal red clover _____________ __ --- - -- 4, 380, 146 557,968.67 41,232. 97 J 516, 735. 70 1, 587,631.66

T al l fescue: . Basic .. ----- -------------------- 1952 Below basic__ ________ ________ __ _ 1952

380,615 119, 400

5.00 4. !)25

19,030.75 5,880. 45

TotaL ___ ___________________ __ -- -- - - 500,015 - ------ - 24,911.20 2, 674. 39 2'2, 236. 81

1 Tc::rms of sale f. a . s. port, delivery in store therefore charges allowed on compu ted basis. ~ A verage book value as of Nov. 30, 1953.

S ale to S inason T eicher I n ternational Gra1'n Corp . (for export only)

P rice, Add in-Variety of seed C rop Quantity basic Sale spection Net

yca1· (pounds) f. a . s. J 2 value and proceeds storage 3

----Cammon vetch_- -- - - - ---------- -- 1952 6, 000,000 2. 77 $163, 574. 69 $2,532.91 $166, 107. 60

1 f,rice su bject to discounts for below basic purity and germination in accordance with contract. 2 Ierms of sale f. a. s. port, delive ry made at port by CCC. 3 Charges for inspection and November storage fGr b uyers accoun t. 4 Average book value as of N ov. 30, 1953, plus unpaid charges.

100,880.03

T otal cost •

$396, 810. 56

ADDRESSES. CLES, ETC., RECORD On request, and by unanimous con

sent, addresses, editorials, articles, etc., were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

By Mr. LEHMAN: Statement by him comment ing on Presi

dent Eisenhower's state of the Union message.

HEALTH PROGRAM-MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT (H. DOC. NO. 298)

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate a message from the President of the United States recommending legislation to improve the health of the American people. The message has been read in the House, and the Chair, without objection, will refer it to the appropriate committee without its being read in the Senate.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, may cross reference then be made in the ~ECORD of the House proceedings? _ The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes. The message will be referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

<For President's message, see proceedings of the House of Representatives for this day.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. President, the President's admirable message on the health problems of the United States again illustrates the care with which the President is preparing his overall, farseeing, and progressive program. As one who was raised in a physician's family, during my years in the Senate and as a member of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, I have been giving a great deal of personal attention to our national health needs.

I am particularly gratified that the President has emphasized the strengthening of the Public Health Service throughout the country and the further development of our admirable hospital plan.

The really new feature of the President's recommendation is the program for expanding voluntary health insurance and recommending that the Federal Government work out its plans for reinsurance and coinsurance, acting with these voluntary health plans.

I am entirely in accord with the Presi· dent's position that socialized medicine is not needed in the United States. We can solve our problems while still adhering to this statement in the President's message: ·

Fr eedom, consent, and individual responsibility are fundamental to our system. In the field of medical care, this means that the traditional relationship of the physician and his p a tient , and t he right of t he individual to elect freely the m anner of his care in illness, must be preserved.

As chairman of the Committee on La bor and Public Welfare, it is my purpose promptly to introduce in the Senate the necessary legisla t ion in the form of what might be called the administration bills

1954'- CONGRESSIONAL RECOR-D- SENATE 331 to carry out the President's recommendations.

Mr. President, I might add that the regular Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare will take this matter up, under the chairmanship of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PURTELL], who had planned to be present this morning to say a word, but I am speaking for him. He asked me to announce that the hearings on this important legislative matter will be started at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I should like to join with the distinguished Senator from New Jersey in the introduction of the bills designed to carry out the President's message.

Mr. .SMITH of New Jersey. I am happy to know that.

ANNIVERSARY OF BffiTH OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I should like to make a very brief statement regarding the anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin. The distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. MARTIN] and I usually collaborate in this effort.

January 17 marks the 248th anniversary of the birth of one of the most illustrious of all Americans-Benjamin Franklin, who was born in Boston in 1706.

In 1722 at the age of 16, Franklin wrote a number of articles over the signature of Mrs. Silence Dogood. They represent ·Franklin's first literary efforts and were published in his brother's New England Courant. In April 1722, Franklin wrote as follows:

It is undoubtedly the duty of all persons to serve the country they live in, according to their abilities; yet I sincerely acknowledge that I have hitherto been very deficient -in this particular; whether it was for want of will or opportunity, I will not at present stand to determine: Let it suffice, that I now take up a resolution, to do for the future all that lies in my way for the service of my countrymen.

· In another 1722 Dogood paper Franklin commented:

I have from my youth been indefatigal;lly studious to gain and treasure up in my mind all useful and desirable knowledge, especially such as tends to improve the mind, and enlarge the understanding: And as I have found it very beneficial to me, I am not without hopes, that communicating my small stock in this manner, by piecemeal to the publick, may be at least -in some measure useful.

He was only 16 years old ·when he made those statements. -

Whether as statesman, inventor, author, printer, moralist, traveler, or humanitarian, Franklin's advice is· founded on the· premise that a man;s ultimate purpose in life is s~riice to, and the lov.e and respect of, his fellowmen.

Today in the solving of the problems which now confront us may we demon

' strate the same common sense, courage, loyalty, and abidfng faith -in freedom that characterized 'Benjamin Franklin during all the 84 years of his illustrious life.

Mr. MARTIN: Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague from -Massachusetts in observance of the anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin.

Benjamin Franklin was a distinguished citizen of both Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. He was born in Boston, but his principal activities for this Nation-and his greatest activity was in behalf of the freedom of our country, as we now enjoy it--were carried on in Philadelphia.

Benjamin Franklin was probably the first American to become a citizen of the world. I am happy to join my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts in observing the anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I thank the Senato:r from Pennsylvania.

In his state · of the Union message, President Eisenhower recommended the construction of the seaway itself in the · interest of national security. I have great respect for his judgment. It is mY firm belief, nevertheless, that there are many questions in connection with the seaway, as such, that have never been realistically and practically answered. These questions first arose in my mind when I was Governor of Massachusetts and when the relationship of the seaway to the port of Boston was under frequent discussion. How much the seaway, as presently contemplated, will affect the .port is a question with which I propose to deal briefiy later in my remarks. In the main, however, I prefer to raise fundamental questions concerning the project generally that have been on my mind for some years.

It is said, however, that these quesST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOP- tions are now beside the point because

M.ENT CORPORATION Canada is going ahead with or without us. If this be so, why is it not wiser to

The Senate resumed the consideration let the Canadian Government proceed? of the bill <S. 2150) providing for crea- In my opinion Canada will get much the tion of the St. Lawrence Seaway Develop- larger benefits from the seaway. ment Corporation to construct part of In recent years we have spent billions the St. Lawrence seaway in United States of dollars to assist other· countries. In territory in the interest of national secu- this instance, our friendly neighbor to rity; authorizing the Corporation to con- the north is willing to undertake the seasummate certain arrangements with the way. Why should we not be grateful to St. Lawrence Seaway Authority of Can- Canada for undertaking this major ada relative to construction and opera- project without insisting upon our aid? tion of the seaway; empowering the The . United States built the Panama Corporation to finance the United States canal. The English and the French share of the seaway cost on a self-liqui- built the Suez Canal. Those canals have dating basis; to establish cooperation been profitably and advantageously used with Canada in the control and opera- by other nations. tion to the St. Lawrence seaway; to au.. It is argued, however, that if we do not thorize negotiations with Canada of an insist upon building a part of the wateragreement on tolls; and for other pur- way in United States territory, we canposes. not have a voice in its management.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- The basic assumption of this argument pore. The question is on agreeing to the apparently is that only physical control amendment proposed by the Senator of some portion of the waterway will from Louisiana [Mr. LoNG] on pages 6, guarantee us such a voice. Accepting 12, and 13 of the bill. this assumption for the moment, I should

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, like to point out that we already cononce again we are debating the question trol most of the Thousand Islands secof United States participation in the St. tion of the waterway. In the Sault Ste. Lawrence seaway. This is a problem Marie, we control all the modern locks. which I have discussed in the committee Quite apart from the question of physroom, on the Senate :floor, and in conver- ical control, we have a form of protecsation with colleagues ever since I have tion of far greater importance between been a Member of this body. friendly nations. I refer to the Bound-

In every discussion I have consistently ai:"y waters Treaty of 1909. That treaty stated that I was in favor of the power guarantees equality of treatment in acaspects of the proposed development. cess ·and in toll charges to the vessels of The obstacles to the construction of the ·both the United States and Canada power project have now been virtually where navigational works in the boundremoved. I use the word "virtually," be- ary waters are concerned. Mr. Presicause there is a court action pending. dent, I ask unanimous consent to insert That court action, I hope, may be soon the pertinent provisions of the treaty at decided, so that the joint undertaking this point in my remarks. of the State of New York and the Prov- There being no objection, the excerpt ince of Ontario may proceed, because I was ordered to be printed in the REcORD, have always believed that this great as follows: power resource should be developed by ARTICLE I the proper public authorities in the best The high contracting parties agree that interests of the Nation. We in New Eng- the navigation of all navigable boundary land need lower cost power. While a waters shall forever continue free and open very large part of the United States for the purposes of commerce to the inhabishare of the power output of this project tants and to the ships, vessels, and boats of will be absorbed in the State of New · both countries equally, subject, however, to York, I am glad that · the order of · the any laws and regulations of either country,

within its own territory, not inconsistent F~deral Power Commission approving with such pr_ivilege of free navigation and the project provides for a fair · share to applying equally . and without discriminathe New England States within-economi- tion to the inhabitants, ships, vessels, and cal transmission distance. boats of both countries.


It is further agreed that so long as this treaty shall remain in force, this same right

·of navigation shall extend to the waters of Lake Michigan and to all canals connecting boundary waters, and now existing or which may hereafter be constructed on either side of the line. Either of the high contracting parties may adopt rules and regulations governing the use of such canals within its own territory and may. charge tolls for the use thereof, but all such rules and regulations and all tolls charged shall apply alike to the subjects or citizens of the high contracting parties and the ships, vessels, and boats of both of the high contracting parties, and they shall be placed on terms of equality in the use thereof.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. If physical control and treaty guaranties are not enough, we have, in addition, the protection given by competing modes of transportation. The willingness of these to take over waterway traffic would, without more, effectively keep toll charges within reasonable limits.

The pending bill, I observe, requires the corporation thereby established to negotiate with the Canadian Seaway Authority rules for the measurement of vessels and cargoes, and rates of tolls to be charged. Nothing is said, however, about permanent machinery for the adjustment of these rules and charges. Is Canada to have a voice proportional to its total investment? If so, Canada will always be in a position to outvote us.

Mr. President, we can hope to obtain agreement on toll charges satisfactory to us only through negotiation. I fail to see how our negotiating position is improved by setting up a corporation and building elaborate locks and canals. If Canada goes ahead, let us negotiate with Canada. The whole history of the two countries justifies complete confidence that Canada will meet us halfway~

I submit, therefore, that the question before us is not merely whether we wish a voice in the management of a project which, in any event, will be constructed. It is, as it always has been, whether or not its construction is of advantage to the United States.

If the United States is not committed to its financial success, we will be in a position to decide on the merits what projects on our side of the international boundary are necessary to enable us to make the best possible use of the waterway at the least possible cost and the minimum interference with other national interests. From this point of view, participation in •its management can only distort our perspective and confuse our judgment. If we participate in it and join in its management at this stage, we are forever committed to make it a success if we can. We may find ourselves in the position of spending more and more to shore up an investment we should never have made. This is not good business, when we know Canada is ready to go ahead and feels that it will be of distinct benefit to her.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President will the Senator yield? '

Mr. SALTONSTAIL. I yield. Mr. LONG. I regret that I did not

hear the beginning of the Senator's argument. However, one fact in connecti<Jn with this project which is very ob-

vious is that, if it is to be developed into a truly modern waterway for oceangoing vessels it should be developed to a depth of ~5 feet. If that were to be done, the additional costs, which are not estimated here, would be approximately $500 million in the Welland Canal segment, and about $500 million in deepening the channels in the Great Lakes. Obviously half of those expenses would be expected to be borne by the United States, because up to this point the United States has been deepening the connecting channels in the Great Lakes. In the long run, if we wanted to join Canada in such a project, would it not be fair for Canada to open up the entrances to the Weiland Canal and on the St. Lawrence, to give access to the Great Lakes?

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I will say to my colleague and friend from Louisiana that I take up the question of deepening of channels later in my discussion. What I have said so far is that if Canada intends to go ahead with the project, we should let her do so. Then we can decide what we should properly do without making a commitment in ad~ vance on our side to make the project a financial success. Certainly there are some channels and harbors on the Great Lakes which would have to be deepened. If we deepen them more than 27 feet the Sault Ste. Marie canals and Wei~ land Canal will also have to be increased in depth.

My point up to the present time has been that if Canada wants to go ahead with the project, we should let her do so. We went ahead with the building of the Panama Canal, and the British went ahead with the building of the Suez Canal. We should not make a commitment at this time.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusettts yield?

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield. Mr. LEHMAN. The Senator froni

M_assachusetts has referred to a treaty With Canada concerning fair and equitable treatment. However, if we allow Canada to go ahead with the building of the canal-and Canada has already served notice she will go ahead-we shall have absolutely nothing whatever to say about the administration of the canal or with regard to the tolls, and, what is even more important, with regard to those features of the canal which wouid lend themselves to the strengthening of our defenses and the safeguarding of our security, which is the very point the President of the United States made in his message, when he emphasized the fact that he is desirous of building the project, as I am desirous of doing, on the ground of security and defense of our country.

I go even one step further than the President. I am in favor of the project for the reason cited by the President and also as a part of our economic development. Great areas of our Middle West will certainly be benefited by the building of the project. In turn, the State of New York, of which I am a representative in the Senate, and the State of Massachusetts, of which my distinguished friend is one representative, 'Yill

also benefit. I do not believe there can be the slightest doubt about that.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President I may say to the Senator from New York that I take up those points a little later in my remarks. Very briefly I will say that with respect to toll charges, the same principle applies to us that applies to Canada. On the question of administration, if Canada builds the waterway, of course Canada will administer it. A 27-foot channel is a 27-foot channel whether Canada builds it or we build it. With regard to the question of security if the distinguished Senator from Ne~ York will permit me, I shall take up that point a little later in my discussion.

I do not deny that the waterway may to some extent help the United States. It may facilitate transportation from the Midwest and the States east of the Rocky Mountains to the sea. It may assist in bringing high-grade iron ore from Labrador to the blast furnaces of our Central States. At certain times of the year it may Jower the transportation costs in international trade of our industrial products from the great cities of the Midwest. These possibilities I for one clearly recognize. ' '

But whether these are real advantages depends upon a number of questions that I have never seen fairly and properly answered with relation to United States participation in the waterway although I have asked them repeatedly. The first question is:

What will be the real overall cost of the waterway to the United States?

This question does not now involve precisely the same elements presented in previous debates. The cost of thl} power project is no longer in issue, and the United States is no longer obligated to assume a share of the cost of Canadian sections of the navigational works. Besides, it is now proposed that the navigational works to be constructed within our borders be financed by a bond issue to be amortized by toll charges over a 50-year period or less.

These changes in the proposed undertaking, however, do not substantially diminish the ultimate cost to the United States. The power project has always been assumed to be self-liquidating, and so no net saving results from shifting ou.r share of the initial construction cost from the Federal · Government to the State of New York. And while the bonds issue will make unnecessary appropriations for the navigational works in the International · Rapids, it covers only a small fraction of the costs which the Federal Government and the states and municipalities will eventually have

· to assume. It makes no sense to deepen the chan

nel between the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes if the channels connecting the Great Lakes are not also deepened. The cost of deepening these channels must, therefore, be included as a part of the true cost of the waterway. The committee which reported the pending bill has not asked us to authorize this project at the present time but it is inevitable that we will ultim'ately be asked to do so. Preliminary estimates bas_ed O? pa_rti_al engineering surveys, wh1ch d1d not mclude borings, put the

195/p CONGRESSIONAL . RECORD- SENATE

cost at $99.5 million. This :figure, if we can judge by previous experience, is probably less than one-half the actual cost. As pointed out by the Subcommittee on Deficiencies and Army Civil Functions of the House Appropriations Committees in a report dated August 16, 1951-almost 3 years ago-the cost estimates for 182 river and harbor and floodcontrol projects increased by 125 percent between their . original submission to Congress and their final stages. The cost estimate at the time of their authorization was $2,638,517;000; the final estimates were $5,912,451,000. Even wider discrepancies between estimates and actual costs have been true of other great canals like the Panama and the Suez.

·Again, it would not be sensible to make the whole Great Lakes region accessible to vessels drawing up to 25 feet-! use that figure because that is the maximum draft that could go through a 27-foot channel-without also making it possible for such vessels to get into the Great Lakes harbors. Once in the harbors, the ships must be efficiently unloaded, loaded, and turned around. It is essential for profitable merchant-marine operation to cut down turn-around time to the m1mmum. This means the most improved dock facilities, and they do not come cheap. I refer to docks and harbors and additional wharves.

No up-to-date estimates of the cost of these improvements are available. The only careful study of the question was made in 1929 by the Brookings Institution. This study put the cost at $340 million which, in terms of modern building costs, would be at least $890 million, less the cost of such improvements in Great Lakes harbors and docks as have been made since 1929. We do have, nevertheless, at least one relatively recent indication that the Brookings Institution survey is not far from the mark. That is a city of Buffalo survey made in 1941, which estimated $47 million as the cost of deepening Buffalo Harbor and port f~cilities so as to make possible the quick handling of vessels capable of navigating a 27-foot waterway.

What is proposed as a $100 million self-liquidating project of great advantage and no actual cost will be, in fact, a $1 billion project of doubtful value, ninetenths of which will never be selfliquidating.

I do not for one moment argue that all the projects included in the remaining nine-tenths should be self-liquidating any more than most of the riyer-andha'rbor improvements in our seaboard cities should be, but I believe that we should face the facts and make sure that we understand what obligations will be imposed upon us by the existence of the 27-foot waterway. We should also make sure that the benefits are commensurate.

. Second. Is there · a real prospect that the International Rapids section can pay for itself? That is the section which the United States would construct under the present bill. .

The possibility that our .. share of waterway construction in the International Rapids section can really be selfliquidating depends, of cow·se, on rev-

enues derived from tolls. The size of these revenues depends, in turn, upon the amount of traffic to be carried. But no thorough study of potential waterway traffic has been made since 1941. Since then, there have been nothing but guesses, some of which are quite surprising. Consider, for example, the case of iron ore. In 1941 the possibility of substantial shipments of iron ore was entirely discounted. By 1947, however, the Department of Commerce had made iron ore the waterway's largest single source of revenue with annual shipments of 20 million tons. Between 1941 and 1947 there was a completely new estimate made of the highest potential traffic so far as iron ore is concerned. In 1948 the Department increased the estimate to between 30 million and 37.5 million tons. That estimate, which is still relied upon, accounts for 40 percent of all estimated waterway revenue. But what would the Department of Commerce estimate today or for the future?

Since 1941, it is true, the high-grade iron ore reserves of the Mesabi have been consumed at an unprecedented rate. Since ·then, moreover, ore deposits in Labrador and Venezuela have been developed. But these facts do not justify the current estimate of waterway traffic in iron ore. It is hardly likely that Venezuelan ore will reach the waterway at all. In the meantime, half a billion dollars has been spent on developing ways of using taconite, of which there are vast and virtually inexhaustible quantities in the Great Lakes region. New sources of high-grade ore are also being developed in the Steep Rock Lake region of Ontario with scheduled initial production of 3 million tons annually.

That leaves Labrador as the only ore region from which shipments are likely to go by the waterway. But the company responsible for developing these deposits has scheduled annual production of only 10 million tons. Not all of this, moreover, will go by the waterway. The same company is constructing in England two large ore carriers which require a channel depth of at least 36 feet. Surely it is not expected that these will use the waterway; but if such is the expectation will the company ask us to dredge the channel deeper in order to accomodate its ore carriers?

The other remarkable fact about the iron-ore estimate is that it apparently includes shipments in both directions. This conclusion I base on statements in the 1948 report of the Department of Commerce to the effect that its 30-million to 37.5-million-ton estimate includes 9 million tons · of iron ore exported by Canada through the waterway. It hardly seems possible that iron ore would be brought into the Great Lakes area, then loaded back aboard ships, and brought out again.

A realistic estimate of iron-ore shipments would thus seem to be a fraction of the current estimate. What, then, becomes of the .figures on which the revenue-producing capacity of the waterway is predicated?

A second major item of estimated waterway traffic is petroleum. This item in volume and revenue is exceeded only by iron ore and grain; ' based on amiual '

shipments of from 6 million to 20 mil• lion tons, it is optimistically expected to produce annually between $1,500,000 and $5,000,000 in revenue. There are to· day, however, two pipelines from Port· land, Maine, to Montreal, and the Texas fields are directly connected to Chicago by pipeline. Canadian oil production is increasing rapidly and will undoubtedly be made available to the Great Lakes region by pipeline. On top of all this, I have been assured by our large tanker fleet operators that they have no plans to move oil up the St. Lawrence Waterway even if it should be constructed. How, then, can the estimated revenues from petroleum be justified?

If the other elements of the total revenue estimate relied upon to support the claim for self-liquidation are as much open to question as are those for iron ore and petroleum, the whole structure, in my judgment, becomes pretty shaky.

Third. Can the proposed 27-foot channel be used by our oceangoing merchant marine?

The proposed 27-foot channel is really a waterway rather than a seaway. To this, I believe those who argue in favor of this project will agree. The Committee on Foreign Relations report says that-

seventy-five percent of the traffic will be transported in lake-type vessels which can be satisfactorily handled by the 27-foot channel.

In the Canadian House of Commons, the Minister of Transportation emphatically stated that-

Oceangoing vessels are not expected to play a major role on the seaway.

Furthermore, Gen. A. G. I. McNaughton, cochairman of the International Joint Commission, .was quoted in the Buffalo News of March 28, 1953, as saying, with respect to the use of the waterway by oceangoing vessels :

The general feeling is that far from wanting them in, we want them out.

Mr. President, so far as oceangoing vessels flying the flag of the United States are concerned, the proposed 27-foot depth of the seaway will keep them out. In 1952, when this subject was under debate, I stated that only 6.6 percent of our active merchant fleet, as it was then constituted, could navigate this channel with a depth of 27 feet and carry a payload. That figure included both our Government-owned and our privately owned fleets. Since then, a number of our smaller vessels have been withdrawn from active service. As a result, today, only 2 percent of our entire privately owned merchant fleet could navigate the proposed seaway. Since World War II, the United States has not constructed one single oceangoing merchant vessel which draws less than 29 feet fully loaded. This is because only vessels of that draft are capable of combining the speed necessary to our defense : needs with the carrying capacity essential to economical operation.

It is then truly an inland waterway rather than a seaway which we are talk.:. · ing about if we consider the oceangoin·g merchant marine of the United States.

334 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE January ;LB

Fourth. Will the waterway cause severe loss to our Atlantic and gulf coast ports?

No accurate estimate, so far as I know, is available of our immense investment in these ports. Even without the diversion of our traffic to t.he waterway, many of these ports are having hard financial sledding. Yet the waterway will deprive them of traffic without any compensatory reduction in carrying charges. These charges can be met, therefore, only by spreading them over the remaining traffic, and the result will be still another increase in the operating costs of our merchant marine.

The case of Boston, of course, is the one most familiar to me. If the waterway shall be as successful as its proponents claim, then, I ask them, will it not shift the routing of many overseas imports which today come through Boston for distribution to westward points? Among these are burlap, . coffee, rubber, vegetable oils, and wool, amounting to about 22 percent of Boston's total general-cargo imports. Some of these would inevitably be diverted. Among Boston's major exports the one most seriously affected is likely to be grain. Grain is the foundation of the North Atlantic cargo trade because it furnishes the socalled bottom cargo which ships must have in order to load profitably the other high-paying freight. Boston's annual exports of grain now average about 250,000 tons. If Boston gets no grain, it can expect little other export cargo.

Another adverse effect of the waterway upon our ports will be the necessity of maintaining standby facilities, idle

. during the late spring, summer, and early fall, for use during the 4 or 5 months in every year when the waterway is icebound. Every figure which I have seen indicates that this waterway

. will be icebound for at least 4 months

. every year. What will become of the longshore

men and stevedores needed only during those warmer months? Will they become migrant workers shuttling annually between the lakes and the coast?

The impact of a seasonal demand for men and port facilities will be even more sharply felt in the lake ports where the long winter completely shuts down shipping activity.

The effects upon our Atlantic and Gulf . coast ports are dramatized most vividly,

perhaps, by contrast with the boost to Montreal as a transfer point. All waterway traffic except the fraction which finds accommodation in small, shallowdraft sea-going vessels will have to be transported in lake-type carriers and trans-shipped at Montreal to deepwater vessels. To make this possible the entrance to Montreal harbor is being deepened to a uniform channel depth of 35 feet. This means that Montreal will attract new traffic at the expense of our own seaboard cities.

Mr. President, at this point, without placing it into the RECORD, I may say that I have before me a long list of channels and harbors on our sea coasts which shows that every important harbor that is presently being deepened is being deepened to a minimum of 30 feet. with some of them being deepened

to as much as 40 feet. None of them is being deepened to less than 30 feet. This indicates that navigation facilities in harbors today should provide for a minimum of a 30-foot depth. All the major Atlantic seaboard harbors which do not already have 35-foot channels are being deepened to at least 35 feet, as is being done in Montreal.

Fifth. Will the construction of the waterway make it more difficult than ever for our deep-water domestic merchant marine to survive?

The importance of our merchant marine to the long-term security of the United States is indisputable. President Eisenhower, in fact, has referred to the merchant marine as "the fourth arm of our national defense," and every farseeing American must recognize the truth of this description. We are dependent today upon imports from abroad for no less than 55 strategic materials. We cannot afford to assume that foreign ships will always be avalaible to transport them to our shores. Moreover, our security depends upon men in American uniform stationed in 50 countries on all the continents. Our links with them must be maintained by dependable seaborne transportation. The thinking of our strategic planners increasingly emphasizes the importance of a mobile force, poised for deployment wherever it may be necessary to repel, or assist in repelling, aggression. This concept reinforces the necessity for a fast, modern merchant marine.

The waterway will inevitably divert cargoes from American vessels. The committee's report on the pending bill estimates 25 percent of seaway traffic as "subject to movement in seagoing ships." Almost all of this will be carried by shallow-draft, foreign-flag vessels di-

. rectly between the Great Lakes and foreign ports. The.se shipments will thus be lost to our merchant vessels, whose deep draft will exclude them from the waterway.

What will Qe the result? One possi-. bility is that our active merchant fieet will shrink to the extent of the business thus diverted to its competitors from abroad; although the Department of Dzfense has testified that it is already deficient in many respects. To prevent this, we probably would be obliged to increase our operating subsidies so as to make it possible for our fleet to operate at a level sufficient to meet its commercial and defense responsiblities.

The only other course open to us would be to construct new types of shallowdraft ships capable of competing for waterway traffic such as iron ore and wheat. But such vessels are less economical to operate than the large deepdraft carriers which now constitute our fleet. This development, too, would thus make necessary increased operating subsidies.

Sixth. Will not the construction of the waterway bring disastrous competition to our intercoastal GreatLakes shipping?

In giving a greater number of foreignflag vessels access to the Great Lakes, the waterway will make possible increased competition between our Great Lakes operators and cheaply operated foreign carriers in traffic between -Ca-

nadian and United States lake ports. The outcome is likely to be a demand for operating subsidies to assist our Great Lakes operators to compete.

This is not a fantastic possibility. Indeed, a resolution already filed by my good friend the junior Senator from Michigan [Mr. PoTTER], who has at heart the best interests both of our merchant marine and of the lake region, calls for a treaty with Canada which would bar foreign-flag vessels from competition for this traffic with United States and Canadian ships. But what will be the reaction of our friendly allies to such an exclusive international agreement? Are they not in a position to retaliate?

_Could they not deny our ships the right to carry cargo between their ports? Could they not also exclude our ships from their canals at Suez, Kiel, Manchester, and other places?

Seventh. Will not the waterway increase the operating costs of competing inland transportation systems?

Here again, as in the case of our ports, we have an enormous investment with enormous carrying charges which cannot be reduced in proportion to the traffic lost by diversion to the waterway. Some considerable part of the waterway traffic, to be sure, can probably be accumulated at each end of the waterway during the months when it is icebound.

Other traffic, however, particularly in manufactured goods, will be thrust upon the railroads and trucklines when the waterway is blocked by ice, only to be diverted again when the waterway is open. The same problem of maintaining idle facilities and idle men thus presents ttself as in the case of our ports, ports on the seacoast and in the Great Lakes. The inevitable result will be pressure for increases in railroad and truck rates, involving a cost to shippers

. which will tend to offset whatever they may succeed in saving through shipments by the waterway in warmer months.

Eighth. Will the waterway increase the vulnerability of our inland transportation system to bombing and sabotage?

While I do not place great stress on this point, simple commonsense compels the recognition that the complicated lock system of the International Rapids works will make them highly vulnerable to a single bomb or a single explosiveladen ship .

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. LONG. Is it not true that a single ship sunk anywhere along the channel would close the channel to navigation for the entire length of the seaway?

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I think that would be true, as it is true of the Panama Canal and other canals, among them the Cape Cod Canal, with which I am familiar. The extent of interference with navigation would depend on how large the ship was, where it was sunk, and other factors. -

Mr. LONG. Is it not also true that an attack upon- any of the 15 locks through which a ship would have to pass, if we include the locks on the Weiland Canal, all the locks on the Canadian

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 335 segment, plus the locks in the International Rapids segment, would mean that the entire project would be closed?

Mr. SALTONSTALL. The Senator is correct. I do not place a great deal of weight on the argument against our contributing to the waterway in the St. Lawrence because of the likelihood of bombing or sabotage, but what the Senator says is correct.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield?

Mr. SALTONST ALL. I yield. Mr. LONG. Inasmuch as the argu

ment is made that the project is necessary for the national defense, is it not true that a successful attack upon any one of the locks could bottle up a fleet that was inside the Great Lakes, and that those ships, therefore, would be unable to reach the high seas and thus would be unable to serve this Nation in time of emergency?

Mr. SALTONSTALL. What the Senator says is correct.

The destruction of a lock either by a single bomb or a single explosive-laden ship could easily make the waterway useless for months at a time, for blockage at any point would completely interrupt the flow of traffic. By contrast, railroads and truck lines can very quickly recover from the interruption caused by bombardment or sabotage.

However, the very existence of the waterway will have diminished the ability of other forms of transportation to take over the job of the waterway when it is out of commission. In my judgment, this fact more than offsets its claimed advantages to our national security. · These, then, are the questions which

still disturb me about the proposed project. Though I recognize its advantages, they seem to me to be outweighed by the added difficulties it will create for our Atlantic and Gulf ports, our oceangoing merchant marine, and our competing systems of inland transportation and by the tremendous added costs necessary to make it useful to us. I shall, therefore, vote against the pending bill.

Mr. FERGUSON obtained the floor. Mr. BUSH. Mr. President, will the

Senator from Massachusetts yield? Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield to the

Senator from Connecticut. Mr. BUSH. Mr. President, I desire to

make a few concurrent comments. First, I wish to congratulate the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts upon his very eloquent statement concerning the issue. Certainly he has made the facts very clear, and I commend him for his most excellent statement.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. ·

Mr. BUSH. I wish to make a few observations concurring in what the Senator from Massachusetts has said, without his losing the right to the floor.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I may say to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut that I have finished, and yield the floor.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (protempore). The Chair had recognized the senior Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERGUSON].

Mr. FERGUEON. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I appreciate the courtesy of the distinguished Senator from Michigan and the distinguished Senator from New Jersey [Mr. SMITH], both of whom desired to obtain the floor. I appreciate their permitting me to have the floor.

Mr. BUSH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield to me for 2 or 3 minutes?

Mr. FERGUSON. I am glad to yield. Mr. BUSH. Mr. President, I wish to

associate myself with the conclusions reached by the able Senator from Massachusetts in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway bill. It is of considerable comfort to me, as I am sure it will be to many other Senators, that the chairman of the Committee on Armed Service is able to take the position on the bill he has announced, inasmuch as it has been said that to build the seaway or have it go forward at this time was in the interest of national security.

Mr. President, I have discussed the bill with some of those engaged in the steel industry, particularly those located in the Midwest, because they seem to be the most affected. One of the most reliable men in the steel business, in whose favor I happen to be very much prejudiced, and who I hope will permit me to quote him personally on the Senate floor within a few days, indicated to me that this project is absolutely unnecessary so far as the steel industry is concerned. Perhaps it would help the steel industry; I have no doubt that it would. Perhaps it would afford something in the nature of an indirect subsidy to the steel industry, if the legislation were enacted. But this is no time to be considering an indirect subsidy to the steel industry or to any other industry.

Mr. President, I should like to make one further point. It is my profound belief that at the present time we should defer projects involving large expenditures. They should be delayed until such time as their sustaining influence may be of benefit to the United States. When such expensive public projects are put into competition with all the spending now going on in connection with the military effort, taking into consideration the very high level of industrial activity, they add to the inflationary forces, and also add to the cost of Government. So even if the project were desirable, I would suggest that this is not the time to undertake it. I hope very much that Canada will not go ahead with it.

I thank the Senator from Michigan for pe~·mitting me to say those few words.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, the Senate is today considering the St. Lawrence seaway bill (S. 2150), introduced by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. WILEY], myself, and other Senators. The bill has the unanimous approval of the President, the Cabinet, and the National Security Council.

We are all familiar with the favorable report on the bill submitted by the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate. Furthermore, my colleagues are aware that it is the considered judgment of the executive branch of our Government that participation by the United States now in the construction and op-

eration of the St. Lawrence seaway "would increase its defense advantages to this country" and "would strengthen our strategic position at all times respecting use of the seaway for transportation of basic materials."

The preponderance of evidence· in support of the measure, because of the contribution the seaway will make to our national defense and to our national economy, is in itself sufficient to justify favorable action on the bill by the Senate.

As my colleagues know, I have fought steadily, year in and year out, in the ranks and with our leadership, for endorsement and enactment of the St. Lawrence seaway bill, because of the need for the seaway in furthering the development and progress of our great Nation. There is serious doubt in my mind whether we can continue to expand our great national industrial production and thereby continue to raise our standard of living without having the benefit of the St. Lawrence . seaway.

BENEFIT TO MICHIGAN

In the case of Michigan, for example, completion of the seaway will enable Michigan products to reach farftung markets with greater ease and at less cost, thus promoting their sale and stimulating production. In this manner, it will be of great benefit to all segments of the economy of the State of Michi-gan. ·

Certainly, without the St. Lawrence seaway, our progress as an industrial Nation WO"LJ.ld be impeded.

Mr. President, in these days, when we are talking about returning to a peacetime economy, the St. Lawrence sea way is one of the projects which can help us ~in that effort. About $336 million of work, to be done by private industry, by cities, . and by States, is planned in the Great Lakes region. That expenditure will not be contributed to by the United States Government.

The progress of this Nation, and of the world, can be written in the histories of trade and transportation.

Need I mention the Panama and Suez Canals, the transcontinental railroads, the networks of airlines which cover the globe, to bring to mind for a moment the developments, the progress, and the achievements which have been made as a direct result of transportation and trade?

Of course, Mr. President, one of the greatest inventions of all time was the wheel, which enabled the transportation of articles much more easily than upon the shoulders of men. As the efficiency of transportation has increased, and as power has been put to work, replacing the use of men's muscles, of course the pro- · ductivity of man has increased, the distribution of his production has broadened, and therefore the standard of living has risen.

SEAWAY NOT A REGIONAL PROJECT

From a global view, it would seem at first glance that the St. Lawrence seaway is a regional project, beneficial only to. a segment of the United States and Canada. But that is true only at first glance.

336 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD---.. SENATE January 18

· Mr. President, I realize that the Senators from the States along the east coast who object to the St. Lawrence seaway project believe that its construction will not be beneficial to their States; they honestly believe that the benefits which would be obtained by their States from construction of the St. Lawrence seaway project would be so slight as not to justify its cost. However, Mr. President, I cannot share those views. I believe it will benefit all States and the Nation as a whole.

Great industrial regions have been built in the Midwest. While it is the heart of our industrial production, that does not mean that all our national production is centered in the Great Lakes area. Along the Atlantic seacoast, in the Far West, and in the South, industry has spawned and expanded beyond the dreams of our forebears to make this Nation great. We speak of these areas as regions, but only to describe them for geographical identification. Actually, they are interlinked, dependent upon one another to survive or to grow. This is one of the principal reasons why America has become great. After all, Mr. President, the existence of highways and other communication facilities, both within the United States and with other nations, has helped make our Nation great.

In all the history of the world, no nation has survived when it ignored the development of its natural resources and advantages to the utmost of man's -ability, skill, and knowledge. Those who did ignore that development have passed into an eclipse in history and greatness.

No one can disagree that the present Great Lakes seaway is the finest inland waterway in the world. -It has contributed much to the successor our country's position of eminence in the world today. Because of it, the Nation as a whole has benefited, and mankind has profited. ThereJ'ore, we, as a Nation, cannot afford to sit idly by and let this great waterway remain in status quo when man is capable of improving it beyond the expectations of the early discoverers of these waters.

SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT MEANS PROGRESS

The development of the St. Lawrence seaway means more than a fourth coastline for the United States. It means progreEs, a means whereby our Nation will reach even greater heights than those we enjoy today.

I am one who believes that this Nation is still in a pioneering stage, that we have just begun our climb up the ladder of greatness as a nation in world leadership, industrial production, service to mankind, and a better way of life. Our future is bright, not only in terms of long-range thinking, but in terms of short-range thinking as well. The St. Lawrence seaway should be a part of that progress. It is a sound business venture, and is needed for the defense of our Nation. . Its construction will mean more jobs; its operation will provide more employ_ment. The new industries which are more than possibilities are difficult to predict; but, certainly, experience is in

my favor when I say that every new development by which man has harnessed natural resources or used his ingenuity to make possible devices or vehicles to facilitate travel and to transport goods has resulted in benefits throughout the world.

Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the ·Senator from Michigan yield to me?

Mr. FERGUSON. I am glad to yield. Mr. THYE. I wish to commend my

colleague, the senior Senator from Michigan, for making such an able presentation of the reasons why we should take part in the development of the St. Lawrence seaway. He represents one section of the Nation where heavy industries, producing heavy machinery and other heavy freight, are located. If the St. Lawrence seaway is developed, it will make it possible for ocean-going vessels to dock at the important harbors in the Great Lakes, there to take on the heavy freight that is produced in that area. That not only would greatly enhance the prospect of developing further the industries of the central area of our Nation, but it would give us an opportunity to enjoy the benefits of an ocean freight rate, not only to serve Duluth and the Lake Superior region, at the head of the Great Lakes, but also to serve the great ·industrial section which is so ably represented by the senior Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERGUSON].

So I am most pleased and happy to be able to listen to the very able presentation he is making of the reasons why the United States should join Canada in the development at this time of the St. Lawrence seaway.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I appreciate the statement of the Senator from Minnesota, and I thank him for his courtesy.

The lower cost of manufacture as the result of cheaper transportation in itself will save much in terms of effort and money-money that can be utilized to produce and purchase more goods for better living.

The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] seemed to think that Canada would benefit from ·the seaway to a greater extent than we would. I cannot conceive that Canada, with a population of approximately 15 million people, could benefit to a greater extent than this nation, with 160 million people. Canada will benefit. There is no doubt about that. Her people would not want to build this project if there were no benefit in prospect for Canada. But the project will greatly benefit the United States. In fact, the project will be of great benefit to both nations. · I am aware that Canada, our sister nation, will build the St. Lawrence sea·way regardless of the stand of the United States. Our neighbor to the north is more than anxious to make the seaway a reality and have gone forward with its plans, in the sincere belief that the benefits which will accrue to the nation as a whole are an absolute necessity if Can-ada is to continue in stride toward a level of greatness that all of us expect of her.

Canada has developed a great deal in the past few years. She is developing .every year, l;>ecause she is ~ooking ahead.

We ought to · welcome such an attitude on the part of Canada, just as we are pleased to have our own people look ahead and develop.

Yes; the building of the St. Lawrence Waterway is an inescapable conclusion. The workingman wants it, the farmer desires it, and industry is behind it.

We have more than sufficient evidence of the sincerity of Canada's intentions.

Therefore, it is my humble belief that we have before us a bill in which the question is not, Are we going to provide legislation for the construction and operation of the St. Lawrence seaway?

The question is, Should the United States participate with Canada in the construction and operation of the St. Lawrence seaway?

I have said before on this floor-and I repeat it-that if this situation had existed in a far-off foreign land, this nation would not only have insisted upon .the project being developed by canals and locks, but would have taken the dollars of United States taxpayers and made a gift of them to the foreign nation in order to accomplish the development. We would have said that the development of the project was of sufficient importance to the over-all progress of the world to justify spending the money of our taxpayers on it.

Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. THYE. The Senator from Michi

gan is entirely correct in his statement. It is inconceivable that any nation on earth should have permitted an opportunity such as that which is afforded by the development of the St. Lawrence .seaway to lie unrealized for as many years as this project has remained undeveloped, especially when we take into .consideration the benefits which would be derived from the St. Lawrence seaway, which would provide an opportunity for oceangoing vessels to serve the heavy industries located in Ohio, Michigan, New York, \Visconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota, as well as the great grainproducing sections of the Northwest, in the Dakotas, and even Nebraska, Montana, and Idaho. Products from all those States could be shipped to the Great Lakes and there loaded on oceangoing vessels.

There can be no question that our Government would aid foreign countries in developing potential benefits of such magnitude as those represented by the St. Lawrence seaway. The project has heretofore been blocked only by division among our people, as between those concerned with railroads and seaports, and those concerned with other interests.

Mr. WELKER rose. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I

believe the Senator from Idaho . wishes to have stricken from the REcoRD the statement that this project would be of benefit to Idaho.

Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. WELKER. That is not true. I do

not ·rise to be frivolous or smart. Mr. FERGUSON. I am glad to yield

to the Senator from Idaho. ·

1951,. CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD-SENATE 337 Mr. WELKER. Will the Sena.tor yield

in order that I may ask the distinguished Senator from Minnesota [Mr. THYE l a question?

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes, I yield. Mr. WELKER. I am very much in

terested, naturally, in the question of how the St. Lawrence Seaway might affect the State of Idaho. I certainly am sincere in that concern.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a clarifying statement?

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. I should like to point out

that about 25 years ago some 20 States of the Union appropriated $2,000 each for the purpose of promoting the St. Lawrence Seaway. They were not interested in the question of power. I think Minnesota took the lead at that time. The farthest southern State to appropriate funds to promote the seaway was South Carolina. The State farthest west was Idaho. It is quite apparent that neither of those States would have taken the action which was taken had it not been felt that the project would be of benefit to them.

Among·the States which appropriated funds to promote the St. Lawrence Seaway was the State of West Virginia, where John L. Lewis, an ardent opponent of the seaway at the present time, holds sway. About 25 years ago West Virginia made an appropriation of $2,000 a year to promote the seaway. I suppose it was felt that coal could be exported through the Ohio ports. I do not know.

Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield in order that I may ask a question?

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. WELKER. Who was it in Idaho

who appropriated $2,000 a year? Mr. AIKEN. I believe it was appro

priated by the State legislature. I think that was true ir.~. all the States. There were about 20 of them. I shall be glad to obtain the list of- States and insert it in the REcoRD. As I say, South Carolina was the farthest south. Presumably South Carolina was interested in selling lumber in the Great Lakes area. I do not know with any certainty just what the interest was.

Mr. WELKER. I am very much interested in hearing about the appropriation of funds by the State of Idaho to lobby for Federal legislation.

Mr. AIKEN. It is a matter of record. I shall be glad to place in the · RECORD the names of the States to which I have referred.

Mr. WELKER. Can the Senator from Minnesota tell me how this project would help the State of Idaho?

Mr. THYE. Idaho would derive great benefit if ocean-going vessels could dock at Duluth. Idaho is a producer of dairy products. The great consuming centers are either on the east coast or the west coast. The west coast takes care of its own requirements for dairy products. So dairy products from Idaho would go East. They would go to the harbor of Duluth, for shipment to the eastern markets by way of water.

Idaho is a great ·producer and shipper of potatoes. That product is classified as heavy freight. Idaho could send its potatoes by truck or by railroad to the

G--22

head of the lakes, to be transfened there to oceangoing vessels for shipment to eastern consuming markets, where our surpluses from the Midwest must go to find a market. Therefore Idaho, even though it be some distance from the head of the lakes, still could derive benefit, because of the lower freight charges which would be imposed upon its product, which is produced in surplus. Because it is produced in surplus it must go to the eastern markets. They are the natural markets, if the product does not go to a foreign port.

Mr. WELKER. It was my impression that a substantial portion of our dairy products went to California. If . the Senator .has any information on that subject I should be glad to have it. I have never understood that our dairy products went to Duluth. . Mr. THYE. They would not go to Duluth unless there were an advantage in the form of lower rates on oceangoing vessels. If opportunity is afforded to ship the products of the Senator's State, whether they be dairy products, potatoes, or lumber, on oceangoing vessels, it is quite conceivable that the State of Idaho would be benefited by such opportunity, and by the lower rates available on oceangoing vessels. That is the benefit which I see in the overall project. Some of the dairy products of Idaho have gone east. · I am familiar with the movement.

Mr. WELKER. Such products are stored all over the United States.

Mr. FERGUSON. I should like to say to the Senator from Idaho, it is contemplated that approximately $336 million would be spent· by private industry, cities, and States in the Great Lakes area to provide for the development which would follow the construction of the seaway. That expenditure would be made in connection with harbors, docks, arid so forth.

The Senator represents a great State. Idaho produces minerals and p<>tatoes, among other products. It is worldfamous for its potatoes. As the Midwest develops and as its standard of living goes up, naturally people will eat more Idaho potatoes. Of course, we produce just as good potatoes in Michigan.

Mr. WELKER. Just a minute, please. Mr. FERGUSON. However, I do not

wish to get into an argument with the distinguished Senator from Idaho on the subject of Michigan potatoes and Idaho potatoes. I believe that the construction of the seaway will aid in selling the famous Idaho potatoes in Michigan and in other States, because the people in those States will be able to pay the price asked for Idaho potatoes. As the West develops so will the great State of Idaho develop. As the East develops, so will the gre~t State of Idaho develop.

NATIONAL DEFENSE ASPECTS OF SEAWAY

Mr. President, I should like briefly to discuss some of the principal reasons bebehind the Defense Department's strong stand in favor of the pending legislation.

These reasons are not based on any sect'ional point of view. The Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and

our military planning agencies have the heavy responsibility of preparing for the successful defense of our Nation and its freedoms. They cannot take the narrow view and still be true to their obligation to the Nation. They believe we should approve this bill and permit the United States to share in the control of the seaway for these reasons: . First. The St. Lawrence Seaway will provide better lines of supply for essential raw materials and will also increase the availability of those raw materials. Its construction will make the iron ore of the Labrador-Quebec region available at low cost for use in the smelting operations of the steel mills of 1jle Nation, four-fifths of which are located in the immediate area which would be served by the seaway. If war were to comeand God forbid it will ever come again·an the steel capacity of America would be needed. If the steel capacity were available and used economically it might mean the relieving of great suffering and devastation in our country.

Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield?

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. BARRETT in the chair). Does the Senator from Michigan yield to the Senator from Idaho?

Mr. FERGUSON. I am glad to yield to the distinguished Senator from Idaho.

Mr. WELKER. I appreciate the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Michigan with respect to a great product of my State, the world-famous Idaho potato. I should like to ask him how the construction of the seaway would affect our potato industry. The Senator from Michigan stated that the potatoes could be shipped to Duluth or other ports and loaded on oceangoing vessels. Is it not a fact that we can now ship our worldfamous Idaho potatoes to Portland, .Oreg., and there load them on oceangoing vessels? Portland is only 400 miles Jrom Idaho. By like token we can ship the potatoes to Los Angeles. I should like to have the Senator's views on that point. . Mr. FERGUSON"' The difficulty would be that if the producers in Idaho were to ship the potatoes. to. the west coast, for delivery on the east coast, the potatoes would have to be shipped down the west coast, through the Panama Canal, and up the east coast. Certainly the potatoes could be shipped faster and cheaper via a Great Lake~ port and through the seaway.

Mr. WELKER. The Senator refers to potatoes shipped to the eastern seaboard and unloaded there, and to potatoes shipped to Europe.

Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. Mr. WELKER. I thank the Senator

from Michigan. IMPORTANCE OF LABRADOR ORE DEPOSITS

Mr. FERGUSON. The Labrador ore deposits themselves have a national defense significance because they can be mined by open-pit methods. This makes it possible for their production to be expanded quickly and cheaply in case of an emergency. It is not necessary, as is the case in other mines, for new shafts to be dug at great expense and over a. long period of time. ·

338 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE January 18

Industry is making very large investments in Mesabi Range to develop taconite. It is also making very large investments in Labrador and in Venezuela to develop other sources of iron ore. It would not be doing so if it felt it could place its whole reliance on taconite.

From a national defense point of view, the Labrador ore deposits are the most valuable of all our foreign sources, because they are the only ones which do not have to be shipped across open water.

The St. Lawrence Seaway offers a safe, inland water route from Labrador to the Great Lakes. Shipments of ore from Venezuela or Liberia would -be subject to submarine attack in the Atlantic Ocean. I am sure Senators remember the difficulty we had during World War II in getting tankers through from Venezuela.

As a matter of fact, the years of our lowest ore imports in two decades took place during World War II, when the submarines roamed the sea lanes. Yet it was during those years that our need for foreign ore was the most urgent.

Nor is iron ore the Only essential raw materials which the seaway would aid in making available. Titanium and magnesium deposits, found in Canada, would also be more easily available to this country. Likewise the seaway would give a big boost to explorations in the Labrador-Quebec area of Canada which could also result in the development of new sources of minerals essential to the national defense.

ALTERNATE SEAWAY ROUTE PROVIDED

Second. The second reason for the military desirability of the seaway is that it will provide an alternate sea route to the ports of the United Statesand Detroit, for example, is a port of the United States, the second largest in the Nation, as a matter of fact-from Europe and other areas of the world. I believe the Defense Department has in mind that we would not have a sufficient number of ports available in case of a national emergency, such as a third world war.

Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. THYE. During World War II

certain vessels were constructed at various ports on the Great Lakes-Duluth among them-and shipped in sections and later assembled on the east coast. In that way the industries on the Great Lakes were employed in the defense effort during World War II. Those plants were able to perform such services, which were required for our defense needs during World War II. Therefore, a sufficiently deep channel would be required to permit the passage of oceangoing vessels in the event we should become involved in a world war, because otherwise it would be necessary to again build the ships in sections and assemble them at another point.

Mr. FERGUSON. That is absolutely correct. We had the manpower available during World War II. The seaway would shorten the construction and delivery time.

Third. The sea way would shorten by about 1,000 miles the open-sea route between the ports of the United States and the British Isles and northern Europe. This would be of tremendous value in the event this Nation should be forced into war. It would also free large naval convoy forces for other service. Substitution of a sheltered sea route along the St. Lawrence River for the open waters of the Atlantic could result in the savings of hundreds of lives and millions of dollars worth of shipping. If the seaway had been in existence during the course of World War II, there is strong possibility that more than 70 American and allied merchant ships would not be at the bottom of the sea today.

I hope Senators from the seacoast States who oppose the pending bill will ponder these facts long and carefully before casting a vote against the seaway.

Fourth. The construction of the seaway would also add to the total transportation facilities of the United States, and I believe this would be highly desirable from a military and defense standpoint. Certainly, there can be no criticism of the tremendous job which the Nation's railroads and Atlantic ports did for the Nation in World War II; but no nation has had adequate transportation facilities or too many ports in time of war.

Fifth. United States partici:r:ation in the sea way will permit an increased utilization of the shipbuilding and shipl·epa'ir facilities, as well as other industrial potentials of the Great Lakes area, which were used in the last World War, as was indicated by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. THYEJ.

This Nation's experience during the last war showed how urgently those facilities might be required, and how helpful they could be. And make no mistake about it, there are some fine shipbuilding and repair facilities in Michigan and on the Great Lakes.

EUROPEAN LESSONS APPLICABLE

As a member of the Foreign Relations and Appropriations Committees, I have been impressed by the difficulties in the establishment of infrastructure in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. These difficulties have been encountered because of the lack of basic transportation facilities in Western Europe, such as airports, waterways, highways, and railroads, which, once in existence, could be used either for civilian or military purposes.

Development of infrastructure, or the underlying foundation of an economy for either peace or war, has long plagued the buildup of defense in Europe. The United States has infrastructure-in our great transportation network, in our communications system, in our fuel and power developments. The St. Lawrence Seaway would be an addition to this infrastructure of almost incalculable value and significance through the increased capacity which it would give our national transportation system.

SEAWAY HAS LONG BEEN SEEN AS NECESSARY

As long ago as 1927, Herbert Hoover, then chairman of the American St. Law-

renee Waterway Commission, strongly emphasized the military importance of the seaway. As Mr. Hoover himself recalled it in hearings before the Foreign Relations Committee 20 years later-

We had been through World War I and through the intense transportation difficulties of that war. It seemed to us that, as a matter of national defense, this project should be established at once.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff hB,ve long supported the seaway. In 1946, the then Secretary of War, Robert P. Patterson, transmitted their views to the Secretary of State. Secretary Patterson wrote:

The Joint Chiefs of Staff consider that it would be in the interests of national security to complete projects, such as these. which would have distinct military advantages and would materially increase the industrial and transportation potential of the United States.

It is significant, I think, to point out that at that time the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were Admiral Leahy, Admiral Nimitz, General Arnold, and General Eisenhower, now President of the United States.

JOINT CHIEFS SUPPORTED SEAWAY IN 1952

The Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs repeated their support of the seaway in 1952 and again this year, repeating the reasons they had stated earlier and adding that the seaway "will facilitate the transportation of munitions to overseas bases." They pointed out, as I have indicated, that it would shorten by 1,000 miles the open-sea route to the British Isles.

Mr. President, anyone who went to the port of New York during the Second World War and found miles upon miles of track, thousands upon thousands of freight cars which were unable to get into the port, knows that the railroad facilities were not sufficient to make that great industrial and port center entirely efficient. The St. Lawrence Waterway, if it had been in e}l.istence at that time, would have been of great value in transporting our freight overseas.

In 1953, the National Security Council found that "early initiation and completion of the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes Seaway is in the interest of national security." And in 1954, President Eisenhower has again called for construction of the sea way.

Mr. President, the importance of the seaway to our national security makes it all the more necessary that we participate in the construction, management, and control of the seaway.

There are those who say, ''Let Canada build it," and who apparently do not care about the tolls or operating regulations which may be imposed on American shipping through this canal.

Are those who make that argument indifferent to protecting the defense interests of the United States?

SHARE IN DEFENSE; PRIORITY NEEDED

If Canada builds the sea way alone, we shall have no voice in the defense arrangements for it.

Equally important, and of more immediate consequence in the event of an

,1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 339 emergency, we shall have no voice_ in the matter of transportation priorities when shipping begins to pile up under the burdens of war.

Let me read from a letter which Gen. Omar N. Bradley, when Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote to the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN] February 8, 1952:

It is conceivable even though improbable that at some future time a situation may arise whereunder the United States might find itself in a situation of international tension, with Canada neutral. In such an event United States ownership and operational control of the St. Lawrence Seaway might make an important contribution to the security of the United States. It could be visualized that exclusive Canadian ownership of this seaway might well be embarrassing to the United States under such conditions.

Mr. President, when all the other arguments of the opponents have been answered, they fall back on the old wornout argument that the seaway is vulnerable to attack.

As was said on the floor today, in case of a ship being sunk in the St. Lawrence River, traffic would have difficulty in passing through the channel. If that time comes, Mr. President, we must be in position to remove ships which may be sunk. We must be in position to keep them from being sunk, just as we must be in a position to protect our great cities and, indeed, the entire Nation.

Mr. President, the seaway can be defended as easily as can any other installation in that section of the North American Continent. It is no more open to sabotage than is any defense plant.

No one can give absolute, positive assurance that the seaway will never be blown to bits; neither. in this age of the hydrogen bomb, can anyone give such assurance that Washington or Baltimore or the port of New York will never be blown to bits. However, I have confidence in the ability of this country to defend it:self.

Those who oppose this bill argue, on the one hand, that the seaway would be impractical and, on the other hand. they admit it would be so important and would present such an inviting target to the enemy that we could never defend it.

Mr. President, there are also thoseand they happen to be on the seacoastwho argue that the proposed seaway will be of little value because it will be only

. 27 feet deep. They argue that it ought to be 35 feet deep. If the seaway would hurt their shipping and, as some persons indicate, would destroy their ports, certainly it would do more harm if it were 35 feet deep than it would if it were built to a 27-foot depth. ALTERNATE LINES OF COMMUNICATION DESffiABLE

But let me return for a moment to one of the reasons why the Joint Chiefs of Staff support this project. It would, they have said, provide "an additional line of communication." In other words, it would give us anothe·L" basket in which to put some of our eggs. These eggs are not in enough baskets now, Mr. President. We have too few lines of communication and too many bottlenecks. The St. Lawrence Seaway, by giving us an additional

line of communication, would make us less vulnerable to attack on any individual line because we would have more alternate routes to turn to in case one should be put out of commission.

During the period of World War I and World War II, virtually all of our eggs, insofar as iron ore was concerned, were in one basket. Almost all the iron ore used in America's last two wars has come from the great iTon ranges of northern Michigan and Minnesota, and most of that ore was funneled to the mills through the great locks in the St. Marys River at Sault Ste. Marie, Mich. Severe damage to those locks could have cut off much of the vital flow of raw materials to our steel mills. That would be true if another war came. So with the construction of the seaway we would have two ways of getting ore to the vital mil1s of America. One would be by way of the St. Lawrence; the other would be through the St. Marys locks. Still another route would exist since South American ore would go to east coast seaports. Certainly these alternate routes would be of tremendous value to the defense of this great Nation.

These are but some of the reasons which led to the action by the President's Cabinet last year in unanimously ap

. proving a recommendation that the United States take part in the construction of this open door to the heart of America.

THE CONDITIONS OF CABINET APPROVAL

When the Cabinet approved the Wiley bill, it recommended that United States participation be subject to certain conditions. These conditions are set forth in the White House announcement of May 8, 1953. I quote them from the official announcement, as follows:

1. Satisfactory assurance that the underlying power project will go ahead, pursuant to appropriate authorization.

2. Satisfactory assurance that Canada will go ahead with its part of the n avigation project, in cooperation with tile United States.

3. Predication of the project on a selfliquidating basis.

Let us turn now to the factual situation of the present moment and examine whether these conditions, which the President and the Cabinet have in their wisdom imposed, are being met or are capable of being met.

THE STATUS OF THE POWER PROJECT

First, what about the power project? We all know that the Federal Power Commission after extensive hearings issued a license on July 15, 1953, to the State of New York to develop the power facilities in cooperation with the Province of Ontario. On November 2, 1953, certain interests who opposed the granting of this license petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the Commission's action. On November 6, 1953, the Attorney General promptly requested an early hearing on the case because of its national and international impor-tanc·~. ·

The court, on November 19, 1953, agreed with the Attorney General's position, and on December -23, 1953, the

case was argued before the court of appeals. An early decision affirming the Power Commission is expected.

If the opponents seek to carry the matter to the Supreme Court, it is likely that it will reach the highest Court this spring, with final disposition shortly thereafter.

In brief, the power project, from the legal standpoint, is well on its way. In the meantime, on November 4, 1953, the Power Authority of the State of New York accepted a 50-year license from the Power Commission. On the same day, November 4, 1953, the White House, by Executive Order No. 10500, designated the Power Authority of the State of New York as the designee of the Government of the United States to construct our share of the power facilities, and appointed the Secretary of the Army and the Chairman of the Federal Power Commission to comprise the United States section of the St. Lawrence River Board of Engineers.

Plans and specifications for the works and programs of construction are being prepared in cooperation with the Canadian Government, so that construction may start when the matter is clear of the courts.

Actual construction of the power project is now scheduled to begin in June of this year-5 months from now.

On November 7, 1953, the New York Power Authority designated the engineering firms of Sanderson & Porter and Charles T. Main, Inc., to direct construction of the United States half of the power project. Therefore, we, have every · indication that the power project is being pushed to the utmost. There is satisfactory assurance that the power project is going ahead. The first condition imposed by the Cabinet is being fully met.

CANADA'S INTENTION TO COOPERATE

Second, what about Canada's intentions respecting the navigational aspects of the sea way?

There is no reason whatsover to doubt Canada's intentions. For many years, Canada has desired a seaway from the Great Lakes to the ocean. The only thing that has held her up has been the economic necessity that the power development of the International Rapids section precede or be a part of the seaway development. I am convinced that that this is the only reason why Canada has not built the seaway long before this.

But the Canadian Government has been making steady progress in its efforts to bring about both the navigation and power developments. Let us review the record briefly.

In December 1951 the Canadian Parliament passed an act setting up the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority to build the navigation project. At the same time, it passed an act authorizing the Province

·of Ontario to cooperate with an Ameri-can agency to build the power project.

Furthermore, Canada, has repeatedly ·asked for uur cooperation, and Congress thus far has turned a deaf ear. Now

-that the power development by the St ate of New York and the Province of Ontario is well on its way, without the need

340 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE January 18. of action by Congress, Canada will not only cooperate with the United States in the navigational aspects, but she is willing to build the seaway alone if nee· essary.

As the Canadian Minister of Trans· portation, C. D. Howe, said in New York on April 7, 1953:

Canada can and will proceed to remove the bottleneck (International Rapids section) in her 27-foot navigation channel from Lake Erie to the ocean as soon as competent authorities are authorized to build the power developments.

Canada, therefore, is so convinced of the importance of the seaway to its future economic progress that, once the power development is started, it will not wait any longer. We do not have to worry about Canada not cooperating. Actually, the converse is true. The shoe is on the other foot. This may be the last time that the United States will have a chance to cooperate.

Furthermore, the pending legislation limits any action on the seaway to joint participation. The United States cannot build the sea way alone under this bill.

THE OLD OBJECTIONS ARE NO LONGER VALID

The reality of the power development and the clear intention of Canada to go it alone, if necessary, not only satisfy two of the conditions specified by the White House as prerequisites for United States participation but have had the effect of destroying the basis of the principal opposition to this project.

The railroads, principally the Penn· sylvania, the New York Central, and the Baltimore & Ohio, have long opposed the seaway because of the alleged diversion of traffic which they claim would injure them. Actually most, if not all, of the traffic which would be carried by the seaway would not otherwise be carried by the railroads. Why do I say that? The railroads have never introduced evidence of any studies showing the extent of ·such diversion, despite frequent requests that they do so. The fact of the matter now is that Canada is going to do the job alone, if necessary, and nothing can be done to prevent this real or imaginary diversion of traffic.

Similarly the coal interests have opposed the project for a variety of rea· sons, chief of which is that the hydroelectric power genera ted will displace an annual market for 5 million tons of coal, and the seaway will permit the impor· tation of coal. But the power develop-

. ment will take place regardless of any action by Congress.

Furthermore, that the fears of the coal interests are illusory can best be shown by pointing to the fact that historically the growth of new industries attracted by cheap electric power has always increased the demand for other forms of power, including coal. They need have no worry about foreign coal since for many years we have been a coal-export· ing, not importing, nation. THE CABINET' S CONDITION THAT THE PROJECT

:f!E SELF-LIQUIDATING

This brings up the third and last con· dition specified by the Cabinet for par· ticipation by the United States, that is,

development of the project on a self· liquidating basis.

Expressed differently, this means that the project will pay for itself, and that any investment by the Federal Govern· ment will be completely repaid over a reasonable period of time. In these days of heavy spending for defense purposes, higher taxes, and a mounting debt, it is entirely reasonable and proper that the administration should insist that this project be examined with a view to its economic soundness.

What does S. 2150, the pending bill, propose? This bill authorizes United States participation with Canada in the construction, operation, and control of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

It authorizes the creation of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corpo· ration, with power to issue $105 million in guaranteed bonds and the authority to levy tolls on all traffic using the facility so as to raise money with which to pay expenses of operation, overhead, and to retire the bonds issued to finance the construction.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield?

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield to the Sena tor from Louisiana.

Mr. LONG. Will the Senator explain to the Senate why the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation should be able to reach into the Treasury and borrow $105 million? The Senator is a member of the Appropriations Committee. Would he agree with me that Congress should retain control of the purse strings, ascertain where all this money would go, and what it would be spent for?

Mr. FERGUSON. The bill provides, and I think rightly so, that when the United States goes into an international project such as the proposed seaway, the money for its construction be authorized, as is done in the pending bill, and as is done in many bills in similar cases. The construction of the project will extend over a period of 5 or 6 years. Therefore, the money that is to be raised, and the money that is to be spent on the project, will be advanced on the bonds to be issued. The expenditures will not be made until the Treasury of the United States actually advances the money. Therefore, there would not be a debt until the money was turned over by the Treasury to the projected corporation, which will be a Government corporation.

Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. LONG. The Tennessee Valley Au

thority is a Government corporation which spends Federal funds, and every year the TV A is required to appear before the committee of which the distinguished Senator from Michigan is a member, to make its case and to show the need for the millions of dollars it spends annually. Why should not the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation have to make a similar presentation, and obtain the authorization of Congress for contemplated expenditures?

Mr. FERGUSON. The only difference is that, as I have said, in this matter our Government is dealing with Canada. If Canada is to consti·uct the sea way in

cooperation with the United States, it should have the right to believe and to know that the authority is granted SO · that the United States could not, at the end of the first year, for instance, change the route. The proposed seaway will be constructed in part on American soil. Therefore, if the Congress were to ap· propriate the money for the first year, which would amount to about $6 million, and then the next year should refuse to appropriate any money, what would be the situation as to the canal? The canal would have been started and a course followed different from that which Canada would have used if Can:ada had been proceeding alone. By the way, Canada is putting more money into the construction of this project than the United States is to contribute. Her expenditures would be entirely lost. Therefore, where there is joint participation, as I see it, there is only one course to pursue, either authorize or not authorize the project.

Mr. LONG. Would it not seem more likely that the type of argument made by the Senator from Michigan is the type of argument which should be made in the event the corporation were coming before the Appropriations Committee and asking for money? Can the Senator see any reason why the Congress should appropriate more money than will be needed year by year and why it should not require the same justification as it requires for other projects?

Mr. FERGUSON. All I can say is that when entering into a joint project with Canada, it is on a different basis than if we were building it alone. Therefore, we ought to be willing to say, when we authorize the project, that we will go through with it. If we leave the completion of the project to appropriations in the future, it must be realized that Congress might refuse to appropriate in a particular year and that then the project could not go forward. In that event Canada could not go ahead. Therefore, Canada would have lost the money she had put into the project and the United States would likewise have lost what the United States had put into the project.

Mr. CASE. Will the Senator from Michigan yield at this point?

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. CASE. I might say first that I

shared with the Senator from Louisiana the same feeling with regard to the portion of the bill providing the method of financing; but, in going over the matter, I was advised that the Bureau of the Budget and the Secretary of the Treasury were both represented in the hearings on the bill, and that they were consulted. While the method of financing is different from that we adopted in regard to domestic projects, it is true that the financing has to be approved by the fiscal authorities of the Government, which will understand the needs and will proceed as the Senator has pointed out.

Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator from South Dakota is correct; and I thank him.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 341 :For reasons of fiscal control, the

Budget has recommended that the bonds be purchased by the Treasury, although the funds derived from the sale of the bonds are not in a budgetary sense-an expenditure. They are an investment in an income-producing asset which will provide its own revenues, pay for its operation, maintenance costs, interest, and amortization of the bonds.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield?

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. LONG. Would not the same

argument apply to all the power dams being constructed in the great western Eection of the United States, and that the funds expended therefor constitute an investment which is to be paid back, and not an expenditure in the general sense at all?

Mr. FERGUSON. That is true with respect to bonds on reclamation projects. They are all to be paid back.

Mr. LONG. Do not representatives of those projects have to come before the Congress year by year and obtain ap- . propriations annually in order to carry on their programs?

Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator is correct, but, as · I pointed out, there is a different situation when we are dealing with Canada. Canada says that, if we are jointly to build this canal project, she cannot proceed alone if we do not authorize the whole construction at one time. canada would have to rely upon the Appropriations Committees of the United States Congress every year. I say that when we vote on the pending bill we ought to realize that we are voting that $105 million is to be used. I shall give the figures and show how the money is to be used. We should be acting with our eyes open, and at this time, either authorize the construction or indicate that we will not do so.

Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. LONG. Should not the Congress

know how the money is being spent year by year? Is that not required of other Government corporations annually? Congress has a chance to pass on the amount of money such corporations desire to spend each year, and to ascertain how the projects are coming along.

Mr. FERGUSON. That is true, but we are here concerned with a different kind of project.

The funds to be appropriated will not be nec'essary at one time, but will be spread over the period of construction, a period 'of from 5 to 6 years. The Corps of Engineers has estimated that the funds will be disbursed according to the following schedule, once the project is approved: Year: Amount

1st--------------------------- $5,800,000 2d ----"-------------"---------- 29, 390,000 3d---~----------------------- ·36,976,000 4th __________________________ 15,200,000

5th__________________________ 708,000

The use of the device of a Govern-ment corporation, of course, is. not novel. We have had numerous examples in recent years of suceessful operation by Government corporations. To mention only two. the RFC and the HOLC come

at once to mind. It is important to recognize that the corporate device, which S. 2150 proposes, is only a medium for making, managing, and controlling the Government's investment. The economic soundness does not depend on the matter of the mechanics, but on other and deeper considerations. It depends on, first, the overall cost of the seaway development, on the one hand, and, second, the income which can be reasonably expected from the operation of the seaway.

I shall discuss each of these factors separately in demonstrating the soundness of the proposal in the pending bill.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President. will the Senator yield?

Mr. FERGUSON. If the Senator will allow me to finish, I would appreciate it. I find that I have another appointment which is very important.

Mr. LONG. I should like to ask one further question.

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. LONG. Can the Senator tell me whether or not there is in existence any agreement with Canada that Canada will not charge tolls on the four Canadian locks which would be constructed on the river at points before the International Rapids are reached?

Mr. FERGUSON. No; I know of no agreement about that. But if Canada is going into this particular project, including the four locks which are to be constructed farther up, by necessity the Commission will be requited to regulate the entire toll, because if the Commission did not agree on the toll for the use of the locks contemplated by this bill, the Commission could not operate the other locks successfully, inasmuch as the vessels using the waterway will have to pass through all the locks. ·

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield further tome?

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. GoLDWATER in the chair). Does the Senator from Michigan yield further to' the· Senator from Louisiana?

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. LONG. Can the Senator from

Michigan tell me whether there is any agreement with Canada with regard to the existing 14-foot project, which is a toll-free navigation project? Is that project to be closed, in the event the seaway is opened? Or if the St. Lawrence Seaway is constructed, will the hitherto tOll-free traffic moving on the St. Law-. renee, to the extent of approximately 11. million tons a year, be required to pay tolls in order to move through the newly constructed project?

Mr. FERGUSON. Is my colleague talking about the Weiland Canal? . _

Mr. LONG. No; I refer ·to the project already constructed on the St. Lawrence River. There is already a 14-foot channel there, together with a group of locks, which as of today make possible travel to the extent I have indicated on the st. Lawrence ~iver. -· Mr. FERGUSON. I know. of no agree

ment about that, and I know of no intention tO change the present arrangement.

Mr. LONG. Does not the Senator from Michigan realize that no vessel navigating the 14-foot toll-free waterway would be operated on the deeper waterway, if the use of the latter would require the payment of a total of 50 cents a ton, when the 14-foot toll-free waterway is already adequate for use by it?

Mr. FERGUSON. I cannot say whether Canada will wish to divert traffic from the smaller waterway to the new one. I know it is contemplated to make the Weiland Canal a part of the new navigation project, but I do not know about the other one.

Mr. LONG. If the United States is to pay $100 million for the construction of the new locks and a 27-foot channel on the St. Lawrence River, in the hope of getting back its money, would not it be well for the United States to determine in advance what will happen with the 14-foot channel which parallels the new project, on the same river?

Mr. FERGUSON. I think that would be important. However, I anticipate that in time to come, if a 27-foot channel is constructed, all traffic to or from the Great Lakes will be moved through the 27-foot channel, because of the economy of operation of the larger vessels, as compared with the smaller ones which could use the 14-foot channel. Of course traffic is moving today on the 14-foot waterway, but neither Canada nor the United States believes that to be sutficient.

Mr. LONG. Certainly the operator of a vessel drawing 10 feet of water or lessas in the case of vessels using the waterway which now exists--will hot be willing to pay a toll of 50 cents a ton in order to have the privilege of having his vessel traverse a waterway which would permit the passage of vessels of a draft greater than that necessary for the vessels he operates.

Mr. FERGUSON. I agree that probably what the Senator from Louisiana has said is correct.

THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING THE SEAWAY

First, Mr. President, what does the entire project seek to accomplish, and how much will it ultimately cost? This is a fair question which must be answered before there can be profitable discussion on the income expected.

The project is a navigation development designed to produce a waterway 27 feet deep, from Montreal to Lake Ontario. The United States and Canada will jointly participate in the construction and operation. The United States : participation will consist of the building in the International Rapids section of three locks, 800 feet wide, and 30 feet deep over the sills, a guard gate, and performing the necessary ' excavation ana dredging to construct two new, lateral canals, with a length of 11 miles, to a

· controlling depth of 27 feet. The United States will also remove

rock shoals in the Thousand Islands section, to assure a channel of the same depth. All of this will be constructed in United States territory, in-northern New York State, south of the St. Lawrence River, instead of in the Province of Ontario, on the northern side of the river.

• 342 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE January 18

The total cost of United States participation, as estimated by the United States Corps of Engineers, may be outlined as follows: Construction cost: Amottnt

Thousand Island section ______ $1, 766, 000 International Rapids section__ 86, 308, 000

. Total construction cost___ 88, 074, 000 Interest at 3V2 percent during

construction period___________ 7, 706, 475

Total United States invest· Inent __________________ 95,780,475

The Canadian participation will concern the section from St. Regis, N.Y., to Montreal, where Canada will build 4 locks of the same dimensions and 2 guard gates, and will dig and excavate the entire 68-mile section to a depth of 27 feet.

In addition, Canada will also deepen the Weiland Canal, connecting Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, from its present depth of 25 feet to 27 feet. The total cost of Canadian participation may be broken down as follows: Construction cost: Amount'

Weiland Canal deepening____ $2, 000, 000 St. Francis Reach-St. Law·

renee River_______________ 3, 350,000 Soulanges Reach-St. Law·

renee River_______________ 47, 100,000 Lachine Reach-St. Lawrence River _____________________ 122,500,000

Total construction cost__ 174, 950, 000 Interest at 3V2 percent during

construction period__________ 15, 308, 125

Total Canadian invest-Inent _________________ 190,258,125

To summarize, the total estimated cost of these facilities to both countries, including interest at 3% percent, amounts to $286,038,600. Of this ampunt, the Canadian share will be $190,258,125, or 66 percent of the total investment; the United States share will be $95,780,745, or 34 percent. These figures have not been "taken out of a hat," but are the omcial estimates of the agencies of the two Governments which have the full. est information concerning the matter of costs-the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Transport of Canada. I can think of no more reliable or authoritative sources.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield further to me?

Mr. FERGUSON. I am glad to yield to my colleague from Louisiana.

Mr. LONG. Will the Senator from Michigan tell me why the figure 3% percent is selected? Is that what our Government estimates it will have to pay as interest on a 50-year bond, or something of that sort?

Mr. FERGUSON. I am informed that is what they have in mind, and we are figuring it at that amount, so there will be no question about it.

THE PROJECT WILL BE SELF-LIQUIDATING

These, then, are the probable construction costs, including interest at 3 Y2 percent during the period of construction. Let me turn -now to a detailed consideration of the third condition imposed by the administration, that is, con-

struction of the project on a self .. liquidating basis.

As Mr. Walter Williams, Under Secre .. tary of Commerce, pointed out before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "the self-liquidation aspect of the St. Lawrence project is of special importance because of its tudgetary implications and because of its very substan .. tial potential effect on United States defense, commercial interests, and its relation to transportation policy." I should point out that Mr. Williams has particular knowledge of this condition that the project be self-liquidating because he served as chairman of the subCabinet committee which originally inserted this condition, which the full Cabinet unanimousiy adopted.

The determination of the question whether the project will be self-liquidating depends on three factors: First, the annual operating costs and carrying charges; and second, the traffic available to be carried; and third, the revenues to be raised by tolls upon this traffic.

ANNUAL COSTS

First. The annual operating costs and carrying charges: The term "annual op .. erating costs" includes the cost of yearly maintenance and operation.

These have been estimated by the Army engineers from their experience to total $3.5 million, of which $1.5 million would be the portion charged to the United States. The cost of annual amortization, on a 50-year, straightline basis with interest at 3 percent, will mean annual carrying charges of $3.7 million for the United States, and $7.4 million for Canada. The total annual costs to both countries for operation, maintenance, and carrying ch;uges on bonds bearing interest at 3 percent will be $14.6 million. If the bonds pay interest at 3% percent, the estimated annual charges will be increased to $16.8 million. In either event, these figures indicate the amount which must be raised by tolls imposed on the traffic to be carried by the seaway.

ANNUAL TRAFFIC VOLUME

Second. The estimated traffic to be carried: What is the. annual volume of traffic which can be counted upon to raise these necessary revenues? It must be pointed out, at the start of this discussion, that, since the 50-year period of amortization is employed, the traffic pote:atial should be estimated for 50 years. The existing 14-foot waterway on the Canadian side presently handles 10 million tons a year. The Labrador iron ore movement, which will commence within the next year, is expected to reach 20 million tons in the rela .. tively short-term future.

Therefore, we have at the outset a definite volume of at least 30 million tons a year definitely available as a base for making a prediction concerning the self-liquidation aspects of the project. Let us turn now to the estimated traffic which the seaway can be expected to carry.

Several estimates- -have been made in recent years .by public as well as private groups. I shall confine myself to those

made by the two agencies of Canada and the United States, the Canadian Department of Trade and Commerce and the United States Department of Commerce. 'They may be listed as follows: ' (a) The United States Department of

Commerce, in February 1952, estimated the annual volume of traffic at 64.5 to 83.5 million tons.

(b) The Canadian Department of Trade and Commerce in 1953 arrived at an estimate of 44.5 million tons. This was done on a commodity-by-commodity basis and has so convinced the Canadian Government of the economic soundness of the project that it is willing to under .. take the whole project alone, if necessary.

(c) The United States Department of Commerce in May 1953-and bear in mind that it was now under Republican control-estimated the tonnage at 50 million a year. In arriving at this fig .. ure, it started with 30 millions, and applying a progressive growth factor, con .. Cluded that the traffic would reach 51.75 millions at 15 years; 62 millions at 25 years; and 86.75 millions at 50 years. It then imposed the ceiling figure of 50 million tons a year because of the limitations of the Weiland Canal.

The most recent estimates of those official bodies which are in the best posi .. tion to form a reasoned judgment about this important matter indicate a level of tonnage ranging between 40 and 50 million tons a year. ·

These figures are not speculative or imagined. They are the conservative estimates of public officials who must set the policy and make the decisions concerning whether their countries should make the investment required.

In the case of Canada, a country far smaller than we are in industrial capacity and resources, the estimate of 44.5 million deserves our special atten .. tion, because Canada is willing to do the entire job by itself. The Canadian estimate was based on a detailed and comprehensive study of every commodity which has used the 14-foot channel in the past, and the traffic which a 27-foot waterway could be reasonably expected to attract in the future.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point the breakdown of this estimated tonnage, by commodity and by direction of traffic.


Estimate of potential traffic on the St. Lawrence Waterway

[Thousands of short tons of freight] DOWN BOUND

VVheat-----------------------------Other grain _______________________ _ Flour and mill products ___________ _ Iron and steeL ___________________ _

Soft coal--------------------------Coke------------------------------Petroleum ap.d productli-.-.----------Autos and parts ___________________ _

Fertilizer --------------------------All other _________________________ _

6,000 2,200 2,200 1,586 3,000

200 50

790 75

:l, ooo Total down__________________ 18, 101

1!J54_ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 343 Estimate of potential traffic on the St.

· Lawrence Waterway-continued

(Thousands of short tons of freight] UPBOUND Iron ore ___________________________ 20,000

Paper_____________________________ 850 VVoodpUlP------------------------- 300 Pulpwood__________________________ 865 Lumber___________________________ 375

liard coal-------------------------- 500 Soft coaL_________________________ 500 Petroleum and products____________ 1, 041 All other __________________________ 2,000

Total UP--------------------- 26,431

Grand totaL------------------- 44, 532

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator could answer a question for me.

Mr. FERGUSON. I am glad to yield for a question.

Mr. ELLENDER. I understand that the greater portion of this canal is to be built in Canada. I notice that on page 17 of the report it is indicated that the cost to the Canadian Government will be in the neighborhood of $263,024,000, and the cost to the United States $88,-074,000. However, when it comes to the costs of operation, the operation and maintenance cost of the United States would be 1% milliori, and of Canada $2 million. Why is it that the maintenance and operation costs should be almost the same for the United States as for Canada, when most of the canal is to be built ·in Canada? I believe that I am correct in that assumption.

Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator has the figures before him from the record.

Mr. ELLENDER. They appear on page 17 of the report. I was wondering what the reason was for that difference. .l have been unable to find the answer to the question in the report. . I thought perhaps the distinguished Senator could tell . us why the costs of maintenance and operation should be proportionately greater for the United States, although, as I have indicated, the greater part of the canal would be in Canada.

Mr. FERGUSON. I have been doing a little figuring, and my result shows 46 miles of ·construction work · in the United States, and 68 miles in Canada. The ratio of the amortization and the operating and maintenance costs is a ratio of a million and a half for the United States and two millions for Canada.

Mr. ELLENDER. That is correct. Mr. FERGUSON. It is a 3 to 4 ratio.

· Mr. ELLENDER. But there is a large part of the Canadian canal which has -already been built. I presume it would be necessary to charge some of the maintenance cost to the shipping, would it not? ·

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, in answer to the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], let me say that it iS estimated that United States operation and maintenance costs will be $1,460,000 a year and Canadian costs will be $2 million.

These estimates were independently arrived at, by the Army engineers for the United States and by -the Canadian Government for -Canada, and, therefore.

are not strictly comparable, because of possible · variation in wage rates and a host of other factors.

There will be 3 locks in the United States section and 4 locks in the Canadian section, and this fact implies that operation and maintenance costs would be nearly equal. ·

The largest single item, of course, is the 20 million tons of Labrador ore. This. development, in which several American companies are participating and have made heavy investments, is located 365 rail miles north of the St. Lawrence River. It has proved resources of 418 million tons of high-grade direct shipping iron ore and their discoveries are believed to have only scratched the surface.

Why was this development necessary? It was necessary for at least two reasons. First, our production of steel, which was 63 million tons in 1929, is riow 124 million tons, having almost doubled in less than 25 years. It shows no signs of diminishing. On the contrary, the report of the President's Materials Policy Commission, the so-called Paley report, in June 1952, estimated that by 1975 an ingot steel production will reach 185 million tons. Second, to meet this growing demand for steel, it has been necessary to look elsewhere than the ·Mesabi Range. This is because the supply of high-grade ore-50 percent iron and over-has been so depleted that only 1.6 billion tons remain.

We are presently finding it necessary to import ore from Venezuela and Labrador. The discovery in 1948 of this great new body of Labrador ore has improved the picture, and will make us less dependent on ore from overseas. The seaway will be a most logical and the ·only convenient medium of transporta·tion from Seven Islands, the railhead at the St. Lawrence, to the steel mills on the lower Great Lakes. The Paley Commission report estimates the production of Labrador ore at 40 million .tons, of which half would be destined for the furnaces of the-Great Lakes region.

Mr. President, the Department of the Interior,, after very" careful study of the prospective movement of iron-ore tonnage over the seaway, is confident that within 20 years such tonnage will amount to 20 million or more tons a year. This is merely to satisfy the demands of our peacetime economy. In a wartime emergency such tramc would be substantially higher. _ · When all these · considerations are taken into account, we reach the inescapable conclusion that · the estimate of iron-ore tramc in the Canadian report is well justified. This· single figure represents almost one-half of the total traf:.. fie estimate of 44.5 million tons. Every other item in the Canadian estimate was

·reached after a painstaking ·analysis of each commodity listed above. To summarize, the Canadian Government and our own Government have made official estimates of the potential traffic. These estimates were made independently of one another and involve different methods of approach. - Yet the conclusions reached are substantially the same. They

both indicate a tramc potential ranging from 40 to 50 million tons a year.

THE REVENUES TO BE DERIVED FROM TOLLS

What tolls may this volume of tramc be expected to produce? I have previously pointed out that the annual costs of operation and carrying charges including amortization of the bonds over a 50-year period would be $14.6 million, or $16.8 million, depending on whether the bonds pay 3 percent or 3% percent interest. Let us assume that the higher of two figures, or $16.8 million, must be raised each year. Can this be borne by the 44.5 million tons of tramc estimated in the Canadian report? The answer is ~mphatically "Yes." THE PROJECT IS A SOUND BUSINESS INVESTMENT

- Representatives of both governments have consistently accepted the reasonableness of a level of tolls ranging from 50 cents to $1.25 a ton, with the weighted average approximately 60 cents a ton.· Woodpulp, pulpwood, and general cargo would be charged $1.25, whereas other commodities, including grain, coal, iron ore and petroleum, would pay 50-cents. Applying the weighted average of 60 cents a ton to the Canadian estimate of 44.5 million tons, it is easy to see that $26.7 millions in annual revenues will be raised by tolls. In other words, there is an indicated operating ratio of 1.59 to 1, or $1.59 in potential revenues for every $1 in operating costs and carrying charges.

These figures vividly demonstrate the fact that the seaway is economically justified, and that it will be a sound business investment, and will .pay for itself. The whole project, as the Cabinet has specified, is predicated on a self-liquidating basis. · Let us assume, however, that the annual tramc is less than that estimated in the Canadian report, which itself is the most conservative of the recent estimates, and lower than the figures of our own Department of Commerce. What is the minimum amount of tonnage which must be carried to meet the annual costs of operation and carrying charges ·including amortization? Using the weighted average figure of $.60 a ton as the toll, we find that 28 miUion tons of tramc are sumcient to provide revenues of $16.8 million each year and make the project self-liquidating.

Expressed differently, the Canadian estimate can be off by as much as 37 percent and the project will still pay for itself. -The project is not only selfliquidating but gives every ·promise of being successful by a very wide margin.

Mr. President, my remarks today have attempted to focus attention on the need for vision in contemplating the st. Lawrence Seaway project, the need for a comprehensive viewpoint, emphasizing the economic benefits and the defense aspects of participation by the United States in the construction and operation of the seaway.

There is little doubt as to the eco-nomic benefits which will accrue to the United States through the St. Lawrence seaway, in that it will more readily make


possible the future expansion of the Na· tion industrially and provide for a com· prehensive transportation system to the heart of our Nation. With this new link integrated into our present system of transportation, having a direct line by water to the other countries of the world, all of the people of the Nation will benefit, directly and indirectly.

This is particularly true in the case of the farmer of the Midwest, who will have a direct link with the world markets, thereby putting him in a better competitive position. He in turn, will be in a better position to buy goods and services from other areas of the United States.

It is also true in the case of industries which seek cheaper transportation, thereby cutting their costs of distribution, and in turn providing more jobs for workers through better competitive advantages and greater profits to investors.

Furthermore, in a competitive market such as exists in the world today, the workingman is going to have advantages because price and service are large factors in selling. Because we of the United States produce quality goods on a mass basis, transport them on a mass basis, and likewise distribute them in the same manner, we as a nation are able to produce and sell at costs which enable more people to buy. Because of this, more and more people are able to work, reap earned rewards, and enjoy living.

With the mass movement of readily accessible iron ore and other minerals readily available from the open pits of Labrador at a low cost over an inland route, we will not only provide insurance for our present economy but will also strengthen it.

Moreover, we should not lose sight of the fact that the national security advantages outweigh economic considerations. It was these advantages to the Nation as a whole which first caused the present administration to give its support. It was these advantages to our national security which caused the President to state so strongly in his state of the Union message when he said: ·

Another part of this foundation is, of course, our continental transport system. Some of our vital heavy materials come increasingly from Canada. Indeed, our relations with Canada, happily, always close, involve more and more the unbreakable ties of strategic interdependence. Both Nations now need the St. Lawrence Seaway for security as well as economic reasons. I urge the Congress promptly to approve our participation in its construction.

It seems to me that little can be added to the President's statement and its farreaching implication.

Participation with Canada will assure the United States a voice in those mat-ters having to do with construction and operation standards, toll rates on individual commodities, and other aspects I have mentioned, particularly those points with regard to priorities for emergency shipping.

I strongly urge the Senate to approve this bill for the st. Lawrence Seaway in the interest of the Nation and the people throughout the United States.

The facts speak for themselves. The weight of evidence clearly brings into focus the necessity of the St. Lawrence Seaway, not only as an important defense installation but as a growing need from the standpoint of transportation and trade to further develop a peacetime economy in the national interest.

I believe that upon careful study and consideration of all of these facts Senators will voice their approval of this bill which authorizes the pa.rticipation by the United States in the construction and operation of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I should like to comment briefly upon the proposed construction and operation of the St. Lawrence sea way.

Many people in Missouri are opposed to the St. Lawrence Seaway. Many are for it, including outstanding citizens of my State and members of both political parties. Those who favor the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway express themselves as anxious to promote the volume of trade to and from Missouri.

Mr. President, the St. Lawrence Seaway is now going to be built by Canada and the United States, if the Congress approves; or by Canada alone, if the Congress does not approve. Why should the United States refrain from participating in the development on its own borders of a seaway that is going to be built anyway?

Even more important, Mr. President, is the question of the seaway and our national defense. In this connection, let me quote from an address delivered on the floor of the Senate last January 14 by the able and distinguished junior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY].

Is it in the national interest of the United States that we participate in the construction, operation, and administration of the seaway as authorized by the Wiley bill? That question has been answered in the affirmative by every President, Secretary of Army and Defense, Secretary of Commerce, National Security Council, National Security Resources Board, and other administration omcials for the past 30 years, including President Eisenhower and other representatives of his 5ldministration.

I may add that my position in the matter now is the same as it was when I was a member of the National Security Council and Chairman of the National Security Resources Board.

The Senator from Massachusetts continued:

The President [President Eisenhower] stated in that part of his message on national defense:

"Both nations now need the St. Lawrence seaway for security as well as for economic reasons. I urge the Congress promptly to approve our participation in its ·construction."

For many years it has been my conviction that, in this air-atomic age, adequate national defense is the most important issue facing the United States.

Therefore, I am for American participation in this effort to increase the security of this hemisphere.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. President, in discussing the matter of the St. Lawrence Seaway, I feel it appropri·

ate to review my own previous considerations of this subject when it has come up in past years.

On February 27, 1948, the proposal then before the Senate concerning the St. Lawrence Seaway and power project was recommitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations on my motion by a vote of 57 to 30. My reason for then so moving was that there were a number of questions which I believed required answers before I could in good conscience support or oppose the project. I listed 16 such questions, and, after recommittal, a study committee set up by Senator Vandenberg attempted to secure from the executive branch answers to those questions.

What passed for answers was almost totally unsatisfactory. This I noted on the floor of the Senate in my statement on · June 18, 1952; announcing that I would support the motion by Senator O'Conor to recommit the joint resolution on this subject then pending. At that time I inserted in the RECORD the brief statement I had made before the Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1952. In this statement I had pointed out that after careful review of the testimony placed before our committee I still had two strong reservations against undertaking the project then contemplated. Those reservations were, first, a question of the feasibility of constructing a channel of only 27 -foot depth, and, second, a question as to the necessity of the interrelationship between the power aspect of the project and the seaway proposal. However, I went on to state in the 1952 debate that if a satisfactory scheme of self-financing could be worked out, I would cooperate in trying to have the measure adopted.

Mr. President, some of the questions I asked in 1948 have not yet been satisfactorily answered, and I am still unconvinced that a channel depth of only 27 feet is of the maximum utility. However, the circumstances surrounding the St. Lawrence project, and the project itself, have radically changed since last year.

Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Jersey yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I shall be very happy to yield to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. THYE. Many of us have given considerable thought and study to the question of the 27-foot depth to which reference has been made. The fact that no ship coming downstream to the coast would necessarily have to load to full capacity is an important consideration. It would not have to take on the maximum quantity of oil or fuel. Therefore, the ship could be riding high until it got to the lower harbor and then take on its full capacity of fresh water and fuel and add the necessary freight to bring the ship to its maximum load. Therefore, even though it might be desirable to draw more than 30 feet oceanwise, a ship could come down the channel at a 27-foot draft and be absolutely safe.

So I think the Senator from New Jersey can take some comfort with reference to the question of having a deeper channel than 27 feet.

CONGRESSIONAL-. RECORD- SENATE 345 Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. ·Mr. Pres

·ident, any statement from the distinguished Senator from Minnesota showing a thoughtful interest in the-situation ·is of great comfort to me . . I should be happy indeed if what the Senator sug'gests should be the solution.

I thank the Senator for his contribu-tion.

Mr. THYE. Mr. President, I appreciate very deeply the very kind remarks of the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. President, of the two reservations I expressed to the Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate in 1952, one, that of the separation of the power aspect from the seaway proposal, has been disposed of, but the proposal now before us relates to the seaway alone. The power proj.ect is, of course, proceeding separately, with the Federal Power Commission having granted a license to the Power Authority of the State of New York to construct the United States' share of the power works. The second reservation, that concerning the 27-foot depth, remains troublesome to me, . but the only alternatives, a billion-dollar project or exclusive Canadian controL are even less acceptable.

As I have pointed out, despite my reservations, even last year I was willing to

·support a self-liquidating project. I still have a question as to self-liquidation within any foreseeable period of time, but I am prepared to yield to the opinion of the experts who have appeared before the committee.

However, Mr. President, I do not wish to imply that my present position on Senate bill 2150 is based on my full

·satisfaction as to the reservations I had in 1948 and 1952. A new special emphasis has come into the President'.s message this year. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the .National Security Council have recommended to President Eisenhower that the seaway be supported on the grounds of national defense. Under the mandate of the National Security Council its function ceases when it has formulated a recommendation. The decision is up to the President. President Eisenhower's decision was communicated to us in his state of the Union message. In the portion of that admirable statement

.devoted to national defense the President said:

Both nations (Canada and the United States) now need the St. Lawrence Seaway for security, as well as for economic reasons. I urge the Congress promptly to approve our participation in its construction.

Mr. President, I emphasize two points in connection with this quotation. The first is the background of the man who made it. Not only is Dwight Eisenhower the President of the United States with all of the resources of information and advice available to that office; but also he is the man who led the armies of the

. West .in their smashing triumph against ·Hitler and Mussolini. He is also the man who created almost singlehandedly the military organization of· the North Atlantic Treaty Powers, which organization provides a framework for a viable

·defense of Western Europe. There is no living man today whose views on · our

national security I would respect as much as the expert military views of the President of the United States.

Mr. President, as a layman and without personal expert knowledge on the problems involved in our security, I have come to the conclusion that I must support the President of the United States in this field in which he is so preeminently expert.

It has been argued by the opponents of this bill that even granting the desirability of the seaway for defense, the construction of the seaway by Canada alone-and none can now doubt the Canadian intention so to do-will provide us that safeguard at no cost to the American taxpayer. This is why I emphasize the second point in connection with that portion of President Eisenhower's state of the Union message dealing with the ·seaway. The President stressed "our" participation in the project. The defense advantages of the joint plan over the unilateral Canadian plan have often been stated. However, the three principal advantages bear repeating:

First. The location of certain facilities under the joint plan apparently provides a more efficient and defensible route than the unilateral Canadian plan.

Second. The construction of part of ·the facilities within the United States insures our participation in the detercination of priorities as to which shipping utilizes the facilities in what order. The critical importance of such transportation priorities has been demonstrated in the Korean war as well as in World War II.

Third. The possibility that Canada could assert complete responsibility for defense planning for the seaway is averted. I realize that some of the facilities, such as the _locks, are presumably ex_tremely vulnerable to enemy attack. However, that argument can be applied to any critical spot in the United States and Canada, and of course our defense is predicated upon maximum protection for these critical installations.

Mr. President, this project over the past few years has developed an enormous amount of testimony, both favorable and unfavorable. As I said above, there are certain questions that I am still concerned with, and I sincerely hope that our participation in the project before us may not leave us with unforeseen responsibilities in future years which may again impose unjustifiable fiscal burdens. In my judgment, this project is ultimately inevitable. With the increase in population and a critical need for transportation facilities of all kinds in order to foster trade and to protect us in times of war emergencies, I have come to the conclusion that the overall benefits to our Nation as a whole transcend the alleged immediate interests of the ports on the Atlantic seaboard, or our railroads. It is my own feeling that the opposition from these sources is not justified. I believe that with the world situation our ports will be taxed to capacity, and our railroads in the long run will- benefit; rather than lose, by the additional means of transportation. · ·

However, Mr. Presiden~. my overriding reason for supporting Senate bill 2150 is

recommendation by the President that the Congress adopt this measure in the best interests of .the security of the United States. In this matter I am supporting the leadership of the President. I am giving him my full vote of confidence.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I am hapPY to yield.

Mr. LEHMAN. I wish to congratulate the senior Senator from New Jersey upon the position he is now taking with regard to the St. Lawrence Seaway project.

As a result of my deep interest in and close study of the project for a period of more than a quarter of a century, I am convinced, in the first place, that the development of the seaway jointly by Canada and the United States will redound as greatly to the economic growth and prosperity of the United States as it will to Canada.

I am also very deeply convinced, as I have been for several years, that the development of the seaway is a matter which, as outlined by the President of the United States, is very greatly to the advantage of the defense and security of the United States.

That is why I have supported it for so long, and I am very happy now that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. SMITH], representing our neighbor State, is now supporting the project.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the distinguished Senator from New York. I give the Senator great credit for the many years of study he made when he was Governor of the sovereign State of New York. I assume he went into the question even more fully at that time than he has since, but his complete studies helped confirm my feeling that we are justified in going ahead with the project at this time.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, I am about to propound a unanimous-consent request relative to the pending bill. Before doing so, I wish, under the rules, to suggest the absence of a quorum, so that Senators may be assembled. Therefore, preparatory to propounding the unanimous-consent request-


Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield. Mr. LONG. I am certain that i.f the

Senator from Californi;;t has in mind a request to limit debate, there would be objection to it on this side, although, so far as I know, there is no desire on the part of any Senator unduly to prolong the debate. I desire to speak on the subject this afternoon, and the time taken .for a quorum call at this time would probably only delay the time when the Senate would be in a position to close its business for the day.

I do not believe Senators are prepared to vote on the matter togay. Therefore, I suggest to the distinguished Senator from California that he withhold his suggestion of the absence of a quorum, to see if an understanding can be reached with Senators who are opposed to the bill as well as with those who are in favor of it, in order to agree upon a date

346 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE January 18

for disposition of the measure. I believe that at this moment the Senate is not in a position to do that.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, the majority leader was not proposing that the Senate vote either today or necessarily tomorrow. But the debate has continued for a week, and I thought that perhaps the field could be explored somewhat. No Senator's rights would be jeopardized in the slightest. We might get a general consensus, at least, because some Senators have other engagements they desire to keep. I am prepared to remain as long as necessary in order to dispose of the bill. We have not held night or Saturday sessions, but I thought that perhaps with a purely exploratory investigation we might at least help to clarify the thinking not only on both sides of the aisle, but on both sides of the question, because this is not a partisan question in the ordinary sense of the word. There are Senators on this side of the aisle who are for and against the bill, and there are Senators on the other side who are for and against the bill. I thought the disposition of the bill might be expedited if I could at least propound the form of the proposed unanimous-consent agreement. Some Senators might wish to suggest certain conditions to be attached to the form of unanimous-consent request. I thought it might be helpful to have preliminary exploration of the question, if the distinguished junior Senator from Louisiana did not feel that his rights would be jeopardized in the least.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield. Mr. LONG. It was with the thought

of expediting the debate that I suggested to the distinguished majority leader that, in my judgment, time would not be saved by having a quorum call now, but would only cost the Senate perhaps another 20 minutes or half hour of its time today, by reason of assembling a quorum. I have an amendment at the desk, and I expect to offer a perfecting amendment, which would vitally affect the form of the proposed legislation. So far as I am concerned, I would be willing to have a vote on my amendment tomorrow, after there had been an opportunity afforded to discuss it when there was a rather full attendance of the Senate, and we could discuss the principle upon which the amendment is based.

I should be glad to discuss the matter with other Senators, to see if we could arrive at a solution of the problem.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I certainly wish to oblige the Senator from Louisiana. I have no desire to curtail discussion of his amendment or of the bill itself today. Under the circumstances, I will temporarily withhold the suggestion of the absence of a quorum, and shall discuss the matter with the Senator from Louisiana later. I trust that he will meet with Senators on the other side of the question, because I am hopeful that we might agree upon a date that will be agreeable to Senators who hold views on both sides of the question.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre

sentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its clerks, announced that the House had passed, without amendment, the bill CS. 727) to provide that certain costs and expenses incurred in connection with certain repayment contracts with irrigation districts approved by the acts of Congress of May 6, 1949 <63 Stat. 62 ) , October 27, 1949 C63 Stat. 941), and June 23, 1952 C66 Stat. 151, 153), shall be nonreimbursable.

The m€ssage also announced that the House had disagreed to the amendments of the Senate to the bill CH. R. 6665) to amend certain provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, relating to cotton marketing quotas; agreed to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr. HoPE, Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN, Mr. HILL, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. SIMPSON of Illinois, Mr. BRAMBLETT, Mr. DAGUE, Mr. CooLEY, Mr. POAGE, Mr. GRANT, Mr. GATHINGS, Mr. McMILLAN, and Mr. ABERNETHY were appointed managers on the part of the House at the conference.

AMENDMENTOFCLOTURERULE Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, con

scious of our heavy legislative obligations in the next 6 months I desire in a nonpartisan spirit to suggest to the distinguished majority leader and the distinguished chairman of the policy committee of the majority party a way to expedite the business of the Senate between now and the late hour of some disenchanted evening next summer when we shall adjourn, probably with much vital business left unfinished.

Before making the suggestion, let us very briefly examine our situation as Congress resumes its deliberations, and see what the prospects are for debate and for voting upon vital measures immediately facing us, or which are likely to be placed on the calendar early in the second session of the 83d Congress:

We have the St. Lawrence seaway bill before us.

We have a pending request· for an increase in the debt limit.

We have statehood for Hawaii and, I would hope, Alaska.

We shall have urgent requests for replenishment of funds for various committees.

We shall have urgent requests for action on supplemental appropriations.

As we go around the first curve into the stretch, late in March and April, we shall have urgent demands for action on Presi6lent Eisenhower's list of legislative must items, probably including a farm program; social security; taxes; increase and extension of minimum wage; extension and improvement of unemployment insurance; reciprocal trade; foreign military and economic aid with the questions of conditions relating to the European Defense Community and east-west trade; and further governmental reorganization.

Then, as we come around into the home stretch late in June, July, and, per-

haps, August, there will be increasing pressure for rapid action on the appropriation bills, confirmations, and meas• ures to meet needs which will develop.

The best evidence we have of the difficulties that may confront the Senate is the message of the President of the United States which he delivered in person on the 7th day of January. I do not need to read from it at any great length, but need only to remind the Members of the Senate of the schedule which the President set forth with reference to the Eisenhower program which would come to the Congress.

For instance, a farm program and suggestions for Taft-Hartley revisions were sent in a message on January 11. On January 14 there was a special message on social-security problems. Today there was a special message on health. On January 21 there will be 25 recommendations with reference to taxes, which are to be included in the budget message. On January 25 there is a special message to come on the subject of housing, and on January 28 an economic report which will deal with the subject of minimum wages.

The Senate is certain to spend a great deal of time on foreign aid, and on January 21, when the budget message comes to the Congress, this controversial matter will be placed squarely before the Congress. On January 28, or sometime thereafter, an antideflation program, the details of which will be in the economic report and subsequent special messages, will be placed before the Congress. The question of foreign trade w.ill presumably come in a special message when the Randall committee finishes its study.

In his speech to the Congress, the President asked that the debt ceiling be raised. No one knows the precise moment at which the request will come before the Congress, but it certainly will come, and we have been promised by some of our colleagues that it will meet with strenuous opposition. How much debate and discussion there will be over the raising of the debt ceiling I cannot predict, but it surely will require many days of time and a great deal of study.

Then there are such general questions as the use of military manpower, internal security, conservation, highway financing, and education. These will be moving along in the near future. But, all in all, the legislative program which the President outlined to the Congress on the 7th day of January indicates that the Senate must be able to act if it is ever going to finish the work which the President will send to it during the month of January alone.

Mr. President, all this means, quite simply, that the heavy legislative docket for 1954 is going to be a happy hunting ground for those who are willing to use the filibuster--or, as is more often the case, the open or implied threat of filibuster-in order to exact changes in, or abandonment of, legislation.

Actually, when the second session of the 83d Congress began, the Senate was confronted with a threat of filibuster. The word "threat" is not my word; it is, as I shall show, the word chosen by the chairman of the majority policy com-

CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD- SEN :ATE 347 . mittee. That threat was quite deliberately placed in the RECORD in the closing moments of the first session, shortly before adjournment early in the morning of August 4, when the Senate clocks had been turned back an hour and stood at about 11 :30 p. m., since it had already been agreed the Senate would adjourn as of August 3.

Turning to volume 99, part 8, page 11097 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, under date of August 3, 1953, let us brie:tly review the legislative schedule for the second session of the 83d Congress as it was sketched in by the then acting and now majority leader, the Senator from California [Mr. KNowLAND], and policy committee, the Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERGUSON].

Beginning with the heading in column 1, I read. ORDER OF BUSINESS--BT. LAWRENCE SEAWAY

Bn.L Mr. KNOWLAND obtained the fioor. Mr. FERGUsoN. Mr. President, will the Sen

ator from California yield? Mr. KNoWLAND. I yield to the Senator from

Michigan. Mr. FERGusoN. As I understand, we are

now in tlie closing Ininutes of the session. It is my understanding that the policy committee has authorized the making o! the st. Lawrence Seaway bill the order of business for the second session of the 83d Congress, and I wanted to know how that might be accomplished by the majority leader.

In passing, the senior Senator from Michigan has shown today that he is not only much interested in and in favor of such legislation, but also that such legislation is of intense interest and concern to the people of his State and of the other States adjacent to the Great Lakes, who, if the bill were to be amended to extend the seaway to the head of the lakes, would be then directly con·nected with the arteries of world trade.

Here is the majority leader's response to the inquiry addressed to him by the senior Senator from Michigan:

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan is quite correct. The majority policy committee has authorized the setting o! the St. Lawrence .Seaway bill, lntrod~ced by the distinguished senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Wn.EYl, calling for the issuance of revenue bonds for the construction ·of the seaway, as the unfinished business of the Senate.

However, we are now in the closing minutes o! the session, and I have been given to understand by certain Members of the Senate that in the event such a motion were made, namely, to make the bill the pending business, the absence o! a quorum might be suggested.

It may be noted that the majority leader, while acknowledging the authorization or directive issued by his party's -policy committee, did not put that authorization or directive into effect by moving to make the St. Lawrence Seaway bill the unfinished business of the Senate.

In fact, he recognized .the warning given to him by certain Senators-that, if -he attempted to do ·SO, they would demand a quorum call, which, in the circumstances, would have been downright embarrassing. In effect, they ·were able .to veto for the time being the impiementation of the majority policy

committee's decision to make the St . Lawrence seaway bill the unfinished business of the Senate then so that it could be taken up as we began the second session of the 83d Congress.

With understandable anxiety, the senior Senator from Michigan, the chairman of the Republican policy committee, persisted in trying to get the strongest commitment that it was parliamentarily possible for the majority leader to put into the REcoRD in the dying moments of the first session. Again I quote from page 11097:

Mr. FERGusoN. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield. Mr. FERGUsoN. Would it be possible to give

notice that the bill will be brought up at "the beginning of the session and that a motion will be made then to make it the order of business?

Mr. KNoWLAND. I believe the Senator from Michigan can rest assured that the legislation is still on the priority list for consideration, and will have a very high priority at the beginning of the new session.

At this point, · the senior Senator from Minnesota [Mr. THYEJ entered the ·colloquy and obtained from the majority leader not only a commitment that the St. Lawrence Seaway bill was to have "early action when the second session of the Eighty-third Congress convenes," but also that, first, the Wiley bill is open for amendment on the :floor to provide ''connecting channels at the Great Lakes, so as to provide a seaway clear to the head of the lakes at Duluth and Superior," and, second, action will be taken on "some of the bills of major importance in the early months of the ·session" such as the Hawaii statehood bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the full colloquy between the senior Senator from· Minnesota and the majority leader be printed in the RECORD at this point.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

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

Mr. THYE. I am indeed very happy to have the assurance from the majority leader that the St. Lawrence Seaway bill will be taken up and discussed at the reconvening of the 2d session of the 83d Congress.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I may say; if the Senator will permit me to interrupt him, that in the event-and it is unlikely · at the moment that it will happen-in the event we should have a fall session, in October, the matter might very well be taken up at that time, rather than in January.

Mr. THYE. If the Senator from California will yield further, the Wiley bill proposes to develop only the rapids section of the St. Lawrence seaway. I have offered an amendment to the Wiley bill !or the purpose of developing connecting channels at the Great Lakes, so as to provide a seaway clear to ·the head of the lakes at Duluth and Su-perior. The amendment could be considered in connection with the so-called Wiley bill, -because it is a part of the entire question.

Mr. KNOWLAND. That is correct. The Senator knows that sometimes some of us think it is unfortunate, but at the same time it is true that there is no rule of germaneness. It so happens that even if there were a rule of germaneness, the Senatpr's amendment would be germane to the subject matter of the bill in any event.

Mr. THYE. -I wish to state that I am very happy at the action of the policy committee on this question, because it has given us assurance that the St. Lawrence Seaway will have early action when the 2d session of the 83d Congress convenes.

Mr. KNOWLA.ND. I Will say to the distin• quished Senator from Minnesota that not only will this legislation, by direction of the majority policy committee, have very high priority in the next session, whenever that next session may be lield, but in any event not later than January 6 of next year, when Congress reconvenes, but, of course, there are many other bills, some of which have passed the House and have not yet been reported by committees of the Senate, and some are either on the Senate Calendar, as this bill is, which have been reported from the committee, while others have not been acted on by the House, and will be acted on· very early in the next session.

After all, we have only completed onehalf of the 83d Congress, or just the first .period of it. I look forward to the session next year when we will be able to act on some of the bills of major importance in the early months of the session, instead of piling up too much legislation for action at the end of the session. I hope we will have bills like the Hawaii statehood bill ready to be acted on early in the next session of Congress.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, at this point the chairman of the Republican policy committee again underlined his concern that the St. Lawrence Seaway bill be taken up as soon as the Senate reconvened, whether in special or regular session. · I believe that during his statement the senior Senator from Maryland [Mr. BuTLER] entered the Chamber and heard the following words of the chairman of the Republican policy committee:

Mr. FERGUSON. As one o! the cosponsors of the St. Lawrence Seaway bill, I am sure the Senate will appreciate the fact that we are anxious that it be made the order o! business so that the Senate will" have an opportunity to vote on it. I appreciate the attitude of the majority leader in stating to

,the Senate where it stands and the action of the policy committee with reference to it, namely, that it will receive early consideration in the next session of Congress, whether it be a special session or a regular session.

At this, the senior Senator from Maryland objected even to the giving of a commitment then that the st. Lawrence Seaway bill would have high priority at the beginning of the 2d session of the 83d Congress.

Because the warning of filibuster made against the St. Lawrence Seaway bill can and undoubtedly will be made against other measures, so that the Senate throughout this session will, in effect, be legislating or failing to legislate with the threat of the filibuster, it seems to me worthwhile to bring to the attention of the Members of the Senate and the American people the entire colloquy among the senior Senators from Maryland, California, and Michigan.

Beginning near the top of column 3 of page 11097 and continuing to column 1 ·of page 11098, I will read the entire passage:

Mr. BUTLER o! Maryland. I do not like to be the cause of extending the sine die adjournment of this great body, even for a

348 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE January 18 brief statement. I do not like to run con. trary to the wishes of the policy committee of my party. However, I do not believe it is wise to give any commitment tonight that the St. Lawrence S<!away bill will have h igh priority at the beginning of the 2d session of the 83d Congress.

The legislation in connection with the St. Lawrence Seaway has engendered much cont roversy and debate for more than a quarter of a century. It is no less controversial today, and I have no apprehension that it will be less controversial come January 6 of next year.

In the early days of the next session, to put the Senate in the position of getting into such a controversial measure, when there are many other important measures to consider, such as the debt limitation and a new tax

. bill , it is not fair to the Senate, or to the country. If we proceed with such a controversial piece of legislation early in the session, many important matters will pile up behind us.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, Will the Senator let me interrupt at that point?

Mr. BUTLER of Maryland. I say respectfully that it is unwise to do it, and I shall vigorously oppose any motion that may be made in the opening days of the 2d session of the 83d Congress to bring up the seaway bill.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Of course, the distinguished Senator from Maryland is entirely within his rights. Of course, at the time a motion will have to be made, and the Senator from Maryland will be able to oppose it, as any other Senator will have a right to do. I am merely stating, as acting majority leader, the fact that the policy committee had authorized the acting :floor leader to move to have that measure set as the unfinished business.

But in view of the lateness of the hour and the viewpoint of the Senator from Maryland, which he had expressed to me earlier, I thought that instead of suggesting the absence of a quorum at this late hour, preparatory to making a motion to have that measure made the unfinished business, I would merely state what was the direction of the policy committee.

I may state to the Senator from Maryland that my observation has been that if there is a controversial piece of proposed legislation the time to bring it up is early in the session, not close to the June or July adJournment date.

Mr. BUTLER of Maryland. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield. Mr. BUTLER of Maryland. I have heard it

said within the last few days-in fact, within the last hour-that a filibuster in the Senate never has been broken. I leave that thought for the Sena-tor from California to consider.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I have never agreed with the point of view that a filibuster could not be broken, if necessary.

Mr. BUTLER of Maryland. I did not say a filibuster could not be broken; I said a filibuster in the Senate never has been broken.

Mr. FERGusoN. Mr. President, will the Sen· ator from California yield to me?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield. Mr. FERGusoN. I take it that that is either

a threat or a promise, and we shall have to meet it when that situation arises on the ftoor of the Senate.

Mr. BUTLER of Maryland. Mr. President, it is not meant to be as bald as that. I merely mean that if that measure is brought up, there are many Senators who, because of their obligation to their States and their country, will have to :fight the measure vigorously; and I am one of those Senators.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I can quite understand that on that bill, as well as on others I can think of, there will be quite an educational campaign. [Laughter.}

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President-The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr.

HENDRICKSON in the chair) . Does the Senator from New Mexico yield to the Senator from California?

Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. I have been at·

tempting to follow the address of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico very closely, and I am not quite sure that I get the precise point at which .he is aiming. As I understand, he is ha ving inserted in the RECORD the report of the discussion which took place on the :fioor of the Senate on the last night of the 1st session of the 83d Congress, which occurred, as I recall, fairly late at night, when the Senate was putting the finishing touches on its business, and waiting for a few conference reports to come in, with no other major legislation set for voting on at that time.

Of course, it is quite correct that at any time during the proceedings, a suggestion of the absence of a quorum could have been made, and would have required the sending for Senators to return to the Chamber.

If the Senator from New Mexico is implying that the majority leader has not followed through on the general policy outlined by the majority policy committee-namely, that the St. Lawrence seaway bill should receive early consideration-! do not think the facts bear that out, because except for several minor bills and the urgent proposed legislation dealing with cotton, with which the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, together with a great many other Senators, had great concern, the St. Lawrence seaway bill was set as the unfinished business to be before the Senate.

I think we have made · considerable progress with the St. Lawrence seaway bill. From the discussions I have had with the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LoNG] and other Senators on the other side of the aisle, and also with Senators on this side of the aisle, I am hopeful that within the next day or two we may obtain a unanimous-consent agreement in regard to reaching a vote on that measure.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I wish to assure the distinguished majority leader that nothing is further from my thought than to criticize him for any delay which might have occurred in bringing up the St. Lawrence sea way bill. I think he brought it up very promptly. I have not the slightest criticism of that act.

I intend now to comment on the fact that under the existing rules of the Senate, regardless of whether the majority leader wished to have the bill brought up or not, it would have been possible to delay for a long time the vote on that important measure. I do not think that delay will occur now. I think we shall. reach a vote on the St. Lawrence seaway bill, and I am glad we shall; and I shall support the bill.

However, I am trying to point out that at the end of a session, it is very difficult 1or proposed legislation to be considered.

Mr. KNOWLAND. If the Senator from New Mexico will further yield to me, I wish to say that if his remarks are

on the general subject of the expedition of legislation--of which I thoroughly approve-again I desire to point out to him that in the little more than 8 years I have been a Member of the Senate, I can recall that in many instances dur· ing the month of January, and perhaps during February, the Senate has met on alternate days, and then only for a short time.

On the other hand, in order to prevent the kind of legislative logjam to which the Senator from New Mexico has made reference, I have been trying to schedule-and we shall continue to do so-important legislative proposals in the early days of the session, so we shall not be caught at the end of the session with a great many major measures, · at which time a threat of obstructionist tactics could cause undue delay or could be the defeat of such proposed legislation.

I say again that we are trying to meet that situation by holding daily sessions; and I may say I plan to have the Senate meet daily through January and February, including the week during which the Republicans, in connection with Lincoln's birthday anniversary, will, as has been customary, be making some talks, and even during the period when the Democrats will be making talks in connection with their Jackson Day meetings.

So we are going to keep the Senate in session; and, if necessary, we shall have Saturday sessions and evening sessions if there is any indication of an attempt to prevent the Senate from finally reaching a vote, after adequate discussion has been had.

I simply wish to clarify the atmosphere a little, in order to see at whom or at what the Senator from New Mexico is shooting.

Mr. ANDERSON. . Mr. President, I am happy to have the distinguished rna.:. jority leader make that statement. It is, of course, the sort of statement I would expect from him.

I am not in the slightest trying to criticize the way in which he is apparently trying to keep the Senate in session. I happen to approve very much of the way he is doing so. ·

I do not like, and never have liked, the long period of taking things easy in which we sometimes indulge during January, February, and March, following which we reach a point, as we did . some years ago, when, if we wish to discuss a certain bill-as was the case regarding the Alaska statehood bill-we find that only a few speeches need be made by several Senators who oppose the bill, to require those who favor the bill to surrender without firing a shot, and to say, "We shall not try to have the Senate consider the bill."

Mr. President, I am not unmindful that the majority leader should know my purpose in addressing the Senate at this time. I am ·referring to the hope that we may reach a vote on Senate Resolution 20, which I believe will place in the hands of the majority leader a rule by which he will be able to insure that there will be discussion and consideration of additional important measures, so that they will not be blocked.

19~4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SEN~ TE 349 Mr. President, in the closing days of

the 1st session of the 83d Congress it had been my intention to refer to Sena_te rule XXII. Had I done so, I would have suggested that at the beginning of the 2d session of the 83d Congress, beginning as soon as practicable thereafter, but in no event later than February 1, 1954, the Senate take from the calendar, for debate and vote, the so-called Jenner resolution, Senate Resolution 20, which the Committee on Rules and Administration reported favorably on April 22. It ha~ been on the calendar since May 12. It was passed over in calendar calls on May 21, June 8, and July 16.

The Jenner resolution would change Senate rule XXII, so as to provide for the breaking of most filibusters by a vote of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting, instead of two-thirds of the entire Senate membership, as required at present.

I withheld the discussion and the suggestion then out of consideration for the new and heavy responsibilities devolving upon the then acting majority leader because of the untimely illness and death of the late majority leader, Mr. Taft. .

I bring the matter up at this time because the beginning of a new session is the best time to examine and make changes in the Senate rules, because we live today under the continual possibility of filibuster, and because with nearly 2 years' work to be done in the next 6 · or 7 months, those of us who favor majority rul_e within the Senate, as elsewhere, believe the Nation's welfare and security require a greater measure of protection against the use of the deadly weapon of the filibuster either to dictate or to veto legislation.

I am not suggesting that the filibuster is the regular order of the day on this tloor. It does not have to be. However, infrequently the hammer on the filibuster gun is drawn back and cocked, and this veto power of the minority over the will of the majority is, as all of us well know a factor never overlooked in legislative drafting, appropriations, strategy; and tactics in the Senate of the United States. It affects and conditions every piece of legislation from the time it is a twinkle in the eye of its parent through every stage of gestation and birth.

Considering the fact that, under rule XXII, the majority at all times functions by the consent of a minority, it is surprising that we accomplish as much as we do, dangerously little and tardy though it is when measured against the needs of the Nation and the free world in the age of nuclear detonations, atomic blasts, and hydrogen bombs.

Minority rule is a negation of democracy that we cannot afford and should not continue. It is too costly, too dangerous. · The Senate wiU recall that on the opening day of the 1st session of the 83d Congress, January 3, 1953, I made a motion, on behalf of myself and 18 other Senators, "that this body take up for immediate consideration the adoption of rules of the Senate of the 83d Congress."

We urged that the proper time for a thorough consideration of the rules was then, at the opening of the new Con·

gress. Not only did it seem to us that this was · the orderly method of procedure, but, in addition, there was little else for the Senate to consider at that time. The REcORD bears that out.

The leadership on the other side of the aisle, however, did not share our view. The then majority leader, the late distinguished senior Senator from Ohio, took the position that the question of rules should come up at a later time. To that end he moved to table our motion, and the Senate followed his leadership.

During the course of the debate, the majority leadership assured the Senate that the question of the rules would be considered in due course. This assurance was the sense of statements made by the then majority leader, by the junior Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], and by the junior Senator from Indiana [Mr. JENNER], in a statement and succeeding colloquy with the majority leader, appearing at pages 112 through 116 of the RECORD, which I propose to cite briefly in sequence of delivery.

At page 112, the majority leader said that while he did "not admit that rule XXII is a great abuse, I should like to see it changed and liberalized somewhat."

A few moments later, at page 113, he expressed the opinion that filibusters can be broken, saying:

I have always felt that if a majority were sufilciently determined· and the minority were not too large, a filibuster could be broken. However, I do not maintain that there is any great ease in changing the rules.

The last sentence is a masterpiece of understatement.

In view of his later experience h:~. mustering only 56 votes against 33 on his motion to table my substitute for the bill to give to the States the offshore oil, the following opinion, expressed by the majority leader January 6, 19o3, now seems optimistic:

I! a measure is of sufficient importance and its proponents are sufficiently in earnest, particularly if it is an administration measure, it is possible to get 64 votes in favor of breaking a filibuster. • • • It is my honest opinion that action can be taken on any bill if an organized effort is made to insist upon a vote on it.

Equally optimistic was this very sweeping assertion:

So far as civil rights legislation is concerned, or so far as other legislation is concerned, such legislation can be passed under the present rules. Tbe question has never been tested.

In the course of his remarks, the majority leader went on record in favor of changing rule 22 to require for cloture a vote of two-thirds of those present rather than two-thirds of the total membership of the Senate. In this sequence, it will be noted, it was asserted that, first, a filibuster could be broken, and-possibly I should say "or"-second. 64 votes could be mustered to end a filibuster by invoking cloture.

Later during the discussion en the Holland bill to give the offshore oil to the States, which debate was inaccurately described by some as a filibuster and which was ended by a unanimous con·

sent agreement proposed by me and agreed to by the majority leader on April 28, 1953, as shown on pages 4102-4104, the majority leaders were unable either to obtain 64 votes to limit debate or to wear out the opposition. They admitted, according to a report on page 21 of The New York Times of April 21, that they lacked 3 or 4 votes of the 64 needed. Actually, I think they lacked more than that.

At page 115, the junior Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN]. to whom the majority leader had yielded the :floor. argued that a change in rule 22 from two-thirds of the entire Senate membership to two-thirds of those present would mean a reduction from 64 to an average of 56 votes required to limit debate, judging by the arithmetic of past experience. He pointed out that such a change was recommended in the 1952 Jenner report from the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, adding that he was confident that one of the first acts of the Senator from Indiana after becoming chairman of the Rules Committee would be "to try to bring such modification to the floor of the Senate." .

Thereupon the junior Senator from Indiana [Mr. JENNER], having obtained the floor from the majority leader, responded to the statement of the junior Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] by stating:

I propose to offer the resolution to which I referred at the first opportunity during the present session of the Congress.

I recognized the undertaking then made by the junior Senator from Indiana, stating, at page 116:

I appreciate very much the fact that the Senator from Indiana took the .floor and stated clearly that he intends to push the matter, because it means that a sincere effort will be made to modify the rule.

Mr. President, the junior Senator from Indiana [Mr. JENNER] took the first step toward making good on his promise when, during the morning hour the following day, he submitted Senate Resolution 20, as shown at page 164 of the RECORD for that date. I commend him on his promptness.

Now, Mr. President, let us see what has happened since, and where we are now, as we begin tne second session of the 83d Congress.

On April 22, 1953, more than 8 months ago, the Rules Committee ordered Senate Resolution 20 favorably reported for posting on the calendar.

However, this was not actually done at that time. To have done so then would have been to make it possible for those of us favoring the establishment of majority rule who were then engaged in thorough debate on the pending offshore oil bill to have made the suggestion that the pending business be laid aside in order to take up the Jenner resolution.

According to the arithmetic of the vote tabling my substitute for the Holland bill, amendment of rule XXll to permit a majority to limit debate would have made it possible for supporters of the bill to have limited debate on the offshore oil bill. Actually, such a proposal to take


up a change in rule XXII was made by the junior Senator from New York [Mr. LEHMAN] on April 20, as shown at page 3373:

At this very moment I would be willing to support a motion to set aside this debate and to proceed immediateiy to take up a change in the rules which would permit the application of cloture, after fair and reasonable deJ:>ate, by majority vote.

It was not until May 12, after the Senate had passed the offshore oil bill on May 5, that Senate Resolution 20 was actually reported to the Senate and placed upon our calendar . .

On May 21, during a call of the calendar, consideration was objected to.

Again on June 8, during a call of the calendar, its consideration was objected to_

And again on July 16, during a call of the calendar, its consideration was objected to.

So, Mr. President, the hothouse ftowers that promised to bloom here in the Senate · Chamber last January and which seemed about to open in April and May, actually drooped, faded, and died in the humid air of June, July, and August.

The opportunity to consider changes in rule XXII that exactly 1 year ago was promised by clear implication in the colloquy among the majority leader, the junior Senator from Illinois, and the junior Senator from Indiana, as shown at page 116·, has been postponed and denied. We ended the first session without having had such an opportunity.

Likewise, the easy optimism with which new and old Senators were told that extended debate could be limited either under rule XXII or, if that failed, by wearing out the debaters, was defta ted by experience in the first session of this Congress.

Those who relied upon assurances given in January 1953 that (a) rule XXII would be taken up for amendment and (b) votes could be had on vital measures returned to their States emptyhanded.

Mr. President, Senate Resolution 20 is not the answer to the cloture problem for which many Senators, including myself, have been searching. We do, however, feel that it should be called up on the floor of the Senate for full consideration. At that time-after a probable filibuster launched against a motion to take up even such a mild and ineffectual change has been beaten, as the majority leadership assured us last January it can be beaten-after Senate Resolution 20 has been made the pending business of the Senate, proposals more in line with the thinking of some Senators can be made as floor amendments.

The majority of this distinguished body can then decide whether there should be cloture by majority vote, by a so-called constitutional majority of the entire membership, or by a two-thirds vote, as proposed in Senate Resolution 20. In passing, may I protest the use nf the· wo:rd "constitutional" as applying to -a -majority of the ·entire membership; it ser.!ms to me plain that, with named exceptions, and with provision for invoking quorum calls, the Constitution clear-

ly intends that a majority of those present and voting shall be able to perform the duties assigned us by the Constitution. The exceptions require a twothirds majority, not of the entire membership, but of those voting. A constitutional majority of the Senate is a majority of those present and voting.

In addition to making decisions as to the size of the vote necessary to limit debate, the majority of the Senate can at that time also decide whether or not to retain the provision in section 3 of rule XXII, left untouched by Senate Resolution 20, that cloture shall never be applicable to a motion to take up a change in rule XXII or in any other Senate rule. It is my belief that when we once get past that terrible obstacle, erected in a moment of arrogant legislative presumption and folly as an eternal bar to change, the Senate will do away with section 3 which amounts to a requirement of unanimous consent in order to take up any change in any Senate rule.

The immediate point is not whether Senate Resolution 20 is an adequate answer to our problem. The question now is why this matter has not been brought up on the floor of the Senate for consideration, debate, and vote, as was suggested by the junior Senator from New York [Mr. LEHMAN] during the debate on the offshore oil bill, referred to earlier in my remarks.

Mr. President, last August, because of the accumulated fatigue and tension under which the Members of this body were laboring, less because of action which has its satisfactions than of talk which has its frustrations, I withheld a suggestion that the majority leadership call up Senate Resolution 20. Senators were tired. We were looking toward the pastures and perhaps the broken fences in our home States:

My concern today is for the developm~nt of a procedure and an understanding so that this matter can be taken up properly, fairly, thoroughly and decisively at the very earliest appropriate time, now or not later than February 1, 1954.

Some of us have done considerable research on past revisions of the rules with a view to determining whether there is some method of obtaining Senate consideration of this matter which has been overlooked up to this time.

We went back and studied the action of the Senate the four times in its history when it has made general revisions of its rules. These revisions occurred in 1806, 1820, 1868, and 1884, and we hoped, through a study of these precedents, to find a new approach to this vital problem of revising the rules of the Senate. - In each of these four cases, a motion

was made to refer the matter of revision of the rules to a committee, and the committee brought in a proposed re:vision of the rules which, after thorough consideration and amendment, was adopted by the Senate. · In the first 3 eases special committees were a-ppointed for this purpose; in the fourth and most recent case, in 1884, the Standing Committee on Rules, which had been created

in 1874, was designated to bring in the revision. -

I have given consideration to· proposing a motion that a committee be appointed at this time to bring in a revision of the rules not later than February 1, 1954, as a method of getting this question before the Senate. I have consulted others about this proposal and have reluctantly concluded that such a proposal would not further the cause of amending rule XXII.

Such a resolution for the appointment of a committee would be referred to the Rules Committee and I feel certain the members of the Rules Committee would take the position that they have reported to the Senate a proposed change in the rules and that it is up to the Senate leadership to bring that resolution upon the floor for consideration. I think that position would be sustained and I therefore withhold the motion that I had under consideration.

But, Mr. President, I cannot, therefore, sit back and see nothing done. The threat of the filibuster was ever present in the past session of the Congress.

No progress whatever was made on ci vii-rights legislation.

No bill for the admission of Hawaii and Alaska was brought to the floor of the Senate for debate and consideration. On December 22, the press services carried a story quoting the able senior Senator froni Mississippi [Mr. EAsTLAND] as hinting at a southern filibuster against Hawaii statehood legislation. I quote now from the Associated Press dispatch:

Declaring his opposition to the proposal, EASTLAND said: "It may be necessary to talk for days and this the South must do."

That is plain language. Today is the day to ask the administration leaders what-they propose to do about Hawaiian statehood. Will they move to take up Senate Resolution 20 and make passage of statehood bills possible? Or will they beat their breasts in agony if statehood for Hawaii meets an organized filibuster? It will be too late then-as it was during the 8lst Congress.

Mr. President, make no mistake about it: Any statehood bill will face rough going in a filibuster. True friends of statehood for Hawaii and Alaska must show their colors by a vote on Senate Resolution 20. If they do not, then a vote to apply cloture against a filibuster on Hawaiian statehood will be meaninglessas will be many other pious votes.

Even the practically noncontroversial bill for home rule for the District of Columbia has not seen the light of this historic floor.

How long will we tolerate the threats of a few preventing such legislation from being considered by the many?

How long shall the Senate continue to operate under the continually overhanging threat of veto by a filibustering minority? ·

When shall we act to establish majority rule? - How~ long shall · we continue -to deny the justice that can be given to all -the poople only when we substitute majority rule for minority rule in the Senate of the United States?

1951, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. SENATE 351 Mr. President, in all sincerity, let me

make this proposal and appeal to the majority leader and to the chairman of the Republican policy committee:

Take Senate Resolution 20 from the calendar, where it has been gathering dust since May 12, 1953, and let us debate, amend, and vote up it at this time or as soon as practicable hereafter, but in no event later than February 1, 1954.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from New Mexico yield? .

Mr. ANDERSON. I am happy to yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I have been very much interested in listening to the speech of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. I do not entirely disagree with his earlier statement, that if there is to be a change in the rules it should take place at the start of a Congress, for the reason that at that time all legislation brought up in a previous session is dead, and there is nothing before the Senate and nothing in the process of being enacted by it.

I desire to say, however, that I disagree with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico that it would be either wise or appropriate to make the resolution which he has in mind the unfinished business before the Senate, because it seems to me the distinguished Senator from New Mexico is inviting the majority leader, if I may be pardoned for saying so, to have two filibusters prior to a vote on the Hawaii statehood bill, instead of one filibuster. · The Senator from C::.lifornia is a longtime supporter of Hawaii statehood. He believes that if the Senate can come to a vote on the proposal, sufficient votes ~an be mustered to pass it. However, if we were to engage in a too prolonged discussion we would, in my judgment, jeopardize the passage of the Hawaii statehood bill.

We are making progress. To date I have seen no indication of a filibuster on the St. Lawrence Seaway bill. The discussion has been to the point. The Senators who have talked on it have very sincerely presented their views.

The majority leader has not been in favor of either foreclosing debate or holding the Senate in tiring and very lengthy sessions. I do not know whether the distinguished Senator from New Mexico was on the :floor a few moments ago when I announced that I was prepared to propound a unanimous consent request to limit debate on the seaway bill. At ·the request of the distinguished junior Senator from Louisiana (Mr. LoNG] i temporarily withheld making that request.

We have a program in the Senate, and I have been endeavoring to advise the Senate of the program as far in advance as possible. It shall be my purpose to keep the minority as well as the ma.jority constantly advised, as early as possible, of the legislative program.

The Hawaii statehood bill .has not yet been reported from the Committee on Interior and Insular .A1Iairs. When it is reported it will be taken up in the policy committee, together with other bills which may be before the Senate.

Then we shall schedule the consideration of proposed legislation and give advunce notice to the minority leader and the the members of the minority.

I must respectfully decline the invitation of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico to bring about a double filibuster prior to the consideration of the Hawaiian statehood bill.

Mr. BUTLER of Maryland. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ANDERSON. Let me first say to the distinguished majority leader that sometimes a double filibuster can be a small price to pay for being able to legislate in March, April, May, or June, or even July.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. ANDERSON. I should like to add that I have sat in the Senate and have seen Senators try to bring up the Alas-kan statehood bill, when every Senator knew that it was to be followed immediately by consideration of the Hawaiian statehood bill, and we had no chance of getting action on it by the Senate. All that was said in favor of Hawaiian statehood was entirely overbalanced by the fact that we had adopted a so-called cloture rule which made it impossible to get the Hawaiian statehood bill up for a vote. If a decision has been reached to tilbuster the Hawaiian statehood bill or the Alaskan statehood bill, I believe it will be very difficult to handle the situation unless a modification in the present cloture rule is made. . I may say to the very able and fine majority leader that he does not have a more sincere friend on this side of the aisle-:-and, I may add, on the other side of the aisle ~s well-than the junior Senator from New Mexico when he suggests that t_he majority leader's burden will be very much easier to bear in May, June, July, and August if he has some control over a filibuster, which will be made possible by amending the present cloture rule of the Senate.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield further?

Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. If the distin

guished Senator from New Mexico will permit me to say so, some years ago a great President of the United States-Grover Cleveland-spoke of a condition, not a theory, confronting us. The Senator is familiar with the situation in the Senate so far as amending tne rules is concerned. · He is. familiar with the method of amendment, and he knows what the Senate must expect if it under·takes to make a major change in its i'ules.

Men may honestly di:ffer on the :floor of the Senate, but at least I have always tried not to kid myself. I have learned something in the 8 years I have been in the Senate. I believe we will expedite the great bulk of the program recommended by the President of the United States if- we schedule legislation and keep the Senate in session daily. If it becomes apparent that obstructionist tactics are being used in an attempt to ·tie up the Senate so it cannot function as a legislative body, I will be prepared

to ask for evening sessions and, if necessary, morning sessions of the Senate. In the meantime I believe we can expedite legislation in great detail without resorting to such procedure.

When the session has been completed the Senate will have a much better batting average than if I accepted the cordial invitation of the Senator from New Mexico that I immediately precipitate a major debate on the question of a change in the rules of the Senate. I must say, with all due respect, that I decline that invitation at this time.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I assume that the resolution will not see the light of day.

Mr. KNOWLAND. No; I do not think the Senator from New Mexico should assume that. But I think, under the general operations of the Senate, the judgment of those responsible for scheduling the legislative program should carry some weight with this body as to how we may best expedite the legislative proi;ram with which we are faced. I do not say that the policy committee may not consider the matter and, at some point, feel justified in scheduling the consideration of the resolution to which the Senator refers, but I wish to say, on my responsibility as majority leader, that I must decline his invitation to schedule the resolution for action prior to the first of February. - Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I am sure that if the Senator will read what the former majority leader promised, he will find that it is more than an invitation . .

Mr. BUTLER of Maryland. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Mex.fco yield? · Mr. ANDERSON. I yield to the dis• tinguished Senator from Maryland.

Mr. BUTLER of Maryland. Mr. President, let me preface my remarks by saying that I know the distinguished Senator from New Mexico did not choose to read the colloquy between the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Michigan in order to embarrass the Senator from Maryland. . Mr. ANDERSON. I want to say very quickly that I did not use it for that purpose at all.

Mr. BUTLER of Maryland. I appreciate that.

Mr. ANDERSON. I could have picked out other examples, but that was the last CONGRESSIONAL RECORD I had, and I took what was at hand~ · ' . Mr. BUTLER of Maryland. · Proceeding with my remarks, I think the Senator from .New Mexico has made an ·unfortunate selection of a base upon which to found his remarks, because if the Senator will read further down the column he will see in the colloquy between the Senator from Michigan and myself -and this is the last word on the subject-that the Senator from Michi·gan [Mr. FERGUSON] said to me, "Do you mean that you are going to put on a filibuster here?''

To that question I replied: · Mr. President, it is not meant to be as

bald as that. I merely mean that if that measure is brought up there are many Senators who, because of their obligations to

352 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD_-- SENATE January 18

their States and to the country, wlll have to fight the measure vigorously, and I am one of those Senators.

Mr. President, ours is a constitutional system. Senators come to this body as ambassadors from their States; they are supposed to take a national view of questions. If the Senator from New Mexico really believes in his heart that legislation pending before the Senate is detrimental to the best interests of the country, he would be derelict indeed in his duty if he did not stand on the ftoor and make his objections known.

Mr. President, I have made but one speech in connection with the St. Law.:. renee seaway. It is true that it was quite lengthy, but it was the only way that I could get into the RECORD the thoughts which I had on the subject. I had no intention of :fi1ibustering on the St. Lawrence Seaway bill, and I do not think any other Senator has such an intention.

To continue the remarks I was making with respect to the duties and obligations of this body and its Members, may I read into the RECORD from pages 10 and 11 of Constitutional Government in the United States, by the late President Woodrow Wilson. I think it would be well for all Senators to give thought to this language. The former President said this:

We speak now always of legislatures, of lawmaking assemblies, are very impatient of prolonged debates, and sneer at parliamentary bodies which cannot get their business done. We join with laughing zest in Mr. Carlyle's bitter gibe at "talking shops," at parliaments which spend their days in endless discussion rather than in diligent prosecution of what they came together to do. And yet to hold such an attitude toward representative assemblies is utterly to forget their history and their first and capital purpose. They were meant to be talking shops. The name "parliament" is no accidental indication of their function. They were meant to be grand parleys with those who were conducting the country's business; parleys concerning laws, concerning administrative acts, concerning policies and plans at home and abroad, in order that nothing which contravened the common understanding should be let pass without comment or stricture, in order that measures should be insisted on which the Nation needed, and measures re.:. sisted which the Nation did not need or might take harm from. Their purpose was watchful criticism, talk that should bring to light the whole intention of the Government and apprise those who conducted it of the real feeling and desire of the Nation; and how well they performed that function many an uneasy monarch has testified, alike by word and act.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I will say to the Senator from Maryland that I listened to a great deal of what he had to say in connection with the St. Lawrence Seaway, and it was as far from being a :filibuster as it could possibly have been. I am interested in this matter only because I feel that months from now, in June, or July, or even in August, we shall :find difficulty in legislating becau::::e it will be impossible for some Sena tors to restrain their natural impulses as well as the Senator from Maryland has done.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield?

Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I

think we are indebted to the Senator

from Maryland for· quoting from -a. great Democratic President, a great philosopher in politics, who had a deep interest in the development of the St. Lawrence Seaway. I want to thank the Senator for his judicious selection in reading to us that bit of political scripture. The lesson should be taken to heart by all, and I desire to assure the Senator that the spirit of Woodrow Wilson will permeate the votes of those of us who stand for the great St. Lawrence Seaway.

Mr. BUTLER of Maryland. I do not know the views of ·woodrow Wilson with reference to the St. Lawrence Seaway, but he was a man who understood government. Would there were more Senators who would read his book and put into practice some of the things he has said and written. I should like to have the people of America read that book ·and thereby gain a greater knowledge of the fundamentals of the American system of government.

Mr. ANDERSON. I am anxious to yield the ftoor--

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. HUMPHREY. I desire to say, in

the spirit of fellowship, would that the .Republican Party 35 years ago had listened to Woodrow Wilson, and would that they would now listen to his inspirational voice and read the writings which came from his brilliant mind. We quote him only when we want to quote him on our side. He was really a great man.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield? ·

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would remind the Senator from New Mexico that he can yield only for a question.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I yield the ftoor.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I wholeheartedly. support the proposal of the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON] , namely, that one of the early orders of business should be the consid-eration of an effective _rule for majority rule in the United States Senate. Since the distinguished majority leader has not wholly closed _ the door I join with the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON] in urging that Senate Resolu-tion 20, which has been on the Senate Calendar since last May 12, be brought up now by motion of the majority leader for consideration and action. . During the last few weeks I have been reading press reports that filibusters will be org-anized to defeat this or that im.;;. .portant legislative proposal scheduled to come before us this session. The distinguished majority leader has said publicly that we may be forced to meet around the clock in order to reach a vote on important measures. Mr. President, .it is sad to contemplate that the Senate _of the United States in this year 1954 is .governed by such archaic rules that threats of filibuster and of all-night sessions must resound here from the very beginning of our copvening.

Mr. President, I am as interested as anyone else in avoiding all night sessions, _and in expediting the work of the Sen_ate. Yet I am willing to stay around the clock if it becomes necessary.

Therefore, Mr. President, r· believe we should have our all night sessions now, while we are still reasonably rested, on the basic issue of whether or not there is to be majority rule in the Senate of the United States. · Let us meet the question of an effective cloture rule head-on. I therefore urge upon the majority leader that he call up Senate Resolution 20, already approved by the Rules Committee.

Mr. President, I am not in favor of voting without orderly and adequate debate. I never have been, and never will be. But I shudder at the prospect of long, tedious hours of debate without voting. Yet that is what we are threatened with from time to time. I suggest that these ever present threats be faced, met, and overcome, permanently, now.

I recall that on the closing night of last year's session the distinguished majority leader indicated his belief that a filibuster could be broken. Mr. Presiaent, now is the time to confront this dilemma. If the majority leader wants to see his name written large in the legislative annals of this body, he will determine to amend rule XXII to attain an effective cloture rule and lead us, now, in that direction .

Mr. President, I wish to close my remarks with a simple observation. Fundamentally, I hold to the premise that the Senate of each new Congress should be able to adopt its own rules. In January 1953, a sizable group of Senators, of which I was one, launched a long range educational campaign to achieve recognition of this fundamental principle. We are working against the prejudices and misconceptions of years, but we are working toward the day when the Senate convening at the beginning of a new Congress will exercis-e its right--as does the House-to adopt its rules at the beginning of each Congress.

Mr. P.resident, I plan to be here on the ftoor when the Senate convenes next January at the beginning of the 84th Congress. I am not at all Sure which party will then control the Senate. But regardless of that, I expect that I will be standing here next January with an increasing number of my colleagues in the united demand to exercise our right to pass upon the rules de novo.

I believe firmly, Mr. President, that the day is not long off when the shackles of minority control, forged by the present rules-the :filibuster rule-will be cast aside. These are no rules for the present age. The people are already demanding-and they will demand· even more loudly-that we put an end to this disgraceful practice. We might-as well face it now as later.

ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOP-MENT CORPORATION

· The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 2150) providing for creation of the st. Lawrence Seaway Development ·corporation to construct part of the St. Lawrence Seaway in United States territory 'in the interest of national security; authorizing the Corporation to consummate .certain ar ... rangements with the St. Lawrence Sea-

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 353 way ·Authority of · Canada· relatiVe to c:mstruction and operation of the seaway; empowering the Corporation to finance the United States share of the sea way cost on a self -liquidating basis; to establish cooperation with Canada in the control and operation of the St. Lawrence Seaway; to authorize negotiations with Canada of an agreement on tolls; and for other purposes. .

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, at tl~e request of the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LoNG], I shall not submit the unanimous-consent request at this time, but I believe it might be helpful to have the text of it printed in the REcoRD purely for the information of all Senators. It reads as follows:

S. 2150--ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY BILL Ordered, That, beginning at 12 o'clock on

Wednesday, January 20, debate upon any amendment or motion (including appeals) that may be pending or that may thereafter be proposed to the bill, S. 2150, the so-called St. Lawrence Seaway bill, be limited to not exceeding 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the mover of any such amendment or motion and Mr. AIKEN: Pro• vided, That if Mr. AIKEN is in favor of any: such amendment or motion, the time in opposition thereto shall be controlled by the minority leader or some other Senator designated by him: Provided further, That no· amendment or motion that is not germane to the subject matter of said bill shall be received.

Ordered further, That upon the question of the final passage of tl:te bill, debate .shall be limited to not· exceeding 2 hours, to be equally divided and ·controlled by the majority and minority "leaders, respec"tively.


Mr. KNOWLAND. I am glad to yield. Mr. LONG. I wish to inform the dis

tinguished Senator.from California that I have had an opportunity to discuss the bill with some Senators who are opposing it and we have no objection to the unanimous-consent request, with the understanding that there may be a technicality which should be dealt with, or some language Senators may wish to change. So far as I can determine, there is no Senator who objects to voting on the measure on WP-dnesday, although there may be a desire on the part of some Senators to change some of the language of the proposed unanimous-consent request.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I hope the Senator from Louisiana will study the proposal during the :tight, because I desire to propound it tomorrow, perhaps, shortly after the Senate convenes and there has been a quorum call. The printing of the proposed unanimous-consent request in the RECORD today will give all Senators advance notice of it.

Mr. LONG. That is true.

ORDER FOR RECESS UNTIL TOMORROW

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, I propose that the Senate continue in session this afternoon until at least 5 o'clock. When the time comes I shall move to recess the Senate until noon tomorrow. · }14~antime, I ask unanimous consent that when 'the Senate completes its business

C-23

today, it stand rn recess until 12 o'clock noon tomorrow. . The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the majority leader? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill <S. 2150> providing for creation of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation tc construct part of the St. Lawrence Seaway in United States territory in the interest of national security; authorizing the Corporation to consummate certain arrangements with the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority of Canada relative to construction and operation of the seaway; empowering the Corporation to finance the United States share of the seaway cost on a self-liquidating basis; to establish cooperation with Canada in the control and operation of the St. Lawrence Seaway; to authorize negotiations with Canada of an agreement on tolls; and for other purposes. · Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield for a question?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield. Mr. MALONE. I wish to ask the dis

tinguished majority leader, since many Senators have t:>een occupied in open hearings of committees, has the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army made a report as to the feasibility of the st. Lawrence Seaway?

Mr. KNOWLAND. My information is that they have.

Mr. MALONE. Is the report available? I called the Corps of Engineers this morning and they were not aware of it. · Mr. KNOWLAND. I will have a check made to determine the correct answer. . Mr. MALONE. I have been unable to find such a report among any of the reports in my possession. I remember that the same question was before the Senate in 1947. At that time I asked the same question, and the answer was in the negative.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I may say that I cannot answer the Senator's question of my own knowledge. One of the members of the staff of the Committee on Foreign Relations indicated to the majority leader that there was such a report. However, I have asked him to check immediately. Either later today or tomorrow, I will give to the Senator a precise answer as to whether such a report would be available for his study.

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President. will the Senator further yield? . Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield. · Mr. MALONE. In the case of fiood control and navigation projects for 75 years the Congress of the United States has followed the policy that if the Army Engineers, after full investigation, submit a report stating that the benefits would exceed the cost, then the project may be built. In that event it is generally taken for granted that the project is ready for committee hearings. If the e-cono~ic _ benefits and the powe1~ dc;:rived

will, according to the engineering reports, exceed the cost, the project is considered to have feasible status. If irrigation is included, then the money is to be paid back, without interest, by those who will use the project for irrigation purposes. · A precedent was set in connection with the Hoover Dam project, in 1928, that whenever there were certain commercial features, such as power, the Government would be repaid with in-terest. · · The Senator from California will recall that the Hoover Dam paid 4 percent for a considerable time. It is now paying 3 percent interest. It is that kind of a feasibility report on the proposed project the ·junior Senator from Nevada would like to see, because there .has never been any serious question about building a project in the United States, in the construction of which there is participation by Congress in the appropriation of taxpayers' money, when the project comes under some well-established category of feasibility. In the case of an irrigation project, the money is paid back over a definite amortization period, without interest. In-the case of a power project, a commercial project, the money is paid back with interest. I should like very much to have whatever information there is available about the proposal now under consideration, because I understood the Senator to say that Wednesday would be the day for voting on the pending bill.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I said I would propound a unanimous consent request with regard to it on Tuesday, to see whether the Senate could arrive at an agreement to vote on Wednesday.

Mr. MALONE. I have no objection at all to such an agreement. I should like to have such an agreement.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. AIKEN. I might say that t_he Army Engineers recommended the project as being feasible. They have recommended it as a feasible project over a period of many years. When I first came to the Senate I think the commanding officer of the Army engineers was General Robinson, who is now in the Senator's section of the country working for private interests. The Army Engineers very strongly recommended that the project be approved at that time, when there was no talk of putting it on a self-liquidating or selfsustaining basis. Offhand, I cannot lay my hand on the report. I know that the Army engineers have made favorable reports on it from time to time. I am sure that the committee will be able to furnish such a report to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for a question on that rna tter?

Mr. KNOWLAND. Yes; I yield for that purpose.

Mr. MALONE. In 1947, when a similar proposal was before the Senate, request was made for such a report, but the report was never received. I recently wrote a letter to the Chief of

354 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE January 18

Army Engineers about it . . I ·talked to someone in his office concerning the matter. The gentleman who talked with me said he is going to send me everything on the subject that he can. However, that information has not yet reached my office. I thought the committee might have the report.

EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I

move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

The motion w.as agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider executive business.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem

pore laid before the Senate messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry nomination~~ whlch were referred to the appropriate com-. mittees. ·

<For nominations this day received, see the end of Senate proceedings.)

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF A COMMITTEE

The following favorable · reports of nominations were submitted:

By Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, from the Committee ·on Labor and Public Welfare:

James P. Mitchell, of New Jersey,· to be Se<!retary of Labor; ·· Samuel Miller Brownell, of Connecticut, to be Commissioner of Education; and

Alice K. Leopold, of Connecticut, to be Director of the Women's Bureau, Department of Labor.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no further reports of committees, the clerk will state the nomination on the Executive Calendar.

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE The Chief Clerk read the nomination

of Frank H. Weitzel to be Assistant Comptroller General of the United States for a term of 15 years.

The ACTING PRESIDENT protempore. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed~

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask that the President be immediately not~ :tied of the confirmation.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the ·President will be notified at once. - Mr. KNOWLAND. 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.

CONSERVATION AND CIVIL SERVICE Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I

call the attention of my colleagues to a very timely warning voiced near the year-end by Dr. IraN. Gabrielson, president of the Wildlife Management Institute, that · Federal conservation has taken a long step backward by being made' subject to political whims.

Pr<>tection of the Nation's natural resources and wildlife should not become subject to changing political pressures. During the recess months, many conservationists in Minnesota have expressed deep concern to me over some of the trends being taken nationally toward removing heads of our great conservation agencies from merit system protection.

Dr. Gabrielson's warning cannot be written off as just politics. His career in the conservation field entitles him to respect and consideration. For 30 years he served our Government under Repub~ lican and Democratic regimes alike, retiring in 1946 as Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Biological Survey. And I hardly need add that he is the brother of Guy Gabrielson, former chairman of the Republican National Committee: Yet Dr. Gabrielson warns we are taking a step backward that s4ould be halted.

I wish to concur in and associate myself with the concern voiced by Dr. Gabrielson over the backward step of letting Federal .conservation become subject to political whims. Great strides forward in the conservation movement have been .made in past years under regimes of both major political parties. Traditionally, c'onservationists have · de::voted their · dedicated energies to issues, not to partisan politics . . They have not changed. Yet I know from the concern expressed to me by sportsmen and others interested in pr~serving our natural re~ sources that · a real. fear exists about whe:J;"e we are headed today. They feel that taking the positions of Director arid Assistant Directors in-the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service; and those of Chief and Deputy Chief ~of the Soil Conservation Service, out ·from under the merit . system protection' of civil service means, in blunt terms, that any or all of these jobs can be filled by political hacks whenever the present .. or any future administration is so disposed. Now there is reason to fear the same thing is threatened for the position of Chief of the United States Forest Service: Morale among Federal career employees in the conservation agencies is at an alltime low. How can these dedicated.public servants stand up firmly against the pressures to which they are continually exposed, if their own jobs are subject to political influence?

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a press release on this issue from the Wildlife Management Institute:

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

Federal conservation has become subject to political whims and has taken a long step backward, it was stated today by Dr. Ira N. Gabrielson, president of the Wildlife Management Institute, of Washingt' 1, D. C., who in 1946 retired as Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau o: Biological Survey after 31 years of Government service.

The positions of Director and Assistant Directors in the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service and those of Chief and Deputy Chief of the Soil Conservation Service al_l have been plac«:d iri schedule C, which in blunt terms, means that any or

~ll of _these jpbs CaJ:l be filled QY political hacks whenever the present, ·or any future administration is so disposed. The . position of Chief of the United States Forest Se'rvice is in schedule A, which we understand is being reviewed now to determine how many jobs in that category may be made subject to political appointment. All positions with the Fish and Wildlife Service .in Alaska also are in schedule A.

Conservation groups for years have been working with considerable success to get the States to fill administrative positions in forestry, parks, and wildlife protection with competent personnel protected by a merit system. The fact that the Federal conservation bureaus were headed by career men was an effective example that helped promote these efforts in the States.

Now the Federal conservation agencies have been placed on the same basis as· the politically controlled State agencies, ·and by an administration that gives cbnstant lip service to the merit system and talks about improving the Federal service to make it more attractive to better qualified personnel. This step backward has been approved by a Civil Service Commission that talks in the same lofty tone while continually approving more political raids on the civil-service system. If it continues, none of the attractive jobs will be -left within the merit system.

What a contrast to Canada, where even the Deputy Ministers, whose rank compares with our Assistant Secretaries, are civil servants: It is ·small ·wonder that morale among the Federal employees in the conservation agencies is low. .

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Mr: HUMPHREY. Mr. President, earlier today in introducing a bill, I commented on the conservation programs and the personnel policies being followed. in ·the National Park Service. I should like now to say just a. word in .reference to an .article I · saw in the past week's press. ·

I have noticed a good deal of comment, particularly in the Washington ·press,pertaining to the program of the administration relating to our national parks. This has been · highlighted by articles about the so-called Dinosaur Monument Park, and -the argument over power rights and the building of a dam in that" particular park. My concern is a little different {rom that, even though it includes preservation of the facilities of our parks in their natural state.

It has been my prhrilege to ·travel to a number of national parks, and I have noticed that there is a sore need of greater improvements in those parks. For example, the budget. of the Yellowstone National Park is entirely inadequate, and it seem~ very peculiar to me our tax laws are designed in such a way as to permit the rich to enjoy their days on the beach, yet our park programs do not provide proper facilities for the average man and his family who wish to go into the national parks. I raise my voice in the Senate today in a plea that the people's recreatiopal facilities in the great national parks be properly staffed and provided with adequate facilities.

There has not been a forward -step taken in the National Forest Service for years. One of the important needs in recent years has been that of improving the Park Service t9 the advantage of

19_51, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA:TE 355 the recreational facilities of the people of the United States.

I wish to pay my tribute to the men and women who work in our National Park Service. They are loyal, devoted, and sincere pUblic servants. I happen to know Dr. Wirth, of the National Park Service. He is one of the finest career servants of the Government. I believe it is fair to say that he does more with fewer employees than ·almost any other agenc:y of our Government. - In almost every State we have great national parks. Yet park after park is slipping back, in terms of its care, facilities, and area.

In our desire to have a balanced budget-which seems to be a long way off-and in our desire to have lower taxes, I hope we shall not cut down on one of the greatest public-service programs we have, namely, the park and recreational services of the -Government of the United States.

ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

·The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 2150) providing for creation of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation to construct part of the · St. Lawrence seaway in United States territory in the interest of national security; authorizing the Corporation to consummate certain arrangements -with the St. Lawrence · Seaway Authority of Canada relative to construction and operation of the seaway; empowering the Corporation to finance the United· States share of the seaway co8t on a self-liquidating basis; to ·establish cooperation with Canada in the con.trol and operation of the St. Lawrence seaway; to authorize negotiations with Canada of an agreement on tolls; and for other purposes.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, the Congress of the United States. has been deliberating the pending measure-in one of its manY' varied forms-for over 30 years. It would appear that the proponents of such an undertaking would finally give it up as a hopeless cause, but such has not been the case. Instead, they have changed one aspect of it or another, and have brought it back for another try. It is about the same as those automobiles on which the manufacturers change the chrome every year, although they have as . yet to make a basic change in the original design. If the automobile companies had had as little acceptance of their so-called model changes as have the proponents of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the automobile industry would have been bankrupt many, many years ago.

Every time the proponents of the project claim in their advertising to have a truly new model, and this year is no exception. This time their innovations are four:

First. The United States' share of the power project is now to be built in the first instance by the State of New York, rather than by the Federal Government.

Second. The project is to be limited to the works solely for navigation in the

International Rapids section of -the St. Lawrence, plus the deepening of the channels in the Thousand Islands section of the river, with no provision.made for deepening of the connecting channels in the upper Great Lakes.

Third. Canada or the Province of Ontario will now pay a full half of the cost of the power project, plus all the cost of the waterway in the purely · Canadian section of the river.

Fourth. A Government corporation will construct, operate, and manage the waterway under a new method of financing which purportedly will make the seaway self-liquidating over a number of years. · These changes in the chrome evidently were intended to make the project appear different and even cheaper for the United States. Granted that this chrome makes the project look cheaper; but Mr. President, I submit that the project is basically the same that has repeatedly' been considered by this body; , and, furthermore, the cost is even greater than the figures of 2 years ago.

However, events that 1-lave transpired in the past year perhaps entitle us to take a new and different look at the necessity of United States participation in this undertaking. Previously, the question had been .one as to whether the St. Lawrence Seaway should be built. Now tha~ Canada has announced she is going ·to proceed with the seaway with- . out the particip~tion . ·or the United States, the question has resolved itself into one as to whether the United States should participate in ·building . the project.

There seems to be little doubt but' that Canada intends to proceed alone witn the construction of this project.

The Right Honorable c. i>. Howe, Canadian Minister of Trade and Commerce, at the New York Town Hall Audi ...

· torium, on April 7, 1953, said in part: Proposals are now being advanced that

the United States should build the new canal in· the International Rapids section. It seems to me that such a proposal can only complicate t~e present situation. Owner- · ship by the United States of a short section of a very long seaway would not only add to the overall construction cost, but would complicate problems of maintenance and operation of the canal system. It seems obvious to me that continued ownership by one national authority of the entire seaway represents the most etncient procedure. There are critical channe_ls between the upper lakes that will requir~ deepening to 27 feet · at some stage. By assuming responsibility for such deepening, your country-

Meaning the· United States-can assume a much more logical and valuable role by making 27-foot navigation possible throughout the upper lakes, to conform wit.h depths provided in the all-Canadian St. Lawrence seaway.

The Honorable Lionel Chevrier, Canadian Minister of Transport, said in Washington; D. C., on April 30, 1953:

From time immemorial Canada has assumed complete responsibility for the provision of the navigation facilities from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to .Lake Erie; and up until this moment the United States has assumed almost complete responsibility for

through navigation facilities from Lake Erie to the head of the Lakes.

It is quite natural .that In the process of the economic development of the United. States active interest should have been coneimtrated upon the upper section of the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes system because of certain important factors. These factors· were (a) the vast iron-ore deposits in the Mesabi Range just _west of Lake Superior; (b) the ~currence of limestone near Lake Michigan; and (c) the occurrence of . the large coal deposits in the areas south of Lake Erie. To keep pace with the Industrial expansion of the United States, it became necessary to bring these three natural products together ap.d as they were all low-grade commodities, cheap transportation was important, and that cheap tran~portation was made available only through the improvements made in the upper lakes section of this great system.

On the other hand, for well over 200 years Canada has been actively interested in and exclusively responsible for the progressive development which has taken place in the St. Lawrence River from the gulf to Lake Erie. The ftrst canals in th~s area provided 9-:-foot _navigation. _This was _followed by canals and locks -allowing 14-foot draft. Later the waterway .abOve the international section was improved to 27-foot draft by the construction or-the r.ewWelland Canal below Lake Erie. The river below Montreal has been deepened -to provide-a channel having a minimum width of 600 feet and a depth of 35 feet. ~e- bottleneck in the seaway-14-foot n!lvigation in the International Rapids section-would have been removed long since had your country extended the necessary cooperation. ·

I submit to you, therefore, that from Lake Erie to the sea the St. Lawrence Seaway has been improved and maintained by Canada. ·Every important betterment has been carried out and paid for by Canada at a cost in the neighborhood of $300 million. Nevertheless, ships of every nation have . used the present seaway. without payment of tolls for ' nearly 50 years. An international treaty pro.vides that -when tolls on shipping are imposed they will bear equally on Canadian and Unite,d ·States registered ships. -- Canada proposes to pay on a self-liquidating basis for improvements in the ·International ' Rapids. section. Why, then, should your country· withhold its cooperation and thus delay completion of this vital Canadian transportation outlet? I must confess that I do not kn-ow the answer. . It is reported that certain seaport, railway, and c:>al operators are strong opponents of the seaway. I do not for one moment contest their right to oppose this project, but surely it means something that in my country these same interests are strongly in favor of it.

It is said that it would be a mistake for the United States to allow Canada to build the seaway alone, but if this be a ·mistake, then we made it some time a~o. In 1952 the Government of the United States agreed to join with Canada in an application to the International Joint Commission for the development of power on the distinct understanding that Canada would at the same time construct the seaway. This we have undertaken to do by an exchange of notes between our · two Governments.

It is said that Canada may not always be a friendly nation. I cannot conceive of our two countries living on other than friendly terms, nor of Canada becoming powerful enough to be able to afford to be unfriendly. However, if it is felt that United States' interests would be safeguarded by the construction of a canal on your side of the international section, why not go ahead and build and let us do likewise on our side? This might appear foolish at this time but we ha:ve done- this at the Sault where there are two

356 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--SENATE January 18

-canals, one on each side of the boundary line, and both are pretty fully used. I am confident this · would soon become true here, too.

This is the Canadian Minister speaking, and saying that Canada does not seek any funds for the seaway. I continue to quote:

It is said that this would not be a profitable venture and that therefore it would be unwise for the United States to waste funds on the project. But we are not asking for any funds from you. Canada is not seeking financial aid on the St. Lawrence Seaway. On the contrary, Canada is ready, willing, and anxious to proceed with the seaway at her QWD expense without cost to the American taxpayer.

Mr. President, I have heard of foreign aid proposals many times on the floor of the Senate; but in the main, foreign aid proposals are based upon the suggestion that the foreign nation in question is in need of aid, or that something was to be accomplished by it. But here we see the Canadian minister is prepared to say that Canada does not need the help. She is perfectly ready and willing to go ahead and construct the project entirely on her own. . It will be noted that the Canadian Minister of Transport specifically stated that "Canada is ready, willing and anxious to proceed with the seaway at her own expense without cost to the American taxpayer."

Mr. Chevrier went on to say: . Canada has passed legislation both provincially and federally and could start the project tomorrow. The Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission will develop the power jointly with an American entity and the federal government at Ottawa will build the navigational facilities. All that is required is the granting of a license by the Federal Power Commission and the naming of an entity by the American Government, in accordance with their undertaking, to join with the Canadian entity in the-development of power.

I should like to repeat the last sentence cf the quote from the Minister of Tran·sport's speech. He said:

All that is required is the granting of a license by the Federal Power Commission and the naming of an entity by the American Government, in accordance with their undertaking, to join with the Canadian entity in the development of power.

The license referred to was granted by the Federal Power Commission to the S tate of New York and the Power Authority of the State of New York has been named by the President as the entity to join with the Canadian entity in the development of power.

Consequently, the way is now clear for Canada to proceed alone with the development of the seaway and there is every indication that she will do so.

Hence, as I stated before, while the proposal before us for our consideration is basically the same as that which has been before this body off and on -for the past 30 years, events which have transpired since the last time the matter was considered allow us to now look .at it in a different perspective. I repeat the question is no longer one of the desirability ot -a seaway but that of the necessity and desirability of the United

States participating in and· spending its money for such a project. · Has our foreign-aid program left us with such a complex that we cannot stand to .see another country undertake a large project without our contributing to the project? Foreign aid should . be based upon either charity or economic necessity. Canada has not asked us for charity, does not need our charity, and probably would not take it if we offered it. Is there a basis in economic necessity? I can find none. The Canadian dollar is worth as much as, if not more than, the American dollar on the international exchange. On this point I quote a further passage from the April 30, 1953, Washington speech of Mr. Chevrier:

For many years Canada was taken for granted as a country of fields and forests by all, but a handful of Americans. That . has changed today. At the moment Canada is gathering strength and making great strides forward in wealth and power. The turning point came with the discovery, after many years of -disappointment, of a major oil field on the prairies. Since then we have been forging rapidly ahead with the development of our natural resources. In this atomic age the production of Uranium is of the greatest importance to any · nation. In northern Alberta important deposits of uranium are being uncovered. With the mine at Beaver Lodge in· Saskatchewan in production our deposits of uranium will be among the most important in the world. In northern Manitoba we are moving a- townsite 132 miles from Sherridon to Lynn Lake, and building a railway which, together with important discoveries and developments being made in the Gaspe Peninsula of Quebec, will increase our base metal production of copper and zinc. On the west coast of British Columbia a vast expansion of our aluminum production is taking place at Kitimat; while at the other extremity of our country we , have uncovered vast resources of iron ore 1n Quebec-Labntdor. Thus almost overnight Canada has made good her two most serious deficiencies as an industrial power-oil and iron.

· Canada is going to build the seaw-ay and is certainly willing and able. to do it alone, Mr. President.

NATIONAL DEFENSE

Maj. Gen. · Bernard L. Robinson, Deputy Chief of Engineers, United States Army, testified before the House Public Works Committee last year:

The Department of Defense has consistently supported the St. Lawrence project as being important to the national defense, both from a long- and a short-term viewpoint. The reasons may be briefed as follows:

1. A modernized waterway_ will facilitate the mass movement at low cost of recently discovered high-grade, open-pit iron ore in the Labrador-Quebec field to our central area steel-manufacturing arsenal. This will supplement our present source of Lake Superior district open-pit ore, the reserves of which are becoming seriously diminished. Openpit ores possess the advantage of ready expansibility in an emergency, in addition · to their lower cost, not inherent in underground mining Qperations or in taconite beneficiation. Without the seaway, delivery of the Labrador ore to our inland steelproducing centers would present serious transportation problems in wartime.

2. The deep-draft waterway will facilitate · transportation of munitions to overseas bases. It offers a relatively protected route.

reducing by 1,000 roUes tl~e open-sea distance to the British Isles.

3. Seaway canstruction will provide -access to additional shipbuilding and ship-repair facilities on the Great Lakes, as well as the tremendous industrial and agricultural potential surrounding and tributary to the Great Lakes.

4. Related power project will provide an additional source of economic electric power in a region with an industrial potential vital to our mobilization.

5. Participation by the United States in the seaway construction will assure us an opportunity to participate in important decisions, such as setting requisite priorities for shipping in an emergency, taking adequate precautions against sabotage, and establishing tolls, commodity by commodity, in such manner as to_ assure equitable treatment for American interests.

The :first three reasons set forth by General Robinson, namely, first, the facilitation of the mass movement of ore; second, movement of ammunition; and, third, additional shipbuilding and ship-repair · facilities, apply equally whether the project be constructed by the United States and Canada - or 'Canada alone.

The fourth reason-an additional source of economic electric power in a region with an industrial potential vital to our mobilization-was satisfied by the recent action of the Federal Power Commission as stated l;>efore. , The fifth rea~on stated by General ~obinson deals directly with the point now in issue-United States participation. Let us review what the general said. I again quote from his testimony:

( 5) Participation by the. United States in the seaway construction will assure us an opportunity to participate in important decisions, such as setting requisite priorities for shipping in an emergency, taking adequate precautions against sabotage, and establishing tolls, commodity by commodity, in such manner as tp assure equitable treat-ment for American interests. - ·

Mr. Gregory Prince, general solicitor of the Association of American Railroads, touched upon this point in recent testimony before the House Public Works Committee.

Before I quote from Mr. Prince's testimony, I wish to state that I -do not always agree with the position taken by the Association of American Railroads, and I would be the first to concede that Mr. Prince is speaking for the interests he represents. However, l: believe, in this instance his logic is beyond refutation and cannot be successfully answered. I quote from Mr. Prince's testimony: · That leaves for consideration the question of whether if Canada builds the waterway through the St. Lawrence alone, without our participation, we will have the right to use it. The answer is that we have that right and that we have both legal and practical guaranties of that right.

Pur rights of navigation through the St. Lawrence Waterway are dealt with in the treaties bei;ween ·the United States and Great Britain of 1871 and· 1909. Article XXVI of the treaty of 1871 contains the following provision :

"The navigation of the River St. Lawrence, ascending and descending, from the 45th parallel of north latitude, where it ceases to form the boundary between the two countries, from, to, and into ·the sea, shall for-

1951,: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 357 ~ver remain free and open for the purposes of commerce to the citizens of the United States, subject to any laws and regulations of Great Britain, or of the Dominion of Canada, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation."

This provision confers perpetual navigation rights to the citizens of the United States for the purposes of commerce eastward in the St. Lawrence River from the point where the river enters Canadian territory to the sea.

The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 conta~ns the following provision in article I:

"The high contracting parties agree that the navigation of all navigable boundary waters-shall forever continue free and open for the purpose of commerce to the inhabitants and to the ships, vessels, and boats of both countries equally, subject, however, t.o any laws and regulations of either country, within its own territory, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation and applying equally and without discrimination to the inhabitants,- ships, vessels, and boats of both countries.

"It is further agreed that so long as this treaty shall remain in force this same right of navigation shall extend to the waters of Lake Michigan and to all canals connecting boundary waters, and now existing or which may hereafter be constructed on either side of the line. Either of the high contracting parties may adopt rules and regulations governing the use of such canals within its own territory and may charge tolls for the use thereof, but all such rules and regulations and all tolls charged .shall apply alike to the subjects or citizens of the high contracting parties and the s~ps, vessels, and the boats of both of the high contracting parties, and they shall be placed on terms of equality in the uses thereof."

This provision insures our rights of navigation in the St. Lawrence River from Lake Ontario east to the point where the river ceases to form the international boundary, and through the Weiland Canal. It fs also to be noted that in the second paragraph of article I the rights of navigation through canals covered by this ,provision are similarly guaranteed a~d provision is made for equal application to the citizens and vessels of both parties of any tolls imposed for the use of such canals and of any rules and regulations governing the use thereof.

Canadian omcials have recognized the exIstence of this right. Take, for instance, tha following statement from a speech by the Right Honorable C. D. Howe, Canadian Minister of Trade and Commerce, made on April 7, 1953:

"It shoulc'l. be noted at this point that the St. Lawrence Seaw~y is, and always has been, a Canadian seaway. Every important improvement has· been built and paid for by Canada from Lake Erie down. The cost "Jf operating and maintaining the seaway is paid wholly by Canada. Nevertheless ships !)f every nation may use the seaway without payment ·of tolls. An international treaty provides that if and when tolls on shipping are imposed, they will bear equally on Canadian and foreign-flag ships."

It is hard to believe that our good neighbor Canada would try to deny to us the use of this waterway contrary to the terms of the variou~ treaties between the two countries, but bear in mind if relations between our countrie~ should ever reach that unhappy stage, the Canadians have complete control and domination over the effective use of the waterway by reason of the fact that its exit and the last 1,000 miles of its course run entirely through Canadian territory. Bear in mind also that the construction of the canals through the International Rapids section on the United States side of the boundary line, a: proposed in House Joint Resolution 104, in no way adds to our rights to use the all-

Canadian portions of the waterway beyond the international boundary. Geography and international boundary lines have made the St. Lawrence River 90 percent a Canadian waterway and 10 percent a joint United States-Canadian waterway, so that in the final analysis, if the existing treaty provisions that I have quoted to you are not suffi.cient to protect our interest, we must rely upon the good will and friendship .of Canada. To those who think of our participation in the St. Lawrence project to the extent of constructing the canals in the International Rapids section as the creation of a dub to hold over Canada's head in the event of her unwillingness to permit us to use the Canadian portions of the waterway, I should like to point out the fact that we already have at our disposal -a number of such clubs. I for one am certain their use will never be required, but I point to their existence for those whose support of House Joint Resolution 104 might be based on such reasoning.

Certain of the channels through the Thousand Islands section of the St. Lawrence River are today in United States territory and will remain so even under the proposal for the all-Canadian waterway. In fact, the Canadian plan calls for a cut through an island all of which is in United States territory. These channels are under United States control and domination, and their use by Canadian vessels is necessary in order to utilize the remainder of the waterway through the St. Lawrence River. Furthermore the connecting channels between the upper Great Lakes lie mostly in United States territory and all o! the construction and maintenance work on these channels has been performed at the expense of the United States. All of these channels are used by Canadian commerce to and from the upper Great Lakes. Finally there is the situation ·at the Soo where there are 5 locks, 4 on the United States side and 1 ~m the Canadian

·side. The deepest and only truly modern lock there is the MacArthur lock on the United States side and it is used freely by Canadian vessels. In fact, the United States canais at the Soo must be used by all large modern Canadian vessels because the only lock on the Canadian side has a limiting depth of 16.8 feet.

Therefore, gentlemen, I say that we already have precisely tlle same degree of con. trol both legally an,d practically over our -right to use an all-Canadian waterway through the St. Lawrence River as we would have if the Congress were to adopt House

·Joint Resolution 104. The construction of the works provided for in House Joint Resolution 104 would be merely giving us one more small club of the type we already have.

House Joint Resolution 104 referred to by Mr. Prince is the same as the bill we are considering today. ·

Mr. Prince, in his testimony before the House committee raised another interesting question: Is Canada legally obligated to build a 27-foot ·channel on the Canadian side all the way from Mon'treal to Lake Erie?

I again quote from Mr. Prince's testimony:

But we don't even get that much out of performing the work called for in House Joint Resolution 104 unless one condition is met which as of this date has not been met and as to which we have very little assurance that it will be met.

That statement requires an explanation and it involves a situation that should very definitely have been brought to your attention by the proponents if there was to be a full revelation of the existing situation. As of this time, Canada is obligated by virtue of its application to the International Joint Commission to build a 27-foot waterway eu-

tirely on CanQdian soil all the way from Montreal to Lake Erie. This means canals through the International Rapids section as well as canals in the all-Canadian section and the work in the Weiland Canal. Until Canada is relieved of its obligation to construct the portion of the waterway through the International Rapids section, all that is proposed by House Joint Resolution 104 is the construction of a duplicate set of canals on the United States side of the boundary in that section of the river. Obviously there would be no sense in doing that for there could be no possible prospect of making such a canal self-liquidating, and clearly it would furnish no club over Canada's head, with ?complete waterway at her disposal on the Canadian side of the boundary. I take it there is no dispute on this point, and when questioned, General Robinson, Deputy Chief of Engineers, stated that he would not· favor construction of the works called for in House Joint Resolution 104 if similar works were to be built on the Canadian side (transcript, June 11, p. 167). ·

The Foreign Relations Committee Report on S. 2150 puts forth as the compelling reason for our participation in this project the fact that unless we do so _Canada will go it alone. While this evidently appears to the proponents of our participation as a compelling reason why we should do so, to me it is one of the compelling reasons why we should not.

I should like to quote again from Min .. ister Chevrier's speech of April 30, 1953:

However, if it is felt that the United States' intez:ests would be safeguarded by the construction of a canal on your side of the International Section, why not go ahead and build it and let us do likewise on our side?

Control of this small part of the sea .. way-with an alternate ·channel available to Canada around this· small partwould . guarantee the United States nothing. , The peoples of the United States and Canada have enjoyed harmonious relations over a long period of time. Our relations are unmatched by any other two countries. We have a common hinguage. We have common ideals, and a common trust in each other. The boundary between the United States and Canada is crossed by more trade, more tour .. ists, more trains, more cars, more newspapers, more radio, more television, more money, more sports and m ·ore good will, than any other in the world:

The 1941 Hyde Park agreement and the 1950. statement of principles for economic cooperation express the determination that the two countries will cooperate in mobilization for defense, furnish .supplies to each other, and keep trade barriers from being erected. The Joint United States-Canadian Industrial Mobilization Planning Committee was set up in October 1950 to help achieve these objectives.

I should like to restate my basic contention. The question is no longer whether the seaway will be built but whether the -United States will participate in its building. I can see no additional protection that will be granted the United States -by participating in the construction of this waterway. We have cleared the way for Canada- to proceed ·by our participation in the power phase of the project. That is all that Canada requested that we do.


On the other hand, I believe there are many very serious questions regarding this project and our participation in it that should and must be decided before money paid by American taxpayers is spent for it.

COST OF THE PROJECT

The basic question, of course, is how much would our participation in this project cost the taxpayers of the United states?

I should like to discuss this phase of the proposed project in two parts: First, apparent costs, and second, hidden costs.

The proponents of the seaway claim to have the cost of United States participation down to approximately $100 million. They further claim that really it would not cost the American taxpayer anything as they have worked it out where the project is to be selfliquidating. That $100 million I like to call apparent costs. Let us assume that the Canadian and Department of Commerce estimates are correct and that it would be possible to liquidate this $100 million over a period of 50 years. However, bear in mind that it is the credit of the United States which is in back of these bonds to be issued. As I stated a few minutes ago, this $100 million is what I call the apparent costs. What about the hidden costs?

HIDDEN COSTS

Primarily the $100 million is for a 27-foot channel in the International Rapids section. What about that American shipping which cannot use a 27-foot channel? What would be the cost to increase the depth to 30 feet or to 35 feet?

Are not the Great Lakes a part of this seaway system? What would be the cost of opening the connecting channels in the Great Lakes to a 27-foot depth? What would be the cost here if the ·decision were made that the seaway should be more than 27 feet deep?

Are the harbor and port facilities on the Great Lakes able to accommodate vessels that would and could use a 27:.. foot seaway? What would be the cost of dredging the ports on the Great Lakes to the extent they could accommodate such ships? Again, what if the decision were made that .it should be deeper?

All of these are what I have described as hidden costs. I think the term is descriptive of the situation that exists here. The advocates of the seaway have said this project will cost $100 million; we plan to liquidate that cost by charging tolls; hence, the seaway will cost us nothing. They have not brought out these other costs; they have not said they would be liquidated. One thing is certain: when all costs are· considered, this project is not a self-liquidating one.

DEPTH OF THE PROP OSED SEAWAY

As mentioned before, it is estimated that the cost-will be approximately $'100 million for our participation in the deepening of the channel at the Inter.:. national ~apids to 27 feet. As long as this project has been debated, the question as to pow qeep it should be has been debated. Proponents and opponents have cited numerous figures as to wha t percent of American oceangoing vessels

could. or could not use the seaway. When the opponents have used small percentage figures, the proponents have come back with the contention that it is to be used primarily for lake ves·sels and not oceangoing vessels. I am not going to get into this argument by submitting my own figures. Needless to say that a · substantial portion of the American merchant marine as presently constituted could not profitably use the proposed St. La w·rence Sea way.

Needless to say there is a genuine question existing as to the adequacy of a 27-foot seaway.

How valid is this argument that the seaway is to be used primarily by lake vessels and not by the oceangoing type? If I remember correctly, it was not many years ago that the major argument presented for the seaway was to open a fourth seacoast in the heart of America. Have these people given up this dream or are they merely sitting back waiting for us to spend the first $100 million and then come forth to say the seaway is no good. that it is too shallow; it will have to be at a depth of 35 feet to serve any purpose at all, and if we do not dig it to that depth we have lost all the money we have already put into it? .

Mr. President, and Members of the Senate, do you really feel that the advocates of this project are going to be satisfied with a 27-foot seaway?

All of our important seacoast harbors have depths of at least 35 feet, and most of them have a depth greater than that. It requires this depth for a port to become a first-class port. Are the chambers of commerce of the cities on the Great Lakes going to let this success slip from their hands when it gets so near? I think not.

Mr. President, to point up the problem here involved, I have prepared a list of the depths of ports along the seacoast of the United States, and have also prepared a list of the depths of the principal ports on the Great Lakes. I ask unanimous consent that these two tables may be inserted in the RECORD at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the tables were ordered to be printed in the Rr:coRn, as follows: Depths of the princi pal ports oj the Uni ted

States Feet

Portland, Maine_____________________ 35 Boston, Mass ________________________ 40 Providence, R. L-------------------- 35 New York, N. Y ---------------------- 45 Phi~adelphia, P a _____________________ 37-40 Balt imore, Md _______________________ 35- 39 Norfolk, Va_ __ ___ ___________________ 40 Newport News, Va _______ :. _____ :_ _____ 40 Wilmingt on, N. c ___________________ :.. 32

Charlest on, S. C--------------------- · 35 Sa,vannah, Ga___ ____________ ________ 3<! J a cksonville, Fla ___ _______ __________ 30 Tampa Harbor, Fla_________________ 30 Mobile, Ala__ _______________________ 32 New Orleans, La _____________ ___ .: ___ 35-40 Lake Char les; La ___ .:. ________________ · 35 Port Arthur, Tex~ ______ ___ :. __ _______ 36 Beaumont, T ex--------- - ---------.,.-- 34 fiouston, Tex____________ ___________ 34 Texas City, Tex______________________ .34 Corpus Chr isti (Port Aransas) , .Tex___ 34 Los ·Angeles-Long Beach, Calif _______ :.· 35 Richmond,· Calif _____________________ 30- 32 OaKland, Calif _____ _. __________ .; _____ 30-35

Depth oj the pri ncipal ports of the United States-Continued

Feet San Francisco, CaUL---------------- 40 San Pablo Bay and Mare Island St rait,

Calif ----------- ------------------ 30 Portland, Oreg -------·--------------- 35 Seattle, Wash----------------------- 34 Tacoma, Wash ______________________ 29-30

Everett, Wash_______________________ 30

Depths of the principal por ts on t he G r eat Lakes

Feet Duluth-Superior, Minn ______ ________ 25- 26 Two Harbors (Agate Bay), Minn_____ 26 Milwaukee, Wis --------------------- 21 Ashland, Wis----------------------- 25 Chicago, Ill----- -------------------- 21 Calumet Harbor, IlL ________________ 25- 26 Indiana Harbor, Ind ____________ _____ 25- 26 Gra y Harbor, Ind. (privat e)--------- 27 Muskegon, Mich____________ _____ ____ 21 Detroit, Mich. (in through channel) __ 25- 26 Toledo, Ohio________________________ 25 Cleveland, Ohio_____________________ 25 Sandusky, Ohio--------------------- 21-22 Buffa lo, N. Y ---------------- - -- - --- 22- 25 Rochester (Charlotte) Harbor, N. y___ 20 Oswego Harbor, N. Y ----------------- 21

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, let us look at other canals for ocean shipping.

The Panama Canal has a depth of 40 feet, the · Suez Canal has a depth of 35 feet, the Kiel Canal has a depth of 36 feet, and even when first opened in 1895, had a depth of 29 feet. The Houston Ship Canal has a depth of 34 feet and the Army engineers have recommended that it be increased in depth to 36 feet to enable it to accommodate modern oceangoing vessels. The Manchester Ship Canal, completed as long ago as 1894, has a depth of 28 feet.

Tne citizens of Duluth have dreamed too long about strolling down to the wharf on Sunday afternoon to look at large oceangoing ship~ to be content with lakers and a 27-foot channel.

What then would be the cost of making this a 35-foot waterway rather than a 27-foot one? The figures are those of the Corps of Engineers in 1952. For the Thousand Islands section, the total cost, including Canada, goes from $1,593,000 to $23,679,000. For the International Rapids section, the total cost, including Canada, goes from $475,356,000 to $512,587,000 . . Bear in mind, Mr. President, the only costs I am. considering at this time are those to be incurred in the Thousand Islands and International Rapids sections. The cost of connecting channels and dredging harbors is not included. Are not these costs truly costs which should be attributed to this project? Is it the intention of the proponents of this measure to make these additional costs, hidden though they may be, self-liquidating, as the apparent costs ostensibly are? COSTS TO BE INCURRED RELATIVE TO THE CON•

NECTING CHANNELS OF THE GREAT L-\KES

For these same citizens of Duluth to see the large ocean going vessels · on Sunday afternoon it is going to be necessary that considerab~e work be. dorie. to deepen the connecting channels bet.we~n the Great Lakes. What will be "the cost of such work? Has the cost of .all this work been ·considered by the proponents of the seaway; or i~ this cost another hidden 'One that has remained ip the background?

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 359 When we consider the interest of Wis

consin and the other States bordering on and west of Lake Michigan and Lake Superior, and the fact that these States in particular were the original supporters of the St. Lawrence Waterway, there seems little justification for considering the project at all without including the cost of this work in the upper Great Lakes. .

The attitudes of these States was perhaps exemplified in recent testimony before the House Public Works Committee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in my remarks the testimony of Mr. Harry C. Brockell, director of the port of Milwaukee, Wis., before the House Public Works Committee.

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

We believe it desirable to authorize the deepening of the connecting channels of the Great Lakes to 27 feet by separate legislation. There are several valid reasons for handling the problem of the connecting channels by separate but simultaneous legislation, and we are gratified to know that this matter is actively before both Houses of the Congress. We believe the separation of the connecting channels from the seaway legislatiol:l is desirable for the following reasons:

1. lf the St. Lawrence legislation is to meet the test o! self-liquidation, the area in which tolls should be assessed should be limited to the new navigation works which will primarily serve as international commerce;

2. The deepening of the co~necting channel is already warranted by new shipping trends on the Great Lakes, entirely aside from t-he seaway development;

3. The connecting channels will in the main serve a tremendous domestic commerce which cannot and should not be subject to tolls. Further, it is imprfl.cticable to levy tolls on dredged channels in open waterways, as compared to the simplicity by which tolls may be levied on canal passages; and

4. Maximum support for each proposition can be development on the merits of each, which appears impracticable if both are combined in one legislative bill.

The fact is that the deepening of the connecting channels o! the Great Lakes is an imminent necessity, irrespective or congressional action which may be taken on seaway legislation. Approximately 40 ships, most or them of the superfreighter class, have recently entered or will soon enter service on the Great Lakes. Some of these ships represent original construction in Great Lakes shipyards; several have been constructed in seacoast yards, and taken thence to the Great Lakes; and others represent conversion of ocean vessels into large modified-type Great Lakes bulk carriers. It is estimated that the work at the international boundary involves about $200 million, approximating the entire initial cost or the Great Lakes bulk carrter fleet prior to 1940.

The majority of the ships are between 640 and 700 reet in length, and practically all are designed to operate at loaded drafts of 25 feet or more. The steamer .JotJeph H. Thompson o! the Hansand Steamship Corp. has an overall length of 714 feet, and is the third longest vessel in the American merchant marine. On its initial voyage in the fall of 1952, · this ship could carry only 80 percent of its cargo capacity due to draft limitations in the connecting channels of the Great Lakes, and this despite one of the highest water levels in the history o! the Great Lakes.

Much more than a regional problem is presented. There is a valid national interest in the deepening of Great Lakes connecting channels. National policy is aimed at steel production of approximately 160 million tons per year, compared to about 105 million tons, present annual capacity. Whether or not this national objective is achieved and the national security enhanced in proportion will depend in large measure upon the efficiency of bulk carrier operations on the Great Lakes and the productive ability of the steel industry, which, in turn, rests largely upon Great Lakes iron ore movements.

There is widespread support for early action by the Congress for deepening of the connecting channels of the Great: Lakes, entirely aside from your considerat-ion of the seaway. Careful study has been given this matter by responsible marine, industrial, and public interests in the Great Lakes region and numerous conferences and groups have gone on record in support of the proposition for deepening the Great Lakes connecting channels separately from seaway legislation.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, it is readily apparent from Mr. Brockell's testimony that the leaders of these States are already planning and are depending upon the deepening of these canals.

This is estimated, by the Corps of Engineers, to cost at least $100 million. This means that we can double the original $100 million figure to be spent at the International Rapids even before the project is started. Let us not be de- · ceived into believing that this is not a part of the St. Lawrence project. It has always been considered part and parcel of it. Before this year's new economy model came through, the proponents have on occasion attempted to authorize the construction of the connecting channels by the same legislation by which they attempted to authorize the seaway proper.

There are two additional points which should be considered here. The $100 million estimated for the construction of the channels connecting Lake Erie, Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, and Lake Superior is, according to the Corps of Engineers, "therefore of a preliminary na;. ture." The final estimate could be far greater. Secondly: This $100 million refers only to the 27-foot depth. What about the 35-foot depth here? It is estimated that the cost of increasing the depth· of the connecting channels from 27 to 35 feet would be approximately $427 million additional.

Have these costs been considered? Are they a part of those to be liquidated _by the payment of tolls?

COST OF DEEPENING THE HARBORS OF THE GREAT LAKES

There are about a hundred harbors on the Great Lakes on which the Federal Government has expended money for development. What would be the cost of deepening all of these to 27 feet? To 35 feet?

Maj. Gen. R. C. Breene, retired, a consulting engineer, made a case study of 17 of these harbors, and estimated the costs that would be incurred to deepen them. Although these 17 include the principal harbors in the Great Lakes, they are not all of them, for, as mentioned before, there are nearly a hundred on which the Federal Government has

spent money. While all, of course, would not be deepened, it seems certain that more than 17 would. I should like to go into the details of the cost of deepening these harbors.

I now refer to the testimony of an expert witness to demonstrate the man .. ner in which the cost of the project has been made to appear relatively small, while the final cost may cause it to be among the costliest navigation projects in the world.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in my remarks a portion of the testimony of Maj. Gen. R. G. Breene, retired, a consulting engineer, before the House Public Works Committee, in April 1951.

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

I am a consulting engineer specializing in the field of transportation: I am a licensed professional engineer in the States of Washington and Ohio. I am a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers. I have a modest firm, Transportation Consultant&, Inc.. Our work consists chiefly· of studies of transportation problems and the submission of solutions to the problems studied.

I was retained as a consulting engineer about 2 years ago by the St. Lawrence Project Conference to make studies of the cost of deepening certain Great Lakes ports to various project depths. Due to the time ele·ment which was or appeared to be involved, and a lack of funds, my estimates were limited to the ports of Buffalo, Cleveland, and Chicago. This work was completed. I also agreed at the time I was originally retained to present to this or other committees of the Congress the results of my studies on these ports and any overall conclusions which logically result from these studies.

Please permit me to emphasize as strongly as possible that- the costs developed are in every case conservative. If there are any proper criticisms of my estimates, it is that they are low. I believe that any other independent engineers would arrive at approximately the same conservative figures.

May I say that I was most generously assisted by various offices of the Corps of Engineers in making this factual survey. I wish to bring to the attention of this committee that I am not appearing as either a proponent or opponent of the St. Lawrence project and will not express any personal opinions on the project. My sole objective is to show to the committee--

(a) The minimum possible direct Federal costs to provide various project depths, con

. forming to the proposed project depths for the St. Lawrence project for ·the three Lakes ports ·studied.

(b) To compare the costs we developed with those submitted during hearings of the committee on House Joint Resolution. 271, page 133, and with those submitted to this committee at the current hearings by the Corps of Engineers.

(c) Based on the above comparisons, to submit as approximations of the overall costs to the Federal Government of· the harbors selected for study by the Corps of Engineers in both cases.

It appears desirable, before presenting our estimates, to invite your attention to the fact that these costs, if the project were approved, would have to be borne wholly by the United States and there would be no question of division with the Dominion Government. In the same manner, essential improvements to Canadian ports would have t;o l>e borne by the Dominion Government. The matter of whether cr not costs of harbor improvements have been · included in the


eosts of the project will be developed later in our presentation.

The three harbors studied-Bu1falo, Cleveland, and Chicag~are among those selected by the Chief of Engineers on which he submitted estimates.

It has been necessary to relate my estimates in the first instance to estimates submitted by the Chief of Engineers at the hearing on House Joint Resolution 271, rather than to his latest estimates, because I was given access to the basic data on which the earlier estimates were made but not the later ones. It is therefore necessary to refer to the earller estimates of the Chief of Engineers in order to indicate to you the di1Ierence in the basis of his estimates and of mine.

Later I also raised my estimates by the construction cost index of the Engineering News-Record in orQ.er to compare mine with the latest estimates of the Chief of Engi-neers.

BUFFALO HARBOR

This official United States lake-survey chart of Bu1falo Harbor shows, by combining the superimposed black and red portions the area for which the Federal Government has accepted full responsibilities and for which it now has f~ll responsibility. The section shown in red is that small section of. the harbor which would be deepened to the selected project depths according to the plans on which the 1~48 estimates were based. ·

Quoting from a letter of the Chief of Engineers, December 7, 1948, page 2:

"In enclosure 2 attached, there are presented cost estimates, on the basis of July 1948 cost levels, by the Corps of Engineers for providing entrance channels and turning basins leading to the outer docks at typical American harbors on the Great Lakes for channel depths of 27, 30, and 35 feet."

In contrast to the wholly inadequate harbor facility thus described, our estimates are based on the area of Federal responsibility now existing and accepted as such by the Chief of Engineers. The thought that the United States .lakes ports will accept any such limited harbor areas as those for which the Chief of Engineers has submitted estimates shown in red on this and following charts in the event the seaway is constructed is untenable. Every individual interviewed by u.s in the ports surveyed stated that there was no question that each port city and all owners of port facilities would demand that the entire harbor be dredged to the project depth of the seaway, if constructed.

It was of interest to note that all of those citizens held the same opinion on uniform harbor depth whether they held opinions favorable or unfavorable to the project as a whole. Unless the harbors are brought to uniform depths, rather than dredging only a small percentage as apparently planned, a majority of the waterfront owners will be unable to bring deep-draft vessels to the area of their docks, thus placing them in an unfair competitive position. The members of this committee know better than anyone else the pressures which will be brought to bear upon them to correct such injustices.

Although there is some rock excavation in the 3u1falo Harbor, due to the fact that we were unable to take borings or discover sufficient accurate existing information, we have considered all dredging as soft material. It is true that this has reduced our cost estimate on this to a point somewhat below actual costs, but this should be considered as further evidence of the extremely conservative estimates we are submitting.

We have used a unit price of $1.10 per yard for dredging, the same as that on which calculations by the Corps of Engineers for the Buffalo Harbor were based, submitted in hearings on House Joint Resolution 271, page 133. I personally believe that at that time •1.10 . was . a little low. I do not know tile

price used on the estimate submitted during this session.

We found from our estimates as follows: Estimated costs, BufJalo Harbor

Project depth: 27-foot----------------------- $5,092,000 30-foot----------------------- 12,617,000 35-foot---------------------- 21,871,000 In making these estimates we used the

present project depths of all parts of the Buffalo Harbor as shown on map Buffalo Harbor, N. Y., Buffalo district, June 30, 1948, as presently existing, although it is realized that an expenditure of many million dollars

·must yet be made to bring this harbor to project depth. No estimate of this amount was available to us. This expenditure is not, lllowever, chargeable to the seaway project since it is now authorized.

CLEVELAND HARBOR

I would like to go over that. This is the area covered by the estimate submitted to the committee by the Corps of Engineers. That will be the only harbor area which will be deepened to the project depth of the St. Lawrence Seaway, if authorized. This is

.the area which is now the responsibility of the Federal Government and which we be

·ueve that the property owners will demand . be deepened to the project depth of the sea-way in order that they all have an equal opportunity.

This chart of the Cleveland Harbor shows, by means of the same legend as tha:t pre_viously shown for the Buffalo Harbor, the area of present responsibility of the Federal Government and also that part of the area to be deepened to the selected project depth of the proposed seaway. There is no doubt that in this case, as in the case of Buffalo, the harbor interests will demand the entire harbor area be cut down to the selected project depth. Large steel interests are now located at and adjacent to the upstream limit of the Federal project in the Cuyahoga River. I believe the committee will agree that these interests will insist on a channel as deep as the Federal Government furnishes for any competitive interests.

In this case, as in the case of Buffalo, our estimate is extremely conservative. It assumes it will all be soft material, and we are using the same figure as used by the Corps of Engineers here, in this case 80 cents per cubic yard, which I think is low.

Estimated costs, Cleveland Harbor Project depth: 27 feet ______________________ $1,908,000

30 feet--------------------~- 4,920,000 35 feet ______________________ 10,722,000

Again in this case present project depths were accepted as a base, since bringing the harbor down to those previously authorized depths would not be a proper charge against the seaway project.

CHICAGO HARBOR

This Is a similar chart of the Chicago Harbor. This chart shows, by the same legend as those previously shown, that section now the responsibility of the Federal Government and that section covered by the estimates of the Chief of Engineers for improvements.

The combined red and black sections are now the responsibility of the Federal Government. Actually the area shown in red is the only area which the estimate of the Corps of Engineers covers.

In this instance, as in those previously discussed, it is evident that local interests will demand the improvement of the entire harbor. These demands will be based on the same reasoning and will, so far as can be foreseen, be reasonable. Failure to accept this proper demand and include it in CC{;t .estimates for the project makes the

. cost estimates as well as the annual charges ~nr~alistic.

The anchorages and turning basins indicated are but reasonable in size. It must be remembered that these are for the use of ocean-going vessels, not of boats especially designed for Great Lakes operation. Consideration must also be given to the .fact that seaway tramc which will use this harbor will probably be almost entirely oversea tramc, and exact arrival times will not be known with the accuracy of present Lakes traffic.

In that connection likewise, as a student of the problem, I do not visualize any iron ore entering into the Chicago Harbor. There are other harbors adjacent in the area where iron ore would be delivered.

We invite your .particular attention to the fact that, if this project is to be designed for general use and not simply for the use of a few steel companies, all facilities must be designed and constructed for ()Cean ships and not just Lakes boats. This alone will make ample sheltered anchorage essential. Unit prices per yard used in this estimate are the same as those used by the Corps of Engineers for estimates of Chicago Harbor costs furnished during the previously identified hearings.

Estimated costs, Chicago Harbor Project depth:

27-foot --------------------- $5,887,000 30-foot --------------------- 9,620,000 35-foot --------------------- 15, 649, 000 Examination of these estimates shows how

greatly the estimates of the Chief of Enginers, submitted prior to this hearing, differ from our own.

Now, I have here a chart showing the costs for all three harbors assembled. For the total of the 27-foot harbors, for the three of them, the total by the Corps of Engineers submitted in the earlier hearing was •1.841,000. Our total for the same thing is $12,887,000, or an overall average increase of 600 percent.

For the 30-foot project it is $6,953,000 and $27,157,000 or an average overall increase of 290 percent.

For the 35-foot project the difference between them is $15,855,000 and $48,242,000, or 204 percent.

Now, these are the costs submitted to this committee during the present hearings. You will notice that they are greatly increased in some cases, particularly in the case of the 27-foot project. They are increased from $431,000 to $1,680,000. I am unable to explain that, except that one of them is wrong. They are not both right. One is wrong. These are the figures submitted along with the average for the total of the . three harbors. These are our estimates raised by the Engineering News-Record construction-cost index, which amounts to an increase of 13.7 percent in the costs. That is, this figure is raised by 13.7 percent.

Now, the totals that we are interested tn at this time particularly are the overall average increase between our estimates and those submitted to you by the Corps of Engineers.

I therefore raised, as I said, mine by the Engineering News-Record cost-of-construction index, and I found the difference here was that ours were 262 percent increased for the 27-foot channel; 250 percent increased for the 30-foot channel; and 180.9 percent for the 35-foot channel.

It is well understood, of course, that these percentages in several cases are extremely large, but it is necessary to emphasize that the estimates of the Corps of Engineers are based simply on an entrance channel-a way to move a ship into a harbor-and proceed to an area in which at some later date docks may be built. ·

The estimates submitted by us ar~ based on improving and deepening the areas of Federal responsibility and ~ot selected parts thereof.

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 361 The estimates of the Corps of Engineers

submitted during the hearings on House Joint Resolution 271 are for 10 sel~cted harbors. These vary in tonnage handled from the largest to one of the smallest, the latter handling a total tonnage of less than 500 tons during the last year reported. Also notable on this selected list of harbors is Detroit, on which, according to the testimony submitted, no Federal funds will be expended.

Now please permit me to project our study in order to indicate first what will be the minimum expenditure of Federal funds for the 10 harbors listed and for which estimates were submitted during hearings on House Joint Resolution 271; and, second, what will be the minimum expenditure of Federal funds for the 17 harbors listed and on which estimates were submitted during the present hearings. ·

The estimate submitted for the 10 harbors, if improved to 27-foot project depths, was $9,172,000. Based on a sample of three harbors, as described in detail, this figure should be increased by 600 percent, making the figure $64,204,000.

The estimate submitted for the 10 harbors, if improved to 30-foot project depths, was $40,937,000. Based on a sample of three harbors, as described in detail, this figure should be increased by 290.6 percent, making the figure $159,899,000.

The estimate submitted for the 10 harbors, if improved to 35-foot project depths, was $82,532,000. Based on a sample of three harbors, as described in detail, this figure should be increased by 204.3 percent, making the figure $251,145,000.

The estimate submitted to this committee for the 17 harbors, if improved to 27-foot project depth, was $28,848,000. Based on a sample of three harbors as described in detail, this figure should be increased by 262.5 percent, making the figure $104,574,000.

The estimate submitted to this committee for the 17 harbors, if improved to 30-foot project depth, was $86,921,000. Based on a sample of three harbors as described in detail, this figure should be increased by 250.1 percent, making the figure $304,310,000.

The estimate submitted to this committee for 17 harbors, if 1mproved to 35-foot project depth, was $205,624,000. Based on a sample of three harbors as described in detail, this figure should be increased by 180.9 percent, making the figure $577,598,000.

Permit me to emphasize that these large sums of Federal money represent estimates of costs of improving either 10 or 17 Great Lakes harbors only-1 of which requires no ~ederal expenditures, according to the estimates submitted by the Corps of Engineers. There are now 89 harbors on the Great Lakes in the United States on which Federal funds have been and, so far as can be determined, are being expended; that is, which are now Federal responsibilities. All may demand equal opportunity. If all harbors are improved to the project depths selected for the St. Lawrence seaway, if constructed, the expenditure becomes much greater.

There are an enormous number of harbors shown, and so far as size or tonnages handled, certainly the Corps of Engineers did not select the. most important ones, since they did select Michigan City, which last year only had 500 tons, or, rather, less than 500 tons.

There can be no question that lake harbors are an integral and essential part of the proposed project. Without harbors on the Great L~kes, usable by th,e . traffic on the project, there can, of course, be no benefits. Although this is clearly the case, the cost of harbors on the Great Lakes have ·not been inclu.ded iii the cost of the project. These costs must be included in order to give you a true picture of the tota:l cost of the project. ~ we have shown, the cost of making adequate Improvements to United States harbors on the Great Lakes would be enormous.

- Mr. LONG. Ml". President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in my remarks a portion of the testimony of Mr. Frazer Bailey, president of the National Federation of American Shipping, before the House Public Works Committee on April 23, 1S51.

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

In the beginning I would like to make it clear that; our organization is composed of American steamship owners engaged in ocean and deep-water coastal trading. If for no other then selfish reasons, we would favor any project which enlarges the trading opportunities for deep-water ships, and stimulates water-borne commerce in the areas in which our vessels could operate. If the members of our shipping federation felt that the St. Lawrence Seaway would -serve these objectives, we would be appearing before you as strong advocates. It is our objective to promote in every way possible the largest, most modern and most effective fleet of American merchant ships for the carriage of our domestic and foreign commerce, consistent with sound economics and sound business practices. We do this not only because it is our field of business endeavor, but because of our firm belief that an adequate merchant marine is an important part of our national economy, and a vital part of our national defense system.

After careful study and consideration over many years, and for the reasons which I will hereinafter state, the membership of this federation does not believe that the St. Lawrence Seaway would open the Great Lakes to any substantial amount of ocean shipping, or would otherwise serve the objectives I have just mentioned.

If the committee pleases, we do not propose to take direct issue with the Secretary of Defense as to the national defense value or utility of the St. Lawrence seaway. We are not military experts and we do not wish to pose as such. However, we cannot escape the vision of certain aspects of this seaway project, which to shipowners and operators appear to be in conflict with some of the testimony you have received. There appears to us every reason for serious concern over the possibility of the blocking of this waterway through bombing or sabotage of the locks or of the channel; or the blocking of the channel by the sinking of ships or other obstructions, which would effectively bottle up any fleet of vessels which might be west of the obstruction and would render useless such vessels and the seaway.

The committee must be aware that the military protection of t'his very expensive seaway has been only lightly touched upon by its advocates. They are aware that the Army engineers have urged a sea-level canal at Panama, because of the vulnerability of any lock system. They know also that the levels of the water bodies to be connected in the St. Lawrence project make a sea-level waterway impossible.

Chairman HART of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee in a committee report said recently that a dislocation o! the lock system at Panama could render that canal unusable !or 2 years-, and General Vandenberg, Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, was quoted recently as stating that

·in the event of a concerted enemy bomber attack, we could expect to stop only 30 per~ cent of the attacking aircraft. · The · prospect of landlocking a substantial amount of ocean shipping and of the products of lake shipbuilding or other national defense plants cannot be casually dismissed. .It 1s hardly consistent with a policy-o:t: dis-

persal of industrial , plants and defense agencies. - The principal reasons why we feel that the building of the St. Lawrence Seaway will not promote American-flag deep-water shipping or the carriage of our waterborne commerce are as follows:

1. It is proposed to create a waterway with a minimum depth of 27 feet. In the operation of a large majority of our deep-water vessels such a draft does nat permit utilization of the maximum carrying capacity. The control of the exact trim of a large _ocean-going ·vessel under all conditions is a very delicate one. The average draft of a deep-water vessel rarely ever represents the deepest point of draft, and the relationship is affected by frequent changes which may occur in the trim or the list of the vessel, due to consumption of fuel, or other reasons. Competent navigators do not consider that it would be safe to send a deep-water vessel over this waterway unless there were at least 3 feet of water under her keel at its lowest pqint. This automatically reduces the allowable draft at the lowest point to 24: feet.

It should be noted that in order to obtain a permit in Montreal, vessels must have a minimum clearance of 2¥2 feet; and of 3 feet for vessels over 10,500 deadweight tons.

May I say at this point the ocean vessels would be of that size or larger.

The larger the vessel, obviously, the greater the necessary · minimum clearance. A 27-foot channel would not permit safe navigation for sizable ocean vessels which draw over 24 feet. Shipowners or marine underwriters who pay the bills for grounding or stranding might easily require a greater margin over an extensive waterway such as is planned. When fresh water is entered, the 3-foot clearance at tidewater entrance point would be reduced by about 9 inches, due to the larger density of the supporting water body.

The committee may be interested to know that the designed draft of the Liberty-type cargo vessel is 27 feet, 8 inches; the Victory 28 feet, 6 inches; the new Mariner type. which has just been authorized for the Maritime Administration to build, is 29 feet, 9 inches. The trend is definitely to larger and deeper-draft vessels for economic reasons.

2. The United States privately owned merchant marine is comprised of 14,844,000 deadweight tons. The number of such ships having a draft of 24 feet or less totals less than one-half million deadweight tons. It is, therefore, obvious that only about 4 percent of our privately owned American-flag merchant fleet could operate through this waterway with full utilization of weightlifting capacity.

By co:tnparison, the merchant marines of foreign flag are comprised of smaller units. Our best information shows that over 15 percent of the t _onnage of foreign merchant fleets would be able to use the 27-foot waterway at full draft. I might say, Mr. Chairman, la.ter research shows it is approximately 19 percent. Hence, a very distinct advantage would be given to foreign shipping in providing a waterway much more usable to their ships than to our own.

The reason foreign merchant ships are . smaller is fun,damental. Gen~rally speak_ing, the cost of operating ~ foreign ship 18 approximately two-thirds_ that of a corresponding American ship. Labor is one of the big elements of operating costs. Considering overtime and bonuses, the wage paid to an American seaman is appro;x:imat~Iy t~ee times the amount paid to corresponding ratings on foreign-flag ships and the aggregate is three times or more. The smaller the

-vessel, the more imP,Ortant the labor and other operating costs reflected in the overall expense 'per ton -«?f capacity; .

American ships are having ~- great struggle to maintain themselves in international trading while paying Am.erican atandarda


of wages and maintaining American standards of living. It is impossible for these vessels to compete other than through larger size and capacity with corresponding reduction in our per-cargo-ton operating cost; i. e., a form of mass procl.uction. . . It is significant that with the present

waterway through the St. Lawrence Basin, only Dutch, Swedish, and Norwegian lines operate regular service between the Great Lakes and transoceanic foreign destinations, and these only to north European ports in the most northerly latitudes. Forty-four such vessels-none of United States registry-were engaged in these operations during the 1950 open season. These are small foreign vessels, in the neighborhood of 250 feet in length, and of shallow draft.

Most of these small foreign vessels operate about 2 trips a year during the open season, and I find no one who can make more than 4 trips a year during the open season.

The investment of huge sums of the capital of our Government into a seaway project, which by its physical lim1tations increases the economic advantages of foreign shipping over American shipping in American commerce, deserves serious consideration by this committee.

3. Testimony has been given before the committee concerning the draft at which American-flag vessels may operate short' of their full lifting capacity on a so-called financially successful basis. We fin<;l it necessary to caution the committee against such testimony. We have no doubt as to the sincerity of the witness, but based upon many years of private enterprise operation over a broad cross section of deep-water shipping, we can assure you, without equivocation, that the question cannot be so simply solved by any basic computation. Each individual instance must be separately examined. No generalizations are possible. A ·computation as 'to the reduced capacity at which a vessel may economically operate involves many factors. It includes:

(a) The point of origin and the point of destination, hence the length of the voyage;

(b) The character of the commodity or commodities transported, including their cubic contents as related to dead weight;

(c) The character and value of the c ~::.1.modity, hence the freight rate which such a commodity may bear without endangering its market position;

(d) Whether the transporting vessel or vessels may obtain cargoes in both directions and of what commodities, and at what freight rates;

(e) Whether or not a ballast, or nearly ballast, voyage is necessary in one direction, requiring that the total cost of the round voyage be borne from the revenues received on a one-direction cargo or part cargo;

(f) The .cost of cargo handling and terminal expenses which are not constant as to varying commodities and various ports, and in certain American trades absorb even a majority of the gross revenue dollar.

From these considerations it will be obvious that to settle in advance as to the ability of a fleet of merchant-vessels to operate successfully over such a waterway Ht some predetermined level of p art loads, in one or both directions, is highly speculative. In reality it is crystal gazing of the first m agnitude. Even if it could be determined at the moment for a given set of facts, the changing flow of commerce would make such a computation unreliable.

4. It is the belief of our members that the building of a seaway of 27-foot depth might be but the beginning. The Chief of Engineers of 'the United States Army and the Maritime Administration have already recommended that the depth be increased to 30 feet. Once the work is undertaken, efforts would shortly begin to increase its depth. The ultimate construction cost might far exceed any figure yet mentioned; and the co:::t

of maintaining a deeper channel over so long a route could easily prove prohibitive.

The relationship of estimated to actual cost of similar projects is generally 1 to 3. With present-day unstable costs, it is not unreasonable to anticipate that this experience will be repeated or exceeded. And we cannot ignore the cost of deepening the major Great Lakes ports to 27 feet. The total cost of access channels alone, based upon the estimates furnished by the Army engineers and corrected to reflect the price index from mid-1948 to today for 10 typical ports is $13 ,684,000.

The city of Buffalo conducted a survey .in 1941 as to the cost of port improvements related to such a seaway and found it to be $47 million for Buffalo alone. If the seaway depth is eventually to exceed the 27 feet now contemplated, the access channels to Great Lakes ports must be improved at very substantial increases in cost, as well as other improvements to their harbors. Not only is the question of depth involved, but the width of such a channel is important. If oceangoing vessels are to pass, it must be realized that these vessels will have a beam of 50 to 80 feet; that they must be kept well clear of the bank on either side, and there must be a substantial area of clear water between them in passing.

Iron ore, coal, and grain would be . expected to dominate, -the trade passing through the St. Lawrence Seaway. Petroleum has been mentioned, but we seriously doubt any large volume. We also doubt coal movement to or from any point of the river system, or toll point. Grain is considered to be of equivalent weight and cubic content. But ore and coal are strong weight commodities which immerse the ship to her maximum draft long before the ship's holds are filled.

5. It is a well-known fact that the St. Lawrence and the lake area is closed to navigation for approximately 5 months per year.

-During such period a suspension of service is obviously required; and, as continuous

. operation in international trades is necessary, vessels would have to be diverted to open coastal ports during the closed seaway period. Such an arrangement would necessitate the maintenance of warehouses, elevators, terminals, wharves, lighters, tugs, and trained labor in such ·open harbors capable of taking care of their normal, plus the diverted , tonnage from the St. Lawrence area. It would result in the diversion of the commerce itself, as well as the maintenance of offices and organizations by the shipping companies bot h in the St. Lawrence area and at the open ports. The open coastal ports are many hundred miles closer to the major overseas destinations. · It therefore requires a smaller fleet to accommodate the same volume of traffic over the shorter overseas run and would render idle the additional ships necessary over the more circuitous route through the St. Lawrence Seaway during the open season. This diversion and shifting of commerce is not conducive to its healthy growth and development. It is discouraging to the provision of adequate and modern port facilities and skilled labor.

6. One of the things which must be borne in mind when we consider the St. Lawrence Seaway is the large amount of diversionary steaming necessary to reach certain world markets. To enter - the mouth of such a waterway, it is necessary for vessels to steam to 49 • north latitude. This is over 800 miles north of Boston, and more than 1,000 miles north of New York. The area which is most advantageous for trading through such a waterway is , of course, the Baltic and British Channel areas, because they lie in northerly latitudes.

It must be considered that of the seaway course approximately 360 miles will represent a confined channel and a series of 17 locks. The locking of vessels, particularly where

there fs a substantial difference in water level, which over the entire waterway system will aggregate 600 feet and in the case of the lock system connecting Lakes. Ontario and Erie amounts to 324 feet, is a time-consmping and delaying operation. l,.arge ocean vessels cannot procee'd at full hea:dway in a confined channel. Usually they must reduce their speed to 6 or 8 knots, which is the customary ~speed limit within harbor areas. Eight hours will be required for locking vessels through the Weiland Canal locks connecting Lakes Ontario and Erie.

We have noted with interest the testimony concerning the making of the .St. Lawrence seaway self-sustaining through the imposition of tolls. While not posing as experts on lake area traffic, we cannot avoid being impressed with the apparent unreliability of the traffic and -the toll schedule submitted by the Department of Commerce." ·

Mr. LONG. Mr: President, Mr. Lionel Chevrier, Canadian transport minister, told the Canadian House of Commons on December 4, 1951, that he did not antic· ipate any important·movement of ocean cargo over the waterway. This cargo would largely be transshipped at Mont'" real, he said.

The Honorable Charles Sawyer, former Secretary of Commerce, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that tP,_e Department of Commerce expected more than 75 percent of ocean cargo moving over the waterway would move in lake-type vessels which cannot operate. in the ocean. The cargo would thus be transshipped at Montreal instead of at such present transshipment points as Buffalo and Oswego, N.Y.

With transshipment taking place at Montreal instead of Buffalo and Oswego, and with competition from small ·foreign vessels, Senators can rest assured that the seaway would not remain at only 27 feet · very long. American economic interests would see to that.

CANADA'S ATTITUDE

What is the attitude of Canada toward our participation in this project? - Does Canada want us to participate? Wili it allow us to participate in the Canad~an aspects of it?

We have touched upon this point earl· ier, and a re-view of recent remarks by the Canadian Minister . of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Howe, and the Canadia_n Minister of Transport, Mr. Chevrier,

. might add light to· it. The situation was summed up nicely

in the ·previously quoted Washington speech of the Canadian Minister of Transport,. Mr .. Chevrier. Mr. Chevrier was plainly expressing his dissatisfaction with the agitation that this country "get in on the project" by doing the work in the International Rapids section.

He explained how it was quite natural for our active interest to be in the de· velopment of the Great Lakes: .

On the other hand, for well over 200 years Canada has been activel~r interested in and exclusively responsible !or the progressive development which has taken place in the St. Lawrence River from the gulf to La~e Erie. '

Mr. Chevrier insisted that the only co· operation wanted from this country was in the building of the powerplant in the International Rapids section of the -river. That question . has been decided by the Federal Power Commission.

1951,; CONG~SSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 363 Another indication that Canada would

not accept the proposition in the pending bill is seen in the utterance on a Town Hall program in New York on April 7, 1953, by the Right Honorable C. D. Howe, Canadian Minister of Trade and Commerce. Mr. Howe said:

Proposals are now being advanced that the United States should build the new canal in the International Rapids section. It seems to me that such a proposal can only complicate the present situation. Ownership by the United States o! a short section o! a very long seaway would not only add to the overall construction cost, but would complicate problems o! maintenance and op.eration o! the canal system. It seems to me that continued ownership by one national authority o! the entire seaway represents the most emcient procedure. There are critical channels between the upper lakes that will require deepening to 27 feet at some stage. By assuming responsibility !or such deepening, your country can assume a much more logical and valuable role by making 27-!oot navigation .possible throUghout the upper lakes, to conform with the depths provided in the all-Canadian seaway.

In conclusion I would like to summarize my position with respect to this project. ·

First. The sea way is primarily a Canadian project. Canada is ready and able to build the project and actually has already passed legislation to begin construction.

Second.· American participation would initially · cost United States taxpayers $105 million, but such additional costs as deepening of· channels and dredging of harbors will eventually cost this Nation $4 billion.

Third. Adequate funds are lacking to · construct 42 of our own navigation projects.

Fourth. In the final analysis, the project is a "foreign aid" bill to provide economic aid to one of the richest nations in the world. ·

Fifth. The seaway is not essential to national defense. In fact, it would be highly vulnerable to enemy attack. or sabotage.

Remember, Canada, is ready and willing to assume the $105 million cost of this portion of-the pr.oject. I feel that if we spend this $105 million now we will, in the future, be required to stand all or a major portion of the additional hidden costs.

We have a major item of expense initially in deepening the connecting channels of the Great Lakes to 27 feet. Canada w.ill not pay anything toward this, and we will be required to go it alone. This will cost us $100 million, and Canada will enjoy the benefits at no cost to herself.

At the rate the administration is providing money to continue essential projects of this Nation it will be doomsday before some of our own authorized projects are completed.

Let Canada build her projects and we will build ours. The only pzople who should complain are those who cannot bear to see other countries spend some of their own money without the help from the American Treasury.

Canada has a balanced budget. Compared to her population, she is not onethird as deeply in debt as we are, and her

prosperity is growing by construction of a power dam at the International Rapids section.

By permitting Canada to go ahead with her plans to construct a 27-foot project, we· will save the taxpayers of this Nation $105 million for the present, and a possible $3 billion to $4 billion in the future.

Mr. President, in that connection, I should like to refer to the committee report itself, where the committee sets forth a comparison of costs of various projects both in the United States and elsewhere. The committee report sets forth more than 40 projects, to show the cost of the various projects authorized by the Congress. The list appears on page 16 of the report.

Demopolis Dam. The estimated cost for the Demopolis Dam and the work that goes al:ng with it is $20,843,000. Thus far there has been appropriated $3,438,900. I understand that the locks are just about to collapse because they are in such terrible condition. Yet last year Congress appropriated only $900,-000. At;. the present rate it will be another 17 years before that project is completed.

There are other projects which are just as vitally needed. , The report does not mention the Keokuk locks in the State of Iowa. Those locks must be replaced over a period . of_ time.,. because they are inadequate, as the junior Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HuMPHREY]. who sits before me, knows very well.

It is extremely interesting to note that some of the projects are progressing rather slowly. For example, there is shown in the report a project on the Arkansas River, located in Arkansas and Oklahoma. That project, when completed, is estimated to cost $686 million. Thus far there has been appropriated $3,175,ooo: The appropriation last year was $700,000. At that rate it will be more than 1,000 years before it is completed.

At the rate ·at which Congress is providing funds, it will mean 20, 30, or perhaps a hundred 'years before many of the authorized projects are completed.

Mr. President, I . ask unanimous consent that, at this point in my remarks. there be printed from the committee x:eport the projects authorized, with the total estimated Federal cost, the amount . · appropriated to date, and the 1951 appropriation.

Last year the Senate heard an eloquent argument made by the Senator from Arkansas regarding work ori the


Project . mated Fed·· propriated 1951 appro-

I Total esti- . Amoont ap-

era! £OSt to date prlation '· I

Alabama: Jim Woodruff lock and dam, Florida_----·------------------------.Buford Dam, Ga. ____________ -------------------------------------Demopolis lock and dam, Alabama ______________ ____ ___ __________ _

Arkansas: Ark~~sas River and tributarle~. Arkansas and Oklahoma_· __ California: . .

Sacramento River ship channeL----------------------------------San Diego River and ·Mission Bay---------~-----------':"-----------

Florida: · Jacksonville to Miami Waterway--------------------------------'--Jacksonville Harbor _____ ------------------------------------------

. Geor:ria: Savannah Harbor_------------------------------------------lllinois:

illinois Waterway (exclusive of Calumet-Sag Channel) _________ ___ _ (A) Chain of Rocks CanaL __________________________________ _

(B) Regulating works ___ --------------------------------------Minneapolis: .

(A) St. Anthony Falls, Minn----------------------------------(C) Other work _____ ---- --------------------------------------

Ohio River locks and dams: (D) Work (exclusive of major replace· ments) ___ -------- __________________________ ____ _________________ _ Ohio !{.iver open channel work ____________________ __ ______________ _

Iowa: Missouri River from Kansas City, Mo., to Sioux City, Iowa ___ _ Louisiana:

Calcasieu River and Pass------- - ------ - - -- - -----------------------Gulf Intracoastal Waterway: (A) Algiers Cutoff __ _ ----------------Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to Gulf of Mexico ____ __ _________ . __

Maryland: Baltimore Harbor and channels ___________________ __ : _____ _ Massachusetts: Fall River Harbor ___________________________ ; ________ _ Michigan: St. Marys River: Soo Locks _____________ _______________ ___ _ Missouri: Missouri River, Kansas Oity to mouth _____________________ _ Montana: Missouri River at Fork Peck ______________________________ _ New Jersey: •

·Newark Bay, Hackensack and Passaic Rivers __________ __________ _ New York and New Jersey Channels------------------------------

New York: Buffalo Harbor _____ -----------------------------------------------Hudson River· ChanneL _____________________________________ ------New York Harbor, entrance channels and anchorage areas ________ _

Ohio: Cleveland Harbor _______________ --------------------------------Oregon: McNary Dam, Oreg. and Wash ______________________________ _ Pennsylvania:

Monongahela River, Pa. and W.Va.: (C) Locks 2, Pennsylvania, and Morgantown lock and dam, 'Vest Virginia _______ ______ ____ _

Schuylkill River (culm removal) ___ __ . __ . _ . . __ _ . . ___ . __ ____ ___ __ __ _ T ennessee: Cumberland River, Ky. and Tenn.: Cheatham lock and

dam, 'l'ennessee ________ --------------------------- __________________ _ Texas:

Brazos Island Harbor----------------------------------------------Housfon ship channeL __________ __ -------------------------------- -Gulf Waterway (Gah·est.on District.) ______________________________ _ Sabine-Neches " ' at.erway __________ ------ ____________ ------ __ ----- _

Washington: Chief Joseph Dam __ _____ ------------------------------------------Grays Harbor and Chehalis River_--------------------------------

1 Plann~ng funds.

Table supplied by the Department of the Army.

$42,208, Ooo 40,225, ()()() 20,843, ()()()

686, 370, 000

27,600, ()()() 10,300,000

24,131,000 12,044,400 9, 057,700

29,164,800 39,825, ()()() 55,778,000

20.4n. 700 173, 108,300

120. 222.100 21.546.300

172, 112, 900

12,645. ()()() 14,400,000 31.609,000 10.400.000

2, 929, 800 92,228,100

113. 297. 100 156, 900, 000

9,822,000 53,141,000

16,146,000 7,074,000

17,900,000 23,904,000

270, 000, 000

$24, 400, 000 12,574,600

14,000,000

7, 759,300 17,403, 800 29,222, 500 15,320,500

206, 000, 000 6, 622,200

$14, 949, 000 $2,750,000 2,300, 000 900, ()()() 3, 438.900 2, 100,000 3,175, 000 { 1240,000

700,000

2, 298,700 263,000 6, 025,000 1, 500; 000

8,131,100 500,000 9, 663,200 800. ()()() 8, 487, 700 540,000

. 27, 422, 300 700,000 33,528, ()()() 8, 500, ()()() 42,083,500 330,000

3, 609.800 494.400 154,588, 500 77,200

111, 614. 100 --------------15,873,100 200.000 102, 555, 900 3, 750,000

6,818, 700 600.000 9. 472.000 3,400,000

25,300. 000 --------------6,.801. 600 650,000 2,2~2. 800 250.000

62,020,600 1,300, 000 89,136,900 2,250, ()()()

131,974,800 883,00)

7, 700, ()()() 1,100,000 33,497,000 2,665,000

4, 623,000 900.000 6, 528,000 300,000

15,776,000 350, ()()() 10,227,900 237,000

112, 185, 000 39,610,000

$18, 780. ()()() f5, 780,000 400,000 --------------

3, 636,500 2,050,000

4, 709,300 ------- -------12, 058,500 800,000 22,218,500 880.000 14,835,500 1, 500, ()()()

26, 700,800 18,529, oco 3, 991,500 50(),000

364 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE January -18 Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President-The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr.

JOHNSON of Texas in the chair). Does the Senator from Louisiana yield t.o the Senator from Minnesota?

Mr. LONG. I yield. Mr. HUMPHREY. I well realize that

the Senator from Louisiana is sincerely and conscientiously opposed to participation by the United States in the St. Lawrence seaway program. - However, - I wonder if he would give me the benefit of his advice, regardless of his opposition; I know he is very objective in these matters.

As the Senator knows, the present project will extend only as far as the head of the lakes, we might say, at Lake Erie. It includes the International napids section. It also includes the bypassing of that section and the deepening of lakes and canals over a 114-mile strip. In view of the material from the Committee on Public Works to which the Senator has just referred, would the Senator answer a question of those of us who are interested in the St. Lawl·ence seaway?

Would my colleague from Louisiana suggest that we include all of them in one bill? • . 1

Mr. LONG. I am frank to say to the Senator from Minnesota that I believe he should submit a bill to authorize that these channels be deepened to 27 feet, and that that bill should go through the usual authorization process and should come up for appropriation. The Executive and also the Congress should study that proposal, along with all other proposals for public works, and should ascertain how much money can be made available for the development of all such projects that are important to our Nation, and should determine the share which would fairly be attributable to the Great Lakes, for the improvement of that area.

It seems to me that when Canada deepens the channels along the St. Lawrence River to 27 feet--as I think she is going to do, and as I think she · should do-it is properly the United States share to deepen the Great Lakes channels to 27 feet, so that large vessels will be able to travel from Lake Superior into Lake Michigan, and from Lake Michigan into Lake Huron, and from Lake Huron into Lake Erie. That is the part -of thesystem on which United States funds should be spent.

On the other hand, Canada is ready to build .the 27-foot · locks and thus open the St. Lawrence River to navigation by vessels which will require a clear depth of 27 feet. Canada is ready to do that, and that project will not cost the-United States five cents. Therefore -the United States can spend her money on the United States . projects; namely, on deepening . the channels . between the Great Lakes. ·

I am frank to say that if anyone thinks .the representatives ot the ports along the Great. Lakes will not be requesting Congress to provide funds-for the deepening of their ports to a depth of 27 feet he is very little experienced with water~ ways. I am certain that those States will expect just as much from their Rep-

resentatives in the Congress of the United -States as will the people in the coastal States of the Nation. ·

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Louisiana yield at this point?

Mr. LONG. I yield. Mr. ·HUMPHREY. I think the Sen

~tor from Louisiana is being extraordinarily fair and objective in his analysis, because I can assure him:, and also our absentee colleagues-we have a full Democratic majority here this afternoon, I notice, from the presiding officer, the minority leader, to the acting minority leader and to the distinguished junior Senator from Louisiana. [Laughter.]

I merely wish to assure at least the Democratic majority that is now in the Chamber, · and also our absent Republican friends; that we shall be proposing-if not to this bill, certainly at a later date-the deepening of the 27-foot channels in the Great Lakes and the deepen-ing of the harbors. ·

T would not feel that :t was proper:ly re-presenting the State · from which I come if I did not do everything i could to see to it that the port of Duluth would have an opportunity to use the 27-foot seaway and the 27-foot channel.

We know that at the present time that depth of water is not ·available, and therefore the port of Duluth will ·have to be improved. The only question in my mind-and I am speaking to my good friend, the Senator from Louisiana, as man to man-is whether we should attempt to have that feature included as an amendment to the pending bill. I am of the opinion that we should; I think all of the work should be done at the same time.

We are going to have the opposition of the Senator from ·Louisiana to the St. Lawrence Seaway, I understand; but I know he is a strong advocate of improvements, river and harbor, and I know he has a love for the Mississippi River. I know, as -does he, that the headwaters of the Mississippi River are in the State of Minnesota. Since that is the origin of the great Father of Waters, I know that if the distinguished senior Senator from Louisiana saw submitted to the pending bill an amendment which would benefit the great State of Minnesota, much of his enthusiasm in opposition would be diluted, anC: would, so to speak, wither away, or evaporate.

So I wonder whether we should submit such an 'amendment now, and therefore give the Senator from Louisiana an opportunity to cast at least a weak and sort of pleasant and half-hearted vote in favor of the St. Lawrence Seaway bill, simply because it would then include provision for the deepening of the channels in the Great Lakes. Would that help the Senator from Louisiana come to a proper conclusion on this matter?

Mr. LONG. That would help the Senator from Louisiana.

Let me say further to my good friend, the Senator from Minnesota, that the tradition of the Senate is that when we authorize such vast public works, we generally do so by means of an omnibus public-works bill, because some projects are-needed in the State of Minnesota.

others are needed in the State of' New York, and others are needed in other States, including my own State ef Louisiana. So- usually all such important projects for the improvement of public works, as needed in various parts of the Nation, are included in one bill, so that no Member of Congress will have to ·be selfish about the matter, by supporting a bill to authorize only the projects in his own State. Instead, all such projects are usually included in one bill.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Louisiana yield further to me?

Mr. LONG. I yield. Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator from

Louisiana worried me when he read into the RECORD figures regarding the longevity of such undertakings and the length of time that apparently will be required before some of the projects are realized or completed.

The people ·in my section of the country live a long time, and we have waited 35 or even 40 years for construction of a piece of the St. Lawrence Seaway.~ I want my colleague to ·know that it is just one piece. - ·

So far as the proposed project we are now ·considering is concerned, the St. Lawrence Seaway now coines to us almost in the nude, · s·o to · speak. In the ·pending measure there is no provision . for deepening the channels or the harbors on the Great Lakes-. We have before us now a: bill which incorporates only the bare skeleton of t~e St. Lawrence Seaway.

· Judging from what the Senator from Louisiana· has read to us in the last few minutes, if. we ~are to wait until we are able to obtain an' authorization for the deepening _of the channels on the Great Lakes, I am afraid that by tha.t" time the part of the project proposed. in ·th'e pending bill will be antiquated, because the Senator from Louisia11a has point~d out that is has taken or-will take from 25 to 40 years befor_e some of these projects have been completed or will be completed.

I desire to point out that I believe the ~t. Lawrence Seaway project should be constructed and completed in toto.

Of course, Mr. President, I .realize it is better to get half a loaf than none; and I realize that it is better to shoot an inch rather than to hope to shoot a .mile. . However, I desire to have the Senator from Louisiana know that I shall vigorously support the pending St. Lawrence Seaway project, and I .want no ~me to misunderstand what I believe to be the ultimate objeCtive. So far as. I am concerned, Mr. President, the ultimate· objective is .. the deepening of the part of the project which is within the Great Lakes and, as the Senator from Louisiana knows, within United -$tates' jurisdiction. I think that should be done.

I believe it is a capital crime that the greatest inland body of water in the world now is only half used. Some of -the large iron-ore-carrying :vessels are unable to m:e the present system of locks because the vessels are too large and the present lock::; are too . small.

No nation on earth, save the United States of America. would permit such a

195/,. CONGRESSIONAL-RECORD- SENATE 365 system to be unused or undeveloped, in the way the United States has permitted one of the greatest waterway systems of the world to remain undeveloped.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, my-point is that the section on the Great Lakes is the part for which Canada will expect the United States to bear the full cost. Canada has not taken a part in the port projects, nor in the future will Canada expect to spend 5 cents in deepening any of the channels on the Great Lakes or Lake St. Clair, the Mackinaw Channel, or the deeper channel at Sault Ste. Marie. Canada does not expect to pay even 5 cents of the cost of providing for 27-foot navigation in those areas. Nor, if we ever reach the point where there _ will be a 35-foot channel, will Canada expect to spend her funds for the construction of a 35-foot channel into Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, or Lake Superior. _

I have read the statements which have been made by various of the Canadian Cabinet Ministers, and it is obvious that Canada expects the United States to handle that part of the cost and that part of the · system.

Canada already has an investment of $300,000,000 in navigation in the St. Lawrence and the Weiland Canal. It will not cost Canada much more to make the Weiland Canal available to 27-foot navigation, for at the present time that canal is for the most part usable to that extent.

Canada realizes that at the present time she has a navigation project of only 14 foot draft on the St. Lawrence River, and Canada says that project ·is not adequate for modern commerce. In addition, Canada believes that a power-· project should be constructed.

Incidentally, the junior Senator -from Louisiana believes the power projects should be constructed. That is one of the better power-project sites in the

· world; namefy, the one at the Iriterna--tional Rapids. When that power project is constructed, it will be necessary -to build locks, in order to make it pos-

. sible for vessels to pass over the power project dam. When such locks are built, what is the sense ·in building 14-foot locks, such as are in existence at the present time, when the next succeeding locks, on the Weiland Canal, provide 27-foot navigation and 30-foot locks.

The International Rapids section should be at least as deep as the locks on the Weiland Canal, and Canada proposes to make them that deep to meet the requirements of lake navigation. There must be four more locks farther downstream before reaching the sea, and Canada proposes to build those locks on her segment. She expects no contribution whatsoever from the United States toward the -building of those locks. Canada says, ''Give us a permit to go ahead and build the dam, and we will take care of the locks. We will not ask you to pay any of that cost." I have never seen any indication that Canada wants us to pay any part of that cost.

It is clear that some people would like to participate, and to spend our money, thinking that it would-give us some additional control over the project if we were to put up $100 million of American

money. Yet there is no assurance that we are to have any voice in the Canadian segment, and I doubt that Canada would permit us to have any voice in the Canadian segment. Canada has complete control of it. She agreed to an international treaty as far back as 1909, which provides that all tolls which may be charged will be charged to the United States and Canadian shipping alike. I presume that the charge to foreign nations would be on the same basis.

Up to this point, in improving navigation at a cost of- $300 million in this area, Canada has seen fit to make the project entirely toll-free to everyone. Therefore, there is - no cause for - the junior Senator from Louisiana to worry about Canada discriminating against us. If she were to do so, we would have plenty of opportunity to retaliate against Canada, although among friendly neighbors there is no reason why that should be necessary at all. One of the ways in which we could insist that Canada cooperate with us would be by providing navigation on the Great Lakes, to which the Senator from Minnesota has referred. That is properly the American share of the project, and Canadian ministers themselves have indicated that they wish we would improve that section of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence project, because Canada would improve the other segment.

Mr. President, in view of the fact that Canada always has maintained navigation in this area, in view of the fact that she would continue to maintain navigation in this area, in view of the fact that she is ready to spend the money, but all she wants is -a permit from the United States to build the dam on the International Rapids section, it seems to me that this bill partakes of the nature of a foreign-aid bill to provide economic aid to one of the richest nations in the world, which is another reason why_ I oppose the bill.

My fifth reason is that the seaway is not essential to -national defense. It would be highiy vulnerable to sabotage.

By permitting Canada to go ahead with her plans and construct a 27-foot project, we would save the taxpayers of this Nation $105 million for the present, and _possible $3 billion or $4 billion in the future. _ I have discussed the proposed figure of

$105 million. In my judgment this would not at all be adequate for the project we would be asked to build in the long run. I believe that in the long run, if the project were a fraction as good as its proponents say it is, we would be asked to build a 35-foot project. If we do so, the cost will be an additional $500 million to Q.eepen the channels in the Great Lakes; and it would cost another $500 million to deepen the channels in the Weiland Canal section.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. LONG. I yield. Mr. HUMPHREY. I am sure the Sen

ator from Louisiana wants the REcORD to be explicit and accurate. As the Sena-tor knows, the bill provides for toll charges, and the Senator knows that those toll charges are to be directed

toward the retirement of the cost of deepening the channels in the International Rapids section. We may dispute as to whether the toll charges will amount to the total which the experts now estimate. I make _this suggestion to the Senator from Louisiana: In connection with every transportation _ project we have ever designed or- built, the actual traffic has exceeded the wildest estimates. We have an example within recent months in the New Jersey Turnpike. The estimates of traffic by the best highway experts did not come anywhere near the actual volume of traffic. In connection with the Panama Canal, the experts on the traffic movement through the ' canal came nowhere near what actually happened. What actually happened was far greater than the estimates. I think the same thing is true even of the 9-foot channel on the Mississippi. I recall · the estimates made with respect to the upper Mississippi, as to the amount of traffic which would move in that area of the country. The estimates fell far short. I think they were something like one-fifth of the actual tonnage on the upper Mississippi.

The trouble with most of the experts is that they are pessimists. They have no faith in the future. The St. Lawrence will most likely offer an artery of traffic which will permit the movement of water transportation far beyond the most optimistic estimates at the present time. -

Mr. ·LONG. I believe the Senator will find that there are projects in the United States-and a considerable number of them--on which the traffic is not nearly as great as was estimated when the projects were authorized. I regr-et that that is true.

Some time ago the junior Senator from Louisiana was asked to go with other Senators to meet with the Army engineers, or perhaps it was the Bureau of the Budget. The junior Senator from Louisiana was not available at that particular time because he was busy on the fioor of the Senate. As I recall, the subject upon which we were asked_ to confer was an effort to persuade the responsible authorities not to close the locks on a particular navigation project and save the Government the expenSe of leek keepers, because the traffic was very slight on the particular canal. The railroads had so modified their rates as to provide what they called water competitive rates to the community being served by the waterw~y that it had simply destroyed much of the incentive to use that particular waterway.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. LONG. I yield. Mr. HUMPHREY. , I am delighted

that the Senator brought out that very important point. The truth is that whether or not a waterway is used as it is planned, it stands as a competitor, and serves as a sort of competitive yardstick as compared with rail transportation. We in the upper Midwest know that the very existence of a 9-foot channel on th~ upper Mississippi River-has done a great deal toward easing some of the transportation costs and providing a greater fiow_

366 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE January 18 of commerce as well as a greater development of business and industry. I think it is fair to say that water transportation, of which the Senator from Louisiana has been a stanch advocate--

Mr. LONG. And still is. Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator from

Louisiana is still a stanch advocate of water transportation. Water t:ransportation has done as much as any other single development in our country to ease transportation rates and make them more equitable, and to provide for a more general development of industry and commerce throughout the country.

I see the .Senator's point with reference to this project being an all-Canadian project. I think the Senator argues his point well. I believe the administration feels-and it has been the attitude of many Americans for some 40 years-that it would be better to have the St. Lawrence Seaway a jointly managed and controlled project and program. I see that there is merit on both sides of the question.

I shall be very candid with the Senator and tell him that I am disappointed that the public-power features are gone out of this project. I wish to register my disappointment. I am very much disappointed .that the deepening of the channels up to the Duluth-Superior Harbor has been excluded. That is the second largest harbor on the North American Continent, in terms of tonnage. It is an inland harbor, a part of my own great State of Minnesota.

I regret to see that we have been driven to the position of taking this little stretch of slightly more than 100 miles or nothing. However, I a.m not going to give up the last little bit merely because we did not get what I considered to be the total project.

I know that the Senator from Louisiana is not going to be convinced by any of my arguments. He has read the record. He is standing here defending his own honorable position. He is not unmindful of the irilportance of the port of New Orleans. Let me say to my friend from Louisiana that I want to see the port of New New Orleans grow. I want to see it grow by leaps and bounds. I remind him that a great deal of the commerce which comes down to the port of New Orleans originates in the great upper Midwest. It will be a greater commerce· as we develop the Mississippi for water transportation. It will be a greater commerce as we dev:elop the harbor at Duluth-Superior. The flow of commerce will extend all the way from the Atlantic, literally speaking, up -into the great State of Minnesota and down the Mississippi, with only a very small stretch of some 150 miles, between Duluth and Mimieapolis-St. Paul, by rail. In that way we will have actually provided a waterway all the way through the midcontinent of the United States, to the Atlantic, to the Gulf of Mexico, and into the port of New Orleans. I believe in the long run it will be good for both sections of the country. That is my view. Of course I have learned that men can hold to a view very strongly · and that other m~n

can hold just as strongly to opposite views, in all consciousness.

There is no effort in my section of the country to favor the St. Lawrence Seaway as against other developments. I believe there is plenty of room for development· in all sections of our country. If an economic recession occurs we will have to move forward on the project which the Senator from Louisiana mentioned a while ago. The Government has enough projects authorized by Congress to put a great many people to work and to keep the wheels of industry spinning. I was delighted that the Senator mentioned the projects.

We will not have to depend on the Eisenhower administration to create any new projects. Sufficient projects have already been authorized by previous administrations which saw the light of .day and realized what was needed.

Mr. LONG. At such time as 27-foot navigation into the Great Lakes is feasible, if the junior Senator from Minnesota will submit a bill to authorize the channels in the Great Lakes to be deepened, and if the Committee on Public Works will recommend the projects-as any good public project should be recommended-! shall support the project, which would cost approximately $100 million.

That is what the junior Senator from Louisiana believes is properly the American phase of the project. Further, if in the future it should appear that those connections have to be further deepened, and if it should appear that the connections were feasible and if commerce in the Great Lakes developed to the extent that it would justify the deepening of the navigational approaches into the Great Lakes, and if Canada did her share-the junior Senator from Louisiana would not oppose the project, but would be inclined to go along with it.

However, Mr. President, I do not agi:ee that the proposed waterway would be self-liquidating. I doubt it very seriously.

I refer the Senator from Minnesota to page 83 of the hearings on House Joint Resolution 104. On page 83 of the hearings, which I do not believe the Senator from Minnesota has before him, there appears the cost of shipping 1 ton of iron ore from Seven Islands to Pittsburgh, as follows:

Seven Islands to Baltimore via ocean and thence by rail to Pittsburgh, $4. 78.

Seven Islands to Ashtabula via 27-foot seaway and thence by rail to Pittsburgh, $4.15. The indicated saving to Pittsburgh is 63 cents a ton. It is proposed on that tonnage to levy a toll of 50 cents a ton, thus leaving a saving of l3 cents on the gross bill. Mr. President, the railroads would not spend e'ven as much as 5 minutes in making application to reduce the rate by 13 cents or 50 cents or even a dollar in order to retain the traffic. Then we would have that much less navigation on the watel·-way. .

In the State of Louisiana we have a 14-foot project on the intercoastal wa~ terway. As I recall, it has handled approximately 14 million tons a year a.t Harvey lock. That project is in direct

competition with coastwise shipping and also with the railroads, which have had to reduce their freight rates to meet the competition. If we were to impose a toll of 50 cents a ton on that waterway anyone in New Orleans or Louisiana would tell you, Mr. President, that it would reduce the amount of traffic that would move on that waterway. . .

On the other hand, we have before us a proposal based on the assumption that when we deepen a channel from 14 feet to 27 feet and impose a toll of 50 cents a ton, that that will mean an increase in traffic almost overnight from 11 million tons to 30 million tons after the toll is charged. ·

The charging of a toll reduces traffic instead of increasing it. The only project known to me, operating on a toll basis which is actually paying off at a profit, is the Panama Canal. Of course, everyone is willing to pay the toll in order to go through the Panama Canal, because if he did not use the Panama Canal he would have to go all the way around the Continent of South America. Except for the Panama Canal, the junior Senator from Louisiana knows of no project where the charging of a toll increases traffic. To suggest that the toll, in the face of the lower freight rates which the railroads would ultimately apply, would make the project selfliquidating, seems ridiculous to the junior Senator from Louisiana.

Personally, I have never felt that we should impose tolls on a waterway. I predict that financing the proposed project out of tolls ·will fail: I expect the present sponsors of the bill to return to the Senate within a very short period of time, in the event the bill should pass, and ask that Congress appropriate the necessary money to make the project a toll-free navigation project just as is the case with every other navigation project in North America with the exception of the Panama Canal.

I have alluded to some extent to the so-called hidden costs, which I believe will be in the neighborhood Of a billion dollars, namely, for deepening the channels to get into the G::eat Lakes, and deepening the Weiland Canal. In the long run it will also be necessary to deepen most if not all of the 89 harbors on the Great Lakes.

I realize that the matter would be brought up gradually. We would be asked to deepen first of all the most needed channels, but over a period of time we can foresee that the project could cost as much as from $2 billion to $3 billion for the deepening of the harbors alone.

If we were to spend the $105,000,00n here requested, we would be required in the future to spend a major portion of the additional hidden costs, and I believe we would be required to spend a greater proportion of them than if we were to permit Canada to build the navigation project: as she now proposes t.o do. If we permit Canada to construct navigation facilities into the Great Lakes, there will be less likelihood that Canada will ask us to pick up the check for deep .. ening the channels ·from 2'1 to 35 feet,

1954 CONGltESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE

if it is decided to undertake that ]>roject in the Weiland Canal, for example.

Therefore, it seems to me, Mr. President, that Canada should build her projects and the United States should build its projects.

After all, Canada is one of the richest nations in the world. Canada has a balanced budget. Compared to her population, she is not one-third as deeply in debt as we are, and her prosperity is growing by leaps and bounds.

Less than half her budget is devoted to national defense, while the United States spends 70 percent of her dollars for national defense and foreign aid.

Therefore, it seems to me, further, that to rely upon this project as a matter of national defense is the height of folly.

In the :first place, the project will be frozen over at least 4 months each year. It will be necessary to go tl).rough 14 locks to reach Lake ·Erie. We would have to erect major defenses for each one.

Successful attack or sabotage of any of the 14 locks would render the entire project useless. It would be 10 -times as difficult to defend as would be the Panama Canal, which already ties down large numbers of American Army, Naval, and Air Forces.

If a ship should be sunk anywhere along the 300-mile channel it would prevent the use of the entire project. Every ship. caught in the Great Lakes at the time the locks were damaged would be trapped there. Imagine a fieet of destroyers o:r any other kind _of battleships bottled -up in the Great Lakes for the duration. The fact that those locks ·are .so hazardous and could be so easily knocked out means that we could not safely rely upon the efficiency of the project. There would be too great a danger of ships being trapped in the event that any of the locks were knocked out.

Mr. President, I offered an amendment which is at the desk, and I desire at this time to offer another amendment and ask that it lie on the desk and be printed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment otiered by the Senator from Louisiana will be received, printed, and lie on the table.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, this amendment and the one previously submitted propose that· the project receive annual appropriations just as every other project receives annual appropriations. The necessity and desirability of the expenditure of large sums for this project should be weighed against_ other pressing inland waterway developments and repairs. For that reason I feel that the CongreSs should, through the proper committee-in this instance, the Appro-

. priations Committee-require justification for the expenditures on an annual basis. ·

Under the pending proposal, the Seaway Corporation would be permitted tO borrow $105 million from the United States Treasury without any further accounting.

It 8eenis to me we should require that every dollar spent for this project be carefully scrutini~d by the Appropria-

tions Committee to protect the interests of the Nation.

It is also important to notice that although it · is supposed to be a joint endeavor, we are not told in many cases what the agreements are. When we are told that the project is to be self-liquidating, many of us fear that any chance that it might liquidate itself disappears if it is to be operated in connection with a 14-foot projec.t.

We have had no response to our question whether the 14-foot project is to operate toll-free in competition with the 27-foot project which would carry a 50-cent toll, or whether the 27-foot project is going to be self-liquidating by requiring that the 14-foot project be closed.

So far, Mr. President, we have- no agreement on that subject. When the matter comes before the Appropriations Committee it would be well for the committee to inquire what etiorts have been made to protect our investment. Certain other agreements may be necessary. It is necessary for us to know what the Canadian policy will be with regard. to the four locks through which a ship must go in order to get to the free American lock.

There should be an effort to protect the American taxpayers by looking into questions of that kind in the event the project is constructed. ·

I have otiered these amendments and shall discuss them at further . length when the Senate decides to vote upon the proposed legislation, because I believe the .project should be constructed under the same constitutional and legal protections which have so long been provided in connection with the expenditure of the taxpayers' money.

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT PARTY

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I desire to speak for the RECORD this afternoon, and, through the RECORD, to the people of my State.

During the past several weeks, and again this afternoon, I have been advised by the submission of some statistics, which seem to me to be alarming, that unemployment in the State of Oregon. today. is greater than it has been for some years past. It is so great as to present a frightening situation.

As· the people of my State know. I forewarned of this situation approximately a year ago, when the Eisenhower administration started its return to the economic policies of the Hoover administration, which brought on the great depression of the late 1920's. I suggested then, that I did not expect that this bigbusiness administration would learn from the mistakes the Republican Party made in the 1920's. In a series of speeches in the Senate last year, I tried to get the administration to see the light before it was too late. I urged it to make some new starts in the great wealth-creating projects of the Pacific Northwest~ In those speeches. I told the people of my State that if the Eisenhower administration did not come forward and -· provide some . startS of - that

kind, .unemployment would ·begin across the Pacific Northwest.

I am advised today by not only labor leaders but business leaders in my State that department-store sales in Oregon have begun to dip substantially.

I am advised, Mr. President, that on the average, 1 out of 10 formerly employed persons in the State of Oregon is now looking for work. This does not take into account the number of workers in my State whose workweek will be reduced, to say nothing of the loss of overtime caused by shortened weeks.

I wish to say now to the voters of the State of Oregon, "This is what ·you should

. have expected when the present administration started its economic program after the inauguration last year.''

It embraced the so-called hard-money policy-the policy of making money hard to get-by increasing interest rates throughout the economic structure of the country.

What has been the result? It has brought about a limitation of production and a consequent increase of unemployment in the Pacific Northwest.

Then the administration further paved ·the way for the unemployment which is now visited upon the State of Oregon by an appropriation bill that eliminated new starts on power and other public projects, that cut out the heart of the REA program, that denied to the REA the much-needed new transmission lines in order to enable power to be transmitted to the wealth-creating areas of the State of Oregon ..

It is. rather amusing, 1\;tr. President, to find the Republican machine in the state of Oregon these days working at fever heat to try to get the Eisenhower administration, before it is :too late, to undertake some new starts in Oregon.

The Republicans in Oregon apparently are now quite concerned about the giveaway program of McKay in the "Department of Private Utilities." I refer to it in that way because it has ceased to be the Department of the Interior, inasmuch as the Secretary of the Interior has been giving away the people's heritage in the power resources of the Pacific Northwest to the private util• ity companies. ·

I desire to say to the people of .my State. that is what you must expect if you continue to suppOrt · the kind of a Republican administration now in -power, because it · is a duplication of the Hoover administration.

The Republican governors of the Pacific Northwest; Mt:". President, are now in conference. It is rather amusing to note that their great concern, as the grapeyine tells me, is about the appearance of unemployment in the Pacific Northwest. Some of them have been issuing statements of recent date to the etiect that it can be explained away on the basis that the situation now de· velop~ng is merely a repetition of sea• sonal unemployment. .

Mr. President, I always try to be fair. There is some seasonal unemployment in the Pacific Northwest. It is the time of the year when there is always some seasonal unemployment. But no one

· can alitii and· rationalize the extent of


the unemployment which has hit the Then there is need for a ·new start on Pacific Northwest by attempting to ex- the John Day Dam, in Oregon, andreplain it as seasonal unemployment. · grettable slowdowns on Chief Joseph, There is too much of it for that. McNary, and The Dalles Dams should

It is rather interesting to contrast not be tolerated. Seattle, Wash., with Portland, Oreg. In At last, Mr. President, in spite of all the case of Seattle, with its large defense . the political advertising in which the contract which is being operated by Republicans are engaged, in their enBoeing, the statistics on department deavor politically to soap-sell to the store sales show much higher buying American people the idea that things are than in Portland, which has no great hunky-dory in America's economic life, defense contracts. we are getting some little inkling from

Let me speak to the people of the some Republicans that this advertising State of Oregon for a moment, and, from does not set forth the true state of the this desk, to the Governors in confer- facts. Some Republicans, at last, are ence. Let me say to the Governor of beginning to refer loudly, not in whismy State: "The time has come for you pers, to the need of some new starts. It to get off the political fence. Are you is about time the administration began for or against Hells Canyon Dam? Tell some of these in the Pacific Northwest. the people of Oregon. Are you for it, But let me say to the people of Oregon: or are you against it?" "See to it that we get new starts that

I say to the people of Oregon that if will promote the development of your the Governor says he is against it, he is interests in the power resources of the against their best economic interests, Pacific Northwest, and make sure that because the Pacific Northwest needs Hells they are not designed to turn over the Canyon Dam, a great multiple purpose electric power resources of that area to dam, which should be built by the Gov- the private utilities at the bus bar." It ernment on a most advantageous site is in that field that it is necessary to that belongs to the people of the United watch the Eisenhower administration at States. It is sorely needed in order to all times. I say to the people of Oregon: supply cheap power to the Pacific North- "Keep your eyes on them, because the west. Cheap power is the primary factor Republican machine. nationally and needed to assure employment in that statewide, will sell you short from the region. The economic welfare and standpoint of protecting your interests future of the Pacific Northwest depend in the power resources of your State.

· upon such important and necessary Watch them, even when they propose projects as Hells Canyon Dam. Yet new starts, to make sure that their proOregon has a Governor who has been posals do not contain gimmicks which saying that he does not believe Oregon will turn over power resources to the has a great interest in Hells Canyon private utilities at the bus bar.'' Dam. At least the press has so quoted I shall speak at greater length when him. Let me say to the people of the I give my second report of the IndependState of Oregon: A Governor who says ent Party in this session of Congress. that is the kind of Governor to get rid My first report was the spe~ch I made of. If he does not understand the im- last week, in my fight on the committee portance of Hells Canyon Dam to the issue. ·· . future economic development of the I shall give a committee ·report this Pacific Northwest, then defeat him in week, in which I shall discuss the rela-1954. tionship of the fallacious economic poli-

The Governors are in conference. I cies of the Eisenhower administration to recommend to them, in addition to Hells a proper solution of the economic probCanyon Dam, a few other projects they lems which confront the people of Orehad better urge upon the Eisenhower ad- gon. I wanted, however. to say this ministration. This administration has much today, because persons from my

·not awakened to the very elementary State who have been in touch with me fact that a return to the law of supply today have pointed out the serious unand demand and a laissez faire economy employment situation, the severe drop in means depression. They are not going to sales in the retail stores of my State, create employment opportunities for the and the growing alarm that if we do not unemployed of America. Those two eco- act, and .act quickly, to reverse the economic principles are as outmoded in ·nomic policies adhered to by the Eisenmadero industrial society as an ax of . bower administration during the past

-the stone age is outmoded in a modern year, we shall have an Eisenhower reindustrial plant. This administration cession which will take on even more obviously needs an elementary course in serious proportions-and it is bad enough economics, and that course ought to be- now.

·gin at the White House with instruction Before I close, I wish to say something on the economic facts of life. about the Republican propaganda to the

The Governors, in conference assem- effect that we should not mention even bled, ought to take steps to interest the in a whisper, let alone actually vocalize, Eisenhower administration in working that economically things are not going out an agreement with Canada which well in America today. Mr. President, will make possible a plan for the building you know about the phony, fallacious bill of Libby Dam. I think a plan can be of goods the Republicans are trying to

.worked out-. because Libby Dam is an- sell the American public; namely, that other one of ,the new starts needed in anyone who criticizes the economic polithe Pacific Nor.thwest if we are to coun- cies of the Eisenhower administration teract the effects of the Eisenhower re- -is talking the country into a recession. cession which . are sweeping across my - Mr. President, this country cannot be .State. , talked into a . recession. Do· not fall for

such pOlitical doubletalk. Tonight we are confronted with economic realities in America. One of the economic realities is that the fiscal policy of Eisenhower, when he adopted the high-interest rate proposal, without making a single plea to the American people to live up to their patriotic duty to buy bonds at low-interest rates, started a chain reaction. It caused a series of economic phenomena that are resulting in the loss of purchasing power, a loss that is increasing day by day in thousands of homes in America.

Mr. President, let us hold the Republicans to their responsibility. This is the hour when men representing a free peo-

-pie in the Congress of the United States should speak out and should point out that the Republicans obviously have not learned a single economic fact of life since 1928 and 1929, because they are giving us the same kind of economic treatment that led to the hardships of the late 1920's.

So I pledge anew to the people of my State today that I shall continue to acquaint them with the facts in regard to the maladministration of the Eisenhower· administration. President Eisenhower will have been in office 1 year on Wednesday. What a dis3.ppointing year it has been from the standpoint of accomplishment by the Republican Party.

What are they trying to sell us, Mr. · President? They are trying to sell the propaganda that we have to expect some recession now because there is no shooting war in Korea. Oh, how blind can they be, Mr. President? How can they so lack in vision? What a case of myopia that represents. I say, Mr. President, my faith in an enlightened capitalistic system is obviously much greater than that of the Republican leadership.

' I would be ashamed of myself if I ever advanced an argument that we have to

. expect some recession when we are not in a war.

Mr. President, there was no excuse for this administration's not making the economic adjustments it should have made, when the budget was before the Congress last year. At that time there should have been transferred into civilian spending and production the economic power which had been withdrawn to some extent from military· production. ·Of course, it takes same vision and it ·takes some brains.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Will the Senator from Oregon yield at this point?

Mr. MORSE. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator was making the observation a moment ago that the tight-credit, high-interest pol

. icy was also launched at about the same time that the new budget was brought up for consideration.

- · Mr. MORSE. It started a chain reaction.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Is it not true that when the budget is sharply cut, without making appropriate economic readjust

-ments to t-ak-e ·up the- lag which may result therefrom, and then on top of that, the arteries of our economy so to speak, are tightened, it is like putting a tour-

-niquet on· them. · Fiscal and · credit ar-

195_4 CONGRESSIONAL REeORD- SENATE 369 rangements are bound to be seriously affected, and there results a kind of chain reaction in the economic structure.

Mr. MORSE. The Senator is absolutely correct; but in the political advertising program, which I have characterized as a case of political soap salesmanship, the spokesmen for the administration have not told the American people the effects of the hard-money policy. For example, merchants have not been able to obtain loans to take care of their inventories without having to pay interest rates which make it uneconomic for them to take the loans.

I have talked to merchants from coast to coast since Congress recessed last August. I assure my colleagues that the small-business men of America know what the effect of the hard-money policy has been. It has had the result of tightening credit. When credit is tightened, there results a restrictive economy. When there is a restrictive economy, we have the ingredients out of which re-cessions are made. -

Of course, when the administration had to reduce military expenditures to some extent, it should not have restricted credit.

The administration should have expanded credit, so · that businessmen would have been encouraged to . engage in civilian production at a greater rate than they could under the defense program for some years. Any freshman class in economics would know that.

Mr. President, let me say-and it is a sad thing to say, but I believe it, and I am always going to express my beliefs-that I cannot escape the conclu.sion that the big business forces which dominate this administration knew exactiy what they were doing last spring. They knew exactly that the fiscal course of action they adopted would tend to move out of the economic picture those engaged in so-called marginal produc.tion. They knew it would increase the .opportunities of the big economic com,bines in America, and that has been the xesult. - Mr. President, it is shocking that Brownell, in the Department of Justice, has _ not been exerting hiiW?elf to · the utmost in enforcing tne antitrust laws. The Department has a guinea pig case here and there, that !s all. Businessmen by the scores have told me in t.he past ·few months that there is no question that the "big boys" are taking over the economy of the Nation. The ~suit _will be to "Europeanize" the economic structure of our land, if Brownell does not get OUt ·.Of his seat and into court ·and start prosecutions against economic -combines and violators of the antitrust ·laws. ·

What kind of economic · combinations are developing? The favored ft!w, the big business interests which put up so much of the campaign money for Eisen_hower, are the ones who are going . to profit from the .. kind of economic suffering the small-business man and the -workers of America will have to undergo -if we' do not put a stop to this movement -quickly.. _

Mr. President, I did not ask !or this 'fight. The Eisenh~wer admillistration

c--24

did, and i-t is going to get -it . . Let me say that in the campaign ahead we must acquaint the American people with the evidence of the economic effects resulting from the policies of the Eisenhower administration. If we do that, the people will at least stop paying so much attention to the political advertising of the Eisenhower administration, and start asking some penetrating questions of the President.

I can suggest one question in the State of Oregon: "When are the::.e new starts to be made? What are you going to do, Mr. President and Mr. Secretary, about Hells Canyon, and Libby Dam, and John· Day Dam? Why the slowdowns on Chief Joseph, McNary, and The Dalles Dams? What are you going to do to protect the economic interests and the purchasing power of the consumers of America?"

My faith in the capitalistic system is such that I am satisfied that there is no justification whatsoever for a recession, if this administration will exercise proper leadership and vision.

I discussed certain phases of this matter in the speech I made at Miami, Fla., on January 14, at the 12th annual meeting of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, on the subject "Dynamos for Democracy." I ask unanimous consent that that address be printed at this point in the body of the RECORD as a part of my remarks tt.Js afternoon.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

There being no objection, the address was·ordered to be ·printed in the RECORD, as follows: · - It is a great pleasure to meet with the om.cers and members of rural electric coops-:the representatives of. local private enterprise 1n the electric power field.

You and your co-ops at home are the heirs .of that great liberal and Independent, Senator George w. Norris. Seventeen years ~go, Norris fathered the leglslation which established the Rural Electrlftcation Administration. It is unnecessary to'tell this audience of the battles he waged for natural resource conservation and power development. He prevented the Muscle Shoals giveaway by the Republicans in the 1920's. He succeeded in his fight for TVA and REA with the help of a friendly administration. Norris believed tn dynamos for democracy. He waged many a successful battle 1n his tiine tor the development of our natural resources tor the benefit of the people. He recognized that our natural resources belong to all of the people and should not be allowed t~ be exploited by the private monopolies. Norris fought ·the false idea that private enterprise means that the people should have io pay tribute to the private utilities for electric energy generated by dynamos in multiplepurpose dams that should always belong to the people.

The battles that he waged are battles that must be fought again.

If those battles are to be won we need what Norris bad-a friendly administration. That means a new administration.·

As a first step, the American people should elect a Democratic Congress in 1954:. The adinlntstrattve wrecking o! the· resource de·velopment and -REA. program must -be 'stopped. We need in Congress men who understand that public generation and trans-mission of power and the continued development of· the rural electrltleation pro~am are powerful f'orces for the protection and.

~eation of private enterprise and economic farming. · • Unfortunately, Eisenhower and McKay, judged by their statements and actions, cannot distinguish between private enterprise and private monopoly.

The Eisenhower administration has carried on a systematic scheme of turning over the magnificent natural and power resources of the people to the private utilities.

You will recall that Candidate Eisenhower demonstrated his lack of understanding of the conservation programs of 50 years when he said in Boise during the 1952 campaign:

"The Government will build the power dams, the Government will tell you how to distribute your power, the Government will do this and that, the Government does everything but come in and wash the dishes for the housewife." ·

In e1Iect, Candidate Eisenhower (he later tried to backtrack a little) was telling the people that, if elected, the development o! hydroelectric power by the Federal Government would cease. So far as I can tell, that is the only campaign pledge he has kept.

A list of actions taken by the EisenhowerMcKay team shows clearly the pattern of demolition:

1. The walkout on Hells Canyon on May 5; 2. The ·budget for fiscal 1954 which con

tained no funds for new starts; almost nothing for transmission lines; and inadequate :funds for REA;

3. The sabotage of the Southwest Power Administration continuing fund;

4. A series of statements and speeches by McKay, Tudor, Aandahl, and Davis wliich advertised ~ phony partnership with "local people"-the McKay synonym for private utilities;

5. The 20-year Bonneville contracts with private utilities which freeze Industrial expansion and in e1Iect insure all new public power for years to come to the private companies; . 6. The · Missouri !Basin criteria, which chopped o1I the co-ops at the generators; . 7. The Central Valley negotiations to deliver up a vast project built with public :funds; and -

8. The establishment of the Manion Committee and the Hoover Commission, loaded .with opponents of public power.

PARTNERSHIP

The major policy statement came from Secretary of Interior McKay last August. It is a masterpiece of private utility propaganda. It conceals the real activities of this administration. Great emphasis is put on its determination to give a bigger part to "local interests" in power development.

This has an appeaJing, neighborly, democratic sound. But who are the "local interests" to be consulted? Is it our REA cooperatives? Is it our public utllity districts or people's utility districts? Is it locally · owned private enterprise? Is it the municipal systems?

No, the "local interests" for which the Eisenhower-McKay administration ·stepped aside on Hells Canyon Dam site is a Maine corporation-the Idaho Power Co.

It is understandable that the American people want to gi~e the Eisenhower administration the benefit of the doubir-to believe that it is working for the public Interest -and that its actions will be good tor the Nation's security and economic well-being. I would like to believe that, too.

But the evidence ls against iir-time after time after time.·

We must be realistic. McKay and the administration pay lipser-vice to the public power policy o! two generations. · They proclaim that they seek only to :foster ·parti• .cipation by State and local bodies. , The .REA co-ops are-local bodies-made up of private citizens in the areas. to be served. The Eisenhower administration froze REA .loalla sbortly after lt took .om.ce. It waa

370 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE January 18 studying the situation. This ls a great administration for studying. Studying whether the co-ops needed funds was like undertaking research on whether babies need milk.

The starvation diet continued into the new fiscal year. It is clear that if the co-ops were intended to be partners, they were expected to be silent-dead silent.

The only remaining local folks with whom the administration is forming electric power partnerships are the existing and highly profitable giant electric utilities. But these utilities are neither State nor local enterprises. They are, in almost every case, segments of old holding company empires financed by eastern bankers and speculators. Consider the Idaho Power Co. Its ten largest stockholders are powerful investment houses and affiliates. These are not home :folks. They are the symbols of big business.

When asked who the Idaho Power stockholders are, McKay replied-"The people." They may be the people McKay knows, but they don't fit the definition of the rest of us.

THE DEPARTMENT OF PRIVATE UTILITIES

In an interview last fall in the U. S. News & World Report, Interior Secretary McKay allowed that his Department could do irreparable damage to rural electric co-ops. But, he said, it wouldn't think of doing so.

The Bonneville contracts, the Missouri Basin criteria, the public power starvation diet in the Pacific Northwest, and many other actions make it clear that McKay is 1nfiicting great damage upon co-ops and PUD's to the benefit of the private ut111ties.

To keep the record straight, I suggest that the Department of Interior be renamed the Department of Private Utilities. The position of Secretary would be more appropriate 1f called the Lord High Executioner.

Listen to what the Secretary had to say in a new year report 1n the Washington Post on January 3: .

"For two decades the Federal Government has overemphasized the development of hydroelectric resources. The Department's recently adopted power policy was directed toward deemphasis"-1 repeat"deemphasis of this effort."

You may remember that a few years ago the University of Chicago decided to deemphasize football. It abolished its team.

HELLS CANYON WALKOUT

Probably the most obvious and tragic action of the Eisenhower administration in this field was the McKay walkout on Hells Canyon Dam.

Years of study brought the Department of the Interior and the Army engineers into agreement that the comprehensive development of the Columbia River Basin requires the construction of a high Hells Canyon Dam as the key multipurpose project on the Snake River.

The Columbia Basin holds some 40 percent of the hydroelectric potential of the Nation.

Half of that potential depends upon upstream storage of water for a simple reason. Downstream dams cannot be operated at full efficiency in winter low-water periods. The heaviest runoff of water occurs in the spring and must be impounded for release to dams downstream to assure maximum output of firm power.

A high dam at Hells Canyon is indispensable to the two best plans for upstreall1 storage, not only for power but for flood control.

But the new Secretary of Interior, with Presidential and Cabinet approval, withdrew from the Federal Power Commission hearings on the license application of the Idaho Power Co. for one small dam which would be placed in the Hells Canyon Reservoir area, thereby preventing construction of HellS Canyon Dam.

Immediately after the Secretary's action, the company 1llecl appllcationa for pen:nU·•

for two other small dams in the same area. Even if all three were constructed, they would produce less power than Hells Canyon alone. They would produce less than half the power made possible by Hells Canyon and the increase of power its reservoir would make possible downstream.

Estimates of power costs at load center show a difference of $41 per kilowatt-year :for Idaho Power Co. as compared to $19 for hells Canyon. Other estimates are for a small-::r difference but none I have seen predicts anything but lower costs for Hells Canyon power.

Hells Canyon would provide greater floodcontrol benefits.

Hells Canyon would provide recreational benefits of enormous value.

Hells Canyon would provide enormous irrigation benefits.

Secretary McKay brushed this aside as a subsidy, because power revenues, which are self-liquidating, would also be used to defray irrigation costs which are too high to be borne by farmers alone. Of course, power revenues for irrigation have long been a feature of Federal law.

But does the Secretary criticize tax amortization certificates for the private utilities? He does not. These certificates permit construction and capital costs to be charged off for tax purposes over a 5-year period rather than the more usual depreciation periods of 20 to 35 years. This means that in the current periods of high profits and high taxes, one-fifth of such costs rather than a twentieth or thirty-fifth is subtracted from profits. The results are enormous tax savings for the utilities-and tax losses for the Government, which every taxpayer must bear. I might add that in emergency periods this method is a reasonable means of encouraging construction of plants which would have no usefulness after the end of the emergency. That criteria does not readily apply to these utilities. One recent example was an enormous steam plant in New York City which would probably have a useful life for decades.

Talking about subsidies then, the Idaho Power Co. has received these certificates covering some $10,800,000 of plant and facllities.

Idaho Power has applied for tax amortization certificates for the low dams which would take the place of high Hells Canyoneven before the Federal Power Commission bas ruled on its license applications for the dams.

That, my friends, is "free enterprise" while Irrigation partially supported by power revenues is "subsidy." Webster's dictionary will have to issue a special revision to keep up with Eisenhower and McKay. PUBLIC POWEll A BOON TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE

We know very well that public power baa been a tremendous boon to private enterprise. Let me quote from the Denver Post of September 27, 1953. That paper was on the Eisenhower bandwagon last year. The Eisenhower program has forced it to publish this editorial of sharp criticism entitled ••straighten Record · on Public Power." It says in part:

"How about the bugaboo of 'socialism'? A good case can be made, we believe, for the claim that Government power, in areas where it is available in large amounts, has done more to promote free enterprise than private power companies ever did.

"Notably in the Tennessee Valley and the Pacific Northwest the building of Government power plants has given birth to new industries by the hundreds-many of them large industries. Those areas are the 'hottest' markets in the entire country for electric appliances. Is it socialistic when the country is short of power to provide the electricity which will turn thousands of persons into cUstomers for electric irons and deep :ll'eeze units? :We think not." ·

But you don't need editorials to prove the point. Think of your own farms and homes. You know from personal experience that the availability of cheap power is one of tlle greatest developers of new private enterprises in your home communities.

Even more important is the fact that Hells Canyon and full development of the Columbia basin are needed to keep pace with the industrial reqUirements of our ever-growing democracy. Irrigation is needed to meet tile food supply of our ever-growing democracy. Irrigation is needed to meet the food-supply problems a century and two centuries from now of a population double or triple what we now have. Defense requires the full growth of the light-metals industry of the Northwest. It is · no mere accident that atomic-energy installations have been established only where large quantities of inexpensive power are available-that is where public power is available.

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION NOT COMPLETED

The rural-electrification program is far from completed despite the fact that approximately 90 percent of American farms now receive power-thanks in large measure to co-ops.

Rural users require more power. Co-ops need to heavy up their facilities to meet growing use of energy.

DEFENSE PRODUCTION THREATENED BY M'KAT POWER POLICIES

The McKay power policies are of immediate concern to the whole Nation.

The careful plans for expansion of hydroelectric capacity have been greatly damaged by the Hells Canyon walkout and the failure of the Administration to propose-let alone act upon-any new starts during 1953.

In the Pacific Northwest, we are faced with a possible slowdown in completion of The Dalles, McNary, and Chief Joseph gen-erating facillties. ·

The Northwest power situation has been a matter of concern to the Joint Congressional Committee on Defense Production.

In a recently released report, it stated: ••The availabillty of electric power gen

erated by the Bonneville Power Administration bears a close relationship to defense production in the Northwest. This area is the source of production of approximately 40 percent of all aluminum manufactured in this country, and approximately 10 kilowatt-hours of electricity are required to produce each pound of aluminum. One of the principal magnesium plants ls located there, and ferroalloys, aircraft, abrasives, paper, and chlorine are other important defense products."

The committee reported that it and the Office of Defense Mobilization were very concerned by the Bonneville-private utillty 20-year contracts. It urged the inclusion of a national-defense clause to insure the availability of power to defense producers.

McKay did not include such a clause in the contracts. He said, the committee reports, that t~e desired end could be accom• plished by appropriate legislation if necessary. That position is debatable. He sent the executed contracts to the utilities with a letter telling them that wihdrawal for defense production might be necessary. But, no such letter overrides contract provisions.

In his haste to conclude the contracts, McKay took an unnecessary chance with our defense requirements.

ALUMINUM STOCKPILE PROBLEM:

In September, the. Senate Small Business Committee reported that the Government aluminum stockpile program was uncertain because of power problems.

Plans for a domestic stockpile have been hampered by power limitations. The industry ha,9 been turning toward plans for the UBe of Canadian alumi~um for this p~. But the Joint committee haa been unfa-

195.1,. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE 371 vo:rable to the program because of the role of Canada as the aluminum supplier of the British Commonwealth and the poor strategic location of the Canadian facilities.

HYDROELECTRIC POWER NEEDED TO REVIVE LAGGING INDUSTRY

The national economy is slowing down. We are already in a farm recession. Unem~ ployment is becoming alarming. In the Northwest it is already a major problem.

We need to meet and correct these problems before · they become critical and chronic. If the economic water table drops too low, pump priming will not help. ·

The industrial potential of the Northwest should be capitalized for defense and economic stability. New plants and payrolls in my part of- the country would help business, employees and farmers throughout the country.

The Eisenhower administration is tending toward the doctrines of normalcy and scarcity that brought the country to depression under Hoover and Mellon.

That drift must be stopped-yesterday w~s not too soon to do it.

THE MANION AND HOOVER COMMISSIONS All the signs are that Eisenhower and Mc

Kay will not build upon the power programs of. decades In order to bolster the economy with wealth producing projects. -

Two "study" groups appointed in recent months are promising just the opposite.

I would like to read a portion of a transcript of a recent television program . In which Dean Manion, appointed by President Eisenhower as the head of the Commission on ·Inter-Governmental Relations, was being interviewed by William Wise, former deputy administrator of REA: . "Mr. -WISE. Dean Manion. I wonder if you agree with my favorite Republican of all times that the Government should do for the people that which they cannot do for themselves or that which they cannot do so well tor themselves. I refer, of course, to Abraham Lincoln.

"Dr. MANioN. No; I do not agree with Abraham Lincoln.

"Mr. WISE. Do you a.gree that the test should be not whether the States should have the power but whether or not It is necessary for the Federal Government to take certain action in what to protect and advanee for the general welfare of all the people to the greatest good for the greatest number.

"Dr. MANION. No, I don't. "Mr. WISE. Do you agree that there is no

one other than the Federal Government large enough to do certain things which have been done during this last 20 years to which you have referred? I would like to ask you with respect to certain specific action: One, the TVA?

"Dr. MANION. I think the TVA should be sold to private business.

"Mr. WISE. Do you think private business would have built TVA projects in the first place?

"Dr. MANION. I don't think the Federal Government should have built the TVA in the first place.

• • • • ''Mr. WISE. Do you agree t .hat anyone other

than the Federal Government could have brought about the rural electrification program which has resulted in this situation? Back in 1935 when it commenced 1 farm out of 10 :Q.ad electricity. Today figures released by the present administration very recently show that 9 farms out of every 10 in this cou~try have electricity.

"Dr. MANION. I think that there has been a greater increase than that in television sets, radios and other thlngs. I don't believe that the Federai Government has been respOnsible for all the per capita increaSe of. tl11D,ss that bave accrued to the benefit of the ~ople ~ the United States.

"Mr. Wrsz. Do you believe that anyone other than the Federal Government would have brought ab~ut that situation? ·

"Dr. MANION. I certainly do." That Is the man heading a "study" group

which will recommend the appropriate areas of activity for the Federal Government--particularly in the power field. Dr. Manion said that his views were well known before his appointment by the President.

It is dimcult to see how a commission headed by such a biased man can come up with any recommendations of value.

The new Hoover Commission, unlike the former Hoover Commission, is charged with the responsibility of recommending changes in basic policies, and its work is not confined to administrative reorganization, as was the case with the earlier Hoover Commission. The Commission is directing a major effort toward our public power program.

Mr. Hoover's hostility toward public power is well known. It is a hostility of long standing.

As President, Mr. Hoover in 1931 vetoed the Norris Muscle Shoals bill that was the forerunner of the TV A. Last year, Mr. Hoover made a speech at Case Institute in which he advocated that the Federal Government get completely out of the power business.

With this background, one would hardly expect that Mr. Hoover would show any sympathy toward public power when he appointed in November his task force on water and power. Still, with a membership of 26 men, Mr. Hoover could have afforded to display some charitable instincts by appointing at _least one person sympathetic to public power.

But no. According to a statement by the American Public Power Association, not a single one of the 26 members of the task force can be identified as a supporter of public power. On the contrary, there ·are many known and outspoken enemies of public power on this task force-men such as Governor Lee of Utali; Harry Polk, former president of the National Reclamation Association; Donald Richberg; and former Governor Miller of Wyoming.

The task force also contains experts on valuation and renegotiation of utility properties, and men such as A. B. Roberts, whose report for the earlier Hoover Commission was a blueprint for turning over our valuable hydroelectric properties to the private power companies. .

With both tne task force and the Hoover Commission itself stacked with men who are prejudiced or special pleaders, it is clear that we can expect only one thing from the Commission: a detailed plan for carrying out .Mr. Hoover's own ideas about turning over the Nation's power projects to the priva~ power companies.

A LOOK AHEAD

The Eisenhower big business administration have been giving the farmer, the consumer, and even certain industries · the business.

In the long run, its shocking favoritism to the private utilities· will only hurt private enterprise.

The administration and ut111ty attack upon orderly ~nd progressive resource development is being mad~_ in every _part ~-f the country-Niagara, the St. Lawrence, Georgia, the Southw~st~ the Tennessee Valley, the Missouri Basin, California, and the Pacific Northwest. ·

But in every area the little people are fighting back. The co-ops, the Grange, the Farmers Union, some local farJ)l bureaus are working for a decent program ln the interest of all of the people.

There have been limited successes tn the Missouri Basin. The National Hells Canyon Association is' waging a magnificent battle against the Hells Canyon giveaway to the Idaho Power Co.

These are battles that can be won. Your national and local organizations are · doing an invaluable job. --

Keep it up. The little band of liberals in the Senate are working for a power program that will support an expanding economy.

Give us the allies in Congress, and we will help you complete the job. The future welfare of our country calls upon us in our generation to build more dynamos for democracy.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I close by saying that it is very interesting to check into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS Of the late twenties, when Hoover was, as I pointed out in my Miami speech, following policies and economic ideas very similar to Eisenhower's. It is interesting to check into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS of those days and read of the warnings, such as the warning I am giving this afternoon, on the part of men who were Members of the Senate iri those days, who wanted the American people to recognize, before it was too late. that the economic policies of Hoover and Mellon were going to result to their economic detriment. Unfortunately, we did not learn. How many times do we have to make the same mistake? Mr. President, here is economic history repeating itself.

I wish the Republican machine of my State well. I hope the Republican machine of my State will, from the standpoint of the economic welfare of the people of my State, succeed in persuading this administration to waste not a single day in coming forward with some proposals for some new starts which will help solve the unemployment problem in the State of Oregon. After all, what I seek to do is to help the economic welfare of the people of my State; and while President Eisenhower is in power, we are going to have to try to do it through his administration as best we can. - He has already, by way of unacceptable leadership, demonstrated enough to satisfy the people of my State, if they will study the record, that in the congressional election to be held later this year they should elect Democrats to Con~ gress, so as to provide the votes necessary to pass needed legislation, place it at the very door of the White House, and then say, "Mr. President, here it is. If you want to veto it, we will discuss it with you and with the American people."

Mr. President, we have had enough al· ready, i should think, to demonstrate to the people, not only of my State, but of all the other States, that in 1954 they should elect a Democratic C-ongress which will check the maladministration of the Eisenhower machine. _ Mr. President, I am interested in this matter primarily from the standpoint of doing what I can, so long as I serve in the Senate, to help the people of my State; and I shall continue to fight for their economic welfare.

_That is why I take occasion this afternoon to refresh their memory regarding the number of times last year when, from this desk,. I discussed the failure of the Eisenhower . administration to come through with an appropriation bill that would prevent the kind of economic hardship which is now being visited _upo~


my State. At that time there were Republicans from my State who tried to explain it away on the ground that I was doing it because I was opposed to President Eisenhower. I say to them again this afternoon that I did it because I had a keener perception of the welfare of the people of my State than the Republican machine of my State has had.

So to the people of my State I say that throughout this session of Congress I am going to fight with all the vigor at my command to do what I can to present the facts to this administration, so that it will have no excuse for repeating the serious mistakes it made in its appropriation bills of last year.

I wanted to make these statements today before the budget message came to the Congress, because I am not one who deals in hindsight, so far as taking my ow:1 stand is concerned. A year ago, as I said, I forewarned what would happen, so far as the economic welfare of my State was concerned, if certain inadequate appropriation bills were passed.

If in the new budget message the President does not proceed to correct the great mistakes he made last year in his budget, then let me tell you, Mr. President, the Republicans might just as well concede the election by default, because . the people of my State are aware of the fact that what I told them has already come to pass· i~ the case of issue after issue. ·

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oregon yield to me?

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. LoNG fn the chair). - Does the Senator from Oregon yield to the Senator from Minnesota?

Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator from

Oregon made an observation regarding his visits around the Nation, in talking with representative businessmen, workers, farmers, and the general citizenry of our country. Would he agree with me that if we were to call the roll in the Senate this afternoon and ask for each individual Senator's observations as to the economic climate in his area, among his constituency, the Members of the Senate would report that farm machillery sales are away down-as much as from 20 to 25 pe_rcent-and that automobile sales of new cars and used cars are away down. In fact, the automobile dealers are overloaded with automobiles that literally have been forced upon them, in order to absorb them from the production lines.

Would the Senator from Oregon agree with me that in community after community in the United States, instead of finding a parity ratio for farmers' products that is on a national average of 91, it is found to be in the low 80's?

For example, in my own State, one of the so-called most prosperous agricultural States, instead of a parity ratio of 91, it is less than 85. Indeed, it is below the break-even point for our farmers.

This year I visited 26 counties in my State. I visited more than 150 towns, villages, and cities. I talked to merchants on Main Street. I went to dozens and dozens of county fairs, and there talked to the exhibitors of appliances.

farm machinery, fertilizer, seeds, and all the other numerous commodities which are necessary for a diversi.fied agricultural community. I . found that every one of them was afraid not only of what was happening then, and not only of what is happening as of today, but of what may happen tomorrow.

Those to whom I talked-not only farmers but others-asked me one question, namely: "What about the farm program, Senator HUMPHREY? Are we going to be sold out? Are we going to have to get along with less?"

Mr. President, I think the Senator from Oregon is making a very valid point, and I wish to commend him for his faith in United States capitalism and democracy-our economic system.

After all, Mr. President, we have a population which is growing at an extremely rapid rate. In fact, the present rate of growth of our population is unprecedented. Yet this administration, in the face of the present heavy public indebtedness, is requesting a $15 billion increase in the public debt limit; and in the face of the present heavy private indebtedness, this administration is saying, "We are asking for just a little adjustment."

Yet, Mr. President, the strange thing is that whenever the Republicans adjust anything, it is always adjusted downward; the operation is always in the middle of the back, pushing down. The Republicans never push up or adjust upward.

I submit that if we are to provide jobs for an additional three-quarters of ~ million persons every year-which is approximately the number of new persons who come into the employment force of our country every year; from three-quarters of a million to 1 million new ones enter it each year-and if our ·people are to be able to finance their debts, and if we are to provide for the great economic structure we should have, it cannot be done by making adjustments downward only.

Every time the Republicans have been in power, Mr. President, they have made adjustments downward. Certainly that has been the experience of our businessmen. It seems obvious that it has been most difficult for the Republican administrations to adjust upward.

I read in the newspapers yesterdayand I should be very glad to have the article before me at this time, to place it in the RECORD-that Mr. Burgess, the Deputy to the Secretary of the Treasury, made a statement to the effect that until unemployment reaches approximately 25 percent the Government should not take any action; that that is about the time for the Government to go into action.

Mr. President, I wonder whether he realizes what he is saying. That means 16 million unemployed. That may be all right for the National City Bank of New York, but it will not go very well with the 16 million persons who then will be out of jobs, or with the businessmen and ·farmers in small communities who depend upon those millions of persons.

So, Mr. President, I wish to say that I think the Senator from Oregon is send-

ing forth a battle cry. It is. not a matter of being a prophet of doom.

Recently I read in the newspapers that some of our Republican friends are calling us prophets of gloom and doom because we mention facts-for instance, the fact that 5,000 more workers were laid off today by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. To mention that fact is not to be a prophet of gloom or doom; it is merely to be a student of economics, and only an elementary-grade student of economics, at that, for almost any fourth-grade or fifth-grade student knows that the figure 5,000 represents a very large number. ·

So, Mr. President, when we point to the change downward which has oc- · curred in the iast year--even though the Republicans say that when we mention that change we are using hindsight, I point out that the Republicans are very good at exercising hindsight; they are very good, indeed, at those tactics-and when we say that farm assets have decreased $5 billion this year, that is not being a prophet of doom and gloom; it is merely stating what is happening.

If the Republican leadership cannot "take it," they should change it. ·That is what the Senator from Oregon is requesting.

Mr. - MORSE. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. His observations square completely with those I have made. The reports made· to him by farmers and businessmen are identical in meaning with the reports which were made to me in the course of my trips across the country.

I wish to close by emphasizing one of · the points which I ·have made, and to express my great concern over the tendency of the economy of this country to be Europeanized under the Eisenhower administration. The situation is characterized by an increase in the power of a few great economic combines to the economic detriment of the small-business man and the independent producer. It is a form of American cartelization. It is a . form of use of the cartel which is also based upon the idea of reducing production, so that the seller can obtain higher prices and make greater profits. That is the European idea. There is no place in the United States for that foreign theory of economic life. That is why I say the Attorney General ought to get busy. That is why I have been heard to say that I think many of the contracts which have been let by this administration to various corporations need to be investigated.

I conclude by saying that I think it is very important that the Congress, in this session, proceed immediately to adopt such governmental measures as are necessary to stop the Eisenhower recession and to keep faith with that great economic tenet of Lincoln which I have mentioned many times. It cannot be mentioned too often. It is a tenet which many Republicans now seem to believe constitutes creeping socialism. I discussed it in the Miami speech, and I shall make only brief reference to it at this time.

If we wish to protect the employment interests of the American worker and to protect the purchasing power _ of the

'·: v CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 373 :American. consumerS:-and upon . those two elements depends the strength of the American economy-the time has come for the Congress to start doing for the people what· they cannot do for themselves, or what they cannot do as_ well ·ror themselves. but· what needs to be done in the public interest.

RECESS Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, in

accordance with the order previously entered, I move that the Senate now stand in recess until·12 o'clock noon tomorrow.

The motion was agreed to; and <at 6 o'clock and 22 minutes p.m .. > the Senate took a recess, the recess being, under the order previously entered, until tomorrow, Tuesday, January 19, 1954, at 12 o'clock. meridian. ~ ·

NOMINATIONS .--Executive nominations ·received ·January; 18 (·legislative day of January ~7>, 1954:

_ NA~ONAL SciENCE FOUNDATION

Laurence McKinley Gould, of Minnesota, to be a member of the National Science Board,, National ... SCience Foundation, for the remainder of 1ihe term expiring May 10, 1956, to which omce he was appointed during the last recess of the Senate. ; • ; <

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD . '

Frank c. Squire: Qf the .Dist'rict "of dolum~ bia, to be ·a member of the Railroad Retirement Board for a term o{ 5 . years f~om AugUst 29, ·1953, to · which office -he- was appointed dur-Ihg the last . recess of the Senate.

IN .THE AIR FoRcE .. The foUow.ing-named .personsr who· l.V.ere

appointed in . ,t:Qe Regular Ai~ Fore~ under .recess-appointment provis~ons -during the ~ast recess period of the 83d Congress, .tor appoint~ent ip ~he· }:tegular Aif Force 'in 'the grades l:r;ldicated, with .dates ·of rank 'to · be ' determined by- -the Secretary of the Afr ·Forc-e ullder the provisions of section 506,

. Public Law 381, :80th Congress (Officer Personnel Act of 1947); Title n, Public Law 365, 80th Qongress . (Army-Navy-Public Health Service Medical Omcer Procurement Act of 1947); and section 307 (b), Public Law 1SO, 82d Congress (Air Force Organization Act of 1951), with a view to designation fol' the performance of duties as Indicated:

To be Captains, USA.F (Medical) · >' John A.' Peterson, A0982083.

' Frederick R. Ritzinger, Jr., A02239414. . I To be captains, USAF (pental·)

Herbert E. Bateman, A02239908. Richard c. Burt, A02238696. Sam W. Hoskins, Jr., AOl'l35478. Oscar R. Quamme, A02240407.

' To be first lieutenants, USAF (Medical) w;;.ns.ce w : sectnal'Z, A02240463.' ·

- Byron G."Brogdon, -A02261825. ' Joseph L: .Farr, A02261767 ..

William -J. Feeney, A02261861. . LeRoy P. w. Froetscher, A02239135 • . Jack c. Grimth, A02077817. · James T. McCanless. John- w. Ord, 402261892.

To be first lieutenants, USAF (Dental) . -

Robert w: Hayes, AQ1906508. Rodeheaver H. Hicks, A02260538. LeRoy E. Tindall, A0739870.

To be second lieutenant, ·USAF (~edical Service)

Bruce A. Butcher, A022s'9638. The following-named person, who was ap

, :pointed tn , the Regular Air Force und~r recess-appointment prov1s1o~s during the last

recess period of· the 83d Congress, for appointment in the Regular Air Force in the grade indicated, with date of rank. to be determined by the Secretary. of the Air Force under the provisions of section 102 (c), Public Law 36, 80th Congress (Army-Navy Nurses Act of 1947) .as amended by section 5, Public Law 514, 81st Congress, and section 2, Public Law 37, 83d Congress; with a view to designation for the performance of duties as indicated under the provisions of section 307, Public Law 150, 82d Congress (Air Force Organization Act of 1951) : To be first lieutenant, USAF (Women Medical

Speeialist) . May E. Goodrich, AM2240029. The following-nam'ed persons, who were

appointed in the Regular Air Force under recess-appointment provisions during the the last recess period of the 83d Congress, for appointment in the Regular Air Force in the grade indicated. with dates of rank to be determined b.y the Secretary· of the Air Force under the provisions of section 506, Public Law 381, BOth Congress (Omcer Personnel Act of 1947):

TC? be fir~t lieuten~nts .. James C. Anderson, A0836400. , , • · Richard M. Baughn, .A0720747. John G. Boyd, A01863791. Edward C. Champagne, Jr., A01852215. ' Donald M. 'Faustman, AQ2026607. Jay S. Gaenzle, A0752989. . Fred Gluck, A0941478. Robert P . . Ketcherside, A0774681. William R. :Looney, -A.01904724. Harold G. Martin, A0935045. Donald A. M~ssick, A0805952. Robert P. Morris, ,A02080430. Thomas F. Mu~igan, A0691620. Carl L. }7euss, A01858420.

·!

. . .. John W. Rapp, · A0833577. , Frederick C. Richards,; A0770412. _ a • _ John B. Sleeman, A0960223. Donald A.: Zeine, A081~528 • . The following-named persons for appol'nt

ment in the RegUlar Air Force;ln the grades indicated, with dates ' of rank to be determined by the Secretary. of the Air Force under the provisions of section 506, Public Law . 381, BOth Congress (omcer Personnel Act of 1947); title II, Public Law 365; 8oth Congress (Army-Navy-Publlc Health Service Medical Omcer Procurement 'Act of 1947); and section 307 (b), Public Law' 150, 82d Congress (Air Force Organization Act of 1951), with a · view to designation for the performance of duties as indicated:

To be _ captains~ USAF (Medical) Sidney M. Bashore, A01906713. · Curzon q. Ferris, Jr., A01727453.

To be captains, USAF (Dental) carlton F. Gosselin, ·.Ao1906151. Charles A .• McMahon, ; A01725266.

To be first li;eutenan.t~,_ USAF (Medic.al) . Robert C. Koehn, Jr., A02240099. Lester E. McGary, A0~262044. To be first_lieutenants, ~SAF (Dental) Raymond J. Loiselle, A07332Q7. · Burl~igh W. Qpesinberry, A02241246.

To be first lieutenant, USAF (Veterinary) Willi'!m H;. Gr~u_. Jr,. AQ9.62435~- .

To be _first lieutenants, _ US~~ (yhaplqin) Mervi~ . R. Joh~on, A0~250797; _ ·. Raymond E. Tinsley, A0580480.

To be first lieutenants, USAF (M.eaical Service)

Charles H. Burge, 'A02047581. · ~ • .. ,Wesley R. Nowell, A0784927.

To be second lieutenants, USAF (Medical Service) '.

Jack N. Farmer, A02239362. Robert A. Mengebier, A02240034. Gregory J. Skafid~ • . A02232620~ James W~ ' Truelove, A02239093.

' -'

The following-named persons for appointment in the Regular Air Force in the grades indicated, with dates of rank to be determined by t~e Secretary of the Air Force under the provisions of section 101 (c), Public Law 36, 80th Congress (Army-Navy Nurses Act of 1947) as amended by section 5, Public Law 514, 81st Congress, and Public Law 37, 83d Congress; with a view. to designation for the performance of duties as indicated under the provisions of section 307, Public Law , 150, 82d Congress .(Air Force Organization Act of 1951):

To be first lieutenants, USAF (Nurse) Agnes M. Arrington, AN726659. Julia M. Burgess, AN755194. Mary A. Com.bes, AN774153. Emma M. Davidson, AN788352. Rose M. DiBiase, AN1906442. Edith J. Erb, AN804255. Bernadette K. Fahrenkopf, AN788238'. Mildred I. Gernus, AN792129. Mildred R. Glassmeyer, AN1858312. Nena S. Glerios, AN1906451. · Dorothy A. Greene, AN2248584. Erytlie I. Groves, AN804428. · Louise M. Hardin, AN773875. ·. Arland R. Henry, AN763433. Dorothy E. Johnston, AN1906306. Marian M. Jury, AN2242047. Charlotte B. Krause, AN752861. Norma J. Lauderbaugh, AN2241845. Nan L.· Porter, AN796928. ' Miriam L. Raynor, AN2212496. Rita M. Riley, AN2241751. Ramona C. Rinderknecht, AN797862. Carolyn H. Ruhe, AN792540. Ruth M. ShaW, AN2243580. Billie L. Shltlett, AN776539. Mary F. Smith, AN2214539. . Dolores Stanley, AN2241988 . Clara B. Thomas, AN774926. Shirley R. Tittle, .AN2244294.

To be second lieutenants, f,lSAF (Nurse) Christin~ .L. Schaner, AN2241928. ' .

· Lyndoll -L; )Veils, AN2244413. , The followJng-named persons for apjJoint

ment in the Regular Air Force, in .the grades indicated, with dates of rank to be determined by the Secretary of .the Alr. Force under the provisions of section 5Q6, · Public Law 381, 80th Congress (Omcer Person:q.el Act of 1947) : r - -

To be :first lieutenants · ' William E. Adams, A018653'70. Joseph A. Allard, A01851920: James E. Armstrong, Jr., A0778366. Herbert L. Atkins, A02064776. ' Donald R. Bachelder, A02070920. Ralph G. Backes, A0767457. James E. Baldwin, A01908296. Lewis V. Barker, A0842286. Thomas W. Barton, A02088694. James R. Bean, A02099606. Paul J. Behnke, A01852506. Raymond R. · Bleau, A02033343. George A. Bloomfield,- Jr., A01911537~ Edward W. Borresen, A0816407 • Joseph· A. Boyer, Jr., A0834734. ~ James W. Bradbury, A0710038. John E. Buchanan, AOSa1350. · ~ • William R. Burnett, A0843091. -James ·M. Careloc-k, A01909006. · f James L. Carter, A01911228. Rubyen M. Chambless, A02075108. ·~ Rondal. L. Chaney, A019D9013 • . Edgar A. Chavarrie, A0203872..7. Lewis S. Clement, Jr., A02102046. Dewey E.· Coe, A0780521. William D. Coleman, A01903060. Robert G. Colgan, A01911402. Roy J. Connor, A02059743~ Leroy G. Cooper, Jr., A0973786~ Richard M. Corbett, A01847698. John Coubrough, Jr., A0932663• James S. Craig, A01908830. · · Joe C. Cunningham, A01911083. Thomas E. ·naems, A01909969. John c. Danielson, A02209292. Stanton G. Daries, A0763514.

374 Harry M. Darmstandler, A0737015. John W. Darr, A0788550. John J. Devlin, Jr., A0771670. Calvin H. Dickman, A0591117. Louis A. Dockery, A02077232. Walter L. Doerty, Jr., A01908527. John P. Doswell, A0823327. John M. Dowling, A01851588. Robert C. Dowling, A01865644. John C. Drew, A0590704. James M. Dunn, A0934749. Cecil P. Duryea, Jr., A01863569. Leslie R. Fels, A0937057. Neil R. Garland, A01909038. Gerald B. Gill, A0842210. Albert W. Harrison, Jr., A01910601. Elbert G. Head, A01651982. Robert C. Heath, A02083731. Richard D. Hemphill, A01855303. T. Booth Holker, A01911420. 1 Alfred H. Hopkins, Jr., A0706397. Paul R. Houser, A0787508. Homer H. Howell, Jr., A0778814. Arthur L. Hughes, A0771034. Carel T. Humme, A01911758. Bob M. Johnson, A02073653. Robert E. Johnson, A0591366. Donald G. Jones, A01903095. Guy 0. King, A0695668. Henry J. Klisavage, A02075228. William A. Komstedt, Jr., A01910618. James A. Lastrapes, A01910621. Harlan Q. Leonard, Jr., A01908930. Joseph F. Leszcz, A0678882. Robert G. Liotta, A01911427. Billy J. Long, A02094219. Joseph H. Long, A01865664. J. Edward Lorenz, A01854176. James F. Lynch, A02079395. Robert A. Madden, A02067018. Dexter E. Martin, A01909618. Fred R. Matthews, A02079405. Bedford D. May, A0672650. Francis G. McCafferty, A0822500. Clodiils M. McCollum, Jr., A0207525'7. Thomas M. McKee, Jr., A0822216. Kenneth A. McKnight, Jr., A020878l'l Lewis D. McMlllan, A0591201. Harold E. Mercer, A01909085. Roy N. Minor, A01865404. George H. Morris, A0686579. Gerald R. Mulberry, A0207473'1. Earle P. Nase, A0556120. Jimmy L. Nichols, A0957918 .. George R. Nicklas, Jr., A071840l. 1 Russell G. Ogan, A0823131. Norman A. Parker, A0191063'1. Richard J. Pfrang, A02102052. John Prodan, A0840630. Leonard W. Provance, A0836503. Joe R. Quintana, A02089141. Francis E. Ransford, A078104'1. Edward Ratkovich, A0829553. John F. Rebolt, A0591035. Robert G. Rilling, A01860052. Dale L. Ringwald, A0666710. Robert B. Roberts, A0834020. Bernard Rodstein, A02065681. Maurice Rozner, A01853119. . · Berry A. Segraves, Jr., A0190SQ35. Ernest w:. Sharp, Jr., A01909399. PaulL. Smith, A0784991. John R. Sparger, A01912041. Garland H. Spicer, Jr., A0826312. Benjamin F. Starr, Jr., A02091077. Freddy L. Steadman, A0828015. Francis J. Sugrue, A0828587. Clarence G. Summerlin, A0836517. Arthur Tave, A01911615. Thomas H. Temple, Jr., A0937962. John A. Thompson, A0837073. David H. Tittle, A01911374. Howard D. Turner, A0862926. George P. Upright, A02101833. Reuben K. Weiss, A02081294. Bruce H. Wheeler, A0591448. Bernell A. Whitaker, A0822309. Billy P. White, A01910293. James H. Withers, A0185492& Charles E. Woods, A01857376. John D. Wray, A0836057. Wiltred D. Wright, A02033600.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· . HOUSE January 18

To be second lieutenants Robert L. Andreason, A01905198. Albert R. Baker, A02221977. Kenneth G. Baker, A02222176. Robert W. Bakken, A02222791. Arthur F. Bishop, A01853065. Oscar c. Bridgeman •. Jr., OA933865. Patrick H. Caulfield, A01860851. William J. Clark, A02079289. William B. Conine, A01865028. David M. Conrad, A02232554. Bruce L. Danner, A02086793. Richard A. Eubank, A02216629. Joseph R. Fallon, A02218664. Konrad George, A02232368. PaulL. Gray, A02221842. Hollis 0. Hall, A02231448. Charles S. Hanners, A0785629. Frank B. Harrison, A01863553. Harold B. Hart, A02218299. Robert L. Hayford, A02222730. Thomas L. Healy, A02218690. Eugene C. Humphrey, A02222440. Samuel R. Johnson, A02215616. Sidney F. Johnston, Jr., A02233022. Paul A. Kauttu, A02222677. John M. Kminek, A01858656. William C. Knothe, A0945457. Joseph D. A. Kuchta, A02231723. Richard L. Lawson, A01907855. Robert J. Lloyd, A02228956. Jack B. Mayo, A02222328. Robert .J. Mellema, A02218742. Exley C. Mixon, Jr., A01864730. Bllly J. Moore, A01859002. Donald W. O'Brien, A02071674. Gene J. O'Malley, A01849718. Robert L. Reagan, A02222157. John H. Reddoch, A02218766. James E. Rose, Jr., A01859008. James B. Sampson, A02228626. Samuel I. Sifers, Jr.,' A02218486. · ~orman E. Slaughter, Jr., A02232546. Paul N. Smith, A01863774. Wallace R. Smith, A02071259. Alton J. Thogersen, A02216983.

· Hubert ·E. Thornber, Jr., A02217722. Joseph S. Toma, A02222983. William R. Yost, A02234039. The following-named persons for appoint

ment in the Regular Air Force, in the grade indicated, with dates of rank to be determined by the Secretary of the Air Force under the provisions of section 506, Publlc Law 381, 80th Congress (Officer Personnel Act of 1947); and section 301, Publlc Law 625, 80th Congress (Women's Armed ·Services Integration Act of 1948):

To be second lieutenants Dona R. Harbison, AL2218684. Arminta J. Harness, AL2218685~ Gilberta King, AL2229165. Marjory E. Winston, AL2219408.

CONFIRMATION Executive nomination confirmed by

the Senate January 18 (legislative day of January 7>. 1954:

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Frank H. Weitzel, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant Comptroller General of th~ United States for a term of 15 years.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MONDAY, JANUARY 18, 1954

The House met at 12 o'clock noon. Rev. Richard Irvin, department of

public relations, the Methodist Church, Washington, D. c., offered the following prayer:

Our country 'tis ·of Thee, 0 God, our help in ages past, our help for years to come, our eternal home. ·

In a jet and atomic age may we know Thee as the greatest power of all. The smoothness of performance, the emciency in speed, the ultimate in accomplishments are in ratio to Thy guidance.

We stand grateful that there was a prayer, a dream, a vision. Help us remember that the prayer became God with us, the dream became our land, the vision became living personalities.

May we climb life's mountain to the peak to dwell in those sweeter, finer upper rooms of life whose windows open on the sunrise and whose name is peace, the peace that passeth all understanding.

In the name of the Christ, the Prince of Peace. Amen.

The Journal of the proceedings of Thursday, January 14, 1954, was read and approved.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT Su_ndry messages in writing from the

President of the United States .were communicated ·to the House by Mr. Hanks, one of his secretaries.

THE LATE HONORABLE ELMER HEN- DRICKSON GERAN

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. 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 New Jersey?

There was no objection. · Mr.:- AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Speaker, it

is with regret that I announce to the House the death of a former Member who represented the Third Congressional District of New Jersey in the 68th Congress, Elmer Hendrickson Geran. Mr. Geran died on January 12 at his home in Marlboro Township, N. J ., and he was 78 years old.

Elmer Geran led a full and useful life, serving his community and State in many public ofiices. He received his education at th,e Greenwood Military Institute in Matawan, N. J., and graduated from the Petty Institute at Heightstown, · N. J., in 1895. He attended · Princeton University and received his degree in 1899 and while he was there he became one of the charter members of the Canon Club. He studied law and the same year he received his law degree from New York University, in 1901, he was admitted to the New Jersey bar and immediately started practice. Mr. Geran was aDemocrat and was elected to the State assembly in 1911 and took a major part in the a~tivities of the assembly. He introduced an election law bill which established direct primaries for party nominations, doing away with the old convention system, and this bill which was highly controversial and received wide .notice all over the country was finally passed and today continues as the law of the State.

Former President Wilson, when he was Governor of New Jersey, appointed Mr. Geran to the State water supply ·commission in 1912 and in 1915 he be· came assistant prosecutor of Monmouth County, In 1916 and 1917 he was the

1951,. ". CONGRESSIONAL RE~ORD -HOUSE 375 Democra-tic minority leader of the assembly ' and 's.ubsequently 'was elected sheriff of Momnouth County in 1917. President Wilson 'appointed him in 1920 tlie United States. attorney for the State, which PQsition he resigned in 1921 before his term , exi:>ired, i~ order to return to the practice of law. In 1922 he was elected to Congress, but he was defeated for reelection and he resumed his law practice. In 1927 he became associated in an executive capacity with the New Jerse~, GraveL& Sand Co. and continued his association with that corporation until his death, at which time he was its vice president and treasurer. He was an active member of the First Baptist Church in Matawan· and was associated with many civic and fraternal organizations.

His widow, 3 children and 4 grandchildren survive him and one of his soris operates his father's farm, where prize Guernsey cattle are raised. His death is a loss to the community which he served so well and I extend my warmest s~pathy to his bereaved ones. . · ·

HON. EDWARD 0. McCOWEN Mr. POLK. Mr. Speaker; I ask unan

imous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. · Is there objection to the' request of the gentleman from Ohio?

There was no objection. · Mr. POLK. Mr. Speaker, it is my un

happy duty to tell the House of the recent death of Hon. -Edwarq. 0. McCowen, of Wheelersburg, Ohio, who represented the old Sixth · District ·of Ohio for 3 terms-from January 3, 1943, to January 3, 1949. · During the e~rly_ morning hours of Wednes~ay, November 4, 19.53, he quietly passed away at . his home in· Wheelersburg, 'Ohio, at the age of · 76 years. He is survived by his _widow, a son, 3 daughters, and 5 grandchildren; to all of whom I wish to express my deepest sympathy for the loss of one greatly loved an~ respected. .

Edward 0. McCowen was born in Bloom Township, Scioto County, Ohio, June 29, 1877. He attended the public schools of So\lth Wepster, Ohio; was graduated from Ohio Northern University at Ada in 1908; Ohio State University at Columbus in 1917; and from the graduate school of the University of Cin~ nati, Ohio, in 1939. . When in his teens he was a newsboy, worked in coal mh~e·s: in a brickyard, as a farmhand, and as a store clerk. He began teaching at the age of 1 'i and was successively 3t highschool teacher, principal, and ·superintendent. He was ·superintendent of the Scioto County public schools from 1914 to 1942, also a precinct committeeman and delegate to the Ohio Rep-ublican State Convention in 1935 and 1946, a. trustee of Rio Grande College, and was elected· as a Republican to the 78th,: 79th, and 80th Congresses.

The ·life and achievements of"Edward 0. McCowen are a shining example of the opportunities' our country offers to young men and women who are willing to work and ·who have the ambition tO secure an education and better their position in life.

He literally "pulled himself up by his own bootstraps" from an obscure country boyhood to a ppsition of honor and respect as a valuable Member of the United States Congress.

Edward 0. McCowen ·possessed the quality of persistence to a greater degree than most men. He worked and studied during the greater part of his adult life and continued to progress from one position to the next until finally he achieved his lifetime ·ambition of serving in Congress.

At the age of ·65, when most men are thinking of retiring from business and professional activities, he began his first term in the 78th Congress. He was reelected to the 79th and 80th Congresses. During his service here, Mr. McCowen was a member of the Committee on Education and Labor arid because of his great knowledge :hid wide ·experience as an educator, he contributed greatly to the work of that committee. He also served on the Committees on Flood Control and Immigration and ·Naturalization.

Mr. JENKINS. l\4r. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. · PoLK] who has just preceded me discussed the life and virtues of Hon. Edward 0. McCow~n. a former Member of ·this House. Because Mr. PoLK now represents the district that Mr. McCowen represented we felt that Mr.' POLK should take the initiative in thfs _memorial ceremony.

Mr. McCowen served three terms in Congress and his service was. conspicuous because he was a very well qualified man. He lived · at· Wheelersburg, in southern Ohio, in the district now represented-by Mr. PoLK.

Mr. McCow~n ·was a schoolman and a very capable one. I remember when l was in the State Senate of Ohio the Legislature passed ·a very important school measure, of which I was the author. This law provided for the establishment of a State equalization fund which was to be used to aid weak school districts. By reason of this legislation good school facilities have been provided for all those sections that could not provide for themselves and this has cost millions of dollars. But the sections that could afford to pay extra taxes did not object to paying extra taxes when the money was to be used for the benefit of school children who were unfortunately located: Mr. McCowen helped us pass this legislation. He was selected as one of three prominent educators and assigned to the task of assisting me in my efforts to pass this important law. His services-were appreciated by me and all who were interested in this important matter. He was a _scholarly statesman· then. We passed that legislation, which was of great benefit to the rural schools of Ohio. By reason of .these activities Mr. McCowen went down in the school history of Ohio as · a great friend of the schools.

Mr. McCowen died about 4 months ago. He left a family consisting of a devoted wife and capable children who will live up to their father's precepts. When Mr. McCowen was in his prime, he was probably the best known man in his own county, Scioto County, Ohio. He was the superintendent of the county schools

in that county. for years, and -as such he made a record that established him as a man of ability and of high character. Many of the young men and women of Scioto County that were prominent in the business and social life of Scioto County had gone to school when the schools were under his direction. His son now holds the position of county superintendent of schools in Scioto County.

I am sure that the Members of this House who will speak following me and who knew Mr. McCowen will bear the same testimony in effect as I am giving to you now and that is that a fine Christian, well educated, thoroughly · qualified American, who was strong in his own community, has gone to his final resting place. He was buried down there in southern Ohio among his friends, who will long cherish his memory. ·

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, when I received the news several weeks ago of the passing of Edward 0. McCowen it came as a great shock to me, although I knew he had· been in bad health · for sonie time.

Mr. McCowen represented the district adjoining mine. We had ··been friends for some 30 years. I had· the pleasure and opportunity of working with him in the affairs of our State government prior to the time either of us came to the Congress.

Most of you, I ani sure, remember Ed McCowen, as he served here ·with distinc· tion for three terms. He was a very quiet individual, but he was a man of strong character and great courage. I have seen him time after time cast his vote in this House, not in a way that would be of the greatest benefit to him politically, ·but in a way that would be of greatest benefit to our country and the people he represented.. He was a. patriotic individual, a man of great mental capacity and unusual ability, one I am sure we all regret to see called from our national scene. We will miss him greatly.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Speaker, our Ohio colleague, Mr. McCowen, served here in a difficult period. His quiet, careful. thoughtful approach to our problems was most helpful at a time when too many were contributing more heat than light, more noise than thought, on controversial issues. Gentle and kindly in manner, he was firm in the right · as he saw the right~ and had a wealth of commonsense . and knowledge of . human nature, which he applied in analyzing complex questions. He was a pioneer in educational work, but he -apphed ·his experience in broader fields as nis career involved wider responsibilities. His former colleagues, his family, his friends, his community will miss him, but the memory of his long public service will live.

INTERNAL REVENUE CODE Mr. JONAs of North Carolina: Mr.

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and tore-vise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from·North Carolina? ·

There w~.- no objection.

376 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE January 18

Mr. JONAS of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have today introduced a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code to exempt athletic games between selected students from elementary or secondary schools from the admissions tax when the entire proceeds inure to the benefit of a hospital for crippled children.

The purpose of my amendment is to exempt the Shrine Bowl game played annually in Charlotte, N.C., and similar games played elsewhere, from admissions tax.

Games between two elementary or secondary schools are now exempt from the tax when the admissions inure to the benefit of a hospital for crippled children, and all my amendment does is change the wording of the statute so that games played between selected students from elementary or secondary schools will likewise be exempt.

I see no reason for the distinction and know of no more worthy cause than hospitals for crippled children which are maintained in part by the proceeds of these Shrine Bowl games.

The entire proceeds of the Charlotte game go to the Shrine Hospital at Greenville, S. C., and all persons connected with the game donate their services, including coaches and officials. It is a charitable affair if there ever was one and I think the Government can well forego the admissions tax in such instances since all of the proceeds go to such a worthy cause.

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following privileged resolution <H. Res. 406, rept. No. 1103), 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 into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 5337) to provide for the "'stablishment of a United States Air Force Academy, and for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and shall continue not to exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, 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.

COMMITTEE ON RULES Mr. ALLEN of Dlinois. Mr. Speaker,

I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules may have until midnight tomorrow night to file reports.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the . gentleman from lllinois?

There was no objection.

SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. AYRES asked and was given per

mission to address the House today for 1 hour, following any special orders heretofore entered.

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a subcommittee of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs may meet this afternoon after 2 o'clock.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Nebraska?


IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

Mr. REED of Illinois. 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 Illinois?

There was no objection. Mr. REED of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,

at the request of the Attorney General, and following President Eisenhower's recommendation, I have introduced today a bill amending section 349 (a) (9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act so as to provide for the loss of United States citizenship by persons who are convicted of participating in a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States, or of other acts of treason.

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act governs the matter of loss of United States nationality by native-born or naturalized citizens, alike. Under that section, loss of citizenship 6ccurs automatically upon conviction by a court-martial or by other court of competent jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, this country is now the prime target of a worldwide Communist conspiracy. Participants in this conspiracy are not entitled to enjoy the highest privilege this country offerscitizenship of the United States.

This legislation does not represent a problem whether or not to put on our statute books a novel provision. The basic concept of what is now embodied in existing law, and broadened by my bill, has been substantiated by the courts of the ·land which have long recognized the power of Congress to provide that traitors forfeit United States citizenship whether acquired at birth or by naturalization.

We want to remove from our body politic those who have joined enemy forces.

CORRECTION OF RECORD Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. 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 Missouri?

There was no objection. .

Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I am rising to correct a misapprehension which might arise in the REcORD reporting the debates of January 14, 1954. Unfortunately, the complete transcript of the remarks I made on the floor which resulted in an altercation was not made available to me for review and correction and so was not included in the RECORD.

By an extension of my remarks in the partial transcript which was made available to me I was able to forestall some of the erroneous impression the reader might have. However, the minority leader said in the RECORD, as printed, "The gentleman would have to revise his remarks very basically to stay within the Rules of the House." With my remarks not available the impression might be reached that the minority leader's views were correct.

I now have the transcript of my remarks which will go into the permanent RECORD, without any revision except the one I stated I would make, which was to change the word "untrue" to ''incorrect." As a matter of fact, I have found that the precedents of the House cited in Cannon's Procedurespage 278, Questions of Privilege-and reported in Hinds' Precedents-V, 5157-5160-specifically hold that the use of the word "untrue" in relation to another Member's remarks is not unparliamentary and accordingly, even in this respect, I am happy to know I was not violating the rules of the House in the remarks I made.

Be this as it may, I do agree with the minority leader when he stated: "I do hope we do not start this session in such f~rm as this," referring to the sharp words of this debate. But I suggest if Members from his side of the aisle again take the floor to make unfounded statements attacking the integrity of members of this administration, directly or by innuendo. I for one will be on the floor challenging these statements.

Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, may I say in reply to the gentleman that I have some clippings in my desk. I recall some of the remarks some Members on his side have made about two Presidents of the United States and practically everybody in high position in the Government. There is nobody on this side that is going to attack the integrity of the President of the United States. We have too much respect for that great office and too much respect for the man that is in it. We are not going to attack the integrity of anybody in this administration unless it is based on wellfounded evidence.

C~AR ~NESDAY BUSINESS Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker. I ask

unanimous consent that the business in order on Wednesday next, the call of the calendar. may be dispensed with.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentle!Ilan from Indiana? Th~re was no objection.

195.1,. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE 377 ADJOURNMENT UNTIL WEUNESDAY

NEXT Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet on Wednesday next.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I object to that at present, until I see what happens today.

p_~MENT OF IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

Mr. FEIGHAN. 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 Ohio?

There was no objection. Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Speaker, the bill

H. R. 7265, which I introduced today, amends paragraph 9 of section 349 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the loss of nationality by any citizen convicted of violating certain specified sections of title 18 of the

. United states Code. At the present time paragraph 9 of

section 349 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that-any citizen loses his nationality if he is convicted of committing any act of treason against or attempting to overthrow or bearing arms against the United States.

In his recent address to the Congress on the state of the Union, the President recommended the enactment of legislation to provide for the loss of nationality aft-er a citizen has been convicted of conspiring to advocate the overthrow of this Government by force or violence. I am heartily in accord with that recom·mendation, and have so provided in my bill. · My study of this problem has con

vinced ine, however, that not only is the existing law inadequate, but also that the proposal of the President would leave loopholes in the law whereby citizens- could be convicted of certain crimes which endangered our national defense and national security and. still retain their citizenship with all its rights and privUeges.

The rationale of this law ls that a eitizen who has been convicted of crimes of a treasonable or seditious nature no longer holds allegiance to the United States. Now -on our statute books are ~everal crimes in that category which are not included as grounds for loss of nationality, either in existing law or in the President's proposal. My bill includes all stich crimes that are contained in title 18 of the United states Code.

Thus, my bill provides for the loss of nationality by both native-born or naturalized citizens upon conviction of any one of the following crimes: a violation of section 794, relating to the gathering or delivering of defense information to aid a foreign government; violation of sections 2153, 2154, 2155, 2156, which involve sabotage of war and defense materials; violation of section 2381, the crime of treason; of section 2383, relating to rebellion or insurrection; of section 2384, involving seditious conspiracy; of section 2385, advocating the overthrow of the Government by force or violence; vioulating sections 2387 or 2388, which relate to acts involving the morale, loyalty, and discipline of the Armed Forces.

A violation of each and every one of those sections of title 18 of the United States Code involves activities that are in and of themselves hostile and injurious to our Government. Those actions evince a criminal'intent on -the part of the perpetrators to betray the Government of the United States and so violate their allegiance to this Government. A combination of such acts and criminal intent can lead to but one conclusion, namely, that such a person has renounced his allegiance to the Government of the Umted states.

By requiring that the citizen must have been found guilty of one of these crimes by a court of competent jurisdiction before the additional penalty of loss of nationality can be imposed, my bill adheres to those fundamental principles of American criminal jurisprudence such as a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, and all the other safeguards of a defendant's rights.

Under the provision of my bill the loss of nationality would be automatic after the conviction. By predicating the grounds for los_s of nationality upon specific sections of title 18 of the United States Code any problems of unconstitutionality for vagueness or generality are obviated. Then, too, the need for any additional litigation is avoided. · There may be some who might ques

tion the constitutionality of this bill particularly as it applies to native-born citizens. The question is asked; ''Does Congress possess the power to revoke the nationality of a native-born citizen?"

I have no fear in that regard. Under my bill Congress does not revoke the nationality of a native-born citizen, instead Congress merely ·recognizes the right of expatriation and defines the acts to effect it.

Congress recognized the right of expatriation in 1868: It is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality or allegiance to this Government that had been acquired at birth.

This doctrine of . expatriation is not new to this Government. I refer to the Civil War Statute-Revised statutes, section 1996-1865:

I can find no logical basis to provide for loss of nationality for treason and not to so provide after a conviction for espionage or sabotage. A convicted spy, or traitor, or saboteur, or seditionary have beyond any doubt one quality in common and that is by their own voluntary All persons who deserted the mllltary or acts they have demonstrated that they naval service of the United States and did bear no allegiance to the Government not return thereto or report themselves to a. of the -United States. Therefore I provost marshal Within 60 days after the· believe that all such conVicted traitors :~:.W:a:! t~::~:~~~. b!z.~~e~~ should su11er the same penalty so far a.S to have voluntarily relinquished and fortheir nationality is concerned. · · - - felted their rights-of ~ttizenshtp, as well as

the rights to become citizens and such de. serters shall be forever incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under the United States, or of exercising any rights ·of citizens thereof.

· In 1907 Congress enacted a general expatriation statute-34 Statutes, page 1228. Today, section 34.9 <a>, paragraphs 7, 8, 9, and 10, of the Immigration and Nationality Act, provide for loss of nationality by such acts as the making of a formal written renunciation of nationality in time of war, desertion in time of war, acts of treason, _or attempts to overthrow the United States by force or bearing arms against it and by departing from or remaining outside the jurisdiction of the United States in time of war or national emergency in order to avoid military service. The same acts were formerly found in the Nationality Act of 1940-8 United States Code, page 801.

If one keeps clearly in mind that the loss of nationality results from voluntary action of a renunciative· nature by the pitizen himself in conformity with applicable principles-and is not a revocation of nationality by Congress itselfthe fear of unconstitutionality should abate.

Those criminals whose very crimes subvert their allegiance to our form of government and at the same time weaken our national security should forfeit the. rights and privileges of the citizenship which they have betrayed. No a venue should be left open to them to pursue their schemes as citizens. All opportunity for them to pursue their subversive activities should be blocked.

My bill will effectuate such objectives with dispatch, under a procedure that is consistent with those rights and privileges conferred upon these traitors by the very Constitution and Government which they seek to destroy. "

My bill is designed to preserve and protect the Government from the .traitorous acts of those who seek to destroy it while at the same time it permits the selfdestruction of the nationality-including the rights and privileges-of those who betray their allegiance to it.

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED Mrs. SULLIVAN asked ·and was given

p~rmission to addre&S the House for 10 minutes today, following the legislative pro~m of the day and the conclusion of any special orders- heretofore granted.

Mr. SIKES <at the request of Mr. PRIEST) was given permission to address the House for 15 minutes today, following the legislative program of the day and the conclusion of any special orders heretofore granted.

STABILIZING FARM PRICES Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr.

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

The SPEAKER. Is there .objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?

There was no objection. Mr. - JOHNSON of WisconSin. r Mr.

Speaker, the bill I have introduced today covers dairy products - and other

378 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE January 18

livestock products, as outlined in the first two farm bills that I introduced last week. In addition, this third bill, H. R. 7267, applies the same principles to certain other major farm commodities. Enactment of this bill, along with the others, would give the Nation a farm program of definite action to stabilize farm income and prices at not less than 100 percent of parity.

These bills would provide support to farmers when support is needed. My bills do not authorize the sliding scale. I do not think farmers in my district want the sliding scale. I do not think the sliding scale, variable price-support theory will work.

None of the large industrialists, who manufacture the goods that farmers buy, have put any sliding scale on their asking prices during this period of falling farm income. Farm machinery products have been cut, but machinery prices are just as high as they have ever been.

The dairy farmer has had some experience with the sliding scale this past year. Prior to April 1, 1953, he was faced with the uncertainty that supports might be dropped to the bottom of the support scale-now set at 75 percent of parity by law. Although 90 percent of parity supports for milk and butterfat were sup~ posed to be put into effect, the dairy farmer in my district-and in most of the rest of the country-has realized a return of only 84 percent of parity. · If the announced supports were dropped to 75 percent next April1, and the program should be administered as now, the farmer would get only 64 percent of parity. Sliding-scale supports are not good for farmers, and in general they are not good for the public.

Farmers who produce other farm commodities cannot afford to allow the variable sliding scale to go into effect any more than the dairy farmer can. If we allow the sliding scale the opponents of adequate farm price supports will seek to drive wedges between the producers of different farm commodities. They will urge different programs for different commodities. In self-protection, farmers must pull together. President Eisenhower has recommended a good wool program. My bills, including H. R. 7267, which I have introduced today, would apply the same principle, at 100 percent of parity, to all major farm commodities.

These bills present a complete price support behind which all farmers can rally. These bills would require the Secretary of Agriculture to provide 100 percent of parity by methods that would refiect the support directly to farmers in markets where they sell. Also, they would not allow the benefits -of the support program to get lost in the brokerage houses in Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York.

SITUATION OF COTTON FARMERS OF AMERICA

Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.


There was no objection. Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker,

I want to remind the House that the cotton farmers of America are suffering from the effects of inaction, lack of policy, absence of recommendations, and lack of cooperation on the part of the Secretary of Agriculture last July or on the first day of August when Congress was attempting to pass a bill to give additional acres which are badly needed. It seems to me it took the Secretary from July to October or December to realize the condition of the cotton farmers of this Nation. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of Agriculture will be a little more prompt in recognizing the plight of the farmer, be more sympathetic too, and will also offer more cooperation than he has offered in the past.

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED Mr. DAVIS of Georgia asked and was

given permission to address the House for 20 minutes on Wednesday next, following the legislative program of the day and the conclusion of any special orders heretofore granted.

Mr. EBERHARTER asked and was granted permission to address the House today for 15 minutes, following the legislative business and any other special orders heretofore entered.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD

Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend niy remarks and include therewith copy of the bill H. R. 6900.


There was no objection. Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, since

the end of World War II the American people have expressed a concern and expended their resources for the achievement and maintenance of international peace and security to a degree unsurpassed in the annals .of history. In this process the President of the United States has the primary role, since he is charged with the responsibility for the conduct of our foreign affairs. While it is true that the Secretary of State is the right arm of the President in fulfilling this responsibility, the President secures his advice from many agencies of the Government and from private sources. Some of the agencies involved in advising the President are in turn advised by special commissions, boards, and private agencies.

However, the widespread mechanism of executive branch and outside advice to the President on foreign affairs lacks cohesion, continuity, and, in a sense, it lacks nonpartisanship. To remove these obstacles and deterrents to effective in· temational leadership by the United States, on the first day of this session I introduced a bill, H. R. '6900, ~stablishing

a Foreign Affairs Advisory Board of nine members appointed by the President with Senatorial confirmation, whose function it will be to make a continuing study and evaluation of international conditions for the purpose of advising and consulting with the President. They will devote their full time to this task. Responsible world leadership demands the establishment of this Board.

I hope favorable action will be promptly taken on the measure during this session of the Congress.

H. R. 6900 A bill to provide for the establishment of the

F'oreign Affairs Advisory Board Be it enacted, etc., That, in order to assist

the President in conducting the foreign affairs of the United States, to establish continuity of foreign policy, and to provide a reliable source of information concerning the foreign affairs of the United States for officers of the Government and the pu~lic at large, there is hereby established the Foreign Affairs Advisory Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board").

DUTIES OF THE BOARD

SEC. 2. It shall be the duty of the Board to make a continuing study and evaluation of conditions in the United States and abroad which affect the foreign affairs of the United States, and to advise and consult with the President to assist him in formulating the foreign policy of the United States and in conducting the foreign affairs of the United States.

MEMBERSHIP OF THE BOARD

SEC. 3. (a) The Board shall be composed of 9 members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, solely on the basis of their knowledge, ability, and experience in the field of foreign affairs and international affairs generally. No member of the Board shall be less than 40 years of age.

(b) The members of the Board shall serve for terms of 18 years, except that the 9 members first appointed shall serve for terms of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 years, respectively, as designated by the President at the time of appointment.

(c) ( 1) Any vacancy. occurring in the membership of the Board shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made.

(2) Any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of such term.

(3) Any vacancy existing in the membership of the Board !or more than 1 year shall be temporarily filled by majority action of the remaining members of the Board. Such temporary appointee shall serve until an appointment is made as provided in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this-subsection.

(4) Upon the expiration o! his term of office a member shall continue to serve until his successor is appointed and takes office.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD

SEc. 4. (a) The Secretary of State shall be an ex officio member of the Board, and shall at his pleasure preside at its meetings.

(b) The Board shall select one of 1ts members who shall serve as its chairman and preside at all meetings not presided over by the Secretary of State.

(c) The Board shall meet at regular intervals (not less often than once each month), and at such other times ·~ the Board may decide and as the President may direct.

(d) Five members of the Board shall con• stitute a quorum. ·

1954. CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD·- HOUSE 379• COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OP THE BOARD

SEC. 5. Each member of the Board shall receive compensati~n at the rate of $25,000 a year, anq shall in addition be reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expeilses incurred by him in the performance ·of the duties vested in the Board.

STAFF OF THE BOARD

SEc. 6. The Board shall have power to ap-· point and fix the compensation of such personnel as it deems advisable.

POWERS OF THE BOARD

SEc. 7. (a) The Board, or any member thereof when so directed by the Board, may, for the purpose of · carrying out the duties vested in the Board by this act, hold such hear.ings ·and sit and act at such times and places, and take such testimony, as the Board or such member may deem advisable. Any member of the Board may administer oaths or _affirmations _to witnesses appearing before the Board or before such member.

(b) The Board is authorized to secure directly frbm any executive department, agency, independent establish~ent, or other instrumentality such information, suggestions, estimates, ·and statistics as it may require in carrying out its duties under this act; and each such department, agency, independent establishment, and instrumentality is authorized and directed to furnish su~h information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics_ directly to the Board upon request therefor made by the Board.

EXPENSES OF THE BOARD

SEC. 8. There are· authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this act.

WHY WON'T STATE . DEPARTMENT TRY TO EFFECT RELEASE OF GI'S AND ciVILIANS n;LEGALLY HElD PRISONER BY THE REDS? Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani

mous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my re-marks. · ····

The SPEAKER. ~Is there objection to request of the gentleman from Mas~ sachusetts? · There was no objection.

Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, there was a. time when our State Department was not afraid to demand the release of one American illegally held a.s a prisoner by any nation. - Now it appears to consider many a8 mere ·pawns in the game of power politics.

It is estimated that 944 Americans who fought for our country and were taken prisoner by the Chinese Communists have been conveniently forgotten by their own Government.

Plus an undetermined number of American civilians.

Can it be that the improviser.s of our foreign policy are so weak, timid, or confused that they have lost sight of moral values in dealing with the international aggressors?

The silence of the State Department, and its refusal to speak up for all Americans who are held by the Russians and

- the Chinese on trumped-up charges, is a source of disappointment and dismay to an increasing number of people in the Uilited States.

· We may debate the point of trade-notaid in the eeo.nomic field, but we bitter].y oppose . its extension to . diplomacy ..

Americans held behind . the Iron Curtain against their will in- violation of the Korean truce terms, or stripped of the protection they are entitled to from the Government of the United States, are not surplus commodities to be dUmped and abandoned .. The State Department will not aid them. This emboldens the Communists in the belief that they can trade back these missing men at a price-the dishonorable and costly price. of admit-. ting the aggressor, Red China. into the United Nations, or for other concessions to Soviet Russia.

Where are the rights of these men, when both sides consider them as mere bargaining points?

As the moral as well as the material leader of the free world, it is our duty to work unremittingly for the release of. our own citizens, and for the release of non-Russians and non-Chinese who are kept captive without a shred of legality.

Anxious relatives and friends in the United States pray for some sign of leadership by our Government to give them hope that these victims of involuntary servitude will regain their freedom.

In the congressional district that I represent, there is a man who longs for the United States to assume the moral initiative in behalf of the little helpless, isolated human beings who are lost if this Nation does not work for their liberation.

They ~now we can save them from false imprisonment by the Communists if we will but rouse ourselves from the inertia which has affected the State Department in such matters.

This man is Edward R. Greenwood, wool merchant,. of North Andover, Mass.

His brothers, Stephen and Fred, are serving prison terms in Communist Poland, because the secret police found two 18th century English pistols-collector's items of historical value-at their home in Lodz. ·The Communists maintained that these old guns were evidence of an armed conspiracy against their government. .

The charge was absurd, but charge or no charge, the brothers were sentenced to jail for 7 and 6 years respectively, with typical Communist contempt of facts, and in spite of the Greenwoods' British citizenship. ' .

Their mother, Mrs. Lucy Greenwood, 82, now living in Toronto, C~nada, ha~ appealed to Polish President Boleslaw Bierut, for -their release, so that she may see them·again before she dies.

Personally, I do not hav·e much faith that the Communists will b,e moved by any consideration of numan feelings, or even the common precepts of justice. .

~ fear that personal pleas will not do much good. .

At .the same time, 1: believe that we have an obligation to intercede for these prisoners-, both military and civilian.

Instead of being silent, we should speak up fearlessly.

The moral initiative-! should say imperative-is up to our State .Depart-. ment. I hope sincerely for the sake of the living missing, and for the integrity of· our leadership, that this problem will not .be pigeonholed.

My purpose in criticizing the Department is . to wake it up from its too-

cautious approach to matters involvinghuman rights. ·

There is no argument of expediency_ that can gloss over our clear duty to- · ward these hapless individuals.

I ask the State Department to acknowledge its responsibility, and to take affirmative action that will lead to the release of all · non-Russian and non-· Chinese prisoners now being held without justification by the Communists of these two nations and their satellites.

SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the special order I had for today be canceled and that I may address the House for 20 minutes on Monday next, following the legislative· business of the. day and any other special orders heretofore entered.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

'rhere was no objection.

LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS FOR WEDNESDAY

Mr. HALLECK. 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 Indiana?

There was no objection. Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, it is

understood, I am sure, that the House will adjourn over until Wednesday. It has been suggested that I had better announce that we expect to call up the rule just filed today for the consideration of the bill to establish an· Air Force Academy. If any· other rules are granted I shall iilform the minority leader and determine whether anything further is to be called up this week.

THE HEALTH PROBLEM-MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 298) The SPEAKER laid before· the House

the following message from the President of the United States which was read and. together with the accompanying papers. referred to the Committee on Intersta:te and · Foreign Commerce and ordered printed:

-To the Congress of the United States~ I submit herewith for the considera

tion of the Congress recommendations to improve .the health of the American people.

Among the concerns .o~ our Government for the human problems of our citizens, the subject of health ranks higlL For only as our citizens enjoy

. gopd physical and mental health can they win for themselves the satisfactions of a fully productive, useful life.

THE HEALTH PROBLEM

The progress of our people toward better health has been rapid. Fifty years ago their average life span was 49 years; today ~t is 68 years. In 1900 there

380 CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD -HOUSE January 1.8

were 676 deaths from infectious diseases for every 100,000 of our people; now there are 66. Between 1916 and 1950, maternal deaths per 100,000 live births dropped from 622 to 83. In 1916, 10 percent of the babies born in this country died before their first birthday; today, less than 3 percent die in their first year.

This rapid progress toward better health has been the result of many particular efforts, and of one general effort. The general effort is the partnership and teamwork of private physicians and dentists and of those engaged in public health, with research scientists, sanitary engineers, the nursing profession and the many auxiliary professions related to health protection and care in illness. To all these dedicated people, America owes most of its recent progress toward better health.

Yet much remains to be done. Approximately 224,000 of our people died of cancer last year. This means that cancer will claim the lives of 25 million of our 160 million people unless the present cancer mortality rate is lowered. Diseases of the heart and blood vessels alone now take over 817,000 lives annually. Over 7 million Americans are estimated to suffer from arthritis and rheumatic diseases. Twenty-two thousand lose their sight each year. Diabetes annually adds 100,000 to its roll of sufferers. Two million of our fellow citizens now handicapped by physical disabilities could be, but are not, rehabilitated to lead full and productive lives. Ten million among -our people will at some time in their lives be hospitalized with mental illness. . There exist in our Nation the knowledge and skill to reduce these figures, to give us all still greater health protection and still longer life. But this knowledge and skill are not always available to all our people where and when they are needed. Two of the key problems in the field of health today are the distribution of medical facilities and the costs of medical care.

Not all Americans can enjoy the best in medical care-because not always are the requisite facilities and professional personnel so distributed as to be available to them, particularly in our poorer communities and rural sections. There are, for example, 159 practicing physicians for every 100,000 of the civilian ·population in the Northeast United States. This is to be contrasted with 126 physicians in the West, 116 in the NorthCentral area, and 92 in the South. There are, for another example, only 4 or 5 hospital beds for each 1,000 people in some States as compared with 10 or 11 in others.

Even where the best in medical care is available, its costs are often a serious burden. Major, long-term illness can become a financial catastrophe for a normal American family. Ten percent of American families are spending today more than $500 a year for medical care. Of our people reporting incomes under $3,000, about 6 percent spend almost a fifth of their gross income for- medical and dental care. The total private medical bill of the Nation now exceeds

$9 billion a year-an average of nearly $200 a family-and it is rising. This illustrates the seriousness of the problem of medical costs.

We must, therefore, take further action on the problems of distribution of medical faciliities and the costs of medical care, but we must be careful and farsighted in the action that we take. Freedom, consent, and individual responsibility are fundamental to our system. In the field of medical care, this means that the traditional relationship of the physician and his patient, and the right of the individual to elect freely the manner of his care in illness, must be preserved.

In adhering to this principle, and rejecting the socialization of medicine, we can still confidently commit ourselves to certain national health goals.

One such goal is that the means for achieving good health should be accessible to all. A person's location, occupation, age, race, creed, or financial status should not bar him from enjoy· ing this access.

Second, the results of our vast scientific research, which is constantly advancing our knowledge of better health protection and better care in illness, should be broadly applied for the benefit of every citizen. There must be the fullest cooperation among the individual citizen, his personal physician, and. research scientists, the schools of professional education, and our private and public institutions and services-local, State, and Federal.

The specific recommendations which follow .are designed to bring us closer to these goals. CONTINUATION OF PRESENT FEDERAL PROGRAMS

In my budget message appropriations will be requested to carry on during the coming fiscal year the health and related programs of the newly established Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

These programs should be continued because of their past success and their present and future usefulness. The Public Health Service, for example, has had a conspicuous share in the prevention of disease through its efforts to control health hazards on the farm in industry, and .in the home. Thirty y~ars ago, the Public Health Service first rec.ommended a standard milk sanitation ordinance; by last year this ordinance bad been voluntarily adopted by 1,558 municipalities with a total population of 70 million people. Almost 20 years ago the Public Health Service first recommended restaurant sanitation ordinances; today 685 municipalities and 347 counties, with a total population of 90 million people, have such ordinances. The purification of drinking water and the pasteurization of milk have prevented countless epidemics and saved thousands of lives. These and similar field projects of the Public Health Service, such as technical assistance to the States, and industrial hygiene work, have great public value and should be maintained.

In addition, the Public Health Service should be strengthened in its research activities. Through its National Insti-

tutes of Health, it maintains a steady attack against cancer, mental illness, heart diseases, dental problems, arthritis, and metabolic diseases, blindness, and problems in microbiology and neurology. The new sanitary-engineering laboratory at Cincinnati, to be dedicated in April, will make possible a vigorous attack on health problems associated with the rapid technological advances in industry and agriculture. In such direct-research programs and in Public Health Service research grants to State and local governments and to private research institutions lies the hope of solving many of today's perplexing health problems.

The activities of the Children's Bureau and its assistance to the States for maternal and child-health services are also of vital importance. The programs for children with such crippling diseases as epilepsy, cerebral palsy, congenital heart disease, and rheumatic fever should receive continued support.

MEETING THE COST OF MEDICAL CARB

The best way for most of our people to provide themselves the resources to obtain good medical care is to participate in voluntary health-insurance plans. During the past decade, private and nonprofit health-insurance organizations have made striking progress in offering such plans. The most widely purchased type of health insurance, which is hos~ pitalization insurance, already meets approximately 40 percent of all private ex .. penditures for hospital car·e. This prog .. ress indicates that these voluntary or .. ganizations can reach many more people and provide better and broader oenefits. They should be encouraged and helped to do so.

Better health-insurance protection for more people can be provided.

The Government need not and should not go into .the insurance business to furnish the protection which private and nonprofit organizations do not now provide. But the Government can and should work with them to study and de .. vise better insurance protection to meet the public need.

I recommend the establishment· of · a limited Federal reinsurance service to en .. courage private and nonprofit healthinsurance organizations to offer broader health protection to more families. This service would reinsure the special additional risks involved in such broader protection. It can be launched with a cap .. ital fund of $25 million, provided by the Government, to be retired from reinsur .. ance fees.

NEW GRANT-IN-Am APPROACH

My message on the state of the Union and my special message of January 14 pointed out that Federal grants-in-aid have hitherto observed no uniform pattern. Response has been made first to one and then to another broad national need. In each of the grant-in-aid programs, including those dealing with health, child_ welfare, and rehabilitation of the disabled, a wide variety of complicated matching formulas have been used. Categorical grants have restricted

. funds to specified purposes so that States

1954 '. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 381 often have too much money· for · some programs and not enough for . others.

- This patchwork of complex formulas and categorical grants should be simpli~ fied and improv.ed. I propose a simpli~ fied formula for all of these basic grantin-aid pmgrams which applies a new concept of Federal participation in .State programs: This formula permits the States to use greater initiative and take more responsibility in the administration of the programs.· It makes Federal assistance more responsive to the needs of the States .and their citizens. Under it, Federal support of . these grant-in-aid programs is ·based on three general criteria:

First. The States are aided in inverse proportion to ·their financial capacity. By relating Federal financi~l support to the degree of need, -we are applying the preven and sound formula ·adopted by the Congress in the Ho.spital Survey and Construction Act. · - -.

second, the States are also helped, · in proportion to .their population, to .extend and improve the health and welfare services provided by the grant-in-aid programs.·.

-Third, a . portion of the Federal assistance is set aside for the support of unique projects of regional or national significance which give promise of new. and better ways of serving the human needs o{ our Citizens. . ' . · · Two of these grant-in-aid programs warrant the foilowing further . reco~-_mendations. · ·· ·

REHABILITA~g~ OF TH~ DISABLED •

Working with _o~ a ..§mall portion of the disabled a~ong our p,eople. Federal and state Governments· and voluntary organizations and ins.titutions ' 'have :proved the advantage to our Nation ·of restoring handicapped persons · to · full and productive lives. · .

When · our ·state-Federal program · of vocational rehabilitation began in 1920, the services rendered were limited largely to vocatjoii~l Counseling, traini~g, and· job placement. Since th~n advancing techniques 'in · the medical and social aspects of ·rehabilitation have been in~ corpora ted into that program. ·. -

There are now "2 million disabled ·persons who could be rehabilitated and thus: returned to productive work. Under the present rehabilitation program· only 60,000 of these disabled individuals : are returned each year to full and productive lives; Meanwhile, 250~000 .of our people. are annually disabled. Therefore, we are losing ground at a distressing rate. The number of disabled who enter prQducti've employment!. ~cp. y;ear. .C.!!~ be increased if the facilities, personnel and financial SUpport-for their rehabilitation are made adequate-to the need. · · - •Considerations of bOth humanity and national self-interest demand that steps be taken.now to impro.ve this .situation. Today, for example, we are sp,ending three times as much in pubiie assistance to care tor nonp_roduct~ve disabled people as it would cost to make them self-sumcient and taxpaying members of their cominunities. Rehabilitated persons as a group pay back in Federal income taxes many times the cost of their rehabili-

. tation.

_There -are no statistics to portray the full depth and meaning in human terms of the rehabilitation program, but clearly it is a program that--builds a stronger America.

We should provide for a progressive expansion of our rehabilitation resources, and we should act now so that a sound foundation may be established in 1955-. My 'forthcoming budget message will reflect this objective. Our goal in 1955 is to restore 70,000 disabled persons to productive Hves. This ~s an increase of~ 10,000 over the number rehabilitated in 1953. Our goal for 1956 should be 100,-. QOO rehabilitated persons, or 40,000 per.sons more than those restored in 1953: In 1956, also, the States should begin to contribute ·from their own funds to the cost · of rehabilitating these additional persons. . By 1959, with gradually · in~ creasing State participation to the point of equal sharing with the Federal Government, we· •ShQUld reach the goal of 200,00Q rehabilitated persons each year.'

In ord~r to achieve -this goal we must extend greater assistance to the States. We should do so, - however~ in a , way which will equitably and g:radually trans~fer increasing responsibility to the States. A program of: grants should be undertaken· to provide.~· under State auspices, specialized training for the professional personnel necessary to ·carry out the ex~ panded program· and to foster that research which will:advance our knowledge of .the ways of overcoming handicapping conditions. We should also provide, under State auspices, clinical facilities for rehabilitative services in ·hospitals and · other appropriate treatment centers . . In addition, we .should encourage State and. local. initiative .in the . development. of community rehabilitation centers and special workshops. for the disabled. . With such a program the Nation could during the next 5 years ··return a · total of 660,000 of our disabled .people to places of full responsibility as actively· -working citizens. , · .r ~

C(~>NsTRucrxoN or· MEDtCAL CARE FACILITIES

The modern hosp1tal~iii cari~g fo:t: the sick, in research~ and in professional educational programs-is indispensable to good medical care.- New hospital construction continues to lag behind the rieed. The total number ;of acceptable beds in this Nation in all categories of iion~Federal · hospital'- services is now about 1,060,000. Based on studies . co,nducted by State hospital authorities, the need for additional hospital beds of all types-chronic disease, mental, tuberculosis, 'as well as general-is conservatively estimated at more than 500,000. .

A program of matching State and local tax funds and private funds in the construction of both public and voluntary nonprofit hospitals where these are most needed-is .ther.efor,e .. essential.

Since 1946, nearly $600 million in Federal funds have been allocated to almost 2,200 · hospital projects in the States and Territories~ This. sum has been matched by over $1%, billion . of State and local funds. Projects already completed or under construction on December 31, 1953, will add to our national resources 106,000 hospital · bedS

and 464 public health cen.ters. · The largest proportion of Federal funds has been and is being spent in low-income and rural areas · where the need for hospital beds is ·greatest and where the lecal means for providing them are smallest. This federally~ stimulated accomplishment has by no me.ans retarded the building of hospitals without Federal aid. · Construction costing in ex~ cess of $1 billion has been completed in· the last 6 years without such aid.

Hospital construction, however, meets only part of the urgent need for medical facilities.

Not all illness need· be-treated in elab~ orate general hospital facilities, costly to construct and costly. to operate; Certain nonacute illness ·coildition.s, includ~ ing those of our hospitalized aged people, requiring institutional bed care can be handled in facilities more economical to build and operate than a general hos~ pi tal, with its diagnostic, surgical, ·and treatment equipment and its full :staff of professional personnel. ·Today beds in · our hospitals for -the chronically ill · tak-e care of. · only 1 out -of every 6. persons suffering from such long-term illnesses as cancer, arthritis, and heart dis-. ease. The inadequacy of facilities and services to cope with such illnesses is disturbing. Moreover: -if there - were more nursing and. ·convalescent home facilities, · beds in general -·hospitals would . be· released for the care of the abutelydll. -This would also help to r-elieve some of the serious problems creat~ ed by the present short ~s\.ij)ply of trained nurses. ·.·· ~ .. · · -

Physical _ rehabilitation .services for our. disabled people can best be given in -hospitais or 6ther: 'facilities especially equipped for the purpose. Many thousands of people remain _disabled today l;>ecause of the lack of such 1~cilities and services. . · Many illnesses; to be sure, can be

cared for outside . of any institution. For such illnesses a far . less costly approach to good medical care than· hos-. pitalization would be tO provide diagno~tic and treatment facilities_ for the ambulatory ·patient. Th~ provision of such faci1it1es, particularly in rural areas and small isolated com·munities, will attract physicians to the sparsely settled sections where they ~re .urgently needed. - I ·recomm~nd, therefore. that the Hos~ Pi.tal SUrveY and ' ConstructionJ Act be amended as !lecessary to authorize the several types Of urgently needed medical-care facilitieS which I have described. They will be less costly .to build than general hospitalS and willless'en the burden on them. · ·. ' ·

I present · four proposals to expand or extend the present program: · ·

First. Added asSistance in. the .Construction of nonprofit hospitaJs . for the care of the 'chronically ill. These would be of a type more, economical to build and. operate than general hospitals. ' Second. Assi~tance m 'the.construction of nonprofit .medically supervised nurs-i~ and convalescent homes.

Third. Assistance in the construction of nonprofit rehabilitation facilities .for the disabled.

382' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE January 18

Fourth. Assistance in the construction of nonprofit diagnostic or treatment centers for ambulatory patients.

Finally, I recommend that in order to provide a sound basis for Federal assistance in such an expanded program, special funds be made available to the States

• to help pay for surveys of their needs. This is the procedure that the Congress wisely required in connection with Federal assistance in the construction of hospitals under the original act. We should also continue to observe the principle of State and local determination of their needs without Federal interference.

These recommendations are needed forward steps in the development of a sound program for improving the health of our people. No nation and no administration can ever afford to be complacent about the health of its citizens. While continuing to reject Government regimentation of medicine, we shall with vigor and imagination continuously search out by appropriate means, recommend, and put into effect new methods of achieving better health for all of our people. We shall not relax in the struggle against disease. The health of our people is the very essence of our vitality, our strength, and our progress as a nation.

I urge that the Congress give early and favorable consider~tion to the recommendations I have herein submitted.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER. THE WHITE }lOUSE, January 18, 1954.

IMPROVEMENT OF THE HEALTH OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Mr. WOLVERTON. 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 New Jersey?

There was no objection. Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Speaker, I

have listened with the closest attention and gratification to the reading of the President's message making certain rec· ommendations for the improvement of the health .of the American people. .. It is a most timely and most note-worthy message. ·

It is evidence of the President's recognition of the importance of the need in some way to meet the increasing costs of medical care. It is extremely encouraging that the administration has recog .. nized this major problem facing our people today, and has requested the Con· gress to do something about it.

The House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce already is working dilgently on this matter. Last fall, after the Congress had adjourned, the members of the committee returned to Washington for extensive hearings on the status of the Nation's research into the causes and control· of the principal diseases of mankind, such as heart, cancer, polio, arthritis, and metabolic diseases, and the like, and what might be done to hasten success in such research.

The committee last fall also conducted a study both here and abroad on various plans to meet the cost of medical care,

and already in this session has held 1 week of a scheduled 4 weeks of hearings, on this subject.

Following these hearings the commit· tee will take up specific legislation cover· . ing various phases of a national health program. A number of bills have been introduced hitherto and are before us, and others will stem from the recommendations which are contained in the President's message today.

In this connection it is a pleasure to inform the membership of the House that bills are being prepared by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, under the direction of Mrs. Oveta Hobby, Secretary, to carry out the recommendations made by the President in his message adressed to the House today. One of such bills has already been prepared and I have introduced it today.

This bill is an amendment to the Hospital Survey and Construction Act prepared by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. It would extend the machinery of the act used previously so successfully in connection with the construction of hospitals, to the construction of diagnostic or treatment centers, hospitals for the chronically ill and impaired, rehabilitation facilities and nursing homes. The bill would authorize the expenditure for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1955, and for each of the 2 succeeding fiscal years of $20 million for grants to the States for the construction of nonprofit diagnostic or treatment centers; $20 million for grants to the States for the 1:onstruction of nonprofit hospitals for the chronically ill and impaired; .$10 million fer grants to the States for construction of nonprofit rehabilitation facilities; and $10 million for grants to the States for the construction of nonprofit nursing homes.

The provisions with regard to State plans to be submitted by. the. several States to become entitled to a Federal grant are modified appropriately so as to make possible the extension of the provisions of the Hospital Survey Construction Act to the construction of these additional facilities not previously included under the provisions of this act. . Other bills to make effective the Presidential recommendations are .being drafted and will be ready for introduction at an early date.

We shall be most happy, in the consideration of such legislation, to receive _suggestions from any and all sources, as health groups, insurance companies, labor organizations, business associations, hospital and medical groups, and the like, most of whom already have been contributing so helpfully to the study now in progress.

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM-AIR FORCE ACADEMY BILL

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the Tequest of the gentleman from Indiana?


Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, a short while ago I stated that the Air Force Academy bill would be called up on Wednesday and disposed of on Wednesday. In the meantime it has been brought to my attention that our former colleague, Thomas B. Stanley, of Virginia, is to be inaugurated as Governor of Virginia on that day, and of course a number of our colleagues want to attend the inaugu .. ration. Therefore, it will be our purpose to call the rule up on Wednesday. I am sure there will be no controversy on the rule and no record vote on it. General debate will be had on Wednesday but if there is to be a record vote, further action would be postponed until Thursday.

REPORT OF NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION-MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES <H. DOC. NO. 301> The SPEAKER laid before the House

the following message from the President of the United States which was read, and together with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and ordered to be printed:

To the Congress of the United States: Pursuant to the provisions of Public

Law 507, 81st Congress, I transmit herewith the Third Annual Report of the' National Science Foundation for the year ending- June 30, 1953.

DwiGHT D. EISENHOWER. THE WHITE HousE, January 15, 1954.

REPORT OF RAILROAD RETffiEMENT BOARD-MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNI'I'EI). STATES The SPEAKER laid before the House

the following message from the President of the United States, which was· read, and together with the accompany-. ing papers, referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce: To the Congress of the United States:

In compliance with the provisions of section 10 <b> (4) of the Railroad Retirement Act, approved June 24, 1937, and of section 12 < 1) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, approved June 25, 1938, I transmit herewith for the inform_ation of the Congress the report of the Railroad Retirement Board for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1952.

DwiGHT D. EisENHOWER. THE WHITE HOUSE, January 18, 1954.

REPORT OF THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION-MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC~ NO. 299)

The SPEAKER laid before. the House the following_ message from the President of the United States, which was :read, and together with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee ori Banking and Currency and ordered tO be printed: .: To the Congress of the United States:

In accordance with the provisions of section 13, Public Law 806, 80th Congress;

1954 ... CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 383 approved June 29, 1948, I tl'ansmit herewith for "the information of the Congress the report of the Commodity Credit Corporation for the fiscal year ended June 30; 1953.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER. THE WHITE HOUSE, Jariuaty 18, 1954.

CONSENT CALENDAR . The SPEAKER. This·is Consent Cal

endar day. · The Clerk will .call the first bill on the Consent Calendar.

PAYMENT OF DISABILITY COMPENSATION

The Clerk called the bill <H. R. 631 ). to provide that compensation of veterans for service-connected disability, rated 20 percent or less. disabling, shall be paid _quarterly rather than monthly.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? . Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous '"consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice.

Mr. EVINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be removed from the Calendar.

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts yield to the gentle-man from Tennessee? . .

Mr. McCORMACK. I do, Mr. Speaker, but I (io not want to get in any .complicated situation. I know my friend, the gentleman from . Tennessee: does not· mean to make a unanimous-consent request that the bill be withdrawn .from the calendar unless the committee has acted to withdraw the bill. · Mr. EVINS. Mr. Speaker, the com-· tnittee has not acted on the withdrawal of the bill, but the com~ittee was not unanimous in recommending the bill.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, might' I suggest to ·my good "friend that perhaps it would be better if his request was not put before the House in view of the fact that the committee has not voted to withdraw the bill.

Mr. EVINS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my request. _ .

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman -from Massachusetts? · . There was no objection. ··

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the RECORD at this point a .letter sent by Francis M. Sullivan, national 'director of the DA V to Members of Congress in connection with this bill.

The SPEAKER . . Is there objection to the request . of the gentleman . from Massachusetts?

There was no o~jection.· JUNE 24, 1953.

·DEAR CONGRESSMAN·: We of the DAV, oppose the passage of H. R. 631. Our organization has become.fearful. of the trend in Congress tow~d the reclassification of the serviceconnected veterans who are . drawing compensation che~~s from the Veterans' Administration: A number of examples occurred, in recent years. Only last year the Congress pass,ed Publi~ . Law 356, approved May 23, ~952, which increased compensation of ~rvice-coimected disabled veterans 5 pe~-

cent for those rated less . than ·so-percent disabled and increased compensation 15 percent for those rated more than 50 percent. Also, l.n the 80th Congress, Public Law 877, approved July 2, 1948, provided dependency allowance for disabled veterans rated 60 percent or more in degree. Last year this 60 percent was reduced to 50 percent. Therefore , the dependents of service-connected disabled veterans who have less than 50 percent do not draw compensation under this law.

On June 10, the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs reported the bill, H. R. 631, and it is now on the House Consent Calendar. This 'bill provides that the compensation of veterans with a service-connected disability rated 20 percent or less disabling shall be paid quarterly rather than monthly. The DAV .was· invited to present its views at the committee hearing but declined to do so. Since ' the committee's hearing the situation has been changed. Upon reading the hearings of the House Commitee on Appropriations on the Veterans' Administration appropriation, we ha.ve become alarmed that the bill, H. R. 631, is but a forerunner to a movement to change the disability compensation system. Therefore, the DAV must oppose the passage of H. R. 631, and we implore · your assistance.

Three of the major veterans' organizations did not support this measure in the committee. The Veterans' Admini_stration, in its report to the Veterans' Affairs Committee, estimated "that there might be savings of about $45,000 a year, insofar as the functions of the VA are concerned and pointed out that in addition · the Treasury might save as much as $585,000 a year." This estimate apparently_ does not take into consideration t~e administrative costs in making the change to pay veterans on a quarterly, rather than mqnthly baSis: Much. o:t: the Treasury's costs will be made up by mailing costs and we all know these mailings are on a franked basis.

-The 10-percent rate today is $15.75 per month and the . 20-percent rate ls $31.50. These .aiJlounts may seem small to many persons but our qrganization knows that many (Usabled veterans · use this amount to sup.plement their · income. Many of them use this amount to pay thelr Government insurance; some use it to pay mortgage installments, and some use it for food, and some use it for installment payments. The DAV does not agree with the theory of this bill, which is one of the recommendations made by Booz, Allen, and Hamilton, the management firm which recently concluded, a survey of the Veterans' Administration, its organization and operating methods.

If the monthly payments are put on a quarterly basis, why does the bill, H. R. 631, stop at 20 percent instead of going to 10() percent? The DAV sees no point in putting the 10- and 20-percent cases on a quarterly basis and the 30-percent cases on a monthly basis.

We believe H. R. 631 Is only the first step· toward disrupting the present compensation system, and again, we ask you to oppose its passage in 'the House of Representatives.

We thank you for any assistance you ~ay give us.

Very sincerely yours, FRANCIS M. SULLIVAN,

National Legislative Director.

EXTENDING PENSION BENEFITS The Clerk called the bill <H. R. 5380)

to extend pension benefits 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 Mora 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.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I wonder if the gentleman would let that bill come up for discussion later. Judge MAcK, the author of the bill, was present to say a word about the bill, but just at this moment he is not in the Chamber. Would the gentleman be willing to have it considered at the end of the calendar?

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. I would be glad to have the gentleman discuss it at the next call of the Consent Calendar. That is all I am asking .

·Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. He will be here in a few minutes.

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?. There was no objection.

ADDITIONAL FUNDS. TO COMPLETE INTERNATIONAL PEACE GARDEN, N.DAK. The Clerk called the bill <H. R. 3986)

to authorize the appropriation of additional funds to complete the International Peace Garden, .N. Dak.


Mr. CUNNINGHAM.· Mr. Speaker, I ask that this bill be passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa?

There was no objection. . ·

DECREE OF COMPETENCY FOR UNITED STATES INDIANS

The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 4985) to provide a decree of competency for United States Indians in certain cases.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of . the bill?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER. · Is there objection tO the request of the gentleman from Iowa? · There was no _objection.

MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF HOSPITAL AND HEALTH FAC:IL. ITIES FOR INDIANS The Clerk called the bill <H. R. 303) to

transfer the administration of health services for Indians and the operation of Indian hospitals to the Public Health Service.

The S:PEAKER.. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM~. Mr. Speaker, I understand a rule has been requested for this pill. I therefore ask unanimous consent that the bjll be passed over without prejudice.

384 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE January ·ts

The SPEAKER.' Is 'there objection to· the request of the gentleman from Iowa?


EXEMPTION FOR CHURCH MISSIONS UNDER PUBLIC LAW 550

The Clerk called the bill (S. 631) to permit veterans to suspend or delay their programs of education or trainin~ under the Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952 in order to perform services as missionaries.


Mr. EVINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice.

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker reserving the right to object, I would like to ask that this bill be rereferred to the Committee on Vetera~s· Affairs. It has been taken care of m another way. Would the gentleman have any objection to that?

Mr. EVINS. I have no objection to its being rereferred.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the bill being rereferred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs?

There was no objection. Mrs ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr.

Speak~r. the bill seeks to relax certain requirements under Public· Law 550 of the 82d Congress to permit individuals who perform a "mission" for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church, continue a program of training after the completion of their mission. 1 have letters from the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs addressed to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. STRINGFELLOW], the sponsor of the bill in the Ho~e. and the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT] indicating that the purpose of this legislation has been accomplished by administrative regulation, which I ask to be inserted at this point.

I have consulted with the sponsors of the bills, both in the House and in the Senate, and it is perfectly agreeable that this bill be rereferred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

SEPTEMBER 21, 1953. Hon. DouGLAS R . STRINGFELLOW,

· House of Representatives, Washington, D~ C.

DEAR MR. STRINGFELLOW: I refer to your expressed interest in the requirements of Pub~ lie Law 550, the Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of .1952, as they have to do witli the continuous pursuit of a pr9graJl! of e~ucation or training, and the conditions therein set out by which a program may b~ suspended by a veteran for good and suffi· cient cause.

I have considered the matter thoughtfully and I am moved to conclude that where a veteran who is in active pursuit of a program of ed~cation or training is appointed by the responsible governing body of an est ablished church, officially charged wlth the selection and designation of missionary representatives, in keeping with its traditional practice, to serve the church in an official missionary capacity and is thereby prevented from . the continuous pursuit of his program of studles, the v.et;«:ran will be deemed to have suspended th~ pur~ui~ of such program.for an excusa'!>le reason during the teRure of such missionary service • .

· 0! course, there is no authority by which· the Veterans' Administrat ion may extend the plain requirements of the statute _as they have to do with the time as of which any veteran must initiate-that is, commencehis program of education or training. The foregoing must be premised, therefore, upon situations wherein the veteran has, on or prior to his statutory delimiting date, actually commenced the pursuit of his program of education or training. You will understand also that the law fixes a date beyond which no education or training benefits may be afforded any veteran.

I have directed our interested regional offices to proceed accordingly, and I b.elieve that this will resolve satisfactorily the questions you have presented.

Sincerely yours, H. V. HIGLEY,

Admi n i str ator.

TAX REFUNDS ON CIGARETTES LOST IN THE FLOODS OF 1951

The Clerk called the bill <H. R. 4319) to authorize tax refunds on cigarettes lost in the floods of 1951.


Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be passed over without prejudice.



RECLAMATION PROJECT ACT OF 1939 The Clerk called the bill <H. R. 4551)

to amend the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 removing authorization of projects by the Secretary of the Interior.


Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, at the request of our colleague from Texas [Mr. ROGERS], I ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice. . The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?


COSTS AND EXPENSES IN CONNEC..; TION WITH CERTAIN IRRIGATIO~ DISTRICTS The Clerk called the bill <S. 727) to

provide that certain costs and expenses· incurred in connection with certain re-· payment contracts wi.th irrigation districts approved by the acts of Congress of May 6, 1949 <63 Stat. 62), October 27, 1949 (63 Stat. 941), and June 23, 1952 (66 Stat. 151, 153), shall be nonreimbursaW~ -· There being no ·objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: - -

Be if enacted, etc., That all costs and expenses, not -in excess of a total of $100,000, incurred by t.he United-States in negotiating and completing contracts with the Dea~er, Prosser, and Belle Fourche Irrigation Districts approved by the acj; o.f Congress of October 27, 1949 (63 Stat. 941). and with the Will~ 'wOOd, Bitterroot, Kittitas, and Okanogan irrigation districts approved by the ~ct of Congress o! May 6, .1949. (63 Stat. 62), ·an~ with the Frenchtown Irrigation Distrlct approved by the ~ct of Cqngress _of June 23; ,1952 (66 .Stat. 151, 153) _ ~ .ll!~~ing ._the investigation iii Connection therewith, and in

future determinations under -said contractswith respect to the productivity of temporarily unproductive lands shall be, to the extent that such costs and expenses have . not been included in the restated repayment . obligations of the irrigation districts involved, nonreimbursable and nonreturnable under the Federal reclamation laws (act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto).

The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF WATER CONSERVATION FACILITIES BY STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES The Clerk called the bill <H. R. 6112)

to facilitate the development and construction of water conservation facilities by States and municipalities, and for other purposes.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection of the present consideration of the bill?

Mr . . CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, iri view of the fact that this bill has now. become Public Law 27d, I ask unanimous consent that it be laid on the table.


There was no objection. ·

RELEASING RIGHTS TO CERTAIN LAND CONVEYED TO CITY OF.

- CHANDLER, OKLA. The Clerk called the bill <H. R. 1081)

to amend the act of February 15, 1923, to release certain rights and interests of the United States in and to certain-lands conveyed ·to the city of Chandler, Okla.~ and for other purposes. · Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr.

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill go over without prejudice.



REUNIFICATION OF GERMANY BY FREE ELECTIO~S

· The Clerk called the concurrent resolution <H. Con Res. 125) expressing the hopes of the American people for the early reunification of Germany by free elections and ·for the achievement by the people of East GermaJ;IY of their basic human rights arid freedoms. . . . · The SPEAKER. Is there objection tq the present consideration of. the concur~ rent resolution? . ' ' Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speak~r. in view of-the fact that this· measure passed the House on August 1, 19.53, I move that it be laid on the table. -

The SPEAKER~ Is there objection to the request. of the gentle~an from Iowa? : ·

There, was_ no objec~io~. . , . '·

AMENDING ~RcHA!fr MARINE - . ·ACT OF 1936

. The -Clerk.catied tiie. bill ·<H. R. 6353->-' to amend the Merchant M~r~ Ac~

1.954 CONGRESSIONAL- RECORD -HOUSE 385 193&, -to :Provide--a nati~nal defense reserv'e of tankers and to promote the construction of ne~ tankers, and for other purposes.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill may be passed over without prejudice. ·



AMENDING CANAL ZONE CODE The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 4881 >

to amend the Canal ·Zone Code in reference to the survival of things in action.

. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. - Mr. Speaker; in view of the fact :that there are no departmental reports accompanying this measure, I ask unanimous consent that it be passed over without prejudice.


There was · no objection.

TRANSFER OF CANAL ZONE CORROSION LABORATORY TO DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 5862)

to authorize the Panama Canal Company to transfer the Canal Zone Corrosion Laboratory to the Department of the NaVY.

There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted etc., That the Panama Canal Company is authorized to transfer to the Department of the Navy, without exchange of funds and for use as a laboratory for corrosion tests and related studies, all, or so much as may be mutually agreed upon, of the facilities, buildings, structures, improvements and test installations Of the Panama Canal Company comprising the Ca.nal Zone Corrosion Laboratory at Mirafiores, C. Z., and at the various test exposure sites in the Canal Zone and on Panama Canal Company property in the city of Colon, Republic of Panama.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

CASH RELIEF FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THF CANAL ZONE GOVERNMENT The Clerk called the bill <H. R. 5861)

to amend the act approved July 8, 1937, autho1·izing cash relief for · certain employees of the Canal Zone Government.


Be it enacted, etc., That the proviso In section 1 of the act of July 8, 1937 ( ch. 443, 50 Stat. 478), which act authorizes the payment of cash relief to such _employees of the Canal Zone Government not coming within the scope of the former Canal Zone Retirement Act as may become unfit for further useful service by reason of mental or physical disability resulting from age or disease, is amended, effective as of the first day of the month in which this act is approved, to read as follows: "Provided, That such cash relief shall not exceed ,$1.50 per month for eac~"l year of service· of the employee so furnished relief, with a maximum of $45 per _montli, nor be granted to any employee having less than 10 years' servic~ with the Canal Zone Government and its . predecessor agencies.

C-25

~ncludlng any. service with the Panama Canal Company, and it.s predecessor agencies, .on the Isthmus of Panama."

With the following committee amendment:

Page 2, line 7, insert the following new section 2:

"SEc. 2. The provisions of this act shall take effect the first day of the month in which it is enacted."

The committee amendmen~ was agreed to.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table .

RESERVATION OF MINERAL RIGHTS IN LAND PATENTED UNDER THE NONMINERAL LAND LAWS The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 3306)

-relating to the reservation of mineral rights in land patented under the nonmineral land laws.

There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: - Be it enacted, etc., That section 3 Of the act entitled "An act to provide for agricultural entry of lands withdrawn, classified, or reported as containing phosphate, nitrate. potash, oil, gas, or asphaltic minerals", approved July 17, 1914 (30 U.S. C., sec. 123), is amended by striking out the following: "which patent shall contain a reservation •to the United States of all deposits on account of which the lands were withdrawn, classified, or reported as being valuable, together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove the same" and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "which patent shall not contain a reservation to the United States of any mineral deposits other than deposits of fissionable materials, notwithstanding such person has consented to the reservation of other mineral deposits. If any mineral deposits on account of which the lands were withdrawn, classified, or reported as being valuable have been leased by the United States such patent shall be made subject to the rights of the lessor, but the patentee shall be subrogated to the rights of the United States under the lease."

SEc. 2. The act entitled "An act for the protection of the surface rights of entrymen," approved March 3, 1909 (30 U. S. C., sec. 81), is amended to read as follows: "That any person who has in good faith located, selected, or entered under the nonmineral la.nd laws of the United States any lands which subsequently are classified, claimed, or reported as being valuable for coal, may, if he shall so elect, and upon making satisfactory proof of compliance with the laws under which such lands are claimed, receive a patent therefor, which patent sllall not contain a reservation to the United States of any mineral deposits other than deposits of fissionable materials, notwithstanding such person has consented to the reservation of other mineral deposits. I! any deposits of coal have been leased by the United States such patent shall be made subject to the rights of the ·lessor, but the patentee shall be subrogated to the rights of the United states under the lease."


Strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following language: "That where reclamation homestead entry was made prior to July 17, 191~. pursuant to the act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 389, 43

·u. S . C., sec. 431), as amended and supplemented, for lands in the Northport Division

or the-Interst-ate-Division-of ·the -North-Platte Reclama-tion Project, and after such entry the lands have been or are hereafter withdrawn, classified, or reported -as beip.g valuable for any of the minerals named in the act of JUly 17, 1914 (38 Stat. 509, 30 tJ. S.c., sec. 121-123), the act of March 4, 1933 (47 Stat. 1570, SOU. S. C., sec. 124), or the act of March S, 1909 (35 Stat. 844, 30 U. S. c., sec. 81), the patent shall not contain a reservation of such minerals. If any such min~ral deposits on account of which the lands were withdrawn, classified, or repc""ted as being yaluable have been leased by the United States, such patent shall be made subject to the rights of the lessee, but the patentee shall be subrogated to the rights of .the United States under the lease."

The committee amendment was agreed t~ .

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

The title was amended so as to read: "A bill to provide for the relief of certain reclamation homestead entrymen."

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

THE JAMESTOWN-WILLIAMSBURGYORKTOWN CELEBRATION COMMISSION The Clerk called the resolution <H. J.

Res. 232) to establish the JamestownWilliamsburg-Yorktown Celebration Commission, and for other purposes.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the resolution?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that House joint resolution 232 is now Public Law 263, I ask unanimous consent that it be laid on the table.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the r·equest of the gentleman from Iowa?

Th-ere was no objection.

GRANTING PREFERENCE RIGHT TO USERS OF WITHDRAWN PUBLIC LANDS FOR GRAZING PURPOSES The Clerk called the bill <H. R. 6186)

to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to grant a preference right to users of withdrawn public lands for grazing purposes when the lands are restored from the withdrawal.


Be it enacted, etc., That sect:on 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S. C., 1946 edition, src. 315 (m)) is amended by adding the following proviso: "Provided further, That whe public lands are restored .from a withdrawal, the Secretary may grant an appropriate preference right for a grazing lease, license, or permit to users of the land for grazing purposes under authority of the agency which !lad jurisdiction over the lands immediately prior to the time of their restora tlon."

SEC. 2. The first sentence of section 1 of the act ef June ·28, 1934 (48 Stat. 1269), as amended by the act of June 26, 1936 ( 49 Stat. 1976, 43 U. s. c., 1946 ed., sec. 315), is further amended by striking out the following language: "not exceeding in the aggregate an area of 142 million acres."

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third

. time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


MANASSAS NATIONAL BATILEFIELD PARK, VA.

The Clerk called the bill <H. R. 5529) to preserve within Manassas National Battlefield Park, Va., the most important historic properties relating to the Battles of Manassas, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted, etc., That, in order to establish satisfactory boundaries for the Manassas National Battlefield Park, in the State of Virginia, and to contain within such bo~ndaries the important historic lands relat1ng to the two Battles of Manassas, the boundaries of such battlefield park hereafter shall contain that area which is bounded, in general, as follows: The south boundary of the park shall be the southernmost li~its of the present federally owned lands in the south portion of the park; the east and northeast boundaries shall be that portion of the Bull Run Creek which extends from the south boundary of the park north and westward to the north boundary of the park as hereafter prescribed; the southwest boundary shall be that portion of Compton's Lane from its nearest point adjacent to the south boundary and extending northwesterly to State secondary highway No. 622; the west and northwest boundary shall be State secondary highway No. 622, from the point where it connects with Compton's Lane and extending northward until it reaches the Sudley Church property; the north boundary shall be the northernmost limits of the present Federal park holdings in the immediate vicinity of the Sudley Church property. The boundaries of the park also may include not more than 250 acres of land adjacent to the aforesaid west and north boundaries of the park, which land shall !Jecome a part of the park upon acquisition thereof by the United States: Provided, That the total acreage which may be acquired for the park pursuant to this act shall not exceed 1,400 acres. Such land · or interests therein may be procured by the Secretary of the Interior in such manner as he may consider to be in the public interest.

For exchange purposes, particularly in connection with State and other highway developments, the Secretary is authorized to accept, on behalf of the United States, any non-Federal land or interests therein situated within the park area herein prescribed, and in exchange therefor to convey park land or interests therein of approximately equal value.


Page 2, line 4, strike the word "hereafter" and insert in lieu thereof the word "hereinafter."

The committee amendment was agreed to.


The SPEAKER. · That completes the call of the Consent Calendar.

AMENPME~ OF AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938, AS AMENDED Mr. HOPE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani

mous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill <H. R. 6665) to amend certain provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, re· lating to cotton marketing · quotas, with Senate amendments. disagree to · the

amendments of the Senate and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from Kansas? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none and appoints the following conferees: Messrs. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN, HILL, HOEVEN, SIMPSON of Illinois, BRAMBLETT, DAGUE, COOLEY, POAGE, GRANT, GATHINGS, McMILLAN, and ABERNETHY.

PRIVATE CALENDAR

The SPEAKER. This is Private Calendar day.

The Clerk will call the first bill on the Private Calenda~.

MRS. JAMES J. O'ROURKE

The Clerk called the first bill on the Private Calendar, H. R. 4961, for therelief of Mrs. James J. O'Rourke.


Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $350.95 to Mrs. James J. O'Rourke, of 51 Hopkins Street, Revere, Mass., for ·reimbursement of the amount of medical and hospital expenses which she incurred after she was admitted to the Revere Memorial Hospital in Revere on February 9, 1951: Provided, That no part of the amount appropriated in this act in excess of 10 percent thereof shall be paid or delivered to or received by any agent or attorney on account of services rendered in connection with this claim, and the same shall be unlawful, any contract to the cmitrary notwithstanding. Any person violating the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $1,000.

The bill was ordered to ·be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

LILLIAN SCHLOSSBERG The Clerk called the bill <H. R. 2163)

for the relief of Lillian Schlossberg. There being no objection, the Clerk

read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of

the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in th~ Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $30,000 to Mrs. Lillian Schlossberg, of Brooklyn, N. Y., in f'Ull settlement of all claims against the United States for personal injuries sustained as a result of an accident involving a United States Army vehicle No. 165460, driven by Lt. Burl J. Brewington, of Fort Jay Army Base, on December 8, 1945, at the intersection of Canal Street and West Broadway, New York, N. Y.; the operator of such vehicle was not acting within the scope of his employment: Provided, That no part of the amount appropriated in this act 11_1

excess of 10 percent thereof shall ·be paid, delivered to, or received by any agent or attorney on account of services rendered in connection with this claim, and the same shall be unlawful, any contract to the contrary notwithstanding. Any person violating the provisions of this act sh~ll . l?e deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding ti,ooo. · ··

· With the following committee amend· ment:

Page 1, line 5, strike out "$30,000" and insert "$15,000."



LEO F. PINDER

The Clerk called the bill <H. R. 2876) for the relief of Leo F. Pinder.


Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Leo F. Pinder, regular letter carrier in the United States post omce at Akron, Ohio, the sum of $607.55. Such sum represents the amount which the said Leo F. Pinder was required to pay to the United States in discharge of his liab111ty for the loss on July 31, 1952, of certain registered letters containing money order business and stamp sales money in the amount of $607.55 which were placed in his custody for delivery from contract station No.2 to the United States post omce in Akron, although he had not received appropriate instructions or equipment for the protection of registered mail mattr,r: Provided, That no part· of the amount. appropriated in this act in excess of 10 percent thereof shall be paid or delivered to or received by any agent or attorney on account of services rendered in connection with this claim, and the same shall be unlawful, any ·contract to the contrary notwithstanding. Any person violating the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall

· be fined in any sum not exceeding $1 .000.


Page 1, line 6, strike out "$607.55. Such sum represents the amount" and insert: "$150, and to be relieved of all liability to refund the sum of $457.55. Such sums represent the amo~nt."

The committee amendment was agreed to. · · ·

The bill was ordered .to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed,. and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

EDNA V. R. DECKER, ET AL.

The Clerk called the bill <H. R. 3573) for the relief of Edna V. R. Decker, Barbara P.R. Moore, W. S. Rosasco, Jr., and Gordon Wells, as administrator cum testamento annexo of the estate of Anna I. R. Wells, deceasep.

There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill as follows:

Be it enacted, etc.; That the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to each of the following-named persons: Edna V. R. Decker, Barbara P . R : Moore, W. S. Rosasco, Jr., and Gordon Wells, as administrator cum testamento annexo of the estate of Anna I. R. Wells, deceased, the sum of $5,611.56, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum from April 16, 1946, in full satisfaction of the claim of each such person against the United 'states for an esta~e;~a.x refu~~

1951, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 38'Z due as a result of an ovetpayment on April 16, 1946, of estate taxes with respect to the estate of William S. Rosasco, Sr.: Provided, That no part of the amounts appropriated in this act in excess of 10 percent thereof ~!hall be paid or delivered to or received by any agent or attorney on account of services rendered in connection with these claims, and the same shall be unlawful, any contract to the contrary notwithstanding. Any person violating the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $1,000.

Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. LANE: Page 2,

line 1, after the figures and comma strike out "together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent . per annum from April 16, 1946!' .

Amend the title so as to read: "A bill for the relief of the estate of Anna I. R. Wells, deceased, and others."

The amendment was agreed to. The bill was ordered to be engrossed

and read a tl:ird time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion-to reconsider was laid on the table.

HAROLD K. BUTSON The Clerk called the bill (H. R. ·2913>

to direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue a patent for certain lands to Harold K. Butson. - There being no objection, the Clerk

read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of

the Interior is hereby authorized and directed to issue a patent to Harold K. Butson, of Grant County, Wis., for the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section 21, township· 4 north, range 1 west, fourth principal meridian, Wisconsi~.


Page 1, after line 7, insert the following: "SEc. 2. The tract of land described by the

first section of this act shall be conveyed upon the payment by the said Harold K. Butson of the appraised value of the lands, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, if payment is made within 1 year after the Secretary has notified the said Harold K. Butson of the price of the lands. The Secretary shall have the appraisal made on the basis of the value of the land at the date of appraisal, exclusive of any increased value resulting from the development or improvement of the land by Harold K. Butson or his predecessors in interest. In such appraisal, the S::cretary shall consider and give full effect to the equities of the said Harold K. Butson.

"SEc. 3. The Secretary of the Interior shall IEsue patent for said lands without any reservation of minerals."


The bill was ordered to be engrossed . and read ~ third· time, was read the third

· time, and passed, and a motion to reconsid ~r was laid on the table.

The SPEAKER. That completes the call of bills on the Private Calendar.

APPOINTMENT OF POSTMASTERS Mr. GUBSER. 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 California?

There was no objection. Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Speaker, today I

am introducing a bill which, if passed, will enable each of us to do a better job of representing our constituents.

This bill will relieve us of one of the most time-consuming jobs we performthat of making recommendations for postmaster appointments, leaving us more time to devote to our primary jobthat of legislating. Furthermore, I think that efficient postal service requires that the top job in any post office be something other than a political football.

Section 10 of the Civil Service Act of 1883, which has been ignored for many years, makes it illegal for a Member of Congress to make any recommendation for a postmaster appointment except as to the. character or residence of the applicant.

My bill will revive and strengthen that statute by disqualifying any applicant who seeks a recommendation for a postmaster job from any Member of Congress and it will also vest the appointing power in the Postmaster General instead of in the President.

I am not trying to avoid my responsibility but I am trying to improve the postal service and give ourselves · more time to act as legislators. I respectfully solicit your support for this legislation.

CURB THE USE OF INTERSTATE FACILITIES FOR TRANSMISSION OF GAMBLING INFORMATION Mrr KEATING. Mr. Speaker, ·I ask

unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks, and to include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, I am

today introducing a bill to prohibit use of interstate telephone. telegraph, and radio facilities for the transmission of gambling information of the kind necessary for the operation of illegal bookmakers. In recent years the backbone of organized crime has been · illegal gambling, and the main stronghold of illegal gambling has been bookmaking. There is nothing deeply shocking, to a large segment of the community, about the citizen who bets a few dollars with a bookmaker. But the trouble is that these seemingly innocent bets have been monopolized by nationwide gangs and parlayed into fantastically big business operations. It has been estimated that as much as $2~ billion changes hands every year in illegal gambling. No wonder so many of the Nation's public enemies are well-heeled.

The gang which is able to· control national or regional distribution of gambling information through the wire services is able in turn to control all illegal gambling in each area it penetrates. The bookmaker who does not receive the last-minute reports ·on odds, scratches, winners, and so forth. cannot compete with his rival who does. The single na-

tional wire service syndicate of a few years ago-Continental Press-is still out of the picture, but it is believed that a. number of regional organizations, using the telephone rather than leased wires, have reemerged and are pulling the old empire together again.

This bill is based on a measure proposed by the Department of Justice several years ago, after the Department and the Federal Communications Commission had made a careful study of the use of interstate communications in connection with illegal gambling activities. Although there have been numerous variations of this original bill introduced since, none have been entirely acceptable to the Department and the Commission. It seems likely that the Department of· Justice and other interested agencies will give their full support to this measure.

The bill provides no criminal penal~ ties, depending for its enforcement on the broad regulatory powers vested in the FCC. It therefore avoids the objection must commonly raised against legislation of this type, that the Federal Government should not undertake to punish gambling per se since it is a locaf offense only.

The measure has been strongly endorsed, in principle, by the section on criminal law of the American Bar Association, which has been urging Congress to take action to drive organized crime out of the channels of interstate commerce.

Under leave granted, a copy of the proposed bill follows:

H. R. 7311 A bill to improve the enforcement of laws

pertaining to gambling by suppressing the transmission of certain gambling information Be it enacted, etc., That the purposes of

this act are to assist the various States, Territories, and possessions of the United States, and the District of Columbia ln the enforcement of their laws pertaining to gambling, bookmaking, and like offenses, and to aid in the suppression of organized gambling activities by prohibiting the use of or the leasing, furnishing, or maintaining of communication facilities for the transmission of certain gambling information in interstate and foreign commerce.

SEc. 2. As used in this act, the term(a) "Communication facility" means any

and all instrumentalities, apparatus, personnel, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of communications) used or useful in the transmission of writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by wire or radio or other like connection between points of origin and reception of such transmission.

(b) "Gambling information" means bets or wagers or related information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or transactions or information facilitating betting or wagering activities on any sporting event or contest. In connection with horse racing, gambling information includes among other things entries, scratches, jockeys, jockey changes, weights, probable winners, scheduled starting time of race, actual starting time of race, track conditions, the betting odds, changes in the betting odds, the post positions, the .results, and the prices, paid: · ·

(c) "Transmission in interstate commerce'' means transmission directly or indirectly from any place in any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, -or the· District of Columbia to any place in any other

"388 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE January 18

State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or the District of Columbia.

(d) ''Transmission in foreign commerce" means transmission directly or indirectly from 'or to any place in the United States to or from a foreign country or ship at sea or ln the air.

SEC. 3. (a) The use of or the leasing, furnishing, or maintaining of any communication facility for the transmission of gambling information in interstate or foreign commerce is prohibited.

(b) Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of information in connection with the news reporting of sporting events or contests, which might be gambling information as defined in this act, if such information is intended, transmitted, supplied, delivered, and received only for printed news publication in newspapers, magazines, journals, or like periodicals, or for radio and television broadcasting as set forth in section 4: Provided further, That if such information is intended, transmitted, supplied, delivered, or received for any other purpose, the burden shall be upon the person or persons so transmitting, supplying, delivering, or receiving such information to show that the information is not being used directly or indirectly to circumvent the purposes of this act.

SEC. 4. No radio-broadcasting station or television-broadcasting station, for which a license is required by any law of the United States, shall broadcast or permit to be broadcast any gambling information relating to horseracing before the start of any race on the day it is scheduled to be run; or during the 1-hour period immediately following the finish of such race or before the start of the next race at that track whichever period is longer. This section shall not preclude the broadcasting of the progress of, or information concerning, a horse race where such broadcast is carried as a special event and not as part of a regularly scheduled series of broadcasts of races: Provided, That no more than one horse race shall be broadcast by any station or chain of -stations per day.

SEC. 5. (a) Any person or persons who shall lease or otherwise obtain from a common carrier or other supplier a communication facility to be operated for or in connection with the transmission of news or other information pertaining to sporting events or contests shall file with such carrier or other supplier a statement that the communication facility so obtained is to be used for such purposes. Failure to file such a statement shall create a presumption that such communication facility is being used

.in violation of the provisions of this act. The statements on file with the carriers .or other suppliers shall be open to inspection by appropriate State and Federal law-en-forcement agencies. ·

(b) Each common carrier or other supplier shall maintain a list of the terminal points and drops (receiving and sending) on any communication facility leased or otherwise furnished for the t ransmission of news or other information pertaining to sporting events or contests, including the address of each such terminal point and drop, and such list shall be open to inspection by appropriate State and Federal lawenforcement agencies.

SEC. 6. (a) -The Federal Communications Commission shall require all common carriers subject to its jurisdiction to file appropriate taritf practices and regulations to give effect to the provisions of this Act, and the Commission shall, in accordance with its existing authority, take such- steps as may be necessary to insure enforcement of such tari1fs. The Federal Communications Com~ission shall adopt such rules and regulations and make such orders with respect to the operation of radio-broadcasting and television-broadcasting stations as shall be

necessary to insure compliance with the provisions of this act.

(b) The interstate or foreign character of any transmission of gambling information in, or intended for transmission in, interstate or foreign commerce shall not create an immunity in respect of any criminal prosecution under the laws of any State, Territory, possession, or the District of Columbia pertaining to gambling, bookmaking, and like offenses.

(c) Any remedies afforded by this act are in addition to remedies now existing under State or Federal law, including law applicable within the Territories and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.

QUESTION OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal privilege. I have previously submitted the question to the Speaker.

The SPEAKER. The Chair may say that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. HoFFMAN] has very kindly given him the opportunity of looking over the question of personal privilege. . In one instance it is stated that the gentleman did something illegal in his representative capacity, so therefore the gentleman qualifies to present his question of personal privilege.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent torevise and extend my remarks and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.

Speaker, the statement of the Speaker that in one instance I have been charged with doing something illegaLas a member of a House committee is true; however, there are several other instances in which that charge is made.

In the Cleveland News of Thursday, January 14, 1954, will be found a news story by Webb Seely, captioned "BENDER To Push Congress Probe of Juke Box Racket-Says Burke, as Mayor, Should Have Cleaned Up."

No comment will be made upon the last sentence nor upon paragraphs of the article which make further reference to the former mayor. To do so would be to inject politics into a no·npolitical situation.

The story lists a number of questions purported to have been put to our distinguished colleague, the Honorable GEORGE H. BENDER, with what are, it is charged, his answers.

Among the purported questions and answers are the following:

Question. Congressman BENDER, will you vote to restore Representative HoFFMAN's subcommittee authority to investigate labor racketeering in Cleveland and Toledo?

Answer. To begin with, we haven't had a .committee meeting yet. The chairman (HOFFMAN) hasn't called one. I will certainly vote to expose and investigate any form of racketeering. However, we certainly don't want power and authority abused.

Question. Has Congressman HoFFMAN abused his power by asking for his own subcomm1ttee to investigate labor racketeering here and elsewhere?

Answer. He has. HOFFMAN has organized special committees at the drop of the hat. He does this without consulting other members of the Government Operations Committee. He has so many special activities he is abusing his power. I won't be a party to anything illegal.

Question. What was illegal about Representative HoFFMAN's racketeering committee?

Answer. Setting up and obviously abusing his power. I won't be a party to doing anything wrong.

Question. Representative HoFFMAN has stated that there is plenty of wrong being done in Cleveland and Toledo. He says his subcommittee files are loaded with material on union racketeering in the vendingmechine business in Cleveland and Toledo. You cross-examined William Presser, AFL Teamsters' czar of Ohio juke boxes, at the Detroit racket hearings last June. From what you picked up at that hearing are you in accord with HOFFMAN on this point?

Answer. I had never seen Presser before that hearing-he appeared from the testimony to be the jukebox-racket organizer. I am 100 percent for investigating the jukebox racket. God bless you and the News and anybody else who publicly exposes any and all rackets within the unions.

Then, answering a question as to holding hearings in Detroit, our colleague is reported ~ have ~aid:

Answer. If I recall correctly, the testimony indicated the jukebox rackets were being organized by Presser out of Cleveland. I am still in favor of an investigation in Cleveland but I won't go for HoFFMAN's abuse of power. The proper subcommittee should investigate.

That story purports to list certain questions and answers given by our distinguished colleague from Ohio £Mr. BENDER]. I have no criticism of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BENDER]. He is a very handsome gentleman. If he entered a contest to determine, from a physical standpoint, a Mr. America, there is no question but that he would win.

I see a gentleman on my right, a member of the minority, shaking his head in the negative. I suggest that the gentleman enter such a contest with my distinguished colleague. Much as I admire him, great as are his qualifications, I still think the gentleman from Ohio would win. ·

Not only is he a perfect specimen of physical manhood, but he has unquestioned ability. He is a man of most pleasing personality. I know, because I ·have dealt with him on the committee, as a Member of the House, and once in a while meeting him in the halls and the corridors of the House and of the House Office Building. There is no question about his ability to charm.

The gentleman is also a man of ex·ceptional determination and courage; nothing frightens him. He has profound convictions on many issues, and when he harbors a conviction he does not hesitate 1 minute; he just goes full speed ahead, letting the chips fall where they may. Some of the chips, of course, you would not distinguish what they were cut from, that they came from the timber being hewn, but nevertheless he goes on his course. His driving force sometimes overcomes the convictions which his colleagues may have entertained.

1954 'CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 389 · I have endeavored many times to follow along with his arguments but not always have I been able to accept his suggestions and ideas, not always successful in thinking his way.

But, in any event, the substance of my statement so far is that many of his characteristics I recognize and ad· mire. It is a delightful opportunity always to be associated with him: So much for that.

I am very, very happy to note that he intends to push the probe, if there is a probe ever, into the jukebox racket in Cleveland. That is his home city, the city where he receives a tremendous vote in practically every election, a justifiable tribute which the people of Cleveland pay to him, and I hope my colleagues on the other side will advise their can· didate, if they ever have a candidate. who runs against him in this next senatorial election, of the qualifications of my colleague. If they do, perhaps they will withdraw their candidate and there will be no contest in Ohio. That would be very, very pleasant and agreeable to us on the Republican side.

Now, it takes courage, sometimes, to try to probe the racketeers in your own home city, especially a city the size of Cleveland, because they collect a great deal of money up there and sometimes, as Mr. Hoffa, who was in Detroit when we had the hearing there, and the gentleman from Ohio was sitting in on the first hearing, testified under oath that his local 600 had a million dollars in the treasury, and that they had given him-Ho11a-authority to. spend such part of that million dollars in elections as he desired. He said that he had spent some of that money to elect judges, to help elect judges, or to oppose judges. Now, that is a tremendous force in any community, and no doubt a somewhat similar situation exists in Cleveland.

Among the questions which were asked in the Cleveland News were these:

Mr. KARSTEN of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Briefly. Mr. KARSTEN of Missouri. Does that

apply to the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate?

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Does the gentleman want _to be helpful?

The SPEAKER. The Chair wishes to .state that the gentlema_n should confine his remarks to the violation of the rules of the House. .

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I will endeavor to do so, but I will have to put in a little of the background. I will yield, if it is pertinent.

Mr. KARSTEN of _ M~ssouri. Does that situation apply to the Democratic or the Republican senatorial candidates in Ohio? _

Mi. HOFFM~N of Michigan. What does the gentleman mean?

The SPEAKER. The Chair wishes the ·gentleman would confine his remarks to the question of personal privilege.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I trust the Chair will bear with my ignorance of the rules. I will try ·exceedingly' hard to · comply with the rules of the House, even with those which from tiine ·to time register a change. ·

Here is a question:· Congressman BENDER. Will you vote to

restore Representative HoFFMAN's subcom· mittee authority to investigate labor racketeering in Cleveland and Toledo?

Answer. To begin with, we haven't had a committee meeting yet. The Chairman [HOFFMAN] hasn't called me.

The regular committee meetings are on the first and third Wednesdays of each month. The 20th, next Wednesday, will be the first opportunity for a meeting this session, and the gentleman has notice of that.

I will certainly vote to expose and investigate all forms of racketeering.

That is fine. However, we certainly don't want power

and authority abused.

For that suggestion that the gentleman will vote as stated I personally express the deepest gratitude. I have always tried not to abuse any authority. As a matter of fact, the racketeers do not raise that question at the hearings. One or two Communists did, when we were in Los Angeles, but then they let go of that issue when the hearings showed they were Communists.

Question. Has Congressman HoFFMAN abused his power by asking for his own subcommittee to investigate labor racketeering here and elsewhere?

Now, mind you, he is speaking of the Representative of the Fourth Congressional District in his representative capacity. He is charging that I have abused that authority as a member of the committee. The House should be concerned about that if that authority has been abused.

It might be suggested that the House, if it is a serious abuse, should take it up and study it and, if the Representative of the Fourth District of Michigan is guilty, then he should be reprimanded, maybe something more severe than that; I do not know. It might be well to look into that-if there is any misconduct.

He has. HoFFMAN has organized special committees at the drop of the hat. He does this without consulting other members of the Government Operations Committee.

That is true. I did that. And had authority so to do-authority expressly given by the committee.

He has so many special activities he is abusing his power. I won't be a party to anything illegal.

Well, bless his dear heart, I do not want him to be and I do not want to do it myself. If the gentleman waits for me to suggest that he do something even unethical. not to mention anything illegal, he will be older than I am, yes, older than Methuselah.

If I did want him to do it, I could not do it. I do not have the authority. I ·am not big enough physically. I do not have the votes to do it. It is just absurd to intimate that I am trying to force him to do somethh:lg he should not. He needs no suggestions from me.

But now the Representative of the Fourth Congressional District, says the gentleman from Ohio, has appointed

special subcommittees illegally. Let me read you the rule. Rule 3 states:

A ~ajority of the committee shall consti• tute a quorum; provided however-

Now listen-that special committees consisting of two or more members, at least one of whom shall be a member of the minority, may be appointed by the chairman.

Where, Friend BENDER, is or was the illegality?

The committee gave me that authority. In my ignorance, in my innocence, thinking the rule meant what it said, that those who had discussed it and then adopted it did so in good faith, I went ahead and appointed a special subcom .. mit tee.

And do you know what? I appointed the distinguished gentleman from Ohio as a member of one of those subcommittees and, bless your heart, he served on it without objection. And so did some 10 other Members serve on simil~. r com_mittees--served without objection.

Then, later, on the 15th day of July, the full committee came along and ruled that I could not appoint any more subcommittees. Some folks know the result of that action. No one claimed my action was improper at that time so far as I know, but on the floor of the House· the

, gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BROWN] said ·that I was old and ill and testy, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BENDER] said that they had taken enough malarkey from me and that I was constitutionally unconstitutional. Just what he meant by that I do not know, so I cannot enter -a plea to that.

My age I admit. I cannot help that. I did not have anything to do with the day I was born, the fixing of my birthday. Some of the Members of this House will some day, if their health continues good, be just as old as I am, undoubtedly better preserved physically and more mentally alert; but for any lack in those lines I have no excuse. If my people are satisfied, the Members should not worry overmuch.

So the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BENDER] says he does not want to be a party to anything illegal. He need not worry about me getting him into trouble.

Question. What was ·illegal about Representative HoFFMAN's racketeering committee?

Answer. Setting up and obviously abusing his power. I won't be a party to doing anything wrong.

Well, that I know:-mY good friend would not-not intentionally, not con· sciously. He is as pure as the snow a thousand feet up. But what was wrong with what was done? Let me repeat, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BENDER] was a member of that subcommittee which met in Detroit. I repeat again, he served without objection. _ He never at any time criticized .the action of the committee-never put on the record any objection, and he played a very .prominent and helpful part in that investi-gation.

Mr. BENDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I · yield.


Mr. BENDER. I am glad the gentleman made that last statement because, if you will recall, when the subcommittee was meeting and the hearing had kind of bogged down, I did help in· questioning and in bringing out some of the evidence.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. There is no question about it-though he never before made that suggestion-that the hearing was bogged down-that he took an active part, especially did he take an active part when the name of Mr. Presser, who was doing a little racketeering not only in Cleveland but, he will recall, in Toledo, you see, down in Toledo, and the gentleman from Ohio got right up and took part and condemned that kind of procedure-at least I assume he did-the record will show.

I want to compliment the gentleman. It was a wonderful, helpful service, for a moment. But for the life of me I cannot understand why now you do not want any more of it, if it is done by your great admirer, your humble and obedient servant, the Member who is speaking. That I cannot figure out.

Of course, I have my own idea. I know what is the matter along a certain line at least-the activities in which I have engaged, not exclusively, and not as a member· of this particular committee exclusively, but over the years-for 10 or 15 or 16 or 17 years-have been very displeasing to certain labor leaders, and if I am permitted to go ahead, I have not the slightest doubt but that the hearings will be displeasing to Beck, Hoffa, Ring, and to some who are unlawfully profiting as a result of their activities, which they claim are in behalf of a union but which, in fact, are the opposite in result.

But what some of my colleagues do not understand is that, while in years gone by, Members of the Congress who did what they thought was the right thing to do in the way of voting on labor legislation and in-the way of exposing some of these wrongful activities-while in years gone by they were characterized as antilabor and as labor baiters, today the picture has changed, and the letters I get come primarily from members, rank and file members, of unions and from union officials.

Now listen-in Kansas City the officials of A. F. of L. locals came to me personally and wanted our help in our hearings there-to do what? To protect them from the crooked activities cf the teamst~rs union headed by one Beck, who was doing what? He was making a drive to take over the dues-paying membership of the carpenters union and in two others to compel the members of those ·locals, the 3 of them, and there were 9,000 carpenters, men in good standing, and he wanted those 9,000 to pay their dues-in the A. F. of L. carpenters local-not to the carpenters union-oh, no-but to the union headed by Ring, the teamsters union.

And what did Ring do to enforce that demand? He went· down where the carpenters were working on Government projects-there were three out there which were defense projects~he went down there with 100 members of the teamsters union, or hired men, and with clubs and other· weapons drove the car:-

penters off the job. T.here were 25,000 union men unemployed in Kansas City.

The Kansas City Star took up the issue, as all rightly edited and published newspapers do when they see some great crime being carried on. They took it up and inside of 2 weeks that strike was . settled. Do you get the picture? We had hearings; yes. But the real job was done by the newspapers using the information we furnished.

The Republican Party cannot do anything to get it more votes, to be of greater benefit to the country, of more help to the average union worker, and I refer not only to the State of Michigan but to other States as well, than to expose this conspiracy which is collecting millions upon millions of dollars not only from unorganized workers but from union men in good standing, from unions, from businessmen, and from the Federal Government itself.

Permit me to cite one instance · in Michigan where, in coimection with the manufacture of airplanes, the Government paid $300,000-our committee did not turn that up; a committee in the other body did-they paid $300,000 ·to roving stewards who never did a stroke of constructive work.

Oh, no. You cannot do a single thing that will get you more votes in the next campaign or that will be more helpful to workers than to pull the lid off of that particular pot, whicp is a part of the mess which has been going on over the years to the injury of union as well as nonunion workers.

Did the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BENDER] say anything more? Sure.

Question. Representative HoFFMAN has stated that there is plenty of wrong being done in Cleveland and Toledo. He says his subcommittee's files are loaded with material on union racketeering in the vendingmachine business in Cleveland and Toledo. You cross-examined William Presser, AFL teamsters czar of Ohio jukeboxes, at the Detroit racket bearings last June. From what you picked up at that hearing are you in accord with HoFFMAN on this point?

Now listen · to the gentleman from Ohio.

I had never seen Presser before that hearing. He appeared from the testimony to be the jukebox racket organ~zer. I am 100 percent for investigating the jukebox racket. God bless you and the News and anybody else who publicly exposes any and all rackets within the unions.

Again I say to tl:le gentleman from Ohio: All hail to his good right arm.

If he will go ahead with the same enthusiasm that he showed when Governor Dewey was a candidate for the Presidency, and you put on that big meeting which cost $4,000, so I understand, and Dewey would not even let you sing Onward, Christian Soldiers, :we may get somewhere.

If you will give me authority to appoint the proposed subcommittee I will back you up in all of these efforts to expose these people.

As a candidate for the United States Senate, I think it would be mighty helpful to you. Let acts rather th~n words speak on the issue. ·

Question. Are you in accord with HoFPMAN on this point?

The gentleman continued his answer= I had never seen Presser before that bear

Ing. . He appeared from the testimony to be the jukebox racket organizer.

I tell you it takes courage to oppose a man like Presser. I . compliment the gentleman from Ohio. It takes courage to oppose a man like Presser in Cleveland and Toledo. God help you and God help the ministers who are in that crusade for clean government.

But where the gentleman slides off the beam is in wanting somebody else to do the job, especially when it is somebody who does not want to do it.

I do not know of any other Congressman who wants to do that job. If there are any of them sitting around here I would like to have them volunteer. I do not know of anyone over in the other body who wants to do it. They had a committee over there headed by a distinguished Senator who has since died, the gentleman from New Hampshire <Mr. Tobey). Then they passed it along to another Senator. He apparently either did not want it or did not have the time. And then they gave the job to stiil another Senator. But other and more important duties took his time.

Bless your heart, there have been four on this job, one who died and the other three who are still living but who have far more hnportant work which engages all their time and effort.

Everybody who knows the s~tuation admits that there i$ a jo}l to do, admits it should be don_e, but no one seems to want to .do it.


Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Oh, yes, yes.

Mr. BENDER. Is it not a fact that the same article tells the story of the Cleveland grand jury, the Cuyahoga County grand jury, meeting as of this moment to investigate this racket. Is it not a fact that the same article points out that I said that this is the responsibility principally of the grand jury, the district attorney, the prosecuting attorney, and the sheriff and the police de .. partment in our county. Certainty every one of those agencies should be pushed into making the investigation and pursuing it. ·

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Pushed is right. And that is what we have-in a sense been dofng.

Mr. BENDER. I applauded the fact that the grand jury was considering the subject at the time.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan Yes. That is fine, too. Apparently you recognize the necessity of pushing somebody into doing the job.

This situation has existed for years, and this situation involves not only violations of law but the necessity for tightening up on Federal legislation other than the Taft-Hartley Act. For exam.ple, the conciliators, Federal officials, are engaged in some activities that, in mY. judgment, wil! not cast favorable reflection on them or the service if they are ex-pose~~ · · _ .

I saw the. gentleman from Virginia [Mr. SMITHj on 'the floor a moment ago. I recall when he had a spedal subcom-

1951, CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD - .HOUSE. 391 mittee. And who did he have before that committee? The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. HALLECK] was on the committee. He had~dwinS. Smith, a member of the National Labor Relations Board, who refused not long ago, under oath, to answer whether or .not he was a Communist. He had the distinguished Nathan Witt, a known Communist, acting as attorney for the Labor Board; and he had the distinguished Lee Pressman, who was attorney for one of the parties in those labor disputes who was acting for the .CIO, and who recently swore und_er oath that he and Nathan Witt were both Communists at that time-members of the same Communist cell here in Washington. Do you see how that dovetails with some of the more recent activities of a few of the union officers?

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana, our distinguished leader.

Mr. HALLECK. I had not really expected to interject myself into this particular discuSsion, but I cannot refrain, in view of the fact that the -gentleman has mentioned the so-called Smith committee on which I was privi)eged to serve as the ranking Republican member.

I listened a moment ago to the gentleman's expression of his estimation of his willingnesS to do something about racketeering in labor. -May I .say, without regard to controversies within his committee, that I have not been particularly pieased, to put it very mildly, with what appears to · me to be an attempt to make it appear that the rest of us in the Congress of the United States, particularly Republicans, have no interest at all in curbing the racketeering that does exist in certain places and to which the gentleman has referred. Certainly that goes for myself because while I recognize the gentleman's position through the years, he has not had exactly a monopoly on all of that work. As he so very kindly pointed out, starting' in 1940, I worked as a member -of the Smith committee investigating the Labor Board. That committee did most effective work. I do not think I have -been guilty of any lack of diligence in the pursuit of similar matters since that time.

I trust that the gentleman will not undertake to condemn all of us, or to lend any impression, through implication, that there is a desire on the part of any Member of this House of Representatives to do anything to stand in the way of the investigation of racketeering, that can be justified under the rules of the House.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, that is very fine, and -I thank the gentleman. Of course, I understand his position. It would be an absurdity to draw the conclusion from anything I say today, have said in the past, or intend to say in the future, that I have questioned, am now questioning, or intend at any time in the future to question, the sincerity, the ability, the patriotism, or any other good quality of any individual Member of the House.

We all have different views about different things. All I am saying is that there seems to be a certain attitude on

the part of some -which produces certain unexpected results.

In my own committee, as the gentleman -very well knows, I was stripped of any authority to continue those -investigations, except for a period of 60 days, and in 2 localities. Why?

I .am not challenging the motive of anyone. All I am pointing out is this, and I stand on it today and intend to do so as long as I am here on the :floor of the House, -if nowhere else, that the liqu:dation of the special subcommittee of which I was chairman and which was exposing extortion by certain officers of the Teamsters Internationa_l, had the effect "'f aiding _those racketeers, preventing further adequate exposure of their unlawful, oppressive acts. All I say is that the effect of what they did was to give encouragement to the racketeers and to the_ extortionists.

I will go so far as to say that I do not believe for one moment that the mem .. bers ·of the committee who destroyed my power, took away my a~thority to call witnesses, take testimony, hold hearings, realized the full import of what they were doing. They had something else in mind and just would not listen to any statement I made. They did not realize the eff~t of the action which they were taking. At least that was my thought then. .

I realize, too, that there. has been a determined effort, as reliably reported to me, to cut me down to size. That is all right. But I want tJ:> say one thing, that as long as I am a Member of this House, I . will exercise my rfght in behalf of the people who appeal tO me, as union members and union o11icials are doing today. ~videpce of that I shall put into the

- RECORD from time to time. To quit now, especially when I have

the editorial support of papers like the Detroit Free Press, which has always been against me on my attitude on foreign policy; papers like the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which never agreed with my position on many things; papers such as the Minneapolis Times, the Des Moines Register, which always criticized me because of my attitude in connection with our foreign policy, but which are today a unit in supporting this move to expose racketeering, would be craven, cowardly.

No, let me say to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. · HALLECK], our distinguished leader, the thought that, of all the Members of the House, I was the only one who was opposed to reprehensible conduct on the part of this group, _ that group; that I was the only one qualified to make an investigation, never for one moment occurred to me.

I have been well aware of the great service which the gentleman from Virginia, HOWARD SMITH, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HALLECK] aQd the other members of the special committee or committees which went into some of these same questions in the late thirties and the early forties, wfthout thought of partisanship, · rendered not only to the-country as a whole but to the laboring men, union and nonunion, who in those days were being kicked around under a law-the Wagner Act-written primarily by a Communist, Lee Pressman, and then being administered by a·

board ·whose sympathies were with those whose· apparent design was to destroy free enterprise.· _

It would be the height of •absurdity: it would be intellectually dishonest, for me to claim a higher degree of intelligence; to for one moment even indirectly or by innuendo convey the impression that I had a greater desire to expose wrongdoing than any other Member of this House.

Once more, and I hope for the last time, permit me to. repeat-neither the ability, the sound judgment, the lofty purpose, the moral integrity, of any Member of this House has been, is now being, or will hereafter be, questioned by me.

What happened was, in my opinion, most unfortunate. Perhaps I was at fault in suggesting that the activities of certain other subcommittees should, in the interests of economy, be curtailed.

If I was at fault, the reason for that fault , undoubtedly lies in the fact that, brought up "in humble circumstances, a dollar was to me as big as a cart wheel, and, in the community where I lived as a · boy, as a young man, and where_ I practiced my profession, neither millions nor hundreds of thousands of dollars were involved.

We were a people with small earnings, who, by rigid . saving, tried to provide not only for our own old-age security, but for a better start in life.for our children than we had been able to enjoy.

Mr. HALLECK. Will the ge-ntleman yield for one further question?

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michiga_n. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. _ Mr. HALLECK. The gentleman, of course, is a member of the Committee on Education and Labor,. on which commit· tee he served some years ago with great distinction. I was. happy to participate in the a_ction that again placed him on that committee in this Congress. He is also chairman of the great Committee on Government Operations. It has been suggested ~rom time to time that there might be a question of jurisdiction between these two committees in respect to an investigation of -labor racketeering.

Is it true that the gentleman recently in some places in Michigan, as a member of a subcommittee of the· Committee on Education and Labor, held hearings?

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. The gentleman is referring to Iron Mountain?

-Mr. HALLECK. I do not recall where it _was, I may say to the gentleman.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I have been in several places in Michigan. I . think the gentleman is referring to Iron Mountain. . . .

Mr. HALLECK. -I think the gentleman was there with -a Member on this side who was not a member of the Committee on Government Operations.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. No. Let me explain that.

Mr. HALLECK. Let us identify it first.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. If the gentleman means Benton Harbor or St. Joseph, Mich.; yes. Iron Mountain; no.

' Mr. HALLECK. It was some place where the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. SMITH] was in attendance. He, of course,

392 ·coNGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE January 18

is a member of the Committee ori. Education and Labor. I am quite sure he is not a member of the Committee on Government Operations; is that true?

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. He is a member of the House Committee oiiEdueation and Labor. He is not a member of the Committee on Government Operations. Those two subcommittees jointly held hearings in St. Joseph and Benton Harbor, in Kansas City, and in Detroit.

Mr. HALLECK. But that was a subcommittee of the Committee on Educa-tion and Labor? ·

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Let me explain it. Subcommittees of both the House Committee on Education -and Labor and the Committee on Government Operations held hearings in Detroit and Kansas City. Then, after July 15, when the subcommittee which I had appointed was liquidated-a few days later given a 60-day reprieve-! did, with the gentleman from Kansas, WINT SMITH, and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. LANDRUM] ; serve on a subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and Labor, and, as a member of that subcommittee, participated in hearings held in Detroit beginning on the ·23d of November.

Mr. HALLECK. May I say to the gentleman that I have only the best faith in this matter, but once in a while it becomes necessary for determinations to be made as to jurisdiction. Maybe some such action will have to be taken again. The gentleman is a member of both of these committees. Having regard to this particular field he is talking about, would he consider it is primarily a matter of jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor or of the Committee on Government Operations?

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Of the Committee on Government Operations.

Here is what happened. Back in the 80th Congress the same policy was followed. I will try to make it clear. As chairman of the Committee on Government Operations I requested the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor-and as our distinguished majority ·leader says, I am a member of both committees-the Honorable SAMUEL K. McCONNELL, to appoint a subcommittee from that Committee on Education and Labor to act with a subcommittee of the Committee on Government OperatioQs.

That was the practice in the 80th Congress.

At that time I was a member of the Committee on Education and Labor and I was a member and chairman of the Committee on Government Operations, then the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. The then chairman of the Labor Committee, Mr. Hartley, of Taft-Hartley fame, sometimes made me chairman of a subcommittee, at times I went on my own ap-pointing a subcommittee, at times the two committees acted jointly and in harmony.

At my request the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McCoNNELL] kindly appointed WINT SMITH, your humble servant, and a Democratic Member as members of a subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor. I thought it would lend weight tO our in-

vestigation, and 1: am sure it did,:to have both committees report. - We held hearings. I insisted that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Smml be chairman of those joint committee hearings, which he was. He presided with great force and ability, there is no question about that, and there was no trouble nor was there discord within the subcommittee. We acted together.

When the Committee on Education and Labor made its first report I signed it. There was no controversy about it at all. That is the way that thing was set up, that is the way it came about, namely, at my request.

Now they want to switch and say that the Committee on Education and Labor shall have sole jurisdiction. I am asking for authority to appoint a special subcommittee-authority given to every other chairman of a standing committee. I have sent a copy of my request and the reasons for it to the Committee on Government Operations, which matter will come up Wednesday-! do not care to. quote from it or to make reference to what it contains.

But I want to say to those Members of the House who insist that the Committee on Government Operations does not have jurisdiction over these matters and call their attention to the fact that back prior to 1927 there were 11 committees charged with investigating expenditures in the various 11 departments of Government, 11 expenditures committees in the legislative setup.

For instance, there was a Committee on Expenditures in the Labor Department, another in the State Department. Here is the list:

Committee on Expenditures in the State Department.

Committee on Expenditures in the Treasury Department.

Committee on Expenditures in the War Department.

Committee on Expenditures in the Navy Department.

Committee on Expenditures in the Post Offlce Department.

Committee on Expenditures in the Interior Department.

Committee on Expenditures in the Justice Department.

Committee on Expenditures in the Agriculture Department.

Committee on Expenditures in the Commerce Department.

Committee on Expenditures in the Labor Department.

Committee on Expenditures on Public Buildings.

Then they were all consolidated, and we had the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments with overall jurisdiction as to expenditures and, I quote:

The duty of studying the operations of Government _activities at all levels with a view to determining its economy and efficiency.

Now, what the gentlemen who said the Committee on Government Operations has no jurisdiction would do is to go back to the days before 1927 and have every standing committee of the House be an investigating committee on expenditures. You see the point?

Long, long ago the House consolidated the investigatory authority; they put it over here in the committee which is now the Committee on Government Opera-tions. · - Now, to cut it short, because I have detained you overlong, on this question of jurisdiction, who would know more about what has been done or what should be done than someone who has served on the subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor? Here is a letter that . was given me this morning, January 18, 1954. After the address it reads:

MY DEAR CLARE: Recently Chairman McCoNNELL, of the House Education and Labor Committee, appointed me as chairman of a special subcommittee to make a preliminary investigation of matters relating to union welfare funds in the Minneapolis area.

And, by the way, I have numerous telegrams. I will put in one or two; some went in last Thursday, though I have many to put in. They come from committee chairmen in two or three States up in the Northwest. Permit me to quote from our colleague's letter:

As you know, it was the highly competent investigative staff of the Government Operations Committee ":Vhich uncovered much of the data now avaUable on this Minneapolis situation. It is my understanding that they have kept abreast of developments there since the close of the recent hearings held by the Education and Labor Committee in Detroit on various aspects of labor racketeering in the Detroit area.

A preliminary examination of the avatlable evidence shows the possibility that several facets of the Minneapolis inquiry may involve Government defense contracts. It is also possible that the administration and enforcement of Federal statutes other than ~abor laws may be at issue. It appears to me, therefore, that the Minneapolis matter is one which ought to be handled by your Government Operations Committee, and I hope you will be in a position to follow through on it very soon.

Pretty good, my distinguished colleagues. There is our sound-thinking, delightful, competent, energetic, courageous, determined chairman of the Labor Subcommittee, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. SMITH], who also sat as chairman of the joint subcommittees. You remember how well he served; what a wonderful job he did twice in Detroit and once in Kansas City? There he says that it should come over to our committee. He wrote:

Further, the staff of the Committee on Education and Labor will undoubtedly be at work shortly on pressing legislative matters. I believe it would not be possible to do full justice to both projects at the same time.

In expressing the hope that your committee will soon be in a position to undertake this Minneapolis investigation, I must add a special word of cpmmendation for your staff. And I speak from the knowledge gained in many years of investigative and law enforcement work. You have at your command not only their personal integrity, but their years of invaluable experience with the FBI. I'm sure I speak for my own subcommittee staft, as well as for myself, when I say that our association with these men in our joint efforts at Kansas City and Detroit has been a very gratifying experience.

Sincerely yours, WINT SMITH.

The distinguished gentleman from Kansas says that the thoughts just ex-

1951,. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD :_HOUSE 393 pressed are also the sentiments of the chairman of the Committee on ·Education and Labor.

So why cut off the authority of the chairman of the Committee on Government Operations to continue that work?

The gentleman from Ohio said that tbe grand jury was acting in Cleveland. We never interfere with current, present proceedings of any law enforcement agency.

Listen, now. We finished our bearing in Detroit the first time, or recessed our hearing on a Saturday. Monday, the Democratic· district attorney called the grand jury and indictments resulted.

We finished out in Kansas City, and I think it was the same day or a day or two afterward, another grand jury was called and 17 individuals were indicted because of the leads we gave them in Detroit and Kansas City. ·

This last time we did not even get out of Detroit before there was action. We were still there when the United States district attorney announced that he was looking into the question of calling a Federal grand jury.

And please note, the grand jury action was taken after, not before our hearings were held, moreover need for legislation in connection with the administration of health and welfare funds was disclosed-that the Committee on Labor will consider.

So the primary purpose is not to secure evidence to enable convictions to be made.. · The primary purpose is to ascertain whether not only the labor statutes but the statutes having to do with interstate commerce or matters coming under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, or any Federal legislation, all Federal legislation, is being accurately interpreted and adequately administered. That is one purpose. Another is to check the expenditure of tax dollars.

Both fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations.

If that committee will give me authority; you can be assured, Members of the House, that the investigation will be conducted in a dignified, judicial way; that no one will be abused or misused; that no advantage will be taken because of the authority granted. · An effort will be made to lessen the evil which now exists, which is oppressing most unjustly so many deserving citizens.


Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. BENDER. · Mr. Speaker, I do not want to treat this subject in any light vein, because I think it is very serious. I happened to be a member of the special committee over which the gentleman from Michigan presided, with the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. SMITH], of the Labor Committee. We conducted hearings in Detroit and St. Joe, Mich. I am sure the gentleman has testified that every effort was made to expose-racketeering of all kinds. As a matter of fact, I felt that some of the evidence was very flimsy. All members of our committee

of both parties pursued this matter as· diligently and as forcefully as they could.

I want to have the record straight. · Many of the members of our Commit

tee on Government Operations felt that we had no jurisdiction in some of thematters that our good chairman chose to investigate. Racketeerin~ never entered the minds of members of our committee.

The constant inference being made byour good chairman that the committee acted against investigating racketeering is wholly unfounded. Of course, wherever the gentleman fr.om Michigan [Mr. HOFFMAN J, our good chairman, goes, heconsistently infers that we acted to curb him in his right to investigate racketeering. I know my chairman hates racketeering. So do I. I trust our committee will :find the way to investigate without violating the rules of the committee or of the House of Representatives. He is a member of the Labor . Committee. We have a Committee on the Judiciary here. We have a Labor Committee. We have our own committee. We have all the power to investigate. Possibly, I should not have used the term "illegal." If I offended the gentleman in saying he was doing anything "illegal" I apologize to him.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a moment so I may say to him that .he does not need to apologize. I understand how he feels about it. It is all right with me-l just do not want others to get a wrong impression from what the gentleman says. You are one of my best friends.

Mr. BENDER. That is fine. I am glad to have the gentleman testify that I am still one of his best friends; for he, too, is one of my best friends.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. That is right. I would much rather have you in the other body than to have a member of the other party there.

Mr. BENDER. I thank the gentleman very much. I appreciate the compliment. In any event, I want to say that if there is any racketeering going on in Cleveland, the grand jury today is meeting for the purpose of considering jukebox racketeering. We have a good grand jury foreman in our county and a good grand jury . . They are checking into it very carefully. . I say if there is any racketeering in jukeboxes, then it is the job of the district attorney, and it becomes the job of the enforcement agency, the police department, the sheriff's office; and the Federal district attorney wherever any Federal laws are being violated 'to pursue the matter diligently. So far as I am. concerned, what I meant by saying "illegal" is that I did not want to violate the rules of the House, and I used that term "illegal" in that connection. Our committee, I am sure, is not interested in protecting racketeers of any kind, and I speak for . every member of the committee. That subject came up only casually in connection with the investigations in Detroit and Kansas City. We gave our good chairman authority to look into the matter. I am still on his committee, but he never called me to a. meeting. I was on-"the subcommittee that was authorized for 60 days to in-

vestigate racketeering in Detroit, and I · waited breathlessly for summons from· my chairman to be called to Detroit to· pursue the matter, but I was never called.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for a moment, he will recall that he had so much business at Benton Harbor and St. Joe and also in Detroit that the first thing I knew he had been called away to attend to this other business. You have been so busy it has been almost impossible to get in touch with you.

Mr. BENDER. I was with the gentleman in Detroit during all the time of the hearings, and I never left -him until he excused me.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. That is right. You were at your request excused before we finished.

Mr. BENDER. Because he had noth-ing further to investigate. ·

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. What? I did not have anything?

Mr. BENDER. That was the gentleman's. statement to 'me. · Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Well, I venture to disagree with the gentleman. There will never be a time that I do not have something to investigate. And our witnesses continued after- he left.

Mr. BENDER. And I have not been called, and I was not called thereafter. to Detroit again to investigate racketeer· ing. That is how the matter dropped. If the gentleman has any facts or any evidence on racketeering, the Cleveland grand jury in Cuyahoga County is now in session, and I beg the gentleman to appeal to the chairman of the grand jury who is investigating this matter. and that the chairman permit him to come forward to submit the ·evidence of this racketeering. I will take him to Cleveland myself, or pay his way my· self so that he can present this matter to our grand jury. Everyone will bless you for it, may I say to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. HoFFMAN], includ· ing every citizen in Cleveland who de· tests racketeering of every kind.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, that . is very fine and that is the usual alibi. I will put into the REc· ORD by an extension of my remarks an editorial or two from the Detroit papers which show the necessity for continuing congressional investigations. · As the De· trait Free Press said in one editorial! think it was the Detroit Free Press, or one of the Detroit papers-we did not turn up anything new-so they said-it was an old, old story. Well, I know it is an old story. I know, for example. that some years ago, 5 or 6 or more. James Hoffa was arrested for racketeer· ing, that is by use of threats and force compelling individual businessmen, little fellows, to become members of a union. 'They are not eligible to join a union. Hoffa objects to that statement. He said he was not convicted of that. No-what happened? After the grand jury indicted him, the prosecuting officials and the court let him plead guilty to a lesser offense. That often happens. Over in the county adjoining mine, in the district of our competent, industri· ous colleague the gentleman ft;om Michi· gan [Mr. SHAFER], the Third District. a

394 CONGRESSIONAL _:RECORD -HOUSE January 18 .

member of the Armed Services Committee, members of a goon squad, 200 of them, came over from Detroit into Kalamazoo, and they turned over, burned, and destroyed a truck, and they beat one woman-! saw her-until her face was black and blue. They took possession of the streets of Kalamazoo in defiance of the officers. There was plenty of violence. What happened? They were arrested. They were prosecuted. In the first case there was a hung jury. In the next case what did they do? An outside judge who had not heard the testimony was called in. They put the heat on the prosecutor, a young man, he is not criticized, and they were permitted to plead guilty to a minor o11ense, fined, given a suspended sentence or probation.

What else happened? Nothing. The grand jury is no answer to the

sitm.tion. Is not the grand jury in Cleveland in part due to newspaper activity and the action of Governor Lausche?

Back in 1948 there was a racket right here in Philadelphia. A young marine returned from the war, was beaten up and his truck destroyed. I held hearings as chairman of a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations; not the Labor Committee. The Attorney General, Tom Clark, said it was no Federal o11ense. I said, "All right. Send up two men." He sent up one Beaman and another man whose name I do not recall. Those two men sat during the hearings. We asked Clark to come up and he came up. We put the facts on record and two union officers and a union were indicted ahd convicted. _ Then what happer .. ed? Light sentence. Probation.

Here is where you get relief from those situations-when the newspapers of the country' which are overall honest and conscientious, want decent government; when they come along as they did in Kansas City-in Kansas City the hearings were not only televised, but the full testimony was printed verbatim in the Kansas · City Star. Then, ·you get it before the people. Women would call up at night. They said, ''Hold more sessions in the evenings, if you please, so that our husbands can be here and see what is going on." Then you get action, because there is public sentiment back of it.

Grand jury? They have had a grand jury at Cuyahoga County for the last hundred years. But, they have not cleaned up the situation. We can clean it up temporarily, then, in 10 or 15 years, someone will have it all to do over again.

Unfortunately, sometimes it takes a congressional committee to start a grand jury moving.

Mr. Speaker, permit me -to thank you, as well as Members of the House, for your kindly consideration. EXCERPTS' FROM EDITORIALS TO WHICH REFER-

ENCE WAS MADE

Detroit News, December 1, ' 1953, entitled "The Tasks ·Before Us":

Racketeering is another name for the mesa that figured more decisively than any other issue in the voters' rejection of the Democratic Party last year. • • • Wherever the

use of terror offers a way to easy money, the u~:~:derworld can be expected to move in.

Chicago Daily Tribune, dated November 27, 1953, entitled "Loose Money":

Inasmuch as someone is going to be paid, it occurs easily to a labor skate anxious for a fast buck that it might as well be he, or someone he designates. • • • This loose money is the biggest bonanza that has appeared in the history of the labor movement. It deserves congressional attention.

Detroit News, dated June 13, 1953, entitled "Case for a One-Man Grand Jury":

One day of hearings by Representative HoFFMAN's congressional subcommittee sufficed to expose conditions of criminality in the juke box and coin machine trade that shame local law enforcement agencies. • • • It will take a one-man grand jury to deal with the juke box racket, whose threat to the peace of the community the congressional inquiry has left clear for all to see. • • • The shame to which the congressional committee has exposed local law enforcement is the shame, rather, of a failure to recognize the limitations of the most diligent police work. It is the shame of failing to set in motion the agencies that much experience has shown capable of dealing with criminal forces of the ki~d in question.

Detroit Free Press, September 4, 1953. entitled "Juke Jury Indicts Seven":

The grand jury investigation was called following revelations regarding the racketridden industry at a congressional committee hearing conducted here by Representative HOFFMAN.

Detroit Free Press, December 1, 1953, entitled ''By All Means a Grand Jury": The-editorial demanded a Federal grand jury investigation as a result of the testimony and disclosures made to the congressional subcommittee. ·

Detroit News, November 4, 1953, entitled "The Workers Betrayed":

What Detroit is hearing today about widespread extortion, bribe taking and othP.r forms of racketeering by officials in the teamsters union is hardly a new story. • • •

Its leaders continue the same outrageously 1llegal activities and the sellout of the legitimate collective interests of the rank and file. • • •

If in times past the average worker belonging to the teamsters union was able to deceive himself that the racketeering of . the bosses was just a little extra curricular activity, done for pocket money and implying not betrayal of his personal interests, he is no longer in position to hug that lllusion. • • • When the bosses accept bribe money to keep a truck fleet operating or to deal workers out of their holiday pay, they pick the pockets of their own following and deprive them of their right to negotiate lor a higher wage.

Detroit News, December 29, 1953 entitled "Baring Tolerated Corruption":

Representative HOFFMAN has announced that with the return of Congress in January he will seek authority to extend an investigation of labor union racketeering into every State and city appearing in need of th~ treatment. • • • , These inquiries have resulted to date in two grand juries, in Detroit and Kansas City, and in 17 indictments of union officials for extortion, embezzlement and illegal "gift taking." • • • . Evidently there are those, other , than the persons indicted, to whom the inquiry is embarrassing.

There is much · speculation about the source of alleged pressure. It is probable the motives are in fact several and of varying degrees of respectability. • • • However, one obvious motive for pressure would be nothing more complicated than the reluctance of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to be shown up as ineffectual or, at any rate, inactive in this connection. It does look odd that a. congressional committee can tour about the country uncovering the existence of crime seemingly unsuspected by those whose business is to deal with it.

There may even be a respectable motive for questioning the desirability of Congress, thus assuming, in effect, the role of prosecutor. • • • As long as that role is not being fulfilled, (enforcement by city, State, Federal agencies) the reasons why in themselves, form a sufficient justification for congressional concern with the subject • • • the proposed broadness of his investigation will be welcomed by all who have woiTied over the spread of lawlessness in the operations of some labor unions.

Detroit Free Press, September 5, 1953, entitled "Juke Racket":

Seven men have been indicted by Circuit Judge Miles N. Culehan, one-man laborrackets grand juror, on charges of extortion and using the "muscle" in jukebox activities in the Detroit area • • • racketeering has been going on for too many years in the Detroit jukebox industry, with the knowledge, at least, of Wayne County and Detroit law-enforcement authorities. • • • Back in February __ of 1951 the Senate Crime Investigating Committee (KEFAUVER) questioned some of the men now indicted by Judge Culehan, about Detroit jukebox racketeering and its connection with the national "Syndicate." Local authorities didn't do their duty. • • • Nothing was done.

Then, Representative CLARE HOFFMAN, Republican, Michigan, · came here last June as a cochairman of a congressional .committee to investigate the jukebox rackets. • • ·• Judge Culehan, in less than 2 months, and with an expenditure of less than $4,000, which is unusually small for a grand-jury investigation, has been. able to unearth enough evidence to indict leaders -in the jukebox union, affiliated with the local teamsters union.

Kansas City Times, June 27, 1953, entitled "Congress Moves In": .

Now the national implications of the Kansas City construction crisis are recognized by House investigation. • • • This includes the national concern over the closed defense construction and wider applications, as well as any violations of Federal laws. The findings could be used as the basis for amending or writing laws. • • • The joint committee • • • has- no enforcement powers and needs none. Most important, it· has the means of getting the facts and of presenting the facts forcefully to the public. Public opinion is the powerful force that no organization, or leader of high station, can afford to ignore.· Such congressional interest is not hard to understand. In Greater Kansas City alone, some $35 miJlion of defense construction is shut down, and a large part of it is urgent construction. Standing out among all the lessor factors is a reckless drive for power by the construction teamsters. • • • The international is pushing bard to .expand its power. What has happened in Kansas pity, Detroit, or St. Louis, can- happen ·in .any American city. Local defense construction has gone through a. long period of harassment with quick trigger shutdowns, arrogant roving stewards, impossible dematrds, and all the way; jurisdictional· pressure against other unions. If such a campaign could-succeed on the Kan-

1954, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 395 sas City battleground,· Congress would have to expect the same attacks in other centers of defense construction.

Kansas City Times, June 29, 1953, entitled "One Step for Labor Peace":

Today Greater Kansas City and Congress should begin to get a fuller picture of the forces at work in this city. • • • The general tactics and reckless goals of the Teamsters 0. L. Ring are apparent. • • • The spotlight attracted by a congressional investigation is formidable encouragement to witnesses.

Many persons have seen reason to hope that the congressional investigation would bring the local, and possibly the national, situation to a head. • • • The hearing is the important next step. At the very minimum It should focus national attention on the consequences of overreaching union leadership. • • • The congressional hearing should encourage the local union leaders who want to put an end to this disastrous internal strife. If there is evidence of major law violation, the hearings should lay the groundwork for a grand-jury investigation.

Still essential is the specific plan to put the men back on the construction jobs. To mean anything it will have to be a plan that will end the quick-trigger strike intimida-. tion for one-union power. For the first responsibility is on the leadership of the thousands who are paying the price of the strike.

Kansas City Times, July 2, 1953, entitled "Grim Story to the Public":

The wretched story is unfolding before the eyes of television viewers throughout this area. Such a closeup contact with witnesses from both union leaders and business gives a special force to the ominous purpose and methods that have produced this virtually total shutdown of the Greater Kansas City construction. • • • From J. 0. Mack, president of the carpenters' .district council, and others, the public has received a direct report on Ring's .drive for power over other · unions by strong-arm methods.

From many witn~sses the public has been told of reckless actions by arrogant representatives of the teamsters and allies-roving stewards forced on the contractors at fantastic wages, union control of construction and featherbedding. • • • The cost to the public is increases ranging up to 15 percent in the amount of the contractors' bids. • • •

A ruthless campaign has been directed against both employers and other unions for the same apparent purpose--complete domination. Greater Kansas City is left with a shut-down that undermines its economy. • • •

Ruthless goals don't thrive in a spotlight such as has been attracted to the congressional investigation. The public, including the thousands Of men oti the jobs, is getting the story with all the force of direct contact. Congress is putting together a vast story of aggression that reaches into other cities. The forces of law enforcement are finally starting and so, we suspect, are the top omcials at the Pentagon. They are responsible for military construction.

Kansas City Times, July 1, 1953, entitled "Strike Peril for the Nation":

Established at the beginning of this Kansas City congressional hearing is a ruthless stab at national defense. Most urgent construction, both at . the Sunfiower Ordnance Works, and the Lake City Arsenal already has been set back · by approximately a half year. • • •

At the very least, this . Is a case o! total Irresponsibility, and complete disregard for the national interests. • • • With support of our :fighting men at stake, so far no agency of tP,e Federal- Government has at-

tempted to cope with tt. Government has appeared helpless to protect itself and its Armed Forces against a stab at home. But, through many emergencies, there has always been a point at which the Government has risen to assert itself. In this case the turning may be the present congressional hearing. • • •

For the moment, Kansas City appears to be the battleground of a ~ationwide war for power, in which the teamsters with their allies are driving hard against the other AFL construction unions. Unless the campaign of intimidation and strikes can be stopped here, Congress can expect other battles to demoralize defense construction in other cities.

We believe that members of the two congressional committees know this Kansas City battle for part of an internal labor war that challenges the United States at home.

Kansas City Times, July 16, 1953, entitled "Grand Jury on the Job":

Through the hearings of congressional committees, Kansas City received a frightening picture. It suggested a breakdown of Iawing relations among construction unions, and between unions and employers. Such a situation, involving both Federal a~d State laws, calls for powerful action on both fronts.

Kansas City Star, July 21, 1953, entitled "Back To Work":

This day that ends Greater Kansas City's worst construction strike should be the beginning of a new era of peace for the longharassed Industry. • • • There should have been a better way to settle- the deep-grown Issues, but nobody found it. The issues were a bewildering complex-union against union, unions against contractors, challenges against the Government itself. .

The chaos caused a general stirring in Congress, in the courts, and in the high levels of the AFL. The AFL meeting laid the groundwork for a settlement and started the movement to restore the building and construction trades council which should be an executive body in the future.

Similar but more insistent comment comes from union oftlcials and union members.

COTTON-ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS The SPEAKER. Under special order

heretofore entered, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. POAGE] is recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a portion of this time not to discuss any personalities or anything that anybody has said about anybody, but rather to discuss proposed legislation that is now pending, affecting the cotton producers of the United States.

I know that many of you will say, "That does not affect me at all." But, there are more farmers producing cotton than any other crop in the United States. Approximately half of all the farmers in the United States produce some cotton. Anything that affects cotton production is of tremendous influence on the economy of the United States.

Some years ago this Congress passed legislation providing for a system of control of cotton acreage. which contains a provision which the Secretary of Agriculture feels-! know there is some dispute about whether it would require him or not-but, ·at least, he feels it requires him to fix the minimum acreage for the

year 1954 at 17,900,000 acres. · That is a tremendous reduction from last year•s cotton plantings. In 1953, we planted in the United States approximately 26 million acres of cotton. You can readily understand, when you reduce your acreage by more than one-third, what you have done to the income of people who produce that cotton. I know you will say, "Well, you guarantee that farmer will get 90 percent of parity." Yes. You guarantee him that he is going to get 90 percent-nine-tenths of a fair price-for what he produces. He got that last year. He has received more than that for several years past . . Now, we are going to take away one-third of his production, but we are not going to increase his price.

We are going to leave that price ten percent below parity and if, perchance, the income of the dwellers of our great cities drops; if, perchance, the wages of our workers drop; if, perchance, the income of our great corporations drops, then that parity is ·also going to drop because parity is tied to the income of other sections of our country; and the farmers will not even get nine-tenths of a fair price for the two-thirds of a. crop which he is going to be allowed to grow.

I hope we all recognize that the farmer is faced with a desperate situation of trying to make ends meet. The Congress authorized limitations on acreage because we recognized that the farmer owed an obligation to carry part of the burden by controlling his production, if he were going to have the assurance that he would get even 90 percent of a square deal. But it does seem that to require a cut of more than 33 h percent at one time is a little more than almost any group can stand.

I do not believe there is a labor union in America that would continue to work if we were to provide that their wages should be cut 33.Y3 percent, or that the time that . they could put in each year would be cut 33% percent. ·

I do not think there are many of our manufacturers who would continue in business if their income were reduced 33% percent in one year. Yet that is what we are doing to the cotton farmer.

Mr. HUNTER.. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? · Mr. POAGE. I yield to the gentleman

from California. Mr. HUNTER. I would like to point

out to the gentleman, as he is well' aware, that California, for one State, is being cut 52 percent. ·

Mr. POAGE. I realize that. The gentleman from California. will recall that last sUlnmer I was one of those who joined in the passage of a bill by this House that at least sought to ameliorate that condition .in California.

Mr: HUNTER. The gentleman is to be commended for his efforts in our behalf. I merely wanted to point out that the situation is even more serious in other parts of the country.

Mr. POAGE. ~ I. agree with the gentleman. But I did want him to recalland tbe gentleman was present before our committee and we discussed the matter at great length, and there was great


difference of op1mon as to how far we could go-but the gentleman will recall that I made some strenuous efforts to bring about a compromise, and we did bring about a compromise last summer.

In this House we agreed that there was too much of a cut at one time, that we would not try to go over the precipice all at once, we would not try to step out over the ledge and go clear down to the floor, but that we would build some steps and that we would go down step by step. We agreed that if we had to go down all the way at one time, we might break our leg. We therefore undertook to do this over a period of time. That is what the House of Representatives did. And. I think we passed a pretty sound bill. I believe the gentleman from California will agree that it was about as good as we could expect to get. It was not all that he wanted, and it was not all that some others wanted.

Mr. HUNTER. I should like to say to the gentleman, if he will yield to me, that any bill of this type is in the nature of a compromise. It cannot be otherwise, and for that reason, as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PoAGE] has said, I agreed to the bill.

Mr. POAGE. The gentleman is right. What we did was this-and this House of Representatives did it, and did it 5 months before the other body seemed disposed to take any action whatever: We took cognizance of the condition that confronted our farmers. We were not sound asleep here as some of our colleagues at the other end of this Capitol Building supposed. We sent over to the body on the other side, last summer, a bill that raised the acreage allotment, and that bill provided not simply for an increase in acres, but it provided further that when those acres got do.wn to the State, they should go on down to the county and when they had gone down to the county, each county in the United States should have the right to decide for itself whether those additional acres were to be distributed on the county factor basis; that is, the basis of the percentage of the total ·number of acres of tilled land that one owned, or whether they should be distributed on the personal history involved; that is, how much cotton the individual had ·grown previously. As the gentleman knows, there are some sections of this country where it is considered very desirable to distribute cotton acres on the basis of personal history. That is, all of the farmers are not growing cotton. Some of them have grown cotton and have depended on it solely, whereas others are not cotton farmers at all. I can understand that in many of those regions the personal history approach seems to be t.he better one.

On the other hand, there are vast areas in the United States in which most everybody has been growing some cotton but where almost all the farmers have been following the teachings of the county agents and the rest of the Department of Agriculture, the teachings of diversification, where those farmers have ceased to plant all of their land in cotton and are growing some corn, some feed, some grain, some alfalfa, some ·livestock, some fruit and vegetables.

growing all of these things they were told they should grow. In those sections it would be very harsh indeed to say to those men who have diversified that we are going to penalize you for carrying out the advice all the agricultural experts of the United States Govenrment have been giving you over the years. However, that is what we would do if we should say we would require all of this acreage to be distributed on the basis of personal history.

So the House bill said that the additional acres might be divided at the county level, either on history or on the county factor as the county local committee thought was best for that particular area. I think that is fair and that it is extremely important.

The House bill also provided that if an individual got an allotment he did not need he could turn it back to the county committee for allocation to some other farmer who did need it. I think that was important, too.

I think the House bill give us a reasonably fair approach to this matter.

The other body paid no attention to the House bill and did not act on it. They · knew or should have known that there was a referendum coming up in December; that the farmers were going to have to vote as to whether or not they would submit to a reduction of their acreage. Of course. those farmers should have known before they had to vote in that referendum just how much acreage they were going to get. The House of Representatives tried to give them the opportunity of knowing that. I am not making any partisan appeal. but I say Members on both sides of the House supported that bill. · There was not a vote against it in the House of Representatives that I can recall. I know there was none in our committee.

The House felt that it -had provided a fair compromise between the viewpoints of different sections of the country and a fair way to .allow an expression of local opinion. Most of us have been quite vocal in our statements that we wanted to get the Government back close to the people. There has been no monopoly on those statements on either side of the aisle. We hacl said that we did not want the Government here in Washington to dictate to the people on matters where they themselves could make their own determination. · So the House bill said that the people in the counties could decide whether they wanted to distribute this cotton acreage on the county factor or personal history basis. I think that is getting it as far back to the people as you can get it.

But the other body did not feel disposed to act. I ·understand there was one Senator who said he did not want to come back up here to take action on this bill, so he stayed in his State. The committee said that it would not · act without their distinguished colleague's presence. So the farmers were required to vote without knowing how much the reduction was to be.

In this session there was a meeting of the committee in the other body. A subcommittee was appointed. That subcommittee met and· directed their

staff to review the action of some or at least of one of the farm organizations of the country ana to bring those suggestions out in bill form. That was done. The bill was reported favorably by the committee before it was introduced. That is right and the record so shows. It was passed by the other body and is now before us.

That bill would increase the acreage allowed to be planted in cotton in the United States. I have no criticism of the action of the other body in reducing the increase that the House provided because we made our increase when we were faced only with an estimate of how much cotton we would grow in 1953. That estimate was slightly over 14 million bales at the time this House acted. Now we know we actually grew over 16 million bales and very properly the other body reduced the increase so that it did not increase the total acreage as much as our bill did.

But then how did they distribute it? And here, to me, is the dangerous thing and the thing of which I think every Member should be aware. That bill from the other body which is now before us provides that all of this increase shall be divided, first, at the State level, so as to go to those farms that do not have at the present time an allotment equal to 65 percent of their average plantings, or 40 percent of their highest plantings at any time in the last 3 years, in no event to exceed 50 percent of their total tilled acreage.

Now that places the distribution on individual history. That means that any man who has been growing a very large proportion of his land in cotton will receive, under the terms of this bill, a substantial increase in his present allotment, and I have no objection to those individuals receiving some help. I understand and appreciate the argument ·that is made that the man who is geared up to growing cotton has the machinery. the know-how, and the equipment to stay in business and needs a larger percentage of his land than somebody else does. And he will get it under either bill as I see it, because the House bill makes provision for adjustment of hardship ·cases, and if his falls in the hardshipcase category, certainly he would have the· opportunity to receive an adjustment. But· the House bill does provide that all of the farmers, all of the cotton farmers of America will get something out of this adjustment. It may not be large, but the House bill would give to John Jones and Henry Smith and to all .the rest of the farmers of our country something. But the bill that is proposed by the other body would in many States, at least, give absolutely nothing to· a great number of our farmers. In the State of Texas-and I quote Texas because I am familiar with the figl,lres there-this bill would give to Texas, of course, more acreage than any other State, because Texas accounts for nearly 40 percent of the total cotton acreage of this Nation. Texas would get, under the ter~s of the proposed bill, 1,342,000 additional acres, and that is a lot of cotton. But under the estimates that have been furnished me by the Department of Agriculture, it will require 1,411,000 acres

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - -HOUSE 39'l to satisfy this 65-40-50 gadget; in other words, there will not be enough cotton come to ~exas to take care of these peo .. pie who are going to get additional cot .. ton acreage under this gadget. They therefore will get something less than the rest of the farmers of the Nation. They will get, instead of up to 65 per .. cent, maybe up to 60 percent of their av .. erage plantings, and maybe up to 37 percent of their highest plantings.

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POAGE. I gladly yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. HALLECK. I want to commend the gentleman for bringing to the attention of this body some of the problems that are becoming very apparent in con .. nection with this part of the farm pro .. gram. As I understand, the gentleman recognizes that when, under strict allocations, you begin to cut back acreage allotments too far, it makes it difficult for the farmers to make a living, because their return is the amount of bales of cotton, whatever it may be, that they have to sell, times the price. That is their return. Of course, the gentleman recognizes, as we all do, that presently we have a year's supply of cotton in the carry .. over of the country.

I will not take too much of the gentleman's time, but again I say in all sincerity and honesty I am glad he has brought up this matter, because I think it is going to be constantly before us as we look over this whole farm situation. When you begin to allocate acres, when you restrict, you run into all sorts of alleged inequities and difficulties and some .. times downright discrimination. It is extremely difficult to make allocations as everyone would think that they ought to be made, which, of course, is the thing the gentleman referred to.

Mr. POAGE. Of course, I have to agree with the majority leader as to the difti_culties that arise. Possibly the only dif .. ference of opinion I have with the ma .. jority leader is that I believe we can

. solve these difticulties. I believe this Congr~ _can do the thiQg that should be done; in fact, I think this House did do -the thing that should be done in regard to cotton. I do -not think it is an insoluble problem that is presented to us, altho_ugh I recognize, a~ _the majority

.leader points out, it is a difticult problem. However, i-t is one to which we

. should devote our best efforts, and not take the defeatist-attitude that it cannot be done, and that-we have to deny the .farmer . a living price for his products

• , because of the difticulty of working the ~- problem out. -

I fear that the majority leader proposes · . to lead me into the proposition of saying

that I would favor a reduction in the price that is guaranteed to the farmer, but I will accept no such words in my mouth because I think we can very well continue to guarantee the farmer a full 90 percent of -parity for his products, requiring of him only his reasonable coop-

. eration in keeping his production within reasonable limits.

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentle~an yj.eld?

Mr. POAGE. -.I yield to the gentleman : from J;ndiana~

Mr. HALLECK. I certainly was not trying to put any words in the mouth of the gentleman nor to prejudice his position.

Mr. POAGE. I beg the gentleman's pardon if he was not.

Mr. HALLECK. Everything I said was in good faith. Certainly I do not think that in anything I said the gentleman can find any fair basis for asserting that I for my part believe that the problems cannot be solved, because I believe they can be solved. As to just how we are finally going to do it, that is a matter we can talk about. But certainly what the gentleman has said does point up some of the difticulties involved. That is the reason I said I am glad he brought them up, because it would not hurt us to be thinking about them a little.

Mr. POAGE. I thank the majority leader because I realize it is a difticult problem. It is one to which we have to give our best thought. It is one to which I wanted to direct the thought of this House this afternoon, particularly as to the inequity of the distribution of the cotton acreage under the proposed legislation.

I realize we might talk here for hours about the support program and I realize how essential the support program is. I want to make it clear that I am in favor of 90 percent support for all of the storable basic commodities whenever the farmers of America are willing to bear a share of the burden by making a reasonable and fair reduction in their production.

The question before us now is, What is reasonable and what is fair? I think the other body has very clearly and very fairly fixed the amount of the re .. duction, but when it comes to distributing those acres they will have failed to give relief to a very large percentage of the cotton farmers, failed to give any relief to a very large percentage, unless they at least will go far enough to say that we believe in local self-determination at the county level. That is the reason I call the attention of this House

.now to the basic difference between the approach of the two houses to this important question.

The approach of this body was to leave it to the local people. The approach of the other body is to say that we are going to take care of a group of producers no matter how worthy they may be, a minority group, a small minority of the total, we are going to take care of them in a rather liberal manner, but we are going to do absolutely _nothing for the vast majority of the producers.

If any of you anticipate that because you have not so far heard very much about this, that the farmers are not going to be disturbed when they realize what has happened to them, you are due for a rude awakening.

Mr. LYLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POAGE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. LYLE. One of the problems I am sure the gentleman. from Texas and the majority leader had in mind. was that in ·south Texas we must plant our cotton in· the next few weeks, _very much ahead

of the rest of the Nation. ·It is very im• portant for us that the conference committee bring in a report, otherwise we have no relief whatsoever. Relief 2 months from now that might relieve some of the Nation will do us no good whatsoever. Is there any possibility we might get a report in the next day or two?

Mr. POAGE. I recognize the serious problem the gentleman mentions. Yet, I do not think you can hope to get a report in a day or two. The conferees were just recently appointed within the last hour, in fact. · There seems to be such a divergency of opinion as to how this should be handled that it would be remarkable if we would get an agreement in a day or two. I can assure the gentleman. that the House committee is doing everything it can to get a report out as promptly as possible. We have asked for an immediate conference, but I understand the other body has stated that was impossible. Of course, we have been doing all we could since last spring.

Mr. LYLE. The people of my district have great confidence in your committee, and in the House committee. We hope sincerely that you will advocate our position. We must have a solution within the next few days.

Mr. POAGE. Of course, I do not propose to advocate the proposition that we should accept anything in the world that the other body proposes just in order to get legislation, but I can assure my collegue that the conferees on the part of the House are going to try to get a fair bill just as quickly as possible.

Mr. LYLE. I find that we are in the position that if we do not get something, we will have nothing.

Mr. POAGE. That is exactly right, but the House of Representatives gave to the American people_, subject to the approval of the other body, last summer legislation which I believe you .will agree is f-undamentally sound. I do not think that the responsibility falls on this body t) repudiate all that we have done after months and months of work, simply in order to do something that somebody else proposes. It seems to me there is a responsibility elsewhere other than in this House. I propose, of course, to try to get as close to what the House has suggested as is possible. I recognize, of course, that we must make compromises, and I, as one of the conferees, certainly am prepared to make compromises, but I am not prepared to sell out nine-tenths of the farmers in order to give all of the cotton to one-tenth even if it means that nobody gets any cotton. I want additional . cotton acres, but I want them fairly apportioned.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POAGE. I yield. Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman from

Texas stated that this bill would give nine-tenths of the additional acreage to one-tenth of the farmers.

Mr. POAGE. I do not want to be held to any exact :figures because I do not know exactly what the figures are, but I feel that in my section that would probably be substantially correct.

Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman· is speaking of the State of Texas and l_le

398 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -_ HOl)SE January 18

is not speaking of the entire Cotton Belt south and west; is that not correct?

Mr. POAGE. I am speaking of Texas and, of course, Texas accounts for nearly 40 percent of the Nation's cotton acreage. Any way you figure it, it amounts to a lot of people not getting anything under the bill that is proposed.

Mr. HUNTER. But that is not true of the country as a whole.

Mr. POAGE. I am sure, as I tried to point out that there are many areas where it is highly desirable to use the formula which the other body proposes. I believe the gentleman recognizes, however, that within the State of Texas alone there is the same sort of diversity of situations which exists in the entire Nation, and that some sections of our State would want one formula and some would want another. I certainly have no disposition to impose upon the gentleman from California a formula which might be desirable to my people and would not be desirable to his people. All I am asking is that he give us the opportunity to use either formula we want at the local level because we do have a great diversity of ·situations and we are simply asking that you give us the right to let the local people determine this rather than to have an edict sent down from Washington.

AMENDMENT TO CONSTITUTION ON POWERS OF PRESIDENT REGARDING TREA~ AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS The SPEAKER pro tempore <Mr.

KEATING). Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from New York [Mr. JAVITS] is recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. JA VITS. Mr. Speaker, my purpose today is to discuss a question of the gravest import to the foreign policy of the country which is about to erupt in the country into what is called a great debate. This concerns a proposed amendment to the Constitution known as Senate Joint Resolution 1 proposed by the senior Member of the other body from Ohio, which deals with the powers of the President to be the sole representative of the ~nited States in respect of negotiations on the country's foreign policy. This amendment, I might say, is not confined to the other body. Nine Members of this House have also introduced the same amendment here.

We all know that this is a matter of the most serious discussion in the country today. The House of Representatives has had a growing importance in foreign policy. This House, insofar as it authorizes appropriations is very important. In addition to that it had a great deal to do with actually working out the policy of the European recovery and mutual security programs. It, too, should be deeply concerned with this matter.

Now it is claimed on the part of the author of this amendment that it is absolutely essential to the country, because there must be greater restraint upon the President in respect of treaties--and in respect of executive agreements; it is sought, says the author, to prevent their becoming the law of the land-by self

~ operation once appro·ved by two-thirds

vote of the Senate-including the law of the separate States as they now do under the Constitution, because it is claimed this gives the President who negotiates such treaties, too much power.

The text of the amendment, with which I believe most Members are familiar, provides that no provision of a treaty shall be domestic law except which is otherwise passed as if it were domestic law in the absence of a treaty. That means that when a treaty is ratified by two-thirds of the other body, according to .the Constitution, then that treaty must be implemented by law passed by both the House and Senate and signed by the President, and if it concerns any matter of internal law of any Stateand many treaties do-it cannot become law in that State unless that State passes implementing legislation itself in accordance with its own constitutional processes. So that treaties which affect any State internally, and these include treaties of friendship, trade, and commerce; treaties affecting the status of military forces abroad; treaties dealing with taxation to avoid double taxation for Americans doing business abroad and foreigners doing business here; treaties affecting narcotics; and, finally, any treaties affecting the control of atomic energy. As such treaties generally concern questions of land ownership, inheritance, local business, or the practice of the professions, the proposed amendment would make the legislatures of the separate States, in effect, coordinate bodies with the Congress in dealing with the treaty power.

This is a very grave restriction upon the power of the President in foreign affairs. It calls to mind the fact that the Articles of Confederation failed in the period up to 1787 when the Constitutional Convention convened, because of the very imperfections which this amendment proposes to recreate.

I am sure there are many men of great distinction who are back of this amendment and who feel sincerely that it is necessary. But I am deeply convinced, and I think so, too, are many other responsible people in the country, that if we pass this amendment it would destroy the division of powers between the executive, legislative, and judiciary under the Constitution, and it would be a return to isolationism in a new guise. It would cause the United States, in practical effect, "to secede from the world," which is not my catechism but that of Dean Joseph O'Meara of Notre Dame Law School as quoted from a reply to an inquiry by the chairman of ·iihe Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

I think it is a situation that is of the most vital importance to the country, a situation which is analogous to the Court-packing bill; which was a similar crisis seeking to change the separation of constitutional powers in domestic affairs. I hope that those who oppose this particular amendment will understand its import, as being exactly that serious in terms· of foreign affairs.

There have been a number of suggestions of alternatives to satisfy any reasonable fears of supporters of this amendment. One of the suggestions

would provide that when a treaty shall be approved by the Senate, the yeas and nays shall be called on it, that it shall not be contrary to anything which is provided in the ·constitution and that the judicial power shall extend to such treaty. Another suggestion which I would make myself is the possibility of recognizing the new importance of the House of Representatives, which has grown so much in respect of foreign affairs and changing the Constitution to require treaties to be approved by both Houses, by a two-thirds majority, the same as is now required only of the other body. That treaties are valid only if not contrary to provisions of · the Constitution and ar e subject to the judicial power is now clearly the law but there is no harm in the reassurance of putting it into an amendment.

Neither of these alternatives makes a fundamental change in the separation of powers, whereas the amendment to which I am opposed which is, as I said, before, so much a matter of public debate makes a very fundamental change in the constitutional structure of separation of the powers which has endured for 164 years.

Much is made of the fact that a great many distinguished Members, indeed, a majority of the Members of the other body, have their names on this proposal. That is always advanced as a very important reason why it is a good proposal. I think it is to be hoped that it will soon be made clear what is the actual support for this amendment and what is the support of the idea either of just discussing the suggestion. or of crystallizing existing law for the purpose of reasssuring a great many people who are worried about it.

The responsibility of world leadership by the United States is so great, and this issue is at such a high pitch of discussion, that Members of Congress should as soon as possible no longer leave the free world in doubt as to this particular amendment.

Before we take up other particular objections to it, I should like to take a minute to deduce what we can from the papers as to why this amendment is suddenly brought in. As I see it, it has three reasons. First, a new fear of the United Nations. This is frankly stated by the -majority report of the Judiciary Committee in the other body which says that the United Nations, they believe, is preparing to propose to all of its members, including the United States, some 200 separate treaties dealing with many diverse questions of domestic jurisdiction and that therefore this amendment is being set up as a new safeguard to prevent anything being imposed upon the United States.

Another argument which is made is that the examples of the executive actions at Yalta, Potsdam, and Teheran in connection with World War II make it necessary to have some greater restraints in foreign affairs put upon the President.

The third argument made is that in a case decided in 1920, some 34 years ago-Missouri against Holland-the Supreme Court said that a treaty could control a matter of domestic law within a State and that it would be paramount. So it

1954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE 399 is unplied that the Senate could approve the U. N., regional organization and the some treaty which the President had control of the atom. It tends to give made changing the Constitution, chang- support to an argument that the spirit ing our form of government, or impair- of isolation is not dead in this country ing the Bill of Rights. which we thought for all political pur-

To start back from that last argument, poses it was but a short time ago. I the Supreme Court has said specifically, think it is a very inopportune time to as long ago as 1890--Geoffrey against bring up this amendment. Riggs-that no treaty may be - made In one further point about the need which is contrary to anything which is for implementing legislation in order to stated in the Constitution. That is clear make a treaty effective which this and unequivocal. The Secretary of State amendment would introduce. Today a and the President have both stated that treaty becomes effective when the other that is their · interpretation, and so has body approves it, it becomes effective as the Attorney General. I do not think dom~stic law unless contrary to · the there can be any -question about that. Constitution. But the ·congress may by I think that the contrary is just a "hob- law invalidate and denounce any treaty goblin" that is raised in this particular at any time that it passes a bill to that situation. · effect and the President signs it or it is

As to Yalta, Potsdam, and Teheran, the passed over his veto. argument that has been made by many Under the plan proposed in this people on this subject is that there were amendment we will have five separate secret agreements and that they have steps to get anything done about a worked out rilischievously. But there is treaty. The President must make the nothing in the amendment which we are treaty, the other body must approve it, discussing, there is nothing in any then both bodies must implement . it, amendment which we can draw unless then the President has the right to say we are ready to reduce the powers of the that he does or does not want the imPresidency to those held by an executive plementation, and finally both Houses such as the -President of France-:which have the right to pass it over his veto. has, hoNever, the parliamentary form of This our negotiators say will hamstring government-unless we· are ready to do our efforts to negotiate with other counthat, there is nothing in this amend- tries of the world on matters which are ment that could stop any President from · so essential to be negotiated today. I making a secret agreement; and if the -need not describe to you in greater deCongress would approve an improvident tail; also, the · miSchief and havoc the agreement ·that Con-gress would have ·- to amendmept can work by leaving open to have its head e~amined, but as the law question whether a treaty is effective unstands now it could repudiate it, and that ·less 48 separate State legislatures pass repudiation is efiec~ive now without any - implementing legislation to that effect. amendment. ~ · · The amendment -also gives Congress

There is riothing to prevent the Con- power in .-advance ·to regulate executive gress-and the cases on this are very agreements. These : are very :numerous clear-from passing a resolution repu- ~nd are concerned with many details ·as diating any secret agr~ment and de- small as fixing the time and place of claring that it is not law iii the United an internationalcenference and as great States, whether made at Yalta, Potsdam, as the powers of the President as ComTeheran, or elsewhere. mander in Chief ·of the Armed Forces·

Finally, as to what the United Nations under .which he acted to take the Jap: is trying to do. · If it tries to do some- anese surrender, lift the Berlin blockade thing which the American people are for, and repel Communist aggression in Ko~ the Congress would approve it. And if rea. Congress can invalidate any such it tries-to do something which the Amer- agreement, the power to regulate in adlean people are against, the Congress vance only serves t-o cripple the Presicould disapprove it. · _ dent's power by putting the· Congress

We have had enough str~ggles with into the Executive side-the very thing respect to treaties, including the turn- which is so serious-to substitute for the down of the League of_ Nations after Executive power in its proper sphere a. World War I to know that when the pub- deliberative body like the Congress. lie is aroused, no one is going to impose I think this subject deserves the ut-upon the people of the United States. most consideration of this House as it is ~t us look at the other side for a. now receiving in the other body because

mmute and see the .errors which are in- it is a subject of the greatest importance volved in this amendment. . to our country and of the greatest im-

In. the first place, it would tie the portance to our country's future. I say Pres_Ident's hands in negotiations with advisedly that if this amendment passes foreign governments at a time when we there seems little hope for those great have elected a. new President in whom developments in foreign policy in our we have the greatest measure of confi.. country which are best exemplified by dence on this issue, at a time when we the President's speech on atomic energy do not want a world war III and want control in the United Nations, one of tg carry on negotiations to avoid it. Just the most significant utterances made by when we need an Executive who has an American President, which has had power which the Constitution giyes him, a most magnificent effect on American and when we have an Executive in whom foreign policy throughout the whole th-e great majority have full confidence world and upon the acceptability of our on foreign policy, this amendment pro- country's leadership throughout the free poses to take away the power. world.

The fact ~hat t~is amendment is taken I am deeply convinced that with this so very s«:r1ously m our ~o~ntry i~ itself amendment we would put a- roadblock a factor m .wo:Id negotiations w1th rein the way of all these efforts, which spect to brmg1ng about peace through would, except under another name, make

us the victims of isolationism in the world, and do a great deal to keep the world from that kind of cooperation which can avoid world warm.

THE INTERSTATE TRUCKING INDUSTRY .

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. AYRES] is recognized for 60 minutes.

Mr. AYRES. Mr. Speaker, it will not be necessary for me to use the 60 minutes unless other ,Members :find this subject of the same. interest to them, ·and I believe they will, as it is to· me.

I take the floor this afternoon to discuss a resolution I _ introduced earlier, a x:esolution au~horizing the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Comm-erce--to investigate and study the barriers to the free flow of interstate commerce on the highways which result when certain discriminatory and ·unilateral actions are taken by individual States.

_Now, :first, Mr. Speaker, why did I introduce the resolution? In the 3 years that I hav~ had the privilege _of being a. Member of this b_ody there is one _thing that I am absolutely certain of. That is, that most Members of Congress enjoy being reelected, and in my district the trucking industry is t:Q.e second largest industry: · '· . There has been considerable interest in

.the thre~t- of ruining reciprocity between . States in _our Sta_te of Ohio, and I know

very well that any of you Members who have received hundreds of wires from _your constituep.ts as I have, feel · it your moral obligatien to take action. '

.secondly~ I have been a trq.ck driver ~n interstate commerce and I can appreci~ ate what the trucking industry is up against when reciprocity between the States is threatened. - Third, we have a situation in Ohio which is not a political one regarding the passage of what is commonly known as the axle-mile tax law. In Ohio we have a Republican legislature, both the House and the Senate, and we have a Democratic governor. The law was passed in early 1953 and now there is a question as to whether or not this law is applicable to out-of-State trucks coming into Ohio.

So that those Members who may not be here this afternoon, 'Mr. Speaker,

· will be more familiar with the subject, I ask unanimous consent to insert at this point in the RECORD a copy of the resolu· tion.

·The SPEAKER pro tempore <Mr. KEATING). Is there objection to the re-quest of the gentleman from Ohio?

There was no objection. House Resolution 407

Resolution authorizing the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to in· vestlgate and study the barriers to the free :How of interstate commerce on the highways which result when certain discriminatory and unilateral actions are taken by individual States Whereas experience has shown that an

efficient interstate truck transportation system is essential to the national defense and to our peacetime economy; and

Whereas the Congress, in enacting thl! Motor Carrier Act of 1935, adopted the polic-, of encouragi~ the development of a truc11

400 CONGRESSIONAt RECORD- HOUSE January ·18

transpOrtation system to prom:ote and assist the free flow of commerce; and

Whereas this objective has been advanced by a system of reciprocal arra~gements whereby motor vehicles properly registered and taxed in the.State of their domicile are allowed the use of highways in other States without payment of additional license plate fees or taxes; and

Whereas these reciprocity arrangements, which have helped to create the most efficient automotive transportation system in the world, are now being threatened by a special axle-mile tax adopted by the State of Ohio and applicable to out-of-State trucks as well as Ohio trucks; and

Whereas the destruction of the reciprocity system will set up barriers which will impede the free flow of interstate commerce and weaken the truck transportation system, and which are contrary to the public interest and inconsistent with the stated objectives of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 as well as contrary to the constitutional objective of preventing undue burdens on interstate commerce; and

Whereas much interstate motortruck traffic moves from, to, and through the State of Ohio, supplying American. consumers, industry, and agriculture with raw materials and

-finished goods; and Whereas the State ot Ohio, through the

omcial pronouncements of its Governor and other State omcials, has refused to extend reciprocal exemption from its axle-mile tax to out-of-State truck vehicles properly registered and taxed, .despite long-standing and time-honored agreements; and

Whereas at. a recent meeting of the signatory States to the Ten-State Reciprocity Agreement, a resolution was adopted as follows: "Resolved by the Ten-State Reciprocal Committee, comprising the States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, That it 1s the further sense of this committe that the reciprocity granted to the State of Ohio, with respect to all trucks, by the States here represented, should be revoked, effective March 1, 1954, pursuant to immediate notice"; and

Whereas the States of Missouri and Wisconsin, and other States, have also notified the State of Ohio that they have canceled portions of long-existing reciprocal agreements between such States and tlie State of Ohio, in retallation for the public refusal of the State of Ohio to grant reciprocity to such States with respect to such axle-mile tax; and

Whereas other States are now threatening to cancel reciprocal agreements now in effect or adopt similar taxes in retaliation for the refusal of the State of Ohio to grant such ~eciprO.City; and

Whereas the inevitable result of this chain reaction will be to· stifle or destroy interstate commerce via the highways of the Nation, thus ( 1) injuring one of the most flexible and vital arms of interstate transportation, (2) decreasing the number and availability of national truck carriers for movement of goods for the use of the Armed Forces, (3) weakening the vital truck manufacturing industry, and (4) creating unemployment ln an industry which, next to agriculture, employs more workers than any other enterprise in the United States: Theretore be it

Resolved, That the Committee on Interlltate and Foreign Commerce, acting as a whole or by subcommittee, is authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and study of the barriers to the free flow of interstate commerce on the highways which result when a State Unilaterally refuses to grant reciprocal exemption from State taxes and fees to out-of-State trucks properly registered and taxed, with particular reference to the discriminatory and unilateral refusal o! the State of Ohio

to grant such reciprocal exemption from its axle-mile tax. In conducting such -investigation and .study, the committee shall consider (1) the character and extent of the barriers to the free flow of interstate commerce on the highways which will result from such actions, (2) the effect of such refusal by the State of Ohio upon all methods of transportation, and particularly upon interstate truck transportation, (3) the effect of such actions upon business and consumer prices, and ( 4) the best means and methods which are available to the Federal Government to promote the preservation and expansion of reciprocal agreements between all the States in the field of interstate truck transportation. . The committee shall report to the House (or to the clerk of the House if the House ls not in session) as soon as practicable during the present Congress the results of its investigation and study, together with such recommendations (including recommendations for legislation to prevent discriminatory and unilateral actions by States which burden or impede th<! free flow of interstate commerce) as 1t deems advisable. ·

For the purpose of carrying out this resolution the committee or subcommittee is authorized to sit and act during the present Congress at such times and places within the Up.ited States, whether the House is in ses. sion, has recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold such hearings as it deems necessary.

Mr. AYRES. Early in 1953 the State of Ohio enacted an axle-mile tax law levying a new tax on all commercial trucks with more than two axles for each mile traveled on Ohio roads. This tax is in addition to other Ohio motor vehicle fees and taxes paid by truckers within the State. Like the other motor carrier tax laws the new axle-mile law contains ·a provision for the granting of reciprocal tax exemption to out-ofState trucks using Ohio roads, but thus far Ohio has refused to honor the principle of reciprocity provided for under a long-standing agreement among the States. As a result-and I see many Members from these States present here this afternoon~six States, Virginia, Kentucky, . Nebraska, North Dakota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, already have retaliated by applying their ' motor carrier taxes to Ohio trucks using their roads.

- Mr. POFF. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. AYRES. - I yield to the gentleman from Virginia who, incidentally, ably represents a district ·which is just as important as is my district in · transportation, including the city of Roanoke, Va.

Mr. POFF. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. Did I understand the gentleman to say that Ohio's axle-mile tax

...rate might atfect Virginia truckers bound for or passing through the State of Ohio?

Mr. AYRES. Under the present setup, I will say to the gentleman from Virginia, a truck coming into Ohio from

·Virginia would be subject to this new axle-mile tax law. By the same token, the state of Virginia has now, as I have stated, retaliated by applying their motor ·carrier taxes to Ohio trucks using their roads. . ·

Mr. POFF. In other words, do I understand the gentleman to suggest that this new tax might be the hole in the dike for all such economic reciprocity agreements?

·Mr. AYRES. · It very possibly could ruin one of our basic transportation systems, the trucking industry, if there was a breakdown in reciprocity.

Mr. POFF. I thank the gentleman. Mr. HOFFMAN of -Michigan. Mr.

Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. AYRES. I yield to the gentleman

from Michigan. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I notice

in the press a statement that somebody -made that trucks from other States would not now be permitted to drive through Ohio. Is that the gentleman's understanding of the situation, or do we drive through if we pay a tax?

Mr. AYRES. You drive through if you pay the tax.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Does that apply only to trucks or does it apply, for example, to a station wagon when you are carrying some of your hJusehold goods?

Mr. AYRES. It applies only to trucks with more than two axles.

Mr. HOFFMAN -of Michigan. More than two axles?

Mr. AYRES. Yes. If the State of Ohio does not grant reciprocity to the trucks coming in from Michigan, you can expect the price of automobiles to go up in every State that buys cars transported through the State of Ohio.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Unless the tax were paid, that then would prohibit the hauling of automobiles from our manufacturing plants in Michigan across Ohio?

Mr. AYRES. That is right. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. The

gentleman has a bill to remedy that? Mr. AYRES. That is right, or at least

look into the evils of the present situa· tion.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I am not much for looking into that particu

-lar thing, but. I would like to vote for such a piece of legislation.

Mr. AYRES. I thank the gentleman -from Michigan for being here this afternoon. I am sorry that my discussion will not be as interesting as his was

-earlier, but I think it will likewise be constructive. .

Ml". HOFFMAN of Michigan. May I have that compliment printed for distri

-bution next election? · Mr. AYRES. The gentleman has the ·right to have printed whatever he chooses. ·

Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. AYRES. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, who also represents a district in which trucks play an important_ part. ·

MrA RABAUT. I have had an op. portunity to study the resolution the -gentleman from Ohjo has submitted. I do not want to take up the gentleman's time.

Mr. AYRES. That is perfectly all right. The gentleman has been a Member of this body a lot longer than I have, and I am quite certain he is very fa-

_miliar with this problem. · Mr. RABAUT. I am. In order not

to take up the gentleman's time, I ask unanimous consent, Mr . . Speaker, to ex-

1954 CONGRESSIONAL IU:CORD- HOUSE .401 tend my remarks on this. subject fol· lowing the cgentleman's remarks. · The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to _the request of the gentleman from Michigan? , There .was no objection.

Mr . . BENTLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? _

Mr. AYRES. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. _ . Mr. BENTLEY.~ I also support the resolution offered by the gentleman !rom Ohio. and, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks following the reinarks of the gentleman from Michigan.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? ·

There was no objection. Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield? Mr. AYRES. I yield to the gentleman

from Ohio rMr. CROSSER], who is the ranking member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

M:r. CROSSER. I have here a telegram which I wish the gentleman would read. .

Mr. AYRES. I will be happy to read it. It is a telegram addressed to the Honorable ROBERT. CROSSER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.:

Future of our Job threatened by breakdown of truck reciprocity between· States. Urge you vote .for resolution ·calling for congressional investigation of interstate truck reciprocity.

It is signed by V. Roman, 4127 East 42d; C. Pawlowski, 3960 East 71st; W. Smith, 6519 Fleet; E. Krafcik, 2287 Columbus Road; J. Lisuic, 175 East 32d; W. Degregiaio, 4003 East 26th.

I presume all these people are .from Cleveland . Mr. CROSSER. They are. May I say to the gentleman that while I do not want to prejudge the question, in view of the fact that it · will come to our committee U:nder the terms of the resolution, on the face of it and from what little I have leamed;it seems to be a very serious question that ought to be immediately looked into.

Mr. AYRES: · I appreciate the gentleman's statement because I know that in view of his experience. on the Committee·on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 'and his experience in the transportation problems that are involved in intersta~ actions it will be of tremendous help.

Mr. MACHROWICZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? · - Mr. AYRES. ~ I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. MACHROWICZ. I wish to compliment the gentleman on introducing this resolution, which I think is very important. I wish to announce my full support for it. · I think unless some action is taken by this Congress very soon we are going to ruin an industry which is tremendously important to the entire Nation. I shall be very happy to support the resolution.

Mr. AYRES. _ I _certainly ""ppreciate the gentleman's remarks.

As a result, six States-Virginia, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Dakota, Missouri, and Wisconsin-already have re-

C---26

taliated by applying their motor-.carrier taxes to Ohio trucks using their roads. Ten Southern States-members of the Ten-State Reciprocity Committee--Alabama, Florida. Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia-have resolved to revoke all reciprocal agreements with Ohio by March 1, 1954. And other States. including Arkansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and lllinois. are pre·paring to make similar revocations. Eventually, the reciprocity arrangement may be canceled by all States.

What is reciprocal tax exemption? . The reciprocal tax-exemption system was worked out voluntarily by the States themselves to prevent undue tax burdens on interstate travel. ·

Using as an example the case of passenger cars, which provided the Nation with its first use of reciprocity: At one time, a motorist traveling from New York to New Jersey in a car bearing New York license tags had to pay the New Jersey registration fee--and for a time he even had to pay for a New Jersey driver's license--before he could use the New Jersey roads. Many States had similar laws. and in one State, Missouri, each county could collect a registration fee from a motorist driving through. The result was chaos, great cost, and inconvenience to the motorist. and a real detriment to large-scale use of interstate roads. ·

The States- soon recognized the absurdity of this tax burden. and by 1928

· they had all agreed to exempt out-ofState cars from the tax, provided the -ear's home State granted a similar exemption to motorists from the other State. Thus each State taxed only its own car owners, and no owner had to worry about the burden of multiple taxes. ·

Up to now, this system of reciproeal tax exemption has been applied to commercial vehicles as well as passenger cars. But the system is threatened with a complete breakdown unless Ohio rescinds· its refusal to grant reciprocity. By March 1, f-or example, an Ohio farmer moving a truckload of produce into Kentucky would be required to pay ·a motor vehicle fee of $250 or more, before using the Kentucky roads to reach his market. Conversely, a Kentucky tobacco mer·chant moving his crop into Ohio would be required to pay the Ohio axle-mile tax.

THE BENEI'lTS OF RECIPROCITY

By preventing a pyramiding system of multiple taxation, the agreement among the States to grant reciprocal tax exemption has fostered the free · :flow of goods across State lines, the development of the world's greatest highway system, the expansion of markets for industry and agri·culture, and the maximum exchange o.t products of one State for those of an-other. -

Reciprocity has thus encouraged the growth of the interstate trucking industry as an essential arm of the Nation's transportation. system, vital to national defense.

Congress has ree'ognized the impor"tance of a sound trucking industry to :promote and assiSt the free flow of inter-

state commerce. If a breakdown in the voluntary system of tax reciprocity should threaten the-truck transportatio.a industry by imposing unreasonable burdens on inters~te commerce, th~ United States Government may have no choice but to intervene in. order to protect the national objectives for a sound motortransport system as well as the constitutional objective of preventing undue burdens on interstate commerce. THE EFFECT OF A BREAKDOWN IN RECXPROCITT

A breakdown in the mutually advantageous system of tax reciprocity would have disastrous results throughout the Nation. The entire United States economy would suffer from a decline in the trucking industry, for this industry hauls 77 percent of the total tonnage carried by all means of transportation. The trucking industry is the Nation's second largest employer. with more than 6,200,-000 workers. Only agricUlture · employs more. ·

The end of reciprocity would threaten all phases of manufacturing and distribution. For example, three-quarters of all passenger .cars are shipped by truck. And the effect on the 25,000 com-munities which have no rail service and are served only by motor transport would be catastrophic.

The strategic geographical position of Ohio m the motor transport system as.sures that the multiple taxes being applied there will affect consumers and businesses everywhere. Ohio is a centrally located State through which most of the cross-country transportation must be channeled. The current taxing action threatens to make Ohio a bottleneck.

In addition, the wide variety of manufactured goods originating in Ohio and shipped to all parts of the country make the cost of Ohio transport a.n important factor in the prices charged for· commodities everywhere. 'Ohio-made tires, lor example, are shipped to nearly every State, and almost all tires are shipped by truck.

Mr. OAKMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. AYRES. I yield. Mr. OAKMAN. Mr. Speaker. I would

like to state for the record my full and complete concurrence and support of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Ohio, and I wish to compliment him on the timeliness of the presentation of this resolution.

<Mr. OAKMAN asked and was given permission to revise and to extend his remarks in the RECORD following the gen .. tleman from Michigan rMr. BENTLEY].

Mr. BENDER. Mr. Speaker. will the gentleman yield?

Mr. AYRES. I yield to the gentleman ·from Ohio who has handled himself very ably on the :floor today.

Mr. BENDER. I commend· my colleague for bringing in this resolution. As he knows. he has seen many of the letters and telegrams that have come from our own constituents in Ohio and Ukewise he is aware of the apprehension voiced by Members from neighboring States regarding this action. Certainly the committee should act promptly on this reso-

!ution, so that we are made familiar with . .


the facts and so that we may pursue this with legislation that will be in order.

Mr. AYRES. I appreciate the gentleman adding his comment, and his support will be most helpful.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. AYRES. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. BAKER. I would like to add my own concurrence and approval of the joint resolution. I have had a number of messages from Knoxville, the largest· city in the district that I represent, urging support of the resolution offered · by the gentleman from Ohio. I do favor it. I would like to ask the gentleman this question: In view of the interstate commerce provision of the Federal Constitution, does not the gentleman feel that this interpretation of the Ohio statute, if it is an interpretation only, would be contrary to the interestate commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States, as being an undue burden on interstate commerce?

Mr. AYRES. I would not care to voice an opinion on that. However, I will say to the gentleman that was my reason for handling the situation by the introduction of a resolution, where the gentlemen on the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, who are familiar with the transportation problem as a whole, could determine whether or not the action taken by Ohio was contrary to the Constitution.

Aside from affecting industry in my own district, there is also a threat to agriculture. ·

THE THREAT TO AGRICULTURE

Farmers would be among the first to feel the adverse effects of a breakdown in tax reciprocity. Almost 2 ' million farms throughout the Nation have their own trucks; farmers rely on them for shipment of their products.

A survey of the country's major metropolitan markets shows that nearly all shell eggs and live poultry are hauled by truck. Trucks carry 47 percent of all fruits and vegetables shipments; 55 percent of butter; more than 70 percent of milk; over 80 percent of frozen eggs ; 80 percent of dressed poultry, and 43 percent of cheese. Trucks now carry 75 percent of all livestock shipments and 11 major markets rely on motor transport for 100 percent of their liv~stock shipments.

A substantial part of this movement is across State lines. For example, 85 percent of the truck deliveries of fruits and vegetables into the Cleveland market originate outside of Ohio; 86 percent of such deliveries in Boston come from outside of Massachusetts; 89 percent in Baltimore from outside of Maryland, and 95 percent in Chicago from outside of Illinois. These are typical of the interstate movement of farm products that would be imperiled by a breakdown of reciprocity.

The application of multiple taxation to such movements across State lines would close many markets to farmers in every State. The effect would be to balkanize farm markets, to limit many farmers to intrastate sales, to create surpluses in some areas and shortages in

others. The breakdown of reciprocity would thus have a serious effect on both the price structure and the distribution pattern of American agriculture.

THE EFFECT ON HOUSEHOLD MOVING

Householders rely on motor transport for over 95 percent of movements of household furnishings. A breakdown in reciprocity would inevitably increase the cost of moving to householders or would force them to use other less convenient and more expe.nsive methods.

THE EFFECT ON BUSINESS

All businesses, and particularly small businesses, would find that the end of reciprocity would raise the costs of the raw materials they buy and the prices of the finished products they sell. A survey of representative companies in Ohio recently showed that firms employing less thap 300 people relied on trucks for 77 percent of the materials they used and 60 percent of the finished goods they shipped out. Larger firms, those em_ploying more than 1,000 people, use trucks for 47 percent of their incoming and 52 percent of their outgoing goods.

THE EFFECT ON NATIONAL DEFENSE

Interstate trucking is vital to national defense. The Armed Forces rely on the civilian motor transport industry and on the highway system which a large transport industry has made possible.

In the words of former Secretary of the Navy Dan Kimball:

·or all the modern forms of transportation on land which we have developed in the United States, trucking is unique. It is the only medium. of transportation which can carry most ite.ms from the source of manu .. facture to the point of use. • • • The Armed Forces are geared to the flexibility of the motortruck. _ Without trucks our Armed Fqrces could not exist, as we know th~m.

EFFECT ON OHIO

The repercussions from Ohio•s action would hit hardest the citizens of Ohio, who rely in large part on the motortransport industry for movements both into and out of the State.

The Ohio trucking industry, one of the largest in the country, is being faced with retaliatory taxes that will put it at great competitive disadvantage with truckers in adjoining States. Many Ohio truckers already have taken steps to move their operations into other States that continue to enjoy full reciprocity. This would mean not only an added cost and inconvenience to Ohio truckers. but a substantial loss of tax revenue to Ohio.

-The loss of reciprocity to Ohio trucks also means added costs and loss of business to Ohio farmers, who ship by motor transport 67 percent of their fruits and vegetables, 99 percent of their live poultry, and 80 percent of their livestock. Ohio packinghouses report that 95 percent of all incoming animals and 100 percent of all outgoing products move by truck. The burden _ of retaliatory taxes on these movements inevitably would force many of the shipments into other channels.

Ohio manufacturing firms would be similarly affected, for trucks haul from one-half to three-quarters of their incoming and outgoing shipments. In addition to raising the cost of materials

used by Ohio industry, a breakdown in reciprocity would place Ohio businesses at a competitive disadvantage in sales to other markets. An automobile manufacturer in Ohio, for example, would be forced to pay the retaliatory taxes charged by other States, while a manufacturer in Michigan or Indiana would continue to be exempt from those taxes. The inevitable result, therefore, would be either ,less sales or less profits for the Ohio producer.

CONCLUSION

The economic cost to the Nation of a breakdown in tax reciprocity between the States is incalculable.

How many States the tax pyramid will cover-and how many burdensome taxes will be applied-cannot yet be determined.

But the effects in terms of a decline in the vital trucking industry, unemployment in an industry that is a source of livelihood for 1 out of every 10 workers in the country, higher costs to businessmen and, above all, consumers, and the seiious curb on the movement of agricultural products can only spell danger to the national economy.

I believe that covers the problem. If there are those who have questions to ask that I might be able to answer, I should be glad to do so. · -

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. AYRES. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. FoRD].

Mr. FORD. It seems to me that the approach recommended by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. AYRES] is constructive. The suggestion has been made to me that there might be some method used that would, directly or indirectly, forGe reciprocity. Pressure is not always the most desirable way to ac<~omplish an end, _but when you get to an impasse, there is no other method.

The suggestion has been made to me and I think to others, that in the final analysis, unless something is done to get legitimate reciprocity, the Federal Government might be forced to take a step to withhold Federal aid funds, or Federal grants, in those cases where a State is not cooperating with its neighboring States.

Mr. AYRES. I thank the gentleman for his observation. Along that line, part II of the Interstate Commerce Act, commonly known as the Motor Carrier Act, delegates almost complete regulation of the interstate motor-carrier industry to the Interstate Commerce Commission. This regulation includes the right to designate who shall engage in the business, with power to take away this right. It also includes regulation of the methods and the conduct of the business, the rate which must be charged, down to such details as even bookkeeping procedure. The only phase of the business not now controlled by the Federal Government is the charge for the use of the highways of the various States.

Along the same line of thinking, I may say to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Fo1tDJ. these highways have been largely built with Federal aid funds.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 403 MT. FORD. I certainly hope the gEm

tleman's resolution is approved and that some action is taken to seek a constructive remedy for this very serious problem. -

Mr. AYRES. I certainly hope, afteryou have given the resolution careful consideration that you will contact the proper authorities in the House of Representatives and see that the resolution is given immediate consideration.

Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to study the resolution introduced by my colleague from Ohio and I feel it represents a sound approach to a serious problem affecting one of the Nation's most vital industries.

I feel this is very properly a matter for the consideration of the Congress. As the resolution of the gentleman from Ohio points out, this is not an action which will have its effect only within the borders of the State of Ohio. The axletax law has already set off a chain reaction that may isolate the several States one from another as far as the rapid transportation and communication facilities of the trucking industry are concerned.

Moreover, such action has very serious implications for the tremendous number of employees of the trucking industry and the industries they serve. ~he unemployment situation in my own city of Detroit and in other industrial centers of the Midwest is already far too serious to allow the continuation of a condition which may well add 1110re persons to the ranks of the unemployed.

It is fairly plain to .see, I believe, the competitive disadvantage which this tax law placescupon the trucking industry in comparison to other methods of transportation. I do not want to see any industry in our~conomy enjoy special privileges at t~e expense of its competitors, and I will likewise resist governmental action, whether state or Federal, which has such discr~~inatory effects as the Ohio axle-tax law. . _

We recognize the perfectly legitimate interests of the several States in raising the necessary funds for the construction and maintenance of their highway sys.tems, but when this .interest conflicts with the overriding interest of all the States and of the people in the free flow of interstate commerce, theiJ. the Congress may properly exercise its constitutional functions and attempt to solve the problem in a manner that is fair to all.

The committee is called upon by the resolution to consider the "best means and methods which are available to the Federal Government to promote the preservation and expansion of reciproc~l agreements ,between all the States m the field of interstate truck transportation." It should be noted that perhaps the system of reciprocity agreements ~e-

. tween the States, iil this case so easily ignored by the State of Ohio, may not be the best method of insuring the free flow of interstate ·commerce through the facilities of the trucking industry, and I would urge upon the committee the consideration of what altern.ative arrangements or methods may assure the stability of these commercial relationships .be-

__ tween tbe several States.

This resolution merits the serious consideration and support of the Members of this House.

Mr. BENTLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution offered by my colleague from Ohio whi~h would authorize the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to investigate and study the barriers to the free flow of interstate commerce on the highways which result when certain discriminatory and unilateral actions are taken by individual States.

Mr. Speaker, the so-called axle-tax law imposed by the State of Ohio is threatening to break down the system of reciprocal arrangements between various States. These arrangements provide that motor vehicles which are registered and taxed in their domiciliary State are exempt from the payment of additional fees and taxes in other States whose highways they may have occasion to use.

I do not know what reasons or motives may have prompted the Governor of Ohio to refuse to extend this reciprocal exemption. But this I do know. We in the State of Michigan have occasion to see many of our trucks pass through the territory of our Ohio neighbor for purposes which are of tremendous benefit to the national economy to say nothing of the value to our Armed Forces. The trucking industry is one of the most valued parts of intersta-te transportation but its continued existence depends upon the principle of reciprocity as between various States. The truck manufacturing industry, so vital to the State of Michigan, is also being threatened. I am particularly disturbed by the very real threat of unemployment to these industries within Michigan, a threat which has been confirmed by numerous telegrams I have received from various truckers within by district. I certainly believe that the-Interstate. and Foreign Commerce Committee should have immediate authority to investigate this situation and to recommend legislation which would 'prevent such discriminatory and unilateral action.

I commend the gentleman from Ohio for introducing this resolution and hope that it will speedily be -passed by the Congress. _

Mr. OAKMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman · from Ohio, WILLIAM H. AYRES, has performed a real public and patriotic service in offering this timely resolution to the House on the very important subject of truck-tax-exemption reciprocity among the States, which affects a large portion of interstate commerce in our Nation.

The automobile--the truck and passenger vehicles-are the principal products of the workers of the State of Michigan. At least every ninth American today is gainfully employed, directly or indirectly, because of this great industry. The peacetime economy of the Nation as well as our national security is dependent upon it to a very considerable degree.

The Federal Government is presently collecting $910 million annually in motor fuel taxes, in addition to $1,112,ooo.ooo .excise taxes on the sale of cars,

-trucks, parts, accessories, tires. an_d tubes. In additio~ the States·and their

subdivisions are collecting several billion additional dollars each year from the American motorist in the form of gasoline taxes, weight taxes, and so, forth. In spite of all of this, competent testimony shows that our country's roads are wearing out at the rate of 2,000 miles a year-faster than we are building them.

Good roads mean much to the entire Nation in safety, in the cost of transportation of people and merchandise, and most emphatically to our national sec~rity. Let me quote from President Ei-_ senhower's state-of-the-Union message. Speaking of how our new nuclear weapons make it possible to reduce the size of our armies, the President said:

Our Armed Forces must regain maximum mobility of action. Our strategic reserves must be centrally placed and readily deployable to meet sudden aggression against ourselves and our allies.

Maximum mobility means the ability to move quickly over our highways, as well as to move quickly in the air and on water.

The President further recommended: To protect the vital interest of every citi

zen in a safe and adequate highway system, the Federal Government is continuing its central rule in the Federal-aid highway program. So that maximum progress can be made to overcome present inadequacies in the interstate highway system, we must continue the Federal gasoline tax at .2 cents per gallon. This will require cancellation o~ the one-half cent decrease which otherwise will become effective April 1, and will maintain revenue so that an expanded highway program can be undertaken.

During the past 20 years, the Federal Government has collected about $9 billion from federally imposed motor-fuel taxes. About half of this has been returned to the States for road constructi{)n on a basis that the States , match dollar for dollar the so-called Federal grants-in-aid. The other half of this $9 billion has gone into the Federa1 Treasury to be spent for other Government purposes, totally unrelated to roads.

If each of the 48 States is to impose arbitrary and precipitous truck-axle taxes, great harm will be done to the truckingautomobile interests of the country. This would be a strong blow ·to the economy of the Nation. It would be a backward step over 25 years when the matter of reciprocity relative to motor-tax exemptions was worked out among the States. There is no place in this atomic age for a ''balkanization" of our American system of highways. I urge the Rules Committee to give this resolution a rule at the earliest possible moment, so that the House may pass the Ayres resolution and that the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce can consider this measure before the damage is irreparable.

THE GREAT COFFEE MYSTERY The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs. SULLIVAN] is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. MT. Speaker, each time the harassed housewife goes into


her grocery store these days the price of a tin of coffee has mysteriously shot up another 5 cents a pound, and it is generally now well over $1 or $1.10 a pound.

Why? Well, we are told it is because of a disastrous freeze in the coffee-growing areas of Brazil. When did these frosts occur in Brazil-last week, or last month, when we in this country were shivering in heavy snows and arctic cold? Not at all.

The seasons in Brazil, of course, are the opposite of ours. Brazil suffered its frosts last July. Yet suddenly, now, today, and since the first of the year, coffee prices in the United States have been skyrocketing.

It is attributed, in the financial journals and business reports, to a shortage of green coffee, due partly to the frosts in Brazil last July, partly growing European demand for coffee-particularly in Western Germany-and partly-and this is the part which intrigues me most-to frantic speculation and to a lot of hoarding in the coffee markets in anticipation of a further series of price increases for the bean.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to know what, if anything, the agencies of the United States Government are doing to protect the American housewife against this profiteering in what we have come to regard as one of the most essential staples in the family diet and family budget.

If this gouging were occurring in copper, or manganese, or nickel, or any of the other materials vital to our industrial production, I am sure the Government would be showing some interest and some concern and undoubtedly getting some helpful results.

But, so far as I can see, it is looking with resignation or unconcern on the holdup. of the American consumer and housewife on skyrocketing coffee import prices.

Apparently now even the 10-cent cup of coffee is on the way out, and the price in restaurants in many cities, including St. Louis, has gone to 15 cents.

Many of the Members, Mr. Speaker, have been reporting on the increased unemployment in their congressional districts. I am sorry to have to report that in St. Louis, too, we are feeling the repercussions of reduced production, cutbacks tn orders, and layoffs of industrial workers. It used to be that a jobless man out on the streets looking for work could at least comfort himself against the winter cold with a warming cup of coffee for a nickel or a dime. But as this price squeeze on coffee intensifies it is making even coffee one of the luxuries of

. life beyond the reach of many-and somehow, to me, that seems almost unAmerican.

Since all of our coffee comes from abroad, Mr. Speaker, we are very much dependent upon the Federal Goverment to represent us in this matter so that fair arrangements are made to assure adequate supplies of this important product at fair prices.

We have certainly been generous enough and fair enough in our dealings with the nations whi_ch produce coffee, in connection with the things we provide them. Why cannot we arrange some reciprocity in this respect?

Unless and until some steps are taken to stabilize coffee prices at levels which the average consumer can afford, then I think it presumptuous for spokesmen for the administration to talk about lowering the cost of living, for certainly that has not been done in regard to any of the staple foods, or in rents, utilities, interest charges or other main items of the family budget.

You will never convince a housewife the cost of living has gone down when a tin of coffee goes up 5 cents a pound every few days and the prospect is for further increases in the near future.

It is time for action, Mr. Speaker, to prevent the further deterioration and adulteration of the quality of our cherished breakfast cup of coffee, for certainly if this keeps up we will be drinking such a watered down version of coffee it will not be worth dignifying with the name coffee at all.

Muddy water may be all right . in our rivers, Mr. Speaker, but let us not be forced to drink it for breakfast.

I am today addressing a letter to the Secretary of State asking him what steps, if any, this Government has taken or can take to protect our people against further gouging on coffee prices and enable the American housewife to serve a decent cup of coffee to her family without fracturing the family budget. What representations has he made to the producing countries to assure fair prices?

This may not be the weightiest problem he faces at the moment, but to 40 million American families it is the kind of issue they wish he would get busy on right away so that they, in turn, can fortify themselves properly in the mornings to read the newspaper accounts of his other problems and concerns.

Frankly, in my own case, until I have had my morning coffee, Mr. Speakerand it better be a good cup of coffee! just cannot get concerned about Big Four.parleys in Berlin or budgets or deficits or atoms or anything else. And how can one enjoy that cup of coffee, Mr. Speaker, when the price per pound is over $1 and still rising?

UNEMPLOYMENT AND TERMINOLOGY

The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. EBERHARTER] is recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. EBERHARTER. Mr. Speaker, no matter what you call it-a rolling adjustment, or a healthy readjustment, or

.. an orthodox recession-the fact of the matter is that the number of jobs in the Pittsburgh labor market area-the workshop of the world-has been declining steadily since the Eisenhower administration came to power.

Unemployment in this area-the heart of America's industrial system-has doubled in the past year, and most of that increase has taken place since last September.

Mr. KARSTEN of .Missouri. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. EBERHARTER. I yield. Mr. KARSTEN of Missouri. The gen

tleman mentioned that unemployment has doubled in his area. I . might point out that I have made a survey of my

State, particularly my city of St. Louis, and have found that we have had a similar situation there. Our unemployment today is twice as great as it was a year ago. It is reaching very serious proportions.

Mr. EBERHARTER. I thank the gentleman for his contribution. It adds a good bit to what I expect to say regarding this unemployment situation.

According to the latest figures, there were 26,100 fewer jobs in the area than a year ago.

When you compare this with a working force of 826,100, which is the number of wage and salaried workers employed in the Pittsburgh area at latest count, it may not sound like a lot to people who look only at the bare statistics and who measure issues of this sort only by slide rules and adding machines.

But 26,100 fewer jobs-most of those in the steel and electrical machinery industry-mean thousands of families in the Pittsburgh area whose standard of living has fallen from a decent level dangerously close to the submarginal level. It spells danger signals to the whole economy-verified by the remarks just made by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. KARSTENl-and like any "disemployment" movement, ever feeds upon itself to cause ever-widening misery.

The administration has talked often of the bold course it will follow if and when this Nation is faced with the threat of a depression. Talk like that is pretty meaningless, if the conditions which lead to burgeoning unemployment are allowed to go unchecked merely because we have not come to the spectre of soup kitchens, wholesale foreclosures, and evictions.

If we have learned anything in the past 25 years about fighting· depression, it is that we must not wait for the banks to close doors, the factories to shut down, before organizing the resources of the Nation to counteract serious downward economic tten<~s~

The most distressing factor about the mounting unemployment in and around Pittsburgh is th~t the Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce-which normally is as optimistic as any group of bu · inessmen in the country when the· circumstances indicate any justification · for optimism-carries in its January magazine a report that business conditions in Pittsburgh will probably decline for another 6 months.


Mr. EBERHARTER. I will be delighted to yield to the gentleman from Cleveland, a very great industrial city • I hope he is not going to give us the bad news that the situation in Cleveland is bad, too.

Mr. BENDER. No, we are in pretty good shape. The gentleman's remedy would not suggest that we go back into a shooting war. would it?

Mr. EBERHARTER. My suggestion will come a little later in my remarks, but I say we have learned in the past 25 years that we should not wait until we have soup kitchens. until we have wholesale evictions 9f tenants, until we have bank foreclosures, before we take meas""! ures.

1951,; CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - rHOUSE 405 · When Franklin D. Roosevelt was in of

fice, he taught the country how to. cure depressions. The Democratic Administration has given to the country a blueprint of how to prevent these things.

Mr. BENDER. I would like to make one other observation.

Mr. EBERHARTER. My . time is limited. As the gentleman knows, there are other speakers. If he will wait and get the benefit of all my remarks, then I will be glad to give him the rest of my 15 minutes to ask questions, and I will try to answer them.

_Mr. BENDER. I · want to say one word, if the gentleman will yield. We had 11 million people out of work before the war started.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman declines to yield.

Mr. EBERHARTER. Quoting Bervard Nich9ls, associate professor of economics research at the University of Pittsburgh, the chamber of commerce magazine Greater Pittsburgh says these factors point to a further sag:

First, steel mill activity has not regained prevacation period level by sizable margin; second, new orders for steel are falling; third, steel scrap prices have weakened; fourth, real estate activity has declined a little more; fifth, wholesale prices have fallen slightly 'in recent weeks; sixth, mortgage money is hard to get; seventh, · the volume of consumer credit is the highest on record, more than $27.6 billion; eighth, inventories are .highest on record and some have surpassed safe leyel lines; ninth, auto production has slackened, stocks are heavy, and the used-car market is slow; tenth, farm income will be reduced further; eleventh, prolonged rise in personal income has almost stopped; twelfth, commercial failures are rising; thirteenth, exports -are decreasing; fourteenth, people are ·showing far more reluctance to buy, for one reason because they believe prices may go lower. Professor Nichols also mentions the stock market tumble in 1953, but adds the market should go back up· again for a number of reasons, including the tax cuts.

While this is pretty much only the opinion of an individual professor at a university in Pittsburgh, it is perhaps even more Significant that businessmen generally in the Pittsburgh area are equally pessimistic. It is highly significant that in the Pittsburgh area responsible business and industrial leaderspolled by the State's bureau of employment security---See no immediate prospect of restoring employment to previous levels. The consensus -is that present levels will be stabilized at least through March, which means that the men laid off by steel and other industries. have no prospects under present business conditions of going back to their jobs.

With all the obvious needs here in this country and· throughout the world for the products we in the Pittsburgh area manufacture, why is it that orders have fallen off so sharply that thousands of steel workers and electrical workers are now ·"surplus"?

And when . does the situation reach the point where the President and his economic advisers finally acknowledge our economy is in trouble and start tak-

ing some affirmative steps to reverse the downward trend?

I notice the advertising industry has come forward with a plan to restore prosperity by plastering the billboards, by filling the advertising columns of newspapers and magazines, and using commercial spots on radio and television with reassurances to the public that everything is just fine and dandy.

The jobless worker whose radio or television set is repossessed because he can't afford the payments is certainly not going to be turned into a customer by a peppy commercial telling him he never had it so good.

Psychology, of course, plays a big part in sales volume, but so far as I know none of the psychologists in -advertising agencies have a magic formula for talking a fellow who is broke and jobless into spending a lot of money he does not have.

When people have assurances that their jobs are secure, when they know the paycheck will continue regularly and won't be cut off the day after tomorrow, then they will not hesitate to spend their money for the things they want and l).eed.

This administra~ion has failed miserably in maintaining the kind of general confidence the people had in our economy under the previous administration.

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL WEDNESDAY Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, ·I ask

unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at noon on Wednesday next.

The SPEAKER. · Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

There was no _objection.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS By unanimous consent, permission to

extend remarks in the RECORD, or to revise and extend remarks, was granted to:

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska and to include

remarks on seven bills · relating to the liberation of the Indians. ·

Mr. NEAL. Mr. JoHNSON of California (at the re-

quest of Mr. HALLECK). Mr. WATTS. Mr. CELLER in two instances. Mr. RABAUT. Mr. SHAFER.

ADJOURNMENT Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I move

that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; accord

ingly <at 3 o'clock and 31 minutes p. m.) under its previous order~ the House .adjourned until Wednesday, January 20, 1954, at 12 o'clock noon. ·

Judicial · and Congressional Salaries, pursuant to Public Law. 220, 83d Congress (H. Doc. No. 300); to _the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed.

1157. A letter from the Secretary of Agriculture, transmitting the report of .operations, expenditures and obligations under t;he Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1953, pursuant to the act of June 28, 1939 (50 Stat., 329); _to the Committee on Agriculture.

1158. A letter from the Secretary of Agriculture, transmitting a draft of legislation entitled "A bill to increase the borrowing power of Commodity Credit Corporation"; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

· 1159. A letter from the Secretary of State, transmitting the seventh semiannual report of the International Claims Commission of the United States, from July 1, 1953, to December 31, 1953, pursuant to section 3 (c) of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, Public Law 455, 81st Congress, approved March 10; 1950; to the Committee on Foreign .A1fairs.

1160. A letter from the Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board, transmitting the annual report of the Civil Aeronautics Board covering fiscal year 1953; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

1161. A letter ·from the Secretary of Commerce, transmitting the eighth annual -report describing the operations of the · ne:. partment of Commerce under the Federal Airport Act, as amended, for the fiscal year ending Ju:ue . 30, 19.53; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

1162. A letter from the Chairman, National Mediation Board, transmitting the 19th annual report of the National Mediation Board~ including the report of the National Railroad Adjustment Boar~ for the fiscal year ended June 30, ·1953; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

1163. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, tF-a'nsmitting one copy each of certai~ b1lls passed by the Municipal Council of -st. Croix, v. I., pursuant to section 16 of the organic Act of the Virgin Islands of the United States, approved June· 22; 1936; to the Committee on Interior and In• sular .A1fairs.

1164. A letter from the Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, transmitting information relative to the case of Stanislaw Argasinski, who was mentioned by reference in a letter dated January 14, 1954, pursuant to section 212 (d) (6) of tfie Immigration and Nationality Act, under the authority contained in: section 212 (d) · (3); to the Committee on the Judiciary. ·

1165. A letter from the Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, transmitting a copy or an order entered in the case of the following alien Claus Heinrich Arp, No. 56354/1, pursuant to section 212 (a) (28) (I) (11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1166. A letter froin the Commissioner; Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, transmitting copies of orders entered m· cases where the authority contained. in section 212 (d) (3) ot the Immigration and Nationality Act was exercised in behalf of such aliens, pursuant to section 212 ,(d) (6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; ·to the Committee on the Judiciary. EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS,

ETC. 1167. A letter from the Commissioner,

, Immigration and ~aturalization Service, Under · clause 2 of rule XXIV, execu- Department of Justice, transmitting copies

tive communications were taken from of orders suspending deportation as wen as

th S k ' tabl nd eferred a fol a list of the persons -involved, pursuant to e pea er s e a r s - · ·section 244 (a) of the Immigration and

lows: Nationality Act of i952 (8 u.s. c. 1254 (a)); 1156. A letter from the Chairman, Com-- to the Committee on the Judiciary.

mission on Judicial and Congressional· Sal- 1168. A letter from the CommLssioner, 1maries, transmitting a report of· the findings migration arid · Naturalization Service, Deand recommendations of the Commission on partment of Justice, transmitting copies of

406 CONGRESSIONAL-RECORD -HOUSE January 18.-orders granting the applications for perma• nent residence filed by the subjects, pursuant to section 4 of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, as amended; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1169. A letter from the Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, transmitting copies of orders suspending deportation as well as a list of the persons involved, pursuant to the act approved July 1, 1948 (Public Law 863), amending subsection (c) of section 19 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, as amended (8 U. S. C. 155 (c)); to the Committee on the Judiciary.

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. ALLEN of lllinois: Committee on Rules. House Resolution ·406. Resolution provid· ing for consideration of H. R. 5337, a bill to provide for the ~stablishment of a United States Air Force Academy, and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 1103). Referred to the House Calendar.

Mr. SHORT: Committee on Armed Servic_es . . H. R. 2326. A bill to amend the act of August 3, 1950, as amended, to continue in effect the provisions thereof relating to the authorized personnel strengths of the Armed Forces; without amendment (Rept. No. 1104). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House

·on the State of the Union. Mr. SHORT: Committee on Armed Services.

H. R. 5337. A bill to provide for the establishment of a United States Air Force Academy, and for other purposes; with amendment (Rept. No. 1105). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. FEIGHAN: H. R. 7265. A bill to provide for the loss of

nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen upon conviction for certain crimes relating to national security; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. ABERNETHY: H. R. 7266. A bill to amend the Soil Con

servation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended; to the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin: H. R. 7267. A bill to amend the Agricul

tural Act of 1949, and section 301 (a) (1) (G) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938; t-a the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. CAMP: H. R. 7268. A b111 to provide that the Clark

Hill Reservoir and Dam on the Savannah River, S. C. and Ga., shall be known as .the Paul Brown Reservoir and Dam; to the Committee on Public Works.

By Mr. DAVIS of Georgia: H. R. 7269. A bill to provide that the Clark

Hili Reservoir and Dam on the Savannah River, S. C. and Ga., shall be known as the· Paul Brown Reservoir and Dam; to the Committee on Public Works.

By Mr. FORRESTER: H. R. 7270. A bill to provide that the Clark

Hill Reservoir and Dam on the Savannah· River, S. C. and Ga., shall be known as the Paul Brown Reservoir and Dam; to the ComJriittee on PUblic WorkS. · ·:

By Mr. LANDRUM: H. R. 7271. A bill to provide that the Clark

Hill Reservoir and Dam on the Savannah River, s. C. and Ga., shall be known as the

Paul Brown Reservoir and Dam; to the Committee on Public Works.

By Mr. LANHAM: H. R. 7272. A bill to provide that the Clark

Hill Reservoir and Dam on the Savannah River, S. C. and Ga., shall be known as the Paul Brown Reservoir and Dam; to the Committee on Public Works.

By Mr. PILCHER: H. R. 7273. A bill to provide that the Clark


By Mr. PRESTON: H . R. 7274. A bill to provide that the Clark

Hill Reservoir and Dam on the Savannah River S. C. and Ga., shall be known as the Paul Brown Reservoir and Dam; to the Committee on Public Works.

By Mr. WHEELER: H. R. 7275. A bill to provide that the Clark


By Mr. ANGELL: H. R. 7276. A bill to authorize the modifica

tion of the project for Columbia River at the mouth, Oregon and Washington; to the Committee on Public Works.

By Mr. ARENDS: H. R. 7277. A bill to further amend sec

tion 106 of the Army-Navy Nurses Act of 1947 so as to provide for certain adjustments in the dates of rank of nurses and women medical specialists of the Regular Army and Regular Air Force in the permanent grade of captain, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.

H. R. 7278. A bill to define service as a inember of the Women's Army Auxiliary. Corps as active military service under certain conditions; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. BISHOP: H. R. 7279._ A bill providing for the develop

ment of a highway and appurtenanc_es thereto, traversing the Mississippi Valley; to the Committee on Public Works. ·

By Mrs. BUCHANAN: H . R. 7280. A bill t"o increase the Income

tax exemptions of a taxpayer (including the exemption for a spouse, the exemption for a dependent, and the additional exemption for old age or blindness) from $600 to $800; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. BURDICK: H. R. 7281. A bill to provide for the con

struction and maintenance of a high school for Indian pupils· within th-e exterior bound-aries of the Fort Berthold Reservation; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

H. R. 7282. A bill to provide for the return to the former Indian owners of certain lands acquired in connection with the Garrison Dam project of mineral interests in such lands; to the Committee on_ Public Works.

By Mr. CHELF: H . R. 7283. A bill to increase from $600 to

$1,200 the income-tax exemption allowed a taxpayer for a dependent, and $1,800 for a dependent child {until said child reaches 21 years of age) while attending any recognized college or university; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

. By Mrs. pHURCH: H. R. 7284. A bill to provide for the en

forcement of su_pport order~ in certain S~ate and Federal courts, and to make it a crime to move or travel in interstate and foreign commerce to avoid compliance with such orders; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. COLE of New York: _ H. R. 7285. A bill to amend the part of .-the act entitled "An act making appropriations for the naval service for the fiscal year end-_ ing June 30, 1921, and fo_r other purposes, .. approv~d June 4, 1920, as amended, relating to the conservation, care, custody, protection;

and operation of the naval petroleum and oil-shale reserves; to the Committee on Armed Services.

H. R. -7286. A bill to exempt from duty under paragraph 1551 of the -Tariff Act of D30 certain motion-picture film imported into Puerto Rico; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

H. R. 7287. A bill to prohibit the shipment or use in interstate commerce of motor vehicles which are not equipped with a device which prevents such motor vehicle from being driven in excess of 65 miles per hour; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. ·

By Mr. COLMER: H. R. 7288. A bill to provide for stockpiling

3 million bales of cotton; to the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. COOLEY: H . R. 7289. A bill to amend the Agricultural

Act of 1949, as amended, with respect to price supports for basic commodities; to the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. COON: H. R. 7290. A bill to authorize an appro

priation for the construction of certain public-school facilities on the Klamath Indian Reservation at Chiloquin, Oreg.; to the Committee on .Interior and Insular Affairs.

By Mr. CURTIS of Nebraska: H. R. 7291. A bill to provide that any per

son aggrieved by a final decision of the Employees' Compensation Appeals Board may bring action on his. claim in a Un1ted States district court; to the Committee on Education and Labor.

By Mr. D'EWART: H. R. 7292. A bill to amend the act of June

3o, 1932, so as to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to renew for 25 years the lease of certain lands to Phillips County Post, No.-57, of the American Legion, Department of Montana; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

By Mr. DINGELL: H. R. 7293. A bill to increase the personnl

income:-tax exemptions of a taxpayer for himself and his spouse, and the additional exemptions for old age or blindness, from $600 to $1,ooo; and to increase the exemption for a dependent from $600 to $800; to the Committee on Ways and Means. ·

H. R. 7294. A bill to permit deduction for income-tax purposes of certain expenses incurred by working mothers in providing care for their children while they are at work; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. ' ELLIOTT: H. R. 7295. A bill to require Federal dis-_

trict courts and State courts to enforce certain support orders of courts of other States, and to confer jurisdiction on Federal district courts to make support orders in certain cases; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. EVINS: H. R. 7296. A bill to 'extend to June 30,

1956, the direct hoJ:tle and :farmhouse loan. authority of the Administrator of Veterans' A1fairs under title lli of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, as amended, to make additional funds available therefor, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

H. R. 7297. A bill to amend section 502 of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, so as to increase the maximum amount Jn' which farm realty ~oans may be guaranteed thereunder; to the Committee on Veterans• A1fairs.

H. R. 7298. A bill to afford education and training under title II of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 in the cases of certain seriously disabled veterans, notwith~tanding. the time limitations of .such act; to the Com-mit-tee on treterans' Affairs. ,

H. R. 7299. A bill to remove the time llmt.: tations on a period during which vocational t:ehabilitation .. training may be a1rorded to certain seriously disabled veterans of World

1954 CONGRESSIONAL . RECORD - ;HOUSE 407 War II and of ·service on and after June 27, 1950; to the Committee on Veterans' ·Atfairs.

H. R. 7300. A bill to provide that where, for 15 years or more, the Veterans' Administration has rated a · veteran as totally dis- · abled, and he is age 60 or older, his disability shall be considered permanent; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. - By Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:

H. R. 7301. A bill to eliminate the 4-percent gratuity on . loans guaranteed, insured or made by the Veterans' Administration under the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, as amended; to the Committee on Veterans' Atfairs.

By Mr. GUBSER: H. R. 7302. A bill to provide for the ap

pointment by the Postmaster General, subject to the civil-service laws and rules and

·regulations, of postmasters, at first-, second-, and third-class post omces, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Post Omce and Civll Service.

By Mr. HAND: H. R. 7303. A bill to prohibit Federal

agencies from making, guaranteeing, or insuring loans to. or for persons who are members of, or atnliated with, subversive organizations, or who individ~ally advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

By Mr. HESELTON: H. R. 7304. A bill providing relief against

certain forms of discrimination in interstate transportation; to the Committee on Inter

. state and Foreign Commerce. By Mr. HESS:

H. R. 7305. A bill to retrocede to the State of Ohio concurrent jurisdiction over certain highways within Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio; to the Committee on Armed Ser.vlces.

By Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan (by re-quest): .

H. R. 7306. A bill to amend-the act of December 23, 1944, to make permanent the authorization for certain transactions by disbursing omcers of the United States; to the Committee on Government Operations.

By Mr. IKARD: H. R. 7307. A bill to provide that persons

who have been convicted three times of a felony in the District of Co~umbia shall be

· sentenced to life imprisonment; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

By Mr. JOHNSON of California: H. R. 7308. A bill to repeal section 307 of

title III of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended; to the Committee on Armed Services.

. H. R. 7309. A bill to authorize the acceptance of conditional gifts to further the defense effort; to the Committee on Armed services. - - .

By Mr. JONAS of North Carolina: H. R. 7310. A bill to amend the Internal

Revenue Code to provide that the tax on admissions shall not apply in the case of admissions to certain athletic games betwe~n teams composed of players selected from elementary or secondary schools; to the -E::ommittee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. KEATING: H. R. 7311. A bill to improve the enforce

ment of laws pertaining to gambling by suppressing the transmission of certain gambling informat·lon; to the Committee ori Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. KERSTEN ·of Wisconsin: H. R. 7312. A bill to provide for the forfel-

. ture of United states citizenship of individuals who are members of or assist in organizing the Communist Party or any COmmunistaction organization; to the Comm1ttee on the JudiCiary. ·

By Mr. McDONOUGH: H.R. 7313.-A bill •to provide that the an

nual allowance of Members of· the House of Representatives for United States -aiFmail and special-delivery postage stamps shall be

on a calendar ·year basis, and for other pur. poses; to the Committee on House Administration.

By Mr. METCALF: H. R. 7314. A bill to amend section 513 (d)

of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 so as to authorize the allocation of sums to provide direct ·loans to veterans for construction of homes on Veterans' Development, Small Tracts No. 2, Missoula County, Mont.; to the Committee on Vete'I"ans' Atfairs.

H. R. 7315. A bill to provide for stockpiling 500 million bushels of wheat; to the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. MILLER of Nebraska: H. R. 7316. A bill to provide for the ter

mination of Federal supervision over the property of the Turtle Mountain band of Chippewa Indians in the States of North

. Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana, and the individual members thereof; for assistance in the orderly. relocation of such Indians in areas of greater economic opportunity, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

H. R. 7317. A blll to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of certain tribes and bands of Indians located in western Oregon and the individual members thereof, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

H. R. 7318. A bill to provide for the . termination of Federal supervision over the property of the Sac and Fox of the Missouri Tribe of Indians located in the States of. Kansas and Nebraska, the Iowa Tribe of Indians located in the States of Kansas and Nebraska, the Kicka·poo Tribe of Indians located in the State of Kansas, and the Prairie Band ot' Potawatomi Indians located in the State of Kansas, and the individual members thereof, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

H. R. 7319. A bill to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over t;he property of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Mont., and the individual members thereof, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

H. R. 7320. A bill to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of the Klamath Tribe of Indians located in the State of Oregon and t.he individual members thereof, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

H. R. 7321. A blll to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of the Seminole Tribe of Indians in the State of Florida and the individual members thereof, and for other purposes; to the

· Committee on Interior and Insular Aifairs. H. R. 7322. A bill to provide for the ter

mination of Federal superyision over the property of Indian tribes, bands, and groups in California and the individual members thereof, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interior ang Insular Affairs.

By Mr. PELLY: ___ _ H. R. 7323. A bill to provide for advance

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

By Mr. POWELL: . H. R. 7324. A bill providing relief against

certain forms of discrimination in interstate transportation; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. REED of Tilinois: H. R . 7325. A bill" to amend the Immigra

tion and Nationality Act, to provide for the loss of nationality . of persons convicted of certain crimes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. . r

. H. R. 7326. A bill to amend section 1721, title 18, United States Code, relating to the

eale or pledge of postage stamps; to the Committee on the. Judiciary .

By Mr. SEELY-BROWN: H . R. 7327. A bill to provide that Govern

ment surplus property may be donated to 4-H clubs for the construction, equipment, and operation of camps and centers; to the Committee on Government Operations.

By Mr. SHORT: H. R. 7328. A bill to promote the national

defense by authorizing the construction of aeronautical research ~.acilities by the Na-

. tional Advisory Committee for Aeronautics necessary to the effective prosecution of aeronautical research; to the Committee on Armed Services.

H. R. 7329. A bill to repeal section 1174 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, relating to the cooperation of medical omcers with line omcers in superintending cooking by enlisted men; to the Committee on Armed Services.

H. R. 7330. A blll to authorize the long · term time charter of tankers by the Se<:retary of the Navy, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. THOMAS: H . R. 7331. A bill to incorporate the Pan

· American Round Tables of the Vnited States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. VANZANDT: H. R. 7332. A bill to amend the act of

June 19, 1948 (62 Stat. 489), relating to the retention in the service of disabled commissioned omcers and warrant omcers of the Army and Air Force; to the Committee on Armed Services .

By Mr~ WATTS: H. R. 7333. A bill to amend the Internal

Revenue Code to grant to taxpayers in certain cases an additional income-tax exemption for children attending educational institutions of higher learning; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. WEICHEL (by request): H. R. 7334. A bill to authorize certain

property transactions in Cocoli, C.Z., and for - other purposes; to · the' Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

. By Mr. WHEELER: H. R. 7335. A bill to establish the United

States Air Academy at Waycross, · Ga.; · to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. WILLIS: ' H. R. 7336. A bill to increase the personal

income-tax exemptions of a taxpayer (in-- eluding the exemption for a spouse, the ex

emption for a dependent, and the additional exemption for old age or blindness) from $600 to $1,000; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

· By· Mr. Wil-SON of Texas: H. R. 7337. A bill to outlaw the Communist

Party and similar subversive organizations by making it a crime to be a member -thereof, to provide for the forfeiture of the citizenship of persons convicted of engaging in certain subversive activities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By ldr. WITHROW: H. R. 7338. A bill to amend the Classift

catlon -Act of ·1949, as amended, and the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945, as amended, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Post Otnce and Civil Service.

By Mr. WOLCOTI': H. R. 7339. A bill to increase the borrowing

power of Commodity Credit 'corporation; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

H. R. 7340. A bill to amend section 3528 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, relating to the purchase 'of metal for minor coins of the United States; to th~ Committee on Banking and CUrrency.

By Mr. WOLVERTON: H. R. 7341. A bill to amend the hospital

survey and construction provisions of the Public Health Service Act to provide assistance to the States for surveying the need for diagnostic or treatment centers, for · hospitals for the chronically ill and impaired, for

·.

408 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - .HOUSE January 18. -rehabilitation facilities, and for nursing homes, and to provide assistance in the construction of such facilities through grants to public and ·nonprofit agencies, and for other

' purposes; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. YORTY: H. ·R. 7342. A bill to amend section 203 (j)

of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, to permit the disposal of surplus property to State health departments and publicly owned water districts; to the Committee on Government Operations.

By Mr. TOLLEFSON (by request): H. J. Res. 353. Joint resolution ·declaring

the right of sovereignty of the United States over certain areas of the Antarctic Continent, and for other purposes; to the Committee· on Foreign Affairs.

By Mr. AYRES: H . Res. 407. Resolution authorizing the

Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to investigate and study the barriers to the free fiow of interstate commerce on the highways which result when certain discriminatory and unilateral actions are taken by individual States; to the Commit-

. tee on Rules. By Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana:

H. Res. 408. Resolution relating to the proposed scrapping of the steamship Corn Husker Mariner; to the Committee on Rules.

By Mr. ZABLOCKI: H. Res. 409. Resolution authorizing the

Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to investigate -and study the barriers to the free fiow of interstate commerce on the highways which result when certain · discriminatory and unilateral actions are taken by individual States; to the Commit-

- tee on Rules.

MEMORIALS

Under clause 4 of rule XXII, memorials, were presented and referred as follows:

By the SPEAKER: Memorial of the Legls·tature of the State of New Jersey memorializing the President and the Congress of the

· United States relative to the maintenance of the United States Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, N. Y.: to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

PRIVATE . BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private bills and resolutions were introduced and seve~ally referred as follows:

By Mr. ADDONIZIO: H. R. 7343. A b111 for the relief of Hildegart

Liselotte Budeshelm and her minor child; to the Comm~ttee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. COLE of New York: H. R. 7344. A. blll for the relief of Mrs.

Marion Josephine Monnell; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. R. 7345. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Margaret Mary Peyton; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. CRETELLA: H. R . 7346. A bill for the relief of Gino

DeMico; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. CUNNINGHAM:

H . R . 7347. A bill for the relief of Joseph Wilhem Brandts; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. DORN of New York: H . R. 7348. A bill for the relief of Peter

Beratis; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. HAND:

H. R. 7349. A bill for the relief of Anders Taranger; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HART: H. R. 7350. A bill for the relief of Anna

Almo; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. HELLER:

H. R . 7351. A bill for the relief of Dr. Zoltan Klar; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HOEVEN: H. R. 7352. A blll for the relief of Mrs .

Sonja Ries Kock; to the Committee on the . Judiciary.

By Mr. KING of Callfornla: H. R. 7353. A blll for the relief of Mrs. Mary

Javier (formerly Maria Alvarado Salas); to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. R. 7354. A blll for the relief of the Pacific Music Supply Co.; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H . R. 7355. A bill for the relief of Dykeman Hank Smith; to the Committee on the Judiciary;

By Mr. LUCAS: H. R. 7356. A bill to confer jurisdiction

upon the appropriate United States district court to hear, determine, and render judgment upon the claims of Ottinger Bros.; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. McDONOUGH: H. R. 7357. A blll for the rellef of Dieter

Wolfgang Kaisenberg, also known as William Brown and William Prieb; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. R. 7358. A bill for the relief of Garabed Charles Nlgolian; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. R. 7359. A bill for the relief of Stephen Moe Jung; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. R. 7360. A bill for the relief of Sun Yue Hien, wife of Chu Tseung, also known as T. B. Chew; to the Committee on the Judi

- clary. By Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts:

H. R. 7361. A blll for the relief of Annellese Fahrian; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. MUMMA: H. R. 7362. A bill for the rellef of Frederick

F. Gaskin; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. PILLION: B. R. 7363. A bill for the relief of Emelda

Ann Schallmo; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. POWELL: H. R. 7364. A blll for the relief of Thomas

-A. Harris, Mrs. Lydia E. Hari'is, and Olney Elva Harris; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. SCUDDER: H. R. 7365. A bill for the relief of Barbara

V. Taylor; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. SEELY-BROWN: H. R. 7366. A bill for the relief of Anna

Maria Heinz; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. R. 7367. A bill for the relief of Eleftherla Wazidele; to the Committee on the Judi-ciary.

By Mr. SPRINGER: H. R. 7368. A blll for the relief of Saml

Akman; 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 referred as follows:

462. By the SPEAKER: Petition of the chairman, the Nationwide Committee of In• dustry, Agricultur~. and Labor on Import-

_Export Policy, Washington, D. C., relative to a booklet entitled "Free Trade-A Form of Economic Pacifism"; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

463. Also, petition of the secretary, the American Academy of Tropical Medicine, San

_Juan, P. R., relative to urging the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and

. Welfare, and the Congress to increase the annual budget of the Gorgas Memorial Insti

. tute, etc.; to the Committee on Foreign Af• fairs.

464. Also, petition of the mayor, Provo City, Utah, requesting the prompt and fair cons~deration of the bill H. R. 1555, authorizing the development of the upper Colorado River; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

465. Also, petition of the secretary,- National Alcoholic Beverage Control Association, Cleveland, Ohio, relative to a resolution adopted by the association at their annual

- convention in New York City, September 21-23, 1953, requesting the reduction of current excessive Federal exiclse tax rates on alcoholic beverages which are providing the

_stimulus to the growth of illicit tratllc in such beverages; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

466. Also, petition of Ralph Naylor, Angel City Branch No. 24, Nationill Association of

' Letter Carriers, Los Angeles, Calif., relative to Assembly Joint Resolution No. 24, relating to the compensation of postal employees; to the Committee on Post Otllce and Civil Service.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS .

Marbles and Jobs

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. WILL E. NEAL OF WEST vntGINIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Monday, January 18, 1954 Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, at St. Marys.

W. Va., Marble King, Inc., has for many years operated a glass industry, produc4 ing among other specialties common

glass playing marbles. Where previously this product was shipped to westcoast distributors for ready sale, the company now is faced with Japanese competitive products, produced at onesixth of the prevailing cost of American labor. Needless to say, the trained employees of this plant face unemployment. ·

This is only one of many instances of work slowdown in glass, pottery, and ceramic industries located in West Virginia, resulting primarily from laxity in administration of foreign-trade agreements and lack of proper consideration

of local small-business enterprise on the part of the Tariff Commission.

The administration's full-employment goal cannot be maintained by tariff reg~ ulations favoring foreign industries at the expense of hundreds of local enterprises employing skilled workers, most of whom feel that their specialized train4

- ing eliminates them from jobs they know little about.

Nothing will contribute more to busl4 ness recession than failure to protect the interests of small industries, which.

195.1, CONGRESSIONAL ,RECORD-- HOUSE 409 in the aggregate, furnish tlie livelihood for the bulk of our employables. ~ It is high time our Tari11 Commission gives more consideration to the welfare of small industrialists and the wage group of steady, homeowning, loyal citizens who make up and sustain the small communities that grow around such industries,

Comment by Hoa. Herbert H. Lehman, of New York, oa Presid~at Eisenhower's State of the UDioa Message

EXTENSION OF REMARKS or

HON. HERBERT H. LEHMAN ~ OF NEW YORK

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Monday, January 18, 1954

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, im~ mediately · after ~ Presitient Eisenhower delivered his · annual message on the state of the Union, I issued a statement of comment on the message. I ask unanimous consent that the statement may be printed in the Appendix of the REcORD.

There being no objection, the state-. ment was ordered to be printed in the RECoRD, as follows: · The President's message and his recommendations deserve and will indeed require the most sober and · objective consideration on the part o! all of us. He said in his message that both of our great political parties can support the general objective of his recommendations, namely, the building of a stronger America. I concur wholeheartedly 1n this view. Insofar as bis reco~endations when translated into specific proposals, contribute toward -this objective, I for one, will give them unstinted support. There is a growing awareness that the dangers which confront our Nation both at home and abroad, both in economic and ln polltical matters, cannot be resolved by a partisan approach. They can be solved "only through a nonpartisan approach.

I am gratified indeed to note that the President has accepted a.nd endorsed the basic object~ives of both the New Deal and the Fair Deal, namely, the responsibility of Government for the prosperity and welfare of the itldtvidual citizen. I hope that the proposals which will be made to implement the President's enunciation of these basic principles will measure up to and not pe~vert these principles. . ~

Despite the almost encyclopedic number of recommendations contained in this message, some of the most important and urgent Issues were Qnly _sketchily covered. Some were omitted altogether.

Thus, I regret very much that the President saw fit to omit any reference to the need for drastic amendment of the McCarranWalter Immigration and Nationality Act.

While the President vaguely referred to progress made in the field of civil rights, there is no reference 1n the message to the need for fair employment legislation and other Federal civil-rights measures. Indeed, b1s report and recommendations~ the civilrights field are bare and discouraging.

While the President made a number of ~ecommeildations, whtch we must consider Yery carefully, for cutting down on civU Uberties, he made no reference whatever to the need for recovering ground already lost ln the field of civllllberties and in broadening the horizons o! individUal rights and freedoms. ·

There was regrettably no reference to the need for approving the Genocide Convention. While he did recommend action on statehood for Hawaii, he very eloquently refrained from referring to statehood for Alaska.

I have grave reservations regarding his assumption that we can get more strength for less money, that we can cut taxes, reduce defense expenditures, and still grow stronger. I am open to conviction on this, but I will ask to be shown that we are not Sacrificing preparedness to serve political ends.

I look forward with great anticipation to the detailed recommendations which the President has promised in the fields of health, of labor, of housing, and of economic policy. To all these he referred in only general terms and promised special messages. I hope that the spe'Cific proposals wlll actually carry out the generalized recommendations.

This is a message which cannot be digested and evaluated at first sight.. This will need not only days but weeks and months of study and evaluation. The proof of this pudding will be in the eating. I am ready to support the President with all my strength in those proposals arid programs which go forward to the goals which he described~"the advancement of the security, prosperity, and well being of the American people"; to the achievement of a condition in which "every citizen has a good reason for bold hope; where etlort is rewarded and prosperity is shared; where freedom expands and peace ts secure."

Toward these goals and the achievement of these objectives, with the reservations which I have suggested-and there are many others-! am prepared to support the program of the President of the United States.

Sale of CaDDed Fruits to the Unite• Kingdom

EXTENSION OF REMARKS or

HON. LEROY JOH~SON OF CALIFORNIA



Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr. Speaker, most of the canned fruits produced in the United States are grown in California. The largest single item of canned fruits is cling peaches. California produced 17,166,000 cases of cling peaches-2 Y2 basis-last year. My district--the ilth-cons1sting of the counties of San Joaquin and Stanislaus produces about one-half of the cling-peach crop of California. ·

Current stocks are considered to be excessive in the amount 2 million cases. California's cling-peach industry operates under State marketing orders which provide means for crop curtailment. Two million cases is the equivalent of approximately 50,000 tons of cling peaches. Therefore, unless the excessive carryover is liquidated prior to harvest, producers w~ll be required to eliminate some 50,000 tons of peaches in order to maintain market stability.

Under the poiicy established by the 83d· Congress under section 550 of the Defense Production Act, opportunities have been created· for the sale of surplus agricultural commodities to foreign countries with provisions of converting currency under this section.

The United States Department· of Agriculture through its Foreign Agricultural Service and the Foreign Operations · Administration under the authority granted to it under section 550 have made canned cling peaches and several other canned fruits eligible under the 550 program. The participating nations have been advised of this action. - British trade has evidenced a great interest in this program and report that there is currently a deficit of 2 million cases of canned fruits in the United Kingdom. Sterling-area sources are unable to furnish supplies of canned fruits in volume adequate to meet the demands. The British people have not had an opportunity to purchase California canned fruits since before the war, in quantities that they would like to. The British Food Ministry requested of California processors in the quantity and range of prices of canned fruits, eigible under the program, that might be offered to the Kingdom. This information has been forwarded through diplomatic channels to the British Ministry of Food California processors have indicated · a desire to supply in excess of 2 million cases to this historic market. . Prior to World War II, the United Kingdom was one of the principal markets for California canned fruits. Be· tween 2 and 3 million cases were sold to that market annually. In the case of cling peaches, approximately 17 percent of the total production went into export channels, most of this to the United Kingdom. Since the war, practically no exports of canned fruits from California have been made to historic outlets, with the exception of a modest volume in 1946.

Under the 550 program, the first real opportunity exists to reestablish historic foreign markeU; for California producers of canning fruits.

Discussions have been had with various Federal agencies in Washington concerned with this export. All have been most cooperative and have done everything they possibly can to expedite the sale of this fruit. .

The Food Ministry is interested. But to get the money required to make the purchase will require the support of the British Treasury.

It seems to us that this matter should be taken up by Mr. Stassen, the head of the FOA. It requires a man of his station and abili.ty to consummate the transaction. Also, it is right down the line that Mr. Stassen has been preaching, namely, to utilize~ American surpluses where possible to bring about foreign trade and help our friends in foreign countries get back on their feet.

Jacome-Ta~ E.xe~tioas


HON. JOHN C. WATTS 01' KENTVCKY

IN THE HOUSE OF REPREsENTATIVES Monday, January 4.8, 1954

Mr. WATTS. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the 83d Congress. ·in January


1953, I introduced H. R. 1092, which amended the income-tax laws. This amendment provided that each taxpayer should be allowed an exemption of $1,000 for himself and each of his dependents, instead of the $600 as now provided by law.

It was my thought in introducing this measure that $1,000 represented a more realistic approach to a cost-of-living exemption than does the current $600, especially in view of the tremendous increase in our cost of living in the last several years. Although I tried as hard as I could to get some real consideration of this measure, I must admit that I have made little headway, due principally to · the fact that the Treasury Depart.ment interposed serious objections, claiming that the passage of this measure would reduce the national income $8% billiona loss that could not be justified under the necessary expenditure program of our country.

While not abandoning my hope. and efforts to secure consideration of the $1,000 exemption for all, I have today introduced a resolution providing that each taxpayer shall be entitled to an exemption of $1,000 for each dependent who is a son or daughter, stepson or stepdaughter, who, during the major part of any taxable year is in attendance at an institution of higher learning.

My purpose in introducing this resolution is to extend some measure of relief to many families in this countrY who are anxious to see their children obtain the best education possible and upon whom the added ·burden of sending their children through college and other institutions falls heavily. Many families have serious difficulty in providing the necessary funds to properly educate their children, and the adoption of this resolution would, in some measure, help to alleviate this condition. While I realize that the passage of this resolution would deprive the Government of some tax revenue, yet I feel that it would be a sound investment on the part of our country to stimulate and encourage the education of our young people, and would, in the long run, amount to the accumulation of great wealth in our country, as by far the greater portion of our wealth consists in the educated ability and know-how of our people to properly utilize our natural resources and to deal with the many problems that confront us as individuals and with which our country and the world are faced. ·

Competeat ladiaas : First-Class Citizeas


HON. A. L. MILLER OF NEBRASKA



Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today seven bills submitted by the Department of the Interior in response to House Concurrent Resolution 108, which was unanimously approved by the House and Sen-

ate last session. These bills provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the Indians of western Oregon; certain Indian tribes in Kansas and Nebraska; the Klamath Indians of Oregon; the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Mont.; the Seminole Tribe in Florida; the Indians of California; and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana.

Careful study has been made throughout the years to ascertain whether these Indians are ready for removal from Federal wardship. In transmitting the proposed legislation; the Department of the Interior advises that "It is our belief that the Indians subject to the proposed bills no longer require special assistance from the Federal Government, and that they have sufficient skill and .ability to manage their own affairs."

Thorough hearings will be held on each bill by a joint committee of the Senate and House Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs. The language suggested by the Department is not necessarily the language that will be reported by the committee. This is merely the suggested frame-work within which the final details of the legislation may be fitted.

The bills are our honest attempt to put competent Indians in the class of being first-class citizens.

Uaemploymeat a Serious Problem iD Detroit


HON. LOUIS C. RABAUT OF MICHIGAN



Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Speaker, the Washington Sunday Star yesterday performed a notable public service by print..: ing an extensive report- from Detroit by one of its staff members, William Hines. It outlines. the present unemployment distress in Detroit today, with more than 7 percent of the labor force-107,o:oo out of 1,533,000-jobless and with no immediate prospects for returning to work; with estimates on the future predicting an increase to 7.5 percent by midyear and perhaps as much as 14 percent by next winter.

This article reports how a downturn in automobile sales threatens not only the economy of Detroit but of Toledo and Akron and Pittsburgh and Gary and ~leveland and Youngstown, and, in fact, the entire Nation.

This is nothing new to us in Detroit. It is nothing new here on the House :Hoor, where many of us-particularly those of us on the Democratic side-have been trying to awaken the Eisenhower administration to what is happening to our economy and to urge it into action in meeting the dangers of recession or worse.

It seems, however, that the administration leaders have been too busy decimating our military-preparedness program and canceling contracts for tanks and other equipment to pay any attention to the changes which have been occurring in our economy since the new administration took over a year ago this week.

In several recent speeches the President has forcefully declared· his determination to use all the resources of the Federal Government to prevent another depression such as we had in 1929-33. This is encouraging.

But is it necessary to have 15 million or 20 million or 25 million unemployed in this country before the Republican administration takes notice of the fact that something is wrong somewhere?

Perhaps the officials of the administration are not aware that over 100,000 workers walk the streets of the Detroit area today without work, going from $95 9r $100 a week paychecks to $27 unemployment compensation checks. It hardly seems conceivable that this information would be unknown to the Secretary · of Commerce, or the Secretary of Labor, or the President and his staff of economic advisers.

If that is the case, however, then I am grateful that one of the Washington newspapers has gone out to Detroit and dug up the facts and presented them in a full page of text and charts in the Sunday Star. Perhaps someone in the ad-· ministration not averse to reading newspapers-at least Washington. newspapers-might have seen it. - Mr. Speaker. when the automobile dealers of the country say in desperation that they cannot sell more than 4,700.000 or 5 million _ cars this year, as against 6 million last year, they are advertising the failure of the Republican Party to maintain prosperity in this country.

Under the Democrats, people actually started to build houses with two-car garages. But where are the cars now?

Request Uaited States Delegatio& to Uaited Natioas aad State Departmeat Take Actio a oa Egypt's Arbitrary Restrictions on Israeli Goods Through Suez Caaal


HON. EMANUEL CELLER OF NEW YORK

IN TilE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Monday, January 18, 1954 Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, the Arab

nations, members of the Arab League, are bent upon the destruction of Israel. A series of events confirm this determination. King Saud of Saudi Arabia calls Israel a cancer which must be cut out of the Middle East even at the sacrifice of 10 million Arab lives if necessary. Syria, through the United Nations, seeks to prevent the diversion of the waters of · the Jordan for hydroelectric purposes although the area affected lies entirely

19_5!,,' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 411 within Israeli territory . . Jordan refuses, in violation of ·the. armistice terms, to sit down with Israel at · a peace table. Iraq proolaims continued war against Israel. Now Egypt tightens up the boycott against goods destined to and from Israel by way of the Suez Canal.

Egypt's action is in violation of the resolution of the United Nations Security Council of September 1, 1951. That resolution stated that Egypt's restrictions on Suez Canal shipments to and from Israel· were an abuse of the exercise of the right of visit, search, apd seizure on Egypt's part, and that the practice cannot be justified on the grounds of self -defense. It also stated that Egyptian sanctions applied to Israeli shipments through the canal represent unjustifiable interference with the rights of nations to navigate the seas and to trade freely with one another. The resolution firmly called upon Egypt to terminate these restrictions. Heretofore, Egypt proscribed and confiscated what she termed strategic goods bound for Israel, particularly oil. Now she has widened the restrictions to include food and clothing and has actually confiscated vast quantities of these essentials. Though Israel has voiced her protest to the Security Council of the United Nations there has been no followup by that body. ·

The United States has a stake in Israel. Our Export and Import Bank has loaned Israel considerable sums of money~ We have made grants-in-aid for Israel's economic advancement. Our point 4 experts have helped in technological development. Egypt's action .. militates against and retards the objectives of our grants-in-aid and our point 4 help. It is pertinent, therefore, to ask what our delegation to the United Nations is doing with reference to this flagrant violation of the Security Council's resolution. I call upon Ambassador Lodge and the other members of our delegation to raise this question before the Security Council. Furthermore, what action has been taken by our State Department?

The United States.is included in the terms of .a treaty or international convention which goes back to 1888 that guarantees the free use of the Suez Canal by ships of all flags and all nations in time of war and in time of peace. Since 1947 the Egyptian Government has placed an embargo on all traffic on the canal to and from Israeli ports. The United States is one of the largest users of the canal. United States traffic has increased tenfold in the last 15 years. In 1952 we shipped through the canal more than 10 million tons of cargo. The United States, therefore, has a special interest in the integrity of the operation of ·this canal :ln ·accordance with international comity. Today Egypt arbitrarily excludes Israel from access to the canaL Who knows but. that the time may come when Egypt would arbitrarily proscribe any other nation, including the United States; from access? This treaty violation is too important for our Government to disregard, and suitable action should· be taken ·by our State Depart-ment. ·

Reversing the Tread


HON. PAUL W. SHAFER OF MICHIGAN



Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Speaker, President Eisenhower's efforts to reverse and correct unsound and dangerous New Deal and Fair Deal trends of the past 20 years ~re further reflected in his recent messages to Congress on farm and labor policies.

As I have previously remarked in connection with the President's state of the Union message, the inevitable disagreements over detailed methods and the natural impatience because progress is not always as rapid as desired, must not obscure the all-important fact that tbe Republican administration is dedicated to . cleaning up the unholy mess it in-herited. ·

The difficulties and complexities involved in working out the farm problem

This determination is reflected in his secret strike vote proposal, his advocacy of higher standards of regulation for union welfare funds and his insistence that the authority of the States to deal with labor dispute emergencies be clarified and strengthened. The President displays a regard for the public interest in making these recommendations .and, in view of the noisy opposition which can be expected from some quarters, he also ·displays a type of courage which has been lacking in the White House for many years.

Meeting the lacreasing Burdea of Medical Care


HON. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON OF NEW JERSEY



underscore the fact that it is a great Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Speaker, in deal easier for a patient to start the dope his message to the Congress today, the habit than it is to stop that habit. President rightfully ·points out that we

Without overworking the analogy, must take action ori the rising costs of .there are certain striking parallels be- medical care. ·A long-term illness today tween attempts to correct problems in- repr~ents _a financial catastrophe to the cident to the economic law of supply and average American family. Heart disdemand through price supports and ease, cancer, tu~rculosis, arthritis, .other legislative devices and atempts to rheumatism. polio, blindness, diabetes, ease a patient through a period of severe cerebral palsy~ epilepsy, multiple sclepain and shock by use of opiates. rosis, muscular dsytrophy, and like dis-

In either case the aid which is given .eases represent a crippling burden, even is basically artificial. In either case it where the best in medical care is availundoubtedly is sometimes necessary to able. resort to such treatment. In either case With this problem, one of the most expert application of the artificial aid is serious and important facing our 'people required if the cure is not to create more today, your Committee on Interstate and disastrous problems than it corrects. In Foreign Commerce properly has been either case there is the ever-present concerned. We have been trying to see danger that the fine line between a nee- just ·what IJlight be done about it. essary, temporary aid and a deadly habit Last October, during the recess of the will be crossed. In either case the prob- Congres:;, this committee conducted lem of getting the patient off the habit is hearings in which it received extensive a difficult and delicate one and, if car- testimony on the present state of re-

_ried out too abruptly, may ·also be dis- search into the · causes and control of astrous. - some of these principal scourges of man-

Perhaps the more telling point of .kind. The committe~ had the unstinted comparison is that administration of and cordial cooperation of outstanding narcotics is always disastrous when it men and women who had devoted their falls into the hands of the quacks and lives to research · in the fields of these the unscrupulous. And that, of course, . major diseases; in the committee's effort is precisely what happened under the to find .out just where we are in knowNew Deal and Fair Deal when the price ing what the causes nll.gilt be, in presupports and other farm measures were venting or curing the disease, in mitigatopenly and deliberately used to control ing its effects, and what further might votes and to sustain the political power be done to bring successful culmination of the Roosevelt-Truman administra- to this research. -tions. · - It is obvious that in m.any of these

The most hopeful aspect of the Eisen- fields we do not yet know how we may bower-Benson farm policy is the obvious provide a complete cure, let alone in determination not only to avoid political others know just what we are fighting. exploitation: of price supports · but to On the other hand research activities make the transition from artificial aids have produced marvelous results in the to a sound and healthy free economy as prevention and treatment of some of rapidly as can be done with safety. It them, and we may be well along the road is an important gain that the adminis- to a solution in some. tration recognizes and seeks to offset the . Yet the very fact that we are now evils of the economic "dope habit." able to treat many of these diseases and

The keynote of Mr. Eisenhower~s prolong human lives has resulted in new labor message is his determination to problems of an econom~c natlll;'e. Exstrengthen the law's safeguards of the tended hospitalization and me<;lical atpublic interest, including the rank and teption prove exceedingly costly, and file membership of organized labOr itself. such costs are mounting astronomically.

412 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE January '19 While society makes some provision for types goes without saying, for it is not the very poor to be taken care of, if they necessary that these patients all be require extended hospitalization and treated in general hospitals which are medical treatment, and while the very more costly to build, and it is self-evirich are able to take care of themselves dent that we do not now have enough in such regard, the large majority of our facilities to give proper care. people does not appear to be protected Other approaches to the problem of f.dequately from the high cost resulting long-term illness are contained in the from extended serious illness. 4 bills which I introduced 10 days ago,

Many plar~s are in existence in this and more will be presented in bills which country which seek to give protection I will introduce in the future on behalf against hospital and medical expenses. of the administration. Last fall, and again starting the first of To assist in expanding of hospital falast week, this committee has inquired cilities, clinical and diagnostic centers, into how extensive the protection af- and the like, I introduced bills which forded by this coverage may be. The would provide in one case for loans, and committee likewise has had considered in the other for Government guaranty of plans which are in existence abroad by private loans, made to associations ofa survey conducted during the recess of fering prepaid health-service programs. the Congress. To assist in stimulating voluntary

We are concerned with the cost of the health protection through prepaid health protection given by these various plans, plans, I have introduced a bill which and more especially with whether this would permit an individual to deduct protection extends to major or catas- up to $100 payments made to such plans trophic medical and hospital expenses. as expenses in the computation of his We have been interested in the arrange- income tax, in addition 'to the medical ments under these plans which have expense deductions now authorized by been made with hospitals and physi- law. cians, the experience which has been Also to assist in stimulating a broader gained under these plans, the difficulties coverage in the protection offered by which have been encountered, and sug- these voluntary prepaid health plans, I gestions arising from their operation. have filed a bill which would provide for Out of such study the committee has Government reinsurance of the risk ashoped to learn of ways and means by sumed by these plans arising from long, which voluntary protection can be im- costly treatment. proved and broadened. These and other measures will be con-

There are numerous approaches which sidered by our committee in an effort to may be Llade to the problem of provid- reach some sort of solution of the probing protection against such major illness. Iem of catastrophic medical costs. Any S· _,me of these approaches, of course, are solution obviously has with it attendant alternatives. But so significant and far- requirements, such as adequate number reaching is this problem that it is prob- of physicians and nurses, strengthening able that it must be attacked on several of our medical schools, extension of prefronts. ventive medical care, intensification and

One of these is contained in the bill coordination of medical research, and which I have introduced today, which the like. has been drafted by the Department of In this field now, as in the past, the Health, Welfare, and Education, under physical and mental health of our peathe leadership of its Secretary, Mrs. ple is a subject on which there is no Oveta Culp Hobby, to meet part of the partisan division. From our committee program advanced by the President in in the past, whether under Republican ~i..: message today on health. ~ or Democratic leadership, there has come

This has to do with the broadening in the past the Public Health Services of the Hospital Survey and Construction Act, the Hospital -Survey and ConstrueAct, so as to provide for the construction tion Act, the various acts which have of facilities to take care of the chroni- created the different research centers on cally ill, either through special hospitals, heart, cancer, and other diseases that supervised nursing and convalescent are now part of the National Institutes homes, or rehabilitation facilities for the of Health, and many others dealing with disabled. In addition, provision is made health matters. Of these we are justly for construction of nonprofit diagnostic proud. or treatment centers for ambulatory pa- The program just forwarded by the_ tients, so that greater help is given in President on health needs of the Nation, getting at these diseases at their start. therefore, will receive every consideraThe importance of facilities of these tion at an early day.

SENATE TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1954

<Legislative day of Thursday, January 7. 1954)

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

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

Dear Lord and Master of mankind wilt Thou forgive our feverish ways, ou;

petulant impatience, our lack of perspective. As now, closing our ears to the strife of tongues, we pause in the silence of this dedicated moment, may we listen, not to what the hour with all its din and clamor is saying, but to the more potent voice of the long years.

We bow humbly, mindful of our woeful insufficiency in this hour of the world's poignant need. In a shaken world may we feel firmly beneath our feet the things that cannot be shaken.

. May that solid rqck of spiritual verities give us a faith that will not shrink, though pressed by every foe; for Thine,

What Is United States · Delegation ·to United Nations Doing To Bring Jordan to Terms as in Peace With Israel r


HON. EMANUEL CELLER OF NEW YORK



Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, noting the amazing swiftness with which the United Nations passed resolutions of condemnation against Israel over the Kibya incident, I seriously question its subsequent delay in instituting immediate peace talks between Israel and Jordan. Such peace talks were urgently requested by Israel under the terms of the charter and article 12 of the IsraeliJordan armistice agreement. Can it be that the United Nations will admit urgency in the tense Israel-Jordan situation only when it is Israel who is to be called to task?

Many weeks have passed since Israel asked that direct talks be arranged with Jordan to discuss the question of peace. Certainly this is a move toward relieving the present impasse. On January 11 the Jordanian Ambassador, Abdul M. Rafai, meeting with . Secretary of State Dulles, indicated that Jordan rejects any idea of a conference with Israel on peace talks. The duty of the Security Council, therefore, should be clear. First, it must demand a peace conference under ·the armistice agreement. Second, should Jordan refuse, a resolution of condemnation would be in order. Third, if Jordan continues its intransigent attitude, sanctions should be invoked.

The United Nations n:ust not evade its responsibility in seeking a peaceful solution to this confiict. · Evasion would bring a loss of confidence in the United Nations as an instrument of peace.

What is the position of the United States delegation? It took the lead . in offering a resolution of condemnation over the Kibya incident, without making mention of provocation. Why is it so silent now? I believe it is incumbent upon our delegation under Ambassador Lodge to demand immediately that. the -Security Council act to bring Jordan to terms.

0 Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the majesty and the

· victory forever. Amen.

THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. KNOWLAND, and by

unanimous consent, the reading ·or the Journal of the proceedings of Monday, January 18, 1954, was dispensed with.

MESSAGE FROM-·THE HOUSE . A message from the House of !repre

sentatives, by Mr. chaffee0ne_ of its

..... I I - U.S. Government Publishing Office

Documents

Transcript of ..... I I - U.S. Government Publishing Office